59

Second-order analysis for semirigid steel frame

design
Lei Xu

Abstract: This paper presents an analysis method in which both the nonlinear rotational behaviour of beam-to-column
connections and second-order (P–D and P–d) effects of beam–column members are explicitly taken into account. By
adopting the concept of an end-fixity factor, the proposed method is comprehensive regardless of the end rotational
conditions of beam–column members and applies to frames with any combination of pinned, semirigid and rigid beam-
to-column connections. In addition, the end-fixity factor simplifies the analysis procedure for semirigid frames. More
importantly, the end-fixity factor may be valuable to the design of such structures because it provides a physical inter-
pretation of the extent of rigidity available in a connection. Thus, it provides a convenient way for designers to com-
pare the structural responses of a semirigid member to that of a rigid one. Examples are presented to demonstrate the
validity and efficiency of the proposed approach. With only minor modifications, the proposed method is readily imple-
mented in existing rigid frame analysis and design computer programs.

Key words: steel frame, semirigid connection, second-order analysis, P–D effect.

Résumé : Cet article présente une méthode d’analyse dans laquelle le comportement en rotation de la connexion
poutre-colonne et les effets de second ordre (P–D et P–d) des membres poutre-colonne sont explicitement considérés.
En adoptant le concept d’un facteur de stabilité à l’extrémité, la méthode proposée est complète peu importe les condi-
tions en rotation de l’extrémité des membres poutre-colonne et s’applique à des cadres avec n’importe quelle combinai-
son de connexions poutre-colonne à jointure, semi-rigides ou rigides. De plus, le facteur de stabilité à l’extrémité
simplifie la procédure d’analyse des cadres semi-rigides. Plus important encore, le facteur de stabilité à l’extrémité peut
être de valeur pour la conception de telles structures, car il fournit une interprétation physique de l’étendue de la rigi-
dité disponible dans une connexion. Donc, il fournit aux concepteurs un moyen commode pour comparer la réponse
structurale d’un membre semi-rigide à celle d’un membre rigide. Des exemples sont présentées afin de démontrer la va-
lidité et l’efficacité de l’approche proposée. Avec seulement des modifications mineures, la méthode proposée
s’implante aisément dans les programmes informatiques d’analyse et de conception de cadres rigides existants.

Mots clés : cadre d’acier, connexion semi-rigide, analyse de second ordre, effet P–D.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Xu 76

Introduction quite unrealistic compared with that of the actual structure.

In the current practice of analysis and design of steel-
framed building structures, the actual behaviour of beam-to-
column or beam-to-girder connections is generally simpli-
fied to the two idealized extremes of either fully rigid behav-
iour or ideally pinned behaviour. The first case implies
displacement and slope continuity between the column and
the beam, together with the full transfer of bending mo-
ments. The latter case, on the other hand, implies that the ro-
tation continuity is nonexistent; consequently, no bending
moment may be transmitted to the column by the beam. Al-
though the adoption of such idealized joint behaviour simpli-
fies the analysis and design processes, it by no means
represents the actual behaviour of the structure. Therefore,
the predicted response of the idealized structure may be
Received December 9, 1999. Revised manuscript accepted
July 17, 2000. Published on the NRC Research Press Web
site on January 19, 2001.
L. Xu. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until June 30, 2001.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28: 59–76 (2001) DOI:10.1139/cjce-28-1-59
This is because most connections used in current practice
actually exhibit semirigid deformation behaviour that can
contribute substantially to overall displacements of the struc-
ture and to the distribution of member force. Numerous ex-
perimental investigations on connection behaviour have
clearly demonstrated that a pinned connection possesses a
certain amount of rotational stiffness, while a rigid connec-
tion possesses some degree of flexibility. Neglecting realis-
tic connection behaviour may lead to unrealistic predictions
of the response and strength of structures and, therefore, to
approximations in design. In reality, beam-to-column con-
nections should be treated as semirigid connections in the
analysis and design of steel frames.
An effort to incorporate semirigid connection behaviour
into frame analysis was first made more than 50 years ago
(Pippard and Baker 1936). Over the past three decades, engi-
neers and researchers have shown great interest in computer-
based analysis of semirigid frames. Consequently, a large
number of studies on the influence of semirigid connection
behaviour on frame response such as displacements and
forces have been reported (Monforton and Wu 1963; Romstad
and Subramaniam 1970; Lightfoot and Le Messurier 1974;
Frye and Morris 1975; Ang and Morris 1984; Lui and Chen
© 2001 NRC Canada
60
Fig. 1. Moment–rotation behaviour for various connections.
1986; Goto and Chen 1987; Gerstle 1988; Nethercot 1985;
Deierlein et al. 1990; Hsieh 1990; Barakat and Chen 1991;
Xu 1992; King and Chen 1994; Xu and Grierson 1993; and
Lo and Stiemer 1995, among others).
In the current Canadian Standards Association Standard
CAN3-S16.1 “Limit states design of steel structures” (CSA
1994), the two types of constructions specified are continu-
ous construction with rigid connections and simple construc-
tion with pinned connections. The Standard mandates that
second-order (P–D) effects be accounted for explicitly while
designing framed structures. The proposed second-order
analysis method accounts for both semirigid connection be-
haviour and second-order effects explicitly and can easily be
implemented in currently used rigid frame analysis and de-
sign computer programs.
Connection behaviour and modelling
Beam-to-column connections play an important role in the
resistance of structural frames. The major functions of these
connections are to transfer the beam and floor loads to the
columns and to maintain the integrity of the frames. In gen-
eral, the forces transmitted through the connections can be
axial and shearing forces and bending and torsional mo-
ments. The effect of torsion is usually neglected for planar
frames. Furthermore, axial and shearing deformations in
connections are also neglected because they are generally
small compared with the bending deformation of most con-
nections. However, experimental studies show that beam–
column joint panels that are inadequately designed for resis-
tance against high axial and shear forces can yield, resulting
in excessive panel-zone deformation that will affect the
strength and serviceability performance of the frame when
subjected to repeated loads (Fielding and Huang 1971;
Bertero et al. 1972; Krawinkler 1978). Different models
have been proposed to study the effect of panel-zone defor-
mation on frame response (Chronicler 1978; Lui and Chen
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001
1986; Kato et al. 1988). (The panel-zone effect is not con-
sidered in this study, as it is only the rotational deformation
of connections that is of concern.)
As shown in Fig. 1, M–q curves obtained for various con-
nection types exhibit nonlinear behaviour even at the service
load level. The nonlinearity is mainly because a connection
is an assemblage of several components that interact differ-
ently at different levels of applied loads. It is difficult to ana-
lyze this nonlinear behaviour by rigorous and exact
mathematical procedures; hence, the analysis of connection
behaviour in practical design is usually approximate in na-
ture with drastic simplifications. Tests of prototype connec-
tions are commonly carried out to obtain actual moment–
rotational behaviour, which is then modelled approximately
by mathematical expressions. The simplest model is the sin-
gle-stiffness linear model that uses the initial stiffness to rep-
resent the connection behaviour:
M
[1] R=
q
where M, R, and q are the moment, stiffness, and rotation of
a connection, respectively (Monforton and Wu 1963;
Lightfoot and Le Messurier 1974).
Another approach to determine the connection stiffness,
R, in eq. [1] is by using the so-called beam line method
(McGuire 1968). Figure 2 shows the relationship between
the moment and the rotation at the ends of a uniformly
loaded beam. Note that the rotation is zero for a fully rigid
beam with resulting end-restrained moment of wL2/12, and
the moment is zero when the ends of the beam are pinned
with resulting end rotation of wL3/24EI. The beam line is a
straight line connecting these two extreme connection condi-
tions. The connection stiffness R is then determined by the
intersection of the beam line and moment–rotation curve of
the connection. However, as indicated by Kennedy (1969),
the beam line does not represent the attainment of yield
stress on the beam for any condition other than for a simply
supported beam and a fix-ended beam, i.e., the two end
points of the line. Thus, a beam line, to represent the condi-
tion of attainment of yielding at some point on the beam, at
the centre or the ends, must consist of two parts. A bilinear
model of the beam line as that shown in Fig. 2 was proposed
for evaluating connection stiffness (Kennedy 1969).
The modelling of connections is a fundamental require-
ment for any study of the interaction of connection and
frame behaviour. Although the single-stiffness linear model
(eq. [1]) is the least-complicated model and is easy to use, it
does not represent the true behaviour of the connections over
the entire load range. Piecewise linear and nonlinear models
were proposed to provide a better approximation of connec-
tion behaviour (Romstad and Subramaniam 1970; Frye and
Morris 1975; Moncarz and Gerstle 1981; Razzaq 1983).
For practical analysis and design applications, the adop-
tion of a model for semirigid connections in this research is
based on the following considerations: First, the model
should provide a unique analytic solution for frames with
semirigid connections under monotonic loading (Ariaratnam
and Xu 1996). Second, the model should be relatively sim-
ple and easy to use. Third, the model should provide an ac-
ceptable approximation of the behaviour of a variety of
connections. Fourth, the model should be able to generate
© 2001 NRC Canada
Xu
Fig. 2. Bilinear model of beam line.
nonlinear M–q curves that closely correspond to existing ex-
perimental data.
Based on the above considerations and the review of other
modelling studies, the four-parameter power model adopted
herein to simulate the moment–rotation relationship of
beam-to-column connections is
( R e - R p) q
[2] M= + Rp q
{1 + [( R e - R p) q/ M 0 ] n}1/ n
where, as shown in Fig. 3, Re is the initial stiffness of the
connection, Rp is the strain-hardening stiffness of the con-
nection, M0 is a reference moment, and n is a shape parame-
ter. In the determination of these four parameters, Hsieh
(1990) applied an unconstrained optimization technique to
obtain the “best” curve fit for different types of connections.
All of the curve-fitting results were reported to be in agree-
ment with the experimental results. In the case when only
the geometrical and physical properties of the connection are
known, some of these parameters for several types of con-
nections may also be predicted by analytical methods under
certain conditions (Yee and Melchers 1986; Hsieh 1990). It
is noted that the four-parameter model in eq. [2] represents
simpler models, such as the linear model by setting Re = Rp,
the elastic-plastic model by setting Rp = 0, and the bilinear
model when n becomes large.
To facilitate the nonlinear analysis of semirigid framed
structures, connection databases have been established as a
collection of experimental test results for different types of
steel beam-to-column connections (Goverdhan 1983;
Nethercot 1985; Kishi and Chen 1986). The data usually
collected are the corresponding details and dimensions of
the connection, beam and column. The connection databases
provide the necessary information for the determination of
the moment–rotation characteristics of beam-to-column con-
nections frequently used in steel construction.
Model of semirigid beam–column member
In general, there are two different approaches to incorpo-
rate connection flexibility into computer-based frame analy-
sis. The first approach is to introduce an extra “connection
element” to model each beam-to-column connection (Hsieh
1990). The method introduces one additional degree of free-
dom and one additional element at each connection. It is in-
61
Fig. 3. Semirigid connection model.
Fig. 4. Semirigid beam–column member.
convenient for practical use because one has to specify ex-
plicitly how the members are connected to the connection el-
ements. Another major drawback is the difficulty of
designers in obtaining a physical interpretation of the stiff-
ness of each connecting member, since the beam–column
member is separated from the attached end-connections. In
the second approach, which is adopted herein, each beam-to-
column connection is modelled as a rotational spring of zero
length. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 4, each semirigid beam–
column member comprises a finite-length beam–column
member with a zero-length rotational spring at each end
where the symbol @ represents the zero-length rotational
spring. The connection flexibilities are modelled through ro-
tational springs of stiffness R1 and R2 at the two ends of the
beam. The approach does not introduce any extra linear ele-
ments to the system and can easily be implemented in a rigid
frame analysis program. To reflect the relative stiffness of
the beam–column member and the rotational end-spring con-
nections, the following “end-fixity factor” is adopted:
aj 1
[3] rj = = ( j = 1, 2)
fj 1 + ( 3 EI / R j L)
where Rj is the end-connection spring stiffness and EI/L is
the flexural stiffness of the attached beam–column member
(Monforton and Wu 1963). The end-fixity factor rj defines
the stiffness of each end-connection relative to the attached
member and can be interpreted as the ratio of the rotation
a j of the end of the member to the combined rotation fj of
the member and the connection due to a unit end-moment,
as shown in Fig. 5 (Cunningham 1990). For flexible or so-
called pinned connections, the rotational stiffness of the con-
nection is idealized as zero and thus the value of the end-
fixity factor is zero (rj = 0). For fully restrained or so-called
© 2001 NRC Canada
62
Fig. 5. Definition of end-fixity factor.
Fig. 6. Relationship between connection stiffness and end-fixity
factor.
rigid connections, the end-fixity factor has a value of one
(rj = 1) because the connection rotational stiffness is taken to
be infinite. A semirigid connection has an end-fixity factor
between zero and one (0 < rj < 1).
By using the end-fixity factor, different member-end re-
straint conditions, such as rigid–pinned, rigid–semirigid,
pinned–semirigid, are readily modelled simply by setting the
end-fixity factors at the two ends of the member to appropri-
ate values. Therefore, the proposed analysis method is com-
prehensive regardless of member end-rotational conditions
and can be applied to the analysis of frames with any combi-
nation of pinned, rigid, and semirigid connections. This
comprehensive feature cannot be achieved by introducing an
additional “connection element” instead of the end-fixity
factor r to model the semirigid member because numerical
difficulties are encountered when the connection stiffness
approaches infinity, as a rigid connection requires infinite
stiffness.
The end-fixity factor also simplifies the analysis proce-
dure for semirigid framed structures. As demonstrated sub-
sequently, the formulations of stiffness matrices, end-
reactions, span deflections, and effective-length factors of
beam–columns can all be expressed in terms of the end-
fixity factors. The end-fixity factor has further value in de-
sign because it provides a physical interpretation of the ex-
tent of rigidity available in a connection. It also provides
designers with a convenient way to compare the structural
responses of a member with semirigid connections to that of
one with rigid or pinned connections.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001
Fig. 7. Moments of uniformly loaded beam vs. ratio RL/EI.
Fig. 8. Deflection of a uniformly loaded beam vs. ratio RL/EI.
By eq. [3], the relationship between the end-fixity factor
and the connection stiffness is nonlinear, as shown in Fig. 6.
It is also clear that the relationship between the connection
stiffness and the end-fixity factor is almost linear when the
connection is relatively flexible with a value of the end-
fixity factor between 0.0 and 0.5. However, as the end-fixity
factor approaches 1.0, the required increase of connection
stiffness becomes substantial. Therefore, designers should
keep in mind that with the same percentage increase in the
end-fixity factor, the corresponding increment in connection
stiffness may be quite different depending on whether the
connection is relatively flexible or rigid. Gerstle (1988) re-
ported that the stiffness ratio, RL/EI for “rigid” connections,
ranges from 10 to 50 in typical building design, which im-
plies that the end-fixity factor ranges from 0.77 to 0.94.
The end-fixity factor is a better indicator of how connec-
tions affect the structural behaviour than the connection
stiffness. The latter has little direct meaning in analysis. Fig-
ures 7 and 8 illustrate the variation of mid-span moments,
end-reaction moments, and mid-span deflection of the beam
with respect to the connection stiffness ratio, RL/EI, for a
uniformly loaded semirigid beam with identical connection
stiffnesses at both ends. Figures 9 and 10 show the same in-
formation in terms of the end-fixity factor, r. Figures 7 and 8
show that the relationships of the moments and the deflec-
tion to the connection stiffness ratio of the beam are highly
nonlinear when the ratio is between 0 and 20, and almost
linear when the ratio is between 20 and 50. On the other
© 2001 NRC Canada
Xu 63

Fig. 9. Moments of a uniformly loaded beam vs. end-fixity factor. Fig. 10. Deflection of a uniformly loaded beam vs. end-fixity
factor.

Thus, the rotational deformation of a connection is as-

hand, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10, the relationships of the sumed to be concentrated at a point, which is the end of
moments and the deflection to the end-fixity factor, for its semirigid member.
full range of zero to one, are approximately linear. Thus, it 5. The effects of eccentricity at joints are neglected.
is advantageous to characterize semirigid behaviour using
the end-fixity factor rather than the connection stiffness. First-order nonlinear analysis of semirigid
It is observed from Fig. 6 that when the connection stiff- steel frames
ness is large, very significant changes in stiffness produce
only very small changes in the end-fixity factor. Conse- The implementation of the concept of the end-fixity factor
quently, from Figs. 9 and 10, such change has a negligible into the frame analysis is straightforward. For an existing
influence on both moments and deflection of the beam. Con- rigid frame analysis computer program, only minor modifi-
versely, from Fig. 6 with low values of connection stiffness, cations to the member stiffness matrix and the evaluation of
small increases in the stiffness result in appreciable in- member end-reactions due to applied member loads are re-
creases in the end-fixity factor. Therefore, as shown in quired. The elastic stiffness matrix of a member i with two
Figs. 9 and 10, there is a considerable effect on the bending semirigid end-connections having stiffness moduli R1 and
moments and the deflection. Thus, in practice, when a real R2, as shown in Fig. 4, can be represented by the stiffness
pinned connection has some stiffness, a considerable re- matrix for the member taken to have rigid end-connections
straining moment may develop to the benefit of the struc- modified by a semirigid correction matrix (Monforton and
ture. At the other extreme, attempting to achieve further Wu 1963), i.e.,
increase in connection stiffness beyond that of a nearly rigid [4] K SR = S i C e-i
i
connection is not efficient and economical because it in-
volves only a small change in the end-fixity factor. Conse- where KiSR is the stiffness matrix of member i with
quently, it has little effect on the response of the structure. semirigid end-connections taken into account, Si is the stiff-
Because the end-fixity factor r is not sensitive to the con- ness matrix of the member taken to have rigid ends, and Ce-i
nection stiffness R, only an approximate moment–rotation is the required correction matrix. For a planar beam–column
relationship is required. A series of comprehensive formula- element with six degrees of freedom, the matrices Si and Ce-i
tions for calculation of both end-reactions and span deflec- have the following form:
tions for a semirigid member in terms of end-fixity factors
under different types of loads are derived and are listed in é Ea - Ea ù
Appendix A. ê L 0 0 0 0 ú
L
To incorporate the behaviour of semirigid connections ê 12 EI 6 EI -12 EI 6 EI ú
based on the concept of the end-fixity factor into steel frame ê 0 ú
analysis, the following assumptions and idealizations are ê L3
L 2
L3 L2 ú
made: ê 4 EI -6 EI 2 EI ú
ê 0
1. All members are prismatic and straight. Si = ê L L2 L ú
[5]
Ea ú
2. Only the moment–rotation behaviour of connections is ê 0 0 ú
considered, whereas axial and shear deformation in a ê L ú
connection are ignored. ê 12 EI -6 EI ú
3. Members display linear-elastic or second-order-elastic ê sym ú
ê L3 L2 ú
behaviour, while the connections display nonlinear mo- 4 EI
ment–rotation behaviour. ê ú
4. Connection dimensions are assumed to be negligible êë L úû
compared to the lengths of the beams and columns.
© 2001 NRC Canada
64 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001

Fig. 11. Member and end-springs (10 DOF). Fig. 12. Member and end-springs (8 DOF).

é ù
ê1 0 0 0 0 0 ú
ê ú
ê0 4r 2 - 2r 1 + r 1 r 2 -2Lr 1(1 - r 2 ) ú
0 0 0
ê 4 -r 1r 2 4 -r 1r 2 ú
ê 6( r 1 - r 2 ) 3r 1( 2 - r 2 ) ú
ê0 0 0 0 ú
L( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 4 -r 1r 2
[6] C e-i =ê ú
ê ú
ê0 0 0 1 0 0 ú
ê ú
ê0 4r 1 - 2r 2 + r 1 r 2 2Lr 2 (1 - r 1) ú
0 0 0
ê 4 -r 1r 2 4 -r 1r 2 ú
ê 6( r 1 - r 2 ) 3r 2 ( 2 - r 1) ú
ê0 0 0 0 ú
ë L( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 4 -r 1r 2 û

where E is Young’s modulus and L, A, and I are the length,
cross-sectional area, and moment of inertia of the member,
respectively. The end-fixity factors r1 and r2 in eq. [6] are
defined by eq. [3]. Knowing the semirigid beam–column
member stiffness matrix from eq. [4] for specified values of
end-fixity factors reflecting connection stiffness, the analysis
of frames with semirigid connections can then be carried out
directly using the conventional displacement method. To
take the nonlinear behaviour of semirigid connections into
account, an iterative procedure is applied to obtain the solu-
tion. In each iteration, the member stiffness matrix KiSR is
modified using the correction matrix Ce-i with updated end-
fixity factors r. As well, when there are member loads on
semirigid members, the equivalent joint loads that facilitate
matrix analysis of the structure are updated, since member
end-reactions are also functions of the end-fixity factors.
Second-order nonlinear analysis of
semirigid steel frames
For all steel frames, it is required by CSA S16.1-94 to
conduct second-order analysis to ensure the lateral stability
of the frames. Unlike the first-order analysis, in which the
equilibrium and kinematic relationships of a frame are estab-
lished with respect to the undeformed geometry of the struc-
ture, the relationships in the second-order analysis are
associated with the deformed geometry of the structure. For
that reason, the second-order elastic analysis is referred as
geometrical nonlinear analysis. By inducing additional
stresses in the member and by causing the frame member to
deform more, the second-order effects, which are often re-
ferred as P–D and P–d effects, have a destabilizing effect on
the structure. Therefore, second-order analysis is necessary
for the stability consideration of framed structures.
Goto and Chen (1987) derived the closed-form stiffness
equations with consideration of geometrical nonlinearity for
the semirigid member by incorporating of connection stiff-
ness with beam–column stability functions. The coefficients
of these functions are expressed either as hyperbolic func-
tions or as trigonometric functions according to whether the
axial forces are tensile or compressive. However, numerical
instability was found to be caused by singularity when the
axial force approaches zero. A power-series expansion with
regard to the axial forces was introduced to avoid the singu-
larity. With the adoption of the end-fixity factor, the second-
order rigid frame analysis was revised for semirigid cases
(Dhillon and Abdel-Majid 1990; Dhillon and O’Malley
1999). However, the connection flexibility was taken into ac-
count only for the elastic stiffness matrix and not for the
geometrical stiffness matrix that represented second-order
effects. When geometrical nonlinearity (second-order) ef-
fects are taken into account in the analysis and design of
semirigid framed structures, the connection flexibility must
be taken into account for both of the elastic and geometrical
stiffness matrices of beam–column members. In this section,
the geometrical stiffness matrix of the semirigid beam–
column member is developed, then a method is presented for
the analysis of semirigid frames with both geometrical non-
linearity (second-order) and material nonlinearity (semirigid
connection behaviour) effects taken into account.
In Fig. 11, a planar beam–column member and two end
connections are shown as three separate elements, for a total
of 10 degrees of freedom. The moment–rotation relation-
ships for the two connections can be expressed as

© 2001 NRC Canada

Xu 65

é F7 ù é R 1 -R 1 ù éu 7 ù é F9 ù é R 2 -R 2 ù é u 9 ù
[7] ê ú =ê ú ê ú; ê ú =ê úê ú
êë F8 úû êë-R 1 R 1 úû êëu 8 úû êë F10 úû êë-R 2 R 2 úû êëu10 úû
where F7, F8, F9, and F10 are the moments in the connections; u7 – u8 = q1 and u9 – u10 = q 2 are the rotations of the connec-
tions; and R1 and R2 are the stiffnesses of connections 1 and 2, respectively. The relationship between member-end displace-
ments and forces for the beam–column member i, with second-order (P–D and P–d) effects taken into account, is
[8a] Fi = ( S i + G i ) ui
In expanded form,
æ é Ea - Ea ù é ù ö÷
çê 0 0 0 0 ú ê0 0 0 0 0 0 ú÷
é F1 ù ç ê L L
ú ê ú éu1 ù
ê ú çê 12 EI 6 EI -12 EI 6 EI ú L ú÷ ê ú
0 ê 6 L 0 -
6
ê F2 ú ç ê L2 ú ê 5 10
÷ êu 2 ú
ê ú çê
L3 L2 L3 5 10 ú ÷ ê ú
4 EI -6 EI 2 EI ú ê 2L2 2 ú
êF ú ç ê 0 ú ê 0 -
L L ÷
- ú÷ êu ú
[8b] ê 3 ú =çê L L2 L ú N
+ ê 15 10 30 ú ê 3ú
ê ú çê Ea ú L ê ú
÷ ê ú
ê F4 ú ç ê 0 0
ú ê 0 0 0 ú÷ êu 4 ú
ê ú çê L ÷ ê ú
ê F5 ú ç ê 12 EI -6 EI ú ê 6 L ú÷ êu 5 ú
ú ê - ú÷
ê ú çê L3 L3 ú ê 5 10 ú ÷ ê ú
êë F6 úû ç ê 4 EI ú ê 2L2 ú ÷ êëu 6 úû
çê ú
ç êë 15 úû ÷ø
èë L û

where Si and Gi are the elastic and geometrical stiffness matrices, respectively, for a fully rigid beam–column member and N
is the axial force in the member. Therefore, from eqs. [7] and [8] the force–displacement relationship for all three elements in
Fig. 11 is
é F6´1 ù é( S i + G i ) 6´6 ù éu6´1 ù
ê ú ê úê ú
ê F7 ú ê R1 -R 1 ú ê u7 ú
ê ú ê úê ú
[9a] ê F ú =ê -R 1 R1 úêu ú
ê 8 ú ê úê 8 ú
ê ú ê úê ú
ê F9 ú ê R2 -R 2 ú ê u 9 ú
ê ú ê úê ú
êë F10 úû êë -R 2 R 2 úû êë u10 úû

In compact form,
[9b] F10´1 = K10´10 u10´1
Consider, now, the hybrid element shown in Fig. 12 that connects together the two end-springs and the member such that
there are only 8 degrees of freedom. The relationship between the 10 degrees of freedom of the three elements in Fig. 11 and
the 8 degrees of freedom in Fig. 12 is defined by the transformation matrix:

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
 
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
[10] T10× 8 = 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
 
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
 
 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

© 2001 NRC Canada

66 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001

Therefore, from eqs. [9] and [10], the stiffness matrix of the [11a] K 8¢ ´8 = T8T´10 K10´10 T10´8
hybrid element in Fig. 12 can be found from that for the
three separated elements in Fig. 11 as that is,

é S11+G11 0 0 S14+G14 0 0 0 0 ù
ê ú
ê0 S 22 +G 22 0 0 S 25+G 25 0 S 23+G 23 S 26+G 26 ú
ê ú
ê0 0 R1 0 0 0 -R 1 0 ú
ê ú
ê ú
ê S 41+G 41 0 0 S 44+G 44 0 0 0 0 ú
[11b] K 8¢´8 =ê ú
ê0 S 52 +G 52 0 0 S 55+G 55 0 S 53+G 53 S 56+G 56 ú
ê ú
ê0 0 0 0 0 R2 0 -R2 ú
ê ú
ê0 S 32 +G 32 -R 1 0 S 35+G 35 0 S 35+G 35 + R 1 S 63+G 63 ú
ê ú
ê0 -R 2 + R 1 úû
ë S 62 +G 62 0 0 S 65+G 65 S 63+G 63 S 66+G 66

where Skl and Gkl (k = 1, 2, …, 6; l = 1, 2, …, 6) are the ele- Each element of KiSR in eq. [16] involves nonlinear frac-
ments of the elastic and geometrical stiffness matrices, re- tional functions in terms of the parameter, NL2/EI, where N
spectively, given in eq. [8b] for a rigid-end member. is the member axial force. A Taylor’s series is used to ex-
Finally, to obtain the stiffness matrix of the semirigid pand the nonlinear fraction matrix into a polynomial matrix
beam–column element in Fig. 4 involving only 6 degrees of in terms of NL2/EI. The elastic stiffness matrix is obtained as
freedom, static condensation is employed to eliminate the the constant matrix of the Taylor’s series and is the same as
degrees of freedom 7¢ and 8¢ in Fig. 12. To that end, the that presented by Monforton and Wu (1963). The geometri-
force–displacement relationship for the element in Fig. 12 is cal stiffness matrix GiSR is obtained as the first-order terms
expressed as of the polynomial matrix. For the analysis and design of
semirigid steel-framed structures, it is convenient to express
é F6´1 ù é K 6´6 K 6´2 ù é u6´1 ù the member geometrical stiffness matrix in terms of the end-
[12] ê ú =ê úê ú fixity factor and the geometrical stiffness matrix of a fully
êë F2 ´1 úû êëK 2 ´6 K 2 ´2 úû êëu2 ´1 úû rigid beam–column member in order to readily simulate dif-
ferent end-conditions for the member. To this end, a sem-
where F6×1 and u6×1 are end forces and displacements corre- irigid correction matrix is derived by decomposition of the
sponding to the exterior degrees of freedom 1¢ to 6¢, and F2×1 first-order terms of the polynomial matrix as
and u2×1 are end forces and displacements corresponding to
[17] G SR
i = G i Cg -i
the interior degrees of freedom 7¢ and 8¢. Knowing that
F2×1 = {0, 0}T, from the second set of equations in eq. [12]
where Gi is the geometrical stiffness matrix of a rigid beam–
[13] K 2 ´6 u 6´1 + K 2 ´2 u 2 ´1 = 0 column member in eq. [8b] and Cg-i is the semirigid correc-
tion matrix for the geometrical stiffness of the member and
thus, is given by
é0 0 0 0 0 0 ù
[14] u 2 ´1 = -K 2-´12 K 2 ´6 u 6´1 ê ú
ê0 1 0 0 0 0 ú
and by substituting eq. [14] into the first set of equations in ê ú
ê0 G 32 G 33 0 G 35 G 36 ú
eq. [12], we have ê ú
[18] C g -i =ê ú
[15] F6´1 = ( K 6´6 - K 6´2 K 2-´12 K 2 ´6 ) u 6´1 ê0 0 0 0 0 0 ú
ê ú
Therefore, from eq. [15], the stiffness matrix for the ê0 0 0 0 1 0 ú
semirigid member i in Fig. 4 can be expressed as ê ú
êë0 G 62 G 63 0 G 65 G 66 úû
[16] K SR
i = K 6´6 - K 6´2 K 2-´12 K 2 ´6
where
© 2001 NRC Canada
Xu 67

Fig. 13. Flowchart of proposed second-order semirigid frame analysis.

-4
G 32 = -G 35 = (8r 12 r 2 -13r 1 r 22 - 32r 12 - 8r 22 + 25r 1 r 2 + 20)
5L( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 2
r1
G 33 = (16r 22 + 25r 1 r 22 - 96r 1 r 2 + 128r 1 - 28r 2 )
5( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 2

4r 2
G 36 = (16r 12 + 5r 12 r 2 + 9r 1 r 2 - 28r 1 + 8r 2 )
5( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 2

© 2001 NRC Canada

68 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001

Fig. 14. K factors for columns of braced frame vs. r factors of Fig. 15. Three-bay three-storey braced frame.
beams.

-4
G 62 = -G 65 = (8r 1 r 22 -13r 12 r 2 - 32r 22 - 8r 12 + 25r 1 r 2 + 20)
5L( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 2

4r1
G 63 = (16r 22 - 5r 1 r 22 + 9r 1 r 2 + 8r 1 - 28r 2 )
5( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 2
r2
G 66 = (16r 12 + 25r 12 r 2 - 96r 1 r 2 - 28r 1 + 128r 2 )
5( 4 - r 1 r 2 ) 2

where r1 and r2 are end-fixity factors of the member defined
in eq. [3] and L is the length of the member.
Having obtained the second-order geometrical stiffness
matrix GiSR, the overall stiffness matrix for a semirigid
beam–column member i in which both the first- and second-
order elastic properties have been considered can be ex-
pressed as
[19] K SR
i = S i C e-i + G i C g -i
where the matrices Si and Ce-i are as defined in eqs. [5] and
[6] and Gi and Cg-i are given by eqs. [8] and [18]. Since the
correction matrices Ce-i and Cg-i, which take into account the
semirigid connection behaviour, are expressed by the end-
fixity factor instead of connection stiffness, the stiffness ma-
trix KiSR is comprehensive regardless of member end rota-
tional conditions and applies to a beam–column member
with any combination of pinned, semirigid, and rigid con-
nections.
The iterative procedure for the second-order analysis of
semirigid frames with nonlinear behaviour of connections
taken into account is described in the following (where the
subscript i denotes the index number of a semirigid member,
and the subscript j denotes one of the two ends of the mem-
ber):
Step 1. Set small constants e1 and e 2 for convergence cri-
teria, input the data, including the parameters for the speci-
fied connections from eq. [2]. Set the iteration index k = 0,
assign connection stiffnesses Rij(k) = Re, and set member ax-
ial forces Ni(k) = 0. Generate elastic stiffness matrix from
eq. [5] for each member.
Step 2. Iteration index k = k + 1, update the end-fixity fac-
tors rij using eq. [3] for each semirigid member i; evaluate
member equivalent joint loads; calculate the correction ma-
trices Ce-i and Cg-i using eqs. [6] and [18], respectively. Eval-
uate geometrical stiffness matrix Gi based on the axial force
Ni(k–1) from previous iteration. Generate the member stiff-
ness matrix KiSR according to eq. [19] for each semirigid
member.
Step 3. Assemble the structure stiffness matrix and solve
for nodal displacements, member axial forces Ni(k), and con-
nection moments Mij(k).
Step 4. Calculate connection rotations q ij ( k ) = Mij(k)/Rij(k)
and obtain the corresponding moments M(q ij ( k ) ) from
eq. [2].
Step 5. Check for convergence by comparing the connec-
tion moments Mij(k) obtained through analysis with the mo-
ments M(q ij ( k ) ) calculated in step 4, and also by comparing
the member axial forces Ni(k) with the forces Ni(k–1) from the
previous iteration; if |Mij(k) – M(q ij ( k ) )| £ e1 and |Nij(k) –
Nij(k–1)| £ e 2 , then stop; otherwise go to step 6.
Step 6. Update connection secant stiffness Rij(k) =
M(q ij ( k ) )/q ij ( k ) and go back to step 2.

© 2001 NRC Canada

Xu 69

Table 1. Maximum moments of one-bay two-storey semirigid steel frame.

Second-order semirigid analysis
A B C D
Exact King and Barakat and Ratio
analysis Chen (1993) Chen (1991) Proposed
Member (kN·m) (kN·m) (kN·m) (kN·m) B/A C/A D/A
col-1 29.04 24.86 22.71 30.84 0.86 0.78 1.06
col-2 61.80 66.44 65.08 60.22 1.08 1.05 0.97
col-3 59.43 62.37 62.93 57.06 1.05 1.06 0.96
col-4 91.86 92.42 91.63 90.39 1.01 0.99 0.98
beam-1 169.13 161.68 162.02 176.6 0.96 0.96 1.04
beam-2 106.21 104.17 104.29 108.58 0.98 0.98 1.02
Mean (m) 0.990 0.970 1.005
Standard deviation (n) 0.077 0.101 0.041

Fig. 16. One-bay two-storey semirigid steel frame. Fig. 17. Moment–rotation curves for TSAW-17 connection.

ended member of length KL, subject to axial load only, by

With the adoption of the end-fixity factor defined in
eq. [3], and the derivation of the member stiffness matrix
through eq. [19] accounting for both second-order effects
and semirigid connection behaviour, it is a straightforward
matter to modify linear elastic analysis computer programs
for rigid frames to perform second-order analysis for semi-
rigid frames. Figure 13 illustrates the modified program
flowchart of the proposed second-order analysis method for
semirigid frames.
Modification of column effective-length
factor
The determination of column strength of a framed struc-
ture is of primary importance in structural design. The
strength and stability of a frame and its columns are interre-
lated. The effective length concept for evaluating column
strength in a frame used to be the primary design method to
evaluate the stability interaction effect of columns and
beams of the frame. According to this concept, the strength
of a column of length L is equated to an equivalent pin-
means of K factor
Pe
[20] K=
Pcr
where Pcr is the critical load of the end-restrained column,
and Pe is the Euler load given by
p 2 EI
[21] Pe =
L2
in which L is the length of the column and I is the moment
of inertia of the column section about the axis of buckling.
For an unbraced frame (sway permitted), the current Ca-
nadian standard CSA S16.1 (CSA 1994) suggests using K =
1.0 for columns and performing a second-order geometric
analysis under actual and notional loads so as to take sway
effects into account directly. For the case of semirigid
frames, the second-order nonlinear analysis procedure pro-
posed in the previous section accounts for both frame sway
and connection behaviour effects for K = 1.0.
For braced frames (sway prevented), the effective-length
factor K is determined by the following equation (CSA
1994):

© 2001 NRC Canada

70 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001

Table 2. Lateral drift of 2-bay 11-storey steel frame.

Stiffness Connection Lateral drift Lateral drift
End-fixity ratio, stiffness D1 1st-order D 2 2nd-order D2
factor, r RL/EI ( N ×mm -1 ×rad -1 ) analysis (mm) analysis (mm) D1
1.0 ¥ ¥ 125 140 1.12
0.9 27.00 4.723 × 1011 145 165 1.14
0.8 12.00 2.099 × 1011 168 196 1.17
0.7 7.00 1.225 × 1011 197 237 1.20
0.6 4.50 7.872 × 1010 235 293 1.25
0.5 3.00 5.248 × 1010 286 377 1.32
0.4 2.00 3.499 × 1010 358 514 1.44
0.3 1.29 2.249 × 1010 478 780 1.66
0.2 0.75 1.312 × 1010 675 1531 2.27

Fig. 18. Two-bay eleven-storey semirigid steel frame. Fig. 19. Lateral drift increase due to second-order effects of 11-
storey frame.

[23] G=
å (I c / Lc )
å (I g / Lg )
where the summation is taken over all members connected
to the joint, Ic is the moment of inertia of the column section
corresponding to the plane of buckling, Lc is the unsupported
length of column, Ig is the moment of inertia of the
beam/girder section corresponding to the plane of buckling,
and Lg is the unsupported length of the beam/girder.
To take connection flexibility into account in the determi-
nation of the effective-length factor K for columns of
semirigid frames, Chen and Lui (1985) proposed the follow-
ing procedure recommended by the AISC specifications
(AISC 1989; AISC 1994) for calculating the K factor for
rigid frames and modifying the values of the moment of in-
ertia of the restraining beams. Following this procedure for
columns connected to beams at both ends by semirigid con-
nections with rotational stiffness R, the stiffness distribution
factor G at each end of the column is calculated as
GUGL æ p ö
2
GU +GU æ p/ K ö G=
å (I c / Lc )
[22] ç ÷ + çç1 - ÷÷ [24]
4 èKø 2 è tan( p/ K) ø å (a g I g / Lg )
æ tan( p/ K) ö where a g is a semirigid modification factor applied to the
+ 2 çç ÷÷ = 1
è p/ K ø moment of inertia Ig of the restraining beams of length Lg.
For braced frames,
where GU and GL are the stiffness factors for the upper and 1
lower ends of the column. The stiffness factor G is defined [25] ag =
as (CSA 1994) 1 + ( 2 EI g / RL g )

© 2001 NRC Canada

Xu
The modification factor a g in eq. [25] applies only when the
connection stiffnesses at both ends of the semirigid beam are
identical. The modification factor a g was then derived to
consider the different values of connection stiffness at the
ends of the beam (Kishi et al. 1997; Christopher and
Bjorhovde 1999). However, different expressions, which de-
pend on the rotational conditions of the ends of the beam
such as pinned for the “near end” and semirigid for the “far
end” or semirigid and rigid, were used for each of the modi-
fication factors a g . No general formulations were available
for the modification factor, since the semirigid modification
factor was defined based on the stiffness ratio RIg/ELg. With
the adoption of the concept of the end-fixity factor, compre-
hensive expressions of the modification factors can be de-
rived regardless of the rotational conditions at each end of
the beam for braced frames.
Consider the semirigid member shown in Fig. 4 with dif-
ferent values of connection stiffnesses R1 and R2 at ends 1
and 2, respectively. Ends 1 and 2 refer to the “near end” and
“far end,”, respectively. The slope–deflection equation for
such a member can be expressed in terms of the end-fixity
factors r1 and r2 as
3r 1 æ 4 EI g 2 EI g ö respective to the applied loads, the connections in the semi-
[26] M1 = ç f1 + r 2 f2 ÷
4 -r 1r 2 ç L Lg ÷ rigid frame behave nonlinearly and are interrelated to the
è g ø
where f 1 and f 2 are end-rotations of the semirigid beam
member. M1 is the end-moment at the “near end” of the
member.
For a braced frame, the symmetric deformation of the col-
umns that are connected at the two ends of the semirigid
member results in f 1 = -f 2 (counterclockwise rotation is
positive) for the end rotations of the semirigid member. Sub-
stituting this relationship into eq. [26], it is found for a
semirigid member in a braced frame that
3r 1( 2 - r 2 ) 2 EI g
[27] M1 = f1
4 -r 1r 2 Lg
Therefore, when M1 in eq. [27] is compared with the corre-
sponding moment for a fully rigid member in a braced
frame, i.e.,
2 EI g
[28] M1 = f1
Lg
It is readily noted that the moment of inertia modification
factor for a braced frame is
3r 1( 2 - r 2 )
[29] ag =
4 -r 1r 2
where the end-fixity factors r1 and r2 in eq. [29] correspond
to the “near end” and “far end,”, respectively.
Comparing eq. [29] with eq. [25] for semirigid frames, the
former has more general forms that allow the beam to have
different end connection stiffnesses. Moreover, because
eq. [29] is expressed by the end-fixity factors, beams with
any combination of pinned, semirigid, and rigid connections
are also applied. For instance, eq. [29] will yield a value of
1.5 for the modification factor a g for a beam in a braced
71
frame with a rigid connection at “near end” (r1 = 1) and
pinned connection at “far end” (r2 = 0).
Equation [29] does not apply, however, for the case when
the “far end” of the member is rigidly attached to a fixed
support for which rotation f2 = 0. From eqs. [26] and [28],
the corresponding modification factor a g becomes
6r 1
[30] ag =
4 -r 1r 2
In both eqs. [29] and [30], the corresponding modification
factor a g becomes zero if the “near end” connection is a
pinned connection (r1 = 0), which indicates the beam will
not be able to provide any rotational restraint to the con-
nected column.
Once the modification factor a g being evaluated based on
the end condition of the beams, the stiffness factors for the
upper and lower ends of the column can be calculated ac-
cording to eq. [24]. The corresponding column effective-
length factor is then obtained from the alignment chart ap-
proach recommended by design specifications (CSA 1994;
AISC 1994). Unlike the ideally rigid or pinned case, in
which the effective-length factor of a column is evaluated ir-
loads. As a frame is loaded, the connection stiffness, and
thus the restraint provided to the columns, gradually de-
creases, causing the column effective-length factor to in-
crease. Consequently, the effective-length factor of the
column in the semirigid frame has to be evaluated for each
applied load case. To illustrate the influence of connection
stiffness to column K factor, Fig. 14 shows the correspond-
ing K factors of interior columns due to the variation of the
end-fixity factor of the beam from zero to one in a three-
storey braced frame shown in Fig. 15.
Examples
Using the method outlined in the previous sections, a rigid
steel frame computer program (Grierson and Cameron 1994)
was modified to incorporate semirigid connection behaviour
into frame analysis by introducing end-fixity factors defined
in eq. [3] and modification matrices in eqs. [6] and [18] for
the semirigid beam–columns. Two semirigid steel frames
were analyzed with the second-order effects taken into ac-
count. The purpose of the first example is to validate the
proposed analysis approach by comparison of the analysis
with results obtained by other researchers, while the intent
of the second example is to illustrate the frame behaviour
due to the interaction of second-order effects and semirigid
connections.
One-bay two-storey frame
The simple steel frame shown in Fig. 16 has identical
beam-to-column connections consisting of top and seat an-
gles with web stiffeners (TSAW-17) (Barakat and Chen
1991; King and Chen 1993). The nonlinear moment–rotation
curve for the connection is shown in Fig. 17. Kim and Chen
(1993) conducted a so-called “exact” second-order analysis
(Lui and Chen 1987; Goto and Chen 1987) for the frame by
using a power model to represent the nonlinear moment–ro-
© 2001 NRC Canada
72
tation behaviour of the TSAW-17 connection. To take into
account the change in bending stiffness due to the presence
of axial forces, the stiffness matrix of each semirigid mem-
ber was derived using the stability stiffness functions that
are generally used to calculate the elastic buckling load of
beam–column members. Due to the complexity of these
functions, each element of the stiffness matrix was only
given in symbolic form rather than being explicitly ex-
pressed in terms of member and connection properties.
Barakat and Chen (1991) and later King and Chen (1993)
have proposed an alternative approach to simplify the analy-
sis process.
Results from the analyses outlined in the foregoing are
compared with the analysis results from this study in order
to verify the proposed approach for the second-order analy-
sis of semirigid frames. For all analyses, the maximum col-
umn and beam moments serve as the basis of comparison.
As shown in Table 1, the results obtained for the present
study are in good agreement with those reported by Barakat
and Chen (1991) and King and Chen (1993). The mean ratio
of the maximum moments based on the proposed approach
to those reported for the “exact” second-order analysis is
1.00 with a coefficient of variation of 0.041.
Two-bay eleven-storey frame
The 11-storey unbraced frame shown in Fig. 18 was ana-
lyzed under proportional gravity and wind load by Morris et
al. (1995) to illustrate the amplification of lateral drift of the
frame due to connection deformation. All of the beam-to-
column connections of the frame were assumed to be identi-
cal. The three cases of connection types studied were rigid
connection, rigid-semirigid connection, and semirigid con-
nection.
To trace the effect of semirigid behaviour on geometric
second-order effects, nine analyses were conducted for the
frame with the end-fixity factor decreasing by decrements of
0.1 from the rigid connection (r = 1.0) to a flexible connec-
tion (r = 0.2). The frame was analyzed with and without
considering second-order effects for each case. The lateral
drift obtained at the roof level for each case is presented in
Table 2. Increasing the NBCC (NRC 1995) drift limit for
serviceability, H/500, by a factor of 1.35 to account for fac-
tored loads gives a roof drift of 125 mm. The values of the
end-fixity factor, the corresponding stiffness ratio RL/EI and
the connection stiffness are listed in Table 2. Figure 19
shows that as the end-fixity factor decreases, the lateral drift
due to second-order effects increases significantly, thus in-
tensifying the second-order effects considerably.
It is noticed that lateral drifts of the frame are 145 and
160 mm based on the first-order semirigid analysis with val-
ues of end-fixity factor as 0.9 and 0.8, respectively. Both
drifts are greater than 140 mm obtained when the second-
order effects are considered in the rigid frame case (r = 1.0).
The corresponding values of stiffness ratio RL/EI for r = 0.8
and r = 0.9 are 12 and 27, respectively. Because both values
are, according to Gerstle (1988), within the range for rigid
connections used in typical building design, this demon-
strates that the influence of the beam-to-column connection
on the frame behaviour may be more significant than the
second-order effects even for rigid frames. In turn, this per-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001
haps indicates that a value of the end-fixity factor less than
1.0 should be used in mid- to high-rise rigid steel frame de-
sign.
Conclusions
A practical method for analysis of semirigid steel frames
is presented with both nonlinear behaviour of the connection
and the second-order effects of the beam–column members
taken into account. The concept of the end-fixity factor is in-
troduced to characterize the behaviour of semirigid connec-
tions. This factor defines the stiffness of a connection
relative to the attached member. The lower and upper
bounds of the factor are zero and one, which correspond to
the ideally pinned and fully rigid connections, respectively.
Thus, a semirigid connection has an end-fixity factor value
somewhere between zero and one. This narrow range of val-
ues gives engineers a physical interpretation of the extent of
available rigidity provided by a connection. The importance
and significance of this factor in simplifying the analysis and
design of semirigid structures cannot be emphasized enough.
Empowered by the concept of the end-fixity factor, the
elastic stiffness matrix, member end-reactions, and span de-
flections for a semirigid member are presented in terms of
the end-fixity factors. The geometrical stiffness matrix of a
semirigid member is derived for conducting second-order
analysis of semirigid frames. An iterative procedure is pre-
sented for the analysis of semirigid frames with both nonlin-
ear moment–rotation connection behaviour and second-order
effects of the structure taken into account. For the purpose of
design, general formulations for restraining-beam inertia
modification factors that allow the connection flexibility to
be taken into account when calculating the effective-length
factor K for column members were developed for both
braced and unbraced frames.
Examples were presented to demonstrate the validity of
the method. The interaction of semirigid connection behav-
iour and second-order effects was investigated by means of
the analysis of an 11-storey frame. By comparing the lateral
drift of first-order semirigid analysis with values for the end-
fixity factor of 0.8 and 0.9 to that of second-order analysis
of the rigid frame (r = 1), it is suggested that a value of the
end-fixity factor less than 1.00 should be used in mid- to
high-rise rigid steel frame design.
The analysis procedure is relatively straightforward. With
only minor modifications, the proposed approach is easy to
implement into existing rigid frame analysis and design
computer programs. Therefore, it is suitable for design office
use.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported financially by the Natural Sci-
ences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
References
AISC. 1989. Specification for structural steel buildings — allow-
able stress design and plastic design. 9th ed. American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill.
© 2001 NRC Canada
Xu
AISC. 1994. Load and resistance factor design specification for
structural steel buildings. 2nd ed. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Ill.
Ang, K.M., and Morris, G.A. 1984. Analysis of three-dimensional
frames with flexible beam–column connections. Canadian Jour-
nal of Civil Engineering, 11(2): 245–254.
Ariaratnam, S.T., and Xu, L. 1996. Uniqueness in analysis of
semirigid frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
122(1): 110–111.
Barakat, M., and Chen, W.F. 1991. Design analysis of semirigid
frames: evaluation and implementation. AISC Engineering Jour-
nal, 2: 54–64.
Bertero, V.V., Popov, E.P., and Krawinkler, H. 1972. Beam–column
subassemblages under repeated loading. ASCE Journal of
Structutal Engineering, 98(5): 1137–1159.
CSA. 1994. Limit states design of steel structures. CSA Standard
S-16.1-94, Canadian Standards Association, Etobicoke, Ont.
Chen, W.F., and Lui, E.M. 1985. Stability design criteria for steel
members and frames in the United States. Journal of Construc-
tion Steel Research, 5: 31–74.
Christopher, J.E., and Bjorhovde, R. 1999. Semirigid frame design
methods for practicing engineers. AISC Engineering Journal,
36(1): 12–28.
Cunningham, R. 1990. Some aspects of semirigid connections in
structural steelwork. The Structural Engineer, 68(5): 85–92.
Deierlein, G.G., Hsieh, S.-H., and Shen, Y.-J. 1990. Computer-
aided design of steel structures with flexible connections. Pro-
ceedings of AISC National Steel Construction Conference, Kan-
sas City, Mo.
Dhillon, B.S., and Abdel-Majid, S. 1990. Interactive analysis and
design of flexibility connected frames. Computers & Structures,
36(2): 189–202.
Dhillon, B.S., and O’Malley, J.W. 1999. Interactive design of
semirigid steel frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
125(5): 556–564.
Fielding, D.J., and Huang, J.S. 1971. Shear on beam-to-column
connections. Welding Journal, 50(7): 313–326.
Frye, M.J., and Morris, G.A. 1975. Analysis of flexibly connected
steel frames. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2(3): 280–
291.
Gerstle, K.H. 1988. Effect of connection on frames. Journal of
Construction Steel Research, 10: 241–267.
Goto, Y., and Chen, W.F. 1987. On the computer-based design
analysis for flexibly joined frames. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Special Issue on Joint Flexibility in Steel
Frames, 8: 203–231.
Goverdhan, A.V. 1983. A collection of experimental moment rota-
tion curves and the evaluation of predicting equations for
semirigid connections, M.Sc. thesis, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tenn.
Grierson, D.E., and Cameron, G.E. 1994. SODA: structural optimi-
zation design and analysis user manual. Acronym Software Inc.,
Waterloo, Ont.
Hsieh, S.H. 1990. Analysis of three-dimensional steel frames with
semirigid connections. M.Sc. thesis, School of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Kato, B., Chen, W.F., and Nakao, M. 1988. Effects of joint-panel
shear deformation on frames. In Steel beam-to-column building
73
connections. Edited by W.F. Chen. Elsevier, London and New
York.
Kennedy, D.J.L. 1969. Moment–rotation characteristics of shear
connections. AISC Engineering Journal, 6(4): 105–115.
King, W.S., and Chen, W.F. 1993. A LRFD-based analysis method
for semirigid frame design. Structural Engineering Report No.
CE-STR-93-15, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Ind.
Kishi, N., and Chen, W.F. 1986. Steel connection data bank pro-
gram. Structural Engineering Report No. CE-STR-86-18, School
of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Kishi, N., Chen, W.F., and Goto, Y. 1997. Effective length factor of
columns in semirigid and unbraced frames. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 123(3): 313–320.
Krawinkler, H. 1978. Shear in beam–column joints in seismic de-
sign of steel frames. AISC Engineering Journal, 5(3): 82–90.
Lightfoot, E., and Le Messurier, A.P. 1974. Elastic analysis of
frameworks with elastic connections. ASCE Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, 100(ST6): 1297–1309.
Lo, D.S.K., and Stiemer, S.F. 1995. A practical method for incor-
porating flexible connections in plane frame analysis. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 22: 871–882.
Lui, E.M., and Chen, W.F. 1986. Analysis and behaviour of flexi-
bly-jointed frames. Engineering Structures, 8: 107–118.
McGuire, W. 1968. Steel structures. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
Monforton, G.R., and Wu, T.S. 1963. Matrix analysis of
semirigidly connected frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, 89(ST6): 13–42.
Moncarz, P., and Gerstle, K.H. 1981. Steel frames with nonlinear
connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 107(8): 1427–
1441.
Morris, G., Huang, J., and Scerbo, M. 1995. Accounting for con-
nection behaviour in steel frame design. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 22: 955–969.
Nethercot, D.A. 1985. Utilization of experimentally obtained con-
nection data in assessing the performance of steel frames in con-
nection flexibility and steel frames. In Proceedings of ASCE
National Convention. Edited by W.F. Chen. Detroit, Mich.
NRC. 1995. National building code of Canada. National Research
Coucil of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Pippard, A.J.S., and Baker, J.F. 1936. The analysis of engineering
structures. 1st ed. Edward Arnold Ltd., London, England.
Razzaq, Z. 1983. End restraint effect of steel column strength.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 109: 314–334.
Romstad, K.M., and Subramaniam, C.V. 1970. Analysis of frames
with partial connection rigidity. ASCE Journal of Structural En-
gineering, 96(ST11): 2283–2300.
Xu, L. 1992. Geometrical stiffness and sensitivity matrices for op-
timization of semirigid steel frameworks. Structural Optimiza-
tion, 5(1–2): 95–99.
Xu, L., and Grierson, D.E. 1993. Computer-automated design of
semirigid steel frameworks. ASCE Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, 119(6): 1740–1760.
Yee, Y.L., and Melchers, R.E. 1986. Moment–rotation curves for
bolted connections. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
112(3): 615–635.
© 2001 NRC Canada
74 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001

Appendix A. End-reactions and deflections of a semirigid member

Distributed load with linear variation

Fig. A1. Semirigid member with distributed load.

Fig. A2. Semirigid member with a concentrated force. Fig. A3. Semirigid member with a concentrated moment.

Consider a semirigid member under the action of a partially distributed external load with a linear variation as shown in
Fig. A1. The end moment reactions of a semirigid member due to the load shown in Fig. A1 are derived through this study
and readily expressed as follows:
r1 æ L2 ö
M1 = ç ÷
ç 60 ÷ ( n - m ){w a ( 2 + r 2 )[ 3( n - m ) + 15m ( n + m )] + 10w a ( 4 - r 2 )( n + 2m )
3 2 2
[A1]
4 -r 1r 2 è ø
- 30w a [( n + m ) 2 + 2m 2 ] + w b ( 2 + r 2 )[ 3(m - n) 3 + 15n(m 2 + n 2 )]
+ 10w b ( 4 - r 2 )(m + 2n) - 30w b [(m + n) 2 + 2n 2 ]}

r2 æ L2 ö
M2 = ç ÷
ç 60 ÷ ( n - m ){w a ( 2 + r 1)[ 3( n - m ) + 15m ( n + m )] - 20w a (1 - r 1)( n + 2m )
3 2 2
[A2]
4 -r 1r 2 è ø
- 15r 1w a [( n + m ) 2 + 2m 2 ] + w b ( 2 + r 1)[ 3(m - n) 3 + 15n(m 2 + n 2 )]
- 20w b (1 - r 1)(m + 2n) -15r 1w b [(m + n) 2 + 2n 2 ]}

where m = La/L and n = Lb/L are the ratios of distance from where the load starts and ends, respectively, to the length of the
beam; wa is the load density at where the load starts; and wb is the load density at where the load ends. The end shear reac-
tions of the member under such load can be obtained by static equilibrium as follows:
M 1 + M 2 ( n - m) L
[A3] V1 = + [w a ( 3 - 2m - n) + w b ( 3 - m - 2n)]
L 6
M 1 + M 2 ( n - m) L
[A4] V2 = + [w a ( 2m + n) + w b (m + 2n)]
L 6
For the member deflection curves, let d M (x) represent the deflection due to the end-reactions (moments) M1 and M2. Then, the
vertical deflections at the location of x = x/L of the semirigid beam shown in Fig. A1 due to the applied distributed load can
be expressed as follows:

© 2001 NRC Canada

Xu 75

L4 x
[A5] d1 ( x) = d M ( x) + ( n - m ){[ x 2 - n 2 ( 3 - 2n)][w a ( 3 - 2m - n) + w b ( 3 - m - 2n)]
36 EI
L4 x
- 2(1 - n) 3 [w a ( 2m + n) + w b (m + 2n)]} + ( n - m ) 3 [5(1 - n)(w b + 3w a ) + ( n - m )(w b + 4w a )], 0 £ x £m
120 EI

L4 é w -w a ù
[A6] d 2 ( x) = d1 ( x) - ( x - m ) 4 ê5w a + b ( x - m) ú , m <x£n
120 EI ë n -m û

L4 (1 - x)
[A7] d 3 ( x) = d M ( x) + ( n - m ){[(1 - x 2 ) - (1 - n 2 )(1 + 2n)][w a ( 2m + n) + w b (m + 2n)]
36 EI
L4 (1 - x)
- 2n 3 [w a ( 3 - 2m - n) + w b ( 3 - m - 2n)]} - ( n - m ) 3 [( n - m )(w b + 4w a ) + 5n(w b + 3w a )], n £ x £1
120 EI

where
M 1 L2 x M L2 x
[A8] d M ( x) = (1 - x)( 2 - x) - 2 (1 - x 2 )
6 EI 6 EI

is the deflection due to the end-reactions M1 and M2. The end-reactions and member deflections given in eqs. [A1]–[A7] ap-
ply for either fully or partially distributed load with linear variation in magnitudes such as uniform, triangular, and trapezoidal
distributed.
Concentrated loads
For the case of concentrated force load as shown in Fig. A2, the end-reactions are
r1
[A9] M1 = mn[ 2( 2 - m ) - r 2 (1 + m )]PL
4 -r 1r 2

r2
[A10] M 2 = mn[ 2(1 + m ) - r 1( 2 - m )]PL
4 -r 1r 2

[A11] V 1 = ( M 1 + M 2 )/ L - Pn

[A12] V2 = -( M 1 + M 2 )/ L - Pm

The deflections of the semirigid member under such loads are then obtained as
L3 x
[A13] d 1 ( x) = [(1 - x 2 ) M 1 - ( x 2 - 3x + 2) M 2 - PLn(1 - x 2 - n 2 )], 0 £ x £m
6 EI

L3 (1 - x)
[A14] d 2 ( x) = [(1 + x) xM 1 - ( 2 - x) xM 2 - PLm ( 2x - x 2 - m 2 )], m < x £1
6 EI

For the case of concentrated moment load as shown in Fig. A3, the end-reactions and deflections are
r1
[A15] M 1 = [ n( 2 - 3n)( 4 - r2 ) - 2m ( 2 - 3m )(1 - r 2 )]M
4 -r 1r 2

r2
[A16] M 2 = [ 2n( 2 - 3n)(1 - r 1) - m ( 2 - 3m )(1 - r 1)]M
4 -r 1r 2

[A17] V 1 = -V2 = ( M + M 1 + M 2 )/ L

L2 x
[A18] d 1 ( x) = [(1 - x 2 ) M 1 - ( x 2 - 3x + 2) M 2 - M ( x 2 - 6m + 3m 2 + 2)], 0 £ x £m
6 EI

L2 (1 - x)
[A19] d 2 ( x) = {(1 + x) xM 1 - ( 2 - x) xM 2 - M [(1 - x) 2 - 6n + 3n 2 + 2]}, m < x £1
6 EI
© 2001 NRC Canada
76 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 28, 2001

Appendix B. List of symbols Lg beam length

M flexural moment
A member cross-sectional area M0 reference moment of connection
Ce-i correction matrix n shape function parameter
E Young’s modulus N axial force
Gi geometrical stiffness matrix with rigid ends Pe Euler buckling load
GiSR geometrical stiffness matrix of semirigid member r end-fixity factor
Gkl element of geometrical stiffness matrix of rigid member R connection stiffness
GL, GU stiffness factors of column Re initial stiffness of connection
I moment of inertia Rp strain-hardening stiffness of connection
Ic moment of inertia of column Si elastic stiffness matrix of rigid member
Ig moment of inertia of beam Skl element of elastic stiffness matrix of rigid member
K effective-length factor a member end rotation
KiSR stiffness matrix of semirigid member ag modification factor for Ig/Lg
L member length f combined rotation of member and connection
Lc column length

© 2001 NRC Canada