PLASTIC ANALYSIS

Reading Megson I, Sections 9.10, Megson II, Chapter 18.

Neal, B.G., The plastic methods of structural analysis, 3rd (S.I.) Ed., Chapman & Hall, 1977.
Horne, M.R., Plastic theory of structures, Nelson, London, 1971.

Bending beyond the elastic limit

Limit state design of structures requires the prediction of the ultimate strength or collapse load of a
structure. Safe loads are then determined as a suitable fraction of the collapse load.
As bending of a beam proceeds, strains increase steadily, but the corresponding stress values depend on the
materials stress-strain relationship. Some materials will fail suddenly in a brittle fashion when the strain
reaches a certain value (e.g. timber, cast iron, glass, etc). Others will yield and flow in a plastic fashion (e.g.
many types of steel). Although some structures may fail whilst still in a fully elastic state (by buckling, for
example), most will exhibit stresses that exceed the elastic limit before failing.
We consider now the behaviour of a beam
under steadily increasing bending moment
and assume it is made from an elasto-plastic
material with an idealised stress-strain
relationship as shown in the plot on the right
(not to scale).

yield plateau
yield stress, y
yield strain

onset of strain
hardening

-y

We further assume that the beam crosssection has at least one axis of symmetry
which lies in the plane of bending.

-y

plane of loading and bending

coincides with plane of symmetry

examples of symmetric sections

M
neutral
axis

elastic neutral
axis

strain
(linear)

plastic
neutral axis

y
M = Mp
Fully Plastic Moment

M = My
Yield Moment
maximum stress has
just reached y for
the first time

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

increasing

ymax

p1

as strain increases yielding

penetrates further into the beam

yield stress penetrates

entire cross-section

Yield moment, My
When the stress at the extreme fibre most distant from the neutral axis just reaches yield stress. This
defines the maximum moment the beam can resist whilst still fully elastic. It follows that
y =

My y max
I

where ZE =

, or My = ZE y
I
y max

(the elastic section modulus)

Plastic Neutral axis

Under elastic conditions the neutral axis (zero strain locus) passes through the centroid of the crosssection. As parts of the cross-section yield and the stress distribution becomes nonlinear, the need for the
tension and compression forces to remain equal causes the position of the neutral axis to move away from
the centroid (except in the case of a doubly symmetric section).

A1
G1

_
y1
_
y2

plastic neutral
axis

MP
G2
A2

Let the plastic neutral axis divide the section such that the areas above and below are A1 and A2
respectively. For zero resultant axial force:
A1 y = A2 y
A1 = A2 = A / 2

Thus the plastic neutral axis divides the section into equal areas.

Fully plastic moment, MP

When entire cross-section has reached yield stress, attempting to further increase the applied bending
moment will simply result in the beam rotating without further increase in resisting moment. A plastic hinge
is said to have formed. A plastic hinge could perhaps be likened to a rusty hinge in that it displays a
constant resisting moment. MP is the maximum or ultimate moment the beam can resist. The condition of full
plasticity associated with the fully plastic moment theoretically requires infinite curvature (finite change in
slope over a zero length of the beam i.e. a kink) implying infinite strain which is unattainable. In practice
strains near the neutral axis will be below yield strain, but will be compensated for by extreme fibre strains
reaching strain-hardening levels with consequent small increases in stress above y.
Let y1 and y2 denote the distance of the centroids of areas A1 and A2 from the PNA.
Let C denote the compressive force due to y acting on A1, and T the tensile force on A2
C = y A1 = y A / 2
T = C = yA / 2

Taking moments about the PNA

MP = Cy1 + Ty2
=

yA( y1 + y2 )

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

2
p2

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

or

MP = Z P y

where ZP is the plastic section modulus.

Plastic section modulus

It follows from the preceding relationship that
ZP =

A(y1 + y 2 )
2

or, more strictly Z P =

A y1 + y 2

(taking absolute values of y1 and y2 ).

More generally we could write

ZP =

y dA
A

where y denotes the distance of each element of area, dA, from the PNA.
Shape factor
Maximum elastic moment, My = ZE y , where ZE =

I
y max

(the elastic section modulus).

Ultimate (fully plastic) moment, MP = Z P y .

The ratio of the fully plastic moment to the yield moment depends on the shape of the cross-section and is
known as the shape factor, f (Megsons notation, but also called S and sometimes, v).
f=

MP

My

ZP

Zy

f is a measure of the reserve strength in a beam that has reached its maximum elastic moment, My.
Some sample values:

f = 1.5

f 1.7

f 1.27

f 1.15 to 1.6

Example rectangular beam

bd d d bd 2
ZP =
+ =
2 4 4
4
ZE =
f=

I
bd / 12 bd
=
=
y max
d/2
6

ZP

ZE

d/2
2

( - should know this.)

d/2

6
= 1.5
4

If b=40mm, d=120mm and y = 250,000 kPa, the fully plastic moment will be
MP = Z P y =

0.04 0.12 2
250,000 = 36 kNm
4

Example collapse load of a steel T-beam

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p3

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

10
W

yP

plastic
neutral
axis

140

2m

10
100

y = 280 MPa
steel = 76 kN / m 3

The problem is to determine the load W that will cause collapse of the steel cantilever T-beam.
It is obvious that the maximum bending moment occurs at the left hand end. When this peak moment
reaches the fully plastic value MP, a plastic hinge will form at the left hand end and the beam will collapse.
Plastic neutral axis
If yP denotes the position of the PNA, the area above must = A/2.
A (140 + 100)10
=
2
2
yP = 120mm

10 yP =

Plastic section modulus

ZP =

Ay
i

(summing the area moments of each rectangle about the PNA)

= 120 10 60 + 20 10 10 + 100 10 25
= 99,000 mm3
= 99 10 6 m3

Fully plastic moment

MP = ZP y

yielded material
Wcollapse

= 99 10 280,000
6

= 27.72 kN m

Collapse load
Ignoring self-weight, the maximum bm is 2W
kN-m at the left hand end. Equating this to
MP :

plastic hinge

Collapse mechanism

2Wcollapse = 27.72
Wcollapse = 13.86 kN

Show also that PNA is 18.75 mm from the elastic neutral axis, ZE = 55.1 10 6 m3 , f = 1.798,
My = 15.42 kNm, and load at first yield, Wy = 7.71 kN.
What value of W would cause collapse if self-weight was included? (13.68 kN)

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p4

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Spread of plasticity in the plastic hinge vicinity [Megson I p.244, Megson II p.602]

material at y

My

MP

yielded
elastic

under point load

at b

at c

STRESS DISTRIBUTION
at selected points along beam

COLLAPSE MECHANISM
The form of the yielded zone will vary according to the bending moment diagram and the shape of the crosssection.
Once sufficient plastic hinges have formed to create a mechanism there will be no further increase in stress
or load. However, strains and displacements will continue to increase as plastic flow proceeds in the plastic
hinge zones.
Suitability for plastic analysis

Note that not all structural members are capable the ductile behaviour needed to form stable plastic hinges.
Timber, for example tends to fail in a brittle fashion but can achieve ductile performance by means of steel
connectors (but ductility is necessarily confined to the connector locations). Similarly unreinforced concrete
fails in a brittle manner, but when suitable reinforced with steel becomes satisfactorily ductile. Structural
steel is probably the pre-eminent ductile material, but care is still needed to ensure that undesirable
buckling doesnt occur prior to the establishment of to be suitably proportioned and intervene before the
formation of plastic hinges.

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p5

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Plastic Analysis
Role in Design

When designing for the strength limit state, the objective is to satisfy the inequality
S * Sn .

S* denotes the structural action(s) caused by the characteristic or factored loads, and
Sn denotes the reliable strength of the structure based on nominal strength Sn and strength reduction
factor .

The characteristic loads are normally obtained by reference to Standards (NZS 1170 for example) which
present basic loads together with appropriate factors. The intention is to define loadings that typically have
a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (in other words a value that is unlikely to underestimate the
maximum load encountered by the structure during its intended design life). You will be familiar with
loadings such as 1.2G + 1.6Q where G and Q represent the intensity of dead and live loads on a timber deck.
The reliable strength is intended to represent a value with a 95% probability of exceedance (in other words
a value that is unlikely to over-estimate the strength).
The structural actions S* and strengths Sn are normally replaced by specific actions such as bending moment
in the case of flexural (beam and frame) structures, or axial forces in the case of truss-type structures.
Flexural structures:

M * Mn (where Mn may be replaced by MP, the fully plastic moment).

Truss structures:

N * Nn (where N* denotes the axial force in a truss member)

Plastic analysis provides the means of determining the design actions M*, throughout the structure resulting
from the application of the factored loads.
Plastic analysis can also be used to determine the magnitude of applied loads that would bring about the
collapse of a given structure.

Example Required strength of a simply supported beam

A simply supported beam of 8m span is to carry a uniform spread load of 12.5kN/m (factored). Determine
the required fully plastic strength of the beam.

w
collapse
mechanism

wL /8
Maximum bm, wL2/8 occurs at mid-span with a value = 12.5 x 82/8 = 100kNm.
Collapse will ensue if the beam has a fully plastic moment of Mp = 100kNm.
Hence the required beam strength, Mp = 100/ = 100/0.9 = 111kNm.
(taking = 0.9, the value for a normal steel beam)

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p6

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Example Collapse load of a simply supported (determinate) beam with overhang (from Megson)

The beam ABC has span AB = L and overhang BC = L/2. Point loads of 4W and W act at mid-span AB and C
respectively.

4W

W
B

D
L/2

L/2

L/2
WL/2

3WL/4

collapse mechanism
The bm diagram is readily obtained revealing a maximum bm of 3WL/4 at D. If is gradually increased a
plastic hinge will eventually form at D creating the collapse mechanism shown.
The value of W is determined from the knowledge that
3WL
= MP
4
4MP
Wcollapse =
3L

The formation of a plastic hinge immediately created a mechanism, allowing collapse to occur. This will always
be the case for determinate structures, but not necessarily for indeterminate structures as the next
example shows.
W

Example collapse load of an indeterminate beam

Consider the propped cantilever with central point load,

W. An elastic analysis (e.g. by using integration, momentarea or similar) gives the bms shown, with maximum
moment of 3WL/16 at the support.
As W increases the 1st plastic hinge forms when 3WL/16
= MP (i.e. when W = 16MP/3L). However, this does not
create a mechanism and W may be further increased
until eventually the bm at mid-span also reaches MP. At
this stage a 2nd plastic hinge forms and this time a
mechanism is created and collapse ensues.

L/2

L/2

bm, elastic analysis

3WL/16 = MP

5WL/32

1st plastic hinge

forms here
bm increases with W

MP

bm at collapse

Finally we carry out a static equilibrium analysis of the

beam at the instant of collapse to determine the value
of W.

MP

But hold on, this is an indeterminate structure isnt it?

How can we use just static equilibrium to analyse it?

Wcollapse

Answer is that each plastic hinge provides the value of

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p7

collapse mechanism
Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

the bm at its location. This additional information allows the analysis to be completed.

W
A

MP

B
MP
VA

VC

Taking moments about B for segment BC:

L
,
2P
2MP
VC =
L
MP = VC

C
MP

B
VC

Taking moments about A for AC:

L
VC L,
2
2MP
2
W = MP +
L
L
L

6MP
=
L

MP = W

Giving the required collapse load in terms of the beams fully plastic strength.

Alternative equilibrium calculation using virtual work principle

Virtual work (Megson Section 15.2) provides powerful alternative principles that are widely used in
theoretical mechanics. Here we will apply the principle of virtual displacements which is an alternative
equilibrium criterion to Newtons Laws. It states that if a structure in equilibrium is given a virtual
displacement the sum of the internal and external virtual work done will be zero.
To illustrate the principle we apply it first to the simply supported beam ABC:
W

Apply a vertical virtual displacement to whole:

VW done = W VA VC = 0,
VA + VC = W

Next apply a rotational virtual displacement about

A:

VW done = W
VC =

W
2

VA

VC

L
VC L = 0,
2

VC

Giving us the expected results.

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p8

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

In applying the principle the displacements are referred to as virtual to distinguish them from real
displacements that result from things such as applied loads. The application of a virtual displacement is not
permitted to alter any external or internal forces (or stresses) that may be present. Forces are effectively
frozen during the process.
Virtual work is computed as the product of the real forces acting through virtual displacements, or as real
moments acting through virtual rotations.

We now apply the principle to the beam ABC at the instant of collapse, using the collapse mechanism as the
virtual displacement:

Denoting the rotations of the beam segments AB and BC by

(assumed small, since we need only consider the initial
movement of collapse), we deduce from the geometry that
the rotation at the mid-span hinge is 2.

MP

2
MP

2
Internal VW = MP + MP 2

External VW = W

collapse mechanism as virtual displacement

where the internal work is obtained as the product of moment x rotation.

Equating the internal and external VW gives

L
= 3MP
2
6MP
W=
L
W

The same result as before. However, the virtual work approach avoids the need to calculate the intermediate
result VC and provides a consistent (and very simple) approach to the equilibrium calculation. Note that it
was not necessary to carry out an elastic analysis. Plastic analysis requires us to consider only the final
plastic collapse state, not the elastic state that precedes it.

Example Guessing collapse mechanisms

L/3

2L/3

For the fixed end beam shown we guess a collapse mechanism (A) as shown below:
W

2
L/3

L/2

Denoting the rotations as shown, we proceed directly to the calculation of the collapse load using virtual
work principle:
Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p9

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

L
,
3
Internal VW = MP ( + 2 + )

External VW = W

and equating,

W=

12MP
L

Repeating for the mechanism (B) below:

W

2
3
L/3

L/3

L
,
3
Internal VW = MP ( + 2 + 3)

External VW = W

and equating,

W=

18MP
L

Not surprisingly we see that the result depends on the choice of the collapse mechanism.
Trying one more, (C):
W

L/3

2L/3

L
External VW = W 2,
3
Internal VW = MP ( + 2 + 3)
and equating,

W=

9MP
L

Each mechanism results in a different value of collapse load, W. Which one, if any, is correct?
If we draw the bm diagram for each collapse mechanism we obtain the results shown in the next figure.
Note that for mechanisms (A) and (B) the resulting bms (that satisfy equilibrium) exceed MP over the
shaded part of the diagram. This is impossible of course, as MP is by definition the maximum bm that the
beam can resist, and indicates that the resulting value of W must be wrong.
Mechanism (C) however gives a distribution of bm that nowhere exceeds MP. It also gives the lowest value of
collapse load, W = 9MP/L. Obviously if the beam was able to collapse at this load, it would not continue on to
carry the higher loads calculated for mechanisms (A) and (B).
We conclude that the mechanism which gives the lowest collapse load is probably the correct one.
Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p10

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

W=12MP/L

MP

MP

(A)
MP

W=18MP/L

MP

MP

(B)
MP

W=9MP/L

MP

MP

(C)
MP
Cases (A) and (B) are said to violate the Yield Condition, i.e. they have M > MP.
Hypothesis

A collapse load calculated on the basis of an assumed mechanism is greater than or equal to the true collapse
load.
(Later we show that this is correct.)

Example collapse? load based on satisfaction of equilibrium and yield

We attempt to salvage some useful information from the previous analyses using guessed mechanisms.
Taking mechanism (A) we observe that the calculated collapse load is 12MP/L. The maximum apparent bm
occurs under the point load and from the bm diagram can be seen to have a value of Mmax = 5MP/3.
If load W is reduced, internal actions such as bms will be reduced proportionately.
To reduce the largest bm to MP, we need to reduce W by the ratio of MP/Mmax = 3/5.
This will give the following load and bms:

W=36MP/5L
(A)

3MP/5

3MP /5
no plastic hinges
at supports now

MP
original bm
This leaves just a single plastic hinge under the point load.

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p11

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

We now have a load, 36MP/5L, that is in equilibrium with a set of internal moments that nowhere exceed MP.
However, there are not enough plastic hinges left to create a mechanism, so we conclude that the applied
load is less than the collapse load.
Hypothesis

If a bm distribution can be found that is (1) in equilibrium with the applied load(s), and (2) MP everywhere,
then the applied load is true collapse load.
(Later we show that this is correct.)
Thus by considering just one mechanism, (A), we have been able to show that the true collapse load lies in
the range

12MP
36MP
W
L
5L
7.2MP
12MP
W
L
L
With the true collapse load of

9MP
lying close to the mean of the upper and lower bounds.
L

Example beam with distributed loading

Examples so far have all carried point loads, making it easy to guess the likely location of plastic hinges
(since the bm diagram consists of straight line segments peak values must occur at the loads or at fixed
ends). With distributed loads it is not so easy to identify the plastic hinge locations.
The approach used in this example is to treat the hinge location as a variable, calculate the collapse load and
then change the variable until the collapse load is minimised.

For the propped cantilever we assume plastic hinges form at the

fixed end and at a point distant x from the fixed end.

The geometry of the resulting mechanism has the angles shown in

the figure.

x
Lx
+ w( L x ) x
2
2
Internal VW = MP (L x + L)

External VW = wx(L x)

Equating:

(L-x)

L
x

2MP (2L x)
w=
Lx(L x)
Correct value of x will minimise the collapse load. Hence seek x such that

L-x

dW
= 0 , leading to
dx

x 2 4Lx + 2L2 = 0
x = (2 2 )L = 0.586L
w = (6 + 4 2 )
= 11.657

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

MP
L2

MP
L2

p12

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Reduction of MP due to axial load (Megson I p.250Megson II p.611)

When a structural member is subjected to axial load (tension or compression) in addition to moment, the
fully plastic moment will be reduced (since some strength is used up in resisting the axial force). The
reduced plastic moment is known as MRP or, (Megson) MP,R.
The amount by which MP is reduced depends on the shape of the cross-section and the magnitude of the
axial force. We examine the case of a beam with a rectangular cross-section.

y
stress
resisting
M

d/2-a

d/2+a

a
stress
resisting
M

= P/A

M=0

small M

compressive
yield

tensile
yield

d/2

stress
resisting
P

d/2

fully
plastic

cross-section

Assume the axial force is applied first followed by gradually increasing moment until the cross-section
reaches its fully yielded state as illustrated above. Yield stress is eventually reached over the entire crosssection, with equal areas of tensile and compressive stress at the top and bottom resisting the moment, and
a central area of compressive stress resisting the axial force.

MRP = y b(

d
d
d2
a)( + a) = y b(
a2 )
2
2
4

(1)
(2)

P = y b(2a)

substituting for a in equation 1:

MRP = y b(
MRP =

d2
P2
)

4
4 2y b 2

bd2
P2
y
4
4 y b

(3)

Now let Py = squash load (axial load that will fully yield cross-section).
Thus

Py = bd y

also

MP =

we get

MRP = MP

bd2
y , and since P = 2ab y ,
4

P2d
, or
4Py

P
MRP = MP MP
Py

= MP (1 n 2 )
where n =

MRP
MP

P
Py

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

1.0

P
Py

p13

1.0

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Reduction of MP due to shear force

The presence of shear force will also cause a reduction in MP, although the effect is less serious than in the
case of axial force. As detailed analysis is more complicated discussion is deferred until later courses.

Moment-curvature relationship (Megson II, p.600)

Consider a beam of rectangular cross-section under the action of a bm M (<MP).

Let de denote the depth of the elastic core, then
yielded zone

bde
d de d + de
M=
y + b

y
6
2
2

(d-de)/2

where

(d+de)/2

de

1st term = bm resisted by the elastic core, and

2nd term = bm resisted by the yielded (plastic)
zones.
i.e.

M=

elastic core

bde 2 b 2
+ (d de2 ) y
6
4

cross-section

stress distribution

d2 de2
y
M = b

12
4

(1)

The curvature of the elastic core (and of the beam),

M
1
== e
R
EIe

where Me = resisting moment of elastic core = Ze y

Ie = moment of inertia of elastic core
bde2
y
Ze y
=
= 6 3
EIe
bd
E e
12

i.e.

M 1.0
MP

a b

Behaviour Model

2/3

oac = rigid plastic

2 y

(2)plastic
obc = elastic-perfectly

Ede

Equations (1) and (2) define bm and curvature in terms of

de, where de ranges from d down to zero.
when de = d, M =

bd2
y = My , the yield moment.
6
2

bd
y = MP , the fully plastic moment
4
and .

when de = 0, M =

oc = elasto-plastic

1/3

1 2 3

The figure shows the relationship for a rectangular section. Similar plots can be obtained for sections of
other shapes, such as I-beams.
Simplifying assumptions about the moment-curvature relationship are often made. Three of these are shown
in the figure above.
Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p14

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Residual stress resulting from removal of load after MP achieved

We consider what happens if, after applying increasing load to a beam until the maximum moment reaches
MP, we then remove the load, causing the bending moment to return to zero.

y
c
y b
unloading
MP
MP
(elastic)
a

-y

When the moment

reaches MP, the entire cross-section is assumed to have reached either the tensile or compressive yield
stress.
stress under MP

Reducing the moment to zero is equivalent to applying a bm of MP in the reverse direction.

Referring to the stress-strain diagram, note that as strain is reduced, stress reduces according to the
straight line cd i.e. a linear elastic response. Thus applying reverse MP results in a stress distribution of
the form:
max
MP

MP

max
change in stress
due to reverse MP

MP
.
ZE

Where

max =

But as

MP = ZP y ,

max =

ZP
y = f y
ZE
= 1.5 y for a rectangular section

Superimposing the stress distributions reveals the final state of residual stress following the removal of the
load. Note that the final stresses are self-equilibrating (i.e. zero bending moment and axial force).
y
M=0

1.5y

0.5y

M=0

+
y

1.5y
MP

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p15

-MP

0.5y
residual stress
when M=0

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

PLASTIC ANALYSIS THEOREMS (Megson II, 18.1)

Three conditions that must be satisfied by a structure on the point of collapse are:
1.

EQUILIBRIUM CONDITION

2.

MECHANISM CONDITION

3.

YIELD CONDITION
At collapse the bending moments must everywhere be MP.

At collapse, the bending moments must correspond to a state of equilibrium between the external
loads and the internal actions.
At collapse there must be sufficient plastic hinges to create a partial or complete collapse
mechanism.

Using these conditions we can now state three fundamental theorems of plastic analysis
LOWER BOUND THEOREM

If the bending moments are in equilibrium with the external load and M MP everywhere, the load is a lower
bound (i.e. load is collapse load).
UPPER BOUND THEOREM

For an assumed mechanism in which the virtual work done in the plastic hinges equals the virtual work done
by the external loads, the load is an upper bound (i.e. load is collapse load).
UNIQUENESS THEOREM

If a bending moment distribution can be found that satisfies the three conditions of equilibrium, mechanism
and yield, then the corresponding load is the collapse load.
Proofs of the theorems are straightforward, but rather unexciting. See Horne, 1971 or Neal, 1977.
The three theorems are summarised diagrammatically below:

.
MECHANISM
UNIQUENESS

UPPER BOUND
load true collapse load

EQUILIBRIUM
LOWER BOUND
load true collapse load

load = true collapse load

YIELD
There are a number of corollaries (easily proved consequences) of the theorems:
1.

The collapse load of a structure cannot be decreased by increasing the strength of any part of it
(corollary of lower bound theorem).

2.

If the collapse loads are determined for all possible mechanisms, the actual collapse load will be the
smallest of these (corollary of upper bound theorem).

3.

The collapse load of a structure cannot be increased by decreasing the strength of any part of it
(corollary of upper bound theorem).

4.

The initial state of stress has no effect on the collapse load (excluding elastic stability effects) (from
uniqueness theorem).

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p16

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

5.

If a structure is subjected to any programme of proportional or non-proportional loading, collapse will

occur at the first combination of loads for which a bm distribution satisfying the conditions of
equilibrium, mechanism and yield can be found (from uniqueness theorem).

Note
1.

The uniqueness theorem does not assert that the bm distribution at collapse is unique. The bm
distribution at collapse may depend on factors such as initial state of stress and loading history. Nor
does it assert that the collapse mechanism is unique. There may be alternative mechanisms, but they will
lead to the same collapse load.

2.

An assumed plastic mechanism leading to a collapse load need not imply that a bm distribution in
equilibrium with the external loads can exist for such a mechanism as shown below:

Example assumed mechanism, equilibrium not satisfied

L/2

W/4

L/2

L/4

W/4
W

MP 3 = W
W=

48MP
7

Correct mechanism

W/4

Assumed mechanism

L
W L

2
4 4

MP 4 = W
W=

7W/48

8MP
L

WL/8

WL/8

WL/16

7W/48

WL/8

Assumed mechanism - bm diagram

(doesnt satisfy equilibrium, but the
calculated collapse load is still a valid
upper bound)

True collapse bm diagram

(satisfies equilibrium)

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

not in equilibrium

p17

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Mechanism Method of Analysis

This method of analysis is based directly on the upper bound theorem. The basic idea is to try all the likely
collapse mechanisms and select the one which gives the lowest collapse load. The steps involved are as
follows:
1.

Identify the likely plastic hinge locations (under point loads, at supports, at joints, at zero shear
positions under spread loads).

2.

Sketch all the likely collapse mechanisms.

3.

For each mechanism use virtual work to calculate the collapse load factor.

4.

Select the mechanism which gives the lowest load.

5.

For this chosen case check that M MP (this is just to check that the selected mechanism is indeed the
correct one). If this condition is not satisfied the correct mechanism has been overlooked.

Example Fixed end beam with point loads

2W

3.5W

MP = 120kNm

B
2m

D
C

3m

1m
3.5W

1)

2W

2)

2W

5
3.5W
6

Mechanism 1:
2W(4 )2 + 3.5W(2)1 = MP (4 + 6 + 2)
W=

12MP
= 62.61kN
23

lowest

Mechanism 2:
2W()2 + 3.5W(5)1+ = MP (1 + 6 + 5)
W=

12MP
= 66.98kN
21.5

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p18

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Yield check on mechanism giving lowest load:

We only need to find the moment at C, MC, since we know the bm at A, B and D is MP. Using virtual work
again, we take the known bms and load from the chosen mechanism (1) and use mechanism (2) as a virtual
displacement to determine MC:

MP

2(62.61)

MP

3.5(62.61)
6

MC (unknown)
MP ( + 5) + MC (6) = 2(62.61)()2 + 3.5(62.61)(5)1

MC = 104.35kNm ( MP , OK)

giving the collapse bm diagram below:

120

120

104.35
120

The same result could be found by conventional methods:

3.5W

Consider segment BD and take moments about B:

MP + 3.5 62.61 3 + MP 4VD = 0

VD = 224.35kN

MP

D
B

C
3m

VD

1m

Summing moments about C for segment CD:

MC + MP = VD 1
MC = 224.35 1 120 = 104.35kNm. ( MP , OK )

MC

D
VD
1m

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p19

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Example Fixed base rectangular frame, varying MP, point loads

(examples of frame analyses can be found in Megson II from p.613)
8W kN
6W kN
4

MP (beam) = 60kNm

4m

MP (both columns) = 40kNm

6m

1.

6m

Likely plastic hinge positions identified at points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Note: At the joints between beam and columns, a plastic hinge will form in the weaker member (the
column) as soon as the moment reaches 40kNM.
2.

Sketch candidate collapse mechanisms:

8W
6W

6W

8W

6W

SWAY mechanism

BEAM mechanism
(example of partial collapse mechanism)

90

8W

COMBINED mechanism

Note that the combined mechanism is obtained by combining (adding) the sway and beam mechanisms.
In the process the plastic hinge rotations at hinge location 2 cancel each other, removing the plastic
hinge and leaving the beam and column meeting at right angles.
3.

Calculate collapse load factor (W) for each mechanism using virtual work equation:
SWAY
MP (column) (4) = 6W.4.
W = 6.67

BEAM
MP ( column) (2) + MP (beam) (2) = 8W.6.
40 2 + 60 2
86
= 4.167

W=

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p20

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

COMBINED
MP ( column) (4) + MP (beam) (2) = 6W.4. + 8W.6.

31.11kN
23.33 kN

40 4 + 60 2
24 + 48
= 3.889

W=

4.

Conclude collapse load, W = 3.889 (upper bound theorem)

5.

Check yield condition to ensure M MP for selected

mechanism:
Need to find the moments at points 1 to 5.
However, we know that the moments at 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the
MP values for those locations.
This leaves just M2 to find.

M 4 = 40
(M P(column) )

M2

31.11

M 3 = 60
(M P(beam) )

Using the beam mechanism as a virtual displacement to find

M2:
M2 () + 60(2) + 40() = 31.11 6
M2 = 26.7kNm

Hence collapse bm diagram as shown with M MP

everywhere proving solution is correct (uniqueness theorem).

40

26.7

60

40

40

Example Frame with sloping member

Sloping members complicate the mechanism geometry, and we introduce the concept of instantaneous
centre of rotation. Otherwise it is business as usual.

3W
2W

2
3

all members
have same MP

5
L

1.

Diagram above shows frame details and 5 possible plastic hinge locations.

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p21

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

ic

3W

3W

2W

2W

3W

Mechanism A

Mechanism B

2.

plastic hinge
cancels

Mechanism C
= 2A + B

Sketches above show three likely mechanisms.

Mechanism A familiar beam mechanism.
Mechanism B a sway type mechanism.
Note:
Joint 2 can only rotate about joint 1 and so moves in a direction perpendicular to 1-2.
Joint 4 likewise moves perpendicular to 4-5.
As joints 2 and 4 also belong to member 2-4 they must rotate about a common instantaneous centre of

rotation.

Since 2 moves perpendicular to 1-2 its centre of rotation must lie on 1-2, and similarly the centre of
rotation of 4 must lie on 4-5. Member 4-5 must therefore rotate about the intersection of 1-2 and 4-5,
marked as ic in the diagram. From the geometry of the diagram it can be seen that 2-4 rotates through
an angle .
Mechanism C a combined mechanism.
We seek to combine mechanisms A and B such that plastic hinge cancellation occurs. Noting that the
hinge at 2 has a negative rotation of in mechanism A (causing tensile stress on outside of frame) and a
positive rotation of 2 in mechanism B, we use the combination 2A + B to eliminate the plastic hinge at
2.
3.

Collapse loads for each mechanism.

A:

L
3W. . = MP .4Gq
2
8MP
W=
3L

B:

L
3W. . + 2W.L. = MP .6
2
12MP
W=
7L

C:

L
3W. .3 + 2W.L. = MP .10
2
20MP
W=
lowest
13L

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p22

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

2W

4.

Mechanism C gives the lowest collapse load, providing us with our answer (according to the lower bound
theorem).

5.

To prove that our solution is correct we need to demonstrate that for the chosen collapse mechanism M
MP throughout the frame.
Since there are plastic hinges at locations 1, 3, 4 and 5, we only need to show that M2 MP.
Using mechanism A as a virtual displacement in a similar way to the previous example we obtain the
virtual work (equilibrium) equation as:

L
3W. . = M2 . + MP .3
2

M2

3W

20MP
subst. W =
13L

MP

MP

60
3)MP
26
= 0.692MP

M2 = (

MP

0.69M P

The negative value for M2 simply indicates that it

acts in the opposite direction to that assumed in
the diagram.
Thus M2 MP and the final bm diagram will be as
shown.

MP
MP
MP

Example Beam design

5m

8m

2kPa (dead)

3m

5kPa (live)

3m

A reinforced concrete floor in an industrial building is to be supported by steel universal beams spaced 3m
apart. Each beam is 13m long and supported at three points creating spans of 5m and 8m. The floor is 150mm
thick and is attached to the top surface of the beam, providing restraint against lateral buckling. Partitions,
etc, result in an additional dead load of 2kPa over the floor area. A live load of 5kPa is also specified.
Determine the required size of UB for strength limit state loading of 1.2G+1.5Q. Use grade 300 steel and
take the weight of reinforced concrete as 24kN/m3.

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p23

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Objective
To select a beam size such that M* < Mn, where = 0.9, M* is the design bending moment for the factored
(strength limit state) loading and Mn is the nominal (in this case fully plastic) moment capacity of the
selected beam.
Loading
Dead:

Concrete slab:

24 x 0.15 x 3

10.8kN/m

Partitions, etc.

2x3

6.0

Self weight UB

60kg/m

0.6 (guess)

Total
Live:

G = 17.4kN/m

Specified

Factored

5x3

Q = 15kN/m

1.2G+1.5Q

43.4kN/m

Analysis
Longest span will collapse first with a mechanism identical to a propped cantilever (see p.12 of these notes).

0.586L
(4.7m)

5m

3.3m

Weve already worked out the collapse load for this case (see p.12) and obtained w = 11.657

MP
.
L2

Hence the maximum design action (bending moment) imposed by the factored loads will be

w.L2
11.657
43.4 82
=
11.657
= 238 kNM

M* =

Selection of beam with adequate strength

We require a beam with Mn M*, and since Mn = ZPy,

ZP

238
0.9 y

238
0.9 300,000

0.00088 m 3
881 10 3 mm 3
Select 360UB51 from table of UB section properties (next page). It has a plastic section modulus of
897x103 mm3, giving ZPy = 242kNM (>238).
Finally check that self-weight of chosen beam is in agreement with initially guessed value.
360UB51: self weight = 51kg/m, compared with guessed value of 60kg/m OK.

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p24

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Alternative design based on linear elastic analysis

Designers frequently opt to determine the design actions by means of a linear elastic analysis e.g. by
moment distribution or more likely by computer analysis, rather than by plastic analysis. The loading,
43.4kN/m is the same but the analysis will give the bms shown below. The beam section is then selected such
that M* < Mn as in the design based on plastic analysis. The maximum design bm M*, now occurs only at the
interior support.
265.8

Thus,

M * = 266kNm , requiring

ZP

266
y

34.3

985 10 3 mm 3

225.8

Select 410UB53.7 from table of UB section properties (next page). It has a plastic section modulus of
1060x103 mm3, giving ZPy = 286kNM (>266).
The design is effectively based on the lower bound theorem in that only one plastic hinge is allowed to form
(at the point of maximum bm) and so there is no mechanism.
The approach is more conservative and leads to a less economical choice of beam. However, there are
advantages in that the structure does not have to satisfy such stringent ductility conditions as that
designed using plastic analysis. Providing sufficient restraint to ensure satisfactory plastic hinge rotation
can increase the cost of a plastic-based design making it less economic.

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p25

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005

Flange

Overall
depth

Root
radius

Depth
between
flanges

Web
slenderness

Flange
outstand

Gross
area

d1
t

Bt
2

Ag

Width

Thickness

d1

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Designation

kg/m

Web
thickness

About x-axis

Ix
2

mm

10 mm

Zx
4

10 mm

Warping
constant

ry

Iw

mm

10 mm

About y-axis

ZPx
3

Torsion
constant

10 mm

rx

Iy

mm

10 mm

Zy
4

10 mm

ZPy
3

10 mm

10 mm

610UB

125
113
101

612
607
602

229
228
228

19.6
17.3
14.8

11.9
11.2
10.6

14.
14.0
14.0

572
572
572

48.1
51.1
54.0

5.54
6.27
7.34

16000
14500
13000

986
875
761

3230
2880
2530

3680
3290
2900

249
246
242

39.3
34.3
29.3

343
300
257

536
469
402

49.6
48.7
47.5

1560
1140
790

3450
2980
2530

530UB

92.4
82

533
528

209
209

15.6
13.2

10.2
9.6

14.0
14.0

502
502

49.2
52.3

6.37
7.55

11800
10500

554
477

2080
1810

2370
2070

217
213

23.8
20.1

228
193

355
301

44.9
43.8

775
526

1590
1330

460UB

82.1
74.6
67.1

460
457
454

191
190
190

16.0
14.5
12.7

9.9
9.1
8.5

14.0
11.4
11.4

428
428
428

43.3
47.1
50.4

5.66
6.24
7.15

10500
9520
8580

372
335
296

1610
1460
1300

1840
1660
1480

188
188
186

18.6
16.6
14.5

195
175
153

303
271
238

42.2
41.8
41.2

701
530
378

919
815
708

410UB

59.7
53.7

406
403

178
178

12.8
10.9

7.8
7.6

11.4
11.4

381
381

48.8
50.1

6.65
7.82

7640
6890

216
188

1060
933

1200
1060

168
165

12.1
10.3

135
115

209
179

39.7
38.6

337
234

467
394

360UB

56.7
50.7
44.7

359
356
352

172
171
171

13.0
11.5
9.7

8.0
7.3
6.9

11.4
11.4
11.4

333
333
333

41.6
45.6
48.2

6.31
7.12
8.46

7240
6470
5720

161
142
121

899
798
689

1010
897
777

149
148
146

11.0
9.60
8.10

128
112
94.7

198
173
146

39.0
38.5
37.6

338
241
161

330
284
237

310UB

46.2
40.4
32.0

307
304
298

166
165
149

11.8
10.2
8.0

6.7
6.1
5.5

11.4
11.4
13.0

284
284
282

42.3
46.5
51.3

6.75
7.79
8.97

5930
5210
4080

100
86.4
63.2

654
569
424

729
633
475

130
129
124

9.01
7.65
4.42

109
92.7
59.3

166
142
91.8

39.0
38.3
32.9

233
157
86.5

197
165
92.9

250UB

37.3
31.4
25.7

256
252
248

146
146
124

10.9
8.6
8.0

6.4
6.1
5.0

8.9
8.9
12

234
234
232

36.6
38.4
46.4

6.40
8.13
7.44

4750
4010
3270

55.7
44.5
35.4

435
354
285

486
397
319

108
105
104

5.66
4.47
2.55

77.5
61.2
41.1

119
94.2
63.6

34.5
33.4
27.9

158
89.3
67.4

85.2
65.9
36.7

200UB

29.8
25.4
22.3
18.2

207
203
202
198

134
133
133
99

9.6
7.8
7.0
7.0

6.3
5.8
5.0
4.5

8.9
8.9
8.9
11.0

188
188
188
184

29.8
32.3
37.5
40.9

6.65
8.15
9.14
6.75

3820
3230
2870
2320

29.1
23.6
21.0
15.8

281
232
208
160

316
260
231
180

87.3
85.4
85.5
82.6

3.86
3.06
2.75
1.14

57.5
46.1
41.3
23.0

88.4
70.9
63.4
35.7

31.8
30.8
31.0
22.1

105
62.7
45.0
38.6

37.6
29.2
26.0
10.4

180UB

22.2
18.1
16.1

179
175
173

90
90
90

10.0
8.0
7.0

6.0
5.0
4.5

8.9
8.9
8.9

159
159
159

26.5
31.8
35.3

4.20
5.31
6.11

2820
2300
2040

15.3
12.1
10.6

171
139
123

195
157
138

73.6
72.6
72.0

1.22
0.975
0.853

27.1
21.7
19.0

42.3
33.7
29.4

20.8
20.6
20.4

81.6
44.8
31.5

8.71
6.80
5.88

150UB

18.0
14.0

155
150

75
75

9.5
7.0

6.0
5.0

8.0
8.0

136
136

22.7
27.2

3.63
5.00

2300
1780

9.05
6.66

117
88.8

135
102

62.8
61.1.

0.672
0.495

17.9
13.2

28.2
20.8

17.1
16.6

60.5
28.1

3.56
2.53

UNIVERSAL BEAMS Dimensions and Properties

Plastic_Analysis_Notes.doc

p26

Copyright J.W.Butterworth, July 2005