1569 ch31

31
Effective Length
Factors of Compression
Members
31.1 Introduction .................................................. 31-2

31.2 Basic Concept ................................................ 31-2
31.3 Individual Columns......................................... 31-3
31.4 Framed Columns — Alignment Chart Method ...... 31-3
Alignment Chart Method Requirements for Braced Frames
Simplified Equations to Alignment Charts
31.5 Modifications to Alignment Charts ..................... 31-11
Different Restraining Girder End Conditions Different
Restraining Column End Conditions Columns Restrained
by Tapered Rectangular Girders Unsymmetrical Frames
Effects of Axial Forces in Restraining Members Considera-
tion of Partial Column Base Fixity Inelastic K-factor
31.6 Framed Columns — Alternative Methods ............ 31-25
LeMessurier Method Lui Method Essa Method
Cheong-Siat-Moy Method Remarks
31.7 Unbraced Frames with Leaning Columns ............. 31-29
Rigid Columns Leaning Columns Remarks
31.8 Crossing Bracing Systems ................................. 31-34
31.9 Latticed and Built-Up Members ......................... 31-35
Laced Columns Columns with Battens Laced-Battened
Columns Columns with Perforated Cover Plates Built-Up
Members with Bolted and Welded Connectors
31.10 Tapered Columns ........................................... 31-42
31.11 Crane Columns .............................................. 31-43
31.12 Columns in Gable Frames................................. 31-47
31.13 Columns in Fire ............................................. 31-48
31.14 Members in Space Frames................................. 31-49
Lian Duan 31.15 Truss-Type Highway Sign Support Structures........ 31-49
Division of Engineering Services,
California Department of
31.16 Precast Concrete Skeletal Frames ........................ 31-51
Transportation, 31.17 Steel Moment Frame ....................................... 31-51
Sacramento, CA Second-Order Elastic Analysis Direct Second-Order Analysis
31.18 Summary ...................................................... 31-52
Wai-Fah Chen Glossary................................................................ 31-53
College of Engineering,
University of Hawaii at Manoa, References ............................................................. 31-53
Honolulu, HI Further Reading ..................................................... 31-57
0-8493-1569-7/05/$0.00+$1.50
# 2005 by CRC Press 31-1
Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

31-2 Handbook of Structural Engineering
31.1 Introduction
The concept of the effective length factor has been well established and widely used by practicing
engineers and plays an important role in compression member and column design. The essence of
the concept is to estimate the interaction effects of the whole frame on an individual compression
member. In the development of design interaction equations for beam–columns, much discussion
has been focused on the need and validity of using the effective length factor K in the equations
(Cheong-Siat-Moy 1986; Liew et al. 1991; ASCE 1997; White and Clarke 1997a,b; Schmidt 1999).
Although attempts were made to formulate the general interaction equations without K factors, it
was found that this was almost impossible if the interaction equations were to be versatile enough
for a wide range of slenderness ratios and load combinations (Liew et al. 1991). It is well known that
the effective length factor approach introduces inaccuracies into the design process; the simplicity of
the approach, however, is likely to still make the approach an important part of compression
member design in the foreseeable future (Hellesland and Bjorhovde 1996). The most structural
design codes, standards, and specifications worldwide have provisions concerning the effective length
factor.
The aim of this chapter is to present a state-of-the-art engineering practice of the effective length
factor for the design of compression members and columns. In the first part of this chapter, the
basic concept of the effective length factor is discussed. Then, the design implementation for
individual columns, framed columns, crossing bracing systems, latticed members, tapered columns,
crane columns, gable frames, columns in fire, space frames, truss-type highway sign support
structures, precast concrete skeletal frames, and steel moment frames is presented. The determi-
nation of whether a frame is braced or unbraced is also addressed. Several detailed examples are
given to illustrate the determination of the effective length factor for different cases of engineering
applications.
31.2 Basic Concept

Mathematically, the effective length factor or the elastic K-factor is defined as
rffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pe p2 EI
K¼ ¼ ð31:1Þ
Pcr L2 Pcr
where Pe is the Euler load, the elastic buckling load of a pin-ended compression member or column, Pcr
is the elastic buckling load of an end-restrained compression member or column, E is the modulus of
elasticity of the material, I is the moment of inertia in the flexural buckling plane, and L is the
unsupported length of the compression member or column.
Physically, the K-factor is a factor that when multiplied by the actual length of the end-restrained
column (Figure 31.1a) gives the length of an equivalent pin-ended column (Figure 31.1b) whose
buckling load is the same as that of the end-restrained column. It follows that effective length KL of an
end-restrained column is the length between the adjacent inflection points of its pure flexural buckling
shape.
Practically, the design specifications usually provide the resistance equations for pin-ended columns,
while the resistance of framed columns can be estimated through the K-factor to the pin-ended column
strength equation. Theoretical K-factor is determined from an elastic eigenvalue analysis of the entire
structural system, while practical methods for the K-factor are based on an elastic eigenvalue analysis of
selected subassemblages. The effective length concept is the only tool currently available for the design
of compression members in engineering structures and it is an essential part of analysis and design
procedures.

Effective Length Factors of Compression Members 31-3
(a) P (b)
P
∆
Tk RkB
KL
EI B
Constant

KL
L
A
A
RkA
P
P
FIGURE 31.1 Individual column: (a) end-restrained columns and (b) pin-ended column.
31.3 Individual Columns

From an eigenvalue analysis, the general K-factor equation of an individual column as shown in
Figure 31.1 is obtained as
RkA L

C þ S ðC þ SÞ
EI

R kB L
det S Cþ ðC þ SÞ ¼0
ð31:2Þ
EI
p 2 T L3
k
ðC þ SÞ ðC þ SÞ 2ðC þ SÞ þ
K EI
where the stability functions C and S are defined as
ðp=K Þ sinðp=K Þ ðp=K Þ2 cosðp=K Þ
C¼ ð31:3Þ
2 2 cosðp=K Þ ðp=K Þ sinðp=K Þ
ðp=K Þ2 ðp=K Þ sinðp=K Þ
S¼ ð31:4Þ
2 2 cosðp=K Þ ðp=K Þ sinðp=K Þ
The largest value of K that satisfies Equation 31.2 gives the elastic buckling load of an end-restrained
column.
Figure 31.2 (AISC 1989, 1999; AASHTO 2004) summarizes the theoretical K-factors for end-restrained
columns with some idealized end conditions. The recommended K-factors are also shown in Figure 31.2
for practical design applications. Since actual column conditions seldom comply fully with idealized end
conditions used in buckling analysis, the recommended K-factors are always equal or greater than their
theoretical counterparts.
31.4 Framed Columns — Alignment Chart Method

In theory, the effective length factor, K, for any columns in a framed structure can be determined from
a stability analysis of the entire structural analysis — eigenvalue analysis. Methods available for stability

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Buckled shape of
column is shown
by dashed line
Theoretical K-value 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

Recommended design
value when ideal conditions 0.65 0.80 1.2 1.0 2.10 2.0
are approximated
Rotation fixed and translation fixed

Rotation free and translation fixed
End condition code
Rotation fixed and translation free
Rotation free and translation free
FIGURE 31.2 Theoretical and recommended K-factors for individual columns with idealized end conditions
(AISC 1999).
analysis include the slope deflection method (Winter et al. 1948; Galambos 1968; Chen and Lui 1991),
the three-moment equation method (Bleich 1952), and energy methods (Johnson 1960). In practice,
however, such an analysis is not practical, and simple models are often used to determine the effective
length factors for framed columns (Kavanagh 1962; Lu 1962; Gurfinkel and Robinson 1965; Wood
1974). One such practical procedure that provides an approximate value of the elastic K-factor is the
alignment chart method (Julian and Lawrence 1959). This procedure has been adopted by the AISC
(1989, 1999), ACI (2002), AASHTO (2004), and CSA (1994) Specifications, among others. At present,
most engineers use the alignment chart method in lieu of an actual stability analysis.
31.4.1 Alignment Chart Method

The structural models employed for determination of K-factor for framed columns in the alignment
chart method are shown in Figure 31.3. The assumptions used in these models are (Chen and Lui 1991;
AISC 1999)
1. All members have constant cross-section and behave elastically.

2. Axial forces in the girders are negligible.
3. All joints are rigid.
4. For braced frames, the rotations at the near and far ends of the girders are equal in magnitude and
opposite in direction (i.e., girders are bent in single curvature).
5. For unbraced frames, the rotations at the near and far ends of the girders are equal in magnitude
and direction (i.e., girders p
areffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
bent in double curvature).
6. The stiffness parameters, L P=EI , of all columns are equal.
7. All columns buckle simultaneously.
8. Joint restraint is distributed to the column above and below the joint in proportion to I/L of the
two columns.

(a) P (b) P
∆ ∆
C B
C
B
C1 C1
A A g1 A g2 A
g2
A A
g1 A A A A
C2 C2
B B B B
g3 B g3 B g4
B B
g4 B B
C3 C3
D A D A
∆
P P
FIGURE 31.3 Subassemblage models for K-factors of framed columns: (a) braced frames and (b) unbraced frames.
Using the slope deflection equation method and stability functions, the effective length factor equa-
tions of framed columns are obtained as
For columns in braced frames:

GA GB 2 GA þGB p=K 2 tanðp=2K Þ
ðp=K Þ þ 1 þ 1¼0 ð31:5Þ
4 2 tanðp=K Þ p=K
For columns in unbraced frames:
GA GB ðp=K Þ2 362 p=K

¼0 ð31:6Þ
6ðGA þ GB Þ tanðp=K Þ
where GA and GB are stiffness ratios of columns and girders at two end joints A and B of the column
section being considered, respectively. They are defined by
P
ðEc Ic =Lc Þ
GA ¼ P A ð31:7Þ
A ðEg Ig =Lg Þ
P
ðEc Ic =Lc Þ
GB ¼ P B ð31:8Þ
B g Ig =Lg Þ
ðE
P
where indicates the summation of all members rigidly connected to the joint and lying in the plane in
which buckling of column is being considered, and subscripts c and g represent columns and girders,
respectively.
Equations 31.5 and 31.6 can be expressed in the form of alignment charts as shown in Figure 31.4. It is
noted that for columns in braced frames, the range of K is 0.5 K 1.0; for columns in unbraced
frames, the range is 1.0 K 1. For column ends supported by, but not rigidly connected to, a footing
or foundations, G is theoretically infinity, but unless actually designed as a true friction-free pin, it may
be taken as 10 for practical design. If the column end is rigidly attached to a properly designed footing,
G may be taken as 1.0 (AISC 1999).

GA K GB GA K GB
∞ ∞ ∞
50.0 1.0 50.0 ∞ 20.0 ∞
100.0 10.0 100.0
10.0 10.0 50.0 50.0
5.0 5.0 30.0 5.0 30.0
3.0 0.9 3.0 20.0 20.0
4.0
2.0 2.0
10.0 3.0 10.0
0.8 9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0
1.0 1.0 7.0 7.0
0.9 0.9 6.0 6.0
0.8 0.8 5.0 5.0
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.7 0.6 4.0 2.0 4.0
0.5 0.5
3.0 3.0
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 2.0 2.0
1.5
0.6
0.2 0.2
1.0 1.0
0.1 0.1
0 0.5 0 0 1.0 0
FIGURE 31.4 Alignment charts for effective length factors of framed columns: (a) braced frames and (b) unbraced
frames.
EXAMPLE 31.1
Given: A two-story steel frame is shown in Figure 31.5. Using the alignment chart, determine the
K-factor for the elastic column DE. E ¼ 29,000 ksi (200 GPa) and Fy ¼ 36 ksi (248 MPa).
Solution
(1) For the given frame, section properties are
Ix L Ix /L
Members Section (in.4, mm4 108) (in., mm) (in.3, mm3)
AB and GH W 10 22 118, 0.49 180, 4572 0.656, 10,750

BC and HI W 10 22 118, 0.49 144, 3658 0.819, 13,412
DE W 10 45 248, 1.03 180, 4572 1.378, 22,581
EF W 10 45 248, 1.03 144, 3658 1.722, 28,219
BE W 18 50 800, 3.33 300, 7620 2.667, 43,704
EH W 18 86 1530, 6.37 360, 9144 4.250, 69,645
CF W 16 40 518, 2.16 300, 7620 1.727, 28,300
FI W 16 67 954, 3.97 360, 9144 2.650, 43,426
(2) Calculate G-factor for column DE:

P
ðEc Ic =Lc Þ 1:378 þ 1:722
GE ¼ P E ¼ ¼ 0:448
E g Ig =Lg Þ
ðE 2:667 þ 4:250
GD ¼ 10 ðAISC 1999Þ
(3) From the alignment chart in Figure 31.4b, K ¼ 1.8 is obtained.

40 kip 100 60
C W 16 × 40 F W 16 × 67 I
W 10 × 22
W 10 × 22
W 10 × 45
12 ft
80 200 120
W 18 × 50 W 18 × 86
B E
W 10 × 22 H
W 10 × 45
W 10 × 22
15 ft
G
A D
25 ft 30 ft
FIGURE 31.5 An unbraced two-story frame.
31.4.2 Requirements for Braced Frames

In stability design, one of the major decisions engineers have to make is the determination of whether
a frame is braced or unbraced. In actual structures, a completely braced frame seldom exists. But in
practice, some structures can be analyzed as braced frames as long as the lateral stiffness provided by
bracing systems such as diagonal bracing, shear walls, or equivalent means is large enough. The following
brief discussion may provide engineers with the tools to make engineering decisions regarding the basic
requirements for a braced frame.
31.4.2.1 Lateral Stiffness Requirement

Galambos (1964) presented a simple conservative procedure to evaluate the minimum lateral stiffness
provided by a bracing system so that the frame is considered braced:
P
Pn
Required lateral stiffness Tk ¼ ð31:9Þ
Lc
P
where represents the summation of all columns in one story, Pn is the nominal axial compression
strength of the column using the effective length factor K ¼ 1, and Lc is the unsupported length of the
column.
31.4.2.2 Bracing Size Requirement

Galambos (1964) applied Equation 31.9 to a diagonal bracing (Figure 31.6) and obtained the minimum
requirements of diagonal bracing for a braced frame as
3=2 P
1 þ ðLb =Lc Þ2 Pn
Ab ¼ ð31:10Þ
ðLb =Lc Þ2 E
where Ab is the cross-sectional area of diagonal bracing and Lb is the span length of the beam.
A recent study by Aristizabal-Ochoa (1994a) indicates that the size of diagonal bracing required for
a totally braced frame is about 4.9 and 5.1% of the column cross-section for ‘‘rigid frame’’ and ‘‘simple
framing,’’ respectively, and increases with the moment of inertia of the column, the beam span, and the
beam to column span ratio Lb/Lc.

C T
Ac Ac
Lc
Ab Ab
Lb
FIGURE 31.6 Diagonal cross bracing system.
31.4.2.3 Threshold Lateral Stiffness of Braces

For a multistory braced frame, Tong and Shi (2001) defined the threshold lateral stiffness as the bracing
stiffness at which the critical buckling load in sway buckling mode is equal to the nonsway buckl-
ing mode. They found out that most threshold stiffness values are from p2 to 4p2 and proposed the
following approximate formula (Tong and Shi 2001):

EI
Tk ¼ GTH 3 ð31:11Þ
L c
" 0:18 0:18 #
2 p2 p2 GA GB
GTH ¼ þ 60 ð31:12Þ
3 Kb2 Kub GB GA
where Kb and Kub are the effective length factors for braced and unbraced frames, respectively.
31.4.2.4 Stability Index

ACI 318-02 (ACI 2002) permits us to assume a column in a structure is braced if the increase in the
lateral load moment due to second-order (P–D) effects does not exceed 5% of the first-order moment
(MacGregor and Hage 1977). The American Concrete Institute (ACI) also provides an alternative
method based on the stability index for a story. The story within a structure can be assumed as braced if
the stability index
P
Pu D0
Q¼ 0:05 ð31:13Þ
Vu Lc
P
where Pu and Vu are the total vertical load and the story shear, respectively, in the story in question; D0 is
the first-order relative deflection between the top and bottom of that story due to Vu; and Lc is the length
of the compression member in a frame, measured from center to center of the joints in the frame.
Menon (2001) used the ‘‘fuzzy logic’’ concept and proposed that a frame is ‘‘adequately braced’’ if its
stability index Q is less than 0.02, unbraced if Q exceeds 0.06 and ‘‘partially braced’’ if Q lies in the
intermediate domain {0.02, 0.06}, and the K-factor can be estimated by the following equations:
K ¼ Kub qx ðKub Kb Þ ð31:14Þ
8
> 1:0 for Q 0:02
>
>
>
< 1:0 0:5ðQ=0:02 1:0Þ2 for 0:02 < Q 0:04
qx ¼ ð31:15Þ
>
> 0:5ð3:0 Q=0:02Þ2 for 0:04 < Q 0:06
>
>
:
0:0 for Q > 0:06
where Kub and Kb are the effective length factors for unbraced and braced frames, respectively.

31.4.2.5 AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design Requirements

Based on the concept of dual criterion for bracing design, strength, and stiffness proposed by Winter
(1958, 1960), AISC (1999) provides the stability bracing requirements for braced frames, in which
the effective length factor K for compression members is taken as unity, unless structural analysis shows
that a smaller value may be used.
For frames:
The required story or panel bracing shear force is
X
Pbr ¼ 0:004 Pu ð31:16Þ
The required story or panel shear stiffness is

P
2 Pu
Bbr ¼ ð31:17Þ
fL
P
where f is equal to 0.75, Pu is the summation of the factored column axial loads in the story or
panel supported by the bracing, and L is the story height or panel spacing.
For individual columns:
1. For relative bracing
The required brace strength is
Pbr ¼ 0:004Pu ð31:18Þ
The required brace stiffness is
2Pu
Bbr ¼ ð31:19Þ
fLb
2. For nodal bracing

The required brace strength is
Pbr ¼ 0:01Pu ð31:20Þ
The required brace stiffness is
8Pu
Bbr ¼ ð31:21Þ
fLb
where f is equal to 0.75, Pu is the factored column axial load, and Lb is the distance between
braces. When the actual spacing of braced points is less than the maximum unbraced length for
the required column force with K is equal to 1, then Lb in Equations 31.19 and 31.21 is permitted
to be taken equal to Lq. For a more detailed discussion, see Yura (1995).
31.4.3 Simplified Equations to Alignment Charts

A graphical alignment chart determination of the K-factor is easy to perform, while solving the chart
Equations 31.5 and 31.6 always involves iteration. With today’s personal computer, especially spread-
sheet applications in design offices, the following simplified equations may serve as the equivalent of the
alignment charts.
31.4.3.1 ACI 318-02 Equations

The ACI Building Code (ACI 318-02) recommends the use of alignment charts as the primary design aid
for estimating K-factors, with the following two sets of simplified K-factor equations as an alternative.
For braced frames (Cranston 1972)
K ¼ 0:7 þ 0:05ðGA þ GB Þ 1:0 ð31:22Þ

K ¼ 0:85 þ 0:05Gmin 1:0 ð31:23Þ

The smaller of the above two expressions provides an upper bound to the effective length factor for
braced compression members.
For unbraced frames (Furlong 1971)
20 Gm pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
K¼ 1 þ Gm for Gm < 2 ð31:24Þ
20
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
K ¼ 0:9 1 þ Gm for Gm 2 ð31:25Þ
For columns hinged at one end
K ¼ 2:0 þ 0:3G ð31:26Þ
where Gm is the average of the G values at the two ends of columns.
It is found that ACI simplified Equations 31.22 to 31.26 estimate very conservative K-factors when the
difference between the relative stiffness ratios at the two ends of an unbraced column becomes larger and
when end restraints of a braced column are large. In general, they may not lead to an economical design
(Hu et al. 1993).
31.4.3.2 Duan–King–Chen Equations
To achieve both accuracy and simplicity for design purpose, the following alternative K-factor equations
were proposed by Duan et al. (1993).
For braced frames
1 1 1
K ¼1 ð31:27Þ
5 þ 9GA 5 þ 9GB 10 þ GA GB
For unbraced frames
1 1 1
K ¼4 for K < 2 ð31:28Þ
1 þ 0:2GA 1 þ 0:2GB 1 þ 0:01GA GB
2pa
K¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi for K 2 ð31:29Þ
0:9 þ 0:81 þ 4ab
where
GA GB
a¼ þ3 ð31:30Þ
GA þ GB
36
b¼ þ6 ð31:31Þ
GA þ GB
Equation 31.28 shall be used to first calculate K. If the value of K calculated by Equation 31.28
is greater than 2, Equation 31.29 shall then be used.
31.4.3.3 French Equations
For braced frames
3GA GB þ 1:4 ðGA þ GB Þ þ 0:64
K¼ ð31:32Þ
3GA GB þ 2:0 ðGA þ GB Þ þ 1:28
For unbraced frames
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1:6GA GB þ 4:0 ðGA þ GB Þ þ 7:5
K¼ ð31:33Þ
GA þ GB þ 7:5
Equations 31.32 and 31.33 first appeared in the French Rules for the Design of Steel Structure in 1966
(CM 1966) and were later incorporated into the European Recommendation for Steel Construction in 1978
(ECCS 1978). Neither French CM 66 Rules nor the European Recommendations give the origin of
these two formulas. They provide a good approximation to the alignment charts (Dumonteil 1992).
For braced frames, Equation 31.32 underestimates K by not more than 0.5% and overestimates it by
1.5%. For unbraced frames, Equation 31.33 approximates K within 2% (Dumonteil 1999).

31.4.3.4 Donnell Equation for Braced Frames

The Donnell equation, developed in 1949 as reported by Rondal (1988), has the following format:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GA GB þ 0:43ðGA þ GB Þ þ 0:17
K¼ ð31:34Þ
GA GB þ 0:86ðGA þ GB Þ þ 0:68
This is the formula presented by Dumonteil and Valley (1995) in their discussion paper. Its accuracy
ranges from 0.4 to 1.3%.
31.4.3.5 Newmark Equation for Braced Frames
Introducing the G-factor, the Newmark (1949) equation has the following form:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðGA þ 4=p2 ÞðGB þ 4=p2 Þ
K¼ ð31:35Þ
ðGA þ 8=p2 ÞðGB þ 8=p2 Þ
While the accuracy of Equation 31.35 is remarkable, it could still be slightly improved by replacing
the term 4/p2 with 0.41, and the Newmark equation becomes (Dumonteil 1999)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðGA þ 0:41ÞðGB þ 0:41Þ
K¼ ð31:36Þ
ðGA þ 0:82ÞðGB þ 0:82Þ
Equation 31.36 underestimates K by no more than 0.1% and overestimates it by less than 1.5%.
31.5 Modifications to Alignment Charts

In using the alignment charts in Figure 31.4 and Equations 31.5 and 31.6, engineers must always be
aware of the assumptions used in the development of these charts. When actual structural conditions
differ from these assumptions, unrealistic design may result (Johnston 1976; Liew et al. 1991; Hajjar and
White 1994; AISC 1999; Dafedar et al. 2001). The Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) Guide
(Johnston 1976) provides methods enabling engineers to make simple modifications of the charts for
some special conditions, such as unsymmetrical frames, column base conditions, girder far end
conditions, and flexible conditions. Procedures that can be used to account for far ends of restraining
columns being hinged or fixed were proposed by Duan and Chen (1988, 1989, 1996) and Essa (1997).
Consideration of effects of material inelasticity on the K-factor was developed originally by Yura (1971)
and expanded by Disque (1973). LeMessurier (1977) presented an overview of unbraced frames with or
without leaning columns. An approximate procedure was also suggested by AISC (1999). Special
attention should also be paid to calculation of the proper G-values (Barakat and Chen 1991; Duan 1996;
Kishi et al. 1997) when partially restrained (PR) connections are used in frames. Several commonly used
modifications are summarized in this section.
31.5.1 Different Restraining Girder End Conditions

When the end conditions of restraining girders are not rigidly joined to columns, the girder stiffness
(Ig/Lg) used in the calculation of GA and GB in Equations 31.7 and 31.8 should be multiplied by a
modification factor ak as
P
ðEc Ic =Lc Þ
G¼ P ð31:37Þ
ak ðEg Ig =Lg Þ
where the modification factor ak developed by Duan (1996) for braced frames and proposed by
Kishi et al. (1997) for unbraced frames are given in Table 31.1 and Table 31.2, respectively. In these tables,
RkN and RkF are elastic spring constants at the near and far ends of a restraining girder, respectively.

TABLE 31.1 Modification Factor ak for Braced Frames with Semirigid Connections (Duan 1996)
End conditions of restraining girder
Near end Far end ak
Rigid Rigid 1.0
Rigid Hinged 1.5

6Eg Ig 4Eg Ig
Rigid Semirigid 1þ 1þ
Lg RkF Lg RkF
Rigid Fixed 2.0

4Eg Ig
Semirigid Rigid 1 1þ
Lg RkN

3Eg Ig
Semirigid Hinged 1:5 1þ
Lg RkN

6Eg Ig
Semirigid Semirigid 1þ R
Lg RkF

4Eg Ig
Semirigid Fixed 2 1þ
Lg RkN

4Eg Ig 4Eg Ig Eg Ig 2 4
R ¼ 1þ 1þ
Lg RkN Lg RkF Lg RkN RkF
TABLE 31.2 Modification Factor ak for Unbraced Frames with Semirigid Connections
(Kishi, Chen and Goto, 1997)
End conditions of restraining girder
Near end Far end ak
Rigid Rigid 1
Rigid Hinged 0.5

2Eg Ig 4Eg Ig
Rigid Semirigid 1þ 1þ
Lg RkF Lg RkF
Rigid Fixed 2=3

4Eg Ig
Semirigid Rigid 1 1þ
Lg RkN

3Eg Ig
Semirigid Hinged 0:5 1þ
Lg RkN

2Eg Ig
Semirigid Semirigid 1þ R
Lg RkF

2 4Eg Ig
Semirigid Fixed 1þ
3 Lg RkN
2
4Eg Ig 4Eg Ig Eg Ig 4
R ¼ 1þ 1þ
Lg RkN Lg RkF Lg RkN RkF
RkN and RkF are the tangent stiffnesses of a semirigid connection at buckling. ASCE Task Committee
on Effective Length (1997) provides a detailed discussion of frame stability with PR connection.
EXAMPLE 31.2
Given: A steel frame is shown in Figure 31.5. Using the alignment chart with the necessary mod-
ifications, determine the K-factor for elastic column EF. E ¼ 29,000 ksi (200 GPa) and Fy ¼ 36 ksi
(248 MPa).

Solution
1. Calculate the G-factor with modification for column EF. Since the far end of the restraining
girders is hinged, girder stiffness should be multiplied by 0.5 (see Table 31.2). Using the section
properties in Example 31.1, we obtain
P
ðEc Ic =Lc Þ 1:722
GF ¼ P ¼ ¼ 0:787
ak ðEg Ig =Lg Þ 0:5ð1:727Þ þ 0:5 ð2:650Þ
GE ¼ 0:448
2. From the alignment chart in Figure 32.4b, K ¼ 1.22 is obtained.
31.5.2 Different Restraining Column End Conditions

To consider different far end conditions of restraining columns, the general effective length factor
equations for column C2 (Figure 31.3) were derived by Duan and Chen (1988, 1989, 1996). By assuming
that the far ends of columns C1 and C3 are hinged and using the slope deflection equation approach for
the subassemblies shown in Figure 31.3, we obtain the following.
31.5.2.1 For a Braced Frame (Duan and Chen 1988)

" 2 #
2 2 ð2GBC3 =GA Þ þ ð2GAC1 =GB Þ S
C S GAC1 þ GBC3 þ GAC2 GBC2 þ GAC1 GBC3
C C

1 1 4
þ 2C þ þ ¼0 ð31:38Þ
GA GB GA GB
where C and S are stability functions as defined by Equations 31.3 and 31.4; GA and GB are defined in
Equations 31.7 and 31.8; and GAC1, GAC2, GBC2, and GBC3 are the stiffness ratios of columns at the A-th
and B-th ends of the columns being considered, respectively. They are defined as
Eci Ici =Lci

GCi ¼ P ð31:39Þ
ðEci Ici =Lci Þ
P
where indicates the summation of all columns rigidly connected to the joint and lying in the plane in
which buckling of column is being considered.
Although Equation 31.38 was derived for the special case in which the far ends of both column C1 and
column C3 are hinged, this equation is also applicable if adjustment to GCi is made as follows: (1) if the
far end of column Ci (C1 or C3) is fixed, then take GCi ¼ 0 (except for GC2) and (2) if the far end of
column Ci (C1 or C3) is rigidly connected, then take GCi ¼ 0 and GC2 ¼ 1.0. Therefore, Equation 31.38
can be specialized for the following conditions:
1. If the far ends of both column C1 and column C3 are fixed, we have GAC1 ¼ GBC3 ¼ 0 and
Equation 31.38 reduces to

2 2 1 1 4
C S ðGAC2 GBC2 Þ þ 2C þ þ ¼0 ð31:40Þ
GA GB GA GB
2. If the far end of column C1 is rigidly connected and the far end of column C3 is fixed, we have
GAC2 ¼ 1.0 and GAC1 ¼ GBC3 ¼ 0, and Equation 31.38 reduces to

1 1 4
C 2 S 2 þ GBC2 þ 2C þ þ ¼0 ð31:41Þ
GA GB GA GB

3. If the far end of column C1 is rigidly connected and the far end of column C3 is hinged, we have
GAC1 ¼ 0 and GAC2 ¼ 1.0, and Equation 31.38 reduces to

2GBC3 1 1 4
C 2 S 2 GBC3 þ GBC2 þ þ 2C þ þ ¼0 ð31:42Þ
GA C GA GB GA GB
4. If the far end of column C1 is hinged and the far end of column C3 is fixed, we have GBC3 ¼ 0, and
Equation 31.38 reduces to

2 2 2GAC1 1 1 4
C S GAC1 þ GAC2 GBC2 þ þ 2C þ þ ¼0 ð31:43Þ
GB C GA GB GA GB
5. If the far ends of both columns C1 and C3 are rigidly connected (i.e., the assumptions used in
developing the alignment chart), we have GC2 ¼ 1.0 and GCi ¼ 0, and Equation 31.38 reduces to

2 2 1 1 4
C S þ 2C þ þ ¼0 ð31:44Þ
GA GB GA GB
which can be rewritten in the form of Equation 31.5.
31.5.2.2 For an Unbraced Frame (Duan and Chen 1989, 1996)

a11 a12 a13

det a21 a22 a23 ¼ 0 ð31:45Þ
a31 a32 a33
or
a11 a22 a33 þ a21 a32 a13 þ a31 a23 a12 a31 a22 a13 a21 a12 a33 þ a11 a23 a32 ¼ 0 ð31:46Þ
where
6 S2
a11 ¼ C þ GAC1 ð31:47Þ
GA C
6 S2
a22 ¼ C þ GBC3 ð31:48Þ
GB C

1 p 2

a33 ¼ 2 C þ S ð31:49Þ
2 K
a12 ¼ GAC2 S ð31:50Þ
a21 ¼ GBC2 S ð31:51Þ
a31 ¼ a32 ¼ C þ S ð31:52Þ
2

S
a13 ¼ ðC þ SÞ þ GAC1 S þ ð31:53Þ
C

S2
a23 ¼ ðC þ SÞ þ GBC3 Sþ ð31:54Þ
C
Although Equation 31.45 was derived for the special case in which the far ends of both column C1 and
column C3 are hinged, it can be adjusted to account for the following cases: (1) if the far end of column
Ci (C1 or C3) is fixed, then take GCi ¼ 0 (except for GC2) and (2) if the far end of column Ci (C1 or C3)

is rigidly connected, then take GCi ¼ 0 and GC2 ¼ 1.0. Therefore, Equation 31.45 can be used for the
following conditions:
1. If the far ends of both column C1 and column C3 are fixed, we take GC1 ¼ GC3 ¼ 0 and obtain
from Equations 31.47, 31.48, 31.53, and 31.54
6
a11 ¼ C þ ð31:55Þ
GA
6
a22 ¼Cþ ð31:56Þ
GB
a13 ¼ a23 ¼ ðC þ SÞ ð31:57Þ
2. If the far end of column C1 is rigidly connected and the far end of column C3 is fixed, we
take GAC2 ¼ 1.0 and GAC1 ¼ GBC3 ¼ 0 and obtain from Equations 31.47, 31.48, 31.50, 31.53,
and 31.54
6
a11 ¼ C þ ð31:58Þ
GA
6
a22 ¼Cþ ð31:59Þ
GB
a12 ¼ S ð31:60Þ
a13 ¼ a23 ¼ ðC þ SÞ ð31:61Þ
3. If the far end of column C1 is rigidly connected and the far end of column C3 is hinged, we take
GAC1 ¼ 0 and GAC2 ¼ 1.0 and obtain from Equations 31.47, 31.50, and 31.52
6
a11 ¼ C þ ð31:62Þ
GA
a12 ¼ S ð31:63Þ
a13 ¼ ðC þ SÞ ð31:64Þ
4. If the far end of column C1 is hinged and the far end of column C3 is fixed, we have GBC3 ¼ 0.0
and obtain from Equations 31.48 and 31.54
6
a22 ¼ C þ ð31:65Þ
GB
a23 ¼ ðC þ SÞ ð31:66Þ
5. If the far ends of both column C1 and column C3 are rigidly connected (i.e., the assumptions used
in developing the alignment chart, that is, yC ¼ yB and yD ¼ yA), we take GC2 ¼ 1.0 and GCi ¼ 0
and obtain from Equations 31.47 to 31.54
6
a11 ¼ C þ ð31:67Þ
GA
6
a22 ¼Cþ ð31:68Þ
GB
a12 ¼ a21 ¼ S ð31:69Þ
a13 ¼ a23 ¼ ðC þ SÞ ð31:70Þ
Equation 31.45 is reduced to the form of Equation 31.6.

The procedures to obtain the K-factor directly from the alignment charts without resorting to solve
Equations 31.38 and 31.45 were also proposed by Duan and Chen (1988, 1989).

(a) Near end Far end
N F
(1–r)h
h
rh
b
L
(b) N F
h
rh
b
aL L – 2aL aL
FIGURE 31.7 Tapered rectangular girders: (a) linearly tapered girder and (b) symmetrically tapered girder.
31.5.3 Columns Restrained by Tapered Rectangular Girders

A modification factor aT was developed by King et al. (1993) for those framed columns restrained by
tapered rectangular girders with different far end conditions. The following modified G-factor is
introduced in connection with the use of alignment charts:
P
ðEc Ic =Lc Þ
G¼P ð31:71Þ
aT ðEg Ig =Lg Þ
where Ig is the moment of inertia of the girder at the near end. Both closed-from and approximate
solutions for modification factor aT were derived. It is found that the following two-parameter power
function can describe the closed-from solutions very well:
aT ¼ Dð1 rÞb ð31:72Þ
where the parameter D is a constant depending on the far end conditions and b is a function of far
end conditions and tapering factors a and r as defined in Figure 31.7.
For a braced frame
8 9
<1:0 rigid far end =
D ¼ 2:0 fixed far end ð31:73Þ
: ;
1:5 hinged far end
For an unbraced frame

8 9
< 1:0 rigid far end =
D ¼ 2=3 fixed far end ð31:74Þ
: ;
0:5 hinged far end
1. For a linearly tapered rectangular girder (Figure 31.7a)

For a braced frame
8 9
<0:02 þ 0:4r rigid far end =
b ¼ 0:75 0:1r fixed far end ð31:75Þ
: ;
0:75 0:1r hinged far end


8 9
<0:95 rigid far end =
b ¼ 0:70 fixed far end ð31:76Þ
: ;
0:70 hinged far end
2. For a symmetrically tapered rectangular girder (Figure 31.7b)

For a braced frame
8 9
<3 1:7a2 2a rigid far end =
b ¼ 3 þ 2:5a2 5:55a fixed far end ð31:77Þ
: ;
3 a2 2:7a hinged far end

8 9
<3 þ 3:8a2 6:5a rigid far end =
b ¼ 3 þ 2:3a2 5:45a fixed far end ð31:78Þ
: ;
3 0:3a hinged far end
EXAMPLE 31.3
Given: A one-story frame with a symmetrically tapered rectangular girder is shown in Figure 31.8.
Assuming r ¼ 0.5, a ¼ 0.2, and Ig ¼ 2Ic ¼ 2I, determine the K-factor for column AB.
Solution
1. Using the alignment chart with modification
For joint A, since the far end of the girder is rigid, use Equations 31.78 and 31.72:
b ¼ 3 þ 3:8ð0:2Þ2 6:5ð0:2Þ ¼ 1:852

aT ¼ ð1 0:5Þ1:852 ¼ 0:277
P
Ec Ic =Lc EI=L
GA ¼ P ¼ ¼ 3:61
aT Eg Ig =Lg 0:277Eð2IÞ=2L
GB ¼ 1:0 ðAISC 1999Þ
From the alignment chart in Figure 31.4b, K ¼ 1.59 is obtained.
0.4L 1.2L 0.4L

A C
h
0.5h
Elc
B D
2L
FIGURE 31.8 A simple frame with rectangular sections.

2. Using the alignment chart without modification

A direct use of Equations 31.7 and 31.8 with an average section (0.75h) results in
Ig ¼ 0:753 ð2IÞ ¼ 0:844I
EI=L
GA ¼ ¼ 2:37, GB ¼ 1:0
0:844EI=2L
From the alignment chart in Figure 31.4b, K ¼ 1.49 or (1.49 1.59)/1.59 ¼ 6% in error on the
less conservative side.
31.5.4 Unsymmetrical Frames

When the column sizes or column loads are not identical, adjustments to the alignment charts are
necessary to obtain correct K-factors. Figure 31.9 presents a set of curves for a modification factor b
developed by Chu and Chow (1969).
Kadjusted ¼ bKalignment chart ð31:79Þ
If the K-factor of the column under the load lP is desired, further modifications to K are necessary.
Denoting K 0 as the effective length factor of column with Ic0 ¼ aIc subjected to the axial load P 0 ¼ lP as
shown in Figure 31.9, we have
rffiffiffi
L a
K 0 ¼ Kadjusted 0 ð31:80Þ
L l
Equation 31.80 can be used to determine K-factors for columns in adjacent stories with different
heights L0 .
31.5.5 Effects of Axial Forces in Restraining Members

Compressive axial load in a restraining girder reduces its flexural stiffness and then affects adversely
the K-factor of the column (AISC 1999). To account for any compression axial load in a girder, the
girder stiffness parameter (EgIg/Lg) in Equations 31.7 and 31.8 should be modified by the factor
½1 ðQ=Qcr Þ, where Q is the axial compression load in the girder, and Qcr is the in-plane buckling load
of the girder based on K ¼ 1.0. Tensile axial load in the girder can be ignored when determining the
G-factor.
Bridge and Fraser (1987) observed that K-factors of a column in a braced frame may be greater than
unity due to ‘‘negative’’ restraining effects. Figure 31.10 shows the solutions obtained by considering the
both ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’ values of G-factors. The shaded portion of the graph corresponds to the
alignment chart shown in Figure 31.4a when both GA and GB are positive.
To account for the effect of axial forces in the restraining members, Bridge and Fraser (1987) proposed
a more general expression for G-factor:
ðI=LÞ stiffness of member i under investigation
G¼P ¼ ð31:81Þ
n ðI=LÞ g
n n mn stiffness of all rigidly connected members
where g is a function of the stability functions S and C (Equations 31.3 and 31.4), m is a factor to account
for the end conditions of the restraining member (see Figure 31.11), and subscript n represents the other
members rigidly connected to member i. The summation in the denominator is for all members meeting
at the joint.
By using Figure 31.10, Figure 31.11, and Equation 31.81, the effective length factor Ki for the ith
member can be determined by the following steps:
1. Sketch the buckled shape of the structure under consideration.
2. Assume a value of Ki for the member being investigated.

1.8
1.7
P
Ib P⬘ = P
1.6
1.5
Lc Ic I⬘c = Ic
I ⬘b 0 ≤ ≤ 1.0
0 ≤ ≤ 1.0
1.4 Ib
Kadjusted = Kalignment chart

1.3
1.2
1.1 =
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.9 0.4
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

FIGURE 31.9 Chart for the modification factor b in an unsymmetrical frame.
3. Calculate values of Kn for each of the other members that are rigidly connected to the ith member
using the equation
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
Li Pi In
Kn ¼ Ki ð31:82Þ
Ln Pn Ii
4. Calculate g and obtain m from Figure 31.11 for each member.

5. Calculate Gi for the ith member using Equation 31.81.
6. Obtain Ki from Figure 31.10 and compare with the assumed Ki at step 2.
7. Repeat the procedure by using the calculated Ki as the assumed Ki until Ki calculated at the end of
the cycle is approximately (say, 10%) equal to the Ki at the beginning of the cycle.

–0.5
∞
–1.0
3
–1.2
2
1.
–1.5
6
1.
4
–2
1.
2
–3
–4
1.
1
–6 1.
k= 05
–10 1.
00
+∞
0.9
10 5
6
GB
4 0.9
0
3
0.8
2 5
1.5 0.8
1.2
1.0 0.7
5
0.7
0
0.5
0.6
5
0.6
0
0.5
5
0.5
1.0
1.2
1.5
2
3
4
6
10
–10
–6
–4
–3
–2
–1.5
–1.2
–1.0
–0.5
+∞
GA
FIGURE 31.10 Effective length chart considering both positive and negative effects in braced frame (Bridge and
Fraser 1987).
8. Repeat steps 2 to 7 for other members of the frame.

9. The largest set of K values obtained is then used for design.
The above procedure has been illustrated (Bridge and Fraser 1987) and verified (Koo 1988) to provide
a good elastic K-factor of columns in braced frames.
EXAMPLE 31.4
Given: A braced column is shown in Figure 31.12. Consider axial force effects to determine K-factors
for columns AB and BC.
Solution
1. Sketch buckled shape as shown in Figure 31.12b.
2. Assume KAB ¼ 0.94.
3. Calculate KBC by Equation 31.82:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
LAB PAB IBC L 2PI
KBC ¼ KAB ¼ 0:94
LBC PBC IAB L Pð1:2IÞ
¼ 1:22

Axial Exact
forces Cases formula Approximate formula m
A B = –A
C–S 1
2 1
1+
A 1.5 Kn2
Tension C – S2/C 1.5
MB = 0 3
A
C 2
B = 0 4 1
A 1+
4 Kn2
C+S 3
B =A 6
A
B =A
C–S 1 1
1– for Kn > 1.0
2 Kn2
A
2
2– for Kn ≤ 1.0
C – S2/C Kn2 1.5
MB = 0 3
Compression A
C 1
1– for Kn > 0.7
4 2 Kn2
2
B = 0 2
2– for Kn ≤ 0.7
Kn2
A
C+S 1 3
1–
B = A 6 4 Kn2
Note: C and S are stability equations
FIGURE 31.11 Values of g and m to account for the effect of axial forces in the restraining members.
4. Calculate g and obtain m from Figure 31.11 for member BC.

Since KBC > 1.0
1 1
gBC ¼ 1 2 ¼ 1 1:222 ¼ 0:33
KBC
Far end is pined, mBC ¼ 1.5

5. Calculate G-factor for member AB using Equation 31.81.
ðI=LÞ ð1:2I=LÞ
GB ¼ P ¼ ¼ 2:42
n ðI=LÞn gn mn ðI=LÞð0:33Þð1:5Þ
GA ¼ 1
6. From Figure 31.10, KAB ¼ 0.93. Comparing with the assumed KAB ¼ 0.94 it is alright.

(a) P (b)
L
P
L
1.2 I
FIGURE 31.12 Braced columns: (a) braced columns and (b) buckled shape.
7. Repeat the above procedure for member BC.

Assume KBC ¼ 1.2
Calculate KAB by Equation 31.82
ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
LBC PBC IAB L Pð1:2IÞ
KAB ¼ KBC ¼ 1:2 ¼ 0:93
LAB PAB IBC L 2PI
Calculate g and obtain m from Figure 31.11 for member AB

Since KAB < 1.0
2 2
gAB ¼ 2 2 ¼ 2 0:932 ¼ 0:312
KAB
Far end is pined, mAB ¼ 1.5

Calculate G-factor for the member BC using Equation 31.81.
ðI=LÞ ðI=LÞ
GB ¼ P ¼ ¼ 1:78
n ðI=LÞ g
n n mn ð1:2I=LÞð0:312Þð1:5Þ
Gc ¼ 1
See Figure 31.10, KBC ¼ 1.18

Comparing with the assumed KAB ¼ 1.20 it is alright.
8. It is seen that the largest set of K-factors is
KAB ¼ 1:22 and KBC ¼ 0:93
31.5.6 Consideration of Partial Column Base Fixity

In computing the effective length factor for monolithic connections, it is important to properly evaluate
the degree of fixity in foundation. The following two approaches can be used to account for foundation
fixity.

31.5.6.1 Fictitious Restraining Beam Approach

Galambos (1960) proposed that the effect of partial base fixity can be modeled as a fictitious beam. The
approximate expression for the stiffness of the fictitious beam accounting for rotation of foundation in
the soil has the form
Is qBH 3
¼ ð31:83Þ
LB 72Esteel
where q is the modulus of subgrade reaction (varies from 50 to 400 lb/in.3, 0.014 to 0.109 N/mm3), B and
H are the width and length (in bending plane) of the foundation, respectively, and Esteel is the modulus
of elasticity of steel.
Based on the studies of Salmon et al. (1957), the approximate expression for the stiffness of the
fictitious beam accounting for the rotations between column ends and footing due to deformation of
base plate, anchor bolts, and concrete can be written as:
Is bd 2
¼ ð31:84Þ
LB 72Esteel =Econcrete
where b and d are the width and length of the base plate, respectively and subscripts concrete and steel
represent concrete and steel, respectively. Galambos (1960) suggested that the smaller stiffness calculated
by Equations 31.83 and 31.84 be used in determining K-factors.
31.5.6.2 AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design Approach

The following values are suggested by AASHTO (2004):
G ¼ 1:5 footing anchored on rock

G ¼ 3:0 footing not anchored on rock
G ¼ 5:0 footing on soil
G ¼ 1:0 footing on multiple rows of end bearing piles
31.5.7 Inelastic K -factor

The effect of material inelasticity and end restrain on the K-factors has been studied during the last two
decades (Yura 1971; Disque 1973; Jones et al. 1980, 1982; Chapius and Galambos 1982; Sugimoto and
Chen 1982; Vinnakota 1982; Lui and Chen 1983; Razzaq 1983; Bjorhovde 1984; Sohal et al. 1995). The
inelastic K-factor developed originally by Yura (1971) and expanded by Disque (1973) makes use of
alignment charts with simple modifications. It is conservative to design column on the base of elastic
K-factors. It is less conservative to design column on the base of inelastic K-factors. To consider the
inelasticity of material, the G-values as defined by Equations 31.7 and 31.8 are replaced by G (Disque
1973) as follows:
Et
G ¼ SRFðGÞ ¼ G ð31:85Þ
E
where Et is the tangent modulus of the material. For practical application, the stiffness reduction
factor (SRF) ¼ (Et/E) and can be taken as the ratio of the inelastic to elastic buckling stress of the
column
Et ðFcr Þinelastic ðPu =Ag Þ

SRF ¼ ð31:86Þ
E ðFcr Þelastic ðFcr Þelastic

where Pu is the factored axial load and Ag is the gross section area of member. (Fcr)inelastic and (Fcr)elastic
can be calculated by AISC (1999) column equations:
2
ðFcr Þinelastic ¼ ð0:658Þlc Fy ð31:87Þ

0:877
ðFcr Þelastic ¼ Fy ð31:88Þ
l2c
rffiffiffiffiffi
KL Fy
lc ¼ ð31:89Þ
rp E
where K is the elastic effective length factor and r is the radius of gyration about the plane of buckling.
Table 31.3 gives the SRF values for different stress levels and slenderness parameters. AISC (1999)
provides a direct calculation of SRF as follows:
8
>
> 1:0 for ðPu =Py Þ 13
<
SRF ¼ ð31:90Þ
> Pu ðPu =Py Þ
>
: 7:38 log for ðPu =Py Þ > 1
3
Py 0:85
EXAMPLE 31.5
Given: A two-story steel frame is shown in Figure 31.5. Using the alignment chart to determine the
K-factor for inelastic column DE, E ¼ 29,000 ksi (200 GPa) and Fy ¼ 36 ksi (248 MPa).
Solution
1. Calculate the axial stress ratio
Pu 300
¼ ¼ 0:63
Ag Fy 13:3ð36Þ
2. Obtain SRF ¼ 0.793 from Table 31.3
TABLE 31.3 Stiffness Reduction Factor (SRF) for G-values

(KL/r)elastic
36 ksi 50 ksi SRF
Pu/(AgFy) (248 MPa) (345 MPa) lc (Equation 31.86)
1.00 0.0 0.0 0.155 0.000
0.95 31.2 26.5 0.350 0.133
0.90 44.7 38.0 0.502 0.258
0.85 55.6 47.1 0.623 0.376
0.80 65.1 55.2 0.730 0.486
0.75 73.9 62.7 0.829 0.588
0.70 82.3 69.8 0.923 0.680
0.65 90.5 76.8 1.015 0.763
0.60 98.5 83.6 1.105 0.835
0.55 106.6 90.4 1.195 0.896
0.50 114.7 97.4 1.287 0.944
0.45 123.2 104.5 1.381 0.979
0.40 131.9 111.9 1.480 0.998
0.39 133.7 113.5 1.500 1.000

From Equation 31.83b

Pu ðPu =Py Þ 0:63
SRF ¼ 7:38 log ¼ 7:38ð0:63Þ log ¼ 0:605
Py 0:85 0:85
3. Calculate the modified G-factor
GE ¼ 0:448 ðExample 31.1Þ

GE ¼ SRFðGE Þ ¼ 0:794ð0:448Þ ¼ 0:355
GD ¼ 10 (AISC 1999)
4. From the alignment chart in Figure 31.4b, we have

ðKDE Þinelastic ¼ 1:75
31.6 Framed Columns — Alternative Methods

31.6.1 LeMessurier Method
Considering that all columns in a story buckle simultaneously and strong columns will brace weak
columns (Figure 31.13), a more accurate approach to calculate K-factors for columns in a sidesway frame
was developed by LeMessurier (1977). The Ki value for the ith column in a story can be obtained by the
following expression:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P P
p2 EIi P þ CL P
Ki ¼ P ð31:91Þ
Li2 Pi PL
P
where Pi is the axial compressive force for member i, subscript i represents the ith column, and P is
the sum of axial force of all columns in a story.
bEI
PL ¼ ð31:92Þ
L2
6ðGA þ GB Þ þ 36
b¼ ð31:93Þ
2ðGA þ GB Þ þ GA GB þ 3
2
K0
CL ¼ b 2 1 ð31:94Þ
p
where K0 is the effective length factor obtained by the alignment chart for unbraced frames and PL is
P
V
EI
FIGURE 31.13 Subassemblage of LeMessurier method.

only for rigid columns, which provide sidesway stiffness. For a cantilever column, CL ¼ 0.216. In multi-
story structures, CL may be expediently approximated by 0.2 for all columns except for pin-ended
columns, for which CL ¼ 0.
EXAMPLE 31.6
Given: A sway frame with unequal height columns is shown in Figure 31.14a. Determine the elastic
K-factors for columns by using the LeMessurier method. Member properties are
Member A (in.2, mm2) I (in.4, mm4, 108) L (in., mm)

AB 21.5, 13,871 620, 2.58 240, 6096
BD 21.5, 13,871 620, 2.58 240, 6096
CD 7.65, 4,935 310, 1.29 120, 3048
Solution
The detailed calculations are listed in Table 31.4.
By using Equation 31.91, we obtain
P P
p2 EIAB P þ CL P
KAB ¼ 2 P
P
LAB AB PL
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

p2 Eð620Þ 3P þ 0:495P
¼ ¼ 0:83
ð240Þ2 ð2PÞ 0:271E
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P P
p2 EICD P þ CL P
KCD ¼ 2 P
P
LCD CD PL
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
p2 Eð310Þ 3P þ 0:495P
¼ ¼ 1:66
ð120Þ2 ðPÞ 0:271E
31.6.2 Lui Method

A simple and straightforward approach for determining the effective length factors for framed columns
without the use of alignment charts and other charts was proposed by Lui (1992). The formula takes into
(a) (b)
2P P 1 kip 0.5 kip
B 2I D B D
I
L
C C
2I
L
A
A
2L
FIGURE 31.14 A frame with unequal columns: (a) frame dimensions and loads and (b) frame subjected to
fictitious lateral loads.

TABLE 31.4 Example 31.6 — Detailed Calculation by LeMessurier Method

Members AB CD Sum Notes
4 4 8
I (in. , mm 10 ) 620, 2.58 310, 1.29 —
L (in., mm) 240, 6096 120, 3048 —
Gtop 1.0 1.0 — Equation 31.7
Gbottom 0.0 0.0 — Equation 31.7
b 8.4 8.4 — Equation 31.93
Ki 0 1.17 1.17 — Alignment chart
CL 0.165 0.165 — Equation 31.94
PL 0.09E 0.181E 0.271E Equation 31.92
P 2P P 3P
C LP 0.33P 0.165P 0.495P
account both the member instability and the frame instability effects explicitly. The K-factor for the ith
column in a story was obtained in a simple form:
s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X ffi
p2 EIi P 1 D1
Ki ¼ P þP ð31:95Þ
Pi Li2 L 5 Z H
P P
where (P/L) represents the sum of axial force to length ratio of all members in a story, H is the story
lateral load producing D1, D1 is the first-order interstory deflection, and Z is the member stiffness index
and can be calculated by
ð3 þ 4:8m þ 4:2m2 ÞEI

Z¼ ð31:96Þ
L3
where m is ratio of the smaller to larger end moments of the member, it is taken as positive if the member
bents in reverse curvature, and negative for single curvature.
P
It is important to note that the term H used in Equation 31.95 is not the actual applied lateral load.
Rather, it is a small disturbing or fictitious force (taken as a fraction of the story gravity loads) to be
applied to each story of the frame. This fictitious force is applied in a direction such that the deformed
configuration of the frame will resemble its buckled shape.
EXAMPLE 31.7
Given: Determine K-factors by using the Lui method for the frame shown in Figure 31.14a.
E ¼ 29,000 ksi (200 GPa).
Solution
Apply fictitious lateral forces at B and D (Figure 31.14b) and perform a first-order analysis. Detailed
calculation is shown in Table 31.5.
By using Equation 31.95, we obtain
s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X
pEIAB P 1 D1
KAB ¼ 2
P þ P
PAB LAB L 5 Z H
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
! ffi
u
u p2 ð29, 000Þð620Þ P 1
¼t þ 0:019 ¼ 0:76
ð2PÞð240Þ2 60 5ð56:24Þ

TABLE 31.5 Example 31.7 — Detailed Calculation by Lui Method

Members AB CD Sum Notes
4 4 8
I (in. , mm 10 ) 620, 2.58 310, 1.29 —
L (in., mm) 240, 6096 120, 3048 —
H (kip, kN) 1.0, 4.448 0.5, 2.224 1.5, 6.672
D1 (in., mm) 0.0286, 0.7264 0.0283, 0.7188 —
P
D1/ H (in./kip, mm/kN) — — 0.019, 0.108 Average
Mtop (k in., kN m) 38.8, 4.38 56.53, 6.39 —
Mbottom (k in., kN m) 46.2, 5.22 81.18, 9.17 —
M 0.84 0.69 —
Z (kip/in., kN/mm) 13.00, 2.28 43.24, 7.57 56.24, 9.85 Equation 31.96
P/L (kip/in., kN/mm) P/120, P/3048 P/120, P/3048 P/60, P/1524
s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X ffi
p2 EICD P 1 D1
KCD ¼ 2
P þP
PCD LCD L 5 Z H
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
! ffi
u
u p2 ð29, 000Þð310Þ P 1
¼t þ 0:019 ¼ 1:52
Pð120Þ2 60 5ð56:24Þ
31.6.3 Essa Method

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Considering different story drafts, different stiffness parameters, L P=EI , for columns, and different
girder connections for the structural models shown in Figure 31.3, Essa (1998) presented a general
effective length factor equation for column C2 by solving five equations. Those five equations are
obtained by considering the equilibrium of joints A and B and story shear for columns C1, C2, and C3.
31.6.4 Cheong-Siat-Moy Method

Considering an individual end-restrained column as shown in Figure 31.1a, Equation 31.2 was presented
in detail by Cheong-Siat-Moy (1999). When the beams bend in exact double curvature, RkA and RkB are
directly related to GA and GB, respectively (Rk ¼ 6/G). Equation 31.2 will become Equation 31.5 for
braced frames when Tk ¼ 1 and Equation 31.6 for unbraced frames when Tk ¼ 0.
Tk is the difference between the final lateral stiffness (Tkf) and the initial lateral stiffness (Tki) of a
column as follows:
Pi
Tk ¼ Tkf Tki ¼ P Tstory T0i ð31:97Þ
P
where Tstory is the first-order lateral story stiffness and T0i is the first-order lateral stiffness of column i.
An improved lateral stiffness Tk associated with g, P, and h and the first-order stiffness property was
proposed by Hellesland (2000) as follows:
ðgP=hÞi
Tk ¼ Tkf Tki ¼ P Tstory T0i ð31:98Þ
gP=h
The term g is the flexibility parameter and can be expressed as g ¼ 1 þ CL. A rather simple, yet fairly
accurate expression was developed by Hellesland (1998):
3
1 þ 1 ð0:5Gmax Þp
g ¼ 1 þ 0:11 ð31:99Þ
ð1 þ 0:5Gmin Þ2

TABLE 31.6 Comparison of K-factors for Frame in Figure 31.14a

Alignment Lui, LeMessurier,
Columns Theoretical chart Equation (31.80) Equation (31.76)
AB 0.70 1.17 0.76 0.83
CD 1.40 1.17 1.52 1.67
where p ¼ 1 for Gmax 2 and p ¼ 1 for Gmax > 2. Gmax is the larger and Gmin is the smaller of the
G-factors at the column ends.
31.6.5 Remarks
For a comparison, Table 31.6 summarizes K-factors for the frames shown in Figure 31.14a obtained from
the alignment chart, the LeMessurier and Lui methods, as well as an eigenvalue analysis. The methods of
both LeMessurier and Lui are based on the story-buckling concept. It is seen that errors in alignment
chart results are rather significant in this case. Although the K-factors predicted by Lui’s and
LeMessurier’s formulas are identical in most cases, the simplicity and independence of any chart in the
case of Lui’s formula make it more desirable for design office use (Shanmugam and Chen 1995). Essa’s
(1998) method overcomes some of the limitations imposed on the development of alignment chart and
incorporates effects of inelastic behavior, different column stiffness parameters, and different restraining
girder conditions. The Cheong-Siat-Moy (1999) method is dependent on the nondimensionalized lateral
stiffness parameter of the column and can be used for partially braced frames. A comprehensive
parametric study encouraged engineers to use the story-based K-factors for stability assessment (Roddis
et al. 1998). Xu and Liu (2002) developed a story-based approach for both unbraced partially and fully
restrained frames.
31.7 Unbraced Frames with Leaning Columns

A column framed with simple connections is often called a leaning column. It has no lateral stiffness
or sidesway resistance. A column framed with the rigid moment-resisting connection is called a rigid
column. It provides the lateral stiffness or sidesway resistance to the frame. When a frame system
(Figure 31.15a) includes leaning columns, the effective length factors of rigid columns must be modified.
Several approaches to account for the effect of leaning columns were reported in the literature
(Yura 1971; Lim and McNamara 1972; LeMessurier 1977; Cheong-Siat-Moy 1986; Aristizabal-Ochoa
1994). A detailed discussion about leaning columns for practical applications was presented by
Geschwindner (1995, 2002).
31.7.1 Rigid Columns

31.7.1.1 Yura Method
Yura (1971) discussed frames with leaning columns and noted the behavior of stronger columns
assisting weaker ones in resisting sidesway. He concluded that the alignment chart gives valid sidesway
buckling solutions if the columns are in the elastic range, and all columns in a story reach their
individual buckling loads simultaneously. For columns that do not satisfy these two conditions, the
alignment charts is generally overly conservative. The Yura approach states that
1. The maximum load-carrying capacity of an individual column is limited to the load permitted on
that column for the braced case K ¼ 1.0.
2. The total gravity loads that produce sidesway are distributed among the columns, which provides
lateral stiffness in a story.

(a) (b)
P
SK
Leaning column Rigid column
L
EI
FIGURE 31.15 A frame with leaning columns: (a) a leaning column frame and (b) model for a leaning column.
31.7.1.2 Lim and McNamara Method

Based on the story-buckling concept and using the stability functions, Lim and McNamara (1972)
presented the following formula to account for the leaning column effect:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P
Q F0
Kn ¼ K0 1 þ P ð31:100Þ
P Fn
where Kn is the effective length factor accounting for leaning columns; K0 is the effective length factor
P P
determined by the alignment chart (Figure 31.3b) not accounting for the leaning columns; P and Q
are the loads on the restraining columns and on the leaning columns in a story, respectively; and F0 and
Fn are the eigenvalue solutions for a frame without and with leaning columns, respectively. For normal
column end conditions that fall somewhere between fixed and pinned, F0/Fn ¼ 1 provides a K-factor on
the conservative side by less than 2% (Geschwindner 1995). Using F0/Fn ¼ 1, Equation 31.100 becomes
P
Q
Kn ¼ K0 1 þ P ð31:101Þ
P
Equation 31.93 gives the same K-factor as the modified Yura approach (Geschwindner 1995).
31.7.1.3 LeMessurier and Lui Methods
Equation 31.91 developed by LeMessurier and Equation 31.95 proposed by Lui (1992) can be used for
frames both with and without leaning columns. Since the K-factor expressions (Equations 31.91 and
31.95) were derived for an entire story of the frame, they are applicable to frames with and without
leaning columns.
31.7.1.4 AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design Method

The current AISC (1999) Commentary adopts the following two modified effective length factors K0 for
rigidly connected columns.
For story stiffness method
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

0 Pe X D0h
K ¼ Pu P ð31:102Þ
0:822Pu HL
where
p2 EI
Pe ¼ ð31:103Þ
L2

P
Pu is the required axial compressive strength of the column under consideration, Pu is the required axial
P
compressive strength of all columns in a story, D0h is the lateral interstory deflection, H is the sum of all
story horizontal forces producing D0h , and L is the story height. The 0.822 factor is the ratio of the lateral
column shear force per radian of drift to the buckling load of a sway permitted column with large end restraint,
G ¼ 0. This factor will approach 1.0 for more flexible systems with a large percentage of leaner columns.
For the story buckling method
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P
Pe P
0
K ¼ P u ð31:104Þ
Pu Pe2
P
where Pe2 is the sum of Euler loads of all columns in a story providing lateral stiffness for the frame
based on the effective length factor obtained from the alignment chart for an unbraced frame, Pu is the
P
required axial compressive strength for rigid column, and Pu is the required axial compressive
strength of all columns in a story.
EXAMPLE 31.8
Given: A frame with a leaning column is shown in Figure 31.16a (Lui and Sun 1995). Evaluate the
K-factor for column AB using various methods. The bottom of column AB is assumed to be ideally
pin-ended for comparison purposes. E ¼ 29,000 ksi (200 GPa).
Solution
Alignment Chart Method
GA ¼ 1
P
Ec Ic =Lc EI=L
GB ¼ P ¼ ¼ 2:0
ak Eg Ig =Lg 0:5EI=L
From Figure 31.3b, we have KAB ¼ 2.6.

Lima and McNamara Method
P P
For this frame, P ¼ Q ¼ P and K0 ¼ 2.6. From Equation 31.100, we have
P
Q pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
KAB ¼ K0 1 þ P ¼ 2:6 1 þ 1 ¼ 3:68
P
LeMessurier Method
For column AB, GA ¼ 1 and GB ¼ 2.0; from the alignment chart, K0 ¼ 2.6.
According to Equations 31.91 to 31.94, we have

6ðGA þ GB Þ þ 36 6 6
bjGA ¼1 ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:5
2ðGA þ GB Þ þ GA GB þ 3 GA ¼1 2 þ GB 2 þ 2
X bEI EI
PL ¼ ðPL ÞAB ¼ 2 ¼ 1:5 2
L L
2
K 2:62
CL ¼ b 02 1 ¼ ð1:5Þ 2 1 ¼ 0:0274
p p
P sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P
p2 EIAB P þ CL P p2 EI 2P þ 0:0274P
KAB ¼ 2 P
P ¼
LAB AB PL L2 P 1:5EI=L2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 13:34 ¼ 3:65

(a) P P
B I C
L
I E = 29,000 ksi I
I = 100 in.4
L = 12 ft
A D
(b) H = 1 kip
B I C
L
I E = 29,000 ksi I
I = 100 in.4
L = 12 ft
A D
FIGURE 31.16 A leaning column frame: (a) frame dimension and loads and (b) frame subjected to fictitious
lateral loads.
AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design Method

Using Equation 31.102 for column AB
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!
uP
u Pu I pffiffiffi
KAB ¼ t
AB
P 2
¼ Ki0 2 ¼ 3:68
PAB I=Ki0
Lui Method
1. Apply a small lateral force H ¼ 1 kip as shown in Figure 31.16b.
2. Perform a first-order analysis and find D1 ¼ 0.687 in. (17.45 mm).
3. Calculate Z factors from Equation 31.96.
Since column CD buckles in a single curvature, m ¼ 1,
ð3 þ 4:8m þ 4:2m2 ÞEI ð3 4:8 þ 4:2ÞEI 2:4EI
ZCD ¼ ¼ ¼ 3
L3 L3 L

For column AB, m ¼ 0,
ð3 þ 4:8m þ 4:2m2 ÞEI 3EI

ZAB ¼ ¼ 3
L3 L
X 3EI 2:4EI 5:4ð29,000Þð100Þ
Z¼ 3 þ 3 ¼
L L ð144Þ3
¼ 5:245 kip=in: ð0:918 kN=mmÞ
4. Calculate the K-factor from Equation 31.95

s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X
p2 EIAB P 1 D1
KAB ¼ 2
P þ P
PAB LAB L 5 Z H
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!
u
u p2 ð29,000Þð100Þ 2P 1 0:687

¼t þ ¼ 3:73
Pð144Þ2 144 5ð5:245Þ 1
From an eigenvalue analysis, KAB ¼ 3.69 is obtained. It is seen that a direct use of the alignment chart
leads to a significant error for this frame, and other approaches give good results. However, the
LeMessurier approach requires the use of the alignment chart, and the Lui approach requires a first-
order analysis subjected to a fictitious lateral loading.
31.7.2 Leaning Columns

Recognizing that a leaning column is being braced by rigid columns, a model for the leaning column
as shown in Figure 31.15b was proposed by Lui (1992). Rigid columns provide lateral stability to the
whole structure and are represented by a translation spring with a spring stiffness SK. The K-factor for
a leaning column can be obtained as
8
> 1
>
< sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
K ¼ larger of p2 EI ð31:105Þ
>
>
:
SK L 3
For most commonly framed structures, the term (p2EI/SKL3) normally does not exceed unity, and so
K ¼ 1 often governs. AISC (1999) suggests that leaning columns with K ¼ 1 may be used in unbraced
frames provided that the lack of lateral stiffness from simple connections to the frame (K ¼ 1) is
included in the design of moment frame columns. Aristizabal-Ochoa (1994b) recommended that (1) the
K-factors of leaning columns are identical to the K-factors of the rigid columns when they are subjected
to the same magnitude axial loads and are made of the same section and (2) the K-factors of leaning
columns must be greater than 1.0 or the K-factor corresponding to the fully braced column with the
same supports or boundary conditions.
31.7.3 Remarks
Numerical studies by Geschwindner (1995, 2002) found that the Yura approach gives overly conservative
results for some conditions, the Lim and McNamara approach provides sufficiently accurate results for
design, and the LeMessurier approach is the most accurate, among the three. The Lim and McNamara
approach could be appropriate for preliminary design, while the LeMessurier and Lui approaches
would be appropriate for final design.

31.8 Crossing Bracing Systems

Diagonal bracing or X-bracing is commonly used in steel structures to resist horizontal loads. In current
practice, the design of these types of bracing system is based on the assumptions that the compression
diagonal has negligible capacity and the tension diagonal resists the total load. The assumption that the
compression diagonal has a negligible capacity usually results in an overdesign (Picard and Beaulieu
1987, 1988).
Picard and Beaulieu (1987, 1988) reported theoretical and experimental studies on double-diagonal
cross bracings (Figure 31.6) and found that
1. A general effective length factor equation (Figure 31.17) is given as
0:428
K ¼ 0:523 0:50 ð31:106Þ
C=T
where C and T represent the compression and tension forces obtained from an elastic analysis,
respectively.
2. When the double diagonals are continuous and attached at the intersection point, the effective
length of the compression diagonal is 0.5 times the diagonal length, that is, K ¼ 0.5, because the
C/T ratio is usually smaller than 1.6.
EL-Tayem and Goel (1986) reported a theoretical and experimental study about the X-bracing system
made from single equal-leg angles. They concluded that
1. Design of X-bracing system should be based on an exclusive consideration of one half-
diagonal only.
2. For X-bracing systems made from single equal-leg angles, an effective length of 0.85 times the
half-diagonal length is reasonable, that is, K ¼ 0.425.
0.80
0.75
Kmax = 0.72
0.70
K-factor
0.65
0.428
K= 0.523 − ≥ 0.50
C/T
0.60
0.55
C/T = 1.6
0.50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
C/T
FIGURE 31.17 Effective length factor of compression diagonal (Picard and Beaulieu 1987).

Sabelli and Hohbach (1999) studied the relationship between axial load and end rotational stiffness
for cross-braced frames. For in-plane buckling, the lower bound values of K-factor equal 0.422 for
pinned-end and 0.245 for fixed-end; the upper bound values of K-factor equal 0.4 for pinned-end
and 0.272 for fixed-end. For out-of-plan buckling, the lower bound values of K-factor equal 0.5 for
pinned-end and 0.35 for fixed-end.
31.9 Latticed and Built-Up Members

The main difference of behavior between solid-webbed members and latticed members and built-up
members is the effect of shear deformation on their buckling strength. For solid-webbed members, shear
deformation has a negligible effect on their buckling strength, while for latticed structural members
using lacing bars and batten plates, shear deformation has a significant effect on their buckling strength.
It is common practice that when the buckling model involves relative deformation produced by shear
forces in the connectors, such as lacing bars and batten plates, between individual components,
a modified effective length factor Km is defined as follows:
Km ¼ av K ð31:107Þ
where K is the usual effective length factor of a latticed member acting as a unit obtained from a structural
analysis and av is the shear factor to account for shear deformation on the buckling strength, or the modified
effective slenderness ratio (KL/r)m should be used in the determination of the compressive strength. Details
of the development of the shear factor av can be found in textbooks by Bleich (1952) and Timoshenko and
Gere (1961). The following section briefly summarizes av formulas for various latticed members.
31.9.1 Laced Columns

For laced members as shown in Figure 31.18, by considering shear deformation due to the lengthening
of diagonal lacing bars in each panel and assuming hinges at joints, the shear factor av has the form
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2 EI 1
av ¼ 1 þ ð31:108Þ
ðKLÞ2 Ad Ed sin fcos2 f
(a) b (b) b b
d
d d
a
a
a
FIGURE 31.18 Typical configurations of laced members: (a) single lacing and (b) double lacing.

where Ed is the modulus of elasticity of materials for lacing bars, Ad is the cross-sectional area of all
diagonals in one panel, and f is the angle between the lacing diagonal and the axis that is perpendicular
to the member axis.
If the lengths of the lacing bars are given (Figure 31.18), Equation 31.108 can be rewritten as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2 EI d3
av ¼ 1 þ 2 ð31:109Þ
ðKLÞ Ad Ed ab2
where a, b, and d are height of the panel, depth of the member, and length of the diagonal,
respectively.
The SSRC (Galambos 1988) suggested that a conservative estimate of the influence of 60 or 45 lacing,
as generally specified in bridge design practice, can be made by modifying the overall effective length
factor K by multiplying a factor av, originally developed by Bleich (1952) as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
KL
av ¼ 1 þ 300=ðKL=rÞ2 for > 40 ð31:110Þ
r
KL
av ¼ 1:1 for 40 ð31:111Þ
r
EXAMPLE 31.9
Given: A laced column with angles and cover plates is shown in Figure 31.19. As usual, Ky ¼ 1.25,
L ¼ 30 ft (9144 mm). Determine the modified effective length factor (Ky)m by considering the shear
deformation effect.
Section properties
Iy ¼ 2259 in.4 ð9:4 108 mm4 Þ
E ¼ Ed
Ad ¼ 1:69 in.2 ð1090 mm2 Þ
a ¼ 6 in. ð152 mmÞ
b ¼ 11 in. ð279 mmÞ
d ¼ 12:53 in. ð318 mmÞ
Solution
1. Calculate the shear factor av by Equation 31.110
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2 EI d3
av ¼ 1 þ 2
ðKLÞ Ad Ed ab2
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2 Eð2259Þ 12:533
¼ 1þ ¼ 1:09
ð1:25 30 12Þ 1:69Eð6Þð11Þ2 2
2. Calculate (Ky)m by Equation 31.107

ðKy Þm ¼ av Ky ¼ 1:09ð1:25Þ ¼ 1:36
31.9.2 Columns with Battens

The battened column has a greater shear flexibility than either the laced column or the column with
perforated cover plates, hence the effect of shear distortion must be taken into account in calculating the
effective length of a column (Johnston 1976). For the battened members shown in Figure 31.20a,
assuming that the points of inflection in the battens are at the batten midpoints and that the points

Y 7
L 5 3 5 3 16
3 in.
1
PL 18 3 2
12 in.
18 in.
X X
3 in.
Bar 2 14 3 38
1 ft 0 in.
1 1
2 in. 3 in. 11 in. 3 in. 2 in.
18 in.
FIGURE 31.19 A laced column.
of inflection in the longitudinal element occur midway between the battens, the shear factor av is
obtained as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
p2 EI ab a2
av ¼ 1 þ þ ð31:112Þ
ðKLÞ2 12Eb Ib 24EIf
where Eb is the modulus of elasticity of materials for batten plates, Ib is the moment inertia of all battens
in one panel in the buckling plane, and If is the moment inertia of one side of the main components
taken about the centroid axis of the flange in the buckling plane.
EXAMPLE 31.10
Given: A battened column is shown in Figure 31.21. As usual, Ky ¼ 0.8, L ¼ 30 ft (9144 mm). Determine
the modified effective length factor (Ky)m by considering the shear deformation effect.
Section properties
Iy ¼ 144 in.4 ð6:0 107 mm4 Þ
E ¼ Eb

(a) b (b) b (c) b
c
a
a
FIGURE 31.20 Typical configurations of members with battens and with perforated cover plates: (a) battens,
(b) lacing-battens, and (c) perforated cover plates.
If ¼ 1:98 in.4 ð8:24 105 mm4 Þ

a ¼ 15 in. ð381 mmÞ
b ¼ 9 in. ð229 mmÞ
Ib ¼ 9 in.4 ð3:75 106 mm4 Þ
Solution
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
p2 EI ab a2
av ¼ 1 þ þ
ðKLÞ2 12EIb 24EIf
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

p2 Eð144Þ 15ð9Þ 152
¼ 1þ þ ¼ 1:05
ð0:8 30 12Þ2 12Eð9Þ 24Eð1:98Þ

ðKy Þm ¼ av Ky ¼ 1:05ð0:8Þ ¼ 0:84
31.9.3 Laced-Battened Columns

For the laced-battened columns as shown in Figure 31.20b, considering the shortening of the battens and
the lengthening of the diagonal lacing bars in each panel, the shear factor av can be expressed as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
p2 EI d3 b
av ¼ 1 þ þ ð31:113Þ
ðKLÞ2 Ad Ed ab2 aAb Eb
where Eb is the modulus of elasticity of materials for battens and Ab is the cross-sectional area of all
battens in one panel.

C 8 × 18.75
2 ft 0 in.
PL 14 × 6 × 0 ft 11 in.
1 2 in.
1
18 in.
15 in.
in.
1
12
1 1
1 2 in. 6 in. 1 2 in.
9 in.
FIGURE 31.21 A battened column.
31.9.4 Columns with Perforated Cover Plates

For members with perforated cover plates shown in Figure 31.20c, considering the horizontal cross-
member as infinitely rigid, the shear factor av has the form
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

p2 EI 9c 3
av ¼ 1 þ ð31:114Þ
ðKLÞ2 64aEIf
where c is the length of a perforation.

It should be pointed out that the usual K-factor based on a solid member analysis is included
in Equations 31.108 to 31.114. However, since the latticed members studied previously have
pin-ended conditions, the K-factor of the member in the frame was not included in the second terms

of the square root of the above equations in their original derivations (Bleich 1952; Timoshenko and
Gere 1961).
EXAMPLE 31.11
Given: A column with perforated cover plates is shown in Figure 31.22. As usual, Ky ¼ 1.3, L ¼ 25 ft
(7620 mm). Determine the modified effective length factor (Ky)m by considering the shear deforma-
tion effect.
Section properties
Iy ¼ 2467 in.4 ð1:03 108 mm4 Þ
If ¼ 35:5 in.4 ð1:48 106 mm4 Þ
a ¼ 30 in. ð762 mmÞ
c ¼ 14 in. ð356 mmÞ
1 1
L 3 2 × 3 2 × 16
7
Y PL 18 × 38
18 in.
X X
7
PL 18 × 16
Y
4 in. 6 in. 4 in.
14 in.
8 in.
30 in.
2 in. 14 in. 2 in.

18 in.
FIGURE 31.22 A column with perforated cover plates.

Solution

p2 EI 9c 3
av ¼ 1 þ
ðKLÞ2 64aEIf
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!ffi
u
u p 2 Eð2467Þ 9ð14Þ 3
¼ t1 þ ¼ 1:03
ð1:3 25 12Þ2 64ð30ÞEð35:5Þ

ðKy Þm ¼ av Ky ¼ 1:03ð1:3Þ ¼ 1:34
31.9.5 Built-Up Members with Bolted and Welded Connectors

AISC (1999) specifies that if the buckling of a built-up member produces shear forces in the connectors
between individual component members, the usual slenderness ratio KL/r for compression members
must be replaced by the modified slenderness ratio (KL/r)m in determining the compressive strength:
1. For snug-tight bolted connectors
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s 2
KL KL 2 a
¼ þ ð31:115Þ
r m r 0 ri
2. For welded connectors and for fully tightened bolted connectors
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s 2ffi
KL KL 2 a2 a
¼ þ 0:82 2Þ r
ð31:116Þ
r m r 0 ð1 þ a ib
where (KL/r)0 is the slenderness ratio of the built-up member acting as a unit, (KL/r)m is the
modified slenderness ratio of the built-up member, a/ri is the largest slenderness ratio of the
individual components, a/rib is the slenderness ratio of the individual components relative to its
centroidal axis parallel to the axis of buckling, a is the distance between connectors, ri is the
minimum radius of gyration of individual components, rib is the radius of gyration of individual
components relative to its centroidal axis parallel to the member axis of buckling, a is the
separation ratio ¼ h/2rib, and h is the distance between centroids of individual components
perpendicular to the member axis of buckling
Equation 31.115 is the same as that used in the current Italian code as well as in other European
specifications, based on test results (Zandonini 1985). In the equation, the bending effect is considered in
the first term in square root, and shear force effect is taken into account in the second term.
Equation 31.116 was derived from elastic stability theory and was verified by test data (Aslani and Goel
1991). In both cases the end connectors must be welded or slip-critical bolted (Aslani and Goel 1991).
EXAMPLE 31.12
Given: A built-up member with two back-to-back angles is shown in Figure 31.23. Determine the
modified slenderness ratio (KL/r)m in accordance with AISC (1999), Equation 31.108:
rib ¼ 0:735 in. ð19 mmÞ
a ¼ 48 in. ð1219 mmÞ
h ¼ 1:603 in. ð41 mmÞ
ðKL=rÞ0 ¼ 70

1 1 1
L32 × 22 × 4
Y
X X
PL 3 × 2 × 3
8
48 in.
1 1 1
L32 × 22 × 4
FIGURE 31.23 A built-up member with back-to-back angles.
Solution
1. Calculate the separation factor a
h 1:603
a¼ ¼ ¼ 1:09
2rib 2ð0:735Þ
2. Calculate the modified slenderness ratio (KL/r)m by Equation 31.116

s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2ffi
KL KL 2 a2 a
¼ þ 0:82 2
r m r 0 ð1 þ a Þ rib
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

1:092 48 2
¼ ð70Þ2 þ 0:82
ð1 þ 1:092 Þ 0:735
¼ 82:5
31.10 Tapered Columns

The state-of-the-art design for tapered structural members was provided in the SSRC guide (Galambos
1988). The charts as shown in Figure 31.24 and Figure 31.25 can be used to evaluate the effective length
factors for tapered column restrained by prismatic beams (Galambos 1988). In these figures, IT and IB are
the moments of inertia of top and bottom beams, respectively; b and L are lengths of beam and column,
respectively; and g is the tapering factor as defined by
d1 d0
g¼ ð31:117Þ
d0
where d0 and d1 are the section depths of column at the smaller and larger ends, respectively.

0.6
P P
IT
IL IL
L
I0 IB I0
0.5
b
= 3.0 RB = `
2
1
0.4
0.3
0.1
K
0
0.3
bI0
RB =
LIH
2EI0
Pcr =
(K L)2
0.2
bI0
RT =
LIT
100
30
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 50 `
RT
FIGURE 31.24 Effective length factor for tapered columns in braced frames (Galambos 1988).
Effects of shear deformation on the effective length factors of tapered I-section columns in a portal
frame Figure 31.26 were studied by Li and Li (2000).
Ic1
n¼ ð31:118Þ
Ic0
Lc Lc
lc ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ ð31:119Þ
Ic0 =Ac0 rc0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
When lc 36 0:02n þ 26, shear effect can be ignored.
The following shear factor was proposed to account for the tapered columns (Li and Li 2000):
av ¼ 1:0 þ f1 ðnÞeðlc 17:75Þ=4 þ f2 ðnÞeðlc 17:75Þ=22 ð31:120Þ

2 3
f1 ðnÞ ¼ 0:029031 þ 0:0088n 0:0003416n þ 0:000004155n ð31:121Þ
f2 ðnÞ ¼ 0:06523 þ 0:0112n 0:0001056n2 ð31:122Þ
31.11 Crane Columns

The columns in mill buildings and warehouses are designed to support overhead crane loads. The cross-
section of a crane column may be uniform or stepped (see Figure 31.27). Over the past two decades,
a number of simplified procedures have been developed for evaluating the K-factors for crane columns
(Huang 1968; Anderson and Woodward 1972; Lay 1973; Agarwal and Stafiej 1980; Moore 1986;

100
50 bI0
30 P P RT =
LIT
20 IT
bI0
IL IL RB =
LIH
10
L 2EI0
8 Pcr =
7 I0 IB I0 (K L)2
6 RB = `
5 b
20
4 10
= 3.0
3 5
K
3
2
1
1.5
0
100
30
0.5
0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 50 `
RT
FIGURE 31.25 Effective length factor for tapered columns in unbraced frames (Galambos 1988).
P P
Icl
Lc
Ico
FIGURE 31.26 A tapered portal frame.
Fraser 1989, 1990; AISE 1991; Bendapudi 1994). Those procedures have limitation in terms of column
geometry, loading, and boundary conditions. Most importantly, most of these studies ignored the
interaction effect between the left and right columns of frames and were based on isolated member
analyses (Lui and Sun 1995). Recently, a simple, yet reasonably accurate, procedure for calculating the
K-factors for crane columns with any value of relative shaft length, moment of inertia, loading, and

PU PU PU
PL PL PL
Upper shaft
LU
Runway girder
Bracket
Frame column
Lower shaft
Crane column
LL
Batten plates
Uniform
crane column Stepped crane
column
PU + PL PU + PL PU + PL
FIGURE 31.27 Typical crane columns.
boundary conditions was developed by Lui and Sun (1995). On the basis of the story stiffness concept
and accounting for both member and frame instability effects in the formulation, Lui and Sun (1995)
proposed the following procedure (see Figure 31.28):
1. Apply the fictitious lateral loads aP (a is an arbitrary factor, 0.001 may be used) in such a direction as
to create a deflected geometry for the frame that closely approximates its actual buckled configuration.
2. Perform a first-order elastic analysis on the frame subjected to the fictitious lateral loads
P
(Figure 31.28b). Calculate Dl/ H, where Dl is the average lateral deflection at the intermediate
P
load points (i.e., points B and F) of columns and H is the sum of all fictitious lateral loads that
act at and above the intermediate load points.
3. Calculate Z using the results obtained from a first-order elastic analysis for lower shafts
(i.e., segments AB and FG), according to Equation 31.89.
4. Calculate the K-factor for the lower shafts using Equation 31.88.
5. Calculate the K-factor for upper shafts using the following formula:
s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
LL PL þ PU IU
KU ¼ KL ð31:123Þ
LU PU IL
where P is the applied load and subscripts U and L represent the upper and lower shafts, respectively.
EXAMPLE 31.13
Given: A stepped crane column is shown in Figure 31.29a. The example is the same frame as that used
by Fraser (1990) and Lui and Sun (1995). Determine the effective length factors for all columns using the
Lui approach. E ¼ 29,000 ksi (200 GPa).
IAB ¼ IFG ¼ IL ¼ 30,000 in.4 ð1:25 1010 mm4 Þ
AAB ¼ AFG ¼ AL ¼ 75 in.2 ð48,387 mm2 Þ

(a) PULeft PURight (b)
C D E
D
C E
PULeft PURight
PLLeft PLRight PLeft PRight
L L
B F
PLeft PRight
L = An arbitrary L
B F lateral load factor
A G
A G
FIGURE 31.28 Crane column model for effective length factor computation: (a) frame subjected to gravity loads
and (b) frame subjected to fictitious lateral loads (Lui and San 1995).
(a) (b)
53 kip 53
C D E
D
C E
13 ft
300 140 0.053 kip 0.053
B F
B F
0.300 0.140
33 ft
A G A G
98 ft
FIGURE 31.29 Pin-based stepped crane columns: (a) frame subjected to gravity loads and (b) frame subjected to
fictitious lateral loads.
IBC ¼ IEF ¼ ICE ¼ IU ¼ 5420 in.4 ð2:26 109 mm4 Þ

ABC ¼ AEF ¼ ACE ¼ AU ¼ 34:14 in.2 ð22,026 mm2 Þ
Solution
1. Apply a set of fictitious lateral forces with a ¼ 0.001 as shown in Figure 31.29b
2. Perform a first-order analysis and find
ðDl ÞB ¼ 0:1086 in. ð2:76 mmÞ and ðD1 ÞF ¼ 0:1077 in. ð2:74 mmÞ
so,
D ð0:1086 þ 0:1077Þ=2
Pl ¼ ¼ 0:198 in:=kip ð1:131 mm/kNÞ
H 0:053 þ 0:3 þ 0:053 þ 0:14

3. Calculate Z factors from Equation 31.89

Since the bottom of columns AB and FG is pin-based, m ¼ 0,
ð3 þ 4:8m þ 4:2m2 ÞEI 3EI

ZAB ¼ ZFG ¼ ¼ 3
L3 L
ð3Þð29,000Þ ð30,000Þ
¼ ¼ 42:03 kip=in: ð7:36 mm=kNÞ
ð396Þ3
X
Z ¼ 42:03 þ 42:03 ¼ 84:06 kip=in: ð14:72 mm/kNÞ
4. Calculate the K-factors for columns AB and FG using Equation 31.88

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
! ffi
u
u p2 ð29,000Þð30,000Þ 353 þ 193 1
KAB ¼t þ 0:198
ð353Þ ð396Þ2 396 5ð84:06Þ
¼ 6:55
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
! ffi
u
u p2 ð29,000Þð30,000Þ 353 þ 193 1
KFG ¼t þ 0:198
ð193Þ ð396Þ2 396 5ð84:06Þ
¼ 8:85
5. Calculate the K-factors for columns BC and EF using Equation 31.123
s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

LABPAB þ PBC IBC
KBC ¼ KAB
LBC PBC IAB
s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

396 353 5,420
¼ 6:55 ¼ 18:2
156 53 30,000

LFG PFG þ PEF IEF
KEF ¼ KFG
LEF PEF IFG
s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

396 193 5,420
¼ 8:85 ¼ 18:2
156 53 30,000
The K-factors calculated above are in good agreement with the theoretical values reported by Lui and
Sun (1995).
31.12 Columns in Gable Frames

For a pin-based gable frame subjected to a uniformly distributed load on the rafter as shown in
Figure 31.30a, Lu (1965) presented a graph (Figure 31.30b) to determine the effective length factors of
columns. For frames having different member sizes for rafter and columns having (L/h) of ( f/h) ratios
not covered in Figure 31.30, an approximate method is available for determining K-factors of columns
(Hansell 1964). The method is to find an equivalent portal frame whose span length is equal to twice the
rafter length Lr (see Figure 31.30a). The K-factors can be determined from the alignment charts using
Gtop ¼ ðIc =hÞ=ðIr =2Lr Þ and the corresponding Gbottom.

(a) W = wL
Lr
f
Ir Ir
Ic Ic h
(b) 4.0 Perfectly pinned base

Partially restrained base
3.6
L/h = 4.0
3.2
3.0
K 2.8 2.0
L/h = 4.0 1.0

2.4
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
f /h
FIGURE 31.30 Effective length factor for columns in pinned-base gable frames: (a) a pinned-base gable frame and
(b) effective length factors (Lu 1965).
31.13 Columns in Fire

The effects of structural continuity on fire exposed columns have been investigated over the last two
decades. In the fire limit state, unexposed relative cool parts impose restraint on the structure’s elements
under fire. The Eurocode 4 Part 1.2 (ECS 1994) recommends that the K-factor for braced frames for a
column continuous at both ends may be taken as 0.5 and that for a column continuous at one end may
be taken as 0.7.

Experimental studies on fixed-ended steel columns in fire performed by Ali (2000) and Ali and
O’Connor (2001) gave an average value of 0.56 for highly restrained columns and 0.61 for a low
rotational restraint.
Theoretical studies on concrete-filled columns (Wang 1999) found that Eurocode recommendations
give very accurate results of fire resistance for unreinforced subframe columns. The fire resistance of
reinforced subframe columns were slightly overestimated, but the difference was small. An extensive
parametric study on concrete-filled steel square hollow sections (Bailey 2000) concluded that for
braced columns continuous at both ends, K ¼ 0.55 without considering local buckling at the top of
the heated column, and K ¼ 0.75 when considering the effects of possible local buckling; for braced
columns continuous at one end, K ¼ 0.8; for an idealized pinned foundation, K ¼ 1.0.
31.14 Members in Space Frames

Space frames with various nodal connection systems are widely used all over the world. The current
design method is based on the assumption that the joints are pin-ended. Experimental and theoretical
investigations on Oktalok space frame as shown in Figure 31.31 provided the following formula to
estimate effective length factor of members in Oktalok space frames (Zhao et al. 2000):
L=r
K ¼ 1:25 ð31:124Þ
246
where 98 L/r 140.
31.15 Truss-Type Highway Sign Support Structures

For a typical truss-type highway sign support structure as shown in Figure 31.32, the main vertical
support columns are usually assumed as fixed at the base and pinned to the top truss box. K ¼ 1.0 is
2
4
FIGURE 31.31 Oktalok nodal system.

Wind
Top box
FIGURE 31.32 A Typical truss-type sign support structure.
often conservatively assumed for the main vertical support columns in design. Some engineers may take
a more conservative approach and use K ¼ 2.0, assuming the frame to be unbraced against sidesway in
the perpendicular direction. K ¼ 0.85 is assumed for diagonal members. The current overly simplified
procedure does not provide a true presentation of actual behavior (DeWolf and Yang 2000) and may
lead to excessively conservative design. A structural system stability analysis indicated that a significant
reduction in the effective length factors can be achieved for both columns and diagonals. DeWolf and
Yang (2000) recommended that
Changing the sizes of the diagonals has a significant influence on the overall in-plane buckling
strength of columns but does not affect the out-of-plane buckling strength.
Increasing the restraints of the connections between the top of the columns and the sign box
structures can increase the out-of-plane buckling strength. If the connection between top box and
column is pinned, K ¼ 1.37. If it is fully restricted against rotation, K ¼ 0.82.

31.16 Precast Concrete Skeletal Frames

Precast skeletal structures are usually designed either as unbraced structures, up to three or four stories,
or as fully braced structures, up to 15 to 20 stories in height. The design and analysis of precast skeletal
structures is greatly influenced by the behavior of beam-to-column connections. Eillott et al. (1998)
conducted a series of experimental studies of precast concrete beam–column connections and proposed
an approach to calculate the K-factors.
Precast concrete frames (Figure 31.33) are analyzed either as fully unbraced structures (upper frame)
or as partially braced structures (lower frame) where shear walls or cores provide lateral bracing up to a
certain level and the frame is unbraced above this point. The following equations were proposed to
evaluate the K-factors for the subframes, F1, F2, and F3 (Figure 31.33):
For frame F1
8
> 1 G
>
< 1 þ 0:2 þ 10G þ 0:3 þ 1:8G 0:45G 2 for 0:1 < Gs 2
s s s
K¼ ð31:125Þ
>
> 1 G
: 1:1 þ þ for 2 Gs 10
7:4 þ 7:4Gs 0:4Gs2 1:6 þ 0:3Gs
For frame F2
8
> 1 G
>
< 1 þ 2:0 þ 2G þ 4G 2 þ 4 þ 0:5G for 0:1 < Gs 2
s s s
K¼ ð31:126Þ
>
> 1 G
:1 þ þ for 2 Gs 10
8:6 þ 8:4Gs 0:4Gs2 3:9 þ 0:9Gs
For frame F3
8
> 1 G
>
< 1 þ 1:25 þ 2:5G þ 2:5G 2 þ 2:25 þ 0:5G for 0:1 < Gs 2
s s s
K¼ ð31:127Þ
>
> 1 G
:1 þ þ for 2 Gs 10
6:5 þ 5:6Gs 0:3Gs2 2:7 þ 0:3Gs
where G is the column end stiffness ratio as defined in Equation 31.7 and Gs is the relative semirigidity
of the beam-to-column connection and is defined as joint stiffness J/beam flexural stiffness 4EI/L.
31.17 Steel Moment Frame

In the proposed American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 2005 Specification, attempts are made
to use K ¼ 1.0 for nominal column strengths, Pn, in the interaction equations, when the required
F1 F3
Shear
F2 wall
FIGURE 31.33 Types of precast frames.

strengths for members, connections, and other structural elements are obtained from the second-order
elastic analysis under load and resistance factor design (LRFD) combinations. Its appendix provides the
direct second-order analysis method for steel moment frames.
31.17.1 Second-Order Elastic Analysis

The second-order analysis required for using K ¼ 1.0 in the interaction equations should capture both the
P–d and the P–D effects. The analysis may be performed either using a direct second-order analysis or by
modifying the results of a first-order analysis using the B1 and B2 amplification factors (AISC 1999),
provided that the B1 and B2 factors are based on the reduced flexural stiffness. Approximate P–D methods
should be permitted when the factored axial loads in all columns are less than 15% of their respective
Euler buckling loads. When the second-order displacement based on 20% reduced elastic stiffness is greater
than six times the first-order displacement, it is recommended to increase the frame stiffness to limit
the amplification to 6. Otherwise, the high nonlinearity would be such that small changes in gravity load
or member stiffness will result in large changes in the calculated second-order effects.
31.17.2 Direct Second-Order Analysis

The direct second-order analysis uses the notional load concept and the reduced flexural stiffness
principle.
31.17.2.1 Notional Load Concept
Notional loads are lateral loads that are applied at each floor level and are specified in terms of the
gravity loads applied at that floor level to account for the effects of geometric imperfections, inelasticity,
or both. A notional load applied at floor i, Ni ¼ 0.002Yi should be added to the factored lateral load in all
LRFD load combinations. Yi is the gravity load from the load combination acting on floor i and should
be equal to or greater than the gravity load associated with the load combination being evaluated. The
notional load should be applied in the direction that adds to the destabilizing effects under the specified
load combination.
31.17.2.2 Reduced Stiffness Principle
A reduced flexural stiffness, (EI) , should be used for all members.
"
0:8tEI f or columns
ðEIÞ ¼
0:8EI for other members
8
< 1:0
for Pu =Py 0:5
t¼ Pu Pu ð31:128Þ
:4 1 for Pu =Py > 0:5
Py Py
Alternatively, where Pu > 0.5Py for any column in the moment frame, an additive notional load of
Ni ¼ 0.001Yi should be added to the required notional load discussed in Section 31.17.2.1.
31.18 Summary
This chapter summarizes the state-of-the-art use of effective length factors for individual columns,
framed columns, diagonal bracing systems, latticed and built-up members, tapered columns, crane
columns, gable frames, columns in fire, space frames, truss-type highway sign support structures, precast
concrete skeletal frames, and steel moment frames. Design implementation with formulas, charts, tables,
various modification factors adopted in current codes and specifications, as well as those used in
engineering practice are described. Several examples are given to illustrate the steps of practical appli-
cations of various methods.

Glossary
Alignment chart — A nomograph for determining the effective length factor K for some types of
compression members.
Braced frame — A frame in which the resistance to lateral load or frame instability is primarily provided
by diagonal bracing, shear walls, or equivalent means.
Built-up member — A member made of structural metal elements that are welded, bolted, and riveted
together.
Column — A vertical structural member whose primary function is to carry loads parallel to its
longitudinal axis.
Compression member — A structural member whose primary function is to carry compression loads
parallel to its longitudinal axis.
Crane column — A column that is designed to support overhead crane loads.
Effective length factor K — A factor that when multiplied by actual length of the end-restrained column
gives the length of an equivalent pin-ended column whose elastic buckling load is the same as
that of the end-restrained column.
Framed column — A column in a framed structure.
Gable frame — A frame with a gabled roof.
Latticed member — A member made of two or more rolled shapes that are connected to one another
by means of lacing bars, batten plates, or perforated plates.
Leaning column — A column that is connected to a frame with simple connections and does not
provide lateral stiffness or sidesway resistance.
LRFD (load and resistance factor design) — A method of proportioning structural components
(members, connectors, connecting elements, and assemblages) such that no applicable limit
state is exceeded when the structure is subjected to all appropriate load combinations.
Tapered column — A column that has a continuous reduction in section from top to bottom.
Unbraced frame — A frame in which the resistance to lateral loads is provided by the bending stiffness
of frame members and their connections.
References
AASHTO. 2004. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd ed., American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
ACI. 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary
(ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Agarwal, K.M. and Stafiej, A.P. 1980. Calculation of Effective Lengths of Stepped Columns. AISC Eng. J.,
15(4): 96–105.
AISC. 1989. Allowable Stress Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 9th ed., American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC. 1999. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 3rd ed.,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISE. 1991. Guide for the Design and Construction of Mill Buildings, Association of Iron and Steel
Engineers, Technical Report, No. 13, Pittsburgh, PA.
Ali, F. 2000. Determining the Effective Length of Fixed End Steel Columns in Fire, J. Appl. Fire Sci.,
10(1): 41–44.
Ali, F. and O’Connor, D. 2001. Structural Performance of Rotationally Restrained Steel Columns in Fire,
Fire Saf. J., 36: 679–691.
Anderson, J.P. and Woodward, J.H. 1972. Calculation of Effective Lengths and Effective Slenderness
Ratios of Stepped Columns, AISC Eng. J., 7(4): 157–166.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D. 1994a. K-Factors for Columns in Any Type of Construction: Nonparadoxical
Approach, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 120(4): 1272–1290.

Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D. 1994b. Slenderness K Factors for Leaning Columns, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE,
120(10): 2977–2991.
ASCE Task Committee on Effective Length. 1997. Effective Length and Notional Load Approaches for
Assessing Frame Stability: Implications for American Steel Design, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
Aslani, F. and Goel, S.C. 1991. An Analytical Criteria for Buckling Strength of Built-Up Compression
Members, AISC Eng. J., 28(4): 159–168.
Bailey, C. 2000. Effective Lengths of Concrete-Filled Steel Square Hollow Sections in Fire, Struct. Build.,
140(2): 167–178.
Barakat, M. and Chen, W.F. 1991. Design Analysis of Semi-Rigid Frames: Evaluation and
Implementation, AISC Eng. J., 28(2): 55–64.
Bendapudi, K.V. 1994. Practical Approaches in Mill Building Columns Subjected to Heavy Crane Loads,
AISC Eng. J., 31(4): 125–140.
Bjorhovde, R. 1984. Effect of End Restraints on Column Strength — Practical Application, AISC Eng. J.,
21(1): 1–13.
Bleich, F. 1952. Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bridge, R.Q. and Fraser, D.J. 1987. Improved G-Factor Method for Evaluating Effective Length of
Columns, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 113(6): 1341–1356.
Chapius, J. and Galambos, T.V. 1982. Restrained Crooked Aluminum Columns, J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
108(ST12): 511–524.
Cheong-Siat-Moy, F. 1986. K-factor Paradox, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 112(8): 1647–1760.
Cheong-Siat-Moy, F. 1999. An Improved K-factor Formula, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 125(2): 169–174.
Chen, W.F. and Lui, E.M. 1991. Stability Design of Steel Frames, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Chu, K.H. and Chow, H.L. 1969. Effective Column Length in Unsymmetrical Frames, Publ. Int. Assoc.
Bridge Struct. Eng., 29(1).
CM. 1995. Rules for Design of Steel Structure — 1996, Eyrolles, Paris, pp. 154–157, 247–261.
Cranston, W.B. 1972. Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns. Research Report No. 20,
Paper 41.020, Cement and Concrete Association, London.
CSA. 1994. Limit States Design of Steel Structures, Standard CAN/CSA S-16.1, Canadian Standards
Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Dafedar, J.B., Desai, Y.M., and Shiyekar, M.R. 2001. Review of IS Code Provisions for Effective Length
of Framed Columns, Indian Concrete J., 75(6): 402–407.
DeWolf, J.T. and Yang, J. 2000. Stability Analysis of Truss Type Highway Sign Support Structures, Report
JHR 00-280, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Disque, R.O. 1973. Inelastic K-factor in Design. AISC Eng. J., 10(2): 33–35.
Duan, L. 1996. A Modified G-factor for Columns in Semi-Rigid Frames. Research Report, Division of
Structures, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. 1988. Effective Length Factor for Columns in Braced Frames. J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE, 114(10): 2357–2370.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. 1989. Effective Length Factor for Columns in Unbraced Frames. J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE, 115(1): 149–165.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. 1996. Errata of Paper: Effective Length Factor for Columns in Unbraced
Frames. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 122(1): 224–225.
Duan, L., King, W.S., and Chen, W.F. 1993. K-factor Equation to Alignment Charts for Column Design.
ACI Struct. J., 90(3): 242–248.
Dumonteil, P. 1992. Simple Equations for Effective Length Factors. AISC Eng. J., 29(3): 111–115.
Dumonteil, P. 1999. Historical Note on K-Factor Equations. AISC Eng. J., 36(2): 102–103.
Dumonteil, P. and Valley, M. 1995. Discussion of ‘‘Novel Design Algorithms for K Factor Calculation
and Beam–Column Selection.’’ J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 121(2): 384–385.
ECCS, 1978. European Recommendations for Steel Construction, European Convention for Construc-
tional Steelworks, Brussels, pp. 77–81.

ECS 1994. European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 4, Design of Composite Steel and
Concrete Structure, Part 1.2: Structural Fire Design, ENV 1994-101, British Standards Institution,
London.
Elliott, K., Davies, G., and Gorgun, H. 1998. The Stability of Precast Concrete Skeletal Structures, PCI J.,
43(2): 42–60.
El-Tayem, A.A. and Goel, S.C. 1986. Effective Length Factor for the Design of X-Bracing Systems, AISC
Eng. J., 23(4): 41–45.
Essa, H.S. 1997. Stability of Columns in Unbraced Frames, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 123(7): 952–957.
Essa, H.S. 1998. New Stability Equation for Columns in Braced Frames, Struct. Eng. Mech., 6(4):
411–425.
Fraser, D.J. 1989. Uniform Pin-Based Crane Columns, Effective Length, AISC Eng. J., 26(2): 61–65.
Fraser, D.J. 1990. The In-Plane Stability of a Frame Containing Pin-Based Stepped Column, AISC Eng. J.,
27(2): 49–53.
Furlong, R.W. 1971. Column Slenderness and Charts for Design, ACI J., Proc., 68(1): 9–18.
Galambos, T.V. 1960. Influence of Partial Base Fixity on Frame Instability, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 86(ST5):
85–108.
Galambos, T.V. 1964. Lateral Support for Tier Building Frames, AISC Eng. J., 1(1): 16–19.
Galambos, T.V. 1968. Structural Members and Frames, Prentice Hall International, London.
Galambos, T.V., ed. 1988. Structural Stability Research Council, Guide to Stability Design Criteria for
Metal Structures, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Geschwindner, L.F. 1995. A Practical Approach to the ‘‘Leaning’’ Column, AISC Eng. J., 32(2): 63–72.
Geschwindner L.F. 2002. A Practical Look at Frame Analysis, Stability and Leaning Column, AISC Eng.
J., 39(4): 167–181.
Gurfinkel, G. and Robinson, A.R. 1965. Buckling of Elasticity Restrained Column, J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
91(ST6): 159–183.
Hajjar, J.F. and White, D.W. 1994. The Accuracy of Column Stability Calculations in Unbraced Frames
and the Influence of Columns with Effective Length Factors Less Than One, AISC Eng. J.,
31(3): 81–97.
Hellesland, J. 1998. Application of the Method of Means to the Stability Analysis of Unbraced
Frames, J. Constr. Steel Res. 46(1–3): 98.
Hellesland, J. 2000. Discussion of an Improved K-Factor Formula, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 126(5): 633–
635.
Hellesland, J. and Bjorhovde, R. 1996. Restraint Demand Factors and Effective Length of Braced
Columns, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 122(10): 1216–1224.
Hansell, W.C. 1964. Single-Story Rigid Frames, Chapter 20 in Structural Steel Design, Ronald Press,
New York.
Hu, X.Y., Zhou, R.G., King, W.S., Duan, L., and Chen, W.F. 1993. On Effective Length Factor of Framed
Columns in ACI Code, ACI Struct. J., 90(2): 135–143.
Huang, H.C. 1968. Determination of Slenderness Ratios for Design of Heavy Mill Building Stepped
Columns, Iron Steel Eng., 45(11): 123.
Johnson, D.E. 1960. Lateral Stability of Frames by Energy Method. J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, 95(4):
23–41.
Johnston, B.G., ed. 1976. Structural Stability Research Council, Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal
Structures. 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Jones, S.W., Kirby, P.A., and Nethercot, D.A. 1980. Effect of Semi-Rigid Connections on Steel Column
Strength, J. Constr. Steel Res., 1(1): 38–46.
Jones, S.W., Kirby, P.A., and Nethercot, D.A. 1982. Columns with Semi-Rigid Joints, J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, 108(ST2): 361–372.
Julian, O.G. and Lawrence, L.S. 1959. Notes on J and L Nomograms for Determination of Effective Lengths,
Unpublished Report.
Kavanagh, T.C. 1962. Effective Length of Framed Column, Trans., ASCE, 127(II): 81–101.

King, W.S., Duan, L., Zhou, R.G., Hu, Y.X., and Chen, W.F. 1993. K-factors of Framed Columns
Restrained by Tapered Girders in US Codes, Eng. Struct., 15(5): 369–378.
Kishi, N., Chen, W.F., and Goto, Y. 1997. Effective Length Factor of Columns in Semi-Rigid and
Unbraced Frames, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 123(3): 313–320.
Koo, B. 1988. Discussion of Paper ‘‘Improved G-Factor Method for Evaluating Effective Length of
Columns’’ by Bridge and Fraser, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 114(12): 2828–2830.
Lay, M.G. 1973. Effective Length of Crane Columns, Steel Constr., Aust. Inst. Steel Constr., 7(2): 9–19.
LeMessurier, W.J. 1977. A Practical Method of Second Order Analysis Part 2 — Rigid Frames, AISC
Eng. J., 14(2): 49–67.
Li, G.Q. and Li, J.J. 2000. Effects of Shear Deformation on the Effective Length of Tapered Columns
with I-Section for Steel Portal Frames, Struct. Eng. Mech., 10(5): 479–489.
Liew, J.Y.R., White, D.W., and Chen, W.F. 1991. Beam-Column Design in Steel Frameworks — Insight
on Current Methods and Trends, J. Constr. Steel Res., 18: 269–308.
Lim, L.C. and McNamara, R.J. 1972. Stability of Novel Building System, Structural Design of Tall Steel
Buildings, Vol. II-16, Proceedings, ASCE-IABSE International Conference on the Planning and
Design of Tall Buildings, Bethlehem, PA, pp. 499–524.
Lu, L.W. 1962. A Survey of Literature on the Stability of Frames, Weld. Res. Conc. Bull., New York.
Lu, L.W. 1965. Effective Length of Columns in Gable Frame, AISC Eng. J., 2(2): 6–7.
Lui, E.M. 1992. A Novel Approach for K-factor Determination, AISC Eng. J., 29(4): 150–159.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. 1983. Strength of Columns with Small End Restraints, J. Inst. Struct. Eng.,
61B(1): 17–26.
Lui, E.M. and Sun, M.Q. 1995. Effective Length of Uniform and Stepped Crane Columns, AISC Eng. J.,
32(2): 98–106.
MacGregor, J.G. and Hage, S.E. 1977. Stability Analysis and Design of Concrete Frames, J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, 103(10): 1953–1979.
Maquoi, R. and Jaspart, J.P. 1989. Contribution to the Design of Braced Framed with Semi-Rigid
Connections. Proceedings, 4th International Colloquium, Structural Stability Research Council,
pp. 209–220. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Menon, D. 2001. Fuzzy Logic Based Estimation of Effective Lengths of Columns in Partially Braced
Multi-Storey Frames, Struct. Eng. Mech., 11(3): 287–299.
Moore, W.E. II. 1986. A Programmable Solutions for Steeped Crane Columns, AISC Eng. J.,
21(2): 58–59.
Newmark, N.M. 1949. A Simple Approximate Formula for Effective End-Fixity of Columns, J. Aero.
Sci., 16(2).
Picard, A. and Beaulieu, D. 1987. Design of Diagonal Cross Bracings Part 1: Theoretical Study, AISC
Eng. J., 24(3): 122–126.
Picard, A. and Beaulieu, D. 1988. Design of Diagonal Cross Bracings Part 2: Experimental Study,
AISC Eng. J., 25(4): 156–160.
Roddis, W.M. K., Hamid, H.A., and Guo, C.Q. 1998. K Factors for Unbraced Frames: Alignment Chart
Accuracy for Practical Frame Variations, AISC Eng. J., 35(3): 81–93.
Razzaq, Z. 1983. End Restraint Effect of Column Strength, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 109(ST2): 314–334.
Rondal, J. 1988. Effective Length of Tubular Lattice Girder Members — Statistical Tests, CIDECT Report,
3K-88/9, Liege, Belgium.
Sabelli, R. and Hohbach, D. 1999. Design of Cross-Braced Frames for Predictable Buckling Behavior,
J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 125(1): 163–168.
Salmon, C.G., Schenker, L., and Johnston, B.G. 1957. Moment-Rotation Characteristics of Column
Anchorage, Transactions, ASCE, 122: 132–154.
Schmidt, J.A. 1999. Design of Steel Columns in Unbraced Frames Using Notional Loads, Pract. Period.
on Struct. Des. Constr., ASCE, 4(1): 24–28.
Shanmugam, N.E. and Chen, W.F. 1995. An Assessment of K Factor Formulas, AISC Eng. J., 32(3): 3–11.

Sohal, I.S., Yong, Y.K., and Balagura, P.N. 1995. K-factor in Plastic and SOIA for Design of Steel Frames,
Proceeding, International Conference on Stability of Structures, ICSS 95, June 7–9, Coimbatore,
India, pp. 411–421.
Sugimoto, H. and Chen, W.F. 1982. Small End Restraint Effects on Strength of H-Columns, J. Struct.
Div., ASCE 108(ST3): 661–681.
Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M. 1961. Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co,
New York.
Tong, G.S. and Shi, Z.Y. 2001. The Stability of Weakly Braced Frames, Adv. Struct. Eng., 4(4): 211–215.
Vinnakota, S. 1982. Planar Strength of Restrained Beam Columns. J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
108(ST11): 2349–2516.
Wang, Y.C. 1999. The Effects of Structural Continuity on the Fire Resistance of Concrete Filled Columns
in Non-Sway Frames, J. Constr. Steel Res., 50: 177–197.
White, D.W. and Clarke, M.J. 1997a. Design of Beam-Columns in Steel Frames. I: Study of Philosophies
and Procedures, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 123(12): 1556–1564.
White, D.W. and Clarke, M.J. 1997b. Design of Beam-Columns in Steel Frames. II: Comparison of
Standards, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 123(12): 1565–1575.
Winter, G. 1958. Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams, J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 84(ST2): 1561-1–1561-22.
Winter, G. 1958. Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams, Transactions, ASCE, 125(1): 809–825.
Winter, G. et al. 1948. Buckling of Trusses and Rigid Frames, Cornell Univ. Bull. No. 36, Engineering
Experimental Station, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Wood, R.H. 1974. Effective Lengths of Columns in Multi-Storey Buildings, Struct. Eng., 52(7,8,9):
234–244, 295–302, 341–346.
Xu, L. and Liu, Y.X. 2002. Story-Based Effective Length Factor for Unbraced PR Frames, AISC Eng. J.,
39(1): 13–29.
Yura, J.A. 1971. The Effective Length of Columns in Unbraced Frames, AISC Eng. J., 8(2): 37–42.
Yura, J.A. 1995. Bracing for Stability-State-of-the-Art, Proceedings, Structures Congress XIII, April ASCE,
Boston, MA, pp. 88–103.
Zandonini, R. 1985. Stability of Compact Built-Up Struts: Experimental Investigation and Numerical
Simulation (in Italian), Construzioni Metalliche, No. 4.
Zhao, X.L., Lim, P., Joseph, P., and Pi, Y.L. 2000. Member Capacity of Columns with Semi-Rigid End
Conditions is Oktalok Space Frames, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 10(1): 27–36.
Further Reading
Chen, W.F. and Lui, E.M. 1987. Structural Stability: Theory and Implementation, Elsevier, New York.
Chen, W.F., Goto, Y., and Liew, J.Y.R. 1996. Stability Design of Semi-Rigid Frames, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Chen, W.F. and Kim, S.E. 1997. LRFD Steel Design Using Advanced Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.


1569 ch31

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1569 ch31

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

31

31.1 Introduction .................................................. 31-2

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

31.2 Basic Concept

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

31.3 Individual Columns

31.4 Framed Columns — Alignment Chart Method

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Theoretical K-value 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

Rotation fixed and translation fixed

31.4.1 Alignment Chart Method

1. All members have constant cross-section and behave elastically.

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

For columns in unbraced frames:

GA GB ðp=K Þ2  362 p=K

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

AB and GH W 10 22 118, 0.49 180, 4572 0.656, 10,750

(2) Calculate G-factor for column DE:

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

FIGURE 31.5 An unbraced two-story frame.

31.4.2 Requirements for Braced Frames

31.4.2.1 Lateral Stiffness Requirement

31.4.2.2 Bracing Size Requirement

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

FIGURE 31.6 Diagonal cross bracing system.

31.4.2.3 Threshold Lateral Stiffness of Braces

31.4.2.4 Stability Index

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

31.4.2.5 AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design Requirements

The required story or panel shear stiffness is

2. For nodal bracing

31.4.3 Simplified Equations to Alignment Charts

31.4.3.1 ACI 318-02 Equations

K ¼ 0:7 þ 0:05ðGA þ GB Þ  1:0 ð31:22Þ

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

31.4.3.4 Donnell Equation for Braced Frames

31.5 Modifications to Alignment Charts

31.5.1 Different Restraining Girder End Conditions

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Rigid Fixed 2.0

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

2. From the alignment chart in Figure 32.4b, K ¼ 1.22 is obtained.

31.5.2 Different Restraining Column End Conditions

31.5.2.1 For a Braced Frame (Duan and Chen 1988)

Eci Ici =Lci

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

which can be rewritten in the form of Equation 31.5.

31.5.2.2 For an Unbraced Frame (Duan and Chen 1989, 1996)

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Equation 31.45 is reduced to the form of Equation 31.6.

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

(a) Near end Far end

31.5.3 Columns Restrained by Tapered Rectangular Girders

aT ¼ Dð1  rÞb ð31:72Þ

For an unbraced frame

1. For a linearly tapered rectangular girder (Figure 31.7a)

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

For an unbraced frame

2. For a symmetrically tapered rectangular girder (Figure 31.7b)

For an unbraced frame

b ¼ 3 þ 3:8ð0:2Þ2  6:5ð0:2Þ ¼ 1:852

GA GB ðp=K Þ2 362 p=K

K ¼ 0:7 þ 0:05ðGA þ GB Þ 1:0 ð31:22Þ

aT ¼ Dð1 rÞb ð31:72Þ

b ¼ 3 þ 3:8ð0:2Þ2 6:5ð0:2Þ ¼ 1:852