Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Limit and shakedown analysis of 3-D steel frames

Hoang Van Long ∗ , Nguyen Dang Hung
LTAS- Fracture Mechanics, University of Liège, Chemin des Chevreuils, 1, B 52/3, 4000 Liège, Belgium

Received 13 July 2007; received in revised form 6 December 2007; accepted 6 December 2007
Available online 22 January 2008

Abstract

This paper presents an efficient algorithm for both limit and shakedown analysis of 3-D steel frames by the kinematic method using linear
programming technique. Several features in the application of linear programming for rigid-plastic analysis of three-dimensional steel frames
are discussed, as: change of the variables, automatic choice of the initial basic matrix for the simplex algorithm, direct calculation of the dual
variables by primal–dual technique. Some numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the robustness, efficiency of the proposed technique
and computer program.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Limit analysis; Shakedown analysis; Plastic hinges; Space frames; Linear programming

1. Introduction interrelated effects of material inelasticity and geometrical

The fundamental theory of plastic analysis of the frame
structures was pointed out fifty years ago. This technique
consisting of an application of the mathematical programming
is widely exposed in the literature [1–6]. When the linearized
condition of plasticity admissibility is adopted, the plastic
analysis problem can be reduced to a linear programming (LP)
problem where simplex technique is largely used. This direction
has been deeply exploited in the years 1970–1990, and some
interesting computer programs have been developed [7–11].
Unfortunately, for the last two decades, the research in this area
has been sporadic and limited; practical engineering has not yet
responded.
The major advantage of the shakedown analysis is
solely applicable for the arbitrary loading histories (often
in the practices). However, under geometrical nonlinearity
conditions, usually considered for steel structures, difficulties
have generally appeared in this kind of problem (shakedown
analysis).
In recent years, numerous authors have concentrated their
efforts on the advanced nonlinear analysis of 3-D steel
frames [12–17]. Modern analysis must take into account the
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: VanLong.Hoang@student.ulg.ac.be (H. Van Long).
nonlinearity in furnishing an adequate response to the problems
of structural systems and their components. The complicated
3-D steel structures may be solved in this direction. However,
this development is based on the step by step methods that may
contain a lot of difficulties in considering the cases of arbitrary
loading histories.
Consequently, the parallel development of both step by
step and direct methods (by mathematical programming) is
necessary. They give a better view of the behaviour of the
real structure and also they may mutually make up for
their deficiencies. It is the fundamental motivation of our
work: the development of the theoretical foundations and the
practical software useful for inelastic structures analysis and
optimization. In the following, one can find a brief presentation
of a computer program, namely CEPAO:
This package had been developed in the Department of
Structural Mechanics and Stability of Constructions of the
University of Liège by Nguyen-Dang Hung et al. in the
1980s [9–11]. Indeed, CEPAO was a unified package devoted to
automatically solving the following problems for 2-D frames:
Elastic analysis, limit rigid-plastic analysis with proportional
loadings; step by step elastic–plastic analysis; shakedown
analysis with variable repeated loadings; optimal plastic design
with fixed loading; optimal plastic design with choice of
discrete profiles and stability checks; shakedown plastic design

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.009
1896 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904
with variable repeated loadings; shakedown plastic design with
updating of elastic response in terms of the plastic capacity.
With the CEPAO, efficient choice between statical and
kinematic formulations is realized leading to a minimum
number of variables; also there is a considerable reduction
of the dimension of every procedure. The basic matrix
of LP algorithm is implemented under the form of a
reduced sequential vector which is modified during each
where λi is the plastic deformation magnitude; ei is the vector
of longitudinal displacement and two rotations of ith section;
NCi is a gradient vector of the yield surface Φ.
The application of the LP techniques requires that the
nonlinear yield surfaces must be linearized. In civil engineering
practices, for bisymmetrical wide-flange shapes, several
Standards replace the curvilinear yield surface by a polyhedron
sixteen-facet:
iteration. An automatic procedure is proposed to build up  
My 
|N | |Mz | |N |
the common characteristic matrices of elastic–plastic or rigid- α1 + α2 + α3 = 1 for ≥ α0 ; (2a)
plastic calculation, particularly the matrix of the independent NP MPy M Pz NP
equilibrium equations. Application of duality aspects in the LP
 
|N | My  |Mz | |N |
technique allows direct calculation of dual variables and avoids α4 + α5 + α6 = 1 for < α0 ; (2b)
NP MPy M Pz NP
expensive reanalysis of every problem.
At this time, the CEPAO is extended to the case of space where: M P y, M Pz are the plastic moment capacity with respect
steel frames with the following problems: rigid-plastic analysis to y and z axis, N P is the squash load, 0 ≤ α0 < 1, α1 , . . . α6
and design by LP; elastic–plastic analysis by the step-by-step are the dimensionless coefficients. The Eqs. (2a) and (2b) may
method in both first and second order (P-delta effects). The limit also be written
and shakedown analysis is based on the upper bound theorem |N |
≥ α0 ;
 
while the rigid-plastic design is supported by the lower bound a1 |N | + a2  M y  + a3 |Mz | = S0 for (3a)
NP
theorem. It is important to indicate here that in the case of
|N |
frame structures both kinematic and statical methods lead to < α0 ;
 
a4 |N | + a5  M y  + a6 |Mz | = S0 for (3b)
the same one and only solution. The geometrical nonlinearity is NP
completely ignored in this direct method (by LP). with S0 is a referential value, and a1 , . . . a6 are the nonzero
Because of the limitation of an article, the present work coefficients.
describes only details of the module of limit and shakedown At the ith critical section, the plastic admissibility defined
analysis where some original contributions are indicated in the by Eqs. (3a) and (3b) has the following form:
Section 3. We hope that other contents will be presented in our
next papers. Yi si ≤ si0 , (4)
where matrix Yi contains the coefficients a1 , . . . a6 ; si collects
2. Assumptions and modelling plastic hinges
the vector of internal forces; the column matrix si0 contains the
corresponding terms S0 .
The following assumptions have been made:
According to the definitions of the matrices NC , Y, we can
– Loading is quasi-static and service load domain is specified see that
by linear constraints;
– The torsional stiffness and the effect of the shear forces are
i
NC = YiT . (5)
negligible; The detailed form of matrix NC is below-mentioned by Eq.
– The rigid — perfectly plastic material is used in the limit (13).
analysis; the elastic — perfectly plastic material is applied
in the other problems. 3. Application of LP
– Plastic hinges are located at critical sections.
A systematic treatment of the application of LP in plastic
Modelling plastic hinges analysis can be found in [4,5]. In the present work, we restrict
Since the effect of both shear forces and torsional moments ourselves to describing some practical aspects of the CEPAO
are ignored, the condition of plastic admissibility at the critical package applied to the case of 3-D steel frames. They are:
sections becomes Φ(N , M y , Mz ) ≤ 0, with N is the normal the further reduction of the kinematic approach (Sections 3.2.2
force and M y , Mz are respectively bending moments about to and 3.3.2), and the direct calculation of the internal force (or
y and z axes. The plastic hinge modelling is described by the residual internal force) distribution (Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.3).
choice of net displacement (relative) - force relationship at the
critical sections. In present work, the normality rule is adopted. 3.1. General formulation

 ∂Φ/∂ N 
   
∆ In the CEPAO, the canonical formulation of the LP is
θ y = λ ∂Φ/∂ M y , considered:
θz ∂Φ/∂ Mz
   
Min π = cT x|Wx = b (6)
or, symbolically:
where π is the objective function; x, c, b are respectively
ei = λi NC
i
, (1) the vector of variables, of costs and of second member. W
 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904 1897

is called the matrix of constraint. For the sake of simplicity, Therefore, the vector of variables, matrix of constraint, vector
the objective function has a state variable, and the matrix of second member corresponding to the problem of Eq. (8) for
formulation is arranged such that the basic matrix of the initial limit analysis are given below.
solution appears clearly as follows:
x∗T = π xT η = π d0T λT η
   
 
 x
b∗T = 0 bT = 0 −Bd0 ξ + fT d0
   
−c1 1 −cT2  1 
 T  
0
π = . (7)
W1 0 W2 b 
1 0T −sT0 0

x2
W∗ = 0 −B NC 0
The basic matrix of the initial solution is 0 fT 0T 1
1 −cT2
 
X0 = . where η is an artificial variable which must be taken out of the
0 W2 basic vector in the simplex process.
Eq. (7) can then be written under a general form Because of the use of the simplex technique, finding an
initial admissible solution such that the initial value of any
W∗ x∗ = b∗ . (8) variable (except the objective function) must be nonnegative
The matrices W∗ , x∗ , b∗ and X0 for both limit and shakedown is needed. To satisfy this requirement, it appears that the
analysis problems will be accurately calculated in the following following arrangement leads to good behaviour of the automatic
sections: calculation.
The linearized condition of plastic admissibility for the ith
3.2. Limit analysis by kinematic method section (Eq. (4)) may be expanded as follows:

a1i −a2i −a3i

 i
S0 
 
3.2.1. Kinematic approach h1i 
 ai a2i −a3i  S0i 

 

A kinematically admissible state is defined by a collapse h2i  1 


 

 i
a2i a3i  i
 
mechanism that satisfies the condition of compatibility. It leads h3i  a1
 

 S0


 
to a positive external power supplied by the reference loading.  i
−a a2i a3i 
 
S i

h4i

 
Based on the upper bound theorem of limit analysis, the  1  
 0 
−a i −a2i a3i 

S i

h5i

 

kinematic formulation of limit analysis can be stated as a LP  1  
 0 
 i
−a2i −a3i  i
  
h6i −a1  S0 
 
problem.  

 

h7i  ai −a2i a3i   S0i 

 
NC λ − Bd = 0
  1   
i  

N 
 i  
a2i i Si 
 
h8i −a1 −a3   
Min φ = s0 λ  fT d = ξ
T 

(9) 
 ai
 M yi ≤ 0
i. (11)
 λ ≥ 0. h9i  4 −a5i −a6i 
 Mi  
  
 S0 
 i z
a5i −a6i   S0i 
  
h10i  a4  
The safety factor will be obtained by   
 

h11i  ai a5i a6i 

 i
S0 
 4  
 
µ+ = φ/ξ.  i  
h12i a5i a6i  i
  
−a4 

 S0



   
In Eq. (9), λ is the vector of the plastic deformation magnitude; h13i −a i −a5i a6i 

 S i 

 4  

 0 

 i
B is the kinematic matrix defined in Appendix A; d, f are h14i −a5i −a6i  S0i 
  
−a4 

 

respectively the vector of independent displacements and the h15i

 ai −a5i ai 
 

 S i


vector of external load; ξ is a constant (generally, one takes 4 6 0

 
 i 
ξ = 1).
h16i −a4i a5i −a6i S0

3.2.2. Further reduction of the kinematic approach The Fig. 1 describes the projection of 16 planar facets of the
In the kinematic method, the unknowns are the plastic polyhedral stress-resultant yield surface corresponding to the
deformation magnitude, λ, and the independent displacement, 16 inequalities numbered on the Eq. (11).
d (negative or positive). In LP procedure we need nonnegative According to Eqs. (4) and (5), we see that Eq. (11) can be
variables so that we adopt the change of the variables as in the written under symbolic formulation
following:
NC s ≤ si0 .
iT i
(12)
0 0
d = d + d0 so that d ≥ 0.
Put
The way to fix the value of d0 , which depends on the real
a1i a1i a1i
 
structure, such that d0 are always nonnegative is explained in i
the Appendix C. Now, the problem of Eq. (9) becomes ÑC = −a2i a2i a2i  .
−a3i −a3i a3i
NC λ − Bd0 = −Bd0

i
Min φ = s0 λ  fT d0 = ξ + fT d0
T  Let us note that: ÑC is always nonsingular because a1i , a2i , a3i

(10)
 λ, d0 ≥ 0. are certainly positive.
1898 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904

Let now Si be a diagonal matrix, such that

i
Si = diag [1 x sign of ((ÑC )−1 bi )],
with
biT = b3(i−1)+1 b3(i−1)+3 .
 
b3(i−1)+2
Let E be a unity matrix of dimension 3 × 3.
And consider now the new plastic deformation magnitude
distribution:
0
h 0 0T
i
λi T = λ̃i T λ̃i+3 λ̄ ,
iT

in which
i0 i i
λ̃ = 0.5(E + Si )λ̃ + 0.5(E − Si )λ̃+3 ;
i0 i i
λ̃+3 = 0.5(E − Si )λ̃ + 0.5(E + Si )λ̃+3 .
With the mentioned h 0 arrangement, and i if the case of initial basis
0 0
of variables is λ̃1 T λ̃2 T . . . λ̃n s T , the initial basic matrix
may be determined as follows:

1 −s̃1T −s̃2T . . . −s̃n0s T 0

 
0 0
0 Ñ1 S1 0 ... 0 0
 C 
2 2
. . .
 
0 0 Ñ S 0 0
..  ,
C

X0 =  .. .. .. ..

. . . ... . .
 n 
. . . Ñ S s 0
0 s n
0 0 C
0 0T 0T ... 0T 1
in which, n s is the number of critical sections.
Easily, we may demonstrate that the initial solution
x0 = X−1
0 b

is certainly non-negative.

Fig. 1. Projection of the yield surface on the plan M y O Mz .

3.2.3. Direct calculation of the internal force distribution
The strain rate at critical sections is chosen as variables
i in Eq. (12) may be decomposed into three
Then, matrix NC in kinematical approach. The collapse factor and mechanism
submatrices: are given as output. To obtain the internal force distribution
h i while avoiding the static approach, the dual properties of LP
NCi
= ÑiC −ÑiC N̄iC , (13) are used. The physical significance of the dual variables may be
established as follows:
i i after deducting Ñ and −Ñ . i i The canonical dual form of the LP problem of Eq. (6) is
with N̄C is the rest of NC C C
 T
i leads then to the following
The decomposition of matrix NC W y + h = c
Max (bT y + 0T h)  (14)
form: h ≥ 0,

in Eq. (14), yT = sT µ− ,
 
siT
 iT iT iT   i
s̃0 s̄0 = S0 · · · S0i ;

0 = s̃0
h i and h are the nonnegative slack variables:
λiT = λ̃iT λ̃iT+3 λ̄
iT
,
hT = 0T h1T h2T . . . hn s T , with:
 

where
h i
hiT = h̃iT h̃iT+3 h̄
i
.
iT
λ̃ = λi1 λi2 λi3 ;
 
It may be seen from the equality (14) that the internal forces are
iT related to the slack variables h:
λ̃+3 = λi4 λi5 λi6 ;
 

i iT i
λ̄ = λi7 . . . λi16 . si = (ÑC )−1 (s̃i0 − h̃ ).
 
(15)
 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904 1899
h 0 0
i
It can be shown that the slack variables h are identified exactly And the initial basic variables: λ̃1 T λ̃2 T . . . λ̃n s 0T .
as the reduced costs c̄ of the primal problem (8): The problems of Eqs. (10) and (16) are similar except for the
h = c̄ = (Xop
-1
(1, :))W∗ choice of the initial admissible point in the permissible domain
and the shakedown analysis requires preliminary calculation of
where X−1 op (1, :) is the first row of the inverses basic matrix at elastic responses.
optimal solution.
The reduced costs c̄ necessary for the convergence test of 3.3.3. Direct calculation of the residual internal force
the simplex algorithm are variable in the output of the primal distribution
calculation. The automatic computation by (15) of the internal Again the dual form of Eq. (16) is written similarly to Eq.
forces distribution is independent of the type of collapse: (14) with:
partial, complete or over-complete.
yT = ρ T µs− ; hT = 0T h1T h2T . . . hn s T
   

3.3. Shakedown analysis by kinematic method

where
h ρ is thei residual internal force vector, h
iT =
iT iT i
3.3.1. Kinematic approach h̃ h̃+3 h̄ .
Based on the upper bound theorem of shakedown analysis, From Eq. (14), the residual internal forces are related to the
the safety factor can be determined by minimizing the slack variables h as the following relation:
kinematically admissible multiplier. Since the service load iT i i
domain is specified by linear constraints, the kinematic ρ i = (ÑC )−1 (s̃i0 − µs ÑC sE − h̃ ).
approach leads to a LP problem: As h is identified to be the reduced costs of the primal problem
NC λ − Bd = 0
 (16), the distribution of residual internal force is directly
obtained without performing a second static approach.
Min φ = s0 λ  sTE NC λ = ξ
T 

(16)
 λ ≥ 0,
where sE is the envelope of the elastic responses of the
considered loading domain.
The safety factor will be obtained by
µs+ = φ/ξ.
3.3.2. Further reduction of the kinematic approach
As in the limit analysis, by an appropriate choice of d0 such
that:
d0 = d + d0 ≥ 0,
and by using the new plastic deformation magnitude
distribution, the vector of variables, matrix of constraints and
vector of second member corresponding to the problem of
Eq. (8) for shakedown analysis have the following form:
4. Numerical examples and discussions
The presentation of the two following examples aims at a
comparison of the CEPAO results with those of some other
authors, and the comparison of the ultimate states of the frames
fined by different models in CEPAO. Therefore, we present
not only the results given by limit and shakedown analysis
but also those calculated by the step-by-step method (a brief
presentation is presented in Appendix B).
In those examples, with the elastic–plastic analysis by hinge-
by-hinge method (first and second order), the plastic interaction
function proposed by Orbison [18] for compact wide-flange
sections is introduced in the CEPAO.
Φ = 1.15n 2 + m 2y + m 4z + 3.67n 2 m 2y + 3n 6 m 2z
+ 4.65m 2z m 4y − 1 = 0,

x∗T = π d0 λ η ;
  in which, n = N /N p is ratio of the axial force to the squash
load, m y = M y /M py and m z = Mz /M pz are the ratios of
b∗T = 0 −Bd0 ξ ;
 
the major-axis and minor-axis moments to the corresponding
1 0T −sT0 0 plastic moments. This yield surface is already used in several
 

W∗ = 0 −B NC 0 . references [12–14] that we consult to compare with our results.

0 0 T T
sE NC 1 In the direct analysis by LP, the plastic strength of cross-
sections used in the AISC [19] is installed in the CEPAO, with
With initial basic matrix: the value of a1 , . . . , a6 and α in the Eqs. (3a) and (3b) are:
X0 = a1 = S0 /N p ; a2 = 8S0 /9M yp , a3 = 8S0 /9Mzp , a4 = S0 /2N p ,
a5 = S0 /M yp , a6 = S0 /Mzp , α = 0.2.
−s̃1T −s̃2T ... −s̃0ns T
 
1 0 0 0
1 Example a — Six-storey space frame: Fig. 2 shown Orbison’s
0 ÑC S1 0 ... 0 0
 
2
six-story space frame. The yield strength of all members is
ÑC S2 ...
 
0 0 0 0 250 MPa and Young’modulus is 206.850 MPa. Uniform floor
 .. .. .. .. .. 
 
. pressure of 4.8β1 kN/m2 ; wind loads are simulated by point
. . ... . .
 ns
 loads of 26.7β2 kN in the Y -direction at every beam–column
 ... ÑC Sn s  0 
0
  01  0 2 ns
 joint. In which, β1 , β2 are the factors that define the loading
0 s1T
E ÑC S1 s2T
E ÑC S2 ... snEs T ÑC Sn s 1 domain.
1900 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904

Fig. 2. Example a— Six-storey space frame ((a) perspective view, (b) plan
view).

Example b — Twenty-storey space frame: Twenty-storey space

frame with dimensions and properties shown in Fig. 3. The
yield strength of all members is 344.8 MPa and Young’modulus Fig. 3. Example b— Twenty-storey space frame ((a) perspective view, (b) plan
is 200 MPa. Uniform floor pressure of 4.8β1 kN/m2 ; wind view).
loads = 0.96β2 kN/m2 , acting in the Y direction.
Concerning the loading domain (for two examples), two
cases are considered for shakedown analysis: (a) 0 ≤ β1 ≤ Table 1
1, 0 ≤ β2 ≤ 1 and (b) 0 ≤ β1 ≤ 1, −1 ≤ β2 ≤ 1. For fixed Comparison of results (elastic–plastic 2nd order)
or proportional loading, we obviously must have: β1 = β2 = 1. Author Model Load multiplier
The uniformly distributed loads are lumped at the joints of Example a Example b
frames. Liew JYR-2000 [12] Plastic hinge 2.010 –
Diverse models have been adopted by some research Kim SE-2001 [13] Plastic hinge 2.066 –
to capture both the material inelasticity and geometrical Chiorean CG-2005 [14] Distributed 2.124 1.062 (n = 30)
nonlinearity [12–17], the corresponding load ratios are well in plasticity (n = 30)
accord (see Table 1). In which, the second-order plastic-hinge Chiorean CG-2005 [14] Distributed 1.998 1.005 (n = 300)
model has been used in the CEPAO, the large deflection is plasticity (n = 300)
ignored. Cuong NH-2006 [15] Fiber plastic 2.040 1.003
The results analysed by CEPAO with different methods hinge
shown on the Table 2, Figs. 4 and 5 point out: Liew JYR-2001 [16] Plastic hinge – 1.031
Jiang XM-2002 [17] Fiber – 1.000
– An expectable coincidence of results calculated by limit element
analysis and elastic–plastic analysis first order, it allows us CEPAO-2007 Plastic hinge 2.033 1.024
to deduce the good convergence between the dual methods
 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904 1901

(a) Example a.

(b) Example b.

Fig. 4. Deformation at limit state given by CEPAO (From the left to the right: Elastic–plastic first order, Elastic–plastic second order; Limit analysis; Shakedown
analysis, load domain a; Shakedown analysis, load domain b. The points on Fig. (a) indicate the plastic hinges.).

Fig. 5. Load–deflection results at point A (Figs. 2 and 3) given by CEPAO.

in the CEPAO (kinematic and static methods) and the good – In the case of symmetrical horizontal loading (seismic load
correlation between the Orbison’yield surface and this in AISC- or wind load), the load multipliers determined by shakedown
LRFD. analysis are the smallest (alternating plastic occurs).
1902 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904

Table 2 The compatibility relation is defined as

Ultimate strengths of the frames given by CEPAO with different analysis
e = Bd,
Method Load multiplier Limit state
Example Example where B namely the kinematic matrix that is determined by
a b X
Hinge-by-hinge, first order 2.489 1.689 Formation of a mechanism B= Ak Tk Lk . (A.1)
Hinge-by-hinge, second 2.033 1.024 Unstableness k
order In Eq. (A.1), Lk is a localization Boolean matrix of member k;
Limit analysis 2.412 1.698 Formation of a mechanism and
Shakedown analysis, 2.311 1.614 Incremental plasticity
domain load a Ak =
Shakedown analysis, 1.670 0.987 Alternating plasticity 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
−1
domain load b
0 1 1
0 − 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
lk lk
 
 
5. Conclusions 0 − 1 1
 
0 0 −1 0 0 0 0 0

 l k l k ,

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 −1
From the performed work, we can draw the following  
conclusions:
 1 1 
0 0 0 0 0 0 − −1 0 0 
It appears that the canonical formulas in both limit and
 lk lk 
 1 1 
shakedown analysis using LP for 3-D steel frames may be 0 0 0 0 0 − 0 0 1 0
reduced by a special change of the variables and by a natural lk lk
C 
choice of the initial basic matrix useful for the simplex k
algorithm. The distribution of the internal forces may be  C0k 
Tk =  Ck ,
 
directly calculated by the application of duality aspects in
0
the LP technique. This allows avoiding expensive reanalysis
 Ck 
of the primal problem. The above-mentioned techniques are 1
very suitable for automatic computation; consequently, they with:
have been completely implemented in CEPAO package. By the lk is thelength of element k;
way, the problem of ultimate strengths of the large-scale 3- c11 c12

c13
D steel frames under fix or repeated loading, in the sense of Ck = c21 c22 c23 is the matrix of direction cosines of
c31 c32 c33
respectively limit and shakedown analysis, can be solved now element k;
by the CEPAO package in an automatic manner look like any  
c c22 c23
finite element algorithm devoted to 3D frame structures. This Ck = 21
0
.
paper shows also that the simplex technique still is a necessary c31 c32 c33
tool in the automatic plastic analysis of 3-D steel frameworks
after a less eventful period of the application of LP in the Appendix B. Hinge-by-hinge method
analysis of frame structures.
In the CEPAO, the step by step method is used for the
Appendix A. Compatibility relation increment nonlinear elastic–plastic analysis. After each step,
a new plastic hinge occurs, the elastic–plastic constitutive
Let eTk = ∆ A θ y A θz A ∆ B θ y B θz B be the vector equation is then updated and it replaces the elastic constitutive
 

of the axial displacement and the net rotation of the member
ends (Fig. A.1(a)). Assemble for the frameworks (system of the
elements) we have the vector e.
Let dTk = [d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 dek ]
be the vector of the member independent displacements in
the global coordinate system OXYZ, as shown in Fig. A.1(b).
Assembled for the frameworks we obtain the vector d.
In the sense of limit analysis, we may think that: d1 , d2 ,
d3 , d7 , d8 , d9 are the displacements corresponding to the
deflection mechanisms (beam and sideways); d4 , d5 , d6 , d10 ,
d11 , d12 are the displacements showing the joints mechanisms;
dek displacement in the longitudinal direction of the element,
describes the bar mechanisms (the bar translates along this
axis). Since the torsional stiffness of the elements is negligible,
we must eliminate the degree of freedom that only provokes
pure torsion in the bars.
in the elastic analysis. The other procedures are identical to
those of the elastic analysis, even when the P-delta effect is
taken into account. Therefore, in a brief presentation, we only
present the construction of the elastic–plastic matrix.
Let 1eC and 1eR be the vectors of relative displacement
increments at the yielded sections (plastic hinges), and at the
elastic sections. Elastic constitutive equation (the Hooke’s low)
for the structure may be written as follows:

1sR
 
DRR DRC
 
1eR − 0

= p , (B.1)
1sC DTRC DCC 1eC − 1eC
p
in which, 1eC are the plastic strain increments at the plastic
hinges, 1s R and 1sC are the vectors of internal force
increments at the elastic sections and the plastic hinges.
Based on the Drucker’s normality rule, plastic strain
increments are normal to the yield surface and orthogonal to
 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904 1903

(a) Relative displacements at critical sections. (b) Member’s independent displacements (global
axis).

Fig. A.1. Member k.

the internal force increments. Thus, for the sections (element Based on the upper bound theorem of limit analysis, we have
ends) in the plastic state, we have
µ+ ≤ µ∗ , (C.2)
pT
1eC 1sC = 0 and, (B.2a) with µ∗ is a load factor of any licit mechanism. By giving any
p
1eC = NC λ, (B.2b) licit displacement field d∗ (for example, only one component
equals unity, and all other components are nil), µ∗ may be
(λ and NC are defined in Eq. (1)). easily obtained.
From Eqs. (B.2a) and (B.2b) and noting that λ is arbitrary, From the Eqs. (C.1) and (C.2), one has
we obtain
φ/ξ ≤ µ∗ . (C.3)
T
NC 1sC = 0. (B.3)
On the point of view of geometry (kinematic), with the real
Using (B.1) and (B.2b) and (B.3), the plastic deformation mechanism, d̄, there is at least a plastic deformation component,
magnitude may be deduced ē, such that:
λ = (NC DCC NC )−1 NC DRC (NC DCC NC )−1 NC
 T T T T T

DCC ē ≥ d̄max /Hmax ,
1eR
 
, with Hmax is the maximum dimension of the structure.
1eC
Therefore, a lower bound of the internal power may be
or: evaluated.
1eR
     
0 0 0 φ ≥ s p min d̄max /Hmax , (C.4)
= . (B.4)
λ R1 R2 1eC
in which, s p min is the smallest among the plastic capacity (N P ,
Eq. (B.2b) may be rewritten in the following form: M py , M pz ) of all the sections on the structure.

0
 
0 0
  
0 From the Eqs. (C.3) and (C.4), the maximum displacement
p = . (B.5) is constrained by an upper bound.
1eC 0 NC λ
Substituting (B.4) in (B.5), one obtains d̄max ≤ ξ µ∗ Hmax /s p min .
Then, any value of d0 that satisfies
1eR
     
0 0 0
p = . (B.6)
1eC NC R1 NC R2 1eC d0 ≥ ξ µ∗ Hmax /s p min ≥ d̄max ,
From (B.1) and (B.6), one finally obtains the elastic–plastic will lead: d0 = d̄ + d0 is always nonnegative.
constitutive relation: With similar argument, the value of d0 for the shakedown
1sR 1eR analysis may be obtained.
     
DRR − DRC NC R1 DRC − DRC NC R2
= .
1sC DTRC − DCC NC R1 DCC − DCC NC R2 1eC
References

Appendix C. Determination of the value of d0
Suppose that d̄ is the real displacement field (the real
mechanism), in which, d̄max is the largest (absolute value). In
case of limit analysis, the safety factor is determined by the
equilibrium between the internal power and the external power.
µ+ = sT0 λ/fT d = φ/ξ
where the symbols are defined in Eq. (9).
[1] Hodge PG. Plastic analysis of structures. New York: McGraw Hill; 1959.
[2] Neal BG. The plastic method of structural analysis. London: Chapman &
Hall; 1970.
[3] Massonnet Ch, Save M. Calcul plastique des constructions, vol. 1.
Belgique: Nelissen; 1976.
[4] Cohn MZ, Maier G. Engineering plasticity by mathematical program-
ming. Canada: University of Waterloo; 1979.
[5] Smith DL, editor. Mathematical programming method in structural
(C.1) plasticity. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1990.
[6] Jirásek M, Bažant ZP. Inelastic analysis of structure. John Wiley & Sons,
LTD; 2001.
1904 H. Van Long, N. Dang Hung / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1895–1904
[7] Parimi SR, Ghosh SK, Cohn MZ. The computer programme DAPS for the
design and analysis of plastic structures. Solid Mechanics Division Report
26. Canada: University of Waterloo; 1973.
[8] Domaszewski M, Stanislawska EMS. Optimal shakedown design of
frames by linear programming. Computers & Structures 1985;21(3):
379–85.
[9] Dang Hung Nguyen. CEPAO-an automatic program for rigid-plastic and
elastic–plastic, analysis and optimization of frame structure. Engineering
Structures 1984;(6):33–50.
[10] Dang Hung Nguyen. Sur la plasticité et le calcul des états limites par
élément finis. Thèse de doctorat spécial. l’Université de Liège; 1984.
[11] de Saxcé G, Ohandja LMA. Une méthode automatique de calcul de l’effet
P - Delta pour l’analyse pas - à - pas des ossatures planes. Construction
métallique. 1985 (3).
[12] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE, Chen WF. Improved nonlinear
plastic hinge analysis of space frame structures. Engineering Structures
2000;(22):1324–38.
[13] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Direct design of three-dimensional frames
using advanced analysis. Engineering Structures 2001;(23):1491–502.
[14] Chiorean CG, Barsan GM. Large deflection distributed plasticity analysis
of 3D steel frameworks. Computers & Structures 2005;(83):1555–71.
[15] Cuong NH, Kim SE, Oh JR. Nonlinear analysis of space frames using
fiber plastic hinge concept. Engineering Structures 2006;(29):649–57.
[16] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE. Inelastic analysis of steel frames
with composite beams. ASCE Journal Engineering Structures 2001;
127(2):194–202.
[17] Jiang XM, Chen H, Liew JYR. Spread-of-plasticity analysis of three-
dimensional steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;
(58):193–212.
[18] Orbison JG, McGUIRE W, Abel JF. Yield surface applications in
nonlinear steel frame analysis. Computer Method in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering 1982;(33):557–73.
[19] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specification for steel buildings.
Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction; 1993.