Mathematical and Computational Applications, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-8, 2005.

© Association for Scientific Research

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF SEMI-RIGID FRAMES

Ali Ugur Ozturk and Hikmet H. Catal

Department of Civil Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, 35160, Izmir, Turkey

Abstract-The dynamic response of semi-rigid frames is studied by using a computer

program. The connection flexibility is modeled by linear elastic rotational springs.
Having the same geometry and cross-section; semi-rigid frames, with different spring
coefficients, are examined. The reducing coefficients and lateral rigidity values,
representing the real behavior of frames, are determined for each frame. To represent
the real behavior, all deformations of a frame are accounted for a dynamic analysis.
Response characteristics of five different multistory frames are compared with reference
to their modal attributes. The study indicates that connection flexibility tends to increase
vibration periods, especially in lower modes, while it causes vibration frequencies
decrease.
Keywords- semi-rigid, reducing coefficient, rotational spring

1. INTRODUCTION

Defining behaviors of frames under dynamic loads exactly takes a important place in
earthquake engineering. In engineering design, to know the real behavior of a structure
is provided by determining geometrical, damping, mass and connection model well. In
design purposes; structures are designed as having rigid connections. However, the
behavior of connections is not rigid. Structures having such flexible connections in
which connection flexibility becomes important are called semi-rigid frames.
Semi-rigid frames are frames for which the beam-to-column joints are neither pinned
nor rigid [1]. In reality all frames are semi-rigid , because there is not a frame which has
truly pinned and perfectly rigid connections. For practical design; two classification
systems were developed. The classification system by Bjorhovde et al [2] is based on
the response of a frame element, while the other classification system by Eurocode 3 [3]
is based on the response of a frame. These classification systems were developed by
using the results of many studies performed in last decades.

2. SEMI-RIGID FRAME MODEL AND REDUCING COEFFICIENT

The semi-rigid frame model used for the present study is shown in Figure 1. This
model includes a beam with moment of inertia Ib and length L, and two columns with
moment of inertia Ic , length h and cross-section Ac. The modulus of elasticity E is the
same in all frame elements.
2 A. U. Ozturk and H. H. Catal

E,Ib
Cθj Cθk

Ac,E,Ic Ac,E,Ic h

L
Figure 1 Semi-rigid frame model

The connections are modeled as rotational springs at beam-to-column joints. All

deformations are incorporated in this study. One can define rigidity at the ends of frame
element by the term of rigidity index. For a connection with hinge, rigidity index is
zero , and flexural moments do not occur at the ends of a frame element. For a rigid
connection , this value is infinite , and flexural moments occur at the ends of a frame
element [4]. Flexural moments at the two ends for a frame element, with spring
coefficients represented by Cθj and Cθk , can be given by
M jf = Cθj xΦ j ; M kf = Cθk xΦ k (1)
where Mjf and Mkf are flexural moments, respectively, at j and k ends of a frame
element , Φ j and Φ k are rotations, occurred by rotational springs.
The relationship between spring coefficients and rigidity index can be written by
Cθj Li C L
Rj = ; Rk = θk i (2)
EI x EI x
where Rj and Rk are rigidity index at two ends of a frame element, respectively.
Rotations at two ends and axial displacement of a semi-rigid frame element given by
Figure 2 are element displacements.

Figure 2 Displacements of a semi-rigid frame element

 Dynamic Analysis of Semi-Rigid Frames 3

φjyr and φkyr are total rotations at two ends of a semi-rigid element, φjf ve φkf are
rotations occurred without rotational springs at two ends of a semi-rigid element,
respectively. φ j and φ k can be written by using equation (1) and equation (2).
M jf Li M kf Li
φj= ; φk= (3)
R j EI x Rk EI x
Using rotational springs, the stiffness matrix relating rigidity index at the ends is
given by equation (4) [4].
 4 EI x 2 EI x 
 L β1 Li
β2 0 
 i 
 2 EI x 4 EI x
t
[Kyr ] = β2 β3 0  (4)
 Li Li 
 AE 
 0 0 
 Li 
where ;
3λ1λ 2 3 3λ1
β1 = ; β2 = ; β3 =
( )
4λ1 λ 2 − λ1
2
(4λ1λ 2 − 1) (4λ1λ 2 − λ1 )
(5)

 3   3 
λ1 = 1 +  ; λ 2 = 1 +  (6)
 Rj   Rk 
The stiffness matrix of a semi-rigid column element in Figure 1 can be written by

 12 EI c 6 EI c 12 EI c 6 EI c 
 h3 γ 1 0 −
h2
γ2 −
h3
γ1 0 −
h2
γ 3
 Ac E Ac E 
 0 0 0 − 0 
 h h 
 6 EI c 4 EI c 6 EI c 2 EI c 
 − h2 γ 2 0
h
β1
h2
γ2 0
h
β2 
[Kcf]=   (7)
12 EI c 6 EI c 12 EI c 6 EI c
− γ1 0 γ2 γ1 0 γ 3

 h3 h2 h3 h2 
 Ac E Ac E 
 0 − 0 0 0 
h h
 6 EI 2 EI c 6 EI c 4 EI c 
− 2c γ3 0 β2 γ3 0 β3 
 h h h2 h 
where ;
β1 + β 2 + β 3 2β + β 2 2β 3 + β 2
γ1 = ; γ2 = 1 ; γ3 = (8)
3 3 3
The stiffness matrix of a semi-rigid beam element in Figure 1 can be written by
4 A. U. Ozturk and H. H. Catal

 Ab E Ab E 
 L 0 0 − 0 0 
L
 12 EI b 6 EI b 12 EI b 6 EI b 
 0 − γ1 γ3 0 − γ1 γ 3

 L3 L2 L3 L2 
 6 EI b 4 EI b 6 EI 2 EI b 
 0 γ2 β1 0 − 2 b γ1 β2 
[Kbf]=  L2 L L L (9)
AE Ab E 
− b 0 0 0 0 
 L L 
 12 EI b 6 EI b 12 EI b 6 EI b 
 0 − γ1 − γ1 0 γ1 − 2 γ 3
L3 L2 L3 L
 6 EI b 2 EI b 6 EI 4 EI b 
 0 γ3 β2 0 − 2b γ3 β3 
 L2 L L h 

The structure stiffness matrix is obtained by assembling the column and beam
stiffness matrices described above according to conventional stiffness matrix analysis
procedure. One obtains a 6x6 stiffness matrix for the frame of Figure 3.

∆2 ∆5
θ3 θ6
∆1 ∆4

Figure 3 Degrees-of-freedom

By assuming that ∆1 and ∆4 are equal, one can eliminate ∆4 from the frame of Figure
4.The reduced displacements are given by Figure 4. The remaining stiffness matrix is a
5x5 matrix.
 Dynamic Analysis of Semi-Rigid Frames 5

∆2 ∆5
θ3 θ6
∆

Figure 4 The reduced displacements

{F} = [Ksf] x { δ } (10)
The relationship between deformations and forces are given by equation 10.Solving
the above matrix equation for displacements except ∆ and back substituting the result
into the first row, the one-degree-of –freedom system stiffness relationship can be
written as
24 EI x
F= αr x ∆ (11)
h3
where ∆ is the lateral displacement ,and F and αr are the lateral force and reducing
coefficient respectively.

3. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND NUMERICAL STUDIES

The primary objective of the present study is to investigate the dynamic
characteristics of semi-rigid frames and how connection flexibility influences them. For
a given frame in Figure 4, the equation of motion for a semi-rigid frame in free
vibration is given by
..
[ M ] { v }+[k]{ v }={0} (12)
..
where v and v are, respectively, acceleration and displacement of a structure.
The dynamic characteristics of semi-rigid frame are determined by modal analysis.
The frequency and period of a vibration will be investigated. The influence of
connection flexibility will be studied.
In the present study, 3-story semi-rigid frames having four different spring
coefficients and a rigid connected frame were studied. The semi-rigid model for the
present analysis is given in Figure 5. All frames have the same geometry, cross-section
and material property to compare the influence of connection flexibility on dynamic
characteristics. First, the reducing coefficients were determined by using a computer
program. Then, lateral rigidity values were calculated for each frame. The reducing
coefficients and periods are given in Table 1 below.
6 A. U. Ozturk and H. H. Catal

w3 = 10 t
Cθ1 25/50 cm Cθ2
3.5 m
w2 = 10 t
Cθ1 25/50 cm Cθ2
3.5 m
w1 = 10 t
Cθ1 25/50 cm Cθ2
3.5 m

5m

Figure 5 Semi-rigid model for the present analysis

Table 1 Reducing coefficients

Connection model Reducing coefficient (αr) Lateral rigidity ( t / m )
Semi-rigid
0.1217 596.28
(Cθ=2000 tm/rd)
Semi-rigid
0.2309 1131.23
(Cθ=5000 tm/rd)
Semi-rigid
0.4255 2084.29
(Cθ=20000 tm/rd)
Semi-rigid
0.5978 2928.11
(Cθ=1020 tm/rd)
Rigid 0.5978 2928.11

The results of the conducted analysis are given for each mod of vibration below.
 Dynamic Analysis of Semi-Rigid Frames 7

Table 2 Dynamic results of 1st mod

Connection model Frequency ω i ( rd / sec ) Period Ti ( sec )
Semi-rigid (2000 tm/rd) 10.7603 0.5839
Semi-rigid (5000 tm/rd) 14.8210 0.4239
Semi-rigid (20000 tm/rd) 20.1178 0.3123
Semi-rigid (1020 tm/rd) 23.8448 0.2635
Rigid 23.8448 0.2635

Table 3 Dynamic results of 2nd mod

Connection model Frequency ω i ( rd / sec ) Period Ti ( sec )
Semi-rigid (2000 tm/rd) 30.1497 0.2084
Semi-rigid (5000 tm/rd) 41.5274 0.1513
Semi-rigid (20000 tm/rd) 57.7350 0.1088
20
Semi-rigid (10 tm/rd) 66.8117 0.0940
Rigid 66.8117 0.0940

Table 4 Dynamic results of 3rd mod

Connection model Frequency ω i ( rd / sec ) Period Ti ( sec )
Semi-rigid (2000 tm/rd) 30.1497 0.2084
Semi-rigid (5000 tm/rd) 43.5677 0.1442
Semi-rigid (20000 tm/rd) 81.4552 0.0771
Semi-rigid (1020 tm/rd) 96.5480 0.00651
Rigid 96.5480 0.00651

4. CONCLUSIONS
A semi-rigid frame was modeled by rotational springs. The stiffness matrix was
obtained by using rigidity index at the ends of a semi-rigid frame element. A computer
program was written to obtain the reducing coefficients from this 5x5 stiffness matrix.
Dynamic analysis was performed for five different types of connection. The effects of
connection flexibility were investigated.
In a semi-rigid frame, an increase in the rate between length of bay and height of
story ( L/h ) causes reducing coefficient and lateral rigidity decrease, and in the same
rate between length of bay and height of story ( L/h ) , the reducing coefficients for
8 A. U. Ozturk and H. H. Catal

frames with lower spring coefficients are lower than the reducing coefficients for
frames with higher spring coefficients.
The dynamic behavior of a semi-rigid frame is different from the dynamic behavior
of a rigid connected frame. Since the connection flexibility influences the dynamic
characteristics of frames. The study indicates that connection flexibility tends to
increase periods, especially in lower modes, while it tends to decrease the frequency.

REFERENCES
1. J.C. Awkar and E.M. Lui, Seismic analysis and response of multistory semi-
rigid frames, Journal of Engineering Structures, 30, 425-441, 1997.
2. R .Bjorhovde, A .Colson and J. Brozetti, A classification system for beam to
column connections, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,116,3059-
3076,1990
3. European Community, Design of steel structure; part1 general rules and
rules for buildings, Brussels,Belgium,1990.
4. H.H. Catal, Yapı ve deprem mühendisliğinde matris yöntemler, İzmir, 2002.
5. W.F .Chen, Joint flexibility in steel frames, New York, Elsevier, 987.
6. W.F .Chen, Steel beam to column connections, New York, Elsevier, 1987.
7. W.F .Chen, Y. Goto and R. Liew, Stability design of semi rigid frames, New
York, Wiley, 1993.
8. A.K. Chopra, Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake
engineering, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1995.
9. R.W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of structures 2nd ed, New York, NY,
McGraw-Hill,1993.
10. R.F. Lorenz, B. Kato and W.F. Chen, Council on tall buildings and urban
habitat, Semi rigid connections in steel frames, New York, 1993.
11. E.M. Lui, A. Lopes, Dynamic analysis and response of semi-rigid
Frames. Journal of Engineering Structures,19(8),644-654,1997.