APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF BUILDING

FRAMES

1
 Behaviour of Building Frames under vertical and Lateral Loads

• For Convenience we may separate the structural system into two load transmission
mechanisms which are complementary and interactive:
Gravity Load resisting and Lateral Load resisting
• The vertical columns and horizontal beams (in two directions) form a three dimensional frame,
which is the structural skeleton of the building.
• Although the building is a three dimensional structure, it is usually analysed and designed as
assemblage of two dimensional (i.e., planar) sub-systems lying primarily in the horizontal and
vertical planes
• The division into a horizontal (floor) and vertical (frame) system is particularly convenient in
studying the load resisting mechanisms in a building.
• The floor system (horizontal)resists the gravity loads (dead loads and live loads) acting on it
and transmits these to the vertical framing system.
• In this process, the floor system is subjected primarily to bending and transverse shear,
whereas the vertical frame elements are generally subjected to axial compression, coupled
with bending and shear.
• The floor/roof slab also serves as a horizontal diaphragm connecting together and stiffening
the various vertical frame elements.
2
Figure:

3
Figure:

4
 Estimation of vertical loads on a building frame

• Vertical loads to be considered in the gravity load analysis of frames comprise dead loads
and live loads, transmitted to the beams in the frames.
• The dead loads include the uniformly distributed self weight of the floor beams and
masonry infill walls supported by the beams, as well as portions of (tributary areas) the self
weight of the floor slab panels to which the beams are connected.
• Live loads (assumed to be UDL as per design code) are also transmitted in the same way
from the floor slabs to the beams on all the supporting sides.
• The axial loads on the columns at each floor level are obtained from the tributary areas of
the primary beams, the load on each primary beam being shared equally by the two
supporting columns. In addition to above, self weight of columns are also to be considered.
The axial compressive loads have a cumulative effect on columns, with the upper storey
columns transmitting forces to the lower storey columns.

5
Figure:

6
 Gravity Load Patterns for Maximum Design Moments

 Gravity loads comprise dead loads and live loads — to be estimated in accordance
with Parts 1 and 2 respectively of IS 875 : 1987. Dead loads, by their inherent
nature, act at all times, live loads occur randomly — both temporally and spatially.
 In order to determine the maximum (‘positive’ as well as ‘negative’) moments that
can occur at any section in a continuous beam or frame, it is first necessary to
identify the spans to be loaded with live loads so as to create the ‘worst’ effects
 This can be conveniently done by sketching, qualitatively, the shape of the
influence line for the bending moment at the section under consideration, using
the Müller-Breslau Principle:
 A fictitious hinge is first inserted at the section under consideration, and a rotation
introduced therein in a direction corresponding to the moment desired
 The resulting deflected shape, corresponding to a unit value of the imposed rotation,
gives the desired influence line.
 +
Loading for 𝑴𝑴𝑭𝑭,𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

−
Loading for 𝑴𝑴𝑪𝑪,𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
Influence lines and gravity load patterns for a continuous beam and plane frame
 Design Moments in Beams

1. The maximum ‘positive’ moment in a span occurs when live loads are placed on
that span and every other alternate span

• In the case of a plane frame, this arrangement corresponds to a ‘checkerboard’

pattern

+
Loading for 𝑴𝑴𝑭𝑭,𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
2. The minimum ‘positive’ moment in a span (which may turn out to be a maximum
‘negative’ moment in some cases) occurs when it is not loaded with live loads, and
when live loads are placed on adjoining spans, as well as alternate spans further
away

3. The maximum ‘negative’ moment at a support section [marked ‘C’] occurs when
live loads are placed on the span (BC) in which the support section is located as
well as the adjoining span CD, and also on every alternate span thereafter, as
shown in figure.

4. The influence of loads on spans far removed from the sections under consideration
is relatively small
Code Recommendations: IS 456 2000

 The Code recommendations for ‘arrangement of imposed load’ (Cl. 22.4.1) in continuous
beams (and one-way slabs) and frames are in conformity with the conclusions (1) – (3) cited
above
 With respect to the live load pattern required to estimate the maximum moment at a support
section, the Code does not call for live loads to be placed on alternate spans [refer span EF in
Figure] in addition to the placement on the two spans adjacent to an interior support [this is
justified by conclusion (4) above]

• Furthermore, in the case of frames in which the design live load does not exceed three-fourths
of the design dead load, the Code (Cl. 22.4.1b) permits the designer to ignore altogether the
problem of analysing different live load patterns.

• In such cases, it suffices to perform a single frame analysis for gravity loading with full design
dead load plus live load on all the spans.

• It may be noted that this major concession is permitted only for frames, and not for continuous
beam and one-way slabs. Also, it should be noted that redistribution of moments cannot be
applied in this case
 Design Moments in Columns

 Bending moments in columns, unlike beams, need to be studied in association with co-
existing axial compressive forces
 The interaction between axial compressive strength and flexural strength of a given column
section is such that its ultimate moment resisting capacity MuR is nonlinearly dependent on
the factored axial load Pu
 Strictly, this calls for an investigation of all gravity load patterns that result in all possible
combinations of Pu and Mu.
 Strictly, the combinations should include Pu, Mux and Muy — considering the biaxial bending
moments that occur simultaneously from the longitudinal and transverse frames connected
to the same column
 SUBSTITUTE FRAMES FOR APPROXIMATE GRAVITY LOAD ANALYSIS
• In case of simple plane frames, subjected to gravity loading, the size of the frame can be further
reduced by applying the concept of Substitute Frame as the effects of loads on distant panels is
considerably small.
• The original plane frame is substituted by independent smaller frames at each floor, by assuming fixity
conditions at top and bottom as shown in the figure below.
• Such reduced substitute frames are particularly amenable for solution by the moment distribution
method.

13
 MULTI-BAY FRAMES: PORTAL METHOD
The Portal Method (proposed by Smith in 1915) is based on two basic assumptions,
which render the laterally loaded plane frame statically determinate:
1. Points of contra-flexure (internal hinge) are located at the mid-points of all beams
and columns and
2. The total horizontal load acting above any horizontal plane (storey shear) is
resisted in such a way that each interior column has twice as much shear force as
each of the two exterior columns.

14
 MULTI-BAY FRAMES: CANTILEVER METHOD

The portal method has the merit of being extremely simple to apply and is found to
give reasonable solutions, especially in frames involving a large number of bays. For
relatively slender building frames with fixed base , whose height is significantly larger
than the sum of the bay widths, another method, known as Cantilever Method
(proposed by Wilson in 1908) is supposed to give more accurate results. The
Cantilever method is based on two basic assumptions, which render the laterally
loaded plane frame statically determinate:
1. Points of contra-flexure (internal hinge) are located at the mid-points of all beams
and columns and
2. The resultant moment of the total horizontal load acting above any horizontal plane
passing through the assumed internal hinges in the columns (i.e., storey moment)
is resisted by the moment generated by the axial forces in the various columns in
the same way as the bending moment at a beam section is resisted by the normal
stresses developed. The simple bending formula can be used for this purpose.

15
 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
For the single bay frame, the axial force in the jth storey is given by: 𝑁𝑁𝑗𝑗𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 =±
𝐿𝐿

16
If there are multiple bays , the normal stress may be assumed to be varying linearly across the depth of the
beam section subjected to bending moment. We can use this to calculate the normal stress, 𝜎𝜎𝑗𝑗,𝑖𝑖 in the
column at the ith row in the jth storey, located at a distance xi from the extreme winward column first, and
then multiply this stress by the appropriate cross-sectional area Ai of the column:

𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (𝑥𝑥−𝑥𝑥

̅ 𝑖𝑖 )𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑁𝑁𝑗𝑗,𝑖𝑖 = =
𝐼𝐼 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖

where 𝑥𝑥̅ is the distance of the centroid of the system from the extreme windward column, and (𝑥𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ) is the
distance from the neutral axis to the column located in the ith row, measured in the direction of the windward
column; I is the second moment of area with respect to the neutral axis.
17
 ∑𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖
𝑥𝑥̅ =
∑𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖=1 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖

𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
2
𝐼𝐼 = � 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖
𝑖𝑖=1

∑𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 2

𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 = 𝑖𝑖=1
𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖

If we assume equal area for all columns,

∑𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖
𝑥𝑥̅ = 𝑖𝑖=1
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛

𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
2
𝐼𝐼 = 𝐴𝐴 � 𝑥𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖
𝑖𝑖=1

∑𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 2

𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 = 𝑖𝑖=1
𝑥𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖

18