The disadvantages of the ELM are:

1. The ELM does not account as accurately for internal

forces as the DM. However, ELM designs are acceptable
given the limits on the method specified within the AISC
Specification.
2. The ELM requires the calculation of the effective length
factor, K, or the corresponding column buckling load,
Pe , which can be difficult and subject to error in many
moment frame configurations.
3. The application of the method is limited to frames with
smaller second-order effects (Δ2nd /Δ1st or B2 ≤ 1.5 based
on nominal member properties) to avoid significant
errors in the determination of internal forces.
4. The method is more difficult to apply and requires sig-
nificant engineering judgment for some frame types,
including combined braced and moment frames, portal
frames with significant axial compression in the beams
or rafters, frames where some of the columns are in ten-
sion due to uplift, and buildings in which a large part of
the framing participates little in the buckling of a critical
portion of the structure. The reader is referred to ASCE
(1997), White and Hajjar (1997), and White et al. (2006)
for additional discussion of these types of cases.
5. The method results in larger maximum and average
errors relative to benchmark distributed plasticity solu-
tions than the DM (Maleck and White, 2003).
The ELM is limited to cases where second-order effects
(Δ2nd/Δ1st or B2 ≤ 1.5 based on a model with nominal mem-
ber properties) are relatively small.