Stability Design of Steel Buildings

Finding K Can Be Complicated!

STABILITY DESIGN OF STEEL BUILDINGS: Highlights of a New AISC Design Guide

Donald W. White, Georgia Institute of Technology & Lawrence G. Griffis, Walter P. Moore and Assoc. Inc.

Physical Behavior of Frames

Always a load-deflection problem Never a bifurcation problem
P Py

2005 AISC Specification

Major update in stability provisions Modifications to traditional approach

Effective Length Method (ELM), Section C2.2a

Creation of new method

Direct Analysis Method (DM), Appendix 7

Creation of a streamlined version of DM

= L/500

P Mp M P M

First-Order Analysis Method (FOM), Section C2.2b

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

Major Advantages of the DM

Section C1 of the 2005 Specification

All analysis and design methods must consider : Flexural, axial and shear deformations (in all components) All component limit states P- and P- effects Reduction in stiffness (and corresponding increases in deformations) due to residual stresses and material yielding P-o and P-o effects (i.e., member out-of-plumbness & out-of-straightness) How does one address all of these requirements?

No K factors are required! Internal forces are more accurate Applies to all frame types moment frames, braced frames, column bracing systems & combined systems More economical beam-column proportions in certain cases The DM will become the preferred method in the next Specification

Flexural, Axial & Shear Deformations

Included where important by modeling the corresponding component flexibilities in the analysis, e.g., Member or panel zone shear deformations Connection deformations Diaphragm deformations Column or brace axial extension & shortening

All Component Limit States

Member axial resistance (Pc ) Flexural buckling about the x-axis Flexural buckling about the y-axis (sym. members) Torsional buckling (sym. members, in some cases) Torsional-flexural buckling (y-axis flexure + torsion, singly-sym. members) Constrained-axis torsional buckling Member flexural resistance (Mc ) Lateral-torsional buckling Flange local buckling Tension flange yielding Connection resistances Panel zone resistance etc.

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

P- and P- effects

P- effects

Captured by a 1st-order elastic analysis with appropriate amplifiers or by a properly configured explicit 2nd-order analysis

P- and P- effects

P- and P- effects

B2

selected software packages providing general purpose second-order analysis capabilities Then use these capabilities for final design of anything
beyond basic 2D rectangular frames
B2

Recommendation: Thoroughly benchmark & verify

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

2nd-Order Analysis with ASD Loads Applied Load Ratio W2 W1 Applied Load 1.6WASD WASD

2nd-Order Analysis with ASD Loads

Analyze for 1.6x

Divide by 1.6x

R1 R2 Ratio >

Component force

RASD R1.6ASD

Component force

Due to 2nd-order effects, calculated internal forces are NOT proportional to applied loads.

When using an explicit 2nd-order analysis: factor loads x 1.6; run analysis; divide results by 1.6 When using amplifiers (e.g., B1 & B2), simply include 1.6 factor in the load term of the amplifier, i.e., Pr, where = 1.6 in ASD

Reduction in Stiffness
due to residual stresses & material yielding The ELM handles these effects on the overall resistance implicitly, via the use of: The AISC column strength curve + Calculated column effective lengths (KL ) or overall flexural buckling loads (Fe ) The DM handles these effects on the overall resistance explicitly, by: Factoring all stiffness contributions nominally by 0.8 Reducing flexural stiffnesses by an additional b = 4 (1 p ) p for p > 0.5 (p = Pr /Py ) in the structural analysis

P-o and P-o effects

The ELM handles these effects on the overall resistance implicitly, via the use of: The AISC column strength curve + Calculated column effective lengths (KL ) or overall flexural buckling loads (Fe ) with the exception of a new minimum lateral load requirement for gravity-only load combinations The DM handles these effects on the overall resistance explicitly, by: Including a nominal out-of-plumbness (base value o = L / 500) in the structural analysis

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

P-o and P-o effects

o = L /500 = maximum tolerance from the AISC Code of Standard Practice Recommendations for handling the P-o effect: Explicitly cant the frame geometry if facilitated by the analysis software
Easier to understand and automate for general cases

Base Analysis & Design Methods in AISC (2005)

Attribute Effective Length Method (ELM) Second-order elastic(1) None(2) Direct Analysis Method (DM) Second-order elastic(1) 0.002Yi (or nominal out-ofplumbness of o/L = 0.002) 0.8 * Nominal, except EIeff = 0.8bEI if Pr > 0.5Py Pn based on L (no K) (Pn = QPy in some cases)

Analysis Type Notional Load

Apply notional loads Ni = 0.002Yi if explicit canting of the frame geometry is not facilitated by the analysis software

Effective Stiffness

Nominal

Axial Strength Pn
(1) (2)

Pn based on KL(3)

Includes first-order elastic analysis with amplifiers Minimum lateral load of 0.002Yi required for gravity-only combinations (3) K = 1 allowed when sidesway amplification < 1.1

Required Forces & Beam-Column Interaction Checks

Effective Length Method Direct Analysis Method

Modified AISC DP-13 Example

Exterior columns: Interior columns: Beams: Beam span lengths: Story height: Unfactored Loads:

W12x65 W8x31 W24x62 40 ft 20 ft D = 1.0 kip/ft S = 1.2 kip/ft W = 10 kips

Fy = 50 ksi E = 29,000 ksi

LRFD Load Combinations: LC1: 1.2D + 1.6S LC2: 1.2D + 0.5S + 1.6W

Pr/Pc + 8/9 (Mr/Mc) = 1 Pr/2Pc + Mr/Mc = 1

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

Summary of Results, Modified DP-13 Example

Summary of Results, Modified DP-13 Example

Reqd Forces & Str. Chks, Critical Leeward Beam-Column, LC2

DM ELM DM ELM Fraction of design load corresponding to U.C. = 1.0, leeward beam-column LC1 LC2 Direct Analysis 1.18 0.95 Effective Length 1.05 0.81

17 % more strength 118 % greater moment

DM vs. ELM
Both methods are legitimate The DM gives a more accurate answer in general The DM is more sensitive to the 2nd-order analysis accuracy Both P- and P- effects must be captured accurately The ELM requires some restrictions to control its lack of accuracy for certain structure types: Minimum lateral load of 0.002Yi for gravity-only load combinations 2nd / 1st < 1.5

DM vs. ELM
The DM simplifies the resistance calculations by: Directly addressing overall stability effects in the analysis calculation of Pr & Mr Eliminating the need for K factors The DM applies in the same logical and consistent way for all structure types

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

First-Order Analysis Method (FOM)

Section C2b of AISC (2005) gives the requirements for the First-Order Analysis Method (FOM) design based on a first-order analysis, no 2nd-order analysis required The FOM is really just the DM IN DISGUISE, COMBINED

Stiffness Reduction for the DM

Use 0.8E to reduce all elastic contributions to the vvstiffness (do not reduce E in component resistance eqs.) Reduce EI of members with Pr / Py > 0.5 by an vvadditional b = 4 (Pr /Py ) (1 Pr /Py )

WITH AN APPROXIMATE 2nd-ORDER ANALYSIS

Applicable only to rectangular frame geometries (unless you really know what you are doing!) Based on an assumed B2 = 2nd / 1st = 1.5 (1.71 using the DM reduced stiffness) Based on the use of the maximum = 1st from all the stories as a uniform over the full height of the structure, to account for the overall P- effects

Note: For frames in which the second-order effects are small, the 0.8 stiffness reduction has a negligible effect on the calculated internal forces

Nominal Out-of-Plumbness for the DM

Use the base out-of-plumb tolerance from the AISC Code of Standard Practice o/L = 0.002 Larger values of o/L should be used where a more liberal tolerance is permitted Smaller values of o/L may be used where appropriate controls are placed on the constructed geometry

Notional Load = Out-of-Plumbness Effect

= Pr(i+1) x 0.002L / L

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

Out-of-Plumbness Notional Load: Nonrectangular Frames

Out-of-Plumbness Notional Load: Nonrectangular Frames

Example 12 of Design Guide

Relaxation of Out-of-Plumbness Requirements in the DM If 2nd / 1st < 1.5 (2nd / 1st < 1.71 based on reduced stiffness): o/L = 0.002 can be neglected in lateral load combinations

Why Pn(L) in the DM?

To capture any potential non-sway member failure under large axial compression Alternative approach (extension to Specification): The axial resistance in the plane of bending Pni may be taken equal to QPy when
Pr < 0.1Pe(Li) or An appropriate o = 0.001Li is included in the DM analysis

Torsional, torsional-flexural and/or lateral-torsional buckling limit states still must be addressed based on the actual unbraced lengths in calculating Pn & Mn Use Pn(L) = min (Pn(Lx), Pn(Ly)) for biaxially-loaded beam-cols.

NASCC 07

Stability Design of Steel Buildings

BASIC CONCEPT of the DM

More information may be found in

Let the 2nd-order analysis do the work for you!

and in the NASCC 07 session on Stability Design of Steel Buildings (TH 8:00-9:30 & F 3:30-5:00)

NASCC 07