4.

SINGLE STOREY
SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES
 4. SINGLE STOREY SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES
4.1. ANALYSIS

4.1.1. Modes of Buckling

Single bay single storey portal frame is shown in figure 4.1. The
External Loads P are assumed to act directly over the columns so that there
is no bending moment in any member of the frame prior to buckling. When
analysing frames, it is useful to divide them into two categories: those
in which sidesway is prevented and those in which the upper joints are
free to move horizontally (51).
Considering the frame in which sidesway is prevented at the critical
load this frame buckles when the applied load is equal to the critical load of
the columns. It is also obvious that the upper end of each column is
elastically restrained by the beam to which the column is rigidly connected
and that the critical load of the column therefore depends not only on the
column stiffness, but also on the stiffness of the beam. The problem is
greatly simplified if the beam is assumed to be infinitely rigid. The beam
must then remain straight while the frame deforms and the columns can
neither rotate nor translate at their upper ends. Under these circumstances
the columns behave as if they were fixed at both extremities, and the critical
load of the frame is equal to four times the Euler load of the columns.
Alternatively, the beam can be assumed to be infinitely flexible. The beam is
then unable to offer any rotational restraint to the upper end of the column.
In this case, the columns behave as if they were fixed at one end and hinged
at the other, and the critical load of the frame is approximately equal to twice
the Euler load of the columns.

81
 For an actual frame the flexibility of the beam must lie somewhere
between the two extreme conditions just considered. The critical load of
such a frame, in which sidesway is prevented can therefore be bracketed as
follows:
2 PE < PCr < 4 PE

Where Pcr is the critical value of the applied load and PE is the Euler
load of the columns.

The line of reasoning that has just been applied to frames in which
sidesway is prevented can also be applied to frames whose upper joints are
free to move laterally. If the beam is infinitely rigid the frame buckles in the
manner that the upper ends of the columns are free to translate but they
cannot rotate. Hence the critical load of the frame is equal to the Euler load
of the columns. On the other hand, if the beam is infinitely flexible, the
upper ends of the columns are free to both rotate and translate, in this case
the columns act as if they were fixed at the base and free at the top, and the
critical load of the frame is equal to one fourth the Euler load of the
columns. The critical load of the frame whose upper joints are free to
translate laterally must therefore lie between PE and % PE.
That is,
>/4 PE < PCR < PE

82
4.1.2. Bucking of Fixed Base Portal Frames
If the frame is prevented from translating laterally at the top, buckling
will occur in the symmetric mode.
Moment equilibrium for the vertical member requires that
El, d2y/dx+Py =MA - ( MA - Mb ) x / 1 .......... 4.1
D2y/dx +k,2y = MA / El, (1 - x / 1, ) +M„ / El, (x / 1,) .... 4.2
Where k,=P/EI,
The solution to equation 4.2 is
Y =A sin k,x +Bcos k,x + MA /P(l-x/l,) + MB / P ( x /1, ) . .4.3
From the condition y = 0 at x = 0 and the condition dy / dx = 0 at x = 0
Leads to
Y = Ma / P ( [1 / k, 1, ] sin k, x - cos k, x +1 - x /1, )
+ Mb / P (x /1, - [ 1 / k, 1, ] sin k, x ) .... 4.4
Since the upper end of the member cannot translate laterally
Y = 0 at x = 1,
And equation reduces to
Ma ( sin k, 1, - k,l, cos k, 1, ) + Me(k, 1, - sin k, 1, ) = 0 .... 4.5
The second equation is obtained by considering the horizontal member, and
applying the slope deflection equation, and compatibility of slopes at joint B,
gives
Ma ( cos k, 1, + k, 1, sin k| 1, -1 )
+ Me ( 1- cos k, 1, + I, 1, k,212 / 2I2) — 0 .... 4.6
To obtain the stability condition to be set the determinant of equation 4.4 &
4.6 Equal to zero. This leads to the equation
2-2 cos k, 1| - k,l, sin k, 1, + 121, k, / 2 I2 ( sin k, 1, - k, 1, cos k, 1, ) — 0
......... 4.7

83
The critical load is obtained from the smallest root of the equation, by
setting Ij = I2= I and f = 12 = 1 in 4.7,
Per = 25.2 EI /12
This is the critical load for a fixed base portal frames, whose beam has
the same stiffness as the columns and laterally restrained. This load is
considerably larger than the critical load for the same frame when side sway
is not prevented.

4.1.3. Buckling of Pin-Jointed Portal Frames

The critical load for pin jointed portal frames can be found using the
method of moment equations.
Method of moment equations: The moment equation can be used to
determine the stability condition when two or more members in a frame
meet at a point. The method using such equations given here is based on the
work done by Bleich (52).
Consider two bars AB and BC meeting at the rigid joint r shown in
figure 4.2, let Lr and Lr+| be the lengths of these members apd let the
members be acted upon by the compressive forces Pr and Pr+i.
The moments at the ends of the bars are MLr_i, MRr, MLr, and MRr+i.
Since the joint at B is rigid, for continuity, the angle
0r = ar + TCmust be equal to 0r+) = ar+i + TVh.
Hence,
ar+vFr= ar+1 + T r+i .......... 4.8
Here, ar and ar+i are the rigid bar rotations, and T'r and vPr+l are the slopes
of the bars given by
vFr = ( dvr / dz ) z= lr,%+, = ( dvr+i / dz ) z =0 ........... 4.9

84
 0

85
FIGURE 4. 2 POSITION OF BARS DUE TO BUCKLING
 ^ = MLr., / PrLr (-i / sin i +1 ) + MRr / Pr ((J>r cot <t>r - 1 ).... 4.1 Oa
%+! = MLr/ P r +| Lr+1 (- <()r+i cot (|)r+i +1 ) +( MRr+1 / Pr+1 Lr+1) (<i>r+i / sin <j>r+1
-1)............................................. . . . . .4.10b
Where
<j>, = Lr V Pr/ E Ir (|) r+1 = U, V P^, / E Ir.,
Equations 4.10a & 4.10b are obtained by differentiating equation
V= Mr / P ( sin kz / sin kL - z / L ) + ML / P [ sin k (L - z ) / sin kL
- ( L-z ) / L ] with respect to z and substituting the corresponding values for
Mr and ML.
In terms of the notations
L> ( I / Ir) Lr, L r+1 = (1 / Ir+, ) Lr+i ... 4.1 la
PrLr=(EI/Lr)<|)r2Pr+|Lr+1=(EI/L'r.l)c|>2r+l .... 4.11b
In view of relations 4.1 la & 4.1 lb and with the notation
S= 1 / 4>2 ( 4) / sin (|> - 1 ),C= 1 / <|)2 ( 1 - <|> cot ) .... 4.12
Equations 4.10a & 4.10b take the form
'Fr = - 1 / E I ( MLr., L rsr + MRrL’r Cr),
^r+l = 1 / E I ( MRr L’h-, Cr+, + MLr+, L’r-H sr+l ) .... 4.13
Substituting the expressions for H^r and 'Pr+l in relation 4.8,
MLr.i L rsr+ MRrL rCr+ MLrL r+i Cr+i + MRr+i r+i sr+] -E I ( ar - ar+i ) =0
.... 4.14
Equation 4.14 represents the relation between the end moments acting
on two adjacent, rigidly connected members. It is called four-moment
equation.
If only two members are meeting at the r-th joint, MRr then becomes
equal to MLr and equation 4.14 simplifies to the well-known three-moment
equation.

86
Mr _iL rsr + Mr( L r Cr + L r+iCr+i )+Mr+i L r+i sr+i—E I ( ar - ar+i ) = 0.. .4.15
The application of equation 4.15 to obtain the buckling load of a
frame is explained through an example. Considering a portal frame subjected
only to axial loads, and also taking the symmetry of the structure and the
loading, the moments at the joints B and C are equal. Further, as the ends A
and D are hinged, the support moments are zero and the joints B and C do
not move, but they do rotate.
Equation 4.15 when applied to the members AB and BC, results in
Mt (C, L + C2 L,) + M, s2 L i =0, .... 4.16
Where Ci refers to a vertical member and C2 and s2 refer to the horizontal
member. Applying equation 4.15 to BC and CD the resulting equation is the
same as equation 4.16 since the structure is symmetric. Further, as Mj = 0,
gives
C, + L’, /l’(C2+s2) = 0. .... 4.17
From Equations 4.11 a & 4.11 b
L = L, L’, = I / 1, L, .... 4.18

Now, equation 4.17 reduces to

C,+ IL,/I,L(C2+s2) = 0. .... 4.19
Since there is no axial load acting on the member BC, <j)2 = 0 in view of
equation 4.1 lb, Further, s2 = 1 / 6 and C2 —1/3 from equation 4.1 la. Hence,
C, + I/2 (I L, /1, L ) = 0. .... 4.20
Substituting for Ci from relations 4.12, -
1 / (j),2 ( 1- f cot 4, ) + 1/2 (I L, /1, L ) = 0 . .... 4.21
Where cj>, = kl; k = V P / El

Using equation 4.21, the critical load for single bay single-storey portal
frames with hinged end conditions, having same moment of inertia and same

87
span of beam (1) and column height (1) can be evaluated. A computer
program has also been developed for obtaining critical load using the above
equation.

4.1.4. Calculation of Critical Load for Single Bay Single Storey Portal
Frame Fixed at Base (53)
From equation 4.7,
2-2 cos kli - kli sin kli + b Ii k / 2 I2 ( sin klj - kli cos kli) = 0
Substituting 1 - li = I2 and I = Ii =h, for symmetric mode of buckling, the
critical load, Per = 25.2 x El /12
For antisymmetric mode of buckling, Per = 7.34 x El /12

4.1.5. Calculation of Critical Load for Single Bay Single Storey Portal
Frame Hinged at Base
For single bay single storey portal frame hinged at base, the critical
value can be found using the relation 4.21,
1 / klj2 (1 - kli cos klt / sin kli) + ‘/a (112 /1, h ) =0
Substituting 1 = lj = 12 and I = fr = I2
For symmetric mode of buckling, the critical load, Per = 14.6 x El /1
For antisymmetric mode of buckling, Per = 1.82 x El /1

88
 FLOW CHART-4.1

CALCULATING CRITICAL LOAD FOR SINGLE B^Y

SINGLE STOREY PORTAL FRAME

FIXED AT BASE.

89
 FLOW CHART-4.2

CALCULATING CRITICAL LOAD FOR SINGLE BAY

SINGLE STOREY PORTAL FRAME

HINGED AT BASE.

90
4.2. EXPERIMENTS
Cold-formed light gauge steel single bay single storey portal frames
of size 0.75mx0.75m and l.Omxl.Om are fabricated and is shown in figure
4.1 using angle sections 60x60x2mm & 80x80x3.15mm and channel
sections 80x50x3.15mm and 100x50x2mm. The portal frames are tested, by
applying two equal concentrated vertical loads at the top joints. For every
division increase of load the strains and deflections at various points are
recorded, till the failure of the frames. The failure load, mode of failure and
position of failure are shown in table 4.1 and 4.2. Failure patterns are
studied. The Portal Frames are tested over hinged supports.
Coupon tests were conducted as per Bureau of Indian Standard Code
procedures and the Young’s Modulus calculated from the actual stress-strain
curve. E = 2.117 x 105 N/mm2, Fy - 251.6 N/mm2

Portal frame 0.75m x 0.75m Portal frame 1.0m x 1.0m

FIGURE 4.1 SINGLE STOREY SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES

91
 TABLE 4.1 S NGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES EXPERIMENTS RESULTS
Max
Buckli
stress
Shape & size of Theore ng load
Size of portal (from
s. section tical in kN Position of
frame Mode of failure strain)
No mm x mm x load in (Actual buckling failure
metre x metre at
mm kN Failure
failure
load) N/mm2

1 0.75 x 0.75 Angle 27.50 28.3 Local buckling Inside buckling 124.9
60 x 60 x 2 of left column. failure at a
Simultaneously distance of 245
the right side mm above the
column also hinged support
failed. Fig.4.3.i

2 0.75 x 0.75 Angle 27.50 33.5 Local buckling Outside 144.4

60 x 60 x 2 failure of right buckling at 120
column. Fig.4.3.h mm above the
hinged base

3 1.0 x 1.0 Angle 26.10 27.4 Local buckling Inside buckling 118.6
60 x 60 x 2 failure of left at 250 mm
column. FigA3.r above the
hinged support

4 1.0 x 1.0 Angle 26.10 28.2 Buckling of Outside 122.0

60 x 60 x 2 right column buckling at 200
failure Fig.4.3.k inm above the
hinged base

5 0.75 x 0.75 Angle 80.82 87.9 Local buckling Inside buckling 236.3
80x 80x3.15 failure of left begins at 245
column. mm above the
base

6 0.75 x 0.75 Angle 80.82 88.0 Local buckling Inside buckling 236.7
80x 80 x3.15 failure of left begin at 240
column. fI^TT mm above the
base

7 1.0 x 1.0 Angle 77.60 79.1 Local buckling Inside buckling 212.1
80x80x3.15 failure of left failure at 345
column. Fig.4.3.m mm above the
base
8 1.0 x 1.0 Angle 77.60 79.2 Local buckling Outside 211.7
80 x 80 x3.15 failure of right buckling at 205
column. Fig.4.3.n mm above the
base
9 0.75x0.75 Channel 58.36 59.41 Right side 200 mm from 155.0
100x 50x2 column failure top of outside
Fig.4.3.a flange

92
 TABLE 4.2 SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAME EXPERIMENTS RESULTS
Buckli Max
Size of Theore ng load stress
Shape & size of Position of
s. portal frame
section
tical in kN Mode of
buckling
(from
No. metre x load in (Actual failure strain) at
mm x mm x mm failure
metre kN Failure failure
load) N/mrn2

10 0.75 x 0.75 Channel 58.36 67.2 Right side 70 mm 175.7

100x50x2 column inside flange
failure Fig.4.3.b and 240 mm
outer flange
from bottom

11 1.0 x 1.0 Channel 56.21 65.2 Left column 75 mm 170.0

100x50x2 outer flange above the
failure Fig.4.3.g bottom

12. 1.0 x 1.0 Channel 56.21 63.5 Right column 240 mm 166.0
100 x50 x2 beams failure from top
Fig.4.3.e
13. 0.75 x 0.75 Channel 114.15 128.6 Right side 230 mm 243.5
80x 50 x3.15 column local from top
failure

14. 0.75 x 0.75 Channel 114.15 132.30 Right side 235 mm 246.0
80x50x3.15 column from bottom
failure Fig.4.3.f

15. 1.0 x 1.0 Channel 108.38 121.84 Left column 70 mm 231.4

80 x 50 x3.15 outer flange. above from
Failure Fig.4.3.c bottom

16 1.0 x 1.0 Channel 108.38 129.45 Left column 310 mm 245.2

80 x50 x3.15 failure Fig.4.3.d inside and
430 mm
outside from
bottom

From the experimental work carried out and using Euler’s critical load
a factor k is obtained which relates the theoretical critical load and
experimental values are presented in tables 4.3 and 4.4. Factor ki is also
obtained using Rankine’s equation.

93
 TABLE 4.3 CONSTANT k AND ki USING ANGLE SECTIONS

Sp. Frame Dimensions Rankine Euler’s Actual Const Const Value

No. Size of Angle ’s Theoreti Failur ant k ant ki of n
in metre section in Theoreti cal e Load
mm cal failure in kN (a")
failure load kN
load kN
1 0.75x0.75 60x60x2 35.490 22.058 22.3 1.283 0.797 0.97
2 0.75x0.75 60x60x2 35.490 22.058 33.5 1.519 0.944 0.97
3 1.00x1.00 60x60x2 27.240 12.408 27.4 2.208 1.007 0.97
4 1.00x1.00 60x60x2 27.240 12.408 28.2 2.273 1.037 0.97
5 0.75x0.75 80x80x3.15 89.038 80.835 87.9 1.087 0.988 0.97
6 0.75x0.75 80x80x3.15 89.038 80.835 88.0 1.089 0.989 0.97
7 1.00x1.00 80x80x3.15 73.713 45.470 79.1 1.740 1.073 0.97
8 1.00x1.00 80x80x3.15 73.713 45.470 79.2 1.742 1.075 0.97

TABLE 4.4 CONSTANT k AND k. USING CHANNEL SECTIONS

Sp. Frame Dimensions Rankine Euler’s Actual Cons Consta Value

No. Size in of Channel ’s Theoreti Failur tant nt ki
of n
metre section in Theoreti cal e Load k
mm cal failure In kN (a")
failure load kN
load kN
9 0.75x0.75 100x50x2 74.956 66.244 59.41 0.897 0.793 1.0
10 0.75x0.75 100x50x2 74.956 66.244 67.2 1.014 0.897 1.0
11 1.00x1.00 100x50x2 63.914 37.262 65.2 1.750 1.020 1.0
12 1.00x1.00 100x50x2 63.914 37.262 63.5 1.704 0.993 1.0
13 0.75x0.75 80x50x3.15 126.340 91.796 128.6 1.401 1.018 1.2
14 0.75x0.75 80x50x3.15 126.340 91.796 132.3 1.441 1.048 1.2
15 1.00x1.00 80x50x3.15 122.370 51.635 121.84 2.360 0.995 1.2
16 1.00x1.00 80x50x3.15 122.370 51.635 129.45 2.507 1.058 1.2

Factor or Constant k = Actual failure load/Euler’s Critical load

Constant ki = Actual failure load/Rankine’s Theoretical failure load

For antisymmetric mode of buckling, Euler’s theoretical load,
Per = 1.82 x El/12

94
Rankine’s crippling load equation for columns, Per = Fy.A/(l+an(l/r)2 ),

where an = (Fy/7C2E)n

From the experimental results only one value of k is less than 1.0, that
is 0.897, all other values are greater than 1,0, therefore the constant k is
taken as varying from 1.0 to 2.5. Comparing the actual failure load to the
theoretical failure load obtained using Rankine’s equation, constant ki is
found which varies from 0.8 to 1.07 and n from 0.97 to 1.2. The ranges of
constants k and kl are shown in table 4.5.

TABLE 4.5 CONSTANT k AND kl FOR SINGLE STOREY PORTAL FRAMES

Frame size in Cross-sectional Constant k Constant ki
metres dimensions
0.75 x 0.75 Angle and Channel 1.014 to 1.519 0.793 to 1.018
1.0 x 1.0 Angle and Channel 1.704 to 2.507 0.993 to 1.075
0.75 x 0.75 and Angle sections 1.087 to 2.273 0.797 to 1.075
l.Oxl.O
0.75 x 0.75 and Channel sections 1.014 to 2.507 0.793 to 1.058
l.Ox 1.0

Failure patterns of the frames are shown in figure 4.3.a to 4.3.n. Load
versus deflection curves are plotted and buckling shape of the portal frames
are drawn.

95
(a) 100x50x2 channel right column (b) 100x50x2 channel right column

( c ) 80x50x3.15 channel left column (d) 80x50x3.15 channel left column

(e) 100x50x2 channel right column (f) 80x50x3.15 channel right column

FIGURE 4.3 FAILURE PATTERNS OF SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES

96
(g) 100x50x2 channel left column (h) 60x60x2 angle right column

FIGURE 4.3 FAILURE PATTERNS OF SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES

(i) 60x60x2 angle column (j) 80x80x3.15 right column

FIGURE 4.3 FAILURE PATTERNS OF SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES

97
(k) 60x60x2 right column (I) 60x60x2 left column

FIGURE 4.3 FAILURE PATTERNS OF SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES

(m) 80x80x3.15 left column (n) 80x80x3.15 right column

FIGURE 4.3 FAILURE PATTERNS OF SINGLE BAY PORTAL FRAMES

98
 Zpo.
-t "t

3 7S' 37 *r
3
2 'So
\
I
■I 'h
I
I 3 <0

J 2-4<S 2 -.34
-i-

I c.
Uj
2-F7 o
f 2 '£'/
k'
o\ K
f's

I f. 2*51

I
I
01

FIGURE 4.4. BUCKLING SHAPE OF PORTAL FRAME

0.75M X 0.75M USING 100 X 50 X 2MM CHANNEL SECTION
lo a d In 'N a w to n a * (T houaand*!
Load In 'N e w to n a * (T h o u san d a)

I \ i ■ 1 - ■ t ’ I
no *0 too 170 no 1M0 inn jno 770 710

Deflection x 10' In mm Dflltocllen x 10 * In n»»n

Load vs Deflection - DM 3 Load vs Deflection - DM -1

Deflection x 10 ' In nun

Load vs Deflection • DM B

in »’ ;CTION CURVE OF PORTAL FRAME

FIGURE 4.5. LOAD - DEFLE
SIZE 0.75M X 0.75M USING 100 X 50 X 2MM CHANNEL SECTION

<?9C»
4. 3. CONCLUSIONS
Experiments on portal frames of size 0.75 m x 0.75 m and 1.0 x 1.0 m,
are fabricated and tested using angle and channel sections. Failure patterns
are studied. Buckling loads from experiments are compared with theoretical
loads. Buckling shape of the frames and load versus deflection curves are
plotted.
(1) It is observed that the cold-formed light gauge steel portal frames
begins failure by local buckling earned slightly above the theoretical failure
load, while the frame begins failure by buckling of columns carried 22%
more load than the calculated theoretical failure load.
(2) It is observed that the frames using angle sections failed by local
buckling towards inside, begins symmetrical buckling mode of failure and
towards outside local buckling begins with anti-symmetrical mode of
buckling failure. Finally it is observed that the frames are failed anti­
symmetric mode of failure.
(3) It is also observed that the frames using channel sections failed at
larger loads than angle sections. Increase in thickness of channel section
increases the load carrying capacity rather than increase in other cross
sectional dimensions.
(4) From the measured strains the actual stresses are calculated. The
failure load, mode of failure, and position of failure of the frames are
studied.
(5) The constant k (Actual failure load/Theoretical Euler’s critical load)
and kl (Actual failure load/Rankine’s Theoretical failure load) are found.

99