FEATURE

In-plane Stability of Portal Frames

Charles King

The methods of checking the in-plane stability of portal frames in BS 5950-1: 2000 differ significantly from the
methods in the 1990 version and provide a more reliable consideration of in-plane stability. The methods in
BS 5950-1: 2000 were reviewed in Vol. 9/2 pp30 of New Steel Construction. The SCI will shortly publish P-292,
In-plane Stability of Portal Frames to BS 5950-1: 2000,* which is one of the references in BS 5950-1: 2000. It explains the
structural mechanics of in-plane stability of portal frames, describes the methods in BS 5950-1: 2000 and gives
examples of second-order calculations for different frames. This article presents a short discussion of the mechanics
of in-plane stability so that designers can have greater understanding when applying the checks in BS 5950-1: 2000.

Why are there in-plane stability checks? π2 EI

All members resisting axial compression would buckle if the applied
axial force were large enough. Stability checks are the calculations to
check that the resistance to buckling is greater than the applied forces.
When checking the stability of a column, the buckling resistance is
calculated both for buckling about the major axis and about the minor
axis.
In frames, the stability checks must also verify the buckling resistance
about both the major axis and the minor axis. In normal portal frames,
buckling out of the plane of the frame is checked in the same way as any
other beam-column between lateral restraints and torsional restraints
provided by bracings etc. These bracings make the effective lengths of
each element easily identifiable. However, buckling in the plane of the
frame is more complicated than in normal beam column elements. This
is because there is normally no bracing in the plane of the frame, so the
restraint to any column depends on the stiffness of the rafters and the
other columns. Equally, the restraint to any rafter depends on the
stiffness of the columns and the other rafters. Therefore, checks for the
stability of the frame must consider the entire frame stiffness. Although
engineers are accustomed to checking the buckling resistance of
columns using effective lengths, the effective lengths of portal frames
can only be defined correctly if the stiffness of the entire frame is
considered.
✝
The in-plane stability checks for portal frames in BS 5950-1: 2000 differ
from those for beam and column buildings. This is because the axial
loads in portal rafters have a much greater effect on the stability of the
frame than the axial loads that might occur in common beam and
column buildings.
Elastic critical buckling of frames
Pcr = –––––
L2
where
E is the Young’s modulus
I is the inertia of the strut
L is the length of the strut
The critical buckling load is a theoretical load and exceeds the actual
failure load of a real strut as shown in Fig. 1.1 in which both Pcr and the
squash load Py (= Area × yield stress) are shown.
Frames have a similar theoretical elastic critical buckling load, which
could only be reached if the frame has an infinitely high strength. This
will be referred to in this document as Vcr. This is commonly used in a
ratio called “lambda crit”, λcr, which is defined as
Vcr
λcr = ––––
VULS
where: Vcr is the elastic critical buckling load
and VULS is the applied loading at Ultimate Limit State.
Vcr depends on the distribution of load on the frame, so λcr should be
calculated from values of Vcr and VULS which have proportionately the
same distribution of load.
λcr varies according to the magnitude of the applied ULS loading, VULS.
A large value of λcr indicates that the loading on the frame is well below
the buckling resistance. A small value of λcr indicates that the frame is
near to its failure load. It must be remembered that failure will occur
well below Vcr due to bending stresses in the frame, initial imperfections
and the finite value of yield stress. However, λcr is a very useful ratio,
both as an indicator of the sensitivity of the frame to buckling and in
calculating amplification factors. It is used frequently in the
consideration of the stability of the frames.

Second Order (P-delta) effects

Fig. 1.1. Elastic critical buckling load of a strut.
Struts have a theoretical elastic critical buckling load, or Euler load,
which could only be reached if the strut has an infinitely high strength.
The buckling load, or Euler load, for a pin-ended strut is given by:
General
The strength checks for any structure are correct only if the global
analysis gives a good representation of the behaviour of the actual
structure.
When any frame is loaded, it deflects so that the shape under load is
different from the undeformed shape, which is the shape in the analysis
if this is ordinary small deflection (first-order) analysis. The deflection
causes the axial loads in the members to act along different lines from
those assumed in the analysis, as shown in Fig. 1.2 and Fig. 1.3. The
effects, commonly called second-order effects or P-delta effects, can be
sufficient to reduce the resistance of the frame.
 is to reduce the effective stiffness when the axial load is compressive,
due to the increased bending moment, see Fig. 1.5. Conversely, when the
axial load is tensile, it increases the effective stiffness, though the effect
will generally be minimal in common single-storey portal frames.

Fig. 1.2. Asymmetric or sway mode of deflection

Fig. 1.3. Symmetric mode of deflection

Second order effects are geometrical effects and should not be confused
with material-non-linearity.
There are two categories of second order effects:
i. Effects of deflections within the length of members, sometimes called
P.δ (P - little delta) effects.
ii. Effects of displacements of the intersections of members, sometimes
called P.∆ (P - big delta) effects.
The practical consequence of P.δ and P.∆ effects is to reduce the stiffness
of the frames below that calculated by first-order analysis. Single-storey
portals are sensitive to these effects due to the axial compression forces
in the rafters. These forces are commonly of the order of 10% of the
elastic critical buckling load (or Euler load) of the rafters, around which
level the reduction in effective stiffness becomes important. Tied portals
are especially sensitive to the effects because the axial compression
forces in the rafters are commonly many times higher than in ordinary
portals. Fig. 1.5. P.∆ (P - little delta) effects
It is the magnitude of the rafter compression which makes the simple
check for λ cr of multi-storey buildings in Clause 2.4.2.6 of
✝
BS 5950 1: 2000 unconservative for portal frames.
P.∆ (P-big delta) effects
P.∆ effects are the effects on overall frame behaviour due to
P.δ (P-little delta) effects displacements of the ends of members at right-angles to the axial forces
P.δ effects are the effects on member behaviour due to displacements at in the frames. Typical displacement are shown in Fig. 1.6 and Fig. 1.7.
right-angles to the axial force in the member. Typical displacements are
shown in Fig. 1.4.

Fig. 1.4. Typical displacements δ (little delta)

These displacements may be the result of an external load or moment,

Fig. 1.6. Typical displacements ∆ (big delta) in a sway mode
or may be the result of the natural tendency to buckle under pure axial
load. The displacements are the sum of the initial deformation of the
member and the deflection due to loading. The result of such deflections

Fig. 1.7. Typical displacements ∆ (big delta) in a symmetrical mode
The displacements are the sum of the initial deformation of the frame
and the deflection due to loading. For pitched roof portals, the principal
modes of deflection are lowering of the apex and sway, as shown in Fig.
1.2 and Fig. 1.3.
The magnification of the drop of the apex depends on the vertical
stiffness of the frame. The magnification of the sway deflection depends
on the sway stiffness of the frame. Both may be significantly reduced by
P.δ effects in the members, effects which are ignored by classic first-
order analysis. Another possible mode of failure which is sensitive to
P.∆ effects is “arching failure” or “snap-through” of a pair of rafters, see
Fig. 1.8. In this form of failure, the spread of the valleys allows the apex
of the roof to drop, so reducing the arching effect and increasing the
bending moments in the rafters and columns.
Tension forces tend to increase the effective stiffness, but this is rarely
significant in common structures.
Fig. 1.8. Arching failure or snap-through
Frames have critical buckling loads, Vcr, similar in concept to the critical
buckling loads, P cr, for struts as described in Section 1.2. In most
practical single-storey portal frames, the first mode and second mode of
buckling are the most important. This is because the first mode of
buckling, shown in Fig. 1.9, is similar in shape to the sway deflections of
the typical loadcase shown in Fig. 1.2. Also, the second mode of
buckling, shown in Fig. 1.10, is similar in shape to the symmetrical
deflections of the typical loadcase shown in Fig. 1.3.
Fig. 1.9. First mode of buckling
Fig. 1.10. Second mode of buckling.
The deflected form of a frame can be considered as the sum of a number
of component deflected forms where each component is in the shape of
one of the buckling modes. Each component of the deflection will be
increased according to the λcr for that mode.
In many practical frames, the critical load case for ULS is the mainly
gravity load case:
1.4 × dead load + 1.6 × dead load + NHL
where: NHL is the sum of the Notional Horizontal Loads which is the
very small load of 0.5% of the factored vertical loads.
For this load case, the deflection form is similar to the second mode of
buckling, the symmetrical mode shown in Fig. 1.10. This buckling mode
normally has a relatively high critical buckling load, V cr, giving a
relatively high value for λcr. Therefore, this load case commonly has
only small P-delta effects. However, plastic hinges complicate the
behaviour because they can make a symmetric frame behave like an
asymmetric frame. Therefore, as loads are increased above the load to
form the first hinge, the frame will sway significantly even if the applied
loads are only vertical loads.
Load cases involving lateral loads, such as lateral wind loads or crane
horizontal loads, deflect into a shape similar to the first mode of
buckling, the asymmetrical mode shown in Fig. 1.9. This buckling mode
often has a relatively low critical buckling load, Vcr, giving a relatively
low value for λcr. Therefore, this load case commonly has significant
P-delta effects.
Different load cases on the same structure
The magnitude of the P-delta effects determines whether these effects
can be ignored in the verification of a frame, or if they must be explicitly
included in the verification.
It is the magnitude of the deflection, combined with the magnitude of the
axial load that is important. Therefore, the same frame may be
insensitive to P-delta effects in one load case, but sensitive to P-delta
effects in another load case. For example, a frame loaded so that it
deflects symmetrically, such as the frame in Fig. 1.3, might be relatively
insensitive to P-delta effects because the deflection of the apex does not
affect the forces and moments much. This is because the column spread
is equal and opposite, so there is not a tendency to fall over sideways.
However, the same frame loaded so that it deflects asymmetrically, such
as the frame in Fig. 1.2, might be relatively sensitive to P-delta because
the sway causes a tendency to fall over sideways. This difference in
sensitivity for symmetric and asymmetric load cases is common in
portal structures with either single-span or multi-span frames.
Footnotes
* P292 was funded under a PiI programme by the DETR and Corus.
✝ BS 5950-1: 2000: Structural use of steelwork in building - Part 1:
Code of practice for design - Rolled and welded sections. The British
Standards Institute, 2001
Charles King is Senior Manager, Standards, at the Steel Construction
Institute.