Previous | Next | Contents

ESDEP WG 14

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS: BUILDINGS

Lecture 14.12: Simplified Method of

Design
for Low-Rise Frames
OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

To describe the assumptions of the wind-moment method for the design of unbraced
frames. To summarise the justifications of the method. To show the method of analysis
and appropriate design rules.

SUMMARY

The wind-connection method for unbraced frames renders the structure statically
determinate and thereby avoids interaction between global analysis and member design.
It assumes that the connections act as pins under gravity load, whilst under horizontal
load the connections behave as rigid joints.

Studies on frames designed by the method have given a suitable range of application. The
typical behaviour of wind-moment frames is described and those aspects that require
particular attention to achieve a satisfactory design are identified. The method of global
analysis is explained and appropriate rules for member design are summarised.

1. INTRODUCTION
In some countries, e.g. UK, Australia and USA, a simplified method for the design of
"low-rise frames" has been in use for many years. This is known as the "wind-moment"
or "wind-connection" method. It is recognised within relevant national recommendations
and the experience achieved in its application throughout these countries has been design constrains
satisfactory. As a result, it is widely used.

The method is not universally applied though. In the UK its use is now limited to simple
frames, regular geometry, with a maximum of 8 floors and 4 spans, maximum heights of
5m between floors, maximum span distances of 12m and maximum relative lengths of
0,5 and 2,0 between spans.
In many other countries, this simplified method is not widely known and is not included
in their standards, hence its application is not possible. It is not specifically included in
the current version of Eurocode 3 [1]. Despite this, it seemed useful to dedicate one
lecture to this method and to develop a practical application example. The method
continues to be widely used, at least in those countries mentioned previously, and the
lecture is therefore an interesting piece of background information for many lecturers.

Perhaps the inclusion of this Lecture may also widen the long-standing and inconclusive
debate regarding the type of simplification and level of rigour that should be adhered to
in design methods laid down in structural codes.

2. THE METHOD
Where a steel frame is unbraced, an established design technique is to rely on the
rotational stiffness of the connections to provide resistance to wind, even though such
restraint is ignored under the action of gravity loads. This approach is termed the 'wind-
moment' or 'wind-connection' method.

In its usual form the method assumes:

• under gravity load the connections act as pins (Figure 1a)

• under wind load the connections behave as rigid joints, with points of
contraflexure at the mid-height of columns and mid-length of beams (Figure 1b)
Members and connections are proportioned initially to withstand gravity load. The
internal forces and moments due to gravity load and wind (Figures 2a and 2b) are then
combined in appropriate load cases. The design for strength is completed by amending
the initial section sizes and other details for the members and connections, to withstand
the combined effects.
 0.1 span

No calculation is made for second-order moments due to the 'P-∆' effect. It is assumed
that these moments can be accounted for by using effective column lengths greater than
the true lengths, for axes about which sway can occur.

For serviceability, sway deflections are calculated assuming connections are rigid.

The advantage of the method is its simplicity. As the frame is rendered statically
determinate, internal moments and forces are not dependent on the relative stiffnesses of
the members. The need to repeat the analysis to correspond to changed section sizes is
thereby avoided. Consequently, the method has been used extensively [2, 3], although it
has not been verified as a generally applicable approach.

The justification of the method has been partly in the fact that buildings designed on this
basis have proved satisfactory in use. In recent years, the method has been regarded as a
form of semi-rigid design and analytical justification has been carried out on this basis [4-
7]. The conclusions are as follows:

• Beams

These members tend to be overdesigned for the following reason. Beam

design is usually governed by the sagging internal moment due to gravity
load. The semi-rigid nature of the connections causes hogging support
 moments to arise (Figure 3). As the usual form of the method assumes
zero support moments (Figure 2a), no advantage is taken of the reduction
in sagging moment.

• Columns

These members tend to be underdesigned, due to the detrimental effect on

such members of the hogging moments developed in the beams. These
moments particularly affect external columns and other members subject
to unbalanced loading. However, as columns are also designed to support
axial load, the underdesign of the columns is not as significant as the
overdesign of the beams.

• Connections

The beam-to-column connections will generally be underdesigned. This is

because the internal moment for at least one end of a beam will be greater
than that predicted by the method, due to the hogging moments due to
gravity loads (see above). As beams are usually governed by mid-span
moment, whilst connections are sized only for end moment, the
connections will generally be only 'partial-strength' with respect to the
beams.

• Sway deflections
 These deflections are larger than those predicted assuming rigid joints.
This is because of the semi-rigid and partial-strength nature of the
connections.

• Frame stability

The onset of frame instability will be above the design load level in low
and medium-rise frames. For repeated variations of loading expected
during the lifetime of the structure, such as reversals of wind load, the
frame will 'shake down' with connections then behaving elastically.

Some justification for the method is also given by rigid-plastic theory [8]. According to
this theory, the collapse condition has the following characteristics:

⋅ a mechanism of plastic hinges has formed

⋅ the internal moments and forces are in equilibrium with the applied loads

⋅ nowhere does the internal moment exceed the plastic moment of

resistance

Provided that the second and third conditions are satisfied, the Lower-Bound Theorem
[8] states that the applied loads are either less than or equal to the loads which collapse
the frame. These conditions are met by the wind-moment method, which will therefore
provide safe designs, provided that the frame also satisfies the assumptions of rigid-
plastic theory:

⋅ the effect of deflections on equilibrium can be neglected

⋅ collapse does not occur as a result of any form of buckling

These assumptions therefore indicate those aspects of design that require particular
attention if the wind-moment method is to provide frames of adequate strength.

An analytical study has been made of frames designed by the method using a limit states
approach [7]. This lecture describes how the method can be used in a manner consistent
with Eurocode 3 [1]. The recommendations cover global analysis and member design.
From the results of the studies, these recommendations are expected to result in designs
for low- and medium-rise frames which possess adequate resistance.

3. SCOPE
Frame Layout
The method applies to steelwork which can be idealised as a series of unbraced plane
frames.

The range of application is restricted to multi-storey plane frames in which:

• the frame consists principally of horizontal beams and vertical columns (Figure 4)
• the frame does not exceed eight storeys
• the number of bays does not exceed four
• the width of each bay is constant over the height of the frame
• the frames are effectively braced against out-of-plane sway at roof level and at
each floor level
• the beam grids comprise only primary beams (Figure 5), or arrangements of
primary and secondary beams as shown in Figures 6a and 6b
• the flooring and roofing span in the directions shown in Figures 5 and 6

H<8 stories
The limitations concerning the number of storeys and bays have been chosen on basis of
References [6, 7]. The main reasons for these limitations are:

• the comparative rarity of unbraced construction in taller structures

• lack of experimental evidence on the behaviour of joints connecting sections of
large size
• unwillingness to accept an approximate method for taller structures

The arrangement of beams in Figure 6b reduces the gravity load carried by the beams
forming part of the plane frame. This leads to smaller beam sections in the plane frame,
compared to the grids shown in Figures 5 and 6a. All three arrangements have been
considered in the study [7] which forms the basis of the recommendations. Grids which
do not conform to one of these arrangements are outside the scope. This limitation is
required because their possible effect on the stiffness and strength of beams relative to
columns has not been studied.

Frame dimensions

Based on the dimensions of the frames studied, the range of application is limited
according to the following:

• The maximum column height is 6,0m for bottom storeys and 5,0m in the others
• The maximum span is 12,0m and the minimum 4,50m
• The ratio between the greatest and the smallest bay width of the frame is not more
than 2

The actual height of a column should be limited because sway stiffness is inversely
proportional to the square of the length of the member.

Other limitations are given in Table 1.

The limits are not unduly restrictive in practice.

Structural sections

Sections may be in S235, S275 or S355 steel, or in steel having similar structural
properties. The same grade of steel should be used for all sections in a frame. In addition:

• hot-rolled I or H sections should be used for horizontal members

• HE, universal column or similar sections should be used for vertical members
• sections should be orientated such that loads in the plane of the frame tend to
cause bending about the major axis compact section
• All cross-sections, both for columns and for beams must be Class 1

The reasons for these limitations are now given.

The method does not provide an exact calculation of column end moments. HE, UC or
similar sections with substantial buckling resistance moment should therefore be used for
these members.

Column sections should be orientated as recommended because the study [7] did not
examine structures in which the beams frame into the column web. There is not yet an
accepted method for predicting the behaviour of such connections.

The recommended orientation of the beam sections is usual practice. It is necessary to

adhere to this to provide stiffness in the plane of the frame.

Beam-to-column connections
Extended end-plate (Figure 7a) or flush end-plate (Figure 7b) connections should be
used. Connections in wind-moment frames form part of the subject matter of Lecture
11.5. It is important to note that since the method results in partial-strength connections
which are required to deform plastically, each connection should be designed to have
sufficient rotation capacity.
 Column bases

Columns should be rigidly connected to foundations by bases designed in accordance

with usual practice for this type of construction.

Frames with pinned bases are excluded from the recommendations given here. This is
because columns with pinned bases require large effective lengths if they are to be safely
designed. Such members also cause large sway deflection in the bottom storey of the
structure.

Loading

The range of application is restricted to the following values of loading:

•
total dead+live<1250kg/m2 the total unfactored dead load plus unfactored imposed load should not exceed
12,5 kN/m2
• wind loads should be based on a wind speed corresponding to a 3-second gust
speed of at least 37m/s, measured at 10m above ground in an open situation for a
return period of 50 years
• the wind load should not be such that it controls the design of any beam

The tendency to underdesign columns and connections, because of neglect of end

moments due to gravity load (Figure 3), is increased if the wind load is low. The
restrictions on maximum gravity load and minimum wind speed restrict this tendency.

If the wind load is so high that it begins to govern the design of the beams, the frame is
best designed as rigid-jointed. This is because the serviceability limit on sway is likely to
control the design.

4. GLOBAL ANALYSIS FOR ULTIMATE LIMIT

STATES
Load combinations

The following load combinations should be used in design:

• 1,35 (Dead load) + 1,50 (Imposed load)

• 1,35 (Dead load + Imposed load + Wind load)
• 1,35 (Dead load) + 1,50 (Wind load).

Frame imperfections should be taken into account by applying equivalent horizontal

forces according to the Eurocode 3 rules [1].

Unbalanced ("chequer-board") gravity loading may be critical in the design of internal

columns, and should therefore be considered in multi-bay frames.
The load combination 1,35 (Dead load) + 1.50 (Wind load) will usually govern the design
of the connections as moment-resisting components.

Internal moments and forces due to gravity load

Under gravity load, allowance should be made for the partial-fixity of the connections
between a beam and a column by an end restraint moment equal to 10% of the maximum
sagging moment in the beam, assuming the beam to be simply supported. In addition, the
shear force at the end of the beam should be assumed to act on the column at a distance
of 100 mm from the face of the column. Internal moments in beams though should be
calculated for a span equal to the distance between centre-lines of columns.

Each column has to be designed to resist the algebraic sum of the restraint moments from
the beams at the same level on each side of the column, in addition to moments due to
eccentricity of connections. The net moment applied at any one level should be divided
between the column lengths above and below the level in proportion to the stiffness of
each length.

The moments applied to the column due to partial-fixity and eccentricity should be
assumed to have no effect at the levels above and below the level at which they are
applied.

The assumption above of an end moment equal to 10% of the free moment combined
with moments due to eccentricity of connections offsets to some extent the tendency of
the method to underdesign columns and connections.

Internal moments and forces due to horizontal load.

Horizontal design loads arise due to:

• practical imperfections such as lack of verticality which are represented by

notional horizontal forces
• wind load

The analysis for internal moments and forces due to horizontal load should be by the
"portal method" [2]. The following assumptions are made:

• horizontal loads are applied at floor levels

• there is a point of contraflexure at the mid-height of each column
• there is a point of contraflexure at the mid-length of the each beam
• each bay acts as a simple portal and the total horizontal load is divided between
the bays in proportion to their spans

The assumed points of contraflexure for a single bay frame are shown in Figure 1b.

Analysis by "portal method"

Consider the upper part of a single bay frame shown in Figure 8a. The upper part of the
diagram in Figure 8b shows the forces on the portion of the frame above the points of
contraflexure A and D, whilst the lower part shows the forces on the portion ABCDEF of
the frame. In the derivation which follows, compressive axial force is denoted by N.
The compressive axial forces at A and D are obtained by taking moments about either D
or A and by considering vertical equilibrium. Taking moments about A:

NDL = W1 H1 /2 (1)

Hence:

ND = W1 H1 /(2L) (2)

Since ND + NA = 0 it follows that:

NA = -W1 H1 /(2L) (3)

As these forces are now known, the axial forces at C and F can be calculated by taking
moments about either F or C for the region ABCDEF and by vertical equilibrium. Taking
moments about C:

(NF - ND) L = W1 (H1 + H2)/2 + W2 H2 /2 (4)

Substituting for ND from Equation (2) and re-arranging:

NF = W1 H1 /L + (W1 + W2 ) H2 /(2L) (5)

By vertical equilibrium, NC + NF = 0 and NC can therefore be found.

The moments in the columns at roof level are clearly given by W1 H1 /4. For equilibrium,
these moments are also the moments at each end of the roof beams.

The moment in the upper column at B due to the force at A is also W1 H1 /4, whilst that
in the lower column at B due to the force at C is (W1 + W2) H2 /4. The same values apply
in the leeward side of the frame. It follows that the moment at each end of the beam BE,
which resists the sum of column end moments at B or E, is given by:

MBE = MEB = (W1 H1 + (W1 + W2) H2)/4 (6)

A similar calculation procedure can be followed for other storeys in the frame, or for
other bays of a multi-bay structure.

The resulting bending moment diagram for a complete single bay frame is shown in
Figure 2b.

5. DESIGN OF BEAMS FOR ULTIMATE LIMIT

STATES
As the wind-moment method can be justified in part as a method of plastic design, cross-
sections must be able to form plastic hinges and participate in collapse mechanisms. To
prevent premature failure by local buckling, sections must therefore be Class 1, Plastic.

The moment resistance though should be restricted to 90% of the plastic moment, to
provide restraint to the columns.

6. DESIGN OF COLUMNS FOR ULTIMATE LIMIT

STATES
Effective lengths

Effective lengths for compression resistance, Pc:

For in-plane behaviour (bending about major axis):

LE = 1,5 L (7)

For out-of-plane behaviour (bending about minor axis):

LE = 1,0 L (8)
These effective lengths are nominal values which, in conjunction with the other
recommendations, were found in the studies [7] to result in adequate column sections.
The value for out-of-plane behaviour is based in the frame being effectively held against
out-of-plane sway.

Equivalent slenderness for buckling resistance moment, Mb:

The slenderness λLT should be calculated assuming that the effective length factors k and
kw given in Eurocode 3 [1] are both unity, i.e. no fixity. In addition, the factor C1 needed
for the calculation of λLT for a rolled H-section should be taken as unity.

These factors are consistent with simple design. As the end moments are not calculated
by exact analysis, the factor C1 should be taken as the most pessimistic value, which
corresponds to single curvature bending.

Design moments

Under each combination, the column end moment should be taken as the sum of:

• net (i.e. out-of-balance) moment due to gravity loads and eccentricity of

connections
• net (i.e. out-of-balance) moment due to restraint moments from the beams arising
under gravity loads
• moment due to horizontal load

As the horizontal load may reverse, the total moment should be calculated by addition of
the numerical magnitudes of the component moments.

Class of section

Sections should be Class 1, Plastic, for the same reason as for the design of beams.

Overall buckling check

The proposed sections should satisfy the checks for combined bending and axial
compression given in Eurocode 3, including that in which lateral-torsional buckling is the
potential failure mode. The formulae include allowance for the beneficial effects of
moment gradient by means of equivalent uniform moment factor, β. As the end moments
are not calculated by exact analysis, the factor β should have the most pessimistic value,
which corresponds to single curvature bending.

7. DESIGN FOR SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE

General
The significance of sway deflections in the design of unbraced frames is influenced by
the ratio of gravity load to wind load. Even though the design of some frames will be
governed by limitation of sway, for others a design made for the ultimate limit state will
be adequately stiff.

Design codes give recommended limits on deflections, but these limits are not
performance criteria; rather, the limits are intended for comparison with the results of
calculations, usually on bare frames. The justification for these limits rests on the
satisfactory performance of structures in practice.

Analyses accounting for connection flexibility shows that sway deflections in wind-
moment frames are significantly larger than those predicted assuming rigid joints, and
yet, as far as is known, structures incorporating such frames do not exhibit distress in
practice.

The increase in deflection given by such analyses is dependent on the moment-rotation

(M - ψ) relationship of the connections. The calculated increase in deflection is large if
the M - ψ relationship is represented by an elastic-plastic approximation (Figure 9). A
lesser increase is calculated if M - ψ is represented by a non-linear curve without a
plateau (Figure 10). In shape the latter conforms more closely to the experimental
behaviour of connections (Figure 11).
Even with an elastic-plastic approximation, studies [7] show that wind-moment frames
subject to only light wind load will not deflect more than the Eurocode 3 [1] limit of
1/500th of the total height.

For frames with high wind load, in which deflections are critical, the non-linear
representation of connection behaviour gives an increase in deflection of up to 60% [7].

Recommendations

In accordance with usual practice, the design made for the ultimate limit state should be
analysed as an elastic rigid-jointed frame to determine sway deflections.
If the deflections are unacceptable, then the design should be revised to provide
additional stiffness:

• connection details should be changed to provide greater stiffness so that they may
be taken as rigid
• member sections should be increased

If the rigid-frame deflections are acceptable, the values should be increased by 60%. If
the increased values are unacceptable, then the frame should be redesigned, following the
recommendations in the previous paragraph. Otherwise, the design of the members is
complete.

8. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
• The assumptions of wind-moment method render the frame statically determinate.
The need for repeated analysis to correspond to changed section sizes is thereby
avoided.
• The method tends to overdesign beams and underdesign columns and beam-to-
column connections. This has to some extent been accounted for by introducing a
minimum end restraint moment under gravity load.
• Analytical studies have shown that low and medium-rise frames designed by the
method have adequate overall strength.
• Design recommendations have been presented which are consistent with
Eurocode 3. These recommendations aim to achieve a more uniform safety level
in all parts of the frame.
• The connections should be designed to have sufficient rotation capacity to deform
plastically as part of a plastic-hinge mechanism.

Table 1

Relative dimensions Minimum Maximum

Bay width: storey height 0,75 2,00

(bottom storey)

Bay width: storey height 0,90 2,50

(above bottom storey)

Greatest bay width: 1,00 2,00

smallest bay width

Table 2: Maximum column height

Bottom storeys 6,0 m

Other storeys 5,0 m

Previous | Next | Contents