Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Sources of elastic deformation in steel frame and framed-tube structures:

Part 1: Simplified subassemblage models
Finley A. Charney ∗ , Rakesh Pathak
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States

Received 4 August 2006; accepted 8 May 2007

Abstract

Three simple models for including the effect of beam–column joint deformation in the analysis of steel moment resisting frame and framed
tube structures are presented. The first model, called the Fictitious Joint model, is based on two-dimensional frame analysis and is useful for
preliminary analysis only. The second model, called the Krawinkler Joint model, and the third model, known as the Scissors Joint model, use an
assembly of rigid links and rotational springs to represent the joint, and may be used in preliminary and final analysis of full structural systems.
All derivations are provided in the form of “displacement participation factors”, which allow a detailed breakdown of the various components of
subassemblage displacement.
When applied to isolated beam–column subassemblages, it is shown that all three modeling approaches produce the same general expression
for computing deflections arising from shear deformations in the panel zone region. However, the Krawinkler and Scissors models do not include
the effects of flexural deformation within the beam–column joint, whereas the Fictitious Joint model does. While not the dominant source of
deformation, it is shown in the paper that the effects of flexural deformations in the beam–column joint should not be ignored.
It is also shown in this paper that the overall displacements predicted by the simplified models correlate very well with displacements computed
from detailed three dimensional finite element analysis of the same subassemblage. However, the finite element analysis approach, taken alone,
is not capable of providing a breakdown of the subassemblage displacements into components, such as panel zone shear, or column joint flexure.
Part 2 of the paper presents a method for providing this information from the results of detailed finite element analysis.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Steel structures; Moment resisting frames; Panel zone deformations; Structural analysis

1. Introduction and background
The effect of beam–column joint deformations on the lat-
eral load response of steel moment resisting frames and framed
tubes has been studied in detail [1–16]. In these references,
there is general agreement that it is essential that beam–column
joint deformations be included in structural analysis, and vari-
ous approaches are provided for including such effects. These
approaches may basically be broken into two types. In the first
type, the beam–column joint region is modeled explicitly, us-
ing an assemblage of rigid links, rotational springs, and shear
panels. The second approach uses standard frame analysis, with
joint deformations being considered through the use of a mod-
ified force distribution in the beam–column joint region.
∗ Corresponding address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, 200 Patton Hall, Mail Stop 105D, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States.
Tel.:+1 540 231 1444; fax: +1 540 231 7532.
E-mail address: fcharney@vt.edu (F.A. Charney).
Krawinkler [5] was the first to propose a mechanical
beam–column joint model, which is applicable to both
linear and nonlinear analysis. A similar, but less complex
model, called the Scissors model has been proposed by
a variety of researchers. As documented by Charney and
Marshall [16], there appears to be confusion as to the
properties to use in the mechanical models, particularly in the
Scissors model. However, when properly used, the mechanical
models are reasonably accurate when compared to experimental
results [12]. One of the key advantages of the mechanical
models is that they may be used in the structural analysis of
full structural systems.
In the standard frame analysis approach, the deformations
in the joint region are considered through a modification
of the forces in the joint regions of the structure. This
technique is most often applied to isolated subassemblages,
and is not applicable to full frames unless certain compatibility
requirements are relaxed. For example, the method may be used

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0143-974X/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.05.008
88 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100
if a two-dimensional frame is represented as an assemblage of
subassemblages, where compatibility is relaxed by assuming
that there are points of inflection at the mid-span of girders and
mid-height of columns. The standard frame analysis approach
may also be used to estimate the effect of beam–column joint
deformations on a structure which has been analyzed without
explicit modeling of the joints. In this case, a virtual work based
post-processor is used, as described in Charney [8].
There is one significant difference between the mechanical
models and the frame models, and this has to do with the
modeling of flexural deformations in the beam–column joint.
In the mechanical models, deflection resulting from flexural
flexibility in the joint is ignored, and stiffness associated with
bending in the column flanges is included. In the frame model,
exactly the opposite is done; the bending in the joint region is
considered, and added stiffness associated with column flange
bending is ignored. The result is that a given subassemblage
modeled with the two different approaches will have different
stiffness, with the mechanical model being the stiffer of the two.
Because the effect of flexural deformations in the joint
region is significant [9], it is desirable to modify the mechanical
models to include such deformations. Downs [12] provided
preliminary recommendations incorporating such deformations
in the Krawinkler model, but final implementation of the
approach requires a better understanding of the true pattern
and effect of deformations within the beam–column joint.
This understanding is obtained through detailed finite element
analysis, and is presented in Part 2 of this paper [17].
2. Objectives and scope
The objective of the work presented in this paper is to present
and determine the overall accuracy of three simple models for
computing the effect of beam–column joint deformations on
lateral load induced displacements of steel moment resisting
frames and framed tube structures. The accuracy is assessed
by comparing the total subassemblage drift computed by the
simplified models with results obtain from detailed three-
dimensional finite element analysis.
It is important to note that this paper does not specifically
address the influence of axial deformations in the columns. This
can be a very significant source of deformation in tall steel
frames, and particularly in framed-tubes. An earlier conference
paper by Charney [8] does address axial deformations in frames
and tube structures as tall as 50 stories. Axial deformations are
included in a similar manner in part 3 of the current paper. Part
3 will be published in a different issue of the same journal in
which parts 1 and 2 appeared.
The first two simplified models are mechanical models, and
the third is a frame model. The mechanical models are referred
herein as the Krawinkler Joint (KJ) model and the Scissors
Joint (SJ) model. A detailed history and description of the
mechanical models is provided in Charney and Marshall [16].
The frame model is called the Fictitious Joint (FJ) model. The
name for this model comes from the fact that the beam–column
joint is not modeled explicitly. Instead, it is represented as a part
of the column, and the deformation in the joint region is based
Table 1
Basic subassemblages considered for analysis
Designation Beam size Beam span Column size Column
(m (ft)) height
(m (ft))
A W770 × 220 4.57 (15) W360 × 382 3.81(12.5)
(W30 × 148) 6.10 (20) (W14 × 257)
7.62 (25)
B W770 × 220 4.57 (15) W610 × 372 3.81(12.5)
(W30 × 148) 6.10 (20) (W24 × 250)
7.62 (25)
on (gross) simplifications of the pattern of shear and flexural
stresses within the joint region.
The three different joint models are presented through the
use of a virtual work procedure, called the Displacement
Participation Factor (DPF) approach [8,18,19]. After the
theoretical background is presented, the DPF procedure is used
to analyze two basic subassemblages. Each is run with three
different beam spans (4.57 m (15 ft), 6.10 m (20 ft), and
7.62 m (25 ft)), and with and without beam flange continuity
plates. The basic list of subassemblages considered is shown in
Table 1. Individual subassemblages are designated by a three
part symbol consisting of basic designation, beam span (in
feet), and presence of continuity plates. For example, B20c
represents basic subassemblage B with a 20 ft. (6.10 m) beam
span, with continuity plates. The same subassemblage without
continuity plates is B20n.
When continuity plates are used, they are positioned top and
bottom, on each side of the column web, and are of the same
thickness as the flange of the beam. The width of the continuity
plate is taken as the lesser of the width of the projecting
flange width of the beam or column. Web doubler plates are
not considered in the analysis performed herein, but they are
included in all derivations. Even though the doubler plates are
not explicitly included in the examples, the benefits of using
doubler plates to reduce drift are briefly discussed.
After the derivations are presented, the results of the
analyses of the subassemblages indicated in Table 1 are
presented and discussed.
3. Overview of displacement participation factor (DPF)
approach
Consider the structure of Fig. 1(a), which is subjected to the
“Real” lateral loads shown on the left side of the structure.
A simple two-dimensional frame analysis program has been
used to determine the lateral (x) deflection at the upper right of
the structure (node 28). This deflection is designated as ∆28x.
The analysis was based on centerline dimensions, with axial,
flexural, and shear deformations included.
It is now desired to determine how much the highlighted
column (C10) contributes to the designated deflection. To
do so, the real loads are removed, and a virtual force Q̂ is
applied at the location of and in the direction of ∆28x. The
column’s contribution to the displacement, called the column’s
 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100 89

Fig. 1. Planar frame under real or virtual loading.

Displacement Participation Factor, is given by the familiar

virtual work expression
"Z
1 H P(x) P̂(x) Z H
M(x) M̂(x)
∆28x
∇C10,T = dx +
Q̂ 0 E AC 0 E IC
#
V (x)V̂ (x)
Z H
+ dx (1)
0 G AC S

where P(x), V (x) and M(x) are the “real” axial force,
shear, and moment functions along the length of the element,
P̂(x), V̂ (x) and M̂(x) are the “virtual” force functions in the
element (arising from the application of Q̂), H is the length
of the element, E and G are the elastic and shear modulus,
respectively, and AC , IC and AC S , are the cross sectional
properties of the column.
Fig. 2. Typical beam–column subassemblage.
It is clear from Eq. (1) that the column’s contribution to the
deflection consists of axial, flexural, and shear components. If A similar approach could be used to determine how the
DPFs for all of the beams and columns of the structure were highlighted subassemblage (Sub. A) of Fig. 1(a) contributes
available, it would be seen that to a global displacement, such as the x-direction displacement
at node 28. In this case the contribution of the beam, column,
ncols nbeams
X
∆28x
X and beam–column joint region would be computed. A different
∆28x = ∇Ci,T + ∇ B∆j,T
28x
(2)
i=1 j=1
virtual load pattern, such as that shown in Fig. 1(b), could
be used to determine subassemblage A’s contribution to the
where the summation ranges over the total number of columns interstory drift (δ3) at level three of the structure.
and beams. It is also of interest to analyze an isolated subassemblage
As seen in Eq. (1), the basic symbol for a DPF is the inverted that is not part of a larger structure. Such a subassemblage
triangle, with a double subscript and a single superscript, (which might be a laboratory specimen) is shown in Fig. 2.
∆ . The superscript represents the “designated
as follows: ∇C,S Here, DPFs are used to determine how the column, beam,
displacement”, which in the case of the previous example, was and joint of the subassemblage contribute to the total drift,
∆28x. The first subscript, C, represents the named component δ, as illustrated in Fig. 3. This total drift is the designated
of the structure for which the DPF is computed. There are displacement for the subassemblage, and hence, the DPF
numerous possibilities here, but B, C, and J serve as examples terms for isolated subassemblage analysis will have δ as a
for beam, column, and joint, respectively. The subscript, S, superscript. All derivations presented in this paper are based
represents the deformation source, and can be either A, F, S, or on the assumption that the subassemblage is isolated.
T for axial, flexure, shear, or total, respectively. For example, In the remainder of this paper, derivations are provided for
from Eq. (1) it is seen that computing DPFs for the FJ, KJ, and SJ models. When doing
so, the subassemblage is divided into column, beam, and joint
∆28x ∆28x ∆28x ∆28x
∇C10,T = ∇C10,A + ∇C10,F + ∇C10,S . (3) components. DPFs for the portions of the column and beam
90 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100
Fig. 3. Beam–column subassemblage used in analysis.
outside the joint region are identical for each of the models,
and these are called the clear span DPF components. The DPF
for the joint region represents the portion of the column which
passes through the joint, the beam flange continuity plates, and
the doubler plates.
After the simple model derivations are presented, the results
of the analysis of subassemblage A20c and A20n are described
in detail. The purpose of this analysis and related discussion is
to describe basic features of the behavior of the subassemblage,
and to set up the discussion for the detailed finite element
analysis.
Finally, comparisons for the simplified and detailed analysis
of all of the subassemblages are presented and discussed. A
general statement on the accuracy of the analysis is made, and
recommendations are provided for use by the design profession.
4. Computation of DPF for the fictitious panel zone model
The subassemblage to be analyzed is shown in Fig. 2. This
subassemblage is extracted from a frame by assuming that
inflection points occur at mid span of the beams on either side of
the joint, and at mid-height of the columns above and below the
joint. It is further assumed that the beams on either side of the
joint are of the same section and length, and that the columns
above and below the joint are the same section and length (but
not necessarily the same as the beam).
To simplify the derivations, the dimensionless parameters α
and β are defined:
dCe
α= (4)
L βH
d Be
β= (5)
H αL
where L is the length of the beam (the bay width) and H is
the height of the column (story height), and dCe and d Be are
the effective depths of the column and beam, respectively. As
shown in Fig. 2, these depths are taken as the distance between
the centers of the flanges of the sections. Another possible
definition of the effective depth, using out-to-out dimensions,
is discussed later.
It is desired to determine how much the various components
of the subassemblage contribute to the drift along the height of
the subassemblage, so equal and opposite virtual forces Q̂ are
applied at the top and bottom of the column, as shown in Fig. 3.
The shear in the column resulting from this force is designated
as V̂C , and all other virtual subassemblage forces are related
to this force. A carat (ˆ) over the appropriate symbol identifies
quantities as virtual. While the derivation would be simplified
by using a unit value for Q̂ this is not done because the presence
of Q̂ in the various equations provides force unit consistency.
Maintaining Q̂ in the derivations also allows the formulas to be
used to determine a subassemblage’s contribution to a global
displacement as shown in Fig. 1. In this case, VC is taken as the
average of the real shears in the upper and lower half column,
and V̂C is the average of the virtual shears in the upper and
lower half column. Note, however, that an additional source
of deformation, due to beam and column axial deformations,
would need to be included.
The components analyzed consist of the clear span region
of the column, the clear span region of the beam, and the
portion of the column that is described as the joint. The joint
includes beam flange continuity plates and doubler plates,
when present. Only shear and flexural deformations need to
be considered because there are no axial forces acting on the
isolated subassemblage.
The total displacement along the height of the subassem-
blage is the same as the total DPF for the subassemblage, as
follows:
δ = ∇Tδ = ∇C,F
δ δ
+ ∇C,S δ
+ ∇ B,F δ
+ ∇ B,S + ∇ δJ,F + ∇ δJ,S . (6)
The shears and moments in the clear spans of the beam
and column are easily determined because the subassemblage
is statically determinate. The forces inside the joint region
are indeterminate, however, and a simplifying assumption is
required to resolve these forces. The assumption made is
that the beam and column moments that enter the joint are
completely resolved into flange force couples. This is shown in
the free-body diagram of Fig. 4, where the subassemblage has
been divided into the component parts. Note that the lower half-
column and the left half-beam have been omitted from Fig. 4 for
clarity.
The flange forces are designated as FBF for the beams and
FCF for the columns, and are computed from equilibrium as
follows:
0.5L(1 − α)(VC H/L) 0.5VC (1 − α)
FBF = = (7)
β
0.5VC H (1 − β)
FCF = . (8)
Force, shear, and moment diagrams for the full height of the
column are shown in Fig. 5. Similar diagrams for the beam are
presented in Fig. 6. The force diagram for the column shows
the left and right beam flange forces entering the column at
the top and bottom of the joint region. Using Fig. 5, it is seen
that the horizontal shear in the joint region of the column is
VCJ = VC − 2FBF , which simplifies to
 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100 91

(1 − α − β)
VCJ = VC . (9)
β
Note that the shear force is taken as a positive quantity.
The vertical shear force, VBJ , in the joint region of the column
is similarly determined. From Fig. 6, it is seen that VBJ =
VB − 2FCF , which after some substitution and manipulation
results in
VC H (1 − α − β)
VBJ = . (10)
L α
It is important to note that the shear stress in the joint
region is the same whether computed from the horizontal or
the vertical shear force:
VCJ VBJ VC (1 − α − β)
τJ = = = (11a)
αLt p β Htp αβ Lt p
where t p is the thickness of the panel zone including doubler
plates, if present. If the numerator and denominator of Eq. (11a)
Fig. 4. Free body diagram of subassemblage components. are multiplied by H , the expression for shear stress may be
simplified to
VC H (1 − α − β) VC H (1 − α − β)
τJ = = (11b)
αβ L H t p vp
where v p = αβ L H t p is the effective volume of the panel zone.
From the moment diagrams of Figs. 5 and 6, it is seen that
the moments at the center of the column and beam, MCC and
MBC , respectively, are not exactly zero. The column moment is
MCC = 0.5H VC − 0.5β H (2FBF )
which simplifies to
MCC = 0.5VC H α. (12)
Similarly, the moment at the center of the beam is
VC H
MBC = 0.5L − 0.5αL(2FCF )
L
which simplifies to
Fig. 5. Column force diagrams.
MBC = 0.5VC Hβ. (13)
Clearly, equilibrium is not exactly satisfied at the center of
the joint because MCC and MBC are not equal. This small error
is due to the assumption that all of the moment is resisted by
the flange of the beam and column.
Given the moments and forces along the length of the
elements, it is now possible to derive the displacement
participation factors. This will be done first for the clear span
portions of the beam and column, and then for the joint region.
The real shears and moments in the clear span region of
the subassemblage are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The virtual
shears and moments are identical, with the exception that (for
example) V̂C is used in lieu of VC . Using these forces, the DPFs
for the portion of the beams and columns outside the joint are
as follows:
2 0.5H (1−β) VC V̂C V̂C VC H (1 − β)
Z
δ
Fig. 6. Beam force diagrams. ∇C,S = dx = (14)
Q̂ 0 G A SC Q̂ G A SC
92 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100

2
Z 0.5L(1−α) VC H V̂C H V̂C VC H 2 (1 − α)
δ L L
∇ B,S = dx = (15)
Q̂ 0 G AS B Q̂ LG A S B
2
Z 0.5H (1−β)
VC x V̂C x
δ
∇C,F = dx
Q̂ 0 E IC
V̂C VC H 3 (1 − β)3
= (16)
Q̂ 12E IC
V H x V̂C H x
2 0.5L(1−α) CL
Z
δ L
∇ B,F = dx
Q̂ 0 E I B
V̂C VC H 2 L(1 − α)3
= . (17)
Q̂ 12E I B
The terms A SC and A S B represent the effective shear areas
of the column and beam cross sections. For all computations
presented in this paper, these areas are computed using Fig. 7. Effective section for beam joint flexure.
Cowper’s detailed formula [20]. A complete summary of the
computation of shear areas in wide flange sections is provided
in Charney et al. [21].
The DPFs as presented in Eqs. (14) through (17) include
columns and beams on both sides of the joint (hence the “2”
on the left of the integral sign). DPFs for a centerline analysis
of the subassemblage may be obtained from Eqs. (14) through
(17) by setting α and β to zero.
The DPF for the joint region of the subassemblage consists
of three parts: shear in the panel, column flexure in the panel,
and beam flexure in the panel. The DPF due to shear is based on
the horizontal shear force in the column part of the joint. Using
Eq. (9) and its virtual counterpart

1
Z β H VC (1−α−β) V̂C (1−α−β)
β β
∇ δJ,S = dx
V̂C 0 GαLt p
V̂C VC H (1 − α − β)2
= .
Q̂ αβG Lt p
Eq. (18a) may be simplified somewhat by multiplying the
numerator and denominator by H , and by recognizing the
product αLβ H t p as the volume of the panel, v p resulting in
V̂C VC H 2 (1 − α − β)2
∇ δJ,S = .
Q̂ Gv p
Note that there is no additional contribution from the vertical
beam shear as expressed in Eq. (10) because the shear stresses
in the beam–column joint region can only be counted once.
In fact, Eq. (18) could have been derived using the beam
joint shear. This was not done, however, because the joint is
physically part of the column, not the beam.
Derivation of the DPF due to joint flexure is based on the
moments and shears shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for the column
and beam, respectively. Before the derivations are presented,
it is noted that there is significant uncertainty as to the proper
moment of inertia to use in the joint region. For beam joint
flexure, the moment of inertia depends on whether or not
beam flange continuity plates are present. When such plates are
present, the effective bending section is assumed to be as shown
(18a)
Fig. 8. Effective section for column joint flexure.
(18b) in Fig. 7(a), and the moment of inertia is computed using Eq.
(19a). When the continuity plates are not present, the effective
section is as shown in Fig. 7(b), and the moment of inertia
is computed from Eq. (19b). If doubler plates are used, they
should be included in the computation of effective moment of
inertia within the joint. This is shown schematically in Fig. 7,
and mathematically in Eqs. (19a) and (19b) by the addition of
the term IBDP . It is noted that the schematic representation of
the doubler plate in Fig. 7 is somewhat different than may be
used in practice, where for example, the plate extends above
and below the beam.
For joint column flexure, the effective cross section is shown
in Fig. 8, and the related moment of inertia, in absence of dou-
bler plates, is taken to be equal to IC . As with the beam, doubler
plates should be included when present. The plate is shown in
Fig. 8, and is represented by the term ICDP in Eq. (19c).
 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100 93

Table 2
Ratios of actual to simplified DPFs for column and beam joint flexure

Columns Beams
β = 0.10 β = 0.15 β = 0.20 β = 0.25 β = 0.30 β = 0.10 β = 0.15 β = 0.20 β = 0.25 β = 0.30
α = 0.10 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.12 1.19 1.27 1.35 1.44
α = 0.15 1.19 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.13 1.21 1.29 1.38 1.48
α = 0.20 1.27 1.29 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.14 1.22 1.31 1.41 1.52
α = 0.25 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.48 1.15 1.24 1.34 1.44 1.56
α = 0.30 1.44 1.48 1.52 1.56 1.61 1.16 1.26 1.37 1.48 1.61

" #
3 b
d B3 twC tcp cp insets of Figs. 5 and 6. If this is done, it can be shown [12] that
IBJ = +4 + tcp bcp (0.5(d B − tcp ))2 the joint flexure DPFs are as follows:
12 12
+ IBDP (19a) V̂C VC H 3 β(1 − β)2
∇ δJ,C F(simple) = (22)
d 3 twC Q̂ 12E ICJ
IBJ = B + IBDP (19b)
12 V̂C VC H 2 Lα(1 − α)2
ICJ = IC + ICDP . (19c) ∇ δJ,B F(simple) = . (23)
Q̂ 12E IBJ
Another factor to consider in determining the effective Before proceeding, it is interesting to compare the joint
moments of inertia in the joint region is the fact that the flexural contributions based on the Actual or the Simplified
portions of the column and beam outside the joint provide moment diagram within the joint. For columns, the ratio of the
flexural restraint for the joint. This is shown schematically by Actual to Simplified DPF is
the “possible zone of influence” in Figs. 7 and 8. To account for
this effect Downs [12] recommended that a multiplier of 1.5 be 3β(1 − α) + (1 − α − β)2
RATIOCJF = (24)
applied to the effective moments of inertia in the joint region. (1 − α)2
Multipliers were not used in the examples shown in this paper.
and the ratio for beams is
However, the use of the multipliers is investigated in part 2 of
this paper [17]. 3α(1 − β) + (1 − α − β)2
RATIOBJF = . (25)
The column joint flexure DPF is based on the moment shown (1 − β)2
in Fig. 5, where the moment is MCC + VCJ x. Substituting from
Table 2 lists the computed ratios for α and β ranging from
Eqs. (9) and (12), the DPF for column joint flexure is
0.10 to 0.30 in increments of 0.05. As may be seen, there is a
βH
1
Z
2 VC V̂C

Hα (1 − α − β)
2 significant difference in the DPFs for flexure based on the actual
∇ δJ,C F = 2 + x dx and simplified moments in the joint region, particularly for the
Q̂ 0 E ICJ 2 β
larger values of α and β. Without a detailed finite element
which when simplified is analysis of the subassemblage, there is no way to know which
approach produces the more accurate result.
V̂C VC H 3 β (1 − α − β)2
 
∇ δJ,C F = α(1 − β) + . (20)
Q̂ 4E ICJ 3 5. Mechanical joint models

The beam joint flexure DPF is based on the moment shown In both the KJ and SJ models the DPFs for the clear span
in Fig. 6, where the moment is MBC + VBJ x. Substituting from regions of the column and beam are the same as that given in
Eqs. (10) and (13), the DPF for beam joint flexure is Eqs. (14)–(17). And, as shown below, the DPF for the panel
Z αL shear is the same as that given in Eq. (18a) or (18b).
H (1 − α − β) 2
 
1 2 VC V̂C Hβ
∇ δJ,B F = 2 + x dx. The KJ model is shown in Fig. 9. As may be seen, the
Q̂ 0 E IBJ 2 αL model consists of four rigid links, connected at the corners by
Upon solving the integral and simplifying, hinges. Mathematical constraints may be used in lieu of the
links, but links are used herein because the links provide a
V̂C VC H 2 Lα (1 − α − β)2 better conceptual model of the joint. Rotational springs at the
 
∇ δJ,B F = β(1 − α) + . (21) upper left and the lower right provide the necessary stiffness.
Q̂ 4E IBJ 3
The upper left spring accounts for panel zone shear stiffness
Given the uncertainty of the moment distribution and and the lower right spring accounts for column flange stiffness.
effective section properties within the joint, it is reasonable to It is very important to note that the column flange stiffness is
adopt a simpler expression for the joint flexure components, not included in the FJ model, and that the beam–column joint
wherein the moment in the joint varies linearly from zero at bending flexibility is not included in the KJ model. Hence, the
the center of the joint to MCJ or MBJ for the column and beam, KJ model is stiffer than the FJ model. A similar problem exists
respectively. These revised moment diagrams are shown in the for the SJ model.
94 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100

Table 3
Summary of DPFs for isolated subassemblage

DPF Applicable equation Component

component applicable to model
(Y/N)
FJ KJ SJ
VC H (1−β)
Column shear G A SC Y Y Y
VC H 2 (1−α)
Beam shear LG A S B Y Y Y
VC H 3 (1−β)3
Column 12E IC Y Y Y
flexure
VC H 2 L(1−α)3
Fig. 9. Krawinkler Joint model. Beam flexure 12E I B Y Y Y
VC H 2 (1−α−β)2
Joint shear Gv p Y Y Y
VC H 2 Lα (1−α−β)2
Joint beam 4E IBJ [β(1−α)+ 3 ] Y Y N
flexure
(actual)
VC H 3 β (1−α−β)2
Joint column 4E ICJ [α(1 − β) + 3 ] Y Y N
flexure
(actual)
VC H 2 Lα(1−α)2
Joint beam 12E IBJ Y N N
flexure
(simplified)
VC H 3 β(1−β)2
Joint column 12E ICJ Y N N
flexure
Fig. 10. Scissors Joint model. (simplified)

The KJ model, as originally developed by Krawinkler [5], Given expressions are for isolated subassemblage with V̂C / Q̂ = 1.0.
was slightly different than that depicted in Fig. 9, and was
intended to represent inelastic behavior. In the original model, column flange stiffness. As with the KJ model, the column
the shear stiffness was modeled by a shear membrane (instead flange effect will not be included herein.
of a rotational spring), and the column flange spring did not As shown in Charney and Marshall [16], the required
engage (had zero stiffness) until the panel yields in shear. rotational spring stiffness for the SJ model is
Hence, for linear elastic analysis, the column flange spring had KK J Gv p
no effect. Because all of the analysis reported in the current KSJ = = . (30)
(1 − α − β) 2 (1 − α − β)2
paper is for linear elastic systems, the column flange springs
are not considered. In this case, the beam moment in the spring is
According to Charney and Marshall [16] the required M S J = VC H. (31)
rotational spring stiffness of the KJ model is
Using Eq. (28), and recognizing that the virtual moment is
K K J = αLβ H t p G = v p G. (26) the same as above with V̂C substituted for VC , it is seen that
When the column shear is VC , the moment in the spring is
V̂C VC H 2 (1 − α − β)2
M K J = VCJ β H = V H (1 − α − β). (27) ∇ Sδ J = (32)
Q̂ Gv p
The virtual moment is the same, with V̂C being used in lieu which is exactly the same as for the FJ and KJ models.
of VC . The displacement participation for a rotational spring is For the reader’s convenience, the DPF expressions for all
three of the models are summarized in Table 3. Note that V̂C / Q̂
1 M M̂
∇ Kδ J = . (28) was taken as 1.0 for all expressions listed in the table.
Q̂ K K J
6. Three dimensional finite element analysis
Substituting from Eqs. (26) and (27)

V̂C VC H 2 (1 − α − β)2 To establish the relative accuracy of the derivations

∇ Kδ J = (29) presented above, the subassemblages indicated in Table 1 were
Q̂ Gv p
analyzed using the expressions summarized in Table 3, as well
which is exactly the same as that shown in Eq. (18a) for the FJ as through a detailed three dimensional finite element analysis
model. (FEA). In the FEA, the subassemblages were modeled via 8-
The SJ model is shown in Fig. 10, where it may be seen node three dimensional solid elements. The beam and column
that the column and beam are connected through two rotational of each model consisted of an assemblage of rectangular
springs, one representing panel shear, and the other representing flange and web plates, and as such, fillets were not included
 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100
Fig. 11. One-eighth finite element model.
in the finite element analysis. In order to produce a model
with maximum accuracy (a highest possible resolution mesh),
only 1/8 of the total subassemblage was modeled. Boundary
conditions used in the 1/8 model analysis were verified through
the analysis of full subassemblages. The detailed FEA was
performed using the program WoodFrameSolver [22] and was
verified using SAP2000 [23]. Fig. 11 shows the 1/8 model for
the subassemblage with continuity plates.
While the simplified models are able to provide a breakdown
of the contribution of subassemblage drift to the various
components of the subassemblage and to the different
sources of deformation, the FEA approach can only provide
total subassemblage drift. Hence, the only displacement
comparisons that are made are for total drift. Comparisons are
also provided for panel zone shear stress as provided by the
simplified formulas and the FEA method.
It is noted that it is possible to provide more detailed
comparisons between the simplified models and the FEA
approach by extending the DPF concept to the FEA results [20].
In fact, such a presentation is provided in the companion
paper [17] that is published in the same journal in which the
current paper appears.
7. Presentation of results
The results of the analysis are presented in two parts. First,
detailed results are presented and discussed for Subassemblages
A20n and A20c. This is followed by a summary of the results
of all subassemblage analysis, as well as correlation with the
results of the detailed finite element analysis.
Subassemblages A20n and A20c have a beam span of 6.10 m
(20 ft) and a column height of 3.81 m (12.5 ft). The column and
beam sections are W360 × 382 (W14 × 257) and W770 × 220
(W30 × 148), respectively. The modulus of elasticity of the
steel is taken as 200.0 GPa (29 000 ksi), and Poisson’s ratio
is 0.3. The column shear used in the analysis was 444.82 kN
(100 kips). Section properties used in the analysis were based
on the overall section dimensions, and did not include fillets.
This was done to provide consistency with the FEA which also
did not include fillets.
The results for subassemblage A20n are given in Table 4,
which has five parts. Part (a) shows the actual DPF values,
part (b) presents the values as a percentage of the total
95
subassemblage drift, part (c) gives the shear stresses in the panel
zone computed with Eq. (11), and part (d) provides the results
from the finite element analysis. Part (e) of the table presents
ratios of the simplified model results to the FEA results.
The columns in parts (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the tables
represent different assumptions used in the simplified analysis.
The two columns with the heading “Using Actual Joint
Moments” computes the joint flexure DPFs using Eqs. (20) and
(21). The two columns under the heading “Using Simplified
Joint Moments” are based on the simplified flexural formula
of Eqs. (22) and (23). Analysis was also run with center-to-
center joint dimensions, or out-to-out joint dimensions. Center-
to-center analysis uses the distance between the centers of the
flanges to determine the parameters α and β (see Eqs. (4) and
(5)), while the out-to-out method uses the total depth.
As may be seen from Table 4(a), the various assumptions
used in the analysis have a marginal effect on the total
deflection, which is in the range of 1.752–1.898 cm. From
Table 4(b), it may be seen that the combined shear deformations
in the clear span of the beams and columns accounts for about
15% of the total drift, and that shear deformation in the panel
zone alone is responsible for approximately 28% of the total
drift. Hence, all sources of shear deformation produce 43%
of the displacement in the subassemblage. Joint beam flexure
and joint column flexure, taken together, are responsible for
about 10–11% of the total drift. While smaller than the joint
shear contribution, this could not be considered as a negligible
source of deformation. The deflection due to all sources of joint
deformation is as high as 39.9% of the total subassemblage
drift.
When beam flange continuity plates are included, there is
a reduction in the beam joint flexure component only. This is
shown in Table 5, where it is seen that the contribution by beam
joint flexure has reduced to an average of about 2%. However,
the total joint flexural component is still not negligible, at about
8%.
The results from the finite element analysis are provided
in Tables 4(d), 5(d) for models A20n and A20c, respectively.
For model A20n, the FEA drift is 1.768 cm, which is
within the range of values (1.752–1.898 cm) computed from
the simplified model. The model using the out-to-out joint
dimensions produced the best correlation with the FEA.
The shear stress in the panel zone of Model A20n is 153.0
MPa for the center-to-center model, and 127.4 MPa for the out-
to-out model. The FEA shear stress 140.3 MPa, which is within
the range predicted by the simplified model. Similar agreement
is seen for subassemblage A20c (see Table 5(a) through 5(d)),
and for all of the other models analyzed. It is not apparent
that either approach produces better results than the other. It
is noted, however, that the average shear stress from the two
simplified approaches is almost identical to that computed using
FEA.
While not the main subject of this paper, it is interesting to
compute the Sensitivity Indices (SI) for the various components
of the subassemblage. These indices are equal to a DPF divided
by the volume of material in the component that contributed to
the DPF. Various SIs (multiplied by 100 000) are presented in
96 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100

Table 4
Results of analysis of subassemblage A20n

(a) Actual DPF values

Deformation source (cm) Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out
Beam flexure 0.495 0.482 0.495 0.482
Beam shear 0.106 0.105 0.106 0.105
Column flexure 0.377 0.366 0.377 0.366
Column shear 0.164 0.162 0.164 0.162
Joint beam flexure 0.093 0.105 0.074 0.083
Joint column flexure 0.100 0.103 0.092 0.094
Panel zone shear 0.563 0.459 0.563 0.459
Total 1.898 1.782 1.872 1.752

(b) Percent of total

Deformation source (%) Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out

Beam flexure 26.1 27.1 26.4 27.5

Beam shear 5.6 5.9 5.7 6.0
Column flexure 19.9 20.5 20.1 20.9
Column shear 8.6 9.1 8.8 9.3
Joint beam flexure 4.9 5.9 4.0 4.7
Joint column flexure 5.3 5.8 4.9 5.4
Panel zone shear 29.7 25.8 30.1 26.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(c) Shear stress

Panel zone shear stress (MPa (ksi)) Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out
153.0 (22.2) 127.4 (18.5) 153.0 (22.2) 127.4 (18.5)

(d) Results from finite element analysis

Total displacement (cm) 1.768
Average panel zone shear stress (MPa) 140.3

(e) Simple model to FEA model ratios

Deformation source (%) Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out

Total displacement 1.073 1.008 1.0294 0.991

Panel shear stress 1.095 0.908 1.095 0.908

Table 6 for subassemblage A20c (using actual joint moments
and center-to-center dimensions). As may be seen in the table,
the SI for the shear panel alone is 18 approximately times that
for the column or beam. Based on the idea that an optimum
structure has equal SI for all components [19], it is seen that
adding one kilogram of steel to the panel zone (by adding a
doubler plate) is more than 18 times as effective in reducing
drift than would be adding the same kilogram of steel to the
column. However, the cost of fabricating and attaching that
extra kilogram of steel needs to be considered as well. It might
be more economical to increase the size of the entire column
(picking a column with a thicker web), than it would be to add
a doubler plate.
A summary of the results for all “A” subassemblages is
presented in Table 7. Similar results are presented in Table 8
for the “B” subassemblages. In each case, the analysis used the
simplified expressions for moments in the joint region and the
out-to-out joint dimensions.
As seen in Table 7(a), the component of drift due to beam
column joint deformation is very significant in all cases, and
joint flexural deformation is not negligible. It is also clear that
the addition of the continuity plates had a marginal effect on
reducing the subassemblage displacement. This fact is also
evident from Table 7(b), where it is seen that joint flexure
(Beam + Column) was responsible for about 11% of total drift
when continuity plates are not present, and about 8% of total
drift when continuity plates are added.
Similar results are seen from Table 8(a) and (b). However,
in this case, the portion of subassemblage drift due to joint
flexure has increased to as much as 15% for Subassemblage
B15n. This drops to about 8% when the continuity plates are
added. Hence, the continuity plates appear to be more effective
in reducing displacements when the column is deeper. In this
case, the reduction in drift associated with the addition of the
continuity plates is 7%.
Tables 7(c) and 8(c) compare the drifts computed using
the simplified formulas with those found from detailed finite
element analysis. For the A subassemblages, the agreement
is excellent, with the maximum difference being only about
2.4%. Differences are slightly greater for the B subassemblages,
 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100 97

Table 5
Results of analysis of subassemblage A20c

(a) Actual DPF values

Deformation source (in.) Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out
Beam flexure 0.495 0.482 0.495 0.482
Beam shear 0.106 0.105 0.106 0.105
Column flexure 0.377 0.366 0.377 0.366
Column shear 0.164 0.162 0.164 0.162
Joint beam flexure 0.035 0.039 0.028 0.031
Joint column flexure 0.100 0.103 0.092 0.094
Panel zone shear 0.563 0.459 0.563 0.459
Total 1.839 1.717 1.825 1.700

(b) DPFs as percent of total

Deformation source (%) Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out

Beam flexure 26.9 28.1 27.1 28.4

Beam shear 5.8 6.1 5.8 6.2
Column flexure 20.5 21.3 20.7 21.5
Column shear 8.9 9.4 9.0 9.5
Joint beam flexure 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.8
Joint column flexure 5.4 6.0 5.1 5.5
Panel zone shear 30.6 26.7 30.9 27.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(c) Shear stress

Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out

Panel zone shear stress (MPa (ksi)) 153.0 (22.2) 127.4 (18.5) 153.0 (22.2) 127.4 (18.5)

(d) Results from finite element analysis

Total displacement (cm) 1.738
Average shear stress (MPa) 141.0

(e) Simple model to FEA model ratios

Deformation source (%) Using actual joint moments Using simplified joint moments
Center to center Out to out Center to center Out to out

Total displacement 0.945 0.988 1.050 0.978

Panel shear stress 1.085 0.903 1.085 0.903

Table 6 is very significant. Clearly, analytical models that assume

Sensitivity indices for subassemblage A20c that the entire joint region is “rigid” will underestimate the
Item Volume DPF (cm) 100 000∗ S I S IPanel /S I lateral displacements. When centerline analysis is used, the
(cm3 ) flexural deformations in the beam–column region will be
Total 690 452 1.839 0.266 12.86 overestimated, and the shear deformations in the joint region
Beam 318 794 0.601 0.188 18.18 will be underestimated. This may be seen from Fig. 5, where
Column 295 656 0.541 0.183 18.72 the column force diagrams are shown for the fictitious joint
Joint 75 970 0.698 0.918 3.73
model. If centerline analysis were used, the shear, Vc , would be
Panel only 16 452 0.563 3.425 1
constant through the joint, and the bending moment would be
linear from the inflection point of the column to the centerline
where the maximum difference is 3%. Shear stresses computed of the joint.
from the simple and detailed analysis are shown in Tables 7(d)
Considering subassemblage A20n, for example, the center-
and 8(d). Again, the agreement is quite good with differences
line displacements are as follows:
being consistently less than 10%.
Beam Flexure: 0.596 cm
8. Use of centerline analysis in lieu of explicit joint Beam Shear: 0.112 cm
modeling Column Flexure: 0.727 cm
This paper has shown that the influence of deformations Column Shear: 0.204 cm
in the beam–column joint region of moment frame structures Total: 1.639 cm.
98 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100

Table 7
Summary of A-model DPFs from simplified subassemblage analysis using simplified moments and out-to-out dimensions

(a) Displacement participation factors

Deformation source Model
A15n A20n A25n A15c A20c A25c
Beam flexure 0.336 0.482 0.630 0.336 0.482 0.630
Beam shear 0.137 0.105 0.085 0.137 0.105 0.085
Column flexure 0.366 0.366 0.366 0.366 0.366 0.366
Column shear 0.162 0.162 0.162 0.162 0.162 0.162
Joint beam flexure 0.079 0.083 0.085 0.029 0.031 0.032
Joint column flexure 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094
Panel zone shear 0.431 0.459 0.477 0.431 0.459 0.477
Total 1.604 1.752 1.899 1.555 1.700 1.846

(b) DPFs as percent of total

Deformation source Model
A15n A20n A25n A15c A20c A25c

Beam flexure 20.9 27.5 33.2 21.6 28.4 34.1

Beam shear 8.5 6.0 4.5 8.8 6.2 4.6
Column flexure 22.8 20.9 19.3 23.5 21.5 19.8
Column shear 10.1 9.3 8.5 10.4 9.5 8.8
Joint beam flexure 4.9 4.7 4.5 1.9 1.8 1.7
Joint column flexure 5.9 5.4 5.0 6.1 5.5 5.1
Panel zone shear 26.9 26.2 25.1 27.7 27.0 25.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(c) Total displacements

Item Model
A15n A20n A25n A15c A20c A25c

Simple displacement 1.604 1.752 1.899 1.555 1.700 1.846

FEA displacement 1.623 1.768 1.915 1.594 1.738 1.883
Simple/FEA 0.988 0.991 0.992 0.976 0.978 0.980

(d) Shear stresses in panel zone

Item Model
A15n A20n A25n A15c A20c A25c

Simple shear stress 123.4 127.4 129.8 123.4 127.4 129.8

FEA shear stress 136.3 140.3 142.7 137.0 141.0 143.4
Simple/FEA 0.905 0.908 0.910 0.901 0.904 0.905
All DPFs in cm units, all displacement is cm units, and all shear stresses in MPa units.

This total is less than that produced by any of the mechanical
models (see Table 4(a)), indicating that even centerline analysis
is unconservative (too stiff) with respect to predicting drift.
It is important to note, however, that the rigid end zone
analysis of the same subassemblage would produce a total
drift of 1.142 cm, which is only 63% of the displacement
produced by the models that explicitly include beam–column
joint deformation.
While centerline analysis is somewhat unconservative in the
example given, it is clearly an improvement over rigid end zone
analysis. Hence, centerline analysis should be used whenever
the more accurate modeling approaches are not available.
For existing buildings that were analyzed using rigid end
zones, it is clear that the lateral drift will be underestimated.
This will have an effect on the serviceability of the structure,
and may have an adverse effect on the strength as well. Strength
would be influenced most significantly for structures which are
sensitive to P-delta effects. The seriousness of such problems
can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
9. Summary, conclusions, and recommendations
In this paper, three simplified models for computing
displacement participation factors (DPFs) in beam–column
joint subassemblages were derived. The models presented were
the Fictitious Joint (FJ) model, the Krawinkler Joint (KJ)
model, and the Scissors Joint (SJ) model. The FJ model
includes the effect of flexural deformations in the beam–column
joint, but the KJ and SJ models do not.
Based on the results obtained from the analysis presented
herein, and recognizing that only twelve individual subassem-
blages were analyzed, the following conclusions and recom-
mendations are made.
1. When compared to the results of detailed finite element
analysis, the use of the formulas provided in Table 3 provide
reasonably accurate estimates of the displacements in
beam–column subassemblages. The best agreement appears
to be obtained when the out-to-out joint dimensions are used.
Use of actual versus simplified moments in the joint made
little difference with regards to predicted deflection.
 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100 99

Table 8
Summary of B-model DPFs from simplified subassemblage analysis using simplified moments and out-to-out dimensions

(a) Displacement participation factors

Deformation source Model
B15n B20n B25n B15c B20c B25c
Beam flexure 0.278 0.421 0.566 0.278 0.421 0.566
Beam shear 0.128 0.100 0.082 0.128 0.100 0.082
Column flexure 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147
Column shear 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108
Joint beam flexure 0.126 0.137 0.144 0.043 0.047 0.049
Joint column flexure 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038
Panel zone shear 0.257 0.287 0.305 0.257 0.287 0.305
Total 1.081 1.237 1.389 0.998 1.146 1.294

(b) DPFs as percent of total

Deformation source Model
B15n B20n B25n B15c B20c B25c

Beam flexure 25.7 34.0 40.7 27.9 36.7 43.7

Beam shear 11.9 8.1 5.9 12.8 8.7 6.4
Column flexure 13.6 11.9 10.6 14.7 12.8 11.3
Column shear 9.9 8.7 7.7 10.8 9.4 8.3
Joint beam flexure 11.7 11.1 10.4 4.3 4.1 3.8
Joint column flexure 3.5 3.0 2.7 3.8 3.3 2.9
Panel zone shear 23.8 23.2 22.0 25.7 25.0 23.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(c) Total displacements

Item Model
B15n B20n B25n B15c B20c B25c

Simple displacement 1.081 1.237 1.389 0.998 1.146 1.294

FEA displacement 1.050 1.202 1.352 1.006 1.153 1.301
Simple/FEA 1.030 1.029 1.028 0.992 0.994 0.995

(d) Panel zone shear stresses

Item Model
B15n B20n B25n B15c B20c B25c

Simple shear stress 79.9 84.4 87.1 79.9 84.4 87.1

FEA shear stress 85.8 90.3 93.0 87.0 91.4 94.3
Simple/FEA 0.931 0.935 0.937 0.918 0.923 0.924
All DPFs in cm units, all displacement is cm units, and all shear stresses in MPa units.

2. The use of center-to-center joint dimensions overestimates
the average joint shear stress, and the use of centerline
dimensions underestimates the average joint shear stress.
However, errors in average shear stress were generally less
than 10%.
3. Shear deformations in the beam, the column, and
particularly in the panel zone of the beam–column joint are
very significant, and should not be ignored.
4. Deflections due to flexural deformations in the beam–column
joint are smaller than those due to shear deformations, but
are not negligible, and should not be ignored. Such defor-
mations were responsible for as much as 15% of the drift in
the subassemblages without beam-flange continuity plates.
Addition of such plates reduced the drift by as much as 7%
in some subassemblages, and as little as 3% in others.
5. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the appropriate
section property to use for computing flexural deformations
in the beam–column joint. This is particularly true for beam
flexure when beam-flange continuity plates are not provided.
The basic conclusion of this paper is that beam–column joint
flexural deformations are significant, and should not be ignored.
As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, such deformations
are ignored in both the Krawinkler and Scissors models. In fact,
these models typically include an added stiffness component
(due to column flange bending) that was not included in the
current analysis.
Because the Krawinkler and Scissors models are most often
used in practice, it is desirable to modify these models to
account for flexural deformations in the joint. It is suggested in
Part 2 of this paper that this may be accomplished by providing
some flexural flexibility in the rigid links used in these models.
It is also noted that while the detailed FEA produced total
displacements that are very consistent with those obtained
from the simplified methods, there was no way to determine,
on a one-to-one basis, how the individual components of
displacement compare. For example, it may be the case that
the subassemblage models underestimate panel zone shear
deformation while overestimating joint flexural deformation. In
100 F.A. Charney, R. Pathak / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 87–100
order to clarify this point, Part 2 of this paper extends the DPF
approach to the detailed finite element analysis. This analysis
shows that the simplified model consistently overestimates the
displacement due to flexure in the joint, although the errors
produced are generally small.
References
[1] Bertero VV, Popov EP, Krawinkler H. Beam–column subassemblies
under repeated load. Journal of the Structural Division 1972;98(ST5):
1137–59.
[2] Becker R. Panel zone effect on the strength and stiffness of steel rigid
frames. Engineering Journal 1975;19–29.
[3] Krawinkler H, Bertero VV, Popov EV. Shear behavior of steel frame
joints. Journal of the Structural Division 1975;101(11):2317–36.
[4] AISC. Tests and analysis of panel zone behavior in beam-to-column
connections. American Institute of Steel Construction and the Structural
Steel Educational Council; 1980.
[5] Krawinkler H. Shear in beam–column joints in seismic design of frames.
Engineering Journal 1978;15(3):82–91.
[6] Charney FA, Johnson R. The effect of panel zone deformations on the drift
of steel framed structures. In: Presented at the ASCE structure congress.
1986.
[7] Krawinkler H, Mohassebs. Effects of panel zone deformation on seismic
response. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1987;8:233–50.
[8] Charney FA. Sources of elastic deformations in laterally loaded steel
frame and tube structures. In: Proceedings of the fourth world congress
on tall buildings. 1990. p. 893–915.
[9] Horvilleur JF, Charney FA. The effect of beam–column joint deformation
on the lateral response of steel frame building structures. In: III Simposio
Internacional Y VI Simposio Natcional de Estructueas de Acero. 1993. p.
269–303.
[10] Kim K, Englehardt MD. Development of analytical models for earthquake
analysis of steel frames. Austin (TX): PMFSEL 95-2, Phil M. Ferguson
Structural Engineering Lab, University of Texas; 1995.
[11] Schneider SP, Amidi A. Seismic behavior of steel frames with deformable
panel zones. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998;124(1):35–42.
[12] Downs WM. Modeling and behavior of beam/column joint regions of
steel frames. M.S. thesis. Blacksburg (VA): Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech; 2002.
[13] Foutch DA, Yun S. Modeling of steel moment resisting frames for seismic
loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;58:529–64.
[14] Kim K, Engelhardt MD. Monotonic and cyclic loading models for panel
zones in steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2002;56:605–35.
[15] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Relating seismic drift demands of SMRFs to
element deformation demands. Engineering Journal 2002;39(2):100–8.
[16] Charney FA, Marshall JA. Comparison of the Krawinkler and Scissors
models for including beam–column joint deformations in the analysis of
moment resisting frames. Engineering Journal 2006;43(1):31–48.
[17] Charney FA, Pathak R. Sources of elastic deformations in steel frame and
framed-tube structures: Part 2: Detailed subassemblage models. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2008;64(1):101–17.
[18] Charney FA. The use of displacement participation factors in the
optimization of wind drift controlled buildings. In: Proceedings of the
second conference on tall buildings in seismic regions. Council of Tall
Buildings and Urban Habitat; 1991. p. 91–8.
[19] Charney FA. Economy of steel frames through identification of structural
behavior. In: Proceedings of the national steel construction conference.
1993. p. 12-1–13-33.
[20] Cowper GR. The shear coefficient in Timoshenko’s beam theory. Journal
of Applied Mechanics 1966;33:335–40.
[21] Charney FA, Iyer H, Spears PW. Computation of major axis shear
deformations in wide flange steel girders and columns. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(11):1525–58.
[22] Pathak R. Development of finite element analysis modeling mesh
generation and analysis software for light wood frame houses. Master of
Science thesis. Blacksburg (VA): Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Virginia Tech; 2004.
[23] SAP2000. Integrated software for structural analysis and design, v7. 44.
Berkeley: Computers and Structures, Inc.; 2000.