‘hen published nest year, the 2005 | ection of the American Insite of Steel Construction’s (ASC) Speciictlon for Srucural Stel Buildings will nto ‘duce a new alternative forthe stability design of steel sirucures, called the direct analy meth. These new provisions will eliminate the reqltement to calculate effective bucking length factors (K facts) for cols design. Instead, the provisions emphasize the funda: imental tenet of stability design — chat the stuctre must have sufcent strength and sifness to suai ‘intemal forces generated by the applied londS ating upon the deformed stucural geomey.To do this, the inet analsis provisions use second-order (geomet cally nonlinear) elastic analysis and indude supple- ‘menial provisions 10 account for the destabilizing effects of geometic imperfections, material yielding, another factors not explicily modeled in analy, ‘The new provisions also pravide a more consistent “treatment of stability effecs for moment frames, braced frames and combined systems which wil fll itate the design of innovative structural forms, This aride will briefly discuss the history of stability design provisions, describe the direct analysis method, const the method to the effective length Tiethod that is cumendy used, ihusuate the new ‘method with a design example, and touch upon afew "Gracia applications See ee) ee et ae eT ce ey ene ees 24. | BREF woven exHistorical perspective onstabilitydesignprovisions Provisions for designing clumns based upon | their effective budking lng rather than their | cual unbrced lengths were introduced ini the 1961 edition ofthe AISC Specification in ecg | tion ofthe ineracon of member and system Suablliy efeas. Deed from elasic bucking | theory the efaive length provisions provdedan | approximate technique for equating the cite | lead of 2 column with indeterminate boundary | condions oan equivalent column (oreocaled | Euler column) with pended -boundary condtcns Graphical ligament chans and oher techniques, such as cial load analyses, have ben used to soe for effective buckling ents but al require simplifng assumpions that are ‘arly met in consrucion. verte past 40 year, many modifcaons to the original fective lengih procedures have been propose 1 ove. come these simplifing assumptions. Many of these developments are summarized in a comprehensie epont bythe American Society of iil Engine’ (ASCE) Task Commitee on Efe Length tied, “Efective Length and [Notional Load Approsches for Asesing Frame Sibiliy which was published in 1997 ‘ea engi procedures wee nroduced at time when approximate methods or moment dlstibiton were tbe norm for calculating load | effeas — both member and connection forces — | in sma, Computerized linac (St nde) methods have incase he sped of amis, but all of te methods sta the conmon of ong for eilpiam on he undelomd som ofthese Wit he aden of computed seconde ais in the 170 deign approaches bygan 10 place grea rane on modeling stil ells diel in he clon ofrequie menber scenghs. Seondorer anal wis fomaly ‘incorporated as the basis for design in the first © ‘edition of the AISC Load and Resistance Factor | Dein Speco for Soucul Set lings publ in 1986; andthe Amen Concete | Insite (ACL3I8) Baling Code | Reqemens for Staal Conte todd second onder ana design prosionsin 195. “Though the use of seconde ana design | provbon hare become les rant on ec | column bung length cins. The dia | anabsismathod extends thee deepen vil lininae the ue of flee lengh | reqemen for fame des. ey tbat of | th dia ams and ec koh ees | sre contased in Table FE, ‘URE: STEEL analys pe | for stability design — | | aaa “The dre amas metiod begins with he | |e) poi der mene fe basic requirement that internal member and | © roma eae a meter connection forces are determined using an | ‘ss 7 accurate second-order elastic analysis. The || atecive clan bung hgh second-order analysis can be accomplished face using a computer program with second-order | | —xbeedmumber length capabilities (one that considers both frame | | 44, - rt of end-aner tof effecs and member effects) or by amplifying | ‘memes the results ofa fst-order analysis by using the | | m, =. fctore moment BI-B2. amplifier method in the AISC |] 4, — sonia! monter mamatseengt Specification, for example. Since second-order effets are nodineay, the second-order analy- Ses must be conducted under factored load and resistance fecior design (LRED) load | combinations or allowable stress design load «combinations amplified by the fair of safety. ‘To account forthe destabilizing effec of | Pn esta compra stresth namie compre tenth or (heed log 2 ~ namin member il reat inal gomeuicimperecions and other phys: | fh cme ne ‘cal vaiaions between the acual structure and | late ss rtm tr the idealized model, the diect analysis prov- sions require the application ofa notional ead | equal to 0.2 percent of the gravity load in con- junction with the other applied loads. The notional load magniude roughly corresponds toa frame out-of plumb ratio of 1/500, which is the maximum value permited in the AISC. (Code of Standard race. ‘To futher account for sytem reliability and inelastic effects under the facored loads, the fective elasic stifies of members that cot prise the lateral load resisting systems are rediced fiom ther nominal values fo the sec- ‘ond-order analysis As summarized in Table 1, the efeivelesural sites, E,and axial sit ess, EA are reduced to O.8eE (where vis the sifiness reduction factor defied in Table 1) | and OBE, especively The reduced sifess columns are close enough, such that the 0.5%, and the 0.8 factor accounts fr addtional softening under combined axial compression and bend ing. It is @ foruitcus coincidence that the ‘eduction coefficients for theslender and stocky “Rubate ‘Etctive length method | Directanalyeis method ‘Analysis type | secondader eae | second-order elastic Ntlonalioad | Wane” .002F, ‘tee stifness | Nominal ‘Bers 0B and Egy = O8EA whore, {c= Tor Fy S05F), 0 re AIPUBHI-PUPy or Pas OSE ‘ial stergth, Py | Pac baeed on KL Prubased ont ~The 2005 ASE Specfistion wl node aml aatoal oad fox tacos ‘or cass where he neal Toad equement ste sal or non-esten. woven ae MRFEATURE: STEEL ee in Cer te een es 26 Conventional member force interacion equa- { The two nonlinear plows represent the change {by dhe elastic second-order analysis (conducted tions 10 check the implane flexural buckling | in axial force and intemal second-order | with te reduced stifoes and notional load) is and utotplane tosinalfeurel bucding | moment in the colar under inceaing | dosto the ail response plot The libration limit sates in beam-columns. key distincion | applied load. The response plot labeled “acual | is done to achieve party between the actual beoveen the direct analysis and the effecve | response” is determined fiom a second-order, | compression strength (determined by the length methods isin how the nominal column | spread-oFplasticty analysis, whereas Uke | plaeat in the axial response plot} with the strength tem, Ps computed. Forexample,the second plot is fiom a secondotder elastic design strength By accounting for more of the flexural, in-plane limit state for beam-columns | analysis, The “acual response” cuve reveals | desabilizng effecs in the analysis the direc. in given bythe following LRFD equations: larger moments than the second-order elastic | analysis strenggh check s made wing an interac curve due to the combined elfexs of paral | ion cue based on Pg, for example based on (eats) | yielding and geometric imperfections which | the actual unbraced member length! tn this are not included in the elastic second-order | method, the dee analysis provisions forthe analysis. The pata in the “aca response" | second-order analysis take acount of sytem curve comesponds to the maximum axial force. _ stability effects while the imeracion check thatthe member can sustain prior ro the | accounts for member sbi eee — includ ‘onset of insabliy. The design stenghh is | ing, for example, member out-of imighines defined by the intersection of the force point | and torsional response, which are not ‘trace of the elastic second-order analysis curve | simulated in the analysis | th the Pg interaction envelope. The effec where Ryand Mate thereuiedstrengihscl- | ve len provisions have been calibrated | Mustrative example ‘ulated from second-order anabsis under the | such thatthe resutant design axial strength, P,, | Tillusate an appliaion of the wo stabi cesign loads andy ate the nominal com- | atthe point of intesecton wth the imerscion | ity design methods, both method are applied pression and bending srengihs calculated in | equations coincides with the acu sength. | to the antler beam column shown in Figure the plane ofthe fame; and @, and gy are the | The reduced stifnes and notional load pro- | 2. The canlveris subjected wo the vencal and resistance factors (which are both equal to 0.) | visions of the direct analysis method are a+ | proponional horizontal load shown, Bending in the 2005 AISC Specification). For the effec- brated o simulate the actual sponse using an | is about the major ats, and there is outof- tie length method, Fi determined using the | elastic secondonder analysis response. This is | plane resraint provided along the ull member effective buelding length KL in the plane of | shown in Figure 1b where de force point wace | lengih. The colurnn slenderes, fs equal to bending whereas inthe irectanalysismethod, | of intemal axl load and moment deternined | 40. Using LRFD with the in-plane interaction 2, is calculated using Ket, therefore KL=4; in the plane of bending, For compact shapes that | ome are braced oxtoFpane My equal tothe plas | ; - ticmoment M, in both methods. eee i soem} Contrasting direct analysis and effective length methods Diflerences between the effective length and the dtet analysis approaches lie mainy inthe inrplane interaction check. gure 12 shows a plot ofthe inplane interaction equation for the effective length approach, where the ——} ‘anchor point on the vertical as Pr, is detr- | Figure These graphs represent a comparison of beam-column interaction checks for mined wsingan effective bucking length facor. | (1a)thooffectivolength approach and (1b) the direct analysia approach. ‘laste 2n-erde (A) actual response ERE! soveseZATURE: STEEL Figure 2a Figuro2b ‘000000 Figu ‘Tle 2: This compares the eaelate strengths ofa cane slum designed wih both analysis mcs, hed Py Me MGUY PUP ee) ieiety a eT ao_17es ate ona 2 (left): For the cantilevered column example ‘shown, the graph compares the axial load versus ‘moment at the column base for the effective length (EL) and the direct analysis (DA) method. check of Eq. 1, the maximum design strength is YY ‘equied svengths of al members wheres the ble 1o abroad range of scrapes. This, EB |) efectve length approach necessiates supple- | together with elimination ofthe need free: | mentary requirements co design restraining | eve length bucking calculations, makes the ao] Te members for adequate bracing forces, | procedure staightforvard to apply in design. 3 ig = Perhaps most importantly, it provides a new 3 7 Design applications framework for stability design that is more is Shown in Fgure3 are thee design applica: amenable to the ute of inelastic analysis for ace | tons tht the deelopment eam examined 33 | aplicaons in pesormance-baed design of eo Hl | paafike devdooment procs oft dec sovaues fr ees fey and ote pe | analysis method. The ffame in Figure 33 | exreme loads wher post-dastc response must Figure at | represents a framing bent from a large floor | be considered. m | plan, singlestory industrial building, suchas FT] fe sutomebile plan. Wit hemy maeal ‘handling equipment hung from the roof, a | | Gregory Deierlein, Ph.D., PE., is professor | small wind exposure and a high fraction of || of structural engineering at Stanfnd fg] | teaming columns, such trucuresaredominat- | | Unies. He seizes inthe design and zg |_| ed by gravity loads with lage second-order || behavior of sits, icing the devely- et 4 effecs. The second example, shown in Figure | | ment and application of nonlinenr analysis to = §) | 3b, isa support rack fora grain storage bin. || design. He is a member of ASC Spcticaion wien] §} | Thisisa case where calculation ofthe column | | Commitee and task connites on sabi, cfeav lengths isnot obvious andthe direct || loads ond analysis, seismic design, and | analysis methods much morestaighiforvard || tempera efx He cam be reached via | to apply. The thd example shown in Figure || esa a gd@sanfnde 34, isa mulistory fame that hasbeen used in | various stbiliy benchmark studies and is | |__2emsao J | representative of modern building construc. | | Ademowledgments Figure 30 | Won. Allthre structures were designed to meet | | —‘Thederopmens summarizing | strength criteria outlined above and stiffness | | are te result of contributions by mare individ sul ver the couse of deliberations ofa joint AISC Structural Stabity Research Council Al Hac Commitee on Frame Staiey and ASC Tk Commitee 10 on Sali Portions of this paper are excep fram an intr report by Gregory Deen, uD, PE, 19 AISC Task Commitee 10, “Backgound and Musraibe ‘amples on Popawd iret Anais Method {for Stabitity Design of Moment Frames” p= lhe tn july 2003. PunherIckground and Information on te dct analysis mtd wil te anaabe inthe commentary tthe 2005 AISC Speciftian ana her supporting dace mons curently under preparation. EEE ovonen on