where Ib and Ic are the second moments of area of the beam

and column, respectively, and Lb and Lc are the lengths of

the beam and column, respectively, taken as centre-to-centre
distance of the intersecting member. The increased beam
stiffness for the unbraced columns (Eq. 13.7c) compared to
braced columns (Eq. 13.7b) is because the braced columns
will be bent in single curvature and the unbraced columns
will be bent in double curvature. It has to be noted that in
the case of a column fi xed at its base, Kb ∞and hence
b 2 0.0. Conversely, for a hinged column Kb 0 and
hence b 2 1.0. As already mentioned, in the case of unbraced
(sway) frames, it is good practice to adopt a minimum value of
k 1.2. A review of the IS code provisions for effective length
of columns in frames is provided by Dafedar, et al. (2001).
The American code suggests the use of Jackson and
Moreland alignment charts (also called Julian and Lawrence
nomograph) developed in 1959 (see Fig. 13.10), which allow
graphical determination of the effective length factor, k,
for a column of constant cross section in a multi-bay frame
(Johnston 1966; Kavanagh 1962). These charts were derived
by considering a typical interior column in an infi nitely high
and infi nitely wide frame, in which all the columns and
beams have the same cross section and length. Equal loads
were applied at the tops of each of these columns, while the
beams remained unloaded. Due to these assumptions, these
charts may tend to underestimate the value of k for elastic
frames of practical dimensions by up to 15 per cent, which in
turn underestimate the magnifi ed moments (Lai, et al. 1983).
To use these charts, b1 and b 2 values are calculatedwhere EI is the fl exural rigidity of the column cross
section,
L is the length of the column, and n is the number of half sine
waves in the deformed shape of the column. The lowest value
of Pcr will occur with n 1.0. This value is referred to as
Euler’s buckling load and is given by
P
EI
L Pcr 2
L2
(13.4b)
The critical load for fi xed-end column has been derived as
P
EI
L Pcr 4 2
L2

(13.4c)
The buckling loads of columns with different boundary
conditions may also be considered by the concept of effective
lengths. The effective length of a column in the considered
plane may be defi ned as the distance between the points of
infl ection (zero moment) in the buckled confi guration of the
column in that plane.
Thus, the effective length of a column is different from
the unsupported length L of the column. The effective length
Le depends on the unsupported length and the type of end
restraints. The relation between the effective and unsupported
lengths of any column is given by
Le kL (13.5)
where k is the ratio of the effective length to the unsupported13.3.2 Buckling of Columns and
Effective Length
Columns, when concentrically loaded, may fail in one of the
following modes of failure, depending on the slenderness
ratio:
Pure compression failure Short columns, with Le/b ratio
less than 12, will fail by the crushing of concrete without
undergoing any lateral deformation.
Buckling failure Slender columns, with Le/b ratio greater
than 30, will become unstable even under small loads,
well before the materials reach their yield stresses. When
such columns are loaded, at a particular load, called the
buckling load, the column undergoes buckling with lateral
defl ection transverse to the applied load of undefi ned
magnitude as shown in Fig. 13.5. The horizontal line in this
fi gure indicates the lateral defl ection and instability of the
column. If the column is also subjected to bending moment
or transverse load, the column defl ects as shown by the
curved line in Fig. 13.5(b). The buckling of the column is
initiated in the plane about which the slenderness ratio is
the largest. Such buckling failures are rare in RC columns,
as the slenderness factor of practical columns is less
than 30.