This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty

By

Jennifer Modugno

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology August 2010

APPLICATION OF THE 13TH EDITION AISC DIRECT ANALYSIS METHOD TO HEAVY INDUSTRY INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES

Approved by: Dr. Leroy Z. Emkin, Advisor School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Kenneth M. Will School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Abdul-Hamid Zureick School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Michael H. Swanger School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology

Date Approved: June 30, 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like express my thanks for the time and dedication Dr. Leroy Emkin has put in as my advisor and for encouraging me to follow my aspirations in my education and my career. I would also like to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Kenneth Will, Dr. Abdul-Hamid Zureick, and Dr. Michael Swanger for assisting me throughout this process. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude for the support from my officemates through all of the stages in this process; I wish to thank Ben Deaton, Julian Diaz, Jennifer Dunbeck, Efe Gurney, Mustafa Can Kara, and Jong-Han Lee for mentoring me and for providing emotional support throughout my research experience. I would also like to thank my colleague, Dylan Phelan, for assisting me and providing emotional support throughout the editing process. Most importantly, I would like to thank my family, especially my parents Mildred and Emil Modugno, my sister Kathryn, and my brother Emil and his wife Christina. I would not be where I am today without their unwavering support, love, and encouragement. Thank you to everyone; I would not have been able to do this without every one of you.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xii SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Purpose and Objectives .............................................................................................. 1 Motivation .................................................................................................................. 2 Outline of Report ........................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 5 2.1 2.1.1 Design Using the 13th Edition AISC Specifications ................................................. 5 Design for Stability ................................................................................................. 5 General Requirements ...................................................................................... 5 Two Types of Analyses .................................................................................... 7

2.1.1.1 2.1.1.2 2.2

Stability Design Methods in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification .................... 8 Effective Length Method .................................................................................... 9 First-Order Method ........................................................................................... 13 Direct Analysis Method .................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

2.2.3.1 Approximate Direct Analysis Method Using B1 & B2 Force Magnification Factors......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3.2 Rigorous Direct Analysis Method .............................................................. 14

CHAPTER III IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS .......................................................... 17 3.1 Overview of GTSTRUDL ........................................................................................ 17 iv

3.1.1 3.2 3.3

The Use of GTSTRUDL in this Study .............................................................. 18

Explanation of Flow Chart Sequence ....................................................................... 18 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER IV MODEL 1 – SMALL INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE ............................ 27 4.1 Case 1 – No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing ..................................... 27 Implementation Sequence ................................................................................. 27 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence Case 1 ................................. 29 Discussion of Results Case 1 ............................................................................ 47

4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.2

Case 2 – With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column .................................. 49 Implementation Sequence ................................................................................. 49 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence for Case 2 ............................ 50 Discussion of Results Case 2 ............................................................................ 60

4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.3

Case 3 – With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing .............................. 61 Implementation Sequence for Case 3 ................................................................ 62 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence for Case 3 ............................ 62 Discussion of Results Case 3 ............................................................................ 76

4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.4

Case 4 – With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column .................................... 78 Implementation Sequence for Case 4 ................................................................ 78 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence for Case 4 ............................ 79 Discussion of Results Case 4 ............................................................................ 89

4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.5

Comparison of Final Weight of all Four Cases Studied of Small Industrial Structure ................................................................................................................... 91

CHAPTER V MODEL 2 – NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BOILER BUILDING ......... 93 5.1 Implementation Sequence ........................................................................................ 93 v

......... 125 APPENDIX E: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5a..........................gti........... 131 APPENDIX G: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6a....... LinearAnalysis......gti ... 123 APPENDIX D: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4a.......3 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence ..... NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI...................gti . Redesign........gti ..... 135 APPENDIX I: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6c............... 137 APPENDIX J: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File 3b..... 113 6....2 Further Research ....................................... AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional...gti..2 5.....................gti .................. 114 APPENDIX A: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 1.......................... NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.... STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command..... 129 APPENDIX F: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5b............................5...... LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional................1 Implications for the Engineer ..gti ................... Redesign.. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional..................................... 133 APPENDIX H: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4b................. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional............ 119 APPENDIX C: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 3a.... 111 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 141 APPENDIX L: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7a........... 94 Discussion of Results .............gti ....... 113 6.... & CodeCheck_Notional......................................... 143 vi .....gti ....... IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC............... LinearAnalysis...................... AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional....... AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.....gti ............... 116 APPENDIX B: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 2.gti ........................gti....... 139 APPENDIX K: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4c..... & CodeCheck_Notional...

... 173 APPENDIX Y: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 2.. NonlinearAnalysis.............gti ..... LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.gti... 164 APPENDIX U: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 7a.. 180 APPENDIX AA: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4a.... 145 APPENDIX N: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 99.....gti ...... LinearAnalysis. 156 APPENDIX R: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 4a. 182 vii ...gti. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. NonlinearAnalysis.gti ........ IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC........ & CodeCheck_Notional.. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional...... Redesign.. 149 APPENDIX P: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 2...... 176 APPENDIX Z: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 3a...... 166 APPENDIX V: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 7b....... 171 APPENDIX X: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 1.....gti .........gti.....APPENDIX M: Model 1 – Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7b.. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI......... AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.......gti.gti....gti .... & CodeCheck_Notional.gti . STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command....gti..gti .......... 152 APPENDIX Q: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 3a..gti ...... & CodeCheck_Notional.... LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.gti. Redesign.............. 168 APPENDIX W: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 99... 162 APPENDIX T: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 6a.... STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command... IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. 158 APPENDIX S: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 5a...... Redesign. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions........ 147 APPENDIX O: Model 1 – Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 1.

gti .... 192 APPENDIX AF: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6c... Redesign.......gti..... 186 APPENDIX AC: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5b.. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command....gti . NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI... Redesign..... 194 APPENDIX AG: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7a. LinearAnalysis. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional...... IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC..gti . & CodeCheck_Notional.. 209 APPENDIX AM: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 4a....gti . AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.. 196 APPENDIX AH: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7b........gti......gti . 205 APPENDIX AL: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 3a... 211 APPENDIX AN: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 5a. 215 APPENDIX AO: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 6a.gti... & CodeCheck.gti ... 219 viii ........ NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions..... 200 APPENDIX AJ: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 1... LinearAnalysis.gti.... Redesign........... 198 APPENDIX AI: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 99....APPENDIX AB: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5a.gti ....... 217 APPENDIX AP: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 7a.gti . LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.... & CodeCheck_Notional......... & CodeCheck_Notional... Redesign...... NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI..gti.....gti ... AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional...... AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.......Notional.. 202 APPENDIX AK: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 2... 188 APPENDIX AD: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6a...... LinearAnalysis.... NonlinearAnalysis...... 190 APPENDIX AE: Model 1 – Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4b.. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI...gti .

AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.gti ....... 228 APPENDIX AU: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 2.............gti .........gti .......gti ........gti .............. 261 APPENDIX BE: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 7b..... Redesign... NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions..... Redesign...... NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI... 241 APPENDIX AV: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 3a......... NonlinearAnalysis....gti ....................... 226 APPENDIX AT: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 1..... & CodeCheck_Notional..... AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional..................... AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional........ 259 APPENDIX BD: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 7a.. & CodeCheck......gti ... NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI..... 257 APPENDIX BC: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 6c....... 253 APPENDIX BA: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 6a............gti .. Redesign.gti ........... NonlinearAnalysis.. 224 APPENDIX AS: Model 1 – Simple Industrial Structure File: 0........ Redesign... LinearAnalysis.. 221 APPENDIX AR: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 99.......... Redesign.....Model&Indloads...........gti .................Notional...gti .........gti. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.......gti. & CodeCheck_Notional.. LinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.............. LinearAnalysis. 249 APPENDIX AY: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 5b..........Notional_Loads......smooth.....................APPENDIX AQ: Model 1 – Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 7b....gti .......gti ... 263 ix .... 255 APPENDIX BB: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 4b.. 251 APPENDIX AZ: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 5c... 246 APPENDIX AX: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 5a.... 244 APPENDIX AW: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 4a.... & CodeCheck_Notional....

..............gti........... 266 APPENDIX BG: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 0...................................SmoothMemberProperties........... 268 REFERENCES ...................... NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.gti ............................................. 270 x .................................APPENDIX BF: Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 99.........

............................ 77 Table 4: Total Weight of Steel – Case 4 Small Industrial Structure .....Boiler Building .LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Total Weight of Steel – Case 1 Small Industrial Structure ...... 61 Table 3: Total Weight of Steel – Case 3 Small Industrial Structure .................................. 92 Table 6: Total Weight of Steel ... 48 Table 2: Total Weight of Steel – Case 2 Small Industrial Structure ......................................................................... 90 Table 5: Final Weight of Structure Comparison –Small Industrial Structure ........................................................ 112 xi .......

............................ 58 Figure 7: Case 2 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence ..... 59 Figure 8: Stick Model Case 3 and 4 Small Industrial Structure ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 9: Case 3 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence .......................................... 109 Figure 15: Boiler Building Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence .................................... 75 Figure 11: Case 4 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence .............................. 46 Figure 6: Case 2 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence .................................................................................. 45 Figure 5: Case 1 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence ...................................................................................................................... 110 xii ......................................................................................................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: P-∆ and P-δ effect on a beam-column .................................................... 87 Figure 12: Case 4 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence ..... 74 Figure 10: Case 3 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence ........ 28 Figure 4: Case 1 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence ........................................................................................................ 20 Figure 3: Stick Model of Case 1 and Case 2 of Small Industrial Structure .................... 8 Figure 2: Flow Chart of Sequential Implementation Process ........................... 88 Figure 13: Stick Model of Boiler Building ....................................... 95 Figure 14: Boiler Building Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence .................................................................................................................

This study will help serve as a guide for the systematic approach for the practicing engineer to apply this method to analyze and design such complex steel frame structures using the computer-aided software called GTSTRUDL. and then were critically evaluated by their applicability and limitations. To accomplish this purpose. The first model was a simple industrial structure and the second model was a more complex nuclear power plant boiler building. First-Order.SUMMARY The objective of this study was to understand and develop procedures for the use of the AISC 2005 Specification's Direct Analysis Method for the analysis and design of heavy-industry industrial structures. The relevant 13th Edition AISC stability analysis methods (Effective Length. and to determine if there will be any consequences to the practicing engineer in using this method. two analytical models were studied using the Direct Analysis Method. and Direct Analysis Methods) were researched in the 2005 Specification as well as in available technical literature. xiii . to layout a systematic approach for the engineer to analyze and design using this method.

and Direct Analysis Methods) were researched in the 2005 Specification as well as in available technical literature. GTSTRUDL. an analytical approach was coupled with a review of technical literature. and then summarized. First-Order. 1 . The first model was a simple industrial structure and the second model was a more complex nuclear power plant boiler building. The relevant 13th Edition AISC stability analysis methods (Effective Length. was used to create. The limitations and inapplicability of the approximate Effective Length and First-Order Methods are given. To accomplish this purpose. Two models were studied using the Direct Analysis Method. a computer-aided structural engineering program which excels in the analysis and design of structures. analyze. and design the industrial structure models in this study.CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1. which leads the engineer to use the rigorous Direct Analysis Method which is the only applicable method of nonlinear analysis and which is far more accurate when compared to the other approximate methods. and to determine if there will be any consequences to the practicing engineer in using this method.1 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to understand and develop procedures for the use of the AISC 2005 Specification's [1] Direct Analysis Method for the analysis and design of heavy-industry industrial structures. to layout a systematic approach for the engineer to analyze and design using this method.

complicated steel frame structures with significant loadings are being designed by practicing engineers for strength and stability of the system. Traditionally. has been used to conduct a stability analysis. 2 . This study will help serve to give a systematic approach for the practicing engineer to apply this method to analyze and design such complex steel frame structures using computer software. The Direct Analysis Method (i. both the Effective Length and First-Order methods operate under idealized assumptions and have many limitations and restrictions associate with them. the Direct Analysis Method was used to analyze the analytical models of this study. such as those found in heavy industry.1. then the approximate methods are simply not applicable. The 13th Edition AISC and its 2005 Specification contains approximate methods (Effective Length and First-Order Methods) to analyze the stability of a structure. the Effective Length Method. many experienced structural engineers have not been introduced to the Direct Analysis Method and how to implement it in the analysis and design of large and complex industrial structures. or nearly the same as the behavior of the excessively simplified structure models upon which the formulation of the approximate methods is based.2 Motivation In the engineering profession. hereinafter referring to as a nonlinear geometric elastic analysis) must be used when the limitations of the approximate methods are not met. these methods are not suitable when designing more complex structures for stability. However. if a steel frame structure does not behave under its design load conditions in a manner that is the same as. which is based on a first order linear elastic analysis.. However. which fall outside the limitations of the Effective Length and First-Order approximate analysis methods. Therefore. Therefore. For example.e.

loading conditions. boundary conditions.Benchmark studies that have been conducted on the Direct Analysis Method have been for smaller more idealized academic structures such as a cantilever compression column with a lateral load at the top of the column and a simply-supported beam-column under uniform transverse loading..3 Outline of Report The specific components of this report are described below. 1. Chapter 4 presents the first analytical model that was studied using the Direct Analysis Method approach for designing for the strength and stability of a structure. both of which are found in the 13th Edition AISC Commentary [1]. The two structural models used in this study were a small industrial structure and a more complex nuclear power plant boiler building. Chapter 2 presents a review of the technical literature of designing for stability using the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification. Chapter 3 provides an introduction to the computer-aided structural engineering program GTSTRUDL which was used in this study. The general implementation procedure for analyzing and designing structures using the Direct Analysis Method and GTSTRUDL is mapped out for the reader. as well as excessively simplified plane and space frames with highly regular geometries. Rather. A conclusion that the Direct Analysis Method is valid for general frame structures cannot be made from studies on the behavior of such excessively simplified structure models. The 3 . this purpose of this study is to understand the use of the Direct Analysis Method for the analysis and design of more complex structures found in heavy industry. none of which represent the behavior of industrial steel frame structures. etc.

Chapter 5 presents the second analytical model studied using the Direct Analysis Method approach. The second model studied was a nuclear power plant boiler building that was far more complex than the first model. 4 .first model was a small industrial structure that was studied with and without smoothing. Chapter 6 summarizes the significant conclusions of this study and provides recommendations for future research. as well as what impact the addition of a node at mid-column of each column would have on the stability of the structure.

stability of the structure as a whole as well as strength and stability of each of its components must be provided [1].1 Design for Stability Stability has become a major concern when designing steel frame structures. When designing for the stability of a structure. A structural instability is defined as a structure or a structural component's inability to resist applied loadings in the deformed state of the structure or any of its component parts. only a very brief overview of stability analysis and design provisions is given.1 Design Using the 13th Edition AISC Specifications The 13th Edition (2005) AISC Specification was used in this study to explore the stability of steel frame building structures.1 General Requirements To design for strength and stability in a structure.1. therefore. This chapter assumes the reader is familiar with the 13th Edition AISC Specification and how to design for strength and stability. 2.1. and Direct Analysis Methods. The three methods of stability analysis given by the 2005 Specification: the Effective Length.1. and their limitations are explained within this chapter. the following considerations are mandatory: 5 . FirstOrder. and particularly how the Direct Analysis Method is applied to industrial structures.CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 2. 2. A first-order analysis is simply not sufficient to design for stability for any but the simplest of structural configurations and applied loads and thus a second-order nonlinear geometric analysis is required [4].

or equivalent lateral load resisting systems. the provisions of the AISC 13th Edition 2005 Specification must be satisfied [1].1. 2.the lateral stability is provided by the flexural stiffness of connected beams and columns. biaxial shear. The influence of second-order effects (P-∆ and P-δ effects). 3.the lateral stability of the structure is provided by diagonal bracing or shear walls. and 5. Braced-frame and shear-wall systems . 4.combination of the above systems where requirements must be met for the respective systems. To provide individual member strength and stability. Gravity Framing Systems . braced frames. and biaxial bending deformations of members. The overall stability of the system is supplied by the type of structural system provided and which are listed below: 1. 2. 3. torsion. and nonlinear geometric deformations of finite elements. 4.the lateral stability is provided by moment frames. All component deformations that contribute to the nonlinear geometric behavior of the structure. 6 . Combined Systems . Geometric imperfections (initial out-of-plumbness) due to construction procedures. Moment-frame systems . Member stiffness reductions due to residual stress. Nonlinear geometric axial. shear walls.

A second-order elastic analysis is far more accurate than a first-order elastic analysis in the design of a frame for stability. or the member ends. acting on the relative transverse displaced location of the joints. The second-order elastic analysis must account for the P-∆ and P-δ effects.1.2. cannot be used for an accurate stability design of a structure. and causes an additional P-δ moment [10]. a second-order elastic analysis is necessary for such a solution. The P-δ effects are the effects of compression axial forces acting on the flexural deflected shape of the member between its ends.1. In addition. the material of the structure is assumed to behave linear-elastically [12]. The P-∆ effects are the effects of gravity loads. P. The loads and displacements are understood to have a linear relationship [12]. causing additional forces beyond those computed in a linear elastic analysis. These transverse displacements are relative to the member chord which runs between member ends. The P-∆ and P-δ effects are illustrated in Figure 1. both displacement compatibility and force equilibrium must be satisfied using the deformed configuration of the structure.2 Two Types of Analyses A first-order elastic analysis is performed on the basis of the undeformed configuration of a structure. In a second-order elastic analysis. 7 . The material of the structure under a first-order elastic analysis is assumed to act in a linear-elastic manner. A first-order elastic analysis however.

overall system stability is not directly checked using the interaction equations H1-1a and H1-1b in Chapter H of the Specification.Figure 1: P-∆ and P-δ effect on a beam-column 2. One alternative to this approach is the First-Order Analysis Method which focuses on using a first-order elastic analysis to design frames [2]. In the 1989 AISC LRFD Specification. The Effective Length Method and the First-Order Analysis Method are considered indirect methods of stability design. The system is assumed to be stable if the most critical member within the system does not fail the beam-column strength checks [15]. and are used when the second-order effects on a structure are not very large and may be ignored 8 .2 Stability Design Methods in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification The AISC 13th Edition 2005 Specification has significant changes from previous AISC Specifications pertaining to the provisions for stability analysis and design [2]. The traditional approach found in previous AISC Specifications was modified and is now referred to as the Effective Length Method.

[13]. will increase the magnitude of load effects more than those predicted by this traditional method [2]. like out-of-plumbness and residual stresses in the members. K. EA) [1]. The effective length factor. A more rigorous and versatile alternative approach to the Effective Length Method was introduced in the 2005 AISC Specification and is referred to as the Direct Analysis Method [2]. namely that the Effective Length Method can underestimate the internal forces within members. important initial imperfections. and uses effective buckling lengths rather than the actual unbraced lengths of the column members [9]. However. 2. there will be additional internal moments due to initial imperfections and the amplification of these imperfections by second-order effects. to determine if the frame meets this drift requirement and thus determining if the approximate analysis methods are applicable. The Effective Length Method is an approximate method that is derived from elastic buckling theory. the 2005 AISC Specification restricts the use of this method to frames in which the ratio of the secondorder drift to the first-order drift is less than or equal to 1. To address this limitation.5 [2]. For instance.1 Effective Length Method The Effective Length Method is the traditional analysis procedure and is based on a firstorder analysis of an elastic structure using nominal geometry and nominal elastic stiffness (EI. The residual stress and geometric imperfections which affect the stability of the structure are accounted for indirectly in the interaction equations through magnification factors. will not be determined by this method [15]. a second-order analysis 9 . There are limitations using this approach. For example. must be computed to determine the effective buckling lengths and then calculate the column strength.2.

Second. Lastly. the rotations at both ends of 10 . every time a change is made on the structure. therefore multiple second-order analyses must automatically be conducted to determine if the use of an approximate method is valid. Additionally. meaning the rotations at one end and the other end of the girders are equal and opposite in direction [4]. The alignment charts and equations are only valid for structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior for which the alignment charts are based. For any given structure. Fourth. all members are prismatic and behave elastically. When the girders are bent in double curvature. If a second-order analysis must be performed in order to determine if the Effective Length Method is applicable to a structure. They were formulated on the basis of highly idealized conditions that seldom exist in real-world heavy industry industrial structures.must be conducted. the girders are bent in single curvature. For an unbraced frame the assumptions for the determination of the K factor are the same with one exception. the author fails to see how this method will save the engineer computational time or make the analysis simpler. during the design process a multitude of changes are possible and probable. such as a change in loading or geometry. a new second-order analysis must be performed. at any given joint the restraining moment imposed by the beam is distributed to the columns proportional to the column stiffnesses (EI/L). buckling occurs simultaneously for all columns within a given story. at buckling the girders are bent in double curvature rather than single curvature as was the case of the braced frame. the alignment charts found in the AISC 13th Edition Commentary are used. For a braced frame the determination of the K factor is based on a few assumptions. First. the axial forces in the beams are considered negligible. Third. To determine the K factors for the frame members.

Therefore. Thus the need for a more rigorous nonlinear geometric analysis that is far more accurate for the prediction of stability. There is no reason to believe that any assumptions regarding the stability behavior of members in general industrial structures are sufficiently valid to justify the use of the K factor alignment charts. The code is suggesting that adjustments or approximations must be made to previous assumptions.” As mentioned in the quotation excerpt above. G. One limitation is that the method does not give an accurate indication of how the members interact within the structural system directly. and thus adjustments must be taken into account. In addition to all of the assumptions made when developing the alignment charts. adjustments must be made to the calculations for the relative stiffness factor. for both a braced and unbraced frame. but rather behave more like a partially restrained (PR) connection. if the idealized conditions are not met. rather the effective length factor K is used to predict 11 . Additionally. A beam's end condition may not be a FR connection.the girders are equal in magnitude and direction [4]. The 13th Edition AISC Commentary comments on the assumptions of these highly idealized conditions as follows: “It is important to remember that the alignment charts are based on the assumptions of idealized conditions previously discussed and that these conditions seldom exist in real structures. there are other major limitations to the Effective Length Method approach. adjustments are required when the assumptions are violated and the alignment charts are still to be used. This makes no sense since it implies that the Effective Length Method is applicable to general structures by replacing new assumptions with old assumptions. the beam-column connections are assumed to be fully restrained (FR) connections.

In this two-stage process. which in large industrial structures can be quite numerous. Another less fundamental limitation to this method is the difficulty in calculating the K factor for each of the isolated column members. “engineering judgment” must be used when calculating these K factors [15]. so a more computer efficient method that can be competitive in engineering practice must be implemented [3]. and thus there is no way to verify whether the members can sustain the design loads [3]. however the actual failure mode of a structure may not be elastic and therefore the strength and stability of the structure cannot be accurately described. The failure mode of the structure is assumed to be an elastic buckling mode which is the basis by which the K factor is determined. The Direct Analysis Method was introduced in the 2005 AISC Specification as a more versatile and accurate approach in engineering practice. The K factors must be determined for each of the column members. The majority of present design procedures are computer-based. a linear elastic analysis is used to calculate the forces acting on individual members within the structural system and an inelastic analysis is used to determine the strength of these members. Probably the most serious limitation of the Effective Length Method is the two-stage design process. making it totally impractical for a computerbased design.this interaction. this method cannot be considered as “generalized”' for steel frameworks. There is no way to guarantee the compatibility between the isolated members and the structural system as a whole. Considering all of the idealized assumptions and limitations of the Effective Length Method. 12 .

the restrictions that the First-Order Method operates under are highly ideal conditions that rarely exist in industrial structures. This method uses the nominal member sizes and stiffnesses to complete a first-order linear elastic analysis.2.5. A value of K = 1 for the effective length factor is permitted when the First-Order Analysis Method is used. therefore the engineer is not saving any time by doing the approximate First-Order Method because a second-order analysis is required to check the drift requirement. Section 2.2b [2]. just like the requirement for the Effective Length Method [1]. One restriction is that the ratio of first-order drift to secondorder drift must be less than or equal to a value of 1. the Direct Analysis Method should be used for both the stability and strength design of such structures.2 First-Order Method One of the alternative approaches to the Effective Length Method is the simplified firstorder method given in 13th Edition AISC Specification Chapter C. When these restrictions cannot be met.3 Direct Analysis Method The AISC 2005 Specification gives two options to perform the direct analysis method: an approximate first-order analysis method using the B1 and B2 force magnification factors or a rigorous second-order analysis method. 13 . a second-order analysis must be conducted each time a change is made to the structure to see if an approximate method is valid. the required compressive strength of all members that contribute to the lateral stability of the structure must be less than half of the yield strength of the members [1]. Like the Effective Length Method.2. Additionally. Again. however there are important restrictions as to when the method may be used. 2.2.

However the B1 and B2 force magnification factors are only accurate if the structure behaves in the same manner as the behavior of the highly simplified structure models upon which the formulation of the force magnification factors are based on.1 Approximate Direct Analysis Method Using B1 & B2 Force Magnification Factors The 2005 Specification permits an approximate second-order analysis to be conducted by using the B1 and B2 force magnification factors to scale the forces from a conventional first-order analysis.3.” [1] This author disagrees strongly with the above statement in the context of any but the most simple of structural configurations where second-order effects are completely negligible.2. particularly industrial structures.” [1] The flexural and axial stiffness reductions for the members are accounted for in the approximate force magnification factors. Additionally the AISC 2005 Commentary states: “Methods that modify first-order analysis results through second-order amplifiers (for example.2.3.2. provided the B1 and B2 factors are based on the reduced stiffnesses defined in Equations A-7-2 and A-7-3. 2. The following is an excerpt from the 2005 Specification: “It is permitted to perform the analysis using… the first-order analysis method of Section C2.2 Rigorous Direct Analysis Method The Direct Analysis Method was introduced in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification in Appendix 7 as a more rigorous analysis method capable of more accurately predicting 14 . B1 and B2 factors) are in some cases accurate enough to constitute a rigorous analysis. Using approximate force magnification factors does not constitute a rigorous secondorder analysis because the B1 and B2 factors are formulated using excessively simplified models that do not reflect the behavior of general steel frame structures.

Unlike the Effective Length Method. the Direct Analysis Method is applicable to all structures [14].stability of steel frame structures. The second requirement is on the initial imperfections such as the out-of-plumbness of columns which can be accounted for by either directly modeling these imperfections or by applying notional loads based on the nominal geometry of the structure. The flexural stiffness reduction is used for all members whose flexural stiffness is considered to contribute to the lateral stability of the structure. the Direct Analysis Method is far more versatile in that an elastic or an inelastic analysis can be performed [1]. moment. The Direct Analysis Method accounts for geometric imperfections and stiffness reductions directly in the analysis [2]. The first requirement is that a rigorous second-order analysis that accounts for both the P-∆ and P-δ effects must be conducted. Similarly the axial stiffness reduction is applied to all members whose axial stiffness contributes to the stability [1]. Additionally. both flexural (EI*) and axial (EA*). This method can be used to design all types of steel framed structures including braced. and the B1. Applying these stiffness reductions to only some of the 15 . The Direct Analysis Method more accurately determines the load effects in the structure and eliminates the need for K factors. Reducing the stiffness of the members accounts for the possibility of yielding in slender columns or inelastic softening in intermediate or stocky columns. Notional loads are used to represent the effects of initial out-of-plumb imperfections due to construction tolerances [14]. and combined framing systems. Requirements are placed on the Direct Analysis Method to accurately calculate the second-order effects. The third requirement is that the analysis is conducted using reduced stiffness. B2 Force Magnification Method all of which have substantial limitations. the First-Order Analysis Method.

the stiffness reductions can conservatively be applied to all members in the structure [14]. Due to the nonlinear behavior. the load cases can be quite numerous and performing a nonlinear analysis for each load case can become quite cumbersome. Second-order effects are highly nonlinear and therefore superposition principles are not valid for a second-order analysis. a second-order analysis is required to be carried out for each applicable load case [2].members can cause artificial distortions of the structure under the imposed loadings. 16 . to avoid this. In a large industrial structure. This study aims to demonstrate the cycling process required of the engineer to analyze and design by the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification for strength and stability of a steel frame structure. Two models: a simplified industrial structure and a nuclear power plant boiler building are analyzed and designed by using a combination of traditional linear elastic stiffness analyses and rigorous nonlinear elastic analyses. This study focuses on a rigorous second-order analysis using the Direct Analysis Method in an efficient manner. possibly causing redistribution of forces.

CHAPTER III: IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The objective of this chapter is to present in detail the sequential process necessary to analyze and design a heavy industry industrial structure using the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method as implemented in GTSTRUDL. and internal member 17 . and perform static. GTSTRUDL has a unique ability to process multiple text files and user-data files which allow the engineer to better organize and access information. and other important modeling properties using pull-down menus and graphical tools. joint displacements. The other interface is a command driven text and menu oriented interface in which the user can directly specify commands using standard structural engineering vocabulary. member properties. Then each step in the sequential process is explained in detail. GTSTRUDL contains two powerful interfaces between the user and the software. One such interface is the graphical user-friendly interface called GTMenu which allows the user to visually create the structure and apply its geometry. loading conditions. A brief overview of the structural engineering software system GTSTRUDL is given first. The output that is important to the engineer such as support joint reactions. dynamic. and nonlinear analyses. The engineer can create a highly detailed model of the structure using GTSTRUDL. linear.1 Overview of GTSTRUDL GTSTRUDL (Georgia Tech Structural Design Language) is a structural engineering software system that aids engineers in designing and analyzing a wide range of structures. 3.

The process of designing these models for stability is highly iterative involving both linear analysis and code checks as well as nonlinear analysis and code checks. are reported in a user-friendly and highly orderly fashion and can be either displayed on an interactive graphical interface or written to a text file for later review [6]. perform linear elastic and nonlinear elastic analyses. form load combinations. 3.section forces. Quantities of steel (total weight) were output after each design was performed. and based on the rigorous Direct Analysis Method. 3. The nonlinear analysis utilizes the Direct Analysis Method specified in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification.1. These results were tabulated and compared to illustrate how the process of designing in accordance to the 2005 Specification proceeded. This process is cycled through until the lightest weight stable 18 . The text input files are set-up so each step of the mapped out sequential process is a separate file to make the process extremely clear to the engineer and to ease the ability of manipulating all required information.1 The Use of GTSTRUDL in this Study The computer software GTSTRUDL was used to design the two models explained in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report for the stability and strength design of steel frame structures by using both linear elastic and nonlinear elastic analysis computations.2 Explanation of Flow Chart Sequence Figure 2 shows a flow chart which maps out the sequential process to analyze and design an industrial structure pursuant to the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification. and design and code check all members. The command driven interface was used in this study to create sequential files to create the model.

19 . load conditions and independent design load conditions. Define Model: Defines all model attributes to be analyzed and designed including the geometry (joint coordinates). Select All Members: Design lightest weight shapes for strength and stability pursuant to the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification based on results from first linear elastic stiffness analysis (step 2). 2. 3. Linear Stiffness Analysis: Performs a traditional stiffness analysis based on linear elastic analysis. member and material properties.design is found for the structure in question. The square dashed box in the flow chart (Figure 2) describes the traditional iteration of the analysis and design method for strength and stability design using a linear elastic analysis. topology (member incidences). This process can be described as follows: Linear Elastic Analysis: 1. The linear elastic analysis results are used to perform a preliminary design for the structural model. The flow chart is explained in detail as follows: Step-by-Step Analysis and Design Process The actual files names to implement the sequences for the two models can be found in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. Chapter 4 gives the command file sequence for the simple industrial structure and Chapter 5 gives the command file sequence for the more complex nuclear power plant boiler building.

Figure 2: Flow Chart of Sequential Implementation Process [11] 20 .

Code Check: Perform code checks to determine if each of the selected members have sufficient strength and stiffness using the LRFD method and the provisions in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification. If many different member shapes are specified. 7. they are stored in a separate group. If any of these members fail these design checks. smoothing all beams to be the same size on a given floor or all columns of a given story to be the same size. 5. called “FAILCK” for redesigning purposes. 6. Select ‘FAILCHK’: Members in the group ‘FAILCHK’ that do not meet the provisions in the 2005 AISC Specification are redesigned using an interaction equation unity check 21 . which may be impractical or inefficient because a large variety of member shapes could be selected and each member may be a different size. then fabrication will be more expensive and different connections must be designed and constructed which also adds to the cost. the resulting design after a linear or nonlinear elastic analysis is the lightest weight design. of the members within the group and then requiring all members within that group to have the same section properties as the controlling member [8]. “AX”. For design and construction purposes. Smooth Member Sizes: Specified member groups can be required to have the same member properties by taking either the largest cross-sectional area. or bending section modulus about the local Y or Z axes. Without smoothing. there are advantages to smoothing a structure.4. For ease of construction in the field. may be more cost effective and easier to assemble. “SZ” or “SZ”. Linear Stiffness Analysis: Perform a linear elastic stiffness analysis after member shapes are selected (Step 3) and member groups are smoothed (Step 4) to account for the redistribution of forces in the structure that results from the selection of members.

smoothing must be specified after every redesign otherwise the lightest weight section will be chosen for each member that satisfies both the analyses and the provisions of the 2005 AISC Specification [8]. pursuant to the AISC 13th Edition 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method using the rigorous geometric nonlinear analysis procedure.which requires those members to be overdesigned by a corresponding percentage. and large displacement static analysis. Steps 5 through 8 are performed in an iterative manner until a design is found that satisfies the provisions in the AISC 2005 Specification. Nonlinear Analysis: The first nonlinear elastic analysis. Smooth Member Sizes: Smooth specified member groups. The nonlinear analysis will continue to cycle until it converges or has reached the maximum number of equilibrium correction iterations given by the user. For example an interaction equation unity check value of 0. The nonlinear analysis procedure within GTSTRUDL is a small strain. small rotation.90 corresponds to a 10% overdesign of the members being selected. is based on the design produced by the traditional linear elastic analysis approach described in Steps 1 through 8. meaning all members pass the code check. This process is described as follows: Nonlinear Elastic Analysis: 9. the structural model is analyzed and designed for strength and stability pursuant to the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification. and is solved using a direct iteration technique [7]. and based on the rigorous Direct Analysis Method. 22 . 8. Once a design that satisfies the code is found.

If the traditional design is stable. 11. results from which to formulate a design therefore. 10. Smooth Member Sizes: Member groups are smoothed after all members are redesigned in Step 10 (Using Latest Linear Elastic Stiffness Analysis Results. Using Latest Linear Stiffness Analysis Results. the members must be redesigned based on the previous linear elastic analysis and design (Step 5 through 8) by selecting larger sections for all of the members. Nonlinear Analysis: Performs a new nonlinear elastic analysis based on the redesigned members in Steps 10 (Using Latest Linear Elastic Stiffness Analysis Results. 12. larger members are selected for all of the members rather than only for the ones causing the instability. A structural instability is detected when either the maximum number of cycles is reached before equilibrium convergence or if a zero value lies on the diagonal of the stiffness matrix.Two possibilities result from the first nonlinear elastic analysis: one is that the design by the traditional linear elastic stiffness analysis procedure is stable and the other is that the design by the traditional linear elastic stiffness procedure is unstable. Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members) and 11 (Smooth Member Sizes). Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members). However if the design is unstable then the structure must be redesigned in Step 10 (Using Latest Linear Elastic Stiffness Analysis Results. Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members: When a structural instability is found in the first geometric nonlinear elastic analysis (Step 9) for one of the independent design load cases. 23 . then the design process proceeds to Step 15 (Code Check). Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members). Without any data to show which members or what components are causing the instability in the structure.

14. then the design process proceeds to Step 15 (Code Check).Two possibilities result from the new nonlinear elastic analysis: one is that the design is stable and other is that the design is still unstable. Code Check: If the structure is found to be stable using the Direct Analysis Method. Steps 11 through 14 are performed in an iterative manner until a design that satisfies a geometric nonlinear elastic analysis pursuant to the AISC 13th Edition 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method is achieved. then a linear elastic stiffness analysis is performed on the latest design of the structure to form a basis for the selection of the new member shapes for all of the members in the structure in Step 14 (Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members). 13. therefore larger sections are selected for all members. the following process is completed: 15. all members must be redesigned based on the last linear elastic analysis (Step 13). Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members: When a structural instability due to one or more of the independent load combinations is found after a geometric nonlinear elastic analysis is performed (Step 12). Linear Stiffness Analysis: If the nonlinear elastic analysis (Step 12) yields a structural instability for one of the independent load combinations. However if the design is unstable then the structure must be redesigned in Step 14 (Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members) after performing a linear elastic stiffness analysis on the redesigned structure (Step 13). All members are overdesigned in the redesign of the structure because it is difficult to determine which members contributed to the instability of the structure. If the design is stable. then another code check is performed to determine if all members meet the requirements 24 . Once a design is found that is stable.

Smooth Member Sizes: Member groups are smoothed again after redesigning the members in the group ‘FAILCHK’ (Step 16). Select ‘FAILCHK’: Members in the group ‘FAILCHK’ that do not meet the provisions in the 2005 AISC Specification are redesigned by requiring those selected members to be overdesigned by a certain percentage. must be redesigned in Step 16 (Select ‘FAILCHK’) and then another nonlinear analysis (Step 18) must be performed to determine if the structure is stable. However if the design is unstable then the structure must be redesigned in Step 14 (Reduce Unity Check Value Select All Members) after performing a linear elastic stiffness analysis on the redesigned structure (Step 13). Two possibilities result from the new nonlinear elastic analysis: one is that the new design is stable and other is that the design becomes unstable after being redesigned.in the 2005 Specification. 18. then the design process proceeds to Step 15 (Code Check). 17. this is an iterative process in which any members that failed the code check. Again. 16. If the design is stable. This process is iterated through until a stable design using a geometric nonlinear analysis pursuant to the Direct Analysis Method rigorous nonlinear analysis that also satisfies all of the provisions in the AISC 2005 Specification (passes all code checks) is 25 . Nonlinear Analysis: A new geometric nonlinear elastic analysis must be performed on the structure after the members that failed the code check (Step 15) are redesigned (Step 16) and member groups were smoothed (Step 17) because forces are redistributed with the new selection of steel member shapes.

The notional load reactions are found by performing a linear elastic analysis using the notional loads as the loading on the structure and subtracting that value from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear elastic analysis.3 Limitations There is one important limitation to this study. Superposition principles are not valid for results computed based on a nonlinear analysis. the approximate technique of equivalent lateral loads would not be valid. static analysis and dynamic analysis results can only be combined for a static linear elastic analysis [5]. The notional load reactions are equivalent to the summation of the notional loads and accounts for the possible fictitious base shears that can result from applying notional loads to a structure. The issue of combining response spectra analysis results based on mode superposition procedures with nonlinear static analysis results is not addressed in the 2005 AISC Specification when designing for stability [1].generated. Additionally. due to the irregular loadings and geometry of the building. Analysis for Notional Load Reactions: If all of the members meet the provisions in the 2005 AISC Specification and the design is stable using a geometric nonlinear elastic analysis. then the notional load reactions are found. Once a design is found that satisfies the requirements of the AISC 2005 Specification. Therefore. 3. it was decided to ignore the influence of earthquakes on the structures in this study. due to the inability of combining the dynamic and static results generated coupled with the invalidity of approximating the earthquake loading with equivalent lateral loads. 26 . 19. then the notional load reactions are determined in Step 19.

1 Case 1 – No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing The Case 1 model consisted of: • • • • 100 joints. Four separate cases were studied for the structure: with and without the smoothing process. 178 space frame members. 4. 7 independent load conditions.1 Implementation Sequence The sequence of GTSTRUDL command files that were used to analyze and design Case 1 of the small industrial building for stability are listed below. This Case 1 solution was performed in order to create a worst case scenario in regards to design based on the Direct Analysis Method. and with and without an extra joint at mid-column of all the columns in the structure. and 30 design load conditions. The total weight of the steel structure was tabulated and compared for each of these cases. The first case studied for the simplified industrial structure did not contain extra joints at mid-column nor did it utilize the smoothing process. 4. The command files follow the rigorous sequential process that is explained in detail and illustrated by the flow chart 27 .CHAPTER IV: MODEL 1 – SMALL INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE The small industrial structure was modeled as a moment frame and was comprised entirely of space-frame members (stick models illustrated in Figures 3 and 8).1.

Figure 3: Stick Model of Case 1 and Case 2 of Small Industrial Structure 28 .

and boundary conditions.gti 7a.1. LinearAnalysis. Redesign. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 2. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. are defined.gti 6c.2 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence Case 1 The following is a description of the GTSTRUDL command files listed in Section 4.gti 99. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.1.(Figure 2) in Chapter 3. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.gti 5b. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. Redesign. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. & CodeCheck_Notional. & CodeCheck_Notional. The model attributes to be analyzed and designed including the geometry (joint coordinates). and is defined in the positive Y-up direction for the global coordinate system. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.gti 3b. LinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti 6a.1. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 4a. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. topology (member incidences). member and material properties.1 that are required to analyze and design Case 1 of the small industrial structure in this study: File Name and Description 1.gti The model of the Case 1 small industrial structure contains a total of 100 joints and 178 space frame members.gti 7b. Figure 3 illustrates the geometry and topology of the Case 1 model.gti 5a.gti 4.gti 4c.2 of this paper.gti 3a. Redesign. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.gti 6c.gti 4b. The material properties of steel 29 . NonlinearAnalysis. 1. Each of the command files that were required to design Case 1 of the small industrial structure are described in Section 4.

490 kip/ft3 accordingly).include the modulus of elasticity. 11600 ksi.96 kips. that are described in the commands of this file. 30 . topology. All support conditions are defined as either pinned or fixed conditions. Gravity Loads The gravity dead loads applied to the structure consist of two dead load conditions. 2. a. The independent load conditions are formed into thirty independent design load conditions. and 0. member and material properties. a gravity live load. The commands which define the seven independent load conditions. STATIC_LOADS_with_ Notional_LOAD_Command. The total weight of the initial sizes of the steel frame members in the Case 1 model was 429. IndustrialStructure_No Bracing_13th_Ed_ AISC.gti There are seven independent load conditions consisting of two gravity dead loads. and density (defined as 29000 ksi.gti” can be found in Appendix B. and boundary conditions within file “1. A description of these loading conditions follows. All girders and beams are assigned an initial member shape of W21x101 and all columns are assigned an initial shape of W14x90 to use as a starting point for analysis and design of the structure. four notional load conditions and thirty independent design load conditions within file “2. shear modulus. SW and DL.gti” can be found in Appendix A. The commands which define the geometry. and four lateral (wind) load conditions as well as four notional load conditions acting on the model. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.

The τb factor which is an additional flexural reduction factor as defined in Appendix 7 of the 2005 AISC Specification. WLS. The 2005 Specification permits τb to be taken as a value of 1. Lateral Loads Wind loads are applied to the structure in the north. and west directions. b. is only applicable to structures whose behavior matches the behavior of the simple frame structures by which the formulations were developed. Four notional loads were created as described below and applied laterally to the joints of the structure. WLN. east. LL. south. 31 . described in the commands of this file. and WLW.The gravity live loads applied to the structure consist of the live load condition. Notional loads (Ni) are applied in the lateral directions of the model. where Yi represents the gravity loads applied to the model. The resultant notional loads (Ni = 0.003Yi) are formed in GTSTRUDL by using its “FORM NOTIONAL LOAD” command from the applied gravity dead loads and gravity live loads.002Yi notional load (Ni) requirement in Appendix 7 of the 2005 AISC Specification. c. Notional Loads Notional loads are intended to approximate the additional influence of initial out-of-plumb construction imperfections of the structure on its P-∆ behavior as described in the 2005 AISC Specification. WLE. described in the commands of this file.0 as long as an additional notional load of 0.001Yi is added to the 0.

2 ‘DL’ 1.Name: ‘NX_SW+DL’ .4 ‘DL’ 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6 Name: 1.0 ‘DL’ 1.2 ‘DL’ 1. Design Load Conditions The following thirty design load conditions pursuant to the 2005 AISC Specification were formed using GTSTRUDL’s “FORM LOAD” command from the above independent and notional load loading conditions and are summarized below: Name: 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.4 Name: 1.4 Name: 1.4 ‘NX_SW+DL’ 1.4 Name: 1.6(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘‘SW’ 1.2 'NX_LL' 1.4 ‘NX_SW+DL’ -1.4 ‘DL’ 1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 ‘LL’ 1.2 ‘LL’ 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.0 Name: ‘NZ_SW+DL’ .2 ‘LL’ 1.6(LL) +.2 ‘DL’ 1.4 Name: 1.2 ‘LL’ 1.NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION Formed From: ‘LL’ 1.2 'NX_LL' 1.6(LL) -.2 ‘DL’ 1.4 ‘DL’ 1.2 'NX_LL' -1.4(SW+ DL) .NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6 Name: 1.4(SW+ DL) Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.4 ‘NZ_SW+DL’ -1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 ‘LL’ 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.0 Name: ‘NX_LL’ .4(SW+ DL) + NOTIONAL_Z Formed From ‘SW’ 1.0 ‘DL’ 1.4 ‘NZ_SW+DL’ 1.0 d.0 Name: ‘NZ_LL’ .2 'NX_LL' -1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.4 ‘DL’ 1.6 Name: 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.4(SW+ DL) + NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6 Name: 1.2 ‘DL’ 1.6(LL) Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.4(SW+ DL) .6 32 .6(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.4 ‘DL’ 1.4 Name: 1.NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION Formed From: ‘LL’ 1.

2 ‘LL’ 1.5 Name: 1.5 'WLW' 1.9 Name: 1.NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: 'SW' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.5 Name: 1.5 'WLE' 1.2 'WLW' 0.2(SW+DL) + 0.5 'WLW' 1.5(LL) + 1.6(WLS) ++ NOTIONAL_Z 33 .2 ‘LL’ 1.6 Name: 1.2(SW+DL) + 0.2(SW+DL) + 0.2 ‘LL’ 1.8(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.9 Name: 0.5 Name: 0.8 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.5 'WLE' 1.2 ‘DL’ 1.9 'WLE' 1.5 Name: 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.9(SW+DL) + 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.9 'DL' 0.6(LL) +.6(WLE) ++ NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW' 1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW' 1.2 'NX_LL' 0.2 ‘DL’ 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.2 ‘DL’ 1.6(WLN) -.2 'DL' 1.2 Name: 1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: 'SW' 0.2(SW+DL) + 0.2(SW+DL) + 0.6(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X Formed From: 'SW' 0.2 'WLN' 0.6(WLW) -+ NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW' 1.8 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.6 Name: 1.2 Name: 1.5(LL) + 1.6 Name: 1.2 'NZ_LL' -1.2 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.8(WLW) .6(WLW) -.2 'NX_LL' -0.2 'NZ_LL' -0.2(SW+DL) + 0.2 ‘LL’ 1.9 'DL' 0.6(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 Name: 1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.5(LL) + 1.2 ‘DL’ 1.2 Name: 1.5 Name: 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.9(SW+DL) + 1.2 'LL' 0.6(WLE) +.2 ‘DL’ 1.2(SW+ DL) + 1.2 ‘DL’ 1.2 'NX_LL' -0.NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2(SW+DL) + 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.6(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘‘SW’ 1.8(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 0.2 'WLS' 0.2 'NZ_LL' -1.5(LL) + 1.2 'LL' 0.8(WLN) .2 'NX_LL' 0.2 'LL' 0.6 'NX_SW+DL' -0.2 'NZ_LL' 1.2 ‘DL’ 1.5 'WLN' 1.5(LL) + 1.2 'LL' 0.2(SW+DL) + 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2(SW+DL) + 0.2 'LL' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.8 'NX_SW+DL' -1.9 'WLW' 1.5(LL) + 1.6(WLW) .NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: 'SW' 1.2 ‘DL’ 1.Name: 1.2 'WLE' 0.6(LL) -.8 'NX_SW+DL' 1.6 Name: 1.2(SW+DL) + 0.

2(SW+DL) + 0.2 'NZ_LL' 0.9 'DL' 0.9(SW+DL) + 1.2 'LL' 0.2 'DL' 1.6(WLN) .5 'WLN' 1.2 'NZ_LL' -0.6(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: 'SW' 0.2 'LL' 0. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_ Ed_AISC.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -0.NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: 'SW' 0. 3a. when only geometry. Rather.5(LL) + 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.5 Name: 0. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.Formed From: ‘SW' 1.5 Name: 1. and loading conditions are known and the member shapes required for a stable design are unknown.2 'DL' 1. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.5(LL) + 1.9 'WLS' 1.2(SW+DL) + 0. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti”.6(WLS) +.9 'WLN' 1.9 Name: 0. The commands which 34 .9(SW+DL) + 1.5 'WLS' 1.5 Name: 1.2 'DL' 1.9 'DL' 0.5 'WLS' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 0.gti” and the initial member properties given in file “1. a nonlinear elastic analysis was not performed.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1. topology. a linear elastic analysis was performed as the basis of the first design of the model.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.gti A traditional linear elastic analysis was used to create the first design of the model.NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW' 1. All internal member forces and joint displacements were computed and were used as a basis for a linear elastic design of the Case 1 model.96 kips.9 The total weight of the structure has not changed from file “1.gti”.2 'LL' 0.6(WLN) -+ NOTIONAL_Z Formed From: ‘SW' 1. the weight is 429. Since initial member sizes are usually based on a guess or past experience. A traditional stiffness analysis based on linear elastic analysis was performed based on the design load conditions given in file “2.

The K factor is set to 1. LINEAR_STATIC_ ANALYSIS_Notional. the design converged for a linear elastic analysis with fewer required iterations and therefore less computational time was necessary.0 for all of the members when designing based on a linear elastic analysis. all of the space frame members were designed using W-shapes contained in GTSTRUDL’s W-AISC13 table. 4a. The design was considered to converge after all members passed the code check. After all of the members were designed based on the initial linear elastic analysis results. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. After running several iterations. Steel grade A992 with a yield stress (Fy) of 50ksi is used for all of the steel members within the structure.gti” can be found in Appendix C.describe the traditional linear elastic analysis within file “3a. therefore the lightest W-shapes were chosen for each member. which contains the wide-flange shapes as published in the 13th Edition AISC Manual.gti Following the first linear elastic analysis. After the stiffness analysis was performed on the structure. Members that 35 . The unity check value of 0. The results of the linear elastic analysis for each member were checked against the 2005 AISC Specification to see if all code provisions are satisfied. The process of smoothing was not used on the members to give the worst case design scenario for the engineer.96 kips. the total weight of the steel frame members in the structure was still 429. it was found by overdesigning the members by 7%.93 corresponds to a 7% overdesign of all the members.93. All of the members were designed using an interaction equation unity check of 0. they were reanalyzed with a second linear elastic analysis.

and code checks within file “4a. to be redesigned and reanalyzed in the subsequent files: “5a. & CodeCheck_Notional. The value for the unity check of 0.gti” can be found in Appendix D.gti” and “5b. which was based on the initial member sizes.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0. The commands which define the design based on the initial linear elastic analysis. therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0. After a linear elastic design was found that satisfied the code.gti”.85 was selected by a trial and error process after multiple iterations were performed. Redesign. Members that failed the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions. so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations.49 kips was found after all of the steel members were designed following the first linear elastic analysis. LinearAnalysis. LinearAnalysis.85 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 15%. LinearAnalysis. a nonlinear analysis was performed on the structure. Redesign. & CodeCheck_ Notional. AISC13_LRFD_ Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.85. Redesign. reanalysis. reanalysis 36 . 5a. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check.did not pass the code checks were stored into a group called “FAILCK”. The total weight of 503. & CodeCheck_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional .gti All of the steel frame members that failed the 2005 AISC Specification provisions (whose names were stored in the group “FAILCK”) in file “4a.

5b.80 was selected after multiple iterations were performed so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations. Redesign.80.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0. 6a. the first rigorous 37 . reanalysis of the structure. however.19 kips. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. The total weight after the second design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 508. and code checks within file “5a. Figure 4 illustrates the design after convergence for a linear elastic analysis. Members that fail the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions. Redesign.gti Following a design that was produced by the traditional iterative linear elastic analysis and design approach that satisfies all code checks. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix F.gti” can be found in Appendix E. LinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional. & CodeCheck_Notional.of the structure.80 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 20%. LinearAnalysis. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check. The total weight after the third design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 509.gti The members that failed the code checks during the second design iteration within file “5a. a third design iteration was required to obtain design convergence based on a linear elastic analysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.95 kips. LinearAnalysis. therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0. The value for the unity check of 0. LinearAnalysis. Redesign. Redesign. and code checks within file “5b.

then all members were checked against the 2005 Specification provisions based on the nonlinear elastic analysis results. STATIC_LOADS_with_ Notional_LOAD_Command. the 2005 Specification specifies a 20% reduction of EI and EA only (i. then all members were redesigned based on the previous linear elastic analysis results because a nonlinear analysis does not yield results which are in equilibrium with the full value of the applied loads when an instability is detected within the model.. biaxial shear. the stiffness influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of important industrial steel frameworks is not influenced simply by flexural and axial stiffness. the structure was determined to be unstable for that load case. but rather stiffness influences of all six stiffness components (ie. axial. If the nonlinear analysis did not converge within a specified tolerance.e.nonlinear geometric elastic analysis pursuant to the AISC 13th Edition 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method was performed on the model. torsion. If the structure was found to be stable. and biaxial bending) can have a significant influence on nonlinear 38 .gti”. For each nonlinear analysis. The first nonlinear elastic analysis in accordance with the AISC 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method that accounts for geometric nonlinearities was performed for the design loads described in file “2. A separate nonlinear analysis must be run for each of the different design load cases. flexural stiffness and axial stiffness reductions). If the structure contained an instability. While this may be permissible for models whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simplistic models for which such EI and EA reductions may be valid.

caused the structural instability. or what part of the structure.80 was selected after multiple iterations were 39 .gti”. nine of the load cases caused a structural instability.gti” can be found in Appendix G. Therefore. 4b.19 kips) since a redesign based on the nonlinear analysis was not performed if instabilities were detected. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis pursuant to the 2005 AISC Specification rigorous Direct Analysis Method within file “6a.geometric behavior of such frameworks. All members of the industrial structure were redesigned.80. a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences. because there was no way to determine which combination of members.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to design and code checking. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. All of the steel members in the structure were redesigned (not just members that failed code checks) using an interaction equation unity check of 0. The total weight of the industrial structure after a nonlinear analysis was performed does not change from the weight determined from the linear elastic analysis design (the weight of the structure stayed at 509. & CodeCheck_ Notional. LinearAnalysis. while the rest of the load cases converged within three cycles. Redesign. The value for the unity check of 0. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. The structure was redesigned based upon the last linear analysis performed in file “5b. After the first nonlinear analysis was conducted.

AISC13_ LRFD_Design_Notional. The total weight of the structure after all of the members were redesigned was 540. Nonlinear Analysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. nine of the design load cases caused a structural instability.gti A second nonlinear analysis was performed using the members redesigned in file “4b.gti”. After the second nonlinear analysis was performed. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis within file “6c.gti A stiffness analysis was performed on the most recent design of the structure (File “4b.gti” and is described in greater detail in the description for file “6a. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.gti”). This value does not change from file name “4b.43 kips. so a redesign of the structure could 40 . The total weight of the structure was 540. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. Again.43 kips. 6c. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_Design_ Notional.performed so a stable design could be found with fewer required iterations.gti”.gti” can be found in Appendix H. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and the shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences.gti” because the nonlinear analysis was based on the design of the steel frame members in file “4b.gti” can be found in Appendix I. 3b.gti”. NonlinearAnalysis_ Original_Notional&AE_EI. The commands which describe the redesign of model within file “4b. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. The analysis follows the Direct Analysis Method requirements and was formatted like file “6a.

gti”. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and the shear modulus (G) was specified to 41 . AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. The value for the unity check of 0. The total weight after all members were redesigned was 608.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking and design. all members of the structure must be redesigned because of the structural instability. 6c. All of the steel members in the structure are redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0. The commands which described the linear elastic analysis after redesign within of file “3b. After the stiffness analysis was performed. The members needed to be overdesigned by 35% to find a stable design for the model without cycling through nonlinear analysis and redesign an unreasonable number of times.gti A third nonlinear analysis was conducted on the structure using the new members redesigned in file “4c.gti” can be found in Appendix K. the total weight of the steel frame members in the structure was still 540. 4c.65 was selected after multiple iterations were performed so a stable design could be found that required fewer nonlinear design iterations.gti”.be performed based on the redistribution of forces within the structure. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional.43 kips.gti” can be found in Appendix J. Again. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. The commands which describe the redesign of model within file “4c. The structure was redesigned based upon the last linear analysis found in file “3b LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.65.31 kips. Again.

The commands which describe the code checks after a nonlinear analysis within file “7a. The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then 42 . AISC13_LRFD_Design_ Notional. The weight of the structure was 608. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis within file “6c. The total weight of the structure did not change since only code checks are performed. NonlinearAnalysis.31 kips at this stage. 7b. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti”. 7a. The steel members that formed the stable design of the model were checked against the 2005 AISC Specification requirements and based on the nonlinear analysis results.gti” can be found in Appendix L.gti” can be found in Appendix I.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking.gti” were redesigned and another nonlinear analysis was performed to determine if the model remained stable after the redesign process. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. The weight of the model does not change from file “4c.gti The members that failed the code checks within file “7a. Redesign. AISC13_LRFD_ CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. All of the load cases converged within three iterations and the entire structure was stable.account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences. NonlinearAnalysis_ Original_Notional&AE_EI. AISC13_LRFD_ Design_Notional. The names of members that failed the code check were placed in the group called “FAILCHK”.gti” because the nonlinear analysis was based on the design of the steel frame members in file “4c.

The commands which describe the redesign and reanalysis. a linear elastic stiffness analysis was performed using the notional loads and the support reactions are listed which can be used to find the true base reactions by subtracting the value found by the analysis of the notional loads from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analysis (file “7b. & CodeCheck_Notional.returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. 99. & CodeCheck_Notional. using the nonlinear geometric analysis. A horizontal force that is equivalent to the sum of all of the notional loads can be applied at the base of the structure in the opposite direction as the notional loads to account for the fictitious loads [14]. all the members must satisfy the provisions within the 2005 AISC Specification. Redesign. was found to be 610. Figure 5 gives the final design of the structure after converging for a nonlinear analysis.gti”) conducted. NonlinearAnalysis. Within this file. The commands which describe a linear elastic analysis of the model using the notional loads 43 .gti” can be found in Appendix M. Additionally.08 kips. Nonlinear Analysis. The structure was found to be stable after the members that failed the previous code check were redesigned to satisfy the 2005 Specification. The total weight of Case 1 of the simple industrial structure after a suitable design that was both stable using a geometric nonlinear analysis and satisfied the code.gti The application of notional loads may lead to fictitious base shears in a structure. Redesign. and code checks within file “7b.

44 .within file “99.08 kips. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.gti” can be found in Appendix N. The total weight of the structure remains as 610.

W10x39 W10x54 W12x40 W12x45 W12x53 W12x58 W12x65 W12x72 W12x72 W12x87 W12x87 W14x109 W14x109 W14x120 W14x132 W14x145 W14x176 W14x193 W14x211 W14x233 W14x257 W14x311 W14x34 W14x342 W14x370 W14x43 W14x48 W14x61 W14x82 W14x90 W14x90 W14x99 W14x99 W16x40 W16x67 W18x40 W18x60 W18x76 W21x44 W21x48 W21x62 W21x68 W24x104 W24x131 W24x146 W24x68 W24x84 W27x161 W27x94 W30x116 W30x191 W30x90 W30x99 W33x118 W33x130 W36x135 W40x149 W40x167 W40x183 Figure 4: Case 1 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence 45 .

W10x22 W10x45 W10x49 W12x26 W12x45 W12x53 W12x58 W12x65 W12x65 W12x72 W12x79 W14x109 W14x120 W14x120 W14x132 W14x145 W14x159 W14x176 W14x193 W14x211 W14x257 W14x283 W14x311 W14x342 W14x370 W14x398 W14x43 W14x455 W14x455 W14x48 W14x500 W14x61 W14x90 W14x90 W14x99 W14x99 W16x36 W18x130 W18x40 W18x76 W18x86 W21x44 W21x48 W24x117 W24x68 W24x76 W24x84 W27x146 W27x161 W27x84 W30x108 W30x116 W30x173 W30x191 W30x99 W33x118 W33x130 W36x160 W40x149 W40x167 W40x183 W40x199 W40x215 W44x230 W8x21 W8x24 W8x31 Figure 5: Case 1 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence 46 .

47 . The weight of the steel members also increased because all of the members had to be redesigned when instability was detected since the members causing the instability could not be easily determined. The members had to be overdesigned by 35% to achieve a stable design through the iterative process. the time required to perform multiple iterations of a nonlinear analysis for the required load combinations can be substantial. which added a substantial amount of weight to the structure. The weight of the structure increased after each iteration. However for a nonlinear analysis. a separate nonlinear analysis must be conducted on each formed load case for each cycle.1. The process of smoothing was not utilized in the Case 1 study. In any given structure. This model was highly simplified as compared to the nuclear power plant building studied in Model 2.3 Discussion of Results Case 1 Two iterations were necessary to find a suitable linear elastic design that satisfied all of the provisions within the AISC 2005 Specification. therefore the lightest weight structure was designed that satisfied both the provisions in the 2005 AISC Specification and provided a stable design by the Direct Analysis Method. making the structure heavier and more costly. there can be a large quantity of loading combinations acting on the structure. The weight throughout the process is tabulated in Table 1. Multiple iterations were also necessary to find a stable design by a nonlinear analysis that accounts for geometric nonlinearities following the Direct Analysis Method given in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification.4. and for a much more complex structure as compared to this highly simplified industrial structure.

AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional.Table 1: Total Weight of Steel – Case 1 Small Industrial Structure File 1. (b) Redesign all members that fail code checks. LinearAnalysis.gti (d) 6c.95 509. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.31 608.) (e) Redesign all members based on the last linear analysis results (in file 3b. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.gti (f) 7a.gti (c) 3b.gti 4a.19 540. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. (c) Structural Instability detected by nonlinear analysis. 48 .96 503.gti 4c. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti (b) 5b. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.08 610.31 608. (g) Redesign all members that fail code check. Redesign. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional.43 540. & CodeCheck_Notional.43 540.31 610. Redesign.08 Notes: (a) Design all members based on first linear elastic analysis then reanalyze and code check. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. reanalyze with nonlinear geometric analysis and code check.) (f) Stable structure. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti 3a. NonlinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.19 509.96 429.49 508.43 608.gti (e) 6c. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti (b) 6a.gti (c) 4b.gti (a) 5a.gti 2.gti Weight (Kips) 429.gti (g) 99.gti 7b. Redesign. reanalyze with linear elastic analysis and code check members. LinearAnalysis. (d) Redesign all members based on the last linear analysis results (in file 5b. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.96 429.

178 space frame members.gti 2. 4. NonlinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.2 of this paper. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.2. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.gti 5a. The second case studied for the simplified industrial structure did not contain extra joints at mid-column but member groups were smoothed to create a design that was more realistic for construction.2 Case 2 – With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column The Case 2 model consisted of: • • • • 100 joints. Each of the command files that were required to design Case 2 of the small industrial structure are described in Section 4.gti 7a. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. LinearAnalysis.gti 99.gti 3a. 1. Redesign.gti 7b. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. 7 independent load conditions.gti 6a.gti 49 .4. This Case 2 solution showed the impact of smoothing on the structural design process of the small industrial structure based on the Direct Analysis Method.gti 4a. The command files follow the rigorous sequential process that is explained in detail and illustrated by the flow chart (Figure 2) in Chapter 3. and 30 design load conditions. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. & CodeCheck_Notional.2.1 Implementation Sequence The sequence of GTSTRUDL command files that were used to analyze and design Case 2 of the small industrial building for stability are listed below.

IndustrialStructure_No Bracing_13th_Ed_ AISC.gti”) of this paper. and boundary conditions. The total weight of the initial size of the steel frame members in the Case 2 model was 429. The 50 .2. 2. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.96 kips.2. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. The commands which define the geometry. topology.4. topology (member incidences). as the Case 1 model described in Section 4.2 (File “2.gti” can be found in Appendix O.gti The model of the Case 2 small industrial structure has the same geometry (joint coordinates).2 (file “1. which are the same as the Case 1 model loading conditions and are described in detail in Section 4.2 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence for Case 2 The following is a description of the GTSTRUDL command files listed in Section 4.gti”). member and material properties. and boundary conditions within file “1. and columns are grouped to be smoothed throughout the design process by their location within the structure. member and material properties. Figure 3 illustrates the geometry and topology of the Case 2 model.1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. Beams. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.1. four notional load conditions and thirty independent design load conditions for the Case 2 model.gti There are seven independent load conditions.1 that is required to analyze and design Case 2 of the small industrial structure in this study: File Name and Description 1. girders. a column line could be designated as a group so all of the columns in that line could be assigned the same member properties. For example.

gti A traditional linear elastic analysis was used to create the first design of the model. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_ Ed_AISC.gti” and the initial member properties given in file “1.gti”. and loading conditions are known and the member shapes required for a stable design are unknown.commands which define the seven independent load conditions. the total weight of the steel frame members in the structure was still 429. when only geometry.96 kips. Since initial members sizes are usually based on a guess or past experience. LINEAR_STATIC_ ANALYSIS_Notional. the weight is 429. Rather. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. All internal member forces and joint displacements were computed and were used as a basis for a linear elastic design of the Case 2 model. After the stiffness analysis was performed on the structure. 3a. A traditional stiffness analysis based on linear elastic analysis was performed based on the design load conditions given in file “2.gti”. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti” can be found in Appendix P. four notional load conditions and thirty independent design load conditions within file “2. a linear elastic analysis was performed as the basis of the first design of the model.gti” can be found in Appendix Q. topology. The commands which describe the traditional linear elastic analysis within file “3a. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. a nonlinear elastic analysis was not performed. The total weight of the structure has not changed from file “1. 51 .96 kips.

where columns are smoothed by Euler buckling and beams and girders are smoothing by bending. Redesign. Steel grade A992 with a yield stress (Fy) of 50ksi is used for all of the steel members within the structure.gti”. The commands which define the smoothing process (“TAKE” command) can be found in file “0. After running several iterations. all of the space frame members were designed using W-shapes contained in GTSTRUDL’s W-AISC13 table.4a.smooth.93 corresponds to a 7% overdesign of all the members. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.0 for all of the members when designing based on a linear elastic analysis. Members that do not pass the code checks are stored into a group called “FAILCK”. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_ 13th_Ed_AISC. to be redesigned and reanalyzed in the subsequent file: “5a. the design converged for a linear elastic analysis with fewer required iterations and therefore less computational time was necessary. The results of the linear elastic analysis for each member are checked against the 2005 AISC Specification to see if all code provisions are satisfied.93. they were reanalyzed with a second linear elastic analysis.gti Following the first linear elastic analysis. The unity check value of 0.gti” located in Appendix AS. which contains the wide-flange shapes as published in the 13th Edition AISC Manual. After all of the members are designed based on the initial linear elastic analysis results. All members were designed using an interaction equation unity check of 0. LinearAnalysis. it was found by overdesigning the members by 7%. The K factor is set to 1. & 52 . All of the members were smoothed in accordance to the groups established in file “1.

LinearAnalysis. and code checks within file “5a.92 kips was found after all of the steel members were designed following the first linear elastic analysis.CodeCheck_Notional. The value for the unity check of 0.gti All of the steel frame members that failed the 2005 AISC Specification provisions (whose names are stored in the group “FAILCK”) in file “4a.gti” can be found in Appendix R.85 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 15%. Redesign. & CodeCheck_Notional. therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0. The commands which define the design based on the initial linear elastic analysis.85. reanalysis of the structure. AISC13_LRFD_ Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Linear Analysis_CodeCheck_ Notional. Members that failed the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0. which was based on the initial member sizes. The total weight of 663. reanalysis. so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations. a nonlinear analysis can be performed upon the structure.85 was selected by a trial and error process after multiple iterations were performed.gti” Once a linear elastic design is found that satisfies the code. Redesign. 5a.gti” can be found in Appendix S. These members were then smoothed by bending for beams and girders and Euler buckling for columns. LinearAnalysis. 53 . and code checks within file “4a. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check. smoothing.

then all members were checked against the 2005 Specification provisions based on the nonlinear geometric analysis results. While this may be permissible for models whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simplistic models for which such EI and EA reductions may be valid. If the nonlinear analysis did not converge within a specified tolerance. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. the structure was determined to be unstable for that load case. The first nonlinear geometric analysis was performed for the design loads described in file “2. For each nonlinear analysis. If the structure contained an instability. the stiffness influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of important 54 . If the structure was found to be stable.. the first nonlinear geometric analysis was performed on the model.92 kips. Figure 6 illustrates the design after convergence for a linear elastic analysis utilizing the smoothing process.gti Following a design that was produced by the traditional iterative linear elastic analysis and design approach that satisfies all code checks.gti”. the 2005 Specification specifies a 20% reduction of EI and EA only (i. then all members were redesigned based on the previous linear elastic analysis results because a nonlinear analysis does not yield results which are in equilibrium with the full value of the applied loads when an instability is detected within the model. 6a.e. flexural stiffness and axial stiffness reductions).The total weight after the second design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 663. A separate nonlinear analysis must be run for each of the different design load cases. STATIC_LOADS_with_ Notional_LOAD_Command.

The names of members that failed the code check were placed in the group called “FAILCHK”. Therefore. After the first nonlinear analysis was performed.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. 7a. torsion. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. 55 . axial.gti” can be found in Appendix U.gti” can be found in Appendix T.92 kips). The commands which describe the code checks after a nonlinear analysis within file “7a. a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences. but rather stiffness influences of all six stiffness components (ie. The steel members that formed the stable design of the model were checked against the 2005 AISC Specification requirements and based on the nonlinear analysis results. and biaxial bending) can have a significant influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of such frameworks. The total weight of the model after a nonlinear analysis was performed does not change from the weight determined from the linear elastic analysis design (the weight of the structure stayed at 663. biaxial shear. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis pursuant to the 2005 AISC Specification rigorous Direct Analysis Method within file “6a.industrial steel frameworks is not influenced simply by flexural and axial stiffness. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. all load cases converged within three cycles and the structure was stable. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.

The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. was found to be 708. and code checks within file “7b. Redesign. The total weight of Case 2 of the simple industrial structure after a suitable design that was both stable using a geometric nonlinear analysis and satisfied the code. 56 . AISC13_LRFD_ CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.The total weight of the structure did not change since only code checks are performed. Redesign. 7b. NonlinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.92 kips at this stage. The structure was found to be stable after several of the members in the structure were redesigned and smoothed in their respective groups. to satisfy the 2005 Specification.gti” were redesigned and smoothed and another nonlinear analysis was performed to determine if the model remained stable after the redesign process. all the members must satisfy the provisions within the 2005 AISC Specification. using the nonlinear geometric analysis. The commands which describe the redesign and reanalysis. The weight of the structure was 663. Nonlinear Analysis. Figure 7 gives the final design of the structure after converging for a nonlinear analysis.gti The members that failed the code checks within file “7a. Additionally.94 kips. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix V.

Redesign.gti”). 57 .94 kips.gti The application of notional loads may lead to fictitious base shears in a structure.99. therefore a linear elastic stiffness analysis was performed using the notional loads and the support reactions are listed which can be used to find the true base reactions by subtracting the value found by the analysis of the notional loads from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analysis (file “7b.gti” can be found in Appendix W. The commands which describe a linear elastic analysis of the model using the notional loads within file “99. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. NonlinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional. The total weight of the structure remains as 708.

W12x40 W14x109 W14x120 W14x145 W14x176 W14x193 W14x211 W14x257 W14x311 W14x370 W14x90 W18x60 W21x48 W21x68 W24x146 W24x68 W27x94 W30x116 W30x191 W30x99 W33x141 W40x183 Figure 6: Case 2 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence 58 .

W12x40 W14x109 W14x120 W14x145 W14x176 W14x193 W14x257 W14x283 W14x311 W14x342 W14x370 W14x426 W14x90 W18x60 W21x48 W24x146 W24x68 W27x94 W30x191 W30x99 W33x130 W33x141 W40x183 Figure 7: Case 2 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence 59 .

The largest member of each group was used for all of the members in the group. For a nonlinear analysis. a separate nonlinear analysis must be conducted on each formed load case for each cycle. because the structure was overdesigned as compared to Case 1 (without smoothing). 60 . The Case 2 structure was stable using the 2005 AISC Direct Analysis Method approach in the first nonlinear analysis. The process of smoothing allowed the structure to converge quicker than Case 1 (no smoothing). Only having to perform one nonlinear analysis saves the engineer valuable time. only one iteration was necessary to find a suitable linear elastic design that satisfied all of the provisions within the AISC 2005 Specification. the more quickly the nonlinear analyses for all load cases completes. the weight of the structure is tabulated in Table 2. However the weight of the structure increases when the smoothing process is used.3 Discussion of Results Case 2 The Case 2 model of the small industrial structure utilizes the process of smoothing. smoothing creates a more practical design in that construction is far more simplistic because fewer connections must be designed and constructed.2.4. and therefore the structure was heavier. However. therefore the fewer the number of cycles.

AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. (c) Stable structure.gti 4a. 61 . 4.94 Notes: (a) Design all members based on first linear elastic analysis then reanalyze and code check. & CodeCheck_Notional. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.96 429. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.gti Weight (Kips) 429.96 429. and 30 design load conditions.gti (b) 6a.Table 2: Total Weight of Steel – Case 2 Small Industrial Structure File 1. (b) Redesign all members that fail code checks. reanalyze with nonlinear geometric analysis and code check.92 663.3 Case 3 – With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing The Case 3 model consisted of: • • • • 175 joints. (d) Redesign all members that fail code check.gti 7b. LinearAnalysis.96 663.92 663. Redesign.gti (c) 7a.94 708. NonlinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. Redesign. reanalyze with linear elastic analysis and code check members.gti (a) 5a.92 663. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 2. 7 independent load conditions. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. 253 space frame members. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.gti 3a.gti (d) 99.92 708.

AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.gti 4a.3.gti 6a. The command files follow the rigorous sequential process that is explained in detail and illustrated by the flow chart (Figure 2) in Chapter 3. NonlinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.3. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.gti 5b.2 of this paper.1 that is required to analyze and design Case 3 of the small industrial structure in this study: 62 .gti 3a.gti 5a. Redesign. The third case studied for the simplified industrial structure contained extra joints at mid-column to better predict the nonlinear geometric behavior of the column members in the model.1 Implementation Sequence for Case 3 The sequence of GTSTRUDL command files that were used to analyze and design Case 3 of the small industrial building for stability are listed below. 4. Each of the command files that were required to design Case 3 of the small industrial structure are described in Section 4. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.3.gti 7b.2 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence for Case 3 The following is a description of the GTSTRUDL command files listed in Section 4.gti 99. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti 6c.This Case 3 solution was performed in order to create a worst case scenario in regards to design based on the Direct Analysis Method. LinearAnalysis. 1. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 7a. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional. LinearAnalysis. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.gti 2. & CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign. The Case 3 model did not consider the smoothing process. & CodeCheck_Notional. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.3.gti 4.gti 4b.

Figure 8: Stick Model Case 3 and 4 Small Industrial Structure 63 .

File Name and Description 1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.gti The model of the Case 3 small industrial structure contains a total of 175 joints and 253 space frame members, and is defined in the positive Y-up direction for the global coordinate system. The model attributes to be analyzed and designed including the geometry (joint coordinates), topology (member incidences), member and material properties, and boundary conditions, are defined. Each of the columns contains an extra joint at mid-column to better predict the nonlinear geometric behavior of the members. Figure 8 illustrates the geometry and topology of the Case 3 model. The material properties of the steel included the modulus of elasticity, shear modulus, and density (defined as 29000 ksi, 11600 ksi, and 0.490 kip/ft3 accordingly). All girders and beams are assigned an initial member shape of W21x101 and all columns are assigned an initial shape of W14x90 to use as a starting point for analysis and design of the structure. All support conditions are defined as either pinned or fixed. The commands which define the geometry, topology, member and material properties, and boundary conditions within file “1. IndustrialStructure_No Bracing_13th_Ed_ AISC.gti” can be found in Appendix X. The total weight of the initial sizes of the steel frame members in the Case 3 model was 429.96 kips. 2. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti There are seven independent load conditions, four notional load conditions and thirty independent design load conditions for the Case 3 model, which are the same as the loading conditions Case 1 and Case 2 and are described in detail in Section

64

4.1.2 (File “2. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti”). The commands which define the seven independent load conditions, four notional load conditions and thirty independent design load conditions within file “2. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti” can be found in

Appendix Y. The total weight of the structure has not changed from file “1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_ Ed_AISC.gti”; the weight is 429.96 kips. 3a. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.gti A traditional linear elastic analysis was used to create the first design of the model, when only geometry, topology, and loading conditions are known and the member shapes required for a stable design are unknown. Since initial members sizes are usually based on a guess or past experience, a nonlinear elastic analysis was not performed. Rather, a linear elastic analysis was performed as the basis of the first design of the model. A traditional stiffness analysis based on linear elastic analysis was performed based on the design load conditions given in file “2.

STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti” and the initial member properties given in file “1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_ Ed_AISC.gti”. All internal member forces and joint displacements are computed and were used as a basis for a linear elastic design of the Case 3 model. The commands which describe the tradition linear elastic analysis within file “3a. LINEAR_STATIC_ ANALYSIS_Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix Z. After the stiffness analysis was performed on the structure, the total weight of the steel frame members in the structure was still 429.96 kips.

65

4a.

AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.gti Following the first linear elastic analysis, all of the space frame members were designed using W-shapes contained in GTSTRUDL’s W-AISC13 table, which contains the wide-flange shapes as published in the 13th Edition AISC Manual. Steel grade A992 with a yield stress (Fy) of 50ksi is used for all of the steel members within the structure. The K factor is set to 1.0 for all of the members when designing based on a linear elastic analysis. All of the members were designed using an interaction equation unity check of 0.93. The unity check value of 0.93 corresponds to a 7% overdesign of all the members. After running several iterations, it was found by overdesigning the members by 7%, the design converged for a linear elastic analysis with less required iterations and therefore less computational time was necessary. The process of smoothing was not used on the members therefore, the lightest W-shapes were chosen for each member. After all of the members are designed based on the initial linear elastic analysis results, they were reanalyzed with a second linear elastic analysis. The results of the linear elastic analysis for each member are checked against the 2005 AISC Specification to see if all code provisions are satisfied. Members that do not pass the code checks are stored into a group called “FAILCK”, to be redesigned and reanalyzed in the subsequent files: “5a. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_Notional.gti” and “5b. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, &

CodeCheck_Notional.gti”. Once a linear elastic design was found that satisfied the code, a nonlinear analysis was performed on the structure. The commands which define the design based on the initial linear elastic analysis, reanalysis, and code

66

checks within file “4a. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_ Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix AA. The total weight of 485.75 kips was found after all of the steel members were designed following the first linear elastic analysis, which was based on the initial member sizes. 5a. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_Notional.gti All of the steel frame members that fail the 2005 AISC Specification provisions (whose names are stored in the group “FAILCK”) in file “4a. AISC13_LRFD_ Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0.85. Members that fail the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions, therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0.85 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 15%. The value for the unity check of 0.85 was selected by a trial and error process after multiple iterations were performed, so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check, reanalysis of the structure, and code checks within file “5a. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_ Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix AB. The total weight after the second design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 490.38 kips; however, a third design iteration was required to obtain design convergence based on a linear elastic analysis.

67

5b.

Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_Notional.gti The members that fail the code checks during the second design iteration within file “5a. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_Notional.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0.80. Members that failed the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions, therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0.80 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 20%. The value for the unity check of 0.80 was selected after multiple iterations were performed so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check, reanalysis of the structure, and code checks within file “5b. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_ Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix AC. The total weight after the third design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 490.59 kips. Figure 9 illustrates the design with an extra node at mid-column after convergence for a linear elastic analysis.

6a.

NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti Following a design that was produced by the traditional iterative linear elastic analysis and design approach that satisfies all code checks, the nonlinear geometric elastic analysis was performed on the model. If the structure was found to be stable, then all members were checked against the 2005 Specification provisions based on the nonlinear elastic analysis results. If the structure contained an instability, then all members were redesigned based on the previous linear elastic analysis results because a nonlinear analysis does not yield results which are in

68

equilibrium with the full value of the applied loads when an instability is detected within the model. The first nonlinear elastic analysis in accordance with the AISC 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method that accounts for geometric nonlinearities was performed for the design loads described in file “2. STATIC_LOADS_with_ Notional_LOAD_Command.gti”. A separate nonlinear analysis must be run for each of the different design load cases. If the nonlinear analysis did not converge within a specified tolerance, the structure was determined to be unstable for that load case. For each nonlinear analysis, the 2005 Specification specifies a 20% reduction of EI and EA only (i.e., flexural stiffness and axial stiffness reductions). While this may be permissible for models whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simplistic models for which such EI and EA reductions may be valid, the stiffness influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of important industrial steel frameworks is not influenced simply by flexural and axial stiffness, but rather stiffness influences of all six stiffness components (ie. axial, biaxial shear, torsion, and biaxial bending) can have a significant influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of such frameworks. Therefore, a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis pursuant to the 2005 AISC Specification rigorous Direct Analysis Method within file “6a. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti” can be found in Appendix AD.

69

After the first nonlinear analysis was conducted, nine of the load cases caused a structural instability, while the rest of the load cases converged within three cycles. The total weight of the industrial structure after a nonlinear analysis was performed does not change from the weight determined from the linear elastic analysis design (the weight of the structure stayed at 490.59 kips) since a redesign based on the nonlinear analysis was not performed if instabilities were detected. 4b. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking and design. All members of the industrial structure must be redesigned, because there was no way to determine which combination of members, or what part of the structure, caused the structural instability. The structure was redesigned based upon the last linear analysis performed in file “5b. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_ Notional.gti”. All of the steel members in the structure were redesigned (not just members that failed code checks) using an interaction equation unity check of 0.80. The value for the unity check of 0.80 was selected after multiple iterations were performed so a stable design could be found with fewer required iterations. The commands which describe the redesign of model within file “4b. AISC13_ LRFD_Design_Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix AE. The total weight of the structure after all of the members were redesigned was 530.07 kips.

70

The commands which describe the code checks after a nonlinear 71 . The analysis follows the Direct Analysis Method requirements and was formatted like file “6a. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. Nonlinear Analysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. NonlinearAnalysis_ Original_Notional&AE_EI. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.6c. a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and the shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences.07 kips. The total weight of structure was 530. all of the load cases converged within three iterations and the entire structure was stable. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional& AE_EI.gti A second nonlinear analysis was performed using the members redesigned in file “4b. AISC13_LRFD_Design_ Notional.gti” because the nonlinear analysis was based on the design of the steel frame members in file “4b.gti” can be found in Appendix AF. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti”.gti” and is described in greater detail in the description for file “6a. 7a. The names of members that failed the code check were placed in the group called “FAILCHK”.gti”. The steel members that formed the stable design of the model were checked against the 2005 AISC Specification requirements and based on the nonlinear analysis results. This value does not change from file name “4b. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis within file “6c. Again.gti”. After the second nonlinear analysis was performed.

gti The members that failed the code checks within file “7a. AISC13_LRFD_ CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.07 kips at this stage. The weight of the structure was 530. The commands which describe the redesign and reanalysis. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. 7b.analysis within file “7a. Figure 10 gives the final design of the structure after converging for a nonlinear analysis. and code checks within file “7b. The structure was found to be stable after several of the members in the structure were redesigned to satisfy the 2005 Specification.68 kips. The total weight of the structure did not change since only code checks are performed. & CodeCheck_Notional. The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. Additionally. Redesign. NonlinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti” were redesigned and another nonlinear analysis was performed to determine if the model was still stable after the redesign process. 72 .gti” can be found in Appendix AG. The total weight of Case 3 of the simple industrial structure after a suitable design that was both stable using a geometric nonlinear analysis and satisfied the code. Nonlinear Analysis. Redesign. was found to be 542. using a nonlinear geometric analysis. all the members must satisfy the provisions within the 2005 AISC Specification.gti” can be found in Appendix AH.

The total weight of the structure remains as 542. The commands which describe a linear elastic analysis of the model using the notional loads within file “99. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. NonlinearAnalysis. 73 .gti”) conducted. Redesign.68 kips.gti The application of notional loads may lead to fictitious base shears in a structure. therefore a linear elastic stiffness analysis was performed using the notional loads and the support reactions are listed which can be used to find the true base reactions by subtracting the value found by the analysis of the notional loads from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analysis (file “7b.gti” can be found in Appendix AI. & CodeCheck_Notional.99. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.

W10x33 W10x39 W10x49 W10x54 W10x60 W12x40 W12x45 W12x53 W12x58 W12x65 W12x72 W12x72 W12x79 W12x87 W12x87 W14x109 W14x120 W14x132 W14x145 W14x159 W14x176 W14x193 W14x211 W14x233 W14x257 W14x311 W14x34 W14x342 W14x370 W14x43 W14x48 W14x61 W14x82 W14x90 W14x90 W14x99 W14x99 W16x67 W18x40 W18x60 W18x76 W21x44 W21x48 W21x62 W21x68 W24x104 W24x117 W24x131 W24x146 W24x68 W24x84 W27x161 W27x94 W30x116 W30x191 W30x90 W30x99 W33x118 W33x130 W36x135 W40x149 W40x167 W40x183 Figure 9: Case 3 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence 74 .

W10x26 W10x33 W10x39 W10x39 W10x49 W12x30 W12x40 W12x45 W12x45 W12x53 W12x58 W12x65 W12x65 W12x72 W12x87 W12x87 W14x109 W14x109 W14x120 W14x132 W14x145 W14x159 W14x176 W14x193 W14x211 W14x233 W14x257 W14x283 W14x311 W14x34 W14x342 W14x370 W14x398 W14x398 W14x426 W14x43 W14x48 W14x82 W14x90 W14x90 W14x99 W16x36 W16x40 W16x67 W18x130 W18x35 W18x40 W18x76 W18x86 W21x44 W21x48 W21x62 W21x68 W24x104 W24x146 W24x68 W24x76 W24x84 W27x146 W27x161 W27x84 W27x94 W30x108 W30x116 W30x173 W30x90 W30x99 W33x118 W33x130 W33x141 W36x135 W36x160 W40x149 W40x167 Figure 10: Case 3 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence 75 .

which added a substantial amount of weight to the structure.3. The weight of the steel members also increased with each nonlinear analysis performed on the structure. the extra joint at mid-column gave a better understanding of the nonlinear behavior of the member. The members had to be overdesigned by 35% to achieve a stable design through the iterative process. The time required to perform multiple iterations of a nonlinear analysis for the required load combinations could be substantial for structures much larger and more complex than this highly simplified model. Multiple iterations were also necessary to find a stable design by a nonlinear analysis that accounts for geometric nonlinearities following the Direct Analysis Method given in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification. making the structure heavier and more costly. However for a nonlinear analysis. Two iterations were necessary to find a suitable linear elastic design that satisfied all of the provisions within the AISC 2005 Specification. because all members had to be redesigned when instability was detected since the members causing the instability could not be determined. which converged more quickly than Case 1 (no extra joints and no smoothing). The process of smoothing was not utilized in the Case 3 study.4. The weight of the structure increased after each iteration. As compared to Case 1 which required four geometric nonlinear analyses and two complete redesigns of the structure. therefore the lightest weight structure was designed that satisfied both the provisions in the 2005 AISC 76 .3 Discussion of Results Case 3 Case 3 of the small industrial model contains an extra joint at mid-column of each of the columns without smoothing any of the members. a separate nonlinear analysis must be conducted on each formed load case for each cycle. Case 3 required three geometric nonlinear analyses and one redesign of the entire structure.

96 429. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti (b) 5b. Table 3: Total Weight of Steel – Case 3 Small Industrial Structure File 1. Redesign.gti Weight (Kips) 429.68 Notes: (a) Design all members based on first linear elastic analysis then reanalyze and code check. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. & CodeCheck_Notional. NonlinearAnalysis. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. Redesign.68 542.07 542. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. reanalyze with nonlinear geometric analysis and code check. LinearAnalysis. The weight throughout the process is tabulated in Table 3. (f) Redesign all members that fail code check. AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional.gti (e) 7a.07 530.96 485. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. 77 .gti (f) 99.gti (c) 4b.96 429.gti (d) 6c. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 2.gti (b) 6a. LinearAnalysis. (d) Redesign all members based on the last linear analysis results (in file 5b.gti 7b.07 530.) (e) Stable structure.59 530. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. Redesign.gti (a) 5a.75 490.59 490. reanalyze with linear elastic analysis and code check members.gti 4a.38 490. (b) Redesign all members that fail code checks.gti 3a. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.Specification and provided a stable design by the Direct Analysis Method. & CodeCheck_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. (c) Structural Instability detected by nonlinear analysis.

1.gti 78 . LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. 253 space frame members.4.1 Implementation Sequence for Case 4 The sequence of GTSTRUDL command files that were used to analyze and design Case 4 of the small industrial building for stability are listed below.4.gti 2. NonlinearAnalysis. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. LinearAnalysis. 7 independent load conditions. Redesign.gti 99.gti 6a. 4. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. This Case 4 showed the impact of smoothing on the structural design process of the small industrial structure based on the Direct Analysis Method. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 7b. The command files follow the rigorous sequential process that is explained in detail and illustrated by the flow chart (Figure 2) in Chapter 3.gti 4a. The Case 4 model member groups were smoothed to create an optimum design. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. and 30 design load conditions. The fourth case studied for the simplified industrial structure contained extra joints at mid-column to better predict the behavior of the column members in the model. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.4 Case 4 – With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column The Case 4 model consisted of: • • • • 175 joints. Redesign. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti 7a.2 of this paper. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti 3a.4. & CodeCheck_Notional. Each of the command files that were required to design Case 4 of the small industrial structure are described in Section 4.gti 5a.

IndustrialStructure_No Bracing_13th_Ed_ AISC. The total weight of the initial size of the steel frame members in the Case 2 model was 429. and boundary conditions. For example. and Case 3 models’ loading conditions and are described in detail in Section 4.4.gti The model of the Case 4 small industrial structure has the same geometry (joint coordinates).4.4. as the Case 3 model described in Section 4.gti”) of this paper.1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.2 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence for Case 4 The following is a description of the GTSTRUDL command files listed in Section 4. 2.gti There are seven independent load conditions. member and material properties. topology. member and material properties. a column line could be designated as a group so all of the columns in that line could be assigned the same member properties.1 that is required to analyze and design Case 4 of the small industrial structure in this study: File Name and Description 1. girders. Figure 8 illustrates the geometry and topology of the Case 4 model. which are the same as the Case 1.96 kips.2 (file “1. and boundary conditions within file “1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.2 (File “2. Beams. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. and columns are grouped to be smoothed throughout the design process by their location within the structure.gti” can be found in Appendix AJ. topology (member incidences). The commands which define the geometry.3. four notional load conditions and thirty independent design load conditions for the Case 4 model. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_ 79 . Case 2.

gti”.gti”). All internal member forces and joint displacements are computed and were used as a basis for a linear elastic design of the Case 4 model. Rather. 80 . the total weight of the steel frame members in the structure was still 429. The total weight of the structure has not changed from file “1.gti” can be found in Appendix AK. topology. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_ Ed_AISC. A traditional stiffness analysis based on linear elastic analysis was performed based on the design load conditions given in file “2. a nonlinear elastic analysis was not performed. four notional load conditions and thirty independent design load conditions within file “2. The commands which define the seven independent load conditions.gti” and the initial member properties given in file “1. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. a linear elastic analysis was performed as the basis of the first design of the model. After the stiffness analysis was performed on the structure. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. when only geometry.gti A traditional linear elastic analysis was used to create the first design of the model. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_ Command. The commands which describe the tradition linear elastic analysis within file “3a. Since initial members sizes are usually based on a guess or past experience.96 kips.96 kips.gti” can be found in Appendix AL. LINEAR_STATIC_ ANALYSIS_Notional. the weight is 429. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_ 13th_Ed_AISC.gti”.Command. 3a. and loading conditions are known and the member shapes required for a stable design are unknown.

The results of the linear elastic analysis for each member are checked against the 2005 AISC Specification to see if all code provisions are satisfied.gti Following the first linear elastic analysis. After all of the members are designed based on the initial linear elastic analysis results. to be redesigned and reanalyzed in the subsequent file: “5a. Steel grade A992 with a yield stress (Fy) of 50ksi is used for all of the steel members within the structure.93 corresponds to a 7% overdesign of all the members. the design converged for a linear elastic analysis with fewer required iterations and therefore less computational time was necessary. All members were designed using an interaction equation unity check of 0. After running several iterations. LinearAnalysis. The unity check value of 0.4a.93. all of the space frame members were designed using W-shapes contained in GTSTRUDL’s W-AISC13 table. Redesign. where columns are smoothed by Euler buckling and beams and girders are smoothing by bending. The K factor is set to 1.0 for all of the members when designing based on a linear elastic analysis. which contains the wide-flange shapes as published in the 13th Edition AISC Manual.gti” located in Appendix AS. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.smooth. All of the members were smoothed in accordance to the groups established in file “1. Members that do not pass the code checks are stored into a group called “FAILCK”. they were reanalyzed with a second linear elastic analysis. The commands which define the smoothing process (“TAKE” command) can be found in file “0.gti”. it was found by overdesigning the members by 7%. & 81 . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_ 13th_Ed_AISC.

5a. & CodeCheck_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Linear Analysis_CodeCheck_ Notional. a nonlinear analysis can be performed upon the structure. Members that fail the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions. The value for the unity check of 0. The total weight of 663. reanalysis.CodeCheck_Notional. so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations.gti” can be found in Appendix AM.92 kips was found after all of the steel members were designed following the first linear elastic analysis. therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0. and code checks within file “4a.gti” Once a linear elastic design is found that satisfies the code. Redesign.85. which was based on the initial member sizes.gti All of the steel frame members that fail the 2005 AISC Specification provisions (whose names are stored in the group “FAILCK”) in file “4a. AISC13_LRFD_ Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.85 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 15%. and code checks within file “5a. LinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_ Notional. LinearAnalysis. These members were then smoothed by bending for beams and girders and Euler buckling for columns.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0. The commands which define the design based on the initial linear elastic analysis. 82 . reanalysis of the structure. smoothing.gti” can be found in Appendix AN. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check. Redesign.85 was selected by a trial and error process after multiple iterations were performed.

Figure 11 illustrates the design after convergence for a linear elastic analysis utilizing the smoothing process.. then all members were redesigned based on the previous linear elastic analysis results because a nonlinear analysis does not yield results which are in equilibrium with the full value of the applied loads when an instability is detected within the model. 83 .e. If the structure contained an instability.gti”. For each nonlinear analysis. A separate nonlinear analysis must be run for each of the different design load cases. flexural stiffness and axial stiffness reductions). If the nonlinear analysis did not converge within a specified tolerance. 6a. the 2005 Specification specifies a 20% reduction of EI and EA only (i. the first rigorous nonlinear geometric elastic analysis pursuant to the AISC 13th Edition 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method was performed on the model. then all members were checked against the 2005 Specification provisions based on the nonlinear elastic analysis results. the structure was determined to be unstable for that load case. STATIC_LOADS_with_ Notional_LOAD_Command. The first nonlinear elastic analysis in accordance with the AISC 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method that accounts for geometric nonlinearities was performed for the design loads described in file “2. If the structure was found to be stable.gti Following a design that was produced by the traditional iterative linear elastic analysis and design approach that satisfies all code checks.The total weight after the second design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 663. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.92 kips.

a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. biaxial shear. After the first nonlinear analysis was performed. axial. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis pursuant to the 2005 AISC Specification rigorous Direct Analysis Method within file “6a. 7a. all load cases converged within three cycles and the structure was stable. the stiffness influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of important industrial steel frameworks is not influenced simply by flexural and axial stiffness. torsion. and biaxial bending) can have a significant influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of such frameworks.92 kips). but rather stiffness influences of all six stiffness components (ie.While this may be permissible for models whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simplistic models for which such EI and EA reductions may be valid.gti” can be found in Appendix AO. The names of members that failed the code check were placed in the group called 84 . NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. The total weight of the model after a nonlinear analysis was performed does not change from the weight determined from the linear elastic analysis design (the weight of the structure stayed at 663. The steel members that formed the stable design of the model were checked against the 2005 AISC Specification requirements and based on the nonlinear analysis results. Therefore.

all the members must satisfy the provisions within the 2005 AISC Specification. Redesign.gti” can be found in Appendix AQ. NonlinearAnalysis. The structure was found to be stable after several of the members in the structure were redesigned and smoothed in their respective groups. to satisfy the 2005 Specification. The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix AP. 7b. The commands which describe the redesign and reanalysis. The commands which describe the code checks after a nonlinear analysis within file “7a. & CodeCheck_Notional. was found to be 708. AISC13_LRFD_ CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. 85 . Redesign. The total weight of Case 4 of the simple industrial structure after a suitable design that was both stable using a geometric nonlinear analysis and satisfied the code. using the nonlinear geometric analysis. Nonlinear Analysis. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.92 kips at this stage.gti” were redesigned and smoothed and another nonlinear analysis was performed to determine if the model remained stable after the redesign process.gti The members that failed the code checks within file “7a.“FAILCHK”. Figure 12 gives the final design of the structure after converging for a nonlinear analysis. The weight of the structure was 663.94 kips. Additionally. The total weight of the structure did not change since only code checks are performed. and code checks within file “7b.

The commands which describe a linear elastic analysis of the model using the notional loads within file “99.94 kips.gti The application of notional loads may lead to fictitious base shears in a structure. 86 . NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. The total weight of the structure remains as 708.gti”) conducted. Redesign. NonlinearAnalysis.gti” can be found in Appendix AR. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.99. & CodeCheck_Notional. therefore a linear elastic stiffness analysis was performed using the notional loads and the support reactions are listed which can be used to find the true base reactions by subtracting the value found by the analysis of the notional loads from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analysis (file “7b.

W12x40 W14x109 W14x120 W14x145 W14x176 W14x193 W14x211 W14x257 W14x311 W14x370 W14x90 W18x60 W21x48 W21x68 W24x146 W24x68 W27x94 W30x116 W30x191 W30x99 W33x141 W40x183 Figure 11: Case 4 Small Industrial Structure Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence 87 .

W12x40 W14x109 W14x120 W14x145 W14x176 W14x193 W14x257 W14x283 W14x311 W14x342 W14x370 W14x426 W14x90 W18x60 W21x48 W24x146 W24x68 W27x94 W30x191 W30x99 W33x130 W33x141 W40x183 Figure 12: Case 4 Small Industrial Structure Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence 88 .

Case 4 converges faster than Case 3 (with an extra joint at mid-column and no smoothing) and Case 1 (no extra joints and no smoothing).4. One iteration is necessary to find a suitable linear elastic design that satisfied all of the provisions within the AISC 2005 Specification. Only having to perform one nonlinear analysis saves the engineer valuable time. a separate nonlinear analysis must be conducted on each formed load case for each cycle. The Case 4 structure was stable using the 2005 AISC Direct Analysis Method approach in the first nonlinear analysis. Due to the smoothing process.4. The smoothing process creates a more practical design in that construction is far more simplistic because fewer different connections must be designed and constructed. the weight of the steel members is tabulated through the design process in Table 4. because the structure was overdesigned as compared to Case 1 and 3 (without smoothing). The smoothing process caused Case 4 to converge faster than Cases 1 and 3 because the largest members are chosen from each group to smooth with and thus finds a suitable design for a linear elastic analysis quicker than Case 1 and 3. 89 . The resulting structure was heavier. The extra joint at mid-column gave a better nonlinear geometric member model and thus converged faster than Case 1. therefore the least number of cycles required is optimal. Case 4 and Case 2 converge at the same rate.3 Discussion of Results Case 4 Case 4 of the small industrial model contains an extra joint at mid-column of each of the columns and smoothes members. For a nonlinear analysis.

STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command. NonlinearAnalysis.gti 2.gti (a) 5a. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 7b. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. 90 . reanalyze with linear elastic analysis and code check members. Redesign.94 708. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.gti 4a. (c) Stable structure. (b) Redesign all members that fail code checks. & CodeCheck_Notional. LinearAnalysis.gti (b) 6a.gti (c) 7a.94 Notes: (a) Design all members based on first linear elastic analysis then reanalyze and code check. Redesign.96 429.92 663. & CodeCheck_Notional.Table 4: Total Weight of Steel – Case 4 Small Industrial Structure File 1. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.gti 3a.gti (d) 99.gti Weight (Kips) 429.92 663. (d) Redesign all members that fail code check.96 429.96 663.92 708. reanalyze with nonlinear geometric analysis and code check.92 663.

fewer connection designs are required and fewer shapes have to be fabricated. Secondly. the smoothing process was not used and therefore the lightest weight structure that was stable and satisfied the provisions in the 2005 AISC Specification was designed. an extra joint was located at mid-column of all of the columns within the structure (as compared to Case 1 which was considered to be the worst case scenario for the small industrial structure and does not have the extra joint in the columns). These designs are more optimal in terms of construction. Case 2 and 4 are the heaviest structures because steel member groups were smoothed throughout the design process.4. using an extra joint in the middle of the column members better predicts the nonlinear geometric behavior along the member and thus allowed for a lighter weight design.5 Comparison of Final Weight of all Four Cases Studied of Small Industrial Structure The final weight of the small industrial structure for all four cases studied is tabulated below in Table 5 after analyzing and designing the structure by the Direct Analysis Method in the 2005 AISC Specification. 91 . A better nonlinear geometric model (one which contained an extra joint at mid-column) allowed for member behavior within the highly simplified industrial model to be better predicted and thus the lightest weight members that could satisfy loading requirements and code checks were selected. Case 3 was much lighter than the other structures for two reasons. One.

68 708.Table 5: Final Weight of Structure Comparison –Small Industrial Structure (Model 1) Case Studied 1 2 3 4 Description No Smoothing and No Extra Joint Mid-Column Includes Smoothing and No Extra Joint Mid-Column No Smoothing and Contains an Extra Joint Mid-Column Includes Smoothing and Contains an Extra Joint Mid-Column Weight (Kips) 610.94 542.08 708.94 92 .

Notional_Loads. and 16 design load conditions The total weight of the steel structure was tabulated and compared throughout the analysis and design process (described in Chapter 3) to show the consequences of using the Direct Analysis Method to design and analyze for stability in a structure.2 of this paper. The command files follow the rigorous sequential process that is explained in detail and illustrated by the flow chart (Figure 2) in Chapter 3.gti 93 . Each of the command files that were required to design the boiler building are described in Section 5. 1. 5. or a combination of both the moment-frame and braced-frame systems. 5360 space frame members. The model consisted of: • • • • 2517 joints. 8 independent load conditions.1 Implementation Sequence The sequence of GTSTRUDL command files that were used to analyze and design the nuclear power plant boiler building for stability are listed below. Model&Indloads.gti 2. The structure is a nuclear power plant boiler building whose lateral stability system can be classified by the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification as a combined system.CHAPTER V: MODEL 2 – NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BOILER BUILDING The second model studied (Figure 13) was a complex highly braced real industrial structure provided by an international engineering firm and is comprised entirely of space-frame members.

member and material properties.gti 5b. & CodeCheck_Notional. and boundary conditions. and 0. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional.gti 4b. Figure 13 illustrates the geometry and topology of the boiler building model.1 that is required to analyze and design the nuclear power plant boiler building in this study: File Name and Description 1. AISC13_LRFD_LinearAnal_Design&CodeChk_Notional. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. NonlinearAnalysis. NonlinearAnalysis_Notional&AE_EI. Redesign. 12000 ksi. The model attributes to be analyzed and design including the geometry (joint coordinates).283 lb/in3 accordingly). are defined.gti 5c. & CodeCheck_Notional. topology (member incidences). Model&Indloads. Redesign.gti 5a. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. All members are assigned an initial member shape of HSS16x16x1/2 to form a basis for the design of the structure.2 Description of Command Files Run in Sequence The following is a description of the GTSTRUDL command files listed in Section 5. & CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.gti 7b.gti The model of the Case 1 simple industrial structure contains a total of 2517 joints and 5360 space frame members.gti 6a.gti 4a.gti 7a. The material properties of the steel included the modulus of elasticity. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti 5. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. Members are grouped for purposes of smoothing throughout the design 94 . and density (defined as 30000 ksi. and is defined in the positive Z-up direction for the global coordinate system.gti 6c. Redesign.3a. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. shear modulus. LinearAnalysis. LinearAnalysis.gti 99. LinearAnalysis.

Figure 13: Stick Model of Boiler Building 95 .

Model&Indloads.gti” can be found in Appendix AU. ash and coal. and boundary conditions within file “1.5 tons. and two lateral (wind) load conditions as well as four notional load conditions acting on the model. etc.gti” can be found in Appendix AT. Smoothing is previously defined in Section 3. four notional load conditions and sixteen independent design load conditions within file “2. The commands which define the eight independent load conditions. and 5. three gravity live loads. columns were smoothed by Euler Buckling so the largest cross-sectional area was used for a given group and beams were smoothed by bending moment requirements. The independent load conditions are formed into sixteen independent design load conditions. member and material properties.gti There are eight independent load conditions consisting of three gravity dead loads. Notional_Loads. 4. The total weight of the initial sizes of the steel frame members in the nuclear power plant boiler building model was 3905. The gravity loads included loads such as platform loads.2 of this paper. Also contained within this file are defined loading conditions. Gravity dead load conditions included three dead load conditions: the self-weight of the steel members (SW). piping. Gravity live load conditions included three live load conditions: load names 3. Lateral wind load cases were applied in the North and East directions. The commands which define the geometry. All support conditions are defined as fixed condition.process. Notional_Loads. 96 . topology. 2. and load names 1 and 2.

The τb factor which is an additional flexural reduction factor as defined in Appendix 7 of the 2005 AISC Specification. Notional loads (Ni) are applied in the lateral directions of the model. Lateral Loads Wind loads are applied to the structure in the north and east directions.Model&Indloads. c. and are described in commands of file 1. The gravity live loads applied to the structure consists of three live load conditions.001Yi is added to the 0.gti. and 5. described in the commands of file 1. 1. The 2005 Specification permits τb to be taken as a value of 1.0 as long as an additional notional load of 0. 3.gti. Notional Loads Notional loads are intended to approximate the additional influence of initial out-of-plumb construction imperfections of the structure on its P-∆ behavior as described in the 2005 AISC Specification. Gravity Loads The gravity dead loads applied to the structure consists of three dead load conditions. b. and SW. WLN and WLE. 2.a. where Yi represents the gravity loads applied to the 97 . is only applicable to structures whose behavior matches the behavior of the simple frame structures by which the formulations were developed.Model&Indloads.gti. 4.Model&Indloads.002Yi notional load (Ni) requirement in Appendix 7 of the 2005 AISC Specification. that are described in the commands of file 1.

2 2 1.4 1 1.4 ‘NX_SW+1+2’ -1.003Yi) are formed in GTSTRUDL by using its “FORM NOTIONAL LOAD” command from the applied gravity dead loads and gravity live loads.0 Name: ‘NX_3+4+5’ .NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION Formed From: 31.4(SW+1+2) .4 Name: 1.6 4 1.NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.4(SW+1+2) .0 2 1.0 1 1.6 5 1.NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION Formed From: ‘SW’ 1. Design Load Conditions The following sixteen design load conditions pursuant to the 2005 AISC Specification were formed using GTSTRUDL’s “FORM LOAD” command from the above loading independent and notional load loading conditions and are summarized below: Name: 1.0 2 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.4 2 1.4 ‘NX_SW+1+2’ 1.4 1 1.NOTIONAL_Y Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.4(SW+1+2) Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.0 Name: ‘NY_3+4+5’ .NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6 98 .4 2 1.0 d.0 1 1.4 2 1. The resultant notional loads (Ni = 0.2 1 1.4 ‘NY_SW+1+2’ -1.4 1 1.4 2 1.4 Name: 1.0 4 1.4 Name: 1.model.0 4 1.4 Name: 1. Four notional loads were created as described below and applied laterally to the joints of the structure.4(SW+1+2) + NOTIONAL_Y Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.4 Name: 1.6(3+4+5) Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 3 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.0 Name: ‘NY_SW+1+2’ .0 5 1.4 ‘NY_SW+1+2’ 1. Name: ‘NX_SW+1+2’ .0 5 1.NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION Formed From: 31.4(SW+1+2) + NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.4 2 1.

NOTIONAL_Y Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.6 5 1.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' -1.6 5 1.6 Name: 1. when only geometry. and loading conditions are known and the 99 .NOTIONAL_Y' Formed From: 'SW' 1.2 1 1.2 2 1.2 3 1.2 1 1.8 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.6 4 1.2 'WLE' 0.2 'NX_3+4+5' -1.6 Name: 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.2 3 1.2 2 1.6 4 1.2 3 1.6 4 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.6 Name: 1. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' -1.gti.2 1 1.Name: 1.6 5 1.2 2 1. topology.NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6 4 1.Model&Indloads.6(3+4+5) -+ NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6 4 1.6 Name: 1.2(SW+1+2) + 0.6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.6 4 1.6(3+4+5) -.2 'NX_3+4+5' 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.2 Name: 1.5 tons.6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.2 3 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 The total weight of the structure has not changed from file 1.6(3+4+5) ++ NOTIONAL_X Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.6(3+4+5) -. 3a.2 2 1.2 1 1.2 3 1.6 4 1.6 Name: 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.6 5 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.6(3+4+5) +.8(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' Formed From: 'SW' 1.6(3+4+5) -+ NOTIONAL_Y Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 2 1.gti A traditional linear elastic analysis was used to create the first design of the model.2 3 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.2 2 1.6 Name: 1.6(3+4+5) +.2 1 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.6 5 1.6(3+4+5) ++ NOTIONAL_Y Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2(SW+1+2) + 0.6 5 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' 1. the weight is 3905.2 'WLN' 0.8(WLN) .6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.2 1 1.2 2 1.6 5 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' -1.2 2 1.2 1 1.NOTIONAL_Y Formed From: ‘SW’ 1.2 2 1.2(SW+1+2) + 1.6 5 1.2 1 1.6 Name: 1.6 Name: 1.6 4 1.2 3 1.2 3 1.2 2 1.8 'NY_SW+1+2' -1.

which correspond to the wide-flange.0 for all of the members when designing based on a linear elastic analysis. equal leg double angle. a nonlinear elastic analysis was not performed. and rectangle and square box shapes given within the AISC 2005 Specification. Steel grade A992 with a yield stress (Fy) of 50ksi is used for all of the steel members within the structure.gti”. Rather.gti Following the first linear elastic analysis. The K factor is set to 1.gti” can be found in Appendix AV. Notional_ Loads.5 tons. Model& Indloads. 4a. and RecHSS13 tables defined within GTSTRUDL. a linear elastic analysis was performed as the basis of the first design of the model. A yield stress (Fy) of 50ksi and an ultimate stress (Fu) of 70ksi are used for all of the steel members within the structure. All internal member forces and joint displacements were computed and were used as a basis for a linear elastic design of the model. Since initial members sizes are usually based on a guess or past experience. The commands which describe the traditional linear elastic analysis within file “3a. A traditional stiffness analysis based on linear elastic analysis was performed based on the design load conditions given in file “2. The K factor is set to 1.member shapes required for a stable design are unknown. After the stiffness analysis was performed on the structure. AISC13_LRFD_LinearAnal_Design&CodeChk_Notional. all of the space frame members were designed using the W-AISC13. the total weight of the steel frame members in the structure was still 3905.gti” and the initial member properties given in file “1. 2L-EQ-13.0 for all of the members when designing based on a linear elastic 100 . LINEAR_STATIC_ ANALYSIS_Notional.

gti” can be found in Appendix AW. and “5c. The commands which define the smoothing process (“TAKE” command) can be found in file “0.gti”.gti”. LinearAnalysis. The results of the linear elastic analysis for each member are checked against the 2005 AISC Specification to see if all code provisions are satisfied. & CodeCheck_Notional. & Code Check_Notional. they were reanalyzed with a second linear elastic analysis. Model&Indloads. Redesign. 101 .gti” located in Appendix BG. reanalysis. Members that do not pass the code checks are stored into a group called “FAILCK”. Redesign. smoothing. which was based on the initial member sizes.gti”. The initial member tubular shape may have been a poor initial guess for the members because the weight of the structure after the first design based on a linear analysis decreased significantly. & CodeCheck_Notional. The total weight of 2257.analysis. and code checks within file “4a. The commands which define the design based on the initial linear elastic analysis. to be redesigned and reanalyzed in the subsequent files: “5a. where columns are smoothed by Euler buckling and beams and girders are smoothing by bending. After all of the members are designed based on the initial linear elastic analysis results.gti”.1 tons was found after all of the steel members were designed based on linear elastic analysis. All members were smoothed in accordance to the groups established in file “1.Redesign. SmoothMember Properties. a nonlinear analysis could be performed upon the structure. LinearAnalysis. Once a linear elastic design was found that satisfied the code. LinearAnalysis. “5b. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnal_CodeChk_ Notional.

LinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_ Notional.AISC13_LRFD_LinearAnal_Design &CodeChk_Notional. therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0.85.gti All of the steel frame members that fail the 2005 AISC Specification provisions (whose names are stored in the group “FAILCK”) in file “4a. Members that fail the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions. & CodeCheck_Notional. & CodeCheck_Notional. LinearAnalysis. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check. The total weight after the second design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 2293. 5b.5a.85 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 15%. Redesign.90 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 10%.90 was selected by a trial and error process after multiple iterations were performed. The value for the unity check of 0. Redesign. Members that fail the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions. and code checks within file “5a.gti” were designed using an interaction equation unity check of 0. reanalysis of the structure.90.85 was 102 . LinearAnalysis.gti” can be found in Appendix AX. Redesign.6 tons. LinearAnalysis. Redesign. more design iterations were required to obtain design convergence based on a linear elastic analysis. however. so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations.gti The members that fail the code checks during the second design iteration within file “5a.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0. & CodeCheck_Notional. therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0. The value for the unity check of 0.

Redesign. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check.gti” can be found in Appendix AY. and code checks within file “5c. & CodeCheck_Notional. LinearAnalysis. reanalysis of the structure. Redesign. Members that fail the code check needed to have larger shapes selected to satisfy code provisions. The total weight after the third iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 2311. LinearAnalysis. The value for the unity check of 0. The provisions within the 2005 AISC Specification were met by the linear elastic design. & CodeCheck_Notional. Another iteration was required in order to obtain design convergence for a linear elastic analysis. Redesign.0 tons. 5c.gti The members that fail the code checks during the third design iteration within file “5b. & CodeCheck_ Notional. and therefore a nonlinear analysis could be performed on the model.80 required that the members be overdesigned by a value of 20%.gti” were redesigned using an interaction equation unity check of 0. and code checks within file “5b.selected after multiple iterations were performed so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations.80.gti” can be found in Appendix AZ.80 was selected after multiple iterations were performed so convergence could be achieved with fewer required iterations. Redesign. & CodeCheck_ Notional. LinearAnalysis. therefore an interaction equation unity check value of 0. reanalysis of the structure. The commands which define the redesign of the members which failed the code check. 103 . LinearAnalysis.

then all members were redesigned based on the previous linear elastic analysis results because a nonlinear analysis does not yield results which are in equilibrium with the full value of the applied loads when an instability is detected within the model. 6a. the stiffness influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of important 104 . If the nonlinear analysis did not converge within a specified tolerance.The total weight after the fourth design iteration based on a linear elastic analysis was 2321. If the structure contained an instability. the 2005 Specification specifies a 20% reduction of EI and EA only (i.e.0 tons. then all members were checked against the 2005 Specification provisions based on the nonlinear geometric analysis results. While this may be permissible for models whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simplistic models for which such EI and EA reductions may be valid. If the structure was found to be stable. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI. The first nonlinear geometric was performed for the design loads described in file “2. Figure 14 illustrates the design after convergence for a linear elastic analysis.gti”. Notional_Loads.. A separate nonlinear analysis must be run for each of the different design load cases.gti Following a design that was produced by the traditional iterative linear elastic analysis and design approach that satisfies all code checks. the first rigorous nonlinear geometric elastic analysis pursuant to the AISC 13th Edition 2005 Specification Direct Analysis Method was performed on the model. the structure was determined to be unstable for that load case. flexural stiffness and axial stiffness reductions). For each nonlinear analysis.

All members of the industrial structure must be redesigned. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis pursuant to the 2005 AISC Specification rigorous Direct Analysis Method within file “6a. AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. LinearAnalysis. torsion. & CodeCheck_ Notional. and biaxial bending) can have a significant influence on nonlinear geometric behavior of such frameworks. Redesign. Therefore. because it is very difficult to determine which combination of members.industrial steel frameworks is not influenced simply by flexural and axial stiffness. or what part of the structure. biaxial shear.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking and design. a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences. After the first nonlinear analysis was conducted. 105 .10 tons) 4b. The total weight of the boiler building after a nonlinear analysis was performed does not change from the weight determined from the linear elastic analysis design (the weight of the structure stayed at 2312. while the rest of the load cases converged within three cycles.gti” can be found in Appendix BA. caused the structural instability. All of the steel members in the structure were redesigned (not just members that failed code checks) using an interaction equation unity check of 0. but rather stiffness influences of all six stiffness components (ie. The structure was redesigned based upon the last linear analysis performed in file “5c. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.70. one load case caused a structural instability. axial.gti”.

AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional.gti” can be found in Appendix BB.70 required that the members be redesigned b a value of 30%. Model&Indloads.The value for the unity check of 0. this value was selected after multiple iterations were performed so a stable design could be found with fewer required iterations. All of the load cases converged within three iterations and the entire structure was stable. Again. The commands which describe the redesign of model within file “4b. NonlinearAnalysis_ Notional&AE_EI.gti A second nonlinear analysis was conducted on the structure using the new members redesigned in file “4b. NonlinearAnalysis_ Notional&AE_EI. The weight of the model does not change from file “4b.7 tons. The total weight of the structure after all of the members were redesigned was 2227. The commands which describe the nonlinear elastic analysis within file “6c.gti”. AISC13_ LRFD_Design_Notional. where columns are smoothed by Euler buckling and beams and girders are smoothing by bending.gti” because the nonlinear analysis was based on the design of the steel frame members in file “4b. a 20% reduction of the elastic modulus (E) and the shear modulus (G) was specified to account for the reduction of all six stiffness influences.gti”.gti” can be found in Appendix BC. All of the members were smoothed in accordance to the groups established in file “1.gti”. AISC13_LRFD_ Design_Notional. AISC13_LRFD_ Design_Notional. 106 . 6c.

The total weight of the structure did not change since only code checks are performed. and code 107 . The commands which describe the code checks after a nonlinear analysis within file “7a.80.7a.gti were redesigned using an interaction unity check value of 0.gti” can be found in Appendix BD. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_Using Nonlinear_Notional. The value for the unity check of 0. & CodeCheck_Notional.ASIC13_LRFD_ CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. all the members must satisfy the provisions within the 2005 AISC Specification. The steel members that formed the stable design of the boiler building model were checked against the 2005 AISC Specification requirements and based on the nonlinear analysis results. The commands which describe the redesign and reanalysis.80 required that the members be redesigned b a value of 20%. 7b. The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. Another nonlinear analysis was performed to determine if the model remained stable after the redesign process.gti The members that failed the code checks within file 7a. Redesign. The weight of the structure was 2227. this value was selected after multiple iterations were performed so the design could converge with fewer required iterations. Additionally. NonlinearAnalysis.7 tons at this stage.gti The elastic modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were then returned to their standard values after the nonlinear analysis but prior to code checking. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. The names of members that failed the code check were placed in the group called “FAILCHK”. using the nonlinear geometric analysis.

Redesign.gti” can be found in Appendix BF. & CodeCheck_ Notional. The structure was found to be stable after several of the members in the structure were redesigned to satisfy the 2005 Specification. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.gti” can be found in Appendix BE. Within this file. Nonlinear Analysis. The total weight of the structure remains as 2229. & CodeCheck_Notional. 99.gti”) conducted. was found to be 2229. Redesign.checks within file “7b. The total weight of boiler building model after a suitable design that was both stable using a geometric nonlinear analysis and satisfied the code. A horizontal force that is equivalent to the sum of all of the notional loads can be applied at the base of the structure in the opposite direction as the notional loads to account for the fictitious loads [14].1 tons. 108 . a linear elastic stiffness analysis was performed using the notional loads and the support reactions are listed which can be used to find the true base reactions by subtracting the value found by the analysis of the notional loads from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analysis (file “7b. The commands which describe a linear elastic analysis of the model using the notional loads within file “99.1 tons. NonlinearAnalysis.gti The application of notional loads may lead to fictitious base shears in a structure. Figure 15 gives the final design of the structure after converging for a nonlinear analysis.

Figure 14: Boiler Building Design after Linear Elastic Design Convergence 109 .

Figure 15: Boiler Building Design after Nonlinear Geometric Analysis Design Convergence 110 .

though complex. 111 . Although the weight increased with each design cycle. only contained 2517 joints and 5360 space frame members. This model. The weight of the steel members also increased with each nonlinear analysis performed on the structure. Multiple iterations were also necessary to find a stable design by a nonlinear analysis that accounts for geometric nonlinearities following the Direct Analysis Method given in the 13th Edition AISC 2005 Specification. because all members had to be redesigned when an instability was detected since the members causing the instability could not be determined. For a much larger structure.3 Discussion of Results Multiple iterations were necessary to find a suitable linear elastic design that satisfies all of the provisions within the AISC 2005 Specification. However for a nonlinear analysis. the time required to perform multiple iterations of a nonlinear analysis for the required load combinations could be substantial. a separate nonlinear analysis must be conducted on each formed load case for each cycle.5. The weight of the steel frame members was tabulated throughout the process in Table 6. making the structure more costly. much larger and more complex structures will need to be analyzed using a nonlinear analysis procedure. the total weight of the structure decreased significantly from the original weight of the structure which contained the initial member sizes because the initial member shapes were guessed poorly. The weight of the structure increased with each progressive iteration.

Boiler Building File 1.5 2257.7 2229.gti 3a. LinearAnalysis. Model&Indloads. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.) (e) Stable structure. reanalyze with linear elastic analysis and code check members.5 3905. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.1 2293. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti (f) 99. (b) Redesign all members that fail code checks.gti 7b.1 2229. Notional_Loads.gti (e) 7a.7 2227. AISC13_LRFD_LinearAnal_Design&CodeChk_Notional. 112 . AISC13_LRFD_Design_Notional. Redesign. Redesign. NonlinearAnalysis. (d) Redesign all members based on the last linear analysis results (in file 5c. (c) Structural Instability detected by nonlinear analysis.gti (b) 6a. LinearAnalysis.gti (b) 5c.0 2321. & CodeCheck_Notional. reanalyze with nonlinear geometric analysis and code check. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. LinearAnalysis. NonlinearAnalysis_Notional&AE_EI. Redesign. (f) Redesign all members that fail code check.1 Notes: (a) Design all members based on first linear elastic analysis then reanalyze and code check.6 2311.7 2227.gti 4a.0 2227. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti (b) 5b.0 2321.gti 2. & CodeCheck_Notional. & CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.gti Weight (Tons) 3905.Table 6: Total Weight of Steel .gti (a) 5a.gti (c) 4b.5 3905.gti (d) 6c.

In addition to the consequence of the time to the engineer. resulting in an overdesign of many members. All members must have new shapes selected because there is no way to determine in a reliable manner which combination of members and joints may have caused some structural instability from among a huge number of possible instabilities. therefore a separate nonlinear analysis must be conducted for each of the independent design loading conditions on the structure. 113 . if structural instability is detected by a geometric nonlinear elastic analysis. For a second-order analysis. the structure could become much heavier (as seen in Model 1) when all members must be redesigned according to reduced unity checks. A given structure could have hundreds of independent design loading conditions and performing a nonlinear elastic analysis for each of the independent design load conditions could become quite time consuming and costly for the engineer. The consequence of this iterative process is computational time which will have an enormous impact on the practicing engineer.1 Implications for the Engineer The systematic approach for the practicing engineer to apply the Direct Analysis Method to analyze and design complex steel frame structures using computer software is highly iterative as is illustrated in the flow chart in Chapter 3 of this study as well as implemented in the sequence of files for Models 1 and 2 in this study.CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6. all members within the structure may need to be redesigned by reducing the unity check. the second-order effects on a structure are such that linear superposition principles are not valid. Additionally.

6. The original load conditions applied to the nuclear power plant boiler building (Model 2) in this study had to be significantly reduced to satisfy both linear and nonlinear elastic analysis and the provisions in the 2005 AISC Specification. Also the results of adding a joint in the midpoint of all of the beams could be studied on the boiler building (Model 2) as well as the simple industrial structure (Model 1). In addition to studying complex models. should be studied further for the impact of adding a joint at mid-column of all the columns on the analyses and design process. further research is recommended to determine what characteristics of the models in this study cause the linear analysis and subsequent design to have such a large difference in weight when the Direct Analysis Method is applied on the models and geometric nonlinear effects are considered. The geometric nonlinear analyses in this study are elastic. Additionally. research is recommended to further study several other complex industrial structures. Further study on complex industrial models using nonlinear inelastic analysis procedures is desired to 114 . Smaller test problems are recommended to be developed to help answer this question.2 Further Research Further research is recommended to give a better understanding for the application of the AISC Direct Analysis Method on heavy industry industrial structures. The models of this study give a starting basis for research in heavy industry stability design. the nuclear power plant boiler building. The second model of this study. It is further recommended that an incremental nonlinear analysis be performed to aid in the determination of the source of the instabilities so members could be resized more selectively.

focus on the significance of using the Direct Analysis Method to analyze and design an industrial structure for strength and stability while considering the inelastic behavior of the structure. 115 .

gti 116 .APPENDIX A Model 1 . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 1.

STRUDL 'bm2_01' 'Benchmark .83 -1000. 201 202 203 202 203 205 'GX201' 'GX202' 'GX203' 204 207 210 UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL UNITS FEET KIPS DEGREES CONSTANTS DENSITY 0. .GTSTRUDL' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVERS GTSES $ UNIT FEET KIPS DEGREES $ TYPE SPACE FRAME $ JOINT COORDINATES $ 101 821.83 -0.83 -0. -0.490 ALL BETA 90. . 201 204 207 .67 .67 102 821. 'GZ201' 'GZ202' 'GZ203' 201 202 204 . . .00 MEMBER 'GZ601' 'GZ602' 'GZ603' 'GZ604' $ PRINT STRUCTURE DATA $ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 117 . .00 -1029. .50 -1057.67 103 821. .33 STATUS SUPPORTS JOINTS 101 TO 121 BY 1 $ JOINT RELEASES 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 MOM X MOM Z 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 MOM X MOM Z 119 120 121 $ MEMBER INCIDENCES $ 'Ca101' 101 'Ca102' 102 'Ca103' 103 . .

'GZ706' $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL BEAMS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'BEAMS' GROUPS '7Z-1' '7Z-2' '7X-1' '7X-2' '6Z-1' '5X-1' '5Z-1' '4Z-1' '4Z-2' '4Z-3' '4X-1' '4X-2' '3Z-1' '3Z-2' '3Z-3' '3X-1' '3X-2' '2X-1' '2X-2' '2Z-1' '2Z-2' '2Z-3' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ---------------------------------------------------------------DEFINE GRP 'ALLMEM' MEMBERS EXISTING MEMBERS ONLY $ ---------------------------------------------------------------MEMBER PROPERTIES TABLE 'W-AISC13' GRP 'COLUMNS' T 'W14X90' GRP 'BEAMS' T 'W21X101' $ ---------------------------------------------------------------SAVE '1. .gts' FINISH 118 . 'Ca103' 'Ca302' 'Ca106' 'Ca305' 'Ca201' 'Ca303' 'Ca204' 'Ca306' 'Ca202' - 'Ca205' - $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL COLUMNS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'COLUMNS' GROUPS 'C1-1' 'C2-1' 'C3-1' 'C3-2' 'C4-1' 'C4-2' 'C5-1' 'C6-1' 'C7-1' 'C8-1' 'C9-1' 'C9-2' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ----------BEAMS and GIRDERS-------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP '7Z-1' MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' DEFINE GROUP '7Z-2' MEMBERS 'GZ703' 'GZ704' 'GZ705' . . .$-----BEAM_and_COLUMN_MEMBERS------------------------------------$ ----------COLUMN GROUPS-----------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP 'C1-1' MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca102' 'Ca203' 'Ca301' DEFINE GROUP 'C2-1' MEMBERS 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca206' 'Ca304' . . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.

gti 119 .Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 2. STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.APPENDIX B Model 1 .

.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Define static loading conditions UNITS KIPS FEET SELF WEIGHT 'SW' 'SELF WEIGHT' DIRECTION -Y ALL MEMBERS LOADING 'DL' 'ADDITIONAL DEAD LOADS' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. .RESTORE '1.93 4. .58 LOADING 'WLN' 'Wind Loads North' JOINT LOADS 704 701 317 FOR FOR FOR .863 . X X X 5.48 -9.915 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. .48 LOADING 'WLE' 'Wind Loads East' JOINT LOADS 701 703 403 FOR FOR FOR . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.295 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. JOINT LOADS 305 FORCE Y -100 308 FORCE Y -100 LOADING 'WLW' 'Wind Loads West' JOINT LOADS 709 708 707 FOR FOR FOR . X X X -9. . . .287 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.889 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. $ LOADING 'LL' 'Live Loads' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. . Z Z Z -6 -6 -6 120 .278 . .93 5. .48 -9.

Appendix 7.2*(SW+DL)+1..2 'LL' 1.4 - FORM LOADING '12-1' '1.2 'LL' 1.4 'DL' 1.. $ Appendix states that.0 .NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1.4 FORM LOADING '11-5' '1.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.6*(LL) +.2*(SW+DL)+1.2 'DL' 1. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0. $ Therefore.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'NX_LL' 1.4 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0. tb = 1..0 may be used $ for all members. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1.2 'DL' 1.1-196 to 16.4*(SW+DL)' – FROM 'SW' 1.4 'DL' 1.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.4 FORM LOADING '11-4' '1.4 'DL' 1.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.4*(SW+DL) .. . Z Z Z 6 6 6 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification. "In lieu of using tb less than 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.4 'NZ_SW+DL' 1. Rather.2 'LL' 1.4*(SW+DL) .6 121 . be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed. if not all.2 'NX_LL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.4 FORM LOADING '11-2' '1.LOADING 'WLS' 'Wind Load South' JOINT LOADS 709 706 703 FOR FOR FOR .8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed.2 'DL' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-4' '1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.6 FORM LOADING '12-3' '1.2*(SW+DL)+1. Pages 16.0 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ 13th Edition LRFD Load Combinations FORM LOADING '11-1' '1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. if ever.4 'NX_SW+DL' 1.6*(LL) -.2*(SW+DL)+1.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1. GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor.4 FORM LOADING '11-3' '1.6*(LL)' FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1..4 'NX_SW+DL' -1.6 FORM LOADING '12-2' '1. [0.e.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2).6 FORM LOADING '12-5' '1. .2 'NX_LL' -1. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified.4 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.2 'NX_LL' -1.4 'DL' 1.." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.

NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'NZ_LL' -1.5 0.2 'LL' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.5*(LL)+1.2 FORM LOADING 18 '1.2 FORM LOADING 22 '1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.2 'DL' 1.6*(WLE) +.8 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -0. STATIC_LOADS_Notional.5 'NZ_LL' -0.5 'WLN' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2*(SW+DL)+1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'WLW' 0.2 'WLE' 0.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'DL' 1.9 'DL' 0.5*(LL)+1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.FORM LOADING '12-6' '1.2 'LL' 0.6*(LL) +.9 'DL' 0.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6*(WLS) +.9 FORM LOADING 21 '1.5 'NZ_LL' -0.2*(SW+DL)+1.5 'WLE' 1.2 FORM LOADING 23 '1.2 'DL' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.5 'WLS' 1.2 'LL' 0.9 FORM LOADING 28 '0.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2 'LL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 0.6 'NX_SW+DL' 0.2 'DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.6*(WLE) ++ NOTIONAL_X’ FROM 'SW' 1.8*(WLN) .6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.9*(SW+DL)+1.5 'WLW' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.9 'DL' 0.9 'WLW' 1.9*(SW+DL)+1.9 'NX_LL' -0.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.2 'DL' 1.9 'WLN' 1.2 FORM LOADING 19 '0.2 'WLS' 0.6*(WLW) .9 FORM LOADING 20 '0.2 FORM LOADING 26 '1.5 'WLE' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.8 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-8' '1.2 'DL' 1.6*(WLN) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.5*(LL)+1.2 'LL' 0.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'NZ_LL' -1.6*(WLW) -.2 FORM LOADING 25 '1.gts' FINISH 122 .2*(SW+DL)+0.6*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.2 'WLN' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6*(WLS) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.8*(WLW) .NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 17 '1.2 FORM LOADING 15 '1.5*(LL)+1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 FORM LOADING 13 '1.5*(LL)+1.9*(SW+DL)+1.9*(SW+DL)+1.9 'WLE' 1.5 $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QUERY $ PRINT LOAD DATA SAVE '2.6 FORM LOADING '12-9' '1.8*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'DL' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.8 'NX_SW+DL' -1.6*(WLN) .8*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.5 'NX_LL' 'NX_LL' 0.2 FORM LOADING 27 '0.5 'WLN' 1.5 'WLS' 1.2 'LL' 0.2 'LL' 0.8 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2 'DL' 1.9 'DL' 0.2 'DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6*(WLN) -.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 0.2 'LL' 0.5*(LL)+1.2 'LL' 0.2 'DL' 1.9 'WLS' 1.2 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -0.2 'DL' 1.6*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.5*(LL)+1.5 'NX_LL' -0.6*(LL) -.5 'NZ_LL' 'NZ_LL' 0.2 'LL' 1.5 'WLW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6*(WLW) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 FORM LOADING 16 '1.6 FORM LOADING '12-7' '1.2*(SW+DL)+1.2 FORM LOADING 24 '1.5 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 14 '1.

gti 123 . LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.APPENDIX C Model 1 .Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 3a.

$ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. Notional_Loads.gts' FINISH 124 .RESTORE '2. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS UNITS INCH KIPS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 LIST DISPLACEMENTS JOINTS 'P2322' 'P2262' 'P1342' 'J1430' $ LIST MAXIMUM JOINT DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY ONLY LOADS ACTIVE OUTPUT BY JOINT $ .gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ $ Perform linear static analysis for all currently active factored limit state loading conditions.. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.. 14. and BY MEMBER LIST SUM REACTIONS LIST MAXIMUM REACTION ENVELOPE LOADS ACTIVE ONLY UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '3a. '12-1' TO '12-9'.e..

APPENDIX D Model 1 .gti 125 . AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4a.

278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .833 9. $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$--------------------------------LY GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LY LY 9. $---------------LZ (Unbraced length) of Columns-------------------------------------$-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------LZ 20.0 1. .0 Use code units rather than: UNITS ACTIVE ALL $ ----------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODE AISC13 ALL MEMEBERS METHOD LRFD ALL MEMBERS STEELGRD A992 ALL $ 50 ksi STEEL CODETOL 0. .0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' $ All columns ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS $------------.278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 For all columns: KY = KZ = 1.500 27.73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' 'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Ca103' 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca106' 'Ca109' 'Ca110' 'Ca111' 'Ca112' 'Ca115' 'Ca116' 'Ca117' 'Ca118' 'Ca121' 126 .0 1. .0 TBLNAM TBLNAM KZ KY SLENCOMP CB CM WBEAM-13 WCOL-13 1.833 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .RESTORE '3a.833 9. .gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 UNITS FT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -----------------------------------------Steel design by the 13th Edition AISC code -----------------------------------------For all beams: KY = KZ = 1. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. $--------------------------------LZ GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LZ LZ 29.0 300 1.UNLCF (Maximum unbraced length of compression flange) ---------------UNLCF UNLCF 9. . .

. . if ever..e. 'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Ca103' 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca106' 'Ca109' 'Ca110' 'Ca111' 'Ca112' 'Ca115' 'Ca116' 'Ca117' 'Ca118' 'Ca121' 'Ca203' 'Ca204' 'Ca205' 'Ca206' 'Ca209' 'Ca210' 'Ca211' 'Ca212' 'Ca215' 'Ca216' 'Ca217' 'Ca218' 'Ca221' LY 19. '12-1' TO '12-9'.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.0 may be used $ for all members. 13 TO 28 $ CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -7. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0. [0.93) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification. 127 .8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed.75 1.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2). Pages 16. if not all. Unity check = 0. Appendix 7.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.. be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed.0 . "In lieu of using tb less than 1.0 ALL $ 7% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i..1-196 to 16." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.0 1.0 0.73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' .5 0.. $ All beams $ All columns $ Appendix 7 states that.. .LZ 19.e. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. .. tb = 1. .. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely. 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Ca203' 'Ca204' 'Ca205' 'Ca206' 'Ca209' 'Ca210' 'Ca211' 'Ca212' 'Ca215' 'Ca216' 'Ca217' 'Ca218' 'Ca221' $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$---------------------------------LY of Columns-------------------------------------LY 20.27 MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' .25 0. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified.27 $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SECTION FR NS 5 0.e.

GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor.0 'DL' 1.0 'DL' 1.gts' FINISH 128 .003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: DELETE.E. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ---------------------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ---------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0.003 NLDIRECTION Z JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM $ Reform all FORM LOADS with the updated notional loads LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. UNITY CHECK = 1. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.003 NLDIRECTION X JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.$ Therefore.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '4a. Rather.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'..

APPENDIX E Model 1 . & CodeCheck_Notional.gti 129 . Redesign. LinearAnalysis.Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5a.

0 ALL $ Require a 15% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i. volume..003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.e.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '5c.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0. $ ----------------------------------------------------------------UNITS KIP $ STEEL TAKE OFF MEMBERS EXISTING ITEMIZE BY PROFILE NAMES $ All members STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional. UNITY CHECK = 1.0 'DL' 1. 13 TO 28 $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -15. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.0 'DL' 1. Unity check = 0. and weight of the current design of $ all beams and columns after design. '12-1' TO '12-9'.E.gts' FINISH 130 .gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.RESTORE '4a. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'..85) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' $ All members that failed code check $ ----------------------------------------------------------------$ Calculate the length. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'.

& CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.gti 131 . LinearAnalysis.APPENDIX F Model 1 .Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5b.

0 'DL' 1.80) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ All members that failed code check $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE. Unity check = 0.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '5b. volume. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional. '12-1' TO '12-9'.. UNITY CHECK = 1. 13 TO 28 $ ----------------------------------------------------------------$ Calculate the length. '12-1' TO '12-9'.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 ALL $ Require a 5% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i..0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.gts' FINISH 132 . and weight of the current design of $ all beams and columns after design smoothing.e.RESTORE '5c. $ ----------------------------------------------------------------UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -20. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'.0 'DL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 ALL $ Require a 5% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ -10.E.

gti 133 .Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6a.APPENDIX G Model 1 . NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.

.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional. '12-1' TO '12-9'.8E) for Reduced AE.gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value 134 .RESTORE '5b. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. GAy.e. EIy.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS SAVE '6.8G) for Reduced GIx. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.

AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional.gti 135 .APPENDIX H Model 1 .Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4b.

the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'..0 ALL $ Unity check = 0.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. 13 TO 28 UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -20. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional. '12-1' TO '12-9'. '12-1' TO '12-9'.RESTORE '5b.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 'DL' 1. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.e.0 'DL' 1. 13 TO 28 SAVE '4b.80 SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.gts' FINISH $ All beams $ All columns 136 .

Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6c.APPENDIX I Model 1 .gti 137 . NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.

8G) for Reduced GIx. EIy.e. GAy.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.8E) for Reduced AE. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS SAVE '6. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. '12-1' TO '12-9'.gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value 138 . 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'..gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.RESTORE '4b.

Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 3b.APPENDIX J Model 1 .gti 139 . LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.

13 TO 28 FORM LOAD REFORM QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS LIST SUM REACTIONS SAVE '4b.RESTORE '4b. '12-1' TO '12-9'.e. $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ $ Perform linear static analysis for all currently active factored limit state loading conditions..gts' FINISH 140 . LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.

APPENDIX K Model 1 .gti 141 .Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4c. AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional.

LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. '12-1' TO '12-9'. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.0 ALL $ Unity check = 0. 13 TO 28 SAVE '4b.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.65 SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 'DL' 1.0 'DL' 1. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0..0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.e. 13 TO 28 UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -35.RESTORE '4b. '12-1' TO '12-9'. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.gts' FINISH $ All beams $ All columns 142 .gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.

Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7a.APPENDIX L Model 1 . AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.gti 143 .

75 1.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.5 0.0 1. 13 TO 28 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7c..RESTORE '6.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 0.0 SECTION FR NS 5 0.gts' FINISH 144 . the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.e.25 0.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.

APPENDIX M Model 1 . Redesign. & CodeCheck_Notional.Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7b. NonlinearAnalysis.gti 145 .

0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0.5 0.gts' FINISH 146 .8G) for Reduced GIx.0 1. 13 TO 28 UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.0 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7b.0 0.75 1. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.RESTORE '7c. GAy. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LIST SUM REACTIONS UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value $ All beams $ All columns and bracing SECTION FR NS 5 0.25 0. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.8E) for Reduced AE. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 'DL' 1. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'.e. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. EIy. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.

APPENDIX N Model 1 . NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.gti 147 .Case 1: No Extra Joints Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 99.

Shankar Nair. opposite in direction to the notional loads. in some cases. R. cause horizontal reactions on the individual foundation components. “Stability and Analysis Provisions of the 2005 AISC Specification”. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.2 Consideration of Initial Imperfections: User Note: The notional loads do not cause a net horizontal reaction on the foundation but may. Page 9 “2.gts' FINISH 148 . REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. A horizontal force of Sum(Ni).gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ----------------------------------------------------This is the last analysis run based on the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paper by Dr..” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Therefore. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NX_LL' 'NZ_LL' QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 OUTPUT BY JOINT LIST REACTIONS LOAD LIST ALL SAVE '99. and then use the notional load reaction components to subtract from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analyses. perform a linear static analysis for the notional loads.RESTORE '7b.e. output the support reactions. may be applied in the analysis at the bases of all columns to yield the correct reactions at the foundation.

APPENDIX O Model 1 .gti 149 .Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.

83 -1000.33 STATUS SUPPORTS JOINTS 101 TO 121 BY 1 $ JOINT RELEASES 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 MOM X MOM Z 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 MOM X MOM Z 119 120 121 $ MEMBER INCIDENCES $ 'Ca101' 101 'Ca102' 102 'Ca103' 103 . 201 202 203 202 203 205 'GX201' 'GX202' 'GX203' 204 207 210 UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL UNITS FEET KIPS DEGREES CONSTANTS DENSITY 0. . .83 -0.83 -0.67 102 821.67 .STRUDL 'bm2_01' 'Benchmark .67 103 821.50 -1057.00 -1029. . .490 ALL BETA 90.GTSTRUDL' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVERS GTSES $ UNIT FEET KIPS DEGREES $ TYPE SPACE FRAME $ JOINT COORDINATES $ 101 821. -0. . 201 204 207 .00 MEMBER 'GZ601' 'GZ602' 'GZ603' 'GZ604' $ PRINT STRUCTURE DATA $ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 150 . . . . 'GZ201' 'GZ202' 'GZ203' 201 202 204 .

$-----BEAM_and_COLUMN_MEMBERS------------------------------------$ ----------COLUMN GROUPS-----------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP 'C1-1' MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca102' 'Ca203' 'Ca301' DEFINE GROUP 'C2-1' MEMBERS 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca206' 'Ca304' . 'Ca103' 'Ca302' 'Ca106' 'Ca305' 'Ca201' 'Ca303' 'Ca204' 'Ca306' 'Ca202' - 'Ca205' - $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL COLUMNS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'COLUMNS' GROUPS 'C1-1' 'C2-1' 'C3-1' 'C3-2' 'C4-1' 'C4-2' 'C5-1' 'C6-1' 'C7-1' 'C8-1' 'C9-1' 'C9-2' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ----------BEAMS and GIRDERS-------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP '7Z-1' MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' DEFINE GROUP '7Z-2' MEMBERS 'GZ703' 'GZ704' 'GZ705' . .gts' FINISH 151 . . . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. . 'GZ706' $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL BEAMS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'BEAMS' GROUPS '7Z-1' '7Z-2' '7X-1' '7X-2' '6Z-1' '5X-1' '5Z-1' '4Z-1' '4Z-2' '4Z-3' '4X-1' '4X-2' '3Z-1' '3Z-2' '3Z-3' '3X-1' '3X-2' '2X-1' '2X-2' '2Z-1' '2Z-2' '2Z-3' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ---------------------------------------------------------------DEFINE GRP 'ALLMEM' MEMBERS EXISTING MEMBERS ONLY $ ---------------------------------------------------------------MEMBER PROPERTIES TABLE 'W-AISC13' GRP 'COLUMNS' T 'W14X90' GRP 'BEAMS' T 'W21X101' $ ---------------------------------------------------------------SAVE '1.

STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.APPENDIX P Model 1 .gti 152 .Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 2.

RESTORE '1. .93 5. X X X -9. $ LOADING 'LL' 'Live Loads' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. . .295 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.93 4. . . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.48 -9.278 . X X X 5.287 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.863 .48 -9.48 LOADING 'WLE' 'Wind Loads East' JOINT LOADS 701 703 403 FOR FOR FOR .915 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. . JOINT LOADS 305 FORCE Y -100 308 FORCE Y -100 LOADING 'WLW' 'Wind Loads West' JOINT LOADS 709 708 707 FOR FOR FOR . .58 LOADING 'WLN' 'Wind Loads North' JOINT LOADS 704 701 317 FOR FOR FOR . Z Z Z -6 -6 -6 153 .889 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. . .gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Define static loading conditions UNITS KIPS FEET SELF WEIGHT 'SW' 'SELF WEIGHT' DIRECTION -Y ALL MEMBERS LOADING 'DL' 'ADDITIONAL DEAD LOADS' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. .

if ever.2*(SW+DL)+1.LOADING 'WLS' 'Wind Load South' JOINT LOADS 709 706 703 FOR FOR FOR .NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. Pages 16.6*(LL) +.8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed. Appendix 7.4 'DL' 1.4 'NZ_SW+DL' 1. Z Z Z 6 6 6 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0. .2 'LL' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.4 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1. [0.6 FORM LOADING '12-3' '1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.4 - FORM LOADING '12-1' '1.4*(SW+DL)' – FROM 'SW' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ 13th Edition LRFD Load Combinations FORM LOADING '11-1' '1.4 FORM LOADING '11-4' '1.4*(SW+DL) . if not all.0 . .e.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.4 'NX_SW+DL' 1.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.2 'NX_LL' -1. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0.2 'DL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1.2 'DL' 1.4 'DL' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-2' '1. be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed.2 'DL' 1.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.4 'NX_SW+DL' -1. $ Therefore. $ Appendix states that.4 FORM LOADING '11-3' '1.4*(SW+DL) . GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor.2 'NX_LL' 1.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.2 'LL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1.4 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2 'NX_LL' 1.6*(LL)' FROM 'SW' 1..4 FORM LOADING '11-5' '1.6 FORM LOADING '12-4' '1. tb = 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.2 'LL' 1.2 'NX_LL' -1.6 154 .0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0..6 'NX_SW+DL' -1." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.4 FORM LOADING '11-2' '1.6 FORM LOADING '12-5' '1.0 may be used $ for all members.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1..001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2).6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1..2 'LL' 1..6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.1-196 to 16.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.. Rather.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. "In lieu of using tb less than 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.2*(SW+DL)+1. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified.4 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.4 'DL' 1.6*(LL) -.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.

9 'DL' 0.2*(SW+DL)+0.6*(WLE) +.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -0.6 'NX_SW+DL' -0.2 'DL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 19 '0.9 'DL' 0.9*(SW+DL)+1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 FORM LOADING 16 '1.2 'NZ_LL' -1.2 'WLN' 0.gts' FINISH 155 .2 'DL' 1.5 'NZ_LL' 'NZ_LL' 0.5*(LL)+1.6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 0.5 0.6*(WLW) .2 'LL' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.5 0.6*(WLN) .5*(LL)+1.9*(SW+DL)+1.2 'LL' 0.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'DL' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.9 'WLW' 1.6*(WLN) -.9 FORM LOADING 21 '1.2*(SW+DL)+1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.2*(SW+DL)+1.2 'DL' 1.6*(WLW) -.6*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.2 'WLS' 0.5*(LL)+1.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.8*(WLN) .NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.2 'NZ_LL' -1.9 'NX_LL' -0.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.8*(WLW) .2 'DL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 27 '0.6*(LL) -.2 'DL' 1.2 'WLW' 0.2 FORM LOADING 23 '1.2 FORM LOADING 22 '1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.8 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.2 'DL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 26 '1.2 'LL' 0.2 'LL' 1.8 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6*(WLS) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.5 'WLN' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.5 'WLS' 1.6*(WLN) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'LL' 1.2 'LL' 0.6 FORM LOADING '12-9' '1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.9*(SW+DL)+1.6*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.2*(SW+DL)+0.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1. STATIC_LOADS_Notional.5 $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QUERY $ PRINT LOAD DATA SAVE '2.2 FORM LOADING 18 '1.9 FORM LOADING 20 '0.9*(SW+DL)+1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'LL' 0.2 'LL' 0.9 'WLS' 1.2 FORM LOADING 24 '1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'DL' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.8 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'DL' 1.5 'WLE' 1.2 'WLE' 0.9 FORM LOADING 28 '0.2 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.9 'WLN' 1.2 'DL' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.5 'WLW' 1.5*(LL)+1.9 'DL' 0.5 'WLS' 1.2 'LL' 0.2 FORM LOADING 15 '1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.5 'NX_LL' -0.2 'DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 FORM LOADING '12-7' '1.2 FORM LOADING 14 '1.8*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 0.5*(LL)+1.9 'WLE' 1.8*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.5 'WLW' 1.5 'NZ_LL' -0.5 'WLE' 1.2 'LL' 0.9 'DL' 0.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.5 'NZ_LL' -0.5 'NX_LL' 'NX_LL' 0.5*(LL)+1.6*(LL) +.FORM LOADING '12-6' '1.6*(WLW) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.5 'WLN' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.5*(LL)+1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.8 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 FORM LOADING 17 '1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6*(WLE) ++ NOTIONAL_X’ FROM 'SW' 1.2 FORM LOADING 25 '1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-8' '1.6 FORM LOADING 13 '1.2 'DL' 1.6*(WLS) +.

LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 3a.gti 156 .APPENDIX Q Model 1 .

e.RESTORE '2. Notional_Loads. 14.gts' FINISH 157 ... $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ $ Perform linear static analysis for all currently active factored limit state loading conditions.. '12-1' TO '12-9'. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. and BY MEMBER LIST SUM REACTIONS LIST MAXIMUM REACTION ENVELOPE LOADS ACTIVE ONLY UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '3a. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS UNITS INCH KIPS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 LIST DISPLACEMENTS JOINTS 'P2322' 'P2262' 'P1342' 'J1430' $ LIST MAXIMUM JOINT DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY ONLY LOADS ACTIVE OUTPUT BY JOINT $ .

APPENDIX R Model 1 . AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 4a.gti 158 .

0 300 1. $---------------LZ (Unbraced length) of Columns-------------------------------------$-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------LZ 20.UNLCF (Maximum unbraced length of compression flange) ---------------UNLCF UNLCF 9.833 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .0 Use code units rather than: UNITS ACTIVE ALL $ ----------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODE AISC13 ALL MEMEBERS METHOD LRFD ALL MEMBERS STEELGRD A992 ALL $ 50 ksi STEEL CODETOL 0.0 1.833 9. . . LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. . $--------------------------------LZ GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LZ LZ 29.73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' 'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Ca103' 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca106' 'Ca109' 'Ca110' 'Ca111' 'Ca112' 'Ca115' 'Ca116' 'Ca117' 'Ca118' 'Ca121' 159 . .833 9.0 TBLNAM TBLNAM KZ KY SLENCOMP CB CM WBEAM-13 WCOL-13 1. . $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$--------------------------------LY GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LY LY 9.0 1. .500 27.0 For all columns: KY = KZ = 1.278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .RESTORE '3a.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' $ All columns ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS $------------.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 UNITS FT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -----------------------------------------Steel design by the 13th Edition AISC code -----------------------------------------For all beams: KY = KZ = 1.

LZ 19.e.." $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.0 0. . $ Appendix 7 states that.27 MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' . tb = 1. [0.0 .0 1.e.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification.. be the same $ as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was 160 . Unity check = 0.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2).27 $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SECTION FR NS 5 0.. .73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' . "In lieu of using tb less than 1. 13 TO 28 $ CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -7. '12-1' TO '12-9'. Appendix 7.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0. . .5 0.25 0.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.. if not all...1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0. 'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Ca103' 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca106' 'Ca109' 'Ca110' 'Ca111' 'Ca112' 'Ca115' 'Ca116' 'Ca117' 'Ca118' 'Ca121' 'Ca203' 'Ca204' 'Ca205' 'Ca206' 'Ca209' 'Ca210' 'Ca211' 'Ca212' 'Ca215' 'Ca216' 'Ca217' 'Ca218' 'Ca221' LY 19.1-196 to 16. Pages 16.e..8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.75 1. industrial $ structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely.0 may be used $ for all members.0 ALL $ 7% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i.93) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.smooth. if ever. 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Ca203' 'Ca204' 'Ca205' 'Ca206' 'Ca209' 'Ca210' 'Ca211' 'Ca212' 'Ca215' 'Ca216' 'Ca217' 'Ca218' 'Ca221' $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$---------------------------------LY of Columns-------------------------------------LY 20.

$ developed, and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT $ justified. $ Therefore, GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor. Rather, the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: DELETE; LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'; ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0.003 NLDIRECTION X JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0.003 NLDIRECTION Z JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM $ Reform all FORM LOADS with the updated notional loads LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5', '12-1' TO '12-9', 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ---------------------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ---------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.E., UNITY CHECK = 1.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '4a. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.gts' FINISH

161

APPENDIX S

Model 1 - Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 5a. Redesign, LinearAnalysis, & CodeCheck_Notional.gti

162

RESTORE '4a. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5', '12-1' TO '12-9', 13 TO 28 $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -15.0 ALL $ Require a 15% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i.e., Unity check = 0.85) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' $ All members that failed code check

$ ----------------------------------------------------------------$ Calculate the length, volume, and weight of the current design of $ all beams and columns after design. $ ----------------------------------------------------------------UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.smooth.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE; LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'; ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5', '12-1' TO '12-9', 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.E., UNITY CHECK = 1.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '5c. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.gts' FINISH

163

APPENDIX T

Model 1 - Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 6a. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti

164

RESTORE '5b. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.e., the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5', '12-1' TO '12-9', 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0.8E) for Reduced AE, EIy, and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0.8G) for Reduced GIx, GAy, and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS SAVE '6. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value

165

Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 7a.gti 166 . AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.APPENDIX U Model 1 .

0 0. 13 TO 28 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7c.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.0 1..e.0 SECTION FR NS 5 0. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.RESTORE '6. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.75 1.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.25 0.gts' FINISH 167 . '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.5 0. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.

NonlinearAnalysis.gti 168 .Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 7b.APPENDIX V Model 1 . & CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.

gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.0 'DL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.0 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS 169 .0 ALL $ Unity check = 1. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.75 1..gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LIST SUM REACTIONS UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value $ All beams $ All columns and bracing SECTION FR NS 5 0.8E) for Reduced AE. 13 TO 28 UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. GAy. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.e. EIy. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.0 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.25 0. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 'DL' 1.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.0 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0.5 0.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0.8G) for Reduced GIx.0 SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.smooth.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0.RESTORE '7c.

gts' FINISH 170 .UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7b. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.

gti 171 .APPENDIX W Model 1 . NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.Case 2: With Smoothing and No Extra Joints Mid-Column File: 99.

perform a linear static analysis for the notional loads. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. opposite in direction to the notional loads. Shankar Nair. may be applied in the analysis at the bases of all columns to yield the correct reactions at the foundation.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ----------------------------------------------------This is the last analysis run based on the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paper by Dr. cause horizontal reactions on the individual foundation components. Page 9 “2. A horizontal force of Sum(Ni).e.. in some cases.gts' FINISH 172 .2 Consideration of Initial Imperfections: User Note: The notional loads do not cause a net horizontal reaction on the foundation but may. and then use the notional load reaction components to subtract from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analyses. R. “Stability and Analysis Provisions of the 2005 AISC Specification”. output the support reactions. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NX_LL' 'NZ_LL' QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 OUTPUT BY JOINT LIST REACTIONS LOAD LIST ALL SAVE '99.RESTORE '7b. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Therefore.

gti 173 . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 1.APPENDIX X Model 1 .

. . . 201 202 204 .67 103 821.GTSTRUDL' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVERS GTSES $ UNIT FEET KIPS DEGREES $ TYPE SPACE FRAME $ JOINT COORDINATES $ 101 821. . 201 204 207 . .67 . .STRUDL 'bm2_01' 'Benchmark . 201 202 203 201 202 203 'GZ201' 'GZ202' 'GZ203' 202 203 205 'GX201' 'GX202' 'GX203' 204 207 210 UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL UNITS FEET KIPS DEGREES CONSTANTS DENSITY 0.50 -1057.83 -0. .67 102 821. -0.00 MEMBER 'GZ601' 'GZ602' 'GZ603' 'GZ604' 174 . . 'Cb101' 'Cb102' 'Cb103' 1001 1002 1003 . .00 -1029.33 STATUS SUPPORTS JOINTS 101 TO 121 BY 1 $ JOINT RELEASES 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 MOM X MOM Z 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 MOM X MOM Z 119 120 121 $ MEMBER INCIDENCES $ 'Ca101' 101 'Ca102' 102 'Ca103' 103 .490 ALL BETA 90. .83 -1000.83 -0.

'Ca103' 'Ca302' 'Cb201' 'Cb303' 'Ca106' 'Ca305' 'Cb204' 'Cb306' 'Ca201' 'Ca303' 'Cb202' 'Ca202' 'Cb101' 'Cb203' - 'Ca204' 'Ca306' 'Cb205' 'Ca205' 'Cb104' 'Cb206' - $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL COLUMNS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'COLUMNS' GROUPS 'C1-1' 'C2-1' 'C3-1' 'C3-2' 'C4-1' 'C4-2' 'C5-1' 'C6-1' 'C7-1' 'C8-1' 'C9-1' 'C9-2' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ----------BEAMS and GIRDERS-------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP '7Z-1' MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' DEFINE GROUP '7Z-2' MEMBERS 'GZ703' 'GZ704' 'GZ705' . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. 'GZ706' $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL BEAMS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'BEAMS' GROUPS '7Z-1' '7Z-2' '7X-1' '7X-2' '6Z-1' '5X-1' '5Z-1' '4Z-1' '4Z-2' '4Z-3' '4X-1' '4X-2' '3Z-1' '3Z-2' '3Z-3' '3X-1' '3X-2' '2X-1' '2X-2' '2Z-1' '2Z-2' '2Z-3' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ---------------------------------------------------------------DEFINE GRP 'ALLMEM' MEMBERS EXISTING MEMBERS ONLY $ ---------------------------------------------------------------MEMBER PROPERTIES TABLE 'W-AISC13' GRP 'COLUMNS' T 'W14X90' GRP 'BEAMS' T 'W21X101' $ ---------------------------------------------------------------SAVE '1. .gts' FINISH 175 . .$ PRINT STRUCTURE DATA $ ---------------------------------------------------------------$-----BEAM_and_COLUMN_MEMBERS------------------------------------$ ----------COLUMN GROUPS-----------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP 'C1-1' MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca102' 'Ca203' 'Ca301' 'Cb102' 'Cb103' 'Cb301' 'Cb302' DEFINE GROUP 'C2-1' MEMBERS 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca206' 'Ca304' 'Cb105' 'Cb106' 'Cb304' 'Cb305' . . .

Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 2.APPENDIX Y Model 1 . STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.gti 176 .

915 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. JOINT LOADS 305 FORCE Y -100 308 FORCE Y -100 LOADING 'WLW' 'Wind Loads West' JOINT LOADS 709 708 707 FOR FOR FOR . . .gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Define static loading conditions UNITS KIPS FEET SELF WEIGHT 'SW' 'SELF WEIGHT' DIRECTION -Y ALL MEMBERS LOADING 'DL' 'ADDITIONAL DEAD LOADS' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.863 .93 5. X X X -9.889 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. X X X 5. . $ LOADING 'LL' 'Live Loads' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. Z Z Z -6 -6 -6 177 . .58 LOADING 'WLN' 'Wind Loads North' JOINT LOADS 704 701 317 FOR FOR FOR . . .48 -9.RESTORE '1.278 .48 -9. .93 4. . .295 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. .48 LOADING 'WLE' 'Wind Loads East' JOINT LOADS 701 703 403 FOR FOR FOR . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.287 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.

e.2 'NX_LL' 1. if not all.2 'LL' 1. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 'NX_LL' -1.4 'DL' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-3' '1..0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.4 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2 'LL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.6*(LL) -. GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor.4*(SW+DL)' – FROM 'SW' 1.4 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1..2*(SW+DL)+1. Z Z Z 6 6 6 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification..2 'DL' 1. if ever.LOADING 'WLS' 'Wind Load South' JOINT LOADS 709 706 703 FOR FOR FOR . [0.0 'DL' 1.4 FORM LOADING '11-2' '1.4 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2 'NX_LL' -1.2 'DL' 1.4 - FORM LOADING '12-1' '1.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.4 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2 'NX_LL' 1.6 178 ." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.4 'DL' 1.4 'DL' 1.0 'DL' 1.6*(LL) +.6 FORM LOADING '12-5' '1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.4 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.6 FORM LOADING '12-4' '1.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'DL' 1. Appendix 7.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.6*(LL)' FROM 'SW' 1.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0.2 'LL' 1.6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified. be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed.4*(SW+DL) .NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely.2 'DL' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-2' '1. .4 FORM LOADING '11-4' '1. "In lieu of using tb less than 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0.1-196 to 16. $ Appendix states that.2*(SW+DL)+1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1. tb = 1.0 ..0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.. Pages 16. $ Therefore.4 FORM LOADING '11-3' '1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. Rather.4 FORM LOADING '11-5' '1..2 'DL' 1.4*(SW+DL) .0 may be used $ for all members.8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed. .2*(SW+DL)+1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ 13th Edition LRFD Load Combinations FORM LOADING '11-1' '1.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2).NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'LL' 1.4 'NX_SW+DL' 1.

2 'LL' 0.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.2 'WLS' 0.2 'WLN' 0.9 'DL' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.9 FORM LOADING 21 '1.6*(WLE) +.6*(WLS) +.2 FORM LOADING 25 '1.2 'WLE' 0.2 FORM LOADING 16 '1.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2 'DL' 1.5 'WLN' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -0.2 'NZ_LL' -1.2 'LL' 1.8 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.8 'NX_SW+DL' 1.6*(WLW) .2*(SW+DL)+0.2 FORM LOADING 17 '1.2 FORM LOADING 26 '1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.9 'WLW' 1.6*(WLW) -.6*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 FORM LOADING 18 '1.2 FORM LOADING 22 '1.6 FORM LOADING '12-8' '1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'DL' 1.6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'DL' 1.5 'WLS' 1.9 'WLN' 1.9*(SW+DL)+1.2 FORM LOADING 23 '1.2*(SW+DL)+0.8*(WLW) .9*(SW+DL)+1.5*(LL)+1.9 FORM LOADING 28 '0.2*(SW+DL)+1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.6*(WLN) .5 'NX_LL' 'NX_LL' 0.5*(LL)+1.2*(SW+DL)+0.9 FORM LOADING 20 '0.2 'DL' 1.9 'WLS' 1.5 'WLN' 1.2 'LL' 1.gts' FINISH 179 .2 'LL' 0.2 FORM LOADING 27 '0.2 'LL' 0.9 'DL' 0.6*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 0.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.6*(LL) +.6*(WLS) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 FORM LOADING 24 '1.9*(SW+DL)+1.8*(WLN) .8 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.9 'DL' 0.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'LL' 1.5 'WLW' 1.5 'NZ_LL' -0.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.5 'WLS' 1.2 'LL' 0.9*(SW+DL)+1.5 'WLE' 1.5 0.5 $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QUERY $ PRINT LOAD DATA SAVE '2.6*(WLN) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.9 'DL' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1. STATIC_LOADS_Notional.2 'NZ_LL' -1.6 FORM LOADING 13 '1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.6*(LL) -.6 FORM LOADING '12-9' '1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'DL' 1.6*(WLN) -.5 'NZ_LL' -0.2 'WLW' 0.6 FORM LOADING '12-7' '1.2*(SW+DL)+1.5*(LL)+1.2 'LL' 0.2 'LL' 0.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.2 'LL' 0.2 'LL' 0.2 'DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.5 'NZ_LL' 'NZ_LL' 0.2 'DL' 1.8*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.5*(LL)+1.2 FORM LOADING 19 '0.6*(WLE) ++ NOTIONAL_X’ FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.6*(WLW) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.FORM LOADING '12-6' '1.2 FORM LOADING 15 '1.9 'NX_LL' -0.2*(SW+DL)+0.8*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.5 'WLW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 FORM LOADING 14 '1.5*(LL)+1.2*(SW+DL)+0.5 'NX_LL' -0.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NX_SW+DL' 0.5 'WLE' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.5 0.2 'DL' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.2 'DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.2*(SW+DL)+1.8 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2*(SW+DL)+0.9 'WLE' 1.

LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.gti 180 .Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 3a.APPENDIX Z Model 1 .

gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ $ Perform linear static analysis for all currently active factored limit state loading conditions. '12-1' TO '12-9'. Notional_Loads.. 14. $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.RESTORE '2. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS UNITS INCH KIPS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 LIST DISPLACEMENTS JOINTS 'P2322' 'P2262' 'P1342' 'J1430' $ LIST MAXIMUM JOINT DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY ONLY LOADS ACTIVE OUTPUT BY JOINT $ .. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional..gts' FINISH 181 .e. and BY MEMBER LIST SUM REACTIONS LIST MAXIMUM REACTION ENVELOPE LOADS ACTIVE ONLY UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '3a.

Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4a.gti 182 .APPENDIX AA Model 1 . AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.

LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' 'Cb104' 'Cb110' 'Cb116' 'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Cb105' 'Cb111' 'Cb117' 'Ca103' 'Ca109' 'Ca115' 'Ca121' 'Cb106' 'Cb112' 'Cb118' 'Ca104' 'Ca110' 'Ca116' 'Cb101' 'Cb107' 'Cb113' 'Cb119' 'Ca105' 'Ca111' 'Ca117' 'Cb102' 'Cb108' 'Cb114' 'Cb120' 'Ca106' 'Ca112' 'Ca118' 'Cb103' 'Cb109' 'Cb115' 'Cb121' - 183 .833 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .0 300 1.0 Use code units rather than: UNITS ACTIVE ALL $ ----------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODE AISC13 ALL MEMEBERS METHOD LRFD ALL MEMBERS STEELGRD A992 ALL $ 50 ksi STEEL CODETOL 0. $---------------LZ (Unbraced length) of Columns-------------------------------------$-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------LZ 20.0 TBLNAM TBLNAM KZ KY SLENCOMP CB CM WBEAM-13 WCOL-13 1.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' $ All columns ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS $------------.0 1. .278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .0 For all columns: KY = KZ = 1.0 1. . .UNLCF (Maximum unbraced length of compression flange) ---------------UNLCF UNLCF 9. $--------------------------------LZ GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LZ LZ 29.278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' . . .500 27.833 9. .RESTORE '3a. $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$--------------------------------LY GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LY LY 9.833 9.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 UNITS FT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -----------------------------------------Steel design by the 13th Edition AISC code -----------------------------------------For all beams: KY = KZ = 1.

27 MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' 'Cb204' 'Cb210' 'Cb216' ...e.1-196 to 16. '12-1' TO '12-9'. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0. Pages 16.73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' 'Cb104' 'Cb110' 'Cb116' MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' 'Cb204' 'Cb210' 'Cb216' . .0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.75 1.. $ All beams $ All columns $ Appendix 7 states that.e.0 0. "In lieu of using tb less than 1.. 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Cb205' 'Cb211' 'Cb217' 'Ca203' 'Ca209' 'Ca215' 'Ca221' 'Cb206' 'Cb212' 'Cb218' 'Ca204' 'Ca210' 'Ca216' 'Cb201' 'Cb207' 'Cb213' 'Cb219' 'Ca205' 'Ca211' 'Ca217' 'Cb202' 'Cb208' 'Cb214' 'Cb220' 'Ca206' 'Ca212' 'Ca218' 'Cb203' 'Cb209' 'Cb215' 'Cb221' - $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$---------------------------------LY of Columns-------------------------------------LY 20.93) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification. tb = 1.0 1.0 ALL $ 7% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i. ..8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed.0 . .001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2). the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.e. .. Appendix 7. [0. 13 TO 28 $ CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -7.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.. 'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Cb105' 'Cb111' 'Cb117' 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Cb205' 'Cb211' 'Cb217' 'Ca103' 'Ca109' 'Ca115' 'Ca121' 'Cb106' 'Cb112' 'Cb118' 'Ca203' 'Ca209' 'Ca215' 'Ca221' 'Cb206' 'Cb212' 'Cb218' 'Ca104' 'Ca110' 'Ca116' 'Cb101' 'Cb107' 'Cb113' 'Cb119' 'Ca204' 'Ca210' 'Ca216' 'Cb201' 'Cb207' 'Cb213' 'Cb219' 'Ca105' 'Ca111' 'Ca117' 'Cb102' 'Cb108' 'Cb114' 'Cb120' 'Ca205' 'Ca211' 'Ca217' 'Cb202' 'Cb208' 'Cb214' 'Cb220' 'Ca106' 'Ca112' 'Ca118' 'Cb103' 'Cb109' 'Cb115' 'Cb121' 'Ca206' 'Ca212' 'Ca218' 'Cb203' 'Cb209' 'Cb215' 'Cb221' - LY 19.LZ 19.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.27 $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SECTION FR NS 5 0.5 0." 184 .0 may be used $ for all members.25 0.. Unity check = 0.

be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0.003 NLDIRECTION X JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. if ever. UNITY CHECK = 1. $ Therefore.gts' FINISH 185 . LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.0 'DL' 1.003 NLDIRECTION Z JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM $ Reform all FORM LOADS with the updated notional loads LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely.0 'DL' 1.E. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ---------------------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ---------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified. '12-1' TO '12-9'.$ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most..0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0. Rather. if not all.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '4a. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: DELETE.

APPENDIX AB Model 1 . & CodeCheck_Notional.Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5a. Redesign. LinearAnalysis.gti 186 .

. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. '12-1' TO '12-9'. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. 13 TO 28 $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -15.E. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.e.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. and weight of the current design of $ all beams and columns after design. Unity check = 0.0 'DL' 1.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I. $ ----------------------------------------------------------------UNITS KIP $ STEEL TAKE OFF MEMBERS EXISTING ITEMIZE BY PROFILE NAMES $ All members STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE. UNITY CHECK = 1.85) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' $ All members that failed code check $ ----------------------------------------------------------------$ Calculate the length.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '5c. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.0 ALL $ Require a 15% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.RESTORE '4a.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 'DL' 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.gts' FINISH 187 . volume.. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.

Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 5b.APPENDIX AC Model 1 . LinearAnalysis. Redesign.gti 188 . & CodeCheck_Notional.

UNITY CHECK = 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional. and weight of the current design of $ all beams and columns after design smoothing.. '12-1' TO '12-9'.E. $ ----------------------------------------------------------------UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -20.gts' FINISH 189 . ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. volume.80) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ All members that failed code check $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE. Unity check = 0..0 'DL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 ALL $ Require a 5% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '5b.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.0 ALL $ Require a 5% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ -10.RESTORE '5c.0 'DL' 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.e. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. 13 TO 28 $ ----------------------------------------------------------------$ Calculate the length.

APPENDIX AD Model 1 .gti 190 . NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6a.

gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional. GAy. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS SAVE '6. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. EIy. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0.e..gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value 191 . NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.8E) for Reduced AE.8G) for Reduced GIx.RESTORE '5b. '12-1' TO '12-9'.

gti 192 .APPENDIX AE Model 1 . AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional.Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 4b.

003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 'DL' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.RESTORE '5b.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional. 13 TO 28 SAVE '4b.gts' FINISH $ All beams $ All columns 193 . LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.e.. '12-1' TO '12-9'. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. 13 TO 28 UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -20.80 SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.0 ALL $ Unity check = 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.

gti 194 . NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 6c.APPENDIX AF Model 1 .

and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. GAy. EIy. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS SAVE '6.e.gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value 195 .gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.8G) for Reduced GIx. '12-1' TO '12-9'.RESTORE '4b.. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.8E) for Reduced AE.

APPENDIX AG Model 1 .gti 196 . AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7a.

13 TO 28 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7c. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.25 0.75 1.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.5 0.RESTORE '6.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.gts' FINISH 197 . '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.0 1..e.0 0.0 SECTION FR NS 5 0.

gti 198 . NonlinearAnalysis. Redesign. & CodeCheck_Notional.Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 7b.APPENDIX AH Model 1 .

0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 0. '12-1' TO '12-9'..5 0. GAy.0 'DL' 1.8E) for Reduced AE.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.8G) for Reduced GIx. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7b. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'.e.0 1.0 'DL' 1.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. 13 TO 28 UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.25 0.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.75 1. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.gts' FINISH 199 .0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LIST SUM REACTIONS UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value $ All beams $ All columns and bracing SECTION FR NS 5 0.RESTORE '7c. EIy.

gti 200 .Case 3: With Extra Joints at Mid-Column and No Smoothing File: 99. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.APPENDIX AI Model 1 .

NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.e. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Therefore. cause horizontal reactions on the individual foundation components.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ----------------------------------------------------This is the last analysis run based on the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paper by Dr.RESTORE '7b. R. Shankar Nair.. “Stability and Analysis Provisions of the 2005 AISC Specification”. Page 9 “2. perform a linear static analysis for the notional loads.gts' FINISH 201 . and then use the notional load reaction components to subtract from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analyses.2 Consideration of Initial Imperfections: User Note: The notional loads do not cause a net horizontal reaction on the foundation but may. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NX_LL' 'NZ_LL' QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 OUTPUT BY JOINT LIST REACTIONS LOAD LIST ALL SAVE '99. may be applied in the analysis at the bases of all columns to yield the correct reactions at the foundation. opposite in direction to the notional loads. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. A horizontal force of Sum(Ni). output the support reactions. in some cases.

IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.gti 202 .APPENDIX AJ Model 1 .Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 1.

.490 ALL BETA 90. .00 -1029.STRUDL 'bm2_01' 'Benchmark . . . .83 -0. 'Cb101' 'Cb102' 'Cb103' 1001 1002 1003 .67 102 821. . .50 -1057. 201 202 203 201 202 203 'GZ201' 'GZ202' 'GZ203' 202 203 205 'GX201' 'GX202' 'GX203' 204 207 210 UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL UNITS FEET KIPS DEGREES CONSTANTS DENSITY 0.67 103 821. . -0.83 -1000.83 -0. .00 MEMBER 'GZ601' 'GZ602' 'GZ603' 'GZ604' 203 . .67 . 201 204 207 . 201 202 204 .33 STATUS SUPPORTS JOINTS 101 TO 121 BY 1 $ JOINT RELEASES 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 MOM X MOM Z 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 MOM X MOM Z 119 120 121 $ MEMBER INCIDENCES $ 'Ca101' 101 'Ca102' 102 'Ca103' 103 .GTSTRUDL' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVERS GTSES $ UNIT FEET KIPS DEGREES $ TYPE SPACE FRAME $ JOINT COORDINATES $ 101 821.

.$ PRINT STRUCTURE DATA $ ---------------------------------------------------------------$-----BEAM_and_COLUMN_MEMBERS------------------------------------$ ----------COLUMN GROUPS-----------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP 'C1-1' MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca102' 'Ca203' 'Ca301' 'Cb102' 'Cb103' 'Cb301' 'Cb302' DEFINE GROUP 'C2-1' MEMBERS 'Ca104' 'Ca105' 'Ca206' 'Ca304' 'Cb105' 'Cb106' 'Cb304' 'Cb305' . . 'Ca103' 'Ca302' 'Cb201' 'Cb303' 'Ca106' 'Ca305' 'Cb204' 'Cb306' 'Ca201' 'Ca303' 'Cb202' 'Ca202' 'Cb101' 'Cb203' - 'Ca204' 'Ca306' 'Cb205' 'Ca205' 'Cb104' 'Cb206' - $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL COLUMNS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'COLUMNS' GROUPS 'C1-1' 'C2-1' 'C3-1' 'C3-2' 'C4-1' 'C4-2' 'C5-1' 'C6-1' 'C7-1' 'C8-1' 'C9-1' 'C9-2' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ----------BEAMS and GIRDERS-------------------------------------DEFINE GROUP '7Z-1' MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' DEFINE GROUP '7Z-2' MEMBERS 'GZ703' 'GZ704' 'GZ705' . . 'GZ706' $ --------------GROUP CONTAINING ALL BEAMS-----------------------DEFINE GROUP 'BEAMS' GROUPS '7Z-1' '7Z-2' '7X-1' '7X-2' '6Z-1' '5X-1' '5Z-1' '4Z-1' '4Z-2' '4Z-3' '4X-1' '4X-2' '3Z-1' '3Z-2' '3Z-3' '3X-1' '3X-2' '2X-1' '2X-2' '2Z-1' '2Z-2' '2Z-3' $ -----------------------------------------------------------------$ ---------------------------------------------------------------DEFINE GRP 'ALLMEM' MEMBERS EXISTING MEMBERS ONLY $ ---------------------------------------------------------------MEMBER PROPERTIES TABLE 'W-AISC13' GRP 'COLUMNS' T 'W14X90' GRP 'BEAMS' T 'W21X101' $ ---------------------------------------------------------------SAVE '1. IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC.gts' FINISH 204 . .

gti 205 . STATIC_LOADS_with_Notional_LOAD_Command.APPENDIX AK Model 1 .Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 2.

.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Define static loading conditions UNITS KIPS FEET SELF WEIGHT 'SW' 'SELF WEIGHT' DIRECTION -Y ALL MEMBERS LOADING 'DL' 'ADDITIONAL DEAD LOADS' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.915 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.93 4. .889 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. . $ LOADING 'LL' 'Live Loads' MEMBER LOAD 'GX702' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.287 'GX706' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0. . X X X -9.93 5.RESTORE '1.863 . .48 LOADING 'WLE' 'Wind Loads East' JOINT LOADS 701 703 403 FOR FOR FOR . Z Z Z -6 -6 -6 206 . . X X X 5.278 .48 -9.48 -9. . JOINT LOADS 305 FORCE Y -100 308 FORCE Y -100 LOADING 'WLW' 'Wind Loads West' JOINT LOADS 709 708 707 FOR FOR FOR . . . IndustrialStructure_NoBracing_13th_Ed_AISC. .295 'GX704' FOR Y GLOB UNI W -0.58 LOADING 'WLN' 'Wind Loads North' JOINT LOADS 704 701 317 FOR FOR FOR .

and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified.4 - FORM LOADING '12-1' '1...4*(SW+DL) . "In lieu of using tb less than 1. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1.4 FORM LOADING '11-4' '1.4 'DL' 1." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.4 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_LL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'LL' 1. if ever. Pages 16.6 FORM LOADING '12-3' '1. Z Z Z 6 6 6 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification.4*(SW+DL) .0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0. $ Therefore. tb = 1.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.1-196 to 16.2 'LL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.4 'DL' 1..4 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2*(SW+DL)+1. $ Appendix states that.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.LOADING 'WLS' 'Wind Load South' JOINT LOADS 709 706 703 FOR FOR FOR ..4 'DL' 1.0 may be used $ for all members.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ 13th Edition LRFD Load Combinations FORM LOADING '11-1' '1.6 FORM LOADING '12-4' '1.2*(SW+DL)+1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. [0.2 'NX_LL' -1.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.4*(SW+DL)' – FROM 'SW' 1.4 FORM LOADING '11-2' '1.e.2 'LL' 1.2 'NX_LL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.0 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2).6 'NX_SW+DL' 1. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.2 'NX_LL' -1.2 'DL' 1.6*(LL)' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.4 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2*(SW+DL)+1.4 'DL' 1. be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed.6*(LL) -.6 FORM LOADING '12-5' '1.4 'DL' 1.8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed.4 FORM LOADING '11-3' '1.4*(SW+DL) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1. Rather.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-2' '1.6 207 . Appendix 7.6*(LL) +.2 'LL' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.4 'NX_SW+DL' 1.0 ..2 'NX_LL' 1.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. .4 FORM LOADING '11-5' '1. .003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1. GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor. if not all.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1..

2*(SW+DL)+1.5*(LL)+1.6*(WLN) -.2 'NZ_LL' -1.2 FORM LOADING 25 '1.6*(WLW) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -0.8 'NX_SW+DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.5 'WLS' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'LL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 24 '1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2 'DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.9 'DL' 0.2 'WLE' 0.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'WLN' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 0.5 'WLN' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2*(SW+DL)+0.2*(SW+DL)+0.8*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.5*(LL)+1.2 'DL' 1.5*(LL)+1.5*(LL)+1.2 FORM LOADING 27 '0.6*(WLN) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.9 'DL' 0.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.6 FORM LOADING 13 '1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6*(LL) -.2*(SW+DL)+0.2*(SW+DL)+0.5 'WLE' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.8 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.8 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.5 'WLW' 1.9 'DL' 0.2 'LL' 0.2 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 15 '1.2*(SW+DL)+1.6*(WLW) .gts' FINISH 208 .8 'NX_SW+DL' -1.9*(SW+DL)+1.9 'NX_LL' -0.2 FORM LOADING 14 '1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+0.2 FORM LOADING 26 '1.2*(SW+DL)+1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.2 FORM LOADING 23 '1.5 'NX_LL' 'NX_LL' 0.6 FORM LOADING '12-8' '1.5 0.9 'WLN' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2 'LL' 0.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.FORM LOADING '12-6' '1.2 'NZ_LL' -1.2*(SW+DL)+0.6*(LL) -+ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.6*(WLW) -.2 'LL' 0.6*(LL) +.5 'WLW' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -0.9 'DL' 0.9 FORM LOADING 21 '1.5 0.2 'LL' 0. STATIC_LOADS_Notional.2*(SW+DL)+0.2*(SW+DL)+0.8*(WLW) .2 'DL' 1.6*(WLE) +.9 'WLW' 1.9 FORM LOADING 20 '0.2 'LL' 1.2 'NZ_LL' 1.2 'LL' 0.2*(SW+DL)+0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' -1.2 FORM LOADING 19 '0.5 'NX_LL' -0.2 'LL' 1.NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.9*(SW+DL)+1.2 FORM LOADING 18 '1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.5*(LL)+1.5 'WLN' 1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.2 'DL' 1.2 FORM LOADING 17 '1.2 'DL' 1.6 'NX_SW+DL' 0.5 'NZ_LL' 'NZ_LL' 0.2 'WLS' 0.5 'WLE' 1.6*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.2 'LL' 0.6 FORM LOADING '12-9' '1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' -1.5 'WLS' 1.2 'DL' 1.2 'DL' 1.8*(WLN) .2*(SW+DL)+0.6*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 0.2 FORM LOADING 22 '1.2 'WLW' 0.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.6*(WLS) +.9*(SW+DL)+1.6*(WLE) ++ NOTIONAL_X’ FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.9 'WLE' 1.2 FORM LOADING 16 '1.6*(LL) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+DL)+1.5*(LL)+1.5 'NZ_LL' -0.5 $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QUERY $ PRINT LOAD DATA SAVE '2.2 'LL' 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-7' '1.6 'NZ_SW+DL' 1.9 'WLS' 1.9 FORM LOADING 28 '0.6*(WLN) .2 'LL' 0.2 'DL' 1.8*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'LL' 0.9*(SW+DL)+1.6*(WLS) ++ NOTIONAL_Z' FROM 'SW' 1.5 'NZ_LL' -0.

LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 3a.APPENDIX AL Model 1 .gti 209 .

and BY MEMBER LIST SUM REACTIONS LIST MAXIMUM REACTION ENVELOPE LOADS ACTIVE ONLY UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '3a.. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS UNITS INCH KIPS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 LIST DISPLACEMENTS JOINTS 'P2322' 'P2262' 'P1342' 'J1430' $ LIST MAXIMUM JOINT DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY ONLY LOADS ACTIVE OUTPUT BY JOINT $ . $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. 14...e. '12-1' TO '12-9'.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ $ Perform linear static analysis for all currently active factored limit state loading conditions.RESTORE '2. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.gts' FINISH 210 . the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. Notional_Loads.

gti 211 .APPENDIX AM Model 1 .Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 4a. AISC13_LRFD_Design_LinearAnalysis_CodeCheck_Notional.

.833 9.0 TBLNAM TBLNAM KZ KY SLENCOMP CB CM WBEAM-13 WCOL-13 1. $---------------LZ (Unbraced length) of Columns-------------------------------------$-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------LZ 20.0 Use code units rather than: UNITS ACTIVE ALL $ ----------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODE AISC13 ALL MEMEBERS METHOD LRFD ALL MEMBERS STEELGRD A992 ALL $ 50 ksi STEEL CODETOL 0. .278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' . . .0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' $ All columns ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' $ All beams ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS $------------.UNLCF (Maximum unbraced length of compression flange) ---------------UNLCF UNLCF 9.RESTORE '3a.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 UNITS FT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -----------------------------------------Steel design by the 13th Edition AISC code -----------------------------------------For all beams: KY = KZ = 1.833 9. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. $--------------------------------LZ GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LZ LZ 29.278 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' .0 For all columns: KY = KZ = 1.0 1.833 MEMBERS 'GZ701' 'GZ702' 'GZ703' MEMBERS 'GZ704' 'GZ705' 'GZ706' . $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$--------------------------------LY GIRDERS-----------------------------------------LY LY 9. .73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' 'Cb104' 'Cb110' 'Cb116' 'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Cb105' 'Cb111' 'Cb117' 'Ca103' 'Ca109' 'Ca115' 'Ca121' 'Cb106' 'Cb112' 'Cb118' 'Ca104' 'Ca110' 'Ca116' 'Cb101' 'Cb107' 'Cb113' 'Cb119' 'Ca105' 'Ca111' 'Ca117' 'Cb102' 'Cb108' 'Cb114' 'Cb120' 'Ca106' 'Ca112' 'Ca118' 'Cb103' 'Cb109' 'Cb115' 'Cb121' - 212 .0 300 1.500 27.0 1. .

'Ca102' 'Ca108' 'Ca114' 'Ca120' 'Cb105' 'Cb111' 'Cb117' 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Cb205' 'Cb211' 'Cb217' 'Ca103' 'Ca109' 'Ca115' 'Ca121' 'Cb106' 'Cb112' 'Cb118' 'Ca203' 'Ca209' 'Ca215' 'Ca221' 'Cb206' 'Cb212' 'Cb218' 'Ca104' 'Ca110' 'Ca116' 'Cb101' 'Cb107' 'Cb113' 'Cb119' 'Ca204' 'Ca210' 'Ca216' 'Cb201' 'Cb207' 'Cb213' 'Cb219' 'Ca105' 'Ca111' 'Ca117' 'Cb102' 'Cb108' 'Cb114' 'Cb120' 'Ca205' 'Ca211' 'Ca217' 'Cb202' 'Cb208' 'Cb214' 'Cb220' 'Ca106' 'Ca112' 'Ca118' 'Cb103' 'Cb109' 'Cb115' 'Cb121' 'Ca206' 'Ca212' 'Ca218' 'Cb203' 'Cb209' 'Cb215' 'Cb221' - LY 19.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.smooth.5 0. [0. . . Pages 16.27 MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' 'Cb204' 'Cb210' 'Cb216' .8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame 213 ..27 $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SECTION FR NS 5 0.0 0. Unity check = 0. .e.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i. Appendix 7.1-196 to 16.LZ 19.0 1.75 1.. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'..e.73 MEMBERS 'Ca101' 'Ca107' 'Ca113' 'Ca119' 'Cb104' 'Cb110' 'Cb116' MEMBERS 'Ca201' 'Ca207' 'Ca213' 'Ca219' 'Cb204' 'Cb210' 'Cb216' .0 ALL $ 7% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i.93) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0. 'Ca202' 'Ca208' 'Ca214' 'Ca220' 'Cb205' 'Cb211' 'Cb217' 'Ca203' 'Ca209' 'Ca215' 'Ca221' 'Cb206' 'Cb212' 'Cb218' 'Ca204' 'Ca210' 'Ca216' 'Cb201' 'Cb207' 'Cb213' 'Cb219' 'Ca205' 'Ca211' 'Ca217' 'Cb202' 'Cb208' 'Cb214' 'Cb220' 'Ca206' 'Ca212' 'Ca218' 'Cb203' 'Cb209' 'Cb215' 'Cb221' - $-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$---------------------------------LY of Columns-------------------------------------LY 20. 13 TO 28 $ CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -7. .e.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification. '12-1' TO '12-9'.25 0.

.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0. $ Appendix 7 states that. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified.$ structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for $ which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2). GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.E. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0.gts' FINISH 214 . if ever.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '4a.0 'DL' 1.. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1. "In lieu of using tb less than 1.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I. if not all. Rather. $ Therefore.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLF 0. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ---------------------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ---------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0...0 'DL' 1.003 NLDIRECTION Z JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM $ Reform all FORM LOADS with the updated notional loads LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: DELETE. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0.0 . '12-1' TO '12-9'. tb = 1...0 may be used $ for all members. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional. be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed. UNITY CHECK = 1.003 NLDIRECTION X JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.

APPENDIX AN Model 1 . Redesign. & CodeCheck_Notional. LinearAnalysis.gti 215 .Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 5a.

REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.gts' FINISH 216 . $ ----------------------------------------------------------------UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 'DL' 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.. 13 TO 28 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.85) SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' $ All members that failed code check $ ----------------------------------------------------------------$ Calculate the length.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.00) CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '5c.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.0 ALL $ Require a 15% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0. Unity check = 0.E.0 'DL' 1..smooth. UNITY CHECK = 1.e.RESTORE '4a. and weight of the current design of $ all beams and columns after design.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. volume. 13 TO 28 $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -15.

NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 6a.gti 217 .APPENDIX AO Model 1 .

gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value 218 . and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS SAVE '6. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0.RESTORE '5b. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0.e.8G) for Reduced GIx. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.. EIy. GAy.8E) for Reduced AE.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0. '12-1' TO '12-9'.

AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.APPENDIX AP Model 1 .Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 7a.gti 219 .

NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional.0 1.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.75 1.5 0.25 0.RESTORE '6. 13 TO 28 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7c. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional..0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' $ All beams $ All columns and bracing $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.e. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 SECTION FR NS 5 0.gts' FINISH 220 .0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.0 0. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.

APPENDIX AQ Model 1 . & CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 7b. NonlinearAnalysis.gti 221 .

0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.8E) for Reduced AE..0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION X NLF 0. ADDITIONS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 'DL' 1. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. EIy.0 GRAVITY AXIS Y NLDIRECTION Z NLF 0.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.5 0.0 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Z-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. 13 TO 28 UNITS KIP STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL 0. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LIST SUM REACTIONS UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value $ All beams $ All columns and bracing SECTION FR NS 5 0.RESTORE '7c. '12-1' TO '12-9'.e.0 'DL' 1.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. 13 TO 28 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0.75 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. LOAD 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL'.25 0. CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.0 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS 222 .0 1.0 SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.smooth. GAy.0 MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' SECTION FR NS 2 0.0 MEMBERS GRP LIST 'COLUMNS' PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.8G) for Reduced GIx.

gts' FINISH 223 .UNITS KIP FEET STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7b. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.

gti 224 .Case 4: With Smoothing and Extra Joints at Mid-Column File: 99.APPENDIX AR Model 1 . NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.

output the support reactions. perform a linear static analysis for the notional loads. and then use the notional load reaction components to subtract from the reactions of the most recent nonlinear analyses.gts' FINISH 225 . R. Shankar Nair. “Stability and Analysis Provisions of the 2005 AISC Specification”.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Therefore.RESTORE '7b.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ----------------------------------------------------This is the last analysis run based on the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paper by Dr. may be applied in the analysis at the bases of all columns to yield the correct reactions at the foundation. Page 9 “2. opposite in direction to the notional loads. A horizontal force of Sum(Ni).e. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.. in some cases. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. cause horizontal reactions on the individual foundation components.2 Consideration of Initial Imperfections: User Note: The notional loads do not cause a net horizontal reaction on the foundation but may. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST 'NX_SW+DL' 'NZ_SW+DL' 'NX_LL' 'NZ_LL' QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 OUTPUT BY JOINT LIST REACTIONS LOAD LIST ALL SAVE '99.

APPENDIX AS Model 1 – Simple Industrial Structure File: 0.gti 226 .smooth.

TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE

MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS

GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP

'C1-1' 'C2-1' 'C3-1' 'C3-2' 'C4-1' 'C4-2' 'C5-1' 'C6-1' 'C7-1' 'C8-1' 'C9-1' 'C9-2'

AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS

LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST LARGEST

'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX' 'AX'

OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF

MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS

GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP

'C1-1' 'C2-1' 'C3-1' 'C3-2' 'C4-1' 'C4-2' 'C5-1' 'C6-1' 'C7-1' 'C8-1' 'C9-1' 'C9-2' '7Z-1' '7Z-2' '7X-1' '7X-2' '6Z-1' MEMBERS GRP LIST '5Z-1' '5X-1' '4Z-1' '4Z-2' '4Z-3' '4X-1' '4X-2' '3Z-1' '3Z-2' '3Z-3' '3X-1' '3X-2' '2Z-1' '2Z-2' '2Z-3' '2X-1' '2X-2'

'7Z-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '7Z-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '7X-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '7X-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '6Z-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP LIST '5Z-1' '5X-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF '4Z-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '4Z-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '4Z-3' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '4X-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '4X-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '3Z-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '3Z-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '3Z-3' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '3X-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '3X-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '2Z-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '2Z-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '2Z-3' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '2X-1' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '2X-2' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP

227

APPENDIX AT

Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 1. Model&Indloads.gti

228

STRUDL 'BOILER' 'BOILER STEEL STRUCTURE' $ -----------------LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ -----------------OPEN USERDATA FILE '0. HSS_New_Table.ds' READ EXISTING LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 TYPE SPACE FRAME UNIT MM DEGREE $ JOINT COORDINATE 'P1' 0. 'P2' 1500. 'P3' 9430. . . .

0. 0. 0.

7300. 7300. 7300.

$ Declare support joint STATUS SUPPORT 'P1' TO 'P59' $ MEMBER INCIDENCES 'E1' 'P71' 'P73' 'E2' 'P73' 'P75' 'E3' 'P75' 'P77' . . . $=================================== MEMBER PROPERTIES TABLE 'NewHSS' EXISTING T 'HSS16x16x1/2' MEMBER RELEASE $ EL18650 'E22' 'E36' 'E49' 'E62' 'E75' 'E76' 'E77' 'E85' 'E86' TO 'E91' 'E95' TO 'E98' 'E102' TO 'E104' 'E108' TO 'E110' 'E114' TO 'E117' 'E121' TO 'E124' 'E128' 'E129' TO 'E145' 'R4154' 'R4071' 'B65' TO 'B68' START MOM Y Z END MOM Y Z 'E23' 'E25' 'E27' 'E30' 'E32' 'E34' 'E37' 'E39' 'E41' 'E43' 'E45' 'E47' 'E50' 'E52' 'E54' 'E56' 'E58' 'E60' 'E63' 'E65' 'E67' 'E69' 'E71' 'E73' 'E78' 'E82' 'E92' 'E99' 'E105' 'E111' 'E118' 'E125' START MOM Y Z 'E24' 'E26' 'E29' 'E31' 'E33' 'E35' 'E38' 'E40' 'E42' 'E44' 'E46' 'E48' 'E51' 'E53' 'E55' 'E57' 'E59' 'E61' 'E64' 'E66' 'E68' 'E70' 'E72' 'E74' 'E81' 'E84' 'E94' 'E101' 'E107' 'E113' 'E120' 'E127' END MOM Y Z . . . $ $================================== $ CONSTANTS OF MATERIAL PROPERTY UNIT INCH POUND CONSTANT E 30000000.0 ALL CONSTANT G 12000000.0 ALL CONSTANT POISSON .2700 ALL CONSTANT DENSITY .2830 ALL $================================== $ BETA CONDITION UNITS DEGREES CONSTANTS

229

BETA 90 ALL $ CHANGE BETA FOR COLUMN ONLY CONSTANT BETA 0 'C1' TO 'C58' 'E3961' TO 'E4196' 'E4300' TO 'E4316' 'C3967' 'C3968' 'C3972' 'C3978' 'C3979' 'C3983' 'C3989' 'C3990' 'C3994' 'C4000' 'C4001' 'C4005' 'C4011' 'C4012' 'C4016' 'C4022' 'C4023' 'C4027' 'C4033' 'C4034' 'C4038' 'C4068' 'C4089' 'C4110' 'C4131' 'C4151' . . . $================= CREATE MEMBER GROUPS ==================== DEFINE GRP '1a' MEMBERS 'B1260' 'B1258' 'E1663' 'E1700' DEFINE GRP '1b' MEMBERS 'E1440' 'E1441' 'E1511' 'E1512' 'E1573' . . . $=================================== $ $ ---------------- LOADING CONDITION -----------------------------$ UNIT MTOM METER SELF WEIGHT LOADING 'SW' 'STEEL SELF WEIGHT' -Z ALL MEMBERS $********************************** LOADING '1X' 'ADDITIONAL DEAD LOAD' $********************************** $ PLATFORM DEAD LOAD JOINT LOADS $ 11598 'P141' FOR Z -3.125 'P143' FOR Z -3.125 'P145' FOR Z -3.125 . . . $ CONCRETE FLOOR 'P409' FOR Z -9.520 'P274' FOR Z -9.520 'P410' FOR Z -19. . . . $ ROOF (BOILER) 'P2254' FOR Z -0.500 'P2262' FOR Z -0.500 'P2264' FOR Z -3.250 . . . $ ROOF (COAL SILO) 'P1418' FOR Z -3.280 'P1430' FOR Z -3.280 'P1431' FOR Z -3.280 . . . $ ROOF (A/H) 'P1307' FOR Z -2.100 'P1313' FOR Z -2.100

230

. . . $ SKY ROUNGE PLATFORM 'J2083' FOR Z -0.500 'P2081' FOR Z -0.500 'P2074' FOR Z -0.700 . . . $ ----- END OF PLATFORM DEAD $ GIRT & SIDING ( 42.5 kg) JOINT LOADS 'P96' FOR Z -0.53 'P97' FOR Z -2.07 'P409' FOR Z -0.92 . . . $ -- END OF GIRT & SIDING $ ------------------------ELEVATOR LOAD $ EL.109900 $ PLATFORM DEAD LOAD 'P2263' 'P2264' 'P2273' 'P2274' FOR Z -2.8 $ EQUIPMENT DEAD LOAD 'P2263' 'P2264' 'P2273' 'P2274' FOR Z -5.5 $ ----------------------CRITICAL PIPE (M/S, H/R, C/R) $ EL.46900 'P910' FOR Z -20.0 'P911' FOR Z -38.0 'P912' FOR Z -10.0 . . . $ --------------------------MISCELLANEOUS PIPE $ EL.16100 'P94' FOR Z -1.3 'P86' FOR Z -0.8 . . . $ ----------------------- WIND BOX LOAD $ EL.39900 'P863' 'P864' 'P868' 'P869' FOR Z -17.0 . . . $ ------------------------COAL FEEDER LOAD $ EL.23540 'P409' 'P415' FOR Z -3.0 'P410' TO 'P414' FOR Z -5.5 'P274' 'P284' FOR Z -4.0 'P276' 'P278' 'P279' 'P280' 'P282' FOR Z -7.0 $ ----------------------DUST COLLECTOR $ EL.59700 'P1239' 'P1236' 'P1252' 'P1256' FOR Z -5.0 'P1238' 'P1254' FOR Z -10.0

231

6 7. -4.095 -129. HEATER LOAD -134.0 $ --------------------------FLASH TANK $ EL.7 -1.0 'E2833' 'E2890' FOR Z GLO CON P -1.0 $ ------------------------------SOOT $ EL.8 / -2.5 L 2.3 'P787' 'P789' 'P790' 'P791' 'P793' FOR Z -34.0 'P87' FOR Z -15.0 0.8 / -1.3 3.93600 MEM LOAD 'E2834' 'E2891' FOR Z GLO CON P -1. 23540 MEMBER LOADS 'E455' FOR Z GLO CON P -6.0 'E2831' 'E2888' FOR Z GLO CON P -1.3 / -4.5 TON/SET) JOINT LOAD 'P759' 'P735' FOR Z -14.0 'P309' FOR Z -15. BLOWER LOAD L L L L 2.9 5.5 232 .0 L 2.74 -134.7 L . .35750 $ SILO STEEL WEIGHT (63. .2 9. .0 'P785' 'P795' FOR Z -17.3 5.9 -2.7 0.8 $ --------------------------AIR $ EL.0 $ ------------------------TRIPPER LOAD $ EL.0 .5 'P739' 'P743' 'P747' 'P751' 'P755' FOR Z -29. .3 L 'E465' FOR Z GLO CON P -4.6 L 2.52050 $ DEAD LOAD (EQUIPMENT) JOINT LOAD 'P1109' 'P1115' 'P1129' 'P1141' FOR Z -10.8 7. JOINT LOAD 'P275' FOR Z 'P287' FOR Z 'P301' FOR Z 'P296' FOR Z 'P295' FOR Z .3 3.2 -1.0 3.0 'P1110' TO 'P1114' 'P1131' 'P1133' 'P1135' 'P1137' 'P1139' FOR Z -20.4 PIPE LOAD 3.3 / -6.29550 MEMBER LOAD 'E714' 'E718' 'E769' 'E785' FOR Z GLO CON P -20. . .6 / -1.6 $ -------------------------CONDENSATE TANK LOAD $ EL. .3 / -3.0 'E2832' 'E2889' FOR Z GLO CON P -1.0 -4.6 9.9 L 'E480' FOR Z GLO CON P -1.$ -----------------------COAL $ EL.35300 MEMBER LOAD 'E1049' 'E1023' FOR Z GLO CON P 'E1050' 'E1024' FOR Z GLO CON P 'E1034' 'E1039' FOR Z GLO CON P .14 $ --------------------------COAL SILO LOAD $ EL.8 / -2. .16100 'P94' 'P86' FOR Z -10.9 5.5 L 1.

15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ################################################### $********************************************* LOADING '3X' 'LIVE LOAD' $********************************************* $ PLATFORM LIVE LOAD $ 11598 JOINT LOADS 'P141' FOR Z -12. $ ------------------------------------SILENCER LOAD $ EL. $ ################################################## FORM LOADING 1 'ADDITIONAL DEAD LOAD' FROM '1X' 0. $ ################################################### FORM LOADING 2 'BOILER HANGING LOAD' FROM '2X' 0. .735 'E400' FOR Z GLO CON P -10.500 'P143' FOR Z -12.7 .4 'P1368' 'P1369' FOR Z -0. .4 'P1800' FOR Z -5. .575 'E388' FOR Z GLO CON P -7. . .15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ################################################## $******************************************* LOADING '2X' 'BOILER HANGING LOAD' $******************************************* $ EL.JOINT LOAD 'P1936' 'P1937' FOR Z -1. .3 L 1.3 'P1885' FOR Z -5. .3 L 4.0 $ ------------------------------------CABLE TRAY $ COL.4 .0 'P2116' 'P2124' 'P2173' 'P2181' FOR Z -35. .225 .4 L 8.23540 MEMBER LOADS 'E387' FOR Z GLO CON P -7.500 . JOINT LOAD 'P1362' 'P1363' FOR Z -2. "M" 'P2003' FOR Z -5. . .3 'P1278' 'P1279' FOR Z -0. $ ----------------------------DUCT LOAD $ PRIMARY AIR TO A/H $ EL. .0 'P2293' 'P2296' FOR Z -11.0 .116500 'P2266' 'P2270' FOR Z -5.0 'P2090' FOR Z -4.500 'P145' FOR Z -12. . 233 .109900 JOINT LOADS 'P2085' 'P2095' FOR Z -5.

280 'P1430' FOR Z -3. . . . . . .520 'P1115' FOR Z -9.800 .52050 $ LIVE LOAD (EQUIPMENT) 234 . . .0 'P276' 'P278' 'P279' 'P280' 'P282' FOR Z -3.5 'P410' TO 'P414' FOR Z -2.280 .5 $ ------------------------TRIPPER LOAD $ EL.520 'P1129' FOR Z -9.280 'P1431' FOR Z -3.500 'P2264' FOR Z -3.520 .520 'P274' FOR Z -9. $ CONCRETE FLOOR 'P1109' FOR Z -9..100 'P1309' FOR Z -8. $ ROOF (A/H) 'P1307' FOR Z -2. .109900 $ PLATFORM LIVE LOAD 'P2263' 'P2264' 'P2273' 'P2274' FOR Z -2. $ END OF PLATFORM LIVE $ ------------------------ELEVATOR LOAD $ EL. $ ROOF (BOILER) 'P2254' FOR Z -0. .500 'P2262' FOR Z -0. .8 $ ------------------------COAL FEEDER LOAD $ EL. 'P2081' FOR Z -2. $ SKY ROUNGE 'J2083' FOR Z -2. . $ ROOF (COAL SILO) 'P1418' FOR Z -3.250 .100 'P1313' FOR Z -2.23540 $ LIVE LOAD 'P409' 'P415' FOR Z -1. $ CONCRETE FLOOR 'P409' FOR Z -9.970 . .520 'P410' FOR Z -19. 'P2074' FOR Z -2.8 'P2263' 'P2264' 'P2273' 'P2274' FOR Z -2.8 'P274' 'P284' FOR Z -2.

4 'E4300' TO 'E4316' FOR Y GLO UNI 0.0 .0 $ ####################################### FORM LOADING 3 'LIVE LOAD' FROM '3X' 0.0 . $ ############################################## FORM LOADING 5 'CONTINGENCY LOAD' FROM '5X' 0. 'P747' 'P751' 'P755' FOR Z -328. . . .JOINT LOAD 'P1109' TO 'P1115' 'P1129' 'P1131' 'P1133' 'P1135' 'P1137' 'P1139' 'P1141' FOR Z -20.97 'C3' FOR Y GLO UNI 0.19300 'P166' 'P177' FOR Z -2. "G" 'P1418' 'P1420' 'P1422' 'P1424' 'P1426' 'P1428' 'P1430' FOR Z -20. .99 'C4' 'C5' FOR Y GLO UNI 1. .48 .0 $ ######################################################## FORM LOADING 4 'MATERIAL LOAD (ASH & COAL)' FROM '4X' 0.02 . .15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ####################################### $*********************************************************** LOADING '4X' 'MATERIAL LOAD (ASH & COAL)' $*********************************************************** $ ASH LOAD JOINT LOAD $ EL. 235 .15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ############################################## $*************************************** LOADING 'WLN-X' 'SOUTH TO NORTH WIND' $*************************************** MEMBER LOADS $ WINDWARD $ COL G 'C1' 'C2' FOR Y GLO UNI 0. . $ LEEWARD $ COL J 'E4271' TO 'E4287' FOR Y GLO UNI 0.0 FOR Z -196.15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ######################################################## $************************************************ LOADING '5X' 'CONTINGENCY LOAD' $************************************************ JOINT LOAD $ COL. $ COAL WEIGHT JOINT LOAD 'P759' 'P735' 'P739' 'P743' 'P785' 'P795' 'P787' 'P789' (720 TON/SET) FOR Z -164. .0 'P790' 'P791' 'P793' FOR Z -392.

. $ UPWARD JOINT LOAD $ ROOF (BOILER) 'P2254' FOR Z 1. $ ROOF (A/H) 'P1307' FOR Z 3.79 'E4894' 'E4895' FOR Y GLO UNI -0. .4 'P1309' FOR Z 14.48 FOR Y GLO UNI -0.48. .84 'P1109' 'P1239' FOR Y 17.4 'P1313' FOR Z 3.82 'E4896' FOR Y GLO UNI -0.0 'P2262' FOR Z 1.5 .48 'P1431' FOR Z 5. $ LEEWARD $ COL J 'E4183' TO 'E4196' 'E4214' TO 'E4223' 'C4223' .84 $ ######################################################## FORM LOADING 'WLN' 'SOUTH TO NORTH WIND' FROM 'WLN-X' 0.4 FOR X GLO UNI -1.55 . .48 236 . $ GALLERY BRIDGE 'P1115' 'P1231' FOR Y 17.48 'P1430' FOR Z 5. .0 'P2264' FOR Z 6.$ SIDEWARD $ COL 10 'C1' TO 'C7' 'E3962' TO 'E3972' 'C3967' 'C3968' .14 $ ROOF (COAL SILO) 'P1418' FOR Z 5. .14 FOR X GLO UNI -1. . FOR X GLO UNI -0.15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ######################################################## $*************************************** LOADING 'WLS-X' 'NORTH TO SOUTH WIND' $*************************************** MEMBER LOADS $ WINDWARD $ COL R 'E4892' 'E4893' FOR Y GLO UNI -0. . .58 FOR Y GLO UNI -0.86 . . . FOR Y GLO UNI -0. . .

48 'P1430' FOR Z 5. .4 'P1313' FOR Z 3.15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ######################################################## $*************************************** LOADING 'WLE-X' 'WEST TO EAST WIND' $*************************************** MEMBER LOADS $ WINDWARD $ COL 10 'C1' TO 'C7' FOR X GLO UNI 0.14 FOR X GLO UNI -1.0 'P2264' FOR Z 6. .84 'P1256' 'P1129' FOR Y -17.11 'C4297' FOR X GLO UNI 1.65 237 .05 'E3963' FOR X GLO UNI 1. . FOR X GLO UNI -0.65 'C21' TO 'C27' FOR Y GLO UNI -1.5 .2 'C5011' TO 'C5019' 'C5021' FOR X GLO UNI 1. $ ROOF (COAL SILO) 'P1418' FOR Z 5.55 . . .4 'P1309' FOR Z 14.48 .$ SIDEWARD $ COL 10 'C1' TO 'C7' 'E3962' TO 'E3972' 'C3967' 'C3968' .92 'C12' TO 'C18' FOR Y GLO UNI -1.07 . $ GALLERY BRIDGE 'P1244' 'P1141' FOR Y -17.0 'P2262' FOR Z 1. .48 'P1431' FOR Z 5. $ SIDEWARD $ COL GFZ 'C1' TO 'C7' FOR Y GLO UNI -0. .14 $ ROOF (A/H) 'P1307' FOR Z 3. . .4 FOR X GLO UNI -1. $ LEEWARD $ COL 15. .4 'E3962' FOR X GLO UNI 1.84 $ ######################################################## FORM LOADING 'WLS' 'NORTH TO SOUTH WIND' FROM 'WLS-X' 0. . $ UPWARD JOINT LOAD $ ROOF (BOILER) 'P2254' FOR Z 1. 'E4271' TO 'E4299' FOR X GLO UNI 1.11 . .

.48 'P1430' FOR Z 5.15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ###################################################### $*************************************** LOADING 'WLW-X' 'EAST TO WEST WIND' $*************************************** MEMBER LOADS $ WINDWARD $ COL 15. $ ROOF (A/H) 'P1307' FOR Z 3. . . .4 'P1309' FOR Z 14.05 'E4029' FOR X GLO UNI -1. .0 'P2262' FOR Z 1. .. 238 . $ UPWARD JOINT LOAD $ ROOF (BOILER) 'P2254' FOR Z 1. . . .71 'C4365' FOR X GLO UNI -0.65 'C21' TO 'C27' FOR Y GLO UNI -1.48 'P1431' FOR Z 5.48 . $ ###################################################### FORM LOADING 'WLE' 'WEST TO EAST WIND' FROM 'WLE-X' 0.71 'E4343' TO 'E4367' FOR X GLO UNI -0.4 'C5001' TO 'C5010' 'C5020' FOR X GLO UNI -0.65 .7 'C52' TO 'C58' FOR X GLO UNI -0.5 . $ LEEWARD $ COL 10. . .55 .07 .0 'P2264' FOR Z 6. .71 .4 'E4028' FOR X GLO UNI -1. $ SIDEWARD $ COL GFZ 'C1' TO 'C7' FOR Y GLO UNI -0. $ ROOF (COAL SILO) 'P1418' FOR Z 5.4 'P1313' FOR Z 3. . .92 'C12' TO 'C18' FOR Y GLO UNI -1.

15 $ <<<----Reduce Load values by 85% $ ###################################################### BYPASS $ <<<**************************************************************************<<<<<<<<<< $*************************************** LOADING 100 'SOUTH TO NORTH SEISMIC' $*************************************** JOINT LOAD 'P554' 'P553' FOR Y 60.0 L 0. . $ ROOF (COAL SILO) 'P1418' FOR Z 5.0 L 8.0 L 8.EL93600) 'E2784' FOR Y GLO CON P -80.48 'P1431' FOR Z 5. .0 'P2264' FOR Z 6.0 $ (EL71200. $*************************************** LOADING 120 'WEST TO EAST SEISMIC' $*************************************** JOINT LOAD 'P540' 'P567' FOR X 60.0 L 0.4 'P1309' FOR Z 14.EL74200) 'P1796' 'P1799' FOR Y 25. .0 'P2262' FOR Z 1. $ ###################################################### FORM LOADING 'WLW' 'EAST TO WEST WIND' FROM 'WLW-X' 0.92 $ (EL93600) 'E2784' FOR Y GLO CON P 25.0 $ (EL29550) 239 . $ ROOF (A/H) 'P1307' FOR Z 3.0 $ (EL85550) MEMBER LOAD 'E2783' FOR Y GLO CON P -80.EL93600) 'E2749' FOR Y GLO CON P 80. .96 $ (EL90200.79 $ (EL90200.48 'P1430' FOR Z 5.96 $ (EL90200. .0 $ (EL71200. .33 $ (EL93600) .4 'P1313' FOR Z 3.48 .55 .EL93600) 'E2783' FOR Y GLO CON P 25.0 $ (EL29550) 'P1522' 'P1524' FOR Y -80. .83 $ (EL93600) . $ $*************************************** LOADING 110 'NORTH TO SOUTH SEISMIC' $*************************************** JOINT LOAD 'P554' 'P553' FOR Y -60.0 L 0.EL74200) 'J1827' 'J1828' FOR Y -25.0 L 3.$ UPWARD JOINT LOAD $ ROOF (BOILER) 'P2254' FOR Z 1.92 $ (EL93600) 'E2815' FOR Y GLO CON P -25. .0 L 2. .0 $ (EL85550) MEMBER LOAD 'E2746' FOR Y GLO CON P 80. .EL93600) 'E2810' FOR Y GLO CON P -25.0 $ (EL29550) 'P1491' 'P1495' FOR Y 80.5 .0 L 0.39 $ (EL90200.

.51 $ (EL71200.EL74200) 'P1878' FOR X -80.0 L 1. $ $ 25.EL74200) 'E2875' FOR X GLO CON P -80.0 $ (EL29550) 'P1518' FOR X -80.34 $ (EL93600) .0 'P1877' FOR X 80.0 'P1804' 'P1822' FOR X 'P1903' FOR X 25. .EL74200) (EL90200.0 $ $ (EL71200.EL74200) P 80.0 $ (EL93600) MEMBER LOAD 'E2271' FOR X GLO CON P -80.EL93600) P 25.'P1517' FOR X 80.0 MEMBER LOAD 'E2257' FOR X GLO CON 'E2841' FOR X GLO CON 'E2847' FOR X GLO CON .0 L 1.EL93600) 'P1805' 'P1823' FOR X -25.0 $ (EL85550) 'P1904' FOR X -25.0 L 1. . BYPASS $ <<<****************************************************************<<<<<<<<<< $---------------------------------------------------------------UNIT TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS INCH KIPS SAVE '1. .0 $ (EL90200.51 $ (EL90200.51 $ (EL90200.EL93600) (EL85550) (EL93600) P 80.34 $ (EL93600) $*************************************** LOADING 130 'EAST TO WEST SEISMIC' $*************************************** JOINT LOAD 'P540' 'P567' FOR X -60.0 L 1.51 $ (EL71200.0 $ (EL71200. Model&Indloads.0 L 1.gts' FINISH $ <<<**************************************************************************<<<<<<<<<< 240 .0 L 1.EL93600) 'E2881' FOR X GLO CON P -25.

gti 241 . Notional_Loads.APPENDIX AU Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 2.

Pages 16.6 5 1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' 1.2 'NY_3+4+5' 1.2 3 1.6 4 1.6 4 1.4 2 1. "In lieu of using tb less than 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0. if ever.2 2 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1..6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 3 1.4*(SW+1+2) . the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1.6*(3+4+5) ++ NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.6 4 1.6*(3+4+5) -.2*(SW+1+2)+1.2 2 1. [0...6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.6*(3+4+5) -. $ Therefore.6 FORM LOADING '12-3' '1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0. if not all.4 1 1.4 FORM LOADING '11-5' '1. $ Appendix 7 states that.8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed.2 2 1.6*(3+4+5) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0.4 1 1.4*(SW+1+2) .4*(SW+1+2) + NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' 1.2 3 1.4 2 1.4 1 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-6' '1.0 5 1.0 2 1.6 4 1.4*(SW+1+2) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-4' '1.2 3 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.e.4 'NY_SW+1+2' 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' -1..RESTORE '1. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely.4 1 1.6 5 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1.6 FORM LOADING '12-2' '1.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2).6 5 1.4 2 1.6*(3+4+5)' FROM 'SW' 1.6 4 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.4 2 1.2 2 1.6 5 1.2 1 1.0 1 1.2 1 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.6 FORM LOADING '12-5' '1.. Appendix 7.2 2 1.4 1 1. Model&Indloads." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1.. tb = 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1.4 FORM LOADING '12-1' '1.NOTIONAL_Y' - 242 .2 1 1.1-198: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) reduction of flexural stiffness (i.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.2 3 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_3+4+5' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' FROM 3 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_3+4+5' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 3 1.4 FORM LOADING '11-3' '1.2 1 1.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0.0 2 1.6 FORM LOADING '12-7' '1.2 3 1. Rather.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ Define Notional Loads UNIT MTOM METER $ $ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification.0 4 1.4 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.6 5 1.4 'NY_SW+1+2' -1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ 13th Edition LRFD Load Combinations FORM LOADING '11-1' '1.4 FORM LOADING '11-2' '1.2 'NX_3+4+5' -1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.0 1 1.0 may be used $ for all members.1-196 to 16.0 4 1.2 'NX_3+4+5' 1.0 5 1. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified.2 2 1.2 1 1. GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor.6 4 1.4 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.0 .6*(3+4+5) ++ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.4 2 1.6 5 1.6*(3+4+5) +.2 1 1. be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed.4*(SW+1+2)' FROM 'SW' 1.4 FORM LOADING '11-4' '1.

6 'NX_SW+1+2' 0.2 2 1.2 'WLE' 0.9 2 0.2 1 1.NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 0.2 3 1.2 'NY_3+4+5' -0.5 'WLE' 1.5 4 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.6*(3+4+5) +.6*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 0.6 5 1.2 'NY_3+4+5' 0.2 – 'NX_3+4+5' -0.6 5 1.9*(SW+1+2)+1.9*(SW+1+2)+1.2 2 1.6*(WLS) +.5 'WLW' 1.9 FORM LOADING 28 '0.2 3 0.2 2 1.2 1 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 BYPASS $ <<<****************************************************************<<<<<<<<<< FORM LOADING 15 '1.9 2 0.2*(SW+1+2)+0.6 5 1.2 2 1.5 FORM LOADING 16 '1.2 1 1.5*(3+4+5)+1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.6*(WLS) ++ NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.2 1 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.2 2 1.2 BYPASS $ <<<****************************************************************<<<<<<<<<< FORM LOADING 23 '1.5 5 0.9 BYPASS $ <<<****************************************************************<<<<<<<<<< $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QUERY UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH $ PRINT LOAD DATA SAVE '2.2*(SW+1+2)+0.5 5 0.5 FORM LOADING 26 '1.NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' 1.2 'NY_3+4+5' -1.2 1 1.2 3 0.2 1 1.FROM 'SW' 1.2 3 1.2 'WLS' 0.2 3 0.6 'NY_SW+1+2' -1.5 FORM LOADING 25 '1.2 2 1.9 2 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.2 1 1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.5 'WLE' 1.9*(SW+1+2)+1.9 'WLE' 1.5*(3+4+5)+1.6*(WLN) -+ NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.8 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.5 5 0.6*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.2 2 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1.5 4 0.5 4 0.5*(3+4+5)+1.6*(3+4+5) -+ NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.5 4 0.6 'NX_SW+1+2' -0.2 1 1.5 4 0.5 FORM LOADING 24 '1.5 'WLS' 1.6*(WLW) .2 – 'NX_3+4+5' -0.5 FORM LOADING 27 '0.2 1 1.2 – 'NX_3+4+5' 0.6 FORM LOADING '12-9' '1.9 1 0.2 1 1.gts' FINISH 243 .8*(WLN) .NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.5 FORM LOADING 18 '1.2 'WLW' 0.2 3 0.8 'NY_SW+1+2' 1.6 $ FORM LOADING 13 '1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.9*(SW+1+2)+1.6*(WLW) -+ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.2 1 1.5*(3+4+5)+1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' -0.6 'NY_SW+1+2' -1.5*(3+4+5)+1.2 'WLN' 0.6 FORM LOADING '12-8' '1.6*(WLN) -.9 1 0.2*(SW+1+2)+0.6*(WLE) ++ NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' 1.8*(WLE) + NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.2 2 1.6 4 1.5 4 0.2 1 1.5 4 0.5 'WLS' 1.2*(SW+1+2)+1.2 2 1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' 1.5 'WLN' 1.2 3 1.6*(WLE) +.5*(3+4+5)+1. Notional_Loads.NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.2 2 1.6*(WLN) .5 4 0.2 'NY_3+4+5' 1.9 'WLW' 1.2 FORM LOADING 14 '1.2 2 1.5 5 0.6 4 1.5*(3+4+5)+1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' -1.8*(WLW) .2 'NY_3+4+5' -0.2 2 1.9 1 0.2*(SW+1+2)+0.2 1 1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' 0.2 $ FORM LOADING 22 '1.8*(WLS) + NOTIONAL_Y' FROM 'SW' 1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.9 FORM LOADING 20 '0.6*(WLW) -.5 'WLN' 1.2 'NY_3+4+5' 0.2 1 1.9 2 0.2 3 0.5 FORM LOADING 19 '0.8 'NY_SW+1+2' -1.2 1 1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.2 2 1.2 2 1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.8 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.2 3 0.5 'WLW' 1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.2 – 'NX_3+4+5' 0.9 1 0.5 5 0.2 2 1.9 'WLS' 1.5*(3+4+5)+1.5 FORM LOADING 17 '1.2*(SW+1+2)+0.6 'NX_SW+1+2' 1.9 'WLN' 1.9 BYPASS $ <<<****************************************************************<<<<<<<<<< FORM LOADING 21 '1.2 'NY_3+4+5' -1.5 5 0.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 0.6 4 1.6 'NX_SW+1+2' -1.6 'NY_SW+1+2' -1.NOTIONAL_X' FROM 'SW' 1.

LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.APPENDIX AV Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 3a.gti 244 .

LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional. and BY MEMBER LIST SUM REACTIONS LIST MAXIMUM REACTION ENVELOPE LOADS ACTIVE ONLY UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '3a. Notional_Loads.e. $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS UNITS INCH KIPS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 LIST DISPLACEMENTS JOINTS 'P2322' 'P2262' 'P1342' 'J1430' $ LIST MAXIMUM JOINT DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY ONLY LOADS ACTIVE OUTPUT BY JOINT $ .. '12-1' TO '12-9'.RESTORE '2. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'...gts' FINISH 245 . 14.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ $ Perform linear static analysis for all currently active factored limit state loading conditions.

AISC13_LRFD_LinearAnal_Design&CodeChk_Notional.gti 246 .APPENDIX AW Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 4a.

'E3769' TO 'E3772' 'E3785' TO 'E3788' 'E3801' TO 'E3804' 'E3773' TO 'E3778' 'E3789' TO 'E3794' 'E3811' TO 'E3814' - $==============Unbraced Lengths======================== UNITS MTONS MM PARAMETERS 'LZ' 11350 'LY' 6010 'LZ' 12210 MEM MEM MEM 'E4051' 'E4030' 'E3998' 'E4030' 'E3997' 'E3964' 'E4071' 'E4092' 'E4113' 'C4051' 'C4071' 'C4092' 'C4113' 'E4031' 'E4019' 'E4020' 'E4008' 'E4009' 'E3997' 'E3986' 'E3987' 'E3975' 'E3976' 'E3964' 'E3965' TO 'E4032' 'E4019' TO 'E4021' 'E4008' TO 'E4010' TO 'E3999' 'E3986' TO 'E3988' 'E3975' TO 'E3977' TO 'E3966' . .0 1000.0 Use code units rather than: UNITS ACTIVE ALL UNITS KIPS INCHES PARAMETERS CODE AISC13 ALL MEMBERS METHOD LRFD ALL MEMBERS FY 50 ALL $ Conflicting steel grades for box shapes and Wide flange shapes for $ purposes of smoothing set yield stress to 50ksi for all members FU 70 ALL CODETOL 0.5 (Maximum unbraced length of compression flange = 0. LINEAR_STATIC_ANALYSIS_Notional.ds' READ EXISTING $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -----------------------------------------Steel design by the 13th Edition AISC code -----------------------------------------For all beams: FRUNLCF = 0.0 KZ KY SLENCOMP SLENTEN $ FRUNLCF compression $ SLENCOMP Cb 'TBLNAM' 1.0 0.5 1.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES OPEN USERDATA FILE '0.5 flange 300 1.0 247 . .0 0.0 ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS ALL MEMBERS MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' MEMBERS GRP 'BEAMS' ALL MEMBERS $ All beams: Maximum unbraced length of $ All beams 'W-AISC13' ALL MEMBERS 'TBLNAM' '2L-EQ-13' MEMBERS 'R1' TO 'R34' 'nConnect' -1 MEMBERS 'R1' TO 'R34' 'TBLNAM' 'NewHSS' MEMBERS 'E3763' TO 'E3768' 'E3779' TO 'E3784' 'E3795' TO 'E3800' . HSS_New_Table.0 1000. .0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 1.5 x Member Length) KY = KZ = 1. .RESTORE '3a.0 For all columns: KY = KZ = 1. $====================================================== SECTION FR NS 3 0.

'12-1' TO '12-9'. UNITY CHECK = 1. $ Appendix 7 states that..003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM $ Reform all "FORM LOADS" with the updated notional loads LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. the user may simply use $ the AISC option of tb = 1.0 1 1. tb = 1. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0. be the same as the behavior of the overly simplified frames upon whose behavior the tb factor was developed. Pages 16.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1... Appendix 7. SmoothMemberProperties.. LOAD 'SW' 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NY_SW+1+2'.0 .8 x tb x EI]) is only applicable to frame $ structures whose behavior is similar to the behavior of the simple plane frames for $ which the mathematical formulations of stability were developed.0 by specifying the notional load factor (NLF) to be 0.gts' FINISH 248 . if not all.e.E.003 Yi $ as shown in the following FORM NOTIONAL LOAD commands: DELETE.e.$ Factored limit state loading conditions (i...0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0.1-196 to 16. 14.0 1 1. ADDITIONS SELF WEIGHT LOADING 'SW' 'STEEL SELF WEIGHT' -Z ALL MEMBERS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. industrial structures and modern high-rise commercial buildings will rarely. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ---------------------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ---------------------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 0.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ Reference the 13th Edition AISC Specification.0 2 1." $ $ $ $ $ It is the opinion of the CASE Center that the behavior of most.1-198: $ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ $ The CASE Center believes the 13th Edition AISC Provision for the additional tau_b (tb) $ reduction of flexural stiffness (i. AISC13_LRFD_Notional.0 2 1.001 Yi is added to the $ notional load requirement in (2).005) UNITS KIPS INCH CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS SAVE '4a.0 may be used $ for all members. provided that an additive notional load 0f 0. if ever.. and thus the calculation and use of the tb factor is considered to be NOT justified. GTSTRUDL does not calculate the tb factor. "In lieu of using tb less than 1.5 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I. 14. $ Therefore. [0. 21 $ Design all members UNITS KIPS IN SELECT ALL MEMBERS UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.. Rather.

LinearAnalysis. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti 249 . Redesign.APPENDIX AX Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 5a.

0 2 1.0 2 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.gts' FINISH 250 .90) UNITS KIPS INCH SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' $ $ $ $ $ $ All members that failed code check ----------------------------------------------------------------Calculate the length. Unity check = 0. SmoothMemberProperties.RESTORE '4a. ADDITIONS SELF WEIGHT 'SW' 'SELF WEIGHT' DIRECTION -Z ALL MEMBERS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM ‘SW’ 1. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 1. LOAD 'SW' 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NY_SW+1+2'..0 1 1.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 OPEN USERDATA FILE '0. 21 $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -10.01) UNITS KIPS INCH CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS SAVE '5c. and weight of the current design of all beams and columns after design.0 ALL $ Require a 10% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i.E.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM $ Reform all "FORM LOADS" with the updated notional loads LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 1 1.e.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' – FROM ‘SW’ 1.ds' READ EXISTING LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I. volume. ----------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF MEMBERS EXISTING ITEMIZE BY PROFILE NAMES $ All members UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0. AISC13_LRFD_Notional. 14.. '12-1' TO '12-9'. 14. UNITY CHECK = 1. HSS_New_Table.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0.

APPENDIX AY Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 5b. & CodeCheck_Notional. Redesign.gti 251 . LinearAnalysis.

0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0. LOAD 'SW' 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NY_SW+1+2'. UNITY CHECK = 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.01) UNITS INCH KIPS CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS SAVE '5b.0 ALL $ Require a 10% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i. ADDITIONS SELF WEIGHT 'SW' 'SELF WEIGHT' DIRECTION -Z ALL MEMBERS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. 14.gts' FINISH 252 .E.. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional. SmoothMemberProperties. '12-1' TO '12-9'.RESTORE '5c. Unity check = 0.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 2 1. 14.85) UNITS INCH KIPS SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' $ All members that failed code check CHANGE MEMBER PROPERTIES TABLE 'W-AISC13' 'E1269' 'E1270' 'E1273' 'E1274' TABLE 'W10x19' UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 OPEN USERDATA FILE '0.e.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.ds' READ EXISTING LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. '12-1' TO '12-9'. volume.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.0 2 1. 14.0 1 1. 21 $ ----------------------------------------------------------------$ Calculate the length. 21 $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -15.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. '12-1' TO '12-9'. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 1.0 1 1. HSS_New_Table.. and weight of the current design of $ all beams and columns after design smoothing. $ ----------------------------------------------------------------UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.

& CodeCheck_Notional. LinearAnalysis. Redesign.gti 253 .APPENDIX AZ Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 5c.

003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 ALL $ NO OVERSTRESS PERMITTED DURING CODE CHECK $ (I.e.ds' READ EXISTING UNITS TONS STEEL TAKE OFF $ All members LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.0 2 1.E.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZONTAL GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.0 1 1. 14..0 ALL $ Require a 20% overdesign to improve design iteration convergence $ (i.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 OPEN USERDATA FILE '0. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 1 1.80) UNITS INCH KIPS SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' $ All members that failed code check UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0. 14.0 2 1. UNITY CHECK = 1. HSS_New_Table. SmoothMemberProperties.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.gts' FINISH 254 .RESTORE '5b.. ADDITIONS SELF WEIGHT 'SW' 'SELF WEIGHT' DIRECTION -Z ALL MEMBERS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1. LOAD 'SW' 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NY_SW+1+2'. Unity check = 0. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional. 21 $ -----------------------------------------------------$ Design all members that failed the previous code check $ -----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL -20. 21 QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS $ ----------------------------------------------------$ Perform a code check for all members for design loads $ ----------------------------------------------------PARAMETERS CODETOL 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0.01) UNITS INCH KIPS CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS SAVE '5c.

APPENDIX BA Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 6a. NonlinearAnalysis_Original_Notional&AE_EI.gti 255 .

8E) for Reduced AE.. EIy. GAy. '12-1' TO '12-9'.RESTORE '5c. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '6. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional. 14.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0.8G) for Reduced GIx. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0.e.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. 21 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. NonlinearAnalysis_Notional.gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value 256 . the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.

AISC13_LRFD_DESIGN_Notional.gti 257 .APPENDIX BB Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 4b.

LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.0 1 1. '12-1' TO '12-9'.ds' READ EXISTING $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. 21 $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -30.e.0 2 1. 14.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES OPEN USERDATA FILE '0.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. ADDITIONS SELF WEIGHT LOADING 'SW' 'STEEL SELF WEIGHT' -Z ALL MEMBERS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.gts' FINISH 258 .0 2 1.0 1 1.. HSS_New_Table. 21 SAVE '4b. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_Notional.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0. LOAD 'SW' 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NY_SW+1+2'. the FORM LOADS LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' – FROM 'SW' 1.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.RESTORE '5c. SmoothMemberProperties. '12-1' TO '12-9'.0 ALL $ Unity check = 0. 14.70 UNITS KIPS IN SELECT ALL MEMBERS UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.

NonlinearAnalysis_Notional&AE_EI.gti 259 .APPENDIX BC Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 6c.

21 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0.gts' FINISH $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value 260 .001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0. NonlinearAnalysis_Notional.8E) for Reduced AE. GAy. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. 14.e. '12-1' TO '12-9'.RESTORE '4b. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL LIST SUM REACTIONS UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '6. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.8G) for Reduced GIx. LRFD3_DESIGN_Notional.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.. EIy.

APPENDIX BD Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 7a. AISC13_LRFD_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.gti 261 .

.e.RESTORE '6. NonlinearAnalysis_Notional.01 $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i.gts' FINISH 262 .ds' READ EXISTING PARAMETERS CODETOL 1. 21 UNITS INCH KIPS CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF SAVE '7c. 14. '12-1' TO '12-9'. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES OPEN USERDATA FILE '0. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. HSS_New_Table.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.

Redesign. NonlinearAnalysis.APPENDIX BE Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 7b. & CodeCheck_Notional.gti 263 .

0 1 1. 21 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ DEFINE NONLINEAR ANALYSIS PARAMETERS NONLINEAR EFFECTS GEOMETRY ALL MEMBERS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CYCLES 100 CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE EQUIL 0. and GAz QUERY NONLINEAR ANALYSIS $ NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LIST SUM REACTIONS CONSTANTS E 29000 ALL G 11600 ALL $ Return E to its original value $ Return G to its original value PARAMETERS CODETOL 1. 14.gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES OPEN USERDATA FILE '0.8G) for Reduced GIx. LOAD 'SW' 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NY_SW+1+2'..003 JOINTS EXISTING FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL Y-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.e. 14.0 2 1.0 ALL $ Unity check = 0. GAy.gti' $ ------------------------------------------------------------STEEL TAKE OFF $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DELETE.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION Y NLF 0. '12-1' TO '12-9'.RESTORE '7c. EIy.80 UNITS KIPS INCH SELECT MEMBERS GRP 'FAILCK' UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ ------------------------------------------------------------$ Input file called that will smooth the member groups CINPUT '0.0 1 1.ds' READ EXISTING $ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. HSS_New_Table.01 CHECK CODE ALL MEMBERS 264 . REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional. '12-1' TO '12-9'.8E) for Reduced AE.001 $ ----NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS-------------------------------UNITS INCH KIPS CONSTANTS E 23200 ALL $ Reduced E (0. and EYz G 9280 ALL $ Reduced G (0. SmoothMemberProperties. ADDITIONS SELF WEIGHT LOADING 'SW' 'STEEL SELF WEIGHT' -Z ALL MEMBERS FORM NOTIONAL LOAD 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NOTIONAL LOADS APPLIED IN HORIZ GLOBAL X-DIRECTION' FROM 'SW' 1.0 2 1.003 JOINTS EXISTING $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FORM LOAD REFORM LOAD LIST '11-1' TO '11-5'. 21 UNITS TONS FT STEEL TAKE OFF $ Redesign all members PARAMETERS CODETOL -20.0 ALL $ Unity check = 1.0 GRAVITY AXIS Z NLDIRECTION X NLF 0.

SAVE '7b. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.gts' FINISH 265 .

APPENDIX BF Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 99.gti 266 . NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions.

“Stability and Analysis Provisions of the 2005 AISC $ Specification”. and then use the notional load reaction components to subtract from the $ reactions of the most recent nonlinear analyses. A $ horizontal force of Sum(Ni).gts' LARGE PROBLEM SIZE 5 ACTIVE SOLVER GTSES $ ----------------------------------------------------$ This is the last analysis run based on the following: $ ----------------------------------------------------$ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ Paper by Dr.2 Consideration of Initial Imperfections: User Note: The $ notional loads do not cause a net horizontal reaction on the foundation but may. Shankar Nair. may be $ applied in the analysis at the bases of all columns to yield the correct reactions at $ the foundation. NotionalLoadAnalysis_SupportJointReactions. R. Page 9 “2. opposite in direction to the notional loads. $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ Factored limit state loading conditions (i. output the support $ reactions. cause horizontal reactions on the individual foundation components. REDESIGN AND CODE_CHECK_UsingNonlinear_Notional.e.gts' FINISH 267 .. in $ some cases.RESTORE '7b.” $ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$ Therefore. perform a linear static analysis for the notional loads. the FORM LOADS) LOAD LIST 'NX_SW+1+2' 'NY_SW+1+2' 'NX_3+4+5' 'NY_3+4+5' QUERY STIFFNESS ANALYSIS OUTPUT DECIMAL 3 OUTPUT BY JOINT LIST REACTIONS LOAD LIST ALL UNITS TONS FEET STEEL TAKE OFF UNITS KIPS INCH SAVE '99.

APPENDIX BG Model 2: Nuclear Power Plant Boiler Building File: 0.gti 268 . SmoothMemberProperties.

GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP GRP '1a' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '1b' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 2 AS LARGEST 'AX' OF MEMBERS GRP 3 AS LARGEST 'SY' OF MEMBERS GRP 4 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 5 AS LARGEST 'AX' OF MEMBERS GRP '6a' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '6b' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '6c' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '6d' AS LARGEST 'SY' OF MEMBERS GRP '6e' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '7a' AS LARGEST 'SY' OF MEMBERS GRP '7b' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '7c' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '7d' AS LARGEST 'SY' OF MEMBERS GRP '7e' AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 8 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 9 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 10 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 11 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 12 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 13 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 14 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP 15 AS LARGEST 'SZ' OF MEMBERS GRP '1a' '1b' 2 3 4 5 '6a' '6b' '6c' '6d' '6e' '7a' '7b' '7c' '7d' '7e' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 269 .TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE TAKE MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERS . . .

Revision U. Atlanta. Structural Geometry. [13] NAIR. and SUROVEK. Atlanta. R. [5] CHOPRA. GTSTRUDL User Reference Manual Volume 1: Introduction. 2005. E.. November 2004. M. F. 2007. S. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering... Revision U. G. Georgia Institute of Technology. V. Structural Stability: Theory and Implementation. Structural Stability of Steel: Concepts and Applications for Structural Engineers. SALMON. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. K. pp. EMKIN.” Structural Engineer. Revision 6. pp. Upper Saddle River. GA. “Stable Improvements: Direct Analysis Method of Stability Design of Steel-Framed Buildings. “Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames Using the 2005 AISC Specification. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 6. Steel Structures: Design and Behavior. 5th ed. 116-122. GA. T.. 13th ed. “Structural Stability: from Theory to Practice. vol. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.” Steel Structures. 1987. E. A. pp. and MALHAS. 2009. E.. Second Printing. [9] DEIERLEIN. Inc. F. [7] Computer Aided Structural Engineering Center. WHITE. [3] CHEN. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering.” Modern Steel Construction.REFERENCES [1] American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. vol.. [11] DR. J. GTSTRUDL User Reference Manual Volume 2A: Steel Design. [2] CHARLES G. 2009.. “Stability Analysis and the 2005 AISC Specification. Atlanta. 24-28. Georgia Institute of Technology. W. [10] DONALD W. 2008. A.. [12] GALAMBOS. [6] Computer Aided Structural Engineering Center. Atlanta. (404-894-2260). 2000. A. Loading and Frame Analysis Commands. [8] Computer Aided Structural Engineering Center. LEROY Z. F. 2006. GA. [4] CHEN. J. Georgia Institute of Technology..” Engineering Structures. May 2007. Inc. April 2009.. Upper Saddle River. W. 3rd ed.. 2009... 71-91. 22. Upper Saddle River. A. 270 . and Lui. General System Commands. Data Base Management. E. Hoboken. Georgia Institute of Technology. Georgia. Steel Construction Manual. Professor.. GTSTRUDL User Guide: Analysis.

” Engineering Journal. 130. A. D. 29-38. “A Model Specification for Stability Design by Direct Analysis. E. [15] SUROVEK-MALECK. pp.. and WHITE. S.” Journal of Structural Engineering. 271 . First Quarter. vol.. August 2004. W. 1186-1196. R.[14] NAIR. “Alternative Approaches for Elastic Analysis and Design of Steel Frames. pp. I: Overview. 2009.

APPLICATION OF THE 13TH EDITION AISC DIRECT ANALYSISMETHOD TO HEAVY INDUSTRY INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES

APPLICATION OF THE 13TH EDITION AISC DIRECT ANALYSISMETHOD TO HEAVY INDUSTRY INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd