Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Inelastic large deection analysis of space steel frames including

H-shaped cross sectional members
Ahmed H. Zubydan
Faculty of Engineering, Port-Said University, Port-Said, Egypt

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 April 2012
Revised 15 August 2012
Accepted 21 September 2012
Available online 24 November 2012
Keywords:
Inelastic
Large deection
Space frame
Nonlinear analysis
Residual stresses
Beamcolumn

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents an efcient inelastic and large deection analysis of space frames using spread of
plasticity method. New accurate formulae are proposed to describe the plastic strength surface for steel
wide-ange cross sections under axial force and biaxial bending moments. Moreover, empirical formulae
are developed to predict the tangent modulus for cross sections under the combined forces. The tangent
modulus formulae are extended to evaluate the secant stiffness that is used for internal force recovering.
The formulae are derived for steel sections considering the residual stresses as recommended by European Convention for Construction Steelwork (ECCS). A nite element program based on stiffness matrix
method is prepared to predict the inelastic large deection behavior of space frames using the derived
formulae. The nite element model exhibits good correlations when compared with the ber model
results as well as previous accurate models. The analysis results indicate that the new model is accurate
and computational efcient.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, there were numerous researches on the simulation of the nonlinear behavior of beamcolumns in space steel
frames [16]. In general, the nonlinear behavior of steel frame
can be predicted by using nite element method in which frame
members are modeled by using solid, plate or shell elements
[7,8]. This method could successfully capture the nonlinear behavior of the structure but it is too time-consuming because of the
great number of elements required for this type of analysis. Moreover, the model processing of this analysis type is not easy at all. In
the other direction of nonlinear analysis of steel frames, a line elements approach is widely used. These studies may be categorized
into two main types: plastic hinge analysis and spread of plasticity
analysis. The plastic hinge formulation is the most direct approach
for representing inelasticity in a beamcolumn element [912]. In
plastic hinge approach, the effect of material yielding is lumped
into a dimensionless plastic hinge. Generally, this type of analysis
is limited by its ability to provide the correct strength assessment
of beamcolumns that fail by inelastic buckling. This is because the
plastic hinge analysis assumes that the cross-section behaves as
either elastic or fully plastic, and the element is fully elastic between the member ends [1315]. In this model, the effect of residual stresses between hinges is not accounted for either. The
advantages of this method are its simplicity in formulation as well

E-mail address: Zubydan@gmail.com

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.024

as implementation and the least elements needed for member

modeling. The stability functions may be introduced to consider
geometric nonlinearities using only one beamcolumn element
to dene the second-order effect of an individual member so it is
an economical method for frame analysis [16,17]. This method accounts for inelasticity but not the spread of yielding through the
section or between the plastic hinges. For slender members in
which failure mode is dominated by elastic instability, the plastic
hinge method compares well with spread of plasticity solutions.
However, for stocky members that suffer signicant yielding, it
overestimates the capacity of members due to neglect of gradual
reduction of stiffness as yielding progresses through and along
the member. The so-called rened plastic-hinge analysis, based
on simple renements of the plastic hinge model, was proposed
for frames analysis in order to overcome disadvantages of the elasticplastic hinge method [1820].
On the other hand, the spread of plasticity method uses the
highest renement for predicting the inelastic behavior of framed
structures. In the spread of plasticity method, the gradual spread
of yielding is allowed through the volume of the members. In this
method, a frame member is divided into subelements, and the
cross-section of each element is subdivided into many bers
[2125]. The internal forces are calculated by integrating the cross
sectional subelement forces. In such case, residual stress in each ber can be explicitly considered, so, the gradual spread of yielding
can be traced [2631]. Because of considering the spread of plasticity and residual stresses in a direct way, a spread of plasticity
solution is considered an exact method. Although the spread of

156

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

plasticity solution may be considered exact, it is still too

computationally intensive and too costly. Among these two types
of analysis the co-called ber hinge method was developed in an
attempt to take the advantages of the two methods [32]. In which,
the element is divided into three segments, two end-ber hinge
segments and an interior elastic segment, to simulate the inelastic
behavior of the material according to the concentrated inelastic
approximation. The mid-length of end hinge segment is divided
into bers so that the uniaxial stressstrain relationships of the bers can be monitored during the analysis process.
Recently, a new simplied model was proposed by the Author
based on the spread of plasticity method in an attempt to eliminate the need of cross section discretization [33,34]. In this model,
closed form formulae were derived to predict the tangent modulus
of steel cross sections subjected to combined axial force and
uniaxial bending moment about major or minor axis considering
the residual stresses. Due to eliminating the integration of internal
forces on the cross section level, a lot of consumed computational
time could be saved. In the present paper tangent modulus of
wide-ange steel cross sections subjected to axial compression
force and biaxial bending is derived. New formulae are derived
by simulation of the results obtained from the ber model. Prior
to the derivation of tangent modulus, new plastic strength surfaces
for H-shaped cross sections subjected to axial force and biaxial
bending moment are proposed. The model achieves the accuracy
of the spread of plasticity method but in an easy and a direct
way. The research aims to eliminate complex calculations and so
minimizing the consumed running time and the cost. The
updated-Lagrangian method is applied in the formulation of the
incremental matrix equilibrium equations of the proposed
beamelement model [35,36]. The minimum residual displacement combined with NewtonRaphson method is used to
satisfy the convergence when solving the nonlinear equilibrium
equations.
2. Numerical model
2.1. Basic assumptions
The following assumptions are made in the formulation of the
beamcolumn element:
(1) A plane cross section remains plane after deformation.
(2) Local buckling and lateral torsional buckling are not
considered.
(3) Small strains but large displacements and rotations are
considered.
(4) Only H-shaped sections are considered.
(5) Strain hardening is not considered.
(6) The effects of shear forces and torsional moment are not
considered when deriving the cross sectional plastic surface
as well as the tangent modulus.

z (minor axis)

y (major axis)

Fig. 1. Cross sectional ber model.

1:15p2r m2ry m4rz 3:67p2r m2ry 3p6r m2rz 4:65m2rz m4ry a

while the AISCLRFD plastic surface formula is given as [39]

1
2
2
p mrz mry a for pr 6 mrz mry
2 r
9
9

2:a

8
8
2
2
pr mrz mry a for pr > mrz mry
9
9
9
9

2:b

where a is a factor that equal unity at full plastication surface, pr is

the ratio of the applied normal force P to the yield value Py at the
plastic strength envelope (pr = P/Py), and mrz and mry are the ratios
of the applied bending moments Mz (about minor axis) and My
(about major axis) to the corresponding plastic moments Mpz and
Mpy, respectively, at the plastic strength envelope.
In the present paper, a new formula is derived to describe the
wide ange cross section plastic strength surface based on the results obtained from the analysis of many cross sections. The cross
sections are analyzed using the ber model in which the cross section is discretized into small bers as shown in Fig. 1. The analyzed
cross sections are selected to cover all popular universal column
cross sections. Twenty universal column sections (H-shaped
section) are analyzed in which the ratios B/T = 5.522.4, D/t = 10
34.2 and D/B = 0.971.13, where D, B are the cross section depth
and the anges breadth, respectively, and t and T are the thicknesses of cross section web and anges, respectively.
The cross sections are analyzed using linear strain distribution
along their axes. For each cross section, curvatures with different
ratios are gradually increased until reaching the maximum possible bending moments at a xed value of axial force. The internal
forces (P, My and Mz) are evaluated by accumulation of uniaxial
stresses for all cross section discrete as follows:

mrz

pr1

mrz*

2.2. Cross-section plastic strength

The determination of cross-section plastic strength surface is
very essential in order to predict the nonlinear behavior of structural members. The most common formulae that describe the full
plastication surface for cross sections are those proposed by
AISCLRFD and Orbison. Recently, analytical plastic interaction criteria for steel I-sections under biaxial moment and axial force were
developed by Baptista [37]. Although the method requires many
calculations, it is considered as an exact method.
For cross sections subjected to axial force and biaxial bending
moments about both axes, Orbisons formula is given as [38]

(mryL, mrzL )

pr2

limiting
points
mry*
mry
(0,0)

1.0

Fig. 2. Proposed cross sectional plastic strength.

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

n
X
ai fi

157

3:a

i1

My
Mz

n
X
ai fi zi
i1
n
X

ai fi yi

3:b
3:c

i1

where ai is the steel ber area, yi and zi are coordinates of each ber,
fi is the uniaxial stress at the steel ber and n is the number of steel
bers. It is observed that, the plastic strength surface is not affected
by the presence of residual stresses. The proposed formula is graphically illustrated in Fig. 2 for two different values of Pr. As shown in
the gure the formula consists of two groups of curves that intersect at limiting points of coordinates (mryL, mrzL). The proposed plastic strength surface formula for a cross section can be given as
follow:

Fig. 3. Plastic strength for UC steel sections.


 
R
mrz  mrzL
mry 1

1 for Mrz y P mrzL =mryL


mrz  mrzL
mryL
! 
R2
mry  mryL
mrz
1 for M rz y < mrzL =mryL

mry  mryL
mrzL

4:a
4:b

where Mrz_y = Mrz/Mry, Mrz = Mz/Mpz, Mry = My/Mpy and R1 and R2 are
factors that depend on the axial force ratio (Pr) and they are given as

R1 0:58Pr 2:33 for Pr 6 0:4

5:a

R1 2 for Pr > 0:4

5:b

R2 3:25P2r 3:24Pr 1

5:c

mryL and mrzL are coordinates of a limiting point that can be given as

mryL 0:2P2r  0:8Pr 1

6:a

mrzL 1:06P3r  0:41P2r 1:47Pr

6:b

The values mrz and mry are the bending moment capacity ratios
about z- and y-axis, respectively, for cross sections subjected to axial force and uniaxial bending moment. These values are used as
proposed by Zubydan for cross sections subjected to a bending moment about major or minor axis in addition to an axial force [33,34].
For a cross section subjected to bending moment about major axis,
mry is evaluated using the following formulae:
Fig. 4. Plastic strength for HD 400  1086 steel section.

pr1:5 mry 1 for pr 6 0:2

7:a

7
pr mry 1 for pr > 0:2
8

7:b

Fig. 5. ECCS residual stress for hot-rolled H and I sections.

158

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

On the other hand, when the cross section is subjected to bending

moment about minor axis, mrz is evaluated from the following
relationships:

1
p mrz 1 for pr 6 0:05C 2H 0:43C H  0:37
8:55 r
pCr H 0:95mrz 1 for pr > 0:05C 2H 0:43C H  0:37

8:a
8:b

In which CH = 4.9(Aw/A) + 1.33, Aw = (D  2T)t and A is the cross sectional area.

The correlation of the proposed plastic surface formulae in Eq.
(4) with the ber model results are represented in Fig. 3. Since
AISCLRFD plastic formula is very conservative especially for sections subjected to bending moment about minor axis, only Orbisons formula is compared to the derived one. As shown in Fig. 3,
it is observed that the proposed formula correlates very well with
the ber model results. On the other hand, the Orbisons formula
may deviate from the ber model results at various axial force ratios. The proposed formula for plastic strength is also compared to
the results obtained from Baptistas method [37] for HD
400  1086 steel section as shown in Fig. 4. It is clearly observed
that the proposed formula gives an excellent correlation with the
results obtained from Baptisas method. It should be mentioned
that the proposed formula is simpler and more direct than Baptistas method.
2.3. Tangent modulus for cross sections
It is known that the cross sectional tangent modulus exhibits a
premature degradation when it is subjected to forces due to the
presence of residual stresses. In order to account for the effect of
residual stresses, researchers [4042] use an empirical tangential
modulus ratio depending on the formula proposed in AISCLRFD
[39] to describe the tangent modulus of columns under axial force.
This formula is given as follows:

Etr 1 for a 6 0:5

9:a

Etr 4a1  a for a > 0:5

9:b

where Etr is the tangent modulus ratio (Etr = Etang/E), E is the elastic
modulus and a is a force-state parameter that measures the magnitude of axial force and bending moments which may be calculated
from Eq. (1) or Eq. (2).
In the present paper, a new tangent modulus is determined for
H-shaped sections considering the effect the residual stresses.
The residual stresses adopted in the present paper are based on

the recommendation by European Convention for Construction

Steelwork (ECCS) [43]. The magnitude of residual stress (rr) is assumed to be dependent on depth/breadth ratio as shown in Fig. 5.
For cross sections subjected to axial compression force and biaxial
bending moments, the exural tangent modulus is evaluated by
applying the concepts of ber model. The selected cross sections
are analyzed using the ber model in which the bending moments
with different ratios are incrementally applied to the cross section
at constant values of axial compression forces. Through each load
increment, the exural tangent modulus ratio for each direction
is calculated as follows:

dM y =duy
EIy
dM z =duz

EIz

Etry

10:a

Etrz

10:b

where EIy and EIz are the cross sectional elastic rigidities about yand z-axis, respectively, and uy and uz are the curvatures about
the same axes. By plotting the relationships of the tangent modulus
ratios Etry and Etrz versus the moment ratios Mry and Mrz, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6, two possible multilinear paths may be obtained for each moment direction. When the value of axial
compression force ratio Pr is less than Pr0, (Pr0 = 1  rr/ry [33,34])
, the relationships follow the path abcde for Etry and abcdef for Etrz.
For such case, the tangent modulus ratios remain constant and
equal to the elastic values until reaching Mry0,rz0 (point b) after they
decrease linearly with the shown slopes until they vanish when
reaching the plastic surface. On the other hand, when the axial compression force exceeds Pr0 the values Etry and Etrz follow the paths
a0 b0 c0 d0 e0 and a0 b0 c0 d0 e0 f0 , respectively. In such case, the tangent modulus ratios start with Etry1 and Etrz1 that are less than unity due to
the effect of high axial force. The tangent modulus ratios decrease
again with the increase of bending moments until reaching the
plastic surface.
The values Mry0 and Mrz0 are found to be related to each other by
the following relationship:

Mrz0 M ry0

1:0
Mrz0 M ry0

11

where M ry0 Pr0  Pr Z y =Sy ; Mrz0 Pr0  P r Z z =Sz [33,34], Zy,z and
Sy,z are elastic and plastic modulus of cross section about y- and
z-axis, respectively.
The slopes Sy1,z1, Sy2,z2 and Sy3,z3 and the values Ety0,tz0, Ety1,tz1,
Etz2, Etz3 and Mry2,rz2 depend on the biaxial moment ratio Mrz_y

Fig. 6. Inelastic tangent modulus ratios for cross section under biaxial bending moment and axial compression force.

159

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

Fig. 7. Inelastic exural modulus ratios for cross sections about major axis.

Fiber model;

present model.

Fig. 8. Inelastic exural modulus ratios for cross sections about minor axis.

Fiber model;

present model.

(where Mrz_y = Mrz/Mry) and the axial force ratio Pr as illustrated in

the Appendix A.
The proposed tangent modulus ratios are compared to those obtained from the ber model as shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for biaxial
moment ratios (Mrz_y = 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2). Fig. 7 illustrates Etry versus Mry while Etrz versus Mrz are illustrated in Fig. 8. For each biaxial
moment ratio, the axial force ratio varies from 0.2 to 0.8. It is
clearly observed that the proposed formulae give very good correlations with the ber model results for various values of Pr and
Mrz_y. It should be mentioned that the proposed model is valid
for all values of Pr.
2.4. Cross section incremental secant modulus
For nonlinear analysis, the accuracy of results essentially depends on the accuracy of the internal forces calculation. The use
of tangent stiffness for calculating the internal forces may slightly
overestimate the structure strength, so the incremental secant
stiffness is required in order to evaluate accurate values of internal
forces. The same sequence followed by the Author [33] is used in
the present research to evaluate the secant stiffness for a load
increment. For a load increment from steps j to j + 1, the curvature

Fig. 9. Moment-curvature curve for cross section.

changes from uj to uj+1 and the bending moment changes from Mj

to M 0j1 when the initial tangent modulus is followed as shown in
Fig. 9. The value of M 0j1 can be calculated as

160

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

M 0j1 Mj duEtr j EI

12

where du is the change in the curvature of the cross section from

step j to step j + 1 and EI is the elastic exural rigidity of the cross
section. Etr j is the tangent modulus ratio at step j which can be calculated from Fig. 6 using the forces values at point j. As Etr changes
linearly with Mr from point jj + 1, i.e. the following relationship can
be deduced:

Etr c1 M r c2
where c1

13

E0tr j1 Etr j
M 0r j1 M r j

and c2 = Etr j  c1Mr j. M0j1 and E0trj1 are the

bending moment and the corresponding tangent modulus ratio at

point j0 + 1 which is very close to point j + 1.
Based on Eq. (12), the value of bending moment at j + 1(Mj+1)
and the incremental secant modulus ratio (Esr) can be derived
and given as follow [33]:

1
Mp ek  c2
c1
1 M j1  M j
Esr
EI uj1  uj

M j1

where

Mp

k c1

uj1 uj
uy

is

14
15

the

cross

section

plastic

moment

and

lnc1 Mr j c2 . Eq. (15) can be applied for the bend-

ing moments about y- and z-axis to evaluate the corresponding secant modulus Esry and Esrz, respectively.
2.5. Finite element model
A stiffness method for the analysis of space frames is developed
considering both geometric and material nonlinearities. The equation of equilibrium in terms of geometry of the deformed system is
given as follows [44]:

K Kg fDDg fDFg

16

where {DF} and {DD} are the incremental force and displacement
vectors, respectively. [K] is the stiffness matrix of the structure considering material nonlinearity and [Kg] is the geometric stiffness
matrix which represents the change in the stiffness that results
from deformation effects. Consider a prismatic element of a symmetric cross section about y and z axes. This element is subjected
to axial force N, torsional moment Mx and bending moments My
and Mz while the corresponding displacements are u,hx,hy and hz,
respectively as shown in Fig. 10. The shape functions for the axial
displacement (u), the axial rotation (hx), the displacement in x  y
plan (w) and the displacement in x  z plan (v) are introduced considering the shear effect as follow:

u 1  nu1 nu2

17:a

hx 1  nhx1 nhx2

17:b

w1 Uy =2 1 Uy  Uy n  3n2 2n3  w1 1 Uy =2
 2 Uy =2n n2 xhz1 Uy n 3n2  2n3 w2
Uy =2  1  Uy =2n n2 xhz2

v 1 Uz =2 1 Uz  Uz n  3n2 2n3 v 1 1 Uz =2
2 Uz =2n  n2 xhy1 Uz n 3n2  2n3 v 2
Uz =2 1  Uz =2n  n2 xhy2

17:d

In which n = x/L and L is the member length, Uy = 12EIz/GAQyL2,Uz = 12EIy/GAQzL2, G is the shear modulus and AQy and AQz are the
shear areas corresponding to y- and z-axis, respectively. Since the
matrices [K] and [Kg] are displacement dependent, Eq. (16) cannot
be directly solved. Various procedures can be used to solve the equilibrium equations. Generally, members are subdivided into subelements to produce satisfactory results. The modulus ratios Etry,trz or
Esry,srz are evaluated at each member ends and then average values
at each direction are applied for each modulus ratio in the stiffness
matrix [k].
2.6. Internal force recovery
The employing of equilibrium equation in conjunction with the
incremental analysis requires that the structural geometry includes all accumulated deformations. For the current analysis,
the node coordinates are updated after each iteration. That is, the
coordinates of each node are modied or updated to include the
translational displacement components that occur during iterations. In updating the coordinates of nodes or element ends, the
deformed geometry of the structure is achieved by changing the
position and hence the orientation of each element with respect
to the global coordinates system. For all the elements of a structure, the element stiffness equation, as given in Eq. (16), can be
assembled to yield the stiffness equation of the structure for an
incremental step. For an incrementaliterative nonlinear analysis,
the element incremental displacement vector {Dd} is used to calculate the incremental axial strain de, torsional strain dv and exural strains duy and duz based on the assumed shape functions and
so the secant modulus at element ends can be evaluated as illustrated in Section 2.4. The material stiffness matrix [k] for each element is reformulated using the average secant exural modulus
ratios Esry and Esrz instead of the tangent modulus. The secant modulus for axial force and torsional moment can be modied by using
the average of Esry and Esrz. On the other hand, the geometric stiffness matrix [kg] is also formulated again using a new axial force P
which is calculated by adding the incremental axial force to the total previous value as follows:

P Pprev ious deEsr EA

18

The increments of internal force vector {Dfint} for an element can be

calculated as

fDfint g k kg fDdg

19

By summing the element forces at the structural nodes and comparing them with the applied loads, the unbalanced forces for the
structure can be obtained. Finally, by treating the unbalanced forces
as applied loads, other iterations can be repeated.

17:c
3. Numerical solution

Fig. 10. Space frame element.

The nonlinear analysis algorithm consists of four basic steps;

the formulation of the initial stiffness matrix, the solution of the
equilibrium equations for the displacement increments, the determination of the new updated stiffness and member forces using
the cross sectional model, and the check of conversion. Since the
global stiffness matrix of the structure depends on the displacement increments, the solution of the equilibrium equations is
typically accompanied by an iterative method through the convergence check. In the present model, the Newton Raphson method is
used by updating the tangent stiffness matrix at each iteration

161

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

[45]. Also, the minimum residual displacement method is used in

order to trace the post-peak path [46]. A full nonlinear iterative
solution discussed by Zubydan [33] is followed in the present
paper.
4. Numerical analysis and results
A computer program is developed to predict the nonlinear
behavior of space frames using the derived model. The ber model
as well as the proposed simplied model is rst compared to wellestablished benchmark results. After that the analysis results obtained from the proposed and the previous simplied models are
compared to those obtained from the ber model.

Table 1
Out-of-plumbness imperfection of two-storey space frame.
Level

Roof
Second
oor
Base

Imperfection (mm)
Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

4.51
1.39

11.08
6.88

5.49
0.68

11.41
6.77

8.17
5.11

6.58
2.11

4.31
3.96

12.04
6.19

4.1. Two-storey space frame

The two storey space steel frame shown in Fig. 11 was previously analyzed by Kim and Lee [7] using nite element package
ABAQUS [47]. For this study the frame was only subjected to the
gravity loads and lateral loads in X-direction (i.e. the value of
r = 0). All frame members are comprised of H150  160 
10  6.5mm section. The frame has 2.5 m wide in Y-direction and
3 m long in X-direction. The height of the second oor is 1.76 m
from the column base while the roof elevates 2.2 m from the second oor. The yield stress, Youngs modulus, and shear modulus
of material are 320 MPa, 221 GPa, and 85 GPa, respectively. The
frame columns have out-of-plumbness imperfection as listed in
Table 1. The ABAQUS shell element S4R was employed to model
frame members. The total numbers of shell elements used to model the structure by ABAQUS are 49,840. The shown applied loads
were proportionally increased until failure of the structure. For
such case of loading (r = 0), the frame is reanalyzed using the
present ber model and also using the proposed simplied model.
For the analyzed frame, each frame member is discretized into 10
equal elements. The comparisons of the obtained and the published analysis results are illustrated in Fig. 12. It is observed that
the results obtained from the proposed model correlates well with
the ber model results as well as the results obtained from
ABAQUS.
The frame is also analyzed using the both the simplied and the
ber models with different values of r (r = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0). Comparison of the analysis results are shown in Fig. 13 which illustrates

Fig. 12. Load-displacement relationships for the two storey frame (r = 0).

Fig. 13. Load-displacement relationships for the two storey frame (r = 0.25, 0.5 and
1.0).

the resultant displacement at point A versus the load P. It is clearly

observed that the results obtained from simplied model
correlates very well the results obtained from the ber model. It
is observed that the frame capacity is greatly reduced with the increase of lateral loads in Y-direction due to the increase of bending
moments produced about cross sectional minor axes.
4.2. Six storey space frame

Fig. 11. Two storey space frame.

The six-story space steel frame shown in Fig. 14 was rst analyzed by Orbison et al. [38] and later by many researchers

162

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

Fig. 14. Six storey space frame.

[11,31,48,49]. The yield strength of frame members is 250 MPa,

Youngs modulus E = 206,850 MPa and shear modulus
G = 79,293 MPa. The frame is subjected to proportional gravity
and lateral loads. Uniform oor pressure of 9.6 kN/m2 is converted
into equivalent concentrated loads on the top of columns. Wind
loads are simulated by point loads of 53.376 kN in the Y-direction
at every beamcolumn joints. Jiang et al. analyzed the frame using
ber plastic zone model in which the cross section ange is discredited into bers and the frame member into nine elements
[31]. The frame is reanalyzed using the present model with/without the shear effect. Since most plastic deformation is concentrated
at member edges, each frame member is discretized into three elements with two short edge elements of length = 0.1 L. The tangent
modulus for I-shaped cross sections (as in case of frame girders) is
calculated as proposed by Zubydan [33]. Comparisons of the proposed simplied model with Jiangs analysis results are shown in

Fig. 16. Single storey space frame.

Fig. 15. It is clearly observed that the present model results with
shear effect correlate very well the Jiang results. On the other hand,
when the shear effect is neglected, the model slightly overestimates the frame capacity.

4.3. Single storey space frame

Fig. 15. Load-displacement relationships for the six storey frame.

The frame shown in Fig. 16 is assumed to be made of steel with

yield strength ry = 250 Mpa and elastic modulus E = 200,000 MPa.
The frame is subjected to incremental lateral loads H in X-direction
and rH in Y-direction in addition to constant value of vertical loads
P. The frame is analyzed using the ber model and also by using the
derived model neglecting the shear effect. For all analysis types,
each frame member is divided into 10 elements to accumulate
the plastic deformation through the whole member. The tangent
modulus proposed by researchers (Eq. (9)) accompanied with the
Orbisons plastic surface formula is also used to analyze the frame.
The cross section of the frame members is assumed to be
UC203  203  60 and the frame is analyzed using different values
of r (r = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0). For each value of r, vertical load

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

163

Fig. 17. Load-displacement relationships for the single storey frame.

Table 2
Normalized ultimate loads for single storey space frame.
Pr = 0.2

Pr = 0.4

Pr = 0.6

r = 0.25
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9977
1.0823

0.9917
1.0198

1.0523
1.1377

r = 0.5
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9958
1.1233

1.02160
1.1904

0.9950
1.5412

r = 1.0
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9976
1.1708

0.9902
1.2822

1.0264
1.9594

r = 2.0
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9884
1.1088

1.0223
1.1088

1.0638
2.1503

ratios Pr = 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 are used. Fig. 17 shows comparisons between the results obtained from different models. The gure illustrates the relationships between the lateral load H and the lateral
resultant displacement at A. It is clearly observed that the proposed
model gives excellent correlations with the ber model for all values of r and Pr. On the other hand, the previously used formula in
Eq. (9) mostly overestimates the stiffness and the capacity of the
frame compared to the ber model. Table 2 shows the normalized

capacities of the frame using the proposed model and that from
Eqs. (9) and (1) with respect to the ber model results. As shown
in Table 2, the diversion of the analysis results obtained from
Eqs. (9) and (1) from the ber model increases with the increase
of r and Pr. The overall capacity of the frame obtained from the previous model more (Eqs. (9) and (1)) may be than twice the capacity
obtained from the ber model.
5. Conclusions
A new simplied model was developed to predict the large
deection inelastic behavior of space steel frames. New plastic
strength surfaces for H-shaped cross sections under axial forces
and biaxial bending moment were derived. Moreover, the tangent
modulus of cross sections subjected to the combined forces was
predicted. The residual stress distributions were considered as recommended by European Convention for Construction Steelwork
(ECCS). The internal forces were recovered by using derived incremental secant stiffness. The derived cross sectional model was
implemented into a nite element program based on stiffness
method to predict the full nonlinear behavior of steel space frames.
The simplied model correlated very well the ber model without
the need of cross section discretization. The proposed model could
successfully simplify the plastic zone analysis and save a lot of
computational time and data storage by the elimination of

164

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

iterations on the cross sectional level. From the analyzed examples,

it was found that the average run time of the frame using the ber
model ranged from 8 to 10 times the run time required using the
simplied model. These run times included the formulation and
the solving of nonlinear equilibrium equations and they also included the time consumed to equilibrate the bers on the cross
sectional level which was saved by using the proposed simplied
model.
Appendix A
Values of Sy1, Sy2, Sy3, Ety0, Ety1 and Mry1:

Sy1 0:38M2rz y 0:05M rz y 0:74 f1

Sy1 0:88Mrz y 0:26 f1

for M rz

where f1 = 0 for Pr 6 0.5 and f1

For Mrz_y 6 1.5:

for Mrz

6 1:0

> 1:0

7:81P 2r

Sy2

A:1b

 6:84P r 1:47 for Pr > 0.5

Sy2 10:82M2rz y 17:87M rz y 4:03 for Pr 6 0:2

11:45M 2rz y

A:1a

A:2a

15:65M rz y 7:37 for 0:3 6 Pr 6 0:5 A:2b

Sy2 17:57M 2rz y 21:43M rz y 13:67 for Pr P 0:6

A:2c

For Mrz_y > 1.5:

Sy2 1:4M rz y 5:12

A:2d

Sy3 0:05M 2rzy 0:36M rz y 0:96

Ety0
Ety1

A:3

0:65P 2r 0:22Pr 1:05

1:3P2r  0:45Pr 1:1

M ry1

f2
1 M rz

A:4
A:5

6 mry

A:6

where Mry1 6 1.05Pr + 1.07; Mry1 6 0.98, f2 = 0.4Pr + 1.015 for

Pr 6 0.3 and f2 3:89P 3r 4:44P2r  2:27Pr 1:53 for Pr > 0.3
Values of Sz1, Sz2, Sz3, Etz0, Etz1, Etz2, Etz3 and Mrz1

Sz1 1:37M 2ry z  0:94M ry z 1:52 f3

Sz1 2:38M ry z  0:49  f4 f3

for M ry z 6 1:0

for M ry z > 1:0

A:7a
A:7b

where
Sy1 P 0:9; Mry z M ry =Mrz ; f3 4:65P 3r 1:87P2r
1:03Pr  0:19; f4 0 for Pr 6 0.5 and f4 = (10.74Pr  5.4)Mry_z for
Pr > 0.5.

Sz2 13:59M 2ry z  6:11M ry z 2:54 for M ry z 6 1:0

A:8a

Sz2 12:77M ry z  2:65 for M ry z > 1:0

A:8b

Sz3 0:94Mry z 0:55 6 1:5

A:9

Etz0 1:9Pr 1:94

A:10

Etz1 2:5P2r  5:45Pr 3:1

A:11

For Pr 6 0.5:

Etz2 0:4Mry z 0:65 for Mry z 6 5:0

A:12a

Etz2 0:007Mry z 0:44 for Mry z > 5:0

A:12b

For Pr > 0.6:

Etz2 0:007Mry z 0:44  Pr  0:6

A:12c

Etz3 0:11  0:35f 5 M ry z f5

A:13a

Etz3 0:3 for Mry z > 3:0

for M ry z 6 3:0

A:13b

where f5 = 0.53Pr + 0.54

M rz1

f6
6 mrz
1 M ry z

A:14

where Mrz1 6 0:95P 3r  0:16P2r 0:07P r 0:95;f6 0:75P2r 0:4Pr

1:07 for Pr 6 0.3 and f6 1:86P2r 0:79Pr 1:05 for Pr > 0.3.

References
[1] Ekhande SG, Selvappalam M, Madugula MKS. Stability functions for three
dimensional beam columns. J Struct Eng 1989;115(2):46779.
[2] Najjar SR, Burgess IW. A nonlinear analysis for three dimensional steel frames
in re conditions. Eng Struct 1996;18(1):7789.
[3] Meek JL, Xue Q. A study on the instability problem for 3D frames. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 1998;158(34):23554.
[4] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE, Oh JR. Nonlinear analysis of space steel frames using ber
plastic hinge concept. Eng Struct 2007;29(4):64957.
[5] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis of space steel frames using
ber hinge method. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(4):42130.
[6] Thai HT, Kim SE. Nonlinear inelastic analysis of space frames. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67:58592.
[7] Kim SE, Lee DH. Second-order distributed plasticity analysis of space steel
frames. Eng Struct 2002;24:73544.
[8] Kim SE, Kang KW, Lee DH. Full-scale testing of space steel frame subjected to
proportional loads. Eng Struct 2003;25:6979.
[9] Ziemian RD. Advanced method of inelastic analysis in the limit states of steel
structures, PhD dissertation. Ithaca: Cornell University; 1990.
[10] Chan SL, Chui PT. A generalized design-based elastoplastic analysis of steel
frames by section assemblage concept. Eng Struct 1997;19(8):62836.
[11] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE, Chen WF. Improved nonlinear plastic hinge
analysis of space frame structures. Eng Struct 2000;22:132438.
[12] Thai HT, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis software for nonlinear inelastic
analysis of space steel structures. Adv Eng Software 2009;40(9):78697.
[13] Chen WF, Chan SL. Second-order inelastic analysis of steel frames using
element with midspan and end springs. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1995;21(3):53041.
[14] White DW. Advanced analysis/design of typical moment frame. In: Proc 10th
struct cingr compact papers. New York, NY: ASCE; 1998. p. 33033.
[15] Challa MV. Nonlinear seismic behavior of steel planar moment resistance
frames. Rep. No. EERL 82-01, Earthquake Engrg Res Lab, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, Calif; 1992.
[16] Liew JYR, Chen WF. Chapter 1: trends toward advanced analysis of steel
frames. In: Chen WF, Toma, editors. Advanced analysis of steel frames: theory,
software, and applications. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1994. p. 143.
[17] Liew JY, White DW, Chen WF. Second order rened plastic hinge analysis of
frames design: Part I. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1993;119(11):3196216.
[18] King WS. A modied stiffness method for plastic analysis of steel frames. Eng
Struct 1994;16:16270.
[19] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for braced steel frame design. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):126674.
[20] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for unbraced steel design. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):125965.
[21] Del Coz Diaz J, Nieto P, Fresno D, Fernandez E. Nonlinear analysis of cable
networks by FEM and experimental validation. Int J Comput Math
2009;86(2):30113.
[22] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Vilan Vilan J, Suarez Sierra J. Nonlinear buckling
analysis of a self-weighted metallic roof by FEM. Math Comput Modell
2010;51(34):21628.
[23] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Vilan Vilan J, Martin Rodriguez A, Prado Tamargo
J, Lozano M. Non-linear analysis and warping of tubular pipe conveyors by the
nite element method. Math Comput Modell 2007;46(12):95108.
[24] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Fernandez Rico M, Suarez Sierra J. Nonlinear
analysis of the tubular heart joint by FEM and experimental validation. J
Constr Steel Res 2007;63(8):107790.
[25] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Betegon Biempica C, Fernandez Rougeot G.
Nonlinear analysis of unbolted base plates by the FEM and experimental
validation. Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44(5):52941.
[26] Chen WF, Kim SE. LRFD steel design using advanced analysis. Boca Raton
FL: CRC Press; 1997.
[27] El-Zanaty M, Murrary D, Bjorhovde R. Inelastic behavior of multistory steel
frames. In: Structural engineering Report Mo. 83. Alberta, Canada, University
of Alberta; 1980.
[28] White DW. Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local planar behavior
in steel frames using iterative computer graphics, MS thesis. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University; 1985. 281P.
[29] Vogel U. Calibrating frames. Stahlbau 1985;10:17.
[30] Clarke MJ. Bridge RQ, Hancock GJ, Trahair NS. Design using advanced analysis.
In: SSRC annual tech session proc. Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh Univ.; 1991. p. 27
40.
[31] Jiang XM, Chen H, Liew JYR. Spread-of-plasticity analysis of three-dimensional
steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58:193212.
[32] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis of space steel frames using
ber hinge method. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:42130.
[33] Zubydan AH. A simplied model for inelastic second order analysis of planar
frames. Eng Struct 2010;32:325868.
[34] Zubydan AH. Inelastic second order analysis of steel frame elements exed
about minor axis. Eng Struct 2011;33:124050.
[35] Nanakorn P, Vu LN. A 2D eld-consistent beam element for large displacement
using the total Lagrangian formulation. Finite Elem Anal Des 2006;42:12407.

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 155165

[36] Yang YB, Lin SP, Leu LJ. Solution strategy and rigid element for nonlinear
analysis of elastically structures based on updated Lagrangian formulation.
Eng Struct 2007;29:1189200.
[37] Baptista AM. Resistance of steel I-sections under axial force and biaxial
bending moment. J Constr Steel Res 2012;72:111.
[38] Orbison JG, McGuire W, Abel JF. Yield surface applications in nonlinear steel
frame analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1982;33(1):55773.
[39] Load and resistance factor design specication for structural steel buildings.
In: American institute of steel construction (AISC), 2nd ed. Chicago; 1994.
[40] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Direct design of three-dimensional frames using
practical advanced analysis. Eng Struct 2001;23:1491502.
[41] Kim SE, Lee J, Park JS. 3-D second-order plastic hing analysis accounting for
local buckling. Eng Struct 2003;25:8190.
[42] Kim SE, Choi SH. Practical second order inelastic analysis for three dimensional
steel frames subjected to distributed load. Thin-Walled Struct
2005;43:13560.

165

[43] ECCS, Essentials of Eurocode 3 design manual for steel structures in building.
ECCS-advisory committee, vol. 5(65). 1991. p. 60.
[44] McGuire W, Gallagher R, Ziemian R. Matrix structural analysis. Wiley; 2000.
[45] Torkmani MA, Sonmez M. Inelastic large deection modeling of beam
columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(8):87686.
[46] Chan SL. Geometric and material non-linear analysis of beamcolumns and
frames using the minimum residual displacement method. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 1988;26:265769.
[47] HKS (Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc.) ABAQUS/standard users manual, vol. II.
HKS; 2000.
[48] Kim SE, Kim Y, Choi SH. Nonlinear analysis of 3-D steel frames. Thin Wall
Struct 2001;39:44561.
[49] Chiorean CG, Barsan GM. Large deection distributed plasticity analysis of 3D
steel frameworks. Comput Struct 2005;83:155571.