[feof ot—} fej fei] | |eccs EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR CONSTRUCTIONAL STEELWORK ceEcCM CONVENTION EUROPEENNE DE LA CONSTRUCTION METALLIQUE EKS EUROPAISCHE KONVENTION FOR STAHLBAU ECCS - Technical Committee 8 — Structural Stability = Technical Working Group 8.1/8.2 — Skeletal Structures Practical Analysis of Single-Storey Frames FIRST EDITION 1991 N° 61Allights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner ECCS General Secretariat CECM Avenue des Ombrages, 32/36 bte 20 EKS _B-1200 BRUSSEL (Belgium) Tel. 32/2-762 04 23 ax 32/2-762 08 35, ECCS assumes no liability with respect to the use for any application of the material and information contained in this publication,CONTENTS PREFACE. PART 1: FIRST-ORDER PLASTIC DESIGN OF FRAMES WITH UNIFORM SECTION MEMBERS NOTATION 11 Introduction 12 Scope 13 Criteria for design by first-order theory 14 Numerical example 15 References Appendix: Parametric study on single-storey pinned-base frames PART 2: FIRST-ORDER AND SECOND-ORDER ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF FRAMES WITH TAPERED SECTION MEMBERS NOTATION 24 Introduction 22 Assumptions 23 Structure, factored loads and geometric imperfections 24 List of formulae 25 Charts for analysis 26 Numerical example 27 References Appendix: Charts for analysis @ AurkwnnPREFACE Low-rise steel structures can often be idealised as a series of two-dimensional frames, each of which resists loading in its own plane primarily by flexure. Plastic theory provides an economical basis for the design of such frames when these are fabricated using sections of uniform cross-section. In rigid-plastic analysis it is assumed that when the collapse mechanism is first formed, the deformations of the structure are insufficient to alter significantly the equations of equilibrium. The resulting method of analysis is straight-forward to apply and is particularly suitable therefore for single-storey frames. Such structures can be made with pinned bases to simplify the foundations. There is often little advantage in fixing the bases as the saving on the steel frame may well be offset by the additional cost of the foundations. Part 1 of this publication gives limits within which second-order effects can be neglected in plastic analysis of plane single-storey, single-bay, pinned-base frames. The limits are applicable to frames in which vertical forces can be treated as distributed loading along the beam or rafters, as is usually the case in building structures. The recommendations complement those in Publication Number 33 "Ultimate Limit State Calculation of Sway Frames with Rigid Joints" which are more generally applicable. Developments in fabrication permit members of tapered cross-section to be used as a viable altemative to those of uniform section. The taper often conforms to the variation of the elastic bending moment around the frame and plastic analysis is therefore inappropriate. Part 2 of this publication gives a method of elastic analysis for plane, single-storey, single-bay, pinned-base frames of tapered cross-section. Both first-order and second-order analyses can be readily obtained with the aid of charts. Both parts of the publication enable analyses to be made without recourse to the more specialised computer programs that would otherwise be required. This will assist particularly those who are not specialists in steelwork to achieve fast and economical design in this structural medium. ‘The authors are: Part 1: D. Anderson and K. Kavianpour (University of Warwick, UK) Pant 2: H. Rubin (Technische Universitat Wien, Austria). ‘The text was drafted under the auspices of Technical Working Group 8.1/8.2 "Skeletal Structures", with the following full members: G. SCHULZ (Chairman) A M. MARINCEK YU D. ANDERSON UK R. MAQUOI B 3.C. BADOUX cH D.A. NETHERCOT = UK F.S.K. BULAARD NL H. RUBIN A M. BRAHAM L J. SHORT UK P. DUBAS cH J. SOLLAND N Y. GALEA F C. URBANO I J. JANSS B U. VOGEL D J. LINDNER D R. ZANDONINI r The text was adopted on May 19, 1989 by Technical Committee 8 "Structural Stability” during its meeting in Brussels. @PART 1 FIRST-ORDER PLASTIC DESIGN OF FRAMES WITH UNIFORM SECTION MEMBERS NOTATION Yo Modulus of elasticity Horizontal design load Height of column Second moment of area of column section Second moment of area of beam or rafter section Span Design plastic resistance moment of column section Design plastic resistance moment of beam or rafter section Vertical design load Elastic critical load factor Collapse load factor given by second-order plastic hinge theory Collapse load factor given by first-order plastic hinge theory Initial sway imperfection1.1 Inteduction ECCS Publication No. 33 "Ultimate Limit State Calculation of Sway Frames with Rigid Joints” [1.1] gives minimum stiffness criteria for single storey frames if these are to be analysed by first-order plastic hinge theory. For pinned-base frames: 3El¢ nace )pr [e+ #} 210 P = sum of vertical loads + A A Figure 1.1 Single storey frames This criterion follows from the requirement that the critical buckling load be at least ten times the vertical design load just before the development of the last plastic hinge for the most unfavourable mechanism. In this case, second-order effects may be considered as negligible. The criterion given above is generally applicable to single-storey pinned-base building frames, provided that plastic hinges do not develop at intermediate points between the ends of columns. Use of first-order theory is inappropriate if second-order effects are significant, for example where heavy concentrated loads act at the heads of columns. However, the criterion has been found to be unduly restrictive for frames in which vertical forces act on the frame as distributed loading along the beam or rafters. For such structures, less conservative limits can be defined within which first-order plastic hinge theory is applicable, assuming that a 10% error in the calculated collapse load is acceptable. For this Publication, a parametric study has been used to determine limiting minimum ratios of the elastic critical load factor Gigr , 10 Ope . the load factor given by first-order plastic hinge theory, above which cipp may be taken as the ultimate resistance of the frame. 12 Scope The scope of the study defines the range of frames to which the limits apply: a) the frame is a pinned-base single-bay structure, either flat or pitched roof, of the general type shown in Fig. 1.2;b) the pitch does not exceed 10°; ©) the ratio of the column height, A, to the span L is within the limits 03 < AL < 0.7; 4) the sections are I - or H - shaped and in bending about their strong axes; ©) each member is mainly of uniform cross-section throughout its length; 1) the sections are to the same steel grade; the ratio of the plastic resistance moment of the column, Mpg_c, to that of the beam {p2.c: or rafters, Mpp_g. is within the limits 05 < Mpp./Mpp.g < 2.0 Figure 1.2 Frames in parametric study In addition, general requirements for the application of plastic hinge theory conceming, for example, rotation capacity and lateral stability, should be satisfied. In pitched-roof frames, premature failure by snap-through buckling should also be prevented. Reference should be made to the ECCS Recommendations, Eurocode 3 or national regulations for these requirements. Details of the parametric study are given in the Appendix. It has been found that the limiting minimum values of Ogp/Ope depend mainly on: (the ratio of the horizontal design load, H, to the total vertical design load, P, and Gi) the ratio Mpe o/Mpg.g- 1.3 Criteria for design by first-order theory The limiting minimum values of dgy/Opg for design by first-order plastic hinge theory are given in Table 1.1. | HIP | so.1] 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 < Mpp.c/Mpa.g < 1.0 5 7 9 u 1.0 < Mpg .c/Mpo.g $ 2.0 [= | 8 Table 1.1 : Minimum values of dgp/ope for design by first-order plastic hinge theory; 03 $ AIL < 0.7; roof pitch < 10°. -3-In using Table 1.1, calculations should comply with the following requirements: a) The elastic critical load factor should be determined in accordance with Publication No. 33, section 2.2: cor = 10 Ele L (an + 2 7 }P-a the notation being as defined in Fig. 1.2. This expression assumes an effective stiffess for the beam of YUp/L and a total effective column stiffness of 2o/h, as given in Appendix 2 of Publication No. 33. >) The horizontal design load H should include a notional horizontal force oP to allow for practical imperfections. The initial out-of-plumb Wo equivalent to the imperfections may be determined by reference to Publication No. 33, Eurocode 3 or national regulations. Interpolation is permitted in Table 1.1 for intermediate values of H/P. 14 Numerical example 400 kN eacennaasancacace “oe E = 210 kN/mm? a 10° fy = 235 Nimm? 9m 30m Figure 1.3 Numerical example For this example, it will be assumed that both columns and rafters are to employ the same section, The calculation of opg may take account of haunches. In this example, haunching is neglected for simplicity. Under the design loads shown in Fig. 1.3, first-order plastic hinge analysis results in an IPE600 being required. Using this section: Ope = 111 For this frame: AIL = 9/30 = 0.30 HIP = 40/400 = 0.10 From Table 1.1, Ogy/Cpg should be at least 5 for design by first-order plastic hinge theory. For IPE600, Je = Ig = 92080 cm‘. 10ET, —— (2a+e g Jen Elastic critical load factor acy == 10x210x92080x10+ ¥ = TExDOOOFIOVOO)FOORIOOT = 11-2 Gep/Opp = 11.2/1.11 = 10.1 > 5.0. First-order plastic hinge theory can therefore be used. For the purposes of illustration only, the collapse load factor has been calculated by second-order plastic hinge theory. A reduction in the first-order load factor of less than 3% occurs, confirming the suitability of first-order theory. According to the more general rule given in ECCS Publication No. 33, the following condition should be satisfied if first-order plastic hinge theory is to be used: —#le____ 2 10 1, h+L 7 \P.h ( e | For the frame designed above, the left hand side is 3x210x92080x10¢ heh 210 Hence according to Publication No. 33, first-order plastic hinge theory should not be used. As the reduction in the collapse load factor due to second-order effects is less than 4%, this example demonstrates the conservative nature of the more general mule, when applied to frames in which vertical forces can be reasonably treated as distributed loading. 15 References 1.1 ECCS Technical Working Group 8.2, "Ultimate limit state calculation of sway frames with rigid joints", European Convention for Constructional Steelwork Publication No. 33, 1984. 12 Home, MR. and Monts L. Plastic design of low-rise frames", Granada, 1981.A.1 Introduction Details are given below of the various frames analysed and the procedure used to determine limiting ratios of Ggy/pe above which cpp may be taken as the ultimate resistance of a frame. A2 Choice of frames ‘The frames studied were either flat or pitched roof, of the general type shown in Fig. 1.2. Details of the frames studied are given in Table Al. For reasons described below, Universal Beam (UB) and Universal Column (UC) sections were adopted. These have similar relative proportions as IPE and HE sections respectively. The specification of a particular section given in Table Al comprises nominal overall depth (mm), nominal flange width (mm) and mass (kg/m). Frames 1, 3 and 5 were designed in mild steel by first-order plastic hinge theory for the vertical design load P given in Table A.1. The section chosen for Frame 5 was based on a height to eaves of 8m. The possible presence of haunches at the eaves (and, in pitched roof frames, at the ridge) was neglected. Frames 2, 4 and 6 were arbitrary variations on Frames 1 and 5S. Frame 2 used a Universal Column section for the legs, and the rafter section was chosen to have twice the depth of the column section. A much larger section was chosen for Frame 4. Frame 6 was similar to Frame 5, but a somewhat smaller section was adopted. Frames 7-9 were devised to study structures in which the plastic bending resistance of the column section was significantly greater than that of the beam or rafters. As the limits on Goptpe Telate to frames in which first-order plastic hinge theory may be used, it is more appropriate 10 take Mpg o/Mpg.g aS the measure of non-uniformity of section, rather than Tolly- A3 Procedure adopted in the study Each frame was subjected to combined vertical and horizontal loading, and analysed by computer to determine the collapse load according to second-order plastic hinge theory, denoted by a The same program was also used to calculate ope by assigning a large value to Young’s modulus of elasticity. The program automatically calculated the reduction in plastic moment capacity due to axial force for Universal sections, It was therefore convenient to use these sections in the study. Various combinations of vertical and horizontal loading were examined by varying the ratio of H/P from 0.1 to 0.4. For computational convenience, the vertical load was applied to the beam or rafters as a central point load of OSP and two end loads of 0.25P. The design load level was designated as corresponding to unit load factor. ‘The ratio of A/L for each frame was varied from 0.3 to 0.7. ~6-The clastic critical load factor, Or, was calculated from the formula given in ECCS Publication No. 33 [1.1], section 2.2. The aim of the smdies was to determine values of Ocy/dpg at which ay/ope = 09. The initial analyses used design strengths, fy, appropriate to mild steel, and the resulting values of aipigg varied greatly, depending on the susceptibility of each frame to instability. Considering each frame in tum, the design strength was altered and the frame re-analysed. Iteration continued until it was found that ay/Opp was approximately 0.9. The corresponding value of Opr/dpg then became the limiting minimum value for that frame. ‘The limiting minimum values of Gey/Opg are presented in A.6 below. Before that, comparisons are given between various frames to demonstrate the small influence of some properties on the relationship between of/opg and Opr/Opg. ‘A4 Influence of frame dimensions ‘A comparison was made between frames of 15m and 20m span to find if the absolute lengths of the members would have a significant influence on the results. It can be seen from Table A2 that the relationship between of/cipe and Opr/Opg is not greally influenced by this variation of frame dimensions. Further studies support the view that for the purposes of this work the relationship between of/opg and Ocr/Opg is. not dependent on the absolute values of k and L. A.5 Influence of section sizes Table A.3 shows a comparison between Frames 5 and 6. Both have a span of 20m, but Frame 6 employs a smaller section. It can be seen that the influence of the size of the section is small. Each frame studied in Table A3 is of uniform section. Table A4 shows a comparison between Frame 3, of uniform section, and Frame 2 in which the column section is smaller than that of the beam (Mpg o/Mpg.g = 0.44). It can be seen from Table A.4 that for A/L = 0.4, the agreement between the two frames is reasonable. For W/L = 0.7, the agreement is less good. However, in the latter case both frames are very susceptible to instability, as shown by the low values of ag/opg. It was concluded that within the range of the comparison of Table A.4, namely 0.44 < Mpp.c/Mpo.g S 1.0, the influence of section sizes can be ignored because: (@® the limiting minimum values of cy/pg correspond to only a small degree of instability, and i) in making recommendations for design, the limiting minimum values of Og;/Opg will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Table A.S shows a comparison between Frames 5, 8 and 9, with Mpp.c/Mpg g varying from increasing with rise in Mp o/Mpo.g-pcs enti a t a) Frames in which Mpg o/Mpg.g < 1.0. For flat-roofed frames, the results which correspond to of/cpg = 0.9 approximately are shown in Table A.6. Possible limiting minimum values of Opp/Opg for use in design are given in the right-hand column Table A.7 shows the corresponding results for frames with 10° roof pitch. The limiting minimum values are of the same order as those for flat-roofed frames. It is proposed that the limiting minimum values given in Table A.8 be used in design of frames with flat roofs and also those whose pitch does not exceed 10°, provided that the ratio Mpg o/Mpe.g is not less than 0.5. These values have been obtained by taking the larger of those given in Tables A.6 and A.7, whilst retaining a minimum value of Ogy/ctpg = 5 recommended by Home and Morris [1.2]. This minimum value has been proposed by these authors as a general limit for single storey frames subject to predominantly vertical loading. b) Frames in which Mpg o/Mpp.g > 1.0. Full results of the study on the pitched roof Frames 8 and 9 are given in Tables AS and A.10, along with proposed limiting minimum values of Ogr/Opg for use in design. These values are subject to an upper limit on Mpp.c/Mpg.g of 2.0, due to the range of the study. Table A.11 gives results for the flat-roofed Frame 7 (Mpg.c/Mpp.g = 1.99). Comparison of Tables A.6 and A.7 shows that for values of H/P < 0.3, flat roofed frames require lower limiting minimum values than those for pitched roofs. For this reason, the study on Frame 7 was limited to the cases shown in Table A.ll. The results show that the limiting minimum values of Gr/ope derived for the pitched roof frames are suitable for a flat-roofed structure also. AT Conclusion It is proposed that first-order plastic hinge theory should be allowed in the design of single-bay pinned-base frames provided that the minimum limits given in Table 1.1 of the main text are satisfied. The limits have been based on parametric studies of frames shown in Fig. 1.2, the ranges for which are given in Table 1.1. These cover typical dimensions of present day single storey structures. The limitation of the studies to H/P < 0.4 is unlikely to be restrictive in practice because for frames with higher values of H/P, the need to control deflections at working load will be likely to require elastic design.Frame L Me |? Piten| Rafter coluan ith Ref Xo. Oo) Weg | cay 1 | o | as | 2sextaexes ve | 2saxteoxes ve 10 | 150 2 | o | as | soseiz7ees us | iszeiszxs7 uc | 0.48 | 150 3 | or | 20 | aoss17exss ve | s06xt78xs4 us 1.0 | 203 4 | oo | as | asraisixs2 os | 4s7x191<82 ww ro | isz s | 10° | 20 | ssoxi7ixsi ve | asexi7ixst us 1.0 | 216 6 | 10° | 20 | soszi2742 us | 30sx127%42 UB 1.0 | 156 7 | 0 | 1s | 2sextoas2s us | 30sx127542 us 1.99 | 150 8 | 10° | 20 | sossio2s33 ve | s0sxt6sx46 we 1st | 216 9 | 10° | 20 | aséxioae2s us | 305e127<42 ww 1.99 | 216 ‘Table A Frames in parametric sudy * a | Frame ts L ? No. ike) Bp /pe Ser/tpe a A 250 0.97 ea : 3 25 0.97 67 1 250 0.95 73 om 3 275 0.95 rs 0.8 1 250 0.93 a 03 3 275 0:93 85 is f 250 0.92 4 fi 3 275 0.92 93 a 1 250 0.91 3.0 3 275 0.92 31 7 250 0.87 37 en 3 275 0.89 318 0.7 1 250 0-83 « os 3 21s 0:83 « 7 250 0-81 a8 nis 3 25 0.82 535 Table A2 : Comparison of frames with spans of 15 m and 20 m % ¥ Frase 5, L ? No. (i) ar/epe | Scr/ Spe 5 25 0.91 60 om é 260 0:90 si4 0.4 5 210 0.91 39 oe 6 180 0.91 9:7 — 3 150 0.91 59 id 6 130 0.91 37 0.7 aa 3 135 0.90 10.0 6 ns 0:39 9:9 Table A3 : Comparison of pitched roof frames with 20 m spane Blanc lenlen las i FB leoe lan larn|ece zf| ” ° 2 ip [S| eae i Bere [oss [ose ese as Flex leg lexan El leclisalscelaes| J £ )sanas [azgen |aaeae [zee 3 i ‘ ; 1 |; } |e wf jag |az 99 |88 i a agg (888 )sg8[a28| 2 : i 4 |sf]seaus leseas |penes lanzas Ba lor foe fan fan & Eglore|ows|men|nen| Es ed foe RE ee 3 Te Le | I ai /BSS8S|accee ‘wl | 3 2 Jan] 3 5 2 lel a log falls H a i ae rlgg for fat-rofed frames Table AS : Limiting minimum values of ‘Moa Mpeg © 10) -10-er! pe Lisit on Table AT eee a ¢ hei tm ll ie = i i é Bleewre eoson |exnas [nance Betas | ast | aeeca feces ae | fee meee aes . Y fa] | [Blonea| se | £[28ee s5tee [sees [asses £ /2e5gs 82528 Pee, | dp oF - 1 ack ip |cdlgages ages |eness |genee 7 3 i a ls Alacsae|eesselensvelesena] 7 [2]°)"|s|ezes] e 4 * 4 $ ov fosaso]ssass|ss|asaes] Ole losses eases ‘Table AS : Limiting minimum values of GerlOpe for Frame 8 aliiH la i 4 Hf 7 oe £ \sesos | sates | See sana # [8885 [Sagas |agaas lagsas ci legass|saese|gease |genea é 4135985 [3395 |Sdd3s |sS335 sel oc 3 S 3 Table ALO : Limiting minimum values of erage for Frame 9 Ber/Spe B 1s Pigeons 5 fee [asess # las |aagag ol |g2 |eeesa # [BA ldeade wn [oo |S3dd5 an] 2 z Limiting. minimum values of Ocyloge for Frame 7 Table A ==PART 2 FIRST-ORDER AND SECOND-ORDER ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF FRAMES WITH TAPERED SECTION MEMBERS NOTATION, ‘Latin_lewers Loading parameter Half span of frame Rise of rafter Stiffness parameter Modulus of elasticity Horizontal load Height of column Second moment of area Length of rafter Bending moment Axial force ‘Non-dimensional axial force Distributed vertical load Displacement Concentrated vertical load Distibuted load normal to rafter Position Rec eS BVP TE RMasaD Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Parameter related to member taper Tapered proportion of length of rafter Stiffness ratio Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Non-dimensional position Coefficient Coefficient eume Fr POSH RDA -13-y_ Rotation @ Coefficient ‘Superscripis A Anti-symmetrical S Symmetrical ‘Subscripts Subscripts generally relate to locations around the frame, and are defined in the figures and the chars for analysis. -14-2.1 Introduction Analytical formulae cannot be given for frames if the components are of variable cross- section and calculations are to include second-order effects. Analysis for moments and displacements in a single-storey, single-bay, pinned-base frame is possible though if use is made of chars. The method presented below is based on a conect mechanical model and is as easy as in the case of members of uniform cross-section. The analysis may be carried out by first-order or second-order theory; a criterion gives the limit for the ranges of these theories. All formulae are based on elastic theory. However plastification in the cross-sections may be pemnitted to determine resistances of cross-sections, provided these are not limited by local buckling. ‘The theoretical background to the charts is explained in [2.1]. In this reference it is also shown that the shape of the cross-section (ratio of the area of the web to that of the flanges) is not of great significance. More detailed information about the derivation of the formulae used below may be taken from [2.2]. The design concept is in accordance with ECCS Publication No. 33 [2.3]. 2.2 Assumptions ‘The following assumptions define the scope of the method: a) The structure has the shape shown in Fig. 2.1. b) Only in-plane behaviour is considered. ©) Analysis may be according to first-order or second-order theory. However, second-order effects in beams are neglected. A criterion is given for this simplification to be allowed. 4) For the calculation of the second-order effects in the columns, both normal forces N are assumed to be equal. They are determined for the design (je. factored) vertical load, neglecting any wind loading (which would usually diminish the normal forces). ‘Thus different load cases (vertical load, wind load) can be superposed, and division of the analysis into the two load cases "symmetry" and "antisymmetry" is then possible. ©) Within an individual member, ie. along the column ab or along the beam be (Fig. 2.1), the area of the flanges is assumed to be constant. f) All the charts are based on I-shaped sections, in which the area of the web is 20% of the total cross-sectional area at the mid-height of the column or, for a beam, the area of the cross-section along the uniform part of the member (see Fig. 2.1). Nevertheless, the charts are applicable for all I-sections to sufficient accuracy. ) Axial deformations and deformations due to shear are neglected. Ss1 2 —— SS ert Figure 2.1. Structure and loading 24 List_of fomulae (Symmetry: S , Antisymmetry: A) 2.4.1 Nommal force in the columns N=} (Vp + Ve + Va + (ag + anal 242 Reference stiffness EI Cae 2.4.3 Dimensionless normal force First-order theory: N =0 _ Nh Second-order theory: N = — c 2.44 Column taper Tab Toa Be24,5 Beam taper Goa oe Toe For 1) see Fig. 2.1. 2.4.6 Beam deformations Diagram 1: €,, 1 Gbb: Gc Diagram 2: €,, 1 9 a, Diagram 3: 6,, 1 > Obg, Og al, o=— AL, Pob = Scb Pec = Otigcr P, = OC, Phg = O%Hq Poq = Peg 2.4.7 Elastic critical load of frame Diagram 4: 6, ppp +Ner (critical normal force Noy = £ Ner) NS ty Mer : first-order theory with W = 0 adnissible [2.3]. 2.4.8 Column deformations Diagram 5: 6,,N 38 Diagram 6 : 6, +0 2.4.9 Auxiliary values for the equations of the unknowns A= 5 + Ppp 142 peise vg p= PI PPTL Li cgg + ar dat + (ugh wet] 90> Peq ots Pbq a (qq - Gra? + (wg - wp)Q?]AA = 5 [Og - wp)b + Hy + He + Halh + Nhy, 2.4.10 Equations for the unknowns ‘M : moments at the joints, y : angles of rotation of the members with y= Cy (i) "symmetry", unknowns: 6, Ws, é a Pe, B us oS compatibility Ss Ps Pee -1| . |w] + Jes] =0 bh “1 v ¥ a equilibrium (ii) “antisymmetry", unknowns: a, 7A compatibility {- equilibrium 2.4.11 Solutions @ "symmetry" yy =A+UP, Y, = 2: +H Poe Y =H +VP, Y= 1 V Poe S nA +v 8) +4 B+ HOD Te Te Ty B= Lo, me sv ed S = b-S =P, Mt pec + es . B= -F Gi) “antisymmetry" AGH * DT aw Aaaws oh ¥ =02.4.12 Resultant values 1. le Mp =ey A ug= ey h 1 Ue h = Mbt 7 ¥, & Mey = 7¥s @ 2.4.14 Variation of moment along column length b= T xsth t 4 ‘The variation is approximated by a third-order parabola. For column 1: uM=a -pfrewes (ees 88) Mp For column 4, Mp is replaced by Mg. -19-24.15 Variation of shear force along column length ‘The variation is approximated by a second-order parabola. For column 1: vez (r- 8 P& SSG) , SEO - 3B) yy, For column 4, Mp is replaced by (-Mg). 2.4.16 Criteria for neglect of second-order effects in the beams The following criterion must be satisfied so that first-order theory is admissible for the beams: Poo + 2p, + 4 1 c Np < 0 ae tr Acc - PL where Np is the maximum value of the normal force in the beams (positive if compression). 25 Charts for analysis ‘These are given below as Diagrams 1-6. 2.6 Numerical Example b=Sm Tyaz%43000em* I Tgp = 11900em4 2 S71, \ “tm 1, = 79900cm4 1, 379400em4 he12m E=210 kN/mm2 12025 fa 10m _y Figure 2.3 Numerical example‘The paragraph numbers given below refer to the formulae given in. section 2.4. Normal force of the columns (2.4.1) N = 235 kN Reference stiffness (2.4.2) C = 10098 kKNm Dimensionless normal force (2.4.3) WN = 0279 Column taper (2.4.4) 6, = 0.288 Beam taper (2.4.5) t, = 0.459 n = 025 Beam deformations (2.4.6) } Diagram 1 Diagram 2 } Diagram 3 &, = 0.459 n= 025 4 @ = 0673 + Equivalent geometric imperfections according [2.3] Ve = 799 (for simplicity reduction factors r, end r, are not applied) Elastic critical load of frame (2.4.7) C, = 0.288 Pbb = 0.151 + Noy = 2.28 Diagram 4 N = 0.279 > Ty (2.28) = 0.228 4 second-order theory necessary =oColumn deformations (2.4.8) » = N= B Diagram 5 C, = 0.288 N = 0279 + {5 TE ‘ Auxiliary values for the equations of the unknowns (2.4.9) a = 0385 = 1417 v = 0.0485 of = 43.1 kim oS = 47.8 kNm of = 12.7 kN AS = 909 KNm AA = 428 kNm Equations for the unknowns (2.4.10) @ "symmetry" 0.385 0.104 1.417 MS) a3. 0.104 0.223 i WS] + |47.8] = 0 1.417 at 0.0485} |¥S} {909 (ii) "anti symmetry” (0.385 a ue] ftz.7 . + =0 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 O15 02DIAGRAM 6 Mae |b z 2 b + ! a Eh hej + fa so Lfirsts q PO St order’ theo ~30-