Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Second-order distributed plasticity analysis of space steel frames

Seung-Eock Kim *, Dong-Ho Lee
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Construction Tech. Research Institute, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, South Korea

Received 20 August 2001; accepted 4 December 2001

Abstract

This paper provides benchmark solutions of space steel frames using second-order distributed plasticity analysis. The majority
of available benchmark solutions of steel frames in the past were only of two-dimensional frames. Therefore, three-dimensional
benchmark solutions are needed to extend the knowledge of this field. Details of the modeling including element type, mesh
discretization, material model, residual stresses, initial geometric imperfections, boundary conditions, and load applications are
presented. Case studies of Vogel’s portal frame and space steel frames are performed. The ultimate loads obtained from the proposed
analysis and Vogel agree well within 1% error. The ultimate loads of the space steel frames obtained from the proposed analysis
and experiment compare well within 3苲5% error. The benchmark solutions of the space steel frames are useful for the verification
of various simplified second-order inelastic analyses. It is observed that the load carrying capacities calculated by the AISC-LRFD
method are 25苲31% conservative when compared with those of the proposed analysis. This difference is attributed to the fact that
the AISC-LRFD approach does not consider the inelastic moment redistribution, but the analysis includes the inelastic redistribution
effect.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Second-order analysis; Plasticity analysis; Steel frames; Inelastic analysis

1. Introduction and the cross section of each segment is subdivided into

The second-order inelastic analysis enables designers
to directly evaluate the ultimate strength and behavior
of a structural system. Over the past 30 years,
researchers have developed and validated various
second-order inelastic analyses for steel frames. Most of
these studies can be categorized into one of two types:
second-order concentrated plastic-hinge analysis; and
second-order distributed plasticity analysis. The second-
order concentrated plastic-hinge analyses use the simpli-
fied plastic hinge [1–5]. While these analyses are
regarded as practical for design use, they must be veri-
fied by second-order distributed plasticity analyses.
The second-order distributed plasticity analyses use
the highest refinement and thus are considered accurate.
The analyses generally use fiber or shell elements. The
analyses using fiber elements are based on beam–column
theory. The member is discretized into line segments,
fiber elements. Only normal stress is considered for
inelasticity [6,7]. The analyses using shell elements are
based on deformation theory of plasticity. Since the
analyses consider the combined effect of both normal
and shear stresses they may be regarded as more accurate
[8–10]. These analyses require a large number of finite
three-dimensional shell elements in modeling structures.
Commercial finite element analysis programs such as
ABAQUS, ANSYS, ADINA, and NASTRAN belong to
this analysis category [11–14].
Various benchmarks have been provided for planar
steel frames but not yet for space steel frames [15–20].
The purpose of this paper is to provide benchmarks of
space steel frames. ABAQUS, one of the mostly widely
used and accepted commercial finite element analysis
programs, is used. The numerical results obtained by the
analysis are compared with experimental results.

2. Modeling and analysis methods

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-3408-3291; fax: +82-2-3408-
3332. Modeling and analysis methods in using ABAQUS
E-mail address: sekim@sejong.ac.kr (S.-E. Kim). are presented in order to provide a general guide for

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 3 6 - 5
736 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744
second-order distributed plasticity analysis of space
steel frames.
2.1. Element
Analysis results are very sensitive to the types of
elements used. The element library in ABAQUS con-
tains many different types of elements for performing
various analyses. Stress/displacement shell elements
among many different elements are appropriate for car-
rying out second-order distributed plasticity analysis.
ABAQUS provides several stress/displacement shell
elements including STRI3, S3, S3R, STRI35, STRI65,
S4, S4R, S4R5, S8R, S8R5, and S9R5. The elements
may be grouped into the quadrilateral elements (S4, S4R,
S4R5, S8R, S8R5, and S9R5) and the triangular
elements (STRI3, S3, S3R, STRI35, and STRI65).
An appropriate stress/displacement shell element
accounting for material, geometric nonlinearity, spread
of plasticity, and residual stresses should be selected.
The element case studies have indicated that it would be
adequate to use the thin, shear flexible, and isoparametric
shell element of S4R5, S4R, and STRI35 for modeling
steel frames. S4R5 is a quadrilateral shell element with
four nodes and five degrees of freedom per node. S4R
is a quadrilateral shell element with four nodes and six
degrees of freedom per node. STRI35 is a triangular
shell element with three nodes and five degrees of free-
dom per node. The flange and web plates may be mod-
eled by using S4R5 or S4R. The interfacing zone
between the web and the x-stiffener may be modeled by
using STRI35.
2.2. Mesh discretization
The computational time and accuracy largely depend
on the number of elements and integration points. Mesh
studies have indicated that it would be adequate to use
eight elements through the depth of the web and across
the width of the flange for hot-rolled or welded sections.
The mesh size with an aspect ratio close to 1.0 is prefer-
able. The default integration method is based on
Simpson’s rule with five integration points through the
thickness of the element, which is appropriate for the
typical steel section.
2.3. Material model
ABAQUS provides the classical metal plasticity
model using a standard Mises yield surface with associa-
ted plastic flow. Perfect plasticity and isotropic harden-
ing definitions are both available in the classical metal
plasticity model. The elastic part is defined by Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio. The plastic part is defined
as the true stress and logarithmic plastic strain. If the
nominal stress–strain data obtained by a uniaxial test are
available they may be simply converted to the true stress
and logarithmic plastic strain as
strue ⫽ snom(1 ⫹ enom)
strue
ln ⫽ ln(1 ⫹ enom)⫺
epl
E
where strue, snom, epl
ln, enom, and E are true stress, nominal
stress, logarithmic plastic strain, nominal strain, and
Young’s modulus, respectively.
The measured stress–strain curve may be idealized as
a multi-linear stress–strain curve. If measured yield
stresses for the web and the flange are different from
each other, they should be defined. The fillet at the joint
of the flange and the web may be considered by equival-
ently increasing the thickness of the flanges.
2.4. Residual stresses
The uneven cooling during the fabrication creates a
set of self-equilibrating stresses in the cross section.
These are residual stresses. Only the membrane compo-
nent in the longitudinal direction is considered for
residual stresses. The residual stress distributions rec-
ommended by ECCS Technical Committee 8 [21] may
be used (Figs. 1 and 2).
For modeling residual stress distributions, *INITIAL
CONDITIONS, TYPE=STRESS, USER option is used.
The residual stresses are defined by using the SIGINI
FORTRAN user subroutine. The user subroutine SIGINI
is called at the start of the analysis for each applicable
material calculation point. SIGINI defines residual stress
components as the function of the coordinate, element
number, or integration point number. The pre-analysis is
recommended to check the residual stress distribution.
Fig. 1. Assumed residual stress distribution for hot-rolled I-sections
[21].
 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744 737

Fig. 3. Member imperfections [21–26].

The eigenmodes are obtained by elastic bifurcation

Fig. 2. Assumed residual stress distribution for welded I-sections
analysis using the *BUCKLE option. Any number of
[21].
appropriate eigenmodes can be selected and scaled by
the *IMPERFECTION option. Another approach is to
2.5. Initial geometric imperfections move directly each coordinate of nodal points, but this
requires tedious work.
Two types of geometric imperfections to be con-
sidered are member and local imperfections. 2.5.2. Local imperfections
The steel sections are subdivided into two categories:
2.5.1. Member imperfections compact and non-compact. If the section is non-compact,
The typical member imperfections are out-of-plumb- it is necessary to model local imperfections. The magni-
ness and out-of straightness imperfections. For braced tudes of the local imperfections should be chosen appro-
frames, out-of-straightness rather than out-of-plumbness priately. Fig. 4 illustrates the local imperfections [20]. If
needs to be modeled for geometric imperfections. This the measured data of local imperfections exist, they may
is because the P⫺⌬ effect due to the out-of-plumbness be used in the analysis.
is diminished by braces. The ECCS [21,22], AS [23],
and CSA [24,25] specifications recommend an initial
crookedness of column equal to 1/1000 times the column
length. The AISC code recommends the same maximum
fabrication tolerance of Lc/1000 for out-of-straightness.
As a result, a geometric imperfection of Lc/1000 is rec-
ommended. The ECCS [21,22], AS [23], and CSA
[24,25] specifications recommend the out-of-straightness
varying parabolically with a maximum in-plane deflec-
tion at mid-height (Fig. 3).
For unbraced frames, out-of-plumbness rather than
out-of-straightness needs to be modeled for geometric
imperfections. This is because the P⫺d effect due to the
out-of-straightness is not dominant. The Canadian Stan-
dard [24,25] and the AISC Code of Standard Practice
[26] set the limit of erection out-of-plumbness of Lc/500
(Fig. 3).
If the measured data of member imperfections exist,
they may be used in the analysis. The member imperfec-
tions can be modeled by using one of following two
approaches. One is to superpose weighted eigenmodes. Fig. 4. Local imperfections [20].
738 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744
There are two methods to model local imperfections.
One is to scale appropriately the eigenvectors selected
from an elastic bifurcation analysis of the structure. Note
that local imperfections consisting of a single buckling
mode tend to yield non-conservative results. Another
method is to simply revise each nodal coordinate, but
this requires tedious work. Local imperfections are not
necessarily modeled for compact sections.
2.6. Boundary conditions
Three typical boundaries are fixed, hinged, and spring
conditions. The fixed boundary can be achieved by sim-
ply restraining all the degrees of freedom of the nodal
points concerned. The ideal hinge connection can be
achieved using the following single-point constraint
method. First, the translational and rotational degrees of
freedom of all the nodal points on the boundary surface
concerned are made equal to those of a master node
selected among the nodal points, using the *MPC type
BEAM or TIE option. Next, the translational degrees of
freedom of the master node are made to be restrained.
The ideal fixed boundary is very difficult to construct
in a real situation. The flexible boundary condition can
be simulated by the horizontal and vertical springs
attached at each nodal point on a boundary surface. The
spring is modeled by using the *SPRING option. The
stiffness of the spring can be determined by analysis
or experiment.
2.7. Load applications
Concentrated or distributed loads may be applied.
When panel-zone deformation of steel frames is ignored,
concentrated loads should be applied on a master node,
which slaves other nodes in the panel zone using the
*MPC type BEAM option. Distributed loads may be
applied by pressure on elements or equivalent concen-
trated loads on the nodal points.
2.8. Types of analysis
There are two types of nonlinear static analysis:
*STATIC and *STATIC, RIKS. The *STATIC option
traces up to the limit state (i.e., the ascending branch)
of a structure. The Newton–Raphson solution technique
is used for solving the equilibrium equation. The
*STATIC, RIKS option captures both the ascending
branch and descending branch (i.e., post-buckling
behavior). The arc-length method is used for solving the
equilibrium equation. The tolerance must be set as less
than 0.5% of the time-averaged force in order to main-
tain accuracy.
3. Case study
Case studies were performed for the following: (1)
Vogel’s portal frame; and (2) space frames. The first
case study is to verify the proposed modeling and analy-
sis method. The second is to provide a benchmark sol-
ution for space frames. The case studies follow the
modeling and analysis guide presented in the previous
section.
3.1. Vogel’s portal frame
Fig. 5 shows Vogel’s portal frame. The dimensions
and properties of the section used are listed in Table 1.
The flange and web plates were modeled by using the
S4R5 shell element. The eight elements were used
through the depth of the web and across the width of
the flange. An aspect ratio close to 1.0 in discretization
of the mesh was used along the member. The total num-
ber of elements used was 8952. Five integration points
were used through the thickness of the element. The
geometry and the finite element mesh are shown in Figs.
6 and 7.
The yield stress of all members was 235 MPa and
Young’s modulus was 205,000 MPa. Poisson’s ratio was
0.3. Fig. 8 shows a stress–strain relationship used for the
analysis. The residual stresses were defined by using the
function of element numbers in the SIGINI subroutines.
The maximum residual stress was selected as 50% of
the yield stress. Out-of-plumbness imperfections were
modeled by moving each coordinate of the nodal points.
Fig. 5 shows the magnitudes of out-of-plumbness imper-
fections. Local imperfections were not modeled since the
frame was composed of compact sections.
The fixed boundary was modeled by restraining all the
degrees of freedom of the nodal points at the base of the
Fig. 5. Dimension and loading condition of Vogel’s portal frame
[18].
 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744 739

Table 1
Dimensions and properties of the section used in the Vogel’s portal frame

Section d (mm) bf (mm) tw (mm) tf (mm) A (mm2) I (106 mm4) S (103 mm3)

HEA340 330 300 9.5 16.5 13,300 276.9 1850

HEB300 300 300 11.0 19.0 14,900 251.7 1869

Fig. 8. Stress–strain relationship for Vogel’s portal frame.

loads were applied on the nodal point at the center of

the beam–column joint. A non-linear static analysis
using the *STATIC option was conducted. The horizon-
tal load–deflection calculated by the proposed analysis
and that of Vogel compare well, as shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 6. Finite element modeling for Vogel’s portal frame. The ultimate load factor calculated from the proposed
analysis was 1.03, which was very close to 1.02 calcu-
lated by Vogel.

Fig. 7. Finite element mesh for Vogel’s portal frame.

columns. The beam–column joint area was modeled by

using the *MPC type BEAM option in order to eliminate
panel-zone deformation, since Vogel’s analysis did not
consider panel-zone deformation. The out-of-plane
translational degrees of freedom of all the nodal points
located at the intersection of the web and flange were Fig. 9. Comparison of horizontal load–displacement curves of Vog-
restrained. The concentrated vertical and horizontal el’s portal frame.
740 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744

Fig. 10. Dimension and loading condition of test frame.

Fig. 11. Three-dimensional finite element modeling of space frame.

3.2. Space frames

This case study is to provide benchmark solutions of

space steel frames, shown in Fig. 10. The proposed
analysis results were compared with test results. Three
frames (frames 1, 2, and 3) subjected to proportional
loads and one frame (frame 4) subjected to non-pro-
portional loads were tested [27,28]. The dimensions and
properties of the section H ⫺ 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 used
in the test frames are listed in Table 2. The flange and
web plates of frames 1, 2, 3, and 4 were modeled by
using the S4R shell element. The interfacing zone
between the web and the x-stiffener in the panel zone
of frame 4 was modeled by using STRI35. The eight
elements were used through the depth of the web and
across the width of the flange. An aspect ratio close to
1.0 in discretization of the mesh was used along the
member. The total number of elements used was 50,480.
Fig. 12. Finite element mesh of space frame.
Five integration points were used through the thickness
of the element. The geometry and the finite element
mesh are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. the function of element numbers in the SIGINI subrout-
The measured elastic moduli and yield stresses listed ines. The maximum residual stress was selected as 50%
in Table 3 were used for the test frame analyses. Pois- of the yield stress. The measured magnitudes of out-of-
son’s ratio was 0.3. The measured stress–strain curves plumbness imperfections listed in Table 5 were modeled
were idealized as multi-linear stress–strain curves listed by moving each coordinate of the nodal points. Out-of-
in Table 4. The residual stresses were defined by using straightness imperfections were not included since the

Table 2
Dimensions and properties of section H ⫺ 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 used in the test frames

Test frame H (mm) B (mm) tf (mm) tw (mm) r1 (mm) Ag (mm2) Ix (106 Iy (106
mm4) mm4)

1, 2, 3, 4 Nominal 150.0 150.0 10.0 7.00 11 4014 16.4 5.63

Measured column 152.3 149.9 10.2 6.75 – 4053 17.2 5.74
(average)
beam 149.1 150.0 9.2 6.50 – 3713 15.1 5.19
 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744 741

Table 3 was fixed in displacement by using the single-nodal-

Yield stress and elastic modulus point constraint. The cover plates of the test frame were
modeled. The x-stiffeners constructed at the beam–col-
Yield stress Elastic modulus
(MPa) (MPa) umn joints of frame 4 were also explicitly modeled.
The vertical jack loads were distributed at the seven
Column Flange 320 217,771 nodal points. For frames 1, 2 and 3, the horizontal jack
Web 311 214,504 load was applied to the outside flange of columns (2)
Beam Flange 344 221,313 and (4) at the second floor level (Fig. 10). The horizontal
Web 327 194,814 load was uniformly distributed by using the equivalent
concentrated loads applied on the 25 nodal points. For
frame 4, the horizontal jack load was applied to the out-
P⫺d effect in unbraced frames is not dominant. Local side flange of column (2) at the second floor level (Fig.
imperfections were not modeled since the frame was 10). The load cases of the test frames are listed in
composed of compact sections. Table 6.
The base plate connection was modeled by the hori- A non-linear static analysis using the *STATIC option
zontal and vertical springs attached at each nodal point was conducted for frames 1, 2, and 3, while the *
at the column bases to account for the flexibility of the STATIC, RIKS option was used for frame 4 in order
bolted connection. The *SPRING option was used. The to capture post-buckling behavior. The horizontal load–
spring stiffness of 67,322 kN/m was determined by the deflection curves obtained from the analysis and the
pre-test of the frames. While the boundary condition of experiment are compared in Figs. 13–16. The ultimate
the second floor level was free to move, the roof level loads obtained from the analysis and the experiment

Table 4
Multi-linear stress–strain curves for H ⫺ 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 steel

Column Flange Stress 0 320 320 360 388 426 446 453 455
(MPa)
Strain 0 0.00147 0.02190 0.03375 0.04708 0.07450 0.11123 0.14548 0.19320
Web Stress 0 311 311 367 408 436 445 442 –
(MPa)
Strain 0 0.00145 0.02063 0.04230 0.07055 0.11640 0.16485 0.21863 –
Beam Flange Stress 0 344 344 397 434 455 463 464 –
(MPa)
Strain 0 0.00155 0.02190 0.04708 0.07450 0.11123 0.14548 0.19320 –
Web Stress 0 327 327 366 406 435 445 443 –
(MPa)
Strain 0 0.00168 0.02063 0.04230 0.07055 0.11640 0.16485 0.21863 –

Table 5
Measured out-of-plumbness imperfections

Test frame Level Imperfections (mm)

Column (1) Column (2) Column (3) Column (4)

X Y X Y X Y X Y

1 Roof 11.1 ⫺4.5 11.4 ⫺5.5 6.6 8.2 12 4.3

Second floor 6.9 ⫺1.4 6.8 ⫺0.7 2.1 5.1 6.2 4
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Roof 6.8 ⫺5.1 12.1 ⫺2.5 2.5 ⫺1.5 8.7 0.3
Second floor 5.8 ⫺2.9 5.1 0.2 ⫺1.4 ⫺1.3 0.5 ⫺0.3
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Roof 2.4 ⫺0.8 1.4 ⫺0.7 ⫺0.7 9.6 6.4 10.8
Second floor 1.8 ⫺2 ⫺2.9 0.1 0.2 3.9 0.7 5
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Roof ⫺1.6 ⫺6.8 2.91 ⫺3.5 13.5 ⫺10.7 ⫺3.84 ⫺7.21
Second floor 2.8 ⫺3.1 ⫺0.3 ⫺2.4 11.89 ⫺8.43 ⫺3.39 ⫺4.95
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
742 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744

Table 6
Load case of test frame

Test frame Vertical load Horizontal load Horizontal load

(H1) (H2)

1 P P/3 P/6
2 P P/4 P/8
3 P P/5 P/10
4 680 kN Displacement –
control

Fig. 14. Comparison of horizontal load–displacement curves of space

test frame 2.

Fig. 13. Comparison of horizontal load–displacement curves of space

test frame 1.

were nearly the same, within 3苲5% error as shown in

Table 7. The horizontal displacements were shown to
differ. This difference can be attributed to possible
experimental errors (i.e., boundary conditions, eccentric
loading, variations in the material properties, and
residual stresses) and analytical approximations (i.e.,
nominal residual stresses, imperfection distributions, and
simplified stress–strain curves).
Fig. 15. Comparison of horizontal load–displacement curves of space
test frame 3.
4. Comparison of analysis and AISC-LRFD
capacities
capacities were evaluated to be approximately 25苲31%
Load carrying capacities obtained by the present conservative compared to the analysis results. The dif-
analysis and the AISC-LRFD method are compared in ference is attributed to the fact that the AISC-LRFD
Tables 7 and 8. The AISC-LRFD capacities were approach does not consider the inelastic moment redistri-
obtained using the average measured yield stress of the bution, but the second-order distributed plasticity analy-
flange and the web specimens [26]. A resistance factor sis includes the inelastic redistribution effect. This com-
of 0.9 was used for the present analysis capacity, while parison provides concrete reasons for using inelastic
factors of 0.85 for columns and 0.9 for beams were used nonlinear analysis, which is quite effective in reducing
for the AISC-LRFD capacity. The AISC-LRFD member sizes.
 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744 743

2. The ultimate loads obtained from the proposed analy-

sis and Vogel agree well within 1% error.
3. The ultimate loads of the space steel frames obtained
from the proposed analysis and experiment are found
to be well within 3苲5% error.
4. The benchmarking solutions of the space steel frames
have been provided, and they may be used for the
verification of simplified three-dimensional second-
order inelastic analyses.
5. The load carrying capacities calculated by the AISC-
LRFD method are 25苲31% conservative compared to
the analysis results. This is because the AISC-LRFD
approach does not consider the inelastic moment
redistribution, but the present analysis includes the
inelastic redistribution effect.

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper was supported by

Fig. 16. Comparison of horizontal load–displacement curves of space funds of the National Research Laboratory Program
test frame 4. (grant no. 2000-N-NL-01-C-162) from the Ministry of
Science & Technology in Korea. The authors wish to
5. Conclusions acknowledge the financial support.

The conclusions of this study are as follows:

References
1. A general guide for modeling and analysis methods [1] Liew JYR, Chen WF. Refining the plastic hinge concept for
using ABAQUS has been provided for second-order advanced analysis/design of steel frames. J. Singapore Struct.
distributed plasticity analysis of space steel frames. Steel Soc., Steel Struct. 1991;2(1):13–30.

Table 7
Comparison of capacities of analysis, experiment, and AISC-LRFD

(a) Analysis (b) Experiment (c) AISC-LRFD (a)/(b) (c)/(a)

design

Test frame 1 P 534.9 549.4 410.6 0.9736 0.7676

H1 178.3 183.5 136.9 0.9717 0.7460
H2 89.1 91.8 68.4 0.9706 0.7677
Test frame 2 P 618.1 607.7 474.2 1.0171 0.7672
H1 154.5 152.2 118.5 1.0151 0.7670
H2 77.3 76.1 59.3 1.0158 0.7671
Test frame 3 P 680.9 681.8 510.2 0.9987 0.7493
H1 136.2 136.4 102.0 0.9985 0.7489
H2 68.1 67.5 51.0 1.0089 0.7489
Test frame 4 P 612.0 612.0 443.5 1.0000 0.7247
H1 177.8 169.2 122.6 1.0508 0.6895
H2 – – – – –

Table 8
Comparison of capacities of analysis, Vogel’s, and AISC-LRFD

(a) Analysis (b) Vogel (c) AISC-LRFD (a)/(b) (c)/(a)

design

Portal frame P 2888.0 2856.0 1990.6 1.0112 0.6893

H 36.1 35.7 24.9 1.0112 0.6898
744 S.-E. Kim, D.-H. Lee / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 735–744
[2] White DW. Plastic hinge methods for advanced analysis of steel
frames. J. Const. Steel Res. 1993;24(2):121–52.
[3] Chen WF, Kim SE. LRFD steel design using advanced analysis.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997.
[4] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Direct design of three-dimensional
frames using practical advanced analysis. Engng. Struct.
2001;23(11):1491–502.
[5] Kim SE, Choi SH. Practical advanced analysis for semi-rigid
space frames. Solids Struct. 2001;38(50–51):9111–31.
[6] Bridge RQ, Clarke MJ, Hancock GJ, Trahair NS. Trends in the
analysis and design of steel building frames. Civil Engng. Trans.,
Inst. Engrs. Aust. 1991;CE33(2):87–95.
[7] Ziemian RD. Examples of frame studies used to verify advanced
methods of inelastic analysis. In: Plastic hinge based methods for
advanced analysis and design of steel frames. Bethlehem (PA):
Structural Stability Research Council, Lehigh University; 1993.
[8] Bathe KJ, Ozdemir H. Elastic–plastic large deformation static and
dynamic analysis. Comput. Struct. 1976;6:81–92.
[9] Poggi C, Zandonini R. Behavior and strength of steel frames with
semi-rigid connections. In: Chen WF, editor. Proceedings on
Connection Flexibility and the Design of Steel Frames. New
York: ASCE; 1985. p. 57–76.
[10] Espion B. Nonlinear analysis of framed structures with a plas-
ticity minded beam element. Comput. Struct. 1986;22(5):831–9.
[11] H.K.S. ABAQUS/Standard user’s manual, H.K.S., vol. 2. 2000.
[12] ANSYS/online manual ver. 5.5. ANSYS; 2000.
[13] ADINA/system online manuals. ADINA R&D. Inc.; 2001.
[14] NASTRAN/online user manual. MACRO Industries Inc.; 1999.
[15] Kanchanalai T. The design and behavior of beam–columns in
unbraced steel frames. AISI project no. 189, report no. 2. Civil
Engineering/Structures Research Laboratory, University of Texas
at Austin (TX); 1977.
[16] El-Zanaty M, Murray D, Bjorhovde R. Inelastic behavior of
multistory steel frames. Structural engineering report no. 83. Uni-
versity of Alberta, Alberta (Canada); 1980.
[17] White DW. Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local
planar behavior in steel frames using iterative computer graphics.
MS thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca (NY); 1985. p. 281.
[18] Vogel U. Calibrating frames. Stahlbau 1985;54:295–301.
[19] Clarke MJ, Bridge RQ, Hancock GJ, Trahair NS. Benchmarking
and verification of second-order elastic and inelastic frame analy-
sis programs. In: White DW, Chen WF, editors. SSRC TG 29
Workshop and Nomograph on Plastic Hinge Based Methods for
Advanced Analysis and Design of Steel Frames. Bethlehem, PA:
SSRC, Lehigh University; 1992.
[20] Avery P, Mahendran M. Distributed plasticity analysis of steel
frame structures comprising non-compact sections. Engng. Struct.
2000;22:920–36.
[21] Ultimate limit state calculation of sway frames with rigid joints.
Technical Committee 8—Structural Stability Technical Working
Group 8.2—System. Publication No. 33. European Convention
for Constructional Steelwork; 1984.
[22] ECCS. Essentials of Eurocode 3 design manual for steel struc-
tures in building. ECCS Advisory Committee 5 (no. 65); 1991.
p 60.
[23] Standards Australia. AS4100-1990. Steel structures, Sydney,
Australia; 1990.
[24] CSA. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CAS-S16.1-
M89. Canadian Standards Association; 1989.
[25] CSA. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CAS-S16.1-
M94. Canadian Standards Association; 1994.
[26] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specification, 2nd ed.
Chicago: AISC, 1993.
[27] Kim SE, Kang KW, Lee DH. Large-scale testing of space steel
frame subjected to proportional loads. Engng. Struct; 2001, sub-
mitted for publication.
[28] Kim SE, Kang KW. Large-scale testing of space steel frame sub-
jected to non-proportional loads. Solids Struct; 2001, submitted
for publication.