Articles
Ronald D. Ziemian*
Jean C. Batista Abreu
Design by advanced analysis – 3D benchmark problems
Members subjected to major- and minor-axis flexure
Steel design codes continue to be expanded to permit the use of
more advanced methods of non-linear analysis. Designers look-
ing to employ such methods need to validate their analysis soft-
ware and, just as importantly, verify their ability to utilize it prop-
erly. The literature contains many benchmark problems and
­results to help achieve this, but nearly all are limited to two-­
dimensional behaviour. This paper is intended to contribute a new
set of benchmark problems in order to help satisfy the need for a
database of examples in which accurate modelling of three-­
dimensional or spatial behaviour is essential.
1 Introduction
More and more specifications worldwide are providing de-
signers with opportunities to take advantage of the ever-in-
creasing capabilities of non-linear frame analysis software.
One such example is the American Institute of Steel Con-
struction’s Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. In
2010 this specification [1] included completely revised pro-
visions for design by inelastic analysis. With an emphasis
on taking advantage of the potential redistribution of
member and connection forces and moments which can
occur as a result of localized yielding, these provisions rep-
resent a logical extension of the AISC’s direct analysis
method, which first appeared in the AISC specification in
2005 [2]. Most recently, the AISC specification [3] has
again been expanded to provide opportunities for design-
ers who employ a second-order elastic analysis that is more
rigorous than the traditional P-Δ and P-δ methods expected
for the application of the original direct analysis method.
By using an analysis that also accounts for twist when for-
mulating equilibrium equations on the deformed shape
and includes the explicit modelling of system sway and
member out-of-straightness imperfections as well as an in-
elastic stiffness reduction factor, the compression strengths
of members may now be taken as their cross-sectional
strength. Although this new approach is based on elastic
analysis and therefore does not permit an inelastic redistri-
bution of internal forces and moments, it can be particu-
larly useful for design situations in which the definitions of
the unbraced lengths or effective lengths are not readily
apparent. Such cases include, but are not limited to, arches
and unbraced Vierendeel girders, in which the member
* Corresponding author:
ziemian@bucknell.edu
24 © Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 1
DOI: 10.1002/stco.201810011
may be curved and/or the compressive axial force varies
along a member’s unbraced length.
Key requirements for applying a design method that
relies heavily on a rigorous second-order analysis are con-
firmation of the software’s capabilities and, just as impor-
tantly, the designer’s proficiency in using such software.
Given that the literature now contains many plane frame
examples that can be used for such verifications, the pur-
pose of this paper is to provide results for three benchmark
problems in which significant twist develops primarily as a
result of second-order effects. These three-dimensional ver-
ification studies, which focus on beams and beam-columns,
are intended to represent only a few of the array of bench-
mark problems that an engineer should complete before
using sophisticated levels of analysis to design steel struc-
tures.
2  Why a little twist hurts
Consider the beam-column shown in Fig. 1. The member
is subjected to a compressive force Pu and uniformly dis-
tributed load ωuy, which is assumed to track the direction
of gravity and therefore always remain vertical. For now, it
is further assumed that no out-of-plane distributed load
and end moments are applied (ωux = 0, MX = 0, MY = 0).
The analytical model also includes an initial out-of-plane
imperfection with amplitude δox at mid-span. In applying
the given loads, the member will not only bend in- and out-
of-plane, but will also twist. Based on the resulting mid-
span deflections δx, δy and θ, an equilibrium analysis on the
deformed shape will result in the following major- and mi-
nor-axis bending moments at mid-span:
Mux′ = Mst cos θ − M wk sin θ
(1)
Muy′ = Mst sin θ + M wk cos θ
where Mst = ωuy L2/8 + Pu δy and Mwk = Pu (δox + δx).
It is important to note that the moments Mux′ and Muy′,
which refer to the local cross-section axes at mid-span, are
the moments that are intended to be used in any interac-
tion equation design checks.
To gain some insight into the magnitude of the twist-
ing rotation q, let us consider the case in which the com-
pressive axial force is inconsequential, Pu ≈ 0. Substituting
 R. D. Ziemian/J. C. Batista Abreu · Design by advanced analysis – 3D benchmark problems
Fig. 1.  General description of member investigated
the moments from Eq. (1) into AISC’s governing interac-
tion equation, given by
Mux′ Muy′
(2) + ≤ 1.0
ϕMnx ϕMny
and, assuming q is small (cos q = 1 and sin q = q), yields
Mst M θ
(3) + st ≤ 1.0
φMnx φMny
Solving Eq. (3) for an inherent limitation on q results in
 −1 
 Mst  Mnx
θ≤ 
(4) − 1
 φMnx   Mny
 
For the case of no axial force and a range of major- to mi-
nor-axis available strength ratios Mnx/Mny, Fig. 2 provides
a plot of the required-to-available strength ratio for major
axis bending Mst/ϕMnx versus the maximum values of twist
θ permitted per Eq. (4). The curves indicate that attempts
to utilize a member’s major-axis bending capacity to the
full will require that the amount of twist resulting from an
initial out-of-plane member imperfection (or some other
perturbation, such as a small amount of out-of-plane eccen-
tricity of the applied load) will need to be limited. It should
also be noted that using cross-sections with large major- to
minor-axis available strength ratios further exasperates this
limitation on θ – a situation that, for efficiency purposes,
might often be the case for members being designed to re-
sist primarily major-axis bending. Again, the reason for this
behaviour is that assessing equilibrium on the deformed
shape (reality!) requires that large major-axis demands be
resolved into minor-axis demands as the section twists. If
the member has a comparatively smaller amount of mi-
nor-axis available strength, such minor-axis demands can
have a significant impact on the design interaction equa-
tion checks.
3  Analysis software employed
Several commercially available analysis programs were
used to produce the results presented in this paper. In gen-
eral, all of these programs are known to possess rigorous
three-dimensional second-order or geometric non-linear
Fig. 2.  Upper bounds on permitted twist angle θ
analysis capabilities. Given that most of today’s structural
engineering designs are completed using finite element
analyses that employ elastic line or framework elements,
the focus of this paper is to establish such benchmark re-
sults. With regard to torsional resistance, analysis pro-
grams often differ in their ability to model uniform and/or
non-uniform torsion. Programs employed in this study
which only account for the continuous flow of shear
stresses on the section, commonly called uniform or St.
Venant torsional resistance, include SAP2000 [4] and
Strand7 [5]. Analysis software used which also models
warping restraint torques include the line elements within
ADINA [6], ANSYS [7] and ABAQUS [8]. In all cases, ana­
lysis results are provided from models in which the
cross-sectional properties were provided; in other words,
the general or integrated properties, such as the second
moment of area, were defined as input. Although not re-
ported here, nearly identical results are obtained when the
dimensions of the sections are provided as input, with the
software computing the integrated section properties. To
provide comparisons with results obtained using sec-
ond-order inelastic or geometric material non-linear anal-
yses (GMNIA), complete shell and brick element models
were analysed using Strand7 [5]. With the exception of the
shell and brick element results presented, so-called shear
deformations were not included in any of the analyses that
employed line elements.
4 Common properties and support conditions of members
­investigated
All of the beams and beam-columns studied in this paper
have the same geometric properties, material properties
and support conditions. The member comprised a
W460×971 (W18×65) cross-section with a span and un-
braced length of 6.1 m (240 in). The material stiffness and
strength are E = 200 GPa (29 000 ksi), G = 77 GPa
1 d = 467 mm (18.2 in), bf = 193 mm (7.59 in), tw = 11.4 mm
(0.45 in), tf = 19.1 mm (0.75 in), A = 12 300  mm4 (19.1 in2),
Ix = 445×106 mm4 (1070 in4), Iy = 22.8×106 mm4 (54.8 in4),
J = 1140×103 mm4 (2.73 in4), Cw = 1140×109 mm6
(4240 in6)
Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 1 25
R. D. Ziemian/J. C. Batista Abreu · Design by advanced analysis – 3D benchmark problems
(11 154 ksi) and Fy = 345 MPa (50 ksi). When results are
provided in accordance with AISC’s Design by Advanced
Elastic Analysis method, all section properties (A, Ix, Iy, J,
Cw) are reduced by a factor of 0.8 when computing re-
quired strengths. When employing AISC’s Design by Ad-
vanced Inelastic Analysis method, the original section
properties and material yield strength are multiplied by a
reduction factor of 0.9.
All members are simply supported (pinned support
at one end, roller support at the other) with longitudinal
rotation or twist at the member ends restrained. Member
ends are assumed to be warping-free, with cross-flange
bending not resisted at the supports. The axial, flexural
and uniformly distributed loads provided below are as-
sumed to be factored and are applied proportionally. All
applied loads track the original global coordinate system.
For example, a uniformly distributed gravity load is ap-
plied in the vertical direction throughout the loading his-
tory; in other words, the applied loads do not track the
element axes.
For this compact section, unbraced length and sup-
port conditions, the design capacities of the member are
computed to have an axial strength fP n = 952 kN
(214 kip), major-axis flexural strengths fMnx = 380.9 kNm
(3371 kip-in) with Cb = 1 for a uniform moment distribu-
tion and fMnx = 434.2 kNm (3843 kip-in) with Cb =1.14
for a moment gradient produced by a uniformly distrib-
uted load, and a minor-axis flexural strength fMny =
114.4 kNm (1013 kip-in). With these values, the major- to
minor-axis available strength ratios are 3.33 with Cb = 1.0
and 3.79 with Cb = 1.14. It should also be noted that the
cross-section axial strength is fPns = fPy = 3825 kN
(860 kip).
5  Benchmark problems and results
All of the problems below were created and analysed using
imperial units (kips and inches). Results presented below
were obtained by converting moments and deflections
from imperial to SI units.
5.1  Beam subjected to biaxial bending but no axial force
Most structural engineers and design codes associate sec-
ond-order effects with additional moments produced by
eccentricities due to laterally displacing gravity loads in
frames (P-D sway moments) and axial loads in members
(P-d member moments). The primary purpose of this exam-
ple is to provide numerical results for a situation in which
no axial force exists but there are still significant differ-
ences between results obtained ensuring equilibrium on
the deformed shape versus the undeformed shape; in other
words, second-order effects can still be significant even in
the absence of axial force.
Using the member properties and support conditions
defined above and with reference to Fig. 1, the applied
loading includes only the equal and opposite end moments
MX = 323.7 kN-m (2865 kip-in) and MY = 17.17 kN-m
(152 kip-in). The axial force and uniformly distributed
loads shown in Fig. 1 will be taken as Pu = 0 and wux = wuy
= 0, and without including any initial imperfections, e.g.
member out-of-straightness.
26 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 1
Given that there is no axial force, most engineers
and design codes would assume that a first-order elastic
analysis is adequate. For those referring to the AISC
speci­fication, the reduction factor of 0.8 associated with
the direct analysis method for frame design would not be
applied. Using this, the beam would be shown to deflect
vertically in-plane and horizontally out-of-plane, but no
twist would be computed along its length. With q = 0, and
per Eq. (1), the resulting mid-span moments would be
equal to the applied end moments. It should be further
noted that the specific values defined for the applied end
moments were purposely selected such that the beam
would be assessed as adequate in meeting the require-
ments of AISC’s interaction equation, Eq. (2). For refer-
ence, the major- and minor-axis demands equal 85 and
15 % of the member’s available major- and minor-axis
­moment capacities respectively; M ux’/fMnx = 0.85 and
Muy’/fMny = 0.15. Given that the interaction equation
results in a value of unity for an applied load ratio
­
ALR = 1.0, the member proportion could even be defined
as optimal. A summary of these results is provided in the
second column of Table 1.
A rigorous second-order analysis that accounts for
twist and thus assesses equilibrium on the deformed shape
provides significantly different results. The third column of
Table 1 provides results for an analysis that models uni-
form or St. Venant torsion only. Finally, the fourth and fifth
columns of Table 1 provide results for analyses that model
both St. Venant and warping torsion, with the fifth column
also including the 0.8 reduction on stiffness required by
the AISC’s Design by Advanced Elastic Analysis method.
Although a summary of the observations that can be made
from these results will be provided at the conclusion of this
paper, it should be noted that second-order inelastic anal-
yses – which employ either 4080 shell elements or 9120
brick elements with both explicitly modelling yielding ac-
centuated by the presence of residual stresses – show that
the member would fail at an applied load ratio of approx.
ALR = 0.78, or 78 % of the applied end moments. Note that
these latter analyses included a reduction factor of 0.9 on
both the material stiffness and yield strength (0.9E, 0.9Fy),
per the provisions of the AISC’s Design by Advanced Ine-
lastic Analysis method.
5.2  Beam-column with in-plane distributed load
Using the same geometry, member properties and support
conditions as defined above, the applied loadings shown
in Fig. 1 include a range of combinations of in-plane uni-
formly distributed load wuy and axial force Pu. In all cases,
the out-of-plane distributed load and applied end moments
are taken as wux = 0, MX = 0 and MY = 0. For each combi-
nation of loading, three sets of results are provided in Ta-
ble 2. It should be noted that the AISC has adopted signif-
icant portions of Table 2 for inclusion in their commentary
on the 2016 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings [3].
All results are based on assuming that the AISC’s direct
analysis method is being applied, and thus include a stiff-
ness reduction factor of 0.8. Included in these results are
values obtained for the AISC’s governing interaction equa-
tion for assessing members subjected to flexure and axial
force, which is
 R. D. Ziemian/J. C. Batista Abreu · Design by advanced analysis – 3D benchmark problems

Table 1.  Results for beam subject to biaxial bending and no axial force

Effects at First-order Rigorous second-order elastic analysis

mid-span elastic analysis J ≠ 0, Cw = 0, E J ≠ 0, Cw ≠ 0, E J ≠ 0, Cw ≠ 0, 0.8E
ALR 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mux′ kNm (kip-in) 323.7 (2865) 293.7 (2599) 321.3 (2843) 304.2 (2692)
Muy′ kNm (kip-in) 17.2 (152) 137.3 (1215) 43.8 (388) 112 (992)
dy mm (in) 16.9 (0.665) 53.2 (2.09) 19.5 (0.768) 50.1 (1.97)
dx mm (in) 17.5 (0.689) 107 (4.20) 38.4 (1.51) 111 (4.39)
q rad (deg) 0.00 (0.00) 0.384 (22.0) 0.0828 (4.74) 0.300 (17.2)
AISC Int. Eq. (2) 1.00 1.97 1.23 1.78
ALR, Int. Eq ≈ 1 1.00 0.80 0.88 0.81
Mux′ kNm (kip-in) 323.7 (2865) 256.4 (2269) 283. 7 (2511) 260.0 (2301)
Muy′ kNm (kip-in) 17.2 (152) 39.0 (345) 29.5 (261) 36.7 (325)
dy mm (in) 16.9 (0.665) 16.3 (0.641) 16.0 (0.628) 20.0 (0.787)
dx mm (in) 17.5 (0.689) 33.8 (1.33) 26.7 (1.05) 40.1 (1.58)
q rad (deg) 0.00 0.0978 (5.60) 0.0505 (2.89) 0.0874 (5.01)
AISC Int. Eq. (2) 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00

P  Muy′  produced by cross-flange bending along the length of the

u + 8 M ux′ + Pu
  ≤ 1.0 when ≥ 0.2 member. In applying this design method, Eq. (5) would be
φPn 9  φMnx φMny  φPn
(5) assessed using an available compressive strength that is
Pu M Muy′  Pu based on the member’s cross-sectional strength, fPn =
+  ux′ +  ≤ 1.0 when < 0.2
2φPn  φMnx φMny  φPn 3825 kN (860 kip).

For this specific member and loading, he AISC’s available
major- and minor-axis moment strengths would be taken
as fMnx = 434.2 kNm (3843 kip-in), with Cb =1.14 for a
moment gradient produced by a uniformly distributed
load, and fMny = 114.4 kNm (1013 kip-in). The available
axial strength would be a function of the design method
being employed.
In the rows labelled (a) in Table 2, the member is as-
sumed as nominally straight and a second-order elastic
analysis would result in in-plane behaviour only; no twist,
out-of-plane deflection or minor-axis bending moments
would be computed. In applying the AISC’s direct analysis
method provisions, Eq. (5) would be assessed using an
available compressive strength that is based on an effective
length equalling the unbraced length of the member,
fPn = 952 kN (214 kip).
In accordance with the AISC’s Design by Advanced
Elastic Analysis method, additional results are provided in
rows labelled (b) and (c). In this case a more rigorous elas-
tic analysis procedure is employed which ensures equilib-
rium and compatibility are satisfied on the deformed shape
of the member, and thus includes second-order effects that
can be attributed to both P-δ and twist. This design method
also requires an initial out-of-plane member imperfection,
which in this study is modelled by distorting the original
geometry of the member in the shape of a sine curve with
an amplitude of L/1000 at mid-span. The analyses used to
produce the results in rows (b) and (c) differ only with re-
gard to the method used for modelling torsional resistance.
The analytical results given in row (b) only include the
torsional resistance provided by the St. Venant stiffness GJ,
whereas the results in row (c) come from an analysis that
also includes the warping resistance of the section ECw
5.3 Beam-column with in-plane and out-of-plane distributed
loads
This benchmark problem is nearly the same as the previ-
ous problem, except that i) an out-of-plane uniformly dis-
tributed load wux is applied in addition to the in-plane dis-
tributed load wuy and axial force Pu, and ii) the initial mem-
ber out-of-straightness imperfection is never included.
Although the AISC’s Design by Advanced Elastic Analysis
would require modelling of a member imperfection, this
provision has been purposely disregarded in order to pro-
vide a benchmark problem with a geometry that is rela-
tively easy to create. In Table 3, results are provided with
rows (a), (b) and (c) corresponding to the analysis assump-
tions presented in the previous section.
6 Conclusions
Using a laterally unbraced I-shaped member subjected to
various combinations of in-plane and out-of-plane loading
effects as well as an applied axial force, results are pro-
vided which are intended for benchmarking and verifying
non-linear frame analysis software. In addition to provid-
ing numerical results from commercial programs that vary
by the degree to which torsional resistance is modelled,
several general observations can be made, including…
1. For situations in which the major-axis flexure capacity
of an I-shaped member is closely approached, only a
small amount of twist need occur before such major-axis
demands are resolved into minor-axis demands.
2. Second-order or geometrical non-linear analysis is re-
quired in order to assess such demands, even for cases
in which there is no axial force.

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 1 27

R. D. Ziemian/J. C. Batista Abreu · Design by advanced analysis – 3D benchmark problems

Table 2.  Results for beam-column subjected to in-plane distributed load

Load combination No. 1 2 3 4
Pu kN (kip) 0 333.6 (75.0) 556.0 (125.0) 778.4 (175.0)
wuy kN/m (kip/ft) 58.4 (4.0) 43.8 (3.0) 29.2 (2.0) 14.6 (1.0)
(a) 271.2 (2400) 207.1 (1833) 139.8 (1237) 70.8 (626)
Mux′ kNm (kip-in) (b) 269.6 (2386) 206.3 (1826) 139.5 (1235) 70.5 (624)
(c) 271.1 (2399) 207.0 (1832) 139.8 (1237) 70.8 (626)
(a) 0 0 0 0
Muy′ kNm (kip-in) (b) 29.1 (258) 26.4 (234) 21.7 (192) 34.9 (309)
(c) 6.3 (56) 11.7 (104) 15.8 (140) 32.1 (284)
(a) 14.7 (0.580) 11.2 (0.443) 7.58 (0.299) 3.84 (0.151)
dy mm (in) (b) 17.6 (0.694) 13.3 (0.524) 8.69 (0.342) 5.11 (0.201)
(c) 15.0 (0.589) 11.7 (0.460) 8.09 (0.318) 4.71 (0.186)
(a) 0 0 0 0
dx mm (in) (b) 24.6 (0.967) 24.2 (0.951) 21.2 (0.833) 35.5 (1.40)
(c) 5.44 (0.214) 11.0 (0.435) 15.6 (0.616) 32.8 (1.29)
(a) 0 0 0 0
q rad (deg) (b) 0.108 (6.19) 0.0790 (4.53) 0.0471 (2.70) 0.0358 (2.05)
(c) 0.0233 (1.33) 0.0290 (1.66) 0.0266 (1.52) 0.0260 (1.49)
(a) 0.62 0.77 0.87 0.96
AISC Int. Eq. (5) (b) 0.87 0.75 0.58 0.62
(c) 0.68 0.62 0.53 0.60
(a) 1.61 1.29 1.15 1.04
ALR, Int. Eq ≈ 1 (b) 1.03 1.07 1.13 1.09
(c) 1.28 1.26 1.25 1.11
ALRult GMNIA 1.23 1.15 1.16 1.10
Note: (a) traditional GNA, dox = 0; (b) rigorous GNIA, J ≠ 0, Cw = 0; (c) rigorous GNIA, J ≠ 0, Cw ≠ 0

Table 3.  Results for beam-column subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane distributed loads
Load combination No. 1 2 3 4
Pu kN (kip) 0 222.4 (50.0) 444.8 (100.0) 667.2 (150.0)
wuy kN/m (kip/ft) 58.4 (4.0) 43.8 (3.0) 29.2 (2.0) 14.6 (1.0)
wux kN/m (kip/ft) 5.84 (0.4) 4.38 (0.3) 2.92 (0.2) 1.46 (0.1)
(a) 271.2 (2400) 205.9 (1822) 138.9 (1229) 70.3 (622)
Mux′ kNm (kip-in) (b) 248.3 (2198) 199.6 (1767) 137.4 (1216) 70.1 (620)
(c) 267.0 (2363) 203.8 (1804) 138.2 (1223) 70.2 (621)
(a) 27.1 (240) 26.6 (235) 25.4 (225) 22.1 (196)
Muy′ kNm (kip-in) (b) 111.6 (988) 66.4 (588) 41.8 (370) 26.8 (237)
(c) 54.2 (480) 44.1 (390) 34.9 (309) 25.5 (226)
(a) 14.7 (0.580) 11.2 (0.440) 7.54 (0.297) 3.81 (0.150)
dy mm (in) (b) 42.4 (1.67) 19.6 (0.773) 10.0 (0.394) 4.34 (0.171)
(c) 19.2 (0.755) 13.7 (0.539) 8.76 (0.345) 4.19 (0.165)
(a) 28.7 (1.13) 27.9 (1.10) 26.7 (1.05) 23.1 (0.909)
dx mm (in) (b) 97.0 (3.82) 62.7 (2.47) 41.7 (1.64) 27.4 (1.08)
(c) 52.1 (2.05) 43.7 (1.72) 35.6 (1.40) 26.4 (1.04)
(a) 0 0 0 0
q rad (deg) (b) 0.323 (18.5) 0.158 (9.05) 0.0700 (4.01) 0.0232 (1.33)
(c) 0.101 (5.79) 0.0685 (3.92) 0.0404 (2.31) 0.0165 (0.945)
(a) 0.86 0.86 0.95 1.02
AISC Int. Eq. (5) (b) 1.55 1.07 0.74 0.48
(c) 1.09 0.88 0.68 0.47
(a) 1.16 1.15 1.05 0.99
ALR, Int. Eq ≈ 1 (b) 0.84 0.97 1.12 1.12
(c) 0.92 1.05 1.18 1.22
ALRult GMNIA 0.93 1.00 1.09 1.18
Note: (a) traditional GNA, dox = 0; (b) rigorous GNIA, J ≠ 0, Cw = 0; (c) rigorous GNIA, J ≠ 0, Cw ≠ 0

28 Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 1

 R. D. Ziemian/J. C. Batista Abreu · Design by advanced analysis – 3D benchmark problems

3. The beneficial effects of employing non-linear analysis [6]  ADINA (v. 9.0.1), ADINA R&D, Inc., USA, www.adina.com
programs that account for both uniform and non-uni- [7] ANSYS Mechanical APDL (rel. 16.0), USA, www.anysis.
form (warping) torsional resistance result in reductions com
in deflections, twist and minor-axis bending moment [8]  ABAQUS/CAE (v. 6.14), Dassault Systèmes Americas Corp.,
USA, www.abaqus.com
demands.
Keywords:  three-dimensional benchmark problems; design; ad-
These benchmark problems are intended to be valuable vanced analysis
when verifying the proper use of advanced methods of
non-linear analysis, using a variety of software packages,
for situations in which the accurate modelling of spatial
behaviour is important. The problems also highlight impor- Authors
tant effects associated with twist which are relevant as the Ronald D. Ziemian, PhD
design profession moves towards employing three-dimen- Associate Dean of Engineering and Professor
sional non-linear analysis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Bucknell University
References 235 Dana Engineering Bldg.
701 Moore Ave.
[1] AISC: Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/ Lewisburg, PA 17837
AISC 360-10, American Institute of Steel construction, Chi- USA
cago, Il, 2010. ziemian@bucknell.edu
[2] AISC: Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/
AISC 360-05, American Institute of Steel construction, Chi- Jean C. Batista Abreu, PhD
cago, Il, 2005. Visiting Assistant Professor
[3] AISC: Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/ Department of Mechanical Engineering
AISC 360-16, American Institute of Steel construction, Chi- Bucknell University
cago, Il, 2016. 318 Dana Engineering Bldg.
[4]  SAP2000 (v. 17.2), Computers and Structures, Inc., USA, 701 Moore Ave.
www.csiamerica.com Lewisburg, PA 17837
[5]  Strand7 (rel. 2.4.6), Strand7 Pty Ltd, Australia, www.strand7. USA
com jean.batistaabreu@bucknell.edu

Steel Construction 11 (2018), No. 1 29