Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Buckling strength of multi-story sway, non-sway and partially-sway frames

with semi-rigid connections
Georgios E. Mageirou , Charis J. Gantes 1
Laboratory of Metal Structures, Department of Structural Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechniou, GR-15780, Zografou,
Athens, Greece
Received 2 August 2005; accepted 30 November 2005

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to propose a simplified approach to the evaluation of the critical buckling load of multi-story frames with semirigid connections. To that effect, analytical expressions and corresponding graphs accounting for the boundary conditions of the column under
investigation are proposed for the calculation of the effective buckling length coefficient for different levels of frame sway ability. In addition, a
complete set of rotational stiffness coefficients is derived, which is then used for the replacement of members converging at the bottom and top
ends of the column in question by equivalent springs. All possible rotational and translational boundary conditions at the far end of these members,
featuring semi-rigid connection at their near end as well as the eventual presence of axial force, are considered. Examples of sway, non-sway and
partially-sway frames with semi-rigid connections are presented, where the proposed approach is found to be in excellent agreement with the
finite element results, while the application of codes such as Eurocode 3 and LRFD leads to significant inaccuracies.
c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Buckling; Effective length; Stiffness coefficients; Multi-story sway; Non-sway and partially-sway frames; Semi-rigid connections

1. Introduction
Nowadays, the buckling strength of a member can be
evaluated using engineering software based on linear or also
non-linear (in terms of large displacements and/or material
yielding) procedures with analytical or numerical methods [15].
Nonetheless, the large majority of structural engineers still
prefer analytical techniques such as the effective length and
notional load methods [26]. These two methodologies are
included in most modern structural design codes (for example,
Eurocode 3 [9], LRFD [23]).
The objective of this work is to propose a simplified
approach for the evaluation of critical buckling loads of multistory frames with semi-rigid connections, for different levels
of frame sway ability. To that effect, a model of a column in a
multi-story frame is considered as individual. The contribution
of members converging at the bottom and top ends of the

column is taken into account by equivalent springs. Namely,

the restriction provided by the other members of the frame
to the rotations of the bottom and top nodes is modeled
via rotational springs with constants cb and ct , respectively,
while the resistance provided by the bracing system to the
relative transverse translation of the end nodes is modeled
via a translational spring with constant cbr . This is shown
schematically in Fig. 1. The rotational stiffness of the springs
must be evaluated considering the influence of the connection
non-linearity. This model has been used by several investigators
(for example, Wood [27], Aristizabal-Ochoa [1], and CheongSiat-Moy [6]) for the evaluation of the critical buckling load of
the member, and is adopted by most codes.
The stiffness of the bottom and top rotational springs
is estimated by summing up the contributions of members
converging at the bottom and top ends, respectively:




cb =
cb,i , ct =
ct, j .
(1)
i

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 9707444; fax: +30 210 9707444.

E-mail addresses: mageirou@central.ntua.gr (G.E. Mageirou),

chgantes@central.ntua.gr (C.J. Gantes).
1 Tel.: +30 210 7723440; fax: +30 210 7723442.
c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0143-974X/$ - see front matter 
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.11.019

A frame is characterized as non-sway if the stiffness cbr of

the bracing system is very large, as sway if this stiffness is
negligible, and as partially-sway for intermediate values of this

894

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

Notations
A, B, C, D integration constants
E
modulus of elasticity
G
distribution factor at the end nodes of the column,
according to LRFD
I
moment of inertia
K
effective buckling length coefficient
L
span length of adjoining members
M
bending moment
N
axial force of adjoining members
P
compressive load

factor of slope deflection method

a
factor of slope deflection method, factor for the
effect of the boundary condition at the far end
nodes of the member
c
stiffness coefficient
c
ratio of flexural stiffness to span
dimensionless rotational stiffness
c#
d
factor for the effect of the axial force
h
column height
k
non-dimensional compressive load


effective buckling length coefficient, according to
EC3
n
ratio of members compressive force to Eulers
buckling load
x
longitudinal coordinate
z
dimensionless distribution factor at the end nodes
of the column
w
transverse deflection

relative transverse deflection between the end

nodes of the member

distribution factor at the end nodes of the column,

according to EC3

rotation at the end nodes of the member

Subscripts:
A
B
E
EC3
FEM
LRFD
c
cr
b
bm
br
i
n
r
t

bottom end node of the column

top end node of the column
Euler
Eurocode 3
Finite Element Method
Load Resistance Factor Design
column
critical
bottom
beam
bracing system
member i
node
rigid connection
top

stiffness. Eurocode 3 and LRFD provide the effective length

K h of columns in sway and non-sway frames via graphs or

Fig. 1. (a) Multi-story steel frame; (b) proposed model of column under
investigation.

analytical relations as functions of the rotational boundary

conditions without considering the connection non-linearity
and the partially-sway behaviour of the frame. The critical
buckling load is then defined as:
Pcr =

2 E Ic
(K h)2

(2)

where E Ic is the flexural resistance.

The main source of inaccuracy in the above process lies
in the estimation of the rotational boundary conditions. LRFD
makes no mention to the dependence of the rotational stiffness
of members converging at the ends of the column under
consideration on their boundary conditions at their far end or
their axial load. Annex E of EC3 is more detailed in accounting
for the contribution of converging beams and lower/upper
columns, but ignores several cases that are encountered in
practice, and are often decisive for the buckling strength. Both
codes ignore the partially-sway behaviour of the frames as well
as the connection non-linearity.
This problem has been investigated by several researchers.
The work of Wood [27] constituted the theoretical basis of
EC3. Cheong-Siat-Moy [5] examined the k-factor paradox
for leaning columns and drew attention to the dependence
of buckling strength not only on the rotational boundary
conditions of the member in question but also on the overall
structural system behavior. Bridge and Fraser [4] proposed
an iterative procedure for the evaluation of the effective
length, which accounts for the presence of axial forces in
the restraining members and thus also considers the negative
values of rotational stiffness. Hellesland and Bjorhovde [11]
proposed a new restraint demand factor considering the vertical
and horizontal interaction in member stability terms. Kishi
et al. [14] proposed an analytical relation for the evaluation of
the effective length of columns with semi-rigid joints in sway
frames. Essa [8] proposed a design method for the evaluation
of the effective length for columns in unbraced multi-story
frames considering different story drift angles. AristizabalOchoa examined the influence of uniformly distributed axial
load on the evaluation of the effective length of columns in
sway and partially-sway frames [2]. He then examined the
behavior of columns with semi-rigid connections under loads

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

895

Fig. 2. Model of column in (a) non-sway frame, (b) sway frame, and (c) partially-sway frame, and (d) the sign convention used.

such as those produced by tension cables that always pass

through fixed points or loads applied by rigid links [3]. What
is more, Kounadis [16] investigated the inelastic buckling of
rigid-jointed frames.
Christopher and Bjorhovde [7] conducted analyses of a
series of semi-rigid frames, each with the same dimensions,
applied loads and member sizes, but with different connection
properties, explaining how connection properties affect
member forces, frame stability, and inter-story drift. Jaspart
and Maquoi [12] described the mode of application of the
elastic and plastic design philosophies to braced frames
with semi-rigid connections. The buckling collapse of steel
reticulated domes with semi-rigid joints was investigated by
Kato et al. [13] on the basis of a nonlinear elasticplastic hinge
analysis formulated for three-dimensional beamcolumns with
elastic, perfectly plastic hinges located at both ends and
mid-span for each member. Lau et al. [17] performed an
analytical study to investigate the behavior of subassemblages
with a range of semi-rigid connections under different test
conditions and loading arrangements. They showed that
significant variations in the M response had a negligible
effect on the load carrying capacity of the column and the
behavior of the subassemblage. A method for column design
in non-sway bare steel structures which takes into account
the semi-rigid action of the beam to column connections
was proposed by Lau et al. [18]. In [19], closed-form
solutions of the second order differential equation of nonuniform bars with rotational and translational springs were
derived for eleven important cases. A simplified method
for estimating the maximum load of semi-rigid frames was
proposed by Li and Mativo [20]. The method was in the
form of a multiple linear regression relationship between the
maximum load and various parameters (frame and section
properties), obtained from numerous analyses of frames. Liew
et al. [21] proposed a comprehensive set of moment-rotation
data, in terms of stiffness and moment capacity, so that a
comparative assessment of the frame performance due to
different connection types could be undertaken. Reyes-Salazar
and Haldar [24], using a nonlinear time domain seismic
analysis algorithm developed by themselves, excited three steel
frames with semi-rigid connections by thirteen earthquake time
histories. They proposed a parameter called the T ratio in
order to define the rigidity of the connections. This parameter
is the ratio of the moment the connection would have to
carry according to the beam line theory and the fixed end

moment of the girder. In [25], the equilibrium path was traced

for braced and unbraced steel plane frames with semi-rigid
connections with the aid of a hybrid algorithm that combines
the convergence properties of the iterative-incremental tangent
method, calculating the unbalancing forces by considering the
element rigid body motion. Yu et al. [28] described the details of
a test program of three test specimens loaded to collapse and the
test observations for sway frames under the combined actions
of gravity and lateral loads.
However, all these studies mention nothing about the
dependence of the rotational stiffness of the members
converging on the column under consideration, from the
boundary conditions at their far ends and from their axial loads.
This dependence is investigated in the present work for multistory frames with semi-rigid connections for different levels
of lateral stiffness cbr . Easy to use analytical relations and
corresponding graphs are proposed for the estimation of the
columns effective length for sway, non-sway and partiallysway frame behaviour. Furthermore, analytical expressions are
derived for the evaluation of the rotational springs stiffness
coefficients for different member boundary conditions and
axial loads accounting for the connection non-linearity. Results
obtained via the proposed approach for sway, non-sway and
partially-sway frames with semi-rigid connections are found to
be in excellent agreement with finite element results, while the
application of design codes such as Eurocode 3 and LRFD leads
to significant inaccuracies.
2. Buckling strength of columns in multi-story frames
2.1. Non-sway frames
Consider the model of a column in a non-sway frame, shown
in Fig. 2(a), resulting from the model of Fig. 1(b) by replacing
the translational spring with a roller support. Denoting by w
the transverse displacement and by  the differentiation with
respect to the longitudinal coordinate x, and using the sign
convention of Fig. 2(d), the equilibrium of this column in its
buckled condition is described by the well-known differential
equation:
w (x) + k 2 w (x) = 0
where:

k=

Pcr

.
=
E Ic
Kh

(3)

(4)

896

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

Fig. 3. Effective buckling length factor K for different levels of frame-sway ability.

The general solution of this differential equation is given by:

w (x) = A sin (kx) + B cos (kx) + C x + D.

(5)

The integration constants A, B, C, and D can be obtained by

applying the boundary conditions at the two column ends:
Transverse displacement at the bottom:
w(0) = 0.

(6)

Moment equilibrium at the bottom:

E Ic w (0) = cb w (0) .

(7)

Moment equilibrium at the top:

E Ic w (h) = ct w (h) .

(8)

Transverse displacement at the top:

w (h) = 0.

(9)

The four simultaneous equations (6)(9) have a non-trivial

solution for the four unknowns A, B, C, and D if the
determinant of the coefficients is equal to zero. This criterion
yields the buckling equation for the effective length factor K :

32K 3 (z t 1) (z b 1) 4K 8K 2 (z t 1) (z b 1)


 

+ 16K 2
+ (z t + z b 2z t z b ) 2 cos
K

  
2
2
= 0 (10)
+ 20K (z t + z b ) + z t z b 24K 2 sin
K
where z b and z t are distribution factors obtained by the nondimensionalization of the end rotational stiffnesses cb and ct
with respect to the columns flexural stiffness cc :
cc
cc
zb =
, zt =
(11)
cc + cb
cc + ct

where:
4E Ic
.
(12)
cc =
h
Eq. (10) can be solved numerically for the effective length
factor K , which is then substituted into Eq. (2) to provide the
critical buckling load. Alternatively, the upper left graph of
Fig. 3, obtained from Eq. (10), can be used.
2.2. Sway frames
The simplified model of a column in a sway frame, shown in
Fig. 2(b), is considered, resulting from the model of Fig. 1(b)
by omitting the translational spring. Three boundary conditions

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

897

are described by Eqs. (6)(8), while a fourth condition

expresses horizontal force equilibrium at the top:
E Ic w (h) Pw (h) = 0.

(13)

Thus the buckling equation for the effective length factor K

is derived, following the same procedure as above:
 

4 [z t (2z b 1) z b ] cos
K
K


 2
 
= 0. (14)
+ zt zb
16 (z t 1) (z b 1) sin
K
K
Alternatively, the bottom right graph of Fig. 3, obtained from
Eq. (14), can be used.
2.3. Partially-sway frames

Fig. 4. Undeformed (dotted line) and deformed (continuous line) state of a

member AB, and the sign convention of the slope-deflection method.

Finally, consider the simplified model of a column in

a partially-sway frame, shown in Fig. 2(c). Similarly, the
boundary conditions are described by Eqs. (6)(8) and the
following equation, representing horizontal force equilibrium
at the top:

If, in addition, the member is subjected to a compressive

axial force P, then Eq. (18) becomes:




2E I
an A + a f B + an + a f
M AB =
L
L




2E I
MB A =
an B + a f A + an + a f
(19)
L
L

E IC w (h) Pw (h) = cbr w (h) .

where:

(15)

The effective length factor K of a column in a partially-sway

frame is then obtained from the following equation:

32K 5 cbr (z t 1) (z b 1) + 4K 8K 4 cbr (z t 1) (z b 1)

+ K 2 cbr (z t + z b 2z t z b ) 2 + (z t z b + 2z t z b ) 4
 

cos
+ 4K 4 cbr (4 5z t 5z b + 6z t z b )
K
16K 2 2 (1 z t z b + z t z b )

 
K 2 cbr 2 z t z b + 4 z t z b sin
=0
(16)
K
where:
cbr

cbr h 3
=
.
EI

(17)

Easy to use graphs such as those presented in Fig. 3 are

obtained from the above equation for several values of cbr .
3. Stiffness distribution factors
The rotational stiffness of each member converging at the
top or bottom node of the column in question is derived using
the slope-deflection method [22]. The moments M AB and M B A
at the two ends of a member AB with span L and flexural
stiffness E I , without axial force or transverse load (Fig. 4), can
be obtained as a function of the end rotations A and B and the
relative transverse deflection of the end nodes from:

2E I
3
2 A + B +
,
M AB =
L
L

2E I
3
MB A =
2 B + A +
.
(18)
L
L

an =

n
,

2
2 n 2f

n =

1 k L cot k L
,
k2 L2

f


2
2 n 2f

kL
1
1 .
f = 2 2
sin k L
k L

af =

(20)

(21)

Using the above equations, the rotational stiffness expressions have been derived for members with all possible boundary
conditions at the far end and a semi-rigid connection at the close
end, with or without axial force, and are shown in Table 1. The
derivation of the rotational stiffness factors is described next for
two characteristic cases: one for a member without and one for
a member with axial force.
3.1. Member with a fixed support at the far end and a semirigid connection at the near end, without axial force
Consider the member AB of Fig. 5(a), with span L i and
flexural stiffness E i Ii , where A refers to the bottom or top
node of the column under investigation, while B is the far
node, attached to a fixed support. The connection at node A
is considered as semi-rigid with a rotational stiffness cn .
The slope-deflection equations are given by (18), with
indices i referring to the specific member. Firstly, the
connection at node A is considered as rigid. The rotational
stiffness cr,i of the member AB with a rigid connection was
evaluated in previous work by the authors [10].
The moment at node A of the member with rigid connections
is given by the equation:
M AB =

2E i Ii
(2 A + B ) .
Li

(22)

Furthermore, there is no rotation at node B:

B = 0.

(23)

898

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

Table 1
Converging members rotational stiffness expressions for different boundary conditions at the far end and for a semi-rigid connection at the near end, with or without
axial force
Rotational boundary conditions of far end

Without axial force

Fixed support

ci = 4c i+cn
n
i

Roller fixed support

ci = c i+cnn
i

Pinned support

ci = 3c i+cn
n
i

Simple curvature

ci = 2c i+cn
n
i

Double curvature

ci = 6c i+cn
n
i

Roller support

ci = 0c i+cn
n
i

Rotational spring support

ci =

ci cn c#
(ci +cn )c# +cn

ci =

ci cn [c# (1.047n i +1.773)n i ]

cn (0.591n i c# +c# +1)+ci [c# (1.047n i +1.773)n i ]

Pinned and rotational spring support

ci =

4ci cn (c# +3)

4ci (c# +3)+cn (c# +4)

ci =

2ci cn [(c# (c# +9)+24)n i 2 30(c# +3)(c# +4)]

2ci (c# (c# +9)+24)n i 2 15(c# +4)[4ci (c# +3)+cn (c# +4)]

4c c

c c

3c c

2c c

6c c

0c c

With axial force

4c c (10.33n )

i n
i
ci = c +4
ci 1.32ci n i
n

c c (10.82n )

ci = c i +nc 0.82c in
n
i
i i

3c c (10.66n )

i n
i
ci = c +3
ci 1.98ci n i
n

2c c (10.82n )

i n
i
ci = c +2
ci 1.64ci n i
n

6c c (10.16n )

i n
i
ci = c +6
ci 0.96ci n i
n

c c (00.97n )

ci = c i+0n c 0.97c in
n
i
i i

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

899

3.2. Member with a fixed support at the far end and a semirigid connection at the close end, with axial force

Fig. 5. Model of a member with a fixed support at the far end B and a semirigid connection at the near end A: (a) without axial force, (b) with axial force.

M AB =

Then, by virtue of (23), Eq. (22) becomes:

M AB =

4E i Ii
A.
Li

(24)

Thus, the rotational stiffness representing the resistance of

member AB to the rotation of node A is given by:
cr,i

4E i Ii
=
Li

(25)

(26)

where:
ci =

E i Ii
.
Li

(27)

(28)

Considering that the springs have the same moment, Eq. (29)
is written:
1
1
1
=
+ .
ci
cr,i
cn

(29)

Thus, the rotational stiffness ci of member AB with a semirigid connection is evaluated from Eq. (29):
ci =

cr,i cn
.
cr,i + cn

(30)

4ci cn
.
4ci + cn

(31)

(32)

2E i Ii
n,i A .
Li

(33)

Therefore, the rotational stiffness representing the resistance

of member AB to the rotation of node A is given by:
2E i Ii
n,i
Li

(34)

which, by means of (20) and (21) and ki2 = N/E i Ii , N E,i =

2 E i Ii /L 2i , becomes:

n i cot n i 1
4E i Ii
 
cr,i =
ni
(35)
Li
4 n 8 tan 1 n
2

where n i is the ratio of the members compressive force to

Eulers buckling load N E,i :
ni =

Ni
.
N E,i

A Taylor series expansion of Eq. (35) gives:

4E i Ii
11 4 2
2
ni
n
cr,i =
1
Li
30
25 200 i

6
509 8
3
4
n
n ... .

108 000 i
2328 480 000 i
Keeping the first two terms, Eq. (38) is obtained:

4E i Ii
2
ni
cr,i =
1
Li
30

(36)

(37)

(38)

which can be written as

cr,i = 4ci (1 0.33n i ) .

By substituting (26) into (30), the rotational stiffness ci of

the member AB with a semi-rigid connection is evaluated:
ci =

M AB =

Two rotational springs with rotational stiffness cr,i and cn

in series are considered, in order to evaluate the rotational
stiffness ci of the member AB with a semi-rigid connection.
The total rotation is the sum of the rotations of the two springs.
Therefore:
i = r,i + n .


2E i Ii 
n,i A + f,i B .
Li

As there is no rotation at node B ( B = 0), the previous

equation is rewritten:

cr,i =

which can be written as

cr,i = 4ci

Now consider the member of Fig. 5(b), with span L i and

flexural stiffness E i Ii , where A again refers to the bottom or
top node of the column under investigation, while B is the
far node, rotationally fixed. The member AB is subjected to
a compressive axial force Ni . The rotational stiffness ci of the
member AB with a semi-rigid connection is evaluated in the
same manner as above.
Firstly, the member AB is considered having rigid
connections. The slope-deflection equations are given by (19),
with indices i referring to the specific member. The moment at
node A of the member with rigid connections is given by the
equation:

(39)

By substituting (39) into (30), the rotational stiffness ci of the

member AB with a semi-rigid connection is evaluated:
ci =

4ci cn (1 0.33n i )
.
cn + 4ci 1.32ci n i

(40)

900

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

Applying the proposed method, the distribution factor z b is

equal to 1 due to the pinned support, while z t is obtained from:
zt =

cc
= 0.996
cc + c B B 

(44)

where:
cc =

4E Ic
= 36 279.60 kN m.
h

(45)

Then, the evaluation of the buckling length coefficient is

conducted by means of Eq. (10), giving K = 0.998. Thus, the
Euler buckling load is equal to:

Fig. 6. The frame of example 1.

2 E Ic

4. Examples

Pcr,prop =

This section gives four examples of a simple frame that

consists of a column and a beam with a variety of supports at
the far end namely, a three-story, single-bay sway frame; a
three-story, single-bay non-sway frame; and a one-story, singlebay sway, non-sway and partially-sway frame for which the
proposed approach is demonstrated and its results are compared
to (i) buckling loads obtained via linearized buckling analysis
of finite element models, considered as exact, for verification
purposes, and (ii) buckling loads calculated by applying the
pertinent procedures of Eurocode 3 and LRFD.

Therefore, the results of the proposed approach are in

excellent agreement with the results of the finite element
method. The previous procedure is followed for the same frame
with different supports at the far end of the beam as well as
for a single span, one-story sway and non-sway frame for the
verification of the rotational stiffness of Table 1. The results of
the proposed approach and the FEM analysis are presented in
Table 2 and are practically the same.

4.1. Example 1

Consider the three-story sway frame of Fig. 7 with a single

span L = 20 m and uniform story height h = 10 m,
having columns with HEB360 cross-section (Ic = 43 190 cm4 )
and beams with IPE400 cross-section (Ibm = 23 130 cm4 ).
The columns are considered to be pinned at the base. Equal
concentrated loads P/3 are imposed on all beamcolumn
joints. The beamcolumn joints are considered to be semi-rigid
with a rotational stiffness of cn = 150 kN m. The frame is made
of steel with Youngs modulus E = 210 000 000 kN/m2 .
At first, a buckling analysis of the frame is conducted using
the same finite element software. The first buckling mode
is obtained from this analysis, and the corresponding critical
buckling load is 22.02 kN. In order to verify the proposed
rotational stiffness coefficients, the frame is then substituted by
a series of equivalent models. The first among them, denoted as
equivalent model 1a, is illustrated in Fig. 7(b). It is obtained by
substituting the beams at the three levels by rotational springs.
Assuming that, in the first buckling mode, the beams deform
with a double curvature, the stiffness of the springs is obtained
from the corresponding row of Table 1:

Consider the frame of Fig. 6 with a single span L = 20 m

and height h = 10 m, having a column with HEB360 crosssection (Ic = 43 190 cm4 ) and a beam with IPE400 crosssection (Ibm = 23 130 cm4 ). The column is considered to be
pinned at the base. A concentrated load P is imposed on the
beamcolumn joint. The beamcolumn joint is considered to be
semi-rigid, with a rotational stiffness of cn = 150 kN m/rad.
The beam has restricted translation and a rotational spring
support with a rotational stiffness of c = 500 kN m at the
far end. The frame is made of steel with Youngs modulus
E = 210 000 000 kN/m2 .
Firstly, a linearized buckling analysis of the frame is
conducted using the commercial finite element software MSCNASTRAN. The critical buckling load obtained from this
analysis is Pcr,FEM = 8981.02 kN. Secondly, the buckling
strength is evaluated by using the proposed methodology. In
order to do so, the frame is substituted by the equivalent model
of Fig. 2(b). The rotational stiffness of the beam considering the
semi-rigid connection is evaluated from the last row of Table 1:
cB B =

4c B B  cn (c#B B  + 3)
4c B B  (c#B B  + 3) + cn (c#B B 

+ 4)

= 147.02 kN m (41)

E Ibm
= 2428.65 kN m
L
c
=
= 0.206.
c B B 

c B B  =

(42)

c#B B 

(43)

= 8981.01 kN.

(46)

4.2. Example 2

cbm =

6cbm cn
= 148.47 kN
6cbm + cn

(47)

E Ibm
= 2428.65 kN m.
L

(48)

where:
cbm =

where:

(K h)2

The first buckling mode of the equivalent model 1a is

obtained from FEM analysis, and the corresponding critical
buckling load is also 22.02 kN, thus verifying the correctness
of this substitution.

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

901

Table 2
Critical loads according to the proposed and finite element methods for a variety of structural systems with semi-rigid connections of example 1
Frame

Pcr,FEM (kN)

Pcr,prop (kN)

Pcr,prop Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM

8981.58

8981.16

0.005

8979.83

8979.86

0.001

9027.06

9027.30

0.003

10.98

10.97

0.091

8981.02

8981.01

0.0001

902

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

Fig. 7. (a) The three-story sway frame of example 2, (b) equivalent model 1a, (c) equivalent model 1b, (d) equivalent model 1c.

The second equivalent model, denoted as 1b, is illustrated in

Fig. 7(c). It is obtained by substituting the top column CD by a
rotational spring with stiffness cC D calculated from the second
last row of Table 1:

Table 3
Critical loads for model 1 and its equivalent models 1a, 1b, 1c of Example 2


cC
D

Model 1
Model 1a
Model 1b
Model 1c

# (1.047n
cC D cn,C D cC
C D + 1.773)n C D
D



# + c# + 1 + c
#
cn,C D 0.591n C D cC
C D cC D (1.047n C D + 1.773)n C D
D
CD

= 70.18 kN m

Pcr (kN)

Pcr Pcr,model1
(%)
Pcr,model1

22.02428
22.01921
22.00429
21.96301

0
0.02
0.09
0.28

(49)
Then, the total rotational stiffness at node B of model 1c is:

where:
E Ic
cC D =
= 9069.90 kN m
h
cbm
cC# D =
= 0.016
cC D
1
NC D = 22.02 kN = 7.34 kN.
3

c BC = cBC + cbm = 249.45 kN m.

(50)
(51)
(52)

Alternatively, the axial design load can be used for the NC D ,

without any significant influence on the results:
2 E Ic
= 8942.56 kN
h2
NC D
=
= 0.001.
N E,C D

N E,C D =

(53)

nC D

(54)

Then, the total rotational stiffness at node C of model 1b is:

cC D = cC D + cbm = 218.65 kN m.

(55)

The critical buckling load of the first buckling mode of the

equivalent model 1b, obtained from Nastran, is 22.00 kN.
The third equivalent model, denoted as 1c, is illustrated in
Fig. 7(d). It is obtained by substituting column BC of model
1b by a rotational spring with stiffness cBC calculated similarly
from the second last row of Table 1:
cBC = 100.98 kN m.

(56)

(57)

The first buckling mode of the equivalent model 1c is

obtained from Nastran, and the corresponding critical buckling
load is 21.96 kN. The critical loads of all models, as well as
their deviations from the critical load of the full model, are
summarized in Table 3, demonstrating excellent agreement.
In addition, the critical buckling load of column AB is
evaluated according to the provisions of EC3 and LRFD.
Following the procedure of Annex E of EC3, the distribution
factor 1 at node A is 1 due to the hinged support, while the
distribution factor 2 at node B has a contribution from beam
B B  assumed to deform with a double curvature and column
BC, and is found to be equal to 2 = 0.833. Then, for the sway
buckling condition, the effective buckling length coefficient is
found to be L
= 3.996.
Thus, the Euler buckling load is calculated as:
2 E Ic
Pcr,EC3 =   2 = 560.03 kN.


L h

(58)

In the same manner, following the provisions of LRFD,

the distribution factor G A at node A is 10 due to the pinned
support, and the distribution factor G B at node B is equal to
7.469. Assuming uninhibited side-sway behavior, the effective
buckling coefficient is calculated to be K = 1.820.

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
Table 4
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of example 2

FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed

Pcr (kN)

Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM

22.02428
560.60
2702.46
21.9399

0
2 445.37
12 170.40
0.38

903

Table 5
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of example 3

FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed

Pcr (kN)

Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM

11 237.75
9 358.89
11 745.60
11 274.80

0
16.72
4.52
0.33

Fig. 8. The three-story non-sway frame of example 3.

The Euler buckling load is equal to:

Pcr,LRFD =

2 E Ic
(K h)2

= 2702.46 kN.

(59)

Applying the proposed method, the distribution factor z b is

equal to 1 due to the pinned support, while z t is obtained from:
cc
zt =
= 0.994.
(60)
cc + c BC
Then, the evaluation of the buckling length coefficient is
conducted by means of Eq. (14) and gives K = 20.940. Thus,
the Euler buckling load is equal to:
Pcr,prop =

2 E Ic
(K h)2

= 21.94 kN.

(61)

The above results are summarized in Table 4, and compared

to the results of the linearized buckling analysis, which are
considered to be exact. The proposed method is in very good
agreement with the numerical results.
4.3. Example 3
Next, consider the same three-story frame of example 2, but
with inhibited side-sway at all stories, shown in Fig. 8.
The same procedure is followed for the verification of
the proposed approach. The critical buckling load of column
AB is evaluated according to the code provisions as above.

Fig. 9. The frames of example 4 with (a) partially-sway, (b) non-sway and (c)
sway behaviour.

The proposed method is in very good agreement with the

numerical results, while EC3 is overconservative and LRFD is
underconservative but with much smaller deviations than in the
sway-case (Table 5).
4.4. Example 4
Lastly, consider the one-story, partially-sway, non-sway and
sway frames of Fig. 9 (a), (b) and (c), respectively. The frames
have a single span L = 20 m and a story height h equal to 10 m,

904

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905

Table 6
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of the partially-sway frame of example 4

FEM
EC3 (lower limit assuming sway behaviour)
EC3 (upper limit assuming non-sway behaviour)
LRFD (lower limit assuming sway behaviour)
LRFD (upper limit assuming non-sway behaviour)
Proposed

Table 7
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of the nonsway frame of example 4

FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed

Pcr (kN)

Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM

8 980.67
9 980.74
11 821.70
8 980.67

0
11.14
31.64
0

Table 8
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of the sway
frame of example 4

FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed

Pcr (kN)

Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM

14.77
898.78
3441.23
14.77

0
5 983.56
23 192.60
0

having columns with HEB360 cross-section (Ic = 43 190 cm4 )

and beams with IPE400 cross-section (Ibm = 23 130 cm4 ). The
columns are considered to be pinned at the base. A compressive
concentrated load P is imposed on the beamcolumn joints.
The beamcolumn joints are considered to be semi-rigid with
a rotational stiffness of cn = 150 kN m. A translation spring
with a stiffness of cbr = 1000 kN/m simulates the partiallysway behaviour of the first frame. The frame is made of steel
with Youngs modulus E = 210 000 000 kN/m2 .
The same procedure is followed for the verification of the
proposed approach. Moreover, the critical buckling load of
column AB is evaluated according to the code provisions,
considering the first frame firstly to be sway and secondly to
be non-sway. The proposed method is in excellent agreement
with the numerical results, while EC3 and LRFD with the sway
behaviour consideration give overconservative results while the
non-sway behaviour consideration leads to underconservative
results (Table 6). The results of the proposed methodology and
the design codes are presented in Tables 68 for the frames of
Fig. 9 (a), (b) and (c), respectively.
5. Summary and conclusions
A simplified method for the evaluation of the critical
buckling load of multi-story sway, non-sway and partiallysway frames with semi-rigid connections has been presented.
Firstly, three analytical expressions for the effective buckling

Pcr (kN)

Pcr Pcr,FEM
Pcr,FEM (%)

5 000.636
898.78
9 980.74
3 441.23
11 821.70
5 000.01

0
82.03
99.59
31.18
136.40
0.01

length coefficient as a function of the end nodes distribution

factors, as well as accompanying graphs, have been proposed
for different levels of sway ability. The rotational stiffness of
the members (columns and beams) converging at the bottom
and top ends of the column with semi-rigid connections
depend heavily on the boundary conditions at their far end
and on the existence of axial force in them. Thus, analytical
expressions of the stiffness distribution factors accounting
for these issues have been derived. Examples of sway, nonsway and partially-sway structures with semi-rigid connections
and comparisons to finite element results have been used
to establish the improved accuracy of the above mentioned
procedure compared to the pertinent code provisions. It is
believed that the proposed approach maintains the inherent
simplicity of the effective length method by not significantly
increasing the required workload, but at the same time improves
its accuracy a lot and could thus be considered to be a
competitive alternative for practical applications.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this work is provided by the
Pythagoras: Support of Research Groups in Universities. The
project is co-funded by the European Social Fund (75%) and
National Resources (25%) (EPEAEK II)PYTHAGORAS.
References
[1] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. K -factor for columns in any type of construction:
Non-paradoxical approach. J Struct Eng 1994;120:127390.
[2] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Stability of columns under uniform axial load with
semi-rigid connections. J Struct Eng 1994;120:321222.
[3] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Elastic stability of beamcolumns with flexural
connections under various conservative end axial forces. J Struct Eng
1997;123:1194200.
[4] Bridge RQ, Fraser DJ. Improved G-factor method for evaluating effective
lengths of columns. J Struct Eng 1987;113:134156.
[5] Cheong-Siat-Moy F. K -factor paradox. J Struct Eng 1986;112:174760.
[6] Cheong-Siat-Moy F. An improved K -factor formula. J Struct Eng 1999;
125:16974.
[7] Christopher JE, Bjorhovde R. Response characteristics of frames with
semi-rigid connections. J Constr Steel Res 1998;46:2534.
[8] Essa HS. Stability of columns in unbraced frames. J Struct Eng 1997;123:
9527.
[9] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules for
buildings. CEN Brussels 2004, CEN Document EN 1993-1-1:2004.
[10] Gantes C, Mageirou G. Improved stiffness distribution factors for
evaluation of effective buckling lengths in multi-story sway frames. Eng
Struct 2005;27:111324.
[11] Hellesland J, Bjorhovde R. Improved frame stability analysis with
effective lengths. J Struct Eng 1996;122:127583.

G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
[12] Jaspart J, Maquoi R. Guidelines for the design of braced frames with semirigid connections. J Constr Steel Res 1990;16:31928.
[13] Kato S, Mutoh I, Shomura M. Collapse of semi-rigidly jointed reticulated
domes with initial geometric imperfections. J Constr Steel Res 1998;48:
14568.
[14] Kishi N, Chen WF, Goto Y. Effective length factor of columns in semirigid and unbraced frames. J Struct Eng 1997;123:31320.
[15] Kounadis A, Simitses G, Giri J. Nonlinear analysis of portal frames. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 1981;17:12332.
[16] Kounadis A. Nonlinear inelastic buckling of rigid-jointed frames under
finite displacements. Acta Mech 1987;67:191207.
[17] Lau S, Kirby P, Davison J. Appraisal of partially restrained steel columns
in non-sway frames. J Struct Eng 1997;123:8719.
[18] Lau SM, Kirby PA, Davison JB. Semi-rigid design of partially restrained
columns in non-sway steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 1997;50:30528.
[19] Li QS. Buckling analysis of non-uniform bars with rotational and
translational springs. Eng Struct 2003;25:128999.
[20] Li G-Q, Mativo J. Approximate estimation of the maximum load of semirigid steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 2000;54:21325.
[21] Liew JYR, Yu CH, Ng YH, Shanmugan NE. Testing of semi-rigid

[22]
[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]
[28]

905

unbraced frames for calibration of second-order inelastic analysis.

J Constr Steel Res 1997;41:15995.
Livesley RK, Chandler DB. Stability functions for structural framework.
Manchester University Press; 1956.
L.R.F.D. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural
steel buildings. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction Inc;
1999.
Reyes-Salazar A, Haldar A. Non-linear seismic response of steel
structures with semi-rigid and composite connections. J Constr Steel Res
1999;51:3759.
Rodrigues F, Saldanha A, Pfeil M. Non-linear analysis of steel plane
frames with semi-rigid connections. J Constr Steel Res 1998;46:13.
947.
Task Committee on Effective Length, Effective length and notional load
approaches for assessing frame stability: Implications for American Steel
Design. New York: ASCE; 1997.
Wood RH. Effective lengths of columns in multi-story buildings. Struct
Eng 1974;52: 23544, 295302, 3416.
Yu CH, Liew JYR, Shanmugam NE, Ng YH. Collapse behaviour of sway
frames with end-plate connections. J Constr Steel Res 1998;48:16988.