International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT) 111

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2016, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

ANALYSIS OF GABLE FRAME STRUCTURE

S.Princychristina1
1
P.G Student (Structural Engineering), Department of Civil Engineering,
Anna University Regional Campus Madurai, Tamilnadu

ABSTRACT
Gable frames are usually used in single storey building
with slanting sides and high rise. When large clear-span
areas are required for special industrial and commercial
projects, the gable frame type is typically the economical
choice special in industrial building. In this work, the
single bay gable frame of 14m span and 3m rise is
analysed under both sway and non-sway condition. The
uniformly distributed load is applied on both slanting
sides of the member where the column is provided with
three times of flexural rigidity than that of slanting sides.
The member end moments of these parts are induced
from joint rotation and joint translation. For the ceiling
portion the cap part and columns the load-displacement
relations are established. The joints of corner are main
connecting part of gabled frames, of which the
performance directly affects the integral behaviour of its
structure subject to UDL load. The forces in the
members and the displacements of the joints are found
using the theory of structural analysis by the moment
distribution method, Kanis method and their bending
moment values are compared.
Keywords Gable frame, Single bay, Moment
Distribution, Kanis method, sway and non sway.

I.

INTRODUCTION

A structure is the assemblage of two or more basic

structural components connected together in such a way
that they serve the user functionally and carry the loads
arising out of self and super-imposed loads safely
without causing any problem of serviceability. The
primary function of receiving service loads at certain
points and transferring them safely to some other points,
the structure develops internal forces in its component
members known as structural elements. The structural
element of a structural system has to be designed in a
proper way to perform their function adequately. The
inadequacy of one or more structural elements may leads
to malfunctioning or even collapse of the entire
structure. Frame structures are the structures having the
combination of beams, columns to resist the lateral and
gravity loads. These structures are usually used to
overcome large moments developed due to applied
loading.

The objective of structural analysis is to determine the

internal forces and corresponding displacements of all
the structural elements as well as those of the entire
structural system. The safety and proper functioning of
the structure can be ensured only through a thorough
structural analysis.
Structural analysis is the determination of the effects of
loads on physical structures and their components.
Structures subject to this type of analysis include
withstanding loads, such as buildings, bridges, vehicles,
machinery, furniture etc. As the structural system as a
whole and the loads acting on it may be of complex
nature certain simplifying assumptions with regard to the
quality of material, geometry of the members, nature and
distribution of loads and the extent of connectivity at the
joints and the supports are always made to make the
analysis simpler. The forces in the members and the
displacements of the joints are found using the theory of
structural analysis.
1.1
Statically determinate
Static analysis of structures is based on the three basic
principles, namely equilibrium of forces, compatibility
of displacements and the assumption of linear elasticity.
Structures that can be analyzed using the condition of
static equilibrium alone are known as statically
determinate structures.
1.2
Statically indeterminate
Statically Indeterminate structures are also known as
hyper static or redundant structures. If equations of
equilibrium alone are inadequate to analyze the
hyperstatic structure and additional equation has to be
found to solve their solution. Compatibility conditions of
displacement equations with supports or between various
parts of the structure are formulated as additional
equation. The number of such additional equations
necessary for the solution of hyperstatic structure is
known as degree of indeterminacy or degree of
redundancy.
For pin joint structure:
Ds = (m + r) 2j
Dsi = m (2j 3)
Dse = r 3
For framed structure:
Ds = (3m + r) 3j

www.ijaert.org

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT) 112

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2016, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

where, m is the number of members.

r is the number of reactions.
j is the number of joints.
1.3
External degree of redundancy
The external degree of redundancy can be determined by
considering the number of support reactions and
subtracting the number of equations of static
equilibrium. The free end support cannot sustain any
reaction, the roller support reactions can sustain only one
force, shear hinge and hinge type support can transmit
two reactions and the fixed end moment can resist three
reactions. Based on this the degree of redundant can be
marked easily.
1.4
Internal degree of redundancy
The internal degree of redundancy can be found by
determining the number of unknown member forces, and
comparing with the number of equations that can be
formulated for the structure. The number of member
forces and that of equations available depends upon the
boundary conditions (joints) of the member. If both the
ends are pinned or hinged joints they are statically
indeterminate to first degree. If both ends are fixed then
they are statically indeterminate to third degree.
1.5
Identification of redundant
Equations of static equilibrium determine the structure in
a statically determinate. The method of analysis is to
adopt is to analyze the basic structure, and satisfying the
compatibility condition at the location of the redundant
forces. This is done by the analyzing the basic structure
for member forces and displacement at the location of
the redundant forces under the given loading and under
the action of each redundant. The principle of
superposition is applied so that the displacements at the
locations of the redundant under the given loading and
the redundant forces are compatible.
1.6
Kinematic indeterminacy
A structure is said to be kinematically indeterminate if
the displacement components of its joints cannot be
determined by compatibility conditions alone. In order to
evaluate displacement components at the joints of these
structures, it is necessary to consider the equations of
static equilibrium. i.e. no. of unknown joint
displacements over and above the compatibility
conditions will give the degree of kinematic
indeterminacy. For the structural member, additional
equations are based on the equilibrium in order to obtain
the sufficient number of equations for the determination
of all unknowns displacement component.
For pin joint frame:

Dk = 2j e for plane frame

where, e = no. of equations of compatibility
The number of equation of compatibility is equal
to the number of constraints imposed by the support
condition. As each independent reaction components
provides a constraint against a linear movement in its
own direction, the number of equations of compatibility
is equal to the number of independent external reaction
components.
For pin joint frame:
Dk = 2j r for plane frame
where, r = no. of independent external reaction
component.
For rigid frame:
Dk = 3j e for plane frame
Dk = 6j e for space frame
where, e = no. of reaction components + constraints due
to in extensibility.

II.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Arunlfo Luevanos Rojas (2013), analyzed the statically

indeterminate structures considering the shear
deformations is proposed. This methodology considers
the shear deformations and flexure but in traditional
method only consider the flexure deformations. It
included the comparison between the both traditional
method and proposed method. In moment distribution
method having successive approximations evades
solving systems of equations, as presented in the method
of Mohr and Maxwell. The usual practice without
considering shear deformations will not be a
recommended solution. This is a logical situation since
the rigidities are lower when considering shear
deformations, because the elements are linear and have
higher rotation and displacement when the load is
applied. The proposed, used of considering shear
deformations and also it is more attached to the real
conditions.
Simitses.G.J and Mohamed.S.E. (1989), analyzed the
gabled frame with flexible joint connections and with
elastic rotational restraints at the supports under static
and dynamic loads by non-linear analysis. Symmetric
gabled bends were found to buckle in either a symmetric
snap through mode or in a side sway mode. Buckling
mode and critical load are determined based on bend rise
to span ratio and ratio of bending stiffness of beams to
columns. Critical loads are also obtained for the sudden
application of the cause and they are 15-30 % lower than
the corresponding static critical loads. In which
established that the effect of column slenderness ratio ,
load parameter was negligibly small for both static and
dynamic application of loads. These studies lead to the

www.ijaert.org

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT) 113

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2016, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

analysis of a model which accurately represents the

behavior of real world gabled frames.
Ronagh.H.R., Bradford.M.A. (1996), carried the analysis
of coupled local and lateral buckling of steel gable
frames and steel bridge structures composed of tapered
I-sections by general finite element analysis.
Incorporating tapered elements increases the efficiency
of the design in the regions where extra material is not
required for strength. The analysis is performed in two
stages: in-plane and out-of-plane. The resultant in-plane
stresses are used for the out-of-plane initial loading
pattern. This arrangement results in a general eigenvalue problem, where the buckling load and mode are
found using algorithms such as the Sturm Sequence and
Random Force Vector methods. Finally, the method is
used to investigate the significance of distortion in the
buckling of a typical gable frame under gravity loads.
The present finite element representation can be used
effectively in the buckling analysis of highway bridge
girders and gable frames.
Bidyadhar Basa, Dr. Lakshmidhar Kar (2011), modified
iterative method used to analyze the interconnected
grids. This method is a modified form of Kanis method,
which is generally employed for the analysis of multistoried frame. The proposed method is capable of
analyzing grids with any number of internal joints. This
method is in contrast to rotation contribution method in
which 2n+2 sets of operations are required for the
analysis of a grid having n number of internal joints.
From the analysis obtained the major advantage of this
method is that it is capable of analyzing a grid in one set
of calculation and does not need solution of
simultaneous equations.
Jun Li, Yuanqing Wang, Ting Chang, Fei Shi (2011),
analyzed the gabled arch frame which has a span of 30m
by finite element analysis (FEA) software package
ANSYS. By using this software calculate the in-plane
buckling of gabled arch frame. According to, in-plane
stability theory, the axis of arch deflecting from the
plane greatly and causing the geometric shape to change.
Instability occurs if the arch structure is under full-span
as well as half-span distributed load. Finally, discussed
the buckling deformation rules were proof and the
influence of rise-span ratio, load condition and initial
efficiency.

III.

METHODOLOGY

3.1
Moment distribution method
The moment distribution methods were developed by
Hardy Cross in the 1930s.This method involve
distributing the known fixed end moments of the
structural members to adjacent members at the joints, in

order to satisfy the conditions of continuity of slopes and

displacements(compatibility conditions). The structural
system is first reduced to kinematically determinate form
in this method. This is accomplished by assuming all the
joints to be fully restrained. The end moments for all the
members are computed for this condition of structure.
The joints are allowed to rotate one after other by
releasing them successively. The unbalanced moment at
the joint is shared by the members connected at joint
when it is released. Hardy Cross method makes use of
the ability of various structural members at a joint
sustain moment in proportion to their relative stiffness.
3.2
Kanis method
Gasper Kanis formulated another iterative method
around 1947; his procedure overcomes some of the
disadvantages of Hardy Cross method. The major
difference in the distribution process of the two methods.
In this method distribute the total joint moment at any
stage of iteration.
Process of Kanis iteration:
1. Rotational stiffness at each end of all the
member of the structure are determined
depending upon the end condition.
2. Rotational factors are computed for all the
members at each joint as per the equation
ij = -0.5 kij/kij
It should be checked that the sum of the
rotational factors at a joint is equal to -0.5
3. Fixed end moments, including translation
components, moment releases and carry over
moments are computed for all the members and
entered in approximate places.
4. Iteration can be commenced at any joint;
however, the iteration commence from the left
end of the structure generally. Iterations are
performed at each joint according to the
equation :
Mij = ij[(MFi + Mi)+ Mji
Initially, the rotational components Mji (sum
of the rotational moments at the far ends of the
joints under consideration) can be assumed to be
zero. Further iterations take into account the
rotational moments of the previous joints
5. Rotational moments are computed at each joint
successively till all the joints are processed. This
process comprises one cycle of iterations.
6. These steps are repeated till the difference in the
values of the rotational moments from
successive cycle is negligible.
7. Final moments in the member at each joints are
computed from the rotational moment of the
final iteration step

www.ijaert.org

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT) 114

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2016, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

E
D

0.765

D
E

-93.715

122.5

0.234

D
C

-28.665

-122.5

0.5

C
D

122.5

0.5

C
B

0.234

B
C

-122.5

0.765
-

B
A

28.665

4.1 Moment distribution method

F.E.M
Balancin
g

Fig 4.1 Gable Frame

93.715

A
B

Joint

D.F

INVESIGATION PROCESS

Member

Table 4.3 Moment Distribution

IV.

14.333

-14.333

-46.858

-93.835

136.833

-136.833

93.835

-93.713

-46.858

122.5
-122.5
122.5
0
0

93.715

MFCB
MFCD
MFDC
MFDE
MFED

46.858

F.E.M.(KNm)
0
0
-122.5

46.858

Member
MFAB
MFBA
MFBC

Carry
Over

Table 4.1 Fixed end moments (F.E.M)

Final
Moment
(KNm)

Case 1: Non- sway analysis

Case 2: Sway analysis

Table 4.2 Distribution factor

Joint

Member

R.S

BA

3I /7

T.S

D.F
0.765

0.56I

B
BC

I/7.616

CB

I/7.616

0.234
0.5
0.26I

C
CD

I/7.616

DC

I/7.616

0.5
0.234

Fig 4.2 Sway Condition

0.56I

D
DE

3I/7

0.765

Let displacement BB =
Transverse displacement for
www.ijaert.org

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT) 115

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2016, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

BC = CC = cosec = 7.616/3
Mab= Mba = 6(3EI)/72
Mbc = Mcb = -6EI/7.6162 (7.616 /3)
Mab : Mbc = 97.92:-70

Let HBA and HBC be the horizontal shears just below and
just above B.
HBA + HBC = 0
-MAB +MBA+ MBC +MCB +735 = 0
(1)
7
3
Where
MAB = 46.858 + 108.6 K
(2)
MBA = 93.715 +76.56 K
(3)
MBC = -93.835 -76.56K
(4)
MCB =136.833 -73.266K
(5)
Substitute the above moment value (2),(3),(4)&(5) in the
equation (1)
K = 3.132
Now substitute the k value in the equation (2),
(3),(4)&(5) to obtain the value of second moment
distribution method.

Table 4.4 F.E.M due to sway

Member
F.E.M. (KNm)
MFAB
97.92
MFBA
97.92
-192.5
MFBC
MFCB
52.5
MFCD
-52.5
MFDC
192.5
MFDE
-97.92
MFED
-97.92

Table 4.7 Final moment for sway

Final moment
Member
(KNm)
AB
386.993
BA
333.501
BC
-333.621
CB
-92.636
CD
92.636
DC
333.621
DE
-333.501
ED
-386.993

Table 4.5 F.E.M. due to sway at joints

F.E.M
MB
MC
MD
(KNm)
-94.58
0
94.58

Joint

Member

Table 4.6 Moment distribution (Second distribution)

A
B

B
C

C
B

C
D

D
C

D
E

ED

-97.92

0.765

4.2
Kanis method
Case 1: Non- sway analysis
The fixed end moment for non-sway remains same as
calculated for moment distribution method.
Rotation Factor:
R.F = -1/2 (k / k)
Table 4.8: Rotation factor
Joint

-10.68

-97.92
21.36
0

70
6.533

0.234

0.5
70
0

0.5
-70
0
-3.266

3.266

0.234
-70
-6.533
0

0.765
97.92
-21.36
10.68

97.92

D.F
F.E.M

B
A

Thus the final moment is obtained for single bay gable

frame structure by moment distribution method for sway
and non sway action.

Bal.
C.O

Member

R.S

BA

3I /7

BC

I/7.616

CB

I/7.616

-108.6

-76.56

76.533

73.266

-73.266

-76.533

76.56

108.6

-0.383
-0.117
-0.25
0.26I

C
F.M
(KNm)

R.F

0.56I

CD

I/7.616

DC

I/7.616

-0.25
-0.117
0.56I

D
DE

www.ijaert.org

T.S

3I/7

-0.383

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT) 116

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2016, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

In table 4.9 the rotation contribution is made up to the

iteration 5 where the values get closer to the iteration 4.
Thus, the iteration is stopped up to 5.

www.ijaert.org

DE
M DE

DC
M DC
-0.117

-45.545
-46.837

-0.001

-14.332

-46.917

-14.333

-46.918

-46.913

-13.913
-14.308

-0.001
0

-14.331

-3.583
-0.210

-3.583
-0.210

12.250

14.334

-0.012

-0.383

CD

CB
MCB
-0.25

MCD

BC
MBC
-0.117
14.333
14.752

14.333

14.357

-0.25

BA
M BA
-0.383
46.998

48.290

46.918

-12.250

-0.012

Joint
Member
Rotation
Contribution
MF

Rotation
Factor

46.922

The iteration is repeated till the values comes closer or

their difference in the rotational moments from
successive cycle is negligible.

Iteration 5 Iteration 4

Iteration 3

Iteration 2

Joint B
MBA = BA [MFB + MAB + MCB]
= -0.383 [-122.5+0-3.583] = 48.29 KNm
MBC = BC [MFB +MCB+MAB]
= -0.117 [-122.50-3.583 +0] = 14.752KNm
Joint C
MCB = CB [MFC+ MBC+MDC]
= -0.25 [0+ 14.752-13.913] = -0.120 KNm
MCD = CD [MFC +MDC+MBC]
= -0.25[0-13.913+ 14.752] = -0.120 KNm
Joint D
M DC = DC [MFD + MCD +MED]
=-0.117[122.500.120+0] = -14.308 KNm
MDE = DE [MFD +MED+MCD]
= -0.383[122.50+0 -0.120] = -46.837 KNm

46.918

Iteration 2
The values obtained from iteration 1 is taken to the
iteration 2 to determine the respective rotational
components.

Table 4.9 Rotation contribution

Iteration 1

Resultant restraint
MFB = MFBA +MFBC
= -122.50 KNm
MFC = MFCB + MFCD
=0
MFD = MFDC + MFDE
=122.50 KNm
Iteration calculation
Initially MAB, MCB, MDC, MED are considered zero in
first iteration.
Iteration 1
Joint B
MBA = BA [MFB + MAB + MCB]
= -0.383 [-122.50 + 0+ 0] = 46.918 KNm
MBC = BC [MFB +MCB+MAB]
= -0.117 [-122.50 + 0+ 0] = 14.333 KNm
Joint C
MCB = CB [MFC+ MBC+MDC]
= -0.25 [0+ 14.333+ 0] = -3.583 KNm
MCD = CD [MFC +MDC+MBC]
= -0.25[0+ 0+ 14.333] = -3.583 KNm
Joint D
MDC = DC [MFD + MCD +MED]
= -0.117[122.50 3.583+0] = -13.913 KNm
MDE= DE [MFD +MED+MCD]
= -0.383[122.50+0 -3.583] = -45.545 KNm

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Technology (IJAERT) 117

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2016, ISSN No.: 2348 8190

MBA = -57.602 KNm

MBC = 28.662 KNm.
The cycle is repeated till the value come closer to each
other.
Thus the final moment values are obtained in the table
4.10

The final moment is calculated by the equation:

MAB = MFAB + 2 MAB + MBA (6)
MBA = MFBA + 2 MBA + MAB (7)
MBC = MFBC + 2 MBC + MCB
(8)
MCB = MFCB + 2 MCB + MBC (9)
MCD = MFCD + 2 MCD + MDC (10)
MDC = MFDC + 2 MDC +MCD
(11)
MDE = MFDE + 2 MDE + MED
(12)
MED = MFED + 2 MED + MDE (13)

V.

In non- sway analysis the member moment values are

same in both moment distribution method and Kanis
method at the member CB and CD. In sway analysis
maximum moment attains in the member AB and
sagging moment attains in the member BC and CB. Thus
the variation between these two methods is observed in
the maximum ratio of 1:1.112

Table 4.10: Final moment

Final moment
Member
(KNm)
AB
46.918
BA

93.836

BC

-93.834

CB

136.833

CD

-136.833

DC

93.834

DE

-93.836

ED

-46.918

CONCLUSION

REFERENCE
Books:
[1] D.S Prakash Rao. Structural Analysis A Unified
Approach. Universities Press, 2012.
[2] S. Ramamrutham, R.Naranyan. Theory Of
Structures. Dhanpat Rai Publishing Company, 2016.
Theses:
[3] Prangya Paramita Pradhan. Optimization of Two Bay
Portal Frame. National Institute Of Technology,
Rourkela.2009.

Case 2: Sway analysis

Fig 4.3 Sway in Kani,s method

Taking moment about joint C and D
@C
-1.858 M AB + M CB = 3.287 MBA - MBC - 605.565
(14)
@B
-0.858 M AB + 2 M CB = 1.287 MBA -3 MBC -510.985
(15)
Solving the equation (14) & (15) by initially substituting
MBA = MBC = 0
Thus the value for
MAB = 244.977 KNm
MBC = -150.37 KNm is obtained which is substituted in
the equation (14) and (15) to get the value of
www.ijaert.org