Moy S. S. J., Plastic Methods For Steel and Concrete Structures, 2nd Ed, 1996

PLASTIC METHODS FOR STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Other titles of related interest
Civil Engineering Contract Administration and Control, Second Edition

I. H. Seeley
Civil Engineering Materials, Fifth Edition

N. Jackson and R. Dhir (Editors)
Civil Engineering Quantities, Fifth Edition

I. H. Seeley
Finite Elements - A gentle introduction

D. 1. Henwood and 1. Bonet
Fundamental Structural Analysis

W. 1. Spencer
Highway Traffic Analysis and Design, Third Edition

R. 1. Salter and N. Hounsell
Reinforced Concrete Design, Fourth Edition

W. H. Mosley and 1. H. Bungey
Reinforced Concrete Design to Euro Code 2

W. H. Mosley, R. Hulse and 1. H. Bungey
Soil Mechanics - Principles and Practice

G. Barnes
Structural Mechanics
1. Cain and R. Hulse
Surveyingfor Engineers, Third Edition

1. Uren and W. F. Price
Understanding Hydraulics
L. Hamill
Understanding Structures
Derek Seward
Plastic Methods for Steel
and Concrete Structures
Stuart S. J. May
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Southampton
Second Edition
MACMIlLAN
© Stuart S. 1. Moy 1981, 1996
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of
this publication may be made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or
transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agenc)\ 90 Tottenham Court
Road, London WlP 9HE.
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this
publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil
claims for damages.
First edition 1981

Second edition 1996
Published by
MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG216XS
and London
Companies and representatives
throughout the world
ISBN 978-0-333-64177-4 ISBN 978-1-349-13810-4 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-13810-4
catalogue record for this book is
available from the British Library.
Contents
Preface ix
Notation Xl
1 Some General Concepts 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Mild steel- the almost perfect material for plastic analysis 1
1.3 How structures behave under varying load 4
1.4 Summary 15
2 Plastic Bending 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 What happens to a beam when it bends? 16
2.3 Calculation of the plastic moment 20
2.4 Why the plastic moment and plastic hinge are idealisations 23
2.5 A further complication 28
2.6 Factors which can alter the plastic moment 29
2.7 How the above theory is used practically 35
2.8 Summary 36
Problems 36
3 Collapse of Simple Frames 39

3.1 Introduction 39
3.2 The behaviour of a portal frame under increasing load 39
3.3 The theorems of plastic analysis 44
3.4 The number of hinges required in a mechanism 45
3.5 Free and reactant BM method for finding collapse loads 46
3.6 The virtual work method for finding collapse loads 53
3.7 Summary 75
Problems 77
vi Contents
4 Limit Analysis 80
4.1 Introduction 80
4.2 Elementary mechanisms 84
4.3 Combination of mechanisms 85
4.4 Summary 99
Problems 100
5 Deflections and Stability 103

5.1 Introduction lO3
5.2 Calculation of deflections 105
5.3 The effect of deflection on the collapse load 110
5.4 Summary 128
Problems 128
6 Design Using Plastic Theory 133

6.1 Introduction 133
6.2 Load factors 134
6.3 Design ofa simply supported beam 135
6.4 Continuous beam design by plastic theory 136
6.5 Optimum design 144
6.6 Direct design of pitched portal frames 155
6.7 Summary 162
Problems 163
7 Application of Plastic Methods to Reinforced Concrete Structures 167

7.2 The behaviour of reinforced concrete in bending 167
7.3 What happens ifthere is insufficient plastic rotation capacity? 176
7.4 The compromise adopted in Codes of Practice 177
7.5 Summary 186
Problems 187
8 Yield-line Analysis and the Hillerborg Strip Method for Reinforced

Concrete Slabs 188
8.2 Yield-line theory 188
8.3 Hillerborg's strip method 223
8.4 Summary 235
Problems 236
Appendix A : Yield Criteria 240

Appendix B : A Redundancy Test 247
Appendix C: Bending Moment Diagrams 249
Contents vii
References 259
Solutions to Problems 262
Index 269
Preface
In the preface to the first edition I said that this book owes much to the many
students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, who have sat patiently and at-
tentively through my lectures on plastic methods. This continues to be the case
with the second edition. Questions and discussion during and outside the lec-
tures have shown that certain aspects of the subject consistently create difficul-
ties and have also pointed to where my explanations in the first edition were
not clear. Perhaps I flatter myself that the difficulties in the subject are not due
to shortcomings in my teaching technique, but because certain points need
greater attention than is possible in a lecture. It has been my intention to pro-
vide that extra attention in this book.
The second edition was harder to write than the first - it has become difficult
to find and justifY the time required. However, there were several motivations
that made it possible. Firstly, I had identified various shortcomings in the ori-
ginal which was also rather dated in places. Secondly, things have moved on in
the design of steel and concrete structures. New British, European and US de-
sign codes have been introduced in the last ten years which are explicit in how
plastic methods should be used. It really was essential to include some of that
material. Finally, I came under pressure from my publisher!
The book is intended to cover most ofthe requirements of students at both
undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It will also be useful to practising engi-
neers who use plastic methods. The emphasis throughout is on the ideas be-
hind, and the application of, plastic methods, rather than their mathematical
justification (I have given references to appropriate texts and papers for this).
To achieve my aim I have simplified some of the arguments (as was pointed
out in a conference paper shortly after the publication of the first edition). I
am sorry if my approach offends the purists.
The book is divided into eight chapters. The first two deal with the concrpts
of plastic behaviour, and plastic bending in particular. Chapters 3 and 4 de-
scribe the techniques for finding the collapse loads of steel frames. Chapter 5
looks at the effects of deflections, imperfections and instability on the collapse
of structures. These 'secondary' effects are complex and a detailed study is be-
lX
x Preface
yond the scope of the book. However, I have endeavoured to give a general ex-
planation and have then shown how these effects are covered in design. Chap-
ter 6 shows how plastic methods are used in the design of steel structures,
looking in detail at beams and portal frames. Chapters 7 and 8 deal with rein-
forced concrete structures: Chapter 7 examines the problems of applying plas-
tic methods to concrete frames and the compromises that have to be made in
design codes, and Chapter 8 describes the powerful yield-line and strip meth-
ods for slabs. Since the publication of the first edition, computers have made
an enormous impact on technology. This edition shows how computing can be
applied to the use of plastic methods.
As a rough guide based on my own courses, the first three chapters provide a
solid introduction which would be appropriate to second year undergraduate
level, while Chapters 4, 6 and parts of 5, 7 and 8 would be suitable for a third or
fourth year course. A postgraduate course could make use of all the material.
I have tried to be consistent in the layout of each chapter. There is an intro-
duction which gives, where appropriate, the background theory. The meat of
each chapter is usually presented in a series of examples which have been care-
fully graded. The first example introduces the ideas in the simplest possible
manner, while subsequent ones introduce new ideas or examine those areas
that can cause difficulties. It is important that the reader realises that the exam-
ples introduce new ideas as well as illustrate earlier ones. The whole is then
brought together in a summary. At the end ofeach chapter (apart from the first)
there is a series of examples, designed to bring out the various points made in
the chapter. I strongly encourage the reader to work through the examples, pre-
ferably in order. Practice really is the best way of getting to grips with plastic
methods.
Stuart S. J. Moy
Notation
It has been convenient for the same symbols to have different meanings or for
similar things to have different symbols. These are all noted here, but are also
defined in the text. It has been necessary to add suffixes to various symbols to
indicate specific meanings - these are always defined in the text.
Forces
C,T compressive and tensile forces from bending stress blocks
F axial member force in a pin-jointed truss
N shear force in a member in bending
P axial force in a member in bending
Pc axial force at collapse
Pcr buckling force
Pp squash load
q distributed loading on a slab
SF shear force (abbreviation)
UDL uniformly distributed load (abbreviation)
V,H vertical and horizontal applied loads (forces) and reactions
W applied load
w,Q line load
A load factor
X change in load factor
Ac collapse load factor
Ae buckling load factor
AI lower bound (under-estimate) to the collapse load factor
Au upper bound (over-estimate) to the collapse load factor
Moments
BM bending moment (abbreviation)
BMD bending moment diagram (abbreviation)
Xl
xii Notation
FEM fixed-end moment (abbreviation)
M moment; magnitude of a bending moment; moment of
resistance per unit length (slabs)
Me bending moment found by plastic analysis
Mn moment per unit length about an axis along a yield line
Mp plastic moment
M~ reduced plastic moment
f3t, redistribution ratio (BS 8110 notation)
6 redistribution factor (Eurocode 2 notation)
Material and Section Properties

A cross-sectional area
As cross-sectional area of steel reinforcement
B,b width
D,d depth
d effective depth of tensile reinforcement
d1 effective depth of compression reinforcement
E Young's (elastic) modulus
Esh slope of stress-strain curve at the start of strain hardening
!ek characteristic cylinder strength of concrete
feu characteristic cube strength of concrete
G structure weight function
G' variable part of weight function
g weight per unit length
I second moment of area
I effective length
lIr slenderness ratio
r radius of gyration [= J(I / A)]
S plastic modulus
T flange thickness
web thickness, thickness
x depth to neutral axis (axis of zero strain) in a concrete beam
Z elastic (section) modulus
'Y shear strain
E direct strain
U direct stress
uy yield stress
T shear stress
Ty yield shear stress
Lengths and Displacements

e eccentricity
L,h overall dimensions
Notation Xlll
I,a,b dimensions
R radius, radius of curvature
X,Y,z coordinate axes; distances in coordinate directions
a, {3, "I, (), ¢ angles; rotations
~, 8 displacements, deflections
X curvature
General
c,n,k constants, ratios
i ratio of positive and negative moments of resistance
K Hillerborg correction factor
m number of elementary mechanisms
n number of plastic hinges
p number of possible plastic hinges
r degree of redundancy (indeterminacy)
s,c,m stability functions
YL yield line (abbreviation)
J.L measure of orthotropy in slabs
Sign Convention
The most convenient sign conventions have been used. Thus tensile stresses,
strains and axial forces are assumed positive except in Chapter 5 where com-
pression is assumed to be positive. Bending moments are plotted on the side
of the member that is in tension. Tension on the underside of a beam or to the
left of a column, as drawn, is assumed to be caused by a positive bending mo-
ment.
1 Some General Concepts
1.1 Introduction
The teaching of structural analysis follows, in general, traditional lines, the re-
cognised route being statics, simple bending theory, virtual work and, finally,
the analysis of rigid jointed structures. The main barrier that has to be crossed
is from statically determinate structures (which can be analysed by statics
alone) to statically indeterminate structures (which must, effectively, be ana-
lysed by a combination of statics and compatibility of deformations). The
mathematics involved in the analysis of indeterminate structures frequently
presents severe problems for students.
This 'classical' approach is based on the assumption that the stresses in the
structure caused by the applied loads are within the elastic limit of the material
used and thus deflections are small. The approach is, of course, widely used.
However, an alternative has gained increasing support over the past 30 years
or so. This new philosophy turns the problem on its head. It is obvious that any
structure can be made to fall down (collapse) by applying loading of a sufficient
magnitude. The purpose of the new analysis is to find that magnitude, which
requires a knowledge of what happens at collapse and how structures behave
when the stresses in the material exceed the elastic limit. This philosophy is
embodied in the plastic methods of analysis and design. One important and re-
assuring feature of the plastic methods is that the mathematics involved is
usually less formidable than with the traditional methods.
It is informative to examine the behaviour of structures from zero load to
failure because it is then possible to show clearly the ideas behind the plastic
methods. Two examples are presented to illustrate this behaviour, but before
looking at the examples it is necessary to examine briefly the material used in
the structure.
1.2 Mild Steel- The Almost Perfect Material for Plastic Analysis
The simplest mechanical test for a metal is to apply a controlled tensile force to
a long bar ofthe material (figure 1.1). In the middle of the bar, remote from the
1
2 Plastic Methods for Steel and Concrete Structures
T ~ I - 3 F - I ~ T
I.. ~I
Uniaxial tension
Figurel.l
clamps at each end, a state of pure uniaxial tension exists. The extension of the
specimen is measured in this region. For a specimen of cross-sectional area
So, the extension is found over a gauge length 1..0 equal to 5.65 .;so-
If the applied force (expressed as a stress, that is force/cross-sectional area)
on a steel specimen is plotted against the corresponding extension (expressed
as strain, extension/original length) the typical stress-strain curve shown in
figure 1.2 is obtained. At small strains, stress is directly proportional to strain
(region OU). The material is elastic, and the slope, E, is Youngs Modulus.
Stress (Nlmnf)
M
CT~s~----------------~~~
I I I "'-lC
Failure
CTyu _ U Plastic H
~-""';';=;"""---""'=-:;=::I I
CTy L ~Strain hardening
(slope E.. .. 0.04E)
~tiC (slope E)
o ~------------'____---,I I,--__--'________-. Strain
0.0012 0.014 0.2
approx.
Figurel.2
On average, Efor steel is about 205 kN/mm2• The point U is the limit of pro-
portionality between stress and strain. When this limit is reached there is a ra-
pid drop in stress to the point L. U is called the upper yield point with a
corresponding stress O"yu. In many of the common structural steel sections
which are hot rolled into shape, the residual stresses from the rolling process ef-
fectively remove point U, hence the upper yield point is of no practical signifi-
cance. The stress corresponding to point L is the yield stress O"y, with a typical
magnitude for mild steel of 275 N/mm2.
The strain at the yield stress is about 0.0012. When the strain is increased
above this value it is found that no corresponding stress increase is required.
Some General Concepts 3
The behaviour in the region LH of the graph is called plastic and the increase in
strain without change in stress is called plastic flow. The end of the plateau, H,
is somewhat variable but a typical strain is 0.014. The strain in the plateau is
thus at least ten times the strain at the yield point.
After H, there is strain hardening in the steel, which means that an increase
in strain requires an increase in stress. The initial slope Esh of this region is
about 4 per cent of Young's modulus, E. Eventually the stress reaches a maxi-
mum value called the ultimate tensile strength auts which is about 410 N/mm2 •
Further increase in strain produces necking and eventually a cup and cone
fracture. The maximum strain at fracture is at least 0.2 - a 20 per cent increase
in length of the specimen.
Careful tests have shown that the stress-strain curve for mild steel in compres-
sion is identical to the one in tension up to the point of maximum stress, so that
the complete graph is as shown in figure 1.3a. Figure 1.3b shows what happens on
unloading. Suppose that the specimen is loaded to the point X on the stress -
strain graph, and the load is removed. On unloading, the initial change in strain
is elastic (XYon the graph) and parallel to the original loading line. Ideally the
change in strain would follow this line until the stress reaches a y in compression
with compressive plastic flow then occurring. However, the actual behaviourfol-
lows the path XY~ This divergence from the ideal is called the Bauschingereffect.
Tensile stress Tensile stress
O"y
x
I
o z
Tensile strain 1 Tensile strain
------'-+-~
;; /.1 y
8auschinger effect
O"y
(a) (b)
Figure 1.3
Perfect elastic-plastic behaviour is shown in figure 1.4. Mild steel can be

made to fit this by:
(1) Ignoring the upper yield point - this causes no problems; many structural
members do not show it anyway.
(2) Ignoring strain hardening - this introduces some errors because many
structures will have areas in the strain hardening region at collapse; how-
ever, the errors are small because of the small slope (Esh) and are on the
safe side since strain hardening represents an increase in strength.
(3) Ignoring the Bauschinger effect - this causes errors but usually they are
small, and figure 1.3 shows that when the stress is reduced to zero (point
Z) there is little difference in the curves; in structures where full stress re-
versal is possible (uncommon), the errors could be significant.
Tensile stress
O'y
Te"nsile strain
_ _....L..---'_ ...J
1-- Unloading
O'y
Figure 1.4
Mild steel is a rather vague term. Structural steel is defined by its grade,
which has specified minimum properties. Higher strengths are achieved at the
expense of ductility, as shown in figure 1.5. In general, plastic analysis can be
applied, with care, to structures made from these steels. This will be discussed
further in Chapter 5.
Stress (Nlmrrf)
600 Grade 55
I~
11--------.::::-:::- Grade 50
400 I,~
-------,1 II Grade 43
I I
200
L--------------------.Strain
Figure 1.5
1.3 How Structures Behave Under Varying Load

Two examples of pin-jointed trusses are used in this section to introduce sev-
eral important ideas without too much conceptual or mathematical difficulty.
It will be convenient to imagine that the trusses are made from mild steel,
although it is unlikely that they would have any practical application.
1.3.1 Statically Determinate Tension Truss

The truss shown in figure 1.6 is statically determinate, which means it can be
fully analysed by statics alone. The applied vertical force Wat point 0 places
both members OB and OC, in tension, the unknown internal forces being FOB
and Foe.
Figure 1.6
For horizontal equilibrium at 0

FOB cos 45° = Foe cos 30°
that is
1 v'3
FOB -=Fo e -
v'2 2
FOB = 1. 22Foe (1.1)
Vertical equilibrium at 0 requires
FOB sin 45° + Foe sin 30° = W (1.2)
Substitution of equation 1.1 into equation 1.2 gives the solution
FOB =0.897W
(1.3)
Foe = 0.732W
Assume further that OB has a cross-sectional area of A and OC one of 2A,
so that
stress in OB = 0.897 :
(1.4)
stress in OC = 0.366 ~
Stress
O'y
0.897 ~ - member 08
W
0.336 A - member OC
L--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, . . Strain
Figure 1.7
These stresses correspond to the two points shown in the stress-strain curve in
figure 1.7. As Wis increased, the two points move up the line until the stress in
member OB reaches the yield point. It is possible to find the load at which that
occurs from
W
0.897 A= u y (1.5)
Any attempt to increase Wresults in plastic flow in OB with the stress fixed
at u y . Mathematically equation 1.4, and hence equation 1.3, can no longer hold
true because the stress in OB is now independent of W. Since equation 1.3 was
found from the equilibrium equations 1.1 and 1.2, they also cannot be true and
the structure is not in equilibrium. Physically OB increases in length without
restraint and point 0 keeps moving. The loss of equilibrium is a definition of
collapse of the structure. The greatest load at which equilibrium can be main-
tained is the col/apse load (We). From equation 1.5
We = 1.115Auy (1.6)
Two important points are illustrated by this example:
(1) In a statically determinate structure, collapse occurs when the most heav-
ily stressed member yields.
(2) The collapse load is directly proportional to the force which causes yield
in that member (Auy ). The constant (1.115 in this case) depends only on
the geometry of the members.
1.3.2 Indeterminate Tension Truss
1.3.2.1 Analysis ofBehaviour up to Col/apse

Figure 1.8 shows a truss with three members and a vertical applied load W. An
elastic analysis of the structUre will now be carried out. The analysis is rather
lengthy, and the important points arising are summarised in section 1.3.2.2.
FOB L
All members have

the same cross-
sectional area, A
w
Figure 1.8
The analysis is presented in full so that it can be compared with a later one.
There are three unknown member forces, so three independent equations are
required to find those forces. Ghali and Neville [1] give a simple test for the in-
determinacy of this type of truss; the test shows it to be one degree indetermi-
nate. It will be necessary to consider both equilibrium and compatibility of
deformations to find the unknowns.
For vertical equilibrium at a
FOB sin 45° + Foe + FOD sin 45° = W (1.7)
It is obvious from the symmetry, of the structure and loading, that a must
move vertically downwards and OB must stretch the same amount as aD.
Since the members are identical (in cross-section) this must imply that
FOB = FOD (1.8)
Equations 1.7 and 1.8 cannot be solved to find the unknown member forces.
Consider now the sloping member shown in figure 1.9a. It extends by a dis-
tance 8 when it carries a tensile force Fox. In order for a to move vertically
downwards to 0" the member (now extended to O'X) must rotate about X. If
the extension is small compared with the length (the extension when the mem-
ber yields is only about 0.1 per cent of the length) the angle Of} is negligibly small
(if () is 45°, Of} is about 4' at the yield point). In triangle 00'0" the angle 00"0'
is then equal to () (see figure 1.9b) and
8 = 6. sin () (1.9)
If OX is elastic, stress/strain equals Young's modulus so that
Fox 8
A+-OX=E
Substituting for 8 and OX gives
Po
ox
AE
=y 6. sm
. 2 ()
(1.10)
o
, 5
L
'\, 0> 5
'\:, !J. 0'
-'------~ ~ - 0"
t 0" ' " Fox
(a)
Figure 1.9
Compatibility is ensured in the truss if point 0 is constrained to move

vertically. Hence equations 1.9 and 1.10 can be used for the members in the
truss:
80B = 800 = b. sin 45° = ~

(1.11 )
80e = b. sin 90° = b.
and
FOB = FOD = L
AE
b.
(1)2
..fi = 2L
AEb.
(1.12)
Foe =AEb.
L
where b. is the vertical displacement of 0. It can be seen from equation 1.12 that
2FoB = Foe (1.13)
Equation 1.13 and equations 1.7 and 1.8 are the equations required to give the
member forces. Substitute equation 1.8 into equation 1.7 to give
v'2FOB + Foe = W (1.14)
then substitute equation 1.13 to give
(~ +1)Foe = W (1.15)
Foe = 0.585W
(1.16)
FOB = FOD = 0.293 W
Stress
"OC
0.5 ely
'--------------1~ Strain
Figure 1.10
Yield starts in OC when the load is increased to WI, given by

0.585WI
A =(J'y
(1.17)
WI = 1.709A(J'y
The stresses in all the members are shown in figure 1.10. OB and OD ~re
stressed to 0.5(J'y. The deflection of 0 when yield starts is found from equation
1.12:
AE~1
Foe =A(J'y = - -
L (1.18)
~l = Lay
E
Up to this stage the example has been a more complicated version of the ex-
ample in section 1.3.1, but from now on there are important differences.
Although OC has yielded, so that the force in it is limited to A(J'y, point 0 can-
not move freely because it is restrained by the remaining elastic members.
When Wis increased there are only two unknown member forces, so OC yield-
ing has caused a reduction (of one) in the degree of redundancy (indetermi-
nacyand redundancy are synonymous). Equation 1.15 becomes
v'2FOB = W - A(J'y (1.19)
so that
FOB = 0.707(W - A(J'y) (1.20)
The solution is obtained from the equilibrium equation without recourse to
the compatibility equations, because the truss has become statically determi-
nate. OB and OD yield when
FOB = A(J'y (1.21)
Substituting equation 1.20 into equation 1.21 gives the load W2 when this
occurs:
Stress
~oc
O.5oy 08,00
'-----------~ Strain
Figure 1.11
o. 707( W2 - Aay) = Aay

(1.22)
W2 = 2.414Aay
Equation 1.12 (for member OB, which has remained elastic up to this load)
gives the corresponding deflection ~2 of point 0:
~2 = 2Lay (1.23)
E
The member stresses at W2 are plotted in figure 1.11. Since all the members
are now yielding: W2 is the collapse load (We) of the truss. At the instant when
W2 is applied, called the point ofcollapse, the structure is in a state of neutral
equilibrium. The point 0 could be moved to a new position with plastic flow
occurring in all the members, and it would then remain in the new position.
1.3.2.2 Summary ofthe Results ofthe Analysis

The results of the analysis in the previous section are summarised in figure 1.12
and tables 1.1 and 1.2. There are several important points which arise from the
analysis:
(1) The degree ofindeterminacy (redundancy) ofthe structure is reduced by one
each time a member yields. This was noted in the analysis when member
OCyielded.When the truss became statically determinate, one more mem-
ber yielding would have caused failure (as in the example in section 1.3.1).
In this case, two members yielded simultaneously because of the symme-
try. This reduction in redundancy provides a useful check. Provided the de-
gree of redundancy of the structure can be found, it is a simple matter to
determine the minimum number ofyielding members required at collapse.
(2) Redistribution ofinternalforces. Table 1.1 shows the relative values of the in-
ternal forces at the key loads WI and We. It is clear that the relative mag-
nitudes change drastically after yield has started in a member. The least
W
Aoy
3
H J
o 0.5 1.5 2
Figure 1.12
heavily loaded members, initially, gradually carry a larger proportion of

the applied load. This is called redistribution of the internal forces and is
an important characteristic of structural behaviour.
Table 1.1 Relative values ofmember forces.
Load
Foe/Foe 1 1
FOB/Foe 0.5 1
FOB: Foe 1:2 1: 1
(3) Reduction in stiffness. Figure 1.12 is a graph of applied load W (plotted as

W / Auy) against deflection ~. The graph is characterised by three
straight lines which gradually approach the horizontal. This is confirmed
by the numerical values given in table 1.2. The slope (rate of change of
load with respect to deflection, dW /d~) is a measure ofthe stiffness of
the structure. Initially, the stiffness is greatest, but each time a member
yields (and there is a reduction in the degree of redundancy) there is a sud-
den drop in stiffness. In the final stage (HJ1 when all the members are
Table 1.2
Region offigure 1.12 dW (
Slope d~ xL AE)
OG 1.707
GH 0.707
HJ o
yielding, the line is horizontal- indicating zero stiffness. Hence an alternative
definition of collapse is when the stiffness ofthe structure becomes zero!
1.3.2.3 What Happens when the Load is Removed after Yield has Occurred?
It was shown earlier (section 1.2) that when a tension specimen is unloaded
after yield, the stress reduction occurs elastically. To illustrate how this works
in a redundant structure, consider the previous example at the instant when
We has been applied but before the last two members have undergone any plas-
tic flow. Ifan additional load of - We is applied, the net effect is zero load. Since
unloading occurs elastically in every member, equation 1.16 will give the
changes in member forces due to - We:
change in Foe = -0.585 We
(1.24)
change in FOB = -0.293 We
Substituting for We from equation 1.22, the resultant forces in the members at
zero load are
Foe = Auy - 0.585 x 2.414Auy = -0.141Auy
(1.25)
FOB = Auy - 0.293 x 2.414Auy = 0.293Auy
Equations 1.25 show that at zero load the forces in the members have not re-
turned to zero. These 'residual forces' have an important property which can
be shown by substituting equations 1.25 into the equilibrium equation 1.15:
..fi x 0.293Auy -0.414Auy = 0
(0.414 - 0.414)Auy = 0
0=0
In other words, the residual forces are in equilibrium with each other. They are
called a set of self-equilibrating residualforces. A similar analysis gives the resi-
dual deflection ~r at zero load:
~ _ 2Lay _ 0.585 x 2.414Auy L _ 0.588Lay
r - E AE - E (1.26)
The unloading process is shown by the broken line in figure 1.12.

Notice that in this example the residual forces are all smaller than the load
(±Auy) at which yield would occur. The example was chosen deliberately to en-
sure this but it is apparent that in some structures the redistribution of internal
forces could be such as to cause yield in the opposite sense on unloading. Of
course, the mathematics involved in analysing that situation is rather more dif-
ficult and there is the additional problem of the Bauschinger effect.
If on reaching zero load the truss is reloaded in the same manner, the beha-
viour follows the 'unloading' line in the reverse direction. This is as expected
because all members start off elastic and the increase in load will cause elastic
changes until yield occurs. Yield now occurs simultaneously in all three mem-
bers when the load We is reached.
It can be concluded, therefore, that unloading after any member has yielded
alters the way in which the member forces change, but has no effect on the col-
lapse load. This argument also applies ifthe unloading is made before the point
of collapse is reached, as is also shown in figure 1.12.
1.3.2.4 What Happens ifthe Members are not Manufactured to the Correct
Length?
When some of the members in an indeterminate structure are the wrong length
- a situation which is often called 'lack of fit' - it is necessary to force the joints
together. This produces a system of forces in the members. To illustrate what
happens, consider the same structure as before, but with member OC too short
by O. 75Lay/ E, as in figure 1.13. In order to close the gap, it is necessary to apply
the forces marked F. In the sloping members (figure 1.13a) F pushes 0 up by a
distance 81. In the other member OC (figure 1J3b) F pulls 0 down by 82. To
join all the members together:
f.: f.: O.75Lay
VI +V2 =--~ (1.27)
E
The forces, marked F, in figure 1.13a, b cause forces FOB, Foe and FOD in the
three members, but in the process of joining the members the forces Fcancel
each other to give zero applied load on the structure. Thus the initial effect of
members of incorrect length is to introduce a set of self-equilibrating residual
forces and permanent deformations, similar to those discussed in the previous
section. Table 1.3 shows these forces and deformations.
When a load W is hung on the truss, the member forces change. The beha-
viour of the truss as Wincreases can be followed in the same manner as in sec-
c
Foe
Foe
L o
------;;:Y"/
o.75LCJy7'1
E
F F
(a) (b)
Figure 1.13
tion 1.3.2.1, and is summarised in table 1.3. Load-deflection curves for this case
and the perfect truss are plotted in figure 1.14. At lower loads, the curves are
markedly different but as yield spreads to the various members they come to-
gether. At the point of collapse, the load and deflection are identical.
Table 1.3
Comments
W/Aay FOB/Aay Foc/Aay
~ (xL;y)
0 -0.220 0.311 -0.439
1.178 0.125 1 0.250 OCyields
2.414 1 2 Collapse
'Lack of fit' in the members has no effect on the load at which collapse
occurs, because of redistribution of the internal forces. The redistribution
may occur in a different sequence and require additional plastic flow when
there is 'lack of fit' but it gives the same result.
1.3.2.5 Calculation ofthe Collapse Load Alone Makes Life Much Easier
Since there is no need to worry about lack of fit of the individual members
when considering collapse, the calculation of the collapse load is very easy.
At collapse, the force in each member is Aay, thus for vertical equilibrium
at 0:
2Aay sin 45° + Aay = We
We = 2.414Aay
W
Aoy
2
/'
/'
/'
/'
/' /' /' ~ Perfect
/'
/'
/'
-0.5 o 0.5 1.5 2
Figure 1.14
Compare the simplicity of this calculation with the elastic analysis in section
1.3.2.1. Plastic analysis produces this relative simplicity even in more compli-
cated structures.
1.4 Summary
The purpose of this chapter has been to introduce various important ideas and
get the reader to think about the behaviour of structures. The illustrative
examples were carefully chosen for that purpose. In fact, plastic analysis is not
used for trusses because in a practical situation some truss members will be in
compression, and hence liable to buckle. Plastic analysis has found its widest
application in structures that carry load by bending. However, the ideas that
have been illustrated by the examples in this chapter are common to all
structures, so it is worth summarising them before looking more closely at
structures with members in bending:
(1) The calculation ofthe collapse load is not difficult. The mathematics is far
simpler than that required to find the load at first yield.
(2) The redundancy of the structure is reduced as members yield. One mem-
ber yielding causes the loss of one degree of redundancy. At the point of
collapse, the structure is statically determinate.
(3) There is a reduction in stiffness as members yield. At collapse, the stiff-
ness is reduced to zero.
(4) The point of collapse is a state of neutral equilibrium.
(5) There is redistribution of the internal forces as members yield.
(6) Lack of fit of the individual members has no effect on the collapse load.
2 Plastic Bending
2.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter the behaviour of trusses was discussed, However, a
more common form ofconstruction is the framed structure withjoints capable
of transmitting bending moments. It will become clear that the ideas already
developed can be applied to such structures.
In the trusses, the applied forces were transmitted to the supports by means
of axial forces in the individual members. These axial forces were also de-
scribed as the internal forces. In a framed structure, the applied forces are re-
sisted mainly by shear forces and bending moments in the members (there will
be some axial forces as well, but their effect will normally be secondary, except
possibly in the columns).
Before considering the collapse of frames it is necessary to examine what
happens to a member when it bends enough to cause the most highly stressed
material to yield.
2.2 What Happens to a Beam when it Bends?

The simplest structure which resists load by bending is the simply supported
beam, as shown in figure 2.1a. It has an effective span L and carries a central
t
W
L Ll2
.i.
(a) Simply supported beam
LI2
..I
(b) Bending moment diagram (BMO)
Figure 2.1
16
Plastic Bending 17
I Ec O"c
ZT 1
Axis of zero strain
--I
I
y
Ze I
+
1
E'
t
I
01
Cross-section Strain Stress
Figure 2.2
vertica110ad W The load is carried to the supports by the beam bending. Equi-
librium gives a vertical reaction of un at each support. The support system en-
sures no bending moments or horizontal reactions at the supports. The
bending moment (BM) diagram for the beam is shown in figure 2.lb. The
beam is sagging over its whole length with a maximum bending moment of
WLI4 under the point load. It is the behaviour of the cross-section at the point
of maximum BM that must now be examined in detail.
Engineers' bending theory (based on elastic material behaviour) gives the
following information about the section. If there is no yield in the material
there are straight-line relationships for stress and strain over the whole depth
of the section, as in figure 2.2. The level at which stress and strain are zero is
the axis ofzero strain, which is often called the neutral axis ofthe section. Stress
and strain are proportional to distance (z) from this axis, and for sagging there
is maximum compression at the top and tension at the bottom. The maximum
stress is given by
M
a max =2
where M = bending moment and Z = elastic section modulus (minimum).
(Notice that for an asymmetric section, as in figure 2.2, bending about the y-
axis, there are two possible values of the section modulus: ZT = 1/ZT and
Z B = 1/ZB where I is the second moment of area of the section about the y-
axis. There will be different intensities of stress at the top and bottom.)
There will be elastic behaviour until the maximum stress reaches the yield
stress. At this stage, of course, only material at the ,outside edge of the section
is yielding. It has been shown in tests that the distribution of strain stays linear
over the depth of the section after yield (and the simple bending tlieory as-
sumption of plane sections remaining plane is still valid). It is possible to find
the stress at any position from the stress - strain curve, as shown in figures 2.3
and 2.4.
Compressive stress
Axis of zero strain Compressive
strain
+
fy Or Tensile stress
Strain Stress
Figure 2.3
Compressive stress
Oy
Plastic flow
Compressive
Axis of zero
-- ----
strain strain
Ey +
Plastic flow
Oy Tensile stress
Figure 2.4
As the bending moment is increased, yielding spreads towards the axis of

zero strain. The stress distribution shows two constant regions where yield has
occurred (the stress is limited to the yield stress, but strain can increase by plas-
tic flow), joined by a linear (elastic) stress distribution. The eventual outcome
is shown in figure 2.5 with constant stress effectively reaching the axis of zero
strain. With all the material yielding (in compression above and in tension be-
CTy
CTy
Figure 2.5
Plastic Bending 19
Increase in length after full yield
Beam to left + Beam to right = Hinge at critical

of critical section of critical section section
Figure 2.6
low the axis of zero strain) the section behaves like a hinge, because the strain
can increase everywhere in the section without any change in stress. This hinge
action is illustrated in figure 2.6. The section has become a plastic hinge. The
plastic hinge is formed at a moment M p equal to the plastic moment of resis-
tance (usually shortened to plastic moment) of the section, which is the largest
bending moment that the section can carry.
When the plastic hinge forms in the simply supported beam, collapse occurs
(see figure 2.7). This is directly comparable with the statically determinate truss
in section 1.3.1 where collapse occurred when the first member yielded. The
original beam is statically determinate and collapses when one plastic hinge
forms. It is important to realise that the formation of a plastic hinge (not first
yield) in a bending member is equivalent to yield in an axially loaded member.
When collapse occurs, the load and right-hand support must move. The beam
has become a plastic mechanism. It is still easy to find the collapse load We, by
equating the maximum moment due to the applied load to the plastic moment
of the beam.
WeL_M
4 - p
that is
4Mp
We = - - (2.1 )
L
w Wc
•
Figure 2.7
2.3 Calculation of the Plastic Moment
2.3.1 General
A general cross-section is shown in figure 2.8. The stress distribution due to the
formation of a plastic hinge by bending about the y-axis is also shown. Since
the hinge has been formed by bending only, horizontal equilibrium of the
section requires that
(2.2)
where C is the compressive force equivalent to the yield stress acting over the
area ofthe cross-section in compression above the axis of zero strain and Tis
the tensile force equivalent to the yield stress acting over the area in tension be-
low the axis of zero strain. Thus
(area of section in compression) x O"y =
(2.3)
(area of section in tension) x O"y
showing that when a plastic hinge forms, the axis of zero strain bisects the
cross-sectional area. This axis only coincides with the centroid of the section
when the section is symmetric about the axis of zero strain.
Y ....I---+--
-
-... c
T --- +
z
Cross-section Stress
Figure 2.8
2.3.2 Rectangular Section

In a rectangular section (figure 2.9) bending about the y-axis, the axis of zero
strain is DI2 from the top ofthe section, and
(2.4)
Since these forces are caused by a bending moment equal to M p> taking mo-
ments about the axis of zero strain gives
Plastic Bending 21
M
y -
- o
Figure 2.9
D D
M p =Cx"4+ Tx "4
BD D
=2 XTay x"4
that is
BD2
Mp=Tay (2.5)
and this is sometimes written

Mp = Say (2.6)
where S is called the plastic modulus of the section (compare with the elastic
section modulus Z). The plastic modulus is a geometric property of the cross-
section. The ratio of plastic modulus to elastic section modulus is called the
shapefactor of the section:
S
shape factor = Z (2.7)
For a rectangular section Z = BD2/6 so that

BD2
shape factor = B~2 = 1.5

6
More complex sections can be divided into simple shapes, usually rectangles
for the common structural sections. The plastic moment can then be found by
adding together the moments resulting from the yield stress on each of the sim-
ple shapes. This is illustrated in the next two sections.
2.3.3 I-section
This is probably the most common structural section. The typical shape is
shown in figure 2.l0a. It is produced by passing a heated billet of steel through
I.... B .1
I C1 - - - "'-
Fillet'" Flange
~
-.
o
Vveb -- T2
-..... - -- T1
4 '-r--+---'
(a) As rolled (b) Idealised (e) Bending about the y-axis

Figure 2.10
a series of rollers. Modern techniques produce sections with parallel faces to

both the web and the flanges. The I-section is symmetric about the y- and z-
axes. In calculations, the small curved fillets between the web and flanges can
be ignored. This idealised section is shown in figure 2.10b, with relevant dimen-
sions and a convenient division into four rectangles. (The symbols for the di-
mensions are the ones used in BS 5950, the British Standard for steel design
[2],) Figure 2.10c shows the distribution of stress and the equivalent forces in
each rectangle for bending about the y-axis. Table 2.1 shows how to find the
plastic moment. The calculations in step 3 are a mixture of taking moments
about the axis of zero strain and using the result from the previous section.
A typical I-section is a 457 x 152 UB 82 (the shorthand means a universal
beam, with nominal depth 457 mm, nominal width 152 mm and weighing
82 kg/m). The British Steel Structural Sections Handbook [3] gives the actual
dimensions of the section as D = 465.1 mm, B = 153.5 mm, t = 10.7 mm
and T = 18.9 mm. These give plastic modulus values of 1.783 x 106 mm 3 and
0.235 x 106 mm 3 for bending about the y- and z-axes respectively. These values
are slightly different from those quoted in the sections handbook because the
fillets shown in figure 2.10a are ignored whenjust using the rectangles.
In fact, it is possible to reduce the amount of effort in table 2.1 by making use
ofthe symmetry of the section. Notice that the plastic moduli for 1 and 4, and
2 and 3 are identical. Thus all that is necessary is to find the values for 1 and 2
and double the result.
Typical shape factors for I-sections are about 1.15 for bending about the
y-axis and 1.6 for bending about the z-axis. The actual values depend on
the dimensions of the section. The quoted elastic modulus values for the
457 x 152 UB 82 section are 1.557 x 106 mm 3 and 0.149 x 106 mm 3 for bending
Plastic Bending 23
about the y- and z-axes respectively, so that the actual shape factors are 1.145
and 1.577.
Table 2.1
Step Bending about y-axis Bending about z-axis
(1) Find axis of zero strain y-axis (symmetry) z-axis (symmetry)

(2) Division into simple Four rectangles as in Four rectangles as in figure
shapes figure 2.10b 2.10b
(3) Moment in each area
I B2T
BTay (!!.-~)
2 2 Tay
2 (D - 2T) (D - 2T) (D - 2T) P
2 x tay x 4 2 "4 ay
3 (D - 2T) (D - 2T) (D - 2T) t2
2 x tay x 4 2 "4 ay
4 B2T
BTay (!!.-~)
2 2 Tay
(4) Plastic moment
(BT(D _ T) + t(D ~ 2T)2) a y B2T (D - 2T)P)
( -2-+ 4 ay
(5) Plastic modulus BT(D _ T) + t(D - 2T)2 B2T

-2-+
(D - 2T)P
4
4
2.3.4 Asymmetric Sections

Asymmetric sections do not yield simultaneously at the top and bottom of
the section. As a result, the axis of zero strain moves as yield spreads through
the section from the centroid before yield, to the axis that bisects the cross-
sectional area.
To illustrate this, section modulus and plastic modulus calculations are
shown in table 2.2 for bending of aT-section (figure 2.l1a) about the y-axis. Fig-
ure 2.Ub shows the stresses in the section at the plastic moment and the three
forces corresponding to the stresses used in the plastic moment calculation.
The calculations show that the zero strain axis moves upwards as plastic flow
spreads through the section. The shape factor is 1.817, which is typical for this
type of section.
2.4 Why the Plastic Moment and Plastic Hinge are Idealisations
It is possible to analyse the spread of yield through a section. In the trusses in
Chapter 1 it was done by reference to the material stress-strain curve. For
members in bending it must be done by finding the relationship between bend-
ing moment and curvature for the section.
CTy
C1
.....
~-
C2
450mm
-- T
(a) (b)
Figure 2.11
Table 2.2
Elastic modulus calculation Plastic modulus calculation
(i) Position of centroid (i) Position of equal area axis

A = 300 x 20+430 x 15 area above axis = area below axis
300 x 20 + (430 - z) x 15 = 15 x z
= 12450mm2
LAz = 6000 x 440 + 6450 x 215 6000 + 6450 - 15z = 15z
30z = 12450
= 4026750 mm3
z = 12450 = 415 mm
4026570 30
z= 12450 = 323.4 mm
centroid = 323.4 mm from bottom equal area axis = 415 mm from bottom
(ii) 1= 300 1~ 203 + 6000 X 116.62 (ii) Mp = moment of Cl + moment of

C2 + moment of T
+ 15 ~;303 + 6450 X 108.42
= 300 x 20CTy x 25
= 200000 + 81 573 000 15
+ 15 x 15CTy x "2
+ 993 840000 + 75791 000
415
= 256948000 mm4 + 15 x 415uy x T
= {150000 + 1700 + 1291 700}uy
The maximum stress is at the edge of the = 1 443 400uy N mm
section furthest from the centroid, in this case
S = 1443400 mm3
the bottom of the section. The value
of Z given is for that position
S 1443400
shape factor = Z = 794500 = 1.817
Plastic Bending 25
Radius of
curvature R
/ \ \
lix
Figure 2.12
Assume that a short length of beam, length 8x, which is initially straight, is
bent into an arc of a circle as in figure 2.12. (This assumption is only true when
the bending moments along the beam are constant, but the error is small
when the moments vary, provided that the deflection of the beam is small~ It
has already been assumed that plane sections remain plane and the distribu-
tion of strain across the depth of the section is always as in figure 2.3, whatever
the distribution of stress across the section. The arc which defines the axis of
zero strain must remain 8x long, while
length of top arc = 8x(1 - fc)
length of bottom arc = 8x( I + lOt)

where fc and lOt are the compressive and tensile strains at the top and bottom of
the section. From the geometry of figure 2.12
R8() = 8x (2.8)
(R + zB)8() = 8x(1 + lOt) (2.9)
(R - zT)8() = 8x(1 - fc) (2.10)
Substituting equation 2.8 into equations 2.9 and 2.10 gives
R+ZB = R(l + lOt) (2.11 )
R - ZT = R(l - fc) (2.12)
Subtracting equation 2.12 from equation 2.11 gives
ZT + ZB = R(ft + fc)
The inverse of the radius of curvature, R, is defined as the curvature, X, thus
ft + fc range of strain
curvature X = - - - = . (2.13)
ZT + ZB depth of sectIOn
Curvature is a measure of bending deformation.
The 'ideal' elastic-plastic moment-curvature relationship is shown in figure
2.l3a. There is an elastic portion where an increase in curvature requires an in-
crease in the moment causing the curvature. When the moment reaches the
M M
•
Mp Mp
1.0
Plastic
rotation
1.0
-f ><:"*
0.8 0.8
1 I (457 x 152 US 82)
0.6 0.6 I,
Rectangle
1
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
'-----'-_L---'--_I'---'--. X /Xy
o 2 4 6 8 10 o 2 4 6 8 10
(a) (b)
Figure 2.13
Ela~tic
region
! Axis of zero
strain
Figure 2.14
Plastic Bending 27
plastic moment, a plastic hinge forms and the curvature can increase without
any change in the moment. This is called plastic rotation of the hinge. From en-
gineers' bending theory, the slope of the elastic portion is EI.
It was assumed in section 2.2 that when a plastic hinge has formed, the whole
of the critical section has yielded. This implies that just above and below the
axis of zero strain there are strains equal to the yield strain, but of opposite
sign. The only way that this and the assumption of plane sections remaining
plane can be valid is for the strains to be infinitely large at the top and bottom
of the section. Clearly this is physically impossible.
The spread of yield through a section can be analysed by assuming a distri-
bution of stress as in figure 2.14, and varying the size of the elastic region. At
each stage the moment which causes the stress distribution and the strains at
the top and bottom of the section can be calculated. These can be used to plot
the actual moment--curvature relationship of the section. This has been done
in figure 2.13b for two sections and, as can be seen, the actual curves are
asymptotic to the ideal relationship. Practically, there is always a small elastic
region sandwiched in the middle of the section. The assumption of ideal beha-
viour introduces very small errors for sections with shape factors close to unity
(I-beam ~ 1.15), whereas sections with higher shape factors are far from ideal.
So far, only the critical section with highest bending moment has been con-
sidered, and it would appear that plastic flow is confined to that section. In
fact, the bending moments at sections adjacent to the critical one are sufficient
to cause yielding before the plastic hinge can form. The result is zones of plastic
material around the critical section, as shown in figure 2.15. The extent and
shape of these zones depend on the type of loading and the shape of the
cross-section. The extent is greater with distributed loads, where the changes
in bending moment are more gradual, than with concentrated loads. Also the
larger the section shape factor, the greater the extent of the plastic zone. The
zones cause a gradual bend in the member, rather than the sharp kink which
would result from an idealised plastic hinge.
Axis of zero
strain
I. . Extent of
plastic zone
.1
Figure 2.15
Since most framed structures are constructed using low shape factor sec-
tions, the errors from the idealisations are not great. The fact that it is not prac-
tically possible to develop the full plastic moment of the section is balanced by
ignoring the hidden reserve in strength due to strain hardening.
2.5 A FUrther Complication

The plastic moment is, theoretically, the biggest bending moment that a sec-
tion can withstand, but in many sections it turns out to be impossible to reach
the plastic moment. The problem is buckling: since parts of the section are in
compression during bending, there is the possibility of localised buckling in
the areas of highest compressive stress. The likelihood of this depends on the
slenderness of the parts in compression.
Four distinct situations can be identified, as illustrated by the moment-
curvature relationships in figure 2.16. The plastic section behaves as described
above - it can develop the full plastic moment and undergo a large amount of
M M
L-------------------. . x 1
M M
My My
(iii) Semi-eompact
L-------------------~l
Figure 2.16
Plastic Bending 29
plastic rotation. The compact section can develop the full plastic moment but
then buckles and fails without any significant plastic rotation. The semi-com-
pact section is able to reach the moment at first yield but buckles and fails be-
fore reaching the plastic moment. The behaviour of the slender section is
controlled by buckling of the region in compression. The bending stresses in
the material may be below the yield stress when the section buckles, so that fail-
ure may occur at a moment below that at first yield.
In the previous chapter it was shown that after a member of a statically
indeterminate truss yielded, there was redistribution of the internal forces.
This redistribution occurred as a result of the plastic flow in the ductile mate-
rial. Similarly, in a bending structure there must be redistribution of the
bending moments after a plastic hinge forms. This redistribution is only
possible if the plastic hinge is capable of large amounts of plastic rotation.
It can be seen that only the 'plastic section' meets the requirements. It is there-
fore important to ensure that when designing a structure by the plastic
method, the sections used are 'plastic'. This will be discussed further in
ChapterS.
2.6 Factors Which Can Alter the Plastic Moment
2.6.1 Axial Force

Columns may have to carry significant axial forces in addition to bending mo-
ments. The axial force, P, moves the axis of zero strain as in figure 2.17. To sim-
plifY the mathematics, the stresses have been replaced by two equivalent
distributions (A and M in figure 2.17). The stresses in A are assumed to be
wholly due to the axial force, that is
P= BZ(Ty (2.14)
The stresses in M are caused by the changed plastic moment M~:

B
A
~n
D
oy oy
Section Strain Stress Equivalent stress
distributions
Figure 2.17
M~=2 (D~Z) XBX17y(D~Z +~)

= (D - z) x B x 17y (D : z)
using equation 2.5; BD2 17y/4 is the plastic moment Mp of the rectangular sec-
tion, so that
M~ = 1_ (~)2 (2.15)
Mp D
The maximum axial force, Pp, that the section can carry, ignoring buckling, is
called the squash load and is given by
Pp =BD17y
so that
p z
Pp D
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
.1...--1~.!!... (tension or. )

l cO"1>resslon
'------'---....I..------JL-_----L_ _
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Pp
Figure 2.18
Plastic Bending 31
and
M~ = 1- (~)2 (2.16)
Mp Pp
Equation 2.16 shows that both tensile and com~ressive forces reduce the plastic
moment because the reduction term is (P / Pp) which is always positive. Equa-
tion 2.16 is plotted in figure 2.18.
An I-beam can be analysed in the same manner, but it is necessary to con-
sider the two situations where the zero strain axis lies in the web or the flange of
the beam. The equations for the common case of bending about the y-axis are:
(1) With the zero strain axis in the web
(2.17)
where A is the total cross-sectional area and n is P / Pp' Equation 2.17 is valid
when
~~l- 2BT (2.18)
Pp "" A
(2) With the zero strain axis in the flange
M~ = [:;(l-n) C~D -1 +n)] CTy (2.19)
Equations 2.17 and 2.19 are also plotted in figure 2.18 for a typical I-beam (457 x
152 UB 82). Details of the mathematics can be found in several texts [4, 5]. These
forms ofthe equations are used in the section tables [3].
In all symmetric sections the axial forces reduce the effective plastic mo-
ment, irrespective of the sign of the force. In asymmetric sections the situation
is more complicated - in certain circumstances it is possible to achieve an in-
crease in plastic moment. Horne [4] has shown how this is possible.
2.6.2 Shear Force

Generally, beams must resist a combination of a bending moment and a shear
force, N. This means there is usually a combination of direct stresses CT from
the moment and shear stresses T. In these circumstances, the shear and direct
stresses interact with each other in causing the material to yield. In order to de-
termine the onset of yield, a yield criterion has to be used. The Tresca and
Von-Mises yield criteria, described in Appendix A, are most commonly used
for ductile materials. Where there is a combination of shear and direct stresses,
both criteria require that
(2.20)
for yield to occur, where Ty is the yield stress in pure shear (see Appendix A for
more details).
Consequently the individual stresses, a and T, cannot reach their full yield
value unless the other is zero. This means, in general, that it is impossible for
the full plastic hinge stress distribution (figure 2.5) to develop. The shear stres-
ses have to be zero at the free edges at the top and bottom of the section so the
direct stress can reach its yield value there. Generally, this yield will spread in-
wards, leaving a core of material carrying shear and direct stresses.
In a rectangular section, theory suggests a parabolic distribution of shear
stress with maximum stress at the mid-depth. It would be reasonable to as-
sume this still holds in the core and that the maximum stress at mid-depth is
Ty when the plastic hinge forms. This would mean the stress distributions
shown in figure 2.19.
The reader should be able to show that the reduced plastic moment is
M~ = B (~2 _;) a y
from the direct stress distribution in figure 2.19, and from the shear stresses that
4
N ="3 BZTy (2.21)
The full plastic moment Mp = BD2 a y /4 and the maximum possible shear
force Np = BDTy, assuming the yield shear stress over the whole section. Thus
M~ = 1 _ ~ (N)2 (2.22)
Mp 4 Np
Notice that Zmax is D /2. Ifthat is substituted in equation 2.21, it can be seen that
equation 2.22 only holds if
1-- ·1
B
,.---r-------;
Parabola
D
:E~1Y
t:AJ
Direct stress Shear stress
Figure 2.19
Plastic Bending 33
1.0 1
- __
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
N
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Np
Figure 2.20
N 2
-:0::: - (2.23)
N p "'" 3
Equation 2.22 is plotted in figure 2.20.
I-sections need to be treated differently. Almost all the shear force is
resisted by shear stresses in the web, and elastic theory shows a much more
even distribution across the depth. A satisfactory approach is to take the
shear stress T as constant across the depth of the web so that the shear force is
given by
N = t(D - 2T)T (2.24)
Assuming that all the material in the web is yielding, the direct stress in the web
is given by
(2.25)
from equation 2.20. The shear capacity of the web N pw is found by putting
T = Ty in equation 2.24. This means that
(2.26)
~
r--
~
Bending Shear
Figure 2.21
Figure 2.21 shows the distribution of stress in the I-section, and from this the
reduced plastic moment is given by
I t(D - 2T)2
Mp=Mp- 4 (o-y-o-w)
~Mp - (1- Jl- (:J )Mpw

(2.27)
M,
where M pw is the plastic moment of the rectangular web.
Eurocode 3
Mp t--~-=~=-,:---C...../
;.
Equatlon 2.27
Mp- Mpw
N
0.5 1.0 Npw
Figure 2.22
Plastic Bending 35
Equation 2.27 is plotted in figure 2.22. It can be seen that the reduction in the
plastic moment is negligible until the shear force is over 0.5Npw•
2.6.3 How Important are These Factors?

Usually they are not important. In low-rise structures, axial forces are too
small to have any significant effect on the plastic moments. In high-rise struc-
tures, they are more important and allowance must be made for them. As can
be seen from figures 2.20 and 2.22, shear forces cause smaller reductions in
plastic moment than axial forces, and need only be considered when they are
exceptionally large. Reductions from shear forces are only likely to be signifi-
cant in short span beams carrying very large concentrated loads.
2.7 How the Above Theory is Used Practically

The plastic moment is a very important quantity that is used widely in the de-
sign of steel structures. It is the product of the plastic modulus and the yield
stress. The plastic modulus is a geometric property of the cross-section. There
are many standard sections available and their geometric properties are
tabulated in the British Steel Structural Sections Tables [3]. These properties
include the plastic modulus and the reduced plastic modulus from axial
loads.
The yield stress is a mechanical property of the steel. Since steel is produced
in vast quantities it would be unrealistic to find the yield stress of every piece.
As was explained in Chapter 1, steel is produced in different grades and a re-
presentative property is used for each grade; this is called the characteristic
strength of the steel and it varies depending on the thickness of the steel. Gen-
erally, it is the responsibility of the steel producer to ensure that the steel pro-
duced has at least that characteristic strength. Since the steel properties will
vary, some allowance must be made for that variability. In BS 5950, the British
Standard for steel design, the 'design strengtH pyofthe steel is found by divid-
ing the characteristic strength by a material partial safety factor (generally ta-
ken as 1.0 for steel produced in the UK). In EC 3, the Eurocode for steel
design, the characteristic strength is used to find the plastic moment. The
cross-section resistance is then found by dividing the plastic moment by a
material partial safety factor (generally taken as 1.05). The Eurocode
approach makes allowance for the variability of the steel and the cross-section
dimensions.
Section 2.5 described the four types of cross-section: plastic, compact, semi-
compact and slender. The type of section must be identified at an early stage
since only 'plastic' sections can be used in plastic design. This is done in
BS 5950 and EC 3 by looking at the slenderness (ratio of width or depth to
thickness) of the flanges and the web. However, the two standards use different
dimensions to find the ratios.
The reductions in plastic moment caused by axial or shear forces must be ta-
ken into account when designing structures. The reduced plastic modulus
from axial load is tabulated in the section tables [3]. For shear, BS 5950 and
EC 3 both use simplified versions of the procedure described in section 2.6.2.
Both are plotted in figure 2.22.
2.8 Summary
This chapter has been mainly concerned with yielding at a particular section
of a member in bending. When full yielding has taken place and unrestrained
plastic flow occurs, a plastic hinge has formed. The maximum bending moment
that the section can withstand is the plastic moment. The plastic moment is
found by multiplying the plastic modulus by the yield stress. The plastic modu-
lus is a geometric property of the section. The plastic hinge and plastic moment
concepts are idealisations of the true section behaviour. Axial and shear forces
can affect the magnitude of the effectiveplastic moment, although they are not
usually significant factors.
The formation of a plastic hinge in a framed structure is the equivalent of a
member yielding in a truss-type structure. The fact that part of a section in
bending is in compression can cause local buckling problems, and only 'plastic'
sections are able to develop the full plastic moment and have large plastic rota-
tion capacity. Most standard I-sections are 'plastic'. The plastic moments and
axial load effects on the plastic moments of the standard sections are tabulated
[3], but for built-up sections the methods outlined in this chapter must be used.
Problems
2.1. Calculate the plastic moment of a pair of identical plates (width b, thick-
ness t). The plates are parallel with a clear distance D between them
(D ~ t). The axis of bending is parallel to the plates.
Plates (150 mm x 12 mm) are welded to the flanges of an I-beam
(S = 1800 cm 3, overall depth = 467.4 mm). Find the plastic moment of
the combined section, assuming a yield stress of 275 N/mm2.
2.2. Show that the plastic moduli for bending about the y- and z-axes of the
channel section in figure 2.23 are
S = 5D 2 t for bending about the y-axis
S = 1.75D2 t for bending about the z-axis
2.3. Find the plastic moment of the section shown in figure 2.24. Assume the
yield stress is 350 N/mm 2 .
2.4. Find the plastic moments of
(a) a solid circular section, diameter D, bending about a diameter;
Plastic Bending 37
20 y ......
___ I
+----
0» t
LU
Figure 2.23
o
n30
220
All dimensions in mm
Figure 2.24
(b) a thin-walled square section, side length d, thickness t (d » t),

bending about an axis parallel to two sides;
(c) the same section as in (b), bending about a diagonal;
(d) a thin-walled equilateral triangle section, side length a, thickness
t (a » t), bending about an axis parallel to one side.
2.5. Derive the expressions in equations 2.17 and 2.19 for the reduced plastic
moment, due to an axial force, of the I-beam in figure 2.10. Derive also
the corresponding expressions for bending about the z-axis.
The beam 533 x 210 VB 122 has the properties:
D = 544.6mm t= 12.8 mm
B = 211.9 mm T = 21.3 mm
A = 155.8 cm2 O"y = 265 Njmm 2
S = 3202 cm3 for bending about the y-axis
S = 500.6 cm3 for bending about the z-axis
Find the reduced plastic moments when it carries axial forces of 1150 kN
and 2300 kN.
3 Collapse of Simple Frames
3.1 Introduction
It was shown in the previous chapter that the formation of a plastic hinge in a
framed structure is equivalent to a member yielding in a truss. The purpose of
the first part of this chapter is to show what happens in a frame as the load is in-
creased until failure occurs. This means going through an example in the same
way as in Chapter 1. This example will also be used to illustrate some important
theorems which are essential to plastic analysis.
The second part of the chapter introduces two powerful methods for deter-
mining the collapse loads of beams and portal frames.
3.2 The Behaviour of a Portal Frame Under Increasing Load

A portal frame is shown in figure 3.1, carrying loads AV and AH. The relative
magnitudes are determined by Vand H, the absolute magnitudes by the load
WkN
AHkN---'~======~==============~
Mp constant = 100 kN m
EI constant = 10 000 kN m 2
5m
.1. 10 m
Figure 3.1
39
~
0
Comment Effective structure Change in BMs (kN m) Total BMs (kM m)
• Plastic hinas
Stage 1
Whole structure
elastic until plastic C D
hinge forms at E ~ ~ I 82.7 ~
~ ~ 1.14 2.57 44.4
A
100
~
....
(:;.
A= 39.0
~
Stage 2 So
0.14
Effective structure t :0: ~
has frictionless hinge 2.47
31 ~
....
at E, second plastic 100 ~
2.81
d,3' 1
hinge forms at C 64.2
0 Frictionless hinge x change in load factor A = 46.0
1 1 J It
~
;:s
~
Stage 3
Effective structure ~4.04 g
;:s
0 (")
has frictionless hinges ')- iil
at C and E, third plastic ~
100
hinge forms at D ~ ~ 3.94 0
x change in load factor
, 31 66.8
A =46.7
100 ~
~
(")
....
;:
Stage 4 I ~I'\ ~ .A 1nn I iil
0..,
5~
Frictionless hinges t
at C, D and E, fourth
plastic hinge forms j
at A, structure collapses 10 100
x change in load factor 100
1 1 1 A = 50
Figure 3.2
Col/apse of Simple Frames 41
factor),. Assume initially that V = H = 1.0 kN. The behaviour of the frame, as
), is increased, is summarised in figure 3.2.
Initially the frame is elastic everywhere, and an elastic analysis gives a bend-
ing moment diagram (BMD) as shown in stage 1. (The stiffness method and a
small computer were used for the analysis.) When), = 39.0 the largest bending
moment (BM), at the foot of the right-hand column (point E), becomes equal
to the plastic moment and a plastic hinge forms. Of course, the whole structure
apart from E is still elastic and remains so when ), is increased above 39.0.
When), is increased, E behaves like a hinge in that it can rotate freely, but the
BM at E must remain equal to the plastic moment.
Stage 2 shows the effective structure which resists the loads when ), is in-
creased above 39.0. It is simply the original frame with a frictionless hinge at
E. This structure can be analysed by the same elastic method as in stage 1. The
result of the analysis is the change in BMs. To get the total moments it is neces-
sary to add the change in BMs to the BMs when), = 39.0. (Notice that the fric-
tionless hinge at E ensures that the change in BM at E is zero, so that the total
moment remains equal to the plastic moment.) The maximum moment is un-
der the vertical load, point C:
Me = 82.7 + 2.47),' kNm
where X = change in ),. This moment becomes equal to the plastic moment
(100 kN m) when X = 7.0 and), = 46.0.
As stage 3 indicates, from now on there are two hinges in the effective struc-
ture, but it can still be analysed elastically. Very rapidly, however, a further
hinge forms at D when), = 46.7.
It is worth noting two points about the total BMs shown in the right-hand
column of figure 3.2:
(1) The distribution of BMs is in equilibrium with the applied loads (equili-
brium is one of the fundamental requirements of the stiffness method).
This is the equilibrium condition.
(2) The BMs nowhere exceed the plastic moment of the members (inspec-
tion of the total BMs at each stage shows this). This is called the yield
condition.
The process can be continued as in stage 4 with three frictionless hinges, un-
til at ), = 50, a fourth plastic hinge forms. Any attempt to continue the process
using an effective structure with four frictionless hinges is impossible, since
the equations become singular and cannot be solved. In fact, the structure be-
comes a mechanism and is on the point of collapse when the fourth hinge
forms. The BMD at this point, see stage 4, satisfies the equilibrium and yield
conditions, and in addition:
(3) There are sufficient plastic hinges for the structure to become a mechan-
ism. This is called the mechanism condition.
A A
50 0- - -
40
30 v= H= 1 kNI
Vertical deflection, 0
20
10
"------'-------'--------'------'---~ 0 (mm)
o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Figure 3.3
The load factor at which the structure is changed into a mechanism is called
the collapse loadfactor, -Xc.
The stiffness method was particularly convenient for the analysis because it
also gave the deflections of the structure. The horizontal deflection at the top
of the columns and the vertical deflection under the vertical load are plotted
in figure 3.3 against the load factor A. The shape of the graphs is very similar
to the load-deflection graph of the truss in figure 1.13, showing a sudden reduc-
tion in slope (stiffness) as each hinge forms, until at collapse the slope is zero.
There are other similarities to the truss. The number of hinges at collapse is
one more than the degree of redundancy of the frame (four hinges at collapse,
and the test in Appendix B shows that the degree of redundancy is 3). The for-
mation of a new hinge causes a drop in the stiffness of the frame and the re-
moval of one degree of redundancy. Comparison of the BM values at the end
ofeach stage reveals considerable redistribution.
As collapse develops, the bending moment distribution remains the same as
at the point of collapse, while the deflections remain 'small' . (Obviously, if the
moment at a plastic hinge were to get smaller, the hinge and mechanism would
cease to exist!) The way collapse develops is shown in figure 3.4. When the
Figure 3.4
beam '\\\a
m dd portal
frame
combined
Figure 3.5 Collapse mechanisms for model steel portalframes.
hinge rotations are small, the shape of the structure is only slightly altered, but
with large rotations the shape is completely different.
This theoretical behaviour is confirmed by experiments. Figure 3.5 shows
three model portal frames which have been tested with various combinations
of loading. The loadings have caused different collapse mechanisms but the
plastic hinges can clearly be seen in each case.
The mechanism in stage 4 of figure 3.2 is the actual collapse mechanism of
the structure. It should be possible to guess some other mechanism and work
backwards to find the value of A at which it would occur. Consider the mechan-
ism in figure 3.6a. It has the same number of hinges, but one is in a different po-
sition. Using the method in Appendix C, the BMD in the columns is as shown
in figure 3.6b. The horizontal reaction at the foot of both columns is
H = 100 + 100 = 40 kN
5
So that for horizontal equilibrium
A = 40 +40 = 80
This means that the mechanism would occur at a load factor A = 80, which
is higher than the true collapse load factor. When the BMD for this mechan-
ism is completed as in figure 3.6c, there are BMs greater than the plastic mo-
ment. This guessed mechanism is obviously wrong, but its corresponding
BMD still satisfies the equilibrium and mechanism conditions. This turns out
to be true for any guessed mechanism. The value of Afound for the guessed me-
chanism is called an upper bound to Ac. It is important to realise that equili-
brium is satisfied even in a mechanism that gives an upper bound to Ac.
44 Plastic Methodsfor Steel and Concrete Structures
UN
I,
100 100
L
AkN -;~~--~----------.
100 100
(a)
300
(e)
Figure 3.6
3.3 The Theorems of Plastic Analysis

The information about the three conditions from the previous section is sum-
marised below, where the arrows indicate conditions which have been satis-
fied:
~Yield conditions ( A < >'c (lower bound)

>. = >'c ~Equilibrium conditione
~Mechanism condition ( >. > >'c (upper bound)
It can be proved [4] that the three situations are always true, and they have been
embodied in the three essential theorems of plastic analysis.
3.3.1 Lower Bound Theorem

If, in a structure subjected to loading defined by a positive load factor>., a BM
distribution satisfYing the equilibrium and yield conditions can be found, then
>. is less than, or equal to, the collapse load factor >'c. In this case the value of A
is a lower bound to Ac (that is an estimate which is smaller than Ac).
3.3.2 Upper Bound Theorem

If, in a structure subjected to loading defined by a positive load factor>., a BM
distribution satisfYing the equilibrium and mechanism conditions can be
Collapse ofSimple Frames 45
found, then A is greater than, or equal to, the collapse load factor -Xc. Now the
value of A is an upper bound to -Xc (that is an estimate which is larger than -Xc).
3.3.3 Uniqueness Theorem

If a structure is subjected to loading, defined by a positive load factor A, and a
BM distribution that satisfies all three conditions can be found, then A = -Xc.
It is impossible to obtain a BM distribution at any other load factor that satis-
fies all three conditions simultaneously.
The theorems are less restrictive than they appear. The description of each
theorem states 'a BM distribution .. :. This was deliberate and does mean any
set of bending moments. Hence, BMs do not always have to be calculated but
can have values assigned to them, for example at the supports. The remaining
values are then found from equilibrium. This can be very useful in complicated
structures.
The objective of plastic analysis is to find collapse loads or load factors. The
hand calculations for this are straightforward, involving ideas about geometry.
It is much more important to understand the behaviour ofthe structure as it col-
lapses. The rest ofthis chapter and part ofthe next are devoted to these hand cal-
culation methods which are based on the theorems presented in this section.
3.4 The Number of Hinges Required in a Mechanism

As shown in section 3.2 and also at length in Chapter 1, generally the number
of hinges, n, in a collapse mechanism is one more than the degree of redun-
dancy, r:
n=r+l (3.1)
This is a useful guide to make sure that a mechanism has been created. Unfor-
tunately, there are two exceptions to this rule which must be identified.
The frame in figure 3.1 has been re-analysed for the loadings H = 0.5, V = 3
and H = 4, V = 1. The results are presented in figures 3.7 and 3.8 respectively.
In both cases Ac = 20.0. In the first example there are only three plastic hinges
3lkN
0.5A kN -t~-----'L...-------,
25 75
A= 20
Figure 3.7
AkN
4AkN ---1~-----L------,
100 100
A= 20
Figure 3.8
at collapse, one less than required by equation 3.1. This is called partial collapse,
and is what happens in the structure. In the example the beam has failed pre-
maturely. In the second example there are five hinges at collapse, the last two
forming simultaneously. This is called over-collapse.
3.5 Free and Reactant BM Method for Finding Collapse Loads

This method is mainly applied to beams, where the BMs at collapse can be
written down using some simple rules. The method will be illustrated by a
series of examples. Each example will bring out a further aspect of the method.
It is therefore recommended that the reader works through the examples in
order.
3.5.1 Simply Supported Beam

A simply supported beam with a central point load is shown in figure 3.9a. It
is determinate, so only one plastic hinge is required for collapse. This hinge
forms at the point of maximum BM to give the mechanism in figure 19b.
W
~
• ii
I.. U2 U2 .. I
(a) Beam
•
(b) Mechanism (c) BMD
Figure 3.9
Col/apse ofSimple Frames 47
Hence collapse occurs when the maximum BM equals the plastic moment of
the beam:
WcL _ M
4 - p
w: _ 4Mp
c- L (3.2)
3.5.2 Beam with Fixed Ends

A beam with fixed ends and carrying a point load is shown in figure 3.10a. Fig-
ure 3.10b shows the BMD for elastic behaviour. The largest moment, Wab 2 / L 2,
occurs at A. It would be possible to follow through the behaviour (as in section
3.2) by inserting a hinge first at A, and then at other points when the BM be-
comes equal to the plastic moment. This process would give a BMD at collapse
and a collapse mechanism as in figure 3.11, when We = 2MpL/ abo
It is possible to draw the collapse mechanism and BMD without any analy-
sis by using the following rules:
Rule 1: In general, hinges form at restrained ends of beams (points A and B in
figure 3.10).
Rule 2: Hinges form under point loads (point C in figure 3.10).
Even at the point of collapse, the BMD is made up from the reactant and
free BMDs (see Appendix C). These are shown in figure 3.11a, b for the fixed
beam. The geometry of the BMD at collapse (figure 3.11d) gives the collapse
load:
Mp + Mp Weab/L
Actual Reactant
BMunder BMat
point point
load load
Watl
L2 Wib
W
L2
IA tc BI
I: • .I"
(a) Beam
L
b
:1
(b) Elastic BMs
Figure 3.10
Mp
(b) Reactant BMD

(a) Free BMD
a.
~ Wab
L
~
Mp
(c) Collapse mechanism (d) Actual BMD at collapse
Figure 3.11
that is
We = 2MpL (3.3)
ab
This can be extended to other problems with only some complication in the
BMD geometry, as illustrated in the next example.
3.5.3 Propped Cantilever

A propped cantilever with point load is shown in figure 3.l2a. Using rules 1
and 2 of section 3.5.2, there are plastic hinges at A and C in the collapse
mechanism (figure 3.l2b). However there is a simple support at B which means
I~A=====t==1===l. C
I: a L ..
(a)
b :1
WeBb
L
Mp
(b) Collapse mechanism (c) BMD at collapse
Figure 3.12
Collapse of Simple Frames 49
there is a hinge at B with zero BM. The collapse BMD (figure 3.12c) can now be
drawn.
Since this is made up of the free and reactant BMDs, the geometry gives
bMp We ab
+ L L
ActualBM ReactantBM FreeBM
underload underload underload
We = Mp(L+b) (3.4)
ab
The only difference between this and the previous example is the need to use si-
milar triangles to find the reactant BM under the load.
3.5.4 Continuous Beam

Continuous beams can be analysed in a similar way. There are two further
points to consider. Firstly, each span may have a different section and thus plas-
tic moment. At a support between spans, the BM is the same on both sides of
the support. Thus, when a plastic hinge forms at a support, the value of the
BM at that support is decided by
Rule 3: At a support, the plastic hinge forms at the plastic moment of the
weaker member.
Secondly, it is unlikely that every span will fail simultaneously. Each span
must be checked individually. The span (or spans) with the lowest collapse
load determines the collapse of the whole beam. This is a good example of par-
tial collapse.
A continuous beam and its BMD at collapse are shown in figure 3.13. The plas-
tic hinges under the point loads are not shown, since not all of them will have
formed when collapse occurs. Each span must be checked in turn for collapse.
If spans AB and CD collapse first, the BMD at collapse will be as in figure
3.14. The problem is identical to the propped cantilever in section 3.5.3:
We = 600(8 + 4) = 450kN
4x4
The collapse BMD for span BC is shown in figure 3.15. This is a very similar
problem to the fixed end beam. From the geometry of the BMD:
4.5 We = 600 + 900
We = 333kN
Obviously a mechanism forms first in span BC and collapse occurs when
We = 333 kN. The collapse BMD for the whole beam can now be completed.
It is shown in figure 3.16a. Notice that the moments under the point loads in
....I 6m
600 kN m 600 kN m
in weaker
member
(b) BMD at collapse
Figure 3.13
600 kN m
Span CD is mirror image
(a) Mechanism (b) BMD
Figure 3.14
600 kN m 600 kN m
(a) Mechanism (b)BMD
Figure 3.15
AB and CD are smaller than the plastic moment, because a mechanism only
forms in BC (figure 3.l6b).
3.5.5 Spans with Distributed Loads

In all the previous sections of this chapter, the beams have carried concen-
trated loads. In practice, loads are often distributed along the length of the
600 kN m 600 kN m
(a)
900 kN m
333kN 500 kN 333 kN
(b)
Figure 3.16
span. This makes things more difficult because the position of the plastic hinge
within the span can no longer be decided by applying a simple rule.
A typical span and collapse BMD are shown in figure 3.17a, b. The position
of the span hinge is not obvious. It occurs where the resultant BM is a maxi-
mum. The condition for this maximum is
dM = 0 (3.5)
dx
Using the relationship between BM (M) and shear force (N):
dM = N (3.6)
dx
Ifthe beam is cut atthe span hinge point, the free body diagrams in figure 3.17c de-
scribe the equilibrium of the beam. The magnitudes of all moments are known
and the shear force must be zero at the cut (from equations 3.5 and 3.6), thus the
only unknowns are We andx. Equilibrium ofthetwo rigid bodies will give enough
equations to find We and x. Taking moments about B for the right-hand section:
we x2
- -2-+2Mp +Mp =0
W~ = 3Mp (3.7)
Similarly for the left-hand section, taking moments about A:
we(L - X)2 _ 2Mp _ 2Mp = 0

2
we(L - x)2 = 4Mp (3.8)
2
A we/unit length B
2Mp
1;&1'""'"II"'' 'I' 'I"I::II"I'' I' ' ' '"llIIlIlIiil "I>
~ m
(a) I. L ~I
2Mp
(b)
We 2Mp
2Mp
~ +",:"'""'' ' ' "' '"' '"' '"1~ ~
VA VB
Figure 3.17
Substitution of equation 3.7 in equation 3.8 gives
We can be cancelled out and the equation rearranged in the form:
3(L-xf =4~
3(L2 - 2xL +~) = 4~
x 2 + 6xL - 3L2 = 0
The solution ofthis quadratic equation is
x = (-3 ± 2V3)L
The positive root gives the position of the span hinge:
x = (-3 ± 2V3)L = 0.464L

This can be substituted back into equation 3.7 to give
27.86Mp
We = L2
This example can be generalised to any value of plastic moment at the ends
of the member. In a propped cantilever, the reactant moment at one end would
be zero. Of course, the example above should not be followed blindly. When
the reactant moments at each end of the span are equal, the maximum span
moment, by symmetry, will be at mid-span and the approach given for point
loads can be used.
3.6 The Virtual Work Method for Finding Collapse Loads

The analysis of a frame must cover other possibilities than just the analysis of a
beam. The frame may collapse by being pushed sideways (sway) by horizontal
forces, an individual beam may fail owing to vertical loads, or there may be
some combination of both. The free and reactant BM method relies on being
able to decide the mechanism and BMD at collapse, which can be more diffi-
cult in a frame.
The method of determining collapse loads based on the principle of virtual
work has proved to be a powerful tool for beams and frames. The method is
based on two premises.
(1) When a framed structure collapses, all deformation of the structure oc-
curs by rotation at the plastic hinges, the simple supports and internal pin
connections (this is what happens in tests).
(2) The principle of virtual work can be applied to these deformations.
Figure 3.18a shows the frame used in section 3.2 at the point of collapse,
when the last hinge has just formed but no rotation has occurred. Apply an in-
finitely small horizontal displacement to the top of the left-hand column; as-
suming no axial shortening of any members, the structure will deflect as in
figure 3.18b, although the infinitely small deflections and rotations are greatly
exaggerated.
The deflections and rotations can be thought of as virtual displacements, so
that
external (virtual) work, done by = H ~ + V8
the applied loads
=LW8
over all loads
internal (virtual) work, absorbed

=Mp
()
+ 2Mp (() +a ) + M p ()
by rotation of the plastic hinges ~
= ~Mp()
over all plastic hinges
V
H
2Mp
Mp Mp
~ ~
(a)
al r-
fl.
(b)
Figure 3.18
since the only distortions of the structure are virtual rotations at the hinge
points. Work has units of force times distance (for example, kN m). The exter-
nal work is obviously force multiplied by distance. A moment does work when
it is rotated through an angle, and the magnitude of the work is the moment
(say, kN m) multiplied by the angle (radians). The units of the work done by
the moment are then consistent.
At the point of collapse the structure is in equilibrium, so that from the prin-
ciple of virtual work
external (virtual) work = internal (virtual) work
that is
(3.9)
over over
all all
loads hinges
corresponding
L
plastic moment corresponding
L force x
virtual displacement
in the direction
= at each plastic x virtual
hinge rotation
of the force
There is usually a simple relationship between the values of {) and e from the
geometry of the virtual displacements, so that the loading W can be found in
terms of the plastic moments Mp.
Equation 3.9 is called the work equation. In addition to premises (1) and (2)
previously stated, there are two other assumptions that are implicit in the
work equation. During collapse all deformation occurs at the plastic hinges.
In order to maintain the mechanism the BM cannot drop below the plastic mo-
ment at each plastic hinge, nor is it physically possible for it to increase above
that value. In addition, the loads remain constant as collapse occurs. Hence
the additional assumptions are:
(3) At collapse the BMs remain constant as the structure deforms.

(4) All axial load effects are ignored.
Therefore, as well as ignoring axial shortening, premature failure due to

buckling is also ignored. This point will be considered in more detail in
Chapter 5.
This section has only given the bare bones of the virtual work method.
Its practical application is best illustrated by some worked examples.
There are four examples given, each one introducing a further aspect of the
method.
3.6.1 Fixed-End Beam (again)

It is worth repeating this example because it illustrates clearly the solution
procedure using the virtual work method.
Problem:
Wc
I t I
I: a .I. L
b
:1
Stagel
Collapse mechanism:
-Mp (hogging) -Mp (hogging)

• •
+Mp (sagging)
•
Following the rules, plastic hinges form at both ends and under the load.
Stage 2
Impose virtual plastic rotations at the hinges:
Note the signs of the rotations. If the rotation is caused by a positive (sagging)
moment then it is positive.
Stage 3
Virtual work done by external load (external work) is
We X 0 (= load x virtual distance moved)
Stage 4
Virtual work absorbed by hinge rotation (internal work) is
-Mp x -() + Mp((} + ¢) + -Mp x -¢ = 2Mp((} + ¢)
It can be seen that the sign of the moments and rotations is immaterial- work
absorbed is positive. Hence no sign convention is required.
Stage 5
Geometry of the mechanism:
The diagram shows the left-hand half of the beam. Since all deformation oc-
curs by plastic rotation, the beam remains straight between the hinges. Since ()
and ¢ are infinitely small angles, tan () = () and tan ¢ = ¢:
o=atan(}=a(}
o=btan¢=b¢
a(} = b¢
¢= f!.(}
b
Stage 6
Impose equilibrium and the geometry of the mechanism:
v
H
Mp same in all members
Ll2 Ll2
Figure 3.19
work done = work absorbed

WeD = 2Mp(0 + ¢)
WeaO = 2Mp( 1 + ~)O
We aO = 2Mp (a+b) 0
b
W e =2MpL
ab
since (a + b) = L. As is to be expected, the magnitude of the virtual rotations

(0 and ¢) cancels from the equations. This is identical to the solution obtained
in section 3.5.2 using the free and reaction bending moment method. It is
reassuring to find that the two methods give the same results.
There is no need to set out the calculations stage by stage. It was only done in
this example to show the reasoning process required in finding the collapse
load.
3.6.2 Portal Frame with Pinned Feet

As can be seen in figure 3.19, there are now horizontal and vertical forces acting
on the structure. This means that stage 1, deciding on the collapse mechanism,
presents problems, because there are various possibilities for the mechanism.
In fact, a separate calculation is required for each mechanism.
3.6.2.1 Beam Col/apse

In this case, collapse is caused by the action of the vertical force alone. The
plastic hinges and imposed rotations are shown in figure 3.20. The hinge posi-
tions follow the rules given earlier in section 3.5.2 because the ends of the
Vc
Figure 3.20
beam are restrained by the connections to the columns. The calculation is si-
milar to the previous example:
(3.10)
or
(3.11 )
Notice that the tops of the columns are assumed to remain stationary so that
the horizontal force does no work. However, the horizontal force does not
have to be zero.
3.6.2.2 Sway Collapse

Collapse is caused by the horizontal force alone, and the structure is pushed
sideways (figure 3.21). The mechanism forms when there are plastic hinges at
the top of both columns. The hinges at the feet of the columns are free to rotate
and are unable to absorb any work. (This sort of hinge is built into the frame
and is assumed to be frictionless, so that it offers no resistance to rotation.)
Since all deformation occurs by hinge rotation, the beam will not change
length, and the top of each column moves sideways by the same (infinitely
Figure 3.21
small) distance. Since the columns are the same length, the hinge rotations are
the same in both:
external work = Hc!:l.
= Hcho.
internal work = 2Mp o.
For equilibrium
Hcho. = 2Mp o. (3.12)
so that at collapse
Hc h =2 (3.13)
Mp
In this mechanism, the vertical force does no work because the tops of the col-
umns are assumed to move sideways but not downwards.
3.6.2.3 Combined Beam and Sway Col/apse

This would seem to be a fairly obvious possibility, but does it have any signifi-
cance? In fact, it is only significant in the special case when the basic virtual ro-
tation is the same in the beam and sway mechanisms, that is, () = a.. What
happens is shown in figure 3.22.
The rotation of the left-hand column and the left-hand end of the beam are
such that the members remain at right-angles to each other where they connect
together. This means that there has been no plastic rotation at that point, so
9 9
9 9
+
Beam Sway
9 9
Combined
Figure 3.22
that the plastic hinge (and its work-absorbing capacity) at the left-hand beam-
column intersection is removed from the beam and sway mechanisms. The
work equation for the combined collapse mechanism is obtained by adding
the work equations (equations 3.10 and 3.12) for the beam and sway collapse,
and then subtracting, from the internal work, the work done by the hinge which
disappears. Thus
VeLO
MpO - MpO
2
(beam) (sway)
external external internal work, internal internal work

work, beam + work, sway = beam + work, sway - at hinge which
mechanism mechanism mechanism mechanism disappears
that is
Ve LO + HeM = 4MpO (3.14)
2
! VeL + He h =4 (3.15)
2Mp Mp
The concept of combining mechanisms to remove plastic hinges is very impor-
tant and must be thoroughly understood. It can be used for analysing more
complicated structures, as will be seen in the next chapter.
3.6.2.4 Which is the 'Most Likely'Mechanism?

This is a difficult question to answer, because the actual collapse mechanism
depends on the relative values of the forces H and V. Equations 3.11, 3.13 and
VL
Mp
3.13
8 ::---------r-------.,--- 3.11
6
V< ~
L ,frame safe,
4 against beam mechanism
region
,
2 /' (nh L)
J?f '.-- Mp' Mp
Hh
0 2 3 4 Mp
Figure 3.23
3.15 determine the loads at which the mechanisms form. They can be plotted on
a graph with axes VL/ Mp and Hh/ M p, as shown in figure 3.23, and represent
three straight lines. The graph is called an interaction diagram (ID).
The interaction diagram gives much information about the frame. Equation
3.11 states that beam collapse will occur when VL/ Mp = 8. If V is less than
8Mp / L, the frame is safe against beam failure. Similar arguments can be used
for the other mechanisms, and the arrows in the ID indicate safety. The shaded
area, called the permissible region (PR), indicates combinations of Vand H
that are safe against collapse by any of the possible mechanisms. If Vand H
are such that the corresponding point lies on the boundary of the PR, then col-
lapse will occur. In this case, the boundary is made up of the sloping line (equa-
tion 3.15) representing the combined mechanism and the vertical line
(equation 3.13) representing sway.
The point on the boundary of the PR where equations 3.13 and 3.15 intersect,
point (2, 4), represents over-collapse because the sway and combined mechan-
isms will form simultaneously. Similarly, the point (0, 8) represents over-col-
lapse with the beam and combined mechanisms.
Suppose the forces are in the ratio VlH = lin. How will the frame collapse?
Assume that V = 1, so that H = n. Plot on the ID the point (nh/ M p, L/ Mp).
The point at which the line through the origin and (nh/ M p, L/ Mp) cuts the
boundary of the PR gives the collapse mechanism (combined, as shown)
and the values of V and H at collapse (as shown, V = 4.75Mp /L and
H = 1.625Mp /h).
The axes of the ID need not be the quantities used in this example; the most
convenient values should be used. An alternative is shown in the next section.
3.6.3 Fixed Foot Portal Frame

Apart from the fixed feet, the major differences between this and the
previous example are the more complicated geometry and different plastic
v
H
400 kN m
200kN m
Sm 200kN~\ /
Plastic moments
4m 6m
Figure 3.24
moments for the members (figure 3.24). These must be accounted for in the
calculations.
(a) Beam Mechanism

The geometry of the mechanism requires
8=40=6a
that is
2
a =-0
3
At a connection between two members, the plastic hinge forms at a BM equal

to the plastic moment of the weaker member. The work equation is thus
Vb = 2000 + 400(0 + a) + 200a

= 600(0+ a)
substituting for 8 and a gives
that is
V= 250kN (3.16)
(b) Sway Mechanism

For this mechanism there must be plastic hinges at the top and bottom of each
column. The tops of the columns move sideways by the same amount, so there
must be different rotations in each column. The geometry requires
.6. = 5(} = 3(3
that is
(3=~()
3
The work equation is
H.6. = 2 x 200(}+2 x 200(3
H x 5(} = 400 ( 1 + D()

H = 213.3kN (3.17)
(c) Combined Mechanism
The work equation is
V x 4() + H x 5(} = 600 ( 1 + D()+ 400 ( 1 + D() -2 x 200()
that is
4V + 5H = 1666.7 (3.18)
Equations 3.16 to 3.18 can now be used to draw the ID for this example (figure
3.25). In this case it is natural to use Vand H as the axes.
What will be the mode of collapse when V = 1.25H ? Let H = 100 kN, so that
V = 125 kN, and plot this point on the ID. The ID shows that collapse will be
by the combined mechanism when H = 166.7 kN, V = 208.5 kN. The BMD at
collapse for this combination ofloads can now be drawn (see Appendix C for
the method).
The support reactions corresponding to the BMD are also shown (figure
3.26). The vertical reactions are equal to the axial forces in the columns (108.3
kN and 100 kN) and the difference between the horizontal reactions (100 kN)
V(kN)
400
300
3.16
200 .--"'j-'-'Ull."........ by combined
100
'---i.......>.----'---"'----I~ H (kN)
o 100 200 300 400 500
Figure 3.25
200
108.3
Figure 3.26
is the axial force in the beam. As was shown in section 2.6.1, the axial forces will
reduce the effective plastic moment of each member. The effect of these reduc-
tions can be found by repeating the work equations using the smaller plastic
moments. The effect is a reduction in the values of H and Vat collapse. There
would, of course, be a comparable reduction in the member forces! A cyclic si-
tuation is set up, but convergence is rapid. To find the changes in effective plas-
tic moments, information about the member geometries must be available. In
this example the plastic moments were based on two universal beam sections,
457 x 152 VB 67 and 305 x 165 VB 46 whose properties are given in reference
[3]. The modest axial forces reduce the plastic moments to 399 kN and
V = 206.9 kN. The reduction in collapse load is only 0.7 per cent. In this case,
and for most practical single-storey frames, the axial forces have negligible ef-
fect, but in a multi-storey frame where the axial forces in the lower columns
can be very large, the reduction in collapse load can be significant.
There is another way of thinking about the collapse mechanisms. It was
shown (equation 3.1) that the number of hinges in a mechanism is normally
one more than the degree of redundancy. The degree of redundancy of the fixed
foot portal frame was three, so that four plastic hinges were needed to form a
mechanism. There are five possible positions where hinges could form (at the
top and bottom of each column and under the vertical load), and five possible
(a)
x
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
~
Figure 3.27
ways that the four hinges could be arranged as shown in figure 3.27. Also shown
are the possible deformations of the mechanisms with the applied loads.
It can be seen that (b) is the sway mechanism and (d) is the combined me-
chanism. In (a) and (c) the plastic hinge marked X does not rotate, so that
ignoring that hinge would not change the internal work. However, ifthat hinge
is ignored, both mechanisms become the beam mechanism. This shows why
the beam mechanism is an example of under-collapse, since it occurs when a
hinge is ignored in a mechanism with the normal number of hinges. Finally,
consider mechanism (e). In order to accommodate the rotations of the me-
chanism, the point of application of the vertical load has to move upwards.
Since the vertical load is acting downwards it is resisting this upwards move-
ment. Another way oflooking at this is that the vertical load has to do negative
work because it moves in the opposite direction to which it is acting. This is
highly unlikely (as will be shown mathematically in the next chapter) and
therefore it was not necessary to consider mechanism (e) in this example.
Incidentally, it would also be possible for (b) and (d) to move to the left rather
than to the right as shown. If that were to happen, the horizontal force would
have to do negative work. Again this is so unlikely that the possibility can be
safely ignored.
Thus in the example only the three likely mechanisms, the beam, sway and
combined mechanisms, were considered. If the work equation was calculated
for all the theoretically possible mechanisms, it would be seen that when the re-
sulting equations were plotted on the interaction diagram, the lines corre-
sponding to many of the mechanisms would lie outside the permissible region,
indicating that the mechanisms were not critical.
3.6.4 Pitched Portal Frame

A typical symmetric pitched portal frame is shown in figure 3.28. This is a very
common method of construction for factory or warehouse structures. The raf-
ters allow rainwater to run off, but more importantly they allow large clear
spans. The analysis of this type of structure is more complicated than the rec-
tangular portal frame. The complication occurs because the normal beam me-
chanism cannot develop in the sloping rafters.
Figure 3.29a shows the hinges required for the beam mechanism. However,
if the rafter AB rotates about A, as in figure 3.29b, point B moves vertically
and horizontally:
8h = AB' cos(o: - (}) - AB cos 0:

since AB' = AB = I:
8h = I cos 0: cos (} + i sin 0: sin (} - I cos 0:

For small angles, cos (} = 1, sin (} = (}, and therefore
kh
Figure 3.28
8h = I cos 0: + (l sin o:)(} -I cos 0: (3.19)

= (l sin o:)(}
= kh(} (3.20)
Similarly:
8v = AB sin 0: - AB' sin( 0: - (})
= I sin 0: - I sin 0: cos (} + I cos 0: sin (}
= (l cos o:)(} (3.21 )
= ~(}
2
Equations 3.20 and 3.21 give the horizontal and vertical deflections of B in
terms of the plastic rotation (}.
a a-8
(a) (b)
Figure 3.19
v v
kh9 2kh9
1r ;1r
(b)
9
9 • 9
v ~ ~ v
2kh9
1 rf12
(c)
JL kh9
Mirror images of (b), (c) and (d) are possible
Figure 3.30
The horizontal deflection is the vertical projection of AB multiplied by the

plastic rotation and, similarly, the vertical deflection is the horizontal projec-
tion of AB multiplied by the plastic rotation. Hence the vertical deflection
must be identical to the deflection of a beam of the same span. There is a simi-
1ar effect in rafter Be In order that a beam type of mechanism can occur,
points A and C must move apart by a distance of 2kh(}. The only way that this
can happen is for extra hinges to form in the columns. The various possibilities
are shown in figure 3.30. The internal work is the same in each case.
Using pattern (b) and the plastic moments in figure 3.28 as an example
horizontal movement of C = 2khO = h¢
that is
¢ = 2k(}
internal work = Mp(} + 3Mp x 2(} + Mp((} + ¢) + Mp¢
(hinge at A) (hinge at B) (hinge at C) (hinge at D)
= 8Mp(} + 2Mp¢
and substituting for ¢ gives

internal work = 4Mp(2 + k)(}
(c) and (d) are obviously identical- the reader should check pattern (a). There is
another major difference between this and the beam mechanism: this is in the
external work, which is different for cases (a) to (d):
cases (a), (b) external work = VLfJ/2 (same as beam mechanism)
case (c) external work = VL() /2 + H2 x 2kh()
case (d) external work = VLO/2 + H3 x kh()
Depending on the position of the horizontal forces, it is possible for both verti-
cal and horizontal forces to do work in this mechanism.
In fact, the horizontal forces determine which pattern will occur. Thus (a)
can only occur in the absence of horizontal forces (and when the frame itself is
completely symmetric). Pattern (b) occurs because Hi is propping A in posi-
tion, (c) and (d) because H2 and H3 are pulling C and B respectively sideways.
There is a more rigorous explanation based on the principle of conservation
of energy which the reader may like to work out.
Equation 3.l9 relates the horizontal movement in a sloping member to its
plastic rotation. In a rectangular frame, angle a is zero (that is, the beam is hor-
izontal) so that there is no horizontal movement. The extra internal work re-
sulting from the spread of the columns in a pitched portal represents extra
strength over a rectangular portal of similar span, and accounts for the success
of the pitched portal frame.
It is worth pointing out that the conclusion in the previous paragraph that
there is no horizontal movement from the plastic rotation of horizontal mem-
bers justifies the assumption made in the earlier examples on rectangular por-
tal frames that the horizontal force does no work in the beam mechanism.
The pitched portal frame in the example has a degree of redundancy of 3, so
that four hinges are needed in a mechanism. There are five possible hinge posi-
tions and thus five possible mechanisms. It is left to the reader to show why the
three mechanisms chosen are the critical ones.
So far this section has been concerned with symmetric pitched portal
frames. Asymmetric frames can be treated in almost the same way, as is shown
in the following example.
The frame to be analysed is shown in figure 3.31. It is required to find the value
of the load factor >. when collapse occurs. This frame is also three degrees re-
200.tkN
Sm
2m
SO.tkN
--I-~SO.tkN
4m
2S0 kN m
A
6m
Figure 3.31
70 Plastic Methods/or Steel and Concrete Structures
V
H--'---
Vdoes less
work
(a) (b) (c)
Similar to
pitched portal
but Vdoes
less work
(d) (e)
.--:-.... , ,
r
I
V does -ve work
)
I
I
(1) (g) (h)
Combined
iii
0)
\'
\
-
\
(k) (I) (m)

0,
'....,
r ---~
Internal work I
I becomes "
very large
lii
(n) (p) (q)
Figure 3.32
Collapse ofSimple Frames 71
dundant so that four hinges are required in a mechanism. There are six possible
hinge positions (A to F in figure 3.31) and the mechanism hinges can be ar-
ranged in fifteen ways, giving the mechanisms shown in figure 3.32. Mechan-
isms (c), (h) and (j) are the three mechanisms that must be considered, and (k)
and (n) degenerate by ignoring a non-rotating hinge into the beam mechanism
considered at the end of the example. Work out why the other mechanisms are
unlikely to occur and can be ignored in the calculations. The three important
mechanisms are the pitched portal (h), sway (c) and combined mechanism (j).
(1) Pitched Portal Mechanism
Following the usual rules, the hinge positions are as shown. There is apparently
o
p
a problem because of the kink in FeD. Equations 3.19 to 3.21 were derived for
a straight member. However, FeD does not change its shape in any way be-
cause all deformation is occurring at the hinges. The movement in FeD is
shown in figure 3.33. The horizontal and vertical deflections due to the plastic
rotation ¢ at Dare
8h = FD(sin a)¢ (3.22)
8v = FD(cos a)¢ (3.23)
which are the same as equations 3.19 and 3.21.
d
FD sin ex
-...... ......
--
.........................
...... 'I
;
--~::~
o
FD cos a
Figure 3.33
From the geometry of the frame in figure 3.31:
horizontal projection ofBF = 5 m
verticalprojectionofBFandFD = (5/6) x 2 = (5/3)m
horizontal projection of FD = 4 m
vertical projection of CD = 2 m
Using equations 3.19 to 3.23 and figure 3.33, the displacements of the loaded
points in the frame are
that is (~)o = ¢
also
~D = 4{3
so that
4{3 = C1)0
{3 = G~)o
(Remember that horizontal deflections are the product of the vertical projec-
tion of the member and the plastic rotation.) The work equation is
200.>.Ov + 30)'OhC + 50).~D = 2500 + 500(0 + ¢) + 250(¢ + {3) + 250{3
Substituting for ¢ and {3 gives
4900). = 8625
4 4
). = 1.76
(2) Sway Mechanism
Since deformation only occurs by plastic rotation at the hinges, B, C and D

must move sideways by the same amount:
(50 + 30 + 50), x 40 = 4 x 250 x 0
520), = 1000
). = 1.92
(3) Combined Mechanism
(49:0 + 520),0 = 86;5 0 + 10000 - 5000
6980 ). _ 10625
-4- - - 4 -
). = 1.52
The calculations show that the combined mechanism will occur at the low-
est load factor. This mechanism is the critical one for the frame, and the corre-
sponding load factor (1.52 in this case) is the col/apse loadfactor.
Pitched portal frames need a certain amount of care and thought.
It is worthwhile finishing off this section by illustrating this. There is
in fact one other likely mechanism, a beam mechanism in the left-hand
rafter:
¢ C
-\:
F D
Points Band C do not move in this mechanism. BC acts as a beam and point F
moves normal to Be. From the geometry of the mechanism:
BF x 0 = FC x ¢
and
BF = 5/cosCi.
FC = l/cosCi.
so that
50 = ¢
and the work equation is
200,\ x 50 = 2500 + 500(0 + ¢) + 500¢

1000,\ = 250 + 500 x 6 + 500 x 5
,\ = 5.75
Notice the external work. The distance through which the load moves is 50 -
the vertical movement of F.
It is an unlikely mechanism in a pitched portal frame (as can be seen by the
high load factor) but the example also shows how to deal with the beam
mechanism in a frame such as the one in figure 3.34 where the beam is sloping.
V
Figure 3.34
3.6.5 Summary ofthe Virtual Work Method
The essential stages of the method are:
(1) IdentifY the possible collapse mechanisms, and impose virtual rotations
at the hinges.
(2) For each mechanism, use the geometry of the mechanism to find the rela-
tive magnitudes of the plastic rotations and the distances through which
the loads move.
(3) Set up the work equation for each mechanism. It should be possible to
cancel the magnitude ofthe virtual rotations.
(4) The final stage depends on what is required ofthe analysis:
(a) if loads are given in general terms (for example, Vand H), draw an
interaction diagram to describe the collapse behaviour of the
structure;
(b) if relative magnitudes of the various loads are given, calculate the
load factor (oX) for each mechanism. The actual collapse mechanism
has the lowest load factor.
3.7 Summary
The first part of the chapter brought together the material of the first two
chapters as applied to framed structures, and provided the essential background
to the theorems ofplastic analysis. These theorems are the bases for the methods
of finding collapse loads. The second part explained in detail the free and reac-
tant BM and virtual work methods. All that remains is to fit both methods into
their theoretical context, because that also shows up their limitations.
What has happened in the examples in this chapter? The first thing has been
to specifY the important collapse mechanisms and then to determine the loads
that cause the mechanisms. That is a direct application ofthe uniqueness theo-
rem. In the final example, the pitched portal frame, the upper bound theorem
was also used (unconsciously). The BMDs for each mechanism are shown in
figure 3.35. It can be seen that the pitched portal and sway mechanisms do not
satisfY the yield condition, confirming that they give upper bounds to the col-
lapse load factor. Only the BMD for the combined mechanism satisfies all
three conditions.
The limitation of both methods is that every possible mechanism has to
be examined. There are relatively few possibilities in each example in this
chapter, so this did not create any difficulty. More complicated frames can have
a very large number of possible mechanisms and it would be almost impossible
to draw each one, let alone calculate it. Since there is no guarantee that the
actual collapse mechanism will be found, the analyses as described cannot
be used. Effectively they are limited to beams and single-bay, single-storey
frames. There is a method called limit analysis, based on the virtual work
method, which gets round this problem. It is described in the next chapter.
,1.= 1.522 (al Combined
250 125
92.79 211.64
kN m units
250
(b) Sway
250 125
,1.= 1.923
145.3 239.3
(cl Pitcher portal
86.05 265.95
Figure 3.35
The other point to note is that, apart from the beam in section 3.5.5,
the examples were of structures with concentrated loads. Real structures
usually carry distributed loads and there is no straightforward rule for
finding the plastic hinge in the span. It forms at the point of maximum
BM, but that point is not easily defined with a distributed load. Again, it is
difficult to determine the exact collapse mechanism, and limit analysis must
be used.
Problems
3.1. Calculate the ultimate load of a propped cantilever, span L, carrying a
UDL of w per unit length. Assume the cantilever has a constant plastic
momentMp.
3.2. Calculate the collapse load of the continuous beam shown in figure 3.36.
Which is the critical span?
3.3. Draw the interaction diagram for collapse of the portal frame shown in
figure 3.37. Assume Vand H can vary independently of each other.
3.4. The pinned-foot portal frame in figure 3.38 carries vertical and horizon-
tal forces. If Mp is equal to 300 kN m, determine: (a) the critical collapse
mechanism, (b) the load factor against collapse, (c) the BMD at collapse.
3.5. Determine the value of A at collapse of the frame shown in figure 3.39.
Draw the BMD at collapse.
3.6. Find the interaction diagram for collapse of the pitched portal frame
shown in figure 3.40, assuming that Vand H can vary independently.
What are the collapse loads and mechanisms when V = H and V = 5H?
3WL 6WL
3L
.I.L.I. 2L
Figure 3.36
H
Mp constant
I.. L
.1. 2L
.1
Figure 3.37
270A kN
90AkN
5m
4m 4m
Figure 3.38
60AkN
6m
Figure 3.39
O.25L
H
~ constant
L L
Figure 3.40
w
Sm
7m
Figure 3.41
3.7. The pitched portal frame shown in figure 3.41 was originally designed to
carry a single vertical load 2 Wat the intersection of the rafters BC and
CD, the plastic moment Mp for the columns and rafters being equal.
The frame is to be redesigned for the loading shown in the figure. Find
the safe value of k if the plastic moment of the columns is now to be re-
duced to 75 per cent of its value in the original design.
4 Limit Analysis
4.1 Introduction
There are computer programs available which will follow the formation of the
plastic hinges and calculate the collapse load or load factor of the structure.
The design standards BS 5950 [2] and Eurocode 3 [6] almost assume that such
a program will be available when designing anything more than a single-storey
structure.
However, a hand method is also available which is not difficult to use and
makes use of ideas on geometry and how a structure actually behaves at col-
lapse. It is presented in this chapter, in some detail. The main limitation on the
method is that the loading must be proportional, so that the relative magni-
tudes of the individual loads remain constant and the absolute magnitude is
defined by a load factor A. A separate calculation can be carried out for each
combination ofloads.
The analysis proceeds as follows.
(1) Guess a collapse mechanism, and determine the load factor Au for the
mechanism. In general, this mechanism will not be the true collapse me-
chanism, so from the upper bound theorem
Au~Ac
The subscript u is used to indicate that the load factor is an upper bound
to the actual collapse load factor.
(2) Determine a BMD corresponding to Au and the assumed mechanism. If
Au is an upper bound, there will be points in the structure where the BMs
are greater than the plastic moment.
(3) Reduce the loads and BMs in the same proportion until all the BMs are
less than or equal to the plastic moment. This is achieved by reducing Au
to At. The BM at the original hinge points will now be less than the plastic
moment, so that the hinges and thus the mechanism no longer exist. This
means that at this stage the BMD satisfies the equilibrium and yield con-
ditions but not the mechanism condition. In these circumstances, the
lower bound theorem states that
80
Limit Analysis 81
)\f ::::; Ac
and the subscript £ is used to indicate that the load factor is a lower bound
to the actual collapse load factor.
(4) The value of Ac lies within the range
At ::::; Ac ::::; Au
It may well be that for practical purposes this range is small enough. If
not, then a new collapse mechanism can be selected and (1) to (4) re-
peated.
Step (3) can be confusing. When the original BMs are reduced in the same
proportion as the loads, they must remain in equilibrium with the loads and sa-
tisfy the yield condition. Hence the new load factor At meets the requirements
of the lower bound theorem. It is impossible for the revised BMs to be the
same as the BMs that would be found by analysis of the structure with loading
defined by At, because the revised BMs contain in some way the redistribution
caused by the plastic hinges which would not be present in an exact analysis.
This in no way invalidates the procedure. The lower bound theorem only re-
quires a distribution ofBMs that satisfies the equilibrium and yield conditions.
It does not require the BMs to be the actual ones caused by the loads.
This trial-and-error approach to homing in on the collapse mechanism is
called limit analysis. It can be illustrated by means of a propped cantilever
with a uniform loading, as in figure 4.la. Without any prior knowledge of this
Awlunit length
I') 1'((I(II)II(((II(((III)(()I)lIIIIIIII)IIII(II)I((I)IIIII(II)I(()lt Ib) e
A c
B
I~ L .. I Mp
(c)
x
t (d)
AwL + Mp AwL _ Mp
2 L 2 L
(e) (f)
24Mp Mp
25
Figure 4.1
problem, a reasonable assumption for the mechanism would be hinges at the
fixed support and mid-span, as in figure 4.1b.
The calculation of the external work for the distributed load needs some ex-
planation. Take the load on AB:
L
total load on AB = Au w x "2
The centre of gravity of the load on AB is half-way between A and B, a distance
of ~ from A. Hence the distance moved by the centre of gravity of the load
onAG
= !:. (}
4
The work done by the load on AB
= total load on AB x distance moved by the centre of gravity
L L
= Au W x "2 x 4(}
= Au wL2 (}
8
Since the loads on AB and Be are identical, the total external work
= 2 x Au wL2 (} = Au wL2 (}
8 4
Au wL2 (} = 3Mp(}
4
A = 12Mp (4.1 )
u wL2
From the reactions in figure 4.1c the SF at some general point x is
AuwL Mp
N = - -2- + -L+ Au wx
and the SF is zero when
A WXo = Au wL _ Mp
u 2 L
Substituting equation 4.1 gives
12Mpxo 6Mp Mp
L2 y-y
that is
5L
Xo =12 (4.2)
Limit Analysis 83
TheBMatxis
M = (Au2WL _ Mp)x
L
_ Au .x2
2
W
and the maximum BM can be found by substituting equations 4.1 and 4.2
M = (6Mp _ Mp) 5L _ 6Mp (5L)2

max L L 12 L2 12
25Mp _ 25Mp
12 24
25Mp
24
Mmax can be reduced to Mp by reducing Au to Ai where
A _ 24 12Mp
£ - 25 X WL2
(4.3)
11.52Mp
wL2
so that
11. 52Mp A 12Mp
-W-L---:2"""""" ~ c ~ -w-L-2-
This range is small enough, but the process could be continued. An obvious
choice of mechanism is hinges at the fixed support and at 5LI12 from the other
support, where the BM was greatest in the previous mechanism. The calcula-
tionsgive
A _ 11.55Mp
u - WL2
SF = 0 when Xo = 0.4142L, hence
Mmax = Mp (to 3 decimal places)
Ac = Au
The new mechanism is practically the actual collapse mechanism.
The reader should check these results. As well as illustrating the idea oflimit
analysis, this example shows that the error involved in assuming a hinge at
mid-span with distributed loading is not likely to be great (the error is 3 per
cent in the example, and the calculations for the second mechanism are longer
and harder for only a minimal increase in accuracy).
It is all very well guessing the collapse mechanism, but in a structure where
there may be more than twenty possible mechanisms it is a bit hit and miss.
However, the procedure can be given a more rational basis.
4.2 Elementary Mechanisms
The examples in Chapter 3 contained four types of collapse mechanism: the
beam, sway and pitched portal mechanisms, and some combination of these.
The beam, sway and pitched portal mechanisms with the joint rotation mechan-
ism are called elementary mechanisms. In larger structures, any mechanism
can be made up by combinations of elementary mechanisms.
The joint rotation mechanism can form at any joint where three or more
members meet. The mechanism occurs as in figure 4.2, with plastic hinges in
every member at the joint. Effectively, the joint itself can then rotate with re-
spect to the members. The mechanism can form without any external loading
at the joint, so that no work equation can be set up for the mechanism. How-
ever, if the mechanism forms in the three-member joint and the joint rotates, it
can be seen that the mechanism has internal work
= Mp() + Mp() + Mp()

= 3Mp()
The mechanism is perhaps a little difficult to envisage at this stage, but its use
will become more obvious later.
The elementary mechanisms are a convenient starting point for the analysis
of any frame, and there is a simple test to find the number of elementary me-
chanisms for the frame. A two-bay frame is shown in figure 4.3 and on it are
marked the points at which a plastic hinge could form. In general there will be
p such points (p = 10 in figure 4.3). The BMD at collapse can be drawn if the
BM is known at each of these points, so there are p unknowns. Each of the m
elementary mechanisms can be thought of as an independent equation relating
moments at the hinge points to the applied loading. Since there are p un-
knowns and m equations to find them
p-m=r
(a) Three-member joint (b) Four-member joint
Figure 4.2
Limit Analysis 85
100l kN 100l kN
4
100AkN
2 I3 5 8 9
Mp constant
=250kNm
10m
7 10
Figure 4.3
where r is the degree of redundancy of the frame. p can be found by a simple

count, r by the test in Appendix B and the number of elementary mechanisms
from the equation
m=p-r (4.4)
The redundancy test gives r = 6 for the frame in figure 4.3, so that m = 4. The
four mechanisms can be readily identified as two beam mechanisms, ajoint ro-
tation and a sway mechanism.
4.3 Combination of Mechanisms
The elementary mechanisms represent a series of guesses for the true collapse
mechanism, and an estimate for the collapse load factor can be found from
each. Other mechanisms can then be created by combining some of the ele-
mentary mechanisms. Each new mechanism gives an estimate of the collapse
load factor. From the upper bound theorem, the lowest estimate will be closest
to the actual collapse load factor. There is little point in checking every me-
chanism by finding the corresponding BMD, but the one with lowest load fac-
tor must be checked. The check will either confirm that the actual collapse
mechanism and load factor have been found or will provide a range for the col-
lapse load factor.
The combination of mechanisms can be carried out in the same way as in
the previous chapter. The individual work equations are added and then the in-
ternal work from vanishing plastic hinges subtracted. The following example
illustrates the whole process.
4.3.1 Two-bay Frame Example
Figure 4.3 shows the two-bay frame. As was shown earlier, it has four elemen-
tary mechanisms. The first stage then is to find the load factor for each of these.
(1) Left-hand Beam
10
lOOAu x "2 x () = 4 x 250()
500Au () = 1000()
Au = 2.0
(2) Right-hand Beam
10 , .
100Au x "2 x () = 4 x 250()
500Au () = 1000()
Au = 2.0
(3) Sway Mechanism
100Au x 10 x () =6x 250()

1000Au () = l500()
Au = 1.5
Limit Analysis 87
(4) Joint Rotation
A indeterminate
The object of the exercise is to find the lowest possible value for Au. The sway
mechanism has given the lowest value so far, and is the obvious starting point
for making any combinations. It is useful to number every mechanism in order
to keep track of the calculations.
(5) = (3) + (1). This combination ofthe sway and left-hand beam mechanisms has
removed the hinge from the top ofthe left-hand column. The work equation is
1000Au O+ 500A u O = 15000 + 10000 - 2 x 2500

1500Au O = 20000
Au = 1.33
This is an improvement, the load factor is lower than the value for the sway me-
chanism alone.
(6) = (3) + (2) - a combination of the sway and right-hand beam mechanisms.
In this case it is not possible to eliminate any hinges because of the relative po-
sitions of the three members at the central ringedjoint:
RH beam and central
" - - - ' , . - - - column perpendicular
'\ but LH beam is
\ horizontal
1000Au O+ 500A u O= 15000 + 10000
1500Au O = 25000
Au = 1.67
This combination is worse because it gives a higher value for Au. Now consider
the ringed joint in more detail. Figure 4.4a shows the joint much enlarged. The
joint itself is undeformed - the plastic hinges are just in the right-hand beam
and the column. The diagram shows more clearly why two hinges are neces-
sary. The plastic hinges are caused by moments from the loads on the frame,
and these moments must act as shown to cause the required rotations. There is
a total clockwise moment of 500 kN m.
250 kN m
500 kN m "1 250 kN m
Sum of moments
= 250 kN m
(a) (b)
Figure 4.4
To maintain moment equilibrium at the joint, there must be an anticlockwise

moment of 500 kN m in the left-hand beam. This is physically impossible be-
cause the plastic moment of the beam is only 250 kN m, and so the whole joint
wants to rotate. What happens is that the right-hand beam and the column
straighten out, losing their plastic hinges. To maintain the geometry, a plastic
hinge has to form in the left-hand beam. This is illustrated in figure 4.4b. The
overall geometry of the frame remains unaffected by these manoeuvres because
the hinges are assumed to form an infinitely small distance away from the joint.
The significance of the joint rotation mechanism now becomes apparent. It
describes exactly the change from mechanism (6) to a more realistic situation
at the central joint.
(7) = (6) + (4). The joint rotation eliminates hinges in the right-hand beam and
central column, but creates a new hinge in the left-hand beam. All this must be
reflected in the work equation:
Limit Analysis 89
l500A uO= 25000 - 2500 - 2500 + 2500
no change vanishing hinges new hinge in
in external in RH beam and LH beam
work column
l500A u O= 22500
Au = 1.5
(8) = (7) + (1). This is the only other combination which is possible:
1500A U B+ 500AuB = 22500 + 10000 - 2 x 250B

2000A uO= 2750()
Au = 1.38
In this example, every possible combination has been considered. Mechan-

ism (5) gives the lowest load factor. As a check on the calculations, the BMD
for the critical mechanism should be drawn. Using the method given in Appen-
dix C, the diagram in figure 4.5 can be found. The BMD confirms that
Ac = 1.33 and that mechanism (5) is the actual collapse mechanism, because
the BMD satisfies the yield condition (no BM greater than the plastic mo-
ment), the mechanism condition (sufficient hinges for a mechanism) and the
equilibrium condition.
Since every possible combination had been tried, the exact value (barring
errors in the calculation) of Ac was known in this example. To illustrate what is
250 250
250
250 250 250
Figure 4.5
250 250
250
250
+----;1!i---- No hinge here
in mechanism
250 250
Greater than plastic moment
Figure 4.6
perhaps the more common situation, assume that mechanism (7) (Ac = 1.5) is
critical and check it by finding the corresponding BMD (figure 4.6).
The BMD cannot satisfy the yield condition, so Au = 1.5 must be an upper
bound. Reduce everything in proportion until the maximum moment equals
the plastic moment. That is
\ _ 1.5 x 250 _ 0
Ai - 375 - 1.
This gives a range for Ac:
1.0 ~ Ac ~ 1.5
This range for Ac is probably unacceptably high. The smaller the range, the
more accurately Ac can be assessed. It must be emphasised that the smaller the
range, the smaller the error.
In this example there were only four possible combinations and it was prac-
tical to try all of them. In more complicated examples this would not be true.
Thus it is worth considering a strategy that will reduce the overall effort.
4.3.2 A Strategy for Combining Mechanisms

There is obviously no point in trying to find every possible combination of me-
chanisms in a complicated structure. What is required is a strategy that will
achieve a close estimate of the collapse load factor reasonably quickly.
A general expression for the work equation was given in equation 3.8. This
can be rewritten in terms of a load factor as
(4.5)
Limit Analysis 91
or
>. _ 'EMp() (4.6)
u - 'EW8
When work equations are combined, the external work term is always just
the sum of the external work from the individual mechanisms. The internal
work is found by adding the internal work of the individual mechanisms and
then modifYing it to account for the hinges that have been eliminated or cre-
ated. The object of the combination of mechanisms is to obtain the smallest
possible value of >'u, and the only way that the value of >'u can be affected is by
modifYing the internal work. The object of any combination of mechanisms
must be to eliminate plastic hinges, because this will make the internal work,
and thus >'u, as small as possible.
In the previous chapter it was shown that mechanisms which are highly unli-
kely can be ignored. Usually those mechanisms involved some of the loads
doing negative work. The effect of this would be to reduce the magnitude of .
the external work. As can be seen in equation 4.7, the value of >'u must be in-
creased when the external work is reduced, which is contrary to the objective
offinding the lowest possible value for the collapse load factor.
The joint rotation mechanism is very useful for reducing internal work with-
out contributing to the external work. This was shown in mechanism (7) ofthe
previous example, and can be reinforced by another example. A two-storey
frame with beam and sway mechanisms is shown in figure 4.7. At the ringed
joint the internal work = 3Mp x 2() = 6Mp(). If a joint rotation is introduced
at the joint (notice that the rotation of the joint must be 20), the internal work
at the joint is reduced to 2(Mp x 2()) = 4Mp(), which gives a 10 per cent reduc-
tion in the total internal work.
Internal work =20Mp 9 Internal work = l8Mp9
Figure 4.7
8 8
.~r:==-.
Beams
Sway (note different rotations)
8+ ¢
Combined (need different rotations

in thebeammechanisms in order
to cancel hinges)
Figure 4.8
The previous paragraph hinted at the major pitfall when combining me-
chanisms. Remember that hinges are eliminated when the combined mechan-
isms return parts of the structure to the original geometry, for example a joint
returning to a right angle. This can only be done if the rotations in the indivi-
dual mechanisms are matched correctly, as in figure 4.8. The rotations in the
shorter columns are bigger than those in the long column in the sway mechan-
ism because the tops of all the columns have to move sideways by the same
amount. When the left-hand beam mechanism is combined with the sway
mechanism, the hinge in the top left corner is eliminated because the rotation
(0) is the same in both mechanisms. However, when the right-hand mechanism
Limit Analysis 93
is combined with the sway and joint rotation mechanisms, the hinges will
only change if the rotations in each mechanism are made the same, in this
case <p.
4.3.3 Two-storey Frame with Distributed Loading
Another example of combining mechanisms is necessary to tie up various

ideas that have been brought out in this chapter. The frame shown in Figure
4.9 carries distributed loads on the two beams. From the figure it can be
seen that
p = 12
r=6
so that
m=6
The six elementary mechanisms are two beams, two sways (one for each storey)
and two joint rotations. The first stage of the analysis is to write down the work
equation for each elementary mechanism.
Despite the distributed loads on the beams, assume that there are hinges
at mid-span in the beam mechanisms. This is not correct but, as was shown
in section 4.l, the error involved is small. The error can be checked at a later
stage.
2.l.w
AwL
2
2Mp
Mp Mp
L
4AW
AwL 1----1~.l.wL
4Mp
L 2Mp
2
Mp =3wL
--
4
I... 2L
Figure 4.9
Diagram ofmechanism Work equation and loadfactor

L
1. 2AuwL x 2" x {} x 2 = 6Mp{}
~!I!II!I!II~
Mp 2Mp Mp 2AuwL2{} = 6Mp{}
Upper beam Au = 3Mp = 2.25

WL2
L
2. 4AuwL x 2" x {} x 2 = 16Mp{}
4Mp 4Mp
Lower beam
3. Mp
AwL AwL
2 2
AuwL
-2- x L x {} x 2 = 4Mp{}
Mp ?-_ _ _ _-\" Mp
AuwL2{} = 4Mp{}
4Mp
Au = wL2 = 3.0
Top-storey sway
4. AwL A.wL Note: all horizonta11oads move

2 2 in this mechanism, and must
be in the work equation
lwL - ....- - - -_____~~ A.wL Au wL
2Mp AuwL x L(} x 2 + -2- x L{} x 2
2Mp 2Mp = 8Mp {}
~
3AuwL2{} = 8Mp{}
Bottom-storey sway 8Mp
Au = 3wL2 = 2.0
5.
2Mp
MPr 4Mp
No work equation
Aindeterminate
Left-hand joint
6.
4~ Mp
No work equation
r 2Mp Aindeterminate
Right-hand joint
Limit Analysis 95
Notice in mechanism 4, bottom storey sway, that both horizontal loads
move and must be included in the external work. This mechanism has the low-
est load factor and is the obvious starting point for combinations.
Diagram ofmechanism Work equation and load/actor

Joint rotations included immediately to reduce
7=4+2+5+6 internal work
3>"uwL2{) + 4>"u wL2 {) =
8Mp{) + 16Mp{) - 6Mp{) + Mp{) - 4Mp{) + 3Mp{)
7>"uwL2{) = 18Mp{)
18 Mp
>"u = 7" WL2 = 1.929
Only an intermediate step included for clarity; no
8=4+3
.......- - - -.. hinges are eliminated by this combination
3>"uwL2{) + >"uWL2{) = 8Mp{) + 4Mp{)
4>"uwL2{) = 12Mp{)
3Mp
>"u = w£2 = 2.25
9=8+1+2+6
+16Mp{) - 2Mp{) (top LH joint)
-7 Mp{) (lower LH joint) - 4Mp{) + 3Mp{)
10>"uwL2{) = 24Mp{)
24 Mp
>"u = 10 wL2 = 1.8
This is the lowest load factor; check this
mechanism by finding the BMD
The BMD for mechanism (9) can be found using the method given in Ap-
pendix C. (In fact, this example is used in the appendix.) For this type of frame
it is necessary to consider the free and reactant BMs in each beam, and hori-
zontal equilibrium for each storey separately. The final BMD is shown in figure
4.10 and apparently it satisfies all the conditions. The conclusion would be that
2Mp
Figure 4.10
this is the correct mechanism but, because of the distributed loading, the va-
lues of the moments in each beam must be checked.
(a) Upper Beam
The upper beam is shown in figure 4.l1 removed from the rest of the frame. The
magnitudes of the end moments are known from the BMD and their direction
can be found using the method given in Appendix C. The unknown reactions
at A and B are the axial forces in the two upper columns. Taking moments
about B gives
VA x 2L + O.2Mp + Mp - 3.6w x 2L x L =0
V _ 7.2wL2 - 1.2Mp 7.2wL2 - 1.2 X O.75wL2
A - 2L 2L
= 3.l5wL
The BM (sagging positive) at any point along the beam is thus
3.6wX2
M = O.2Mp + 3.l5wLx - - 2 -
A
,3.6W ~
rlllll~11II1II111111II1111II1II1II1II1111II1111111I11111111111111111111IIIIIICY
O.2Mp
~ ~
Figure 4.11
Limit Analysis 97
It follows that dM/dx = 3.15wL - 3.6wx = 0 for maximum moment; hence
x = 3.15L/3.6 = 0.875L at the point of maximum moment.
3.6w(0.875L)2
Mmax = 0.2Mp + 3.l5wL(0.875L) - 2
= 0.2Mp + l.378wL2
= 2.04Mp
(b) Lower Beam
The beam is shown in figure 4.12. The calculations are very similar to those for
the upper beam.
Vc x 2L + I.4Mp + 3Mp - 7.2w x 2L xL =0
Vc = 5.55wL
7.2wx2
M = I.4Mp + 5.55wLx - -2-
dM
dx = 5.55wL - 7.2wx
Thus x = 0.771L at the point of maximum moment, and

Mmax = 4.25Mp
There are moments in both beams that are greater than the plastic moment
of the section. This must mean that the BMD fails the yield condition and the
calculated load factor must be an upper bound on .Ac . A lower bound can be
found by reducing everything in proportion until the maximum moment
equals the plastic moment. Thus
.A = 2 x 1.8 = 1 76
e 2.04 .
or
.A = 4 x 1.8 = I 69
e 4.25 .
The range for the collapse load factor is
1.69::::;.Ac::::; 1.8
7.2w 3Mp
c l" " ~" " " " " " " " " " " I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I \
1.4Mp
0
~ ~
Figure 4.12
n8
0 .875L
a
I
a
8+ p\
(j
_8 J3 J3
2Mp
0.771 L I 8+ P_
8 8i ~
• 2Mp 4Mp 2Mp
(a) Mechanism (b) Corresponding BMD
Figure 4.13
These limits are close enough for any practical problem.

However, it is worth going on in this case to show the effect of distributed
loading in a more complex structure. Mechanism (9) is obviously not correct,
but until the BM distribution in each beam was checked, it did appear to be sa-
tisfactory. The inference from this is that the true collapse mechanism will be
very similar, but with hinges near to the points of maximum moment, rather
than at mid-span, as in figure 4.13.
The work equation for this mechanism could be found by combination of
mechanisms, after rewriting the beam mechanisms, or as follows, by using the
rotations in the figure. From the mechanism geometry:
1.1250 = 0.8750
0=0.7780
1.22913 = 0.7718
13 = 0.6270
Starting at the bottom of the frame and working upwards:
internal work = 2MpO+ 2MpO+ 4Mp(0 +13) + 2Mp(0 +13)

+Mp(O +!3) + 2Mp(0 + 0) + Mp(O + 0)
= 14MpO+ 7Mp!3 + 3Mpo
= 20.73Mp O
Limit Analysis 99
externaI wor k =
4 Au wL2() + 2AuW(O.875L)2()
2 +
2AuW(1.125L)2a
2
horizontal top beam

loads
4Auw(O.771L)2() 4>'uw(1.229Lf8
+ 2 + 2
bottom beam
= 4AuwL2() + 1.7503AuwL2a + 3.083>'u wL2 ,8
= 8.832>'u wL2 ()
Equating internal and external work gives
8.834A uwL2() = 20.73Mp()
A = 20.73Mp = 1 76
u 8.834wL2 .
The BMD for the mechanism is shown in figure 4.l3b. The BM distributions
in the beams show that:
(1) For the upper beam, x = O.869L atthe point of maximum moment
Mmax = 2Mp (actually it is 2.00002Mp)
(2) For the lower beam, x = 0.799L at the point of maximum moment
(actually 4.00002Mp)
The reader might like to check these results. The hinges are not in exactly the
correct positions, but the results show that effectively the mechanism is the cor-
rect one. The collapse load factor is 1.76, but the error from assuming the hinges
are at mid-span is only 2.3 per cent. The error is so small that it would be diffi-
cult to justify the extra effort of considering the more accurate mechanism.
There was another saving ofeffort during the combination process. The joint
rotations were combined at the same time as the beam mechanisms to reduce
the internal work. The ability to spot such savings comes with experience.
4.4 Summary
This chapter has dealt with limit analysis using the method of combination of
mechanisms for calculating the collapse load of framed structures with propor-
tionalloading. The result of the method is either the value of, or a range for,
the col/apse loadfactor of the frame.
The main stages in the analysis are:
(1) Identify the elementary mechanisms and the corresponding work
equations.
(2) Starting with the elementary mechanism with the lowest load factor,
combine mechanisms to cancel plastic hinges by maintaining locally the
original geometry of the structure (keep members straight or joints per-
pendicular, for example). Find the load factor of each combined mechan-
ism.
(3) The lowest load factor is closest to the collapse load factor (from the
upper bound theorem). Check the mechanism by finding the correspond-
ingBMD.
(4) If the BMD satisfies the yield, mechanism and equilibrium conditions,
the mechanism is the actual collapse mechanism of the frame. The load
factor is equal to the collapse load factor.
(5) If the BM is greater than the corresponding plastic moment somewhere
in the structure, the mechanism is not the correct one and the load factor
Au is greater than Ac. Reduce the value of Au and all the BMs in the same
proportion until all BMs are less than, or equal to, the corresponding
plastic moment. From the lower bound theorem the reduced load factor
Ai is less than Ac , so that
Ae~Ac~Au
It is usually sufficiently accurate to assume that a plastic hinge forms at mid-

span in a member carrying a distributed load, although the result will be an
over-estimate of Ac.
The best way to become familiar with this method is by practice. The exam-
ples provided bring out the various points made in this chapter: do try them.
The process of combining mechanisms is useful in gaining an understanding
of the way structures behave at collapse. It gives a 'feel' for the structure.
However, it is not essential to go through the process of combining mech-
anisms. It would be possible to guess possible mechanisms and find the
corresponding work equation. With practice, this may well be a quicker
approach.
All of the problems could be solved using an appropriate computer package.
If one is available it should be used to check your hand calculations. One warn-
ing: many of these programs will only deal with point loads. You can get round
this by representing a UDL as a series of point loads.
Problems
4.1. Find the collapse load factor of the frames shown in figure 4.l4,a to e. In
each case, check the critical mechanism by drawing the corresponding
BMD.
4.2. Find the collapse load factors of the frames shown in figure 4.l5a, b, as-
suming that plastic hinges form at mid-span. Because of the UDLs,
these must be upper bounds; find a range for the actual collapse load
factor.
Limit Analysis 101
gOA kN 1BOA kN
601 kN
7.Sm
Mp
..t
Sm Sm I 7.5 m 7.5 m
Mp = 1S0 kN m
(a)
100HN 200A kN
100A kN
400 kN m
Bm 200 kN m
I
5m smJ.?-sm_
(b) Hint: remember the columns have different rotations

600A kN
400A kN
I
Mp = 1250kNm
(c)
600A kN
Mp = 1325 kN m
Hint: th ink carefully about the hinges
in the pitched portal mechanism for
the left-hand bay
(d)
3AW
r --rr==..:!====;r--- 2 AW
4Mp
2L
2Mp
L
L
L 1.5L _ _
L I
(e)
Figure 4.14
100A kN/m
500AkN
1500 kN m
1000 kN m 1000 kN m
4m 200A kN/m
500AkN
4m
I~ 10m
~I
(a)
AW
Mp 2L
AW
3Mp
2
Mp AW Mp 2L
2
I..
3/
..I~ 3L
.. I
All loads are per unit length
(b)
Figure 4.15
This problem is difficult. The reader will find that when determining the BMD,
it will be necessary to make some common sense guesses about the BMs. Re-
member, the object is to find a BMD in equilibrium with the applied loads; it
does not have to be the actual BMD.
5 Deflections and Stability
5.1 Introduction
Methods for finding the collapse loads of steel frames were examined in detail
in Chapters 3 and 4. In the virtual work method, for example, the collapse
load was found by considering small (virtual) deformations of the collapse me-
chanism. However, the shape of the structure before deformation of the me-
chanism was assumed to be the same as when there was no load on the
structure. In other words, all deformation before collapse was ignored. There
must be deformation before collapse, but how significant is it?
It is not sufficient to ensure that the structure is strong enough to resist the
applied loading with an adequate load factor against collapse - it is also neces-
sary to check that deflections do not become excessive. Consider the pitched
portal frame shown in figure 5.1. The frame carries the rails for an overhead
travelling crane. The crane-wheels which run on the rails will only have a finite
amount of sideways movement. Consequently the dimension L is a critical
part of the design. If it changes too much, owing to deflection of the frame, the
wheels will jam and the crane will no longer be able to move.
The deflections must be checked. Under normal working loads, the struc-
ture should still be elastic so that it would be possible to find the deflections by
elastic analysis. However, that is not always enough.
FigureS.1
103
Load
-+--- Normal working loads,

plastic design
- / - - - Normal working loads,
elastic design
L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .. . Deflection
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2 shows a possible load-deflection curve for the frame in figure 5.1.
Although the structure would be elastic at working loads, plastic design would
produce a structure with bending moments close to the plastic moment at cer-
tain critical sections. It would only need a small overload on the crane for plastic
hinges to form with a large increase in the deflections. Overloading overhead
travelling cranes is one of the most common problems in buildings - it is always
a temptation to save time by making one lift rather than two. In this situation it
is necessary to follow the load-deflection characteristics of the structure.
There is another potentially more serious possibility. The deflections before
collapse may significantly reduce the collapse load of the structure. It is well
known that deflections reduce the stiffness of struts (the so-called P-o effect
[7]) and the same thing can happen to frames. The problem is worse in more
flexible structures, where the deflections can cause an unexpected collapse me-
I
A Before loading B
(a)
v, q~ u,~~ ~Af;.;. te:. :.r. . .:l:.:.o.: . ad:.:.i~ng~ ~
___ __ v,
92
(b)
Figure 5.3
Deflections and Stability 105
chanism owing to overall buckling (instability) of the frame. Imperfections in
the as-built structure can amplify the deflections.
Originally only mild steel structures were designed by plastic methods, but
nowadays higher-strength steel structures are handled in the same way. The re-
duced ductility (see figure 1.5) is usually adequate for the formation of a col-
lapse mechanism, but the higher yield stress means that smaller sections than
would be required with mild steel can be used. This results in a more flexible
structure with larger deflections. Obviously, the problems caused by deflec-
tions are likely to be more severe. This must always be borne in mind when
using higher-strength steels.
The first part of this chapter looks at methods for calculating deflections.
The second part is an examination of the effects of deflections and imperfec-
tions on the collapse load and how these effects can be allowed for in design.
5.2 Calculation of Deflections

Any structure will deform when forces are applied to it. In structures that carry
load by bending, the topic of this book, the deformation of a typical member is
shown in figure 5.3a. The ends of the member, originally at A and B, move to
new positions A' and B'. The member rotates at each end and the ends also dis-
place with respect to each other, as shown in figure 5.3a. These deformations re-
sult from forces and moments at each end ofthe member, as shown in figure 5.3b.
The relationship between forces, moments, displacements and rotations is
defined in matrix form as
[Pj = [Smember][8j (5.1)
where [P] is a vector of the forces and moments at each end, and [8] is a
vector of the displacements and rotations at each end. The matrix [Smember] is
called the member stiffness matrix. A commonly used full version of equation
5.1 is
PI EA EA UI
0 0 0 0
L L
12EI 6EI 12EI 6EI VI
QI 0 0 -IF
IF L2 L2
MI 6EI 4EI 6EI 2EI (h
0 0 -£2
L2 L L
= (5.2)
P2 EA EA U2
0 0 0 0
L L
12EI 6EI 12EI 6EI V2
Q2 0 -IF 0 -£2
- L2 IF
6EI 2EI 6EI 4EI
0 0 -£2 (h
M2 L2 L L
Figure 5.4
Notice that the terms in the stiffness matrix contain E, Young's Modulus of
the material, A, the cross-sectional area of the section, I, the second moment
of area of the section and L, the length of the member. The derivation of equa-
tion 5.2 can be found in the textbook by Graves Smith [8]. This equation is the
basis of the stiffness method of structural analysis which has been mentioned
in earlier chapters. In a full structure, such as shown in figure 5.4, the stiffness
matrix can be found for each member. If the joints are rigid, the deflections at
the end ofeach member meeting at the joint are equal and each member shares
the forces applied at the joint, although allowance must be made for the differ-
ent orientations of the members. Equations similar to equation 5.1 for each
member can be combined to give a relationship for the whole structure of the
form
[P] = [Sstructure] [8] (5.3)
Now [P] is a vector of the forces and moments, [8] is a vector of the displace-
ments and rotations at every joint in the structure and [Sstructure] is called the
structure stiffness matrix. [Sstructure] is actually assembled by adding together
appropriate terms from each member stiffness matrix. The matrices in equa-
tion 5.3 represent a set of simultaneous equations whose unknowns are the de-
flections [8] at the joints. These equations can be solved once the boundary
conditions at the supports have been included, to give the deflections caused
by the applied loads. The forces and moments in each member can then be
found from equation 5.1.
As the applied loads are increased, the deformations and the moments and
forces in each member become larger. When a moment becomes equal to the
plastic moment of the member, a plastic hinge forms and the effective structure
changes. The loads greater than those causing the plastic hinge are resisted by
p ~
Member straight - no moment
... p
p _____L _________ p
Member bent - extra moment
FigureS.S
a structure with a frictionless hinge at the position of the plastic hinge. In sec-
tion 3.2 this procedure was adopted to look at the development of plastic hinges
in a portal frame. A series of linear elastic analyses is carried out giving a
load-deflection graph (see figure 3.3) which consists of a series of straight lines
whose gradients change each time a plastic hinge forms. This type of analysis
is called a first-order plastic hinge analysis and it gives the same mechanism
and collapse load as the simple plastic analysis described in Chapters 3 and 4.
First-order analysis is an approximation, for two connected reasons. Equa-
tion 5.1 is a relationship between the forces and moments at the ends of a mem-
ber and the corresponding displacements and rotations. The terms in the
stiffness matrix (equation 5.2) depend only on material and geometric proper-
ties. Have a look at figure 5.5. It can be seen that the axial force P causes extra
bending moments along the length ofthe member, given by
Mextra = Po (5.4)
where 0 is the amount by which the member has bent out ofline.
Now have a look at figure 5.6. The horizontal forces push the structure side-
ways as in figure 5.6b, the relative sideways deflection between the top and bot-
tom of the ith storey being ~i. The vertical forces are carried down the
columns to the foundations. Effectively there is a vertical force at the top of
each storey equal to the total vertical force applied to the whole structure above
that level, as shown in figure 5.6c. Hence in each storey there is another extra
moment given by
Mextra = Pi~i (5.5)
which makes the storey sway sideways even more.
These sources of extra moment are often called the P-O effect. The P-O effect
is ignored in first-order analysis.
By changing the terms in the stiffness matrix (equation 5.2) the P-O effect
can be included. The equation becomes
W4 (total)
Wa (total)
W2 (total)
W 1 (total)
~ ~
(a) (b) (e)
Figure 5.6
PI EA EA Ul
0 0 0 0
L L
2s(J + clEf s(1 + clEf 2s(J + clEf s(J +c)Ef VI
Ql 0 0
mL3 L2 mV L2
Ml 0
s(J + clEf sEf
0
s(J +c)Ef scEf 81
L2 L L2 L
EA EA U2
P2 0 0 0 0
L L
2s(J + clEf s(J + clEf 2s(J + clEf s(J + clEf V2
Q2 0 0
mV L2 mV L2
s(J + clEf scEf s(J + clEf sEf
0 0 82
M2 L2 L L2 L
(5.6)
The difference is that the numbers 2,4,6, 12 in equation 5.2 have been replaced
by quantities s, c, and m, in various combinations, in equation 5.6. As can be
seen in figure 5.7, s, c and m are functions of the axial force P in the member.
The quantity P E (= 7r2EI/ L 2 ) used in the figure is called the Euler load of the
member and is a constant for that member.
s, c and m are called stability functions and they allow for the P-8 effect: sand
c deal with the extra moment in equation 5.4 and m allows for the moment in
equation 5.5. When the axial force P is zero, the values of s, c and mare 4, 0.5
and 1 respectively. If these values are substituted in equation 5.6, the stiffness
matrix is the same as in equation 5.2. In other words, the stiffness matrix used
in a first-order analysis is the one for the special case of zero axial force.
To accommodate the P-8 effect, a second-order analysis must be carried
out. This is more complex than the first-order analysis. Unlike the first-order
analysis which involves a single solution of the equations, the second-order
Function
m
p
-3 -2 7f.
Figure 5.7
analysis has to be carried out iteratively. At a given applied load level, a first so-
lution of the equations 5.3 gives an initial approximation of the axial load in
each member and the sideways (sway) deflection ~ of each storey. The equa-
tions must then be reformulated using the member stiffness matrix in equation
5.6, making a first allowance for the P-8 effect. This changes the forces and de-
flections so that several cycles of calculations are needed before a suitable de-
gree of accuracy is achieved. In order to build up the load-deflection curve,
the load has to be increased in small increments and the process repeated for
each increment. Ignoring the formation of the plastic hinges produces a sec-
ond-order elastic analysis. As the load is increased, the deflections become lar-
ger and larger, tending towards infinity at a particular load level. This is called
the elastic buckling load (or elastic critical load) of the structure, and as the
name implies, it is the load at which the whole structure would buckle if it re-
mained elastic. If the determinant of the non-linear structure stiffness matrix
is calculated, it is found that it is equal to zero at the buckling load. A second-
order plastic analysis would also include the formation of plastic hinges at ap-
propriate points around the structure. Figure 5.8 compares first- and second-
order analyses.
Notice that the elastic analyses are just the first stage of the plastic analyses.
In the first-order plastic analysis, the lines are straight between each plastic
hinge point, but they are curved in the second-order analysis. The collapse
load from the first-order analysis is the value that would be found from the
plastic methods described in the earlier chapters, because those methods
elastic analysis
elastic analysis
1st-order plastic analysis
/
2nd-order plastic analysis
of yield
Figure 5.8
ignored any deflections that might have occurred before collapse. The second-
order plastic analysis predicts bigger deflections and a lower collapse load. In
fact, the second-order analysis is still not the exact solution because it ignores
the spread of yield around the sections where plastic hinges form, the residual
stresses that occur during the manufacture of the steel sections and the inac-
curacies that are bound to occur during erection. The line marked 'spread of
yield' gives something like the actual behaviour.
In the first-order analysis and the simple plastic analysis, the collapse me-
chanism develops with the formation of the last plastic hinge at the maximum
load that the structure can carry. Second-order analyses can sometimes throw
up unexpected results. It is possible for very flexible structures to buckle before
all the expected plastic hinges form. In such cases, the buckling load is the col-
lapse load of the structure.
Clearly, things are more complicated than the earlier chapters might have
indicated. In the next sections, various examples will be presented to put
numbers to the different types of behaviour illustrated above. These will
give an idea of the importance of the different types of behaviour. The implica-
tions of all this on the design of structures by plastic methods will then be
examined.
5.3 The Effect of Deflection on the Collapse Load

The examples in the previous section showed that there can be significant de-
flections before collapse starts. Deflections, particularly in columns with sub-
p p
L
x
l!.+&-y
(b)
(a)
Figure 5.9
stantial compressive axial forces, can cause serious instability (buckling) in

frames. In this section, the effect of this on the collapse load is examined by
means of two examples. A practical method of allowing for instability is then
outlined.
5.3.1 Horne's Exampleofa Cantilever Column

Horne [4] has given an excellent illustration of the effect that deflections
can have on the collapse load. His example is repeated here in a slightly
extended form to illustrate the differences between first- and second-order
analysis.
Figure 5.9a shows a cantilever column, rigidly clamped at the base and free
at the top. An eccentric vertical force is applied to the column, causing the col-
umn to bend and deflect sideways. Column properties are
lengthL = 2m
eccentricity e = 0.1 m
Young's modulus E = 200 kN/mm2
yield stress O'y = 250 N/mm2
The values for Young's modulus and yield stress are slightly different from
those commonly used nowadays but they do not affect the conclusions from
the example.
112 Plastic Methods/or Steel and Concrete Structures
The cross-section is square, side length d = 0.1 m, thus
d4
I = 12 = 8.333 x 10-6 m 4
d3
Z = "4 = 2.5 X 10-4 m 3
d 3
S (plastic modulus) ="4 = 2.5 X 10- 4 m3
A (cross-sectional area) = d 2 = 0.01 m2

Consider first the elastic behaviour of the column. Figure 5.9b shows the free
body diagram from cutting the column at some point X. Moment equilibrium
about X gives
M=-P(~+e-y)
Using the moment curvature relationship of bending theory [8]

d2y
EI dx 2 = -M = P(~ + e - y)
which can be rearranged into the form

d2y
dx 2 + ciy = a?(~ + e) (5.7)
where 0: 2 = P / EI. This differential equation governs the deflections (y) of the
column. The solution of this equation has been shown [8] to be
y= (~+ e)(l - cos o:x) (5.8)
At the top of the column, x = Land y = ~. These can be substituted into
equation 5.8 to give
~ = e(sec o:L - 1)
Replacing 0: and substituting the column properties gives
~ = 0.1 [sec(1.55 x 1O- 3 JP) - 1] (5.9)
The load-deflection relationship defined by equation 5.9 is shown in figure
5.10, as a graph of P against ~.
The graph is non-linear because the analysis was second order, since the ex-
pression for the moment involved the deflection of the column. Apparently ~
becomes infinitely large when
sec(1.55 x 1O- 3 ~) = 00
which occurs when
1.55 x 10
-3 rn = 2"7r
V P cr
which gives
Per = 1.027 X 106 N
This is the elastic buckling load of the column. It can also be shown that when
the eccentricity, e, is zero, the strut remains straight up to this load and then
buckles sideways.
A first-order analysis would ignore the extra moment from the deflection of
the column so that
M=-Pe
d2y
EI dx2 = Pe
This equation can be integrated twice to give
x2
Ely = Pe 2 + Cx+D
where C and D are constants of integration. Using the boundary conditions of
zero slope and deflection at the base:
x2
Ely = Pe 2
Substituting the values of E, I and e, and putting x = 2 m gives the deflection

at the top of the column as
~ = 0.12 X 1O- 6 p
which is a linear relation between load and deflection. This is also plotted in
figure 5.10.
p(X106 N)
1st-order elastic line
Elastic critical
1.0 ---- - --T------ - ----
load, 1.027 x 10 6 N
0.8
plastic
0.6 ---------- ----
load, 0.59 x 10 6 N
'0.4
load, 0.326x10 6 N
Plastic curve
0.2
0.262x10 6
L-------L-------L-----~------~_ _. . A(m)
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
FigureS.to
In the column there is a combination of axial and bending stresses. The lar-
gest stress is at the base, where the BM is largest. When this stress reaches the
yield stress, the elastic analysis will cease to be correct. This will be when
P P(~+e)
-A + Z
= G'y
where the first term is the axial stress and the second is the largest bending
stress. Substituting A, Z, ~ (from the second-order analysis), e and G'y gives
lOOP + 600P sec(1.55 x 1O-3JP) = 250 x 106
This rather complicated equation can be solved by trial and error. This gives
the load at first yield
Py = 0.262 X 106 N
It is possible, although complicated, to follow the spread of yield, but it is
more useful to look now at the collapse of the column. Figure 5.11 shows the
collapse mechanism. The column becomes a lever rotating about a plastic
hinge at the base. The reduced plastic moment (allowing for the axial force) of
the column resists the rotation. From section 2.6, at the collapse load Pc:
M~ = 1 _
Mp
(PPp )2
c
and
Figure 5.11
d3
Mp = Say =4ay
for a rectangular section. Putting

Pc = nPp
gives
M~ = (1_n2)d;y
The moment of the collapse load Pc about the base causes the rotation of the
column. This disturbing moment
= (Ll + e)Pc = (Ll + e)nd2 a y
since Pc = nPp = nd2 a y. At the point of collapse, the disturbing and resisting
moments are equal, because the column is in equilibrium. At collapse then
(Ll + e)nd2 a y = (1 - n2 )-T

d a
3
which can be rearranged into

4
n2 + d (Ll+e)n-l =0
The solution of this quadratic equation gives the collapse load Pc as a propor-
tion of P p, but the solution depends on the deflection Ll at the top ofthe col-
umn. The collapse loads at various values of Ll have been plotted in figure 5.10.
Figure 5.10 summarises the behaviour of the column from zero load until
collapse. The broken line shows approximately the transition from elastic be-
haviour as yield spreads through the base of the column. There are four points
to note:
(1) The first-order elastic line gives a reasonable approximation to the deflec-
tions before yield occurs.
(2) There is substantial deflection before collapse occurs.
(3) A simple (first-order) plastic collapse calculation would have used the
mechanism in figure 5.11 but with Ll = O. The simple plastic collapse load
(0.590 x 106 N) is considerably greater than the true collapse load (about
0.326 x 106 N).
(4) The intersection of the second-order plastic and elastic curves (f =
0.364 X 106 N, Ll = 0.0683 m) is a good estimate of the actual collapse
load and deflection.
This is a rather extreme example because the cantilever column is very flex-
ible, but it does illustrate the P- 8 effect. In this case, the extra moments and
deflections are very large so that the actual collapse load is markedly less
than the collapse load that would be predicted by simple (first-order) plastic
1.5,1, 1.5,1,
~--~rr=============~
B C D
5 Mp = 100
A EI constant E
~
5 10
(a) (b)
Figure 5.12
analysis. The P-8 effect is usually less severe than in this example, but it cannot
be ignored.
5.3.2 Portal Frame Example

A similar analysis for a portal frame is more complicated. The approach is to
use the second-order stiffness analysis described in section 5.2. The frame
shown in figure 5.12a has been analysed in this way and the results are given in
figure 5.13. The frame is identical to the one used in section 3.2. In the original
analysis (section 3.2), the effects of axial load and deflection were ignored, and
the collapse load factor was 50.0. The frame collapsed by the combined me-
chanism with the hinges forming in the order E, C, D and A. The three load-
deflection curves in figure 5.13 were obtained by using different EI values for
A
Simple plastic
50
C A collapse
40
30
20
10
Oh
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Figure 5.13
the members. These were chosen to give slenderness ratios, IIr, for the columns
of approximately 100, 200 and 500. Slenderness ratio is a convenient way of
combining end conditions, overall length and cross-section properties. I is
called the effective length and is the overall length multiplied by a factor to al-
low for the end supports. r is the radius of gyration of the section, where
I = Ar2. The axial loads cause non-linear behaviour between the formation of
each plastic hinge, but more importantly, they also reduce the collapse load
factor. The bigger the deflections in the structure, the bigger the reduction. In
each case the final mechanism is the combined one, but in the very flexible
frame (fIr = 500) the deflections change the order in which the hinges form.
Table 5.1 shows the collapse load factors. The biggest reduction is about 8 per
cent, although the corresponding IIr ratio of 500 is much greater than would
be used in a practical frame. The IIr ratio of 200 is just above the practical limit,
and in that case, the reduction is around 3.5 per cent.
Table 5.1
Slenderness ratio (IIr) 100 200 500
Reduced collapse load
factor 49.10 48.25 45.93
The reduction in collapse load factor is not really too much of a problem in
single-storey frames, but can be much more so in multi-storey frames. Multi-
storey behaviour has been simulated by applying extra loads to the columns of
the portal frame, as shown in figure 5.12b. The extra loads represent the weight
Simple plastic
50 ---- - --------- --------- - ----
collapse
40 A
30
20
10
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5.14
of the structure and the loading in the higher storeys. As can be seen in figure
5.l4, the results are more dramatic. The higher axial loads cause bigger deflec-
tions and significant changes in behaviour. Table 5.2 summarises the collapse
loads and mechanisms. (Actually some ofthe analysis results are open to ques-
tion because the deflections are no longer 'small' , but the results do give at least
a qualitative picture of what can happen.)
Table 5.2
Slenderness ratio (llr) Col/apse loadfactor Col/apse mechanism
100 46.67 Plastic collapse,

combined mechanism
200 45.l3 Plastic collapse
combined mechanism
500 36.60 Sway buckling
In the stiffer frames (llr ~ 200), collapse still occurs by the combined me-
chanism. In the very flexible frame, the structure reaches its maximum load be-
fore a plastic collapse mechanism forms. In this case the structure becomes
unstable when the third hinge forms at A and the structure buckles, as can be
seen by the very rapidly increasing deflection.
Wood [9] has explained this type of behaviour. Just as the column in the pre-
vious section had an elastic critical load, so too does the frame (Horne and
Merchant [7] have presented a procedure for determining its magnitude).
Usually this load is much greater than the plastic collapse load, as can be seen
in the Ae (original frame) column of table 5.3. However, each time a plastic
hinge forms, the structure resisting the applied loads, that is the effective struc-
ture, is changed. The effective structure can be modelled as having frictionless
hinges at each plastic hinge position, so that its stiffness is much less than that
of the original structure. As the plastic hinges form, the buckling load of the
Table 5.3
IIr Col/apse load Ae (modified Ae (original Ac (simple AR

factor frame) frame) plastic (equation
analysis) 5.10)
100 49.l0 400 2124 50.0 48.9
200 48.25 200 1062 50.0 47.8
500 45.93 80 424 50.0 44.7
100* 46.67 200 531 50.0 45.7
200* 45.l3 100 265 50.0 42.l
500* 36.60 7.6 106 50.0 34.0
* Frame loaded as in figure 5.l2b.

frame is reduced to that of the effective structure. Hence the effective frame and
its elastic buckling load must be modified successively as each hinge forms. Ta-
ble 5.3 also shows the elastic buckling load of the modified frame when the
third plastic hinge has formed. In the case of the flexible frame (fIr = 500), this
elastic critical load is smaller than the applied load so that buckling occurs as
the third plastic hinge forms.
5.3.3 The Rankine-Merchant Load Factor and Wood's Modification

The effects of axial force and deflection are rather disturbing. Except perhaps
for single-storey frames, it is not enough just to calculate the simple plastic col-
lapse load.
Very stiff structures collapse at the simple plastic collapse load, while very
flexible ones buckle at the elastic critical load. In general, these loads can be
found without too much difficulty. Merchant [10] devised a means of approxi-
mating the true collapse load factor, from the simple plastic collapse and elas-
tic critical loads, based on an amplification factor suggested by Rankine for
use in strut analysis. This approximation, called the Rankine-Merchant load
factor, AR, is defined by the equation
1 1 1
-=-+- (5.10)
AR Ac Ae
where Ac = simple plastic collapse load factor
Ae = elastic buckling load factor.
This is plotted in figure 5.l5 with the failure loads of several frames tested by
Low [11]. The Rankine-Merchant load factor gives in every case a safe approxi-
... 3-storey
1.0 -S-storey
o7-storey
: } no horizontal load
..'
o 1.0
Figure 5.15
mation of the observed collapse load factor. The Rankine-Merchant load fac-
tors for the portal frames in the previous section are given in table 5.3. In every
case, the Rankine-Merchant approximation is close to, but lower than, the
theoretical collapse load factor.
The apparent conservatism of AR, as shown in figure 5.15; is partly due to
strain hardening during the testing. Wood [12] suggested a modification to
equation 5.10 to get a better approximation. His value Aw is given by
Ae
when Ac ~ 10
(5.11)
1 0.9 1 Ae
-=-+-
Aw AcAe
when 4::;; 'c
A
< 10
This is shown by the broken line in figure 5.15; as can be seen, it agrees more
closely with the experimental results than the Rankine-Merchant value. When
Ad Ac < 4,Wood suggests that the simple analysis is insufficient and a full sec-
ond-order analysis should be carried out.
Wood's formula is used in BS 5950 [2] as one way of dealing with the instabil-
ity effects. It is quoted in section 5.7.3.3 ofBS 5950, for clad frames, in the form
(1) Acr~4.6
(2) A 0.9Acr when 4.6::;;Acr < 10 (5.12)

P~Acr-l
(3) Ap ~ 1 when Acr ~ 10
This looks nothing like equation (5.11), so it is worth looking at its derivation.
Rearranging the second part of equation 5.11:
1 0.9Ae + Ac
Aw AcAe
Aw = AcAe
0.9Ae + Ac
Aw 1
Ac
0.9 + Ae
When using plastic methods, the structure is designed so that its collapse
load is greater than, or equal to, the factored loads that are applied to it (the re-
quired load factors are specified in the design standard). Since Aw is the actual
collapse load ofthe structure, a safe design would require
Af::;;Aw
where Af is the average required load factor against collapse. Hence
Af
-:;:: -----,,-
Ac -...: 0.9 +~
Using the definitions
>'cr =>'e>'r = elastic buckling load factor
average design load factor
>. _ >'c simple plastic analysis collapse load factor
p - >'r average design load factor
>'c >'p
-=- (5.13)
>'e >'cr
and
1 1
-:.:;;---:--
>'p 0.9 + Z (5.14)
Rearranging:
0.9>'cr + >'p:':;; >'cr>'p
0.9.Acr:':;; >'p(>'cr - 1)
\ 0.9>'cr
1\ ~-
P"">'cr- 1
which is part of equation 5.12.
It is now necessary to look at the limits in equation 5.11.
The lower limit is
~:(=~:)=4
Substituting in 5.14 gives
>'p ~ 0.9 + 0.25
>'p ~ 1.15
and
.Acr ~4.6
which is the first part of 5.12. The other limit is
>'e
>'c
(= .Acr)
>'p
=10
Substituting in 5.14 gives
>'p ~0.9 + 0.1
>'p ~ 1.0
and
which is the third part of 5.12. The factor Ap in 5.12 shows how much the simple
plastic analysis strength must be increased to take account of the second-order
effects.
The next section looks in more detail at how the second-order effects are
dealt with in practice.
5.3.4 How Instability Effects are Dealt with in Practice

Instability can affect designs by plastic methods in various ways. In Chapter 2
it was. shown that local buckling in slender sections can prevent the section
reaching its full plastic moment. Earlier in this chapter, the P-b effect was
shown to reduce the actual collapse load below the value predicted by simple
plastic analysis.
In this section, the way that these problems are dealt with in Codes ofPrac-
tice and Design Standards will be examined. It is convenient to consider
beams, single-storey and multi-storey structures separately.
5.3.4.1 Beams
It is possible that local buckling may prevent the beam reaching its plastic mo-
ment or may limit the plastic rotation capacity to such an extent that full distri-
bution of moments may not be possible.
In a simply supported beam, which is statically determinate, collapse will
occur when a plastic hinge forms at the section with the largest bending mo-
ment. Since no redistribution is required, it is only necessary to have a section
that will achieve its full plastic moment before buckling occurs. When the
beam is continuous, more than one plastic hinge is required. There has to be
plastic rotation to allow the necessary moment redistribution to occur. In this
case, the beam section must be unaffected by local buckling.
Before
<='T='
:[«L
I
After
w
Figure 5.16
Steel sections can be categorised according to their cross-section dimen-
sions. In BS 5950, sections designated as Plastic have the full plastic rotation
capacity, while those called Compact will develop the full plastic moment. In
Eurocode 3 [6], the equivalent categories are Class I and Class 2 respectively.
The majorityofthe standard steel sections are Plastic (Class 1) but the designer
must always check the section category.
The other potential problem is overall buckling of the beam. The flange in
compression may buckle as shown in figure 5.16. The web and tension flange
prevent buckling in the z-direction so the compression flange bends sideways
in the y-direction, causing the whole cross-section to twist. This is called lat-
eral-torsional buckling. Various factors influence when it occurs, including
the amount of restraint on the compression flange. As plastic hinges form,
quite large amounts of the steel around the hinges become plastic which ser-
iously reduces the flange restraint. BS 5950 and Eurocode 3 require external re-
straint within a distance of half the beam depth from a plastic hinge position
and specifY the maximum spacing of further external restraints. These re-
straints ensure that buckling will not occur.
5.3.4.2 Single-storey Structures

The initial design of these structures, which are frequently pitched portal
frames, is normally done using simple plastic analysis, ignoring any deflections
before collapse. It is then necessary to allow for the second-order effects caused
by imperfections in the structure and horizontal deflections before collapse.
BS 5950 does this by means of a supplementary elastic analysis. A notional
horizontal load equal to 0.5 per cent of the total factored vertical load is applied
at the top of the columns and the horizontal deflection is calculated. Provided
the deflection at the top of any column is less than h/lOOO where h is the column
height, simple plastic analysis is considered adequate. (As an alternative, a
more conservative formula has to be satisfied.) Eurocode 3 deals with single-
and multi-storey structures in the same way, as discussed below.
In a pitched portal frame, the sloping members are quite long and slender
and they carry significant axial compressive forces - there is a possibility that
these rafters could buckle. Checks are specified in both BS 5950 and Eurocode
3 to prevent this from happening.
5.3.4.3 Multi-storey Structures

Every multi-storey structure will move sideways when loaded; this is due to the
imperfections in the structure or the sway caused by horizontal loads. The ef-
fects of this horizontal movement can be resisted in different ways. A multi-
storey frame, as in figure 5.17a, will resist vertical and horizontal load by over-
all bending (all the members acting together), provided that the connections
are rigid and capable of transmitting moments between the members.
Shear wall Diagonal bracing
(a) (b) (c)
FigureS.17
The frames in figure 5.17b, c are basically similar in shape to the one in figure
5.17 a and carry the vertical loads by bending. However, horizontal loads are re-
sisted in 5.17b by a vertical concrete cantilever called a shear wall, and in 5.17c
by a vertical steel truss made up from some of the columns and diagonal mem-
bers.
The bigger the sideways deflections, the bigger the extra moments from the
secondary effects. When the secondary effects are negligible, the structure is
called a non-sway frame and, of course, in a sway frame the secondary effects
are significant. The structures in figure 5.17b, c will normally be non-sway, the
one in figure 5.17a may be sway or non-sway, depending on the stiffness of the
columns.
It is necessary to classify the frame as sway or non-sway. In BS 5950 this is
done as follows. A set of notional horizontal forces is applied to the structure.
These loads are applied at each floor level and are taken as 0.5 per cent of the
factored total vertical load applied at that level. An elastic analysis is then
used to find the horizontal deflections at each floor level. The frame is classi-
fied as non-sway if the relative horizontal deflection between top and bottom
of every storey is less than hl2000 where h is the storey height.
The approach in Eurocode 3 is different. Equivalent horizontalforces have to
be calculated. These are similar to the BS 5950 notional loads but they vary in
magnitude with the number of columns and storeys. These are combined with
all the horizontal and vertical loads and used to calculate horizontal deflec-
tions. Two checks are then given. Any frame, including a single storey frame, is
non-sway if
Vsd ~O I
Vcr '" .
where Vsd is the total factored vertical load and Vcr is the elastic buckling load
of the frame. This is equivalent to Acr (as defined in section 5.3.3) ~ 10 and
means that the frame is particularly stiff. A multi-storey beam and column
type frame is non-sway iffor every storey
~ [VSd] ~O.l
h Hsd
where {j is the relative horizontal deflection of the storey, h is the storey height,
Vsd and Hsd are the total vertical and horizontal reactions at the bottom of the
storey.
In practice it is impossible to produce a perfect structure, for example the
columns can never be exactly vertical. The notional and equivalent horizontal
loads take account of these imperfections.
Different design approaches have to be used for sway and non-sway frames,
and these will now be described.
5.3.4.4 Non-sway Frames

In a non-sway frame, the beams can be designed using plastic methods. The
beams at each level are, in effect, continuous so that a beam mechanism can
develop in each bay as shown in figure 5.l8.
The plastic moment required in the beam is then given by
WL 2
Mp=~
where W is the total factored vertical load on the beam. The plastic hinges at
each end of the beam can only occur if the columns and beam framing into
Figure5.IS
we
8
Msr Ms
left L right
New
Mp
Figure 5.19
each joint can develop a total resisting moment at least equal to Mp. To avoid
any buckling problems it is usual to ensure elastic behaviour in the columns,
so that the resistance moment at the joint is given by
Ms = (Sb + Zu + ZI)Py
where Sb is the plastic modulus of the adjoining beam, and Zu and ZI are the
elastic moduli of the upper and lower columns; Py is the design strength of the
steel. If Ms is less than M p , the reactant moment at the end of the beam is lim-
ited to Ms which will increase the required value of M p as shown in figure 5.19.
To illustrate what happens, consider a beam of span 9 m with a factored load
of 75 kN/m. If the full plastic moment can develop at each end, the required
plastic moment would be
75 x 92
Mp = -1-6- = 388.4 kN m
Assuming that the right-hand end is at the outside of the frame and that the col-
umns can only develop an Ms of 325 kN m, the BMD for the beam is as shown.
New
Mp
{ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 jr11111111111111111111111111 ~
M·I. x J 325
The calculation is the same as the one in section 3.5.5. Equilibrium ofthe two
free bodies requires
x2
2Mp -75 2 =0
Mp + 325 _ 75(9 - x)2 = 0

2
Substituting for M p gives
75x2 75
-4-+325 -2(8l-l8x+~) = 0
l8.75x2 - 675x + 2712.5 =0

x = 31.39 or 4.608
Using the sensible value of x:
Mp = 75 x :.608 2 = 398.2 kN m
which is larger than the original value of 388.4 kN m.

The columns have to be designed separately using the appropriate methods
for members carrying axial loads and moments.
5.3.4.5 Sway Frames

There is a reluctance to design sway frames by plastic methods. Even though
design methods have been suggested, it is still something of a step into the un-
known. The problem is to allow for the second order (P-8) non-linear effects
which reduce the strength of the structure below the value found by simple
plastic analysis. If a full second-order analysis program is available, this can
be used to calculate the moments and forces in the structure as the plastic
hinges develop. However, such programs are specialised and not widely avail-
able. First-order programs that allow for the plastic hinges are more readily
available. These can be used, but the calculated moments and the strength of
the structure will have to be increased to allow for the second-order effects.
In BS 5950 this is done by increasing the strength of the structure using
Wood's formulae in the form outlined in section 5.3.3. In equation 5.12, the fac-
tor Ap, which is the amount by which the simple plastic analysis strength has
to be increased, is given as a function of Ace. which is the ratio of the elastic
buckling load factor to the average design load factor. The elastic buckling
load factor can be found from the second-order analysis. The non-linear stiff-
ness matrix is a function of the axial loads in the members. As these loads are
increased the determinant of the stiffness matrix reduces, until at the buckling
load it is equal to zero. BS 5950 also gives a simple, empirical, method for find-
ing Acr. This method was derived by Horne [13], and is accurate enough for
practical purposes.
In Eurocode 3, the first-order analysis results can be multiplied by an ampli-
fication factor to allow for the second-order effects. The amplification factor
is actually the Rankine-Merchant formula changed around in a similar man-
ner to the Wood formulae in section 5.3.3. The lower limit on the ratio >.e/.xc is
4, the same as in Wood's formulae.
5.4 Summary
This chapter has been concerned with deflections, axial loads and imperfec-
tions, and the effects that they have on the collapse of structures.
It was shown initially why it is important in some cases to know the mag-
nitude of deflections in the structure, because limiting those deflections
might be more critical than ensuring that the structure is strong enough. Any
of the analyses based on the stiffness method will give the magnitude of the
deflections.
The second part of the chapter was an examination of the non-linear beha-
viour which results from the axial forces in the members. It was shown that
the effect is a reduction in the collapse load factor of the structure, the amount
of reduction depending on the stiffness (as measured by slenderness ratio) of
the structure: the lower the stiffness, the greater the deflections and reduction
in collapse load factor. In single-storey frames, the reduction is not usually sig-
nificant for a structure with practical values of slenderness ratio in the col-
umns. In multi-storey frames, the reduction can be more serious, leading to
premature buckling before plastic collapse can occur. The Rankine-Merchant
load factor was shown to give a good estimate of the reduced collapse load fac-
tor, although it appears to be rather conservative when compared with test re-
sults. Wood's modification agrees more closely with these results.
In the final part of the chapter is was shown how the second-order non-lin-
ear effects have to be taken into account in the design of structures. There was
a brief discussion of the approaches adopted in BS 5950 and Eurocode 3. With
these ideas in mind, it is appropriate to consider design in more detail. This
will be done in the next chapter.
Problems
You will need to use a stiffness analysis program that allows for plastic hinge
formation to solve problems 5.1 to 5.5. Use an Evalue of 205 kN/mm 2•
5.1. A fixed-end steel beam, span 6 m, carries a vertical load Wat a distance
2 m from the left-hand support. Assuming a plastic moment of180 kN m
and an [value oflO 000 cm4 for the beam, determine the collapse load
and the vertical deflection under the load at collapse.
4W
I = 36 000 cm 4
Mp = 500 kN m
5m
For columns
I...
5 m
.1. 5 m
I = 14000 cm 4
Mp = 325 k"J m
Figure 5.20
60A kN
6m
Figure 5.21
5.2. Find the horizontal and vertical deflections, at collapse, at mid-span

of the portal frame shown in figure 5.20. Take Ito be 10 000 cm 3 and Mp
to be 100 kN m.
5.3. The sway deflection at collapse of the frame shown in figure 5.21 is the
same at the top of both columns. Determine its magnitude, given that
1= 5000 cm 3 and Mp = 100 kN m.
5.4. The pitched portal frame shown in figure 5.22 fails by the combined me-
chanism when>. W = 5Mp /22. Determine the horizontal and vertical
deflections of the ridge at the point of collapse. Take Mp as 500 kN m
and I as 40 000 cm 4 .
5.5. The two-bay frame shown in figure 5.23 has a load factor of 2.0 against
collapse. The BMD at collapse and the plastic hinges are also shown in
figure 5.23.
2..1.W
2.5 m
..1.W
Mp , EI
5m constant
6m 6m
Figure 5.22
550>" kN 550>" kN
C F
2400 kN m 2400 kN m
2El 2EI
1200 kN m 1200 kN m --
EI EI
I. 6m .1. 6m .1.
(a)
2400
(b) 1200 1200 1200
Figure 5.23
Calculate the horizontal deflection at B and the vertical deflections at

C and F, at the point of collapse. Take I for the columns as 64 000 cm3
and for the beams as 325 000 cm4 .
5.6. A fixed-end beam, length L, carries an axial force P and a UDL of inten-
sity PI2L per unit length. The beam has a rectangular cross-section,
width B and depth D, so that
BD2
Mp =4 ay
and the reduced plastic moment due to axial force, M p , is given by
M~ = Mp(l - n2 )
where n = P / P p. Assuming that D = L124:

(a) calculate the simple plastic collapse load (in terms of P), using the
free and reactant BMD method;
(b) show that the reduced collapse load when there is a finite deflection
~ at the mid-span hinge is given by solving the equation
(c) the elastic deflection at mid-span is given by

~ n
L 32(3-n)
Find an estimate of the true collapse load of the beam (in terms of P);
(d) find the Rankine-Merchant load (in terms of P). The elastic critical
load can be found from the equation in (c).
5.7. A beam-column carries a uniform load w per unit length and end
thrusts P as shown in figure 5.24.
An elastic analysis gives the maximum deflection (at mid-span) as
w ( o:L ) WL2
Ymax = p0:2 secT - 1 - 8P
where 0: 2 = PIEI. The beam has the properties
wi unit length
p _-I~~~I~IIII~III~IIII~III~IIII~III~III~IIII~III~IIII~III~IIII~IIII~III~III~IIII~III~IIII~IIII~III~III.~~__ p
EI constant
~ ~
I.. L ~I
Figure 5.24
A = 0.00588 m2 EI = 2.04 x 107 Nm2
Z = 647 X 10- 6 m 3 ay = 275 x 106 Njm 2
L=5m
Taking 2wL = P, show that the solution of the equation
170.lP + 3.153 x 109(sec[5.535 x 10-4 JP] - 1) = 275 X 106
gives the load at which the steel starts to yield. Show that this load is
405 kN and the corresponding deflection is 0.017 m.
The reduced plastic modulus of the beam due to axial load is
S' = (722 - 1289n2 ) x 10- 6 m3
where n = P j Aay. Show that the collapse load at a central deflection y is
given by solution of the equation
1.785n2 + (2.545 + 8.144y)n - 1= 0
Calculate the collapse load when y = 0.025 m.
6 Design Using Plastic Theory
6.1 Introduction
Chapters 3 and 4 were concerned with analysis, that is, solving problems
where the basic geometry of the structure (beam spans and column
heights) and the size of the members are given. This would be the situation
when an existing structure is checked for resistance to collapse. More
frequently the problem is to find the size of the members, given the
loading (or loadings) and the basic geometry, such that the structure has a
required load factor against collapse. The sizing of the members is a design
problem.
Design is in some ways the reverse of analysis and can still be carried out
using plastic methods. Before looking at plastic design it is worth considering
why plastic design should be used. These are the main reasons:
(1) In the United Kingdom, and much ofthe world, the limit state philosophy
of design has been, or is being, adopted. BS 8110 [14] for concrete struc-
tures, BS 5950 [2] for steel buildings and the Eurocodes are all limit state
codes. Most frequently it is the ultimate limit state (the resistance to col-
lapse) that defines the overall design. Obviously, plastic theory is directly
applicable to the ultimate limit state. Some of the older codes which were
based on what is called the working stress philosophy ofdesign allowed the
use of plastic methods.
(2) The collapse load of a structure can generally be predicted more accu-
rately than the initial elastic behaviour. Partly this is because 'lack of fit'
does not affect collapse (see section 1.3.2.3).
(3) The calculations required by plastic theory are easier than those required
by elastic theory. However, this is becoming less important now that com-
puters perform many of the calculations.
(4) Plastic methods give the designer considerable flexibility. It is the de-
signer who is in control, rather than the member properties. This will be
shown later in this chapter and also in Chapter 8 when the design of rein-
forced concrete slabs is considered.
133
Of course there are problems, some of which were discussed in the previous
chapter. It must be borne in mind that:
(i) There are some designs in which the ultimate state is not critical. For ex-
ample, in some structures, strict limits on deflections at normal working
loads (when the structure is probably elastic) are more important than re-
sistance to collapse.
(ii) The simple plastic methods make no allowance for deflections before col-
lapse and the secondary (P-c5) effects that arise from them. They also
ignore the possibility of buckling.
6.2 Load Factors

The object of any design based on plastic theory is to produce a structure with
a specified load factor (or factors) against collapse. The load factors required
are a complex subject in their own right. The load factors used in the various
limit state codes are based on the probability of occurrence of various load
combinations. Consequently, different load factors "If are required for various
loadings, as shown in table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Type ofload or combination ofloads "Iffactor

BS5950 Eurocodes BS8110
Dead load 1.4 1.35 1.4
Dead load restraining uplift or ovetturning 1.0 1.0 1.0
Imposed load 1.6 1.5 1.6
Wind load 1.4 1.35 1.4
Dead + imposed + wind load 1.2 1.35 dead 1.2
and
imposed
1.215 wind
There is consistency within the British Standards, although there are

some differences from the Eurocodes. The Eurocode values given are for use
in the United Kingdom, each country in the EU has its own values. This is to
allow for the different load values and traditional design approach of each
country.
In limit state design, some of the material properties are divided by a safety
factor "1m. In BS 5950 a factor of 1.0 is used, in Eurocode 3 (for steel structures)
the value is 1.05. This factor is to allow for the variability of the material proper-
Design Using Plastic Theory 135
ties. Concrete is far more variable than steel and this is reflected in the factors
in BS 8110 and Eurocode 2, where a factor of 1.5 is used for the compressive
strength of the concrete.
Effectively, the total load factor is the product of the load partial safety factor
'Yf and the material partial safety factor 'Ym. On that basis it can be seen that the
British Standards and the Eurocodes have very similar load factors.
The various examples in this chapter use arbitrarily chosen load factors to il-
lustrate the principles of the plastic methods. In some cases the values are
very similar to the code values.
6.3 Design of a Simply Supported Beam

Figure 6.1 shows a simply supported beam of span 7 m. It carries UDL unfac-
tored dead and imposed loads, each of 8 kN/m, and a central concentrated im-
posed load of 50 kN:
factored UDL = 1.4 x 8 + 1.6 x 8 = 24 kN/m
factored point load = 1.6 x 50 = 80 kN
hence moment from factored (that is collapse) load
24;72 +80;7 = 532kNm

The required plastic moment of the beam section is 532 kN m. In the design
codes, the yield strength a y is replaced by the steel design strength
py (= ay/'Ym). The value for mild steel is 275 N/mm2 for steel up to 16 mm
thick. Since
Mp = SPy
the required plastic modulus S
532 x 103 __ 1935 3

= 275 em
Referring to the handbook of steel section properties [3], a suitable section
can be chosen. In this case a 457 x 191 UB 89 (S = 2014 cm3, plastic) or a
50 kN
.. .... ...
Figure 6.1
533 x 210 VB 82 (S = 2056 cm3, compact) would be suitable. It is possible to
use the compact section because only one plastic hinge is needed in the col-
lapse mechanism of a simply supported beam.
It has been assumed in this example that the top, compression, flange of
the beam has been restrained to prevent any possibility of lateral torsional
buckling.
6.4 Continuous Beam Design by Plastic Theory

The beam shown in figure 6.2 is to be designed by plastic methods. The exam-
ple is rather idealised because only one combination of loads is considered
but it does illustrate the general approach to plastic design. Initially it is as-
sumed that each span has a different size member. The first stage is to examine
all the possible collapse mechanisms, which in this example can only be beam
mechanisms in each span. Simultaneous collapse of the spans will produce
the most economic design, and this can be achieved by choosing appropriate
member sizes. In this circumstance the BMD at collapse will be as in figure
6.3. The free and reactant BMDs can be used to find the actual BM at any point:
500 x 20
span AB : free BMmax = 4 = 2500 kN m
320 x 20
span BC : free BMmax = 4 = 1600 kN m
340 x 8 x 16
span CD: free BMmax = 24 = 1813 kNm
There is no difficulty with the free BMs but consider the reactant BM at the
supports Band C where there are plastic hinges. The value ofthe BM is shown
as MB and Me at Band C respectively. The moments are equal to the smaller
plastic moment of the two members meeting at Band C, but the relative mag-
nitudes of the plastic moments are unknown at this stage.
MB = smaller of MJ and M2
Me = smaller of M2 and M3
500 kN 320 kN 340 kN (Collapse loads,

load factor 1.75)
D
16 m
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
This impasse can be removed by considering each span in turn and making
some guesses:
Span AB: guess that M, < M2. Figure 6.4 shows the corresponding BMD.
The geometry of the BMD requires that
2M, = 2500 kN m
(6.1 )
M, = 1250kNm
Span BC: guess that M2 < M" M2 < M3. The geometry of the BMD in figure
6.5 requires that
2M2 = 1600 kNm
(6.2)
M2 = 800kNm
Span CD: guess that M3 < M 2. Using similar triangles in the BMD, which is
shown in figure 6.6:
2
3M3 + M3 = 1813
(6.3)
M3 = 1088 kNm
The calculations are applications of the free and reactant BM method.

The guesses were made to simplify the calculations, because as a result of the
initial guess there was only one unknown in each span. Of course, the three
guesses are incompatible; for example M, < M2 in span AB, but M, > M2 in
M1 M1
M1
Figure 6.4
M2 M2
M2
Figure 6.5
M3
Figure 6.6
span Be. The results of the calculations can now be used to check the guesses.
Thus
M2(= 800 kNm) < M,(= 1250 kNm)

< M3(= 1088 kNm)
so that the guess for span BC was correct, but those for AB and CD were
wrong. The conclusion is that M2 = 800 kN m but the calculations for AB
and CD must be repeated using MB = Me = 800 kN m
SpanAB
800 kN m
M, + 800 + M, = 2500
2
3
2M, = 2100
M, = 1400kNm (6.4)
Span CD
800 kN m
M3
2
"3 x 800 + M3 = 1813 (6.5)
M3 = 1280 kNm
Notice that the new calculations give larger values for M, and M 3; this is be-
cause effectively a smaller reactant moment has been used at Band C. This
will always be the case, and is very reassuring because it means there is no pos-
sibility of the initially correct guesses becoming incorrect. Thus only one set of
repeat calculations is ever necessary.
Plastic theory has given the required plastic moments in each span. Assum-
ing mild steel (design strength 265 N/mm2), these can be transferred to mem-
ber sizes using the steel sections handbook [3]:
Span M p (required) S (required) Section chosen S (provided) Depth

(kNm) (cm 3) (cm 3) d
(mm)
AB 1400 5283 610 x 305 VB 179 5521 617.5
BC 800 3019 533 x 210 VB 122 3203 544.6
CO 1280 4830 686 x 254 VB 152 5163 687.6
The lighter 762 x 267 VB 147 section cannot be used in span CD because it is
classed as compact and would not allow redistribution of moments to occur.
At this stage, the designer can take charge and interpret this basic informa-
tion in various ways. Consider the following.
First Design
Accept the table of sections at face value and use a different section in each
span. This design and its BMO at collapse are shown in figure 6.7. It is techni-
610 x 305 UB 179 686 x 254 UB 152
1400 1280'
Figure 6.7
cally satisfactory, but a steel fabricator's nightmare. At Band C it is necessary

to connect together members of completely different dimensions, in such a
way that a plastic hinge will form in the weaker member. These connections
are, of course, in addition to any others that may be necessary, since it is unli-
kely that the steel would be available in 20 m lengths!
Second Design
To eliminate the connections at Band C, a single size of member could be used
throughout. This means that MJ = M2 = M3. It is not necessary to do any
more calculations because the initial results, equations 6.1 to 6.3, would be
obtained. The largest value of plastic moment (MJ = 1250 kNm) must then
be used throughout. However, AB would collapse before the other spans
since the plastic moment provided in them is considerably greater than
required by the calculations. This is uneconomic use of material in BC
and CD.
Third Design
Use the smallest possible member size (Mp = 800 kN m) in all spans. The
BMD at collapse can be drawn by adding the same free BMs to the modified
reactant BMs, as in figure 6.8. Apart from two relatively short lengths in the
middle of AB and CD, the basic section provided has an adequate plastic mo-
ment. In those two short lengths, the plastic moment can be increased by add-
ing plates to the flanges of the basic section (see problem 2.1 and figure 6.9).
The length of the plates is obtained from the BMD.
BOO BOO BOO
--~-m-----BOO\
----BOO~
Capacity of
basic section
Plates
Figure 6.8
Plates D
Figure 6.9
Plate details, span AB

maximum BM = 1700 kN m
basic section = 800 kN m
Mp of plates = 900 kN m
Mp of plates = btDay
that is
900 X 106 2
bt = 544.6 x 265 = 6236 mm
The values of band t can be chosen to suit. From similar triangles (figure 6.l0)
x 800
10 - x 1700
1700x = 8000 - 800x
8000
x= 2500 = 3.2m
n
10-x
800
800
11\.------7 80 a
l±J
Figure 6.10
length of plates = 2(lO - 2x)

= 2(lO - 6.4)
=7.2m
Plate details, span CD
maximum BM = 1280 kNm
basic section= 800 kN m
Mp of plates = 480 kN m
480 x lO6 2
bt = 544.6 x 265 = 3326 mm
From similar triangles (figure 6.11)
x 800
8- x 1280
1280x = 6400 - 800x
6400
x = 2080 = 3.08 m
y 800
n
16 1280
80~n
II~~
UJ 1280
Figure 6.11
~ Plates
533 x 210 u~
Figure 6.12
800 x 16
y = 1280 = 1O.Om
length of plates = (8 - 2x) + (16 - y)

= 24 - 2 x 3.08 - 10
= 7.84 m
Figure 6.12 shows the details of the design.

This example is not necessarily realistic in terms of loading, spans or sup-
ports. It is completely realistic in showing how plastic methods can be used to
determine the overall size of the members and plates. It was possible to obtain
the three designs with very little extra calculation. In a design by elastic meth-
ods it is usually necessary to make some assumptions about member sizes
(usually second moments of area) in order to start the calculations, and only at
the end can the assumptions be checked. With the plastic methods, the initial
guesses were very quickly checked and corrected. The evolution of the plated
design was controlled by the designer. The plates have a significant effect on
the elastic properties of the members, and this effect is very tedious to calcu-
late. Figure 6.13 shows the elastic BMDs for the three designs under normal
working load conditions. All three are satisfactory in that none of the BMs are
large enough for yield to occur.
The dilemma is that there are three different designs which cannot be faulted
technically. The choice between them is influenced by other factors. The first
design can "be rejected because it is needlessly difficult to fabricate. The choice
between the other two will be decided by cost. Is the cost offixing the plates to
the beam (probably by welding) more or less than the cost ofthe extra steel re-
quired in the single member design?
The method outlined in the example was based on the free and reactant
BMD method and is of course suitable for all beams. It must be emphasised
that the method only gives the overall sizes of the members and plates. There
are other details that would need to be considered, for example, web stiffeners
at the supports and under the loads, and of course lateral torsional buckling
must be checked. However, these are beyond the scope ofthis book.
286 kN 183 kN 194 kN Working loads
i i i
I
839 • • ~
776
(a) 1 st design: different section in each span
(b) 2nd design: one large section throughout
631
870
(c) 3rd design: plated design
Figure 6.13
6.5 Optimum Design
6.5.1 Factors Affecting a Design

The previous examples showed how beams can be designed using plastic
methods. Before moving on to consider framed structures, it would be prudent
to examine what the designer is trying to achieve.
The obvious objective is to produce a structure with a given load factor
against collapse. As figure 6.14 shows, that in itself leads to a tightrope situa-
tion. If the collapse load factor of the final structure is greater than the required
value, the structure is 'over-designed' and therefore uneconomical. If the col-
lapse load factor is smaller than the required value, the structure is 'under-
designed' and unsafe. The designer has to get the design 'just right' , achieving
). required
Structure Structure safe

unsafe but uneconomic
Figure 6.14
the minimum necessary strength. It usually turns out that there are several
ways of doing this, and it is then up to the designer to choose the 'best' way. In
other words, the optimum design must be achieved.
To do this, other factors than strength need to be examined. The most im-
portant factors are:
(1) minimum total weight of material;
(2) availability of structural steel sections - there is no point in producing a
design and then finding that the chosen members are unavailable;
(3) convenience of fabrication - machining, cutting and welding are all ex-
pensive;
(4) limiting deflections.
The optimum design will be a balance between these factors such that the final
structure has:
(5) minimum total cost.
It is now possible to produce mathematically, within certain limitations, the
optimum design. The full details are beyond the scope of this book, but it is
possible to illustrate the approach. Most of the rest ofthe chapter will consider
minimum weight design, designs that satisfY (1), but at the end it will be shown
how the other factors can be considered.
Minimum weight designs by hand calculations require the use of interaction
diagrams with the unknown plastic moments as the axes. This further limits
the method to structures with only two different sized members. As will be
seen, there is virtually no limitation to the number of unknown members
when the computer is used.
6.5.2 Weight Functions

The graph in figure 6.15 is a plot of weight per unit length against plastic
modulus for all the universal beam and universal column sections detailed
in the tables of structural sections [3], together with best fit curves through
the points.
5(cm 3 )
15 000
9 = 0.735°·63 _ _ o
un iversal beams
o
10 000 o
o "'" 9 = 0.465°·74
universal columns
o
5000
""""'----''-----'------'-------'--~ 9 (kg/m)
a 200 400 600
Figure 6.15
There are distinct curves for the beams and the columns. In fact, if this is
done for all the possible section shapes there is a curve for each shape. The
curve is of the form:
(6.6)
where g = weight/unit length (say kg/m), S = plastic modulus (cm~, and c and
n are constants.
The plastic modulus S is related to the plastic moment of the section by the
equation
(6.7)
For sections made from the same grade of steel, uy is constant and equation
(6.6) can be changed to
(6.8)
where k = c/(ayt. This relationship is difficult for hand calculations and has
to be simplified. The curves in figure 6.15 are shallow and can be represented
by a series of straight lines, which would have the form
g = k\Mp + k2 (6.9)
Table 6.2 gives the values of kl and k2 for various straight lines on the universal
beam curve.
Table 6.2
S-range Mildsteelay = 275 N/mm2 Other steels
(cm1 k2
Mp range (kN m) kl kl
0-2000 0-500 0.140 38.6/ay 15.2
1000-3000 250-750 0.102 28.1/ay 30.7
2000-6000 500-1500 0.079 21.5/ay 48.0
5000-10 000 1250-2500 0.062 17.0/ay 73.1
The line for the S-range 5000 cm3 to 10 000 cm3 is shown in figure 6.15. The
maximum discrepancy is when Sis 5000 cm 3 and is only 1.4 per cent. Figure
6.15 shows that the line is in fact a very good representation of the actual rela-
tionship between g and S (= Mp/ a y ) in the range 3000-15 000 cm3•
The relationship between weight per unit length and plastic moment (equa-
tion 6.9 in general) can be used to find the total weight of the structure, G, in
terms of the plastic moment of each member. This is called the weight function
ofthe structure:
(6.10)
where L = member length and the summation is made over every member, so
that
(6.11)
In equation 6.11 the first part of the right-hand side L kJMpL is variable since
its value depends on Mp; the second part is constant. The object of minimum
weight design is to make the variable part as small as possible.
6.5.3 Minimum Weight Design o/a Continuous Beam

A two-span continuous beam is the simplest example that can be used to illus-
trate minimum weight design. Figure 6.16 shows a beam. The first stage is to
consider the possible collapse mechanisms. They must include the two possibi-
1ities MJ < M2 and MJ > M2 since the relative values of the plastic moments
are unknown.
The table shows the external and internal work for beam mechanisms in
each span separately. There are four possible mechanisms, but only one of
them is critical. Since the beam must be safe against all possible mechanisms,
the work equation for each mechanism must be written in the form
100HN 200 AkN
~ ~
• I~ Sm
Ml
...13!&
..I.
Figure 6.16
Sm
1
==I
Sm
.I
Mechanism External Internal work Internal work
work MI>M2 MI >M2
(a) (b)
~ Ml
100A x 5(} M I(}+2MI¢
= 500A(}
MI(} + M t ¢ + M 2¢
= MI (1 + 130)(} = Mt (1 +D(}+
3¢ = 5(}
5
= .!2Mt (} M2 x 3(}
¢ = ~(} 3
3
= GMt +~M2)(}
(c) (d)
~ a
M2
a 200A X 50! MIO! + 3M20!
= 1000AO! = (Mt + 3M2)0!
4M20!
13
3Mt(}~500A(} (a)
GMt +~M2)0!~500A(} (b) (6.12)

(MJ + 3M2)0!~ 1000AO! (c)
4M20!~ 1000AO! (d)
meaning that the internal resistance (represented by the internal work) for each
mechanism is greater than or equal to the effort of the applied loads, to satisfY
the safety requirement. In the (unknown) critical mechanism, the work equation
will be an equality to ensure that the structure has just the required load factor.
The magnitude of the virtual rotations can be cancelled in each case. Equations
6.12 can be plotted on an interaction diagram with M] and M 2 as the axes. This is
shown in figure 6.17 assuming that the required load factor is 2.0.
2000
1600
1200
Permissible region
800
400
a
'----'----L_----'_-""'''----_--'-=::::::",-.L~_..L_~ M2 (kNm)
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 6.17
In contrast to Chapter 3, the permissible region (PR) which satisfies equa-

tions 6.12 must be as shown in figure 6.17. The diagram shows that mechanism
b in the left-hand span with M) > M2 is never critical, because it does not
form a boundary of the PRo The intersection of a and c, at point Y, represents
the combination of M) and M2 with M) < M2 at which both spans would col-
lapse simultaneously. There is no relationship between the plastic rotations in
each span when this occurs, which is why different symbols were used in the
original table. The intersection of band d should represent simultaneous col-
lapse with M) > M 2 . In this case this is not possible because the intersection,
at point Z, shows M) < M2.
Using equation 6.11, the weight function for the beam is
G = k) (8M) + 10M2) + 18k2 (6.13)
For the purposes of the design it is sufficient to consider the variable part of
equation 6.13 only:
G' = k) (8M) + 10M2) (6.14)
and add on 18k2 at the end.
Equation 6.14 is the equation of a family of parallel straight lines on the inter-
action diagram. One line can be drawn by guessing a value of G' and then find-
ing two points on the line. Guess G' = 4000k) , so that when
M2 = 400kNm
M) = 500kNm
The line, which is shown in figure 6.17, lies outside the PR. If G' is increased
sufficiently the line will just touch the boundary of the PR. This is the smallest
value of G' that can be found from values of M J and M 2 which lie somewhere
within the PR, and is called the minimum weight line. The values of M J and M2
at the intersection of the minimum weight line and the boundary of the PR,
point Y, are the member sizes for a minimum weight solution. The minimum
weight design for the beam is
M\ = 230.8 kN m
M2 = 589.7 kNm
G:nin = kJ (8 x 230.8 + 10 x 589.7) = 7743k 1
so that the actual minimum weight of material is

Gmin = 7743k 1 + l8k2
589.7
kNm
589.7
(a) BMD at collapse: minimum weight design
500 500
kNm
62.5
500
(b) BMD at collapse: single section design
kNm
230.8 230.8
Extra strength
from plates
769.2
(c) BMD at collapse: plated design
Figure 6.18
It turns out that the minimum weight design will result in simultaneous col-
lapse in both spans, as is confirmed by the BMD at collapse shown in figure
6.18a. The minimum weight design requires a different size member in each
span, which is perhaps not very practical. The alternative single section or pla-
ted designs can also be largely determined from the interaction diagram. The
smallest possible value for M2 is 500 kN m, determined by line d. If this sec-
tion is used throughout the beam, the BMD at collapse is shown in figure
6.18b. This shows that the section is satisfactory for both spans, and so deter-
mines the single section design. The smallest value of M J is 230.8 kN m from
line a. The BMD at collapse, figure 6.18c, shows that plates with a plastic mo-
ment of 538.4 kN m would be required in the right-hand span.
6.5.4 Minimum Weight Design ofa Portal Frame

Minimum weight design can be used for frames. The connections of the differ-
ent sized members is less difficult because they are at right-angles (or nearly at
1250 A kN
1100AkN
3m
3m 5m
1st load case, 1..=1.4

1000 AkN 1000AkN
4m
2nd load case, A =1.75

Figure 6.19
right-angles in pitched portal frames). The approach is identical to the continu-
ous beam. The design of the portal frame in figure 6.19 illustrates how the
method can be used when there are several load cases.
In the second load case, the combined mechanism can occur even though
there is no horizontal force. The second hinge in the beam disappears because
the symmetry has been destroyed.
Mechanism External work Internal work Internal work

MI>M2 MI >M2
1st load case 1250 x 1.4 x 30

(a) (b)
= 52500
r=--=l.
8 tP
MIO + M2(0 + t/» + MIt/> 2M2 (0 + t/»
= (MI +M2)(0+~0) = 156 M20

8
5t/> = 30 =SCMI +M2)0
t/> = ~O
5
t
(c) (d)
1:
llOO x 1.4 x 3a
= 4620a 4MIQ 2(MI +M2)a
r-l
(e) (f)
(5250 + 4620)0 8
SCMI +M2)0 16
= 98700 SMIH
+4MI0-2MI0 2(MI +M2)O
= C8 8)0
SMI +SM2 -2M2O
= (2MI + 156 M2)0
2nd load case 2 x 1000 x 1.75 x 2/3

(g) (h)
f3 f3
r-1
= 7000/3 2(MI +M2)/3 4M2/3
r
Note symmetry
No horizontal load, thus no sway
f3 y
1:'~XL71
(k)
MI x 2/3+
~ ~ x (2/3 + 2')')
M2(2/3 + 21')
6'}' = ~/3 = 3500(1+D/3
= (2MI +~M2)/3
'}' = 3/3 = 4667/3
The inequalities resulting from the table are
8 8
SM! +SM2~5250 (a)
16
SM2~5250 (b)
4M!~4620 (c)
1st load case (6.15)
2M! + 2M2 ~ 4620 (d)
18 8
SM! +SM2~9870 (e)
16
2M! +SM2~9870 (f)
2M! + 2M2 ~ 7000 (g)

4M2~7000 (h)
10 4 2nd load case (6.16)
3 M ! +3M2~4667 (j)
8
2M! +3M2~4667 (k)
The interaction diagram from equations 6.15 and 6.16 is shown in figure 6.20.
The PR satisfies the inequalities from both load cases.
The weight function for the frame is
(6.17)
M1 (kN m)
PR
Minimum weight solution
G'=
o 1000 3000 5000 7000
Figure 6.20
assuming the same type of members for columns and beam. The variable part
of the weight function
(6.18)
can be plotted on the interaction diagram to find the minimum weight solu-
tion. The solution is
M) = 1898 kNm
M2 = 1898 kNm
G:run = k) (6 x 1898 + 8 x 1898) = 26572k)
Gmin = 26572k) + 13k2
In the examples the minimum weight solution has been found without needing
the numerical values ofthe constants kl and k 2 • This is generally the case when
only one type of section is being used. When different types of section (for exam-
ple, universal beams and universal columns) are required, it is necessary to use
numerical values for the constants when setting up the weight function.
In conc1usioq, one note of warning. In the two examples a unique solution
was found because the minimum weight line touches only one point on the
boundary of the PRo In some cases the minimum weight line will coincide with
one side ofthe boundary of the PRo Any pair of plastic moments lying on the co-
incident boundary would be acceptable and give the same weight of materia1.
6.5.5 Minimum Weight Design by Computer

The object of minimum weight design is to minimise the structure weight func-
tion subject to the constraints of the inequalities derived from the possible me-
chanisms. The weight function and the constraints are all linear in the
unknown plastic moments, so that the solution of the problem is one of linear
programming. There are many schemes for achieving the solution, perhaps the
most useful of which is the Simplex method [15, 16]. The Simplex method is rea-
sonably efficient for use on a computer and can handle a large number of un-
known plastic moments. There are standard computer programs in existence
which will handle the complete process [17, 18].
It has also proved possible to include some of the other design factors when
using the computer. The starting point was to use the actual relationship be-
tween g and M p> equation 6.8, when setting up the weight function. This made
the function non-linear so that the solution had to be obtained using non-linear
programming [16]. It then follows that the non-availability of sections can be
considered by effectively removing the portion of equation 6.8 that corre-
sponds to the unavailable sections. The weight function is then non-linear and
non-continuous [19]. The limits on deflections are further constraints on the de-
sign (similar to the mechanisms) but they are non-linear. Non-linear program-
ming can also handle this type of constraint [19].
The main difficulty with complicated frames is identifying all the mechan-
isms. The design can only be correct if every possible constraint has been con-
sidered. In addition, the number of constraints becomes very large so that the
solution requires large amounts ofcomputer time. Various alternative formula-
tions of the constraints have been used to get round these problems [16].
6.5.6 Second-order Effects

The optimum design method described above is based on 'simple' plastic
methods. It does not make any allowance for the second-order effects de-
scribed in the previous chapter. Obviously those would have to be checked in
order to complete the design.
6.6 Direct Design of Pitched Portal Frames
6.6.1 The Method

Pitched portal frames are probably the most common structure designed by
plastic methods. They are used in warehouses, factories and large retail cen-
tres, and are required to have large spans in relation to the height of the col-
umns. As a result, it is usually the combination of dead and vertical imposed
load and the pitched portal mechanism that are critical in the design. After
the members have been determined, the other important load case (dead + im-
posed + wind load) can be checked, together with the second-order effects,
which are likely to be small. A direct method for designing the frame will be de-
scribed here. It was originally proposed in reference [20].
Figure 6.21 shows a typical pitched portal frame. The sloping members (raf-
ters) are fabricated from universal beam sections. It is also quite common to
use universal beams for the columns. At the rafter/column joint, there is a
Fv per unit length

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
xh
Ll2 Ll2
Figure 6.21
Mpc Tension
on outside
Tension on inside
H---I~"'"
v
Figure 6.22
haunch which is usually cut from the same section as the rafter and then welded
to the underside of the rafter. The haunch has two purposes: it reduces the size
of the rafter required and it also makes the connection more efficient. The
length of the haunch is typically about a tenth of the span. There is usually an-
other smaller haunch at the crown, where the rafters meet. That haunch gives
a better connection and tends to reduce the deflection of the rafters.
In figure 6.21, the loading is shown as uniformly distributed but in reality it is
applied to the rafters at distinct points. The roof is supported by purlins, mem-
bers that run along the length of the building, and the load is applied where
each purlin is attached to the rafter.
The pitched portal mechanism forms with this loading. Assuming that the
structure and loading are symmetric, the mechanism will be as in figure 6.22.
Look at the locations of the plastic hinges in the figure. If the columns have re-
strained feet, a hinge will form there. Another forms in the column at the level
of the bottom of the haunch. The last hinge forms at point D. This is usually at
the position of the third purlin from the crown. Figure 6.22 shows where there is
tension and compression at each hinge.
Along BC, the inside of the haunch, there is compression. In order to avoid
any local buckling problems in the haunch region, the whole haunch is kept
elastic. To ensure this and produce an economic design, the moment at point
C is limited to the value that just causes the extreme fibres of the rafter to reach
the yield stress. (If desired, this moment could be set to a lower value,) The aver-
age shape factor (see section 2.3.2) for a universal beam is 1.15, so that the mo-
ment is limited to M p /1.15 = O.87Mp •
Figure 6.22 shows a free body diagram ofhalfthe frame. In order to give equi-
librium of the free body, there are reactions at the foot ofthe column and a hori-
zontal force H and moment M at the crown. There are five unknown quantities:
M, H, V, Mpc and M pr , where Mpc and Mpr are the plastic moments of the col-
umn and rafter respectively. V can be found directly from vertical equilibrium:
L
V -Fy-=O
2 (6.19)
L
V=FY 2"
Four equations relating the other unknowns can be found by considering mo-
ment equilibrium at A, B, C and D respectively.
Moment Equilibrium at A
i.
M
Fv
H
~
Mpc
F, (L)2
M + Hh(1 + x) - Mpc - ~ = 0
2 (6.20)
M +Hh(1 +x) - Mpc =T
F, L2
Moment Equilibrium at B
h-dt-i
H
H(h - dH) - 2Mpc = 0 (6.21)
Moment Equilibrium at C
cEll:r j
M
1II111111111111111111111111~1I1II1I1II1II1I11I1I1II1I11I H
Mpr-
1.15 - 0.87 Mpr
~ L
xh(l-2~HJ
--4.
2
2
( 2LH Fv L
)
M+Hxh 1 - £ +0.87Mpr =2 ( "2- LH ) (6.22)
Moment Equilibrium at D
1111111111111111111111111111111
~-
2Lp FvL~
M + Hxhy - Mpr = -2- (6.23)
The simultaneous equations 6.20 to 6.23 can be solved to give the values of M,
H, M pc and M pr, and suitable plastic sections can then be chosen from the sec-
tion tables.
It is then necessary to check the other load case (dead, imposed and
wind load). With this loading the combined mechanism will be critical.
Figure 6.23 shows the mechanism and the frame split into two free body
diagrams. There are now vertical (S) and horizontal (H) forces and a
moment (M) at the crown. The unknown quantities are S, H, M and >., the
load factor that must be applied to the loads to produce the combined
mechanism.
Four simultaneous equations can be obtained by looking at moment equili-
brium at points A, E, F and G as shown in figure 6.24.
AWy
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
~LL= p
+
HA ~
HG
.... Mpc Mpc
VA VG
Figure 6.23
M M
H H
F
S
~
A Mpc
~ All + external loads
-----P"'" Mpc M
M
~,(+tH
H
G
~
~
Mpc
Figure 6.24
6.6.2 An Example ofPitched Portal Frame Design
Figure 6.25 shows the frame. It is slightly different from the one in the pre-
vious section in that it has pinned feet. It is required to carry a dead load of
4.5 kN/m, load factor 1.4 and an imposed load of 4.0 kN/m, load factor 1.6:
factored vertical load = 1.4 x 4.5 + 1.6 x 4.0 = 12.7 kN/m
M +H x 6.75 = 12.7; 302

(6.24)
M + 6.75H = 1428.8
Moment Equilibrium at B
3.25H - Mpc =0 (6.25)
2.75 x 12.5 12.7 x 12.5 2

M +H 15 +0.87Mpr = 2 (6.26)
M + 2.29H + 0.87 Mpr = 992.2
Moment Equilibrium at D
M H2.75x3_M _12.7x3 2
+ 15 pr - 2 (6.27)
M + 0.55H - Mpr = 57.2
The pinned feet change slightly the equations for moment equilibrium at
A and B. Gathering the simultaneous equations 6.24 to 6.27 together:
1.5 m each
15 m 15 m
Figure 6.25
8.5"tkNim
II!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111111
6.tkN/m
(a)
(b)
Va
Figure 6.26
M+6.75H 1428.8
3.25H - Mpc = 0
(6.28)
M + 2.29H + 0.87Mpr = 992.2
M + 0.55H - Mpr = 57.2
These can be solved to give

M= 312.2kNm
H = 165.4 kNm
Mpc = 537.6 kNm
Mpr = 346.1 kNm
Referring to the section tables and using grade 43 steel (py = 275 N/mm2),
suitable sections are 457 x 152 UB 60 (Mpr = 353.1 kN m) for the rafters and
533 x 210 UB 92 (Mpc = 650.7 kN m) for the columns. The plastic moments
of the chosen sections are larger than required, giving a reserve of strength
against second-order effects.
Wind loading can be quite complicated, so the simplified loading showing in
figure 6.26a will be used to illustrate the check on the second load case.
Using the free body diagrams in figure 6.26b:
M +S x 15 + R x 6.75 _ 8.5,X ; 15 2 6,X X 42 = 0

2 (6.29)
M + 15S + 6.75R - 1004.25'x =0
8.5A x 32
M + S x 3 + R x 0.55 - 2 = 346.1
(6.30)
M + 3S + 0.55R - 38.25A = 346.1
Moment Equilibrium at F
M - S x 15 + R x 3.5 _ 8.5A; 15 2 = -537.6

(6.31)
M - 15S + 3.5R - 956.25A = -537.6
Moment Equilibrium at G
M_SX15+RX6.75_ 8 . 5A ;15 2 =0
(6.32)
M - 15S + 6.75R - 956.25A =0
The simultaneous equations (6.29) to (6.32) can be solved to give
M = 303.6kNm
S = 2.3 kN
R = 165.4 kN
A = 1.45
The required load factor for this load case would be 1.2, so that the frame is sa-
tisfactory.
The test in BS 5950 shows that this frame meets the stability requirements, so
that second-order effects can be neglected. The various forces and moments gi-
ven by the solution of the simultaneous equations in both load cases are useful
for the design ofthe connections and the foundations.
6.6.3 Asymmetric Pitched Portal Frames

These can be dealt with in a similar manner. The pitched portal mechanism
will still be critical but it will no longer be symmetric. It is more difficult to lo-
cate the plastic hinges but they will probably be in the positions indicated in
figure 6.27a. As shown in figure 6.27b, there are now five unknowns so five si-
multaneous equations have to be solved.
6.7 Summary
The design of structures by plastic methods has been illustrated in this chapter.
In continuous beams, a straightforward trial-and-error process leads to designs
(a)
(b) ~
Figure 6.27
that consider resistance to collapse and ease offabrication. In frames, the pur-
pose of the design process is to produce an optimum solution. In its simplest
form this means a design requiring the use of the minimum weight of material
to ensure the required load factor against collapse. A computer can be used for
the design of more complex structures with many different member sizes and
also to allow for other design considerations such as the non-availability of sec-
tions. (However the second order effects must also be considered.) A direct
method is available for pitched portal frames; this gives the required plastic mo-
ments in the rafters and columns as well as other useful design information.
Problems
6.1. Determine, for the continuous beam in figure 6.28, the plastic moments
for (a) a design based on the critical span, and (b) a plated design. The
loads shown are the collapse loads.
6.2. The continuous beam shown in figure 6.29 is to be designed with a load
factor against collapse of 2.0. Examine the possible designs for (a) ease
of fabrication, and (b) weight of material used. Which is the best design?
The weight per unit length of the beam section is kMP' where Mp is the
plastic moment of the section. The weight per unit length of plates is
1.5kM, where M is the plastic moment of the plates. Where plates are
100 kN 180 kN
16 m
Figure 6.28
3wL 3wL
Unfactored loads
3L
Figure 6.29
3W
2W
Collapse loads shown
L L
Figure 6.30
used, they must extend 0.1L beyond the points where they are no longer
required to resist bending.
6.3. Assuming the columns to be made from identical sections, what is the
minimum weight design for the portal frame in figure 6.30? Assume the
weight per unit lengthg = kJMp + k2.
6.4. Design the pitched portal frame in figure 6.31 for minimum weight.
Assume
for the columns,gc = 0.75Mp + 90
for the rafters,gR = O.4Mp + 75
6.5. Assuming the same section for the columns, and another section for the
sloping members, find the minimum weight of steel required in the frame
shown in figure 6.32 if the weight per unit length is given by
2W
Collapse loads shown
L L
Figure 6.31
75kN
75 kN 75 kN
75 kN 75 kN
3.75m
5m
Figure 6.32
g = O.4Mp + 75 kg/m
where Mp is in kN m.
The frame carries two load cases:
(a) A horizontal wind force of 50 kN at the top of each column, and a
vertical load of 200 kN at mid-span. The required load factor is 1.5.
(b) A series of vertical loads only (as shown in the figure), with a load
factor of 2.0.
6.6. Find the minimum weight design of the two-bay frame in figure 6.33 as-
suming one section for the columns and another for the beams. Use
gc = 0.75Mp + 90 kg/m for the columns
gB = O.4Mp + 75 kg/m for the beams
200 kN 200 kN
100 kN
am
4m 4m
Figure 6.33
1.5 m spacing
13m 13 m
Fig&re 6.34
where M p is in kN m.
6.7. Figure 6.34 shows a pitched portal frame. The vertical loads on the frame
are:
dead 3.75 kN/m
imposed 6.25 kN/m
Load factors for vertical load only are 1.4 for dead load and 1.6 for im-
posed load.
(a) Determine the required plastic moments for the rafters and the col-
umns, assuming vertical load only is critical.
(b) Calculate the load factor against collapse for the dead + imposed +
wind load case. The wind load is 5 kN/m on both columns.
6.8. Repeat 6.7 assuming that the columns are pinned at ground level.
7 Application of Plastic Methods to Reinforced
Concrete Structures
7.1 Introduction
At first glance concrete structures bear little resemblance to steel ones. Unex-
pectedly, reinforced concrete (RC) beams do, in certain circumstances, act si-
milarly to steel beams, because of the characteristics of the steel reinforcement
which controls the behaviour ofthe beam. The maximum BM that a section can
carry, usually called the moment ofresistance of the section, is calculated in a si-
milar way to the plastic moment of a steel beam. Many tests on RC beams have
shown that the calculated, theoretical, moment of resistance is very close to the
experimental value, confirming the applicability of the theory. Section 7.2 looks
in some detail at the analysis of reinforced concrete sections carrying BMs.
Unfortunately, there are problems in trying to use conventional plastic
methods on RC frames. The moment of resistance analysis shows that RC sec-
tions may not have much capacity for plastic rotation. It is that capacity which
is essential to achieve the redistribution of moments required by the plastic
methods. Section 7.3 contrasts what can happen if plastic rotation capacity is
exceeded.
Despite these problems, modern RC design practice attempts to make use
of, and benefit from, plastic theory. The way that this is done is described in
section 7.4.
It must be emphasised that this chapter is concerned only with the applica-
tion of plastic theory to reinforced concrete frames. The reader should consult
appropriate texts on other aspects of reinforced concrete design [21, 22].
7.2 The Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete in Bending
7.2.1 Assumptions
It was shown in Chapter 2 how plastic hinges form in steel members. RC
beams can be considered in a similar manner, although the analysis is more
complicated. The following assumptions are necessary:
167
Stress (N/mm2)
30
- - OCmax - -~_-_~
20
10 lOco
Strain
o 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Figure 7.1
(1) Plane sections remain plane so that longitudinal strain is directly propor-
tional to distance from the axis of zero strain. This has been shown to be
substantially true up to failure by several researchers [23, 24].
(2) Concrete has no strength in tension.
(3) It is necessary to know the stress-strain relationship for concrete in com-
pression. This is usually found from direct compression tests on cubes (in
the UK) and cylinders (in the USA and the rest of Europe). The results
from these tests are not directly applicable because the restraints at each
end from friction are different from the restraints on the concrete in bend-
ing. Hognestad et al. [24], in a very influential piece of research, showed
that the stress-strain curve for bending is similar in shape to that for di-
rect compression, but the maximum stress is smaller. They suggested the
stress-strain curve shown in figure 7.1, with the failure strain in the con-
crete depending on the compressive strength of the concrete. The maxi-
mum stress and corresponding strain also depend on the strength of the
concrete. The values in figure 7.1 are for strength class C25/30 concrete.
7.2.2 Beams with Tension Reinforcement Only

A typical rectangular concrete beam is shown in section and elevation in figure
7.2 at some intermediate stage ofloading. In addition to the horizontal tension
bars shown in the section, there would also be vertical links which help resist
shear. The vertical cracks in the concrete tend to occur close to these links. The
BM is constant between the two vertical applied loads so that theoretically the
strain distribution should be identical at every section in that length. This is
reasonably correct in the concrete in compression, but obviously not so in the
Application of Plastic Methods to Reinforced Concrete Structures 169
11
d[Q
As
Area of tension
reinforcement
Figure 7.2
tension region because of the cracks. Tests have shown [25] that the strain in the
steel varies, being a maximum at the cracks. The variation is due to bonding be-
tween the concrete and steel between the cracks. The variation is ignored in
calculations, but the bonding should not be forgotten, without it there would
be no reinforced concrete, merely separate masses of steel rod and concrete.
Table 7.1 Concrete properties.
feb cylinder strength (N/mm2) 25
feu, cube strength (N/mm2) 30
uemax. (N/mm2) 22.8
fe failure 0.0035
€co 0.002
Table 7.2 Reinforcement properties.

Mild steel High-tensile steel
Yield stress (N/mm2) 250 460
E(kN/mm2) 210 205
Strain at yield 0.00119 0.0022
Strain hardening strain 0.015 0.0075
Esh (kN/mm2) 8.4 8.2
The analysis has been carried out for a beam of strength class C25/30 con-
crete (28 day cylinder strength, 25 N/mm2, 28 day cube strength, 30 N/mm2)
for various percentages p (lOOAs/bd) of mild and high-tensile steel reinforce-
ment. The materials data are given in tables 7.1 and 7.2. The concrete stress-
strain curve was modelled by the two parabolas:
U = 0.76feu ~
feo
(2 -~)
feo
f < €co (7.1)
Figure 7.3
(7.2)
Since the strain distribution is known (from the first assumption), the stresses
in the steel and concrete can be found from their respective stress-strain curves
(figures 7.1 and 7.3).
Stress distributions at various stages are shown in figure 7.4. There is no
stress in the concrete in tension below the axis ofzero strain, since it is assumed
that the concrete has no tensile strength. In the early stage (figure 7.4b), the
maximum compression strain Ec in the concrete is small so that the stress in
the concrete is less than the maximum value. In figure 7.4c, Ec has reached the
value Eco so that the stress in the concrete at the top of the beam is equal
to U cmax• In the final stage, Ec has reached the failure value (0.0035 for the con-
crete in the example). At this stage the maximum stress in the concrete occurs
inside the beam, not at the top, because of the shape of the stress-strain curve.
The section can be analysed at any stage in the same way as the steel section in
Chapter 2. The complication is that the zero-strain axis cannot usually be
found directly. The steps in the analysis are as follows:
(1) Choose the value ofthe concrete strain Ec.
(2) Guess an initial value for x, which defines the position of the axis of zero
strain (figure 7.4).
(3) Using the geometry of the strain distribution, the value of the steel strain
Es can be calculated. The stress-strain curves give the distribution of stress
in the concrete and the steel stress us.

(4) Calculate the compressive force C in the concrete (by considering the
force on a small element of the concrete and then integrating over the
whole area in compression) and the steel tensile force T (T = Asus).
(5) C and Tshould be equal for horizontal equilibrium. If the difference is
more than 0.1 per cent, adjust x and return to (3). If the difference is less
than or equal to 0.1 per cent, go on to step (6).
(a) Strain (b) Stress, (c) Concrete stress (d) Concrete failure,
early stage reaches maximum fc =0.0035
Figure 7.4
(6) Find the moments of C and Tabout the axis of zero strain; the sum gives
the BM that causes the chosen concrete strain. The sum of the absolute va-
lues of the maximum concrete (Ec) and steel (Es) strains divided by d gives
the corresponding curvature (see Chapter 2).
The analysis does not always converge rapidly and a computer is really neces-
sary.
The results, in the form of moment-curvature curves, are shown in figure
7.5. The curves are interesting. At low reinforcement percentages, the curves
have a similar shape to those for steel beams: an initial almost straight line
showing rapid increase of moment with only a small increase in curvature (cor-
responding to the elastic region), which bends over to give large curvature
with only a very small increase in moment (corresponding to plastic rotation).
As the reinforcement percentage increases, the maximum moment becomes
proportionally larger, but there is also a decrease in maximum curvature.
The rapid curvature increases with low reinforcement are caused by the steel
yielding before the concrete reaches its maximum strain, and so crushing. The
sudden change in the curve occurs when the steel yields. Such behaviour is
called under-reinforced. The large curvatures give rise to large deflections and
cracks so that there is warning of impending failure, which eventually occurs
by the concrete crushing.
At the higher percentages, failure is very sudden and often explosive, with no
large deflection increase prior to failure. The concrete crushes before the steel
yields. This is called over-reinforced behaviour.
Under-reinforced sections are effectively controlled by the reinforcement
and behave like steel beams. Ultimately the concrete fails when its maximum
strain reaches a limiting value (taken as 0.0035 in the example), which is consid-
erably less than the maximum possible steel strain, so that the capacity for
plastic rotation is limited compared with steel beams. Over-reinforced
sections are controlled by the brittle concrete and have no plastic rotation
capacity.
At very low percentages there is a pronounced increase in moment as well as
curvature just before failure, owing to the onset of strain hardening (SH) in the
reinforcement.
M
bcj2
6%
8 Grade C25/30 concrete
4% reinforcement, ay = 250 N/m2
\Rotation capacity
6 , Section under-reinforced if
reinforcement less than 5.49%
11_----""""2%
4
1%
2
L-------~-------L------~--------L-~Xd
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
M
bcj2
4% Grade C25/30 concrete

8 reinforcement, C1y = 460 N/m 2
2% Section under-reinforced if
6 reinforcement less than 2.85%
,Rotation capacity
4 1%
r - - - ..........:::..;:~
Ignoring SH
2
L -_ _ _ _ _ _- L_ _ _ _ _ _ ~~ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _~~~ Xd
0 0.Q1 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 7.5
xld
0.8
0.6
BS 8110 limit
0.4
0.2 Under-reinforced
Figure 7.6
Application ofPlastic Methods to Reinforced Concrete Structures 173
r• • •
d1
Compression
reinforcement AS
d
•••
Tension reinforcement As
Figure 7.7
Figure 7.6 shows the position of the axis ofzero strain at failure for various
reinforcement percentages. Increasing the reinforcement causes the axis to
drop.
In a real structure it is very important to have under-reinforced behaviour so
that, if there is a problem, there is at least warning of impending failure. Limit-
ing the depth of the axis of zero strain is a convenient way of preventing over-
reinforced behaviour.
7.2.3 Beams with Tension and Compression Reinforcement

Virtually all RC beams have some compression reinforcement. Often it will
only be a nominal amount to provide a framework on which to place the shear
links, but it may be provided to boost the compressive strength of the concrete.
A typical cross-section is shown in figure 7.7. The behaviour can be analysed in
the same manner as before, but including the extra force in the compression re-
inforcement. The results of such an analysis are shown in figure 7.8, assuming
thatd'/d = 0.1.
The results show that as well as increasing the moment capacity of the sec-
tion, compression reinforcement also increases, dramatically in some cases,
the plastic rotation capacity of the section. For example, the section with 2 per
cent tension reinforcement and 1 per cent compression reinforcement (shown
as 2 per cent, 1 per cent in figure 7.8) has a rotation capacity very similar to
that of a beam with 1 per cent tension reinforcement only. As a guide, the rota-
tion capacity of a section with compression reinforcement can be found by tak-
ing the difference between the percentages of tension and compression
reinforcement (Pequiv = P - p') and taking the rotation capacity of the beam
withjust that percentage of tension reinforcement.
7.2.4 Summary ofMoment-Curvature Relationships

The analyses presented in the two previous sections have been summarised in
the two graphs of figure 7.9. The graphs are plots of the ratio of moment to ulti-
M
bd2
,/ 4%,4%
10
r========:-;;;;;-;=:~--- Ignoring SH
8 4%,2%
4%
6
2%,1%
4
111,;=====:=:=:------- Ignoring SH
2% Key: curve marked 4% indicates 4% tension
reinforcement only; curve marked 2%, 1%
2
indicates 2% tension, 1% compression reinforcement
L -_ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _~_ _~ Xd
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 7.8
mate moment against the ratio of curvature to ultimate curvature. Figure 7.9a
compares results for beams containing various percentages of tension reinfor-
cement and a typical steel beam. It shows clearly how the proportion of curva-
ture available for plastic rotation drops as the reinforcement increases, but it
also shows that the steel beam has very much more plastic rotation capacity.
Figure 7.9b shows the beneficial effect of the compression reinforcement in in-
creasing plastic rotation.
The results vary with different concrete strengths, but there is always clearly
defined under- and over-reinforced failure. Table 7.3 shows the reinforcement
percentage and the position of the zero strain axis (expressed as x/d) at the
transition from under- to over-reinforced behaviour for various concrete
strengths and types of reinforcement.
Table 7.3
Concrete Mild steel High-tensile
strength class reinforcement reinforcement
% x/d % x/d
Cl6120 4.11 0.75 2.14 0.64
C20/25 4.85 0.75 2.53 0.64
C25/30 5.49 0.75 2.85 0.64
C30/37 6.63 0.74 3.43 0.62
C40/50 8.62 0.72 3.91 0.61
1.0
0.8
0.6
- Steel beam
+1%
0.4 02%
04%
1::.6%
0.2
L -_ _ _ _-L______L -_ _ _ _-L______L -_ _ _ _ -L~.. XIX~
(a) o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6 02%
04%
+2%, t%
0.4 x 4%,2%
.4%,4%
0.2
1<--_ _ _ _- - ' -_ _- - ' -_ _ _..1...... _ _- - ' -_ _- - ' - _. . . . lll~
(b) o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Figure 7.9
The results used in this chapter are theoretical, but experiments confirm
that the theory accurately describes the behaviour of reinforced concrete sec-
tions [26].
The analysis used here can be applied to any shape of concrete beam and
even to columns carrying moments and axial forces.
7.3 What Happens ifthere is Insufficient Plastic Rotation Capacity?

Consider the continuous RC beam shown in figure 7.10a. An elastic analysis
(BMD in figure 7.10b) shows that the largest BM is at the central support. As-
suming that moment equals the ultimate moment of the reinforced concrete,
the subsequent behaviour can follow two routes depending on the amount of
reinforcement in the beam. Parts c and d of figure 7.10 show the alternatives. If
there is only a small percentage of reinforcement in the beam, the reinforced
1600 kN 1600 kN
A t B t c
(a) Beam
b 0 d
5m 5m
1500 kN m
(b) Elastic BMO
1250 kN m 1250 kN m
(c) Low reinforcement / (d) High reinforcement
(say 2%) (say 4%)
Plastic hinge forms at B, redistribution No plastic rotation possible, sudden

allows load to increase to 1800 kN on brittle failure at B, beam splits into two
each span before collapse simply supported spans
b d
1500 kN m 1500 kN m
2000 kN m 2000 kN m
BMs in both spans greater than moment

of resistance; both spans collapse
Figure 7.10
concrete has sufficient plastic rotation capacity for full redistribution of the
bending moments and the beam is able to withstand more load before collapse
occurs. However, when there is a high percentage of reinforcement, brittle
rupture occurs at the point of highest BM and the beam splits into two simply
supported spans. The resulting BMs in each span are considerably greater
than the moment of resistance of the beam and each span collapses im-
mediately.
The differences in behaviour are very marked, but they represent the two ex-
tremes. In general, some plastic rotation is possible so that there can be some
redistribution of the bending moments. Once the rotation capacity is reached,
sudden catastrophic failure will occur. This illustrates the difficulty of design-
ing RC structures by plastic methods. It is not sufficient to check that the struc-
ture has sufficient resistance against collapse (which is checked by simple
plastic calculations), but it is also necessary to check that the plastic rotation
at each hinge is within the plastic rotation capacity of the section so that the
mechanism can develop. In the simple plastic methods, for example virtual
work, the magnitude ofthe rotations cannot be found.
As the model portal frames in figure 7.11 show, reinforced concrete frames
can be designed to develop full collapse mechanisms. Indeed, Baker [27, 28]
has put forward an elegant plastic design method for reinforced concrete
which tests the magnitude of the rotations. It is obviously more complicated
than the simple methods. Other more complex methods also exist [29]. How-
ever, the problem oflimited rotation capacity, despite the hidden benefit of the
compression reinforcement, has prevented the adoption of 'true' plastic meth-
ods of design for reinforced concrete frames.
7.4 The Compromise Adopted in Codes of Practice
7.4.1 BS 8110 - Current British Practice

Current British design practice for reinforced concrete is set out in BS 8110:
Part 1 [14]. The code allows a highly modified form of plastic design, without
actually admitting that it does. Other codes adopt a similar, but less sophisti-
cated, approach.
BS 8110 embraces the limit state philosophy of design. When moments of re-
sistance are calculated, partial safety factors are applied to the strengths of the
concrete and steel. The concrete stress distribution given in figure 7.1 was based
on the results of experimental research, and is too complicated for design. BS
8110 allows two alternative simplified stress distributions for finding the
moment of resistance. The new Eurocode, EC 2 [30], for concrete design
also allows two, slightly different, stress distributions. The various distri-
butions are compared in figure 7.12, using the appropriate partial safety
factors. All of them give similar values for the moment of resistance, as shown
in table 7.4.
sway
mechanism
beam
mechanism
combined
mechanism
Figure 7.11
15.2N/mm2
I~il
13.3 Nlmm2 13.3 N/mm2
M
09X[~
(a) Experiment (b) BS 8110 parabolic (c) BS 8110 rectangular
14.2 N/mm2 14.2 N/mm2
I" ~I
0.429x [
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L..- Axis of zero strain

(d) EC 2 parabolic (e) EC 2 rectangular
Figure 7.12
One of the main conclusions from sections 7.2 and 7.3 was that over-rein-
forced sections are potentially dangerous and must never be used. BS 8110 pre-
vents over-reinforcement in two ways: it limits the depth to the axis of zero
strain to half the effective depth (x/d ~ 0.5), and it limits the reinforcement to a
maximum of 4 per cent. EC 2 limits the depth to the axis of zero strain to 0.45
times the effective depth. As was shown in figure 7.5 and table 7.3, these limits
will ensure under-reinforced behaviour.
Table 7.4 Comparison ofconcrete stress distributions (M / bd2 ) for grade C251
30 concrete with mild steel reinforcement.
Experimental BS8JlO BS8JlO EC2 EC2
100 A.
distribution Parabolic Rectangular Parabolic Rectangular
bd distribution distribution distribution distribution
1% 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.01

2% 3.64 3.63 3.64 3.66 3.68
Atx/dlimit 4.73 (2.8% 4.57(2.7% 4.57 (2.8% 4.19(2.4% 4.20(2.4%
reinforcement) reinforcement) reinforcement) reinforcement) reinforcement)
Thus far the codes have met all the requirements of plastic theory by ensur-
ing under-reinforced sections with some plastic rotation capacity, although
that capacity will be very limited for some sections. As explained in section 7.3,
'true' plastic design cannot be used for finding the magnitudes of the required
moments of resistance. BS 8110, EC 2 and the US ACI [31] code use the follow-
ing approach:
(1) Use ELASTIC analyses to find the envelope of BMs, using factored (col-
lapse) loads. Each elastic analysis will give the reactant BMs at the end of
each member. The span moments can be found by combining the free
BMs with the reactant moments.
(2) The envelope of BMs can then be redistributed using a set of rules. These
rules limit the reduction in moment at any section in line with the rotation
capacity at that section. The rules in each code are different. The BS 8110
rules are:
(a) The redistributed BMs must be in equilibrium with the applied
loads. (This means that moments must always be calculated by com-
bining reactant and free moments.)
(b) If redistribution causes a reduction in moment, the amount of re-
duction is limited.
It is necessary to calculate a redistribution ratio (3b
(3 = moment at the section after redistribution (:!( 1)
b moment at the section before redistribution -..::
The ratio x/d (ratio of depth to axis of zero strain to effective depth)
of the section resisting the reduced moment is then limited by
x
d ::O;(f3b - 0.4) (7.3)
(c) The moment of resistance at any section must be at least 70 per cent
of the moment from the elastic moment envelope.
Rule (c) limits the maximum reduction to 30 per cent of the original moment.
Equation (7.3) from rule (b) would limit the value of x/d to 0.3 with the 30 per
cent reduction. This would correspond to a relatively small amount of reinfor-
cement. As the percentage of reinforcement increases the value of x/d increases
and the redistribution ratio has to increase.
In beams, x/dis limited to a maximum value of 0.5 which would give a maxi-
mum reduction of only 10 per cent ({3b ~ 0.9). Columns have to carry axial
force as well as moments, and BS 8110 allows x/d to take any value. Conse-
quently, unless the axial force is small it is unlikely that any significant reduc-
tion in column moments will be allowed.
BS 8110's rules tie the amount of redistribution possible to the rotation capa-
city of the section. The bigger the percentage of reinforcement, the bigger the
value of x/d, but the smaller the rotation capacity and, hence, the smaller the
allowed reduction in moment of resistance.
Rule (c) has a further purpose as can be illustrated by the following example.
Figure 7.13 shows the BMD for a beam with fixed ends. The BMs were found
Collapse 'elastic' moments (Me)

~ 30% reductlon
'
~ of reactant
~~ / :...--;: 7 T moment
,,' y y /"
x"" ~, d ,,"X
Elastic moments at"" v ~ /.,," Redistributed moments found
normal working -----' '-" ,," v b y combining free 8Ms and
load 'V reduced reactant moments
Figure 7.13
~ ~
Figure 7.14
by elastic analysis using the collapse loads. At the normal working situation
(that is unfactored loads), the BMs are also elastic and are a proportion of the
'collapse' elastic moments, as shown. Redistribution of the moments can be
achieved by reducing the reactant moments at each end. The redistributed mo-
ments are the required moments of resistance, so they define the amount of re-
inforcement and where it is placed in the beam. Remembering that the
reinforcement resists the horizontal tension due to bending, the reinforcement
would be placed as in figure 7.14. The switch from top to bottom reinforcement
would be at point X, the point of contraflexure on the redistributed BMD.
However, under normal working loads the point of contraflexure is at point Y
(as shown in figure 7.13) and top reinforcement is also required between X and
Y The resulting cracks would not give rise to much confidence in the beam.
Rule (c) effectively prevents this anomaly; it would give the pattern of moments
of resistance after redistribution shown in figure 7.15.
BS 8110 recognises that full redistribution is not always essential in a design.
If the redistribution is less than 10 per cent everywhere, some simplified formu-
lae are provided for calculating moments of resistance.
Moments requiring top
---
./" reinforcement (70% Me)
y y
x
+ Redistributed
- moments
Figure 7.15
7.4.2 Eurocode 2
The new Eurocode 2 [30] for concrete design has a similar approach to BS 8110
although it uses different expressions and symbols! As in rule (a) above, the re-
distributed moments must be in equilibrium with the applied loads. A factor 8
defined as
8 = redistributed moment
original moment
is calculated. This is the same as the redistribution ratio f3b in BS 8110. For high
ductility steel
8~O.7
limiting the moment reduction to 30 per cent; and for normal ductility steel
8~O.85
limiting the moment reduction to 15 per cent. Steel produced in the UK always
has high ductility, so BS 8110 did not have to bother with this distinction. This
rule recognises that, in under-reinforced sections, the behaviour is controlled
by the properties of the reinforcement.
Finally, there are limits on the x/d ratio similar to those in equation 7.3, but
the strength ofthe concrete is also included:
8~0.44 + 1.25 dx for concrete grades less than or equal to C35/45

(7.4)
x
8~0.56 + 1.23 d for concrete grades greater than C35/45
Stronger concretes have smaller strains at failure and thus will have smaller ro-
tation capacities.
7.4.3 A CI Code
The American Concrete Institute Code [31] is more conservative than BS 8110
or Eurocode 2. It allows redistribution of the elastic moments but the percen-
tage increase or decrease is limited to
(7.5)
where p is the percentage oftensile reinforcement, p' is the percentage of com-

pression reinforcement and Ph is called the balanced steel ratio.
This recognises that the more reinforcement, the less the rotation capacity.
However, the maximum possible change in moment is only 20 per cent (with
zero steel).
15 m
5313
15 m • 15m
"'flllllllillflllllllllll,t"
\~ 0.7 Me I ~ A
~\. I/'/
'\ '- _./ ;<,. 'Elastic' \
\.. '- _./ / I
2900-~' moments Me ~ 2900

3599 " " 3599
Redistributed moments
3719
~ ~ '~1637 _
2500
625 I ~ " '- - - ----==
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ --- '\ \
1209 "
'Elastic' moments Me
- Redistributed moments
3945
Figure 7.16
7.4.4 Example ofMoment Redistribution to BS 8110

There are two main strategies when redistributing the moments. If the member
has a rectangular cross-section, the aim must be to equalise as much as possi-
ble the maximum hogging and sagging moments, and thus avoid difficulties
in positioning the reinforcement. If the beam has a T or L cross-section, the
hogging moments must be made as small as possible, since the hogging mo-
ment of resistance is smaller than the sagging moment of resistance because
of the smaller area of concrete in compression. The redistribution process is
best illustrated with an example.
Figure 7.16 shows the complete example. It is assumed that the continuous
beam has aT-section and carries a maximum factored load of 100 kN/m and a
minimum load of 50 kN/m. The two worst load combinations are shown: the
5313
2500
0.7Me-;
\ + /
~_/
3559 3945
After redistribution Before redistribution
Figure 7.17
first causes the largest hogging moment at the central support, the second the
largest sagging moment. The 'elastic' moments were found using a stiffness
analysis program.
The object of the redistribution is to reduce as much as possible the hogging
moments. The central hogging moment in load case I is reduced by the full
30 per cent to 3719 kN m. The moments at the ends of the cantilevers cannot
be changed since they are in equilibrium with load on the cantilevers. The free
BMs are then hung on the new reactant moments. These redistributed mo-
ments and 70 per cent of the original moments are plotted.
In load case 2, the central hogging moment can be increased to 3719 kN m
since that moment of resistance is provided for load case 1. The resulting sag-
ging moment in the left-hand span is 3559 kN m (reduced from 3945 kN m).
The reduction of 386 kN m gives a f3b of 0.90.
The worst BMs from the two load cases can be combined to give the design
BM envelope. Remember that, in some parts of the beam, 0.7 Me will be more
critical than the redistributed moments. The envelopes for before and after re-
distribution are shown in figure 7.17. (It should be realised that there is a mirror
image of load case 2 when working out the envelope.) The benefit of the redis-
tribution is obvious: the maximum hogging moment is considerably reduced
and, almost accidentally in this case, so is the maximum sagging moment.
The cut-off points (where sagging or hogging moments are zero) can be found
by considering the geometry of the BMDs (see section 4.3.3) or by drawing the
BMDs accurately and measuring off the dimensions.
The redistribution has been carried out assuming that the full 30 per cent re-
duction was possible at the central support. When calculating the amount of
reinforcement required, it would be necessary to check the limitation on x/d
in equation 7.3. At the central support, (3b is 0.7 so that x/d would be limited
to a maximum value of 0.3 at that point. At the point of maximum sagging
moment, f3b is 0.90 and x/d is limited to a maximum of 0.5, which is the maxi-
mum allowed in BS 8110 anyway. If the amounts of reinforcement required
are such that these limits on x/d cannot be met, it would be necessary to repeat
the redistribution using a smaller reduction in the maximum hogging
moment.
7.5 Summary
This chapter has shown the problems of applying plastic methods to the design
of RC structures. Under-reinforced members are capable of plastic rotation,
but the capacity for rotation is limited compared with steel beams. This has
made it impossible to apply simple plastic theory. BS 8110, EC 2 and other
codes ensure under-reinforced sections by limiting the amount of reinforce-
ment and the position of the neutral axis. The process of moment redistribu-
tion is an attempt to gain the benefits of the plastic methods and is subtle
enough to allow for the reduction in rotation capacity as the amount of reinfor-
cement is increased.
There is one type of concrete structure that is usually very under-reinforced
- concrete slabs generally have only small percentages of reinforcement and
are designed by plastic methods. These methods are described in the next
chapter.
Problems
7.1. A fixed-end RC beam, span L, carries a UDL w per unit length at col-
lapse. Redistribute the bending moments to achieve equal moments of
resistance at mid-span and the supports. What is the magnitude of the
moment of resistance? Determine the cut-otT points for top and bottom
reinforcement.
7.2. Figure 7.18 (page 186) shows an RC T-beam, carrying a collapse load of
300 kN m (including self-weight), and the BMD based on elastic analy-
sis. Redistribute the moments to obtain a more satisfactory BM distribu-
tion. Plot this on a diagram, giving the most important moment values
and dimensions.
7.3. Repeat problem 7.2 for the beam and BMD shown in figure 7.19 (page
186).
7.4. A continuous beam is shown in figure 7.20 (page 187) together with the
BMDs for the three most critical load cases. Use moment redistribution
to even out the maximum hogging and sagging moments. Summarise
the results by drawing the envelope of redistributed moments.
300 kN/m
1IIII1I1I1I11I1I1II1I1IIII1I1I11I1I1IIrll'Il"Il'~
15 m 15 m 5m
53~
I~
1\ J~
~
.09_ .1
7.32 8.04
Moments in kN m
11.55 12.88 Dimensions in m
Figure 7.18
aoOkN 425kN
786 830 801
t\ 1'\792/1
/\I~/\1\:7
.99~ I 2.08- ~ 507
4 5.03 1.69
5.96 7.98 Moments in kN m
Dimensions in m
Figure 7.19
5
MM
ml m 1
M M
1 15 15m 15 m 15 m
Load 1: 200 kNlm Load case (1) - there is a mirror

5060
Load 2: 50 kN/m image as well
2 1 2
Load case (2)

2980
8.28
14.52
1 2 1 2 1
~ Load case (3)
2500 2315 2500
Moments in kN m
13.25
Dimensions in m
Figure 7.20
8 Yield-line Analysis and the HiIIerborg Strip Method for
Reinforced Concrete Slabs
8.1 Introduction
The previous chapter showed that plastic theory is usually rather difficult to
apply to RC structures because of the limited plastic rotation capacity of con-
crete sections in bending. However, concrete slabs are almost always very
under-reinforced - it is unusual to have sections with more than 1 per cent of
reinforcement. Consequently, slabs have considerable plastic rotation capacity
and can be successfully analysed or designed by plastic methods.
This chapter presents two methods which are now widely used. Yield-line
theory is the more well-known of the two; it has similarities, as shown here, to
the methods of finding the collapse loads of steel structures. The Hillerborg
strip method is a novel approach to slab design, which is simple and conveni-
enttouse.
8.2 Yield-line Theory
8.2.1 An Experimental Basis for Yield-line Analysis

The pioneer of yield-line theory was K.w. Johansen [32], who published his
PhD thesis on the subject in 1943. Many researchers have extended Johansen's
ideas, perhaps further than he envisaged or desired. Their intention has been
to tie yield-line theory in with more classical (and rigorous) plastic theory.
It is easiest for the beginner to approach the theory via the results of tests on
concrete slabs. The photographs in figures 8.1, 8.5 and 8.16 show the top and
bottom faces of three model slabs which have been tested with a uniform load
(UDL) over the slab surface and various edge conditions.
Figure 8.1 shows a square slab with reinforcement parallel to the sides of the
plate. The edges were supported to prevent vertical movement but offered
minimal resistance to rotation (called simply supported edges). On the tension
side of the slab (the underside of a floor slab but called the top in the figure be-
cause the test rig applies an upward load to the slab), there are many cracks,
188
Yield-line Analy~is and Hillerborgs Strip Method 189
SLAB SSt
lOp
SLAB SSt
bottom
Figure 8.1 Test on square simply supported slab.
especially near the centre of the slab. This web of cracks forms at a relatively
low load, but as the load increases only a few of the cracks become large. In
this case, the cracks roughly on the diagonals have opened out. On the other
(compression) face of the slab, the concrete has crushed where the large cracks
have opened up on the tension face. There are also some cracks on the com-
pression face, particularly one that forms a ring near to the edges of the slab;
this crack is due to friction causing some restraint to rotation at the edges. The
combination of large cracks and concrete crushing is exactly what occurs
when an under-reinforced beam reaches its moment of resistance after plastic
rotation. Ayield line is an idealisation of this situation. The yield line can be vi-
sualised as a series of beam sections side by side, with each section undergoing
plastic rotation at its moment of resistance.
During the test, dial gauges were placed at the points marked A, Band C to
measure the vertical deflection of the slab. The load-deflection curves for the
three gauges are shown in figure 8.2. The curve for the central deflection shows
100
A
80
60 Increasing slope is
evidence of membrane
action (section 8.2.3)
40
20 Start of cracking
L -_ _ _--'-_ _ _ _--'----_ _ _-----l'-----_ _~ Deflection (mm)

o 5 10 15
Figure 8.2
a change in slope at a low load (when cracking first starts) and then a gradual
reduction in slope as the yield lines spread through the slab. The slope does
not drop continuously to zero (indicating collapse) as might be expected. This
is a point which will be taken up later (see section 8.2.3).
The curves for points Band C diverge initially but become practically identi-
cal at higher loads. When cross-sections are plotted at different loads through
the centre line through the points A and B, as in figure 8.3, it can be seen that
at higher loads the cross-section is almost a straight line. This, and the identical
Deflection (mm)
89 kN/mm2
10
80 kN/mm2
60 kN/mm2
5
1 40 kN/mm2
~--
~;;;;;;~===::::!:========::::1.1~20 kN.lmm2
B A
Centre of
slab
Figure 8.3
Yield-line Analysis and Hillerborgs Strip Method 191
Yield
line
Simply supported
Figure 8.4
deflections at Band C, show that at loads near to the collapse load, the regions
between the yield lines are practically flat, and all deformations in the slab are
occurring by rotation about the edges of the slab and along the yield lines.
This experimental behaviour leads to a relatively simple model of the col-
lapse of the slab. The collapse mechanism consists of two yield lines running
the full length of the diagonals with rigid triangles, called generally rigid
regions, of slab between the yield lines (figure 8.4). The edges of the slab and
the yield lines are axes of rotation for the rigid regions of the slab. In this col-
lapse mechanism, all deformation occurs by the rigid regions rotating about
these axes. The plastic rotation of the yield lines is similar to the rotation of a
plastic hinge. Chapters 3, 4 and 6 were concerned basically with methods of
analysis of collapse mechanisms; similar methods can be used in yield-line
analysis.
Figure 8.5 shows a model slab with clamped edges (providing complete re-
straint of the edges against deformation) after it was tested with a UDL. The
loaded part ofthe slab was the same size as the simply supported slab discussed
above. It was necessary to make the specimen larger, with two lines of bolt
holes along each side, to create the clamped edges. The clamped edge slab is
the slab equivalent of the fixed-end beam and by analogy with such a beam,
moments of opposite sign would be expected at the centre and around the
edges of the slab. Thus two sets of reinforcement, in the top and bottom of the
slab, were used, each with bars running in both directions parallel to the edges.
The expected moments are confirmed in figure 8.5.
SLAB FEI
,.
• •
• •
• •
..
SLAB FEI
holtom
Figure 8.5 Test on squarefixed-edge slab.
There are cracks on the top of the slab forming a very similar pattern to the
simply supported slab in figure 8.1, including very large diagonal cracks.
Around the edges there is evidence of crushing of the concrete. The bottom of
the slab shows crushing along the diagonals and large cracks around the edge.
The idealised collapse mechanism is shown in figure 8.6. It is useful to have po-
sitive yield lines caused by the moments in the middle of the slab (taken as posi-
Yield-line Analysis and Hillerborg's Strip Method 193
L
I~
l Negative
yield line
~ Section A-A
Figure 8.6
tive by analogy to sagging moments in beams) and negative yield lines caused
by the moments around the edges (taken as negative, like hogging moments in
beams). Notice that the positive and negative yield lines are represented differ-
ently in the figure.
8.2.2 A Notation/or Yield-line Analysis

Diagrams of slab problems can become complicated because of the amount of
information to be presented. A useful notation has developed to simplifY mat-
ters - it has been used to some extent already, but is given here in more detail.
Column Positive yield line
Simple support Negative yield line
Continuous (fixed)
- -- -- Axis of rotation
support
Unsupported edge Line load
Edge beam
8.2.3 Theoretical Considerations of Yield-line Analysis
The major problem of yield-line analysis is deciding on the collapse mechan-
ism, although the calculations may well appear far worse to the beginner. For-
tunately, many standard cases are well documented [33]. In general, the
pattern of yield lines has to be postulated from experience but the set of rules
given in section 8.2.4 is very helpful. There is no guarantee that the chosen pat-
tern is the correct collapse mechanism for the slab: the calculations will ensure
that it satisfies the mechanism and equilibrium conditions, but not necessarily
the yield condition. It has only proved possible to check this in very rare cases
[34], so that in general a yield line solution will be an upper bound (refer back
to the theorems in Chapter 2 to check this). This means that, theoretically,
yield-line analysis is unsafe because an upper bound is an over-estimate of the
strength of the slab. In practice, it is safe because the analysis ignores two im-
portant factors:
(1) Moments of resistance of the slab are calculated ignoring strain harden-
ing in the reinforcement. Figure 7.5 shows that at the low percentages of
reinforcement in a slab, strain hardening significantly increases the mo-
ment of resistance and thus the strength of the slab. This reserve of
strength is reckoned to be about 10 per cent of the calculated value [34].
(2) Yield-line theory is very much an idealisation of slab behaviour. It as-
sumes that vertical loads are carried only by bending action, although
tests show that this is not so. The load is in fact carried partly by bending
and partly by forces within the plane of the slab - membrane action. The
more the slab deflects, the more significant is the membrane action. If
there was only bending action, the load deflection curve would have a
continuously decreasing slope to failure. However, the typical central
load deflection curve in figure 8.2 has the slope decreasing at first, but
Ring of
_....J,4:..-,.--- compression
Tension
zone
then it increases before decreasing finally to failure. The increase in slope
is due to membrane action developing in the slab.
There are two distinct types of membrane action. Where the edges provide
little or no restraint to horizontal movement (as is often the case with simply
supported edges), tensile membrane action occurs. The system of in-plane
forces is indicated in figure 8.7.
Since the edges do not provide horizontal restraint, tensile and compressive
stresses have to form in the slab to ensure horizontal equilibrium. The effect of
the tensile stresses is to reduce the moment of resistance of the slab, whereas
the compressive stresses increase the moment of resistance. The increases in
moment of resistance in the compression zone outweigh the reductions in the
tension zone, with a consequent increase in the load-carrying capacity of up to
30 per cent above the yield-line load.
Compressive membrane action occurs in slabs that have effective horizontal
edge restraint. As the cracks open, the slab jams itself between the edges, as in
figure 8.8. This jamming induces very large compressive stresses in the slab, so
that it becomes like a shallow dome. Everywhere in the slab the moment of re-
sistance becomes very large, so that the load capacity is increased by 200 per
cent or more above the yield-line load.
Ockleston [35], who was able to monitor the demolition of an old hospital,
observed that it was virtually impossible to collapse a slab surrounded by other
slabs (providing the horizontal restraint) by vertical loading. When tests have
been carried through to failure, the mode of failure had often been a form of
buckling. Thus it is difficult to utilise the benefits of membrane action although
there is on-going research in this area [36]. However, the membrane action
does ensure the safety of yield-line theory.
The formation of yield lines can be predicted by what is called the square
yield criterion. This states that a yield line will form along the axis of a BM
that has reached the moment of resistance of the slab. This can be visualised
better by thinking in terms of the moment opening the concrete crack that co-
incides with the yield line. The square yield criterion imposes certain limita-
tions on how the yield lines can form [34]. In particular, it says that a positive
1=
~~-------------
Jamming
=I
-- _..L.--- -- - -- _~t---
Figure 8.8
yield-line and two negative yield-lines cannot run into the corners of a fixed-
edge slab.
8.2.4 Some Rules to Help Determine the Collapse Mechanism

A collapse mechanism for a slab is a pattern of yield lines that will allow the ri-
gid regions to rotate with respect to each other. The rotations occur about the
yield lines and also about the edges of the slab.
The following five rules will help in finding collapse mechanisms. Use them
to justifY the mechanisms in figure 8.9:
(1) yield lines are (usually) straight and are axes of rotation;
(2) yield lines must end at a slab boundary;
(3) axes of rotation lie along supported edges, cut unsupported edges, and
pass over columns;
(4) the axes of rotation of adjacent rigid regions have a point of intersection
(which may be at infinity);
(5) there are often negative yield lines along at least part of a fixed edge.
8.2.5 Moment Along a Yield Line

In order to carry out the calculations of yield-line analysis, it is necessary to
know the moment about an axis along a yield line. Consider initially a slab
(a) (b)
--
(c)
/
/
Figure 8.9
L
Yield line
Lsin 8
.....1-----11----I~M
Figure8.tO
with reinforcement in one direction only. In general, a yield line will be in-
clined to the 'reinforcement' , as in figure 8.10.
It is assumed in yield-line theory that the reinforcement bars are yielding,
but remain straight, where they cross the yield line. There is enough reinforce-
ment to provide a moment of resistance, M, per unit width. It might help to vi-
sualise the yield line as a series of steps as shown in figure 8.l1. Along AB
(figures 8.10 and 8.11), the total moment of resistance of the bars crossing the
yield line is ML sin () - the moment of resistance per unit width multiplied by
the projection of the yield line perpendicular to the direction of the reinforcing
A
Reinforcing bars
Figure 8.11
bars. The yield of the bars is caused by a moment that acts about an axis per-
pendicular to the bars - the line with double arrows shown in figures 8.10 and
8.11. This moment can be resolved into two components, one acting about an
axis along the yield line, the other acting about an axis perpendicular to the
yield line. These axes are also shown in the figures by lines with double arrows.
The component per unit length about the axis along the yield-line is denoted
by Mn. Taking the component about this axis:
MnL = ML sin f) x sin f)
(8.1 )
It would be possible to find the other component in a similar way, but only Mn
is required for the yield-line calculations.
Of course, there is usually reinforcement in two directions and the resulting
moment about the axis along the yield line can be found from equation 8.1. Fig-
ure 8.12 shows the most common situation of perpendicular reinforcement.
(Notice the shorthand in the figure to identify the moment of resistance of
each set of reinforcement. The arrows indicate the direction of the reinforce-
ment.) Using equation 8.1:
Mn = M sin2 f) + J-tM sin2 (90 + f))
0
(8.2)
The factor J-t is used to show that there can be different moments of resistance
in the two reinforcement directions. If J-t i=- 1, the reinforcement is called ortho-
tropic. The special case when J-t = 1 is called isotropic reinforcement. When
J-t = 1:
Mn = M(sin 2 f) + cos 2 f))
Mn=M (8.3)
so that the moment about the axis along the yield line is the same whatever the
inclination of the yield line.
Yield line
Figure 8.12
Figure 8.13
It is worth mentioning the less common case of skew reinforcement, where

the reinforcement directions are not perpendicular. A typical arrangement is
shown in figure 8.13. Again using equation 8.1:
Mn = M sin2 () + j-tM sin2 (() - 0:) (8.4)

where 0: is the included angle between the two reinforcement directions.
There are three further points to note about equations 8.1 to 8.4:
(1) Remember that M n, M and j-tM are all moments per unit width. The total
moment about the axis along the yield line is Mn multiplied by the length
of the yield line.
(2) When the slab is being designed, M and j-tM would be found from the
yield-line calculations, and it would then be necessary to provide enough
reinforcement to develop those moments of resistance. The slab would be
designed to a design standard (BS 8110, Eurocode 2, etc.) and the methods
or formulae in the standard (refer back to Chapter 7) would be used to
calculate the amount of reinforcement required.
(3) The two sets of reinforcement in the top or bottom of the slab will each
have two layers of bars. Each layer of bars will have a different effective
depth. However, the difference will not be great and it is common practice
to apply the average value to both layers of bars. Thus isotropic reinforce-
ment would be provided by the same sized bars at the same spacing in
each layer.
8.2.6 The Calculations

Once a collapse mechanism has been chosen, the slab can be analysed. The
method will be illustrated by a series of examples which, as usual, have been
graded to introduce new concepts or difficulties. The calculations are based
on the virtual work method.
8.2.6.1 Square, Simply Supported Slab with UDL (q per unit area)
The distribution of yield lines for such a slab was discussed in section 8.2.l and
is shown again in figure 8.l4a. The figure also indicates that the slab has isotro-
pic reinforcement providing a moment of resistance of M per unit width.
The displacement ofthe mechanism is fully described by a unit (virtual) verti-
cal displacement at the centre of the slab, remembering that the triangles be-
tween the yield lines are rigid regions and remain flat. To find the external work:
total load on triangle ABE =qx G xL x ~) = q~2

= UDL x surface area of ABE
(a)
y
~E G F
r
1~
(b)
(c)
Figure 8.14
The centroid of this load is at G, such that FG : FE = 1 : 3, from the basic
properties of a triangle. If E moves downwards by 1 (unit distance), G moves
1/3 from the similar triangles in figure 8.l4b, and then
1 L2 qL2
external work by load on ABE = 3 x q"4 = 12
_ (distance moved)
- b 'd x load on ABE
y centrol
Since the four triangles are identical:

L2 L3
total external work = 4 x q12 = q3 (8.5)
The calculations for the external work are almost identical to those used for
the steel frames. In its most general form, the external work can be written:
external work = L (8.6)
integral of load on an element of area

all rigid
multiplied by distance through which
regions
the element of area moves.
The integral is necessary because the load need not be constant over the rigid
region.
The internal work is the work absorbed by rotation of the yield lines. For
each yield line, this is the product of the total moment about the axis along the
yield line and the angle of rotation of the yield line. Figure 8.l4c shows cross-
sections 1-1 and 2-2 through the slab; 1-1 is along the diagonal AC. XYand
AE are both part of the rigid region defined by triangle ABE. XYand AE
must be parallel because the rigid region stays flat during the deformation of
the mechanism - all deformation takes place by rotation about the various
axes. Consequently the rotation of the yield line EB is constant along its whole
length and is equal to 2B, as shown in the figure.
internal work for yield line EB = Mn x (v'~)L x 2B

Since the slab is isotropically reinforced, Mn = M and from figure 8.l4c
1 1 v'2
B=EC= Cv'~)L) = y
Thus
. (v'2)L
tnternal work for EB =M x - 2 - x 2 x y=2M
v'2
because of the symmetry of the slab, internal work for EA, EC and ED is iden-
tical and
total internal work = 4 x 2M = 8M (8.7)
Notice that the dimensions of the slab cancel out from the internal work ex-
pression. The internal work can be expressed generally as
internal work = L (8.8)
every yield total rotation total moment

line of yield line along the yield line
The integral is necessary because the moment can vary along the length of the
yield line, owing to a change in thickness of the slab or a change in reinforce-
ment spacing.
Imposing equilibrium by equating external and internal work gives the
solution
qL2 = 8M
3
so that
24M qL2
q=V or M = 24 (8.9)
There are two forms of the solution, depending on whether the problem is one
of analysis (M and L given) or design (q and L given). The general expression
for the work equation is
(8.10)
all rigid every yield

regions line
In this example, the exact position ofthe yield lines was known and the rein-
forcement was isotropic. Consequently there was no difficulty in finding the
moment about the axis along the yield line. Most problems are not so helpful.
Look at any of the patterns in figure 8.9; in every case the patterns are compli-
cated and not explicitly defined. Throw in orthotropic reinforcement and it be-
comes practically impossible to find the moment about the axis along each
yield line. Fortunately, the internal work can be found by another method
which gets round this difficulty.
Figure 8.15a shows the slab again. Consider the yield line AE. The reinforce-
ment placed in the x-direction provides a moment of resistance of M per unit
length and is yielding where it crosses the yield line. The total moment of all
(a)
(b)
FigureS.IS
the bars crossing the yield line is MLl2 (the moment per unit width multiplied
by the projection of the yield line at right-angles to the direction of the bars).
This moment is acting about an axis that is also at right-angles to the bars. Sec-
tions 3-3 and 4 - 4 are marked in figure 8.l5a and drawn together in figure
8.l5b. These sections show that the relative rotation of the adjacent rigid re-
gions is constant along the whole length of the yield line. The angle Ox is the re-
lative rotation of the rigid regions about an axis at right-angles to the
reinforcement bars, so that the internal work of the moment of resistance of
the bars in the x-direction is given by
internal work = ~L Ox
From the geometry in the figure:
1 2
Ox = (~) = L
so that
. I k ML 2 M
mterna wor =TxL=
The bars in the y-direction crossing the yield line have a total moment of resis-
tance of MLI2. Sections at right-angles to 3-3 and 4--4 would show that the
corresponding relative rotation Oy is 21L, giving internal work of M. The total
internal work for AE is thus M + M = 2M.
The other three parts of the yield lines would have the same internal work as
AE from the symmetry of the collapse mechanism. Hence
total internal work = 4 x 2M = 8M (8.11)
as before.
In this alternative method, the moment about the axis along the yield line
and the plastic rotation of the yield line are divided into vector components:
1 Mn ds = 1 Mxdy+ 1 Mydx
c/J = c/Jx + c/Jy

The internal work is the vector dot product of the moment and rotation. Hence
o ·Mn = (Ox + Oy) . (1 Mxdy+ 1 MydX)
= ox· 1 Mxdy+Oy · 1 Mydx

(8.12)
Ifthis is summed over every yield line, the general expression for internal work
can be expressed in two ways:
internal work = 1
L:[ct> Mnds]
(8.13)
There was no advantage in using this method for this example, but as will be
seen in some of the later examples it is often the only possible method.
Don't be put off by the use of vectors above. They were used to show the
mathematical justification for the alternative method of calculating the inter-
nal work. The actual calculations only involve moments of resistance and rota-
tions, as can be seen in the various examples.
8.2.6.2 Square Fixed Edge Slab with UDL

This slab is shown in figure 8.6. There are two sets of moments of resistance.
Those shown by the full arrows are provided by the reinforcement in the bot-
tom of the slab (resisting sagging moments), while the broken arrows show the
moments of resistance provided by the top reinforcement. In both cases the re-
inforcement is isotropic.
External work The negative yield lines around the edge of the slab are
the only difference from the previous example. If the centre of the slab is
given a unit vertical deflection, the external work is identical to the previous
example:
qL2
external work = 3
Internal work The positive yield lines are the same as in the previous example:
internal work at positive yield lines = 8M
The rotation of the negative yield line (YL) is the angle a in the cross-section
shown in figure 8.5. Thus
internal work at negative yield lines =4x iML x L~2
total moment rotation

nO.ofYLs x x
across YL ofYL
=8iM
Notice that the sign of the moment and rotation can be ignored; the internal
work always comes out positive. Adding the internal work for all the yield lines
gives
total internal work = 8(1 + i)M
For equilibrium
q~2 = 8(1 + i)M

At the comers, the mechanism requires one positive and two negative yield
lines to meet at one point. As was explained earlier, the square yield criterion
says that this cannot happen in a correct mechanism. The calculations for the
mechanism and the mechanism itself are perfectly valid, but the answer has to
be an upper bound.
8.2.6.3 Rectangular, Orthotropic Slab with Fixed Edges

This example is derived from the model rectangular slab shown in figure 8.16.
The large cracks and crushed concrete suggest the yield line pattern in figure
8.17. Tests show that the point of intersection of the positive yield lines, defined
by the dimension /3L, depends on the ratio of the side lengths and the factor J.L
that defines the orthotropic reinforcement. Consequently the actual position
of the inclined yield lines is unknown. This means that some complicated ex-
pressions would be needed to define the moment about the axes along the yield
lines and the rotation of the yield lines. The vector method gives the internal
work without too much trouble. Once the work equation has been found, it is
necessary to find the critical value of /3.
The loading on the slab is assumed to be: VDL q per unit area, line load Q
per unit length along the long centre line. The deformation of the mechanism
is defined by the unit deflections shown in figure 8.17.
• • •
• • • •
, • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • Sia FE6 •
top
•
• • • •
• • • •
• • 0
•
•
• •
I
/
• .>'
I
• • Slab FE6 • •
• • bottom • •
Figure 8.16 Test on rectangular fixed-edge slab.
aL x (3L 1 aL x (1 - 2(3)L 1
external work = q 2 x "3 x 2 + q 2 x2 x 2
1, 2 3,4
aL (3L 1 1
+q2 x 2 x"3 x 4+ Q (3L x 2 x 2 + Q x (1 - 2(3)L x 1
5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2 3, 4
Unit
+~
aL
t
deflections
4
.....------!------~ iJ.lM
I: pc J L
I.. pL :1 •
iM
FigureS.17
The rigid regions have been subdivided into triangles and rectangles to sim-
plify the calculations. To keep track of the calculations it is worth numbering
each of these. The numbers under each expression correspond to the numbers
in figure 8.17. In this way, none ofthe loading is omitted from the external work.
+ q (a2. - O'.f3)L2 + q-3-

O'.f3L 2 O'.f3L 2
external work = q-2-
+QBL + Q(l - 2(3)L
2. - 3'
= qL2(0'. O'.(3) + QL( 1 - (3)
The internal work needs some thought. Consider the yield lines shown in fig-
ure 8.18. Using the vector components in the x-direction only:
internal work = J-LM x O'.L x Ox + J-LiM x O'.L x Ox
positive negative
yield lines yield lines
. 1
= J-LM(l + I) X O'.L x f3L
.0'.
= J-LM(l + 1)73
The same expression holds for the other end of the slab. All the other yield
lines are parallel to the x-direction and have no vector component in that
aL
FigureS.IS
direction. This means that the total internal work due to x-direction com-
ponents
.n
= 2fLM(1 + I) (J
Consider now the part of the slab shown in figure 8.19. The trapezoidal rigid
region is flat, so that the angle ()y is the plastic rotation for the y-components
of every yield line in figure 8.19:
internal work = ML()y + iML()y
positive negative
YLs YLs
. I
= M(l + I)L x nLj2
I
= 2M(1 + i)-
n
Hence with a similar expression for the other half of the slab:
total internal work = 2fLM(1 + i) ~ + 4M(1 + i) ±

= 2M(1 +i) (~+ fL;)

aL
2
+
Figure 8.19
(8.14)
Equation 8.14 relates the moment of resistance M to the loadings q and Q.

The critical value of the variable f3 is the value that gives the largest value of M
for given q and Q or vice versa. This maximising process can be achieved by
finding the value of f3 that satisfies
dM dq =0 (8.15)
df3 =0 or df3
(The second equation assumes that there is some relationship between q and Q.)
To illustrate what happens, assume that Q = Oto simplifY the mathematics. Now
(8.16)
and using the quotient rule for differentiation
2(1+i) dM = (~+~)(-~) - (-~)(~-¥) =0

q£2 df3 (~+ JL;r
which can be simplified to
2 2p,a 2 p,a 2
3+3",8 - 2(32 = 0
Multiplying throughout by 6(32 gives the quadratic equation

4(32 + 4p,a 2(3 - 3p,a 2 =0
which can be solved to give
(3 = -4p,a 2 ± J(16p,2 a 4 + 48p,a2 )
8
The only possible value of (3 is the positive root (a negative value would indicate
yield lines outside the slab) and thus
_p,a 2 1
(3crit = - 2 - + 2
V(p, a
2 4 + 3p,a2 ) (8.17)
This can now be substituted back into 8.16 to give the critical solution of the
work equation. Equation 8.17 confirms that (3crit depends on the factors p, and
a which define the orthogonal reinforcement and the ratio of the side lengths
of the slab.
To illustrate the calculations for a real slab, consider a slab 4 m x 2.5 m, so
that L = 4 m and a = 0.625. Take p, = 0.5 and i = 1.5. What M is required to
support a factored load of 10 kN jm 2 ? Using equation 8.17:
(3crit = -0.5 X 0.625 2 + ~ . /(0.52 X 0.625 4 + 3 x 0.5 X 0.625 2)

2 2V
= 0.297
and substituting back in equation 8.16:
(~_ 0.625 ; 0.297)

2 x M x (1 + 1.5) =10 x 16 x (_2_ 0.5 x 0.625)
0.625 + 0.297
M =1.89 kNmjm width
The reader might like to verify that when Q = kqL the quadratic equation for
(3crit is
8.2.6.4 Rectangular, Orthotropic Slab with Mixed Supports

The maximising process can become very complicated when several variables
are involved in the mechanism. Consider the slab shown in figure 8.20. There
7m
~I
Unit deflection
4m
4fJ1
UDL= q
7(1 - 2M
~
I... 7/k I ~
1.5M
~
I Only needed in
, one direction
Figure 8.20
are two variables {31 and {32 because of the different boundary conditions on the
long edges. The derivation of the work equation is very similar to the previous
example. The reader ought to verifY that it is
Don't be put offby the apparent complexity, the calculations are no more diffi-
cult than those in the previous examples.
The solution of the simultaneous equations
will give the critical values of {31 and {32, but the differentiation is quite for-
midable. The alternative is to use a trial-and-error technique. Simply choose
likely ranges for {31 and {32 and calculate the work equation for various com-
binations of {31 and f32. It may seem lengthy, but in fact is very quick using a
calculator. After a little experience it is possible to 'home in' on the critical
values.
In this case {3, is going to be about 0.5, so start with a range 0.3 to 0.7, and
since {32 must be less than 0.5, start with the range 0.15 to 0.35. The calculations
are given in table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Values ofM/q.

{32 {3,
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
0.15 0.603 0.663 0.713 0.754 0.785 0.805 0.814 0.811 0.703
0.2 0.726 0.770 0.803 0.825 0.835 0.832 0.812
0.25 0.803 0.826 0.836 0.832 0.812
0.3 0.815 0.825 0.821
0.35 0.796 0.807 0.803
Compare the results from the table with the exact values which are shown in
brackets:
{3'crit = 0.6 (0.613)
{32crit = 0.25 (0.227)
M= 0.836q (0.838q) The difference in the value for M is not significant.
8.2.7 Slabs with Edge Beams

It is very common that the RC slab is supported around the boundaries by edge
beams that span between columns at the corners of the slab. Under load, the
slab and beams will all deflect. The boundary conditions are now different
from any so far considered, and merit further examination.
Tests on beam and slab arrangements produce interesting results. Various
modes offailure occur, depending on the relative moments of resistance of the
beams and slab. Figure 8.21 illustrates several mechanisms that have resulted
from slab tests. The trouble is that it is not obvious which mechanism will occur
in any given situation.
It would seem that the analyst must try every mechanism to find which one
occurs at the lowest load. Consider the square slab in figure 8.22. The work
equations for the various mechanisms are as follows:
(a) The edge beams are so strong that the diagonal mechanism forms in the
slab. Only positive yield lines are required because the beams can rotate
after torsion failure in the corners. (Look at the top right-hand corner of
slab EBI in figure 8.21.) The work equation for this mechanism has already
been found (see section 8.2.6.1):
24M
q=V (8.18)
Slab EBI I
top /
"-~~//
)
I'
Y
Slab EB2
top
\ (
Slab EB3
top
V
\f
Figure 8.21 Tests on slabs with edge beams.
L
Edge beam moment
of resistence Mb
UDL= q
r
~~==============~
I~ L .1
Figure 8.22
Diagonal
mechanism
(b) In this mechanism a positive yield line forms along one or other centre
line and plastic hinges form in the edge beams. The work equation can be
found by assuming unit deflection along the yield line:
or
=4M+ 8Mb
L
L 1
external work = qL x 2" x 2 x 2
qL2
2
Equating internal and external work and rearranging gives
q
= 8M
L2
(1 + 2Mb)
ML (8.19)
(c) In this mechanism, positive yield lines form along both centre lines with
plastic hinges in all four edge beams. Remembering the rules for the axes
of rotation, it is possible to determine the relative displacements in the
mechanism:
"-, I //
\ : ( Axes of rotation
,/ I "
/
/,,,- ,
/ 1/2
"-
/ "- , /
1/2 1 1/2 "- /
-~-
/ '
"-
"- /
"- 1/2 /
internal work = [ML( x 2 ~~~) + 2Mb (2 x i;~) ] x2

=4M+ 8Mb
L
L L 1
external work = q x 2" x 2" x 2 x 4
qL2
2
Thus the work equation gives
q
= 8M
L2
(1 + 2Mb)
ML (8.20)
which is identical to the previous mechanism.
(d) This final mechanism can occur when one of the edge beams is weaker
than the others:
Unit
displacements
. internal work 2
= ML( x L~2) + Mb (2 x L~2) + ML~
(usmg vector components)
=4M+ 4Mb+ML
L x
=4M(1 + :~ + fx)
Lx 1 LxI L 1
external work = qT x "3 + q"2 x 2" x "3 x 2 + q(L - x) x "2 x 2" x 2
1 2, 3 4, 5
Lx Lx L2 Lx
=qr;+qr;+qT-qT
= q~ (L-~)
so that
(8.21)
It is necessary to find the critical value of x using the maximising-minimising

process.
It is interesting to consider the collapse loads given in equations 8.18 to 8.21.

In equations 8.19 to 8.21, the collapse load depends on Mbl M L which is a mea-
sure of the relative magnitudes of the moments of resistance of the edge beams
and slab. Figure 8.23 is a graph of collapse load against Mbl ML. The graph
shows that when Mbl ML > 1, mechanism (a) is critical because the beams
gf.
M
24
18
12
o 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Figure 8.23
Figure 8.24
are sufficiently strong to resist collapse. When Mb/ ML = 1, each mechanism

has the same collapse load and is equally likely to occur.
The study of the interaction between beams and slab is a fascinating subject,
as Wood [34, 37] has shown. However, this section has also been included to il-
lustrate a further point. In some slabs, particularly those with edge beams or
unsupported edges, there can be several possible mechanisms, each with a dif-
ferent pattern of yield lines. It is necessary to analyse each one to find the col-
lapse load of the slab. Figure 8.24 shows a typical example, which is directly
applicable to problem 8.2 at the end of the chapter.
8.2.8 Yield-line Fans
8.2.8.1 Slabs with Point Loads

When a slab is tested, using a concentrated (point) load, cracks form radially
from the load. Flexural failure occurs when positive yield lines form along the
radial cracks and a circumferential negative yield line develops. This collapse
mechanism is shown in figure 8.25. (There can be shear problems around point
,
!I
..... -+-~iM
I
iM
Figure 8.25
loads, but they will not be considered in this book.) The mechanism is often
called, for obvious reasons, a yield-line fan.
The deformation of the yield-line fan can be represented by a unit vertical
displacement at the centre of the fan. Assuming that the magnitude of the
point load is We when the mechanism forms:
external work = We X 1
= We
It is not as simple to find the internal work; it is necessary to examine what is
happening within the mechanism. The rigid region outside the negative yield
line remains flat and horizontal. Each segment in the fan deforms as in figure
~8
-ve yield line
.=;..~
°t
Section 8-8
Figure 8.26
8.26. All deformation occurs by plastic rotation at the edges of the segment.
Each segment rotates with respect to the segments on either side and also to
the rigid region outside the fan. It is necessary to consider vector components,
but in this case the radial and tangential components are used. As the reinfor-
cement is isotropic, the moments in both these directions are M and iM for po-
sitive and negative yield lines respectively.
Since the region outside the mechanism is horizontal, the arc of the negative
yield line is also horizontal. There can be no rotation about the radial direction
within the segment itself. This means that for the radial components:
internal work = 0
For the tangential component:
internal work = M Rd¢> x Bt + iMRd¢> x Bt
1
= M(l + i)Rd¢> x R
= M(l + i)d¢>
It is difficult to visualise what is happening within the segment when consid-
ering the internal work. The total internal work is the sum of the internal work
for each segment:
total internal work = M(l + i)¢>
for a fan that subtends ¢> at the centre and
total internal work = M(l - i)27r
for a complete fan.
The surprising thing about the internal work is that it is independent of the
radius of the fan. This means that in a fixed-edge slab of any shape, provided
there is top reinforcement everywhere in the slab, the collapse load must be
We = 27rM(1 + i) = 6.28M(1 + i)
since the complete fan can form within the slab because there is no restriction on
the fan radius. The factor i is merely a device to express the moment along nega-
tive yield lines as a proportion of the positive moment. Of course, it can take
any value, so that when i = 0, the result is for a slab with bottom reinforcement
only. Thus a simply supported slab with a point load collapses when
We = 6.28M
For the designer with no knowledge of yield-line fans, the most likely choice
of yield lines for a square fixed-edge isotropic slab would be the diagonal pat-
tern used in section 8.2.6.2. This diagonal pattern would give
We = 8M(1 + i)
This is 27 per cent higher than the collapse load from the fan!
8.2.8.2 Fan with UDL
If the full fan is assumed to occur with a UDL, the internal work will be un-
changed. The calculation of the external work requires some integration. The
total load on the ring element at radius r:
= 27rrdrq
From the geometry of the fan deformation

this ring moves down Ll, where
Ll = I (R - r) = 1 _ ~
R R
where R is the fan radius.
Hence the total internal work
= foR 27rrdr q (1-i)
Equating internal and external work and rearranging:

6M(1 + i)
q= R2
27rqR2
=
6
The smallest value of q (for given M and i) will occur when R is as large as pos-
sible. Thus the fan will extend until it just touches the edge of the slab. For the
square slab, this will be when R = L/2 so that
24M(1 + i)
q= £2
which is the same as the collapse load from the diagonal mechanism.
8.2.8.3 The Use ofFans in More Elaborate Yield-line Patterns

The example in section 8.2.6.2 was shown to be an obvious upper bound
because there were too many yield lines in the corners. In the photograph of
the square fixed edge slab (figure 8.5), it can be seen that the negative yield lines
curve away from the corners and there are several cracks near the diagonals
that could be interpreted as positive yield lines. Consequently the yield line pat-
tern in figure 8.27 may well be a better idealisation of the collapse mechanism.
This mechanism contains four fans, each extending cjJ. Remembering that
the centroid of a circular segment is two-thirds of the radius from the centre,
the reader is left to show that the work equation for this mechanism is
Radius R
,
L
,
I
~--:--~ iM
I
iM
Included angle ~
Figure 8.27
24M(1 + i)
q= L2
The first part of the equation is identical to the diagonal yield-line solution.
The angle 1; is a variable, and its critical value turns out to be almost 30°, with
the corresponding solution
21.75M(1 + i)
q= L2
This is still only an upper bound. At point Y, although the negative yield
line is now continuous, the intersection of the positive and negative yield
lines is not at right-angles. Fox [38] has found the exact solution for the case
where i = 1. His solution checked that the collapse mechanism satisfied
the equilibrium, yield and mechanism conditions, and involved some for-
midable mathematics and the use of a computer. His value of the collapse
load was
42.85lM
q=
The over-estimate of the collapse load is 12 per cent for the diagonal mechan-
ism and 1.5 per cent for the fan mechanism. The extra labour of refining the
mechanism has to be balanced against the improvement in accuracy,
remembering the inherent variability of the concrete and the simplifYing as-
sumptions of yield-line theory. In practice, there is little point in going beyond
the simplest mechanism.
There is current research into automatic procedures for finding the yield-
line pattern in slabs [39]. This work uses an optimisation technique to home in
on the yield lines. It is likely to be of most use for complicated slab shapes that
can have unusual yield-line patterns.
8.2.9 The Shape ofthe Fan

All the examples about fans have assumed isotropic reinforcement and the fan
has been circular. When the reinforcement is orthotropic the fan is, theoreti-
cally, elliptical in shape. This is beyond the scope of this book. The interested
reader should consult references [1, 34,40] for more details.
8.2.10 Design Details

The yield-line method gives the moments of resistance required to resist col-
lapse. At normal working loads, the slab will still be in the elastic range. There
would be considerable redistribution of moments as the collapse mechanism
develops, and this would be accompanied by cracking of the concrete. To en-
sure that there are only small cracks at working load, the reinforcement must
be arranged, within practical limits, to suit the elastic moment distribution at
working load.
In all the examples of fixed-edge slabs, the moments of resistance around
the edges were chosen to be different from those in the centre of the slab,
usually by means of the factor i. That factor must be set such that the moments
of resistance are in about the same ratio as the corresponding elastic moments
at normal working loads. BS 8110 states that i should agree with elastic theory.
Eurocode 2 recommends the range 0.5 to 2.0. The results of elastic theory [41]
indicate that the range should be 1.5 to 2.5.
BS 8110 contains tables that give the required moments of resistance for two-
way spanning rectangular slabs of various side ratios and boundary condi-
tions. The tables were derived using yield-line theory.
8.2.11 Equilibrium Method

The virtual work approach can lead to complicated mathematical procedures
and an alternative approach considering the equilibrium of each rigid region
has been developed. This equilibrium method will not be described in this
book, because the author feels that the virtual work method is easier for the be-
ginner. The equilibrium method is extremely powerful, and has been described
in detail in various textbooks [1, 34,40].
8.3 Hillerborg's Strip Method
8.3.1 Background
This method was introduced in 1956 by Arne Hillerborg [42]. Hillerborg's
method manufactures a lower bound to the slab strength. Since a lower bound
is an under-estimate of the strength, the method is inherently safe. This is in di-
rect contrast with the yield-line method which generally produces upper
bound solutions.
Before looking at the method, it is necessary to compare the bending of a
beam and a slab. This is done in figure 8.28 by examining the equilibrium of
small beam and slab elements. In the beam element, vertical equilibrium is en-
sured by shear forces at each end; in the slab element by shear forces on all
four faces. To maintain moment equilibrium, moments must act at the ends of
the beam element and around the slab element. The difference is that in the
slab there are bending moments and twisting moments (reflecting the two-di-
mensional nature of the slab), whereas in the beam there are only bending mo-
ments. The resulting equations give the requirements for bending equilibrium
and, since they say nothing about the nature of the material, hold up to col-
lapse. In the beam, the applied load is resisted by the bending moments; in the
slab, it is resisted by the bending moments about the x- and y-axes and also by
the twisting moments. The equilibrium equation [41]
fi2 Mx fi2 My fi2 Mxy fi2 Myx
{}x2 + {}y2 - {}x{}y + {}x{}y = -q
is the starting point for Hillerborg's method. At collapse, the terms invol-
ving Mx and My represent the bending strength of the slab and the terms invol-
ving Mxy and Myx represent its twisting strength. (The negative signs in the
equation are due to the sign convention used in setting up the equationJ Hiller-
borg said that the twisting strength should be ignored changing the equili-
brium equation to
{}2Mx fi2My
{}x2 + {}y2 =-q
Deliberately ignoring the twisting strength in this way means that the overall
strength must be under-estimated. Hillerborg then said that part of the load is
carried by bending about the x-axis and part by bending about the y-axis, so
that
{} 2Mx
--=-aq
2
{}x
fi2My
--= -(l-a)q
{}y2
where a is a constant.
r +
x
z q/unit length Y Xq per unit area
Q j[""""""'' 'i' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '] ~ Q+ '::: Ox ,a.. ""
For vertical equilibrium:
iJO
OY+Tr0Y
~- ax
- iJOx
liy Ox+ax- 0x
dO
qox + 0 + dx ax - 0 = 0 All shears are per unit length
dO For vertical equilibrium:
q=- dx (a) a"
q xuy+ Ox oy+ ax-
iJOx
oxoy- Oxoy
M+ ~~ ax iJO
+ OytJx+~ oyox- Oyox= 0
M (I:> G <::::: ~ i.e. q=-(iJ~x+~J (a)
-
Moment equilibrium about G: Mx
Mxy My
Myx
M _ M _ dM ax + Q 8x + 0 8x
dx 2 2
+ dO oxiJx=O
dx 2
0=:
Ignoring small terms this gives
(b) All moments are per unit length

Moment equilibrium about the x-axis:
Substituting (b) into (a) gives
the beam equilibrium equation
d2M
( My+~OY Jox- MyOX-( Mxy+ iJ~yox Jay
dil =-q
+ Mxyoy- OyoJ!.-(Oy+~
2 iJy
Oy)ox 2l = 0
2
Ignoring small terms gives
oy--~_
iJy
iJMxy
iJx
(b)
Similarly moment equilibrium about the

y-axis gives
Ox= iJMx + iJMyx (c)

iJx iJy
Substituting equations (b) and (c) into (a) gives
the slab equilibrium equation:
~ Mx + ~ My _ iJ2 Mxy + iJ2 Myx = _

iJil iJy iJxiJy iJxiJy q
Figure 8.28
These equations are identical to the equation for beam bending: the
slab problem has been converted to a beam bending problem. It is
Arrows indicate
UDL span of beam
U" 01 ~SimPlY
discontinuity • edges
,"ppo.,d
~O'dO'b,.m
1&£&& Simply ,"ppo.,d b"m'
Figure 8.29
probably most convenient, but not essential, to assume that a is one or zero,
so that
&My=O for a =1
8y2
&My
--=-q
8y2
for a =0
Thus it is assumed that at collapse the load is carried on beams spanning be-
tween opposite edges of the slab, as shown in figure 8.29. The lines of disconti-
nuity merely divide the load on the slab surface. There is no critical position
for each line, so there is no need for complicated mathematics. This is one of
the advantages of the method. The problem has been reduced to the design of
the beams into which the slab has been converted. It is easiest to illustrate this
by means of some examples.
8.3.2 Simply Supported Rectangular Slab with UDL

The slab in figure 8.29 has been divided into two simply supported beams. At
each end of the rectangle, the applied load is shared between the two beams.
This reflects the fact that in the corners the load is supported by both edges
meeting in the corner. When edges are simply supported it is reasonable to
draw the line of discontinuity bisecting the angle in the corner. In the middle
of the long sides, all the load is carried on the beam spanning between the
long sides. There is no reason why the reinforcement in each beam should
be constant so that the two beams can be subdivided, as shown in figure 8.30.
The numbers 1, 2 and 3 in the figure indicate the final subdivision of the
slab into three beams. Each beam must be designed separately, as shown
below.
UDL q ultimate limit

state, i.e. collapse
La
I..
Figure 8.30
Beam}
This beam is simply supported with a span of Ll and carries a uniform load
over its whole surface. It is convenient to consider a strip of the beam with a
width ofl m. Typically the load on the slab will have units kNjm2 , so that the
load on the strip will have units kN/m.
For a simply supported beam with UDL, maximum moment
L2
= q 8 1 kNm per m width of slab
This is the design moment for the strip and thus for beam 1. This moment
would be used to find the amount of reinforcement required in the strip. The
convenience of the metre wide strip comes in the calculation of the reinforce-
ment. The calculated size and spacing of reinforcement would be used
throughout beam 1.
The loading on beams 2 and 3 is rather complicated and calculating the
maximum moment would be difficult. The calculations can be simplified by
using loading of the same total intensity but evenly distributed across the width
of the beam as shown below, and then using a correction factor to give the ac-
tual moment.
Beam 2
The load on the strip can be shown as
~1T T T T 1T T1L1mirn/-----
qkN/m
~jrm l l l
and the maximum moment (calculate it yourself)
L2
= q321 kN m per m width
Thus the design moment
qL2
= K 321 kN m per m width
where K is the correction factor.

Beam 3
Thus the strip loading is
/ ' - - - qkN/m
and despite the span of L2, the maximum moment
= rf
qL2
kN m per m width
Thus the design moment

KqL2
= ~ kNm per m width
The correction factor K is derived in the next section.
Figure 8.31
It is not essential to use the inclined line of discontinuity - it would be
equally satisfactory to divide up the load as in figure 8.31. The only limitation
on the strips is purely practical; there is a separate design moment and reinfor-
cement requirement for each strip. It would be totally impractical to have too
many strips because the reinforcement details would become too complicated.
Normally a central strip and another strip either side in each direction would
be adequate.
8.3.3 Correction Factor, K

Figure 8.32a shows a plan of a typical beam, width b, with uneven loading:
. II +l2
total load at each end of the beam (end reacbon) = qb-2-
To find the position of the centroid ofthe load from the end of the beam:
q
b (ll + l2)
2
- _ b
XX- q X
l
2 X
l2
2 +q
b (ll -l2)
2
(f2+ II -l2)
3
= b [l~ (ll -l2)(2£2 + ld]

q 2+ 2 3
= q: (3l~ + 2£ll2 + li - 2l~ -lll2)

qb 2 2
=6"(ll +lll2+ l 2)
(ly + lll2 + lD
x_ = -'----'--:-;-:--=---:=__:__::-=-:-
3(ll + l2)
Hence the moment at section x-x is
(a) (b)
Figure 8.32
M = qb (£, + 6) x _ qb (£, + £2) (x - x)

2 2
= qb (£, + £2) x
2
(this implies that the moment at any section where x > x is constant). Substitut-
ingfor x:
qb 2 2
M=6(£' +£'£2+£2)
Figure 8.32b shows the same beam with the load spread evenly across the width
of the beam. At X-X
M = qb(£, +£d
8
so that
K qb (£, + £2l = qb(£r + £'£2 + £D

8 6
and
K _~(£r +£,6 +£D
-3 (£'+£2)2
_ ~ [(£, + £d - £'£2]
- 3 (£, + £2)2
(8.22)
K = 1.333 _ 1.333
£, 2 £2
n+
{;2
+n
q
Returning to the example in the previous section, in beams 2 and 3, £, = LJ/2

and £2 = 0, hence
1/333
K = 1.333 - LJ/2 0 = 1.333
-0-+ 2 + LJ/2
and the design moment for both strips
= 1 333 qLr = qLr

. 32 24
Figure 8.33
8.3.4 Fixed-edge Slab

A slab with three fixed edges and one simply supported edge is shown in figure
8.33. The method can be applied without problems to the non-rectangular slab.
A fixed edge is more rigid than a simply supported edge and would therefore
attract more of the load in the corner. This has been allowed for in this slab -
the line of discontinuity runs nearer to the simply supported edge than the
fixed edge. It is reasonable for the line of discontinuity to divide the corner an-
gle in the ratio 2: 1.
The free and reactant BM method is most convenient for finding the design
moments:
Strip 1 To allow for the non-parallel edges, take the span of the strip as the
average value for the distance between the edges for the part of the slab covered
by strip 1. The distribution of the moments on the strip is
iM
Maximum
free BM
M
(1 + i)M = maximum free BM

Strip 2 Very similar to strip 1, provided that it is remembered that load is only
applied over part of the span.
iM
Maximum
free 8M
M
Strip 3 One end is simply supported, the other fixed. This is an example of a
propped cantilever, but with load only on part of the span.
iM
Free 8M
M
The strips are examples of the standard cases considered in Chapter 3. The
relative value ofthe edge and mid-slab moments, the factor i, has to be decided
on the same practical basis as in the yield-line method (section 8.2.9). In a prac-
tical situation, the calculations could be further complicated by having differ-
ent resistance moments at the fixed ends. This would happen where the
amount of reinforcement has been determined by the design of adjacent slabs.
8.3.5 Slab with a Hole

The presence of a hole effectively destroys the continuity of the slab, and it is
r:, 1
impossible for strips to span from one end of the slab to the other. This can be
overcome by using 'strong strips'around the hole, as shown in figure 8.34. These
'-, "-\:2:I : I I
8
I,ll
I 16
: I 7
9
t :3: /
IV
:'~ i ::
I'
..
f
I I ' : I I
~'~ /f:
1~ 1-+-'K-s
~ IL I I
f'
II II
I I : I I
"'- I I
~I
~-+.Y-:.
I
I II : II
I I
+--1-4----
r-~-;t + - i- -j -t - - - - 7 - t- ---
I 16
1/' I I
I I
i
:
I I
I j
I I I I '\
I II I I
Strong strips
Figure 8.34
strips provide the support for some of the other strips, and also reinforce the
surround of the hole, as can be seen by looking at the loading on each strip.
Strip 1 flllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilit A",,'~d load" collapsa

_ _ _ Edges of slab _ _
SI"", 2, 3 roo- ~ "",,11ad load, ...d

correction factor K
Strip 4
Applied load, need
. . correction factor K
Strong strip 8
Applied load, need

StripS ~
correction factor K
Stron:':riP 9 T
Applied load
f"":~! ",~
Strip 8
So far, things have proceeded along the same lines as in the previous
examples. The loading on the strong strips is more complicated. It is necessary
to choose a value for the width of the strong strips (0.5 m is a reasonable first
guess).
Strip 7
1111111111111111111 Reaction from strip 6
_ Applied load on strip itself
Strong strip 8
~ Strong strip 9
ReRctions from strips 7
Strip 8
t
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Reactions from strip 4
tllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllill1IIIIIIII Appli" load," ,"ip ....

Reaction from strip 7
Strip 9
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Reaction from strip 5
f""""""""""""""""""""'I11""""'"1IIIIII
t Appn.d '~d '" '"'' "",II
It is worth looking at a few points about the example:

(1) All the applied load eventually finds its way through the strips until it is
supported by the edges ofthe slab.
(2) It is assumed that the reactions at the ends of a strip are constant across
the width of the strip, whatever the plan shape of the loading on the strip.
(3) Care is required when considering the strong strips. In ordinary strips it is
convenient to use a metre width of strip, but strong strips are usually less
than a metre wide. This must be borne in mind when calculating the rein-
forcement. The strong strips will be more heavily reinforced than the
others.
Strip B
Strip 9
Strip 1
/'
Strip 2 /'
(a) Both long beams
Strip 4
f'm"'illm"@m"""""""""mm'~oo'm't
(b) Short beam
Figure 8.35
8.3.6 Loading on Edge Beams
It is usually difficult to assess the distribution ofloading on the edge beams of a
slab. Hillerborg's strip method provides a neat solution to this problem. The re-
actions at the ends of strips that are supported by the edge beams are the loads
on the beams. Figure 8.35 shows roughly the distributions that would have
arisen in the example in the previous section. The distributions assume that
the reaction is constant across the width of the strips. That assumption is ob-
viously untrue for strip 4 and it would seem prudent to assume the more realis-
tic distribution indicated by the broken lines. It is also untrue for strips 2 and
3, but using the more realistic distribution would not make much difference to
the moment in the edge beam.
It is a good idea to check that the total load on all the edge beams is equal to
the load applied to the slab. It is the only independent check that can be made
of the individual strip calculations.
8.3.7 The Limitation ofHillerborg's Method

Hillerborg's method is very powerful for slabs with distributed loading, be-
cause the behaviour is predominantly bending. However, around point loads
there is significant twisting in the slab and so the twisting strength is very im-
portant. Since it is ignored in the strip method, it becomes very difficult to
deal with point loads. Hillerborg put forward what he called the 'advanced
strip method' to get round this but, in practice, the method is limited to distrib-
uted loading [43].
8.4 Summary
This chapter has examined the yield-line and Hillerborg strip methods for re-
inforced concrete slabs. Both methods are based on plastic theory, but because
of the inherent complexity of slab behaviour they do not give exact solutions:
yield-line theory gives a genuine upper bound within the limitations of its in-
itial assumptions, while the strip method manufactures a lower bound. Mem-
brane action and strain hardening of the reinforcement ensure that both
methods are safe.
In the yield-line method, a collapse mechanism is postulated and analysed
by the virtual work method (or the equilibrium method). It is necessary to de-
termine the critical arrangements of yield lines in a given mechanism and also
to consider alternative mechanisms. Yield-line theory can cater for slabs with
point loads as well as distributed loading.
In the strip method, the loading on the slab is distributed to beam strips
spanning between opposite edges ofthe slab. The method is very flexible when
considering slabs with distributed loading but cannot deal easily with point
loading [43]. It gives information about the extra reinforcement around holes
in the slab and about the loading on the edge beams.
Problems
8.1. Determine the collapse load (UDL) of a rectangular RC slab
(5 m x 3 m), simply supported on all sides, when the reinforcement is
isotropic with M = 10 kN m/m. Redesign the slab to carry twice this
load, assuming the edges are now fixed.
8.2. Determine the collapse load and mechanism of the slabs shown in fig-
ures 8.36 and 8.37.
U2
UDL
I.. M
L
,
1.5 M
~I
, I
~-+-~1.5M
I
Figure 8.36
Figure 8.37
8.3. A rectangular slab (7 m x 4 m) has three simply supported and one

clamped edge and carries a uniform load q. Figure 8.38 gives details of
the reinforcement and yield-line pattern. Use the work equation to show
that
4m
Figure 8.38
3M (17.5 7 4)
qC=(42-4x) y+4-y+~
Find the moment of resistance Mwhenqc = 9 kN/m2.What are the criti-
cal values of x and y?
8.4. Determine the relationship between q, M and L for the yield-line system
shown in figure 8.39.
•,
1.6 L M
~_I_-"M
I
I.. 2.4 L
Figure 8.39
8.5. Figure 8.40 shows a proposed yield-line mechanism for a clamped

square slab carrying a UDL q.
•
M
•
~_I_~M
I
I.. L
.1
Figure 8.40
(a) Show that the work equation gives
q[(L - 2R)(L2 + 2LR + 4R2) + 211"R3] = 48M( L _ 2R + 11":)
(b) Show by a graphical method, or otherwise, that the critical value of

R is O.3L.
(c) Find the collapse load qc in terms of M and L.
(Note: the centroid ofa segment ofa circle is (2/3) x radius from the cen-
tre of the circle.)
8.6. A rectangular slab (3L x 2L) is supported by edge beams. The slab has
isotropic reinforcement in the bottom with a moment of resistance M per
unit width. The edge beams all have a moment of resistance of 4ML. De-
termine the collapse mechanism and load when the slab carries a UDL q.
The moment of resistance of one of the long beams is reduced to 2ML.
What effect does this have on the collapse load?
8.7. Use Hillerborg's strip method to design a simply supported slab
(10 m x 6 m) to carry a collapse load of 12 kNjm2.
8.8. Redesign the slab in the previous example to carry a load of 30 kNjm 2
with clamped edges.
8.9. Redesign the same slab with one long edge clamped, the other long edge
unsupported and both short edges simply supported, to carry a load of
12kNjm2•
8.10. Sketch a suitable system of strips for designing the slab in figure 8.39 by
Hillerborg's method.
-\-
- 1-
j
•
2m
HOle~ \-
I~
•
2m
I
2m
........ .,.
\-
I~ 5.5 m 1 2m 1 2 .5 m 1
Figure 8.41
8.11. Determine the design moments for the slab in figure 8.41 by the strip
method. What are the design moments in the edge beams? Design load
(including load factor) = 8 kN 1m2• Strong strips around the hole
should be 0.5 m wide.
Appendix A: Yield Criteria
In a tensile test, a ductile material will yield when the applied stress reaches a
critical value; in the case of steel that value is the yield stress. (Other materials
may not have a distinct yield point, in which case the situation is less clear cut.)
In a practical situation there may be several stresses in the material, for exam-
ple direct stress due to bending and shear stress, and the onset of plastic beha-
viour is more difficult to predict. Various 'yield criteria' have been devised to
do this.
Modern materials science has shown that plastic flow in a ductile crystalline
material such as a metal is a shearing action within the lattice of atoms which
make up the crystal, owing to dislocations within the lattice [44]. As might be
expected, the two yield criteria, named after Tresca and Von Mises, which as-
sume that shear controls yield, give the most accurate predictions of the onset
ofyield in ductile metals. These criteria will be examined in some detail.
Shear stress f
Ux Z
Max. shear
stress
-+--I--r-----,f---I...---+----I-. . Direct
stress u
(a) Stresses at a point (fxz = fzx,

called complementary shears) (b) Mohr's circle for stress
FigureA.1
240
Appendix A: Yield Criteria 241
A.I TheTresca Criterion
This states that yield will occur when the maximum shear stress due to a com-
bination of individual stresses becomes equal to the maximum shear stress
that occurs in a simple tensile test on the same material.
Any two-dimensional system of stresses at a given point in the material can
be plotted on a Mohr's circle of stress, as in figure A.1 [45]. The maximum and
minimum direct stresses at the point, 0"1 and 0"2 (called the principal stresses),
and the maximum shear stress Tmax can be found from the geometry of the cir-
cle. The stresses in figure A.l are acting in a z-x plane. If they are part of a
three-dimensional system of stresses it is possible to define all the stresses by
means of three Mohr's circles. If the Mohr's circles are plotted together they
turn out not to be independent of each other, as shown in figure A.2. This is be-
cause the stresses are all related by the requirements of equilibrium. The three
circles define explicitly the stresses in any direction and, as can be seen, there
are three principal stresses. The maximum shear stress at the point is the radius
of the largest Mohr's circle.
In a two-dimensional stress system, such as a beam in bending, the third
principal stress must be zero. Using the Mohr's circles in figure AJ it is possi-
ble to find the resulting maximum shear stress.
When 0"1 > 0"2 and both have the same sign
0"1-0 0"1
Tmax =-2-=2 (A.l)
When 0"1 > 0"2 but they are of opposite sign
Maximum
shear stress
---+~r------r-------------r--~--~~q
FigureA.2
--~---+-------+-----q
FigureA.3
(A2)
In the tensile test there is a one-dimensional system of stress, so that

(T2= (T3 = O. At yield, the other principal stress is the yield stress. Thus the
yield shear stress Ty is
(Ty - 0 (Ty
Ty =-2-=2" (A3)
Equating equations Al and A2 to equation A3 gives the conditions for yield

to occur:
(TI = (Ty or 2Ty (TI > (T2 both same sign
(A.4)
(TI - (T2 = (Ty or 2Ty (TI > (T2 opposite signs
A.2 Von Mises Criterion

In an elastic material with a two-dimensional system of stress, the strain en-
ergy per unit volume [45] in terms of the principal stresses is
(A5)
Using the generalised form of Hooke's law:
(A6)
1
1"2 = E(-!l(T1 + (T2)
Substituting equation A6 into equation A5 gives

1
U = 2E [0"1 (0"1 - V0"2) + 0"2 (-VO"l + 0"2)]
1
= 2E(ai +~ - 2VO"10"2)
(1 - 2v) 2 (1 + v) 2
= 6E (0"1 + 0"2) +~(20\ + 2~ - 20"10"2)
Remembering that the shear modulus G = E /2(1 + /I):
(1 - 2v) 2 1 2 2
U= 6E (0"1+0"2) +6G(0\+02-0"10"2) (A.7)
volumetric strain shear strain

energy per unit energy per unit
volume volume, USSE
It can be shown [45] that the first part of equation A.7 is the strain energy due to
the change in volume caused by the stresses, and the second part, called the
shear strain energy per unit volume, is the strain energy due to the change in
shape caused by the shearing action of the stresses.
The Von Mises criterion states that the material will yield when the shear
strain energy per unit volume caused by the applied stresses is equal to the
shear strain energy per unit volume at yield in a tensile test. In the tensile test
0"1 =O"y
0"2 =0
USSE =
a;
6G
so that yield will occur when
ai + ~ - 0"10"2 = a; (A.8)
In a situation of pure shear, yield occurs when the shear stress is equal to the
yield shear stress T y • The Mohr's circle for pure shear is shown in figure A.4.
From the geometry of the circle
0"1 = Ty
0"2 = -Ty
Using the criterion, yield will occur when
(Ty)2 + (_Ty)2 - a;
(Ty) ( -Ty) =
3T; = a;
r.
y-
-!!L
J3 (A.9)
(0, 'l"y)
--~--------~----------~--~. . q
FigureA.4
O'l
qy
_Von Mises
~----------1-----------~--~" ~
or
FigureA.5
The predictions ofboth criteria are summarised in equations A.4 and A.8 and are
plotted for comparison in figure A.5. Itis generally recognised thattheVon Mises
criterion predicts more accurately when yield will occur in a ductile material.
A.3 Combined Bending and Shear

In Chapter 2, both criteria were used to predict yield in a beam subject to
direct stresses (J from bending and shear stresses T. The direct stresses
FigureA.6
are parallel to the axis of the beam, so that the stresses are as in figure A.la
with
no direct stresses normal to the beam axis

Txz = T
The Mohr's circle for these stresses is shown in figure A.6. From the geometry
of the circle:
(A.IO)
Equation A.IO can be substituted into equations A.4 and A.8 to compare when
the two criteria predict yield will occur. As table A.I shows, both predict that
yield will occur in the beam when
(A.ll)
The only difference between them is the value of T y , the value of the yield shear
stress.
246 Plastic Methods for Steel and Concre.te Structures
TableA.l
Tresca Von Mises
From equation A.10, 0"1 > 0"2 Substituting equation A.10 into equation
but they are of opposite sign, A.8:
hence yield occurs when
[~+~r+[~-~r
or
- [~+ ~l [~- ~l
=a;
Hence
From equation AA, O"y = 27y so
that yield occurs when ~2 + 2 (~4 + 7 2 ) - ~4 + (~4 + 7 2) = d!:y
~ + 372 = a;
7y = O.50"y or
From equation A.9:

37.Y
2 = c?:Y
so that yield will occur when
7y = O.577O"y
Appendix B: A RedundancyTest
Most textbooks on structural analysis contain various tests for redundancy. In

this book it has only been necessary to find the degree of redundancy of two-
dimensional frames, and it is possible to give a specific test for this.
As was discussed in the early part of the book, there are several ways of
thinking about redundancy. Another is to define the degree of redundancy as
the number of cuts (often called releases) that must be made in the structure to
make it statically determinate. In two-dimensional frames with rigid joints
and supports, the columns can be made statically determinate cantilevers - al-
most like trees - by separating the structure at the centre ofevery span, as in fig-
ure B.I. Each separation is effectively three cuts, because it allows relative
horizontal and vertical displacements and rotation.
A frictionless hinge (at a support or within the frame) or a roller bearing at a
support, as in figure B.2, reduces the degree of redundancy by one. Thus the
test for redundancy is
r = 3n - k
where r = degree of redundancy, n = number of spans, and k = number of
frictionless hinges or roller bearings.
A warning about finding the degree of redundancy. Consider the joint in fig-
ure B.3a. There are bending moments at the end of each member but only two
~~ ~~ ~~
III a l
n 10 2 2
r 30 6 6
FigureD.1
247
248 Plaslic Methods for Steel and-Concrete Structures
~~ ~~ ~~
~1tgeroU.'~
n 3 1
k 3 2
r 6 3
FigureB.2
-1 V
1-1 i
k 2 4
(a) (b)
FigureB.3
of them are independent; the third can be found from moment equilibrium of
the joint. Consequently, the pin-joint shown is equivalent to frictionless hinges
at the ends of two of the three members. As shown in figure B.3b, this can be ex-
tended to joints of more than three members.
Appendix C: Bending Moment Diagrams
C.I Introduction
It is often necessary to determine the BMD corresponding to a collapse me-
chanism. Usually the BMD is required to check whether the mechanism satis-
fies the yield condition and is thus the true collapse mechanism of the
structure. The object of this appendix is to help the reader to find the BMD,
even when the structure is quite complicated. Sections C.2 to C.5 give some
useful ideas on this, and section C.6 shows how those ideas are applied in an ex-
ample.
C.2 Information from the Mechanism Itself

At the point of collapse, the structure is statically determinate; this is due to the
formation of plastic hinges. At every plastic hinge, the magnitude of the BM is
known; the sense of the moment is also known. Consider the mechanism in fig-
ure C.l. At the hinge points A, C, D and E, the moment is equal to Mp- Con-
sider now points A and E in more detail. The members are not just the centre
lines shown in figure C.l, they have a finite size. At a plastic hinge, the material
is yielding in tension and compression. The areas in tension and compression
V (at mid-span)
B o
Mpconstant
FigureC.l
249
Member after rotation
Material stretched
(Le. tension)
FigureC.2
Material stretched
(Le . tension)
+L __ ____ ~
Material stretched (Le. tension)

(a)
(b)
FigureC.3
at A and E must be as in figure C2 to allow the plastic rotations required in the

mechanism.
Similar arguments can be used at C and D, as shown in figure C3a, b. The
magnitude and sense of the BM at every hinge can now be plotted. (The
author's preference is to plot the moment on the side of the member that is in
tension. This convention has been followed in all the BMDs in the book.)
C.3 Free and Reactant Bending Moments

It is convenient to divide any BMD into two parts: these are the free and reac-
tant BMDs. The free BMs in a member are the BMs that would be caused by
loads applied to the member if its ends were free to rotate; in other words, the
BMs in a simply supported beam of the same length as the member.
The reactant moments are the BMs at the ends of the member due to re-
straint of the ends against rotation from the rest of the structure. (The object
of many analyses is to find the reactant moments.) Connecting the end mo-
ments by a straight line gives the reactant BMD.
There are simple relationships between the geometries of the free and reac-
tant BMDs and the geometry of the actual BMD, which are very useful in plas-
tic analysis. (The free and reactant BMD method described in Chapter 3 is
based entirely on this.) Look at the beam BD in figure Cl. The BMD for the
Appendix C- Bending Moment Diagrams 251
Mp
Tension above (-) Me
+Tension below(+)
Mp
Maximum
free BM
(a) Actual BMO
Me+Mp
2
at ml'd -span +
(b) Free and reactant BMOs
FigureC.4
beam is going to be as in figure C.4a, but the reactant moment at B is not

known. Divide the BMD into the free and reactant parts as in figure C.4b. Un-
der the point load, which is at mid-span in this case, the geometry of the dia-
grams requires that
maximum _ Mp + MB _ M
free BM 2 - p
For a simply supported beam, span L, with a central point load V, the maxi-
mum free BM is VLI4 so that
VL _ Mp+MB_M
4 2 - p
Rearranging gives
VL
M B =--3Mp
2
If MB comes out as a positive number, then the guess of tension on the top of
the beam at B, as in figure C.4, is correct. If it comes out negative, the guess is
incorrect - the tension is on underside of the beam.
There is one other point that often causes confusion in the combination of
the free and reactant BMs. The calculations only make use of the magnitudes
of the moments. Thus, in the calculations based on figure C.4, only vertical
lengths representing these magnitudes were considered. These vertical lengths
must be preserved when the free and reactant BMDs are combined. This
means that the sloping sides of the free BMD have to be altered; they remain
straight but their length is changed.
C.4 End Forces on Members
Consider the column BMD shown in figure C.5a. The actual BMD is the same
as the reactant BMD, indicating that there is no applied load along the length
of the column. The end moments from the rest of the structure which cause
the reactant BMs are also shown. (Figure C.5b shows a convenient way of find-
ing the direction of the end moment.)
The column must be in equilibrium. The only way that moment equilibrium
about the top (or base) of the column can be achieved is to have equal and op-
posite horizontal forces acting as shown. Taking moments about the top of the
column
HL=Mt+ M 2
These horizontal forces can be thought of as applied forces from the rest of the
structure. Ifthe bottom of the column is connected to a support, the horizontal
force is the horizontal reaction at the base, just as the end moment is the mo-
ment reaction at the base.
Force Force
causing causing
compression tension
-..H
/
Equal and opposite
I"I '\· Direction of couple
for horizontal I determines direction
equilibrium L
I of end moment
/ Top of column
(a) (b)
(c)
FigureC.S
Appendix C~ Bending MomentDiagrams 253
M1
(a) (b)
FigureC.6
When there are loads along the length of the column, the horizontal
forces are the sum of the forces due to the end moments and the end
reactions assuming that the column is a simply supported beam, as shown in
figure C.5c.
It is often useful to consider horizontal equilibrium of parts of a structure in
order to determine some ofthe BMD. This will be illustrated in the example in
section C.6.
C.S Joint Equilibrium

For any structure to be in equilibrium, every joint must be in moment equili-
brium. This requirement can be very useful when finding BMDs.
A typical joint with parts of the BMDs in each member meeting at the joint is
shown in figure C6a. If the members are cut just beside the joint, the BMs at
the ends of the members can be drawn as in figure C.6b. The directions of the
moments are found in the manner illustrated in figure C.5h. Moment equili-
brium requires that the sum of these moments is equal to zero. Thus, in this
case
C.6 Example of Finding a Bending Moment Diagram

Plastic analysis was used in section 4.3.3 to find the collapse load of the two-
storey frame in figure C7a. The mechanism with lowest load factor is shown
in figure C7b. It is necessary to check the mechanism by finding the corre-
sponding BMD. The various steps are outlined below and summarised in
figure C8 (see page 258).
The first stage is to mark in all the known moments at the plastic hinges. The
BMs for the two right-hand columns can then be completed by joining the end
2,1,w
AwL
2
I.. 2L ~1
- - - - - - l..
(a) (b)
FigureC.7
moments by a straight line. The reactant moment at the right-hand end of the
lower beam can be found from joint equilibrium. For equilibrium:
Upper column
Beam
_J ~
Mp
{, 2M
....--- p
Lower column
u-Mp -2Mp = 0
U= 3Mp
with tension on the top of the beam.

The unknown moments at the left-hand end of both beams are found next by
considering the geometry of the free and reactant BMDs.
(a) Upper beam
Free BM at mid-span (simply supported beam with UDL)
since oX = 1.8 and Mp = 3wL2 /4. Hence from the geometry of the BMDs:
Appendix C: Bending Moment Diagrams 255
V __ - - - Mp
v = -O.2Mp (that is tension on underside)
This moment of O.2Mp with tension on the underside can now be plotted and
the BMD for the beam completed. Remember that the diagram will be a para-
bola because of the UDL.
(b) Lowerbeam
x ---
Free BM at mid-span
4Aw(2L)2 _ 2\ 2 - 4 8
8 - AwL - . Mp
and from the geometry of the BMDs

3Mp+x
2 + 4Mp = 4.8Mp
x = -1.4Mp (that is tension on underside)
This can be used to complete the BMD for the lower beam.
The next step is to consider horizontal equilibrium of both the upper and the
lower storey.
(c) Horizontal equilibrium ofthe upper storey
This can be examined by cutting through the base of both the upper columns.
The diagram shows the horizontal loads on the upper storey, the shear forces
at the base of the columns and the BMs in the columns.
AwL
2 O.2Mp
y
(unknown)
For horizontal equilibrium

4Mp 2.4Mp
NI + N2 = AwL = 1.8 x 3L = -L-
Using the approach in section C.4:
NI = 2Mp N2 = O.2Mp + y
L L
so that
2Mp O.2Mp + Y 2.4Mp
T+ L =-L-
y= O.2Mp (tension side as assumed)

This completes the BMD for the upper left-hand column.
(d) Horizontal equilibrium ofthe lower storey
From upper storey
N~ ~N 2M
~ ~ p ~AwL
2Mp
For horizontal equilibrium:
HI + H2 = NI + N2 + 2AWL
7.2Mp
=-y-
Appendix C' Bending Moment Diagrams 257
HI = 4Mp H2 = 2Mp + Z
L L
so that
7.2Mp
L
Z = 1.2Mp
This completes the BMD for the lower left-hand column and for the whole
structure.
However it is worth checking the arithmetic by examining joint equilibrium
at the lower left-hand joint:
1.2Mp + 0.2Mp - I.4Mp = 0
0=0
Upper column
O.2Mp
~
L 4Mp
I~"om
1.2Mp , . . -
Lower column
~ Mp
3~
-
2~ 4~
(1) Mark in all known moments at the plastic hinges, and complete the BMOs for the
right-hand COl, ,.......,
2~
4~
(2) Complete the beam BMOs by considering geometry of free and reactant BMOs
(3) Complete the BMD by considering horizontal equilibrium of the upper and
lower storeys. Check arithmetic by considering joint equilibrium
FigureC.S
References
1. A. Ghali and A.M. Neville, Structural Analysis, 2nd edn. (Chapman &
Hall, London, 1978).
2. BS 5950: Part 1: 1990 Structural use ojsteelwork in building.
3. Steelwork Design Guide to BS 5950: Part 1: 1990, Volume 1, Section Properties
Member Capacities. (Steel Construction Institute, London, 1994).
4. M.R Horne, Plastic Theory oj Structures (Nelson, London, 1971).
5. B.G. Neal, The Plastic Methods ojStructural Analysis, 3rd (SI) edn. (Chap-
man & Hall, London, 1977).
6. ENV 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3: Design oj Steel Structures; Part 1-1: 1992 Gen-
eral Rules and RulesJor Buildings.
7. M.R Horne and W. Merchant, The Stability oj Frames (Pergamon, Ox-
ford, 1965).
8. T.R Graves Smith, Linear Analysis oj Frameworks (Ellis Horwood, Chi-
chester, 1983).
9. RH. Wood, The stability of tall buildings, Proceedings ojthe Institution oj
Civil Engineers, 11 (1958) 69-102.
10. W. Merchant, Failure of rigid-jointed frameworks as influenced by stabi-
lity, Structural Engineer, 32 (1954).
11. M.w. Low, Some model tests on multi-storey rigid steel frames, Proceed-
ings ojthe Institution oj Civil Engineers, 13 (July 1959).
12. RH. Wood, Effective Lengths oj Columns in Multistorey Buildings, BRE
Current Paper 85174 (September 1974).
13. M.R. Horne, An approximate method for calculating the elastic critical
loads of multi-storey frames. Structural Engineer, S3 (1975).
14. BS 8110: Part 1: 1985 StructuraluseoJconcrete.
15. A. Battersby, Mathematics in Management (Penguin, Harmondsworth,
1970).
16. K.I. Majid, Non-linear Structures (Butterworth, London, 1972).
17. K.I. Majid, Optimum Design oj Structures (Butterworth, London, 1974).
18. RH. Gallagher and o.c. Zienkiewicz (Eds), Optimum Structural Design:
Theory and Applications (John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1973).
259
19. A.R Toak1ey, Optimum design using available sections, J. Struct. Div.,
Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 94 (1968) 1219-1241.
20. L.I Morris and A.L. Randall, Plastic Design (Constrado, 1975).
21. EK. Kong and RH. Evans, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete, 3rd edn.
(Van Nostrand Reinhold (UK),Wokingham, 1987).
22. B.P. Hughes, Limit State Theory for Reinforced Concrete Design (Pitman,
London, 1976).
23. R G. Smith, The determination of the compressive stress-strain proper-
ties of concrete in flexure, Mag. Concr. Res., 12 (1960) 165-170.
24. E. Hognestad, N.R Hanson and D. McHenry, Concrete stress distribu-
tion in ultimate strength design, J. Am. Concr. Inst., 27 (1955) 455-479.
25. A.A. Mufti, M.S. Mirza, 10. McCutcheon and J. Honde, A Study of the
Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Elements Using Finite Elements, Civil
Engineering Report No. 70-5 (Department of Civil Engineering and Ap-
plied Mechanics, McGill University, 1970).
26. P.M. Ferguson, IE. Breen and 10 Jirsa, Reinforced Concrete Fundamen-
tals, 5th edn. (John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1988).
27. A.L.L. Baker, The Ultimate-Load Theory Applied to the Design of Rein-
forced and Prestressed Concrete Frames (Concrete Publications Ltd, Lon-
don, 1956).
28. A.L.L. Baker, Ultimate load design of reinforced and prestressed
concrete frames, Proceedings of a Symposium on the Strength of
Concrete Structures (Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1956),
277-304.
29. C.E. Massonnet and M.A. Save, Plastic Analysis and Design, Vol. 1, Beams
and Frames (Blaisdell, London, 1965).
30. ENV 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures; Part 1-1: 1992
General Rules and Rulesfor Buildings.
31. Building Code Requirementfor Reinforced Concrete (ACI318-83). Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, 1986 revision.
32. KW. Johansen, Yield Line Theory (English translation, Cement and Con-
crete Association, London, 1962).
33. KW. Johansen, Yield Line Formulae for Slabs (English translation, Ce-
ment and Concrete Association, London, 1972).
34. RH. Wood, Plastic and Elastic Design of Slabs and Plates (Thames &
Hudson, London, 1961).
35. A.I Ockleston, Tests on the Old Dental Hospita~ Johannesburg (Concrete
Association, London, 1956).
36. A.E. Long, 1. Kirkpatrick and G.I.B. Rankin, Enhancing influences of
compressive membrane action in bridge decks, Proceedings ofthe Confor-
ence on Bridge Modifications, Institution of Civil Engineers (23-24 March,
1994).
37. RH. Wood, Studies in Composite Construction, Part 2: The interaction of
floors and beams in multi-storey buildings (HMSO, London, 1961~
References 261
38. E.N. Fox, Limit analysis for plates: the exact solution for a clamped
square plate of isotropic homogeneous material obeying the square yield
criterion and loaded by uniform pressure, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 277
(1974) 121-155.
39. A. Thavalingam, A. Jennings, 11 McKeown and D. Sloan, The use of op-
timisation techniques in yield line analysis, International Conference on
Computational Methods in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, De-
cember 12-14, 1994, Hong Kong.
40. L.L. Jones and R.H. Wood, Yield Line Analysis of Slabs (Thames & Hud-
son, London, 1967).
41. S.P. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of Plates and Shells,
2nd edn. (McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Ltd, New York, 1959).
42. A. Hillerborg, Strip Method of Design (Viewpoint Publications, Cement
and Concrete Association, London, 1975).
43. R.H. Wood and G.S.T. Armer, The theory of the strip method for design of
slabs, Proceedings ofthe Institution of Civil Engineers, 41 (1968) 285-311.
44. IE. Gordon, The New Science of Strong Materials, 2nd edn. (Penguin,
Harmondsworth,1977).
45. w.A. Nash, Strength of Materials, 2nd edn. (Schaum's Outline Series,
McGraw-Hill. New York, 1972).
Solutions to Problems
Chapter 2
2.1. plates Mp = Dbtay; combined section Mp = 660 kN m
2.3. Mp = 19.73 kNm
2.4. (a) Mp = D3 a y /6; (b) Mp = 1.5d2 tay ; (c) Mp = (J2)d 2 tay ;
(d) Mp = (7J3/16)a 2 ta y
=S_ n2 Dt
2••
5 S' 4D
A2 n<-
-A
S' = A2 (l_n)(4BT -1 +n)

8T A
y-axis 697.6 kN m, 422.7 kN m; z-axis 122.7 kN m, 109.4 kN m
Chapter 3
3.1. We = 11.66Mp / L2
3.2. span CD critical; We = 0.833Mp / L2
3.3.
VL
Mp
3 f-------.
HL
o 2 3 4 Mp
3.4. \: = 1. 70
262
265
900
3.5. Ac = 1.50
100 100
3.6. = H: combined mechanism

V V = 2.2Mp /L
= 5H: pitched portal mechanism
V V= 4.09Mp /L
3.7. k = 0.609
Chapter 4
4.1. (a) Ac = 1.375
I 1 I
•
(b) Ac = 1.448
1 1
•
I
(c) Ac = 1.80
(d) Ac = 2.00
(e) Ac = 2.235
I
•
1 I
4.2. (a) Au = 1.407; 1.287 < ..xc < 1.407
.• 0
(b) Au = 1.191; 1.169 < ..xc < 1.191
ChapterS
5.1. 270 kN, 23.4 mm
5.2. 114.5 mm, 76.8 mm
5.3. Ac = 1.50,146.3 mm
5.4. 126.7 mm, 62.2 mm
5.5. 82.3 mm, 49.9 mm, 27.1 mm
5.6. (a) P = 0.303BDuy
(c) intercept of elastic and plastic curves, Pc ~ 0.289BDuy
(d) PR = 0.275BDuy
5.7. P = 491.4 kN, w = 49.14 kN/m
Chapter 6
6.1. (a) Mp = 657.7 kNm
(b) Mp = 267 kN m, plates in BC - Mp = 426 kN m, plates in CD -
Mp = 106kNm
6.2. (a) single section Mp = 2wL2 G = 14.0wL3
(b) plated Mp = 1.13wL2, plates in AB and CD - Mp = 1.3lwL2 ,
length = l.1lL, G = l2.3wL3
(c) minimum weight Mp in AB and CD = 2.44wL2, Mp in
BC = 1.13wL2 , G = l3.1wL 3
6.3. columns and beams Mp = 1.167WL
6.4. Mp = 0.43WL
6.5. Mp = 580 kN m
6.6. columns Mp = 133.3 kNm, beams Mp = 311.2 kNm
6.7. columns Mp = 335.6 kN m, rafters Mp = 252.8 kNm, A = 1.45
(pitched portal)
6.8. columnsMp = 466.2 kNm, raftersMp = 315.1 kNm, A = 1.38
Chapter 7
7.1. Mr = wL2/16
O.146L
7.2.
Dimensions in m
7.3.
Moments in kN m
Dimensions in m
7.4.
3540 t.
I
Moments in kN m
12.56 Dimensions in m
Chapter 8
8.1. q = 17.54 kN/m2
in centre of slab - Mr = 8 kN m/m, at edges - Mr = 12 kN m/m
8.2. (a) q = 59.06M/L2
(It) q = 10.7M/L2
8.3. M = 7.54 kN m/m, Xerit = 1.586 m, Yerit = 2.45 m
8.4. M = O.116qL2
8.5. qe = 43.85M/L2
8.6. qe = 4.24M/L2 , slab failure; qe = 3.25M/L2
8.7. Suggested strip distribution:

8.8. Same strip distribution as in 8.7 but edges are fixed
-
8.9. Suggested strip distribution:
~ ----~-----
, ,
--;/ t "'~
8.10.
This strip
spans to strong
strip along free
edge
This strip spans ~~gs:gs:gg:gg:~~~~~~~

to other end of slab :><
Strong strip under line load
8.11.
Index
analysis actual 43,60, 7S, 89

first-order 107, no, III compatibility 1,7, 8, 9
second-order 109, 1l0, lll, 120,127 1;onvenience offabri~ion 145, 163
availability of structural steel 145, 154 correction factor 227,228, 229
axis of rotation 191, 193, 196
axis of zero strain 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 168, deflections 1m, 104, 105, 1l0,H5, 134
170,174 limiting 134
deformations, permanent 13
basic section 140 degree of indeterminacy (or redundancy) 9,
Bauschinger effect 3, 12 10,15,42,45,85
beam bending 16 displacements at the end of a member 105
bending moment diagram (BMD) 17,40,41,
249 edge beams (around a slab) 212, 235
free 47,48, 95, 136, 250 effective structure 41, 118
reactant 47,48,95, 136, 139, 180, 181, 250 elastic critical load (buckling load) 109, 113,
bending moment envelope 180, 184 119
buckling (instability) 15, 28, 134 elastic limit 1
lateral torsional 123, 136, 143 elastic-plastic behaviour, perfect 3
local 28, 122 equilibrium 7, 9, 10
sway 118 horizontal 95,253
buckling load (elastic critical load) 109, 113, moment, at ajoint 88,253
119 neutral 10, 15
vertical 7
centroid of a section 20,23 equilibrium condition 41,44,80, 100, 194, 221
collapse 1,6, 14 extension 7
point of 10,14
collapse load 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 39,45,49,75, failure 39
103, 104, Ill, 115, 188, 220 modesof 212
of beam with fixed ends 47, 57 torsion 212
of continuous beam 49 frame
offixed foot portal frame 61 non-sway 124, 125
of pitched portal frame 66 sway 124, 127
of portal frame with pinned feet 57 framed structure (frame) 16
of propped cantilever 48 frames, collapse of 16
of simply supported beam 46 free and reactant bending moment
of spans with distributed load 50 method 46, 53, 75, 137, 143, 231
reduced 64, 104, 128
simple plastic 119 Hillerborg's strip method 188, 223, 235
collapse load factor 42, 73, 85, 90, 99, 100 for fixed-edge slab 231
true 43, 115, 119 for simply supported rectangular slab 225
collapse mechanism 43, 55,61,75,76,80,99, for slab with a hole 232
103, 104, 114, 136, 147, 191, 220, 235, 249 Hooke's law, generalised 242
269
270 Index
indeterminacy (redundancy) 7, 9 plastic hinge 19, 20, 23, 27, 36, 39,46,49, 55,
instability (buckling) 15, 28, 134 104
interaction diagram (ID) 61,63,75,148,149, vanishing 85
153 plastic hinges, number at collapse 42, 45
plastic modulus 21,22,23,24,126,139, 145
lack of fit 13,14,15,133 effect of axial force on 29, 35, 64
limit analysis 75, 76,80,83, 99 effect of shear force on 31,35
limit state, philosophy of design 133 of an I-section 21
ultimate 133, 134 of a rectangle 21
linear programming 154 of aT-section 23, 24
Simplex method 154 plastic moment 19,20,23,26,36,41,47,49,50,54,
lines of discontinuity 225, 229, 231 139
load factor 42,80, 134, 136, 158, 160, 162 effective (reduced) 29, 31, 32, 36, 64
against collapse 103, 134, 163 plastic moment of resistance 19
collapse 42, 81, 116, 144 plastic rotation 27,68, 167, 171, 174, 177, 186, 189,
lower bound 44, 223,235 191, 208, 218
virtual 54
mechanism 19 plastic rotation capacity 167, 171, 174, 176, 177, 179,
beam 57,62,63,66,68,73,84,85,86,136,147 180, 187, 188
combined 59,66, 73, 75 plates 36, 140
elementary 84, 85, 86, 99 point of contraflexure 181
joint rotation 84, 85, 87, 91 proportional loading 80, 99
pitched portal 71,75,84
sway 58,62,63,66, 73, 75, 84, 85, 86, 87 Rankine-Merchant load factor 119,120,128
mechanism condition 41,44,80,100,194,221 Wood's modification to 120, 127, 128
membrane action 194, 195 redistribution (of internal forces and
compressive 195 moments) 10, 12, 14, 15, 42, 81, 167, 176, 177,
tensile 195 180, 181, 222
method (of finding collapse loads) redistribution ratio 180
free and reactant BM 46,53,75,137,143,231 redundancy (indeterminacy) 7, 9, 15, 247
virtual work 53, 55,75, 103, 177, 199 degree of 9, 10, 15,42,45, 85
minimum total cost 145 test for 247
minimum total weight (of material) 145,163 redundant structure 11
minimum weight design 145, 147, 150, 151, 154 reinforced concrete sections
of a continuous beam 147 over-reinforced 171,179
of a portal frame 151 under-reinforced 171,179,186,187
minimum weight line 150, 154 reinforcement in slabs
minimum weight solution 150, 154 isotropic 198, 200
Mohr's circle for stress 241,245 orthotropic 198, 202, 205, 210
moment of resistance 167, 177, 180, 189, 194, 195, skew 199
197,204 residual forces 12
moment-curvature relationship self-equilibrating 12, 13
actual 27 rigid region 191, 196, 218
for reinforced concrete 171, 172, 173
ideal elastic-plastic 26 section (elastic) modulus 21,22,24,126
shape factor 21, 23, 24
neutral axis 17 slenderness ratio 117, 118
non-linear programming 154 stability functions 108,109
normal working loads 103,143,222 statically determinate (structures) 1,5,6,9,10,
15,247
optimum design 144,145 statically indeterminate (redundant)
over-collapse 46 (structures) 1
stiffness 11
P-8 effect 104,107, 109, 115, 127 reduction in 11, 15,42,104
partial collapse 46, 49 zero, at collapse 12, 15
permissible region (PR) 61,149,153 strain energy 242
plastic design 104,133 shear 243
plastic flow 2,6, 10, 12, 14, 23, 27, 36, 240 strain hardening 3, 120, 194, 235
Index 271
stress yield 6,7,9,10,12,17,114,171,240
direct 31,240,244 first 15, 114
maximum shear 241 yield condition 41,44,80,100,194,221
principal 241,242,245 yield criterion 31, 195, 205, 240
shear 31,32,33 Tresca 31,240,241,246
stress block for concrete 177 Von Mises 31, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246
stress-strain curve 2,6, 17, 168, 170 yield line 188, 189, 193, 194, 196
strips 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 moment along 196, 198, 201, 202
strong 232, 233, 234 negative 193, 196, 205, 217, 218
positive 192, 205, 212, 214, 217
theorems of plastic analysis 44, 75 vector components of 204, 207, 219
lower bound 44, 80, 81, 100 yield-line fan 217, 218, 220, 222
uniqueness 45, 75 yield-line solution of
upper bound 44,75, 80, 100 rectangular orthotropic slab with fixed
torsion failure 212 edges 205
rectangular orthotropic slab with mixed
ultimate tensile strength 3 supports 210
uniaxial tension 2 slabs with edge beams 212
upper bound 44, 80, 194, 205, 220, 221 slabs with point load 217
upper yield point 2 square fixed-edge slab 204
square simply supported slab 200
virtual work I yield-line theory 188,194,235
virtual work method 53,55,75, 103, 177, 199 equilibrium method of 222, 235
virtual work method of 222, 235
weight function 145, 147, 149, 153 yield point 2,6
work yield shear stress 32,243,246
external 53,54,82,91,201,202,204,207,215 yield strain 27
internal 53,54,91,99,201,202,203,204,205, yield stress 2, 17, 18, lll, 240, 242
207, 208, 215
work equation 55,75, 82, 90, 99, 202, 211, 220 zones of plastic material 27

Moy S. S. J., Plastic Methods For Steel and Concrete Structures, 2nd Ed, 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Moy S. S. J., Plastic Methods For Steel and Concrete Structures, 2nd Ed, 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moy S. S. J., Plastic Methods For Steel and Concrete Structures, 2nd Ed, 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLASTIC METHODS FOR STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Other titles of related interest

Civil Engineering Contract Administration and Control, Second Edition

Civil Engineering Materials, Fifth Edition

Civil Engineering Quantities, Fifth Edition

Finite Elements - A gentle introduction

Fundamental Structural Analysis

Highway Traffic Analysis and Design, Third Edition

Reinforced Concrete Design, Fourth Edition

Reinforced Concrete Design to Euro Code 2

Soil Mechanics - Principles and Practice

Surveyingfor Engineers, Third Edition

First edition 1981

ISBN 978-0-333-64177-4 ISBN 978-1-349-13810-4 (eBook)

1 Some General Concepts 1

3 Collapse of Simple Frames 39

5 Deflections and Stability 103

6 Design Using Plastic Theory 133

7 Application of Plastic Methods to Reinforced Concrete Structures 167

8 Yield-line Analysis and the Hillerborg Strip Method for Reinforced

Appendix A : Yield Criteria 240

Solutions to Problems 262

Material and Section Properties

Lengths and Displacements

Tensile stress Tensile stress

Perfect elastic-plastic behaviour is shown in figure 1.4. Mild steel can be

1.3 How Structures Behave Under Varying Load

1.3.1 Statically Determinate Tension Truss

For horizontal equilibrium at 0

1.3.2 Indeterminate Tension Truss

1.3.2.1 Analysis ofBehaviour up to Col/apse

All members have

t 0" ' " Fox

Compatibility is ensured in the truss if point 0 is constrained to move

80B = 800 = b. sin 45° = ~

Yield starts in OC when the load is increased to WI, given by

o. 707( W2 - Aay) = Aay

1.3.2.2 Summary ofthe Results ofthe Analysis

heavily loaded members, initially, gradually carry a larger proportion of

(3) Reduction in stiffness. Figure 1.12 is a graph of applied load W (plotted as

The unloading process is shown by the broken line in figure 1.12.

-0.5 o 0.5 1.5 2

2.2 What Happens to a Beam when it Bends?

Cross-section Strain Stress

Axis of zero strain Compressive

As the bending moment is increased, yielding spreads towards the axis of

Increase in length after full yield

Beam to left + Beam to right = Hinge at critical

2.3.2 Rectangular Section

and this is sometimes written

For a rectangular section Z = BD2/6 so that

shape factor = B~2 = 1.5

(a) As rolled (b) Idealised (e) Bending about the y-axis

a series of rollers. Modern techniques produce sections with parallel faces to

(1) Find axis of zero strain y-axis (symmetry) z-axis (symmetry)

(5) Plastic modulus BT(D _ T) + t(D - 2T)2 B2T

2.3.4 Asymmetric Sections

Elastic modulus calculation Plastic modulus calculation