FIRST- AND SECOND-ORDER STIFFNESS MATRICES AND LOAD VECTOR

OF BEAM-COLUMNS WITH SEMIRIGID CONNECTIONS

By J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa 1

ABSTRACT: The first- and second-order stiffness matrices and load vector of a prismatic beam-column of
double symmetrical cross section with semirigid end connections including the effects of end axial loads (tension
or compression) and shear deformations are derived in a classical manner. The derived matrices can be used in
the stability, first- and second-order elastic analyses of framed structures with rigid, semirigid, and simple
connections. The classical stability functions are utilized in the stiffness matrix and in the load vector. The
proposed stiffness matrices can also be utilized in the inelastic analysis of frames whose members suffer from
flexural degradation or, on the contrary, stiffening at their end connections. The validity of both matrices is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

verified against available solutions of stability analysis and nonlinear geometric elastic analysis of framed struc-
tures. Three examples are included that demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed matrices.

INTRODUCTION In spite of the availability of FEM algorithms and powerful

In framed structures the lateral deflections along each ele-
ment span (i.e., P-'6 effects), the relative drift between the el-
ement ends (i.e., P-A effects), and the effects of flexural mo-
ments on the axial stiffness cause nonlinear behavior with
additional bending moments, rotations, and displacements.
These three nonlinear geometrical effects alter not only the
stiffness matrix of each element and that of the structure as a
whole, but the stability of each element and that of the entire
structure. For instance, the P-'6 effects may lead to individual
member buckling or local collapse, while P-A effects may lead
to overall structural instability or story buckling. These effects
depend on (1) the lateral bracing and support conditions at the
element level, as well as at story and overall structure levels;
and (2) the intensity of the externally applied and induced
axial loads on the members. The nonlinear elastic geometric
behavior of framed structures is generally analyzed using two
different procedures: the second-order finite element method
(FEM) and the classical stability functions method (CSFM).
FEM computer programs with second-order analysis capa-
bilities make use of iterative procedures to determine the in-
duced axial loads in each member. This is generally based on
the geometric stiffness formulation initially developed by
Turner et al. (1960) and Martin (1965, 1973). Since then, re-
search has been extensive on the geometric nonlinear elastic
analysis and stability of framed structures based on the FEM
(Zarghamee and Shah 1968; Tebedge and Tall 1973; Yang and
McGuire, 1986a,b; among others). The most complete second-
order formulation for framed structures is that by Yang and
McGuire (1986a,b) who, in their first paper, presented a lit-
erature background and the stiffness matrices for a three-
dimensional (3D) thin-walled beam-column with rigid con-
nections [14-degree-of-freedom (DOF) linear elastic matrix
and the corresponding consistent-geometrical-stiffness matrix
both based on engineering theory; i.e., a linear displacement
field for the axial stiffness and a cubic displacement field for
the other displacement functions]. In their second paper, the
lack of static equilibrium caused by the finite joint rotations
is discussed and three additional geometric stiffness matrices
are derived for prismatic elements of bisymmetrical cross sec-
tions only, namely: the external, the internal, and the adjust-
ment geometric stiffness matrices.
1125-Year Generation Professor, School of Mines, Nat. Univ., A.A.
75267, Medellin, Colombia.
Note. Associate Editor: Kevin Truman. Discussion open until October I,
1997. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on November 6, 1996.
This paper is part of the ]ourlUll of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123,
No.5, May, 1997. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/97/0005-0669-0678/$4.00
+ $.50 per page. Paper No. 13530.
computer programs, the stability and second-order analyses of
framed structures are still formidable and unpractical tasks to
most designers, particularly for real 3D buildings. This is due
to the complexity of the structural modeling and the large
number of DOFs required to achieve a desired level of accu-
racy (Wilson and Habibullah 1991).
The stability of a beam-column under end axial loads in-
cluding a uniformly distributed axial loading and the effects
of semirigid connections using a second-order FEM method
have been recently presented by the writer (Aristizabal-Ochoa
1994a,b). Approximate approaches including closed-form for-
mulas by which the story stability and effective length K-factor
of each column in frames with semirigid connections can be
evaluated directly have also been presented (Aristizabal-Ochoa
1995). The closed-form formulas were derived and then were
utilized in the design of steel and reinforced concrete columns
in frames with semirigid connections using current codes
(AISC-LRFD Manual 1994, AISC-WDS Manual 1990, ACI-
19891R92).
On the other hand, formulations based on CSFM formula-
tion (Timoshenko and Gere 1961) are more exact but are re-
garded as "cumbersome" by most FEM researchers and as a
consequence, they are scarce and limited to plane frames with
rigid or hinged connections only (Beaufait et al. 1970; Wil-
liams and Howson 1977). The most complete CSFM formu-
lation for prismatic beam-columns of doubly symmetrical
cross sections is that by Ekhande et al. (1989) who derived a
12-DOF stiffness matrix for a 3D beam-column with rigid con-
nections including the effects of (1) shear deformations; (2)
axial force on the flexural stiffnesses; and (3) flexural defor-
mations on the axial stiffness. However, the stiffness matrix
and load vector for a beam-column with semirigid connections
necessary for the stability and second-order elastic analyses of
framed structures [including the P-8 (each member's bowing)
and the P-A (interstory drift) effects as well as those caused
by shear and axial deformations] using the classical stability
functions are not available in the technical literature.
The main objective of this paper is to present a 12-DOF
stiffness matrix and load vector of a 3D prismatic beam-col-
umn with semirigid connections and double symmetrical cross
section using the classical stability functions. The effects of
shear deformations and axial loads on the flexural stiffnesses
and load vectors, as well as those of flexural deformations on
the axial stiffness as derived by Ekhande et al. (1989) are
included. The advantages of the proposed method are (1) the
effects of semirigid connections are condensed into the stiff-
ness matrix coefficients and load vector or matrix of each el-
ement for tension, compression, and zero axial load without
introducing additional degrees of freedom; (2) the matrices are
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997/669

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 exact since they are defined in terms of the classical stability behavior is concentrated at the connections. This can be car-
functions; and (3) both matrices can be incorporated into com- ried out by updating the flexural stiffness of the connections
puter programs without major difficulties. AA' and BB' for each load increment in a linear-incremental
The derived matrices are limited to the elastic stability and fashion. Gerstle (1988) has indicated lower and upper bounds
second-order analyses of framed structures with prismatic col- for Ka and Kb' More recently, Xu and Grierson (1993) used
umns of doubly symmetrical cross section. However, both ma- these bounds in the design of frames with semirigid connec-
trices can be utilized in the second-order inelastic analysis of tions.
frames whose members suffer from flexural degradation or For convenience, the following two parameters are intro-
stiffening of their end connections. In framed structures in duced (Wang 1983):
which the external loads are applied along their members, the
process of determining the induced axial loads in each member 1 1
Pa=--3; Pb=--3 (Ia,b)
in a second-order static analysis is iterative, requiring more 1+- 1+-
than one set of calculations and checks. The validity of the Ra Rb
proposed matrices is verified against available solutions. Three
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

comprehensive examples are included in detail to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed matrices.
STRUCTURAL MODEL OF BEAM-COLUMN
Assumptions
Following the standard formulation for beam-column mem-
bers with doubly symmetrical cross section, the stiffness and
load matrices are developed in each one of the principal planes
of bending. Consider a two-dimensional (20) prismatic beam-
column element that connects points A and B as shown in Fig.
l(a). The element AB is made up of the beam-column A'B'
itself, and two lumped flexural connectors AA' and BB' at the
top and bottom ends, respectively. It is assumed that (1) A'B'
is made of a homogeneous linear elastic material with a mod-
ulus of elasticity, E; (2) the centroidal axis of A'B' is a straight
line; and (3) A'B' is loaded with end axial loads P along the
centroidal axis with flexural buckling occurring about one of
the principal axes of the cross section with a moment of in-
ertia, I and area, A.
The flexural connectors AA' and BB' have stiffnesses K a and
Kb in the plane of bending of the beam-column A'B', respec-
tively. The units of Ka and Kb are in force-distance/radian and
where Pa and Pb are called fixity factors. For hinged connec-
tions, both the fixity factor P and the rigidity index R are zero;
but for rigid connections, the fixity factor is 1 and the rigidity
index is infinity. Since the fixity factor can only vary from 0
to 1.0 (while the rigidity index R may vary from 0 to 00), it is
more convenient to use in the analysis of structures with sem-
irigid connections (Aristizabal-Ochoa 1994a-c, 1995; Cun-
ningham 1990; Xu and Grierson 1993; Wang 1983).
DERIVATION OF MATRICES
The stiffness matrix and load vector of a prismatic column
with semirigid connections including the second-order effects
are derived next using the stability functions (Timoshenko and
Gere 1961).
Flexural Stiffness Matrix in Single Plane
The classical stability equations for a prismatic column with
rigid connections and under end compressive loads P in a sin-
gle plane [Fig. l(b») are formulated using the stiffness coef-
ficients by Salmon and Johnson (1980) as follows:
2 2
u sin u - u cos u EI a' u u sin u EI a'
Ma =2-2cosu-usinu -h a + 2-2cosu-usinu -h
-
b

the ratios Ra = Ki(Ellh) and Rb = Kbl(EIIh) are denoted as the (2a)

stiffness indices of the flexural connections, where I = beam- 2 2
column's moment of inertia about the principal axis in ques- Mb =
u - u sin u
-EI a' + u sin u - u cos u -EI a'b
2-2cosu-usinu h a 2-2cosu-usinu h
tion, and h = beam-column's span. These indices vary from
zero (Le., R a = R b = 0) for simple connections (i.e., pinned) to (2b)
infinity (i.e., R a = R b = 00) for fully restrained connections (Le., or simply
rigid). Notice that the proposed algorithm can be utilized in
the inelastic analysis of framed structures when the nonlinear EI EI
Ma = r hEI,a. + S hEI a'b; Mb = S h a; + r h a~ (2c,d)

p where functions 6; and 6~ = end slopes of member A'B' mea-

Ka sured with respect to axis of member [Fig. l(b»), and u =
A A' Y VIPI(Ellh 2 )1. For negative values of P (i.e., tension forces) r
and s must be exchanged for r = (- u sinh u + u2 cosh u)/(2
z
- 2 cosh u + u sinh u) and s = (-u 2 + u sinh u)/(2 - 2
cosh u + u sinh u) (Beaufait et al. 1970).
When member AB includes the two lumped flexural con-
h nectors AA' and BB' at the ends as shown in Fig. 1(a), its
stiffness matrix can be derived from (1a) and (lb) by the pro-

B
Kb P
Jx
B

P
"-
4
cedure explained next.
The four flexural OOFs of member AB in the XY-plane are
shown in Figs. l(b) and l(c). OOFs 1 and 2 correspond to 6a
and 6b , and OOFs 3 and 3 correspond to aa and ab , respec-
tively. For instance, the stiffness coefficients corresponding to
a unit rotation at A: k l1 , k 2h kJh k 41 (i.e., moments and shears
forces at A and B necessary to have a unit rotation at A while
(a) (b) (c) B remains unchanged) are obtained from the following two
end conditions:
FIG. 1. Single Beam-Column under End Axial Loads with
Semirigid Connections: (a) Structural Model of 20 Prismatic El-
ement; (b) Flexural Degrees of Freedom and End Forces and 1. At end A: M a = k l1 , 6a = 1, and 6~ = 6a - (MaiKa) = 1
Moments In XY-Plane; (c) Flexural, Axial and Torsional DOFs - (k l1 /K.)

670 I JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I MAY 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 2. At end B: M b = k Zh 8b = 0, and 8~ = 8b - (Mb/Kb) = 0 • For P > 0 (compression)
- (kz/Kb)
kll = [3p.(1 - Pb)U z + 9p.Pb(1 - u/tan u»)/{(l - Pa)
When these conditions are substituted into (2c) and (2d),
· (1 - Pb)Uz + 3(Pa + Pb - 2p.Pb)(1 - u/tan u)
(3a) and (3b) are obtained

k = r EIh (1 _k
ll
ll ) _ s EI k Z1 (3a) + 9p.pb[tan(u/2)/(uI2) - I]} hEI (10)
Ka h Kb

k Z1 = s EI
h
(1 _ k ll )
Ka
_ r EI k Z1
h Kb
(3b) k Z1 = [9p.pb(u/sin u - I)]/{(I - P.)(I - Pb)Uz
+ 3(p. + Pb - 2p.Pb)(I - ultan u)
Now, taking into consideration that R a = Ka/(El/h) and R b =
Kb/(El/h), then
+ 9p.pb[tan(u/2)/(u/2) - I]} hEI
( r)
(II)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

k II 1+- EI S
(3c)
R a =h- r - k ZI -Rb
kzz = [3Pb(l - Pa)U 2 + 9paPb(1 - u/tan u)]/{(l - P.)
k Z1 (1 + Rr) =hEI
b
S - k 11 R
S
a
(3d) · (I - Pb)Uz + 3(p. + Pb - 2PaPb)(I - u/tan u)

Substituting (3d) into (3c) and using (la) and (lb) [i.e., Ra
= 3p./(1 - P.) and R b = 3pb/(1 - Pb)], thenk ll and k Z1 can be
+ 9p.pb[tan(u/2)/(ul2) - I]} hEI (12)
obtained as follows:
k = z
3p.(r - sZ)(1 - Pb) + 9p.Pbr EI • For P = 0 (i.e" first-order stiffness coefficients)
ll z
(r - sz)( 1 - P.)(1 - Pb) + 3r(p. + Pb - 2p.Pb) + 9p.Pb h _ I2p. EI. k _ 6p.Pb EI
(4) k 11 - , 21 - - (13, 14)
4 - P.Pb h 4 - P.Pb h
k- ~W m
ZI - (r z - sZ)(1 - P.)(1 - Pb) + 3r(p. + Pb - 2p.Pb) + 9p.Pb h _ I2pb EI
(5) k ZZ - (15)
4 - PaPb h
The stiffness coefficients k 31 and k41 can be obtained directly
from static equilibrium conditions • For P < 0 (tension)

k - -k _ kll + k Z1 kll = [-3p.(I - Pb)U z + 9p.Pb(I - u/tanh u)]/{-(I - P.)

31 - 41 - h (6)
z
· (1 - Pb)U + 3(p. + Pb - 2P.Pb)(I - ultanh u)
Similarly, the stiffness coefficient k zz corresponding to 8 b
can be obtained simply by exchanging P. for Pb in (4) as fol- + 9p.pb[tanh(u/2)/(ul2) - I]} hEI (16)
lows:
z
k _ 3pb(r - sZ)(1 - P.) + 9p.Pbr EI k Z1 = [9p.pb(ulsinh u - I)]/{ -(I - P.)
z
zz - (r - sZ)(1 - P.)( I - Pb) + 3r(p. + Pb - 2P.Pb) + 9p.Pb h z
(7) '(1 - Pb)U + 3(p. + Pb - 2p.Pb)(I - ultanh u)

The rest of the coefficients that correspond to 8b (k 3Z and k 4Z )

can be obtained directly from static equilibrium conditions as
+ 9p.pb[tanh(ul2)/(ul2) - I]} hEI (17)
follows:
z
k zz = [-3Pb(1 - Pa)U + 9p.Pb(1 - u/tanh u)]/{ -(I - P.)
k - -k _ k zz + kZI (8)
3Z - 4Z - h .(1 - Pb)Uz + 3(p. + Pb - 2p.Pb)(I - ultanh u)
Also, the coefficients k 33 , k44 , and k 43 that correspond to the
lateral deflections Ll. and Ll b can be obtained from equilibrium + 9p.pb[tanh(u/2)/(ul2) - I]} hEI (18)
conditions as follows:
The flexural stiffness coefficients for a 2D beam-column
(9) with semirigid connections given by (10)-(18) (in which the
effects of its end flexural connections are directly incorpo-
In terms of the u-factor, the coefficients k ll , kZh and kzz rated) can now be utilized in (19) to assemble its 2D flexural
become, after some algebra, as follows: stiffness matrix already including the second-order effects
caused by the end axial loads P

k ll symmetric

k'l k"
[K] = k ll + k'l k" + k'l k ll + k" + 2k1, - Ph (19)
h h h'

k ll + k'l k" + k'i k ll + k" + 2k12 - Ph k ll + k'2 + 2k '2 - Ph

h h h' h'

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 1 MAY 1997/671

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 Eqs. (10)-(19) are general and can be utilized in generating
the flexural stiffness matrices in both principal planes of bend-
ing, XY and XZ. The main differences between the matrices
in both principal planes are that I z and the pair of fixity factors
(Pza, Pzb) are to be utilized in the XY-plane (i.e., bending about
the Z-axis) whereas Iy and (Pya, Pyb) are to be utilized in the
XZ-plane (i.e., bending about the Y-axis). The four flexural
OOFs of member AB in the XZ-plane are shown in Fig. l(c).
OOFs 5 and 6 correspond to nodal rotations, and OOFs 7 and
8 correspond to transverse nodal displacements, respectively.
Notice that the OOFs corresponding to the pair of end axial
displacements and the pair of end torsional rotations are 9, 10,
and 11, 12, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
<I> = 12El/(GA sh 2 ) and As = effective shear area of the cross
section (Ekhande et al. 1989).
Load Matrix
The fixed-end forces and moments due to transverse loads
on a beam-column depend on (1) the support conditions or
fixities of the end connections; (2) the type, distribution, and
magnitude of the applied transverse load; and (3) the type
(tension or compression), distribution, and intensity of the ax-
ial loads. Only tension or compression end axial loads are
considered.
The effects of flexural support conditions are presented next.
The last two effects have been studied by Beaufait et al.

Axial Stiffness (Truss Action)

The axial stiffness of the beam-column in the absence of
end moments corresponding to the axial OOF 9 and lOis
given by.k 99 = k lO• 1O = -k9 • 10 = EA/h. However, flexural end
moments about the principal axes affect this value by produc-
ing additional axial deformations. Ekhande et al. (1989) have
elegantly derived the modified axial sIEA/h, where
Sl = 1/[1 + (H + H )EAI(4p h
y z
3 2
)]
and H y and Hz are given as follows:
• For P > 0 (compression)
(l970). The fixed-end moments derived by Beaufait et al. are
listed for a partially distributed load wand a concentrated load
W as shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b). Now, to determine the
fixed-end actions for any value of the fixity factors, the fixed-
end actions when both ends A' and B' are rigid (i.e., when Pa
= Pb = 1) must be evaluated first.
(20) 1. For uniform load wand fixed ends (Le., Pa Pb I) = =
For P > 0 (Le., positive values of u corresponding to
compressive axial loads)
2

H y = v(M;. 2
+ M;b)(l/tan v + vlsin v) - 2(Mya + Myb )2 Mf ., = -wh [a2" (l
2
- cos u) + (Sin
- uau
-- a) (Sin
-u- u - cos u )

+ 2vMya Myb(l + vltan v)/sin v (21a)

+ (I - :os au) (1 - ~os u _ sin u) ] /
Hz = u(M;a + M;b)(l/tan u + ulsin2u) - 2(Mza + M zb )2
(2 - 2 cos u - u sin u) (23a)
+ 2uMz.Mzb (l + ultan u)/sin u (2Ib)

• For P < 0 (tension)

H y = v(M;a + M;b)(l/tanh v + vlsinh2v) - 2(Mya + Myb )2 M fb, = wh(a - ~) (l - cos u) + ( -sinu-au- a )
2
[

. (Si: u_ cos u) + C- ;os u)

+ 2vMya Myb (l + vltanh v)/sinh v
2
Hz = u(M;. + M;b)(l/tanh u + ulsinh u) - 2(M.. + Mzb )2
+ 2uM.. Mzb (l + ultanh u)/sinh u (22b)
where u = VIP/(EIz/h 2 ) I and v = uV(El).f(EI)y.
The pairs M ya , M yb , and M za , M Zb are the end flexural mo-
ments in the beam-column AB in the XZ- and XY-planes, re-
spectively. It is important to emphasize that transverse loads
(either distributed or concentrated), the relative end displace-
ments, and the lack of straightness also affect the stability
behavior and the axial stiffness of beam-columns. Pujol and
Aristizabal-Ochoa (unpublished paper, 1997) fully discuss
these additional effects on the axial stiffness of a beam-col-
umn.
(22a)
.(
1
- :os au _ sin au) ]/(2 -2cos u - usin u) (23b)
For P = 0, for which the variable u becomes zero, by
applying I'Hospital's rule [i.e., to obtain the limit of the
quotient on the right side of (23a) and (23b) denoted as
flu)/g(u) where both flu) and g(u) approach zero and u
approaches zero, one may instead consider the quotient
I'(u)/g'(u) where I'(u) and g'(u) are the first derivatives
of flu) and g(u) with respect to u], (23a) and (23b) are
reduced to

Torsional Stiffness (23c)

The interaction of the axial force with the torsional stiffness

and the effect of torsional moment on the flexural and axial
stiffnesses are neglected in this formulation. The torsional M fb , = wa 3h 2 (I3" - 4:1) a (23d)
stiffness of the beam-column is simply taken as the 81. Ven-
ant's value (GJ/h). To consider Vlasov's warping torsion, in For the particular case wherein the uniform load is dis-
doubly symmetrical I-beams, for instance, two additional tributed over the entire length of the beam-column (Le"
OOFs are required consisting of the flange rotations normal to a = 1) (23a) and (23b) are reduced to
the X-axis at both ends (Yang and McGuire 1986a,b).
2

Mfa' = -Mfb , = wh [
1 - -----
u sin u ] (23e)
Shear Effects on Stiffness Matrix --2
u 2(1 - cos u)
Transverse shear deformation effects on the stiffness matrix
might be included by multiplying k u and k 22 given previously For P < 0 (Le., negative values of u corresponding to
by (1 + <1>/4)/(1 + <1», and k 21 by (1 - <1>/2)/(1 + <1»; where tensile axial loads)

672/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 2
y
cosh u) + (Sinh
~
M ,= -wh 2 a (l -
- -- au
- - a)
~ [ 2 u K'_ B,Kb

sinh- r.~~~i~p-X
·(- u
- cosh u ) - (1 - cosh au) I_-ah-_I
u u

.e - :OSh u + sinh u) ]/(2 -2 cosh u + u sinh u)

(24a)
----h----
(8)

jW
~----h----
-ah- --bh---~.
Y K
M fb , = wh 2
[(a - ~) (1 - cosh u) + (sin~ au - a)
......- : i
b
I"li'\__p - x
p ~ '''L)
sinh
· (- u
u - - cosh u )- (1 - :OSh u)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

·( 1 - cosh
u au + smh
. au )Jj (2 - 2 cos h u + u . h u)
sm
\-;i
(b)

(24b) J< ,"IiI

."a' 'f = Net angle of
rotation of end

~
connection.
and (23e) can also be modified, yielding
1\
2
wh u sinh u ] 'fa=Eh-Eh
Mfa' = -Mfb , = -2
[
1 +- ---- (25)
u 2(1 - cosh u) rE;\
2. For concentrated load W and fixed ends (i.e., Pa = Pb = 1) (0)
For P > 0 (i.e., positive values of u corresponding to
compressive axial loads) FIG. 2. Single Beam-Column with Semirigid Connections un-
der End Axial Loads and Transverse Load: (a) Partially Distrib-
uted Load W; (b) Concentrated Load W; (c) Net Rotations of End
Mfa' = -Wh [a(l - cos u) - (1 - cos au) (Si: u - cos u) Connections

+ ( 1 - cos
u au - . u) .
sm sm au ]/(2 2 - cos u - u sm u .) Mfb/Kb)' Therefore, the fixed-end moments can be ob-
tained by applying the principle of superposition as fol-
(200) lows:

M fb , =Wh [b(l - cos u) - (l - cos bu) (Si: u - cos u) Mfa =Mfa' - El/h(rljJa + SljJb) (28a)

M fb = Mfb , - El/h(sljJa + rljJb) (28b)

1 - cos bu 2 - 2 cos u - u sm
. u)
+ ( u . u) .
- sm sm bu ] / ( where Mfa' and M fb , = fixed-end moments for beam AB
when it is rigidly connected at both ends (Le., Pa = Pb =
(26b)
1). These two values can be obtained directly from
For P = 0 and applying l'Hospital's rule, (26a) and (26b) (23)-(28).
are reduced to Now replacing I\Ja = Mfa/K a and $b = Mfb/Kb into (28a)
and (28b), and expressed in matrix form
Mfa' = -Wab h;2
M fb , = Wa 2bh (26c,d)
For P < 0 (Le., negative values of u corresponding to
tensile axial loads) [~:] = [~::] - ~l [; :] [l~a l~J [~:] (29)

The fixed-end moments Mfa and M fb are on both sides of

Mfa' = - Wh [a(1 - cosh u) - (1 - cosh au) (sin: u - cosh u)
(29) which, after some matrix algebra and introducing
(la) and (lb), can be obtained explicitly. Mfa and M fb , in
1 terms of the fixity factors (Pa, Pb) and the classical stiff-
+ ( - C:Sh au + sinh u ) sinh au ] / (2 - 2 cosh u + u sinh u)
ness coefficients (r, s), become
(27a)

Mfb , = Wh [b(1 - cosh u) - (1 - cosh bu) (sin: u- cosh u)

+ (1 - C:Sh bu + sinh u) sinh bu ]/(2 - 2 cosh u + u sinh u)
M _ 3Pb
(30a)

(27b) fb - [3pa + r(l - Pa)][3Pb + r(l - Pb)] - s2(l - Pa)(l - Pb)

The fixed-end moments due to a series of concentrated . {[-s(l - Pa)Mfa , + [3pa + r(l - Pa)Mfb ,]} (30b)
loads may be obtained from (26) and (27) by superpo-
sition. For P = 0, (30a) and (30b) are reduced to
3. Load vector for any end fixities (Pa and Pb)
The fixed-end moments Mfa and M fb are those required
to maintain the end angles at A and B, Le., ea and eb
equal to zero [Fig. 2(c)]. Now, since $a = ea - 6~ and
I\Jb = eb - e~, the fixed-end conditions are fulfilled when
6~ = -$a and 6~ = -I\Jb (where I\Ja = MtalK a and I\Jb =

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997/673

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 The end reactions Vfa and V fb can be obtained from equilib-
rium conditions of the beam-column. Example 1 shows the
calculations of the fixed-end moments for a single beam-col-
umn under transverse loadings.
Shear Effects on Fixed End Moments
Transverse shear deformations do not affect the fixed-end
moments on a beam-column with rigid connections (i.e., Mfa'
and M fb ,) and under symmetrical loading conditions. For non-
symmetrical loadings, the shear effects on Mfa' and M fb , for a
beam-column with rigid connections and under a concentrated
load W [Fig. 2(b)] may be obtained by multiplying the values
obtained from (26) and (27) by (1 + 4>h/2b)/(1 + 4» and
(1 + 4>h/2a)/(1 + 4», respectively. Criteria to determine these
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The flexural and axial stiffness coefficients are identical to
those reported by Ekhande et al. (1989).
Example 2-Buckling of Two-Span Continuous
Beam-Column
Determine the elastic buckling load of a stepped beam-col-
umn simply supported at three points and compressed at A and
B by P, as shown in Fig. 3(a). Compare the obtained solution
with that developed by Timoshenko and Gere (1961) assuming
that it is hinged at A, Pa =0; assuming that both segments are
rigidly connected at C; and assuming that it is hinged at B, Pb
= O. Consider buckling in the plane shown and assume that
the structure is continuously supported in the transverse direc-
tion.

modifying factors are presented by Wang (1983). In most prac-

tical cases, the effects of shear deformations are neglected ex- Solution
cept in very short members,
The problem is reduced to one with three DOFs (the rotation
at C and the axial deformations at A and C). However, flexural
COMPREHENSIVE EXAMPLES buckling occurs when the rotational stiffness at C becomes
Example 1-Stiffness and Load Matrices of Single zero, as follows:
Beam-Column (32)
Determine the main stiffness coefficients for a single beam- Substituting in (12) Po = 0 and Pb = 1.0 for the top member,
column with the following properties: E = 70 GPa; G = 26.25 and in (10) Pa = 1.0 and Pb = 0 for the bottom member, the
GPa; A = 2,900 mm 2 ; It = 15.2 X 106 mm4 ; Iy = 5.12 X 106 eigenvalue equation [(32)] becomes
mm4 ; h = 8,500 mm; for two axial loads: P = +40 kN (com-
pression) and P = -40 kN (tension); for fixed-end conditions u~ EI, + u; Elb =0 (33a)
(Pya = Pyb = Pta = Ptb = 1.0). Also determine the fixed-end (1 - u,ltan u,) h, (1 - Ub/tan Ub) hb
moments for a uniformly distributed load w applied all along
its span h and for a concentrated load of W applied at midspan Eq. (33a) can be reduced to (33b) as follows:
in each one of the main planes. Compare the stiffness coeffi-
I I ~~
cients with those reported by Ekhande et al. (1989). Neglect "2 (1 - u,ltan u,) + "2 (1 - Ub/ tan Ub) -h = 0 (33b)
the effects of shear deformations. U, Ub ,Ib
Eq. (33b) is identical to the solution reported by Timoshenko
Solution and Gere [1961, Eq. (b)].
An additional example was considered by adding a hori-
1, Flexural stiffness coefficients and fixed-end moment for zontal member at C with fixity factors Pc and Pd, as shown in
P = +40 kN (compression)
• Bending about the major axis It: kll = k 22 =
0.906043 (4EI/h); k 12 = 1.049390 (2EI/h)
• Fixed-end moment due to w (a uniformly distributed
load) = 0.0873675 wh 2
• Fixed-end moment due to W (a concentrated load
at midspan) = 0.1325891 Wh Buckling
She. e
• Bending about the minor axis Iv: k ll = k 22 =
0.696822 (4EI/h); k 12 = 1.177648 (2EI/h)
• Fixed-end moment due to w = 0.0922736 wh 2
• Fixed-end moment due to W = 0.1513174 Wh
2. Flexural stiffness coefficients and fixed-end moment
for P = -40 kN (tension)
• Bending about the major axis: k ll = k 22 = 1.087493
(4EI/h); k l2 = 0.958265 (2EI/h)
• Fixed-end moment due to w = 0.0797894 wh 2
• Fixed-end moment due to W = 0.1183761 Wh
• Bending about the minor axis: k ll = k 22 = 1.244487
(4EI/h); k l2 = 0.892881 (2EI/h)
• Fixed-end moment due to w = 0.0739239 wh 2
• Fixed-end moment due to W = 0.1075171 Wh
3. Axial stiffness coefficients SI
• For P = +40 kN (compression) and May = Mat =
- Mby = - Mbt = 0040 kN 'm: Sl = 0.639166
• For P = +40 kN (compression) and May = Mot =
M bv = M bt = 0.40 kN 'm: SI = 0.997883
(a) (b)
• For P = -40 kN (tension) and May = Mat = - Mby FIG. 3. Example 2-Stepped Beam-Column (after Time-
= -Mbt = 0.40 kN'm: SI = 1.0073081 shenko and Gere 1961): (a) on Three Supports with Hinged
• For P = -40 kN (tension) and May = Mat = M by = Ends; (b) on End Supports and Connected to Horizontal Mem-
M bz = 0.40 kN 'm: Sl = 1.001025 ber COat C

674/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 Fig. 3(b). Therefore, (kll)h must be added to (32), [(k l1 )h = Member 1: with P = 222.69 kips, then u = 0.173285;
(12pJE1')/(4 - PcPdIH) from (13)]. Then (32) becomes r = 3.76666; s = 2.060179; Po = 1; and Pb = 1. There-
= =
fore, k l1 3.76666(EIIh)\; k 2\ 2.060179(Ellh)\; k 22 =
u~ EI, + u~ Elb + 12pc El' =0 3.76666(EIIh),; and s\ = 0.97524.
(1 - u,/tan u,) h, (1 - Ub/tan Ub) hb 4 - pcPd H
(33c) =
Member 2: with P 8.49 kips, then u 0.0095133; r =
= 3.987466; s = 2.003139; Po = 1; and Pb = 1. There-
For the particular case of Pc = I, Pd = 0 (i.e., the horizontal fore, k ll = 3.987466(EIIhh; k 2, = 2.oo3139(EIIh)2; k 22
member rigidly and simply connected at C and D, respec- = 3.987466(ElIh)2; and Sl = 0.417613.
tively), and identical top and bottom elements (h, = hb = h,
and I, = Ib = n,then u, = Ub = u, (33c) is reduced to Member 3: with P = 225.31 kips, then u = 0.175324;
3 2HI r = 3.763854; S = 2.060927; Po = 1; and Pb = 1. There-
- 2 (1 - u/tan u) = - - (33d) fore, k ll = 3.763854(Ellh)\; k 21 = 2.060927(Ellh)\; k 22
u hI'
=3.763854(EIIh),; and s, = 0.99483.
which is exactly the same solution reported by Timoshenko
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and Gere (1961). Note that in Timoshenko's notation 2uJ = u, The first iteration is reduced to the solution of the set
and 2U2 = Ub or 2u = V!PI(ElIh 2)!. of (35)

Example 3-Second-Order Analysis of Simple 221,548,54 symmetric

Bent-Up Frame 52,165.07 221,460.70
758.704 0 353.405
Determine the second-order member forces in the rigidly o 758.435 -348.01 353.39
connected frame shown in Fig. 4(a) (fixed at A and B) taking [ 541.685 541.685 o o 978.976
into consideration the effects of the flexural moments on the
axial stiffness, as suggested by Ekhande et al. (1989). Compare
the obtained solution with that presented by Beaufait et al.
-541.685 -541.685 o o -3.7322
'98",.]
(1970). Assume E = 206,850 MPa (30,000 ksi), 1= 100405.8 1
9, 1059.43
cm4 (250 in. 4 ), and A = 51.613 cm 2 (8 in. 2 ) in all members. 9 ] [-725,29]
d, _ 7.7781
Neglect the effects of shear deformations and assume that the d. - -1.2866
structure is continuously supported in the transverse direction.
[ d, -224
d. -224 (35)
Solution
The free body diagram for each member of the frame show- Whose solution becomes 8\ = -0.007063 rad; 82 =
ing the final end actions obtained from a first-order analysis 0.003586 rad; l1 3 = 0.8604 in.; l1 4 = 0,8359 in.; l1 s =
is shown in Fig. 4(b). In the first iteration of the second-order -0.2278 in.; and l1 6 = -0.2271 in. The member forces
analysis, both the applied axial loads and the axial forces re- corresponding to this first iteration of the second-order
sulting from frame action shown in Fig. 4(b) are considered. analysis are shown in Fig. 4(c).
The total stiffness matrix and load vector of the six-DOF sys- Second iteration: using the members' axial forces and
tem [shown in Fig. 4(c)] of each iteration are summarized next moments from the first iteration the stiffness coeffi-
(kips and inches are utilized throughout the calculations: 4.448 cients of each member are as follows:
kN = 1 kip; 2.54 em = 1 in.).
Y
1. First-order elastic analysis
For all elements: k l1 = 4(Ellh); k 2, = 2(Ellh); k 22 = 4(EII I
200 Kips 200 Kips
h); and s\ = 1. Therefore, the first-order analysis is re-
duced to the solution of the following set of equations:

229,166,66
52,083.33 229,166.66
781.250
o
0
781.25
839.84
-833.33
symmetric

839.84
f 9~" 1
168"
o 12 Kips
[ 542.535
-542.535
542.535
-542.535 o
o
o
1003.7676
-3.7676 10037.,.] 240" (3)
A.

[
~;:;;:]
7.776
-1.296
-224
1 1 Kip-4.446 KN
1 lnch= 0.0254 m

1 - - - - - - - 288"------4
-224 (34)
whose solution is 8\ = -0.00632 rad; 82 = 0.00388 rad; At Node A: °,8.
Deerees of Freedom
3, 8.5 1
(+)
Y

c: ° 8.
1
l1 3 = 0.6488 in.; l1 4 = 0.6386 in.; l1 s = -0.2227 in.; and AT Node 2, 4' 8.6 ~ X
l1 6 = -0.2253 in. Member forces and moments are
shown in Fig. 4(b).
2. Second-order analysis (a)
• First iteration: using the members' axial forces and FIG. 4(a). Example 3-Simple Bent-Up Frame (after Beaufalt
moments from the first-order analysis the stiffness co- et al. 1970): Structural Model, Geometry, Dimensions, and Ap-
efficients of each member are as follows: plied External Loads

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997 / 675

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 12 Kips CD
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 Kips

-- 3.51 K
5 32.98 K"
222.69 K 225.31 K
B
-- 3.49K

4 84.93 K"
222.11 K
647.89 1("
225.89 K

(b) (c)

2.25.88 K

1153.3.2 K"
8~ C

12 Kips CD 12 Kips CD

B
-- 3.49K

4 85.28 1("
222.11 K
(d)
648.07 K"
225.89 K
B
-- 3.47 K

4 80.24 K"
222.12 K
(e)
653.40
225.88 K

FIG. 4. Example 3-Simple Bent-Up Frame (after Beaufait et ai. 1970): (b) First-Order Members Forces and Moments; (c) First Itera-
tion of Second-Order Members Forces and Moments; (d) Second Iteration of Second-Order Members Forces and Moments; (e) Anal-
ysis by Beaufait et al. (1970) Neglecting Axial Deformations In All Members

Member 1: with P = 222.11 kips, then u = 0.172865; 221,566,05

symmetric ]
r = 3.767244; 8 = 2.060025; Pa = 1; and Ph = 1. There- 52,165.22 221,440.82
fore, k ll = 3.767244(El/h)l; k 21 = 2.06oo25(El/h)l; k 22 758.759 0 380.96
= 3.767244(EI/h)l; and 81 = 0.980376. o 758.376 -375.56 380.94
o
g -~~;3~~
[ 541.6836 541.6836
Member 2: with P = 8.505 kips, then u = 0.0095034; -541.6836 -541.6836 o 996.929
r = 3.987443; 8 = 2.003145; Pa = 1; and Ph = 1. There-
fore, k ll = 3.987443(EI/h)2; k 21 = 2.oo3145(El/h)2; k 22
1
= 3.987443(El/hh; and 81 = 0.450675. 6, 1059.43
6 ]
d) [-725.33]
7.7881
Member 3: with P = 225.886 kips, then u = 0.175772; . d 4 = - 1.2866
r = 3.763237; 8 = 2.061091; Pa = 1; and Ph = 1. There- [ ds -224
fore, k ll = 3.763237(El/h)l; k 21 = 2.061091(EI/h)l; k 22 (36)
do -224
= 3.763237(El/h)1; and 81 = 0.993197.

The second iteration is reduced to the solution of the Whose solution becomes 6 1 = -0.00706 rad; 62 =
following set of equations: 0.00358 rad; 6. 3 = 0.8602 in.; 6. 4 = 0.8376 in.; = as
676/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.

 -0.2266 in.; and Ll 6 = -0.2274 in. The member forces
corresponding to the second iteration are shown in Fig.
4(d). Since the variations in the nodal rotations, dis-
placements, axial forces and bending moments in all
members between the first and second iterations are
very small «0.5%), further iterations were considered
unnecessary. Therefore, the final member actions are
those shown in Fig. 4(d). The results by Beaufait et al.
(1970) neglecting the axial deformations in all mem-
bers are shown in Fig. 4(e). Comparing these two anal-
yses [Figs. 4(d) and 4(e)), it is concluded that in this
particular frame: (1) the axial deformations in the
members have little significance in the final end forces
and moments [the final nodal displacements reported
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by Beaufait et aI. (1970) are 6 1 = -0.00700 rad, 62 =
0.00352 rad, and 6. 3 = Ll 4 = 0.8473 in., values that are
slightly lower than those obtained in this analysis); (2)
significant increases in the end bending moments and
in the lateral deflections (over 25% and 32% of their
primary values, respectively) are caused by the geo-
metric nonlinear effects.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The lateral deflections along each element span (Le., P-B
effects), the relative drift between the element ends (i.e., poLl
effects), and the effects of flexural moments on the axial stiff-
ness cause additional bending moments, rotations, and dis-
placements in framed structures (the so-called geometric non-
linear behavior). These second-order effects are particularly
important in framed structures with slender members. The
stiffness and load matrices of a prismatic beam-column with
a doubly symmetrical cross section and with semirigid flexural
connections that include this geometric nonlinear behavior are
derived using the classical stability functions. The derived ma-
trices not only include the effects of the axial force (tension
or compression) on the flexural stiffnesses but also the effects
of (1) shear deformations; (2) flexural deformations on the
axial stiffness; and (3) flexural semirigid connections at the
beam-column's ends. Both matrices are necessary in the sta-
bility and second-order elastic analyses of frames with rigid,
semirigid, and simple connections.
The main advantages of the proposed method include the
following: (I) the effects of semirigid connections are con-
densed into the matrix coefficients of each element for tension,
compression, and zero axial load without introducing any ad-
ditional DOFs; (2) the matrices are defined in terms of the
classical stability functions; and (3) both matrices can be in-
corporated into computer programs without major difficulties.
The derived matrices are limited to the elastic stability and
second-order analyses of framed structures with prismatic col-
umns of doubly symmetrical cross sections. In addition, both
matrices can be utilized in the second-order inelastic analysis
of frames whose members suffer from flexural degradation or
stiffening of their end connections. In framed structures in
which the external loads are applied along their members, the
process of determining the induced axial loads in each member
in a second-order static analysis is iterative, requiring more
than one set of calculations and checks. The validity of the
proposed matrices is verified against available solutions. Three
examples are included in detail to demonstrate the effective-
ness of the proposed matrices.
The analytical results indicate that the stability and the sec-
ond-order response of framed structures are not only affected
by the magnitude of the axial load in its members, the lateral
drift restraints, and the degree of fixity of the connections, but
also by the reduction in the axial stiffness of each beam-col-
umn member caused by the flexural moments. Significant in-
creases in the end bending moments and in the lateral deflec-
J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.
tions (over 25% and 32% of their primary values, respectively)
are caused by the geometric nonlinear effects. These second-
order effects should not be ignored, particularly in slender
framed structures.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318. (1992). "Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete and commentary." ACI 3I8-89/3I8R-89, Revised 1992,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
Aristizabal-0choa, J. D. (1994a). "K-factor for columns in any type of
construction: nonparadoxical approach." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
120(4), 1272-1290.
Aristizabal-0choa, J. O. (1994b). "Slenderness K-factor for leaning col-
umns." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(10),2977-2991.
Aristizabal-0choa, J. D. (1994c). "Stability of columns under uniform
axial load with semirigid connections." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
120(11), 3212-3222.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D. (1995). "Story stability and minimum bracing
in RC framed structures: a general approach." ACI Struct. J., 92(6),
735-744.
Beaufait, F. w., Rowan, W. H., Hoadley, P. G., and Hackett, R. M. (1970).
Computer methods of structural analysis. Prentice-Hall, New York,
N.Y., chapter 8.
Cunningham, R. (1990). "Some aspects of semi-rigid connections in
structural steel-work." Struct. Engrg., 68(5), 85-92.
Ekhande, S. G., Selvappalam, M., and Madugula, M. K. S. (1989). "Sta-
bility functions for three-dimensional beam columns." J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 115(2),467-479.
Gerstie, K. H. (1988). "Effects of connections on frames." Steel beam-
to-column building connections, W. F. Chen, ed., Elsevier Science Pub-
lishers Ltd., New York, N.Y., 241-267.
Manual of steel construction. (1990). "Allowable stress design," 9th Ed.,
AISC, Chicago.
Manual of steel construction. (1994). "Load & resistance factor design,"
2nd Ed., AISC, Chicago.
Martin, H. C. (1965). "On the derivation of stiffness matrices for the
analysis of large deflection and stability problems." Proc., 1st Can!
Matrix Methods Struct. Mech., AFFDL-TR·66-80.
Martin, H. C. (1973). Introduction to finite element analysis-theory and
applications. McGraw-Hili Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., chapter 6.
Razzaq, Z., and Nairn, M. M. (1980). "Elastic instability of unbraced
space frames." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 106(7), 1389-1400.
Salmon, C. G., and Johnson, J. E. (1980). Steel structures: design and
behavior, 2nd Ed., Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, N.Y.,
chapter 14.
Tebedge, N., and Tall, L. (1973). "Linear stability of beam-columns." J.
Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(12), 2439-2457.
Timoshenko, S., and Gere, J. (1961). Theory of elastic stability, 2nd Ed.,
McGraw-Hil\ Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., chapter II.
Turner, M. J., Oil\, E. H., Martin, H. C., and Melosh, R. J. (1960). "Large
deflections of structures subjected to heating and external loads." J.
Aeron. Sci., 27(2), 97 -I 07.
Wang, C. K. (1983).lntermediate structural analysis. McGraw-Hili Book
Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., chapter 20.
Wil\iams, F. W., and Howson, W. P. (1977). "Compact computation of
natural frequencies and buckling loads for plane frames." Int. J. for
Numer. Methods in Engrg., II, 1067-1081.
Wilson, E. L., and HabibuUah, A. (1991). SAP90: a series of computer
programs for the finite element analysis of structures. Computers and
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Xu, L., and Grierson, O. E. (1993). "Computer-automated design ofsem-
irigid steel frameworks." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 119(6), 1740-1760.
Yang, Y.-B., and McGuire, W. (1986a). "Joint rotation and geometric
nonlinear analysis." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 112(4), 879-905.
Yang, Y.-B., and McGuire, W. (l986b). "Stiffness matrix for geometric
nonlinear analysis." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 112(4),853-877.
Zarghamee, M. S., and Shah, J. M. (1968). "Stability of spaceframes."
J. Engrg. Mech. Div., ASCE, 94(2), 371-384.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A cross-sectional area of beam-column member;
As effective shear area of beam-column's cross sec-
tion;
E Young's modulus of material;
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997/677
 G = shear modulus of material; Sl = axial stability function = 1/[1 + (Hy + HJEAI
H y and Hz = bending functions given by (21a,b) and (22a,b); (4P 3h 2 )];
h or he = beam-column's height; u = stability function in the XY-plane = v'IPI(EI/h 2 ) I;
I y and I z = principal moments of inertia of beam-column; "fa and Vfb = end reactions;
lor Ie = column's moment of inertia; v = stabili function in the XZ.plane = VI PI(EI/h 2) I
K = effective length factor of beam-column; =u (EI)/(EI)z;
kij = stiffness coefficient for single prismatic element; 11 = relative drift between ends of beam-column =
M a and M b =
end moments of beam-column AB; [.l1 a - .l1 b ];
Mfa and M fb = fixed-end moments for semirigidly connected .l1 a and .l1 b = total lateral deflections of ends A and B of beam
ends;
column [Fig. I(b)];
Mfa' and M fb , = fixed-end moments for rigidly connected ends 8 = lateral deflection along beam-column span;
(Le., Pa = Pb = I);
P = applied axial load to beam-column's ends (+ 6~ and 6; = end slopes of member A'B' measured with ref-
compression, - traction); erence to axis of member [Fig. l(b)];
Per = columns buckling load = ['lT ElI(Khi];
2 Ka and Kb flexural stiffness of end connections at A and B,
R a and Rb = stiffness indexes of flexural connection at A and respectively;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Da Coruna on 02/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B, respectively; Pa and Pb = fixity factors at A and B of column AB, respec-

rand s = classical stiffness coefficients [r = (u sin u -2 u
2 tively;
cos u)/(2 - 2 cos u - u sin u) and s = (u - <I> = elastic shear deformation factor = [(12E/)/(GA,h 2)];
u sin u)/(2 - 2 cos u - u sin u)]; and
slAEIL = effective
axial stiffness of beam-column [see l\Ja and I\Jb = deformation angles of end connections at A and
Ekhande et aI. (1989)]; B = (Mfa/K a and Mfb/Kb' respectively).

678/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:669-678.