This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Inelastic second order analysis of steel frame elements flexed about minor axis
Ahmed H. Zubydan
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Port-Said University, Port-Said, Egypt

article

info

Article history:
Received 9 October 2010
Received in revised form
13 November 2010
Accepted 31 December 2010
Available online 8 February 2011
Keywords:
Inelastic
Nonlinear analysis
Residual stresses
Beamcolumn
Minor axis

abstract
Frame elements may be subjected to significant bending moments about cross-sectional minor axis
such as space frame elements and struts that buckle about minor axes. In some cases such as columns
with compound cross-sections, the major bending moment acts about minor axes of cross-sectional
components. The present paper proposes a simplified model for predicting the second order inelastic
behavior of steel frame elements under axial compression force and bending moment about minor axis.
New formulae are proposed to describe the plastic strength surface for steel I- and H-shaped crosssections under axial force and bending moment about minor axis. Moreover, empirical formulae are
developed to predict the tangent modulus for those cross-sections. The tangent modulus formulae are
extended to evaluate the secant stiffness that is used for internal force recovery. The formulae are derived
for steel sections considering the residual stresses as recommended by the European Convention for
Construction Steelwork (ECCS). A finite element program is prepared to predict the inelastic second order
behavior of plane frames using the derived formulae. The derived model exhibits good correlations when
compared with the fiber model results. The analysis results indicate that the new model is accurate,
furthermore it saves a lot of calculation time that may be consumed by iterations on the cross-sectional
level.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, considerable research is devoted to problems of
steel frames considering geometric and material nonlinearities. In
general, these studies may be categorized into two main types:
plastic hinge analysis and plastic zone analysis. The plastic hinge
formulation is the most direct approach for representing inelasticity in a beamcolumn element [13]. Numerous studies have
shown that the elasticplastic hinge approach is limited by its ability to provide the correct strength assessment of beamcolumns
that fail by inelastic buckling. This is because the elasticplastic
hinge analysis assumes that the cross-section behaves as either
elastic or fully plastic, and the element is fully elastic between the
member ends [46]. In this model, the effect of residual stresses
between hinges is not accounted for either. The stability functions
are introduced to consider geometric nonlinearities using only one
beamcolumn element to define the second order effect of an individual member so that they are an economical method in frame
analysis [7,8]. This method accounts for inelasticity but not the
spread of yielding through the section or between the hinges. For
slender members in which failure mode is dominated by elastic instability, the plastic hinge method compares well with plastic zone
solutions. However, for stocky members that suffer significant

E-mail address: zubydan@gmail.com.

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.046

yielding, it overestimates the capacity of members due to neglect

of gradual reduction of stiffness as yielding progresses through and
along the member. Research was directed in order to modify the
plastic hinge method. The so-called refined plastic hinge analysis,
based on simple refinements of the elasticplastic hinge model,
was proposed for frame analysis in recent works in order to overcome the disadvantages of the elasticplastic hinge method [913].
On the other hand, the plastic zone method uses the highest refinement for predicting the inelastic behavior of framed structures.
In the plastic zone method, a frame member is discretized into finite elements, and the cross-section of each finite element is subdivided into many fibers [1417]. The internal forces are calculated
by integrating the cross-sectional subelement forces. The residual
stress in each fiber may be explicitly determined and can be easily
considered, so, the gradual spread of yielding can be traced [18,19].
Because the spread of plasticity and residual stresses are accounted
for directly, a plastic zone solution is considered an exact method.
Although the plastic zone solution may be considered exact, it is
not conducive to daily use in engineering design, because it is too
computationally intensive and too costly.
Recently, a new simplified model was proposed by the author
based on the plastic zone method [20]. In this model, closed
formulae were derived to predict the tangent modulus of steel
I- and H-shaped cross-sections subjected to combined axial
force and uniaxial bending moment about cross-sectional strong
axis considering the residual stresses. The model eliminates

Author's personal copy

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

the need of cross-section discretization, so, it saves a lot of

computational time consumed on the cross-sectional level. The
results obtained from the simplified model correlates very well
with the fiber. The present paper is an extension of the previous
work [20] and it aims to predict the cross-sectional tangent
modulus under combined axial compression force and bending
moment acting about the cross-sectional weak axis. Formulae
that describe the tangent modulus are derived to simulate the
results obtained from the fiber model. Prior to the derivation
of tangent modulus, new plastic strength surfaces for I- and Hshaped cross-sections are proposed. The proposed model is valid
for cross-sections with/without consideration of residual stresses.
The model achieves the accuracy of the spread of plasticity method
but in an easier way. The aim of the present research area is
eliminating complex calculations and thus minimizing the running
time and the cost. The updated Lagrangian method is applied in
the formulation of the incremental matrix equilibrium equations of
the proposed beam element model [21,22]. The minimum residual
displacement combined with the NewtonRaphson method is
used to satisfy the convergence when solving the nonlinear
equilibrium equations.
2. Numerical model
2.1. Basic assumptions
The following assumptions are made in the formulation of the
beamcolumn element:
(1) A plane cross-section remains plane after deformation.
(2) Local buckling is not considered, i.e., all members are assumed
to be fully compact.
(3) Small strains but large displacements and rotations are
considered.
(4) Only I- and H-shaped sections subjected to flexure about weak
axis are considered.
(5) Strain hardening is not considered.
2.2. Cross-section plastic strength
In order to predict the nonlinear behavior of structural members, the cross-section plastic strength surface should be accurately
evaluated. Many researches were carried out based on AISC-LRFD
and Orbison formulae that describe the full plastification surface
for cross-sections. For cross-sections subjected to axial force and
bending moment about the minor axis, the Orbison formula becomes
1.15p2r + m4rz + 3p6r m2rz =

(1)

1
2

pr + mrz =

pr +

8
9

mrz =

for pr
for pr >

2
9
2
9

Fig. 1. Considered fiber model.

column and universal beam cross-sections. Eighteen universal

column sections (H-shaped section) are analyzed in which the
ratios B/T = 5.5 to 22.4, D/t = 10 to 34.2 and D/B = 0.97
to 1.13, where D, B are the cross-section depth and the flanges
breadth, respectively, and t and T are the thicknesses of crosssection web and flanges, respectively. On the other hand, thirty
universal beam sections (I-shaped section) are selected in which
the ratios B/T = 5.7 to 15.8, D/t = 27.4 to 62.5 and D/B = 1.74
to 3.36.
The cross-sections are analyzed using linear strain distribution
about the minor axis (z-axis). For each cross, the curvature is
gradually increased until reaching the maximum possible bending
moment at a fixed value of axial force. The internal forces (P and
Mz ) are evaluated by accumulation of internal forces for all crosssection discretes as follows:
P =

Mz =

(2a)

mrz

(2b)

where is the factor that equals unity at full plastification surface,

pr is the ratio of the applied normal force P to the yield value Py at
the plastic strength envelope (pr = P /Py ), and mrz is the ratio of
the applied bending moment M to the plastic moment Mpz about
minor axis at the plastic strength envelope (mrz = M /Mpz ).
In the present paper, new formulae are derived to describe
cross-section plastic strength surfaces based on the results
obtained from the analysis of many cross-sections. The crosssections are analyzed using the fiber model in which the crosssection is discretized into small fibers as shown in Fig. 1. The
analyzed cross-sections are selected to cover all popular universal

as fs

(3a)

as f s y s

(3b)

i=1

where as and ys are area and coordinate of a steel fiber, respectively,

fs is the stress at each steel fiber and n is the number of steel fibers.
It is observed that the plastic strength surface is not affected by the
presence of residual stresses. The proposed plastic strength surface
formulae for H- or I-shaped cross-sections can be given as follow:
For H-shaped sections
1
8.55

for pr < PrH

pr + mrz = 1

pCr H + 0.95mrz = 1

for pr PrH .

(4a)
(4b)

For I-shaped sections

8.8

mrz

i =1

While the AISC-LRFD plastic surface formula is given as

1241

pr + mrz = 1 for pr < PrI

pCr I + 0.95mrz = 1

(4c)

for pr PrI .

(4d)

It is observed that the plastic strength surface of the H-shaped

cross-section is slightly different from that of the I-shaped crosssection. The factors CH and CI are found to be dependent on the
ratio of web area (Aw ) to the whole cross-sectional area (A) in which
Aw = (D 2T ) t. These factors can be given as follows:
CH = 4.9

CI = 14.6

Aw

Aw
A

+ 1.33

6.2

(5a)

Aw
A

+ 3.33.

(5b)

The values of PrH and PrI are the axial load ratios at the intersection
of the two curves of plastic strength surface and they can be given

Author's personal copy

1242

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

(a) H-shaped sections.

(b) I-shaped sections.

Fig. 2. Plastic strength for steel sections.

as follow:
PrH = 0.

05CH2

+ 0.43CH 0.37

PrI = 0.03CI2 + 0.33CI 0.24.

(6a)
(6b)

The correlation of the proposed plastic surface formulae with the

fiber model results are represented in Fig. 2 for three H- and Ishaped cross-sections that have various values for factors CH and
CI . The Orbison and AISC-LRFD plastic surfaces, given in Eqs. (1)
and (2), are also plotted in Fig. 2. It is observed that the proposed
formulae correlate very well with the fiber model results. On the
other hand, the AISC-LRFD formula seems to be very conservative
while the Orbison formula may be acceptable rather than the AISCLRFD formula but it does not give the full correlation with the
fiber model results for various cross-sections. It should be noted
that Eq. (2) is also used by the AISC-LRFD for sections subjected to
bending moment about the major axis by replacing mrz with mry .
When the bending moment acts about the major axis, Eq. (2) may
give reasonable conversion with the fiber model results but it still
underestimates the plastic strength surface.
2.3. Tangent modulus for cross-sections subjected to axial compression force and bending moment
As mentioned before, the cross-sectional tangent modulus
(Etang ) is degraded as the forces are applied on it due to the
presence of residual stresses. In order to account for the effect
of residual stresses, researchers [19,23,24] use an empirical
tangential modulus ratio depending on the formula proposed in
AISC-LRFD [25] to describe the tangent modulus of columns under
axial force. This formula is given as follows:
Etr = 1

for 0.5

Etr = 4 (1 )

for > 0.5

(7a)
(7b)

where Etr is the tangent modulus ratio (Etr = Etang /E), E is the
elastic modulus and is a force-state parameter that measures
the magnitude of axial force and bending moment which may be
calculated from Eqs. (1) or (2).
In the present paper, new tangent modulus is determined for
I- and H-shaped sections with/without considering the effect the
residual stresses. The residual stresses adopted in the present
paper are based on the recommendation by European Convention

for Construction Steelwork (ECCS) [26]. The magnitude of residual

stress (r ) is assumed to be dependent on depth/breadth ratio as
shown in Fig. 3. For each cross-section type, the tangent modulus
is evaluated under axial compression force and bending moment
about the minor axis by applying the concepts of fiber model as
shown in Fig. 1. The selected I- and H-shaped cross-sections are
analyzed using the fiber model in which the bending moment
is incrementally applied to the cross-section at constant values
of axial compression forces. Through each load increment, the
tangent modulus ratio is calculated as follows:
Etrz =

dMz /dz
EIz

(8)

where EIz is the cross-sectional elastic rigidity about the z-axis

and z is the curvature about the same axis. By plotting the
relationships between the tangent modulus ratio Etrz and the
moment ratio Mrz as shown in Fig. 4, two possible paths may be
obtained. When the value of axial compression force ratio Pr is
less than Pr0 , the relationship follows the path abcd. For such a
curve, the value of Etrz is equal to unity until a specific value of
moment ratio Mr0 (at point b), after that it dramatically decreases
to reach a value equal to Etr1 at moment ratio Mr1 (at point c).
Further increase of bending moment causes a decrease of the
tangent modulus until it vanishes at point d when the moment
ratio reaches the plastic strength surface. The values of Pr0 and Mr0
are given as follows:
Pr0 = 1 r /y

(9a)

Mr0 = (Pr0 Pr )Zz /Sz

(9b)

where Zz and Sz are elastic and plastic moduli of the cross-section

about the minor axis, respectively. The cross-section state from
point a to b is fully elastic. At point b earlier yielding of some fibers
occurs due to the presence of residual stresses. The cross-section
state from point b to c is inelastic and the cross-section is fully
plastic when all fibers are yielded at point d.
On the other hand, when the value of applied axial compression
force exceeds the value Pr0 , the initial tangential stiffness ratio
Etrz follows the path a b c d as shown in Fig. 4. In this case, the
initial value of the tangent stiffness ratio is equal to Etr0 (at point
a ) which is less than unity due to initial plastification caused by
the present axial force. With the increase of moment ratio, the
tangent modulus increases with the increase of bending moment

Author's personal copy

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

1243

Fig. 3. ECCS residual stress for hot-rolled H and I sections.

Etrz = (Etr2 Etr1 )

Mrz Mr2

r1 r11

Mr1 Mr2

for Mr2 < Mrz Mr1

[
Etrz = Etr1 1

Mrz Mr1

(10e)

1
r2

mrz Mr1
for Mr1 < Mrz mrz

Fig. 4. Inelastic modulus reduction due to bending moment and axial compression
force.

until reaching its maximum value Etr2 at point b . The increase of

the tangent modulus from a to b is due to unyielding of some
yielded fibers when the neutral axis moves along the cross-section.
After that the tangent modulus decreases again through the path
b c d .
The proposed formulae are derived to give best fits with the
results obtained from the fiber model. The proposed values of Etrz
for cross-sections subjected to combined axial compression force
and bending moment about the minor axis considering the residual
stress effect can be mathematically expressed as follows:
For Pr Pr0 :
Etrz = 1

for Mrz Mr0

Etrz = (1 Etr1 )

(10a)

Mrz Mr0
Mr1 Mr0

r1 r11
+ Etr1

for Mr0 < Mrz Mr1

Etrz = Etr1 1

(10b)

Mrz Mr1

] r1

mrz Mr1
for Mr1 < Mrz mrz .

(10f)

where Pr is the axial force ratio (Pr = P /Py ), Mrz is the moment
ratio (Mrz = Mz /Mpz ), Mpz is the plastic moment about the minor
axis and mrz is the moment ratio at the plastic strength surface
which is calculated from Eq. (4) at a given value of axial force
ratio. The values of constants r1 and r2 are dependent on the
cross-section type and the applied axial force ratio Pr . The values
of r1 , r2 , Mr1 , Mr2 , Etr1 and Etr2 are represented in the Appendix.
When the effect of residual stress is neglected, the value of Etrz can
be only calculated from Eqs. (10a)(10c).
The proposed tangent modulus ratios given in Eq. (10) are compared to those obtained from the fiber model as shown in Fig. 5 for
UC section (H-shaped) with residual stress ratio r /y = 0.5 and
for UB section (I-shaped) with r /y = 0.3. It is clearly observed
that the proposed formulae give very good correlations with the
fiber model results for various values of Pr . On the other hand,
when the effect of residual stress is neglected, the comparisons between the proposed model and the fiber model are represented in
Fig. 6(a) for UC section (H-shaped) and in Fig. 6(b) for UB section
(I-shaped). The good conversion between the two models is clearly
observed in the figures.
The tangent modulus given in Eq. (7) is compared to both the
fiber and the present models for cross-section W12 106 as shown
in Fig. 7. Eq. (7) is used by researchers in conjunction with plastic
strength surfaces given in Eqs. (1) and (2). As shown in Fig. 7(a),
when Eq. (1) is used to describe the plastic strength surface, the
tangent modulus given in Eq. (7) is highly overestimated compared
with the fiber model results. In fact, the observed diversion is due
to the use of Eq. (7) because Eq. (1) gives considerable correlation
with fiber model results as shown in Fig. 2. On the other hand,
when Eq. (2) is used for describing the plastic strength surface, the
tangent modulus given by Eq. (7) is initially overestimated (due
to Eq. (7)) and then underestimated (due to Eq. (2)) as shown in
Fig. 7(b).

(10c)
2.4. Cross-section incremental secant modulus

For Pr > Pr0 :

Etrz = (Etr0 Etr2 )

+ Etr1

[
1

Mrz
Mr2

]
+ Etr2 for Mrz Mr2

(10d)

For nonlinear analysis, the accuracy of results essentially

depends on the accuracy of the internal force calculation. The use

Author's personal copy

1244

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

(a) UC sections.

(a) UB sections.

Fig. 5. Inelastic modulus ratio for cross-sections under bending moment and axial compression force considering the effect of residual stress. Fiber model Present
model.

(a) UC sections.

(a) UB sections.

Fig. 6. Inelastic modulus ratio for cross-sections under bending moment and axial compression force neglecting the effect of residual stress. Fiber model Present
model.

of tangent stiffness for calculating the internal forces causes an

overestimation of the member strength as shown in Fig. 8, so
the incremental secant stiffness is required in order to evaluate
accurate values of internal forces. The incremental secant stiffness
derived by the author [20] is followed in the present research. For
a load increment from step j to j + 1, the curvature changes from
j to j+1 and the bending moment changes from Mj to Mj+1 when
the initial tangent modulus is followed as shown in Fig. 8. The value
of Mj+1 can be calculated as
Mj+1 = Mj + d Etr j EI

(11)

where d is the change in the curvature of the cross-section from

step j to step j + 1. E, A and I are the elastic modulus, the area
and the moment of inertia of the cross-section, respectively. Etrj is
the tangent modulus ratio at step j which can be calculated from
Eq. (12) using the force values at point j (Pj and Mj ). In order
to derive an incremental secant modulus, it is assumed that Etr
changes linearly with Mr from point j to j + 1, i.e. the following

relationship can be deduced:

Etr = c1 Mr + c2
where c1 =

(12)

Etr
Etr j
j+1
Mr j+1 Mr j

Mj+1

and c2 = Etr j c1 Mr j

where
and Etr j+1 are the bending moment and the corresponding tangent modulus ratio at point j + 1 which is very close
to point j + 1.
Based on Eq. (10), the value of bending moment at j + 1 (Mj+1 )
and the incremental secant modulus ratio (Esr ) can be derived and
given as follows [20]:
Mj+1 =
Esr =

1
c1

Mp (ek c2 )

1 M j +1 M j
EI j+1 j

where Mp is the cross-section plastic moment and k = c1

ln(c1 Mr j + c2 ).

(13)
(14)
j+1 j
y

Author's personal copy

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

1245

Fig. 7. Inelastic modulus of different models for cross-section W12 106 considering residual stress effect. Fiber model Present model.

Fig. 9. Plane frame element.

length. The material and geometric matrices of the element shown

in Fig. 9 in its local coordinates can be derived and given as follows [27]:
Fig. 8. Load-deformation curve for cross-section.

2.5. Finite element model

A stiffness method approach for the analysis of plane frames is
developed considering both geometric and material nonlinearities.
The equation of equilibrium in terms of geometry of the deformed
system is given as follows:

u1
EA/L

[km ] = Etr

(15)

where {1F} and {1D} are the force and the displacement
vectors, respectively. [Km ] is the stiffness matrix of the structure
considering material nonlinearity and [Kg ] is the geometric
stiffness matrix which represents the change in the stiffness that
results from deformation effects. Consider a prismatic element of
a symmetric cross-section in the plane of the frame. This element
is subjected to an axial force, and bending moments and flexes in
the xy plane as shown in Fig. 9. The following flexural and axial
shape functions are introduced
u = (1 ) u1 + u2

(16a)

= (1 3 + 2 ) 1 + (1 2 + ) x 1
+ (3 2 2 3 ) 2 ( 2 ) x 2
2

(16b)

in which u, and are axial displacement, transverse displacement and rotation, respectively, = x/L and L is the member

[kg ] =

0
12EI /L3

0
6EI /L2
4EI /L

Sym.

u2

0
0
EA/L

0
12EI /L3
6EI /L2
0
12EI /L3

EA/L

u2

0
1.2

0
L/10
2L2 /5

0
6/5
L/10
0
1.2

[Km + Kg ]{1D} = {1F}

P2

Sym.

0
0
1

6EI /L2

2EI /L
(17a)

2
6EI /L
4EI /L

0
L/10

L2 /30

L/10
2L2 /15

(17b)

where EA and EI are the axial and flexural rigidities, respectively.

It is noticed that the geometric stiffness matrix is a function of
the total axial force P2 acting at node 2 of the element in the
reference configuration (note that P2 = P1 ). The components
of the nodal point displacement are incremental values referred
to this configuration. Since the matrices [Km ] and [Kg ] are
displacement dependent, Eq. (15) cannot be directly solved.
Various procedures can be used to solve the equilibrium equations.
Generally, members are subdivided into several elements to
produce satisfactory results. The modulus ratios Etr or Esr are
evaluated at each member end and then an average value is applied
in the stiffness matrix [km ].

Author's personal copy

1246

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

2.6. Internal force recovery

The employing of equilibrium equation in conjunction with
the incremental analysis requires that the structural geometry
includes all accumulated deformations. For the current analysis,
the node coordinates are updated after each iteration. That is,
the coordinates of each node are modified or updated to include
the translational displacement components that occur during
iterations. In updating the coordinates of nodes or element ends,
the deformed geometry of the structure is achieved by changing
the position and hence the orientation of each element with
respect to the global coordinate system. For all the elements of a
structure, the element stiffness equation, as given in Eq. (17), can
be assembled to yield the stiffness equation of the structure for an
incremental step. For an incrementaliterative nonlinear analysis,
the element incremental displacement vector {1d} is used to
calculate the incremental strains (d and d ) based on the assumed
shape functions and so the secant modulus at element ends can
be evaluated as illustrated in Section 2.4. The material stiffness
matrix [km ] for each element is reformulated using the average
secant plastic modulus (Esr ) instead of the tangent modulus. On the
other hand, the geometric stiffness matrix [kg ] is also formulated
again using a new axial force P2 which is calculated by adding the
incremental axial force to the total previous value as follows:
P2 = (P2 )prev ious + d Esr EA.

(18)

The increments of internal force vector {1fint } for an element can

be calculated as

{1fint } = km + kg {1d} .

Fig. 10. Geometry and load configuration of the Kanchanalai portal frame.

Fig. 11. Residual stresses considered by Kanchanalai.

(19)

By summing the element forces at the structural nodes and

comparing them with the applied loads, the unbalanced forces for
the structure can be obtained. Finally, by treating the unbalanced
forces as applied loads, other iterations can be repeated.
3. Numerical solution
The nonlinear analysis algorithm consists of four basic steps;
the formulation of the initial stiffness matrix, the solution of
the equilibrium equations for the displacement increments, the
determination of the new updated stiffness and member forces
using the cross-sectional model, and the check of conversion.
Since the global stiffness matrix of the structure depends on the
displacement increments, the solution of the equilibrium equations is typically accompanied by an iterative method through
the convergence check. In the present model, the NewtonRaphson
method is used by updating the tangent stiffness matrix at each iteration [28]. Also, the minimum residual displacement method is
used in order to trace the post-peak path [29]. A full description of
the nonlinear iterative solution is found elsewhere [20].
4. Numerical analysis and results
A computer program is developed to predict the nonlinear
behavior of plane frames using the derived model. The fiber model
is first compared to well established benchmark results and then
the analysis results obtained from the proposed simplified model
are compared to those obtained from the fiber model.
4.1. Kanchanalai portal frame
The frame shown in Fig. 10 was analyzed by Kanchanalai [30]
using H-shaped cross-sections for the case of non-residual stresses
and also with considering the residual stress pattern shown in

Fig. 12. Lateral load versus maximum drift for the Kanchanalai portal frame.

Fig. 11. The frame is reanalyzed using the present fiber model for
the same cases of residual stresses as considered by Kanchanalai
and also using the residual stress pattern shown in Fig. 3. The steel
yield strength is 248 MPa and the elastic modulus is 200,000 MPa.
The column slenderness ratio Lc /rz = 40 and the columnbeam
I /L
stiffness ratio Ic /Lc = 0. The frame members bend about minor
b b
axes due to fixed vertical forces (Pr = 0.2 and 0.5) and a lateral
horizontal force H. The results obtained from the present fiber
model are compared to those obtained by Kanchanalai as shown in
Fig. 12. It is clearly observed that the present fiber model correlates
very well the results obtained by Kanchanalai for the case nonresidual stresses and also when considering the residual stress
pattern shown in Fig. 11. On the other hand, the use of residual
stress pattern shown in Fig. 3 (as considered by ECCS) gives lower
strength and stiffness as shown in Fig. 12.

Author's personal copy

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

1247

Table 2
Normalized ultimate loads for the cantilever with cross-section W21 166
considering residual stresses.

Fig. 13. Geometry and load configuration of the analyzed cantilever column.
Table 1
Normalized ultimate loads for the cantilever with cross-section W12 106
considering residual stresses.
Method

Present model

Eqs. (1) and (7)

Eqs. (2) and (7)

Pr = 0.2
Pr = 0.4
Pr = 0.6

1.000294
0.998851
0.960998

1.184898
1.807215
6.068728

1.021359
1.085593
1.887857

4.2. Cantilever column

The cantilever column shown in Fig. 13 is assumed to be made
of steel with yield strength y = 275 MPa and elastic modulus
E = 200,000 MPa and the column is of 3m height. The column is
subjected to an incremental lateral load H (normal to the plane of
the weak axis) and a constant value of vertical load P. The column is
analyzed using the fiber model and also by using the derived model
with/without the consideration of the residual stresses. Also, the
present model is compared to the tangent modulus proposed by
researchers using the tangent modulus ratio given in Eq. (7). First,
the cross-section of the column is assumed to be W 12 106 (the
slenderness ratio L/rz = 37.8) and it is analyzed under vertical
load ratios Pr = 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6. Fig. 14 shows the comparisons
between the different models with/without the effect of residual
stresses. It is clearly observed that the proposed model gives

(a) With residual stress (r /y = 0.5).

Method

Present model

Eqs. (1) and (7)

Eqs. (2) and (7)

Pr = 0.2
Pr = 0.4
Pr = 0.6

1.00062
1.000447
0.981867

1.171452
1.61324
3.488491

1.006197
0.94379
0.97233

excellent correlations with the fiber model. On the other hand,

the previously used formula in Eq. (7) mostly overestimates the
stiffness and the capacity of the column compared to the fiber
model. The maximum horizontal loads obtained from various
models normalized to maximum loads obtained from fiber model
are shown in Table 1. It is clearly noticed that, when Eq. (1) is used
as a plastic strength surface, the maximum lateral load obtained
by using Eq. (7) is very high especially for greater values of Pr as
shown in the Table. On the other hand, when Eq. (2) is incorporated
into Eq. (7), the maximum load is slightly overestimated at low and
moderate values of Pr and is highly overestimated at higher values
of Pr as shown in Table 1.
As observed, when the bending moment about the minor axis is
dominant, the use of Eq. (7) gives unsatisfactory results. It should
be mentioned that the formula given in Eq. (7) combined with
plastic strength surfaces in Eq. (1) or (2) were used by researchers
when the bending moment about cross-sectional major axis is
dominant. In that case, the formula given in Eq. (7) may exhibit
reasonable results when compared to the fiber model results as
recently discussed by Zubydan [20].
The column is reanalyzed again using W21 166 as a crosssection for the column (L/rz = 39.5). In this case the residual
stress ratio is assumed to be equal to 0.3 as recommended by ECCS.
The column is analyzed under vertical load ratios of Pr = 0.2, 0.4
and 0.6. The analysis results are shown in Fig. 15(a) for the case of
residual stress consideration and in Fig. 15(b) when the residual
stresses are neglected. It is also observed that the proposed model
gives excellent conversions with the fiber model. On the other
hand, the formula given in Eq. (7) still overestimates the stiffness
and the capacity of the column when the plastic strength surface
in Eq. (1) is used as shown in Table 2. While the use of Eq. (2) with
Eq. (7) gives good estimation of the maximum capacity compared
to the fiber model results as shown in Table 2.

(b) Without residual stresses.

Fig. 14. Lateral load versus maximum drift for the cantilever column with cross-section W12 106.

Author's personal copy

1248

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

(a) With residual stress (r /y = 0.3).

(b) Without residual stresses.

Fig. 15. Lateral load versus maximum drift for the cantilever column with cross-section W21 166.

Fig. 16. Geometry and load configuration of the analyzed simple beam.

4.3. Interaction equation for simply supported beam

The simple beam shown in Fig. 16 is analyzed to evaluate the
effect of residual stresses on the capacity of the beam under different values of axial compression forces and bending moments.
The beam cross-section is considered as UC305 305 158 and
the steel yield strength y = 275 MPa with elastic modulus E =
200,000 MPa. The beam is analyzed under different values of slenderness ratios L/rz = 40, 80 and 120. The beam is discretized into
ten equal elements and the bending moments are incrementally
applied at beam ends and about the cross-sectional minor axis at
different values of axial compression forces until reaching the maximum capacity. The beam is analyzed considering residual stresses
(r /y = 0.5) and also for the case of neglecting the residual
stresses using both the proposed and the fiber model. The interaction curves obtained from the analysis of the beam are shown
in Fig. 17. From the figure, it is observed that the proposed simplified model correlates very well the results of the fiber model at all
slenderness ratios L/rz . It is also observed that the neglect of residual stresses overestimates the beam ultimate strength especially at
higher values of axial forces compared with the case of the residual
stresses consideration.
4.4. Portal frame under fixed gravity loads
The portal frame shown in Fig. 18 is analyzed using both the
fiber model and the proposed simplified model. The frame is also
analyzed by considering the residual stress effect using Eq. (7). The
frame girder cross-section is W10 60 while the columns crosssections are W14 109 (L/rz = 36.7). The steel yield strength y =
275 MPa and the modulus of elasticity E = 200,000 MPa. The frame
is subjected to constant values of gravity load ratios (Pr = 0.2,

Fig. 17. Interaction curves for simply supported beam.

0.4 and 0.6). The frame columns are adjusted to be bend about the
cross-sectional minor axis while the frame girder bends about the
cross-sectional strong axis. When using the simplified model, the
tangent modulus for cross-sections subjected to bending moment
about the major axis (the case of frame girder) is considered
as proposed by Zubydan [20]. Each of the girder and columns
are discretized into ten equal elements. The horizontal load H is
incrementally applied until failure occurs while the vertical loads
remain fixed. The frame is analyzed in two different manners;
first by considering the residual stress pattern as recommended
by ECCS with residual stress ratio = 0.5 and second by neglecting
the residual stresses. The analysis results shown in Fig. 19 indicate
that both the proposed simplified model and the fiber model are
completely coinciding. On the other hand, the use of Eqs. (1) and (7)
highly overestimates the frame capacity especially at higher values
of Pr as shown in Table 3 which includes the maximum lateral
loads obtained from various models normalized to the maximum
load obtained from the fiber model. Also, when Eq. (2) is used with
Eq. (7), the maximum capacity is overestimated especially at
higher values of Pr as indicated in Table 3.

Author's personal copy

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

1249

Appendix
The values of Mr1 , Mr2 , Etr0 , Etr1 , Etr2 , r1 and r2 imbedded in
Eq. (10) are given as follows:
Values of Mr1 , Mr2 , Etr0 , Etr1 , Etr2 .
For H sections (with no residual stress)
Mr1 = (1.38Pr3 0.58Pr2 0.05Pr + 0.78) mrz
for Pr 0.6

(A.1a)

Mr1 = (0.52Pr + 1.16) mrz

(A.1b)

Etr1 = 0.12Pr + 0.51

Etr1 =
Fig. 18. Geometry and load configuration of portal frame.
Table 3
Normalized ultimate loads for portal frame considering residual stresses.
Method

Present model

Eqs. (1) and (7)

Eqs. (2) and (7)

Pr = 0.2
Pr = 0.4
Pr = 0.6

0.996834
1.000476
0.977011

1.110729
1.829443
12.06322

1.041827
1.220581
3.103448

5. Conclusions
A new simplified model was developed to predict the second
order inelastic behavior of steel frames. New plastic strength
surfaces for I and H cross-sections were derived. Moreover, the
model predicts the tangent modulus of cross-sections that bend
about the minor axis with/without the consideration of residual
stress effect. The residual stress distributions were considered
as recommended by the European Convention for Construction
Steelwork (ECCS). The internal forces are recovered by using
derived incremental secant stiffness. The derived cross-sectional
model was implemented into a finite element program based on
stiffness analysis to predict the full behavior of steel plane frames.
The simplified model correlated very well with the fiber model
without the need of cross-section discretization. It was found that
neglecting residual stress may overestimate the ultimate capacity
of planar steel frames especially at higher levels of axial load ratios.
The proposed model could successfully simplify the plastic zone
analysis and save a lot of computational time and data storage by
the elimination of iterations on the cross-sectional level.

(a) With residual stress (r /y = 0.5).

Pr2

for Pr > 0.6

for Pr 0.2

(A.1c)

1.47Pr + 0.79 for Pr > 0.2.

(A.1d)

For H sections (with residual stress)

Mr1 = (9.81Pr4 + 10.8Pr3 3.33Pr2 + 0.28Pr + 0.8) mrz
for Pr 0.6
(A.2a)
Mr1 = (0.84Pr + 1.34) mrz
Mr2 = 1.

31Pr2

for Pr > 0.6

+ 2.01Pr 0.68

(A.2b)
(A.2c)

Etr0 = 2.39Pr2 5.64Pr + 3.23

(A.2d)

Etr1 = 0.49Pr + 0.47 for Pr 0.6

(A.2e)

Etr1 = 0.012Pr + 0.18

(A.2f)

Etr2 = 2.

37Pr2

for Pr > 0.6

5.17Pr + 2.9.

(A.2g)

For I sections (with no residual stress)

Mr1 = (0.23Pr2 0.09Pr + 0.79) mrz

for Pr 0.5

(A.3a)

Mr1 = (95.
+ 269.
283.
+ 132.02Pr 22.07) mrz for Pr > 0.5

(A.3b)

Etr1 = 0.19Pr + 0.5

(A.3c)

5Pr4

Etr1 = 0.

62Pr2

65Pr3

92Pr2

for Pr 0.2

1.02Pr + 0.73 for Pr > 0.2.

(A.3d)

For I sections (with residual stress)

Mr1 = (8.86Pr4 8.42Pr3 + 2.22Pr2 0.13Pr + 0.78) mrz
for Pr 0.6

(A.4a)

Mr1 = (10.47Pr3 24.05Pr2 + 17.48Pr 3.26) mrz

for Pr > 0.6

(A.4b)

(b) Without residual stresses.

Fig. 19. Loaddeflection relationships for portal frame.

Author's personal copy

1250

A.H. Zubydan / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 12401250

Mr2 = 2.49Pr2 + 4.21Pr 1.72

(A.4c)

Etr0 = 4.

88Pr2

11.84Pr + 6.9

(A.4d)

Etr1 = 0.

44Pr2

0.82Pr + 0.61

(A.4e)

Etr2 = 7.69Pr2 15.46Pr + 8.05.

(A.4f)

Values of r1 , r2 .
For H (with no residual stress)
r1 = 5.75Pr4 + 11.71Pr3 7.31Pr2 + 0.86Pr + 0.99

(A.5a)

r2 = 14.81Pr3 6.11Pr2 + 0.56Pr + 0.6

(A.5b)

r2 = 2.

86Pr2

for Pr 0.5

6.2Pr + 3.56 for Pr > 0.5.

(A.5c)

For H sections (with residual stress)

r1 = 0.85 for Pr 0.2

(A.6a)

r1 = 0.5Pr + 0.95

(A.6b)

for 0.2 < Pr 0.4

r1 = 0.75 for Pr > 0.4

(A.6c)

r2 = Pr + 0.6 for Pr 0.2

(A.6d)

r2 = 0.8

(A.6e)

for Pr > 0.2.

For I sections (with no residual stress)

r1 = 2Pr + 0.8
r1 = 0.

49Pr2

r1 = 0.5

for Pr 0.1

1.15Pr + 1.11 for 0.1 < Pr 0.8

for Pr > 0.8

r2 = 3.

(A.7a)
(A.7b)
(A.7c)

21Pr2

0.89Pr + 0.58 for Pr 0.6

(A.7d)

25Pr2

+ 30.5Pr 8.1 for 0.6 < Pr 0.8

(A.7e)

r2 =

r2 = 0.3

for Pr > 0.8.

(A.7f)

For I sections (with residual stress)

r1 = 0.38Pr2 0.5Pr + 0.85

(A.8a)

r2 = 0.6.

(A.8b)

References
[1] Ziemian RD. Advanced method of inelastic analysis in the limit states of steel
structures. Ph.D. dissertation. Ithaca: Cornell University; 1990.
[2] Chan SL, Chui PT. A generalized design-based elastoplastic analysis of steel
frames by section assemblage concept. Eng Struct 1997;19(8):62836.
[3] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE, Chen WF. Improved nonlinear plastic hinge
analysis of space frame structures. Eng Struct 2000;22:132438.
[4] Kim SE, Lee DH. Second order distributed plasticity analysis of space steel
frames. Eng Struct 2002;24:73544.

[5] Chen WF, Chan SL. Second-order inelastic analysis of steel frames using
element with midspan and end springs. J Struct Engrg, ASCE 1995;21(3):
53041.
[6] White DW. Advanced analysis/design of typical moment frame. In: Proc., 10th
struct. cingr. compact papers. New York (NY): ASCE; 1998. p. 3303.
[7] Challa MV. Nonlinear seismic behavior of steel planar moment resistance
frames. Rep. no. EERL 82-01, Pasadena (Calif): Earthquake Engrg. Res. Lab.,
California Institute of Technology; 1992.
[8] Liew JYR, Chen WF. Chapter 1: trends toward advanced analysis of steel
frames. In: Chen WF, Toma, editors. Advanced analysis of steel frames: theory,
software, and applications. Boca Raton (Fla): CRC Press; 1994. p. 143.
[9] Liew JY, White DW, Chen WF. Second order refined plastic hinge analysis of
frames design: part I. J Struct Engrg, ASCE 1993;119(10):3196216.
[10] King WS. A modified stiffness method for plastic analysis of steel frames. Eng
Struct 1994;16:16270.
[11] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for braced steel frame design. J
Struct Engrg, ASCE 1996;122(10):126674.
[12] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for unbraced steel design. J Struct
Engrg, ASCE 1996;122(10):125965.
[13] Chen WF, Kim SE. LRFD steel design using advanced analysis. Boca Raton (FL):
CRC Press; 1997.
[14] El-Zanaty M, Murrary D, Bjorhovde R. Inelastic behavior of multistory steel
frames. Structural engineering report no. 83. Alberta (Canada): University of
Alberta; 1980.
[15] White DW. Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local planar behavior
in steel frames using iterative computer graphics. M.S. thesis. Ithaca (NY):
Cornell University; 1985. 281P.
[16] Vogel U. Calibrating frames. Stahlbau 1985;10:17.
[17] Clarke MJ, Bridge RQ, Hancock, GJand Trahair NS. Design using advanced
analysis. SSRC annual tech. session proc., Bethlehem (Pa): Lehigh Univ.; 1991.
p. 2740.
[18] Jiang XM, Chen H, Liew JYR. Spread-of-plasticity analysis of three-dimensional
steel frames. J Construct Steel Res 2002;58:193212.
[19] Kim SE, Choi SH. Practical second order inelastic analysis for three dimensional
steel frames subjected to distributed load. Thin-Walled Struct 2005;43:
13560.
[20] Zubydan AH. A simplified model for inelastic second order analysis of planar
frames. Eng Struct 2010;32:325868.
[21] Nanakorn P, Vu LN. A 2D field-consistent beam element for large displacement
using the total Lagrangian formulation. Finite Elem Anal Des 2006;42:12407.
[22] Yang YB, Lin SP, Leu LJ. Solution strategy and rigid element for nonlinear
analysis of elastically structures based on updated Lagrangian formulation.
Eng Struct 2007;29:1189200.
[23] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Direct design of three-dimensional frames using
practical advanced analysis. Eng Struct 2001;23:1491502.
[24] Kim SE, Lee J, Park JS. 3-D second-order plastic hing analysis accounting for
local buckling. Eng Struct 2003;25:8190.
[25] Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings.
2nd ed. Chicago: American institute of steel construction, AISC; 1994.
[26] ECCS. Essentials of eurocode 3 design manual for steel structures in building,
ECCS-advisory committee 5, No. 65. 1991. p. 60.
[27] McGuire W, Gallagher R, Ziemian R. Matrix structural analysis. New York:
Wiley; 2000.
[28] Torkmani MA, Sonmez M. Inelastic larg deflection modeling of beamcolumns.
J Struct Engrg, ASCE 2001;127(8):87686.
[29] Chan SL. Geometric and material non-linear analysis of beamcolumns and
frames using the minimum residual displacement method. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 1988;26:265769.
[30] Kanchanalai T. The design and behavior of beamcolumns in unbraced frames,
AISI project no. 189, Report no. 2, Civil engineering/structures research
laboratory. University of Texas at Austin; 300 pp.