760 Appendix A

Table A.2: Values of Product Integrals

MQ c = J M1
L~::::r 11
M1 c:J,1/2 ~
M,. I-- L __j l-- 1. --l I-- L __..j c~
M.1 ~
I I (M + M )M,L I
M 1M_,L -,M 1M_,L
I - - L __j
2 M/113L 2 1 2

~ M3
I I I (M + 2M )M_1L I .\l /vf (L + a)
2 M 1M3L 3 M1M3L 6 1 2 6 3
I-- L __j

M3 ~
I I I I
2
M1M3L
6 M1M.1L 6 (2M 1+ M2)M_.L 6 .W1MJlL + h)
I-- L __j

M3 c:JM4 I M (M + M )L I + 2M4 )L
I
6 M1(2M_1 + M4 )L
I
6 M/vl 3(L + h)
2 1 3 4
6 M1(M3
I-- L __) + t M2(M , + 2M4 )L I
+ "°i/ 'vl1M4 (L + u)

&
~~
I
2 M1M3L tM 1M_,(L + c)
IM M_,(L + d)
6 1
+ 6I M2M,,(L + c)
for c

(l -
3
~ a:

(<1 -
6ad
c)2)11'1 M-L
1
·'

Parabola M

>T\
i - - L __)
2
3 M 1M,,L
I
M M,L
3 1
I
3 (M1 + M2 )M_,L ½M1M_, ( L +
1
t)

P
:=>1M1 .
I I I
CM1 + JM2 )M_,L t)
3 M 1M3L 4 M 1M,L 12 / 2 1\.l 1M/3a +
I-- L - ~
 A11~w,'1 :- Ill udd N 111 11lll' I ,' d Pr l 1ll ll 'Ill:,. 787

l'I I.:!.\ ,\I, = I 7.(,2 kip · ft (. .\/// =

.':'i. 2-4 kip . ft . I' I .? •.?7 Ordi11:11,·~ ti1r : I, : (lat II. tl.2S at St'l'ti,111 I . 0 .h(i 7 111
.I/, = l:'il kip • ft ) . A.' 11 =
-4.-4 kips - . C. 0 at !>:
/\ 11 = 7 .7h kips 1 Ordi11a1t·~ ti,r . I l : I al u. 0.'>7•1 al s,·l'li11n I . ll ..'i at ('_
l'I t.2:- /\ 11= 2 .21 kips 1. /\ 11 =
0 .(,•l kip - . () al !>:
.\I 1 = 13.2:'i kip · ft ) . ""' =
1.7 1 kips,-. ( )rdinall'' li1r /\/,"""" 1 : Oat//. ll.-4 79 al Sl·,·ti,111 I .
Nm = 1-4.7 1 kips I. /\,., = I .OJ kip~- . - I I .5 at ( ·. () at / J
Rn = I l.:'i kip~ I l'l.?.29 . . . I I I I I
l >rd I nail'~ It ,r I· 111 : 0 . - ., , - : • - , • - · - : · ·
I)·

Pl 1.27 =
R." = 8 . 1 kips - . /\ 11 -4 .7 kip~ 1.
Ordinatl', ti,r /.'111 : 0 . - 0 .21lX . - 0 ➔ 17 . - , .
<
M, = :'i8.2 kip • ft (. R" =
U .8 kips - .
tl.-41 7. 0 .2tl8. tl:
R, l = 0. M f =l)J .(, kip . ft (. .\/, ·11 =
3:'i.l) kip . ft .
Ordinatl', li1r /.'11 : ll. 0 .08.\ . tl. 1117. 0 .2:'i. tU.\. 0 . 1<,7 . 0 :
At,.,= 7 1.8 kip - ft . .i,111 = tl.7 1 in . -
Onliuatl'~ ti,r /-'11 : 0 . ~. ; . I 12. ; . : . tl
Pl 1.29 R 11 = 7 kip~ - . R 11 = .N .S kips f .
!\I 1= J{) _l)() kip · ft ) . R /1 \ =
9 .-4 kip~ - . 1'12.JI 1·'11 , = - i', al /1 , / .'11 = - 0 .56{) al fl. f.'1 11 = t) _ Sl'\➔ al
Rm = -40.2 kips I..I/"= 52. 1-4 kip · ft ( Al. F,, 1 = - : .11 /I
Pl I.JI =
R111 = Rf>= 50 kN f. /\/ 1 -➔➔ .➔➔ kN · lll . 1:1111 = - 0 ..\ 73 at(' and O :'i:W at f) : F,1< = O.M,7 at('
=
M11 55 .56 kN . lll . .i 3.56 llllll = and - 0. 25tl at /):
F111 , : 111;n.. h:n~i11n = 13. 7 1 kip~. 111;1\ ,·ompr,·"i1111 =
- 7.7 1 kip,
CHAPTER 12 Pl2..\5 =-
1-·, ·p ~ at /. and + ~ .11 J : 1-·i;, =-
'Ii 2 13 at .\/ and J
Pl 2.1 R,1• ordiuatl·~: I at :\ . 0 at I) : M,: 0 at .·I. :'i kip · ft l'l.? ..\7 Load at C : 1:,., = tl. 1-·, 1 = - 0 .9 .\8 kip.
at lllidspan Frn = 0 .3 75 kip. 1-·, ,. = 0 .3 75 kip
Pl2.J R 1: I att\ . - ; at J) : M " : Oat.·\. :; at /l : I ', -: -~ at ll. I' 12 ..\9 l.,,ad at C : 1-· 11 = 0 . 1-·A, = 0 . 7:'i kip~
- ; al /J I' 1:!A I =
. \ / 111. " 2llS.75 kip - ft . 1·111· "= 3.\ ..~3 kip~
1'12.5 1' 1 : O.:'i at C. - ; at <.i 1'12.-B (t1) 1 ·111· " = -4ll .h 7 k N ..\/ 111, " = 2811.59 k N · m :
lh) at mid~pa11 ,1/ 111." = 2 7h k N · 111
1'12.7 R, . ordiuatl'~: ; at//. I at C. 0 at /J. - '. at I-.':
l'l.?.45 =
/1/ 11 ,." 323 .26 kip · ft . \ '111. " = -4tl.2 kip~
Hp . ordinal..:~: - ; at /I. 0 at C. I at 0 . ; at 1:·: 1'12.-'7 = =
at//. 1· 60 k N: at C. 1· .N k N : at n. \. 2-4 kN =
M n : - .'i at /:·: 1\1, -: - 5 at N: I', : ; at /I. - _'. at /:· l'I 2.-'9 lt1) n.,._" = ltl7.-400.lKKl//:'/ ! at 2.-4 ft ri~ht ,1f ldt
"lwl'I l,1ad
1'12.9 Fu : 0 at A . - 2.29 at /J:
1'12.51 R,: I. 0 .8-4-4. 0500. ll. 15h:
R 11 : I at A . ; at 8 . 0 at C. - 0 .3 7.'i at /):
,\/ , : 0 . 5 .625. :'i. I .S7 5 :
i\1 11 : 0 at.-\ . 2 at B. 0 at C. - 1.5 at I) .\/ 11 : ll. 2.81. 0 . - 0 ..H :
1'12. 11 M 1 : 0 at A . - 12 kip · ft at H. 6 kip • fl at/) : l\\;p, N , = 8:'i.3 1
R 1 : I at : I . I at U. - ; al /J: l'I 2.5.\ (h) 887 kip-ft : lt ' \ I N .Skip-It
1'12. U R, : 0 at .-1.: at U.; at I) : Pl.2.55 lt1) I.,1ad middk h,·a111 11f rn111' and 2 ud f11111r~. anJ
Mn : 0 at A . - 8 kip · ft at U. :'i kip · ft at I) ll'ft h,·a111 ,1f 3rd flnm: lhl load kft and middk
h,·a111~ all k,l'I~
1'12.15 R .1 : I at A. 0 .8 at B. O..'i at mids pan CIJ:
M 11 : 0 at A . 3 at B. 2.8 a t midspan CO : Pl.2.57 lt1l 0 .2S kip~ : lhl - I kip- ft
Pl.?.59 (<1) Onlinatl'S for R ,: ll. 0 .lJ2 7. tl.745 . 0.5 . 0 .2.'i5 .
\ ' .111 : 0 at A. 0 .8 at B. 0 .7 at midspan Cl>:
0 .073 . tl: Onli11;11t·~ f11r .\I, : 0 . - lll.h6, - 14. 26.
Pl2.17 \ '/1( -: - 2 at A. 0 .62.'i at hingl'. 0 .25 at D :
- 12.32 . -7 . 17. - 2.2. 0
M<' : - 8 at A . 10 at hingl'
Pl2.19 R 1 : I at l:J. ~ at C: V(tn thL' right nf /) : ~ at C:
(h) R 1 = 32 .35 kips . .\/ 1 = h 74 .2 kip · ft
Vcf : - :I at /)
. - ,I at ('
. _I, at L'
c

Pl2.2I R 1 : 0 .8 at H. (l.-4 at D: M n : 2 at U. 6 at/): CHAPTER 13

V , : 0 .8 at /J. 0.-4 at /J
Not,·: Siuc,' till' app1-c.,,i111alL' anah sis liir P1\1hkm:-, P 13 . 1 tht\llll.!h
1'12.23 A 1 : 1.0 at A . 0 .3-l:::! at H. 0 at C:
PU.•l t\.'quit\.'s an a:-,:-,l1111p1i,m. i11,iivid11al ans\\L' r:-, \\ill ,ar;, . -
A, : 0 at A . 0 .658 at B. 0 at C
PU.I h1r ass11111pti1111 1'.I. in ~pan :1/1 = 0 .25/. = ()ft .
P12.25 R 1 : I at A. - I at H. 0 at C: R, : 0 at A. 2 a t R. 0 at C:
.\1 1, = - 3hll kip · fl . B;, 11111111,· 111 di~tributi,111 : :\1 11 =
V 1 : - 0 .7.'i and 0 .25 at SL'dion I. - I at H: - 3 10kip • ft
M 1 : 0 at A . 0 .37.'i at Sl'L'tilln I. - 15 at H:
N, = 200 kN J. Rf = 8001-N t
h1r a:-,:-,u111pti1111 l'.1. =
ll.2 / . = S ft tn right .if j,,int H:
. I, = 8.-4S kips . . 11 = IS. IS kip~. ,\lu =
127 .2 kip . ft.
 -
768 Answers to Odd-Numbered Problems

and Cr = 5.82 kips. By moment distribution: Cx =

8.85 kips. Ci= 5.68 kips . .\18 = 132.95 kip -ft
PJ3.5 For assumptio n P.I. = 0.2L = 2.4 ft to supports C and
Din span CD: max+ mome nt= 13.0 kip - ft . Mc =
23.0 kip · ft. By moment distribution. max. + moment =
1-l.4 kip · ft. M c = 21 .6 kip · ft
Pl3.7 For assumption P.I. = 0 .25L left side of center support
and P.J. = 0 .2L out from wall: Ra = 54. 15 kips. Re =
99. 17 kips. and M 0 = 95.9 kip • ft. By moment distri -
bution: Ra = 56.53 kips. Re = 93.79 kips. and .\10 =
91.97 kjp · ft
Pl3.9 For assumption P.I. = 0.2L in grider: .\14 = 306.4 kip · ft.
Ax = 183.84 kips. Ar = 91 kips. By moment distribution:
M 4 = 3 15.29kip -ft.Ax = 189. 18kips. Ar =91 kips
PI3.11 Analyze truss as a continuous beam: R8 = 59.4 kips.
F 8 = 18 .9 kips compr. F0 = 34.88 kips
PI3.13 BD: F = 25.0 kips compr: CB: F = 15.0 kips compr:
CD: F= 0 kip
P13.15 For assumption P.I. = 0.2L = 2.4 ft to supports C
and Din span CD: max . + moment = 13.0 kip · ft.
Mc = 23.0 kips · ft. By moment distribution. max. +
mome nt = 14.4 kip · ft. /vie = 21.6 kip · ft.
Pl3.17 M8 t: = 330 kip · ft. Meo = 90 kip · ft.
F,18 = 33.6 kips for both methods
P13.19 Top end of column AF (a) M = 300 kN · m. shear=
50 kN. P =-140 kN. (b) M = 13 1.3 kN -m.
CHAPTER 1~- ' 76 ,~ kin✓in. th) .l = ll.O:iO in .
PU 1 (al 1-,. - .. ·- · • - ·
· _ f - = Ill.!)~ kips. f " . = 7.'r,7 kips
(c) F4s - ~,1 .
Pl-U K = 666.6 kips. ;..·~, = 249.93 ki ps
.\1~4, = 7.33 kip · ft ) . .\le = 143.42 J...ip · ft ) .
Pl-t5 R = 1.17 kips.- . R, i = 11.91 kips t.
~., _ ll).,8.,1-ips .-. Rc.1 = 18.09 J...ips t
RCl -
Pl-t7 ;..·, =-~ El. .1/t.P = -67.2 J.. N -111.
.--\~=2.7 k:'\ . .\foc=7-+-➔ ~N - m .,. , . .
Pl-J.9 Juint 3: F =42.% kips: _101111 I : R, = _).78 J...1p~.
Ri = 1.62 kips: .\/ = I 9.42 kip · ft , . .
PI-UI R . = 8. 187 kips - . R ,1 = Rv, = 48 J...i ps t.
· f )
RM H
= 8. 187 kips.
.-. .\/., = 49. I)- 1-.. ip . t .
.\In = 49. 12 kip - ft C
CHAPTER 15
PIS.I .l 1 = -96U.-\£: .lr = -172U.-\£
Pl5.3 Joint I : .l, = 0.192 in. - . .l 1 = 0 .86:i in. dmrn
Pl5.7 Joint 3: .l , = 0 . 152 in. - . .li = 0.036 in . J:
Joint 4 : .lx = 0 .2 16 in. - . .l 1 = 0.036 in . t
CHAPTER 16
Pl6. l .\/_~= 13.89 kip · ft. .-\ r = 12.08 kips. Br = 63.66 kips.
C1 = 24.26 kips
Pl6.J Force in the Spring.= 0.208 11-L
P16.5 .\I_~ = 151.579 l-.. ip · ft (. R_~1 = -l7.895 kips t

P13.21
V = 21.9 kN, P = -61.3 kN. (c) M = 312.3 kN •m.
V= 52.1 kN. P = -161.9 kN
(a) A,= 5 kips. A, = 6.67 kip~. C ol umn moment at
B = 75 kip -ft : (b) F 8L = +20 kips. Fco = - 18.33 kip~:
Pl6.7
Rn=3l. 184kips- . \"8 c =5 .68-lkips

IA' I=
[
3854.2
0
-6250
o
3854.2
6 250
-6250
6250
1.000.000
l
(c) A, = 4 .9 kips . A, = 6.67 kip~. Column moment at
8 = 73.8 kip -ft, F8 L = +19.7 kips. Fco = - 18. 10 kips
 Appendix A 7451

Table A.3: Moment Diagrams and Maximum Deflections

(a) w ( e)

wL wL 2 wL
T 8 T
~M
5wL 4
t,. MAX = 384£/
p
(b)

-t!~;t_:_
,;t. ,
(f)

t ,f L t,.MAX
C
wL
12
2
J: Li-J=[ -:>,
1
_ __ L~M AX I 12
wL -

P PL p
2 4 2
~ M
PL 3
t,.MAX = 48£/

L P
(c) (g )
t- 2-i
C Jf ----=-_1_~- -;fl ~
PL p p
t,.MAX PL
8 -2 '5" 8
I - I
- - - L-----i
p p
,,- _PL
Pa
~ M
_ PLV ~ PL
Pa 2 2) 8 PL 3 -8
t,.MAX = 24£/ (3 L - 4a t,.MAX = 192£/

p
(d ) (h)

.L - - :,,[~
6.MAX
j__ .,.. - - - - - - p PL

il ----- - L I I
I
i

~ M = - PL
fl.MAX= 3£/
APPENDIX A
Table A.1: Properties of Areas

Shape Figure Area Centroidal

D istance ii

(al Triangle ,.._ ..

I
,.La
'
bh b+ c
"""')
- --y-
I
t . - ,, _

(/,) Right triangle /, ~~ I

...,,
hi, h
1
• - ~
l--- 1, __J
ti - 0 '-,.
(d Parahola
r /1=]
,,
.t_
. ~bl,
T
Jh
~

1--- ,, --1
~ " --i
,~V'~(l
(d) Parah,,la
hi, ,.,
7""" ~
.\' I
,---♦-,

Thir<l-lkgn:e paratx,la ~"--J

,[ V (,~(l
(t')
bl,
T 0 .2h
2..J
(_{) Rectangk
_ ,, --i

"LI ~ .\ ---1
• I hh
b
"'>"

(g l Trape toiu
_ ,, --i

/,l=C:7~/,~ ~ .\ --l
~llr 1 +Ir~)
h\2/r 1 +
3(h 1 + h:)
lrJ

7159
 762 Appendix A

Table A.4: Fixed-End Moments

(g)

I'

t" C},___
: . __.__J- , -/, -----11 :) + ,·:~•'
I
I:)'
I
I' I'

""S[ "' ] 1
f "' .,,n

ldl

+ II /.c ; ' \ +21::/0

12 :.,J L

I. _ _ ____,

(.I.)

t~/:/.).
1.'

L
.... ti ..
(/)

II' / 1 2,/L + 11 1)
+ I~/_l .

:\llk' . , ·f1>d,\\ 1,l' llll>llll'III 1, p,isill \ l'

284 Chapter Six

(t).. Mp Mp Mp Mp
I
I

i
..
)tVMP VMP!0 o)lvMP vMP!(
ii Mp Mp
M Mp
I

!.. Jfv., v.,!~ a)fv"' vMP!(

iI
I
M Mp Mp Mp

,rvMP v.,!G o)fVMP VMP!(

I
I

tI

! M Mp M Mp

o)fVMP VMP!(
I

'
)ivMP VMP!0

!
L

T
1
C

FrauRE 6.8 Calculation of maximum axial force in columns using capacity design.

columns at story i of a multistory frame as a result of a sway-type

plastic collapse mechanism can be calculated as:

_ n _ Ln [COmax-1.L (MPR -1•+ MPL - 1·)]

cmax-i - L. [VgR-max-i + VMP-i] - . 2 + L
I I

(6.7)
T = f [V _ V ] _ f[romin-iL -(MPR-i + MPL-i)1l
max-i ""7' gL-min-i MP-i - ""7' 2 L J
Compression is arbitrarily taken to be positive in that equation. An
W1derstanding of the concept used to derive this equation matters
more than the equation itself. For example, the same approach could
be used to assess the impact of extreme load conditions, such as loss of
a column due to an explosion or other causes, as shown in Figure 6.9.

6.2.3 Protection Against Column Hinging

For many reasons, beam yielding is generally preferable to column
yielding, particularly in multistory frames (see Chapter 8). Beam
yielding greatly enhances the energy absorption capability of a struc-
ture because more plastic hinges are involved in the development of
the plastic collapse mechanism. This is illustrated in Figure 6.10. In
that example, for the same total roof displacement, the column plastic
rotation demand for the column-sway mechanism is approximately
 Applications of Plastic Analysis 285

------------------- ,~~

~~ -------------------

I
I

: Loss of column

I:'
L L L L

F1ouRE 6.9 Plastic collapse mechanism due to loss of a column in a structural

· frame .

eight times larger than the beam plastic rotation demand for the
beam-sway mechanism, resulting in a greater risk of collapse because
of limits in the plastic rotation capacity of structural members (see
Chapters 8 and 15).
Although this philosophy, also known as "strong-column/weak-
beam" design, has been widely accepted as desirable in reinforced
concrete structures, its implementation in structural steel design code
has met considerable resistance. In low-rise steel buildings, beams
are generally considerably deeper than columns, and the adoption of
such a philosophy may affect the economical balance between com-
peting proposals in steel and other materials. However, many other
capacity design principles have found their way into steel design
codes and standards, as will be seen in subsequent chapters.

6.3 Push-Over Analysis

A push-over analysis is basically a step-by-step plastic analysis for
which the lateral loads of constant relative magnitude are applied to
P. a given structure and progressively increased until a target displace-
ment is reached, while gravity loads are kept constant. Thus, as the
name implies, the structure is truly pushed sideways (or pushed
over) to determine its ultimate lateral-load resistance as well as the
 Chapter Six

r---- JJ---r--<o---.--""
I ,----.------------
I '
I
I II
I
~---"f,>----+--<D---4---d
I
I
I
I
I
~---------_...,-
'
I

I
~----JJ----t--CD---+--0
I
I
I
I
I

r---o---+-<=o-----i-o
'
I
I
I
~-----------
~----t-----t------+---t
I
I
I
I I
I I

r-----------
I I
I I
~--o----+<D---+a

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

r-o-----..co---~
,
I
I

:___ ..,....
I
I

I
I
I
___.,.... __..__.,,..
_ "Soft-story"
I I
I I
I
1-0----co----a failure mode
I
I
I
I
'I

.. ..
Earthquake Earthquake
◄ )It

Beam-sway mechanism Column-sway mechanism

Meo1. = (DMF) (SM) Mp beam

Mp beam '
TM~,~ ' Mp beam
DMF = Dynamic magnification
factor
SM = Safety margin to account
for strain-hardening and
material properties
variability
~
Mco1. bottom

FIGURE 6 .10 Comparison of plastic collapse mechanism in presence (beam sway)

and in absence (column sway) of "strong-column/weak-girder" design philosophy.

sequence of yielding events needed to reach that goal, or the magni-

tude of plastic deformations at the target displacement. Originally,
engineers accomplished this by repeatedly running linear elastic
structural analysis computer programs, modifying the model of a
structure as necessary to account for the progressive appearance of
plastification at finite locations throughout the structure; nowadays,
many computer programs for nonlinear inelastic analysis explicitly
offer push-over analysis capabilities. As a result, the push-over analysis
method is relatively accessible and has been used in addition to con-
ventional analyses to determine the ultimate capacity of important
existing structures, to validate proposed retrofit or design solutions,
to compare the ultimate capacity, and, to some extent, the ductility of
various design alternatives.
 Applications of Plastic Analysis 287

Although, in principle, nothing precludes the extension of this

concept to conduct cyclic push-over analysis for a limited number of
cycles, this rapidly becomes excessively arduous even with the help
of computer programs for nonlinear inelastic analysis. Consequently,
nearly all practical applications of the push-over analysis so far have
considered monotonically increasing lateral loads. However, only a
limited amount of information can be extracted from noncyclic push-
over analyses, and extrapolating the findings from those analyses
may lead to erroneous conclusions. The examples presented in the
subsections below have been constructed to illustrate some of these
limitations and risks of misinterpretation.
Finally, it must be recognized that the information acquired from
a push-over analysis is highly dependent on the lateral load distribu-
tion adopted (Lawson et al. 1994). Therefore, whenever the chosen
lateral load distribution is intended to capture the possible effects of
; 1
dynamic excitation, it may be wise to consider multiple lateral-load
distribution patterns.

6.3.1 Monotonic Push-Over Analysis

The three-story braced frame shown in Figure 6.lla was designed in
four different ways to resist a set of statically applied lateral loads.
First, a tension-only design was considered (Case I). In a tension-only
design approach, the braces in compression are ignored and the ten-
sion braces are designed to resist all the applied loads. Such braced
frame designs have been popular and are still used in nonseismic
regions to provide wind resistance.
In Case I, the brace slenderness ratio, KI.Jr, was limited to 200 and
300, as suggested by some buildings codes, for members in compres-
sion and tension, respectively. Therefore, double angles back-to-back
were chosen for the brace members.
In Case II, both the compression and tension members were
designed to resist loads. Design was governed by the compression
capacity of the brace members. As a result, bigger double-angle braces
were necessary to provide a satisfactory design.
In Case III, to reflect that some earthquake-resistant design
requirements restrict the maximum brace slenderness ratio to less
than for nonseismic applications, the frame was redesigned as done
for Case II but considering a maximum brace slenderness ratio of 110,
which is the limit permitted for seismic design by some codes for
steels having a specified yield strength of 300 MPa (43.5 ksi). As a
result, W-shapes were chosen for the braces of that frame.
Finally, in Case IV, a tension-only design without any brace
slenderness restrictions was undertaken, leading to braces made of
steel plate. Information on the four resulting designs is presented
in Table 6.1. In all cases here, the floor beams are joined to the col-
umns using only shear connections (i.e., simply supported beams)
 \\\\\\t\\ll\\1. \\\ \>\a ~ \ \ ~ ""t'Y:h
.
obtamed ate typ .
ica\\~ ireatet \nan \hose Ie(\uited to achieve
'b d earlier ·
t'e
shakedown conditton ?es~n e 6 2 .kink in the girders will obv1·
finally, as shown m F1gure · g, a . hin e for-
ously be introduced as a result ot the overload and pl~stlc g •
mation at point C. However, calculations and experimental res~lts
confirm that this kink is small and unlikely to be visua11y perceptible
or felt by vehicles chiving over the bridge.

6.2.1 Concepts
The concept of capacity design is very important in earthquake engi-
neering practice, and although a pure capacity design approach has
not been adopted in North America at this time, aspects of'this phi-
losophy are implicitly embedded in many code-detailing require-
ments (for both reinforced concrete and steel structures).
Capacity design was developed in the late 1960s in New Zealand
as an approach to resist the effects of severe earthquakes. In capacity
design, acknowledging that inelastic action is unavoidable during
severe earthquakes, the designer dictates where inelastic response
should occur. Such zones of possible inelastic action are selected to be
regions where large plastic deformations can develop without sig-
nificant loss o~ streng~h; these regions are detailed to suppress pre-
mature undesirable failure modes, such as locc\,l buckling or member
~sta~ility in ~he ca~e of _steel st~ctures. Then, one eliminates the t~'fit%-
likelihood of inelastic action or failure elsewhere in the structure by
making the capacities of the surrour,ding structural members greater
than that needed to reach the maximum capacity of the so-called
plastic zone.
The classical example to explain this concept is the capacity-
designed chain (Figure 6.3). In this chain, one link is designed to
absorb a large amount of plastic energy in a stable manner prior to
failure (e.g., link 4). Therefore, the other links (e.g., l , 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7)
can be designed without concern for plastic deformations, provided
their capacities exceed the maximum capacity of the plastic link, thus
avoiding the need for special detailing in all but one link.
Many other examples can be created based on the same philoso-
phy. One such illustration of capacity design is shown in Figure 6A.
There,·a cantilever beam of total length L consists of a brittle segment
(such as a fiber composite material) of length a at the fixed end and a
ductile steel segment of length b. A traditional design approach
would require the use of large safety factors to provide protection
against failure of the b rittle material. Alternatively, a capacity d esign
approach would aim at making the brittle ~at_e rial stronger than
needed to ensure that plastic hinging occurs first m the steel segmen t

t A
 ~~ -~ ·--{,"
\ _ _/
Spftclnl plntlllc; link
(only llnk rttqulrlnu du<itll(l dntnlllng)

FtouR1 6.3 lllustrntlon of cupuclty dnslAn prlnclplo.

Brittle
mAterlal Stael p

•
I a I
b I

•◄
I ►1◄
I ►1I
I I
L
'◄
f
I
►'I
I

A B C

(Lib) Mp Steel

Mp Steel

Mp

Desired failure mode

F,euRe 6.4 Illustration of an application of capacity design.

 Applications of Plastic Analysis 281

Mp

F1GURE 6.5 Illustration of a capacity design application.

of the cantibver. Therefore, the moment resistance of the brittle seg-

ment would only need to exceed:

(6.4)

where all parameters are dE:fined in Figure 6.4, and a. is a number

greater than 1.0 to account for the possible reserve strength of the
steel cantilever beyond its nominal yield strength.
Clearly, capacity design is deeply rooted in plastic analysis and
design. In theory, once a fully plastic state (also known as a plastic
collapse mechanism) has been reached, no additional force can be
imparted to the structure, and as a result, regions outside the critical
plastic locations are protected against the effects of additional load-
ing. For the small one-bay moment frame shown in Figure 6.5, if the
plastic moment capacity of the beam is less than that of the columns,
yielding will occur only at the base of the columns and at the ends
of the beam. The rest of the structure is therefore certain to remain
elastic (Figure 6.5) and requires no special ductile detailing. Practi-
cally, this remains true, although some allowance (such as the a fac-
tor in the previous example) must be made for the statistical
variability of material properties (particularly the yield stress), the
possible development of strain-hardening in the critical plastic loca-
tions, dynamic-loading effects (i.e., strain-rate effects), and a few
other case-dependent factors.

6.2.2 Shear Failure Protection

Capacity design can be used to check the potential adverse impact of
nonstructural elements on key structural members. For example, in a
frame subjected to lateral loads, the shear force in columns can be
considerably larger than expected becaus~ of the presence of rigid
nonstructural elements not considered duri11g the design process.
This is dearly illustrated in Figure 6.6, in which a rigid partial-infill
masonry wall restrains the elastic deformations of the steel columns.
As a result, the plastic hinges required in the cc,fumns to produce a
 r • .; • J j ~

H---iT-----
:·v------n
I
I
I
I
I

h I
I
I
I
I
I

Intended collapse mechanism

Mp"'! -.v•
Mp\..!J+-v•
v• _2Mp 2Mp
- ti- > h =V
Actual collapse mechanism
(captive columns)

F,auRE 6.6 Impact of rigid nonstructural elements on shear force in columns.

plastic c~llapse mechanism must relocate from the base of the col-
u~s to Just above the infill where frame-action is unrestrained. A
highe~ lateral force, H, is required to develop the collapse mechanism,
and higher shear strength is required of the structural members and
the connections to ensure development of this ductile mechanism.
Mathematically, using simple free-body diagrams, the column shear
strength required to form plastic hinges in this frame with masonry
infill is:

(6.5)

where h is the unrestrained column height, as shown in Figure 6.6.

This shear strength is h/h* more than the shear strength that would
have been sufficient to permit plastic hinges to form in the bare frame
without any infills, where h is the full column height.
Fortunately, contrary to reinforced concrete columns for which
this phenomenon has created a number of disastrous failures in past
earthquakes (referred to as "short-column" or "captive column" fail-
ures in the literature), steel columns usually have a constant shear
strength that is in excess of that required to form plastic hinges, and
to date, steel columns have not suffered the same fate as some rein-
forced concrete columns. However, designers should be aware of this
phenomenon and recognize instances in which it could lead to prob-
lems. For example, column splices located in such captive columns
could be damaged if they are designed without consideration of the
nonstructural walls.

l '
 282 Chapter Six

H -...-r-------.

h V= 2Mp
h

Mp~.-v
Intended collapse mechanism

Mpr:')_.,.v•

MpJ,._v•

Actual collapse mechanism

(captive columns)

F1GURE 6.6 Impact of rigid nonstructural elements on shear force in columns.

plastic collapse mechanism must relocate from the base of the col-
umns to just above the infill where frame-action is unrestrained. A
higher lateral force, H, is required to develop the collapse mechanism,
and higher shear strength is required of the structural members and
the connections to ensure development of this ductile mechanism.
Mathematically, using simple free-body diagrams, the column shear
strength required to form plastic hinges in this frame with masonry
infill is:

V= 2Mp
(6.5)
h*

where h is the unrestrained column height, as shown in Figure 6.6.

This shear strength is h/h* more than the shear strength that would
have been sufficient to permit plastic hinges to form in the bare frame
without any infills, where h is the full column height.
Fortunately, contrary to reinforced concrete columns for which
this phenomenon has created a number of disastrous failures in past
earthquakes (referred to as "short-column" or "captive column" fail-
ures in the literature), steel columns usually have a constant shear
strength that is in excess of that required to form plastic hinges, and
to date, steel columns have not suffered the same fate as some rein-
forced concrete columns. However, designers should be aware of this
phenomenon and recognize instances in which it could lead to prob-
lems. For example, column splices located in such captive columns
could be damaged if they are designed without consideration of the
nonstructural walls.

ti
 Applications of Plastic Analysis 283
(1)

HHHHH+HHHH )
MpL (-
,
------
L
MPR

'
wl :' ''
'
Vgl = 2 vgl '

EJt ''
i
''
+ l <.Ol..
voR = 2
''
'I
I
I

! + : VgR
\ '' ':
EJt l ''
I

e
''
l
I

:
V
MP
= (Mpl + MpR)
L
'
'
I:
I

'
e
''
I:
: : ''I
''' I'
' = : :' = I
I '
'' ' I

I'
vol + VMP + :' :

f1ouRE 6.7 Examples of maximum shear force calculation in beams using capacity
design principles.

A similar strategy can be used to protect against shear failures in

gravity-resisting members. In this case, the effect of gravity loads
must be considered, as must the fact that positive and negative
moment capacities may differ (e.g., in composite constructions). This
is illustrated in Figure 6.7. For example, for a segment of beam
between two plastic hinges and subjected to a uniformly distributed
load, the gravity shear force diagram must be added to the shear force
k diagram corresponding to the plastic moments, with the following
result:

(6.6)

where all terms are defined in Figure 6.7.

Similar relationships could be derived for other loading distribu-
;. tions between the plastic hinges as shown in Figure 6.7.
Likewise, using these principles and the free-body diagrams pre-
sented in Figure 6.8, the maximum axial load that can be applied to