Computers & S~rucrures Vol. 41, No. 5. pp. 99%1009. 1991 0045.7949/91 s3.00 +o.

aa
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press plc

NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL

STEEL FRAMES WITH SEMI-RIGID CONNECTIONS
S.-H. Hsre~ and G. G. DEIERLHN
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A.

(Received 3 October 1990)

Abstract--With the ultimate aim of improved methods for the realistic limit state design of structures,
a method has been developed for incorporating nonlinear connection response in the analysis of
three-dimensional steel structures. The method is implemented in an interactive graphics analysis and
design program which can model both geometric and material nonhnearities in framed structures. The
connection model includes nonlinear moment-rotation response for both major- and minor-axis bending.
Standardized models for different types of connections which are calibrated to existing test data and are
amenable to design are presented. Application of the method is presented for a realistic case study
consisting of a low-rise three-dimensional structure with partially restrained connections.

1. INTRODUCTION this paper is to describe a prototype computer-aided

In recent years, the advancement of computer tech-
nology together with the growing body of research on
connection behavior has increased concern for in-
cluding connection flexibility in the analysis and
design of steel structures. As evidenced by several
representative publications [l-5], considerable re-
search has been conducted to study both the behavior
and modeling of semi-rigid connections and the
effects of connection flexibility on the behavior and
design of steel frames. Developments in this area are
reflected in recent design specifications which address
considerations for including connection effects in
analysis and design. For example, the AISC LRFD
specification [6] classifies more realistically the types
of steel construction into two categories: Type FR
(Fully Restrained) construction, and Type PR
(Partially Restrained) construction. For Type PR
construction, the AISC specification instructs the
designer to explicitly take into account the effect of
connection flexibility in the design analysis, though
specific guidelines are not provided. Another example
of a recent specification which addresses the issue of
including connection flexibility in design is the latest
working draft of Eurocode 3 which includes specific
criteria and connection modeling parameters for
semi-rigid frames [7].
In spite of the progress made in research, in
engineering practice connection flexibility is still not
usually explicitly considered in analysis and design,
and the use of partially restrained connections in
unbraced frames is often avoided. Reasons for this
include the complexities and uncertainties in predict-
ing connection behavior with analytic models, the
unavailability of commercial structural analysis soft-
ware which effectively handles realistic connection
response, and lack of consistent methodologies for
using nonlinear analysis in design. The purpose of
analysis and design system for two- and three-
dimensional steel structures with semi-rigid connec-
tions and to demonstrate its application through a
realistic case study.
1.1. Background
Previous research on structures with semi-rigid
connections which is utilized in the present study is
summarized in detail by Hsieh [8]. Briefly, this work
can be categorized into the following two areas:
1.1.1. Behavior and modeling of semi-rigid connec -
tions. Many tests are reported in the literature which
have focussed on the in-plane moment-rotation
(M-6) behavior of connections. In this research, a
collection of test data which was originally assembled
by Goverdhan [9] and synthesized into a computer-
ized database by Kishi and Chen [lo, 111 was used.
This data bank includes 303 tests conducted by over
38 researchers. Various techniques have been pro-
posed for representing the M-0 response of connec-
tions, some based on simple linear approximations
and others on more sophisticated nonlinear func-
tions. As described below, in this research a nonlinear
equation is used which is based on models previously
proposed by Richard and Abbott [12] and Kishi and
Chen [ 111.
1.1.2. Design behavior and analysis of semi-rigid
connections. The development of frame analysis pro-
grams which incorporate connection models, and the
use of these to study the design and behavior of
framed structures with semi-rigid connections have
been reported by several researchers. Various models,
analysis schemes, and solution methods have been
studied. Previous investigations have primarily dealt
with the following: (a) the effect of connection flexi-
bility on the force distribution, maximum load-carry-
ing capacity, deformations (drifts), and stability of
996 S.-H. HSIEHand
frames, (b) methods of implementing semi-rigid
connections into frame analysis, (c) validation of
different connection models for design, (d) suggestion
of design procedures to account for connec-
tion flexibility, and (e) evaluation of potential
benefits of considering connection flexibility in de-
sign. Most previous research focused on two-
dimensional analysis and in-plane moment-rotation
characteristics of connection; few three-dimensional
frame analysis programs which account for nonlinear
connection flexibility have been reported in the
literature.
1.2. Interactive computer-aided analysis and design
system
With the growing availability of lower cost
engineering workstations, interactive computer-
aided analysis and design systems are becoming a
viable tool for design practice. One prototype system
for the analysis and design of three-dimensional
steel frames using finite element analysis techniques
[13-l 61has been developed at Cornell University. For
statically loaded structures, this system consists of
two programs, CU-PREPF and CU-STAND. CU-
PREPF is a program for the definition of two-
and three-dimensional framed structures; CU-
STAND is a program for the elastic and inelastic
analysis and design of three-dimensional steel framed
structures.
Fig. 1. Typical menu page. and graphical viewport in CU-STAND.
G. G. DEIERLEIN
The system described above has been used in the
past to study the realistic behavior and limit state
design of steel structures. Through interactive
computer graphics, CU-PREPF provides a user-
friendly and efficient means of defining the structural
geometry, member properties, boundary con-
ditions, and loadings. The analysis formulation in
CU-STAND includes both geometric and material
nonlinearities. Geometric nonlinearities are handled
through the use of geometric stiffness matrices and
an updated Lagrangian method; material non-
linearities are considered through a concentrated
plasticity approach assuming elastic-perfectly plastic
member response based on a three-parameter yield
surface. Various solution and analysis control
schemes are provided along with features for
graphically monitoring the structural response by
viewing the deflected shape of the structure, load-
deformation response curves, etc. An example of the
menuing system and type of graphical information
which can be displayed is shown in Fig. 1. CU-
STAND also includes built-in features for semi-
automated design checks and redesign based on a
subset of the AISC LRFD specification [6]. One of
the limitations in the original version of CU-STAND
(version 2.0) is that all joints were modeled
as fully rigid. In this research, the ability to in-
clude nonlinear joint flexibility is incorporated into
CU-STAND.
ORtlY
SCALE COHN. SCALE
HINGE5 IJNBALRNCE
INFO PRINT
1~ HELP 1 PHOTO 1 RETURN 1
 3-D steel frames with semi-rigid connections
I .3. Objectives and scope
The objective of this research is to develop and
demonstrate a tool to analyze and design two- and
three-dimensional steel structures with semi-rigid
connections for static loads using finite element
analysis techniques. In this paper, the following
aspects of the work are reported:
1.3.1. Development of connection model for use
in analysis and design. Based on previous research on
the behavior and modeling of semi-rigid connection,
an analytic model suitable for the objective of
this research is developed to represent connection
behavior for design applications.
1.3.2. Modeling of connections in three-dimensional
finite element analysis. A nonlinear connection el-
ement is presented which takes into account the
connection flexibility using a finite element approach.
A detailed formulation for the connection element is
presented.
1.3.3. Computer implementation of semi-rigid con-
nections. The semi-rigid connection model is im-
plemented in the interactive analysis and design
system, CU-STAND. Interactive computer graphics
is utilized for defining and editing the connection
model and for assigning connection properties to the
structural model.
1.3.4. Design example. Capabilities and features of
the analysis and design system are demonstrated
using a three-dimensional building frame.
2. MOMENT-ROTATION MODEL FOR CONNECTIONS
As reported by previous researchers, the most
significant connection effects on building frame be-
havior are associated with moment-rotation behav-
ior, and therefore, only major- and minor-axis
rotational flexibility of connections is considered in
the present work. This behavior is modeled by a
nonlinear equation which is calibrated to test data
and normalized for use in design.
2.1. moment-rotation equation
A four-parameter power equation is adopted to
represent the moment-rotation relationship of con-
nections. This nonlinear equation was first presented
by Richard and Abbot [ 121, and was later used by
Kishi and Chen [I l]. With this equation, the mo-
ment-rotation (M-8) relations~p of the connection
is represented by the following expression
M= (1)
As shown in Fig. 2, K, = initial stiffness of the
connection, KP = strain-hardening stiffness of the
connection, MO= a reference moment, and n = a
shape parameter. By differentiating eqn (1) with
997
respect to 8, the tangent stiffness can be expressed as
the following
K,=; = (4 - KJ
n (*+1)/n + %- (2)
I)
This equation was chosen because it can model the
observed experimental data well and the four par-
ameters are related to the physical response of the
connection. One advantage of this model is that it
easily encompasses more simple models. For
example, eqn (1) becomes a linear model if K, = KP,
an elastic-perfectly plastic model if KP = 0, and a
bilinear model when n is large.
To allow for unloading of the connections associ-
ated with nonproportional loading and inelastic force
redist~bution, the two alternative unloading curves
shown in Fig. 2 are provided. One alternative is based
on linear unloading parallel to the initial stiffness, K, ,
The other is based on a nonlinear unloading curve
given by the following equation, where the peak
moments and rotations reached during loading are
h4, and 6. (see Fig. 2)
We-K#‘,-@
M=iv*-
We--K&~,- 0) ’ ‘M
=fo I)
-$(% - 0 (3)
2.2. Determination of parameters
The four parameters of the model may be deter-
mined by several means according to the specific
needs in analysis and design. If experimental data are
available, the most precise representation is obtained
through curve-fitting the model directly to the data.
Where test data are not available, as in typically the
case in design, the parameters may be determined
using analytic formulations for the connection
strength and stiffness if the connection details are
known. In design practice, however, it is usually the
case that the connection details may not be known
until after the structural members have been sized. As
described below, a third method proposed for deter-
mining the parameters is based on using standardized
curves to provide the general shape of the response
curve and analytic (design) methods to calculate the
nominal connection strength. The standardized
curves are obtained from statistical analysis of nor-
malized curves which were curve-fit to experimental
data previously collected by Kishi and Chen [lo, 1l]
and Goverdhan [St].
Curve $tting from experimental data. An optimiz-
ation approach utilizing the conjugate-gradient
method is used to find a set of parameters (MO, Ke,
KP, and n) which gives the best curve-fit to exper-
imental response data [8]. An example of the curve-
fitting results for top- and seat-angle connections with
998 S.-H. Hsizu and G. G. DEIERL.EIN

double web angles (TSAW) is shown in Fig. 3. In

general, the curve-fitting results produce good
agreement with the experimental results.
Standardized connection reference curves. In struc-
tural design practice, it is ~likely that specific infor-
mation regarding the connection details will be
known during preliminary design, and even during
final design, this information may not be available
until after the structural members have been sized.
Since connection flexibility will affect the structural
response and therefore the required member sizes,
there is a need to develop some means of amounting
for connection behavior in the analysis during the
design process before final member sizes are selected.
One solution is to use standardized connection
reference curves which are based on test data and
normalized for use in design.
To generalize eqns (lH3) for design, the moment-
rotation expressions are first normalized with
respect to a reference value of moment which is Fig. 2. Moment vs rotation model for semi-rigid connec-
tions.
defined herein as the nominal connection capacity,
M,. The normalized expressions are identical to
eqns (l)-(3) except that M, M,, K,, and Kp are angle connections with double web angles (TSAW
replaced by M’ = M~~~~, M; = M~lM~~, K:= KJ connections).
M, and K; = KJM,,, respectively. An example Using the curve-fitting technique described pre-
is presented below to illustrate how the nor- viously, eqn (1) was calibrated to experimental data
malized curves are developed for top- and seat- for the TSAW connections, resulting in the curves

o Test dala
- Curve-f i1

F I 1 4
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 SD.0
Relallve rolatlon (111000 red. 1
Fig. 3. Comparison between curve-fitting results and experimental results for TSAW connections.
 3-D steel frames with semi-rigid connections
shown in Fig. 3. The curves were then normalized by
a value of M, equal to the moment resisted at an
applied rotation of 0.02 radian. This value was
chosen after considering several alternate normaliza-
tion schemes, further details of which are reported by
Hsieh [8]. The normalization procedure results in the
set of curves shown in Fig. 4. For a given type of
connection, this procedure provides a convenient
means of condensing the data from a large number of
tests by eliminating variations due to scale (strength)
effects.
From the normalized curves shown in Fig. 4, the
three standard reference curves shown in Fig. 5 were
developed. The center (TSAW-Ave) curve was ob-
tained by fitting a curve through the average of the
normalized set of curves in Fig. 4. The upper and
lower curves in Fig. 5 reflect a variation from the
average curve of plus or minus two standard devi-
ations. Assuming the variation in connection re-
sponse is random and normally distributed, the
region between the upper and lower curves in Fig. 5
encompasses roughly 95% of the sampled data.
Similar curves can be developed for other connection
types. Parameters for the three curves shown in Fig. 5
are presented in Table 1.
The aim of this approach is to establish a library
of standard reference curves for common connection
configurations. Then, for analysis and design of the
overall structure, only the connection type and nom-
inal capacity would need to be defined. Standard
curves such as those shown in Fig. 5 can be used to
investigate the design for the range of expected
structural behavior without unnecessary concern over
the precise behavior of the final connection details.
1.4
1.2
Honenl rallo
I
10.0 20.0
Fig. 4. Normalized moment-rotation
999
3. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
SEMI-RIGID FRAMES
As noted previously, the connection model was
incorporated into the nonlinear analysis and design
program, CU-STAND. An important aspect of the
model implementation is that it did not require
fundamental changes to the existing geometric and
material nonlinear model for the elastic-plastic
beam-column elements in CU-STAND. The follow-
ing is a summary of the formulation and computer
implementation.
3.1. Modeling of the beam-column element
The beam-column element in CU-STAND in-
cludes both geometric and material nonlinearities. A
brief review of the formulation is given in this section;
more details are contained in [16].
Beam-columns are modeled as line elements with
12 degrees-of-freedom, consisting of three trans-
lations and three rotations, at each end of the el-
ement. Common beam theory assumptions, such as
homogeneous and isotropic material, plane sections
remain plane, doubly symmetric prismatic sections
with no cross-section distortion, and small strain
theory, are employed in the formulation of the el-
ement stiffness. In linear elastic analyses, the element
stiffness is the conventional linear elastic stiffness
matrix, [k,] (see, for example, Chapter 4 in [18]). For
second-order analyses, geometric nonlinearities are
handled through the use of element geometric stiff-
ness matrices [k,] and an updated Lagrangian formu-
lation. The nodal coordinates and the terms in [k,]
are updated at the end of each incremental/iterative
30.0 40.0 50.0
Aelallve rolallon ~I/1000 red.)
connection curves for TSAW connections.
1000 S.-H. HSIEHand G. G. DEIERLEIN

1.4
+ llonenl rallo

1 I
I
I
I
I
1 .I
4 1
I
I
I
I
0
8
I
I
1 1
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Relative rotallon (111000 rab.)

Fig. 5. Standardized moment-rotation curves for TSAW connections.

load step. For inelastic analyses, material nonlineari-
ties are included through the use of element plastic
reduction matrices [k,,] which are based on a three-
parameter yield surface for modeling cross-section
plastification due to axial load and major- and minor-
axis bending. This is a concentrated plasticity model
approach where it is assumed that zero-length plastic
hinges form at the end of each element. Details of the
stiffness matrices [k,], [kg], and [k,] are provided in
1161.
The incremental element equilibrium equations can
be written in the following form
IdsI = We1+ [&I+ tk,lW~ = [k,lIduI.
In eqn (4), {ds} is the vector of incremental element
end forces; {du} is the vector of incremental element
displacements; [k,], [kg], and [k,] are elastic, geo-
metric, and plastic reduction matrices, respectively;
and [k,] is the resulting element tangent stiffness
matrix. Depending on the type of analysis (e.g.,
first-order or second-order, elastic or inelastic), [kg]
and/or [k,] may not be included in the analysis.
The global incremental equilibrium equations are
written as the following
W) = KIWI. (5)
In eqn (5), (dP} is the incremental load vector
applied on the entire structure, {dU} is the
(4) global incremental displacement vector, and [K,]
is the global stiffness matrix obtained by assembling
the transformed element tangent stiffness matrices,
kl.

Table 1. Standard reference curve parameters for TSAW connections

Curve MO’ Ke Kp’ n

TSAW-Upper 0.93 436 4.0 1.62

THAW-Ave 0.90 266 7.6 1.40

‘I’SAW-Lower 0.80 132 12.0 2.00

 3-D steel frames with semi-rigid connections
3.2. Modeling of semi-rigid connections
Zero length connection elements are used to permit
relative flexural rotations between connected mem-
bers; the connections do not allow for relative tor-
sional rotation or translational displacements. When
a semi-rigid connection is specified at one end of a
member, the global rotational degrees-of-freedom at
the corresponding structural node are associated with
the connection element. The corresponding local
rotational degrees-of-freedom between the member
end and connection are treated as additional
global unknowns of the structural system and are
included in the global equilibrium equations [i.e.,
eqn (5)]. Condensation is not used here because it
is not as efficient for nonlinear analyses in which
stifiness matrices are updated many times. In
the formulation, the additional rotational degrees-
of-freedom described above are always measured
with respect to the local member coordinates even
though they are treated as global unknowns in
eqn (5).
To introduce the local degrees-of-fr~dom into
the global solution system, the conventional
element transformation matrices are modified for
the elements with semi-rigid connections. The
modified matrices are used to transform the
element stiffness matrices from the local to the
global coordinate system with some of the un-
knowns retaining their local coordinate reference
axes.
A key advantage of this approach is that the
existing nonlinear formulation for the beam-column
elements is unaffected. This avoids the difficulty
(particularly for three-dimensional problems) of di-
rectly formulating the connection flexibility into the
nonlinear element stiffness matrices, [Jr,] and [k,]. The
use of separate connection elements also facilitates
further modifications to the connection model (for
example, to account for the finite size of the connec-
-& _,Semi-rigid
Beam ab
Fig. 6. Structural d&ret&ion for a beamxolumn
1001
tion or for including additional connection degrees-
of-freedom). On the other hand, a ~~dv~~ge of
this approach is that it increases the total number of
degrees-of-freedom in the global system of equations.
However, this disadvantage is becoming less signifi-
cant with the continuing improvement of computer
hardware.
Example formulation. An example is presented to
demonstrate the formulation and transformation of
the beam-column element stiffnesses with nonlinear
connection ~exibility. A portion of a three-dimen-
sional structure discretized in a global coordinate
system with orthogonal axes X, Y and Z is shown in
Fig. 6. The connection elements Aa and Bb connect
the beam ab to the nodes A and B. For clarity, the
connection elements are shown ‘exploded’ to a finite
length but are actually zero-length. The local (or
element) coordinate system of the beam ab with
orthogonal axes x, y and z is also shown. In general,
the local coordinate axis (x, y, z) are arbitrarily ori-
ented with respect to the global coordinate axes
X Y, Z).
In Fig. 6, the degr~s-of-fr~dom {DOFs) at
nodes A and B are represented using the displace-
ment components in the global coordinates, and
the DOFs of beam ab are shown in terms of
local coordinates at both ends of the beam. In the
displacement components, AV and (&, the first
subscript i refers to the global or local com-
ponent axes and the second subscript j refers to
the global or member node designation. These
subscripts are also used in developing the ex-
pressions for the forces and moments, 41 and M,,
respectively.
In the example considered, it is assumed that
the connection element Aa includes both major-axis
and minor-axis rotational flexibility while the connec-
tion Bb is rigid. Aside from major- and minor-axis
flexure, no other deformations are considered in the
connection Aa.
Rigid
with zero-length connections.
1002 S.-H. HSEEIand G. G. DEIERLEIN

Matrix notations. The following matrix notations Since, in this particular case, no connection flexi-
are used for the modeling formulation bility is considered at end b of the beam, the displace-
ment and force transformations are aiven in the
[y13X3= the conventional rotation matrix of beam following standard forms
ab

[II2 x z = identity matrix

=Pl
r1 AXB
ArB

(9)

[T,Lxe= the first four rows of [G]

[T2 I2 x 6 = the last two rows of [G].

Member transformation matrix. At end a of beam

ab, relative major- and minor-axis rotations between
the beam end and the node to which it is connected
(10)
(0,, and 19,~)are allowed. Transfer of the global DOFs
at node A into the local coordinate system is done by
the following equation

Using eqns (7)--(10), the transformation matrix of

beam ab can be written as the following

I J
eYA
e ZA
PI I2 x 14 =
[Gll,x,
0
0
[G’&., 1 (11)
’

This matrix is then used to transform the element

Adding 6,, and oz. to eqn (6), results in the following stiffness matrix from the local to the global system,
equation which relates the local beam DOFs to the where the equilibrium equations from beam ab in the
mixed (local and global) DOFs considered in the global system are given as follows:
global system of equations

AXA
A YA
-I
F“,l,., 0 AZA In eqn (15) Kbh X14= Kblf, X12M12 XdrbL2 x l4r
e XA
[k,] = element tangent stiffness matrix of the beam ab
[eqn (4)], and {Fl}, {F2}, {D 1}, and {02} are defined
e YA
in eqns (7x10). Note that e,, and oz, in {Dl} are
0 PI2x2 e ZA local rotations at end a of the beam and Mya and M,
e
N
in {F 1) are the corresponding member end moments
9 in
measured in local coordinates.
Stiffness matrix of connection Aa. Given K, = the
(7) tangent stiffness of connection Aa for major-axis
(z-axis) bending, KY = the tangent stiffness for minor-
Similarly, equilibrium gives the following transform- axis (y-axis) bending, and the relative connection
ation of forces from the local to the mixed global rotations are (6iA-6lo) and (fJ,,-e,,), respectively, the
system equilibrium equations for connection element Aa are
FXA given as the following

F YA
‘[T,l,.e 0 F ZA
MXA

MYA

0 m2x MzA
eYA
Mya e
M,, =k14x4 e:,: . (13)
ii
=[G%.,Wh.,. (8) I8 TO
J
 3-D steal framea with semi-rigid connections 1003

In eqn (13), [k,] is the tangent stiffness of connection

Aa measured in local coordinates.
Tr~formation of connection stiftiress. From com-
patibility at node A, the internal (local) displacements
are related to the global displacements by the follow- (17)
ing equation in which [TJ was defined previously

AX.4

1
A YA
8 A Extensionfor other situations. The transformation
uA =tT*l*Yb e; (14)
11e L4 procedure demonstrated above in eqns (6)+7) can
e be modified to cover connections with only major-
e; or minor-axis rotational flexibility and for beam-
column elements with connections at both ends.
All of these cases are included in the computer
implementation in CU-STAND.
Note that the first three columns of [T,] are null for
the present case of i~tesim~ joint size and non- 3.3. Computer ~ple~~t~tio~
eccentric member ends. In addition to implementing the connection model
Adding 13~~and 6, to eqn (14), and using a similar noted above, control menu’s were added in CU-
transformation for forces, the displacement and force STAND for definition of the connection parameters
tr~fo~ations at the connation are given by eqns and to locate connations by graphically attaching
(15) and (16) them to specific members. One of the connection
editor menus is shown in Fig. 7 through which the
AXA user can interactively assign the four parameters
which define the shape of the connection model and
A YA
the nominal connection strength, M,. Based on the
F212xt5 AZA user input, a plot of the moment rotation curve for
0 XA the connection is shown in the viewport in the upper
B YA left portion of the screen. In the program, the four
connection parameters can be either specified directly
8 ZA
2 by the user, chosen from a library of values for
~.
8Ye standard connection types, or generated from mo-
e II? ment-rotation data using the built-in curve-fitting
routine. The nominal connection strength, M, can be
(15) specified either as an absolute value or as some
fraction of the plastic moment of the member, Mti,
to which the connection is attached. The latter option
is particularly suited to an iterative design process
FXA where connection and members properties are un-

!
FYA
known at the outset and updated in the course of
design.
FZA
MXA 4. APPLICATION TO DESIGN
MYA
A case study is presented to demonstrate appli-
MZA
cation of the compu~r-~ded analysis system for
MY# investigating the design and behavior of a low-rise
Ma, three-dimensional steel frame with partially re-
strained connections. The frame geometry, member
(16) sizes, and loading am shown in Fig. 8. Partially
restrained TSAW (top- and seat-angle with double
web angles) beam-column connections are used for
Using the transformation matrix [fc] from eqns framing in both directions and the column base plate
(IS) and (16), the equilibrium equations for connec- details are modeled as EEPS (extended end plate with
tion Aa in the global system are given as the follow- stiffeners) connections. The member sixes shown were
ing, where Kclr Xr = V’CIS’~ #cl, x,V’cl~x8 and designed based on the AISC-LRFD specification
[kc] = element stiffness matrix of connection AP provisions with members forces calculated by the
measured in local coordinates nonlinear analysis described below. In the analysis

CA.5 41/s-I
1004 S.-H. Hsrtxand G. G. DEJERLEIN

model, beams were discretized into four elements and assumed above (i.e., ML = Mcd= 0.65 M,), The re-
gravity loads were applied at the quarter points of duction factor of 0.65 was chosen based on a re-
beams in the Noah-South (N-S) direction to ap- liability analysis described in (171. As will be
proximate loads applied through the one-way joist demonstrated, the reduced value of the connection
floor system. In this case, the strength limit state for strength provides a conservative estimate of the over-
the frame was controlled by the factored gravity load all strength and stiffness of the frame. Based on this
combination, 1.2 DL + 1.6 LL. approach, the following values of Ml,, were used in
In the analysis, all beam-column connections and the analysis: TSAW (N-S), M;,, = 0.26 Mph; TSAW
the column base plate connections were modeled (E-w), M:, = 0.56 Mph; and EEPS column base,
using the procedure described previously. The TSAW M& = 1.OMph. For the subsequent inelastic analyses
beam-column connections were modeled using the described below, resistance (reduction) factors were
set of normalized average parameters presented in also applied to the member yield surfaces to reflect
Table 1 (i.e., TSAW-Ave). The connection design the design, rather than the nominal, member cross-
strength was assigned as a fraction of the plastic section strengths (e.g., the design plastic moment was
moment capacity of the connected members. For taken as 0.9 M,,). In this way, resistance factors are
framing in the N-S direction which carried most of included in the inelastic analyses based on an ap-
the gravity load, the nominal connection strength, proach suggested by Ziemian et al. 1191which follows
M,, was taken as 40% of the plastic moment ca- the philosophy of the AISC-LRFD specification.
pacity of the connected member (i.e., 0.4 M,,), and Once the member sizes were selected based on the
for framing in the E-W direction, M, was taken as analysis and design assumptions described above,
0.8 Mph. The column base plate connections were additional nonlinear (second-order inelastic) analyses
modeled as EEPS connections connections with were made to investigate the limit strength of the
M En= 1.5 Mph. The normalized parameters for the frame and its sensitivity to the assumed connection
EEPS connections are equal to the following values properties. The connection models used in the five
based on [17]: k:= 185, Kj = 1.6, MA= 1.05 and cases are summarized in Table 2. In case A, which is
n = 1.54. the basic case, the connection properties are the same
For strength design purposes, a reduced (design) as those used in the o~~na1 analysis used to deter-
connection strength, MC,,, is used in the analysis mine the member sizes. In cases B and C, the
which is equal to 0.65 times the nominal strengths parameters are modified to reflect the upper and

1.11 “’ “lmr h,,

12.5EP.911

IIII [U-STAND

1 EDITOR
“’
1..

, ‘S’
“0’

Rlpld Pin D.ZfOUll 1 oats

~
&to, . Q.OOE-01
or
Ke’ * 2.66E*O2
“o..nl~“~LlllO” I~Ylll~” “SW,
Kp’ . 7.50E*O0
*I’ll,
” * I.4OE+DD *.. __._.......................
n t,n
,, . / I(l’llr,*o. I 1
“En . 0.81 tlPb
1
. XII.S.C

Hinor Rxls [ Local-Y ) “‘. *t.EtY.tw3nsnl~l”cn

mw Ea”“~O‘,D” nD.tn*l
RlQid f P,” j Qcrsul t 1 oate
d**lQn r,r.npul

..-_ . . . . “pb. *,.*t,c **.mt or Lk8

“0’ *
.dJ.c*n‘ b... or EO”“*E‘I*”
KI’ . _. - . . . . .
*r- ,*I.,,*. ,OL.LlO”
KP’ . _. _. _ “0.. r*r.r.no. .O”.“l P.,lP

_....... II’. 8.. . re’

n .
“. m,P. pw*.,,w
“C” . I.00 llpb
I RETURN
HELP PHOTO

Fig, 7. Menu page used for defining connection properties.

 3-D steel frames with semi-rigid connections 1005

w
b 81 83

11 H-t i -t

b
s 61 83 83

65 UYP) I
a )(I H-t -I---
b 82 84 84

@ ‘!I H-t i- t

DL: Root 25 psf, Floor 75 psf

LL: Roof 27 psf. Fkor 42 psf (‘)
WL: 20 psf in each diiion
(‘) Live beds are reduced valuesperANSi A66.1 (1666)

Bl - Roof W16X26 A.l, A.6. D.l, 0.6 W12X26

Bl - Flaw w21 x44 6.1, Cl, B.6. C.6 W12X35
82 - Roof W12X14 A.2 - 6 W 12X35
62-w W 16X26 8.2 - 5 w12x63
W-Roof w21 x44 C.2-6 W 12X45
B3-Flow W24X76 0.2 - 5 W12X26
W-Roof W12X26
B4-Fbor w21x44
86 WlPXl6 All SteelGradeA36 (36 k8i)
Fig. 8. Low-rise building frame with partially restrained connections,

Table 2. Assumed connection properties

Case East-We& Framing Column Reee Rate

L
North-South F’raming

curve Men’ curve Men’ Curve Men’

A
I
IB
TSAW-Ave

TSAW-Upper
0.26 Mpb

0.26 Mpb
TSAW-Ave

TSAW-Upper
0.52 Mph

0.52 Mpb
EEPS-Ave

EEPS-Upper
1.0 Mpb

1.0 Mpb

C TSAW-Lower 0.26 Mpb TSAW-Lower 0.52 Mpb EEPS-Lower 1 .OMpb

D TSAW-Ave 0.40 Mpb TSAW-Ave 0.80 Mpb EEPS-Ave 1.5 Mpb

E Rigid Rigid Rigid

I
1006 S.-H. Hsran and G. G. DEIERLEIN

load combination. In Fig. 9, and throughout this

example, the applied load is reported in terms of a
fraction of the factored gravity load where, for
example, an applied load ratio of 1.0 corresponds to
application of the full factored load combination
(1.2 DL + 1.6 LL). The analyses were stopped when
the inelastic limit point was reached as detected by
zero diagonal terms in the global stiffness matrix.
Numerical values corresponding to the analysis re-
sults are reported in Tables 36.
As shown in Fig. 9, all of the frames with partially
restrained connections experienced large inelastic
drifts prior to reaching their inelastic limit strength,
0.4 but these drifts were not excessive prior to application

‘0.2

II :
I.0
:
2.0
;
3.0
;
4.0
;
5.0
;
6.0 1.0

Drilt in N-S Direction (inches)

; ;
9.0
:
9.0
(

IO.0
Fig. 9. Load-deformation response under factored gravity
loads.
lower bound connection response curves shown pre-
viously in Fig. 5. In case D, the unreduced nominal
connection strength (i.e., without the reduction factor
of 0.65) is used in the analysis. Note that the differ-
ences between cases A, B, and C is mainly with regard
to the shape of the response curve, whereas in case D
the strength is varied. Finally, in case E, all connec-
tions are treated as perfectly rigid. As noted pre-
viously, the design strength was governed by the
gravity load combination and the limit state analyses
were conducted for this loading.
The overall load-deformation behavior for each
case is shown in Fig. 9 where the applied load ratio
is plotted versus the lateral roof drift in the N-S
direction, Note that since the frame is not symmetric
in the N-S direction, drift occurred under the gravity
of the full factored gravity load combination. For
example, for case A the drift at the full factored load
(applied load ratio = 1.O) was approximately 0.6 in.
which corresponds to a drift index of H/767 where H
is the building height. However, at the limit point the
drift for this frame equaled 8.1 inches which corre-
sponds to a drift index of H/57. The large drifts at the
limit point demonstrate that even for low rise build-
ings, where partially restrained connections are used,
second order (geometrically nonlinear) effects should
be considered.
The location of plastic hinges at the inelastic limit
points for the partially restrained frame (case A) is
shown in Fig. 10. In general, all of the partially
restrained frames (cases A-D) had a similar pattern
of hinges. As indicated in Fig. 9 and Table 3, the first
hinges formed at 94-105% of the full factored load;
this is expected since the original AISC-LRFD design
for case A was based on the most critical members
reaching their plastic limit strength at an applied load
ratio of approximately 1.0. As shown in the inset of
Fig. 9, for the partially restrained frames, the first
hinges occurred due to large minor-axis bending
moments in the top story columns along column line
A (columns A.2-A.5). In the rigid frame, the first

Table 3. Applied load ratios from inelastic analysis for gravity loads

Condition Partially Be&mined Rigid

A B C D E

1st Hinge 1.02 0.95 1.04 1.05 0.94

Limit Point 1.24 1.22 1.26 1.30 1.36

Table 4. Lateral drift in north-south directions under gravity loads (in.)

Load Level Partially Beatmined Rigid

A B C D E

Pull Factored 0.61 1.02 0.45 0.47 0.19

Limit Point 8.13 8.51 7.38 6.88 0.76

 3-D steel frames with semi-rigid connections 1007

Table 5. Midspan beam deflections under gravity loads: beam B3-roof

level (in.)
--- ~~
Load Level Partially F&trained Rigid

A B C D E

FuIl Factored 2.03 1.98 2.08 1.77 0.49

Limit point 4.65 4.31 4.83 4.13 2.31

Table 6. Connection rotations under gravity loads (radian)

Load Level PartiaIIy Restrained

A B C D

hinges formed at approximately the same applied
load ratio but at different locations; in case E the first
hinges formed due to negative bending at the interior
ends of beams B4 adjacent to column line C.
In general, the difference in the inelastic limit
strength due to variations in the normalized connec-
tion parameters (K:; K;, Mh and n) was not signifi-
cant. As reported in Table 3, the applied load ratios
at the inelastic limit for cases B and C were within
1.6% of case A. By comparing cases A and D, it was
evident, however, that the connection strength used
in the analysis had a greater effect on the response
where a 50% increase in connection strength (l/0.65)
increased the overall system strength by approxi-
mately 5%. While this is not a major increase in
strength, it is somewhat significant if considering
that, for the case with perfectly rigid connections
(case E) the total strength increase was only 10%
compared to case A.
Differences between the connection response par-
ameters caused a large variation in calculated lateral
drifts at full factored loads, but relatively little differ-
ences in drifts at the limit points. Also, the differences
in parameters had little influence on the calculated
vertical beam deflections. As reported in Table 4,
under the full factored loads, the calculated roof drift
for case B was 67% greater and for case C was 26%
less than for case A. The 50% increase in connection
strength in case D decreased the drift by 23% com-
pared to case A, and for the rigid frame (case E) the
drift was 69% less than case A. At the limit point,
however, the drifts for cases A, B, and C were all
within lo%, and the drift for case D was 15% less
than case A. Overall, the rigid frame experienced
much less drift and at the limit point the drift was
90% less than that of the partially restrained frames.
As shown in Table 5, the beam deflections for cases
B and C were all within 3-8% of those for case A, and

Fig. 10. Hinge locations for partially restrained frame at the inelastic limit point under gravity loads.
1008 S.-H. HSIEHand G. G.
the deflections for case D were ll-13% less than
those for case A. Beam deflections in the rigid frame
were 50-75% less than those for case A.
The maximum connection rotations for each case
are reported in Table 6. As shown, at the full factored
load the maximum rotations (roughly 0.017-0.018
radian for cases A-C and 0.014 for case D) were less
than 0.020 radian. This lends validity to the analysis
since the nominal connection capacity was defined as
the moment resisted at a rotation of 0.020 radian. At
the limit point, the maximum rotations were between
0.043 and 0.051 radian. In general, these rotations
seem to be in a permissible range based on the
deformation capacities reported from tests. It should
be noted that in other examples which the authors
have studied, connection rotations calculated in the
analysis were sometimes in excess of 0.050 radian,
particularly where local beam mechanisms form prior
to reaching the inelastic limit point.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The development and application of an interactive
computer-aided analysis and design system for three-
dimensional steel framed structures have been pre-
sented. The three main components of this work
presented herein include (1) development and cali-
bration of a nonlinear connection model amenable to
analysis and design, (2) stiffness formulation of a
three-dimensional beam-column element to model
the effects of nonlinear connections and geometric
and material nonlinear member response, and (3)
demonstration of the computer implementation using
an interactive-graphics user interface.
A unique feature of the computer-aided system is
the development and calibration of normalized con-
nection response curves for use in design. The im-
plementation is particularly well suited for practical
use during development of a building design when the
detailed connection properties are not yet known.
Using the system, a three-dimensional low-rise
building frame was designed and analyzed to assess
the influence of partially restrained connections on
the inelastic limit state response under gravity load-
ing. The results indicate that the overall frame re-
sponse is relatively insensitive to modest variations in
the parameters which define the shape of the normal-
ized connection response curves. Of greater import-
ance with regard to overall behavior is the nominal
strength of the connections used in the analysis. The
results indicate that in general an increase in the
connection strength (and indirectly the stiffness) re-
sults in a higher inelastic limit state. The observed
load-deformation response demonstrates the need to
consider nonlinear geometric (second-order) behav-
ior for evaluating the strength limit state of frames
with partially restrained connections. Computer-
aided analysis and design systems such as the one
presented offer an effective and rational means
DHERLEIN
for evaluating the realistic performance of partially
restrained frames.
Acknowledgements-The work reported in this paper was
supported by the National Center for Earthquake Engin-
eering Research (Project 88-1005A and 87-1008) and the
National Science Foundation (Grant MM-8908870). The
contributions of faculty, staff, and student colleagues are
gratefully acknowledged, in particular the advice of Pro-
fessors J. F. Abel and W. McGuire of Cornell University
and Professor T. W. Lin of National Taiwan University,
and the many individuals who contributed to the develop-
ment of the computer programs utilized in this work.
Finally, the assistance of Professors D. W. White and
W. Chen of Purdue University who provided the data bank
of connection tests used in this work is appreciated. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
REFERENCES
1. W. F. Chen (Ed.), Connection flexibility and steel frames.
Proceedings of a session held in conjunction with the AISC
convention, Detroit, MI, U.S.A., October 24, 1985),
Structural Division of the ASCE, New York (1985).
2. D. Anderson, F. Biilaard, D. A. Nethercot and
R. Zandonini, Analysis and design of steel frames with
semi&id connections. IABSE Survevs S-39/87 11987).
3. W. F. ?hen (Guest Ed.), Special is&e on join; flex;-
bility in steel frames. 1. Construct. Steel. Res. Vol. 8
(1987).
4. W. F. Chen (Guest Ed.), Special issue on steel beam-to-
column building connections. J. Construct. Steel. Res.
Vol. 10 (1988).-
5. R. Bjorhovde, J. Brozzetti and A. Colson (Eds), Con-
nections in steel structures-behaviour, strength and
design. Proceedings of a state-of-art workshop on Con-
nections and the Behaviour, Strength and Design of Steel
Structures, France, May 25-27, 1987. Elsevier, London
(1988).
6. Maniai of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance
Factor Des&. 1st Ed. AISC. Chicago. IL (1986).
7. Eurocode io. 3-Design of Steel &uctu;es, Edited
Draft Issue 3. Commission of European Communities,
April (1990).
8. S. H. Hsieh, Analysis of three-dimensional steel frames
with semi-rigid connections. Structural Engineering
Report No. 90-1, School of Civil and Enironmental
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (1990).
9. A. V. Goverdhan, A collection of experimental
moment-rotation curves and evaluation of predicting
eauations for semi-rigid connections. M.S. thesis, De-
partment of Civil Engineering, Vanderbilt ‘University,
Nashville, TN (1983).
10. N. Kishi and W. F. Chen, Data base on steel beam-to-
column connections. CE-STR-86-26, School of Civil
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
(1986).
11. W. F. Chen and N. Kishi, Semirigid steel beam-to-
column connections: data base and modelling. J. Struct.
Engng. 115, 105-119 (1989).
12. R. M. Richard and B. J. Abbot, Versatile elastic-plastic
stress-strain formula. J. Engng. Mech. Div. ASCE 101,
511-515 (1975).
13. W. McGuire and J. L. Castaner, Applications ot com-
puter graphics to building design. Proceedings, Third
Conference on Steel Developments, Australian Institute
of Steel Construction, Monash University (1985).
 3-D steel frames with semi-rigid connections
14. G. G. Deierlein, W. McGuire, J. F. Abel and
S. Srivastav, Some interactive graphics and parallel pro-
cessing for earthquake engineering. In Computer Utiliz-
ation in Structural Engineering (Edited by J. K. Nelson).
ASCE Structures Congress, San Francisco (1989).
15. W. McGuire, G. G. Deierlein, T. K. Sooi and Y. T.
Zhao, Illustrated Primer to CU-PREPF, CU-STAND
and CU-QUAND. Struct. Engrg. Report 89-12, School
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell Uni-
versity, Ithaca, NY (1989).
16. S. H. Hsieh, G. G. Deierlein, W. McGuire and J. F.
Abel, Technical manual for C&STAND. Struct. Engrg.
1009
Report 89-13, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (1989).
17. Y. J. Shen, Computer aided design of steel frames with
partially restrained connections. M.S. thesis, School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, NY (1990).
18. W. McGuire and R. H. Gallagher, Matrix Structural
Analysis. John Wiley NY (1979).
19. R. Ziemian, D. W. White, G. G. Deierlein and
W. McGuire, One approach to inelastic analysis and
design. Proceedings of 1990 National Steel Construction
Conference, AISC, Chicago, 19-1 to 19-19 (1990).