Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Elastic buckling analysis of pultruded FRP portal frames having

semi-rigid connections
Fabio Minghini ∗ , Nerio Tullini, Ferdinando Laudiero
Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Presented in this paper are results for the elastic instability of Pultruded Fibre Reinforced Polymer
Received 4 April 2008 (PFRP) portal frames with semi-rigid connections. The kinematical model used is based on a second-
Received in revised form order displacement field, accounting for the shear strain influence on both non-uniform bending and
12 June 2008
torsion. A two-node locking-free finite element with seven degrees of freedom per node is adopted.
Accepted 1 September 2008
Available online 24 September 2008
Joint flexibility at member ends is included by means of a simple manipulation of the stiffness matrix
to the finite element, such that the influence of joint behaviour on membrane, shear, bending and torsion
Keywords:
deformations, as well as to cross-section warping, can easily be taken into account. Numerical examples
Semi-rigid joints are reported and discussed to illustrate the influence on elastic buckling loads of in-plane and out-of-
Pultruded plane moment-rotation behaviour of joints, as well as the role played by the base warping restraint and
FRP deformable lateral bracings.
Frames © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thin-walled beams
Buckling analysis
Critical load
Locking-free finite element

1. Introduction the experimental and numerical [12,13] investigations hitherto

In the nineties, extended research programs [1–5] were aimed
at understanding the behaviour of connections between pultruded
FRP (PFRP) members. In fact, as is the case of steel frames [6],
joint flexibility may have a very significant influence on the
global behaviour of beam assemblages [3,7–9], and structural
design accounting for semi-rigid end-connections often turns
out to be more economical than traditional approaches. Usually,
bolted joints are preferred to adhesive bonding, due to speed
of assembly, the option to disassemble and re-assemble parts
of the structures, and for ease of periodical inspection. In 2004,
Turvey and Cooper [10] presented a comprehensive review of
tests on bolted joints of GFRP profiles, including data about initial
rotational stiffness, ultimate moments and ultimate rotations.
It was clearly shown that standard (steel-type) connections are
disadvantageous, due to the very low resistance offered by the
web-to-flange junction of pultruded angle cleats. A significant
improvement of the joint behaviour can generally be obtained
by means of a single monolithic connection element, such as
the cuff connections for box-section profiles [5,11,12]. Most of
∗ Corresponding address: Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via
Saragat 1, 44100-Ferrara, Italy. Tel.: +39 0532 974912; fax: +39 0532 974870.
E-mail address: fabio.minghini@unife.it (F. Minghini).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.09.003
carried out only consider joints connecting doubly-symmetric
cross-section beams bent in the major stiffness plane. However,
for stability analysis, joint three-dimensional behaviour is needed
to be evaluated [14].
In this paper, a stability analysis of PFRP frames with semi-rigid
connections is presented. The kinematical model is introduced
in [15], and is based on a second-order approximation to
the displacement field that accounts for the effects of shear
deformation, due to both nonuniform bending and nonuniform
torsion. The stability conditions are formulated from an energy
criterion by imposing the positive definiteness of the second
variation of the total potential energy. Moreover, the unknown
displacement functions are interpolated by using cubic and
quadratic polynomials of Hermitian type [16], in which three
parameters indicate the influence of shear deformation, resulting
in a two-node locking-free finite element. The efficient numerical
procedure developed by Shakourzadeh et al. [17] is implemented
to take the connection flexibility into account. Their method
resorts to a simple manipulation of the elastic stiffness matrix,
so as to avoid additional connection elements [18]. The approach
is quite general, because the joint behaviour associated with
membrane, shear, bending and torsion deformations, as well as to
cross-section warping, can be taken into account. Finally, it can
be shown (see Appendix) that, for shear-undeformable doubly-
symmetric profiles with semi-rigid moment-rotation behaviour,
 F. Minghini et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299
Fig. 1. Global reference system.
the modified elastic stiffness matrix reduces to the well known
matrix of Monforton and Wu [19], that is also reported by Xu [20].
In the following, the influence of connection deformations on
critical loads and buckling mode shapes of pultruded frames is
highlighted. A variety of examples are presented, showing the
role played by both in-plane and out-of-plane joint rotational
flexibility, as well as by lateral bracing stiffness and by base-
warping restraint.
2. Formulation of the stability problem
The kinematical model adopted in the following was presented
in [15,21,22] and hereafter is briefly reported. Neglecting cross-
section in-plane deformations and reducing the thin-walled beam
to the middle surface, the displacement field of the beam shown
in Fig. 1 is determined by adopting a second-order approximation
of the finite-rotation tensor [23]. Hence, with reference to the
principal coordinate system Cxyz (Fig. 1), the displacement
components of a generic point P lying over the cross-section
contour are expressed in the form:
u (z , s) = uS (z ) − ϕz (z ) (y − yS )
1
− ϕy2 (z ) + ϕz2 (z ) x + ϕx (z ) ϕy (z ) y + ϕz2 (z ) xS


+ (1)
2
v (z , s) = vS (z ) + ϕz (z ) (x − xS )
1
ϕx (z ) ϕy (z ) x − ϕx2 (z ) + ϕz2 (z ) y + ϕz2 (z ) yS


+ (2)
2
w (z , s) = wC (z ) − xϕy (z ) + yϕx (z ) + ω (s) Ψ (z )
1
ϕx (z ) ϕz (z ) (x − xS ) + ϕy (z ) ϕz (z ) (y − yS )

+ (3)
2 purpose, Cunha et al. [14] presented a promising identification
where xS and yS are the co-ordinates of the (bending deformation)
shear centre S; uS and vS are the shear centre displacements in x
and y directions; wC is the axial cross-section translation; ϕx and
ϕy are the cross-section rotations [24,25] about x and y axes; ϕz
represents the torsional rotation and, finally, function Ψ (z ) defines
the cross-section warping amplitude, whereas ω(s) is De Saint-
Venànt’s warping function. It should be noted that, in Eqs. (1)–
(3), shear deformation due to nonuniform bending and torsion
is accounted for because, in general, ϕx 6= −vS0 , ϕy 6= u0S and
Ψ 6= −ϕz0 . In particular, the linear part of the kinematical model
coincides with Timoshenko–Reissner’s formulation [16,25].
In the framework of the classical displacement-based finite
element method, the seven unknown displacement functions
appearing in Eqs. (1)–(3) can be represented in the form:
de = Nqe
where vector de collects the kinematical fields:
dTe = wC (z ) , uS (z ) , ϕy (z ) , vS (z ) , ϕx (z ) , ϕz (z ) , Ψ (z )
 
whereas, for a typical two-node finite element, vector qe takes the
expression:
qTe = wC 1 , wC 2 , uS1 , ϕy1 , uS2 , ϕy2 , vS1 , ϕx1 ,

vS2 , ϕx2 , ϕz1 , Ψ1 , ϕz2 , Ψ2 .

293
Matrix N in Eq. (4), given by:
N = diag Nz , Nx , Ny , Nω

(7)
represents a proper set of shape functions which respectively
interpolate axial displacement (Nz ); transversal displacements
and flexural rotations (Nx , Ny ), and, finally, torsional rotation and
cross-section warping (Nω ). The nodal degrees of freedom in Eq. (6)
are obviously to be referred to the same point of the cross-section.
Hence, when the shear centre and the centroid do not coincide, a
proper coordinate transformation is required [26].
The stability conditions are formulated from an energy
criterion, by imposing the positive definiteness of the second
variation of the total potential energy [27]. The corresponding
functional [22] is composed of two terms which respectively
represent the elastic strain energy and the potential energy due
to second-order effects of pre-critical stresses and external forces.
The formulation includes strain energy coupling between shear
resultants and nonuniform torsion, and accounts for the second-
order work of eccentric loads. When the effects of pre-buckling
deformations are neglected and the internal stress resultants are
assumed to be linear functions of the applied loads, substituting
Eq. (4) into the second variation of the total potential energy yields
the global stiffness matrix in the form:
K = KE + KG (8)
where KE and KG are the elastic and geometric stiffness matrix
respectively. Hence, a standard eigenvalue problem is obtained,
the solutions of which represent the critical loads and the
corresponding buckling modes.
3. Modelling of flexible joints
In modelling flexible joints, torsional deformations are usu-
ally neglected. Also, axial and shear joint deformations are small
if compared with the bending deformation of most connections
and, therefore, generally ignored as well. Hence, for practical pur-
poses, only the in-plane rotational deformation of the beam-to-
column connections (Fig. 2) is generally considered. Nevertheless,
a flexural–torsional stability analysis of semi-rigid frames neces-
sarily requires a three-dimensional modelling of joints. To this
technique for in-plane and out-of-plane shear and rotational stiff-
ness of FRP beam-to-column joints. As for the structural analysis
of steel frames, some authors [18,28] developed hybrid elements
sewing the properties of a beam with rigid ends with those of sep-
arate connection elements allowing for warping deformations. Fol-
lowing this approach, additional degrees of freedom are generally
introduced, and static condensation is consequently required be-
fore assembling the global stiffness matrix [29–31].
To keep the number of degrees of freedom unchanged, a
modified finite element including two elastically deformable ends
is defined in this paper, following the proposal of Shakourzadeh
et al. [17]. Hence, with reference to the i-th element, the first-order
equilibrium equation:
re = KeE qe − fe (9)
(4)
is replaced by the relation:
e
re = K̄E q̄e − f̄e (10)
(5)
where re is the vector of nodal forces; qe KeE, and fe are the vector of
nodal displacements, the elastic stiffness matrix and the equivalent
load vector respectively, of the element with rigid end connections
e
(Fig. 3(a)), whereas q̄e , K̄E and f̄e represent the analogous quantities
(6) of the modified element (Fig. 3(b)).
294 F. Minghini et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299

e
It can be easily shown that the modified matrix K̄E still is
symmetric. Moreover, the limit case of a pinned connection can be
re-obtained by setting the relevant coefficient of matrix KJ equal
to zero. Alternatively, setting C = I makes Eq. (14) coincide with
Eq. (9) corresponding to the limit case of a rigid joint. Obviously,
the geometric stiffness matrix incorporates the inner resultants
e
given by the modified elastic stiffness matrix K̄E .

4. Interpolating functions

Shape functions belonging to the Hermitian family are adopted

Fig. 2. Rotational deformation of a semi-rigid joint.
[16] to interpolate the displacement fields. In particular, lateral
displacements and torsional rotations are approximated by cubic
polynomials, whereas quadratic functions are used to interpolate
flexural rotations and cross-section warping. The interpolating
functions are ‘‘modified’’ by three factors representing the shear
deformation influence:

12EIy 12EIx 12EIω

φx = ; φy = ; φω = (17)
GDx l2 GDy l2 GDω l2

so as to obtain a locking-free formulation [16,32]. In Eq. (17),

Fig. 3. Beam finite element with rigid (a) or semi-rigid (b) end connections, sub-
jected to a set of nodal forces re where: rTe = [N1 , N2 , Vx1 , My1 , Vx2 , My2 , Vy1 , Mx1 ,
Vy2 , Mx2 , Mz1 , Mω1 , Mz2 , Mω2 ].
In particular, vector q̄e takes the connection deformations into
account by means of the additive relation:
q̄e = qe + qJ (11)
where vector qJ is connected to re by the constitutive relation:
EIx , EIy and EIω are the rigidities associated with bending about the
principal axes and to cross-section warping. Moreover, GDx , GDy
and GDω represent the shear rigidities associated with shear
resultants and nonuniform torsion [16,22,33] and, finally, l stands
for the element length. For shear-undeformable beams, the
parameters in Eq. (17) vanish and the shape functions reduce to
the classical Hermitian polynomials of the Euler–Bernoulli–Vlasov
model.
The expression of matrix KeE can be found in [16], whereas
matrix KeG for a centroidal axial load and for a uniformly distributed
lateral load is reported in [22] and [34] respectively. The modified
e
matrix K̄E based on the uncoupled constitutive relation (13) is
reported in Appendix assuming semi-rigid connections for flexural
rotations and warping displacements. In particular, for a plane
e
bending problem, if shear deformation is neglected, matrix K̄E
reduces to the matrix given by Monforton and Wu [19].

re = KJ qJ . (12) 5. Buckling analysis of semi-rigid pultruded frames

Assuming uncoupled joint constitutive relations yields the simple,

diagonal, form of matrix KJ : In [22], a buckling analysis of PFRP portal frames subjected
to in-plane or out-of-plane distributed loads was presented. At
KJ = diag Kw1 , Kw2 , Ku1 , Ky1 , Ku2 , Ky2 , Kv 1 , Kx1 , Kv 2 , Kx2 ,

the beam-to-column connections, full continuity was imposed
Kz1 , KΨ 1 , Kz2 , KΨ 2 } (13) on displacements and rotations, whereas warping displacements
were assumed to be totally unrestrained. Herein numerical
where i = 1, 2 refers to the element end sections; coefficients examples are intended to show the influence of the connection
Kwi , Kui and Kv i represent the joint stiffnesses related to resultants stiffness on the critical loads of a pultruded portal frame
Ni , Vxi and Vyi ; coefficients Kxi , Kyi and Kzi are the joint rotational (Fig. 4), subjected to in-plane vertical or horizontal distributed
stiffnesses referred to resultants Mxi , Myi and Mzi and, finally, KΨ i
loading. Uncoupled joint constitutive relations are adopted,
represents the joint stiffness constraining cross-section warping.
assuming identical relations at symmetric nodes. In particular, four
Substituting qe = q̄e − qJ into Eq. (9) and remembering Eq. (12)
parametric studies are presented to highlight: the role of semi-
yield:
rigid in-plane (Fig. 5(a)) and out-of-plane (Fig. 5(b)) rotational
re = CKeE q̄e − Cfe (14) beam-to-column connections (Sections 5.1 and 5.2); the combined
where: influence of in-plane beam-to-column joints and base-warping

−1
−1 stiffnesses (Section 5.3); and the role of lateral bracing at beam-
C = KJ KJ + KeE = I + KeE K−
J
1
. (15) to-column nodes (Section 5.4). Wide-flange and narrow-flange I-
section profiles are adopted in Section 5.1 and Sections 5.2–5.4
Comparing Eq. (14) with Eq. (10) yields stiffness matrix and
respectively, having elastic constants E = 25 GPa and G = E /10.
equivalent load vector of the modified element:
Beam and columns are 3 m long and are meshed with four finite
e
K̄E = CKeE ; f̄e = Cfe . (16) elements to assure a convergent numerical solution.
 F. Minghini et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299 295

Fig. 4. PFRP portal frame (l = h = 3.0 m) considered in Sections 5.1–5.4.

Fig. 6. Portal frame without bracings. Contour plots showing the influence on the
critical vertical load qz ,cr (kN/m) of rotational stiffnesses KyB and KzB .

Fig. 5. In-plane (a) and out-of plane (b) semi-rigid rotational connections.

5.1. Critical vertical load for in-plane and out-of-plane semi-rigid

joints

The first example presented is aimed at evaluating the critical

load in the presence of semi-rigid in-plane and out-of-plane beam-
to-column rotational joints (given by rotational stiffnesses KyB and
KzB , respectively, Fig. 5). A uniformly-distributed vertical load qz
is applied along the top flange of the beam. All frame members
are wide-flange I-section profiles having height H = 203.2 mm, Fig. 7. Influence on the critical vertical load qz ,cr of rotational stiffness KzB .
width B = H, and thickness t = 9.5 mm, with orientation that Thick lines a and b are the section through the contour plots in Fig. 6 at KyB =
has the major second moment of area axis xloc orthogonal to the 300 kN m/rad. Thin lines reproduce second critical load.

(x–z ) plane for the beam and in the plane for columns (Fig. 4). No
restraints at the column bases are imposed on in-plane rotations
(KyA = 0). Furthermore, no lateral bracing (KbrB = 0) is introduced
and warping displacements are assumed to be fully restrained at
the beam ends (KΨ B(beam) → ∞) and totally free at the column top
sections (KΨ B(columns) = 0). All the remaining degrees of freedom
at the column bases (including base-cross-sections warping) are
given null values (KΨ A = KxA = KzA = KuA = Kv A = KwA → ∞).
The contour lines in Fig. 6 are for the critical load qz ,cr versus
in-plane and out-of-plane rotational stiffness KyB and KzB . In
Fig. 7 the in-plane connection stiffness KyB is taken equal to 300
kN m/rad (Fig. 6) to reveal a buckling mode shape transition
when KzB ∼ = 0.5 kN m/rad. In fact, for KzB ≤ 0.5 kN m/rad
(curve a in Fig. 7) the first critical shape is characterized by
flexural–torsional displacements in the beam that are associated
with column torsional deformations (Fig. 8(a)). For the situation
when KzB ≥ 0.5 kN m/rad (curve b in Fig. 7), the critical mode
now corresponds to in-plane antisymmetrical frame deflections Fig. 8. Critical modes of the portal frame in Section 5.1 (see Fig. 7), fully fixing
(Fig. 8(b)). In this case, the beam-to-column nodes do not exhibit out-of-plane rotations at nodes A and D. Straight and circular arrows indicate in- or
out-of-plane displacements, and the possibility that the frame out-of-plane displacements and torsional rotations, respectively.
might first fail by local flange instability is to be considered. As
a matter of fact, the formulation by Kollár and Springer [35,36] 5.2. Critical horizontal load for in-plane and out-of-plane semi-rigid
indicates that local instability of the beam compressed flange takes joints
place first for in-plane joint stiffnesses KyB ≥ 500 kN m/rad. Yet,
if the stabilizing contribution due to tensile stresses is considered In this second example, a horizontal load qx uniformly
according to Roberts’s findings [37], local instability requires distributed along the beam centroidal axis is considered. The
loads exceeding the flexural strength limit. Hence, the frame fails influence in frame resistance of in-plane (KyB ) and out-of-plane
by global instability. In the examples reported in the following (KzB ) joint rotational stiffnesses at nodes B and C is analyzed. All
paragraphs, the frame never fails by local instability. frame members are narrow-flange I-section profiles having height
296 F. Minghini et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299
Fig. 9. Portal frame with rigid lateral bracings at the beam-to-column nodes.
Contour plots showing the influence on the critical horizontal load qx,cr (kN/m) of
rotational stiffnesses KyB and KzB .
Fig. 10. Sections through the qx,cr plots in Fig. 9 at different constant values of the
out-of-plane rotational stiffness KzB (kN m/rad).
Fig. 11. Influence on the critical horizontal load qx,cr of the out-of-plane constraint
conditions. Thick line: section through the contour plots in Fig. 9 at KzB =
10 kN m/rad. Curves a, b and c correspond to the homologous critical modes shown
in Fig. 12.
H = 240.0 mm, width B = 120.0 mm, and thickness t = 12.0 mm,
with orientation that has the major second moment of area axis
xloc orthogonal to the plane (Fig. 4). Columns are assumed to be
fully fixed, but free to warp (KΨ A = 0) at the base. Moreover, rigid
lateral supports (KbrB → ∞) and no warping restraints (KΨ B = 0)
are introduced at the beam-to-column joints.
The contour plots in Fig. 9 are for the critical load qx,cr versus
in-plane (KyB ) and out-of-plane (KzB ) joint rotational stiffnesses at
beam-to-column nodes. Sections through the qx,cr plots at different
constant values of KzB are presented in Fig. 10. It should be noted
that the critical load is found not to be a monotonic function of the
in-plane joint stiffness KyB . To explain this response, the case with
KzB = 10 kN m/rad was re-considered (Fig. 11), assuming three
different out-of-plane constraint conditions. These are: (i) fully
fixing both lateral and torsional displacements of the beam (curve
a–c); (ii) fully fixing lateral displacements of columns (curve b);
(iii) fully fixing the lateral displacements at the beam-to-column
nodes only (curve d). Case (i): it can be observed that the buckling
shape is essentially due to flexural–torsional instability of the
compressed column. In particular, as the in-plane joint stiffness
KyB increases, the critical shape gradually changes from Fig. 12(a)
to (c). Case (ii): the buckling shape is now due to the beam
flexural–torsional instability associated with column torsional
deformation (Fig. 12(b)). Moreover, as the in-plane joint stiffness
KyB increases, the associated beam-to-column bending moment
increases so as to cause a reduction of the critical multiplier.
Case (iii): the example is intended to represent the usual frame
configuration. It can be observed that the corresponding curve d
borders the limit curves a and b reported above, so explaining the
non monotonic response of the braced frame versus the in-plane
joint stiffness.
5.3. Combined influence of in-plane joints and base-warping
stiffnesses
A further case is analyzed for the frame reported in Section 5.2.
The present example combines the influence of in-plane rotational
stiffness of the beam-to-column connections (due to KyB ) with that
of the warping restraint stiffness at the column bases (due to KΨ A ).
Fig. 13 shows the contour plots of the critical horizontal load
qx,cr versus KyB and KΨ A , assuming free out-of-plane relative
rotations at the beam-to-column connections (KzB = 0). In
Fig. 14, the calculated critical horizontal load qx,cr is given with
KyB and different values of KΨ A . As in the case of Section 5.2,
a non monotonic response is obtained. It can be seen that the
effectiveness of the warping restraint has a significant influence on
the critical load. Taking KyB = 100 kN m/rad and letting KΨ A = 1
(or 10) kN m3 /rad increases qx,cr by 28% (or 60%), with respect
to the lower bound solution for KΨ A = 0. It can be shown that,
for KΨ A ≥ 50 kN m3 /rad, the frame effectively behaves as if it
were fully fixed at the base. Suitable values of KΨ A to be adopted
in structural analysis could be suggested by a proper experimental
programme.
5.4. Critical horizontal load for lateral bracings with finite stiffness
The fourth illustrative example is aimed at evaluating the
influence of lateral bracings with finite stiffness KbrB at the beam-
to-column joints for the same frame reported in Section 5.2 and
Section 5.3. In Fig. 15 the contour plots for qx,cr with KyB and KbrB are
reported. The out-of-plane joint stiffness KzB = 10 kN m/rad and
the base-warping stiffness KΨ A = 0 are taken. Sections through
the contour plots in Fig. 15, for different constant values of KbrB ,
are presented in Fig. 16. In this figure KyB ranges from 1 and
1 × 106 kN m/rad. Again, a non monotonic response is obtained.
It is observed that even moderate bracing stiffness values (for
KyB ≤ 1 × 103 kN m/rad) strongly increase the critical load with
respect to the unbraced case. In fact, if the lateral bracing stiffness
KbrB is set equal to 10 kN/m, corresponding to the out-of plane
stiffness 3EI yloc /h3 of a cantilever beam having the same section
as the two columns, the critical load increases by about 88% at
KyB = 10 kN m/rad. Moreover, it can be seen from Fig. 16 that, for
greater values of KbrB , the critical load qx,cr does not increase, such
that the lateral restraint is effectively providing the frame with a
rigid out-of-plane support.
 F. Minghini et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299
Fig. 12. Out-of-plane critical modes of the portal frame in Section 5.2 (see Fig. 11). Straight and circular arrows indicate out-of plane displacements and torsional rotations,
respectively.
Fig. 13. Portal frame with rigid lateral bracings and free out-of-plane rotations
(KzB = 0) at the beam-to-column nodes. Contour plots showing the influence on
the critical horizontal load qx,cr (kN/m) of rotational stiffness KyB and base-warping
stiffness KΨ A .
Fig. 14. Sections through the qx,cr plots in Fig. 13 at different constant values of the
base warping restraint stiffness KΨ A (kN m3 /rad).
6. Conclusions
The elastic buckling response of frames of thin-walled pul-
truded FRP profiles with semi-rigid end connections is analyzed.
The beam displacement field is based on the second-order ap-
proximation of the finite rotation tensor, including the effect of
shear deformation from nonuniform bending and torsion. Flexu-
ral–torsional displacements are interpolated by Hermitian locking-
free polynomials [16,32] already tested by the authors in PFRP
frame instability problems [22]. Joint flexibility is taken into ac-
count, by means of a simple manipulation of the elastic stiffness
297
Fig. 15. Portal frame with out-of-plane rotational stiffness KzB = 10 kN m/rad
at the beam-to-column nodes. Contour plots showing the influence on the critical
horizontal load qx,cr (kN/m) of rotational stiffness KyB and lateral bracing stiffness
KbrB .
Fig. 16. Sections through the qx,cr plots in Fig. 15 for different constant values of
the lateral bracing stiffness KbrB (kN/m).
matrix that avoids additional degrees of freedom. The element for-
mulation presented allows for the representation of the semi-rigid
connection having axial, flexural and torsional deformations, as
well as cross-section warping. Moreover, neglecting shear defor-
mation and nonuniform torsion, the stiffness matrix obtained (see
Appendix) reduces to the expression, first given by Monforton and
Wu [19].
Several illustrative examples are used to show the influence
of joint flexibility on critical loading for portal frames subjected
to either in-plane horizontal or vertical loading. It is observed
that, for increasing out-of-plane rotational stiffness to the beam-
to-column joints, there is a sudden transition to the buckling
298 F. Minghini et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299

mode shape. In particular, for unbraced frames under vertical Appendix

loading, the main component of the critical shape changes
from the flexural–torsional deformation of the beam to the in- A.1. Modified stiffness matrix for semi-rigid warping and flexural
plane antisymmetrical frame mode. It is shown that the critical connections
load of a shear-loaded frame increases significantly, even for a
small base-warping restraint. It is also shown that this critical Assuming uncoupled joint constitutive relations (see Eq. (13))
load is not a monotonic function of the in-plane rotational and a bisymmetric cross-section, the beam elastic stiffness matrix
stiffness at the beam-to-column joints. Finally, it should be e
K̄E can be represented in the form (superscript ‘‘e’’ is omitted for
noted that the computational formulation adopted can easily be
the sake of simplicity):
implemented for an imperfection sensitivity analysis. To this aim,
K̄E = CKE = diag K̄w , K̄u , K̄v , K̄ω .

the stiffness reduction due to local instability is to be considered
and a generalization to the three-dimensional case of the model
For a two-node element (i = 1, 2) having semi-rigid end con-
proposed by Mosallam and Bank [3] could profitably be employed.
nections for warping displacements and (flexural) rotations about
axes x and y, but rigid end connections for axial displacements
7. Notation
(Kwi → ∞), transversal displacements (Kui , Kv i → ∞) and z-
axis rotations (Kzi → ∞), submatrices in K̄E take the following
C cross-section centroid
expressions:
Dx , Dy shear rigidity constants along x and y directions
Dω shear rigidity constant for nonuniform torsion K̄w,11 = K̄w,22 = −K̄w,12 = EA/l;
E Young’s modulus of elasticity
K̄u,11 = K̄u,33 = −K̄u,13 = 12EIy EIy Ky1 + Ky2 + Ky1 Ky2 l /Du l2 ;


G elastic shear modulus
It torsion constant K̄u,12 = −K̄u,23 = 6EIy Ky1 2EJy + Ky2 l /Du l;


Ix , Iy second moment of area about x and y axes
K̄u,22 = EIy Ky1 12EIy + Ky2 l (4 + φx ) /Du ;
 
Iω warping constant
Kbr out-of-plane bracing stiffness K̄u,24 = −EIy Ky1 Ky2 l (−2 + φx ) /Du
Ku , Kv , Kw joint stiffnesses related to resultants Vx , Vy and N
Kx , Ky , Kz joint stiffnesses related to resultants Mx , My and Mz where:
KΨ joint stiffness related to nonuniform torsion
Du = l2 12E 2 Iy2 + Ky1 Ky2 l2 (1 + φx ) + EIy l Ky1 + Ky2 (4 + φx ) .


Mx , My , Mz internal moments about x, y and z axes
N internal axial force The terms K̄u,14 = −K̄u,34


and K̄u,44 are respectively obtained
qx , qz , qx,cr , qz ,cr uniformly distributed external loads and corre-
sponding critical values from K̄u,12 and K̄u,22 by exchanging coefficients Ky1 and Ky2 with
S cross-section bending–deformation shear centre each other.
s profile co-ordinate K̄ω,11 = K̄ω,33 = −K̄ω,13 = Nω,11 /Dω l2 ;
u, v, w displacement functions along x, y and z axes
uS , vS shear centre displacements in x and y directions K̄ω,12 = −K̄ω,23 = Nω,12 /Dω l;
Vx , Vy internal shear resultants in x and y directions K̄ω,22 = Nω,22 /Dω ;
wC cross-section translation in z direction
x, y principal inertia axes K̄ω,24 = Nω,24 /Dω
xS , y S shear centre co-ordinates where:
z centroidal axis
φx , φy , φω shear strain factors appearing in stiffness matrices Nω,11 = 720E 2 Iω2 (KΨ 1 + KΨ 2 + GIt l) (1 + φω )
ϕx , ϕy , ϕz cross-section rotations about x, y and z axes + 12EIω l [GIt l (26KΨ 2 + 6GIt l + 30KΨ 2 φω + 5GIt lφω
ω + 5KΨ 2 φω2 + KΨ 1 (60KΨ 2 + 26GIt l + 60KΨ 2 φω


De Saint Venànt’s warping function
Ψ cross-section warping amplitude + 30GIt lφω + 5GIt lφω2


C correction matrix for semi-rigid end connections
+ GIt l3 GIt l 9KΨ 2 + GIt l + 10KΨ 2 φω + 5KΨ 2 φω2


de displacement function vector
fe , f̄e equivalent load vectors + KΨ 1 (72KΨ 2 + 9GIt l + 120KΨ 2 φω + 10GIt lφω
+ 60KΨ 2 φω2 + 5GIt lφω2 ;


I identity matrix
KE , KG global elastic and geometric stiffness matrices
= −KΨ 1 [12EIω + l (6KΨ 2 + GIt l)] GIt l2 + 60EIω (1 + φω ) ;
 
e Nω,12
KeE , K̄E elemental elastic stiffness matrices
= KΨ 1 720E 2 Iω2 (1 + φω )

KeG elemental geometric stiffness matrix Nω,22
KJ matrix of the joint constitutive relations + GIt l3 8KΨ 2 + GIt l + 10KΨ 2 φω + 5KΨ 2 φω2


Nx , Ny , Nz , Nω shape function matrices + 12EIω l (20KΨ 2 + 6GIt l + 25KΨ 2 φω
qe , q̄e nodal displacement vectors
+ 5GIt lφω + 5KΨ 2 φω2 ;


qJ joint deformation vector
re internal nodal-force vector. = −KΨ 1 KΨ 2 l 60EIω −2 − φω + φω2


Nω,24
+ GIt l2 2 + 10φω + 5φω2 ;



Acknowledgments Dω = 720E 2 Iω2 (1 + φω ) + 12EIω l [20KΨ 2 + 6GIt l + 25KΨ 2 φω

The present investigation was developed in the framework
of two coordinated Projects: the Italian Research Program n.
2005089782 coordinated by Prof. Franco Maceri from University
of Rome ‘‘Tor Vergata’’ and the Research Program FAR 2007 of
the University of Ferrara. Financial support of the Italian Ministry
of University and Research, and of the University of Ferrara is
gratefully acknowledged.
+ 5GIt lφω + 5KΨ 2 φω2 + 5KΨ 1 4 + 5φω + φω2


+ l2 GIt l 8KΨ 2 + GIt l + 10KΨ 2 φω + 5KΨ 2 φω2


+ KΨ 1 (60KΨ 2 + 8GIt l + 120KΨ 2 φω + 10GIt lφω
+ 60KΨ 2 φω2 + 5GIt lφω2 .




The terms K̄ω,14 = −K̄ω,34 and K̄ω,44 are respectively obtained
from K̄ω,12 and K̄ω,22 by exchanging coefficients KΨ 1 and KΨ 2 with
 F. Minghini et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 292–299
each other. Matrix K̄v is obtained from K̄u , by changing the sign
of the terms whose indices give an odd summation integer, and
performing the substitutions φx → φy , Ix → Iy and Kyi → Kxi (i =
1, 2). It should be noted that pinned connections can be easily
recovered by setting equal to zero the joint stiffness coefficients
corresponding to the degrees of freedom to be released; viceversa,
for rigid joints matrix K̄E reduces to the matrix reported in [16].
Neglecting shear deformation (φx = φy = 0 in Eqs. (17)), mod-
ified submatrix K̄u (K̄v ) may be rewritten as K̄u = KEB
u C
MW
, where
EB
Ku represents the stiffness matrix of the classical Euler–Bernoulli
element with rigid end-connections, and CMW is the correction ma-
trix reported by Monforton and Wu [19,20], which is given by:
 
C11 C12 0 0
1 C21 C22 0 0 
CMW = 0
0 C33 C34 


l 4 − ry1 ry2
0 0 C21 C44
where ryi = (1 + 3EIy /Kyi l)−1 (i = 1, 2) represents the so-
called ‘‘end fixity factor’’ and C11 = l(4ry2 − 2ry1 + ry1 ry2 ), C12 =
−2l2 ry1 (1 − ry2 ), C21 = 6(ry1 − ry2 ), C22 = 3lry1 (2 − ry2 ), C33 =
l(4ry1 − 2ry2 + ry1 ry2 ), C44 = 3lry2 (2 − ry1 ), C34 = 2l2 ry2 (1 − ry1 ).
References
[1] Bank LC, Mosallam AD, Gonsoir HE. Beam-to-column connections for
pultruded FRP structures. In: Suprenant B, editor. Serviceability and durability
of constr. mat. proc., 1st mat. engrg. congr. VA: ASCE; 1990. p. 804–13.
[2] Bank LC, Mosallam AD, McCoy GT. Design and performance of connections for
pultruded frame structures. J Reinf Plast Comp 1994;13(3):199–212.
[3] Mosallam AD, Bank LC. Short-term behavior of pultruded fiber reinforced
plastic frame. J Struct Eng ASCE 1992;118(7):1937–54.
[4] Mosallam AD, Abdelhamid MK, Conway JH. Performance of pultruded FRP
connections under static and dynamic loads. J Reinf Plast Comp 1994;13(5):
386–407.
[5] Smith SJ, Parsons ID, Hjelmstad KD. Experimental comparisons of connections
for GFRP pultruded frames. J Compos Constr 1999;3(1):20–6.
[6] Nethercot DA. Frame structures: Global performance, static and stability
behaviour: General report. J Constr Steel Res 2000;55(1):109–24.
[7] Mottram JT, Bass AJ. Moment-rotation behaviour of pultruded beam-to-
column connections. In: Proc. 12th ASCE struct. congr. VA: ASCE; 1994.
p. 423–8.
[8] Mottram JT, Zheng Y. State-of-the-art review on the design of beam-to-column
connections. Compos Struct 1996;35(4):387–401.
[9] Turvey GJ. Analysis of pultruded glass reinforced plastic beams with semi-rigid
end connections. Compos Struct 1997;38(1–4):3–16.
[10] Turvey GJ, Cooper C. Review of tests on bolted joints between pultruded GRP
profiles. Proc Institut Civil Eng Struct Buildings 2004;157(3):211–33.
[11] Carrion JE, LaFave JM, Hjelmstad KD. Experimental behaviour of monolithic
composite cuff connections for fiber reinforced plastic box sections. Compos
Struct 2005;67(3):333–45.
299
[12] Carrion JE, Hjelmstad KD, LaFave JM. Finite element study of composite cuff
connections for pultruded box sections. Compos Struct 2005;70:153–69.
[13] Smith SJ, Parsons ID, Hjelmstad KD. Finite-element and simplified models of
GFRP connections. J Struct Eng ASCE 1999;125(7):749–56.
[14] Cunha J, Foltête E, Bouhaddi N. Evaluation of stiffness of semi-rigid joints in
pultruded profiles from dynamic and static data by using model updating
technique. Eng Struct 2008;30(4):1024–36.
[15] Chang S-P, Kim S-B, Kim M-Y. Stability of shear deformable thin-walled space
frames and circular arches. J Eng Mech ASCE 1996;122(9):844–54.
[16] Minghini F, Tullini N, Laudiero F. Locking-free finite elements for shear
deformable orthotropic thin-walled beams. Int J Numer Meth Engng 2007;
72(7):808–34.
[17] Shakourzadeh H, Guo YQ, Batoz JL. Modeling of connections in the analyses of
thin-walled space frames. Comput Struct 1999;71(4):423–33.
[18] Blandford GE. Stability analysis of flexibly connected thin-walled space
frames. Comput Struct 1994;53(4):839–47.
[19] Monforton GR, Wu TS. Matrix analysis of semi-rigidly connected frames. J
Struct Eng ASCE 1963;89(ST6):3713–42.
[20] Xu L. Semirigid frame structures. In: Chen WF, Lui EM, editors. Handbook of
structural engineering. second ed. CRC Press; 2005 [Chapter 23].
[21] Cortínez VH, Piovan MT. Stability of composite thin-walled beams with shear
deformability. Comput Struct 2006;84(15–16):978–90.
[22] Minghini F, Tullini N, Laudiero F. Buckling analysis of FRP pultruded frames
using locking-free finite-elements. Thin-Wall Struct 2008;46(3):223–41.
[23] Criesfield MA. Non-linear finite element analysis of solid and structures.
Advanced topics, vol. 2. Chichester: Wiley; 1991.
[24] Timoshenko SP. On the correction for shear of the differential equation for
transverse vibrations of prismatic bars. Phil Mag Ser 6 1921;41(245):744–6.
[25] Gunnlaugsson GA, Pedersen PT. A finite element formulation for beams with
thin walled cross-section. Comput Struct 1982;15(6):691–9.
[26] Back SY, Will KM. A shear-flexible element with warping for thin-walled open
beams. Int J Numer Meth Engng 1998;43(7):1173–91.
[27] Washizu K. Variational methods in elasticity and plasticity. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 1982.
[28] Carlberg RC, Blandford GE, Wang ST. Stability analysis of steel space frames
with flexible connections and partial warping rigidity. In: Proceedings of the
SSRC conference on the stability of bridges. 1990. p. 121–31.
[29] Lui EM, Chen WF. Analysis and behaviour of flexibly-jointed frames. Eng Struct
1986;8(2):107–18.
[30] Lui EM, Chen WF. Steel frame analysis with flexible joints. J Constr Steel Res
1987;8:161–202.
[31] Goto Y, Chen WF. On the computer-based design analysis for flexibly jointed
frames. J Constr Steel Res 1987;8:203–31.
[32] Reddy JN. On locking-free shear deformable beam finite elements. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engng 1997;149(1):113–32.
[33] Minghini F. Modeling of FRP pultruded structures using locking-free finite
elements. Ph.D. thesis. Italy: University of Ferrara; 2008. Available online at:
www.iuss.unife.it.
[34] Minghini F, Tullini N, Laudiero F. Vibration analysis with second-order effects
of pultruded FRP frames using locking-free elements. Thin-Wall Struct 2008.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2008.07.001.
[35] Kollár LP, Springer GS. Mechanics of composite structures. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2003.
[36] CNR-DT 205/2007. Guide for the design and construction of fiber-reinforced
polymer composite structures composed by thin-walled pultruded profiles.
Italian National Research Council. Available online at: www.cnr.it.
[37] Roberts TM. Influence of shear deformation on buckling of pultruded fiber
reinforced plastic profiles. J Compos Constr 2002;6(4):241–8.