T E S T OF S T E E L B E A M - C O L U M N S SUBJECT

TO SlDESWAY
By Masayoshi Nakashima,' Member, ASCE, Koichi Takanashi, 2
and Hiroto Kato3

ABSTRACT: This paper describes an experimental study to examine the behavior

of steel beam-columns subject to sidesway. A total of 42 beam-columns are tested
under a monotonic loading condition, with the axial force, slenderness, and geo-
metrical and material properties as major test variables. The results, including the
force-versus-deflection curves, maximum strengths, deflections at critical points,
and local and lateral torsional buddings, are presented. Effectiveness of strength
and ductility provisions stipulated by AISC's LRFD specification is calibrated against
the data obtained. It is found that the experimental strength is never below the
design strength and greater by 11% on the average, but that the unbraced length
permitted for plastic design can ensure very little ductility (not more than 2.0).

INTRODUCTION

In a building structure, columns that sustain both axial force and bending
moment are classified as beam-columns. When lateral forces are applied to
the structure, such as during an earthquake loading condition, the top of a
beam-column deflects relative to its bottom; this type of deflection is often
called "sidesway." It has been known that in designing a building structure
in an area with high seismicity this sidesway condition is most critical when
proportioning the beam-columns because of the large lateral force require-
ment. Therefore, the behavior of beam-columns subject to sidesway should
be examined carefully. In the history of studies on steel beam-columns, how-
ever, the majority of the previous investigations involved beam-columns ex-
hibiting no sidesway (for example, Structural Stability Research Council 1984,
1988). More specifically, most of these investigations had their basis on
beam-columns having uniform moment (no moment gradient), and those with
other conditions were handled using the concept of an equivalent beam-col-
umn. Such treatment has been reflected in our design formats, in which basic
design equations are given for beam-columns under uniform moment, and
modifications factors, such as the Cm factor in the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) specification {Specification 1978), are introduced to cover
beam-columns in other conditions.
Of course, the beam-column with sidesway is not a special oddity in the
category of beam-columns. A beam-column having a cross section uniform
along the length and subject to sidesway is identical in its moment distri-
bution to the same beam-column deformed in double curvature (the end mo-
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Envir. Planning, Fac. of Engrg., Kobe Univ., Rokkodai,
Nada, Kobe 657 Japan.
2
Prof., Inst, of Industrial Sci., Univ. of Tokyo, 7-22-1, Roppongi, Minato-ku,
Tokyo 106 Japan.
3
Res. Engr., Production Dept., Bldg. Res. Inst., Ministry of Constr., Tatehara,
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305 Japan.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 1991. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Feb-
ruary 6, 1989. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
116, No. 9, September, 1990. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/90/0009-2516/$ 1.00 +
$.15 per page. Paper No. 25043.

2516
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http:/
 (a) (b) (c)

FIG. 1. Relationship between Beam-Column with End Moment Ratio of 1.0 and
Beam-Column Subject to Sidesway: (a) Beam-Column with End Moment Ratio of
1.0; (h) Beam-Column Subject to Sidesway; and (c) Force versus Deflection Re-
lationships

ment ratio of 1.0) if we neglect higher-order terms. Fig. 1 shows the rela-
tionship between the two cases, describing how the end moment versus end
rotation relationship of a beam-column with an end moment ratio of 1.0 [Fig.
1(a)] can be transformed to the lateral force versus lateral deflection rela-
tionship of the same beam-column but subject to sidesway [Fig. 1(b)], In
Fig. 1(c), the end rotation in the abscissa is changed to A/L, where A and
L are the lateral deflection and length of the beam-column, whereas the end
moment in the ordinate is changed to HL/2, where H is the lateral force.
Furthermore, in the ordinate, the lateral force at each A/L should be reduced
by PA/2, where P is the axial force imposed, to account for the P-A effect
caused by the sidesway. Be reminded that, in both cases, the P-8 effect
caused by the bowing of the beam-column is already included in the re-
spective relationship. In this way, we can readily estimate the behavior of
a beam-column with sidesway and quantify its strength and ductility. How-
ever, it is true only with a reservation that a complete end moment versus
end rotation relationship is provided for the beam-column that sustains the
moment having the end moment ratio of 1.0; it is so because [as seen in
Fig. 1(c)] the value in abscissa corresponding to the maximum resistance is
more likely to differ between the two cases, and, therefore, the lateral de-
flection corresponding to the maximum lateral force cannot be estimated from
the end rotation corresponding to the maximum end moment. Unfortunately,
in most of the previous studies on beam-columns undertaking the end mo-
ment ratio of 1.0, their end moment versus end rotation relationship was
reduced to more compact forms such as the maximum moment and ductility
or rotation capacity, and, at the time of their publication, information on the
complete relationship was not available.
As for the design of a beam-column, many of the current design equations
[for example, AISC's Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specifi-
cation 1986] consider this sidesway effect by introducing an amplification
factor. This factor, however, has been derived based on the elastic analysis;
to the best of the writers' knowledge, its validity has not been fully cali-
brated against experimental data. Ductility provisions stipulated in current
design codes are subject to much debate. Some specifications (for example,
Lay 1969) set an upper limit in the interaction between the slenderness and
2517
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://
axial force to ensure sufficient ductility. This limit, in turn, has been derived
as a condition in which the maximum bending moment remains at the ends
of the beam-column. As long as the beam-column deflects without sidesway,
this limit indeed ensures much ductility, but, with sidesway, an additional
P-A moment caused by the lateral deflection makes the resistance keep de-
creasing even if this limit is satisfied. In fact, we cannot argue ductility of
a beam-column with sidesway without accounting for the strain hardening.
Some other design codes [for example, the LRFD specification {Load 1986)]
limit the unbraced length permitted for beam-columns. However, the loading
and support conditions adopted in Bansal's test (1971), on which the limit
was established, were not exactly the same as the condition with sidesway,
and, more crucially, the specimens tested in his study were not beam-col-
umns but beams.
Considering the importance of the sidesway effect in designing steel beam-
columns, particularly in seismic regions, and also recognizing the insuffi-
ciency in data on the behavior of these beam-columns, the writers carried
out a series of tests for steel beam-columns subject to sidesway. This paper
outlines the experiment conducted and presents data on the force versus de-
flection behavior of the beam-columns tested. This paper also includes in-
vestigations on the effectiveness of present design provisions with respect to
the strength and ductility of steel beam-columns. The writers continue to
make efforts in quantifying the characteristics of the beam-columns tested
and will report the details later.

EXPERIMENT

Geometry of Beam-Columns Tested

The steel beam-columns tested in this study were hot-rolled and had a
wide-flange cross section. Two different cross sections were chosen. Their
nominal dimensions were 100 mm (b) X 100 mm (d) (identified by the
number "10") and 125 mm X 125 mm (identified by the number "12"), in
which b and d are the width and depth of the section. The width-to-thickness
ratios were 6.3 (for "10") and 6.9 (for "12") for flanges and 14 (for "10")
and 16 (for "12") for webs, respectively. Here, the ratios were defined for
flanges as b/(2tf), with tf as the flange thickness, and for webs as (d — 2tf)/
tw, with tw as the web thickness. These ratios indicate that all of the beam-
columns tested had a compact section. The cross-sectional properties on the
measured basis are tabulated in Table 1. Fig. 2(a) illustrates a test specimen
in which a steel plate of 30 mm in thickness was welded at each end. The
length (L) of the test specimen was one of the major test parameters. The
slenderness ratio with respect to the strong axis ranged from 25 to 54 for
specimens with the cross-sectional properties of "10" and from 25 to 44 for
those of "12." All of the specimens were therefore classified as "stocky" or
at most "intermediate." Table 2 summarizes the slenderness ratios of the
specimens tested. In column 5 of this table, X is the slenderness ratio about
the strong axis normalized by the yield slenderness ratio that is defined as
IT where E and uy are Young's modulus and the yield stress.

Material Properties
The material used in this study was mild steel. Two types of material were
chosen; one had a nominal yield stress of 240 MN/m 2 (A36 equivalent and
2518
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://w
 TABLE 1. Cross-Sectional Properties of Specimens Tested
Notation
Property S10 S12 M10 M12
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
A (mm2) 2,250 3,090 2,340 3,150
d (mm) 99.5 125 100 126
tf (mm) 8.29 9.11 8.59 9.33
b (mm) 99.7 125 101 125
t„ (mm) 6.10 6.80 6.35 6.75
Ix (mm4) 3,860,000 8,590,000 4,070,000 8,820,000
rx (mm) 41.5 52.8 41.7 53.0
ly (mm4) 1,400,000 2,970,000 1,470,000 3,080,000
ry (mm) 24.5 31.0 25.1 31.3
zx (mm3) 77,600 137,000 81,100 140,000
z, (mm3) 28,100 47,500 29,400 49,000
zpx (mm3) 86,900 153,000 91,400 157,000
z w (mm3) 42,000 72,200 44,200 74,400

designated by the symbol "S"), and the other 320 MN/m 2 (A572 equivalent
and designated by the symbol "M"). The material properties obtained from
coupon tests are summarized in Table 3. The material had a significant yield
plateau and a yield ratio (<ry/(Tu) of about 0.7, where tr„ is the maximum
stress. All of the steel used in the test was transported to the machine shop
directly from a steel plant; therefore, each of the four groups of test spec-
imens (i.e., S10, S12, M10, and Ml2) had identical geometrical and ma-
terial properties. The end plates were butt-welded to the specimen by a qual-
ified welder, but no special treatment was made to release the residual stresses.

Test Setup
An overview of the test setup developed for this test is shown in Fig.
2(b). The specimen A in Fig. 2(b) was clamped to the top beam (B) and
base (C) of the setup and in the direction so that the specimen would be
loaded with respect to its strong axis. Using electro-hydraulic servo control

PL30
TP ( D ) Vertical
Actuator

( E ) Horizontal
Actuator Load Cell-

Specisen
(F)
Para Ilelogram
J"p.
L
260 J
(a)

FIG. 2, Specimen and Setup Employed in Test: (a) Specimen; and (b) Setup

2519
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://w
 http://w
^^ ro rt o o o o

Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
co TT IN
m TI- •<t CO
VO
• * CM
00
IN
TJ- 00 00 CM WO VO 00 ON W)
IN
CM 0 0 00
IN
CO Tj- VO
co ON CM CM
r~ CM
o CM VO VO
r~ wo wo CM VO r^ VO wi vo
** \ E ? ~* I N •* •* '-^
• * • *
wo wo ON r~ o o, ro o r~ r^ *-l o r~ n h r r vn c~ r~ vn r~ o co
«2 o e c •*
t~ •-H 00 00 CO CO VO Tt CO ON VO CO •^r H M IN 00
rt rt CM CM rt rf CM rt CM - 1 - H CO CM CM CM I-H
"* —* " —< ^ •^ *•"'
-*
£
o o o o o o o o o ON ON O N ON ON ON ON ON ON O N ON ON CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
•D vn VO vn vn VO VO VO vn VO vn vn VO vn VO vn vn VO vn VO vn VO rci ro co m ro co CO CO CO ro ro ro ON ON ON ON ON ON
a CM CM I N CM I N I N CM CM CM IN CM (N ^f ^f Tf- Tj- t CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO wo wo WO wo wo wo wo wo wo
>>
• *
•* • * T *
o
Q. o o o
VO vn VO IN IN IN
rt
ON
_ _ VO vn vn M _ rt
CJN W)
r~ r~ r~ wo wo wo CO ro CO CO ro ro CM CM CM
0 0 0 0 CO CO CO r- r~-
r> o o r> o o
• * •
r-~ CO c o CO 0 0 0 0 0 0
*
-*
S IN IN IN Ov ON wo wo wo 0\ av wo 0w0o IN IN IN 00 CM CM CM
s •*
• *
Ul
«fP VO VO VO VO VO wo WO WO wo wo wo 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r~ r~ r~ r~ r^ r~ vo VO vo o o o o o o
o wo W0 W0 WO WO WO wo wo WO wo wo wo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO o o o o o o wo wo WO wo wo wo wo wo wo
00 00 0 0 on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ro c o ro ro CO ro ro CO CO ro CO CO CO m ro ro r~ r~ r^ I~ r^ r~ r^ r^ r~
5 CIS vo VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO
a\ ON O N a\ o\ o\ ON ON ON ON ON ON ON O N ON ON ON O N O N ON ON
c
o VII
u o ro VO I N VO CM • * VO CM T f VO o
• * CO VO CM •* VO CM T t VO o CO VO CM "* VO CM t VO CM T i - vo o CO vo CM •* vo CM T t vo
a. o o O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
O •
•* • t f r~ r- 1— -. rt - H T f •* CM CM CM CO CO CO r f
* • * • * • * • * • * • * • * Tf • * CO CO CO CM CM CM 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
•D ^<o I N I N I N 0 0 0 0 0 0 wo wo wo ^ H ^ H ^ H
Ti-
ro CO <T\ av ON wo wo wo ^ H T-H ^ H r~ r~ r ~ CO CO CO ON
00
ON
00
ON
00
CM CM I N 00 00 00 •* -* ^f
ft.
"* wo wo wo r- c^ C ~ O v
ON ON
•* wo wo wo r~ l ~ - r~
•* "* wo wo wo c~ r^ r~ • * wo wo wo c~ I - r~
• * • * • * • * • * • *
CD I
vo vn vn r~ t-~ r - 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o C7v ON ON OV ON ON ON ON ON O N ON ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 VO VO VO wo wo wo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r~ r^ t -
CO CO CO wo W) wo 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO ro wo wo wo WO wo wo ON ON ON CO CO CO r^ r~ r^ M- M- T1- r~ r^ r- VO
01 *t LO CO co CO •<t wo wo wo VO VO VO CO CO CO CO CO CO T i - • * T f VO vo VO c^ r^ CO CO CO ^f o voo VO
o
o o o o •* o
• *
o o o o o o o o o o o •* o o owo • * • * wo wo
o o o o o o o o o o o
r~
o o o o o o o o o o o o
• * • *
tel
O
u. -, rf r~ C~ •* T j - •* o o o •* T f
rt t - 0\ o\ O N • * • * • * • wo wo wo - H ~t
* ON ON O N r* r~ r~ t ~ CO CO CO l > r^ c~ — ^ -H
wo wo wo M- ^r •tf wo wo M- T t M- ro ro r o wo wo wo ^r ^t- II
(C
X
^ " • *
CM CM CM
rt
CO CO CO
Tt
5 wo wo wo CM CM
Tf
• *

Tl-
• *

TT WO T t r f
CM CO CO
•<t
CO 5 Tt
• * 5 •*
IN CM
Tt
CM CO CO CO •* 555 wo wo wo CM CM CM CO CO CO
• *
555
< .c ^ o o o O o o o o o o o o <r>o CO o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o r> o o o o o
-Tf Tt t Tf Tt- T t TI- TT
T t • t T T ^f T f M - I f M - M- T f ^f Tt- ^t
co aEs- •
o o o
* Tf • *
•<t
•<t •*!•
00
•
00
* •f
00
• * • *
CM CM CM CO •*
CO
•
CI
*
00
•
00
* •*t
00 •*
o o o ^f rf •<t 0 0 0 0 0 0 CM CM CM CO CO co 0 0 0 0 •*
CO CO co
• * • * • *
0 0 CO CO CO
• * • * • *
I 9
0) CD t
_J
—' •* •* CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
C
Property

•D
C (2) o o o o o o o o o o o o IN CM CM CM IN CM I N IN CM
o o o o o o o o o o o o CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
0)
co CO CO CO e/3 CO CO co CO co CO CO vo
CO CO CO co CO CO CO co CO CO
sssssssssssssssssssss
CM vo o vo
s •* ** vo CM T f VO
so o os
CO VO CM VO CM T t VO CO CM
c o co VO I N • * VO IN • VO CM
* VO o • * CO VO IN Tf VO CM • * VO
• *
<J
m CM
o o o
o CM <_>o o o
VO
o o o o CM
o <_) o c_> o o o
VO
o
en CO CO wo wo wo VO VO VO CO CO CO VO v o VO
o o 5 o 5 o 8 o o o o IN 5
as T-_ wo wo wo wo
m co CO CO
O
wo VO VO VO CO CO
CM
CO
CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM o o o
o o O O O OoO C
o M oC MCMC MCMC CM
o M CCM CMM CM
M C C MCM
C MCMC M
CM cC <
< Z CO CO
o o
CO co CO co CO co CO co CO CO co CO co CO co CO co OTJ co SS§SSSS§SSSS2S§SSSSS§
 TABLE 3. Material Properties of Specimens Tested
E ay (T„
Notation (GN/m 2 ) (MN/m 2 ) (MN/m2) cry/(T„ e«/ej, EJEm° Es,/Em
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
S10 197.0 300 420 0.714 19.0 0.0101 0.00619
S12 197.3 301 421 0.715 19.1 0.0122 0.00708
M10 188.7 368 502 0.733 14.4 0.0161 0.00816
M12 212.2 377 . 518 0.728 14.9 0.0123 0.00709
"Esl/Eaj: Secant modulus between e„ and e = 50,000u..
b
Esl/Em: Secant modulus between e,, and e = 100,000u,.

actuators, one vertical (D) and one horizontal (E), axial and lateral forces
were imposed to the specimen, and, accordingly, the top of the specimen
was deflected in both vertical and horizontal directions. Rotations about both
the strong and weak axes as well as torsion were prevented at both ends of
the specimen, and this condition was achieved with a pair of parallelograms
consisting of six pins [F in Fig. 2(b)]. If no specimen was built in the setup,
the top beam (B) of the setup was free to move relative to the base (C), but
kept parallel to the base throughout the movement.

Loading Procedures and Measurement

For each test, an axial force was first imposed to a specified level. The
axial force (P) imposed was another major test parameter in this study and
set at 0.0, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.6 with respect to P/Py, where Py is the yield
axial force estimated as the measured yield stress times the measured cross-
sectional area. Table 2 shows the axial force imposed for each specimen.
Then, using the actuator [E in Fig. 2(b)], lateral deflection was imposed to
the top of the specimen, whereas the axial force was kept constant. The
deflection was incrementally increased in one direction (monotonic loading)
and with an increment of 0.5 mm in each loading until the lateral force
resistance of the specimen was reduced to zero, or, in the case of no axial
force, the actuator stroke (500 mm) was completely exhausted. During the
loading, the forces detected by the load cells, the lateral and vertical de-
flections at the top of the specimen, and the deflection (including displace-
ments and rotations in three directions) at the cross section located in the
mid-height of the specimen were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 42 specimens were tested. Major test variables, including ma-

terial and geometrical properties, slenderness ratios, and P/Py, are tabulated
in Table 2. The results are summarized in Table 4, and Fig. 3 schematically
illustrates the notation used in Table 4. The solid line in this figure shows
the relationship between the lateral deflection (A) and the first-order end
moment defined as the lateral force (H) resisted by the specimen times L/
2, while the broken line between A and the second-order end moment de-
fined as the first-order end moment added to the P-A moment: PA/2. As
shown in Fig. 2(b), the vertical actuator (D) changed its axis of loading
according to the lateral deflection, because this actuator was connected to
2521

Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://w
 TABLE 4. Summary of Test Results
(Mi + (Mc + (M«,+ 4>h/2L v/L
Notation Mb/Mp i»A 6 /2)/M p PA e /2)/M p P&d/2)/M„ <1<T4) do-4) A»/A, Ac/A, Aj/A, VA, A,/A,,
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

S1O320O 1.42 — — 2.41" 32.9" 49.6 _ — _ 13.0

S103203 0.886 1.14 1.27 1.30 13.5 18.1 12.6 21.0 28.6 51.8 9.73
S103206 0.442 0.552 0.590 0.916 0.768 1.88 4.83 7.45 37.2 37.2 Nob
SI04402 0.954 1.05 1.18 1.27 1.94 14.1 3.38 9.12 18.3 35.8 4.00
SI04404 0.705 0.845 0.878 1.15 0.901 3.78 3.17 4.71 20.0 25.0 3.80
S104406 0.435 0.560 0.582 0.648 0.295 2.57 2.84 3.84 14.8 14.8 5.21
S105602 0.924 1.04 1.09 1.19 2.04 1.70 2.35 4.47 12.4 21.8 3.31
S105604 0.631 0.769 0.811 0.965 0.00 1.20 1.91 2.93 13.4 13.4 6.62
S105606 0.334 0.454 0.472 0.473 0.465 1.33 1.65 2.14 2.30 5.4 No b
S106802 0.781 0.910 0.944 1.01 0.522 0.525 1.91 2.85 9.29 13.3 4.82
S106804 0.568 0.770 0.812 0.940 0.222 3.97 1.83 2.57 8.87 8.87 3.67
S106806 0.384 0.575 0.609 0.634 0.958 0.960 1.78 2.27 4.85 5.85 No b
SI23200 34.2 8.01
1.27 _ _ _ 10.4° 25.3* — —
20.9
—
43.9 4.88
S123203 0.830 1.07 1.17 1.18 2.20 2.31 11.5 19.0
S123206 0.461 0.565 0.601 0.779 1.29 4.16 4.50 7.05 30.3 33.7 7.71
SI24402 0.931 1.02 1.18 1.22 5.40 8.14 3.16 9.94 16.3 31.7 5.21
SI24404 0.608 0.719 0.733 0.948 2.18 2.85 2.62 3.66 19.3 21.9 4.37
S124406 0.360 0.456 0.459 0.510 0.802 2.89 2.19 2.68 11.5 11.5 4.04
S125602 0.858 0.981 1.06 1.17 0.737 4.84 2.59 4.89 14.9 21.8 3.50
SI 25604 0.566 0.709 0.735 0.862 0.713 0.566 2.02 2.77 11.5 11.9 4.04
S125606 0.323 0.468 0.481 0.505 0.0941 1.81 2.05 2.45 7.14 7.14 4.15
M103600 1.36 — — _ 10.4* 1.11* 24.0 — — — 11.6
M103603 0.829 1.12 1.23 1.25 7.63 11.7 10.6 16.3 19.9 35.5 25.2
M103606 0.427 0.559 0.583 0.853 0.796 7.48 4.21 5.68 27.1 27.1 7.76
M105002 0.956 1.09 1.22 1.30 1.95 0.816 3.46 7.80 15.4 27.5 4.13
M105004 0.713 0.892 0.937 1.13 0.00524 1.55 3.03 4.38 15.3 18.5 4.16
M105006 0.450 0.623 0.640 0.719 0.347 4.86 2.93 3.58 12.1 12.1 6.76
M106402 0.928 1.08 1.16 1.26 1.24 1.10 2.31 4.26 11.0 17.8 4.57
M106404 0.598 0.820 0.847 0.990 0.131 2.46 2.31 2.89 10.1 10.1 4.75
M106406 0.427 0.626 0.660 0.677 1.08 2.11 2.05 2.63 4.99 6.93 No*
M107802 0.851 1.03 1.07 1.17 0.649 7.09 1.83 2.77 7.62 11.5 3.43
M107804 0.616 0.912 0.922 1.03 0.449 2.41 2.07 2.35 7.25 7.25 2.84
M107806 0.251 0.482 0.533 0.552 0.742 1.18 1.60 2.04 3.77 3.77 No b
5.08
M123500 1.27 — — — 5.10* 7.24* 22.5 — —
16.7
—
36.3
M123503 0.846 1.07 1.17 1.17 2.05 21.2 9.56 15.7 5.51
M123506 0.437 0.549 0.573 0.760 0.00705 0.00186 4.18 5.29 26.6 28.4 5.31
M124802 0.846 0.978 1.08 1.13 3.53 11.0 3.96 8.36 13.0 25.5 3.96
M124804 0.595 0.733 0.745 0.948 0.651 2.46 2.76 3.60 14.5 18.2 7.13
M124806 0.338 0.468 0.479 0.533 0.188 0.394 2.60 3.15 10.3 10.3 5.76
M126102 0.821 0.947 1.02 1.10 3.98 7.09 2.33 4.46 10.4 17.3 3.44
M126104 0.552 0.727 0.748 0.862 0.431 2.41 2.16 2.76 10.7 10.7 3.63
M126106 0.361 0.514 0.551 0.560 0.268 1.18 1.90 2.55 5.80 6.81 4.67
a
Values corresponding to Mb instead of Mc.
m> buckling observed.

the setup by a swivel at both ends. The lateral force (H) was thus calculated
as the sum of the force measured by the load cell attached to the horizontal
actuator (E) and the horizontal component of the axial force applied by the
vertical actuator (£>). A^ is the yield deflection defined as
MPCL2
A, = -^— (1)
6EIX
and

Mpc = 1.18( 1 W < Mp (2)

2522
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http:
 2nd Order
Moment AP
.(HL/2+PA/2) ' »
J f H
• --^ T " "
Mb
Mc =0.95Mb
Npc \[
Loca 1 I
1st Order •Buck I i n g 1
Elastic Stiffness
!p
(=6EI X /L 2 )

Ay Ab A c A d A/> Af

FIG. 3. Notation Used for Quantifying Test Results

where Mp = the plastic moment (measured basis); Mpc = the plastic moment
reduced due to the effect of axial force; and Ix = the moment of inertia about
the strong axis. A,, Ab, Ac, and Ad are the deflections corresponding to the
first local buckling in a flange, maximum first-order end moment (Mb), 95%
of Mh in the unstable range (Mc), and maximum second-order end moment
(Md), and A/is the deflection when the lateral resisting force (H) was reduced
to zero. Further, cf> and v in Table 4 denote the rotation about the longitudinal
axis of the specimen and the out-of-plane deflection, both at the mid-height
cross section and corresponding to the in-plane deflection of Ac. Fig. 4 shows
the relationship between the first-order end moment (normalized by Mp) and
the lateral deflection (A) (normalized by the A^,) obtained from the tests. The
symbol • appearing in Fig. 4 indicates the point when a flange local buck-
ling was observed for the first time.

Local Buckling and Lateral Torsional Buckling

Since all of the test specimens had a compact section, local buckling did
not occur at an early stage of loading. Specimens did not undertake any local
buckling before reaching Mb, except for three specimens. These three spec-
imens had the smallest slenderness (0.32 or 0.35 in \) with an axial force
of 0.3 in P/Py, but, as seen in Fig. 4, even in these specimens, the buckling
did not cause any drastic change in the load versus deflection behavior. Fur-
thermore, 26 specimens did not exhibit a local buckling even at the deflec-
tion of Ac. Here, those with no axial force were not counted, because, as
evidenced from Fig. 4, their resistance kept increasing nearly until the test
was terminated. [Specimens M103600 and M123500 in Figs. 4(a and e)
were exceptions; the tests were stopped because of a fracture along the weld
at one of the end plates.] The lateral torsional buckling was also found to
be negligible. The buckling was not observed before reaching Mb in any
specimen and was induced at a later stage of loading mainly as a result of
a flange local buckling that preceded the lateral torsional buckling. As in-
dicated in Table 4, the out-of-plane deflection corresponding to the in-plane
deflection of Ac was greater in specimens with a smaller slenderness and
axial force but still remained within a range of 1/500 of the length. It was
concluded from these observations that neither local nor lateral torsional
buckling was significant in steel beam-columns-having a combination of ge-
ometry, material, and axial force covered in this study; i.e., those having a
flange width-to-thickness ratio less than 7, a slenderness ratio not greater

2523
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http
 H/Hp
—:S10, A-0.44
:H10. A.-0.50
1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0.0
(a) L » 1040

H/Hp H/Hp
—:S10, A.=0.56 —:S10, A. =0.68
:H10. A.=0.B4 :H10,A.=0.78

1.0 1.0

• ^ • ' i * A/Ay A/Ay

O.o t — i - •'> '• » 1 =^=^J 0.0
0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0
( c ) L = 1840 I * ( d ) I = 2240 H

H/Hp . — :S12, A.=0.32 H/Hp

•:K12, A = 0 . 3 5

1.0 -,

0.0

H/Hp
— :S12, A."0.56
:H12, A-0.61

1.0

P/Py=0.2
P/Py=0.4
P/Py=0.6 A/Ay
0.0
0.0 50.0
(g) L = 2340 »

FIG. 4. End Moment versus Lateral Deflection Curves Obtained from Tests

than 54 about the strong axis, and an axial force not greater than 0.6 in
P/Py.

COMMENTS

In-Plane Characteristics
From the aforementioned observations, it was found that the in-plane ac-
tion governed the behavior of the beam-columns tested. There are a number
of indices that characterize the in-plane behavior: the elastic stiffness, yield
moment, maximum moment, ductility (or rotation capacity), energy dissi-
2524
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://w
pation capacity, and others. Which index is most important depends a great
deal on the design method employed. In the allowable stress design method,
the yield moment is most critical, in a strength based design, the maximum
moment should serve as the basis, and in the seismic design, the ductility
is as important as the maximum moment, and the energy dissipation capacity
also becomes important in an energy-based consideration. The major objec-
tive of this study is to provide comprehensive experimental data on the be-
havior of steel beam-columns subject to sidesway so that the data can be
used effectively in design considerations, and it is for this reason that com-
plete moment versus deflection relationships are presented in Fig. 4 and val-
ues at critical points are tabulated in Table 4. At this point, the reader may
raise a question of whether or not the effect of end restraint or the behavior
of beam-columns subject to sidesway is significant. It is because a beam-
column framed into a building structure is likely to be subjected to rotation
at the ends in addition to the lateral deflection, whereas the specimens tested
were prevented from any rotation at their ends. The degree of the end re-
straint is a function of the stiffness of the beam-column to the stiffnesses of
the beams into which the beam-column is framed, and this effect is no doubt
another important issue of consideration in defining the characteristics of
beam-columns subject to sidesway. The results obtained in this study are
still practicable to estimate the behavior of beam-columns sustaining such
end rotation. In fact, coordinate transformation and inclusion of further P-
A effect that is caused by the drift associated with the end rotation can con-
vert the end moment versus lateral deflection relationship of a beam-column
tested to the relationship of the same beam-column but with the end rotation.
This is another reason that presenting the complete relationship was believed
important.

Strength
The accuracy of design equations for estimating the strength of steel beam-
columns was examined against the data obtained in this study. The equations
considered were those stipulated in the LRFD specification {Load 1986) and
calibrated in the form of
P« 8 BJ2M„ Pu
— + - - —!L = 1.0: for — > 0.2 (3)
Pn 9 Mn Pn
P„ B2M„ Pu
—- + -J—- = 1.0: for — < 0.2 (4)
2Pn Mn Pn
Pn = A(Q.658x')Fy (5)
where Pu = required compressive strength; M„ = required flexural strength;
A = cross-sectional area of the beam-column; and Fy = specified minimum
yield stress. By taking into account the loading and support conditions em-
ployed in the test, the remaining variables appearing in these equations were
determined as follows. First, Xc was taken as the normalized slenderness
ratio about the strong axis (X). Note that in the specimens tested the effective
slenderness ratio in the weak axis was smaller than that in the strong axis,
because both end rotation and sidesway in the weak axis were prevented in
these specimens. Further, Fy was taken to be ay. The nominal flexural strength,
M„, was estimated as Mp for all specimens because their slenderness was
2525
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://w
 0.0 1.0
B 2 M b /Hp B 2 M b /K P
(") (b)

FIG. 5. Axial Force versus Maximum End Moment Relationships Obtained from
Tests: (a) Property: S10 and S12; and (b) Property: M10 and M12

small enough to permit the attainment of plastic moment and sufficient ro-
tation capacity. A coefficient that considers the moment amplification due
to the P-A effect, B2, was taken to be 1/(1 - PLf/{\2EIx). In the original
LRFD format, the equations contain a resistance factor, cj>. In this calibra-
tion, however, this factor was neglected, with the assumption that the equa-
tions without this factor specify the mean value of the strength. Fig. 5 shows
the relationship between the axial force (P) and maximum end moment (Mb)
normalized by P„ and Mp/B2, respectively. The figure also includes the de-
sign strength specified by Eqs. 3 and 4, showing that the experimental strength
is always greater than the design strength. To quantify the difference be-
tween the experimental and design strengths, the overstrength ratio was de-
fined as shown in Fig. 6. Here, the experimental strength is the distance
between the origin and the experimental point (\OT\ in Fig. 6), whereas the
design strength is the distance between the origin and the point where the
line connecting the experimental point with the origin intersects with the
design equation (\OS\ in Fig. 6). The overstrength ratio thus estimated is
plotted against the slendemess ratio in Fig. 7 and also tabulated in Table 5.
The following observations can be made by looking into this figure and ta-
ble. First, the overstrength ratio is significantly large for specimens with P /
Py = 0.0; this is very understandable because of significant strain hardening
imposed to these specimens. Second, no distinct correlation is observed be-
tween the overstrength ratio and the slendemess or the axial force, but, if
anything, the ratio remains relatively unchanged with respect to the slen-

P/Pn
Overstrength
Ratio

P/Pn+8/9(B2Hb/Hp)=1.0

P/(2Pn)+B2Mb/Hp=1.0

B 2 M b /Hp

FIG. 6. Definition of Overstrength Ratio (Experimental Strength Relative to De-

sign Strength)

2526
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http:/
 Overstrength Ratio Overstrength Ratio
P/Py=0.0 »-» P/Py=0.2 «•••» p/p y =o.2
*••* P/Py=0.4 -P/Py=0.0 - - P/Py=0.4
1.4 <-t P/Py=0.6
1.4
•—» P/Py=0.6
1.2
P/Py=0.3
i.
+—feg^C 1.2hP/Py=0.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.0 1.0 o.o i.o
(a)
(b)
Overstrength Ratio
Overstrength
1 Ratio
P/Py=0.0 >••* P/Py=0.2

1.4 1.4 -P/Py=0.0 -"P/PyO.4

j >—* P/Py=0.6
1.2 1.2 -P/Py=0.3

1.0 -P/Py=0.3-
1. 0
0.8 0.8 i i i i *
0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
(c) (d)

FIG. 7. Overstrength Ratio with Respect to Slendemess: (a) Property: S10; (b)
Property: S12; (c) Property: M10; and (d) Property: M12

derness for each of the four groups of tests (see columns 7 and 14 in Table
5). Here, the specimens with P/Py = 0.0 are not counted. Third, the ratio
is larger for specimens with properties S10 and M10 than for those with
properties S12 and M12. This result is difficult to interpret and left for fur-
ther investigation. Finally, the averaged overstrength ratio is 1.12 for spec-
imens with property S10, 1.06 for those with S12, 1.17 for those with M10,
and 1.06 for those with M12, respectively, and the grand average is esti-
mated as 1.11.

Ductility
Ductility is no doubt one of the most important indices in the seismic
design and also in the plastic design (in which this index is often expressed
as rotation capacity). Nevertheless, this index has never been defined clearly,
particularly when the moment versus deflection relationship does not have
any distinct yield point or limit deflection, as shown in Fig. 4. Since indi-
vidual researchers tend to use different definitions in accordance with their
own preference, we should take the utmost care about the definition em-
ployed whenever referring to their results. In this study, ductility was defined
as A c / A r As defined earlier, A, was the deflection corresponding to Mpc with
respect to the linear stiffness assumed to be 6EIX/L2. The limit deflection,
Ac, was the deflection corresponding to 0.95Mfc in the unstable range. This
number, 0.95, is a magic number and is by no means the one that has been
justified objectively. Nevertheless, this number was adopted in this obser-
vation because some of the earlier studies (Lay 1969; Bansal 1971) whose
results have been reflected in current design equations also used this defi-
nition. The ductility thus defined is plotted against the slendemess ratio in
Fig. 8. The ductility increases with the decrease in the axial force or slen-

2527

Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://
 TABLE 5. Overstrength Ratio Estimated from Test Results

P/Py 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 Average

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(a) S10
0.32 1.42 — 1.12 — 1.05 1.20
0.44 — 1.10 — 1.11 1.09 1.10
0.56 — 1.09 — 1.09 1.06 1.08
0.68 — 1.00 — 1.09 1.19 1.09
Average 1.42 1.06 1.12 1.10 1.10 1.12
(b) S12
0.32 1.27 — 1.07 — 1.06 1.13
0.44 — 1.07 — 1.01 1.01 1.03
0.56 — 1.02 — 1.02 1.03 1.02
Average 1.27 1.05 1.07 1.02 1.03 1.06
(c) M10
0.36 1.36 1.10 • 1.10 1.19
0.50 — 1.12 — 1.17 1.18 1.16
0.64 — 1.13 — 1.12 1.23 1.16
0.78 — 1.11 — 1.25 1.18 1.18
Average 1.36 1.12 1.10 1.18 1.17 1.17
(d) M12
0.35 1.27 — 1.08 1.04 1.13
0.48 — 1.00 — 1.01 1.00 1.00
0.61 — 1.01 — 1.02 1.09 1.04
Average 1.27 1.01 1.08 1.02 1.04 1.06

derness; this brings us no surprise. According to the LRFD specification

{Load 1986), the unbraced length permitted for plastic design (Lpd) is given
as

3,600 + 2,200
'-'pd
(6)

where Fy is in ksi. Meanwhile, the commentary of the LRFD specification

states that this unbraced length will ensure a rotation capacity of 3.0 (equiv-
alent to 4.0 of ductility). Provided that MJMP and Fy are unity and ay, Eq.
6 gives, for the permitted unbraced length, 1.0 (for specimens with prop-
erties S10 and S12), 0.95 (for those with property M10), and 0.87 (for those
with property M12), respectively, and these values are also plotted in Fig.
8. According to this figure, the unbraced length given by Eq. 6 is signifi-
cantly greater than the length covered in this study, but we can readily spec-
ulate that this unbraced length would ensure a very small ductility (say, not
more than 2). The LRFD commentary also notes that, if a rotation capacity
of 7 to 9 is to be ensured, the maximum unbraced length recommended is
'-'pd 146
(7)

2528

Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http:/
 10 . 0| 4cZAy 10.OA^

P/Py=0.2
P/Py=0.4
P/Py=0.6
5.0

0.0
0.16 1.0
(a) (b)

Ac/Ay A c/ A y
10.0 10.0 I
I
P/Py=0.2
P/Py=0.4
P/Py=0.6
5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
0.16 0.87 1 . 0

(d)

FIG. 8. Ductility versus Slenderness Ratio Relationships Obtained from Tests:

(a) Property: S10; (b) Property: S12; (c) Property: M10; and (d) Property: M12

where Fy is in ksi. This limit is also marked as dotted lines in Fig. 8, which
indicates that this limit unbraced length is much smaller than the length cov-
ered in this study but suggests that this length can guarantee a ductility of
more than 10 even if P/Py is 0.6, and most likely a much larger ductility
for a smaller P/Py. To be emphasized from these observations is a significant
difference between the unbraced lengths specified by Eqs. 6 and 7; in fact,
the length given by Eq. 6 is more than 5 times larger than the length given
by Eq. 7. Because of this large difference, the test results revealed that Eq.
6 can ensure a very small ductility, whereas Eq. 7 promises a ductility much
larger than 10. Both Eqs. 6 and 7 should be reevaluated in reference to the
effect of axial force (because both equations were derived based on the tests
applied to beams), the effect of moment gradient (because Eq. 7 does not
include this effect), and the effect of sides way as well.

CONCLUSION

This paper described the results of an experimental study conducted to

examine the behavior of steel beam-columns subject to sidesway. A sum-
mary and major findings obtained from this study are the following.

1. A total of 42 steel beam-columns having a wide flange cross section were

tested under a loading condition subject to sidesway, and complete moment ver-
2529

Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit ht
sus deflection relationships obtained from the tests were presented. The material
and geometrical properties, axial force, and slenderness were the major test vari-
ables.
2. Because of small width-to-thickness and slenderness ratios chosen in this
study, effects of local or lateral torsional buckling on the in-plane characteristics
of the specimens tested were found to be negligible.
3. The strength and ductility of the specimens tested were compared to the
strength and ductility provisions stipulated in the AISC's LRFD specification
{Load 1986). The experimental strength was never below the design strength and
greater by 11% on the average. The maximum unbraced length stipulated in the
LRFD specification as a condition to guarantee a ductility of 4 (a rotation ca-
pacity of 3) was found to ensure a very small ductility (not more than 2.0).

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Bansal, J. P. (1971). "The lateral instability of continuous steel beams." Thesis pre-
sented to the University of Texas at Austin, Tex., in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Lay, M. G. (1969). "The basis for the plastic design rules of AS CAl." The Second
Austrasian Conf. on the Mech. of Struct. andMatls., Aug. 25-27, Adelaide, Aus-
tralia.
Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. (1986).
Amer. Inst, of Steel Constr., Chicago, 111.
"Specification for the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel for build-
ings." (1978). Amer. Inst, of Steel Constr., Chicago, 111.
Structural Stability Research Council. (1984). "Stability of metal structures, George
Winter memorial session." Proc, Third Int. Colloquium, Toronto, Canada.
Structural Stability Research Council. (1988). Guide to stability design criteria for
metal structures. 4th Ed., Wiley Interscience, New York, N.Y.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = cross-sectional area of a beam-column;

B2 = coefficient accounting for moment amplification (LRFD
specification);
b, d = width and depth of a wide flange cross section;
E,Est = Young's modulus and strain hardening modulus;
Fy = specified minimum yield stress, (ksi) (LRFD specification);
H = lateral force applied to a beam-column;
Ix,Iy = moments of inertia about x- and y-axes;
L = length of a beam-column;
Lpd = limited unbraced length for plastic design (LRFD speci-
fication);
M = end moment applied to a beam-column;
Mb,Mc,Md = first-order maximum end moment, first-order end moment
corresponding to limit deflection, and second-order max-
imum end moment;
M„,M„ = required and nominal flexural strength (LRFD specifica-
tion);
Mp,Mpc = plastic moment and reduced plastic moment;

2530

Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http:
 P = axial force;
Pcn — nominal axial strength about x-axis;
Pn,Pu = nominal and required axial strength (LRFD specification);
P, = yield axial force;
rx,ry = radii of gyration about x- and ;y-axes;
tf, t„, = flange and web thicknessses;
v = out-of-plane deflection at mid-height of a beam-column;
Zx,Zy = section moduli about x- and y-ax&s;
Zpx,Zpy = plastic section moduli about x- and y-axes;
A = lateral deflection of a beam-column;
,A c ,A rf = deflection corresponding to moments Mb, Mc, Md;
Af, A, = deflections corresponding to zero lateral force and first lo-
cal buckling;
A, = yield lateral deflection;
es(, ey = strain at initiation of strain hardening and yield strain;
4> = rotation about longitudinal axis at mid-height of a beam-
column;
A. = slendemess ratio normalized by yield slendemess ratio about
x-axis;
Xc = normalized slendemess ratio (LRFD specification);
Kx, ky = slendemess ratios about x- and y-axes; and
CT„,CTJ, = maximum and yield stresses.

2531
Downloaded 05 May 2011 to 132.206.38.68. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http:/