CHAPTER 7

Rigid-Frame Structures

A rigid-frame high-rise structure typically comprises parallel or orthogonally ar-

ranged bents consisting of columns and girders with moment resistant joints. Re-
sistance to horizontal loading is provided by the bending resistance of the columns,
girders, and joints. The continuity of the frame also contributes to resisting gravity
loading, by reducing the moments in the girders.
The advantages of a rigid frame are the simplicity and convenience of its rect-
angular form. Its unobstructed arrangement, clear of bracing members and struc-
tural walls, allows freedom internally for the layout and externally for the fenes-
tration. Rigid frames are considered economical for buildings of up to about 25
stories, above which their drift resistance is costly to control. If, however, a rigid
frame is combined with shear walls or cores, the resulting structure is very much
stiffer so that its height potential may extend up to 50 stories or more. A flat plate
structure is very similar to a rigid frame, but with slabs replacing the girders. As
with a rigid frame, horizontal and vertical loadings are resisted in a flat plate struc-
ture by the flexural continuity between the vertical and horizontal components.
As highly redundant structures, rigid frames are designed initially on the basis
of approximate analyses, after which more rigorous analyses and checks can be
made. The procedure may typically include the following stages:

1. Estimation of gravity load forces in girders and columns by approximate

method.
2. Preliminary estimate of member sizes based on gravity load forces with ar-
bitrary increase in sizes to allow for horizontal loading.
3. Approximate allocation of horizontal loading to bents and preliminary anal-
ysis of member forces in bents.
4. Check on drift and adjustment of member sizes if necessary.
5. Check on strength of members for worst combination of gravity and hori-
zontal loading, and adjustment of member sizes if necessary.
6. Computer analysis of total structure for more accurate check on member
strengths and drift, with further adjustment of sizes where required. This
stage may include the second-order P-Delta effects of gravity loading on the
member forces and drift.
7. Detailed design of members and connections.
130
 7.1 RIGID FRAME BEHAVIOR 131

This chapter considers methods of analysis for the deflections and forces for
both gravity and horizontal loading. The methods are included in roughly the order
of the design procedure, with approximate methods initially and computer tech-
niques later. Stability analyses of rigid frames are discussed in Chapter 16.

7.1 RIGID FRAME BEHAVIOR

The horizontal stiffness of a rigid frame is governed mainly by the bending resis-
tance of the girders, the columns, and their connections, and, in a tall frame, by
the axial rigidity of the columns. The accumulated horizontal shear above any story
of a rigid frame is resisted by shear in the columns of that story (Fig. 7.1). The
shear causes the story-height columns to bend in double curvature with points of
contraflexure at approximately mid-story-height levels. The moments applied to a
joint from the columns above and below are resisted by the attached girders, which
also bend in double curvature, with points of contraflexure at approximately mid-
span. These deformations of the columns and girders allow racking of the frame
and horizontal deflection in each story. The overall deflected shape of a rigid frame
structure due to racking has a shear configuration with concavity upwind, a max-
imum inclination near the base, and a minimum inclination at the top, as shown
in Fig. 7.1.
The overall moment of the external horizontal load is resisted in each story level
by the couple resulting from the axial tensile and compressive forces in the col-
umns on opposite sides of the structure (Fig. 7.2). The extension and shortening
of the columns cause overall bending and associated horizontal displacements of
the structure. Because of the cumulative rotation up the height, the story drift due
to overall bending increases with height, while that due to racking tends to de-
crease. Consequently the contribution to story drift from overall bending may, in.
the uppermost stories, exceed that from racking. The contribution of overall bend-
ing to the total drift, however, will usually not exceed 10% of that of racking,

Points of
contra flexure

--- --
- 1----'-=b.-~*'....,._.-, - Typ i cal column
moment diagram

-- ----Typical beam
moment diagram

Fig. 7.1 Forces and deformations caused by external shear.

132 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

I
--
I I 7

c
0
Vl
c
"'
c

-
c
...,
Q)
...,
Q)
>< '-
w 0
..c

-
Vl

:------ compression
~ ~
Tension
, , I , ,
Fig. 7.2 Forces and deformations caused by external moment.

except in very tall, slender, rigid frames. Therefore the overall deflected shape of
a high-rise rigid frame usually has a shear configuration.
The response of a rigid frame to gravity loading differs from a simply connected
frame in the continuous behavior of the girders. Negative moments are induced
adjacent to the columns, and positive moments of usually lesser magnitude occur
in the mid-span regions. The continuity also causes the maximum girder moments
to be sensitive to the pattern of live loading. This must be considered when esti-
mating the worst moment conditions. For example, the gravity load maximum
hogging moment adjacent to an edge column occurs when live load acts only on
the edge span and alternate other spans, as for A in Fig. 7 .3a. The maximum
hogging moments adjacent to an interior column are caused, however, when live
load acts only on the spans adjacent to the column, as for B in Fig. 7 .3b. The
maximum mid-span sagging moment occurs when live load acts on the span under
consideration, and alternate other spans, as for spans AB and CD in Fig. 7 .3a.
The dependence of a rigid frame on the moment capacity of the columns for
resisting horizontal loading usually causes the columns of a rigid frame to be larger
than those of the corresponding fully braced simply connected frame. On the other
hand, while girders in braced frames are designed for their mid-span sagging mo-

A B c D
~SSS\\\SS\1
(a)

A B C D
FSSS\\\\,\\\\\\\\1

(b)

Fig. 7.3 (a) Live load pattern for maximum positive moment in AB and CD, and maxi-
mum negative moment at A; (b) live load pattern for maximum negative moment at B.
 7.2 DETERMINATION OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY GRAVITY LOADING 133

ment, girders in rigid frames are designed for the end-of-span resultant hogging
moments, which may be of lesser value. Consequently, girders in a rigid frame
may be smaller than in the corresponding braced frame. Such reductions in size
allow economy through the lower cost of the girders and possible reductions in
story heights. These benefits may be offset, however, by the higher cost of the
more complex rigid connections.

7.2 APPROXIMATE DETERMINATION OF MEMBER FORCES

CAUSED BY GRAVITY LOADING

A rigid frame is a highly redundant structure; consequently, an accurate analysis

can be made only after the member sizes are assigned. Initially, therefore, member
sizes are decided on the basis of approximate forces estimated either by conserv-
ative formulas or by simplified methods of analysis that are independent of member
properties. Two approaches for estimating girder forces due to gravity loading are
given here.

7.2.1 Girder Forces-Code Recommended Values

In rigid frames with two or more spans in which the longer of any two adjacent
spans does not exceed the shorter by more than 20%, and where the uniformly
distributed design live load does not exceed three times the dead load, the girder
moment and shears may be estimated from Table 7 .I. This summarizes the rec-
ommendations given in the Uniform Building Code [7. I]. In other cases a conven-
tional moment distribution or two-cycle moment distribution analysis should be
made for a line of girders at a floor level.

7.2.2 Two-Cycle Moment Distribution [7.2]

This is a concise form of moment distribution for estimating girder moments in a
continuous multi bay span. It is more accurate than the formulas in Table 7 .I,
especially for cases of unequal spans and unequal loading in different spans.
The following is assumed for the analysis:

I. A counterclockwise restraining moment on the end of a girder is positive

and a clockwise moment is negative.
2. The ends of the columns at the floors above and below the considered girder
are fixed.
3. In the absence of known member sizes, distribution factors at each joint are
taken equal to I/ n, where n is the number of members framing into the joint
in the plane of the frame.

Two-Cycle Moment Distribution-Worked Example. The method is dem-

onstrated by a worked example. In Fig. 7 .4, a four-span girder AE from a rigid-
134 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

TABLE 7.1 Gravity Load Forces in Girders

Location on Girder Value of Moment"
Sagging End spans: discontinuous end
moment unrestrained II

End spans: discontinuous end integral

with support 14

Interior spans
16

Hogging At exterior face of first interior support:

moment for two spans 9

At exterior face of first interior support:

for more than two spans 10

At other faces of interior supports

II

At face of all supports where, at each end wL'

of each span E column stiffnesses/ 12
beam stiffness > 8
At interior face of exterior support for
member built integrally with spandrel 24
beam or girder
At interior face of exterior support for
member built integrally with column 16

Shear In end members at face of first interior wL

1.15-
support 2

At face of all other supports wL

2
"w is load per unit length of distributed load, L is the clear span for sagging moment or shear. and the
average of adjacent clear spans for hogging moment.

Live load 30 200 25 400 kN 30 kN/m

Dead load 20 150 20 200 kN 20 kN/m

A 4. 0 m B 2. 33_ 2. 33 c 3.9 D

I: 8.0m .\. 7,0

.I : 7.8
I. 6. 7

Fig. 7.4 Gravity loading on girders of rigid frame.

 7.2 DETERMINATION OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY GRAVITY LOADING 135

~Uniformly distributed
Concentrated
i load r;W
t! ! loading w/unit length

A~::t---..L.-_ .......-------t~B A~ ' ! ' t h' • i i h

L a L/2 "' b L/2 :1 I. L/z .1. L/2 I
2 2
MA = Wab fL 2 MA =wl /12
2
MB = -Wa bfL 2 MB =-wL' /12
2 2
Mc=Wa /2L (fora<Lfz) Mc=wL /24

Fig. 7.5 Formulas for fixed-end moments.

frame bent is shown with its loading. The fixed-end moments in each span are
calculated for dead loading and total loading using the formulas given in Fig. 7.5.
The moments are summarized in Table 7.2.
The purpose of the moment distribution is to estimate for each support the max-
imum girder moments that can occur as a result of dead loading and pattern live
loading. A different load combination must be considered for the maximum mo-
ment at each support, and a distribution made for each combination.
The five distributions are presented separately in Table 7. 3, and in a com-
bined form in Table 7.4. Distributions a in Table 7.3 are for the exterior sup-
ports A and E. For the maximum hogging moment at A, total loading is ap-
plied to span AB with dead loading only on BC. The fixed-end moments are
written in rows 1 and 2. In this distribution only the resulting moment at A is
of interest. For the first cycle, joint B is balanced with a correcting moment of
- ( -867 + 315) I 4 = - U I 4 assigned to M8 A where U is the unbalanced mo-

TABLE 7.2 Fixed-End Moments for Two-Cycle Moment Distribution Worked

Example
Dead Load Dead + Live Load
Span Loading Moment (kNm) Moment (kNm)
AB Concentrated 200 600
Uniform distribution 107 267
Total 307 867
BC Concentrated 233 544
Uniform distribution 82 184
Total 315 728
CD Concentrated 195 585
Uniform distribution 101 228
Total 296 813
DE Concentrated 0 0
Uniform distribution 75 187
Total 75 187
 136 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

TABLE 7.3 Two-Cycle Moment Distribution

a. Maximum Moments at A and E

A B D E
Distribution MAB MBA Mac Mnc MnE Mw
Factors 1/3 1/4 1/4 I /4 1/4 1/3
I. D.L. FEM" 315 -296
2. T.L. FEM" 867 ---- -867 187 -187
3. Carryover 69 ......______,. 14
4. Addition 936 -173
5. Distribution -312 58
6. Maximum 624 -115
moments

b. Maximum Moment at B
A B c
Distribution MsA Mac Mea Men
Factors 1/4 1/4 I /4 I /4
I. D.L. FEM 296
2. T.L. FEM 867 -----------.... - 867 728 ~-728
3. Carryover -145 54
4. Addition -1012 782
5. Distribution 58 58
6. Maximum -954 840
moments

c. Maximum Moment at C
B c D

Distribution MsA Mac Mcs Men Mnc MnE

Factors 1/4 1/4 I /4 I /4 I /4 I /4
l. D.L. FEM -307 75
2. T.L. FEM 728 -728 813 ~-813
3. Carryover ......_____..._-53 92
4. Addition -781 905
5. Distribution -31 -31
6. Maximum -812 874
moments

ment. This is not recorded, but half of it, (- U I 4) 12, is carried over to MAs·
This is recorded in row 3 and then added to the fixed-end moment and the result
recorded in row 4.
The second cycle involves the release and balance of joint A. The unbalanced
moment of 936 is balanced by adding - U I 3 = -936 I 3 = -312 to M AB
 7.2 DETERMINATION OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY GRAVITY LOADING 137

TABLE 7.3 (Continued)

d. Maximum Moment at D
c D E

Distribution Mcs Mco Moe MnE MED

Factors 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3
I. D.L. FEM -315
2. T.L. FEM 813 ~-813 187~ -187
3. Carryqver -62 31
4. Addition -875 218
5. Distribution 164 164
6. Maximum -711 382
moments
"D.L .. dead loading; T.L., total loading; FEM, fixed-end moments.

(row 5), implicitly adding the same moment to the two column ends at A. This
completes the second cycle of the distribution. The resulting maximum moment
at A is then given by the addition of rows 4 and 5, 936 - 312 = 624. The distri-
bution for the maximum moment at E follows a similar procedure.
Distribution b in Table 7. 3 is for the maximum moment at B. The most severe
loading pattern for this is with total loading on spans AB and BC and dead load
only on CD. The operations are similar to those in Distribution a, except that the
first cycle involves balancing the two adjacent joints A and C while recording only
their carryover moments to B. In the second cycle, B is balanced by adding
- ( - 1012 + 782) /4 = 58 to each side of B. The addition of rows 4 and 5 then
gives the maximum hogging moments at B. Distributions c and d, for the moments
at joints C and D, follow patterns similar to Distribution b.
The complete set of operations can be combined as in Table 7.4 by initially
recording at each joint the fixed-end moments for both dead and total loading.
Then the joint, or joints, adjacent to the one under consideration are balanced for

TABLE 7.4 Combined Two-Cycle Moment Distribution

A B c D E
Distribution MAB MBA Msc Mcs Mco Mnc MoE MED
Factors 1/3 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3
I. D.L. FEM", 307 -307><315 -315><296 -296.>< 75 -75
2. T.L. FEM" 867 .><"'-867 728><..-728 813'><.-813 187~87
3. Carryover 69 -145 54 -53 92 -62 31 14
},f4. Addition 936 -1012 782 -781 905 -875 218 -173
Is. Distribution -312 58 58 -31 -31 164 164 58
~6. Maximum ~62~4:::::::====_=9:::,54:::::::===:::84=0'====_=8=12'===8==7==4===_=7=1=1==3=8==2===_=1=15
~
~ moments
i :J•For abbreviations, see the footnote to Table 7-3.

:I
138 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

the appropriate combination of loading, and carryover moments assigned to the

considered joint and recorded. The joint is then balanced to complete the distri-
bution for that support.

Maximum Mid-Span Moments. The most severe loading condition for a max-
imum mid-span sagging moment is when the considered span and alternate other
spans carry total loading. A concise method of obtaining these values may be
included in the combined two-cycle distribution, as shown in Table 7.5. Adopting
the convention that sagging moments at mid-span are positive, a mid-span total
loading moment is calculated for the fixed-end condition of each span and entered
in the mid-span column of row 2. These mid-span moments must now be corrected
to allow for rotation of the joints. This is achieved by multiplying the carryover
moment, row 3, at the left-hand end of the span by (I + 0.5 D.F.) /2, and the
carryover moment at the right-hand end by -( l + 0.5 D.F.) /2, where D.F. is
the appropriate distribution factor, and recording the results in the middle column.
For example, the carryover to the mid-span of AB from A = [ (I + 0.5/3) /2]
X 69 = 40 and from B = - [(I + 0.5/4) /2] X ( -145) = 82. These correction
moments are then added to the fixed-end mid-span moment to give the maximum
mid-span sagging moment, that is, 733 + 40 + 82 = 855.

7.2.3 Column Forces

The gravity load axial force in a column is estimated from the accumulated trib-
utary dead and live floor loading above that level, with reductions in live loading
as permitted by the local Code of Practice. The gravity load maximum column
moment is estimated by taking the maximum difference of the end moments in the
connected girders and allocating it equally between the column ends just above
and below the joint. To this should be added any unbalanced moment due to ec-
centricity of the girder connections from the centroid of the column, also allocated
equally between the column ends above and below the joint.

7.3 APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED

BY HORIZONTAL LOADING

7 .3.1 Allocation of Loading between Bents

A first step in the approximate analysis of a rigid frame is to estimate the allocation
of the external horizontal force to each bent. For this it is usual to assume that the
floor slabs are rigid in plane and, therefore, constrain the horizontal displacements
of all the vertical bents at a floor level to be related by the horizontal translations
and rotation of the floor slab.

Symmetric Plan Structures Subjected to Symmetric Loading. A sym-

metric structure subjected to symmetric loading (Fig. 7 .6a) translates but does not
twist. From the assumption of slab rigidity, the bents translate identically. The
 TABLE 7.5 Two-Cycle Moment Distribution with Maximum Mid-Span Moments
A B c D E
---
MAB MBA Msc Mcs Men Mnc MnE Men
Distribution Factors 1/3 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3
I. D.L. FEM" 307 -307 315 -315 296 -296 75 -75
2. T.L. FEM" 867 733 -867 728 364 -728 813 699 -813 187 94 -187
3. Carryover 69-40 -145 54 30 -53 92-52 -62 31-17~14
4. Addition 936 82~~1011 782 30~-781 90) 35~-875 218 -8 -173
5. Distribution -312 58 58 -31 -31 164 164 62
6. Maximum 624 855 -954 840 424 -812 874 786 -711 382 103 -115
moments
"For abbreviations, see the footnote to Table 7-3 .

.....
w
co
140 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

rn±r_j i
E

I I I • I I I
t~--t---r-1--t--t

I I I .I I I
x___ x___ t-i-l---t ___x

to
(a)

,_--Bent number

II t-i~f-T
:z:---x--:z:--;:--1--t
1--l--~--l--l--i
Arbitrary~
l__l___l_lt===bkh;ae;t;;g io;i ty
t~
0
ong1n xl I
xz
x3 etc c3 c4
I cz c5
I c6

L
cl
-
X
-

(b)

Fig. 7.6 (a) Symmetric-plan rigid frame; (b) asymmetric-plan rigid frame.

total external shear at a level will be distributed between the bents in proportion
to their shear rigidities (GA) at that level. An explanation of the shear rigidity
parameter (GA) is given in a later section but, for now, it may be obtained for
level i in a bent simply by using

12£
( GA) (7 .I)

in which h1 is the height of story i, G = f.(/~/ L) for all the girders of span L
across floor i of the bent, and C = f. (lj h 1) for all the columns in story i of the
bent. E is the modulus of elasticity, and Ic and/~ are the moments of inertia of the
columns and girders, respectively.
 7.3 ANALYSIS OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY HORIZONTAL LOADING 141

Asymmetric Plan Structures. The effect of lateral loading on a structure hav-

ing an asymmetric plan is to cause a horizontal plane torque in addition to trans-
verse shear. Therefore, the structure will twist as well as translate.
Referring to the asymmetric structure in Fig. 7 .6b, and defining the location of
the center of shear rigidity of the set of parallel bents in story i, relative to an
arbitrary origin 0, as given by

X·= [L..;(GA)xi1 (7 .2)

I I;( GA)
i

An estimate of the shear Qii carried by bent j at level i is given by

Q; ( GA); Q;e; [ ( GA )c]

(7 .3)
QJi = I; ( GA ;; + I; [ ( GA )c2 {

in which for level i, Q; is the total shear, ( GA )Ji is the shear rigidity of bent j in
story i, e; is the eccentricity of Q; from the center of shear rigidity in story i, ci is
the distance of bent j from the center of shear rigidity, and the two summations
refer to the full set of bents parallel to the direction of loading. The signs of c and
e are the same when they are on the same side of the center of rigidity.

7.3.2 Member Force Analysis by Portal Method

The portal method [7.3] allows an approximate hand analysis for rigid frames
without having to specify member sizes and, therefore, it is very useful for a pre-
liminary analysis. The method is most appropriate to rigid frames that deflect pre-
dominantly by racking. It is suitable, therefore, for structures of moderate slen-
derness and height, and is commonly recommended as useful for structures of up
to 25 stories in height with a height-to-width ratio not greater than 4: I [7 .4]. Its
name is derived from the analogy between a set of single-bay portal frames and a
single story of a multi bay rigid frame (Fig. 7. 7a and b). When each of the separate
portals carries a share of the horizontal shear, tension occurs in the windward
columns and compression in the leeward columns. If these are superposed to sim-
ulate the multibay frame, the axial forces of the interior columns are eliminated,
leaving axial forces only in the extreme windward and leeward columns.
The reduction of the highly redundant multistory frame to allow a simple anal-
ysis is achieved by making the following assumptions:

I. Horizontal loading on the frame causes double curvature bending of all the
columns and girders, with points of contrafiexure at the mid-height of col-
umns and mid-span of girders (Fig. 7.1).
2. The horizontal shear at mid-story levels is shared between the columns in
proportion to the width of aisle each column supports.
142 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

(a)

Zero axial force

in internal columns
(b)

Fig. 7.7 (a) Separate portals analogy for portal method; (b) separate portals superposed.

The method may be used to analyze the whole frame, or just a portion of the
frame at a selected level. The analysis of the whole frame considers in tum the
equilibrium of separate frame modules, each module consisting of a joint with its
column and beam segments extending to the nearest points of contraftexure. The
sequence of analyzing the modules is from left to right, starting at the top and
working down to the base.
The procedure for a whole frame analysis is as follows:

1. Draw a line diagram of the frame and indicate on it the horizontal shear at
each mid-story level (Fig. 7.8).
2. In each story allocate the shear to the columns in proportion to the aisle
widths they support, indicating the values on the diagram.
3. Starting with the top-left module (Fig. 7.9a), compute the maximum mo-
ment just below the joint from the product of the column shear and the half-
story height.
4. Find the girder-end moment just to the right of the joint from the equilibrium
of the column and girder moments at the joint. The moment at the other end
of the girder is of the same magnitude but corresponds to the opposite cur-
vature.
5. Evaluate the girder shear by dividing the girder end-moment by half the
span.
6. Consider next the equilibrium of the second joint (Fig. 7. 9b), repeating steps
3 to 5 to find the maximum moment in the second column, and the moment
and shear in the second girder from the left.

This is repeated for each successive module working across to the right, and is
then continued in the level below, starting again from the left. The values of shear
 7.3 ANALYSIS OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY HORIZONTAL LOADING 143

Wind Externa 1
c 0 Floor
load shear A
level
kN kN

~ 20

~
--
18.4

19

--
55.2

~ 18

-92.0

-
:::::
423.2 II
E

- --
36.8

460.0
""""
"';::
t
QJ

0
8

0
N

1§4..
-
680.8

-
717.6

6. 5 m 7. 5 m 6.0m
·I
20.0m
:I
Fig. 7.8 Example: Portal method of analysis.

and moment are recorded and a bending moment diagram drawn on the diagram
of the structure as the analysis progresses (Fig. 7.8). The bending moments are
recorded on the girders above the left-hand end and below the right-hand end, and
similarly on the columns as viewed from the right. The shears are written perpen-
dicular to the columns and beams at the mid-heights and mid-spans, respectively.
The bending moment diagram is drawn here on the tension side of the member.
If member forces are required only at a particular level in the structure, the
horizontal row of modules at that level, consisting of the girders and half-columns
above and below, can be analyzed separately by the above procedure without hav-
ing to start t~e analysis at the top (Fig. 7.9c and d).
The consideration of vertical equilibrium of a joint module should give the
increment of axial load picked up by a column at that level. However, the assumed
144 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

.._
.,"'
..c
VI

A B

Girder
(moment
-5.23

Col. shear Column

2.99 moment 6.44
........-
-.....--
3. 25m
I• 3.25m •1- 3. 75 m .. ,
(a) (b)

148.1
---,.-

~ -8

--
74.8

3. 25m I• 3. 25m
161.0
-=:--

•I• 3. 75 m

(c) (d)

Fig. 7.9 Equilibrium of modules: portal method.

distribution of shear between the columns results in a zero increment for all except
the two exterior columns. The axial force in the exterior columns in any story is
equal, therefore, to the moment of the external loading about the mid-height level
of that story, divided by the distance between the columns. The portal method
tends to overestimate the axial force in the exterior columns and is incorrect in
estimating zero axial force for the interior columns. However, when these forces
are added to the gravity load axial forces, the effect of the discrepancies on the
resultant axial force is generally negligible.
The simplicity of the portal method and the advantage that it allows a direct
analysis of member forces at intermediate levels make it the most useful of the
approximate methods for rigid-frame analysis. If, however, the frame is taller and
more slender, so that overall bending of the structure by axial deformations of the
columns becomes significant, it may be more appropriate to analyze it by the can-
tilever method.

Portal Method-Worked Example. It is required to determine the member

forces in the 20-story frame of Fig. 7.8. The story height is typically 3.5 m, to
 7.3 ANALYSIS OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY HORIZONTAL LOADING 145

give a total height of 70 m. The bents are spaced at 7.0 m. The intensity of the
wind loading is 1.5 kN / m2 throughout the height.

Wind load per floor: At typical levels 1.5 X 7.0 x 3.5 = 36.8 kN
At the roof level 1.5 X 7.0 X 1.75 18.4 kN
Shear in the top story 18.4 kN

Distributing this shear between the top-story columns in proportion to the widths
of aisle supported:

For column A: 18.4 x 3.25/20 = 2.99 kN

For column B: 18.4(3.25 + 3.75)/20 = 6.44 kN

The shear in columns C and D and in the columns of the stories below are allocated
similarly. The values are recorded on Fig. 7.8.
Starting with the top-left module A20 (Fig. 7. 9a) and considering its free-body
equilibrium:
Moment at top of column = column shear X half-story height
= 2.99 X 1.75 = 5.23 kNm

From moment equilibrium of the joint, the moment at left end of the first girder

= -5.23 kNm
Shear in girder = girder-end moment/half girder length
= 5.23/3.25 = 1.61 kN.

Because of the mid-length point of contraflexure, the moment at the right end
of the girder has the same value as at the left end. Similarly, the column moments
at the top and bottom of a story are equal. The sign convention for numerical
values of the bending moment is that an anticlockwise moment applied by a joint
to the end of a member is taken as positive.
The values of the moments and shears are recorded on Fig. 7 .8. Continuing
with the next module to the right, B20, in Fig. 7.9b:

Moment at top of column = column shear X half-story height

= 6.44 X 1.75 = 11.27 kNm

From moment equilibrium of joint, moment at end of second girder

= -( 11.27 - 5.23) = -6.04 kNm

Then shear in second girder = girder moment/half-girder length
= 6.04/3.75 = 1.61 kN
146 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

The above procedure is repeated for successive modules to the right, and then
continued on the floor below, starting again from left.
For the direct analysis of forces at an intermediate level, consider floor level 8
(Fig. 7.8).
Starting with the left module A8 (Fig. 7 .9c):

Moment in column above joint = 68.8 X 1.75 = 120.4 kNm

Moment in column below joint = 74.8 X 1.75 = 130.9 kNm

From moment equilibrium of joint, moment at end of first girder

= -( 120.4 + 130.9) = -251.3 kNm

Then shear in first girder = 251.3 /3.25 = 77.3 kN

Continuing with the next-right module B8 (Fig. 7.9d):

Moment in column above joint = 148.1 X 1.75 = 259.2 kNm

Moment in column below joint = 161.0 X 1.75 = 281.8 kNm

From moment equilibrium of the joint, the moment at the end of the second
girder

= -(259.2 + 281.8 - 251.3) = -289.7 kNm

Then the shear in the second girder = 289.7/3.75 = 77.3 kN

The above procedure is repeated for successive modules to the right, as in Fig.
7.8.

7.3.3 Approximate Analysis by Cantilever Method [7.5)

The cantilever method is based on the concept that a tall rigid frame subjected to
horizontal loading deflects as a flexural cantilever (Fig. 7 .2). The validity of this
concept increases for taller, more slender frames, and for frames with higher girder
stiffness. The method is recommended [7.4] as suitable for the analysis of struc-
tures of up to 35 stories high with height-to-width ratios of up to 5: I.
It is similar to the portal method in considering the equilibrium of joint modules
in sequence. It differs, however, in starting by assuming values for the axial forces.
rather than the shears, in the columns. It is less versatile than the portal method in
not allowing a direct analysis of intermediate stories.
The assumptions for the cantilever method are as follows:

I. Horizontal loading on the frame causes double curvature bending of all the
columns and girders with points of contraflexure at the mid-heights of col-
umns and mid-spans of girders.
 7.3 ANALYSIS OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY HORIZONTAL LOADING 147

2. The axial stress in a column is proportional to its distance from the centroid
of the column areas.

The procedure for the analysis is as follows:

I. Draw a line diagram of the frame and record on it the external moment M
at each mid-story level (Fig. 7. 10).
2. Find the centroid of the column areas and compute the second moment of
the column areas about the centroid using

(7 .4)

where ci is the distance of column j from the centroid. In a case where the
column areas Ai are not known, they are to be taken as unity. Calculate the
column axial forces Fi in each story using

Me
F1- = -1 A (7.5)
I '
Record these on the diagram of the structure.

Wind Resulting
load external A c 0
kN moment
1 8 4 kN·m

6.5m .1 7. 5 m ..1. 6.0m

I I
10. 13m I 9.87 m
l~;entroid of
20.0 m column areas

Axial force in column indicated in adjacent box:

Otherwise member forces indicated as for Portal Method
Fig. 7.10 Example: cantilever method of analysis.
148 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

A B

-4.65

,. 3. 25m 3. 25m 3. 75 m
·I
(a) (b)

Fig. 7.11 Equilibrium of modules: cantilever method.

3. Starting with the top-left module (Fig. 7.lla) find the vertical shear in the
girder from the vertical equilibrium of the module.
4. Compute the girder-end moments from the product of the girder shear and
its half-span.
5. Compute the moment in the column just below the joint from the equilibrium
of the girder and column moments at the joint.
6. Evaluate the column shear by dividing the column-top moment by half the
story height.
7. Considering the next-right module (Fig. 7.llb) find the shear and moment
in the second girder and column by repeating steps 3 to 6.

This is repeated for each module in tum, moving to the right across the top
level, and then continuing from left to right in the level below. The values of shear
and moment are recorded on the diagram of the structure (Fig. 7. I 0).
The convention for indicating forces in the members is the same as in Fig. 7.8,
with the column axial forces written in boxes.

Cantilever Method- Worked Example. Analysis of the same 20-story,

70-m-high frame considered in the portal analysis. Referring to Fig. 7 .I 0, external
moments due to wind are

At mid-height of story 20 = 18.4 X 1.75 = 32.2 kNm

At mid-height of story 19 = 18.4 x 5.25 + 36.8 x 1.75
161.0 kNm

Continue to calculate the external moment for each story down to the base and
record the values on Fig. 7.10.
Assuming a unit sectional area for each column:
Locationofcentroidofareas =I x (6.5 + 14.0 + 20)/4 = 10.13mfromleft
 7.3 ANALYSIS OF MEMBER FORCES CAUSED BY HORIZONTAL LOADING 149

The second moment of area

= I X ( 10.13 2 + 3.63 2 + 3.87 2 + 9.87 2 )

= 228.2 m4

Column axial forces:

Top story first column= MeA/!= 32.2 X 10.13 X 1/228.2

= 1.43 kN tension
second column = MeA/ I = 32.2 X 3.63 X I /228.2
= 0.51 kN tension

Continue to find the axial forces in all the columns down to the base. The values
are recorded (in boxes) on Fig. 7 .10.
Starting with the top-left module, A20 (Fig. 7 .!Ia):
From vertical equilibrium of module, shear in first girder

= 1.43 kN
Moment at left end of girder = shear X half length of girder
= -( 1.43 X 3.25) = -4.65 kNm

From moment equilibrium of joint, moment at top of column

= 4.65 kNm

Shear in column = moment at top/half story height

= 4.65/1.75 = 2.66 kN

The moments at opposite ends of the girders and columns are of the same value.
The moments and shears and a bending moment sketch are recorded, as for the
portal method.
Considering the next-right module, B20, Fig. 7.llb.
From vertical equilibrium of module, shear in second girder

= 1.43 + 0.51 = 1.94 kN

Moment in left end of second girder = shear X half length of girder
= -{1.94 X 3.75) = -7.28 kNm

From moment equilibrium of joint, moment at top of column

150 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

= -( -4.65 - 7.28) = 11.93 kNm

Shear in column = moment at column top/half story height
= 11.93/1.75 = 6.82 kN

This procedure is repeated for successive modules to the right, then on the level
below, working again from left to right.

7.3.4 Approximate Analysis of Rigid Frames with Setbacks

A rigid frame bent with setbacks, as shown in Fig. 7 .12a, can be analyzed ap-
proximately by applying the cantilever method to the upper and lower parts as
though they were two separate frames (Fig. 7.12b).
An analysis is made first of the upper part down to and including those parts of
the setback girder that form the upper frame. A moment distribution is then carried
out for the setback girder supported on the lower columns and subjected to the
calculated vertical forces from the columns of the upper structure. Because the
setback girder is so much stiffer in bending than the columns, it may be assumed
for this part of the analysis that the girder rests on simple supports. The moment
distribution yields the girder moments and shears and, hence, the vertical forces
that the girder applies to the supporting columns; these forces are assumed to carry
all the way to the foundation.
The lower structure, including the setback girder, may then be analyzed by the
cantilever method applying, in addition to its story increments of wind load, a
concentrated horizontal load at the setback level equal to the total horizontal force
above that level. The column axial forces calculated from the moment of the ex-
ternal horizontal loading are added to those determined from the setback beam
distribution to start the cantilever analysis for the lower part.
The total moments and shears in the setback girder due to wind forces are the
superposed results of the three analyses: the cantilever analysis of the upper part,
the cantilever analysis of the lower part, and the moment distribution of the girder.
If the complete setback structure has a low height-to-width ratio, it would be
more appropriate to use the portal method of analysis. As described above, the
two parts of the structure would be analyzed separately with the total shear from
the upper structure applied as a concentrated load at the setback level for the anal-
ysis of the lower structure. The forces in the setback girder would be obtained by
superposing the girder results from the two portal analyses, and the results of a
moment distribution using vertical forces from the upper columns as for the can-
tilever method.

7.4 APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS FOR DRIFT

When the initial sizes of the frame members have been selected, an approximate
check on the horizontal drift of the structure can be made. The drift in a nonslender
rigid frame is mainly caused by racking (Fig. 7.1). The racking may be considered
 7.4 APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS FOR DRIFT 151

--..
.....
-
--..
--..

Setback
-
--..
.....
--..
(T rarsfer girder

---
.....

- , ,, ,, ,, .,

-----
(a)

---
--..

Transfer girder
l:Horiz. forces from~
---- + +~r
~
vertical forces from
upper structure

upper structure "" ~ Jj~

r ~ vertical forces from

--
transfer beam
• ~

---
- , , ,,

(b)
,

Fig. 7.12 (a) Rigid frame with setback; (b) setback structure separated for analysis.

as comprising two components: the first is due to rotation of the joints, as allowed
by the double bending of the girders (Fig. 7.13a and b), while the second is caused
by double bending of the columns (Fig. 7.13c). If a rigid frame is slender, a
contribution to drift caused by the overall bending of the frame, resulting from
axial deformations of the columns, may be significant (Fig. 7 .2). If the frame has
152 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

,-
0; +1~

\'Ef\,- --~-----t----~-------,~~~g~3
I Ig2
I 0;
I ____,1
I
Floor i

I '
I----.:__--+----=------+--L"'"3---il
Ll Lz
I. Story i
I
(a)

0; +1 ~

h.
1
2
h.
1
2 i -1

(b)

h,cf~',_...__;_.<_~:7--L...-;_____,; ~: : :
(c)
Fig. 7.13 (a) Joint rotation due to girder flexure; (b) story drift due to girder flexure; (c)
story drift due to column flexure.

a height:width ratio less than 4: 1, the contribution of overall bending to the total
drift at the top of the structure is usually less than 10% of that due to racking.
The following method of calculation for drift allows the separate determination
of the components attributable to beam bending, column bending, and overall can-
tilever action.

7.4.1 Components of Drift [7.6)

It is assumed for the drift analysis that points of contraflexure occur in the frame
at the mid-story level of the columns and at the mid-span of the girders. This is a
reasonable assumption for high-rise rigid frames for all stories except near the top
and bottom.

Story Drift due to Girder Flexure. Consider a story-height segment of a frame

at floor level i consisting of a line of girders and half-story-height columns above
 7.4 APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS FOR DRIFT 153

and below each joint (Fig. 7 .13a). To isolate the effect of girder bending, assume
the columns are flexurally rigid.
The average rotation of the joints can be expressed approximately as

total moment carried by the joints

(Jig ::::::: (7 .6)
total rotational stiffness of the joints

The total moment = 2Q;h; + Q; +

hi+l
1 -
2
- (7. 7)

and the total rotational stiffness

= 12£ ~ (t} (7 .8)

From Eqs. (7.6) to (7.8)

(7. 9)

A similar expression may be obtained for the average joint rotation in the floor ( i
- 1 ) below, but with subscripts ( i + 1 ) replaced by i, and i by ( i - I ) .
Referring to Fig. 7 .13b, the drift in story i due to the joint rotations is

(7.10)

that is

0
1
= '.!:!. [Q;-Ihi-1 + Q;h; Q;h; + Qi+lhi+l] (7.11)
M 2 24£ ~ (/)
_I!_ + 24£ ~ (/)
_I!_
L ;-1 L ;

Assuming that the girders in floors i - 1 and i are the same, the story heights are
the same, and the average of Q; + 1 and Q; _ 1 is equal to Q;

(7 .12)
154 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

Story Drift due to Column Flexure. Referring to Fig. 7.13c, in which the
drift due to bending of the columns is isolated by assuming the girders are rigid,
the drift of the structure in story i is

(7 .13)

from which

(7 .14)

Story Drift due to Overall Bending. Although the component of total drift
due to overall bending may be small relative to that caused by racking, the bending
inclination increases cumulatively throughout the height. Consequently, in the up-
per stories, where the story shear drift tends to be less than in the lower region,
the bending drift may become a significant part of the story drift. An estimate of
the bending drift can be made by assuming the structure behaves as a flexural
cantilever with a moment of inertia equal to the second moment of the column
areas about their common centroid, that is I; = E ( Ac2 ); (Fig. 7 .14a and b). If the
moment diagram (Fig. 7 .14c) is used to construct an M / EI diagram [in which I
2
= E (Ac )] (Fig. 7.14d), the area of the diagram Ail between the base and the
mid-height of story i gives the average slope of story i due to bending action, that
is

(7.15)

Then the bending component of drift in story i is given by

(7 .16)

Story Drift and Total Drift. The resulting drift in a single story i is the sum of
the components,

(7 .17)
or

(7 .18)

(7.19)
 -
~

- Column
Flo or i
I;= l:(Ac 2 ) i
Mid-height of

-
~
Al

-
F area

A
A2 A3 Sto

-
ry i
story i

Area A;
(shaded)
0

~ r- Flo or

Sto ry
0..__....._ o~----------~._ or<< 0

~I,
cl ~I c3
J~ Value of
inertia I
Value of moment M Va 1 ue of M/EI

column areas
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 7.14 (a) Frame structure; (b) distribution of inertia /; (c) distribution of external moment
M; (d) MIEI diagram .

.....
U1
U1
156 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

The assumption of a mid-story-height point of contraflexure is not valid for the

first story of a rigid frame because of the fully fixed or hinged conditions at the
base of the columns. Therefore, special expressions should be used for the first
story drift attributable to column and girder bending [7. 7]. If the columns have
rigid base connections, the first story drift may be estimated by

(7.20)

If the columns have pinned base connections

0
I.K+c
= Qlh~
12£
(-3- + ~)
2GI Cl
(7 .21)

The total drift at the nth floor of a building may then be found from

( 7.22)

A check on the story drift should be made for the top story and for intermediate
stories where member size reductions occur. If, on the basis of the initially sized
frame, the calculated drifts are well within the allowable values, these spot checks
will probably be adequate.

7.4.2 Correction of Excessive Drift

The typical proportioning of member sizes in tall rigid frames is such that girder
flexure is the major cause of drift, with column flexure a close second. Therefore,
increasing the girder stiffness is usually the most effective and economical way of
correcting excessive drift. If the girder in any single bay is substantially smaller
than the others at that level, it should be increased first.
An estimate of the modified girder sizes required at level i to correct the drift
in that story can be obtained by neglecting the contribution due to overall bending
and rewriting Eq. (7.18) in the form

L: (1 /L).
11
I
=
12£ l(0)
~
I
Qihi
Qh I

- I2E L: (1, 1h)

I

I
I ( 7.23)

in which oi is assigned the value of the allowable story drift. If the frame is un-
usually proportioned so that column flexure contributes a major part of the drift,
 7.4 APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS FOR DRIFT 157

Eq. (7 .23) may be rewritten to allow an estimate of the required column sizes by
interchanging I: (l~/L); and I: (ljh);.
A relatively simple check on whether girders or columns should be adjusted
first has been proposed as follows [7. 8]. Compute for each joint across the floor
levels above and below the story whose drift is critical, the value of a parameter
1/; where

1/;=-
h
(./"' ~~
LJ~
L
( 7.24)

in which I:l~/L refers to the girders connecting into the joint.

If a scan of the resulting values of 1/; indicates that

1. 1/; >> 0.5, adjust the girder sizes;

2. 1/; << 0.5, adjust the column sizes;
3. 1/; ""' 0.5, adjust both column and girder sizes.

This test should preferably be accompanied by an inspection of the drift com-

ponents of Eq. (7 .18) to ascertain whether the allowable story drift is exceeded by
any one component alone, as might occur in a grossly undersized initial design. If
it is exceeded by any one component, whether as a result of undersized columns
or of undersized beams, that component must be remedied first.

7 .4.3 Effective Shear Rigidity ( GA)

This parameter expresses the racking stiffness of a frame on a story-height average
basis. It is a useful parameter when considering the allocation of loading between
rigid frame bents, and the horizontal interaction of frames with walls. The com-
posite symbol ( GA) is used because it corresponds with the shear rigidity of an
analogous shear cantilever of sectional area A and modulus of rigidity G. A story-
height segment of such a cantilever may be compared (Fig. 7 .15a) with a corre-
sponding portion of a rigid frame (Fig. 7 .15b).

Surface area A
0
~

-r 1
1
Fig. 7.15 (a) Story-height segment of analogous shear wall; (b) single story of rigid frame.
158 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

When the cantilever segment is subjected to a shear Q, its deflection is given

by

0 = Qh ( 7.25)
GA

from which the shear rigidity is given by

(GA) = Qh = _Q ( 7.26)
0 ¢

where ¢ is the angle of inclination. That is, ( GA) is the shear force necessary to
cause unit inclination of the shear structure.
For the corresponding portion of frame, using Eq. (7 .19) and neglecting drift
caused by overall bending

GA - Qh- Qh ( 7.27)
( ) - 0 - Qh 2 (_!_ _!_)
12£ G + C
then
12£
( GA) ( 7.28)

If the value of ( GA )i at level i of a frame is known, the horizontal displacement

in story i is given by

(7.29)

7.5 FLAT PLATE STRUCTURE-ANALOGOUS RIGID FRAME

Flat plate structures, in which the columns are cast integrally with the floor slabs,
behave under horizontal loading similarly to rigid frames. The lateral deflections
of the structure are a result of simple double curvature bending of the columns,
and a more complex three-dimensional form of double bending in the slab. If the
columns are on a regular orthogonal grid (Fig. 7 .16), the response of the structure
can be studied by considering each bay-width replaced by an equivalent rigid frame
bent. The slab is replaced for the analysis by an equivalent beam with the same
double bending stiffness. The hand methods of estimating drift. outlined in Sec-
tions 7.4.1 to 7.4.3, or a computer analysis, can then be applied.
The flexural stiffness of the equivalent beam depends mainly on the width-to-
length spacing of the columns and on the dimension of the column in the direction
 7.5 FLAT PLATE STRUCTURE-ANALOGOUS RIGID FRAME 159

Fig. 7.16 Flat plate structure.

of drift. In Fig. 7.17. these parameters are used to present the effective width of
the equivalent beam [7. 9]. that is, the width of the uniform-section beam having
the same double curvature flexural stiffness as the slab, with the same depth. span,
and modulus of elasticity as the slab. This equivalent beam may be used only in
the lateral loading analysis of flat plate structures. It is not appropriate for gravity
or combined loading analyses.
Figure 7.17 shows the equivalent beam stiffness to be very sensitive to the width
of the column in the direction of drift. This is because of the ·'wide-column' • effect
that is demonstrated even more markedly by coupled shear walls (cf. Chapter 10).
When the slab width-to-span ratio b I a exceeds 1.5, the effective width becomes
virtually constant because the slab boundary regions parallel to the direction of
drift deform negligibly and therefore contribute little to the stiffness. The apparent
reduction in effective width shown by Fig. 7.17 as b I a increases is caused by
plotting the effective width as a fraction of the transverse span. The curves in Fig.
7.17 were obtained for square section columns; however, they are equally appli-
cable to rectangular section columns since additional analyses [7. 9] have shown
that variations in the column transverse dimension from one-half to two times the
longitudinal dimension cause less than a 2% change in effective width.

7.5.1 Worked Example

A flat plate multistory structure consists of a regular rectangular grid of columns
spaced at 8.0 m by 6.0 m ctrs. The columns are 0.6 m square and the slab is
0.2 m thick. For horizontal loading acting parallel to the 8 m dimension, determine
the moment of inertia of an equivalent beam to replace the slab.
Referring to Fig. 7.17

a= 8.0 m, b = 6.0 m, u = 0.6 m

u 0.6 b 6.0
- = - = 0.075; - = - = 0.75
a 8.0 a 8.0
160 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

_J;=
-' - --r- ·I

~J,--
__ L ___
Loa~

~1Z:f#j~l~
----,---------,--

7~LZW2&J~· b

--L------1--
.

0. 75

.0

---
::0
4-
0 0.50

""'
';;;
>

0.25

0~---~~~~~~----~------~
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Value of u/a
Fig. 7.17 Effective width of equivalent beam.

Referring to the graph, the above values give

b'
- = 0.61
b

Effective slab width b' = 0.61 X 6.0 = 3.66 m. Therefore, moment of inertia of
equivalent beam

3.66 X 0.2 3 4
I= = 0.0024 m
12

This value would normally be reduced in the analysis by 50% to allow for the
reduction in stiffness due to cracking as the slab bends.
 7.7 REDUCTION OF RIGID FRAMES FOR ANALYSIS 161

7.6 COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF RIGID FRAMES

Although the previously described hand methods of determining deflections and

forces in rigid frames have served engineers wel1 for the design of rigid frames,
and are still useful for preliminary analysis and checking, they have now been
superseded for most practical purposes by computer analysis. A computer analysis
is more accurate, and better able to analyze complex structures. A wide variety of
commercial structural analysis programs, invariably based on the stiffness matrix
method, are available.
Forming the model of the rigid frame for computer analysis has been described
in Chapter 5. Briefly, it consists of an assembly of beam-type elements to represent
both the beams and columns of the frame. The columns are assigned their principal
inertias and sectional areas. The beams are assigned their horizontal axis inertia
while their sectional areas are assigned to be effectively rigid. Torsional stiffnesses
of the columns and beams are usually small and, therefore, neglected. Shear de-
formations of columns and beams are also usually neglected unless the member
has a length-to-depth ratio of less than about 5, in which case a shear area is
assigned.
If the frame is of reinforced concrete, reduced inertias are assigned to the mem-
bers to allow for cracking: 50% of their gross inertia to the beams and 80% of
their gross inertia to the columns.
Some analysis programs include the option of considering the slabs to be rigid
in-plane, and some the option of including P-Delta effects. If a rigid slab option
is not available, the effect can be simulated by interconnecting all vertical elements
by a horizontal frame at each floor, adding fictitious beams where necessary, and
assigning the beams to be effectively rigid axially and in flexure in the horizontal
plane. Slabs are usually assumed to have a negligible transverse rigidity unless a
flat plate or flat slab action is intended, in which case the slab is represented as a
connecting grid of equivalent stiffness beams.

7.7 REDUCTION OF RIGID FRAMES FOR ANALYSIS

The reduction of a rigid frame to a simpler equivalent frame is a useful way of

simplifying its analysis when it is not essential to obtain the exact member forces.
The two techniques described below can be used separately, or in combination, to
give large-scale reductions in the size of the computational problem.

7.7.1 Lumped Girder Frame

A repetitive floor system offers scope for the lumping of girders in successive floors
to form a model with fewer stories. The lumped girder frame allows an accurate
estimate of the drift and a good estimate of the member forces. The girders are
usually lumped in threes or, if the frame is very tall, in fives. In the example of
Fig. 7 .18, three sets of three girders are lumped into single girders that converts
162 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

girders
1
c10 )' ~

1 I
c9 ce

Ig5
1
c8

l
Ig4

Ig3 ) --- f--

(I
g

Ig2 Ic3

Igl 1 lei
c2
1 1
cl cl
,, ., , '/

(a) (b)

Fig. 7.18 (a) Prototype rigid frame; (b) equivalent lumped girder frame.

the 13-story frame into a 7-story equivalent frame. The first floor and roof girders
must not be included in the lumping because the frame behavior near the top and
the base differ significantly from that in middle regions. In Fig. 7 .l8b the second
floor and next-to-roof girders are also left as in the original to give an even closer
representation of the boundary conditions.
The requirement of a substitute frame is that, for horizontal loading, joint trans-
lations should be the same as those of the original structure. For translations caused
by girder flexure, Eq. (7 .12) shows this requirement to be satisfied by assigning
the inertia of each equivalent girder to be equal to the sum of the lumped n-girder
inertias in the original frame, that is,

~~(' = 2.: ~~ (7.30)

To determine the properties ofthe columns in a lumped girder equivalent frame,

reference is made to Eq. (7. 14). Equating the component of drift caused by double
curvature column bending in a story of height nh in the equivalent frame to the
corresponding drift over n stories in the original frame

Q(nh)'L Qh 2 " 1
--=-==--'--- = - 2.: = - - - (7 .31)
12£ 2.:(."/ nh 12£ 2.: (Ij h) I

from which the equivalent column inertias are

 7.7 REDUCTION OF RIGID FRAMES FOR ANALYSIS 163

n'
(.('=-11 (1) ( 7.32)

~ I: i

For example, in the structure shown in Fig. 7.18a, the vertical stack of three
equal-height columns (. 8 , /c9 , and /cllb would be replaced in the equivalent lumped
girder model (Fig. 7 .18b) by a three-story-height equivalent column having an
inertia

( 7.33)
l I 1
-+-+-
/c8 (.9 (-10

If within each region to be lumped the inertia of a column in successive single

stories is constant, the inertia of the equivalent column of height 3h would be nine
times that of the original single-story-height columns, while the inertia of the
equivalent column in an intermediate region (Fig. 7.18b), whose length is 2h,
would be four times that of the original single-story-height columns.
The columns' sectional areas, which control the cantilever component of de-
flection, must have the same second moment about their common centroid in the
lumped and original structures. Consequently, the areas of the equivalent columns
remain the same as those in the original frame. The horizontal loading on the
equivalent frame is applied as equivalent concentrated loads at the lumped girder
levels, taking the half new-story-height regions above and below the lumped gir-
ders as tributary areas.
When the lumped girder frame has been analyzed, the results must be trans-
formed back to the original frame. The moments in the original girders at the
lumped girder levels should be taken as I / n of the resulting moment in the cor-
responding lumped girders. The moments in the original girders between the
lumped girder levels should then be estimated by vertical interpolation. Girder
shears are estimated by dividing the end moments by the half-span lengths.
For original column shears in a particular story, the actual external shear at the
mid-height of the story should be distributed between the columns in the same
ratio as that between the resulting shears at that level in the equivalent frame. The
moments at the top and bottom of a column should be taken as the product of the
column shear and the original half-story height.

7. 7.2 Single-Bay Substitute Frame [7 .1 OJ

The reduction of a multi bay rigid frame to a single-bay equivalent frame provides
a model that closely simulates the response of the structure to horizontal loading.
It is useful, therefore, in estimating deflections for stability analyses and for dy-
namic analyses of frames whose member forces are not required. It can also be
used in a two-stage member force analysis of a large multibent, multibay frame,
164 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

for which a first-stage overall analysis is made of the structure represented by an

assembly of equivalent single-bay bents. The resulting shears in the bents are used
to obtain the individual bent loadings, which are then used in second-stage anal-
yses of the individual multibay bents to obtain their member forces (cf. Chapter
5, Section 5.1).
Figure 7 .19a and b shows a multi bay rigid frame and its single-bay analogy.
Member sizes are assigned to the single-bay frame to cause it to deflect horizon-
tally in the same manner as the prototype. First assume an arbitrary width I, for
the single-bay frame. Then, equating the component of drift in story i of the pro-
totype, caused by double bending of the girders, to that in the single-bay frame
structure, and using Eq. (7.12)

( 7.34)

Therefore, the girder in floor i of the single-bay frame is assigned an inertia

·I

Igl Iq2 Iq3 Floor i (Ige)i

----,-Story i
Ac~ Ic4 (A I~.,) i (A~). (I c
Acl I e_l Ac2 Ic2 Ac3 Ic3 .£!.1.: ce \

1
,2 3 4
, ,. '" /
c2 ..Lc
c, l. c4

"-Centroid of
column areas

(a) (b)

Fig. 7.19 (a) Multibay rigid frame; (b) equivalent single-bay frame.
 SUMMARY 165

Considering similarly the component of drift due to double bending of the col-
umns, and applying Eq. (7.14)

(7.36)
12£ L; (ljh) I

therefore, the moment of inertia of the equivalent single-bay column is

1
2 L; (/c)
(/,.") = - (7.37)
I I

Finally, equating the components of drift resulting from cantilever action in the
prototype and the single-bay frames, and using Eq. (7 .16)

(7.38)

then

(7 .39)

therefore, the equivalent columns must be assigned sectional areas

(7 .40)

Although the single-bay frame results for horizontal deflections will be fairly
accurate, the resulting member forces for the single-bay frame are not transform-
able back to the multibay frame.
The lumped girder and single-bay frame techniques can also be usecl in com-
bination to reduce an extremely large frame structure to one that is much more
amenable to a first-stage, displacement and bent shear, analysis.

SUMMARY

The flexural continuity between the members of a rigid frame enables the structure
to resist horizontal loading as well as to assist in carrying gravity loading. The
probable worst combined effects of gravity and horizontal loading have to be es-
timated for the design of the frame.
Gravity loading causes regions of sagging moment near the mid-span of the
girders and of hogging moment beside the columns. Pattern live loading must be
166 RIGID-FRAME STRUCTURES

used to estimate the worst effects of gravity loading. The girder maximum mo-
ments may be evaluated approximately from formulas or more accurately from
conventional or shortened forms of moment distribution.
Horizontal loading causes racking of the frame due to double bending of the
columns and girders, resulting in an overall shear mode of deformation of the
structure. The portal and cantilever methods of analysis provide an estimate of the
horizontal loading member forces that, when combined with the gravity loading
member forces, allow a preliminary design of the frame members. The portal and
cantilever methods may be used also for the analysis of rigid frames with setbacks.
The lateral displacement of rigid frames subjected to horizontal loading is due
to three modes of member deformation: girder flexure, column flexure, and axial
deformation of the columns. The horizontal displacements in each story attribut-
able to these three components can be calculated separately and summed to give
the total story drift. The sum of the story drifts from the base upward gives the
horizontal displacement at any level. If the total drift, or the drift within any story,
exceeds the allowable values, an inspection of the components of drift will indicate
which members should be increased in size to most effectively control the drift.
A flat-plate structure responds to loading in a manner similar to a rigid frame
but with the transversely varying vertical flexure of the floor slab replacing the
single-plane vertical flexure of the rigid frame girder. A horizontal deflection anal-
ysis of a regular flat-plate structure can be made by considering the slabs replaced
by equivalent girders, and treating it as a rigid frame.
When a rigid frame includes many repetitive stories it may be reduced for a
horizontal loading analysis by lumping the girders in three, or five, successive
floors to give an equivalent simpler structure. The properties of the girders and
columns must be transformed initially in formulating the equivalent structure, and
the resulting forces subsequently transformed back to give the forces in the mem-
bers of the original structure. A multi bay rigid frame may be reduced to an equiv-
alent single-bay frame for a horizontal loading analysis. This model is useful for
representing the horizontal response of the bent and for determining its horizontal
deflections. The two reduction methods may be used, either separately or in com-
bination, to simplify extremely large rigid frame structures for analysis.

REFERENCES
7.1 Uniform Building Code 1988. International Conference of Building Officials, Whit-
tier, California 90601.
7.2 Continuity in Concrete Building Frames. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Il-
linois 60076.
7.3 Smith, A. and Wilson, C. A. "Wind Stresses in the Steel Frames of Office Build-
ings." J. Western Soc. Engineers April1915, 365-390.
7.4 Wind Bracing in Steel Buildings. Final Report of Sub-Committee No. 31 on Steel of
the Structural Division, Trans. ASCE 105, 1940, 1713-1739.
7.5 Wilson, A. C. "Wind Bracing with Knee-Braces or Gusset Plates." Engineer. Rec.
September 1908, 227-274.
 REFERENCES 167

7.6 Goldberg, J. E. "Approximate Methods in Stress and Stability Analysis of Tall

Building Frames." Proc. JABS£, ASCE Regional Conference on Tall Buildings,
Bangkok, January 1974, 177-194.
7.7 Goldberg, J. E. "Analysis of Two-Column Symmetrical Bents and Yierendeel
Trusses Having Parallel and Equal Chords." J. Am. Cone. lnst. 19(3), November
1947, 225-234.
7.8 Cheong-Siat-Moy, F. "Stiffness Design of Unbraced Steel Frames." AISC Engi-
neer. Journal, 1st Quarter, 1976, pp. 8-10.
7.9 Wong, Y. C. and Coull, A. "Effective Slab Stiffness in Flat Plate Structures." Proc.
lnstn. Civ. Engineers Part 2, 69, September 1980, 721-735.
7.10 Goldberg, J. E. Structural Design of Tall Steel Buildings, Council on Tall Buildings
and Urban Habitat, Monograph, Vol. SB, 1979, p. 53.