THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS, Vol.

4, 3-13 (1995)

A TECHNIQUE FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF

BEAM-COLUMN JOINT DEFORMATION ON THE
LATERAL FLEXIBILITY O F STEEL FRAME
BUILDING STRUCTURES

FINLEY A. CHARNEY~
' Advanced Structural Concepts, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
AND JAVIER F. HORVILLEUR~
Walter P . Moore and Associates, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
Accurate analysis of steel framed structures requires a careful assessment of the contribution of
beam-column joint deformation to overall structural flexibility. Unfortunately, traditional structural
analysis has either ignored the deformations by assuming fully rigid joints, or has approximated the effects
by using centerline analysis. Some computer programs use a hybrid technique wherein the beam-column
joint region is assumed to be partially rigid. Due in part to the fact that the preceding analysis technique
violate local equilibrium within the joint, the results produced are unrealiable. In this paper, a new analysis
technique is presented for beam-column joint analysis. The method is based on a virtual force analysis of
an isolated subassemblage, with local equilibrium within the joint being strictly satisfied. When compared
with results of finite analysis of full three dimensional subassemblages, the method has been found to be
very accurate.

1. INTRODUCTION
Structural steel frames responding to lateral forces must be proportioned to satisfy a strength
limit state, a stability limit state, and a serviceability limit state. The stability and serviceability
limit states, which are directly related to frame lateral stiffness, often govern the design of the
frames. For this reason, it is essential that the structural analysis include all potential sources
of deformation, including axial, flexural, shear and torsional effects.
While most computer programs provide accurate modeling of these deformations within the
clearspan of the girders and columns, few, if any, provide accurate analysis for the beam-column
joint region. This paper presents the results of recent research which provides a practical solution
to the problem. Using the results from traditional analysis which allows centerline or rigid joint
modeling, the solution is based on a virtual work reanalysis of the existing structure.lV2In the
re-analysis, force distributions within the joint are modified to account for true behavior. The
method has been verified by comparing computed results with the results obtained from
three-dimensional finite element analysis of beam-column subassemblages.

t President.
# Vice President.

CCC 1062-8002/95/010003- 11 Received May 1994

0 1995 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised September 1994
4 F. A. CHARNEY AND J. F. HORVILLEUR

2. REVIEW O F VIRTUAL WORK TECHNIQUE

When analysing three-dimensional space frames, the traditional direct stiffness approach
provides lateral flexibility information in terms of nodal displacements and interstory drifts.
While this flexibility is due to flexural, shear, axial and torsional deformation occurring in the
individual members of the structure, the analysis does not provide data on each member's
contribution to the flexibility. This lack of information makes re-proportioning for a particular
target stiffness a difficult and time-consuming process.
If a virtual force analysis is carried out in addition to the original real force analysis, the
displacement, A , at a particular point and in a particular direction can be represented as
1 "
d =- 1 DPF,
Q i=l
In the above equation, Q is the magnitude of the virtual force applied at the point of and in the
direction of A. The term DPF,, which is referred to herein as the displacement Earticipation
factor of member i, is the portion of A contributed by the member. The limit on the summation,
n, is the total number of members in the structure (see figure 1 for additional details on the
nomenclature).
The displacement participation factor for each member is computed as follows:

DPF, =
J" uri x dV
~ , i

where nriis the stress in member i due to the real loads, E,, is the strain in member i due to the
virtual force, and Y is the volume of member i.
Note that in equation (2) the magnitude of the virtual force Q is embedded in the virtual
strain, and therefore in the member's DPF.
For beam, column or brace elements, computations for each member may be simplified by
separating volumetric stress and strain into axial, flexural, shear and torsional force and
deformation. For a typical member of a three-dimensional space frame, there are six components
in the displacement participation factor:
DPFi = DPFF,,j +
DPF,,,,, +
DPFS,,j +
DPF,,,, +
DPF,,i,l DPF,,,, (3) +
where DPFF,,j is the flexural component for bending about the major axis, DPF,,, is the
flexural component for bending about the minor axis, DPF,,,, is the shear component for forces

... ....

H . .
......... ..;
,....., .
. .
.:::
.

Figure 1. Typical planar frame with real and virtual forces

 STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY 5

producing major axis bending, DPFsminis the shear component for forces producing minor axis
bending, DPFA,,,, is the axial component, and DPF,, is the torsional component.
For the case of loads applied to the nodes only, the six displacement participation factor
components for each member are easily computed since shear, axial force and torsion are
constant along the member, and since bending moments are linear functions.

3. AXIAL AND TORSIONAL DPFS

Axial deformation is negligible in short frames with relatively wide bays, but can be very
important in taller buildings with closely spaced columns. When rigid diaphragm analysis is
used, axial deformations in beams is assumed to be zero. This assumption is not always valid,
particularly in eccentrically braced frames because the link beams in these structures can develop
significant axial force and deformation.
Axial DPFs are typically based on the full member length with forces being constant along
the length. Using the virtual work procedure, the axial DPF is

(4)

where A is the member area, E is the modulus of elasticity, P is the real member force and p is
the virtual member force. L is the total length of the member being considered.
Torsional deformations have a negligible effect on lateral load response, but when considered,
are based on torsion being constant along the full length of the member. The torsional DPF is
similarly derived:
1 TtL
DPF,,,, = JL Tt dx = -
JG
where J is the polar moment of inertia, G is the shear modulus, T is the real torsion and t is
the virtual torsion.

4. FLEXURAL AND SHEAR DPFS

The computation of flexural and shear DPFs is more complicated because each beam and
column must be evaluated about its major and minor axes. Further, the member must be divided
into ‘clearspan’ and ‘endzone regions’.
Consider a typical member (girder or column) removed from Figure 1. This member, shown
in Figure 2(a), has a total length L, a cross-sectional stiffness EI, and is connected at either end
by members of width d, and d,. The distribution of real and virtual moments and shears for
the member is shown in Figure 3. Using the datum x2 starting at the face of the support at end
I of the member, the flexural DPF for the clearspan portion of the member is:

DPFFLEX,CLEAR = M ( x ) m ( x )dx = -
E, S“
0
( M , - Vx)(m,- vx) dx

1
E,
M,VL:
= - [ M , m , L , - --
2
~

2 +-I
~ , v L : VvLZ
3
where M , and m , are the real and virtual moments at x2 = 0, and L, = L - 0.5(d, + d,). The
clearspan portion of the member’s DPF arising from shear deformation is computed in a similar
6 F. A. CHARNEY AND J. F. HORVILLEUR

Rinid

m0.5edl
05dI

Figure 2. Typical beam: actual and as modeled: (a) actual; (b) analytical; (c) analytical endzone.

I J

Figure 3. Real and virtual force distributions in typical girder: (a) moment; (b) shear.

manner:

The portion of the member's DPF which occurs as a result of deformations in the endzone
region is referred to as the beam-column joint or panel zone DPF. Two of several possible
approaches to computing the beam-column joint DPF are as follows.
 STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY 7

(1) Assume that some or all of the member within the geometric confines of the end region
is flexible, and that, within this flexible region, axial force, torsion and shear are constant
and bending moment varies linearly from center to center of the supports. This technique,
which is employed by SAP907 and ETABSP, is referred to as the 'flexible endzone method'.
Figure 2(b) shows the flexible endzone analytical model, and figure 2(c) shows a detail of
the endzone region at end I . The endzone region is divided into a rigid region and a
flexible region of length Z d , or Z d J r where z may vary from 0.0 (the endzone is fully rigid)
to 1.0 (the endzone is fully flexible).
(2) Assume that all the member within the geometric confines of the joint is flexible and
that member force distributions within the joint are based on true equilibrium within the
joint. This technique is referred to as the 'joint equilibrium method'.
According to the flexible endzone method, the flexural contribution to the member's DPF is

where M 2 , m2, M3 and m3 are the real and virtual moments at datums x2 and x3,respectively.
For shear:

where G is the shear modulus and A, is the shear area of the member. Note that equations (6)
through (1 1) are applicable to bending and shear about either axis. The total flexible endzone
DPF is
= DPFFLEX,END-I
DPFENDZONE + DPFsHEAR.END-,+ DPFSHEAR,END-J(12)
+ DPFFLEX,END-J
As can be seen from the above, for all analyses in which the flexible endzone factor z is not
zero, member endzone flexibility contributes to the total displacement A . However, as will now
be shown, the endzone DPFs are based on totally fictitious force distributions within the
beam-column joint. Hence, the above formulas for endzone DPF are generally not reliable, and
should not be used. In fact, it can be shown that even when the factor z is set to 1.0, thereby
producing a centerline analysis, the resulting total displacement is often unconservative (too
small) when compared to a rational analy~is.~
In order to develop rational formulas for endzone DPF, it is necessary to understand the true
distribution of forces within the beam-column joint. To do so, it is convenient to consider a
typical subassemblage, as shown in Figure 4. This subassemblage, which has been taken from
Figure 1, is assumed to have inflection points at the midspan of the girder and midheight of the
column. It is further assumed that real story shears V act in opposite directions at the inflection
points at the top and bottom of the column.
A virtual story shear u (due to the application of Q) also acts at the top and bottom of the

t SAP90 and ETABS are trademarks of Computers and Structures, Berkeley, California.
8 F. A. CHARNEY AND J. F. HORVILLEUR

Figure 4. Subassemblage with moment and shear diagrams

columns. (Note that V and u are average shears over the height of the subassemblage. In most
cases, the forces in the lower column segment would be somewhat greater than those in the
upper segment.) The girder is restrained vertically and laterally at the left end and is restrained
vertically at the right end. Note also that the column section passes vertically through the joint,
and the girders are assumed to be fully welded to the column flanges.
To simplify the derivations, the terms u and B are introduced, where

The traditional bending moment and shear diagrams for the subassemblage are shown at the
right of Figure 4, where it is assumed that (real and virtual) moments are maximum at the
centerline of the column or beam, and decrease linearly to zero at the inflection points. Beam
and column shears are constant along the entire member length. The portion of the force
distributions within the clearspan region of the subassemblage must be correct, because they
are based on global equilibrium. The portion of the force distribution within the joint is incorrect
because local equilibrium is violated. The components of deformation in the clearspans of the
girder and column are derived in a manner analogous to that shown in the flexible endzone
method. To determine the component of drift due to deformations occurring in the joint, the
beam-column joint region of Figure 4 is expanded in Figure 5. This figure shows the real column
and girder shears that act just outside the joint, as well as the axial forces developed in the
flanges of the column and girder. Virtual force distributions are similar. The real column flange
force V,, is given by

and the real girder flange force V,, is given by

On the basis of Figure 5 and the above equations for flange force, the horizontal and vertical
 STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY 9

Figure 5. Expanded view of beam-column joint

shear acting through the joint is

and

It is important to note that each of these forces produces the same average joint shear stress:

where tPZis the total thickness of the panel zone, including doubler plates.
Referring back to the equations for V, and V,, it is clear that the shear forces in the joint
region are of opposite sign to the forces outside the joint, and that their magnitude is larger
than the shears outside the joint. To illustrate the relative magnitudes of joint shear force that
may occur, the ratio of horizontal joint shear to column shear is shown in Figure 6 for a and fl
ranging from 0-10 to 030. The figure shows that for low values of /3 (tall stories and/or shallow
beams) the horizontal joint shear can be as much as eight times the column shear. Also, the
magnitude of the horizontal joint shear is more highly influenced by the depth of the girder ( B )
than it is by the width of the column (a).
Using the derived relations for VH and VGwithin the joint region, the moment and shear diagrams
in the endzone region of a beam and column have been redrawn in detail in Figure 7.
Instead of continuously increasing, the bending moments in the girders decrease from a
maximum of Vh/L at the face of the column to BVh/2 at the centerline of the column. Similarly,
the column moment decreases from a maximum of Vh at the face of the girder to a minimum
of aVh/2 at the centerline of the girder.
On the basis of Figure 7, the component of the member DPF associated with joint deformation
can be computed. Before carrying out the derivations, a few explanations and simplifications
are required.
(1) When computing the component of DPF due to joint shear, either V, or Vv should be
10 F. A . CHARNEY AND J . F. HORVILLEUR

Ratio of Joint Shear to Column Shear

10.0 I

I I
8.0 I
, I ____-

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

4
Figure 6. Effect of member size on joint shear

T vv

C) d)
Figure 7. Modified girdcr and column force distributions: (a) girder flexure; (b) girder shear; (c) column flexure;
(d) column shear.

considered, but not both. V, is used because it is assumed that the column passes through
the joint. For this reason, all the joint shear component of member DPF is assumed to
occur in the columns. In computing joint shear deformation, the thickness of the web in
the joint is taken as tPZas defined earlier.
(2) The moment diagram for girder and column shear within the joint is assumed to vary
linearly from a maximum at the face of the joint to zero at the center of the joint. Further,
the moment of inertia for the girder region inside the joint is assumed to be the same as
the moment of inertia outside the joint. A similar assumption is made for the columns.
On the basis of finite element analysis of subassemblages, this assumption has been found
to be quite accurate when beam-flange continuity plates are used. When continuity plates
are absent, the method can underestimate subassemblage drift by as much as 7.004.3

On the basis of the above, the portion of the girder's DPF due to flexural deformation in the
 STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY 11

joint is
DPFGjF = ~
2
El,
jUL"(
0 2 uL/2 uL/2
dx

Vvh2L(1 - @)'a
-
- (19)
12E1~
The portion of the column's DPF due to flexure is

- v v h 3 ~ ( 1- p y p
-
12EIc
and finally, the portion of the column DPF due to joint shear is

-
-
Vuh(1 - !3! - p)'
(21)
WAC"
where Acv = t,,crL.
Instead of working with subassemblage geometry, the joint region DPFs given in equations
(19) through (21) may be derived on a member-by-member basis. For girders or columns:

For columns on1 Y:

where VH,J,v ~ , VH,J

~ , and vH,J are computed according to equation (16).

5. EXAMPLE
The frame shown in Figure 8 has been analysed using the equilibrium joint model, and the results
are summarized in Table I. The entries in the rightmost column of Table I are the DPFs for
the individual members, divided into their flexural, shear, axial and joint deformation
components. The sum of all member DPFs, 905.18 is 1000 times the displacement computed at
the roof of the structure, therefore the roof displacement is 0.905 inches. Of the total displacement
of 0.905 inches, 0.300 inches (33%) is due to deformation in the beam-column joints. Most of
the joint DPF is due to shear deformation occurring in the panel zone of the beam-column
joint. The panel zone drift could be reduced through the use of doubler plates.
12 F. A. CHARNEY A N D J. F. HORVILLEUR

240” 240“ 240”

1 B7 I BB I B9 I coLU”S ‘EAMS
WZIX117

c10
Bi
i1 W24X146

I B1
C6

W24X116

E39,OW lrrl

Figure 8. Example frame

Table I. Member DPFs for frame of figure 8

Member Flexure Shear Axial Joint Total
c1 45.33 7.61 3.29 30.00 86.23
c2 55.75 10.64 021 43.02 109-62
c3 55.75 10.64 021 43.02 109.62
c4 45.33 7.61 3-29 30.00 86.23
c5 13.24 3.93 087 13.15 31.19
C6 30.87 8.90 004 29.60 69.4 1
c7 30.87 8.90 0.04 29.60 69-41
C8 13.24 3.93 0.87 13.15 31.19
c9 8.45 276 010 9-65 20.96
c10 19.05 5.71 000 19.70 44.46
c11 19.05 5.71 0.00 19.70 44.46
c12 8.45 2.76 010 9.65 20-96
B1 3 1.88 5.53 000 1.99 39.40
B2 15.25 2.83 0.01 1.00 19-08
B3 3 1.88 5.53 000 1.99 39.40
B4 21.32 3.53 000 1.31 26.16
B5 10.46 2.17 0.00 0.80 13.43
B6 21.32 3-53 000 1.31 26.16
B7 5.76 0.85 0.00 0-34 6.95
B8 3.19 0.52 000 0.20 3.9 1
B9 5.76 0.85 0.00 034 6.95
Total 492.2 104.44 9.03 299.52 905.18

Note that all values in this table include a factor of loo0 because the virtual force
was loo0 kips.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented an effective method for evaluating the effect of beam-column joint
deformations on the lateral load response of steel framed structures. The method is more accurate
than the traditional approach used by many currently existing structural analysis programs.
 STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY 13

REFERENCES

1. F. A. Charney, ‘Economy of steel frame buildings through identification of structural behavior’, Proc.
of the Spring 1993 AISC Steel Construction Con$, Orlando, Florida, 1993.
2. F. A. Charney, ‘DISPAR for ETABS user’s manual’, Advanced Structural Concepts, Denver, Colorado,
1994.
3. J., Horvilleur, and F. A. Charney, ‘The effect of beam-column joint deformation on the lateral load
response of steel frame building structures’, 111 Simposio Internacional Y VI Sirnposio Nacional de
Estructuras de Acero, Mexico, 1993.