The analysis was carried out and the following envelope was formed:

Fig 10 Envelope for moments in elements

From the above it can be seen that the maximum moment in the beam element is 272.18 KNm.
This moment will be used to check the adequacy of the beam later on.
Similarly the axial force envelope can be shown to calculate the maximum force in the column as
shown in figure 11.


Fig 11 Axial force envelope
The maximum axial force in any column comes out to be 1127.18KN and the column stability
will be checked for this value only.
II) Second Order Elastic Analysis
In the second order elastic analysis also, the material is assumed to have a linear elastic
relationship. However, the equilibrium is calculated on the deformed geometry of the structure.
A rigorous second order analysis includes both the member curvature and the side sway effects.
The detrimental effects associated with second order deformations due to the compressive forces
are considered to be important in structures subjected to predominant gravity loads. [2]
The steps involved are as follows:
a. A new load case with the name P Delta was formed with 1 x Dead Load + 0.5 x Live load
b. The analysis type is changed to nonlinear with geometric non linearity.
c. All the other loads modified such that their stiffness at the end of nonlinear case is P
Delta. (can be easily modified in options)
Thereafter analysis is done and the following results were obtained. The envelope for element
moments is as follows

Fig 12 Envelope for moments in elements
The maximum moment comes out to be in element 6 being equal to 272.28 KNm.
Similarly the axial force diagram can be shown in figure 13.


Fig 13 Axial force envelope
The shear force comes out to be 1127.19 KN (absolute maximum in the entire frame)
III) First Order and Second Order Non Linear Static analysis
In the first order plastic analysis, all instability effects are ignored and the collapse strength of
the frame is determined by using the rigid plastic assumption. The traditional method of
calculating the plastic collapse load of a steel structure is the limit analysis approach where
possible collapse mechanisms are searched to find the one that gives the maximum collapse load
called the plastic limit load. Loads are assumed to be proportionate, that is, the vertical load and
the lateral load increase together in a fixed ratio. The advantage of load stepping approach is that
one can observe the development of plastic hinges and the degradation of stiffness as the load is
applied. All members must be ductile so that the plastic moment capacity can be maintained at
each hinge location over a range of hinge rotations sufficient to allow the plastic collapse
mechanism to develop. [2]
When the analysis was actually done there was practically no difference in the analysis results of
linear and nonlinear. The structure was so over safe that the stresses remained in the elastic limit
and hence the results of the analysis are not shown here. Instead the results of pushover analysis
are shown here. For the pushover analysis the following steps were done:
a. First hinges were provided in beams and columns with degree of freedom as M3.
b. The load carrying capacity of hinge was set to be deformation controlled and should drop
after reaching point E.
c. Thereafter hinge overwrites was done. Subdivision of line object at hinges as done at a
value of .02.
d. A new load case named Pushover was formed having analysis type as nonlinear. For the
second order geometric nonlinearity was changed to P-Delta.
e. Load applied in the load combination are (DL x 1.2) + (LL x 1.2) + (EL x 1.2).
f. Maximum value for displacement was kept at 2m. The results of the deflection of a joint
of the top frame are recorded as shown in the graphs below.

Fig 14 Pushover first order analysis result
The above pushover analysis clearly shows that the structure fails when the displacement reaches
a value of 416mm. Similarly for the second order analysis the graph is as shown below and yield
point will be 130mm. The load at base decreased too from 14000KN to 10800KN but that is also
far more than the elastic range. The structure never leaves the proportional limit and hence
Nonlinear analysis will yield no results.

Fig 15 Pushover second order analysis
IV) Time History Analysis (First and Second Order)
Time history analysis is performed to obtain the response of structures for a specified time
history of excitation using different techniques, such as the Duhamel integration, step-by-step
numerical integration, and the Fourier transform approach. The time history analysis is
applicable for both elastic and inelastic ranges of response. The response spectrum method of
analysis uses response spectra of earthquakes as input and obtains a set of lateral equivalent
(static) forces for the structure, which will provide the maximum effect on it caused by the
ground motions.[2]
Steps involved in time history analysis are
1. Define a mass source from loads having values of 1 x DL + .25 x LL
2. A function having the time history of an earthquake is loaded as the input file for time
history analysis.
3. Define a load case named Time history with Load type as acceleration and scale factor as
9.8. The analysis type is kept nonlinear. In case of second order P delta is included.
Number of output time is kept at 2000 and output time step as .02. Time integration is
done by the Hilber Hughes Taylor method.
4. The same procedure is done for three earthquakes and the envelopes thus formed are
shown in the graphs below.
A) First Order

Fig 16 Qualitative Moment Envelope for Elcentro (EW) Earthquake Excitation


Fig 17 Qualitative Axial force Envelope for Elcentro (EW) Earthquake Excitation

Fig 18 Response Spectrum for Elcentro EW
For the 2nd Earthquake data (Elcentro EW) the following results were obtained. The results are
pretty much high as compared to the previous excitation.

Fig 19Qualitative Moment Envelope for Elcentro (UP) Earthquake Excitation
The shear force and response spectrum are as shown

Fig 20 Axial Force Envelope and Response Spectrum Curves
For the third Earthquake data (Koyna NS) the curves are as shown below.

Fig 21 Moment Envelope

Fig 22 Axial force envelope and response spectrum curve
B) Second Order Time History
No change in the results was found as there was no nonlinear response. The structure
remained in elastic state.






















Pinned Case
I) First Order
For the pinned case the structure was modeled with hinges at the start and end of beams and
the rest of the things (the loadings, the material properties and the type of load cases) were
kept same as first order elastic analysis of the rigid frame done in part I so that a comparison
can be made between the two structures. The frame was analyzed for the pinned case and the
results we got were satisfactory. By hand checking the results were confirmed.
.

Fig 23 Moment envelope
Inferences:
The maximum moment at the base was found out to be about 552 KNm which is higher
than in the fixed frame as usual. The axial force envelope is also shown in figure .It can be
seen that the axial force has reduced but not by much. It has come down to 1087 KN.



Fig 24 Axial Force Envelope
II) Second Order
The second order analysis was done in a similar fashion as the second order analysis for the
rigid frame analysis done earlier. The axial force and moment envelope figures are shown in
the next page.
Inferences
It can be seen that the axial force remained the same as in the case of first order analysis, but
the moment in the case of second order analysis has increased significantly. This is due to the
additional deflection due to reduced fixity in the frame as compared to the fixed case.
The max moment comes out be 579 KNm (increased by 25 KNm) and the max axial force
comes out to be 1089 KN (increased by 2 KN). There is no increase in bending moment in
beams since the beams due to pin ends will not take any effect of P-Delta.
The increase is about 4% in the case of moments in columns. This is appreciable considering
the fact that there was no change when the frame was rigid.


Fig 25 Moment Envelope







Fig 26 Axial Force Envelope






Comparison of different methods of analysis
Type of Analysis
Maximum value


Forces
Moment
(kNm)
Axial
Force (kN)
Increase
(in
%age)
Notes
First order elastic 271.68 1127.18
Zero
There was no
change in the values
for fixed frames and
about 4 percent
change in the pinned
case. This was due
to the fact that the
lateral stiffness due
to fixity was reduced
in the second case
and thus increasing
the lateral deflection
too.
Second order elastic 272.28 1127.19
First order nonlinear
static
272.28 1127.19
Zero
Second order nonlinear
static
272.28 1127.19
First order pinned 552 1087
3.7
Second order pinned 579 1089
First order nonlinear time history
EL CENTRO EW 134 76.031

Though the forces
vary much for
different
earthquakes one can
easily see that the
natural frequency
varies and at least
two natural
frequencies can be
found of the
structure.
KOYNA 16.28 8.12
EL CENTRO NS 168.85 85.1
Second order nonlinear time history
EL CENTRO EW 134 76.031

KOYNA 16.28 8.12
EL CENTRO NS 168.85 85.1






Design/ Safety Check
I) Beam
Assumptions:
a. The beam is laterally unrestraint.
b. The beam is selected to be ISMB 600.
Given:
M
max
(Design factored moment) = 272.28 kNm

1. Sectional properties
Units Notes
h 600 mm
w 1.226 kN/m
3

b
f
210 mm
t
f
20.8 mm
t
w
12 mm
I
xx
918130000 mm
I
yy
26510000 mm
r
xx
242.4 mm
r
yy
41.2 mm
z
xx
3060400 mm
3

z
yy
252500 mm
3

z
pz
3510630 mm
r
1
20 mm
d 518.4

h - 2t
f
- 2r
1

2. Calculations
0.3 Poissons ratio
E 200000 N/mm
2
Youngs Modulus
G 76923.076 N/mm
2
2(1 )
E
G
v
=
+

I
t
1593466.88 mm
4
3
1
3
n
i i
t
i
bt
I
=
=

KL 6000 mm
Table 15: Fully torsional restraint and warping not
restraint in both flanges gives effective length =L

f
0.5
fc
fc ft
I
I I
| =
+

I
w
2.22334E+12 mm
6 2
(1 )
w f f y f
I I h | | =

M
cr
596.13 kNm
2
2
2 2
( ) ( )
y
w
cr t
EI
EI
M GI
KL KL
t
t | |
= +
|
\ .


3. Section Classification
b/t
f
5.048076923 plastic
Since b/t
f
< 9.4 outstanding element of compression
flange is plastic
d/t
w
43.2 plastic Since d/t
w
< 84 web elementis plastic
Therefore the whole section is Plastic

4. Moment Carrying Capacity

LT
1.213364178
b p f
LT
cr
Z f
M
|
=

LT
0.21 assumed

LT
1.342529553
2
0.5[1 ( 0.2) ]
LT
LT LT LT
| o = + +

LT
0.521620779
2 2 0.5
1
1
[ ]
LT
LT LT LT
_
| |
= s
+

f
bd
118.550177 N/mm
2
0
LT y
bd
m
f
f
_

=

M
d
416.1858079 kNm Moment carrying capacity
Now since M
d
>M
max
Therefore Beam is safe.


II) Column Design
The column is a non-sway column
Units Notes
Step 0 Calculation of K (effective length factor)
A
c
30976 mm
2
Area of column
R 0 mm Radius at root
b
f
500 mm
t
f
16 mm thickness of flange
t
w
16 mm thickness of web
H 500 mm total height
d 468 mm H - 2t
f
2R
Z
e
4842829.14 mm
3
Elastic section modulus
Z
p
5748096 mm
3
Plastic section modulus
C
1
1.285
h
f
484 mm H-2(t
f
/2)
P 1.13E+06 N Applied Load
M
top
2.72E+08 Nmm Top Moment
M
bot
1.89E+08 Nmm Bottom Moment
P
effective
2289393.162 N 2 /
e z
P P M d = + (Effective Load)
P
e
149365024.4 N
2
2 e
EI
P
L
t
= (Euler buckling Load)
I
c
1210707285 mm
4
Moment of inertia of Column
I
b
918130000 mm
4
Moment of inertia of Beam
L
b
6000 mm Length of beam
L
c
4000 mm Length of column
Far end fixed


Number of beams 2

Number of beams bracing the column
Braced Yes

Type of frame
r
z
197.7001096 mm radii of gyration (same in both directions)
n

0.015327505

e
P
n
P
=

C 0.665892229

Correction factor for effective flexural
stiffness (Table 35 IS 800)
K
c
201550.1431 mm
3

c
c
c
CI
K
L
=
(Stiffness of column)
K
b
101895.9386 mm
3

b
b
b
CI
K
L
=
(Stiffness of beam)

1
0.497234762

1
c
c b
K
K K
|

=
+

2
0

Since far end is fixed
K
non sway
0.589387126

1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2
[1 0.145( ) 0.265 ]
[2 0.364( ) 0.247 ]
K
| | | |
| | | |
+ +
=
+




Step 1 Cross Section Classification
Z
pz
4748096 mm
3

2
2 ( ) / 2 ( 2 ) / 4
pz f f f w f
Z b t H t t H t = +

Z
py
2029952 mm
3

2 2
2 / 4 ( 2 ) / 4
f
py f w f
Z b t t H t = +
1

250
y
f
c =

b/t
f
29.25

Compact
d/t
w
29.25

Semi compact



Overall Section is Semi Compact

Step 2 Check for resistance of section for combined effects
N
d
7040000 N
0
g y
d
m
A f
N

=

M
dz
1100642986 Nmm
0
e y
dz
m
Z f
M

=

(P/N
d
)+(M/M
dz
) 0.4072135 OK (P/N
d
)+(M/M
dz
) < 1
Hence Section is SAFE

Step 3 Member Buckling resistance in compression
0.34 for welded sections
fy 250 N/mm
2
given

m0
1.1
0.134201961
y
e
f
f
=

0.497819416
2
0.5[1 ( 0.2) ] | o = + +

f
cd
232.5733968 N/mm2
0
2 2 0.5
/
[ ]
y m
cd
f
f


=
+

P 7204193.538 N
cd c
P f A =

Since P<P
app
Hence section is safe

Step 4 Member buckling resistance in buckling
f
cr,b
19696.94334 N/mm
2

0.5
2
2
2
/
1.1 1
1
20 / ( / )
LT y
cr
f f LT y
L r
E
f
h t L r
t
(
| |
(
= + |
|
(
\ .


M
cr
95388931161 Nmm
cr b p cr
M Z f | =

LT
0.102392542

b p f
LT
cr
Z f
M
|
=

LT
0.488648849

2
0.5[1 ( 0.2) ]
LT
LT LT LT
| o = + +

LT
1

2 2 0.5
1
1
[ ]
LT
LT LT LT
_
| |
= s
+

M
res
1100642986 Nmm
0
LT y e
d
m
f Z
M
_

=


Since M
d
>M
top
Therefore the section is SAFE

Step 5 Member buckling resistance in combined bending and axial compression
K
z
0.989706774

1 ( 0.2) / 1 0.8 /
z z dz dz
K P P P P = + s +

z
6.95E-01

2 1
/
z
M M =

C
mz
8.78E-01

0.6 0.4
mz z
C = +

P/P
d
+[K
z
C
mz
M
z
/M
dz
] 3.71E-01 <1 OK / [( ) / ] 1
d z mz z dz
P P K C M M + <

Hence the section is SAFE

Hence both the Column and beam are safe.
The Design Checks were done using an excel sheet and the sheets have been attached in the CD
ROM.














References
[1] D. R. Sahoo, Design of Steel structures (Notes), Chapter 3.
[2] N Subramanian, Design of Steel Structures, Oxford Higher Education, 2008.
[3] IS 875:1
[4] IS 875:2
[5] IS 875:3
[6] IS 1893
[7] IS 800



Contents in CD
[1] SAP2000 files.
[2] Excel data table from SAP.
[3] A copy of this document.
[4] A copy of all figures and graphs.
[5] Earthquake time history data files.
[6] Design Excel Sheets.