A MICRO-COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE

ELASTIC-PLASTIC ANALYSIS AND

OPTIMUM DESIGN OF PLANE FRAMES

H, SCHOLZand C. FALLER
~par~ent of Civil ~ngin~~~g, Unive~ity of the W~twatersrand, Johann~burg, South Africa

(Received 28 January 1986)

Abstract-A computerized version of an approximate second-order, elastic-plastic analysis of multi-storey

sway frames is pmsented. The computer program which applies the method to steel frames on a
story-b~sto~ey basis is described, The program is used to d~o~st~~e bv way of an example the
appli~bility of the method for the analysis and design of large, multi-stomy frames. It is argued that the
tecbniaue can meat& reduce analysis time as well as simplify the optimi~ti~n of members in the design
of suci fram&

1. l[NTRODUCTION The increasing availability of high-speed digitial

computers has encouraged the development of com-
The analysis of ~multi-storey frameworks is compli- puter techniques which analyse the whole structure
cated by the need to take second-order effects into through the plastic range to failure (3,4$ These are
account. The most sibilant and-order effect, the rigorous analyses which can take most secondary
P-Delta effect, causes additional moments when the effects into consideration. The fact that the entire
axial forces on the columns are laterally displaced structure is analysed as a whole makes this approach
through storey sway. cumbersome for the design of large multi-storey
The conventional way of ~rn~u~ting for the frames. Changing one member in the framework may
P-Delta effect in the design of multi-storey sway necessitate the re-anaiysis of the whole frame and a
frames is through the “effective length” technique. large number of analyses would have to be performed
The frame is analysed using a first-order elastic to op~~ze all the members.
analysis and the effective column lengths are used Approximate second-order analyses have been de-
with these forces in the design of members to ensure veloped which are applied to ~am~olumn sub-
frame stability, i.e. to account for the P-Delta effect. assemblages[5~. Tbese methods are time consuming
It is well known that greater design anomies can in that they require the full plot of the load-displace-
be achieved by taking full plasticity into account in ment history and are not very accurate&], Cheong-
the design of frames. The “effective length” concept Siat-Moy[q developed a storey stiffness method
combined with a first-order elastic analysis does not which can be applied to the design of multi-storey
enable the designer to utilize fully the load carrying frames. This method is used on a sto~~by-story
capacity of the st~ctu~ in the plastic range. Recently basis by plotting the load vs storey stiffness curve for
it has been shown by Scholz[I) and Cheon~Siat- each storey. The storey-by-storey approach adopted
Moy[2], that the “effective length” technique has by this method greatly simplifies the design of multi-
more serious shortcomings. They have demonstrate storey frames but the plotting of each storey load vs
that designing structural members based on the storey stiffness curve is still tedious.
“effective length” concept does not always ensure Interaction methods make use of the rigid-plastic
overall frame stability. collapse load and the elastic buckling load of the
It seems, therefore, that a more realistic design structure to predict the elastic-plastic failure load.
procedure should be based on a second-order The Me~hant-Rankine method is the most widely
elastic-plastic analysis. A considerable amount of used interaction method. The shortcoming of this
work has been done in trying to develop suitable method are its i~accu~cy for slender frameworks and
second-order a~lysis t~h~ques which can be incor- for cases of pure vertical loading. Furthe~o~, the
porated in the design of multi-storey sway frames. calculation of the rigid plastic collapse load for large
Three different approaches to the problem can be frameworks is very time consuming. Scholz[8] has
identified: developed an improved version of the Merchant-
Rankine interaction method which can be applied to
(I) Rigorous elastic-plastic analysis of the entire the structure as a whole or on a story-by-story
framework. basis. This method is not subject to the limitations
(2) Approximate second-order analysis applied to of the Merchant-Rankine method and by applying
suitable su~as~mblag~. the method on a storey-by-stony basis the analysis
(3) Application of interaction formulae. computations and design optimi~tions are greatly
941
942 H. SCHOU
simplified. A brief summary of this method is
presented later on.
This paper describes the computerization of the
interaction method developed by Scholz [8] applied
on a storey-by-storey basis. The program is then used
to demonstrate the interaction method applied to the
design of a multi-storey sway frame. ~roughout this
study the objective has been to provide an approxi-
mate elastic-plastic analysis technique utilizing all
possible simplifications in order to minimize com-
puter and design time without loss in accuracy.
2. COMPUTER PROGRAM
The program analyses the structure one storey at
a time, from the top storey down. A typical internal
storey model is shown in Fig. 1 with points of
inflection assumed at mid-column height. The calcu-
lation of the elastic-plastic failure load factor for
each storey is performed in three stages:
(I) Calculation of the storey rigid-plastic collapse
load factor, yP.
(2) Calculation of the storey elastic buckling load
factor, yP
(3) Using rP and yOin the interaction method [8]
the elastic-plastic storey failure load, rr, is
obtained.
The lowest elastic-plastic failure load factor ob-
tained for any one stony is then taken as the failure
load factor of the structure. A flow-chart outlining
the program structure is shown in Fig. 2. The estab-
lishment of the required parameters is outlined be-
low. A load factor equal to unity is assigned to an
arbitrary load level, usually the working load.
Rigid-plastic collapse load faetor
The rigid-plastic collapse load factor is calculated
by utilizing the sio~e~~tion equation, without
stability functions, for each member and combining
p, W-J)
w1 (kN/m)
PI
Fig. 1. Typical internal storey model.
and G. FALLEX
them to form the storey sub-structure stiffness matrix.
The load-displacement relationship is used to calcu-
late the member forces and moments on a first-order
basis, i.e. ignoring the effect of displacements on axial
forces. When the fully-plastic moment capacity of a
section is reached at a certain point in a member, a
plastic hinge is inserted at this discrete point while the
rest of the member remains elastic. Loading is applied
incrementally and a first-order elastic analysis is
performed at loads between the formation of con-
secutive hinges. With the formation of each con-
secutive hinge the stiffness of the structure is reduced
to account for the hinges and the stiffness matrix
adjusted accordingly. The rigid-plastic collapse load
of the structure is the load at which a hinge forms,
causing the determinant of the structure stiffness
matrix to become negative or zero.
In the analysis of the storey sub-structure (Fig. I),
the effect of axial load on the stiffness of the members
is ignored. It has been assumed that points of
inflection occur at mid-column height, except in the
bottom storey. As a result of these simplifications, the
only unknown defo~ations which have to be solved
are the rotations of the beam-column intersection
joints and the lateral deflections of the columns.
All axial deformations have been ignored so that
the lateral deflection, AZ, of all the columns at a floor
level are equal. Similarly, the lateral deflection, A,, of
all the columns at mid-column height of the upper
coiumns are assumed to be equal. A storey sub-
structure having n bays (i.e. n + I columns) thus has
only (n + 1) + 2 = n + 3 unknown defo~ations to
be solved. The size of the accompanying stiffness
matrix is (n + 3) x (n + 3).
When a plastic hinge forms in a member, the
technique presented by Liang and Yuan [4) for ad-
justing the structure stiffness matrix is used. In this
method, no additional unknowns are introduced into
the computation when the stiffness matrix is adjusted
to accommodate plastic hinges. The size of the matri-
ces involved in the computations is thus minimized
P, (W P, / (W
I i
I .
ez +
I
 Elastic-plastic analysis and optima
Fig. 2. Flow chart of computer program.
and the analysis can be performed easily with any
modem desk-top computer.
The load at which each plastic hinge forms is found
using the iteration procedure outlined by Jennings
and Majid [3]. Consider the bending moment at one
end of a member to be m, for the first iteration and
m, for the second iteration. If the corresponding load
factors are yi and or, we can predict the load factor
at the formation of a plastic hinge at this section by
using the relationship:
_ Yz-71 MP+YIzI;mt,
Y (1)
I m2-4 I 2 I
This relationship is used for beam members where
axial toads are ignored. For column members, the
plastic moment capacity Icr, decreases with in-
creasing axial load. This is taken into consideration
in the program by calculating the column plastic
moment capacity for bending about the major axis
design of plane frames 943
Next
Stosey
from the relationship:
A!fP= l.lWf,(l - P/PJ, (2)
where MP = plastic moment capacity ignoring axial
loads, P = axial load on the member under consid-
eration and P, = axial yield load of the member, i.e.
area times yield stress. The relationship for predict-
ing the load at fo~ation of a plastic hinge has to be
adjusted to include the reduction of MP under axial
loads when apphed to the column members.
The calculation of the rigid-plastic collapse load of
the storey can thus be summarized as follows:
l Set up the stiffness matrix [K’J and the force
matrix {F) for the structure under the applied
loading. Defme a unit load factor.
0 Calculate the unknown defo~ations (D,f)
from the relationship (Of) = (a-r(F). Use
these values to calculate the resulting forces
and moments, m, .
944 H. SCHOLZ and G. FALLER

l Increase the load factor and repeat the calcu- yF *FAILURE LOAD FACTOR

lation, obtaining m, . yp m PLASTIC COLLAPSE LOAD FACTOR

l Using the moments M, and m, from the steps y. l ELASTIC BUCKLING LOAO FACIOR

tx *EON (1.2)
above, interpolate using eqn (1) to identify the
load factor at which the next plastic hinge
forms.
0 Adjust the stiffness matrix to include the new
plastic hinge and repeat the process.
0 When the inclusion of the new plastic hinge
results in the formation of a collapse mech- 0.6

anism it is registered by a change in sign of the

dete~inant of the stiffness matrix and the t+y,
0,4
rigid-plastic collapse load factor has been
found.

A graphic representation of the plastic collapse

mechanism is then offered by the program. This
picture shows the sequence of formation and posi-
tions of all the plastic hinges. When using the pro-
gram for design, the hinge locations will show the
designer in which members the plastic hinges causing
the collapse mechanism formed. By adjusting these
members the designer can then increase or decrease
the elastic-plastic failure load of the structure.
Elastic buckling load
The elastic buckling load factor y,, is calculated
using Cheong-Sat-Moy’s storey stiffness method [‘I].
The prediction of the critical load is made simple by
considering buckling instability as a function of
storey stiffness. The elastic critical load of a typical
internal storey such as that shown in Fig. 1 is
obtained from the relationship (for a storey with m
columns):
in which E = Young’s modulus, h = storey height,
Z, = moment of area of the column, U = the ratio of
the sum of the axial loads in the column above and
below floor level to the load in the column below
floor level and II/ = the ratio of the column stiffness
to the sum of the stiffnesses of the adjoining beams.
The term [Z,/( 1 + V$)] is calculated for each column-
restraining beam su~as~mblage and then summed
over the m columns in the storey. The left-hand side
of the equation, y&Z’, gives the total load that will be
applied to the storey when elastic buckling occurs.
The buckling load factor, yO, is then obtained by
dividing yJP by CP, the load acting on the storey
factored by a load factor equal to unity.
E~~t~c-~~~tic failure load
The interaction method proposed by Scholz[SJ is
now used with y,, and yOto calculate the elastic-plastic
failure load factor for the storey. This method is fully
documented in the literature[S] and will not be
presented in detail here. The method predicts the
elastic-plastic failure load by making reference to the
0
0 0.2 0.L 0.6 0.6 1.0
YF
“YO
Fig. 3. Basic interaction curves [8].
rigid-plastic collapse load and elastic buckling load
of the given structure and the parameters of a so-
called “limiting frame”. These are entered in frame
interaction curves similar to single column curves.
The “limiting frame” is described as a more slender
version of the actual frame which attains first yield as
its failure load (which is closely related to its elastic
buckling load) is applied i.e. failure and first yield
coincide for the “limiting frame”. It has been shown
that each frame belongs to a certain frame family
which is characterized by a unique “limiting frame”
and curve in the multi-curve frame interaction
graph [S]. The multi-curve interaction graph of Fig. 3
is reproduced from this reference. A brief summa~
of the required computation is listed below and
further elaborated in the Appendix.
0 An approximate second-order elastic analysis
is performed on the storey sub-structure with
loading related to the elastic buckling load.
Elastic second-order effects are taken into ac-
count by ma~if~ng the horizontal load. In the
presented program this step is performed by
factoring the elastic moments previously calcu-
lated in the computation of the rigid-plastic
collapse load, but prior to any hinge for-
mation.
l The slenderness of the real frame and of the so
called ‘“limiting frame” are calculated and the
lowest real f~me~limiting frame” slenderness
ratio is identified.
@ The elastic buckling load/~~d plastic collapse
load ratio is calculated for the “limiting frame”
as well as for the actual structure.
@ The elastic buckling load/plastic collapse load
ratios of the real frame and of the “limiting
frame” are entered in the frame interaction
 Elastic-plastic analysis and optimum design of plane frames 945

13.8kN Columns

Level Int. Ext.

l-3 8W13 8W13

3-5 8W20 8W20
S-7 8W28 8W28
7-9 8W35 8W35
9-11 8W40 8K40

Level Beams

1-2 12w22
3-4 14W22
5-8 14W26
9-10 16W26

Roof load = 20.43 kN/m E = 200.8 GPa

Floor load = 23.9& kN/m f = 250.0 MPa
Yb
Wind load = 5.84 M/m height f = 345.0 MPa
YC
Exterior column
wall load = 42.25 kN/storey
Storey height = 2.896 m
Bay width = 6.096m

Fig. 4. Frame designed by Cheong-Siat-Moy [7].

curves to read off the storey failure load. For
the purpose of this study the curve values have
been stored in the computer.
A considerable saving in computer time is achieved
over rigorous elastic-plastic methods due to the fact
that no axial forces in the form of stability functions
appear in the stiffness matrix. Because of this, rig
orous elastic-plastic analysis requires approximately
five to seven iterations within each load increment
compared to a single matrix evaluation for each load
level in the presented technique. Thus, assuming, for
instance, that 10 load increments are investigated
between the commencing load level and failure, 40-60
matrix evaluations are avoided, i.e. a saving of at
least 80%. In addition, since the presented method is
performed on one storey at a time, a much smaller
matrix is involved compared with the complex matrix
of the entire structure.
analysis would identify which storeys have an
elastic-plastic failure load factor lower than or exces-
sively higher than the desired design load factor. Each
storey would then by taken in turn and a member or
members adjusted until the storey failure load factor
is within acceptable limits above the design load
factor.
A ten-storey high, three-bay wide frame, previously
designed by Cheong-Siat-Moy [7l, is taken to demon-
strate the design of multi-storey sway frames by the
presented interaction technique. The example frame
is shown in Fig. 4. The frame members were first
proportioned for a load factor of 1.7 under pure
gravity loads and then certain members were adjusted
to satisfy a load factor of 1.3 under combined gravity
and wind loading. Using the computer program
presented in this paper, this frame was t-e-analysed on
Table I. Storey-by-storey analysis on frame
designed by Cheong-Siat-Moy [7]

3. APPLICATION TO ANALYSIS Storey failure load factors

AND DESIGN storey Plastic Elastic Elastic-plastic
I 2.17 32.12 2.11
The first step in the design process would be to use 2 1.95 13.27 1.81
some simplified method to obtain trial member sizes 3 2.03 12.93 I .86
for the whole structure. A suggested procedure would 4 1.83 9.36 I .63
be to use an elastic analysis and a plastic sectional 5 1.79 9.69 1.58
6 1.72 7.% I .49
design such as is embodied in modem load and 7 1.64 7.60 1.41
resistance factor approaches (limit state design) or a 8 1.56 6.59 1.32
rigid-plastic analysis and design approach. The struc- 9 1.50 6.95 I .28t
ture would then be analysed on a storey-by-storey 10 1.44 11.11 1.28
basis using the programmed interaction method. This t Structure failure load factor = 1.28.
 H. SCHOUand G. FALLF.R

13.8kN All columns are

- identical to
those shown in
Fig.4

Level Beams

: lOB15
12B16.5
3 8W24
4 12319
5 lOM22.9
6 12w22
7 14W22
8 16W26
9 161326
10 16W50

Roof load = 20.43 kNfm E = 200.8 GPa

Floor load = 23.94 M/m = 250.0 MPa
Wind load = 5.84 kN[m height = 345.0 MPa
Exterior column
wall load = 84.50 kN/storey
Storey height = 2.896 m
Bay width = 6.096 m

Fig. 5. Frame optimized for design load factor = 1.26.

a storey-by-storey basis. The results of this analysis computer program. The accuracy of the design by
are shown in Table 1. the storey-by-storey interaction method was sub-
Assuming for the purpose of this example one were sequently tested by performing a rigorous second-
aiming for a design load factor of 1.26 for the com- order, elastic-plastic analysis on the full frame shown
bined loading case only, it is evident from Table 1 in Fig. 5. The result of this analysis was a structure
that the members in the upper storeys could be con- failure load factor of 1.27. This is in excellent agree-
siderably reduced. Each storey was therefore taken in ment with the storey-by-storey approach of the
turn and optimized to the design load factor of 1.26, present method.
using American standard sections. For simplicity all It shouid be pointed out that the program can also
the beam members in any one storey were kept the handle the load case of pure gravity load. In this
same while the column members were not adjusted at instance the resulting failure load is an approxi-
all. The optimized member sizes are shown in Fig. 5 mation of the inelastic buckling load of the frame-
while the corresponding failure load factors for each work.
storey are given in Table 2.
The lowest storey failure load factor in the opti-
mized frame is 1.26 and thus this is also taken as 4. SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS
the structure failure load factor identified by the
A computerized version of the interaction method
Table 2. Storey-by-storcy analysis of opti- developed by Scholz [8] applied on a storey-by-storey
mized frame basis has been presented. The computer program
Storey failure load factors provides a simple approach to the second-order,
storcy Plastic Elastic Elastic-plastic elastic-plastic analysis of sway frames subjected to
1.29
gravity or combined loading. By using this method
I 1.33 21.98
2 I.39 10.42 1.29 many of the shortcomings of alternative methods are
3 1.45 7.26 1.30 overcome and analysis time is greatly reduced. The
4 l-47 6.92 1.29 ease with which the method can be applied to the
5 1.48 5.81 1.26t design of large multi-storey frames has been demon-
6 1.53 5.70 1.28
7 I.51 6.16 1.29 strated. A frame designed on a storey-by-storey basis
8 1.53 6.17 1.30 with the presented interaction method was analysed
9 1.50 6.38 1.27 using a rigorous second-order analysis and found to
IO 1.39 II.68 1.28 be marginally on the conservative side. It is believed
t Structure failure load factor = 1.26. that this method can provide the designer with a
 Elastic-plastic analysis and optimum design of plane frames
powerful and simple method of optimizing the design
of large multi-storey frames.
In its present format the program only covers
two-dimensional plane frames. Furthermore, it is
assumed that the frame is subjected to proportionally
increasing loads. Local member aspects and lateral
torsional buckling are excluded.
Discrete studies have shown that the procedure can
also be applied to three-dimensional frameworks
made up of frames on an intersecting rectangular grid
and subjected to torsion as well as to load cases
involving non-proportional loading. Further research
is being conducted to incorporate local member
aspects and lateral torsional member buckling.
Acknowledgement-Thanks are due to Professor B. van
Rensburg for his help in applying his elastic-plastic com-
puter program to the numerical example.
REFERENCES
1. H. E. Scholx, Calculation of effective length of columns
in u&raced frames using storey stiffness. Civ. &gr S.
Afr. 24, 137-142 (1982).
2. F. Cheong-Siat-Moy, Frame design without using
dfective column length. J. Srrucr. Div., ASCE !STll,
23-33 (1978).
3. A. Jennings and K. I. Majid, An elasticplastic analysis
by computer for framed structures loaded up to col-
lapse. Srrucf. Engr 43, 407-412 (1965).
4. Q. Liang and S. Yuan, A new method of second-order
elastic-plastic analysis of steel rigid frames in tall build-
ings. Third International Conference on Tall Buildings,
Hong Kong and Guangxhou, IO-15 December 1984.
5. Lehigh University Lecture Notes (1965) Plastic design
of multi-storey frames. Fritz Engineering Laboratory
Report. No. 273.20. Lehiah Universitv. Bethlehem. PA
(1965): - -’
6. J. H. Davison and P. F. Adams, Stability of braced and
unbraced frames. J. Srruc~ Div., ASCE ST2, 319-334
(1974).
7. F. Cheong-Siat-Moy, Multi-storey frame design using
storey stiffness concept. J. Struct. Div., ASCE 103;
1197-1212 (1976).
8. H. E. Schol& A new multi-curve interaction method for
the plastic analysis and design of sway frames. Third
International Colloquium-Stability of Metal Struc-
tures, Toronto, 1983.
9. H. E. Scholx, Simplified Interaction Method for Sway
Frames. J. Srrucl. Engng, ASCE 110,992-1007 (1984).
947
APPENDIX
Fur&mental concept of interaction method
The characteristic features of the curves of Fig. 3 can be
summarized as follows:
(1) Each curve of Fig. 3 belongs to a specific family of
frames.
(2) The ordinate section on the right vertical axis belongs
to frames within a frame family that fail completely
elastically.
(3) The curved portion of the interaction arauh encom-
passes frames failing inelastically. - .
(4) The curve intersection point at iF/yp = 1 on the left
vertical axis of Fig. 3 signifies a frame that is not
subjected to P-Delta effects, i.e. rigid-plastic analysis
is appropriate.
(5) The transition between elastic and inelastic failure is
marked by the so-called “limiting frame” of the
frame family. This unique frame for each family of
frames is identifiable by equating elastic failure with
first-yield. This leads to the identification parameter,
A,, given in eqn (A.]):
i,=$;[;+;{l +&r2], (A.])
where
1,= limiting slenderness ratio of limiting frame
y = distance from centroid of section to extreme
fibre
r = radius of gyration
A4 = elastic second-order bending moments
P = axial member force
L = member length
I = second moment of area
fp = stress at onset of yield.
The largest ratio 1,/1 for any one member is
significant, where 1 = slenderness of the actual
member. Simplifications for eqn (A.1) have been
suggested elsewhere 191.
(6) The factor a in Fig. 3 is equal to I.0 for completely
symmetrical structures and loading conditions and
reduces to less than 1.0 in accordance with eqn (A.2)
for any deviation from full symmetry:
0.4
a= (A.21
I - 0.q700 - 1,,,/700)3
The term A,,, is representative of the non-
symmetrical conditions and takes the form of a
slenderness ratio which becomes greater than zero
for unsymmetrical loading conditions or geometry. It
is evaluated from eqn (A.1) using elastic second-
order moments and axial forces from loading corre-
sponding to 0.4~~. In addition, / is set equal to
250 N/mm2 and y/r qua1 to 1.0. fhe smallest ratio
~I~,., found for the structure is significant. Further
simplifications are suggested in [9].