Lehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports
1967
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact
preserve@lehigh.edu.
by
J. Hartley Daniels
July 1967
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the special advice
and assistance that he received from Professor John Wo Fisher
who supervised 'this dissertation.
Profes-
inspir~
tion and advice received from him during the early development
of this work.
The work described in this dissertation was conducted
as part of a general investigation into the plastic design of
multi-story frames at Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Department
of Civil Engineering, Lehigh University.
Technical guidance
iv
was provided by the Lehigh Project Subcommittee of the Structural Steel Committee of the Welding Research Council, under
the chairmanship of Dr. T. R. Higgins.
knowledged.
The author gratefully acknowledges. the assistance of
the American Iron and Steel Institute who provided a doctoral
fellowship so that a year of full time study could be devoted
to this work.
Sincere appreciation is also extended to the author's
many colleagues for their many criticisms and suggestions.
Special thanks are due to Professor G. Co Driscoll, Jr. who encouraged the early development of this work and permitted it
to be introduced at the Summer Conference on "Plastic Design
of MUlti-Story Frames" held in September 1965 at Lehigh University.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
16
1.5
21
1.6
22
1.6.1
22
1.7
2.
Frame Layout
1.6.2 Loading Conditions
1.6.3 Secondary Failures
1.6.4 Materials
1.6.5 Application of the Sway Subassemblage Method
Summary of the Dissertation
14
24
26
26
27
28
MULTI-STORY FRAME
2.1
2.2
30
30
31
35
2.4
Sign Convention
The One-Story Assemblage at Level n
2.5
41
2.6
44
47
2.3
3.
12
3.1
35
47
vi
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.6
Compatibility
48
50
Constant
52
Constant
54
Variable
58
60
3.6.2
3.7
4.
67
70
4.1
Initial Restraint
70
4.2
72
4.3
81
4.3.1
4.3.2
5.
61
82
83
85
5.1
85
5.2
Initial Restraint
87
5.3
87
5.3.1
91
Slope-Deflection Coefficients
5.4
95
5.5
97
vii
6.
101
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.
101
101
106
108
III
FUTURE RESEARCH
7.1 Analytical Studies
7.2 Experimental Studies
114
8.
119
9.
NOMENC.LATURE
122
10.
FIGURES
124
11.
REFERENCES
144
12.
VITA
148
113
116
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Composite Beams
ABSTRACT
It is
called the sway,subassemblage method of analysis and is particularly useful for developing the lateral-load versus sway-deflection curve of a story in the middle and lower stories of an
unbraced frame.
It has been assumed that a preliminary design of the
frame has been made,
~referably
p~ovide
beam and column sizes but also the distribution of axial forces
in the columns corresponding to either the maximum lateral load
capacity of the frame or the plastic mechanism load.
The method is based on the concept of sway subassemblages and uses directly the results of previous research on the
strength and behavior of restrained columns permitted to sway.
In the analysis, a story with known member sizes is subdivided
into a number of sway subassemblages, each consisting of a restrained column and either one or two adjacent restraining beams.
The restraining beams together with assumed realistic boundary
conditions constitute the restraining system.
The restraining
-2-
all the sway subassemblages in a story are then combined to determine the complete load-deflection curve of the story.
This
curve may be obtained up to and beyond the deflection corresponding to the maximum load and mechanism load capacities.
The adequacy of the preliminary design may be determined on the basis of strength (maximum or mechanism load for
example) or deflection (working load, maximum load or mechanism
load for example).
It also
A recent pi-
-3-
The sway subassemblage method as developed in this dissertation does 'not consider unbraced frames with significantly
large initial sway deflections under factored gravity loads alone.
1.
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation considers the theoretical development of an approximate method of analysis for unbraced multistory frames which are subjected to combined loads.
Throughout
be discussed.
l.l
The
Ba~ic
Design Process
-4-
1.1
-5-
have been developed which supposedly give reasonably good designs and at the same time simplify the work involved.
Ideally, a direct
d~sign
However, the complex interrelation between strength and stiffness in problems concerning unbraced mUlti-story frames demands
an unbraced frame requires methods which will achieve a solution, step by step, from a gradually converging trial-anderror procedure.
-6-
1.1
The demands
placed on the methods of analysis depend to a considerable degree on the design philosophy; that is whether allowable stress
or maximum strength criteria are employed.
Analyses for
1.1
-7-
Approxi-
~owever,
-8-
1.1
hibited by the structural steels and on the ability of structures to redistribute internal forces (moments) as plastificatioD occurs.
structures. 7
structures limit application of plastic design to one- and twostory rigid frames and to beams in multi-story frames where the
columns have been designed by the allowable stress method.
This
1.1
-9-
nNo instability will occur prior to the attainment of the ultimate load Tf
Both of these assumptions imply that the effects of
gravity loads on the behavior of a frame can be neglected.
Un-
of this fact with the current trend towards lighter. and more
economical structures.
The chief concern with the gravity loads is the magnitude of the additional overturning" moment which can be produced in each story of a frame.
action of the combined gravity and wind loads, the total gravity
loads, P, above a story act through the story sway displacement,
6, to produce an additional overturning moment that the story
must carry.
The
1.1
-10-
the P6 effect.
Because
p~
Thus, it is
p~
The
p~
and,
1.1
-11-
Three
conditions are therefore imposed on unbraced frames which are designed by plastic methods:
1.
t a t lons,
2.
1,11
3.
ca~
require a suitable method for calculating the maximum shear capacity of the frame which in turn is a function of the sidesway
deflection corresponding to the maximum shear capacity.
In
1.2
-12-
1.2
p~
~o
the formation
of this collapse mechanism, and that the material exhibits elastic, elasto-plastic, perfectly plastic moment-curvature behavior.
1.2
-13-
yielding at point a.
The actual load deflection curve for the story is
shownias curve O-c-d.
by the combined loading condition that the maximum shear capacity (point c in Fig. 1) will be attained prior to the forma.
.
10 12 14
tion of the collapse mechanlsm. ' ,
-14-
1.3
signer to execute each of the 3 steps in the basic design process (Art. 1.1) in order to arrive at a final design.
Such a
method would be of great value if it also allowed a final design to be made within only one or two cycles.
1.3
1.3
-lS-
15
distribution ,38 and plastic moment balancing. lO ,16 Plastic
moment distribution is, in some respects, similar to elastic
moment distribution.
.
10 16
PLi moments are included when equilibrium is establlshed. '
exp~cted
sway de'flection at
Either way, a sway
1.4
-16-
~ndicated,
added to the moments produced by the combined loads alone, dictate directly the revised beam sections.
Although a final
Such an exten-
1.4
a~
1.4
-17-
----
Particularly, methods
are required which are suitable for use in those stories where
the member sizes are controlled by the combined loading case.
An introduction to the literature on the analysis and
design of unbraced multi-story frames may be found in Refs. 10 .
and 13.
must be considered.
approximate analysis which would predict the load-deflection behavior of a story in an unbraced multi-story frame.
Much research has been devoted to frames of the order
of three stories or less.
involved that it has not been applied to other than very simple
frames.
13
-18-
1.4
fr~m
the load corresponding to the story with the smallest shear capacity.
1.4
-19-
would not be realistic because of the "enormous" amount of stiffening due to the cladding.
-20-
1.4
a~sisted
by electronic computa-
pIe plastic theory in the first stage and then increased if necessary in the second stage to allow for sway deflection and instabilityeffects.
This assumption is
21 22
'
recognized that the emphasis in design
must be placed not only on strength and safety but also on satisfactory deflection behavior at working loads.
He suggested that
23
He noted
that complete design methods which would consider all three criteria are at an elementary stage of development.
1.5
1.5
-21-
approximate analytical method which will predict the load-de flection curve of each story in the middle and lower stories of an
unbraced
mUlti-~tory
This
The assumption
blages
29
-22-
1.6.1
1.6
1.6.1
Frame Layout
Unbraced multi-story frames will be defined in this
1.6.1
made:
10
1.
No "missing"
5.
6.
7.
-24-
1.6.2
8.
9.
1.6.2
Loading Conditions
Unbraced multi-story frames may be subjected to two
Gravity loads
"
following cases:
1.
DL + LL (all beams)
2.
3.
DL + LL (all beams)
4.
DL + LL (some beams) + WL
+ WL
-25-
1.6.2
by a load factor (LF).
LF
= 1.70
LF
= 1.30
All loads are assumed to be either horizontal or vertical and lyiDg in the plane containing the minor axes of the
members.
ity loads will remain virtually unchanged as the wind loads are
applied.
Therefore, the
~ollowing
(2)
fo~
1.6.4
-26-
tion factors
loads.
3l
In addi-
1.6.3
Secondary Failures
It will be assumed that all secondary failures of the
1.6.4
Materi~ls
The
= 36
steel.
imposed here in view of the fact that research into the behavior
of the higher strength steels is still in progress.
1.6.5
. -27-
1.6.5
sider both the gravity load and the combined load conditions.
The design must also consider wind loads from both directions.
It will be found that the gravity load conditions will control
the selection of beam and column sizes for a limited number of
stories at the top of the frame.
lO
prising this region is not definite and will depend on many factors such as frame geometry, material properties, load factors,
and live load reduction factors. 10 ,32
The combined
gions controlled by the gravity load and combined load conditions there will be a transition zone where both may govern in
anyone story.
-28-
1.7
region and to some extent the transition zone has been analyzed
4 33
by other methods.'
1.7
subassemblages.
Chapter 3 dis-
1.7
assumptions used in the analysis.
-29-
this study.
2.
2.1
nThe analysis and design of an entire multistory, mUlti-bay frame is almost prohibitive
if stability and deflection effects are predominant considerations;" and
2.
For example:
-30-
2.2
-31-
1,8
assembi age ana 1 YSlS.
3.
philo~ophy,
The term
2.2
mUlti-sto~y
frame shown in
-32-
2.2
Fig. 3(a).
The
As pre-
In the middle and lower stories of the frame, the beam and columns will likely be stiff enough that under the factored gravity
loads alone the joint rotations will be negligibly small.
Con-
Fig. 3(b).
wi~d
loads introduces
the beams are therefore the potential locations for the first
plastic hinges.
composite beams.
2.2
-33-
17
tional plastic hinges will form at the ends of other columns and
elsewhere in the beams.
Similarly, in a weak-
The re-
A combined mecha-
nism may also be formed with plastic hinges in the beams and.
the columns.
~oads
within each
The columns
-34-
2.2
As a result,
TI.
The equili-
2.
2.4
The
2.3
Sign Convention
The' sign convention which will be adopted in this
2.
3.
4.
2.4
17
2.4
-36-
ly.
Table 1
Location of Inflection Points
Max.
Min.
Average
0.500 h
0.398 h
0.440 h
15
0.485 h
0.441 h
0.461 h
The
3.
2.4
-37-
Consider the
The follow-
2.
3.
th~
g~avity
As wind loads
If the elastic
2.4
-38-
remain at a relatively constant position for all values of monotonically increasing wind loads.
The 10% maximum variation in the position of the inflection points across the two stories of the frame studied in
Ref. 17 was likely caused by small differences in the behavior
of the frame in the region of these stories.
The distribution
of moments in stories 5 and 15 corresponds to general instability near the top of.the frame under the proportional gravity
and wind loads.
Although a consider-
able number of plastic hinges had formed in story 15, only one
had developed in story 5.
~revious
2.4
-39-
Consider
Also
shown in this figure are the forces acting on the members and
the resulting deformations.
shown as LAB'
~H
where
(1)
The constants
AA' AB, --- etc., define the distribution of the total wind
shear force to each column in a story.
these constants have the same value in each story above and below level n.
2.5
- 40-
For a particu-
lar column, Pn- I is calculated as the algebraic sum of the faIlowing loads:
1.
taking into
account the live load reductions 3l for the
level~,
columns.
2.
P~
d eSlgn.
2.5
-41-
It will be assumed that the load-deflection behavior of the onestory region of the frame which is symmetrical ,about level n
can be represented by the load-deflection behavior of this onestory assemblage.
Instead, the
2.5
tfex~ctTT
Even if such
frame itself would not be exact but would reflect the approxi-,
mations already used in developing the one-story assemblage.
For this reason, an approximate analysis of the one-story assemblage would be satisfactory providing it gave dependable results
and was
conservative~
and
~n
n-
1 and
~H
~Hri-l
and
~Hn
were
-42-
2.5
'.
~Hn'
2.
~H
n-
1.
to these restrictions.
~Q
i~int
A~_l
The
2.5
-43-
(Art. 2.3)
h
n-l
-(A~C<n-l) -2-
n-l ==
L)n-l
(3)
n-l~
h
M
n
2
p -E:
, n 2
(4 )
>
was assumed to be
approxima~ely
In
equal to h _ .
n 1
~-l
Since
hn
Mn- 1.
2.6
-44-
the inflection point will be at mid-height of the story now becomes conservative providing the actual inflection points are
at or above mid-height.
of the half-story assemblage in Fig. 5 will be assumed to predict conservatively the load-deflection behavior of the onestory assemblage in Fig. 4.
2.6
is distrib-
uted to each column such that for any magnitude of sway deflection b n /2- no axial forces exist in the beams at level n.
regard the effect of gravity loads for the present).
(Dis-
For col-
umns A, B,
AB~'
etc.
2,.6
Such an arrangement
ally under the applied loads Q they will be called sway subassemn
blages.
1.
2.
2.6
son each sway subassemblage must be analyzed as a separate structure distinct from the other members comprising the half-story
assemblage.
Since axial
forces in the beams will be zero for all values of sway, the
ends of the beams in each sway subassemblage can be assumed supported by rollers.
(inflection point).
It should be apparent that if the load-deflection
(Q vs. 6) curves for all of the sway 8ubassemblages can be accu-
The
3.
3.1
to the right or, left when the gravity loads (DL+LL) are applied
to the beams.
in Chapter 6.
This
The load-deflec-
,-47-
-48-
3.2
The re-
suIts of this study can then be applied to determine the loaddeflection behavior of restrained columns in a sway subassemblage where the beams initially provide elastic rotational restraint which then decreases at discrete intervals of sway deflection with the formation of plastic hinges.
3.2
3.2
-49-
From statics the moment at the upper end of the column will be
given by (Art. '2.3)
Pn An]
2
(5)
The external moment applied to the column top (from the column
above level
~)
2M
+ M
r
=0
(6)
11n
where
= 8 -
(7)
The angle
Ihn
is commonly referred
3.3
-50-
3.3
Moment-Rotation Relationship
the column in the story below level n which (under the assumptioD regarding the position of the inflection point) will be
subjected to symmetrical double curvature bending.
The moment-
rotation relationship for such a column can be calculated 01lowing the procedures described in Ref. 36 or it can be obtained from curves such as those shown in Charts 111-1 to 1+1-7
of Ref. 25 for specified values of the axial load ratio P Ip
n y
and slenderness ratio h
II'.
X
The
charts shown in Ref. 25 give the moment-rotation curves for columns which have moment applied at one end, are pinned at the
other end (end, moment ratio q
= 0)
double curvature (q
-51-
3.3
The
bas~c
The curves in
25
In the middle and lower stories of unbraced multistory frames the slenderness ratios of the columns will likely
fall below 30.
An examination of the
= 1.0
h /r
n
= 30,
.n
Ipy-<
0.90.
1M pc
Ir X-<
30
hinge will develop at the top of the column and a minimum ro-
3.4
-52-
required in the further discussions will be assumed to be represented by curves similar to those shown in Ref. 25.
3.4
can be deleted
written
(8)
or equivalently
Qh
2M
pc
-[!:!
+
pc
P6
2M
(9)
pc
piP
Mpc
= 1.18(1-P/Py )M p
(10)
3.4
-53-
If Mp is taken as
2
r.
M
p
where cr
= er y fS = 2Py f 2d
(11)
f is
P
PL)
2M
pc
2.36
h
r
2r
11
x
( 12)
(1 - l:p )
y
Substituting Eq. 12 into Eq. 9 the non-dimensional load-deflection relationship of the restrained column leads to
P h
Qh
2M
pc
M
Mpc +
15
'I
2r h
x
(13)
)
2.36 (1 - ~
p
y
can
3.5
-54-
tively for wide-flange shapes normally used for 'columns (Ref. 8).
With these substitutions, Eq. (13) becomes
PhD.
Qh
2M
::::
Mpc
pc
15y
r x 11
(14)
2.28(1 - 15 )
y
~iven
Equation (14)
Qh
2M
pc
(15)
Y x
2.28(1 -
::::-~---~
R
)
P
(16 )
3.5
-5~-
3.5
restraint
stiffne~s
Con-
ke
(17)
or equivalently
Mr
=k
eM pc
(18)
kiM
pc
Since the moment, M, at the end of the restrained column cannot be expressed in terms of the end rotation,
~,
(Art.
3.3) except in the elastic range, Eq. (15) cannot be solved explicitly.
pc
versus
~/h,
When Q
= 0,
~/2
=0
(point 0)
3.5
- 56-
2.
3.
deflection behavior.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
r
on curve O-a-b-c-e is given by Eq. (18).
-2
= - M
pc
(19)
-57-
3.5
Qh
2M
pc
1 - C~
( 20)
pc
=1
corresponding to point
ep ,
o.
when a plastic
M
r
The angle,
when 6/h
= 2M pc
(21)
ep
_ 2
- k
(22)
in
3.6
- 58cons~ant
will have a
value, Mf
r
everywhe~e
on d-c-e.
From Eq.
(21).
~ine
along the
= M' = 2M
(23)
pc
d-c-e.
Additional load-deflection curves may also be obtained for the column shown in Fig. 8 which has a slenderness
ratio h/r
Each curve
Sk
00.
In addition, all
3.6
main constant for all values of joint rotation, 8, but will decrease as
3.6
-59-
of k - 8 relationships possible, only two of them are fundamental to the sway subassemblage method of analysis.
These two
(8' <
1
where
e1
<
< 00)
(25)
e p (Eq. (22))
2.
k =
(8
<
< co)
(27)
3.6.1
3.6.1
-60-
Mr
M = MTr
r
= k1 8M pc
(28)
(8 1 <
< 00)
(29)
Fig. 9.
and k
= kl
curve 0 - g
At point
however, the
Using
Eqs. (6) and (29), the maximum column moment will be given by
M=
PI
-M
2
pc
(30)
-61-
3.6.2
Qh
2M
CQ.
pc
(31)
~/h
It should be
dentfroffi Eq. (6) that the moment at the top of the column, M,
and thus the column chord rotation, y, will be constant everywhere on f-g-h.
3.6.2
with constant
The restrain-
ing moment at the column tJp will now be defined by the equations
= kleM pc
= k 2SM pc
(32)
(8
<
< (0)
(33)
3.b.2
-62-
The solution of
~q.
by Eq. (32) will give the load-deflection curve O-g in Fig. 10.
= k1 ,
and k
However, at point
in Fig. 10,
zero.
point
than before.
d-~-e
is shown
will inter-
of the column.
In reality,
The load-deflec-
3.6.2
-63--
of a load-deflection curve,
th~
Consider
11(e).
suc~
O-aT-bT~cT
to k 2 .
however, represents the load-deflection curve
and PiP
defo~mations.
in
Fig. 11(c)) are given by Ql' AI' 8 1 , Yi' Ml and Mr1 From statics the moment at the top of the column will be given by
Ml + M =
- [ (Ql + Q)
~ +
P (
A + b.
l 2 .
( 34)
( 35)
-64-
3.6.2
(36 )
(Ql + Q)h
2M
pc
P(~l
2M
~)]
(37)
pc
6)]
(Ql + Q)h
2M
It
(L}l +
+ C----
pc
sho~ld
(38)
will result
3.6.2
.,
-65-
If points
and aT in
P2M
pc
be iden-
that each curve has the same slope at points which intersect
the straight line defined by MT = P M where p < p < 2
r
1 pc
2 - 1( Fig. 11 ( c) )
Using
= k2,
.. be written
Qh
2M
Substituting for
c~
e from
2M
11
Qh
(39)
pc
- C)
k2
Ii + 2: y
(40)
pc
oy
o(~)
h
( 41)
-66,;,..
3.6.2
It should be apparent from Eq. (41) that each curve will have
the same slope at the two points on the curve
Of
oY
--
o(~)
M~
= PlM pc
only
PiP
E and E
~
l~
Band BT are incremented by the amounts C(E)B
and 6(E)B
T re-
oMr ,
( 42)
where 6e
ments in column top moment, oM, and the increments in chord rotation 6y will be the same for each column.
6(.Q) = 68 - oy
h
( 43)
3.7.
-67-
then since
( 44)
5e
& (~)
( 45)
58
Since
&(~)
oy
o(~)
h
~
o(~)
h
b and'b T (Fig. lICe)).
It is apparent from this study that curves a-b-e and.
3.7
Design Charts
The solution
'of
Eq.
(~5)
3.7
-68-
pared for use with ASTM A36 steel wide-flange column shapes
but can also be adapted for use with A441 columns.
Each chart
1.
0.30
<~
0.90
- p <
intervals of 0.50
2.
20
<~ < 30
- r
x
P
y
intervals of 2 ~
r
Each load-deflection curve was constructed for a constant value of restraining moment, M , which is defined by Eq.
r
(18).
-69-
3.7
enable the set of values of Mr and Mrf to be obtained
restrained column in the half-story assemblage.
., any
fo~\
4.
4.1
Initial Restraint
The term "initial restraint" will be used in this
the lower stories of a frame the differences between the fixedend moments and the plastic moment capacities will be relatively
large.
-70-
4.1
-71-
ditions, each column would carry only its share of the factored
gravity load, 1.3 w.
This im-
plies that plastic hinges will form at the leeward ends of. the
beams in each sway subassemblage at relatively low values of
4. 2
- 7 5..
3.
are related as
6E I.
Mi =
1
~h-
( 49)
The moment M., above joint i will also be given by Eq. (49).
1
The restraining moments in the' two beams at joint i can be obtained from Eq. (46).
2M. + M
= 0
(50)
so that
l2
E I.
T
8i
M ..
1J
+ K1(1.-1)
E Ii(i-l)
L
i( i-I)
8.
=0
( 51)
4.2
-76-
M.
J
M..
J1
6E I ..
= __l ......J
(52)
E I .. [
L . ~J 48 j
+ 28 i
(53)
lJ
= 6E
I j (j+1)
Lj(j+l)
(54)
8.
J
12 E I j
h
rL'
6
. _ -h
8J
8.
J
=0
(55)
11 =
~ + l~t
M.. h
Ki (i-1)] 8 1.
lJ
+ 12E I.
(56)
and
fi
~8
11 = 6 i
+ [1 +
~ + ~] 8 j
(57)
-77-
4.2
where
_ h Ii(i-l)
aT
- L1
(58)
1)1.1
C1-
h I ..
:::=
1J
L .. r.
1J J
C 59)
h Ij(j+l)
= L 1)1.
J CJ+
J
Now 6.
J
~an
(60)
be expressed as a function of 8.
e. =
J
M ... L ..
1J 1J
.c 61)
28 .
2E. I ..
. 1J
y;.
where
Ci
h I ..
1J
L .. 1.
lJ
E I ij
-Lij
e.
1
(62)
4. 2
- 7 5..
3.
are related as
6E I.
Mi =
1
~h-
( 49)
The moment M., above joint i will also be given by Eq. (49).
1
The restraining moments in the' two beams at joint i can be obtained from Eq. (46).
2M. + M
= 0
(50)
so that
l2
E I.
T
8i
M ..
1J
+ K1(1.-1)
E Ii(i-l)
L
i( i-I)
8.
=0
( 51)
4.2
-76-
M.
J
M..
J1
6E I ..
= __l ......J
(52)
E I .. [
L . ~J 48 j
+ 28 i
(53)
lJ
= 6E
I j (j+1)
Lj(j+l)
(54)
8.
J
12 E I j
h
rL'
6
. _ -h
8J
8.
J
=0
(55)
11 =
~ + l~t
M.. h
Ki (i-1)] 8 1.
lJ
+ 12E I.
(56)
and
fi
~8
11 = 6 i
+ [1 +
~ + ~] 8 j
(57)
-77-
4.2
where
_ h Ii(i-l)
aT
- L1
(58)
1)1.1
C1-
h I ..
:::=
1J
L .. r.
1J J
C 59)
h Ij(j+l)
= L 1)1.
J CJ+
J
Now 6.
J
~an
(60)
be expressed as a function of 8.
e. =
J
M ... L ..
1J 1J
.c 61)
28 .
2E. I ..
. 1J
y;.
where
Ci
h I ..
1J
L .. 1.
lJ
E I ij
-Lij
e.
1
(62)
4.2
-78-
Hence,
== 6
K ..
1J
f: +
0.5[3
0.50:' +
Tl
-r;
K iCi - 1 )]
( 63)
f3 + 1.5Tl
1J
can be written as
M..
1J
M..
J1
E I ..
1J
L ..
1J
( 64)
E I ..
E I ..
K .. _ _
l.=,.J
1J
L ..
1J
J1
L..
1J
e.
J
(65)
Thus
= 48.1
+ 28.
(66)
K .. 8. = 48.
J1 J
J
+ 26.1
(67)
:J
(68)
K .. 8.
1J
K ..
J1
=4
[K..
1J
K ..
1J
4.2
-79-
K1o(lO_1)
~4[_K_(1_O-_1_)_i
_ _43]
K
(69)
(i-l)i
= O.
It should be apparent that the initial restraint coefficients must be calculated starting at an exterior joint and
progressing left or right across the assemblage.
A method
1-
1) and Ko
~nd
1J
4.2
8(j+2)
-80-
= 8(j+l)"
written
+
K..
l]
(70)
where
h I.( .+1)
J J
(71)
- Lj(j+l)I(j+l)
_ h I(j+l) U+2)
(72)
- L(j+l) (j+2)I(j+l)
~T,
a, B
4.3
-81-
4.3
Con-
For the.
column axes.
-82-
4.3.1
the plastic
hinge~
4.3.1
Assume also that the first plastic hinge occurs just to the
left of joint (j+l) and prior to any plastic hinges within the
interior sway subassemblage.
Referring to
Fig. 12(b) the end of beam j(j+l) can be assumed pinned at (j+l)
K ..
lJ
=6
3 + 0.5S + 0.511 + aT
12 Ki(i-l) ]
[
3 -
o. 50' + f3 +
(73)
O. 7 511
Therefore
-83-
4.3.2
4.3.2
the plastic hinges which can form at the columns at (i-I) and
j.
In
Al-'
though all the plastic hinges shown are possible for interior
sway subassemblages only 4, 5, 6, and 7 can occur in windward
sway subassemblages while 1, 2, 3 and 4 are possible plastic
hinge locations for leeward sway subassemblages.
The initial restraint coefficients K.(.
1) and K..
1 11J
are associated with the restraint stiffness, .k , given by Eq.
i
(48).
4.3.2
-84-
Referring to
as follows:
1.
1 occurs before 3:
3 occurs after 1:
to O.
3.
3 occurs before 1:
4.
5.
5 occurs after 6 or 7 :
or 7 occurs:
3.0 to
6.
Ki(i-l)
reduces to zero.
K .. reduces to 3.0.
1J
K .. reduces from
1J
o.
4 occurs:
Kco
1) and K..
remain unchanged
1 11J
5.
5.1
If the usual
(Art. 1.6.1), then the moment of inertia of each beam will vary
over the span length .. The determination of the extent of the
positive and negative moment regions is complicated by the fact
-85-
5.1
-86-
&~Q,
ConsequentDuring
Furthermore,
during any specified increment of lateral shear force 6TIQ between zero and maximum load, the restraint provided by the
beams may increase or decrease independently of the formation
of plastic hinges in the restraining system.
5.3
change with the formation of plastic hinges as was the case for
steel beams.
Art. 5.5.
5~2
Initial Restraint
The term initial restraint is also used in this
Chapter to denote the rotational restraint at the top of a restrained column prior to the formation of the first plastic
hinge in the restraining system.
8~.
it must be
If electronic computation
5.3
14
5.3
-88-
(which is
simila~
to Fig. 12(b)).
In addition, it
1J
(Fig. 14) can be found when joints i, j and (j+l) all undergo
small equal sway displacements,
~/2.
The slope-deflection
E
M .. =
1J
M..
J1
I ..
1J
L ..
1J
(74 )
(75)
5.3
-89-
== E Ij(j+l)
(76)
Lj(j+I)
in Art. 5.3.1.
K ..
1J
=6
(77)
h Ii(i-l)
L.(.
]. 1- 1)1.
1
(78)
h I ..
1J
L .. 1.
1J ].
(79)
5.3
-90-
13 ==
h I ..
1J
L .. 1.
(80)
lJ J
(8l)
= 8(j+l)'
as follows:
(contd. )
5.3.1
-91-
(Bla)
5.3.1
Slope-Deflection Coefficients
AI' A2 and A3 in Eq. 77 may be found by deriving the slope-deflection equations for beam ij, Fig. 15(a), which yield
(82)
4C 2_ C 2
4C 2_ C 2
(83)
-92-
where
I ..
C
l
(I-b) 3 [ I ij
= -21.
I ..
1J
I ..
1J
1]
3
+ b [
I ij
I ..
1J
I ..
I ij
1] (2b+l) + b2r-iij
I ..
1J
I ..
1J
I ..
1J
C = 2L _ (1-b)2[
2
(84)
- IJ
- 1J
( 3-2b)
(85)
is shown as bL ...
1J
(86)
(87)
(88)
5.3.1
-93-
where
C =
1
I ..
~
I
_ (l_b)3[ii j
I ..
. 1J
ij
I..
c3 = I:~
- (I-a)
I- ..
+ a
3[I.. ] 3[1..
]
I:~
I:: - 1 + b
- 1
(89)
(91)
If positive moment exists at joint i and negative moment at joint j, the moments of inertia in these two regions
will be distributed as shown in Fig. 15(c).
C1 =
I ..
1J
I
- (I-b) 3 "[, Ir ij
ij
ij
(92)
1+b 2
I ..
1J
I ..
lJ
- 1] (3-2b)
(93)
5.3.1
-94-
C
3
= l+b
3[ r.
( 94)
I ..
1J
1J
E I ..
M.. ==
1J
E I ..
1J
__
l ......
J
L ..
1J
M ..
J1
E I..
= __l-..J_
L ij
8.
L..
1J
A 8 . + A 8i
2
3 J
= KJo i
E I ..
J.J
Lij
e.
(95)
(96)
(97)
(98)
K ..
1)
K .. = A
3
J1
A 2
2
A
3
K .. - A
l]
1
- Al
( 99)
-95-
5.4
A similar expression can be derived for Ki(i-l)
5.4
As
K_ _ based only on the plastic hinges which form within the sway
1J
1 occurs before 3:
gener~l
ei
The
may be de-
slope deflection
equations.
M1-(1--1)
= ---------E Ii(i-l)
Li(i-l)
[_
e +
1-
A2 e(i-I) ]
(100)
-96-
5.4
M(i-l)i
Li(i-l)
- 8. ]
+ A
1 (l-l)
2 l
e.
(101)
inste~d
of beam ij.
Solving Eqs.
95 and 96 yield
(102)
Ki(i-l)
2.
3 occurs after 1:
3 occurs before 1:
4.
6 or 7 occurs:
Solving these
K.. =
1J
A 2
A1 - 2A3
(103)
5.5
-97-
5 occurs after 6 or 7:
ij
reduces from
4 occurs:
5.5
at contlnuous
composl"t e
o~
moment regions by plastification of the steel beam and by crushing of the concrete slab over the full slab width.
In the ne-
However,
5.5
-98General~y,
in an investigation of the ultimate strength behavior of composite beams under combined loads.
fined as:
1.
The leeward
Unless provision
5.5
-99-
4.
previo~s
It might be ex-
investigations (Ref. 7)
could be used to predict the ultimate moment capacity of crosssections within these regions.
5.5
-100-
ultimate strength.
combined loads.
th~ory
face in region 2 can be based on a crosssection consisting of the steel beam plus
a ,width of slab equal to the column face
width.
2.
The longitudi-
(This may not be the case if the slab overhangs the exterior column).
4.
6.
6.1
only necessary to evaluate the restraining moment, Mr , corresponding to each change in restraint stiffness, k, and then to
determine the value of constant restraining moment, M
r
corres-
The load-
6.1.1
Evaluation of M
Beams
The bending moments in an interior sway subassemblage
which result from gravity loads alone on the beams are shown by
-101-
-102-
6.1.1
the end of each beam will equal the fixed-end moments (Art. 2.2).
Assume for the present that the half story assemblage
containing this sway subassemblage, as well as the distribution
of the gravity loads on all the beams of the assemblage, is
symmetrical.
story assemblage or of any sway subassemblage within the assemblage will be zero whether the sway subassemblages are symmetricalor not.
tioD and the influence of initial sway deflection will be discussed in Chapter 7.
Consider now the effect of a small increment of lateral
shear force 6Q acting from the left on the sway subassemblage
shown in Fig. 16.
-103-
6.1.1
E I ...
oM ... = K ...
J1
J1
__
l"",,-J
8e.
L.
(104)
1J
E I ..
l~J 08.
8M .. = K .. _ _
1
1J
1J L. .
(105)
lJ
= K1.(1.-1)
6M Ci - 1 )i
= K(.1- 1)1
E I iCi - 1 )
88.
Li ( i-I)
1
E Ii(i-I)
L
i( i-I)
a8(1_1)
(106)
(107)
K1J... =
[
J.
2
88.
4] a8.
1
(108)
Similarly
(109)
-104-
6.1.1
E I ..
5M .. = K ..
J1
J J_
1J
L ..
1J
oe.l
at joint i as follows:
K.. - 4] 0. e .
. 1J
(110)
E I ..
eM .. = K ..
1J
1J
1J
L ..
1J
( Ill)
88.
E I iCi - l )
6M iC i-l)
OMCi-1)i
= KCi-1)i
KiC i-I)
E liC i-I)
L i ( i-I)
( 112)
08.
KiCi - 1 )
KCi-l~i
68.
- 4]
( 113)
o'~ moment,
6M,
will yield two values for the increment of joint rotation 08.;
1
-105-
6.1.1
will then be
given by
M
pM
(114)
pc
where
(0 <' p <' 2.0)
-
p = k.8.
l
(115 )
The reduced
yalues are now used in Eqs. 110 to 113 when determining the
second plastic hinge in the sway subassemblage.
A procedure
The load-deflection
-106-
6.1.2
curve of the restrained column and thus of the sway subassemblage can then be determined as discussed in Chapter 3 from the
appropriate design chart (Ref. 28) and the previously calculated
values of M and M
r
t.
to
The result
6.1.2
Evaluation of M
r
Beams
-107-
6.1.2
( 115)
1) 1.e(.1- 1) = A1 8 Cl_ 1 ) + A2 8 l
C1-
(116)
and
K1 C1- 1)8.1
= A3 9 i
+ A2 8Ci - 1 )
(117)
- 2
A
2
then
KCi-1)i +
KiCi - 1 )
= A3
-- -
KCi-1)i -
A1
(118)
Al
and
a8
Ci _1 )
08.
=
[ KCi-I:: -
Al ]
C119)
( 120)
-108-
6.2
E I ..
oM 1J
..
6M iC
= K ..
1J
1J
L ..
i-I) = Ki ( i-I)
6M Ci -
l )i = K(i-l)i
e121)
08.
1J
E liC i-I)
E l iC i-I)
LiC"i-l)
( 122)
88.
1
L iCi - 1 )
1\2
K( i-I)
Al ]
08.
C123)
Al
A2
and
with appropriate
6.2
6.2
-109-
occurred at points
~,
~,
and
in that order.
The analysis
and k
~espec
tively,and it was found that the second and third plastic hinges
formed at joint rotations of 8
P3
= k 3 83
and 83 .
of M and M
r
r
Therefore P2 = k 2 8 and
2
The
Similarly, the
in Fig. 17(a) (and in the design chart) which intersect the vertical axis at Pl/2, P2/ 2 , and P3/ 2 .
This segment
-110-
6.2
where point
e corresponds
plastic hinge.
Similarly,
= P3Mpc.
Consequently,
~,
e,
The segments
6.3
-lll-
Before com-
~/h
6.3
2M
pc
Ih.
assemblage.
blages which was discussed in Art. 2.6 requires that the ordinates Q, corresponding to a constant value of deflection index
~/h
~/h
illustrated in
Fig. 19 will be a conservative estimate of the actual loaddeflection curve of the story containing the sway subassemblages
providing all the assumptions made in the analysis are valid.
The sequence of formation of plastic hinges in the
story, the maximum shear resistance, the shear resistance and
sway deflection at working load, the mechanism load and deflection
6.3
-112-
One
7.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Art. 1.7.
However, it is
inevitable that in such a work as this, a few simplifying assumptions must be made.
Experimental
studies of full scale unbraced frames would be virtually impossible to perform efficiently and economically.
Studies should
show~
-113-
-114-
7.1
effeciency in applying the method and to the full use of electronic computation in obtaining the desired load-deflection
curves.
7.1
Analytical Studies
The result-
The dis-
When a plastic
-115-
This im-
Its effects
should be studied further and a procedure developed which would allow ,its inclusion in the sway
subassemblage method of analysis.
4.
5.
It may also be
7.2
-116-
Additional theoretical studies should be made concerning the ultimate strength behavior of composite
beams which are subjected to combined loads.
7.
Preliminary studies have shown that the sway subassemblage concept can be extended to provide information on which the necessary revisions of the
preliminary design can be made.
Such an extension
7.2
Experimental Studies
The first objective would be to obtain experimental
Of particular
interest, would be the lateral-load versus sway-deflection behavior of these restrained columns.
restraining beams.
at
7.2
-ll7-
This behavior
Of particular interest
would again be the load-deflection versus sway-deflection behavior of the one-story assemblage.
A listing of individual problems to be studied experi-
The load-deflection behavior and the failure characteristics 'of restrained "columns permitted to
sway considering both constant and variable res-
traint stiffness.
2.
The load-deflection behavior and" the failure characteristics of the restraining beams.
3.
7.2
-118-
5.
6.
7.
Evaluation of the interaction of the restraint provided to the columns in the one-story assemblage
and the formation of plastic hinges in the beams
and columns.
8.
colum~s
~ill
permitted to sway.
8.
SUMMARY
10 16
'
It is ideally suited as
effect.
tion 6f each story of the frame at either the maximum load capacity or the mechanism load.
liminary beam and column sizes, a sway analysis should be performed to verify the estimated sway deflection.
In addition to
mum lateral load capacity, the mechanism load, etc. are all
determined.
-119-
-120-
simulate the
~ction
The
It also
A recent pilot
-121-
The approxi-
These effects
and others are suggested as possible areas for future analytical and experimental research.
The third phase of the complete design
p~ocess
- the
be extended in order to provide information on which the necessary revisions can be made.
-122-
NOMENCLATURE
A, A
Slope-deflection coefficient
Slope-deflection coefficient
Depth of section
Modulus of Elasticity
Shape factor
Story height
I, I
Moment of Inertia
Restraint coefficient
k, k
Restraint stiffness
Span length
M
P
Plastic moment
MpC
Story
Level
-123-
p
p
..
Axial force
Yield stress level of axial force
Horizontal force
Moment ratio
Section Modulus
h/r
p/p
x
y
b:.
10.
FIGURES
-124-
-125-
t::J:::J=:rtI::I:t::I::I:::J::J::I
I I
H -...
~7'
LOAD H
'7:7'
7'"
../!iIGID ~
--
'7:~
b
~::=-Ia----..,
~ {4s
Reduction Due
" 't!....c
..20
"~"(j
'....Ql;a
c~~
p ~ Mome!!.L
.
Maximum Load Capacity
="-~
o
DEFLECTION
FIG. 1
INSTABILITY
UNDER
COMBINED LOADS
-126-
GOVERNING
DESIGN CONDITIONS
CONVENTION
Level
I
Stor-y
2
Gravity Load
Conditions
3
4
5
6
Transition Zone
n,2
m+2
n -I
m+1
n
m
n+1
n+2
m-' I
3
2
I
FIG. 2
-127-
B G
--
--........
---
--........
D
I
1.3 wAB
I
rTT
13wB~
1.3wCD
IT
rrr
2
3
n+1
IT
ITT
IT
n-I
TT
n-r
n+1
I
Hn- I
Hn
H n+ 1 ----...-&..0.10.--..1-&-...+-1-....&.....O~"""---I..
...............__1
n-I
n+1
,
I
n+1
d) COMBINED MECHANISM
n-I
n
I
I
I
n+1
I
I
e) SWAY MECHANISM
FIG. 3
-128-
p(n -1)8
p( n-I) 0
P(n-I)C
~B2Hn-.L I ~cLHn-1
~LHn"l
I
hn- I
2
(n)
Hn
hn
2
~J:Hn
AALH n
PnA
Pnc
Lac
A
FIG. 4
PoD
LCD
c
ONE-STORY ASSEMBLAGE
-129-
p(n- UB
M(n-I)B
1.3w AS
Pne
Lee
M(n-I)A
LCD
PnD
hn- I
- P (n-I)A
An-I
hn- I
2
P(n-I)B
An-I
2
hn-I
(AcIQn-l) 2
p(n-I)C
An-I
2
- p(n-I)O
6 n-1
2
: - (AA LQ n-d
M(n-I)B : - (ABLQn-1 )
M (n-I)C
=-
M(n-I)D
= - (AoIQn-l)
FIG. 5
-hn-,
2
HALF-STORY ASSEMBLAGE
-130-
B
' L.
MnA
0
L
PnA
(n)
(a) WINDWARD
l!D
2
(b) INTERIOR
(c) INTERIOR
QnC
(n)
(d) LEEWARD
FIG. 6
-131-
hn
2
(0)
FIG. 7
(b)
-132-
~M
...
.h.
2
1.0
Qh
----2M pc
Eq 20
.
~CJ
(b
,~
o
FIG. 8
Eq. .15
...
-Ah
LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE OF A RESTRAINED COLUMN
WITH CONSTANT RESTRAINT STIFFNESS
-133-
Jl
2
Qh
2Mpc
h
FIG. 9
-134-
.h..
2
1.0
Qh
-2M
pc
A
h
FIG. 10
-135-
!l.
2
Q,+Q
----_Q
, : - - (0)
(b)
1.0
Qh
2M pc
l:1
(c)
FIG. 11
-136-
(0)
P.
LIJ
p.
L j(j +1)
(b)
FIG. 12
(j + I)
-137-
(i'-I)
~M
-=
1.3 wi (i-I)
--.....-......
, ....,-..-,--.,~-or----r'--'--I
Qi
II
1.3 Wij
-h2
FIG. 13
(j +1)
Lij
p.I I
P.
__
IIJ
9?
8i
~
FIG. l4
Lj(j+1)
Iij
7?=
8j
, Ij{j+O
I j(j~1)
iit
8j
liJ
DERIVATION OF INITIAL RESTRAINT COEFFICIENTS
FOR COMPOSITE BEAMS
l--J
LN
00
I
-139-
bLij
(0)
i al"
...
1- Ii~~I-
(1-0 -b) L
IJ
IIJ
bLIJ
-I 1
I ij
(b)
(l-b)L.
'J
IIJ
bLIJ
IIJ
~I
(c)
FIG. 15
-140-
(i -I)
FIG. 16
-141-
Qh
2M pc
1.0
(0)
FIG. 17
-142-
Qh
2M pc
1.0
o ..-::;;..---~--------.;;~---~~._-----~-------~
~
,h
Q ---
c
P
~-'
Py
FIG. 18
(b)
-143-
Load-Deflection Curve of an
Interior Sway Subassemblage
I
I
I
I
I
L (j (max.)
I
- - I Q (mechanism)
Load-Deflection Curve
of the Story
-------~/h
FIG. 19
11.
1.
REFERENCES
Tall, et.al.
Beedle, L .. S.
Levi, V.
6.
Yura, J. A.
8.
9.
10.
Hansell, W.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF UNBRACED MULTI-STORY FRAMES
Ph.D. Dissertation, Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report
No. 273.38, Lehigh University, May 1966.
-144-
-145-
11.
12.
Horne, M. R.
INSTABILITY AND THE PLASTIC THEORY OF STRUCTURES,
Trans, Eng. Inst. Canada, Vol. 4, No.2, 1960.
13.
Ostapenko, A.
Chapter 13, PLASTIC DESIGN OF MULTI-STORY FRAMES ~
LECTURE NOTES, Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report
No. 273.20, Lehigh University, August 1965.
14.
15.
Horne, M. R.
17.
Parikh, B. P.
Heyman, J.
20.
-146-
21.
Stevens, L. K.
DIRECT DESIGN BY LIMITING DEFORMATIONS, Proc. Instn.
Civil Engineers, Vol. 16, pp. 235-238, July 1960.
22.
Stevens, L. K.
Gent, A. R.
THE DESIGN OF FRAME STRUCTURES CONSIDERING STRENGTH,
STABILITY AND DEFLECTIONS, Proc. Instn. Civil Engineers,
Vol. 23, pp. 337-360, November 1962.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Daniels, J. H.
29.
30.
-147-
31.
Driscoll, G. C. Jr.
Chapter 6, PLASTIC DESIGN OF MULTI-STORY FRAMES LECTURE NOTES, Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report
No. 273.20, Lehigh University, August 1965.
32.
Horne, M. R.
SYMPOSIUM ON THE PLASTIC THEORY OF STRUCTURES Multi-Story Frames, British Welding Journal, Vo~. 3,
No.8, August 1956.
33.
McNamee, B. M.
THE GENERAL BEHAVIOR AND STRENGTH OF MULTI-STORY
FRAMES UNDER GRAVITY LOADING, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Lehigh University, 1967, University Microfilms, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
34.
35.
Lu, Le-Wu
DESIGN OF BRACED MULTI-STORY FRAMES BY THE PLASTIC
METHOD, AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, No.1,
January 1967.
36.
37.
38.
English, J. M.
DESIGN OF FRAMES BY RELAXATION OF YIELD HINGES, Trans.
ASCE, Vol. 119, 1954, p. 1143.