Fig. 13.

15 Comparison of interaction formula with the analytical solutions

(based on the plastic design approach). It is seen that the interaction equations
provide a reasonable estimate of the ultimate strength of beam-column in most of
the case . Instability in the plane of bending including the effects of transverse
loading has been studied by Ketter (1961); Lu and Lamalvand (1968); Pi and
Trahair (1994); English and Adams (1973); Chan (1971), and Chong SiatMoy(1974).
12.5.1 Nominal Strength Failure by lateral Torsional Buckling
Tests and computer studies conducted by several researchers, including inelastic
effects, indicate interaction equations similar to Eqn (13.8c) could be used to
include the effect of lateral-torsional buckling also (Fukumoto and Galambos 1966;
Linder 1997,2003). The main difference is that P/Pu will be lower when based on
KL/ry (week axis) rather than K/Lr2 (strong axis). Similarly Mn may also be less
than Mp because of lateral-torsional buckling. A summary of this topic is presented
by Massonet (1976) which includes discussion of plastic effects.
13.5.2 Nominal Strength interaction Equations
As observed the earlier discussions the behaviour of beam-column is affected by a
number of parameters. Moreover a real beam-column may receive end moments
and axial load from its connections to other members of a structure such as a rigid
frame. Hence the relation of the beam-column to the other elements of the structure
is important in determining both the applied forces and the resistance of the
member.
The elasto plastic analysis involving numerical procedures (Chan and Atsuta
1976,1977) are quite laborious and their direct use in design is rather prohibitive
since a structural frame normally consists of numerous beam-column and bring the
problem with in practical limits, interaction, equations ,relating a safe combination
of axial Interaction curves are normally developed based on curve fitting to
existing analytical and experimental data on isolated beam-columns or beamcolumns of simple portal frames. They have the general form (Chan&Lui 1991;
Duan&Chan 19890

Where Pu,Muz and Muy are the axial force and bending moments (allowed for the P

and P- effects ) in the beam-column , and Pn Mnz and Mny and the

corresponding axial and bending moment capacities of the member {determined a

discussed in Chapter 9 (Section 9.7.1) on compression member and Chapter 10
(Sections 10.7 and 10.8) on beams}.
The three-dimensional graphical representation of Eqn(13.26) is shown in Fig.
13.16. In this figure each axis represents the capacity of the member when it is
subjected to loading of one type only, while the curves represent the combination
of two types of loading. The surface formed by connecting the three

curves

represents the interaction of axial load and biaxial bending . It is this interaction
surface that is interest to the designer.
The end points of the curves shown in Fig. 13.16 dependent on the capacities of
the members described for columns (Chapter 9) and beams (Chapter 10). The
shapes of these and the beam-column imperfections (b)the variation of moments
along the beam-column, and (c) the end restraint conditions approximate basis and
various All these variables can only be dealt wit on an approximate basis and hence
various formulae are given in the codes, which attempt to allow for the effects
mentioned earlier.
The basic form of the three-dimensional interaction equations is

This interaction equation result in a straights-line representation of the interaction

between any two components shown in Fig.13.17. This simplified interaction
equation gives conservative design.
The behaviour of beam-columns subject to bending moment about minor axis is
similar to that subjected to major axis bending but for the following differences.

 In the case slender members under small axial load, there is very little
reduction of moment capacity below Mp, since lateral torsional buckling is
not a problem in weak axis bending .
The moment magnification is larger in the case of the beam-columns
bending about their weak axis.
As the slenderness increases, the failure curves in the P/Pn,y-y axis plane
change from convex to concave, showing increasing dominance of minor
axis buckling.
The failure of / shocky members is rather due to section strength being
reached at the ends (under axial load) or at the section of lateral magnified
moment (under larger axial load).

13.6 Bean column under Biaxial Loading

The geometry and loading of most framed structure are three-dimensional, and the
biaxial bending if isolated beam-columns with test result has been studied by
several researchers (e.g., Culver 1966;Kloppel &Winkelmann 1962) and they have
shown that the elastic biaxial bending of beam-column is similar to its in plane
behaviour. Thus, in this case, the major and minor axis deflections and twist begin
immediately after applying the load and increases rapidly as the elastic buckling
load is approached. Although the first-yield preduction if strengths of slender
beam-columns based on these methods, are of sufficient accuracy, they are found
to be conservative for stocky members in which considerable yielding occurs
before failure.
Sophisticated numerical analyses have also been made by researchers for the
biaxial bending if inelastic beam column and good agreements with test results
have been obtained (Vinnakota & Aoshima 1974; Vinnakota &Aysto 1974; Chen
&Atsuta 1977; Pi &Trahair 1994). Such analyses require a specialized computer
program, which cannot be used as a design tool, but can assist only in research.

Hence a number of attempts have been made to develop approximate methods of

predicting the strength if inelastic beam-columns. One of the simplest is to extend
the linear interaction equation for in-plane bending and flexural torsional buckling
{Eqn (13.25)} to the biaxial case also. This equation is given by

In this case Muz is the ultimate moment which the beam-column can support when
P=My =0 for the case of equal end moment (=-1) , while Muy is similarly defined.
Under biaxial bending and axial load the interaction equations should give convex
failure surface as shown in Fig. 13.18. It is observed that the increase in the
slenderness radio of the member tends to reduce the strength of the member, except
axial force ranges, further increases in the axial compression tends to decrease the
bending strength about both axes.

Fig. 13.18 Failure surface for slender beam column subject to biaxial moments
Note that there is no Eqn (13.28) for the amplification of the minor axis moment
My by the major axis moment Mz since the term [11-(P/Pcr,y)] only allows for
amplification caused by the axial load P. Several researchers (Chen &Tebedge
1974; Chen & Atsuta 1977; Pi & Trahair 1994) have shown that the linear
interaction equation leads to very conservative results. Chen and Tebedge (1974)
proposed the following non-linear interaction equations which are valid for Ishaped members in braced frames:
Where

In which bf is the flange width (in mm) and d is the member depth (in mm), and

Where Pcr,z and Pcr,y are the Euler buckling loads about the strong and weak axis
respectively,b is the beam resistance factor (=0.90) c = column resistance factor

(=0.85), and Pn Mny are the corresponding axial and bending factor moment
capacities of the member [determined as discussed in Chapter 9 (Section 9.7.1)and
Chapter 10 (Sections 10.7 and 10.8)]
For square box section values greater than unity recognizes the convexity of
the moment interaction as illustrated in Fig. 13.18. [Galambos (1998) provides the
comparison of Eqn (13.28) and (13.29).]
More discussions about the behaviour and design of beam-columns subjected to
biaxial and axial force may br found in Chen and Santathadaporn (1968), Lindner
and Gietzelt (1985), Kennedy et al. (1990), and Lindner and Glitsch (2004).

13.7 Interaction Equations for Local Capacity Check

The interaction equations discussed till now are for overall buckling check. The
beam-column should also be checked for local capacity at the point of the greatest
bending moment and axial load. This is usually checket at the ends of the
members, but it could be with in the length of the beam column, if lateral loads
are also applied. The capacity in these cases is controlled by yielding or local
buckling (if it is not prevented by limiting the width-ti-thinkness radios specified in
the codes(. The linear interaction equation for semi-compact and slender cross
section is given by

Where p is the applied axial load, Py is the yield load =Ag fy Mz is applied moment
about the major axis z-z, and Mpz is the moment capacity about the major axis z-z
in the absence of the axial load.

My is the applied moment about the minor axis y-y and Mpy is the moment capacity
about the minor axis y-y in the absence of the axial load.

More accurate interaction equations are available for compact cross sections,
which are based on the convex failure surface discussed in the previous section,
which result in greatest economy in design (see also Section 8.10). Chen and
Atsuta (1977) and Tebedge and Chen (1874) provide the following non-linear
interaction equation for compact I-shaped in which the flange width is not less than
0.5 times the depth of the section.

In which Mpz Mpy, Mz,and My are as defined earlier.

The value of the exponent is given by

Where In is the natural logarithum,bf is flange width (in mm), and d is the member
depth (in mm).
A comprehensive assessment of the accuracy of the non-linear interaction
equations in predicting the load carrying capacities of biaxial loaded I-sections has
been made by Pillai (1981), who found that these equations prodict the capacity
reasonably well compared to the experimential results.
Interaction equations for a number of sections, including circular tubes, box
sections, and unsymmetrical sections such as angles are available in Chen and Lui
(1971), Chen Atsuta (1977), and Shanmugam et.al. (1993).

13.8 Code Design Procedure

Modern structural design specifications around the world have

retrained the

generic form if the interaction formula given in Eqn (13.26). In every specification
the moment M is always specified as the second- order (amplified) moment
obtained either form a second order structural analysis, where equilibrium is
formulated in the deformed configuration of the structure, or from an
approximation of using the moment from a first-order elastic analysis, which is

then multiplied by an amplification factor. Depending upon wherever Pcrthe elastic

critical load, is evaluated for the member length or the storey effective length , the
amplification factor accounts empirically for the member or the frame stability
(Galambos 1998). This versatility of the interaction equations approach makes it
very useful in design.
Most limit-states design codes use a set of load resistance factors that are based
on probabilistic principles )Bjorhovde et.al.1978)

13.8.1 Indian Code (IS 800:2007) Provisions

The Indian code (IS 800:2007) provisions are based on the provisions and the code
requires the following two checks to be performed.
(a) Local capacity check and
(b) Overall buckling check
Local capacity check for beam-column subjected to combined axial force (tension
or compression) and bending moment, the following interaction equation should be
satisfied.)

Where My andMz are the factored applied moments about the minor and major axis
of the cross-section ,respectively and M ndy and Mndz are the design reduced flexural
strength under combined axial force and the respective uniaxial moment acting
alone. The value of M ndy and Mndz for plastic and compact section is approximately
given in Table.13.1.

Table 13.1 Approximate value of reduced flexural strength for plastic and compact
sections.

The constans a1 and a2 are given in Table 13.2

Table 13.2 Constans a1 and a2

For semi-compact sections, without bolt holes, the code (IS 800:2000) suggests the
following linear equations, when force is low.