Third International Conference on Technical Sciences (ICST2020), 28 – 30 November 2020, Tripoli - Libya

The Structural Analysis of a Two Bay frame

using Linpro analysis package and Moment
distribution method
Mrwan Alferjani
RABIE AMNISI
Civil Engineering Department
Omar Al-Mukhtar University
Cyrene – Libya
Faculty Of Engineer
Civil Engineering Department marwanalferjani@gmail.com
Al-Quba-Libya
rabieamnisi@yahoo.com
High Institute For Eengineer
Professions Cyrene

Abstract— The main object of this paper is to analysis a two

bay frame LinPro is a simple 2D structural analysis software
package. The LinPro homepage contains several worked
examples of static and dynamic loading but below are
instructions to create a two bay frame model and analysis for
two load cases use a computer analysis package will be useful to
aid checking hand analysis. The aim above will be achieved by
using the following Using Linpro computer software to analyses
the two bay frames validating the Linpro model using Moment
Distribution Method.
Keywords— Moment distribution, Linpro Computer Analysis
Package, With No Sway
B. Linpro Computer Analysis Package
Linpro is a simple computer based application program used
for static and dynamic analysis. Creating structures on Linpro
is relatively simple. Various loads can be applied to the frames
allowing linear static analysis to be performed. Dynamic
analysis: In order to determine dynamic response of a structure
Linpro performs linear time-history analysis. As a solution
method Linpro uses mode superposition method.
II. HAND CALCULATION

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Moment Distrinution
A. . Moment Distribution Method
This method was first introduced by Prof. Hardy Cross is
widely used for the analysis of indeterminate structures. In this
method first the structural system is reduced to its
kinematically determinate form, this is accomplished by
assuming all the joints to be fully restrained. The fixed end
moments are calculated for this condition of structure. The
joints are allowed to deflect rotate one after the other by
releasing them successively.The unbalanced moment at the
joint shared by the members connected at the joint when it is
released. Is limitation are however that it is eminently suited to RELATIVE STIFFNESS
analyse continuous beams including non-prismatic members JOINT B
2
but it presents some difficulties when applied to rigid frames, KBA= EIL = = 0.5
4
especially when frames are subjected to side sway. 𝐸𝐿 1.5
KBA= = = 0.25
𝐿 6

67
ICTS32830112020-AC1024
JOINT C RIBUTION TABLE WITH NO SWAY

𝐸𝐼
KCB = == 0.25
𝐿

EI 2
KCD = L
= = 0.5
4

𝐸𝐼 1.5
KCE = = = 0.3
𝐿 5

JOINT E
𝐸𝐼 1.5
KCE = = = 0.3
𝐿 5

3EI 3∗2
KEF = = = 0.25
4L 4∗6

B. Distribution Factor
JOINT B
𝐾𝐵𝐴 0.5 D. Reactions and shear forces due to non-sway
DFBA = 𝐾𝐵𝐴+𝐾𝐵𝐶 =0.5+0.25 = 0.67
SPAN AB
DFBC =1- 0.67= 0.33

JOINT C
𝐾𝐶𝐵 0.25
DFCB= 𝐾𝐶𝐸+𝐾𝐶𝐵+𝐾𝐶𝐷 = 0.3+0.25+0.5 = 0.24

𝐾𝐶𝐷 0.25
DFCD=𝐾𝐶𝐸+𝐾𝐶𝐵+𝐾𝐶𝐷 =0.3+0.25+0.5 = 0.48

DFCE = 1- (0.24+0.48) = 0.28

JOINT E
𝐾𝐸𝐶 0.3
DFEC = 𝐾𝐸𝐶+𝐾𝐸𝐹 = 0.3+0.25 = 0.55

DFEF = 1-0.55 = 0.45

C. Fixed End Moment ∑MB= 0 +

WL2 6∗42
FEMAB= 12 = 12 =8 KNM 6∗4∗4
FEMBA=-8 KNM 4HA+5.816 − 12.368 + =0
2

𝑊𝐿 20∗6 4HA=41.446
FEMBC= = = 15 𝐾𝑁𝑀
8 8
HA=10.362KN
FEMCB=−15 𝐾𝑁𝑀
𝑊𝐿 25∗5 SPAN BC
FEMCE= = = 15.625 𝐾𝑁𝑀
8 8

FEMEC=−15 𝐾𝑁𝑀

68
ICTS32830112020-AC1024
 Sway Frame

Assuming an arbitrary value of EI△=100

∑MC= 0 +
−6𝐸𝐼△ −6∗2
FEMAB=FEMBA= = ∗ 100 = −75𝐾𝑁𝑀
𝐿2 42
4HD+1.92+0.96=0
−6𝐸𝐼△ −6∗2
HD=-0.72KN FEMCD=FEMDC= = ∗ 100 = −75𝐾𝑁𝑀
𝐿2 42

−3EI△ −3∗2
FEMEF=FEMFE= = ∗ 100 =
L2 62
−16.67𝐾𝑁𝑀

SPAN EF

DISTRIBUTION TABLE FOR SWAY FRAME

∑ME = 0 +

6HF-7.283=0

HF = 1.21KN
E. Horizontal Forces due to Sway
∑FX= 0 SPAN AB
Prop force =-10.362 + 0.72 - 1.21+ (6*4) = 13.18Kn

69
ICTS32830112020-AC1024
MB = 0 +

4HA – 29.705 – 52.353 = 0

Sway force =20.5245 +26.406 +2.1752=49.106
HA = 20.5145KN
F. Correction factor
SPAN CD
(𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒) 13.18
Correction factor =
𝑠𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
= 49.106 = 0.2677

COMBINING BOH THE SWAY AND NONSWAY

WITH
MEMBER NO SWAY TOTAL
SWAY
AB -5.826 -14.016 -19.838
BA 12.368 -7.953 4.416
BC -12.368 7.993 -4.416
CB 17.036 6.947 23.982
CD 1.920 12.159 -10.239
CE -18.956 5.212 -13.744

∑MD= 0 +
EC
EF
7.283
-7.283
3.494
-3.494
10.777
-10.777
FE 0.000 0.000 0.000
4HD – 45.416 – 60.208 = 0 DC 0.960 -16.119 15.159

HD = 26.406 KN
G. Horizontal Forces
HA =10.362 + 0.2677 * 20.5154 = 15.85KN

HD = 0.7199 + 0.2677 * 26.4058 = 7.79 KN

SPAN EF HA = 1.214 + 0.2677 * 2.17523 = 1.80 KN

∑MF = 0 +

6HF – 12.051 = 0
H. Reaction
HF = 2.175 KN
SPAN AB

∑FX= 0

HB+ 15.85-(6*4) = 0

HB = 8.15 KN

70
ICTS32830112020-AC1024
 FE 1.80
DC 7.79

I. Bending moment diagram

Using superposition method the maximum span moment can
be computed

Free Binding Moment

𝑊𝐿2 6∗42
MAB = = = 12𝐾𝑁𝑀
8 8

𝑊𝐿2 6∗20
MAB = = = 30𝐾𝑁𝑀
4 4
SPAN BC
6RB + 23.982 – 4.416 = 0 𝑊𝐿2 6∗25
MAB = = = 12𝐾𝑁𝑀
4 4
RB =6.73KNUse the "Insert Citation" button to add citations
to this document.

RC+6.73-20=0

RC=13.26KN

Binding moment diagram

SPAN CE

5RC – 19.469 – (25 * 2.5) + 13.052 = 0 III. FRAME MODEL USING LINPRO
The two bay frames were modelled as shown in the figure
RC =13.783KN below. The whole structure was assumed to be a steel structure
so the steel section properties were used to select a suitable
RE+13.783-25=0 section for the frame. A steel section of 203x203x86 US was
RE=13.26KN used for the column with cross section Area of( 110 cm²) and
Second moment of Area of
(9450 cm4) For the beam a section of 356x121x45 UB
was selected with Cross Sectional Area of (0.00573m²)
and Second Moment of Area of( 12100 x 10^8 m-4 ) A
stiffness ratio of 2:1.5 was considered between the column and
the beam for the values of Sectional Area and modulus of
elasticity.

MEMBER FORCES
AB 15.85
BA 8.15
BC 6.73
CB 13.23
CD 7.79
CE 13.783
EC 11.22
EF 1.80

71
ICTS32830112020-AC1024
Figure 1 Modelling of the two bay frames
Figure 2 Diagram showing Bending Moment
Figure 3 Diagram showing the Shear Force
Figure4 Axial Force Diagram
72
ICTS32830112020-AC1024
Figure 5 Deflected Shapes
IV. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSSION
Hand Computer
Calculation Analysis
-19.832 -19.59
4.416 3.32
-4.416 -3.32
23.982 -24.63
-10.239 -10.70
-13.744 -13.93
10.777 9.73
-10.777 -9.73
0.000 0.00
-15.159 14.54
The results obtained from the moment distribution method are
not far from the results obtained from the linpro analysis. The
difference in the results could be as a result of so many
Assumptions made in the Moment distribution analysis and
the assumptions from the Linpro package itself.
Both methods use an idealized method of analysis. They both
Use the "Insert Citation" button to add citations to this
document.
Use the "Insert Citation" button to add citations to this
document.
simplify the analysis into the simplest form with the moment
distribution simplifying to one-dimensional analysis and
Linpro assuming a two- dimensional analysis. The moment
distribution method, due to the one-dimensional analysis
employed only considers bending degree of freedom with no
consideration to the axial or shear forces. The shear is however
introduced during the consideration of sway analysis.
Moment distribution method also assumes a constant stiffness
in the structure and since the distribution factor depends on the
relative stiffness therefore this distributes the force constantly
throughout the structure. Moment
distribution does not consider factors such as creep, effect of
temperature etc. in analysing the structure. In linpro analysis
the distribution of internal forces takes the direction of the load
part and this can be re-distributed at so many times while in
moment distribution it considered only the elastic analysis of
the frame with only single analyses of the internal force. In
Linpro analysis being a two-dimensional computer analysis
package considers 3 degree of freedoms at each joint which
includes bending, axial and shear forces.
Assumptions made on the section chosen also contribute to the
results generated from linpro. When various sections were
selected to see the effect on linpro I realised the moment
generated differs from the previous sections selected and this
could as well cause the difference in results between the
moment distribution method and computer analysis package

The table above shows the displacement values at the various

nodes generated in linpro analysis. This displacement at these
nodes could result into difference in moment between the
moment distribution method and computer analysis program.
Another reason could also be because linpro considers high
level of accuracy while analyzing structure, it analyses in the
10th of decimal places and if there is no error when inputting
values they are less error prone than stress of analysing the
moment distribution method .
Conclusively, they are both wonderful instruments for
validating and 3-dimensional structural analysis model. They
are much more conservative and give you the idea of the
expected moment you are expected to generate from the 3-D
models. Though there are other elastic analysis methods but
the moment distribution been less complex and easy to work.

V. REFERENCES
1. Bhatt, p and Nelson, H. M . Structures. Harlow: LONGMAN
scientific and Technical (1990)
2. Brohn, D. Understanding Structural Analysis. Oxford: BSP
(2007)-624.04 BRO
3. Moy, S.S.J. Plastic methods for steel and concrete structural.
Macmillan, (1996)
4. William M C Mcknzie Examples in structural Analysis.Taylor
and Francis, 2006.
5. British Standard Institute . Eurocode Abstracts for student of
structural Design.HMSO,2007
6. Arya, C. Design OF Structural Elements. 2nd Edition, Spon 2003-
1771021841/ARY

73
ICTS32830112020-AC1024