Design Stecl Your Way II: ent Analy iymniccu |www rrr rrr ere re were verre eve VET UTE ETEEVUOVES Design Steel Your Way II: Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Author: Louis F. Geschwindner, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President, Special Projects American Institute of Steel Construction and Professor Emeritus, Architectural Engineering The Pennsylvania State University‘The information presented herein is based on recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it ie belioved to be accurate, thie information ehould rot be applied to any specific application without competent professional examination ‘and verification by @ licensed professional engineer. Anyone making use of this information assumes all ability arising from such use, Copyright© 2009 by ‘The American Institute of Steel Construction All rights reserved. This document or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. ‘Second Printing April 2008 222 0002022200208808282800808 q « « « « 4 « a> » > > » > » > > > » d > > » > » » » » » Design Steel Your Way II: Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification TABLE OF CONTENTS Notes: Section I... - Lecture: Part I - What you have to consider! Section Il. . Lecture: Part II How you go about doing it! Appendix: .«Building Example 2: 4-story Commercial Building with selected slides and computer output Section B.. -Stability and Analysis Provisions of the 200SAISC Specification by R. Shankar Nair Section C.. A Comparison of Frame Stability Analysis, ‘Methods in ANSI/AISC 360-05 by Charles Carter and Louis F. Geschwindnerficient Analyse for Steel Design Using the 105 AISC Specification Design Steel Your Way II Efficient Analysis for Steel Design using the 2005 AISC Specification > > > > > » > > > > Design Steel Your Way II + Part | - What you have to consider! — Introduction — Structural analysis. — Second-order effects + Part Il - How you go about doing it! — Determination of required strength Applications -Examples ‘Theses ehay son ta ‘American Insitute of Steel ConstructionEtfcient Analysis for Stee! Desian Using the 2006 AISC Specification Part | - What you have to consider! + Design Basis + Analysis myths and the AISC Specification + Types of analysis + Second-order analysis + Stability + Geometric imperfections + Residual stresses rennin 7 aanneaea Design Basis + The unifying factors = The same limit states must be considered forall design philosophies The nominal strength is the same for all design Philosophies — There can be a direct relationship between resistance factors and safety factors, re 7 aaaccene « « « « q « « American institute of Stee! Consuction 21p Eficont Analysis for Stool Design Using the p 20054186 Specteaon > . . > - , 7 Design Basis » > There is no longer > ASD vs. LRFD > GD rwetteseeome ee s Design Basis + Important Definitions Required Strength, &, +ASD, R, + LRFD, Ry Nominal Strength, R, — Available Strength, RX. + Allowable Strength, R/2 + Design Strength, #2, ‘ANSIAISC 26005 e-——- : ‘American Institute of Stee! ConstructionEffclont Analyele for Stoel Doeign Using the 2008 AISC Specification Design Basis B3.3 For LRFD, design shall be performed in accordance with: R, SOR, B3.4 For ASD, design shall be performed in accordance with: Rs 7A i « q « « q a « « « « « « a « ty « « « « Safety Factors , + Calibration of LRFD with ASD leads to | \\"’ 1s % This relationship is used throughout the Specification ee 7 aceaaaaace ‘American Institute of Steel Constuction» 1p Effclont nays fr Stoc! Design Using the 1p 2205 ISS Speciation Design Basis Analysis vs. Design RSR, Required strength < Available Strength The two sides of this equation must be balanced One side should not be determined with more precision than the other rr sen sen > > Compatibility of Analysis and Design + Must be properly matched + Must assure adequate level of safety + Must provide an efficient process ee - ‘American Institute of Steel ConstructionEtfclont Analysis or Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Myth about AISC Specifications + Past AISC Specifications have never said anything about analysis! a a Fact 1989 ASD + A5.3, Structural Analysis “Selection of the method of analysis is the prerogative of the responsible engineer.” + B4.Stability “General stability shall be provided for the structure as a whole and for each compression element.” a American Insitute of Stee! Construction 6Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Fact 1989 ASD * C1. General “In addition to meeting the requirements of member strength and stiffness, frames and other continuous structures shall be designed to provide the needed deformation capacity and to assure over-all frame stability.” a 7 Fact 1999 LRFD AS. Design Basis “The required strength of structural members and connections shall be determined by structural analysis for the appropriate factored load combinations as stipulated..." “Design by either elastic or plastic analysis is permitted...” Omar ‘| ‘American Institute of Steel ConstructionEficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the. 2005 AISC Specification Fact 1999 LRFD C1. Second Order Effects “Second order effects shall be considered in the design of frames” C1.2 Design by Elastic Analysis “in structures designed on the basis of elastic analysis, M, for beam-columns, connections, « « « a e « « « « < « « « « « and connected members shall be determined « from a second-order elastic analysis...” « The yet st oe < 7 « « « Fact « < AISC 360-05 (the 2005 Specification) « B3.1 Required Strength « “The required strength of stuctural members and « Connections shal be determined by structural analysis forthe appropriate load combinations as stipulated..." « “Design by elasti, inelastic o plastic analysis is « permitted” 3.5 Design for Stability “Stablly of the structure and its elements shal be determined in accordance with Chapter C.” & aaaaanena ‘American Institute of Steel Construction> > » > > > » > > > » » > » ) , , , , , , , Efficient Analyte for Stool Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Fact AISC 360-05 (the 2005 Specification) C1.1 Stability Design Requirements “Stability shal be provided forthe structue_as a whole and for each ofits elements |Any method that considers the influence of second-order effects, flexural, shear and axial deformations, ‘geometric imperfections, and member stiffness reduction due to residual stresses on the stability of the structure and its elements is permitted.” ee Fact AISC 360-05 (the 2005 Specification) “The methods prescribed in this chapter and ‘Appendix 7, Direct Analysis Method, satisfy ‘American Institute of Stel ConstructionEficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 12035 AISC Specification Analysis Methods in AISC 360 2.2a. Design by Second-Order Analysis C2.2b. Design by First-Order Analysis. ‘Appendix 7. Direct Analysis Method or Any method that gets the correct answer. a Analysis + Process used to determine how a structure responds to specific loads or actions + Measured by establishing forces and deformations throughout the structure a UL ‘American insttute of Steel Constuction> 1p Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Analysis + Amathematical model used to predict behavior of a real structure based on: ~Engineering mechanics theory — Laboratory research — Model and field experimentation — Experience — Engineering judgment + In the end, the results must satisfy equilibrium “The anaes elena sae Analysis + Determinate vs. Indeterminate + Linear vs. Nonlinear + Small vs. Large Displacement + 1% Order vs. 2 Order a ‘American Institute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 12005 AISC Specification Determinate vs. Indeterminate * Determinate = Number of unknowns = number of equations. + Equations of equim + Condition equations = Force and moments independent of member Properties + Indeterminate = Number of unknowns > number of equations. + Equilibrium, condition, other equatons = Forces and moments dependent on relative member Properties, a 7 Linear vs. Non-linear * Linear ~ Effects of oad proportional to load = Elastic material = Superposition applicable + Non-iinear = Effects of oad not proportional to load = Geometric = Elastic-pastc material Fc = Inelastic material i = Superposition not vale en are e e e a e « e e e « e e e e e e « a e q e American Insitute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the. 2008 AISC Specification Small Deflection vs. Large Deflection + Small rAd = 1% order Z 7 -sin6 = tane=0 i + Large —2"4 order -sindztanez6 , —Cable structures Q a 7 > > > > > > » > > 1st Order vs. 2"4 Order > > > > > » + 1% order > ~ Equilibrium formulated about undeformed > geometry > ~ Beam-column ignores impact of axial load on i moment , + 20 order > ~ Equilibrium formulated about final displaced , geometry , ~Beam-column includes impact of axial load on , , , , , , ) ome GP recs i: ‘American institute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Ae tere fasver~ Structural Engineering “The art of modeling materials that we do not wholly understand, into shapes that we cannot precisely analyze, so as to withstand forces we cannot really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance!” GR. Dyhes, \Structl Structural Engineering “Is the exact analysis of an approximate model good enough to qualify as an approximate analysis of the exact structure?” Gy vs ccnromerene a ‘American Insitute of Stee! Constuctionffclent Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 ASC Specification aaa EEOC EEE Categories of Analysis + First-Order Elastic Analysis + Linear Buckling Analysis + Second-Order Elastic Analysis + First-Order Plastic Hinge Analysis * Second-Order Inelastic Analysis ae 7 First-Order Elastic Analysis + Linear — Elastic Materials = Equilibrium about original geometry Typical Methods i ~ Moment Distribution = Slope Deflection = Stifness (Matrix) Method = Most Commercial Computer Ted Eten 6 Programs ‘American Insitute of Steel ConstructionEtfcient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification + Bifurcation Analysis = From no displacement to an infinite displacement = Eigenvalue analysis + Typical Column Analysis = Column Effective Length + Linear-Elastic + Linear-Elastic Material + Equilibrium about displaced configuration - PA - PS + Exact, Iterative or Approximate Solution * Accounts for Stabil + Approaches Buckling Load Tee's seas esouon nso! ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction Linear Buckling Analysis Second-Order Elastic Analysis aane» p Efciert Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 005 A'SC Specifcation First-Order Plastic Hinge Analysis Plastic hinges form — Elastic/Fully Plastic —M, followed by M, Redistribution of Forces + Methods - Rigid-Plastic — Elastic-Plastic a HE > > > D> > > > > > > Second-Order Inelastic Analysis * Accounts for Material Yielding Plastic-hinged based = One beam-column element for each member ~ Zero-Length Plastic Hinges ~ Efficient analysis of large- scale buildings ~ Sill only approximate > > » » » » » , , , , , , , , , , American Inettute of Stoo! Construction.Efficiant Analysis for Steal Dasign Using the 12008 AISC Spectication + Plastic-Zone Analysis = Distributed plasticity = Discretized members = Many fie elements ~ Most complex method GP rover samrvne Second-Order Inelastic Analysis Comparison of Analysis Results _Amefican Institute of Stee! Construction « « « q « « e « « « « « « «» 1p Etfcien Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification AISC 360 B3.1 Required Strength “The required strength of structural members and Connections shall be determined by structural analysis for the appropriate load combinations as stipulated..." “Design by elastic, inelastic or plastic analyss is. permitted.” [Elastic analysis is the most common approach in practice AISC 360 1.1 Stability Design Requirements "Stability shall be provided for the structure as a whole and for each of its elements, Any method that considers the influence of: 1. second-order effects, 2, flexural shear and axial deformations, 3. geometicimpertectons, and 4. member stness reduction due to residual stesses ‘on the stability ofthe structure and its elements is permitted.” ae i ‘American Insitute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Elastic Analysis + Member Slope Deflection Equations eee +7ile, Dh. +FEM Flexural deformations only Elastic Analysis * Slope Deflection in Matrix Form er —6E1 DP L SEL et MLE OT vy, | |ider ~ ber LE Mel | gir er BOT Includes only flexural deformations Gp vs enrsnre ne ‘Amercan instute of Steel Corstruction> > cient Analysis fr Stoo! Design Using the £2006 AISC Specification Elastic Analysis + Member Stiffness Matrix ele Includes axial and flexural deformations Dressers stn nse a Elastic Analysis + Member Stiffness Matrix Pisa) in) ° Flea at aBleeh) a fo ieay “aovas! ° eens Wl |e aisny item) ° POR p= 2h “ar woth) aa astern) Gal Flay “ata Fen) “Tah Includes axial, flexural, and shearing deformations ‘Thea cone! ve ‘American institute of Steel Construction katEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2005 AISC Specification Elastic Analysis + Member Stiffness Matrix — 3-Dimensional Bo ae ny [°F aan 4 re aie peerage oo Ree ti lal oe: axial, flexural, and torsional deformations “Toa svay son ne a Elastic Analysis woret7e woees00 au aaa 5 Ed as 5 é a A persesen) = 2:94 18 A pant = 242 iy @ Bg = 2.24 its aa Gade 179 i. U j Anvtcaninantectseecanincin NC 8 eee eee ee eeeenaneaaneficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the £2006 AISC Specification Elastic Analysis feo Kips a ee wares wae100 ; fate os With pin Supports A es muaar = 7-1 COMPLE 10 A pastor =2.94 in. with fixed supports “Tee aes aon nso! m0 Waba0 2) aon Elastic Analysis + What approach does your software use?Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the A 2005 AISC Specification Elastic Analysis + What approach does your software use? 4. Includes axial deformations, .. Includes flexural deformations }. Includes shearing deformations. Includes torsional deformations. . Includes component deformations a. panel zone ». connection components__ mr rr sneer - 2aeON AISC 360 C11 Stability Design Requirements “Stability shall be provided forthe structure as a whole and for each of its elements. Any method that considers the influence of 1. secondoner effects, 2 Menu, shear and ail deformations, 3. geometicimperfectons, and ‘4 member sess reduction due o residual stresses Con the stability ofthe structure and its elements is permitted.” ‘American Institue of Steel Construction» , » » > » » » , » , , , , , , , , , ficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specfication| Second-Order Elastic Analysis vs. First-Order Elastic Analysis [P or 10.0f zoon F208 ar namoer 02s a i ‘Second Order Araya Rete Lntbagecemt QO vores 7 ‘American Institute of Stee! ConstuctionEfficient Analysis fr Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Second-Order Analysis + Impact of second-order effects Moments in beams and columns — Shear and axial forces in beams and columns — Forces on connections and foundations + Second-order moments may have a different distribution than first-order moments ‘Superposition does not apply 7 Second-Order Analysis « « + Approximate step-by-step second-order « analysis a . < 3 examples : « « ‘American inttute of Steel Construction bs.Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the > 2005 AISC Specification >» . B : Second-Order Analysis & : Hessen a >» > be > > Z Mya ™ . i > > > > > Second-Order Analysis A Fst heaton on member eect oe aU Elen Lt aaa Ln rarerccne wae se cov Sessa ai > > > > > » > » » » » » , , » , , , , , , , , American Institute of Steel Construction articent Anais for Stel Desgn Using the 2008 AISC Speciation « « Second-Order Analysis 4 : Sexson on mente fe proinan) fore 2 . « +200 hips 3, = - BANC $(20)°0728) _ 9.0851 in. « BEI 8(29000)(833) gg 22802850) 0s ips « © LY | we 7 « oe M, =200+23.8+2.84 = 227 fi-kips ‘ ters Angin ree = 2D a4 ‘ om @ Th ay atone a « : 8 American institute of Steel Construction « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Second-Order Analysis Fiat eration on iden fect 10h! — Ince oi the sidsway ct wvevevvvv9VeeT008 Second-Order Analysis c ‘Second terton on sdesway at Approsaton) « oven, 2 t= 22-3194 stmt HE 3490708) aH, 0.608 (290004833) ies =203 ips zon M, =200+63.7+203 =284 fekips ware (244) Ampliiation Factor =(24) i ava > > > » > > » » » » » » , » » , , , , , , , | American Institute of Stee! Construction bot[Efficient Analyse for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Spectication Second-Order Analysis a + Exact Treoretcal Solution ( _[E_ foamy ofr fie ie Second-Order Analysis + Exact Theoretical Solution Commentary Sencha reblom Case 1 FE [ORT a of ear sel (assy ase ‘American Institute of Steel Constuction 32 ane eeeeeeneneeneee» > > > > > > » » > > » » > » » » ’ ' » ' ' , , , , Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 ASC Specification Second-Order Analysis + Exact Theoretical Solution ‘Commariary Benchmark Problem Case 2. + «= [F-22900 II (222) 22) sf eng) to )-s9(%2) @ (0977) amarea Trewsemaye a sokten ste! Rigorous Second-Order Analysis + Beam-column approach using modified slope-deflection equations (Stability Functions) + Finite Element approach based on energy theorems + Pseudo load approach using fictitious loads. + And others ‘Tras aay slaon tet ‘American Institute of Stee! ConstructionErfcient Analysis fr Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Rigorous Second-Order Analysis ‘+ Modified Siope-Deflection Equations Rigorous Second-Order Analysis + Advantages of modified slope-deflection equations =In addition to P-A,, the P-8 effects are exactly fepresented for small deformations — Accounts for inclusion of axial forces on fixed end forces — Approximate yet “rigorous” analysis Gre mrss i aaanaeee g ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction « 4 « « « « « « «® 1p Erfclent Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2B AISC Speciation Rigorous Second-Order Analysis + Finite Element Method Geometric Stiffness — Assumes small strains, large rotations, large displacements — Based on a cubic polynomial of transverse displacements — Uses an incremental stiffness matrix a : "perican ithe of Se Connon 135Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the ‘2008 AISC Specification Rigorous Second-Order Analysis t| Pi weds othe fk a 7 Rigorous Second-Order Analysis + Finite Element Method advantages — One function in each matrix element for tension or compression More easily extended to three dimensional analysis —Very general approach a - American Insitute of Stel Construction « « « « «1p Ficiont Analysis fr Steel Design Using the 1p 2005 AISC Speciation > > » » » » » » » » » , , , , , , , , , , Rigorous Second-Order Analysis + Pseudo Load Approach = This is intended to refer to all other methods that might be used where loads are added to account for second-order effects. ~The main advantage is that the stiffness matrix is only evaluated once. As with the other approaches, it is still an iterative method, Rigorous Second-Order Analysis + What approach does your software use? 9 a : ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction 17Effciont Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Rigorous Second-Order Analysis + What approach does your software use? 4. What method 2. Reference 3. Does it include second-order effects @. Pb. b PA. First-Order vs. Second-Order + Compare the results of a first-order analysis with those of a second-order analysis for: ~ Gravity load only — Gravity plus lateral a ‘American institute of Steel Construction 8022222222 228282082080808822028000000080020080202808ficiert Analysis for Steel Design Using the 15 ASC Specification Symmetric Portal Frame + First-Order Analysis bd w tre tee te te @ i ! ‘American Institute of Steel Construction > > , . > Symmetric Portal Frame » > + Second-Order Analysis » 7 W ‘ > , 1 1 : ate Late ’ feo feo tes Bee ’ My 7 Ma Nochaes bo ; QD vovrecremcinntes Reni tae ie ,Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Symmetric Frame with Leaning Column First-Order Analysis 7 @ te a i Leaning Column and Lateral Load First-Order Analysis P Rite git oe it ‘American institute of Stee! Constuction 5 MOA OOOO OOOO OOO OOOO OOOOAAOA2ARAABAAem> 1p Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the p 2005 ASC Specteaton Leaning Column and Lateral Load Second-Order Analysis a ? won ae _ >» ies hasan > ‘manana > > te pus > 4 4 2 > Gu Fu, t : GD reese essai a » » » > > : i > Rigorous Second-Order Analysis > ane Consider a simple , “t 4 ‘example structure , | non ee ae » Naat Oe He t , , , , ‘American Institute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Rigorous Second-Order Analysis Hey zones First Order Anaysis i ‘AtMemeors a wiaei36 pa wot aot Momert eaeneaeeeaene Rigorous Second-Order Analysis dere ee T elas | Second-Order Analysis ft oR a ee Wwiaetse pelt] tee ol ar esrt ast cont Moment woe. Neriects 75 ee - ane ‘Amencan institute of Stee! Construction® 1p Efficient Analysis for Stee! Desian Using the 1p 205 AISC Specification Rigorous Second-Order Analysis Z ! i i Second-Order Analysis by SS Amplified First-Order Analysis + The Goal: Develop a relationship between the first- order moment and the second-order moment that will permit a simple amplification of the results of a first-order analysis to determine the results of a second-order analysis, ae iz ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction bas.Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the ‘2005 AISC Specification Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Analysis u 7K. Wiite the equilibrium equation at mid- : height May =M,+P3 8 Define the amplification factor AF (M,)= May =M, + PS Solve for AF M,+P8 fe AF = A M, “Trees zon nse! a Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Analysis M,+P5 a + Add to the denominator and simplify « a (R5-P) « « M,+(R8-P8) 128 ‘ « € a « « 4 ‘American Institute ot Steel ConstructionFiclont Analyse for Stoo! Design Using the: 2005 AISC Specification Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Analysis + Simplifying Assumptions ¢_« eee M,+P3 M, M, _85! WET 6 Lr P + Substituting into the equation for AF’ ee Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Analysis + The amplification factor for the “member effect” is thus ‘American Institute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Spectication Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Analysis + Fora first-order analysis. M=HL , / 4 =H. 3EI aaneeaaeeeaanaae Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Analysis nat Fortean an |v“. assume these two models are equal apo WePade BEI « « 4a « « « « « « « « « « b « a Xv HL RB — « « « « « « « ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction Mecient Analysi fer Stoo! Design Using the 7005 AISC Specification a" SoWeforBe e. @ ro rs srsn nso Second-Order Analysis by oF First- eat ne - (AF), + Amplification for member effect 1 AF = * Amplification for sway effect 1 FA AF = 1 GP veer senior Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Analysis ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction arEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Amplified First-Order Analysis + C2.1a. Second-Order Analysis by Amplified First-Order Elastic Analysis ‘Any second-order analysis method that considers bothP-A and P-5 effects may be used. The Amplified First-Order Elastic Analysis Method defined in Section C2.1b is an accepted method {for second-order elastic analysis of braced, ‘moment, and combined framing systems. a : Amplified First ‘Order Analysis + Required secon irder flexural and axial stren: ath y= BM, +B,M, (62-10) ae =P,+B,P, — (C2-1b) Negative Resta sf Rearant No transiation Lateral translation Bo ‘American Insitute of Steel Constuction> pp Etfcient Analysts 2008 AISC for Steel Design Using te pecifcation ‘American Institute ee eee eee Amplified First-Order Analysis + Common design office approximation M, ravity load moments ‘M, =lateral load moments P a el ae Moraaieion Late tonstton 1 mene . Amplified First-Order Analysis + Membereffect 5 - Cs >1 22) ay A ’ fA 0.4(M,/M,) (C2-4) v Pat Py 6P, or P, y= ep (c26) on zt ‘of Stee! Construction baEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Amplified First-Order Analysis + The constant ot (1.0 for LRFD and 1.6 for ASD) i se ao be sure hat he anaes ‘ipttes he neler aspects at ‘ho utinate sera “ap, = 160 in =150 \ B= 246/90=2.73 rene lp 100 B=103/60=1.72 & atc ampitaton ctr ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction « « « « « « « « « « « « € « « « « « « <» 1p Eficent Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 1p 2008AISC Specification | American institute of Steel Construction Amplified First-Order Analysis + Sway effect ily ah =P, 21 (C23) zp, =r e260) a Ra R, =0.85 for moment frames =1.0 for braced frames ves vrnsnnennn - Amplified First-Order Analysis + Application (LRFD) Jerse 4 0,-0.6 wrens Taisi0ine w=25 4m wera Ieiss0ine = 500 bt[Effient Analysis for Stoo! Dosign Using the 2005 AISC Specification Amplified First-Order Analysis + No translation - 2.00 Hoe Perse YD ats 25un aoce M=703 0% 1-208 wrens Teisin nate aoa fou soo eee QB mvvmet earns 7 Amplified First-Order Analysis + Translation M,= M,,+ M,,= 125 +375 = S00 f-kips MN M=375 0 en a 1875 ips L=208 wrens Trois ‘American Institute of Steel Constuction,> > > . > > > » > > » » » » » » » , » , ’ , , , Efficient Analysis for Stel Design Using the 005 AISC Specification Amplified First-Order Analysis + Summary of analysis: 5 fikips P, = 500 kips P,=0kips a Amplified First-Order Analysis + Member Amplification 0 (transverse load) 000 500 ips p= EEL__® (29,000)(1530 “(RLY (20012) ae ‘American Institute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Amplified First-Order Analysis + Member Amplification Dressers a Amplified First-Order Analysis + Sway Amplification 21 1 On oar EP, ‘a=P, = a(P+Q)=1.0(500+500) = 1,000 kips gol AMAHF 8.04 “SET ~ 3(29,000)(1530) op FE 9.95 1-0(20012) 2 08s 1,960 kips g American Insitute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Anaiyssfor Stel Design Using the p 2008 AISC Specteation > > > > > > » > > , » » » » » > » » , , , , , , , , " American institute of Stee! Construction Amplified First-Order Analysis + Sway Amplification Drm emrssrnas - Amplified First-Order Analysis + Second-order results M, = BM, + BM, =1,07(125)+2.04(375) =899 f-kips P= P, +B,P, =500+2.04(0) = 500 kips + If there had been no load on the leaning column Peete : 155[Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Spectication Example 1 (LRFD) Determine the 2%4-order P,, = 408 kips forces and moments for ore a W14x120 in a moment Paras frame when the results of M,,, = 47.3 ft-kips a 1%order elastic May = 9455 fiekips analysis yields: 7 7 M,,=775 ft-kips My =155 fi-kips [Load Case =1.2D+0.5L+1.6¥) oo 2 Example 1 (LRFD) Determine the member effect amplification: No translation, M,, C,, =0.6-0.4(M,/M;) C, =0.6-0.4(47.3/94.5) = 0.4 a American institute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis fr Staal Nasign Usig the 5 AISC Specification Example 1 (LRFD) a WEL "(KL 2 (29,000)(1,380) (1.0(12.5)(12))° ll =17,600 kips Example 1 (LRFD) 04 Hee 5 =—Taag ogy ~ O4I# LO. B=10 ~~ 17,600 a i. > > » > > > > > > > » » > > » » » » , , , , , , ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction Hr[Efciont Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 1 (LRFD) Determine the translation amplification factors Translation, M,, Assume the frame deflection will be limited, in the final design, to A =f #7400 C 7 Example 1 (LRFD) For the entire frame at this story XH =150 kips (service load to cause drift limit) SP, = 2,450 kips (total gravity load) thus, EP, =0. asui 0.85(150)(400) = 51,000 kips a This is a measure of the frame stiffness “Thus hay slaton ste oa ‘American Institute of Stee! Constuction « « a « « « « e « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «® 1p Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the > > > > > > > > b » > > » » » » » , , , , , , , , | American Intute of Stee! Construction 1005 AISC Specification Example 1 (LRFD) + Sway amplification factor 1 eee eee (2,430) -"° 51,000 Example 1 (LRFD) Second-order force FaP, + BP, P, =(408)+1.05(98) = 511 kips Second-order moment M,=BM, + BM, M, =1.0(94.5) +1.05(155) = 257 ft-kips Tews ake a sober naa! ayEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the £2008 AISC Specification Example 1 (ASD) Determine the 2"-order P, =378 kips forces and moments fora p= 46 W14x120 in a moment ee frame when the results ofa M,,, = 43.9 fi-kips ‘order elastic analysis ay" 97.8 f-kips yields: M,, =36.0 f-kips Myy = 72.0 ft-kips Example 1 (ASD) Determine the amplification factors for the no translation, M,, member effect; C,, =0.6-0.4(M,/M,) C,, =0.6—0.4(43.9/87.8) = 0.4 a ‘American Institute of Steel Construction® 1p Erffcient Analysis fr Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Spectication Example 1 (ASD) WEL a “(KL _ 7 (29,000)(1,380) (1.0(12.5)a2))" tr a =17,600 kips Example 1 (ASD) =0.42F1.0-. B, eee _1.6(378+46) 17,600 QD reser essenn st va > > > > » > > » > > > > » » » » , , , , , , , , | American institute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Example 1 (ASD) Determine the amplification factors for translation, M,, the sway effect; Assume the frame deflection will be limited, in the final design, to L Example 1 (ASD) For the entire frame at this story DH =150 kips (service load to cause drift limit) XP, =2,270 kips (total gravity load) thus, EP, =o. 0.85(150)(400) = 51,000 kips ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction B AROMA OOO OOBOOO2OO2OHA2OOO2O2888O28008081p Efficient Aralysis for Stee! Design Usirg ine 1p 2005 AISC Speciation > > > > > » » ’ ’ » ’ b » ' ' ’ , , , Example 1 (ASD) + Sway amplification factor By B, a = Example 1 (ASD) Second-order force EaP, + BP, P, = (378) +1.08(46.0) = 428 kips Second-order moment M,=BM,,+B,M, (, =1.0(87.8) +1.08(72.0) =166 ft-kips ‘Trae evay sun ia ‘American Insitute of Steel Constructon[ecient Analysia for Stool Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Second-Order Analysis for the Design Office * + Exact solutions — Limited to fairly simple problems/elements. \+ Rigorous Analysis R — Many methods implemented in the wide . variety of software packages available. + Amplified 1%-Order Analysis — Equally acceptable and advantageous in ~_~} some applications. essen a aaao AISC 360 + Stability B3.5 Design for Stability "Stability ofthe structure and its elements shall be determined in accordance with Chapter C.” C1.1 Stability Design Requirements “Stability shall be provided for the structure as a ‘whole and for each of its elemen's.. 2 ‘American insttute of Steel Construction bee < a « « « « « « « a « « « « « « « « ‘ « « « « « ‘»p Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the » > » > » ’ » » » , , , , , , , , , 2008 AISC Specification Stability + Stable Equilibrium: ...“within certain limits, any slight change of the loading condition does not produce disproportionate increase of the stresses or the elastic distortions of the system.” HK. Bleich Yo 7, bei Sf tS Stability + Unstable Equilibrium...'disproportionately large increases, indeterminate as to magnitude, to which deformations and ‘stresses are subject at slight increases in load.” pee H Bleich. ‘Beking Srna! races an i ‘American Institute of Steal Conetructon, 165:Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using tre 2008 AISC Specification Stability + Bifurcation: “Upon reaching the critical load there are two equilibrium positions possible, the straight form and a deflected form infinitesimally near it, both under the same axial load. 7 Ht, Bleich 4 Bucking Sregh of Mel Sree Qa fi « « < a < Stability + Determine the elastic buckling load for a column. assumptions \ “Perfectly elastic “Perfectly straight “Constant cross section 7 Pin ends Has “Equilibrium at a point on a free body in the displaced configuration te M, =Py i & JAAS Rc acn nna ooe ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction1p Efficient Anaiysis for Stoe! Design Using the 20085 AISC Specification Stability * Determine the elastic buckling load for a column. From the principles of mechanics | using small displacement theory (Me 4 \ey TEX | -Combining and rearranging terms Py PL t aA” Stability + Determine the elastic buckling load for a column. Define A a + «The result is the differential equation a of the column 2 1 gre y=0 ‘American Insti of Steet Construction LerEfcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Stability + Determine the elastic buckling load for a ne +Solution| y= Asin ke-+ Boos ke +From boundary conditions a ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction Stability + Determine the elastic buckling load for a « Column. thus, « | sinkL =0 : and q A kL= nn ‘ tx The shape of the deflected column is « « < « ve ‘ « « « « «> Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the . > sams Ae Sposa > . D> : Stability * Determine the elastic buckling load for a column. Remembering that P =— and k= El iad - thus, B poh re t A OL a = Stability + Determine the elastic buckling load for a ColuMN. The solution for this differential equation is ag? pap, -REEL I. E rx Which has a minimum value when De meveonem n=l ‘American institute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specification Stability + Determine the elastic buckling load for a column. thus, we have the well known | Euler Equation for the elastic buckling load: WEL tx Rae t rr mene Elastic Buckling Load * The Perfect Column - The Euler Buckling Equation: El P aE + The real column, as part of a structure and with imperfections, etc. P,, = P.x (reduction factor) a ee ananeee Ho « « a « « American Insttute ot Steel ConstructionEffcient Analyeie for Stoo! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Definition of Effective Length Factor * The reduction factor is defined as: reduction factor = — ‘K; * Thus, the elastic buckling load for a real column is given by: = WEL Bosal) Effective Length Factor + Every approach proposed for determination of the effective length factor, K, is an attempt to determine the exact effective length factor, K zag Such that the exact critical buckling load may be determined, without the need to resort to an elastic buckling analysis. a ‘American Insitute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Elastic Buckling Analysis + Eigenvalue Analysis General form of the eigenvalue problem ([K,]+4[, ]{4}=0 [K,]=linear stiffness matrix [K,] =geometric stiffness matrix Denne 7 Elastic Buckling Analysis + Eigenvalue Analysis = Reduction to standard form [H]Y} = 07} {7} =eigenvector @= eigenvalue a: load ratio o a itt ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 5 OOOO eee eee eee eaennaaerd Effciont Analyse fr Stee! Design Using the > > > > > > > » » > > » » » , , » ' , 1 1 1 1p 2UBAISC Specifeation Elastic Buckling Analysis + Eigenvalue Analysis = Solution techniques + Polynomial expansion + Power method + Iteration a a Elastic Buckling Analysis Ir |r 0.01P a zor ‘Al members W124 ‘American Institute of Stee! Constmution 179Efficient Analysis for Steal Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Second Onc Ami Rare a 7 Elastic Buckling Analysis ‘Al members Wex24 P [P 1-827 in! 100 Elastic Buckling #232 kips Hs Ey ire 10012) 232 re a American Institute of Stee! Construction 174 < « « « « « « « « « « «> 1p: Efficient Anais for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Elastic Buckling Analysis [P 1-827 int All members WBx24 10.0f Elastic Buckling Pz, =460 kips pom Emin ae jon 4 ‘American Institute of Steel Construction Elastic Buckling Analysis ae ieee Prevented ‘All members W8x24 1-827 int 10.0 10.08 P= 1378 kipsEfficient Analysis for Steal Dasign Using the: 2006 AISC Specification Elastic Buckling Analysis 1008 100 20.08 P.,= 140 kips ‘Sidesway Permitted GG vm ovn osc 7 Elastic Buckling Analysis {r 1" t00n Atmembers 100f wee f 208 paz kee Sidesway Permitted vem sstnce o ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction‘® Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 005 AISC Specification Elastic Buckling Analysis Sidesway Permitted Effective Length Factor * Goal — Develop equations that may be used to determine the effective length of columns in moment frames or braced frames without requiring an elastic buckling analysis. rrr i American Institut of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification + Assumptions: ee . Effective Length Factor Behavior is purely elastic. ‘All members have a constant cross section. Alljoints are rigid In sidesway inhibited frames (braced frames), rotations at opposite ends of beams are equal producing single curvature. 8. + Assumptions: @ ence 7 Effective Length Factor In sidesway permitted frames (moment frames), rotations at opposite ends of restraining beams are ‘equal producing reverse curvature Stiffness parameter L/P/EI of all columns is equal Joint restraint is distributed to column above and below in proportion to VL. All columns buckle simultaneously No significant axial force in girders ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 78 € « x » Bit), a = » Tui), ; a > > f « “2 ’ a a , ® » ’ , y a , Effective > 4 Length = = , Nomograph or if , Alignment Chart 20 for Braced Frame , fl t t , P = 3 , a o ‘American institute of Steel Construction 9Efficent Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Effective Length Factor + Sidesway Inhibited (Braced Frames) GB a xy» Ee Gaya Buckling vs. Nomograph fs,000(82.7) Kom Hes Fo 32 7266 : omogtanh toon NERe? roor I Saas eeaeece Sage pene petra wens ‘the results are close, oe QO reeset i ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 180 a eee eee eeeaaaas> > > > > » > > » > » > , » » » , , ' 1 ffclent Analysis for Steel Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specification Buckling vs. Nomograph K,-% FL 8 [9.000182.7) _ 4g TYP, 1002)V 460 Jr Nomepraph | won Mee & 2008 ‘The sete and oading re {arto satin the ‘At members oe a e ‘eration assumptions. T the resus re aut ciferet nt a Buckling of two story frame |’ |" P P| 1008 + 100f Almenbors on ‘wore an Pog = 1378 kips Sidesway Prevented ‘Ther seas ston ne American Instiute of Stee! Construction 18Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Speciation Buckling of two story frame ‘All members W8 x 24 Nomograph To Kae = 088 toon Ku ® 0.85 10.0f Elastic Bucking 2008 Keeper = 1.09) pet pare res sernn Konee® O77 Buckling of two story frame ! fate Pp p | 100% 1008 Atmembers wee 2008 P= 140 kips ‘Sidesway Permitted a . ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction an OOOO OMA AAOADAOAAAODAMOOAOEficient Analysis for Stee Design Using the 005 AISC Sfecfeation {° Ir At members we oon BOT 0 nesters Buckling of two story frame P p | 1008 Amana 20.0 ft a a > > » » > > > > > > > » > » » » » » , , , , , , , , , ‘American Institute of See! Conetruction Buckling of two story frame 10.08 10.08 P= 242 kips 1008 P.,= 290 kipsEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification ‘All members W8 x 24 — Both stories loaded, Ker = 3.43, Knee 242 — Upper story loaded, Kegpe = 261, Kiower= 2-61 — Lower story loaded, Rent Kine 238 a ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction Buckling of two story frame Buckling of two story frame Nomograph x, pee = 179 Kona = 318, + Elastic Buckling compared to Nomograph —From Elastic Buckling, each load pattern results in a different critical buckling load. Nomograph | Koga” 179 Kier" 3.18® 1p Etfcient Anaiysis for Steel Design Using the 05 AISC Specification . . Buckling with Leaning Columns » > » » Re > auemn > » > > a i » » » » » » , , ’ , , , , , , , , , | American Institute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Buckling with Leaning Columns Buckling with Leaning Columns -Nomogrept type equation for deeway united incinglening olins wk ‘el suan/2K)_(2),(0 eeai4-(, came (8) (2-0 66,6) \' Q represents the sum ofthe load on al of the leaning columns attributed to the frame P represents the sum of the load on all of the restraining columns attributed to the frame vm senrenrens i ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 802202 O2 2202022022 OHOO882882088280288082808> 1p Etfcient Analyas for Stee! Design Using the > > > > > > 2005 AISC Specification Buckling with Leaning Columns Nolo on ing cuir ‘O-0,k=20 i bade on sting nd teonng cure | orenke27 (ore combinations OP=2K= 325 QP =10,K=607 What would you do there wore no load eg sof ero) M=Pa+08 Arerasos ‘Tht aye a sokten nse! a American Insitute of Steet Construction HrEffient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Buckling with Leaning Columns YT? cuumsctonesanat to t ceertncen aes rod t (P+9Q)= eof i= Pa+0s “rasa tldon ta ie Buckling with Leaning Columns a cara tae P ia modted nomographefecve length tan ke poe (k.) American Institute of Steel Construction Ae ROAM AAO OAAAOOAAMAAABAMAMAAAABARADAD> > > » > » » ’ > > , » , , , , , , , , ficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 005 AISC Specification Buckling with Leaning Columns WEL = * Solve both equations for fo2 Effective Length Factor + Problems with nomograph ~ Real structures rarely satisfy assumptions + Leaning columns * Stiffness parameters not usually the same + All columns don't buckle simultaneously + Different end conditions means //L is not a good measure of stiffness ata joint + Columne may not behave elastically ae i American insttute of Stee! Construction 189Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specification Stability + What approach does your software use? > Stability + What approach does your software use? ~ Calculates the elastic buckling loed — Calculates K based on the alignment chart equations — Requires K as an input variable for each column. — Assumes a K based on a default Assumes all K = 1.0, ne a ae ‘American Institute of Steel Constuction aaaaneaae® Etfcient Analysis for Steel Design Using the: 1p 2005 AISC Specification AISC 360 C1.1 Stability Design Requirements “Stability shall be provided forthe structure as @ wnole and for each ofits elements. Any method that considers the influence of: 1. second-order ete, 2. flexural, shear and axial deformations, 23. geomet imacrtections, ond 4, member sitfness reduction due to residual stresses on the stabilty of the structure and its elements is permitted.” a ia Geometric Imperfections + Out-Of-Straightness asus = 11000 + Out-Of-Plumbness pom Coen tensor olerance: i: = 1/800 e-——— . > » > > > > » » > » » , > , , , , , , , , , , ‘American Institute of Steel Construction botEfficient Analysis fr Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Geometric Imperfections * Column Strength Equations Geometric Imperfections + Out-Of-Plumbness <-oom <-oom eed Hrer 002 F o00xr, +) L 1 Toor, Toone, +F) al vad Level Top Let 2 Net iv own ee « e e e « « « « « « « « « « « q « « « « ‘American Institute of Steel Constuctionficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the: 1008 ASC Specification + Out-Of-Plumbness Geometric Imperfections .o02F nor Thos says a soon inte! + Out-OfPlumbness. ‘American Institute of Steel Construction >, f comer Geometric Imperfections AE[Efficient Analysis for ee! Design Using the 2005 ASC Specification Geometric Imperfections + Modeling Out-Of-Plumbness ~The structure may be modeled in its out-of- plumb position directly. or —Notional loads may be used as a way to include the effect of the out of plumbness on a perfectly plumb structure, Geometric Imperfections + Out-Of-Plumbness 100 kips [oro ‘American institute of Stee! Construction> > > > > > > > > » » > > » > » » » » » » , , , , , , , , ficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the ISC Specification Geometric Imperfections + Out-Of-Plumbness Poin | Pseoin ea toon ae J e-to0Kis J Pel0bkips Bp e-------} : toon ‘Support Monent iF I Watts gly set 20.08 fet gamers warze samara a Geometric Imperfections + What approach does your software use? P) . a ‘American Insitute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Geometric Imperfections + What approach does your software use? — Permits modeling of the cut-of-plumb geometry — Automatically calculates and applies notional loads, —Has no mechanism to indude geometric imperfections__ a AISC 360 C1.1 Stability Design Requirements "Stability shall be provided for the structure as a whole and for each of its elements. Any method that considers the influence of: 1. second-order effects, 2. flexural, shear and axial deformations, 3. geometric impertectons, nd 4. member stfiness reduction due to residual stresses Con the stabilty ofthe structure and its elements is permitted.” a American Institute of Stee! Construction & nw nen nnn eee eee eens» 1p Etfclent Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification wove Residual Stress + Source — Cooling during the production process > Th eye solo el vs Residual Stress + Source — Cooling during the production process * Influence ~ Member behaves inelastically at lower load than otherwise expected + Influences strength Member deformation is greater than that predicted by elastic analysis, + Influences second-order-effects Tae shayasaon net » > > > » > > » » > > > , > > > » » , , , , , Amercan Institute of Steel Construction LerEficent Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Residual Stress + Column Strength Equations rl Ciael Residual Stress + Second-Order Effects — Stress-strain relationship no longer linear —Use the Tangent Modulus of Elasticity HOG o-————= oe ‘American instute of Stee! Construction a eee eee eee eanaae» 19 Efcient Analysis for Steel Design Using te > > , > > » » » » , , , , , , , 1008 AISC Specification Residual Stress + Stiffness Reduction Factor (Commentary) for effective length nomograph E E By Sr10 for s039 --an(2)n(2) for 5039 BIA a Residual Stress * Stiffness Reduction Factor (Appendix 7) Any, E scl tor cos B 24 22/128)! tor Zsos uP, BE z rrr verssncrnne io American institute of Stoel ConstructonEffciont Analyeie for Stool Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Residual Stress + What approach does your software use? Residual Stress + What approach does your software use? — Automatically included in column strength equations. —Impact on second-order effects included + Through use of R,, in calculation of B, + Through use of, in a rigorous analysis + Through use of addtional notional load + User defined values ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 100 « a « @ « q a q « « « « ‘ « « « « « « « « « ‘ « 4 ‘ « f ‘ 4 ‘ ‘Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Usirg tne: 2008 AISC Specification AISC 360 C1.1 Stability Design Requirements “Stability shall be provided for the structure as a whole and for each ofits elements, Any method that considers the influence of: 1. sevone order eects, 2. flexura, shear and axial deformations, 3. geometric mpertectons, and 4. member sitfness reduction due to residual stresses Con the stability of the structure and its elements is permitted * a i vuvuvvvevvevs AISC 360 C1.1 Stability Design Requirements “The methods prescribed in this chapter and ‘Appendix 7, Direct Analysis Method, satisfy these ‘equirements.” > > > > > > > » > » » » » » » , , , , , , , , Green seterv et ‘American Institute of Steel Construction otficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification AISC 360 C2.2a. Design by Second-Order Analysis C2.2b. Design by First-Order Analysis Appendix 7. Direct Analysis Method or Any method that gets the correct answer. seer cn . AISC 360 Summary + What new considerations as a result of AISC 360-05; — Account for out-of-plumbness. — Account for impact of member second-order effects on sway second-order effects. — New opportunity to eliminate need to calculate the effective length factor. vas ern semen o aanaeaae ‘American Institute of Stee! Constuction Hoe « « « « « « « ‘» 1p Effcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Design for Combined Forces Chapter H addresses members subject to axial force and flexure about one or both axes, with or without torsion, and to members subject to torsion only. wevwes 111 Doubly- and Singly-Symmetric Members Subject to Flexure and Axial Force H2.Unsymmetric and Other Members Subject to Flexure and Axial Force H3.Members under Torsion and Combined Torsion, Flexure, Shear, and/or Axial Force mere sssnn a Design for Combined Forces * 1989 ASD — 3 equations: when /,/F,<0.15 Arherhsio GQ vosoen sino = ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 108Efclent Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Design for Combined Forces + 1999 LRFD — 2 equations: For Bee, 202 P{ Ma, Mo verona ee[eeeMe eo QP vars srernne = Design for Combined Forces 2005 - Doubly and Singly Symmetric Members — 2 equations: Exon 2, 8{May Melero (Hi-tay P, R9\M, My feta (Ht-1b) a sa ‘Arrerican Insitute of Stee! Construction, (404 BAMA A MAMMA AAO AAAAAMAAAAAADAAAAAAAADARARAMAD> Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specitication Beam-Columns * Definitions (ASD) required compressive strength (ASD) P,/Q, = allowable compressive strength required flexural strength (ASD) ‘M,/®, = allowable flexural strength 167 167 Determine required stengihs by Chapter C, Tr ahays eon nan! Beam-Columns + Definitions (LRFD) P, = requited compressive strength (LRFD) P.=0.P, = design compressive strength required flexural strength (LRFD) (M,=6,M, = design flexural strength = 0.90 > > » > » i » , , , , , , , ‘American insttute ot Steel Construction F105[Eficient Analysie for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Design for Combined Forces a ws Design for Combined Forces + In addition ~ H1.2 Double and Singly Symmetric Members in Flexure and Tension = H1.3 Doubly Symmetric Members in Single Axis Flexure and Compression = H2 Unsymmetric and Other Members Subject to Flexure and Axial Force ‘American institute of Steel Construction M08. AAA OMA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAEMAAAABAAADEADMAADAADE» 1p Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 1p 2005 AISC Specification Design for Combined Forces + Beam Column Design using Manual Tables —Part 6 of the Manual contains tables to assist in the design of members for combined forces — Available for W-shapes only — Entries included for all W-shapes + Could actually be used to design for pure bending, ure compression, and pure tension if desired. Design for Combined Forces Interaction Equations H1-ta and H1-1b "paren thn Sel Cnn M107[Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Design for Combined Forces + These may be rewritten as pP.+b,M,,+b,M, $1.0 (Hi-ta) and 0.5pP. (aM +b,M,)S1.0 (H1-1b) respectively Design for Combined Forces where OM, and units are ‘/kips and 1/ft-kips ‘Ths oay a slton ea owe American Institute of Stee! Construction 14108 g{@ Efficient analysis for Ste! Design Using te > > > > > > > > » > > > » » » » » , , , , , , , 12008 AISC Specification + For checking a specific section, includes effective length for buckling ~ Includes unbraced length for bending * Tables also include values for = tension yield and tension rupture Design for Combined Forces [Enectw wrh A Fwih apr eo ron, ‘Utrel Leg® aren ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 4109Efficient Analysis for Stoel Design Using te 2008 AISC Specification Example 2 (LRFD) * Check the adequacy of an ASTM AG92 W14x80 column jected to an axial force of kips, an x-axis bendi moment of 253 ft-kips, and a y- axis bending moment of 30.0 f- kips, from a second-order i Direct Analysis (Appendix 7), “The column is 14 flog, ts bend about bot axes, as 3 length of 14% about the x-and yrans and an unbraced Tengih ofthe compression flange of 14 re ia Example 2 (LRFD) « « « € € « ‘ American Intute of Steel Construction 10Etcient Analyais for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification _ Example 2(LRFD) Determine which equation to use: PP, =0.976x10°(500) = 0.49> 02 therefore use Hi-ta PR+bM,+BM, S10 0.97610" (500) +1.55%10" (253)+3.26x10" (30.0)=098-<1.0 thus, the W14x80 is adequate @~. Example 2 (ASD) + Check the adequacy of an ASTM A992 Wi4x80 column subjected to an axial force of kips, an x-axis bendin moment of 163 ft-kips, and a y- axis bending moment of 20 ft- kips, from a second-order ma Direct Analysis (Appendix 7). ‘out bath acon tos sTeng of fk ‘boul he x and paxs and an unbraced iengih othe conbresion fange of 12 rrr stcrne ‘American institute of Stee! Construction katt[Etficent analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 2 (ASD) eaanecace Example 2 (ASD) Determine which equation to use: pP,=1.47x10°(333)=0.49> 0.2 therefore use H1-1a PP, +My, +My $1.0 1.4710 (333) +2.33x10"(169) + 4.90x10° (20.0)=0.98<1.0 thus, the W14x90 is adequate a - « « « « « « « « 4 « « « < « « « American Institute of Steel Constuction bizficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Effective Length vs. Actual Length + 1960 AISC Specification introduced “effective length.” + 1963 AISC Specification introduced “effective length factor,” K. + 2005 AISC Specification introduced the concept of using K = 1 for moment frames. Q vrei a Effective Length vs. Actual Length at 4 . | oe er an Pa Forte det analysis ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 13,[Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Thank You a ee ‘Arvercan ratte of Stoel Conetucion “One Ent Wicker Drive "Cheap, 60608 vem ssn a q « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « ‘American Institute of Steel Construction. “it.Efficient Analysi for Stoel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Part Il — How you go about doing it! L nb + Direct Analysis Method oe el + Effective Length Method. “ + Firstorder Analysis Method + Simplified Methods * Building Examples — Warehouse —4-story Commercial Stability Analysis and Design * Determination of required strength ~Three approaches are available in the specification * Appendix 7: Direct Analysis ~ This isthe foundation forthe other approaches presented + Section C2.2a: Second-order Analysis ~ This scaled the Elective Length Method + Section C2.2b: First-order Analysis = This isthe simplest spproach i appicable American Institute of Stee! Construction,Effient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specification Direct Analysis + Appendix 7 — Applicable to all types of structures —Does not distinguish between systems + Braved frames + Moment frames. + Shear wall systems + Any combination of systems future is here ‘Tha’ snay 9 ston te —A powerful method with no K-factors: The Direct Analysis + Second-order analysis considers P-A. and P-8 effects ~ Options: + Amplified first-order analysis (B,~B;) Remember thatthe B, — B, method isa second-order analysis GB vorrei ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction ~ Use any second-order elastic analysis that + Any general second-order analysis method weEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Direct Analysis + Use a reduced flexural and axial stiffness ED’ =0.8t,E1 EA =0.8EA to account for influence of inelasticity on second-order effects and to permit use of K=1.0. a 10 ye ot Direct Analysis + Inelastic response — Depends on the level of axial stress in the member when oP <052; 4, when ap >osp; 1,=4) 22{1— z BOR @=1.0 (LRFD) =1.6 (ASD) ‘American Institute of Stee! ConstructionFffciant Analysis for Stoel Dosign Using the 2005 AISC Specification Direct Analysis + Apply notional loads, 1V;, where N, .002¥, Y,= the total gravity load on that story This accounts for an initial out-of-plumbness at the maximum of 1/500 as defined in the COSP. Ifa lesser out-of-plumbness is known, N, can be reduced. Direct Analysis American Institute of Stee! Construction waEffcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specification American Insttute of St Direct Analysis + Ifthe second-order effects are limited, 3, =Aintate 1.5 these notional loads can be treated as a minimum, otherwise they are added to all load cases. a i Direct Analysis + Design members using the provisions for individual members —Chapters E, F, G, H, | + For compression members, Chapter E use K = 1.0 for determining compressive ‘strength a “ fee! Construction bsEffient Analysis for Staal Nasign Using the 2005 AISC Specification Direct Analysis ~Apply notional loads, N,= 0.002¥, + As @ minimum lateral load it B, $1.5 + As an additional lateral load if B, >1 Perform second-order analysis, + Use nominal geometry + Use reduced stifness, E7* and £4* = Design members using X=I for compression + Analysis/Design process summary 5 + Design by Direct Analysis .2D+0.5L 41.67] ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction Example 3(LRFD) — aw P, =75.0 ips P,=220 kips W =12.5 kips 6[Eficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification — Assume =0.002(400) Example 3 (LRFD) + Design by Direct Analysis —Netional load =08 kips B,SLS uw Therefore, since notional load is less than apolied lateral load, there is no need to add notional load ‘Thats aye aoton set Er 308 Ta ate ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction PP ___2005)'0728) Example 3 (LRFD) Saas “ust in oa ow + First-order elastic analysis with reduced stiffness: “7{Effcent Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 3(LRFD) — aw oF, P. =a 2) | Hor B05 BBY ® + Stiffness reduction +, =1.0 for $05 aP 1.00200) B, (50ksi)(26.5 in? Elita Ty = 1.0 Noneeto reat a Q~ . Example 3(LRFD) —atw + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify firs:-order analysis; member effect 21.0 C,, = 0.6-0.4(0/300) = 0.6 Beer oe ‘American Insitute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 3(LRFD) — aw + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect wer” (KL) m (0.8)(29,000)(999) (1.0(15.0)42))" mmr 7 Example 3(LRFD) — ow + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 06 1.0) (200) 7,060 ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 19Efficient Analysis for Stoel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Example 3(LRFD) — tw + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect Example 3(LRFD) — aw * Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect, 20)(1: 1 EP, =0. 952 «9 g5(20)(15.9012)) «a5 kips Ay 168 a . ‘American intiute of Stee! Construction 0Efcont Analysis for Stel Design Ikng the 2005 AISC Specication Example 3(LRFD) — tw + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 28 baa 1880 Wen using the reduced stines, hein on Bs forappicabon of otra aa es minimum loads may be taken ag Teather an 8. There are no restrictions on this method “Thate aay soon te! Example 3(LRFD) —otw Second-order moment M,= BM, +B,M, (C2-1a) M, =1.0(0.0) +1.28(300) = 384 ft-kips Second-order force P =P, +B,P, (C2-1b) P,=(200)+1.28(0.0) = 200 kips ‘American institute of Steel Construction, eatEffciont Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification QD er srensseton v2 Example 3(LRFD) ow + Determine member strength KL=150R —— 9.F,=1000kips | p=0.998x10" =0.796<1.0 ». ok (0998510? (200) 1155x1070 (= O795e10 3 ok + Design by Direct Analysis sie sein Po =75.0 kips rained JP, =220kips et W125 kips a = Example 3 (ASD) ow [D+ 0.751 40.757] American irstiuta of Stee! Construction mazEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 3 (ASD) tw + Design by Direct Analysis — Notional load ¥,=(240++240) = 480 kips — Assume BSS ~ Therefore, since notional load is less than applied lateral load, there is no need to add notional load. “raat aye 0am nol os Example 3 (ASD) ot + First-order elastic analysis with reduced stiffness a >" P, =240 kips ips, 141 fekips 9.38057,728) 3(0.8)(29, 000,999) ~ Amesican Institute of Sted Construction mas,Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 3 (ASD) ouw + Stifiness reduction +, =1.0 for <0 120) {50 Kei)(26.5 7) Thus = 1.0 Nonsedo recast a @ vor oer osorn ses vr Example 3 (ASD) ouw + Design by Direct Analysis - Amplify first-order analysis; member effect B= 210 P. C,, =0.6—0.4(0/141) =0.6 a et ‘American Insitute of Stee! GonstuctionEfficient Analysis for Steet Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 3 (ASD) ow * Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect _ Er “(KLy F (0.8)(29,000\999) _ > 469 xips (1.0(15.0)a2)) 7 a si Example 3 (ASD) at + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 210 06 TejaTay = 98 AO BLO 7,060 ‘American Institute of Steel Construction, asEffcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 3 (ASD) ou * Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect EP, = 480 kips. [2H =9.38 kips La, =0.787 in. GD mes er osnon ast ws =P, Example 3 (ASD) at * Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 9.38)(15.0(12 zp, 0.852 _ 95 238)(15.0012)) =1,830 kips, ay 0.786 a - ‘American Institute of Steel Construction m6Etfclont Analysis for Stgel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification ba Example 3 (ASD) uw * Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 1 A= woraay 7830 When using the reduced stiffness, the limit on 8, {or application of notional loads as minimum loads ‘may be taken as 1.7 rather than 1.5. This exceeds 4.7 80 we must go back and include the notional a _ oA Example 3 (ASD) ty + First-order elastic analysis with reduced stiffness 20 204 2, =240 Kips enn 0 kips rr Mae =0fekips reac 4 Mg 2155 fekips 786 in. American Institue of Stee! Construction, narEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 3 (ASD) ou ‘Second-order moment M, =B.M,, + B,My, (C2-1a) M,, =1.0(0.0) + 1.72(155) = 267 ft-kips Second-order force P=P,+BP, (C2-1b) 240) +1.72(0.0) = 240 kips nn a Example 3 (ASD) ouw + Determine member strength Kinison Loneet kin p=1soxi0° KLatson M. - Manage tips | 6,<233x10? Aaison Measma nips] 6-230 + Interaction Eq. H1-1a 20,820 }=0.981<1.0 «. ok 667 * 9382 150x107 (alje AGOGO CTO” ak werner ft American Insite of Stoel Construction uteEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the. 2008 AISC Specieaton LRFD — ASD Comparison 3 stv + Differences — Load Combinations LRFD asp L2D40SL+16" —D+0.15L-+0.15" P,=200 kips P,=240 kips — Structure Amplification a=10 3B, =1.28 Example 4 (LRFD) Es + Design by Direct Analysis @ Thee aay etn vse ‘American Institute of Steel Construction aa)Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (LRFD) o + Design by Direct Analysis — Notional load 4424-442) =884 kips 0,002(884) =1.77 kips = Since there is no lateral load, the notional load must be applied qs Example 4 (LRFD) a + First-order elastic analysis with reduced stiffness. ste wom Pe = 7 wo oh Moe Gy =0.148 in P __1.7705)0728) ee” American instiute of Steel Construction 120Fficiant Analysis for Steel Dosign Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (LRFD) + Stiffness reduction +, =1.0 for oP 1.0(482) P, (30 KsI)(26.5 in Thus a -( 2-2 ?, Ty = 1.0 Noneed orate oa me Bos Example 4 (LRFD) + Design by Direct Analysis B= 210 C,, = 0.6-0.4(0/26.6) = 0.6 — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect Da ‘American institute of Steel Construction atEfficent Analysis for Stel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (LRFD) oC + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect ae ° (0.8)(29,000((999) (1.0(15.0)02))" =7,060 kips Example 4(LRFD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 06 A= roy aaa) 7,060 @ res ssn set an American Intute of Steel Construction 22Fciant Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Must be matches a Example 4 (LRFD) * Design by Direct Analysis ~ Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 2P,, =884 kips [EH =1.77 kips L_. a, =0.148 in, Da oe .85—— = 0, 57085 a HL (1.77)(15.0(12)) Example 4 (LRFD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 0.148 7 No change fom LW Tess cmbnaton 830 kips on ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 423Etclent Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 4(LRFD) = & + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 1 B, 93 \When using the reduced sifess, the limit on B,for application of ‘notional loads as miramun loads and the requirement fo use the Divct ‘Analyse Method ie 7 rather than 15. ‘We have already included the notional load a - Example 4(LRFD) = Second-order moment M,=BM,+B,M, M, =1.0(0,0) +1.93(26.6) = 51.3 ft-kips (C2-1a) Second-order force PaP, +B, P, =(442)+1.93(0.0) = 442 kips (C2-1b) ‘American Institute af Steel Construction 24Effciont Anaysie for Stool Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification + Determine member strength Of 6.R,=1000 Kips ot + Interaction Eq. H1-1a EHH )-os2<10 2 0k 1,000" 9 33 Example 4 (LRFD) (p=0998x10" 1,=150% 4M, =573 fekips | 6, =155x10" CoAT (MAIS eOELO 7 ok ba + Design by Direct Analysis, [Der a ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction, Example 4 (ASD) W =125kips 125Ficiant Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (ASD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Notional load 295 +295) = 590 kips N, = 0.002(590) =1.18 kips: ~ Since there is no lateral load, the notional load must be applied. en Example 4 (ASD) by + First-order elastic analysis with reduced stiffness as man B= 295 RS 3a American insiute of Stee! Construction 1.28Efficient Analysie for Stool Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (ASD) eP,___ 1.60295) “P, (50-ksi)(26.5 in’ Thus T= 1.0 Mommstomeseite pa be Example 4 (ASD) + Design by Direct Analysis C,, =0.6-0.4(0/17.7) =0.6 a — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect ‘American Institute of Steel Construction zrEficiont Analysie for Stool Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (ASD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect ee “(KLy P= ® (0.8)(29, 000)999) =1,060 kips (1.0(15.0)12)) GD) 0 rey ssorts0 nse oa Example 4 (ASD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 0.6 eee eyaay rte Bete 7,060 en DA cy ‘American Institute of Stee! Gonstuction 28Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Spectfication + Design by Direct Analysis L_. a, =o. Example 4 (ASD) o — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect EP, =590 kips 18 kips 0989 in, + Design by Direct Analysis asl 18)(15.0(12)) Example 4 (ASD) o — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 830 kips. 0.0989 7 No change rom DLW bbedeomainaton ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 1129Effient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (ASD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 1 When using the reduced sttiness, the limit on 8, for appcaton of notional ads 2s minimum loads and the requirement to use the Direct ‘Analysis Method is 1.7 rater than 15 We have already included the notional load, a Example 4 (ASD) Second-order moment M, =B.M,,+B,M, (C2-1a) M, =1.0(0.0) +2.07(17.7) = 36.6 ft-kips Second-order force PaP t+ BP, (C2-4b) 295) +2.07(0.0) =295 kips ‘American institut of Steel Construction,Etfciont Analysia for Stoo! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 4 (ASD) + Determine member strength * Interaction Eq. H1-1a 295 HE j 295 3 667 9\ 382 rome ser =0527<10 -. ok + Differences - Load Combinations LRFD 1.2D+1.6L 142 kips ~ Structure Amplification a=10 a=16 B,=193 B, er xbaison Lacs kigs [p=1soxi0° @ P KLa1s08 M, hatson Maas this a b.=239C0" S030 (295) 235.10" (966) = 0598610 2 ok LRFD — ASD Comparison 4 tt cy ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction, watFfciant Anaiysia for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 5 + Consider a similar structure but one that has been designed so that the lateral drift under the service wind load, W = 12.5 kips, is limited to _L__15(12) 400 400 e-~—~ : =0.45 in Example 5 + Thus, > aL 125115) (1728) _ 1 569 int 3EA — 3(29,000)(0.45) + Select W14x159 1=1,900 in 4= 46.7 in? ett ll American institute of Stee! Construction uaeEffcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specication Example 5 (LRFD) + Design by Direct Analysis P, =75.0 kips 20 kips 2.5 kips Example 5 (LRFD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Notional load = Since there is no lateral load, the notional load must be applied. QQ) reo ssoennan American Institute of Stee! Construction 33Effcient Analyeie for Stool Dosign Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 5 (LRFD) os zt + First-order elastic analysis with reduced stiffness hin ne Pa 442 Kips: a i r-oke mr — M,, #0 fekips 1.700570,728) 3(08)29, 0004, 900) "°°" ‘Thee shee a ston nen! er Bacause of nested sles, dflcion rosuced eer Example 5 (LRFD) * Stiffness reduction +, =1.0 for ee os BP(, OP) ly OP, (iM) ttoes 1.0(442) 19.<05 P, (S0ksi)(46.7in?) Thus No need oreatutste ‘American Insitute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification — Example 5 (LRFD) & * Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 21.0 C,, =0.6-0.4(0/26.6) = 0.6 QD ese esstn cst ve Example 5(LRFD) = & + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect wer “(kLy P= (0.8) 29,000}, 900) =13,400 kips (1.0(15.0)(12)) ‘Ta tas ston ts ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction 138:Effient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 06 (ROTEL) 13,400 9) ners 5 (LRFD) + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect =0.6271.0-. on suit B, 10 =P. Most be matebed @ rors ee srrtn nse Example 5 (LRFD) *+ Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect EP, = 884 kips [EH =1.77 kips L— 4,,=0.0781 in. on suit American Instute of Stee! Gonstuction 18Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 5(LRFD) = + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect SHL g5(:77)(15.0(12)) jee 0.0781 EP, =0.85 =3,470 kips {ho neat n nos of ruse ‘Wise 830 pe Example 5 (LRFD) a & + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect, 1 4’ Toye! 3470 when using therecuved snes, the limit on for application of ‘notional foads as minimum loads and the requirement to use the Direct ‘Aralysis Method i 1.7 rather than 15, We have already included the notional load. [@rvmrmrrm ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction srEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Usng tne 20065 AISC Specification Example 5(LRFD) = Second-order moment M, = BM, + BM, (C2-1a) M, =1.0(0.0) +1.34(26.6) = 35.6 ft-kips Second-order force P.=P,+B,P, (C2-1b) 442) +1.34(0.0) = 442 kips GB veces . Example 5 (LRFD) a + Determine member strength P=055x10" L=10f cM, = 1,080 f-kips | b, =0.825%10° + Interaction Eq. Hi-ta ESC I ve menses r a ‘American institute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specfcation Example 5 (ASD) & + Design by Direct Analysis P,=75.0 kips 120 kins 2.5 kips [D+7) @ er oeresoninsns wr oA Example 5 (ASD) a * Design by Direct Analysis = Notional load ¥, = (2954295 N, =0.002(590) = — Since there is no lateral load, the notional load must be applied. QD mannose nes 90 kips 18 kips American Institue of Stee! Construction saEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 5 (ASD) a + First-order elastic analysis with reduced stifiness = 295 kips 0 kins tkips 18(15)=17.7 ips oe mime Be Example 5 (ASD) a + Stiffness reduction +, =1.0 for Z 10 Pp. C, =0.6-0.4(0/17.7) =0.6 eran cenernne il Example 5 (ASD) & + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect ET “(KLy a (0.8)(29,000)(1, 900) (1.0(15.0)@2))° ‘Tews aay slon tet =13,400 kips ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction atEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 5 (ASD) a + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 0.6 6)(295) = 0.626102. B=1.0 Example 5 (ASD) & + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect EP, = 590 kips [EH =1.18 kips L— 4, =0.0520 in, ‘American institute of Seel Construction, a2Efficient Analysis for Staal Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 5 (ASD) a + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 1.18)(15.0(12 gs 9.95 (80150012) _ sro kips By 0.0520 / Note thst the vate has creased i to ‘haincroasa nstnose ofthe ert, Example 5 (ASD) = + Design by Direct Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 1 T6)(350) “177 3470 when using the reduced stifnes, the lint on B,fr application of ‘notional loads as minimum loads and the requirement use the Direct ‘Aralysis Method is 1.7 rater than 1.5. ‘We have already included the notional load, ne i ‘American institute of Stee! Construction axEffcient Analysis for Stas! Design Lising the 2006 AISC Specification Second-order moment M, =BM,,+B,M, Second-order force B= Fy t+ Bh Thee ahaye a etna el M, =1.0(0.0)+1.37(17.7) = P, =(295)+1.37(0.0) = Example 5 (ASD) & (C2-1a) 24.2 ft-kips (C2-1b) 295 kips + Determine member strength kietson— Eei2i0nps keison hetson Mean eins + Interaction Eq. H1-ta 295 8/242 Be +8 M2) -oars1.7 using EI* and |BA* Other options when 2, = C2.2a Design by Second-order analysis €2.2b Design by First-order analysis, GD rw renernne . Applicable Approaches + We can calculate B,, even before the structure is designed, to determine which approaches may be used in the design. ® ‘These auton we ‘American Institute of Stee! ConstructionEfficient Anajysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Spectfication Applicable Approaches + We nermally know the total gravity load for each load combination: OP. + We can determine a measure of lateral stiffness based on our design drift limit. j yecssaniee -SEEES drift index QD ve om erinorn set = Applicable Approaches + Thus, HL Ry ZH (drift index) Remember that the load and the drift limit must be ‘matched and your final design must confirm that you have at least met the drift limit. It is recommended that the wind drift limit be set for the 10-year wind, e-———_ HE American Institute of Steel Construction narEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Applicable Approaches + The second-order amplification can then be determined for every gravity load combination. Or, the worst case amplification can be determined using the greatest total gravity load. B, —_ 1 __>10 total gravity load ~ R, ZH (drift index) — : Applicable Approaches + For now we will assume that we are permitted to use the other approved methods. — Design by Second-order Analysis (Effective Length Method) — Design by First-order Analysis ooo fe ‘American Institute of Steel Construction akficient Analyse for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Effective Length Method + C2.2a Design by second-order elastic analysis — Apply notional loads, NV, cases — Perform a second-order elastic analysis + Use nominal geometry + Une nominal sires Determine K from a sidesway buckling analysis If Ass ostr/Atwoge S1-1 then K =1.0] =0.002¥,;in gravity only load Effective Length Method + C2.2a Design by second-order elastic analysis — How does this differ from Direct Analysis? + Do not use the reduced ste, £I* and EA* + Must determine K, — How does tis differ from what you should have been Going al along? + Must consider notional lode. a 7 ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction naaEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification eu Example 6 (LRFD) uw * Design by Second-Order Analysis oe sue Py =75.0 kips a = P, =220 Kips W =125 kips 1.2D+0.5L +1.6W] a Ll eum Example 6(LRFD) — ow + Design by Second-Order Analysis = Notional load ¥,=(200+200) = 400 kips 1N, =0.002(400) = 0.8 kips — Since there is a lateral load, there is no need to add a notional load We are assuming that B, < 1.5 {Hitwas not, we could not use this method Gms nest i ‘American Institute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Anaisis for Stee! Design Usng the 2006 AISC Specification Example 6 (LRFD) + First-order elastic analysis PP 208) 0728) 1 945 9000999) Q rep ssn nse eum uw Example 6 (LRFD) + Design by Second-Order Analysis Cu QP, 21.0 a C,, =0.6-0.4(0/300) = 0.6 (ra orp rzrn se ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction eum uw — Amplify first-order analysis, member effect, stEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 6 (LRFD) = ai + Design by Second-Order Analysis za weil (Ky p, = (29000\999) “(1.0(15.0)(12) GD) ver esemsnnccnnset ve Example 6 (LRFD) — ai + Design by Second-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect Ca 210 06 ny OSI PLO. BHT 2 qroyany = °°? ae 8,830 a aii ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 52Efficient Analysis for Stes! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 6(LRFD) + Design by Second-Order Analysis Amplify firstiorder analysis; structure offect EP, = 400 kips [— DH =20kips L Ay =1.34 in, a zs Example 6(LRFD) && + Design by Secon¢-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect 20) 5 ap, =0.85 22% ~ 9.g5(20)(05.0012)) By 134 = 2,280 kips QD rrr mr sineinses a ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 158Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 6 (LRFD) 4, =121=Ae 1. any 712! <1s 2,280 ‘Thus, this method is applicable Grams Example 6 (LRFD) Second-order moment M, =BM,,+B,M, (C2-1a) M, =1.0(0.0)+1.21(300) =363 fi-kips Second-order force P.=P,+B,P, (C2-1b) P, = (200) +1.21(0.0) = 200 kips ‘There's oeay ston ten ‘American Institute of Steel Construction sa[Eiciont Analyao for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification the leaning column ee K=kfied a Ricotanypnse ae + Interaction Eq. H1-1a 200, 8/38 721 9\ 573 ‘Tord away soon na Example 6 (LRFD) ow + Determine the effective length, including K, =2.0 (for a cantilever column) + To include the leaning column 200 K,=2.0))1+2% 22.83 " 200 Example 6 (LRFD) — ow + Determine member strength }=0.840-<10 ©. Ok Soe eae doveworert 9.P,=721 kips OM, =573 Rips ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 155Erfcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC: Spacifcation Example 6 (ASD) uw * Design by Second-Order Analysis sane rome Py = 75.0 kips snap A= 200s ot23 Kips [D+0.75L +0.75W | QD nes sasnin se en Example 6 (ASD) uw + Design by Second-Order Analysis —Notional load ¥,=(240+ 240) = 480 kips 1N, =0.002(480) = 0.960 kips = Since there is a lateral load, there is no need {0 add a notional load We are assuming that By < 1.5 It itwas not, we could not use this method rvs versa 7 ‘American Institute of Steal ConstructionEffdent Analysis for Stee! Desian Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 6 (ASD) uw + First-order elastic analysis Kx, 38090728) yey, 3E Q 3(29000)(999) @ wesereminnin 167 Example 6 (ASD) ow + Design by Second-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis, member effect ¢, > ap 710 Py C, =0.6-0.4(0/141) =0.6 a ‘Anerican Insitute of Steel Construction us?Effcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2006 AISC Speciation Example 6 (ASD) ow + Design by Second-Order Analysis wel P= (KLy _7(29000(999) “(1.0(15.0)02))" a : = 8,830 kips Example 6 (ASD) ow + Design by Second-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 06 — 28-063 71.0. 8,-1.0 2 T8)@an) = °F ’ 8,830 a et American intiute of Steel Construction 168ficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Example 6 (ASD) uw + Design by Second-Order Analysis. — Ampify first-order analysis; structure effect EP, = 480 kips = [EH = 9.38 kips 0.629 in. Example 6 (ASD) — aw + Design by Second-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; structure effect SHL (9.38)(15.0(12)) . Bp, =0,85 1-9 g5 0 OO) 9 980 ki . a, 89.629 aie 7200 essere on American Institute of Stsol Conetruction 50.Effiant Analysi for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 6 (ASD) ow 1 A= Tonya 2,280 ‘Thus, this method is applicable QD rors oror ssn ses ve Example 6 (ASD) bow Second-order moment M,=BM,,+ BM, (c2-1a) M, =1.0(0.0)+1.50(141) = 212 ftkips Second-order force P.=P,+B,P, (C2-1b) P, = (240) +1.50(0.0) = 240 kips Ths’ evay aslo ie “American Institute of Stoo! ConetructionEfe Analy for Stel Dexgn Usng Example 6 (ASD) the leaning column + To include the leaning column KK fie8 Example 6 (ASD) + Determine member strength Keb=rsn(iso nase Baas eps KL=1s08 QD rm serene K, =2.0 (for a cantilever column) ‘Sox carceecgmet ‘Tors eye a seten net! hatson 30 nips + Interaction Eq. H1-1a 240. 8( 212) _9.992.<1.0 «. ok 481" 9\ 382 eu uw * Determine the effective length, including ow ‘American Institute of Stee Construction 64Effciont Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Speeieation LRFD — ASD Comparison 6 sw + Differences — Load Combinations LRFD ASD 12D+0SL+L6W —_D+0.75i+0.75" P, =200 kips P,=240 kips - Structure Amplification a=16 By=15 Issues with Effective Length Method + Accuracy of our determination of effective length * Difference between these two methods is really the calibration a ‘American Institute of Steel Construction nerEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification First-Order Analysis Method + C2.2b Design by First-order analysis — Limitations + Same as for Effective Length Method B, $1.5 + Inadtion to Effective Length Method OP. <0.5P, 9) we rs onsene First-Order Analysis Method + C2.2b Design by First-order analysis — Apply additional notional loads, N, =2.1( Coy our/L)Y, 2 0.0042Y, Perform a first-order analysis + Use nominal geometry + Use nominal stifness —Apply B, multiplier to moment in beam-columns — Use K=1.0 in beam-column design GB verona ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 63Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2006 AISC Specification First-Order Analysis Method * C2.2b Design by First-order analysis + How does this differ from Direct Analysis? + Does not use the reduced stiffness, £/* and E:A*. + Notional load always applied + Don't need to do a second-order analysis except for By QD or om sro sn eon First-Order Analysis Method + C2.2b Design by First-order analysis + How does this differ from Effective Length Method? + Notional load always applied + Don't need to do a second-order analysis except for By, ai ‘American Institute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Speciation Example 7 (LRFD) + Design by First-Order Analysis [1.2D+0.5L +160) Example 7 (LRFD) + Design by First-Order Analysis — Limitations + From our earlier calculations B, $1.5 + Load magnitude aP, = 200 kips 0.P, =0.5(50.0)(265) = 663 kips thus, ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction Fon. uw Fon. uw 165Efiient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the ‘2005 AISC Specification American institute of Steel Construction Example 7 (LRFD) — ow + First-order elastic analysis P, =200 kips = mp Ma =300fekips yn Fe a USOT ® “ZEIT (29000)(999) : Example 7 (LRFD) =o + Design by First-Order Analysis — Notional load ¥,=(200+ 200) = 400 kips ny 2i(4)s noun 14 23( Eo =cona 409 =625 kips 21.68 ips Cn a 88Effciont Analyse for Stoo! Design Using the 2005 AISC Spootcation Example 7(LRFD) — aw + First-order elastic analysis with notional load ID meee vscenn ws Example 7(LRFD) — ow + Design by First-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis, member effect C,, = 0.6-0.4(0/394) = 0.5 eee can ‘American Institute of Steel Construction nerEffcient Analysis for Steel Design Using the: 2006 AISC Specification Example 7 (LRFD) — aw + Design by First-Order Analysis p= “(KL 2 (29000)(999) _ “(1.0(15.0)02))" QD ra vrarsrzorn oe we , 830 kips Example 7(LRFD) — aw * Design by First-Order Analysis ~ Amplify first-order analysis; member effect 21.0 0.6 1 .0)(200) “5,830 mn rnin i OIF 102 B=1.0 American Institute of Steel Construction 68Efficient Analysis for Staal Design Using the 2008 AIS? Specification + Determine member strength 4.2, =1000 kis 6M, =S73 fekips + Interaction Eq. Hi-1a 200 4 9 1000 573 ‘American institute of Stee! Construction, =) 0.811<1.0 «. ok Example 7(LRFD) — ow Design moment M,=BM, M, =1.0(394) =394 ft-kips Design force P= P, =200 kips Example 7(LRFD) — Siw 69Efficient Analysis for Steal Design Using the 2006 AISC Specifcation| First-Order Analysis Method + This approach assumes that the drift amplification is at its maximum permitted value of 1.5. + The amplification is accounted for through the use of the larger notional load. + This has been calibrated to the Direct Analysis Method. + When permitted it is clearly the simplest. There's one sn sta at Stability Analysis and Design = Gas a “American Institute of Steal Construction[Effcient Analysis for Steal Dasign Using the 2008 AISC Specification Basic Design Values Q wrcrccce - Drea] Stace | Fister vas ‘tong _| “anatie Speceaion | Aopen? | Seton C25 | Seton 230 Lon Ne vee ve Aspe? ype of ana | Sead Ore | SecanOrar | FoetOxar Nomaaehe ‘American institute of Stee! Construction, uriEfficient Andysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification + Three approaches Comparison of Results nee | cama | nse a 130 ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction Simplified Approaches + There are two simplified approaches that may be used, particularly for prelimnary design. The first is based on “Design by Second-Order Analysis” and the second is based on “Design by First-Order Aralysis.” + Look first at simplifying the calculation of the amplification factors. GQ 0-0 os sonn se uraEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Second-Order Analysis + For the amplified first-order analysis M, =B.M,, +B,M,, Fy + Baby ed “0 Second-Order Analysis + Simplifying Assumption M, = BM, +B,M, = B,(M,,+M,)= BM, P= Py + BP, = By (Py + Py) = BaP, This is applicable as long as B, > B, With this approach, there is no need to do separate ‘no translation” and ‘translation’ analyses. OD weer ere om American institute of Steel Construction, 7aErfcint Anaya for too! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Second-Order Analysis + Simplifying Assumption — When should we be concerned that B, < B, + Very si lateral systom ~ produces low By + High axa loads ~ produces high B, + Single curvature bending ~ produces high By GD races escor ne we Second-Order Analysis + Now look closely at By Pa + The measure of lateral stiffness is 2p, = Ry Se 4 a a American Insitute of Steel Construction uaEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Spectication Second-Order Analysis + If we set our drift limit at the beginning of the design, and confirm that limit has not been exceeded when we are finished, then a 4am ~ Grit index and > = Ry an 22H (drift index) @ vrs ests net “0 Second-Order Analysis + Substituting back into B,, 1 B= 210 (SF) a rain) Note that this is now a function of the ratio of gravity load to lateral load and the drift index. ae we ‘American institute of Steel Construction asEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification > Basic Design Values Basic Design Values * Although this approach has its foundation in Design by Second-Order Analysis, that is only because of the K values shown in the table. + The table could be used to determine the ‘sway amplification for any set of drift limits and load ratio. —— a American instiuta of Stee! Construction 076Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISS Specification Simplified Method + Step 1: Perform a first-order elastic analysis, Gravity load cases must include a minimum lateral load at each story equal to 0.002 times the story gravity load, = Reference: Specification C2.2a(3). + Step 2: Establish the design story drift limit and determine the lateral load that produces that rift ~ Reference: Specification C2.1b - Equation C260 GD res sett a Simplified Method + Step 3: Determine the ratio of the total story gravity load to the lateral determined in step 2. For ASD, a= 1.6. ~ Reference: Specification C2.2a(2) ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction “7Effcient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Simplified Method + Step 4: Multiply all of the forces and moments from the first-order analysis by the value (B,) obtained from the Table. ~ Reference: Specification C2.1b - user notes and Equation C2-3. Q oreo ertrn sn os Simplified Method + Step 5: For all cases where the multiplier (B,) is 1.1 or less, the effective length may be taken as the member length, K=1.0. Otherwise, determine K.. ~ Reference: Specification C2.2a(4). + Step 6: Ensure that the drift limit set in Step 2 is not exceeded and revise design as needed. @ 7 American Inetitute of Steel Construction waEfficient Analysis for Steal Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 8 (LRFD) ‘wn’ Check the column of Example 6 using the approach from the Basic Design Value cards 1. Results of a first-order analysis P, =200 kips M, =300 ftkips 2. Design story drift W=20kips Ag, =1.34 in, [rrr | Example 8(LRFD) ‘iw’ 3. Ratio of story gravity to lateral load from step 2 200+ 200 (2004200) _ 99, 0 20 4, Enter table with 20 and H/100 a fe ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction 79Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 8 (LRFD seu Example 8 (LRFD) + Amplified load and moment P,=1.3(200) = 260 kips M, =1.3(300) =390 ft-kips * Still need to determine K as before. a ‘American nstiute of Steel Construction scum ‘LW 1.80Effcien Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2005 AISC Specification Example 8(ASD) ‘Sin’ Check the column of Example 6 using the approach from the Basic Design Value cards 1. Results of a first-order analysis 240 kips 41 ft-kips ‘2. Design story drift * W=938kips —A,., =0.629 in. = 286 GQ ror esto ve Example 8 (ASD) Son 3. Ratio of story gravity to lateral load from step 2 1,6(240+240) _ 41g 938 4. Enter table with 80.0 and H/200 1 esses nttineset oe ‘American Insitute of Stes! Construction netEffcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 8 (ASD) ow Example 8 (ASD) ow * Conclusion — This simplified approach may not be used for this ASD problem. ~ This is Example 6 (ASD) and the amplification in that example was right at the limit of 1.5. ~The conservative nature of the simplification pushes us over the boundary. American institute of Steel Construction 82Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Basic Design Values Note that as the gravity load increases, forthe same lateral siifiness, the second order amplification increases. ‘This is always the case, not just forthe simplified approach presented here. Thro hay solani sat aa Simplified Approaches + The second simplified approach is based on Design by First-Order Analysis a - ‘American Intute of Stee! Construction 88Effient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification | First-Order Analysis Method + C2.2b Design by First-order analysis — Consider the notional load requirement N,=2(Mracoar/L)Y, 2 0.0042Y, which came from the commentary equation ( a reg }te (Sale 002Y) (C-A-7-3-4) with 028, )"~\i-028, B,=15 and a drift ratio of 0.002 QD we nrrornnnn el Modified First-Order Method + B, as a function of drift index and gravity to lateral load ratio (similar to Basic Design Value Cards) Sogecnseers ‘American institute of Steel ConstructionEffient Analysis for Steel Nasign Using the 2006 AISC Specification Modified First-Order Method + Using the same format, the notional load multiplier, j, becomes a \a Trawscumsascutennsea — N= phe | PN = @ 1028, 0" ae Modified First-Order Method + Application of the modified method 1. Determine the drift index corresponding to the largest story drift that will be permitted for all lcad combinations. 2. Determine the largest ratio of gravity load to the lateral load that determined the drift limit. For ASD multiply by 1.6 3. Enter the table and select the notional load multiplier, Y. (GY 0-0 eosin set v0 ‘American Insttute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Modified First-Order Method + Application of the modified method 4. Apply the notional load as an addtional load in all load combinations. 5. Carry outa First-Order Analysis 6. For each beam-column amplify moment with B, 7. Design all beam-columns with K = 1.0. 8. Design all components, including connections, for the determined moments od om Modified First-Order Method + Example of this approach Consider the frame of Example 5, the stiffened column, ~ Consider D+L+W Qn ore ritern ans a ‘American Institute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specification Example 9(LRFD) — cus + Design by First-Order Analysis [1.20 +0.5L 41.67) Q Woes estn ns oo Po P Example 9(LRFD) + Design by First-Order Analysis — Limitations + From the chart we will show that B, S15 + Load magnitude @P, = 200 kips: 05P, =05(50.0)(46.7)=1170 Kips thus, @P, = 2005 0.52, = 1170 Essay Fra Orie Arman rif be wed merece i American Insitute of Stee! Construction werEffcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Example 9(LRFD) — + Lateral displacement under service load _12.5(15) (1,728) ~3(29,000)(1900) + Drift ratio S20 ooorss ZL 15(12) 408 Cod mn = 0.441 in, Example 9(LRFD) = wm Chart uw + Determine the load ratio + Enter table with drift index and load ratio Gv ves esscnines eos ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction theeEfficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 9(LRFD) — Sm + The notional load multiplier, y, becomes fsa els fae FS Interpolate or =0.00354 = Bay. ro Jat renee Example 9(LRFD) Sm + Design by First-Order Analysis — Notional load ¥, =(200+200)=400 kips N, = 0.00354Y, = 0.00354(400) = 1.42 kips a ‘American Insitute of Steel ConstructionEffcient Analysis for Staal Resign Using the 2005 AISC Specification Example 9 (LRFD) ee + First-order elastic analysis BR ar spr Mg #321 fekips x, GD mes nver encore nnn vm Example 9(LRFD) + Design by First-Order Analysis, ~ Amplify first-order analysis, member effect Cy 21.0 B, Cl C,, = 0.6-0.4(0/321) = 0.6 i ‘American Institute of Sel ConstructionEfficient Analyse for Stool Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Example 9(LRFD) — é + Design by First-Order Analysis WEL (KLy 7°(29000)1900) _16 500 kips (1.0(15.0)(12))" GD 2 oer setts wa FoR Example 9 (LRFD) cre + Design by First-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect c. “B52 1.0 = 0617 1.0. ‘ moja 16,800 QD reer saeennses we American Intute of Stee! Construction watEffcien| Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 9(LRFD) cr Design moment M,=BM, M, = 1.0321) =321 ft-kips Design force P.=P,=200 kips Q ra 0p csv a Example 9 (LRFD) rar Char uw + Determine member strength KL=150 8 0.2, =1,810 kips KL=180 L108 9, =1,080 f-kips + Interaction Eq. Ht-1b 200 f 321) 9.359.210 ». ok 2(1,810) 1,080 “Trews say ese ht oe ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 92Efficient Analysis for Stge! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 10(LRFD) = can + Consider the gravity only load case 1.2D +1.6L| rene = Example 10(LRFD) — an + For this load case, the column load has increased. Thus, P= 442 Kips <0.5P, =1170 kips ¥,=(442+442) =884 kips * The load ratio is then set, [@m——— | ‘American institute of Steel Construction, esEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 10 (LRFD) — an * The notional load multiplier,y, becomes Inrpolat for y= 0.00422 : Yet cc The says then nso wr Example 10 (LRFD) + Design by First-Order Analysis Notional load FoA. Chart a ‘American Insttute of Stee! Construction edEffcien Analysis for Stee! Design Using the: 2008 AISC Specification Example 10 (LRFD) ce * First-order elastic analysis P, a wom M, mph K wens o» % cams coms L G=167 ee om Example 10 (LRFD) *+ Design by First-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis, member effect C,, =0.6 -0.4(0/56.0) = Dv ronson ans we ‘American instute of Steel Construction, 1198Etfcent Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Example 10(LRFD) — sw + Design by First-Order Analysis WEL =16,800 kips (1.0(15.0)(12))" QD reser erin ses wn Example 10(LRFD) — &mm + Design by First-Order Analysis — Amplify first-order analysis; member effect =e a= apa Py 0.6 royeaay PF B10 16,800 [mmm = | American Insitute of Steel ConstructionEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Spectcation reese Seas Sse cass csseceeeeesesesssseeeeeseeeoeesees Example 10 (LRFD) = can Design moment M, = BM, M, =1.0(56.0) = 56.0 ft-kips Design force P.=P, =442 kips @ rons ssn nso ws Example 10 (LRFD) cen + Determine member strength 9.P, = 1,810 kips: p=0551x107 6M, =1,080 ftps |, = 0.826x10 + Interaction Eq. H1-ta 442 &)\f 56.0 ——+| = | —— |=0. On (ES) 290<1.0 +. ok ‘Thar ay aston te met ‘American Institue of Stee! Construction 97Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Building Example 1 eum Warehouse Design the 260 ft by 360 ft warehouse structure shown, Design by Second-Order Analysis (Effective Length MetNO2) senate = 40" Nori ond: Dendlad= 20 pt coogi Deas pet Stucie 4 pt Heol = 5 pe Cota = 4p ect srw aod = 90 pat roca Wale 00 pt Wied presi = 20 pst Mean Wind pit = 10 pt Qo veer & Building Example 1 eu. Warehouse + Design using ASD Load Combinations: ~Drs =b+w =D+0.75(8+w, + Structural system ~ Flexible roof diaphragm = Open web stee! joists and Joist Girders = One bay X-bracing in each exterior frame + Walls ~ Tilt-up non-load bearing 8 in. precast concrete a ‘American nstitute of Steel Construction 98Efficient Analysis fr Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 1 eu Warehouse + Roof deck design: —Use Type 22 wide rib deck spanning 6 ft. — Minimum of 2 — side lap screw per 6 ft span with other fastening to be selected to satisfy diaphragm requirements + Roof Structure: — Joists at 6 ft on center — Joist Girders at 60 ft QD vor onr rsa Building Example 1 eum 580 Warehouse ~ Gravity only Columns (40 ft long, pinned ends): + Tributary area to interior column + Colurm load = (20 + 30\(3600)/1000 = 180 kips + Selectan HSS section for economy + From the AISC Manual with K- select an HSS 12X12X3/8 (Wt 220 kips Grrr sns a ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 8Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 1 su Warehouse + Serviceability criteria — For non-load bearing concrete walls, use a rift criteria of H/100 = (40)(12)/100 = 4.8 in. for a 10 year wind, This is approximately 6.8 in. for a 50 year wind based on ASCE 7. To determine if serviceability criteria is satisfied, use a first-order analysis. res ssn nsw a Building Example 1 eu Warehouse + Serviceability criteria ~ Determine the in-plane deflection of the flexible diaphragm + Beam shear of wn ro + Shear per foot along edge of diaphragm at wall 72.000 . 290 bei T5360 ‘The say a solson ie! sas ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 400Ficient Analysie for Steel Design Using the £2008 AISC Specification Building Example 1 eum Warehouse ae + Serviceabilty criteria = Determine the in-plane deflection of the flexible diaphragm = From the 3rd Edition of the SDI “Diaphragm Design Manual + The alowabl shear for Type 22, wide rio deck, wah a 36/4 welt patton and’ = 255 bm and @'= 13200 bu, + Dee econ Fo nin nein Hora ect wi? _ 20(40/2)(360)°_ DG $(360)(13,500) ~ @ roe ror raimn nes wo 4, Building Example 1 eu As Warehouse “Determine tension only brace force Taf cof Brace Foree=72 kpa( 72") 86 kis Be *Select double angles Use 426 steel 7 216 4x6, A= 48 in, “109 Ro Assume ylldrg controls yooN eC awe ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction W101Fffciant Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Building Example 1 Warehouse + Determine braced frame drift Elongation of brace aA E ey bait = 2244 (0.538 in) = 0.646 a eum aso Building Example 1 Warehouse + Check total drift 6541.33 Drtin treme rita lapragm 98 in.<6.8in. ». OK z a ‘American Institute of Steel Construction wes02[Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 ASC Specification Building Example 1 eww, Warehouse an + Calculate Column loads in braced frame —Dead load P, =(20)(60)(30)/1000 = 36 kips - Snow Load F, =(30)(60)(30)/1000 = 54 kips Wine uplift 10)(60)(30)/1000= -18 kips — 7 Building Example 1 eu Warehouse + Design the columns at the braced bays. For (D + S): P,=36+54=90 kips = For (D+ Wy: P, =36-18+(72)(40/60) = 66.0 kips —For (D +0.75(S + W)): P, =36+0.75 (54-18) + 0.75(72)(40/60) =99.0 kips one ee nscrne ul “American Insitute of Stee! Construction 4103,Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 1 Warehouse + Select column in me Enectve Length Method, K=10 you need to determine K. Since this braced frame, K=1.0 H=40ft P,=99 kips + Use HSS 10x10x5/16, 4=11.1in?, P,/Q=112 kips a Building Example 1 ae Warehouse + To this point, all calculations have been carried out with a first-order analysis + Now consider the amplified first-order analysis results. « Since there are no moments, there is no need to calculate B. p _p 4 pp 7 = By + Bok, M, = BM,,+B,M, Grrr i American Insite of Steel Construction e104Effcient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Building Example 1 cue Warehouse * Sway amplification —p _ @=1.0(LRFD) «=1.6 (ASD) EP, = Total gravity load supported by story ER, =K,BHL/Ay R, =1.0 (Braced Frame) EH = lateral force causing A, a a Building Example 1 ew Warehouse on + Calculate the gravity load for each load case. Load Case EP, Kips © | (20)(360)(360)/i000 = 2590 Kips Precast Walls | (100) (40)(360)(4)/1000=5760 kips S| G0)(360)(360)/1000= 3890 Kips W__|(-10)(360)(360)/1000= ~1300 kips| a a0 ‘American Institue of Steel Construction 1108Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 1 eu Warehouse ee + Determine horizontal force ZH =2(72)= 144 kips + Determine the drift Drift = average diaphragm deflection + braced frame drift Ay, = 0.67(1.33) +0.650 54 in, ‘Average or parable eplcomont of daphrogm QD vers ver eatorn one ve Building Example 1 fu 480 Warehouse + Determine frame stiffness =P, =R,, = (409012) stetugetiye” eezais 1,900 kips @ ero ssn wa American institute of Steel Construction i106Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 1 Warehouse * Including the precast walls weight. GQ vrene sense Building Example 1 480. Assume the walls parallel to the wind resist overturning directly by their own stiffness — Assume that the weight of the windward and leeward walls is applied at their mid-height Walls move through only % of the drift = To account for these, use only % of the wall Warehouse * Calculation of B, colton | aera, ["oBe DePrecasteS |: 6(2s90+144043890)=12,700 1.39515 DePreCaSHW | 6 s50 4 1440+(- 1800) 4.370 111s1.5 DePrecast [1 5(2990+1440+.075(3890-1300))=9,560 | 1.27<1.5 10781560) American Institute of Stee! Construction 4-107Effcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Building Example Warehouse + Calculation of B, Besant 1 eum 380 Since all B, values are less than 1.5, the effective length method may be used. Building Example 1 sw Warehouse + Determine the notional loads comuinaton | __N, =0.002Y, Mesos DePrecaatS 278) icone | DePrecasiw iad ips DePrecast 7a) 0781590) 108 ks ‘American Institute of Stee! Constuction, 1108Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification | Building Example 1 Warehouse + Since the wind load is greater than the notional loads, there is no need to add notional loads to the combinations that include wind. + The notional load must be added to the D+Precast+S combination. serene Building Example 1 Warehouse + Notional Loads Force in Brace ‘American Insitute of Steel Construction e108Effcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 12005 AISC Specification Building Example 1 eu Warehouse ate + Diaphragm (D+Precast+W) Daiphragm Shear = B, (200) =1.11(200) = 222 pif <255 pif Thus, the diaphragm shear strength is adequate including second-order effects. Qo reese 7 Building Example 1 cue Warehouse a * Brace (D+Precast+S+N) B, (Brace) =1.39(9.55) =13.3 kips (D+Precast+W) B, (Brace) = 1.11(86.5) =96.0 kips*¥ (D+Precast+0.75(W+S)) B, (Brace) = 1.27(64.9) =82.4 kips (QD) rer oe ssstinn ses = ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 110.Effciont Anaysie for Stoo! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Building Example 1 eu a0 Warehouse + Column (D+Precast+S+N) B, (Column) = 90.0 +1.39(5.30)=97.4 kips (D+Precast+W) B, (Column) =18.0+1.11(48.0)=71.3 kips (D+Precast+0.75(W+S)) es B, (Column) = 63.0+1.27 (36) =109 kips Building Example 1 Warehouse * Brace 2's 4x4x5/16 Fr =103 kips > 96.0 kips Q * Column HSS 10x10x5/18 2, Q a 12 kips>109 kips ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction mattEffient Analysis fr Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Spectcation| Building Example 1 eu Warehouse ae * Conclusions —ELM is appropriate since no need to calculate K., by definition. ~ Different ioad combinations control design of different elements. = Each load combination has its own B,. Even though itis a braced frame, second- ‘order amplification is significant. QD rns esrsnn set te Building Example 2 ba ; x 4-Story Commercial + From the Companion CD tothe 134 edition Manual caryatveanins BP P.L.L.O OF and design of the on, L members of the moment ¥ frome a bresedtone Smancer C Sonnet buatng Shote Creat eins wate = QD rns eresitnn ses vm 4 4 ‘American nstiute of Stee! Construction neta.EEciont Anayeie for Stoo! Design Using the 2008 AISC Spectication| Building Example 2 ny 4-Story Commercial + From the Companion CD to the 13 edition Manual poston 92 92.9.090 ‘Snow + Rain 25 psf rr Bese" oe roe Bi Ati ete the oot ON bar et Sting ae == i Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial Ful Bung Modo verses sstin nent ea American Institute of Stel Construction 443Ficiant Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial + Moment Frame (resists forees in X direction) Tf pty Gp mmr vsrr a Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial “” + Braced Frame. OR (resists forces in Y drecton) |“ i i VON IAN ae i ‘American Instiute of Steel Construction iaBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial ii a ? eo Z PEPE Pocono celine i a6 : EE F==E- os =| | i 2s — FS {4 23 eee 36 Ser i} |@+ GaSe i ort i : ; Eticient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2008 AISC Spectication 115 ‘American Intute of Stee! ConstructionEffient Analysi for Stoo! Design Using the '2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial oe HT | ——— American Institute of ‘Steal Constuct ion mI ba roEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 on 4-Story Commercial 7 + Load Cases — Dead (1) Live (1) — Roof Live (Snow+Rain) (1) — Wind (12) = Seismic (4) QD 0-r or erane ses ae Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial + ASD Load Combinations 1D 2. De 3. Des 4. D#0.75(S+L) 5. DW 6. D+O7E 7. D+0.75W+0.75L+0.75S 8. D+0.525E+0.751+0.75S 9. o6D+w 10. 0.60+0.7E meres ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction warEffcient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AISC Specification 4-Story Commercial + Load Combinations for Analysis = 160 total load combinations — 12 of these as a result of the notional loads Dene) Deo.75(L+W) (24) FLAN (@) D+0.75(Se19 (24) DrStN (4) spew 24) DFO7E(L+SHN (A) DHOTE (2) ewe) DeO.75L+. 5256 (8) D+0.75(L+S+W) (24) 0804076 (8) Building Example 2 ay a os 4-Story Commercial + Could use a Planar Model (2D) ~ Requires some thought on modeling. — Can use forced symmetry. ~May reduce number of load combinations. — Use of notional loads easily accommodated. — Be sure to account for “leaning columns.” Building Example 2 a American institute of Steel Construction wateEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2008 AIS2 Specification Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial“ + Determine Notional Loads = Netional loads are determined for each gravity load case —Netional loads are distributed according to the gravity load distribution. N, =0.002Y, QD essen mst we Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial ‘Gravity tad at each evel Y Level_| 0 (kips) | $ ip) | (kip) Roof | 785 | 638 4 | 286 a7 3_| 2248 a7 2_ | 207 766 Total_| 7400_| 638 | 2400 oe re ‘American Institute of Steel Construction n18[Effcent Analysis fr Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial Notional loa at each evel, N, Lovel_| 0 tips) | $ tkips) | Ls) Root | 157 | 128 4 | 4ag 183 3 | ae 163 2 | 425 154 Tout_| 148 | 128 | 480 N, =0.002Y, Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial “” + Determine amplification factors for amplified first-order analysis. + Sway amplification is determined for each story, each direction, and each load combination. + Member amplification will need to be determined for each member individually. ss ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 20[Eicient Analysis for Steel Design Using ne 2008 AISC Specification Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial Moment Frame ___Sraced Frame Wind Load H,0on| EH, |, ies] EH, Root | 1968] 1968] 39.94] 29.04) 4 [9606] 06.62) ea77| e771 '3[- 39.48 | 90.00] —58.8| %56 09 2 | 3143] 12143] 6524] 211.99 Total | 121.45 211.33] Nomen Frame Note ne eave magnitude of hese wind loads and th ntonal oss, Q rs oss sot Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial raced Frame Wine Ot Tealx On) x | TotalY ny (ind a,Y (in) 07325 0.0895 0.4865] 0.0895] 06430 0.1600) 0.3053| 0.1379] Roof 4 3 04740) (02516; 0.2585; 0.313] 2 02224 10.2224] 0.1270) 0.4270] et based on reduced ates, 08 an O.8EA ae a ‘American Insitute of Steel ConstructionEfkient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 20085 AISC Specification Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial Noment Frame _ raced Frame Ry=085 [Ryo Root | 32600 | | 65.100 4_| 6,100 [| 116,000 3_[ 49.3007 | 199,000, 2 | 75200_[ | 270.000 3p, =n, 2 0.5 2003-5)02)) _ 49,500 On 02516 Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial Dead + Live oemneceoy (ony [saony |B, x | BY Roof | 765 [1266 | 104 | 12 4 | pee [e154 [415 | 106 3 | evor | s1051_[ 487 | 1.06 2 [000 | 15600” | 1.26 | 106 T T B OP, 1,031 fee 9,300 American Insitute of Steel Construction oa, oA W122Fficiant Analysis for Stoo! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial Moment Braced Deac+0.75(LivetSnow) Frame Frame. Dvo.76(L+s)[1.6(0+0751L08)| Bx | BY Roof | 1264 197 | 4.03, 4 4ia0 37] 4.08) ‘3 | e077 429 | 106 2 [9678 126 | 1.08) largest gravity loads —Inall cases B,<17 ‘minimum. ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Check treatment of notional loads + Amplification will be greatest for the ~ Since drift was based on reduced stiffness = Thus, notional loads may be treated as wi23Eficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2006 AISC Specification Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial Ay eu = Bs Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial it ae a Be American Instiute of Steel Construction 24Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the '2005 AISC Spacification Building Example 2 Da. 4-Story Commercial + Member check M, =B.M,, + BM, P=P,+BP, Assume MP, come from gravity load analysis -M,,P, come from a lateral load analysis @ re-r-ve esr ns sow Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial “” + Column in Braced Frame, #3, W12x53 — Controlling load combination D+07SL-0.525E4 ~ Analysis results by load case D=168 kips 1 =52.7 kips E4=-146 kips one : ‘American Insttute of Steel Construction, W125Effcient Analysis fr Steel Design Using the: 2006 AISC Specification Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial = “° + Column in Braced Frame, #3, W12x53 - Sway amplification B)=1.07 Member amplification + No amplification since no moments — Member force P, =P, +0.75P, ~ B,(0.525P-4) P, =168+0.75(52.7)-1.07(0.525)(-146) = 290 kips a 7 Building Example 2 A 4-Story Commercial ee + Column in Braced Frame, #3, W12x53 = Determine member strength Kel ‘L=135 ft a 1 Kips > 290 kips. -W12x53 is adequate Oe i ‘American nsttute of Steel Construction eiEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 12008 AIS3 Spectication Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial + Brace in Braced Frame, #1, HSS 6x6x1/2 — Controlling load combination D-0.1E4 — Analysis results by load case D=13.0 kips E4=~121 kips Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial = + Brace in Braced Frame, #1, HSS 6x6x1/2 — Sway amplification B, =1.05 Member amplification + No amplification since ne moments —Member force P= Pe -O-TPey P, =13.0~1.05(0.7(-121) = 102 kips @ rm omrerrtern ses tm ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 127Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 12008 AISC Specification Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial “” + Brace in Braced Frame, #1, HSS 6x6x1/2 = Determine member strength Kl L=20.18 ft Bei ips >102 kips —HSS 6x6x1/2 ie adequate QD rr eerste set a Building Example 2 A ; 20 4-Story Commercial + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 — Controlling load combination D-0.7E2 ~ Analysis results by load case D P=226kips M, =3.75 ftkips £2 P=Okips M,=-105 ft-kips (GQ rer ssrnnn ses vse ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 28.Efficient Analysis for Steet Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial “” + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 = Sway amplification 19 Member amplification (226 +0)=362 kips p= 2129.0001:10) «2 500 kis 3.502) — : Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial “° + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 —Memter amplification B= Su 94 1 0340.4) =041<1.0 ~Memter force P= Py ~ By (0.7Pea) P, =226-1.19(0.7)(0) = 226 kips ne uH American Institute of Steel Gonstiuction, hiaEfficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial “” + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 —Member moment. M, = BM, ~B,(0.7M,;) 0(-1.86) -1.19(0.7(216) =—182 ft-kips Determine member strength K=10, L=135 f, 2-759 kips QD esr essinn sed = Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial “° + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 — Determine member strength 1, =135 ft Interaction 2E.8( 22) -o30+038-068<1 0 759" 9\ 430 -W14x99 is adequate a = = 430 fikips Q ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction 1430Eficiont Analycie for Stool Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial + Beam in Moment Frame, #69, W24x55 — Controlling load combination D+0.75L-+0.525E2 ~ Analysis results by load case D M,= 136ftkips-M,~ 139 Rkipo LM, =-82.7 ftkips M, =-83.8 fi-kips £2 M,=133 ftkips —-M, =-133 ft-kips QD were sssennses as Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial + Beam in Moment Frame, #69, W24x55 — Sway amplification B, =1.26 —Member amplification + No amplification since no axial load —Member moment M,=B,(M, +0.75L)++B, (0.525M,,) 1.0(-139+0.75(-83.8)) +1.26(0.525(—133)) =-290 f-kips QD) 720-2 rrsstsn nt wae ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction mgtEffient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 ba : > 4-Story Commercial + Beam in Moment Frame, #69, W24x55 —Member strength a = 334 fl-Kips < 290 ft-kips —W24x56 is adequate a ite Building Example 2 ba 4-Story Commercial“? a - ‘American institute of Steel Construction wage.Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial ba Building Example 2 ba : x 4-Story Commercial * Conclusions — Superposition is appropriate since amplified first-order analysis is used for 2" order effects. ~ There is no reed to analyze for 1.6 times the ASD load combinations since only a first-order analysis is carried out. ~The sway amplification, B,, may be different for each load combination, at each level, and in each direction. The sane toldin nse! ‘American Institute of Steel Construction 1133Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification Building Example 2 DA 4-Story Commercial + Conclusions — Using Direct Analysis means that K’= 1.0 in the moment frame (X). — Direct Analysis provides no advantage in the braced frame direction (Y) since K = 1.0 is already acceptable. ~Y direction amplification is a bit higher than if Eland EA had been used. (from 1.05 to 1,08) @ rer rr rst ses wr The Future is Now + The 2005 AISC Specification (ANSV/AISC_ 360-05) is adopted by IBC 2006. + ANSI/AISC 360-05 provides 3 approaches for determining the required strength of members. + The Direct Analysis method provides an approach for eliminating the need to determine K. ‘American Institute of Stee! Construction Ii34Efficient Analysis for Stee! Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification The Future is Now + The Effective Length method provides an approach quite close to the approach generally used in today’s practice. + The Design by First-Order Analysis method gives an opportunity to account for second-order effects through notional loads. ee a The Future is Now * Conclusion —Each method can be used for an efficient analysis and can lead to an economical design. You decide which best fits your needs. Design Stee! Your Way! ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 1195;Effciont Analysis for Stee! Desion Using the 2005 AISC Specification en Thank You oa aon” Please give us your feedback! www.aisc.org/cesurvey Ameican inate of Sos! Construction ‘One Eset WockerOnve ‘Chicago, 60501 (Qo vaeer eran fil ‘American Insitute of Stee! Construction 136Building Example 2 4-story Commercial Selected slides and computer output ‘The RAM Structural System website is http bentley comven-US/Produets/RAM Structural+ System For questions on RAM contact: Allen Adams, $.E. Chief Structural Engineer RAM International / Bentley Allen. Adams@bentley.comBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial Full Building Model 4511 AISC 360 Direct Analysis Validation Re; RAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/11/09 10:09:39. DESIGN CODE, ‘AISC 360-05 ASD 'SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS ‘P-Delta analysis was not performed BI Factors: ‘BI factors were calculated and applied to gravity load case moments. B2 Factors: 'B2 factors were applied to lateral load case moments and axial loads. RMX = 0.850 RMY = 1.000 Maximum B2 » 1.303 on Level 3rd atan angle of 0.00 degrees. Load Combination : 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 WIO. NOTIONAL LOADS Fraction of gravity loads used for Notional Loads: Global X-axis : 0.0020 Global Y-axis : 0.0020 Generated Load Combinations: ‘Number of Selected Load Combinations = 160 "Notional Loads were included with gravity combinations only REDUCED STIFFNESS Flexural Stiffness: ‘The flexural stffnesses were reduced Number of memters with required xb < L0=4 Smallest required vb = 0.972 Column #4 on Level: 2nd Load Combination: 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.525 EA ‘tb used in Analysis : 1.000 ‘Analysis Invalid, Either specify larger notional loads (0.003Yi) or specify a smaller WOTAASTE = O°ETA ZOTOPOH FU RAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02719909 09:27:05 STORY DATA: Level StoryLabel Layout Type Height ft 4 Root Roof 1450 3 4h 3rd 1350 2 3rd 3relth 1350 1 2od 2nd 13.50 FRAME MEMBERS Frame ft: Level: Roof Steel Brace: # Level x Y Fix Fy Section BRB T-O ft fot ist 1 Roof 210.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6X6xI/4 NON ath 210.000 45.000 PPP 2 Roof, 210.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6x6xI/4 NON ath 210.000 75.000 PPP 3 Roof 0.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6x6x1/4 NON 4th 0.000 45.000. PPP 4 Roof 0.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6x6x1/4 NON ah, 0.000 75.000. PPP Level: 4th ‘Frame #1: Level: Roof ‘Steel Column: 4 x Y ZOMet RigMaj RigMin Fixity Fy Section ft ® 0 in in oxyt ksh 6 0.000 120.000 0.000 1040 0.00 FFF 50. WI2XS8. 1180 000 FFF 10 30,000 120.000 0.000 1040 0.00 FFF 50. WI4X99 1180 000 FF 14 0,000 120000 0.000 «1035-000 FFF «= S0. WIAx99 1180 000 FFF 18 90,000 120000 0.000 1035-000, FFF 50. WIA4X99 1180 000 FEF 22 120.000 120000 0.000 1035 «0.00 «FFF «= SO. WI4x99 11.80 0.00 FEF 26 150.000 120.000 0.000 1035-000 FFF 50. W14x99 1180 0.00 FFF 30 180.000 120.000 0.000 1040 0.00 FFF 50. WI4X99) 1180 0.00 FFFRAM Frame v13.0 Page 2/14 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC (02/19/09 09:27:05 ¥ x Y ZOftiset RigMajRigMin Fixit Fy Section 36 210.000 120.000 0.000 1040 0.00 FFF 50 W128 1.80 0.00 FFF ‘Steel Beam/ Horiz Brace: # x ‘Y ZOffset Rignd —Fixity Fy Section TO ft ft in yt ksh 120.000 0.000 6.10 FFF 50 W2IX50 120000 0.000 7.10 FFF 120000 0.000 7.10 FFF so W2Ixas ~ 120000 0.000 7.10 FFF 120000 0.000 7.10 FFF = 50. W2Xa4 120000 0.000 7.10 FF 120.000 0.000710 FFF. 50 w2ixaa ~ 120.000 0.000 7:10. FRF. 120.000 0.000 7:10 FR. 50 waIx4s ee 120.000 0.000 7:10 FR. 120.00 0.000 7:10 FR 50 WoIXes ~ 120000 0.000710 FFF 120000 0.000 7.10 FFF 50 W2IX30 ~ 120000 0.000 «6.10 FFF Y ZOMset RigMaj RigMin Fixity Fy Section 6 i in in oxyt st 120.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FRE 50. WIOXS8 1180 000 FRE 10 30.000 120.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FRE «50. WI4X99 1180 0.00 FFF 14 60.000 120.000 0.000 «11.80 0.00 FFF SO. WIAX99 1180 0.00 FF 18 9.000 120000 0.000 1180 0.00 FFF 50. WIAX9. 1180 0.00 FFF 22 120.000 120.000 0.000 «1180 0.00 FFF 50. WL4X99 1180 0.00 FFF 26 150.000 120.000 0.000 1180 0.00 FFF SO. W149 1180 0.00 FFE 30 180.000 120.000 0.000 1180 0.00 FFF 50. WIAx9- 1180 0.00 FFF 36 210.000 120.000 0.000 1180 0.00 FF 50. WI2XS8 1180000 FF ‘Stee! Beam/ Horiz Brace:N RAM Frame v13.0 Page 3/14 13810 AISC ‘DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 09:27:05 ¥ ¥ Y ZOfiet Rigind Fisity Fy Section TO fn fu ft in yt st 100.000 120.000 0.000 «6.10 FFF 50. W24XS5, 30.000 120000 0.000 7:10 FF. 23 30.000 120.000 0.000 7.10 FFF 50 W24xs5 - 60.000 120.000 0.000710 36 60.000 120.000 0.000 7.10 FF 50 W24xs5 : 90.000 120.00 0.000710. 49 90.000 120.000 0.000 7.10 FF 50 W2axss 7 120.000 120.000 0.000 7:10 FR. 63 120.000 120.000 0.000710 FF 50 W2axss - 150000 120.000 0.000710 FFF 76 150.000 120.000 0.000 7.10 FFE. 50 W2axss 180.000 120000 0.000 7:10 FFE. 89 180.000 120000 0.000 7:10 FF 50. W24XS5 210.000 120,000 0.000 6.10 FF Level: 3rd Steel Column: 4 x Y ZOfet RigMaj RigMin Fixity Fy Section ft ft ft in in xyt ks 6 0.000 120.000 0.000 1180000 FFF 50. WI2xS8. 1180 0.00 FRF 10 30.000 120.000 0.000 «11.80 0.00FFF = SO. WIAx99 1180 0.00 FFF 14 60,000 120.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WIdX99 1180 0.00 FFF 18 90.000 120.000 0.000 1180-000 FFF 50. WI4x99) 1180 0.00 FFF 22 120.000 120.000 0.000 «11.80 «0.00 FFF 50. WI4X99 1180 000 FE 26 150.000 120.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WI4X99 1180 0.00 FFF 30 180.000 120.000 0.000 «1180 0.00 FFF 50. WI4X99 1180 0.00 FRE 36 210.000 120.000 0.000 1180-000 FFF 50. WI2XS8, 1180 0.00 FFF Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: * x Y ZOffset RigEnd —Fisity Fy Section TO ft ft ft int sh 100.000 120.000 0.000 6.10 FFF 50 W24XS5 ~ 30.000 120000 0.00710 FFF. 23 30.000 120000 0.000710 FFF. so wuixss 60.000 120.000 0.000 7.10 FEF 36 60.000 120000 0.000710 FFF. 50 W24xssr Exame Model Data eee ae WM ssi0 asc DataBase: 810 AISC c2iigis 09:27:05 ¥ x YZ Offset Righnd — Fixity Fy Section TO 90.000 120000 0.00 7.10 FEF 49 90,000 120.000 0.000710 FFF 50. W24XS5 120.000 120.000 0.000710 FFF. 63 120.000 120.000 0.000 7:10 FFF 50, W24xSs. ~ 150000 120.000 0.000 7.10 FF 76 150.000 120000 0.000 7:10 FF 50. W24KS5 180.000 120.000 0.000 7.10 FR 89 180.000 120.000 0.000710 FF SO. W24xss 210.000 120.000 0.000 6.10. FRF Level: 2nd Steel Column: ‘ x YY ZOffset RigMaj RigMin Fisity Fy Section n ft U ieseieer vestnial stent gests 6 0.000 120000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FEF 50. WI2KS8 000-000 FFE 10 30.000 120.000 0.000 «11.80 0.00 FEF «50 W14x99 0000.00 FF 14 60.000 120.000 0.000 «11.80 0.00 FFF «50. WI4X99 000-000 HF 18 90.000 120.000 0.000 «11.80 0.00 FFF $0, WI4x99 000-000 FF 22 120.000 120.000 0.000 11.80 0000 FEF 50. WIAX99 0000.00 FFF 26 150.000 120.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FFF «50. WIA 0.00 0.00 FFF 30 180.000 120.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FFF SO. WIA 000 © 000 RF 36 210.000 120000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WIOXS8 0000.00 FFF ‘Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: * x 'Y ZOfset RigEnd —Fisity —Fy_Section TO 8 ft fin gt st 10 0.000 120000 0.000 6.10 FF 50. W24xss, 30.000 120.00 0.000 7:10 FFF 23 30.000 120.000 0.000 7:10 FFF_«=— 50. W24XS5 0.000 120.000 0.000710 RF 36 60.000 120.000 0.000710 RF 50. 24X55 - 90.000 120.000 0.000710 FF 4990000 120.000 0.000710 FEF 50. W24XS5 : 120.000 120.00 © 0.000 7.10 RF 61 120.000 120000 0.000710 FEF 50. 24X55 ‘| 150.000 120000 0.000 7.10 FF 74 150.000 120.000 0.000710 FFF «50 W24XS5, -Erame Model Data AN sascreane iso Pape 518 AM ssi0 asc DataBase 810 ASC e290» o12708 + x Y ZOffset RigEnd — Fixity ‘Fy Section’ T-O 190000 12000 eco nto 12000 0000710 R80 WRaKss 7 120.00 © 0.000 «6.10. Y ZOfset RigMaj RigMin Fisity Fy Section a fn in in xt st 0.00 0.000 1040 0.00 FF «= 50. WIOXS8 11.80 0.00 FF 0.0% 0.000 1040-000 FFF 80. WIAX99 11.80 0.00 FFF 11 60.000 0.00 0.000 10.35 «0.00 FEF = SO. WI4X99 1180 0.00 FFF 15 90.000 0.000 0.000 1035000 FFF = 50 Wi4x9. 1180 000 AF 19 120000° 0.00 0.000 1035000 FFF 50. WI4X99. 11.80 000 FF 23 150.000 0.00 0.000, 000 FFF 50. WIax99 0.00 BFF 27 180.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 BFF wi4xo9 0.00 FFF 31 210.000 0.000 0.000 1040 0.00 FFF 50. WI2xS8, 11.80 0.00 FFF ‘Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: # x Y ZOfset RigEnd Fisity Fy Section 10 0 fn fe in yt 2 0.000 0.000 = 0.000 6.10 FEF 50 W21XS0 30.000 0.000 0.000 7:10 FEF. 23 30.000 0.00 = 0.000 7:10 FEF 50. W244 60.000 0.00 = 0.000 7.10 FFF 43 60.000 0.00 = 0.000 7.10 FF 50 W2IX44 90.000 0.00 = 0.000710. 2 90.000 000 = 0.000710 F 50 W2IXes 120000 0.00 © 0.000710 FFF 83 120000 0.00 = 0.000 7.10 FEF 50 W2IX44 150.000 0.00 © 0.000710 FFF 102 150.000 0.000.000 7:10 FF. 50 W2Ixas 180.000 0.00 = 0.000710 FFF 122 180.000 0.000.000 7.10 FFF 50 W21Xs0 210.000 0.0 «0.000 6.10| Exame Model Data MAAN rast rcane 13.0 Page 114 IM ssioaise PR Date 8810 ASC cxigH opar0s evel ath Skel Column: ' XY ZOMet RigMa) RigMin Fisty Fy Section CEECeCC eee metered 10000000 00001180) FSO. IRS 1180000 BF 73000 0000 00001180000 FFF «50 WLaXS9 1180000 FEF 1 60.000 0000 0000118) AF So. Wiaxs9 iso) G00) FF 1590000 0.000 00001180 OM) 50. Wiaxoo 180000 AF 19 120000 0.00 0000118000) 50. Wtaxoo 1s 000A 23150000 0.000 00001180000 F «50. LAX 180 0m RE 2 18000 0000-00 1180-000 FF 80 WIEKD 180800 31210000 0000-0000 1180-000 80.WiRxs iso 000) Stl Beam / Hora Brace ' XY ZOMet Righnd Fly Fy Secon 10 el ee eee 20000 © 0.000000 610.80. WK 3000 00m = 000010 1830000000 00071050 waaxss 000 00m = 0000710 31 0000000000710 RFS. Wa4xss soo 000000710 “4 S000 0000000710 FESO. Wa4KS 1000 000000) 710 AF 58 120000 0.000 «000710. FRF=«S0._ W24Ks 15000 0000000) 110 FF 71 15000 00000000710 E50. waaxss a T3000 0000 at) 710 s4 18000 0000800110 FRF «50. wa4xss a 210000 00000010. ZOMset RigMaj RigMin Fixity Fy Section in wt ksi 0000 1180 0.00 FFF 50. WI2xs8 5Exame Model Data RAM Frame v13.0 Page 714 AIM) ss10 isc #8) DataBase: 8810 AISC 0219909 09:27:05 ' a Y ZOfiset RighajRighin Finty Fy Section 11.80 0.00. FEF 7 30.000 0.000 0.00 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WIaxa9 1180 0.00 FEF 11 60.000 0.000 0.000-«11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WI4X99 1180 000 FEF 15 90.000 0.000 0.00 1180 0.00 FFF 50. W14x9 1180 0.00 FFF 19 120000 0.000 0.001180 0.00 FFF 50. WH4X9 1180 000 FEF 23 150.000 0.00 001180 0.00 FFF 50. WIAX99. 1180 0.00 FRF 27 180.000 0.000 0.00 11.80 0.00 FFF SO. WIAxo9 1180 0.00 FFF 31 210.000 0.000 0.00 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WI2XS8 1180 000 FF Steel Beam / Horie Brace: ' x Y ZOfist Rigknd Fisity Fy Section TO 8 ft no in oat, st 2 0.000 0.000 0.000610 FFF 50. W24XS5 - 30.000 0.000 0007.10 RF 18 30.000 0.000000) 7.10 FFF 50. 24x85 000 0.00 007.10 FF 31 60.000 0.000 0mm) 7:10 FF 50. W24XSS 90.000 0.000 oom) 7.10 44 90.000 0.000 0.0 = 7.10 FFF 50. W24XSS 120000 0.000 0.00710 FFF. 58 120.000 0.000 0.00 7:10 FFF 50. W24xS5. 150.000 0000 0007.10 71 150.000 0.000 0.00710 FFF 0. Waaxss 180.000 0.000 0000 7.10 FF 84 180,000 0.000 0.000710 FFF SO. W24XSS 7 210.000 0,000 0.00) 6.10 FF Level: 2nd Steel Column: 4 x Y ZOfiset RigMaj RigMin Fixity Fy Section 8 a iC in in xyes 1 0.000 0.000 0.00) 1.80000 FFF 50. WI2XS8 000 0.00 FEF 7 30.000 0.000 0.00) 11.80 000 FFF 50. WIaxa9 0.00 0.00 FFF 11 60.000 0.000 0.00) 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. W199 000-000 RF 15 90.000 0.000000) 11.80 0.00 FFF = 50. Wi4x99W) eamane 113.0 Page 8/14 8810 AISC m=) Datalase: 8810 AISC (02/19/09 09:27:05 ¥ ¥ YY ZOiiset RigMajRigMin Finity Fy Seetlon 0.00 0.00 FFF 19 120,000 0.000 0.000 1180 0.00 FFF 50. W1ax99 0000.00 FFF 23 150.000 0.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WI4x99 0.00 0.00 FFF 27 180.000 0.000 0.000180 0.00 FFF 50. WI4x99) 0.00 000 FFF 31 210.000 0.000 0.000 11.80 0.00 FFF 50. WI2X38, 0000.00 FFF Stee! Beam ' Horiz Brace: Y ZOMset Fy Section TO ft ft si 0.000 0.000 50 W24X35 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 W24xs5 - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 W24Xs5 ~ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 W2axss = 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 W24xs5 = 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50. W2axss ~ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 W24x35 ~ 0.000 0.000 Y ZOffset RigMaj RigMin Fixity Fy Section fn ft in In oxyt ksh 45.000 0.000 0.00.00 FFF 50. Wi2X3, 0.00 0.00 FFF 4 0.000 75.000 0.000 «0.00000, FRE 50. WI2X53 0.00 0.00 FFF ‘Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: # x Y ZOMset Righnd Fixity Fy Section. TO n ft 0 in oxyt sh 4 0.000 45.000 0.000 0.00 PF. 50 WI8x35 — 0.000 75.000 0.000 0.00 PP.JAN sastranesiso — Baa BAM it 0 asc cases ops : Ste oa Hy ome st) Mtn ty —y Seon oe ee er ee ee ee $300 a 0mm 130 om to) 89) E50 wns 00080) RE See BeBe Br een oma Higind Fly fy Seon 10 pen ere ere eerie + ooh sm) oom ote wane tow i3tbo tom Sat ar Sree ine xy mu Fy Seon bm ro re 1 an oo caus) BS sso oN a tow Sa err 2 i Oto” Go per 46- Asse WN ot io Sow ee Les Ste Coins yee ponte NAL len ty yen oo + a0 508) 00d) a8) om) wis te oa + 00m 73000 00m fo) a) E50 wis oo 800 BF Ste ean Hate rae: ee en oma nigind Fly fy Sen ro + 0am 0 0m8) 08) wax cow 73tpo 0m Gn er seat bne + ine x oy me Wy Sata ms 10 tom i to om) a AS. wssoxoie WN i ome San Fe 2 3nd 0.000 60.000 PPP 46. HSS6X6x1/2 NONRAM Frame v13.0 Page 10014 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 09:27:05 ¥ Tevet x Y Fix Fy Section BRE TO and 0.000 75.000. PPP Level:2nd Steel Column: # x Y ZOffset RigMaj RigMin Fisity Fy Section ft fh ft in in yt ksi 3 0.000 45.000 0.000 «0.00000, FFF 50. WI2XS3 000 0.00 PPF 4 0.000 75.000 0.000 «0.00000, FFF 50. WIDXS3 000 0.00 PPF ‘Steel Beam / Horlz Brace: ® x ‘Y ZOMet RigEnd —Fixity Fy Section TO ft ft ff in oxyt st 4 0.000 45.000 0.000 0.00 PPF 50 WI8x40 0.000 75.000 0.000 «0.00 PPF ‘Steel Brace: # Level x Y Fix Fy. Section BRB T-O t ft oxyt ks 1 ond 0.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6X6x1/2 NON Base 0.000 45.000 PPP 2 md 0.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6X6XL/2 NON Fase 0.000 75.000. PPP Frame #4: Level: Roof Steel Column: * x Y ZOftset RigMaj RigMin Fixity Fy Section ft ft ft in in yt ksi 33210000 45.000 0.000 0.00000 FFF 50. WI2x53, 0.00 0.00 FFF 34 210000 75.000 0.000 0.00.00 FEF 50. WI2xS3, 0000.00 FFF Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: # x Y ZOMfset Rigknd Fisity “Fy Section TO ft ft fn in yt ksi 142 210.000 45.000 0.000 «0.00 PP. 50 WI8X35, ~ 210.000 75.000 0.000 «0.00 PP. Level: 4th ‘Steel Column:RAM Frame v13.0 Page 11/14 8810 AISC Bess) DataBase: 8810 AISC 2/19/09 09:27:05 ¥ x Y ZOfset RigMaj RigMin Fisity Fy Section 1 i ft in in yt ksh 33 210.000 45.000 0.000 0.00000 FFF 50. W123 0.00 0.00 FFF 34 210000 75.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 FFF = 50. WI2X53 0.00 0.00 FFF Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: # x Y ZOMeet Rigknd Fisity —Fy__Seetion TO ft ft ft in yt st 99 210.000 45.000 0.000 «0.00 PPE SO. WIBK40 210.000 75.000 0.000 0.00 PPF Steet Brace: # Level x Y Fix Fy Section BRB TO tn A oxyt ksi 3 4th 210.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6x6x1/4 NON 3rd 210.000 45.000. PPP 4 ah 210.000 60.000 PPP 46 -HSS6x6xI/8 NON Sed 210.000 75.000. PPP Level: 3rd ‘Steel Column: # x Y ZOffvet RigMaj RigMin Fiuty Fy Section a a ft in in st 33 210.000 45.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 50. WI2XS3 0.00 0.00 34 210.000 75.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 50 WI2xs3 0.00 0.00 ‘Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: # x Y ZOffset Rigknd —Fisity Fy Section 10 a a f in oayt st 99 210.000 45.000 0.000 «0.00 PF 50. WI8X40. 210.000 75.000 0.000 0.00 PP. ‘Steet Brace: # Level x Y Fix Fy Section BRB T-0 ft fh oyt bi 3 3d 210.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6X6X1/2 NON 2nd 210.000 45.000 PPP 40 3rd 210.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6K6XL/2 NON 2nd 210.000 75.000 PPP Level: 2nd Steel Column:3810 AISC Satr#) DataBase: 8810 AISC Ae Page 12/14 02/19/09 09:27:05 ¥ ¥ Y" ZOfiset RigMajRigMin Fixity Fy Section n 0 ft in in yt ist 33 210.000 45.000 0.000 0.00000 FFF 50. WI2XS3 0.00 0.00 PPF 34 210.000 75.000 0.000 0.00000 FFF 50. WI2xS3, 0.00 0.00 PPF ‘Steel Beam / Horiz Brace: # x Y ZOffvet Rigknd Fisity Fy _ Section TO 0 f ft in yt ksh 97 210.000 45.000 0.000 «0.00 PPF. 50 WI8x40 210.000 75.000 0.000» «0.00 PPF Steel Brace: # Level x Y Fix Fy Section ft ft oxyt ksh 3° 2ed 210.000 60,000 PPP 46 HSS6x6x1/2 NON Base 210.000 45.000 PPP 4 Ind 210.000 60.000 PPP 46 HSS6X6x1/2 NON Base 210.000 75,000 PPP NODES: # x y Z Fatn Diaphe n 0 ft (Diaph.# - Story Name) 1 0.000 0.000 35.000 «N 1- Roof 2 0000 45.000 35.000 -N 1- Roof 3 0.000 60,000 35.000 -N None 4 0.000 75.000 35.000 -N 1- Roof 5 0.000 120.000 $5000 -N 1- Roof 6 30000 0.000 55.000 -N 1 Roof 7 30.000 120.000 55.000 -N 1- Roof 8 60.000 0.000 55.000 -N 1 Roof 9 60.000 120.000 55.000 -N 1- Roof 10 90,000 0.000 55.000 N 1- Roof 11 90.000 120.000 55.000 -N 1- Roof, 12 120000 0.000 55.000 -N 1- Roof 13 120000 120.000 35.000 -N 1- Roof 14 150000 0.000 35.000 1 Roof 15 150.000 120.000 55.000 N 1- Roof 16 180.000 0.000 35.000 N 1-Roof 17 180.000 120.000 55.000 -N 1 Roof 18 210000 0.000 55.000 N 1- Roof 19 210.000 45.000 35.000 -N 1 Roof 20 210.000 60.000 55.000 NN None 21 210.000 75.000 55.000 -N 1- Roof 22 210.000 120.000 35.000 -N 1- Roofwy Exame Model Data eee £2 si s 2 £ se Si iS i Ee Ss i f 7 2S si 3 2S | ie Si 3 7 ee i 3 i: EE: ‘3 i: eS fe f Re ae Se 3 ie BY i i £2 2: i i £2 ei = 2 Ge ie Ee fois ce eS 3 2 See eS i Fe iE ei i oe ie : 2 eB i See i 2S Se FE ee ie ie come ig ie i come ie ie eS ome ie ie | = cme ee i ' oR ae ie | FEi J 810 a1sc LW escnasense ‘DataBase: 8810 AISC Page 14/14 02/19/09 09:27:05 101 102 103 104 10s 106 107 108 x 0.000 0.000 0.000 ¥ 45.000 60.000 75.00 120.000 S| 13.500 13500 13.500 13.500 13.500 13500 13.500 13.500 13500 13500 13.500 MMMM MMMM KKK eee ZZZZZz2zzz2zzzZZzBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial Os a Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial A eM | lk Mii iil Ci I! Gm enssnimnans raceBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial Ul @28810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08.23.44 LOAD CASE: Wind Wind ‘ASCE 7-05/1BC2006 Exposure: C Basie Wind Speed (mph) 90.0 Importance Factor: 1.000 ‘Apply Directionality Factor, Kd = 0.85 Use Topography Factor, Kat: 1.00 Use Calculated Frequency for X-Dit. Use Calculated Frequency for Y-Dit. Gust Factor for Flexible Structures, G: Use Calculated G for X-Dit. Gust Factor for Flexible Structures, G: Use Calculated G for Y-Di. Damping Ratio for Flexible Structures= 0.01 Mean Roof Height (1): Top Story Height + Parapet = $5.00 Ground Level: Base WIND PRESSURES: X-Direction: [Natural Frequency =0.528 Structure is Flexible Y-Direction: [Natural Frequency =0.890 Structure is Flexible CpWindward =0:80 qLeeward (qh) = 19.67 pst GCpa (Parapet): Windward = 1.50 Leeward = -1.00 Height = Kz Kat @ Gust FactorG CpLeeward Pressure (ps) a psf x y x Y x Y 55.00 1.116 1.000 19.669 1.005«0878 0.351 0500 22761-22472 40.50 1.04 1.000 18442 1.005 0878 0.351 0500 21.74 21.609 21.00 0.961 1.000 16933 1.005 «0878-0351 -0300 20561 20548 13.50 0.849 1.000 14962 1.005 0878-0351 0500 18.976 19.162 0.00 0.849 1.000 14962 1.005 878-0351 0500 18976 19.162 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind_IBC06_1_X Level Disph.t cf Fe Fy x Y a ips ips t a Roof 1 $500 19.68 0.00 10500 60.00 4th 1 4050 36.84 0.00 10500 60.00 3rd 1 2700 33.48 0.00 105.00 60.00 2nd 1 135003143 0.00 105.00 60.00 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBCO6_1_X. Level a Fe Fy & ips ips Roof 5500 19.68 0.00 4th 40.50 36.84, 0.00 3rd 27.00 33.48 0.00 2nd 13503143 0.00 1143 0.00RAM Frame v13.0 Page 2/12 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44, APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES Type: Wind_IBCO6_1_Y Level Diaph# He Re Fy x Y ft ips ips & t Roof 1 55.00 0.00 3394 105.0 «60.00 4th 1 4050 0.00 ©6377 105.0 60.00 3b 12700 0.00 5838 105.00 60.00 2rd 1 1330 0.00 ©5524 105.00 60.00 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind_IBCO6_1_Y Level He x ry a ips ips Roof 35.00 000 33.94 4a, 40:50 000 63.77 3d 27.00 0.00 $8.38 2a 13.50 0005524 000 21132 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES: ‘Type: Wind_IBCO6_2_X+E Level Diaph.t Ht Fe Fy x Y u ips kis ft ft Roof 1 5500 14.76 0.00 105.00 75.52 4th 1 4050 27.63 0.00 © 10500 75.52 Bed 1 770028. 0.00 10500 75.52 2nd 1 3300357 0.00 © 105007555 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBC06_2_X+E Level Ht Fe ry t ips ips Reof 55.00 1476, 0.00 4th 4050 27.63 0.00 3rd 2100 25.11 0.00 204 B50 2357 0.00 91.08 0.00 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBC06_2_X-E Level Diaphst m Fe Fy x Y a ips ips ft ht Roof 1 5500 14.76 0.00 10500448, 4th 1 40502763, 0.00 105004448,RAM Frame v13.0 Page 3/12, 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 13700 35.47 000105004448 1 1350 23.57 0.00 10500 444s, APPLIED STORY FORCES “Type: Wind IBO06_2.X-E Level Ht Fx Fy ft ips ips Roof 5500 14.76. 0.00 ath 4050 27.63 0.00 3rd 27100 28.11 0.00 2nd B50 (2357 0.00 91.08 0.00 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBC06_2_¥+E Level Diaph.t He re ty x y a ips Kips. 8 © Roof 1 35.00 000354513542 «60.00. 4th 1 40.50 0.00 478313542 60.00, 3rd 1 27.00 0.000 7R 135.42 60.00. 2nd 1 1350 0.00 414313542 «60.00. APPLIED STORY FORCES Type: Wind IBCO6_2_Y+E Level He Fx ry a ips ips Roof 55.00 0.00 (25.45 4h, 40.50 0004783, 3rd 27.00 000 43.78, 2d 1350 000 41.43, 000 158.49, APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES Type: Wind_IBC06_2_Y-E Level Diapht He Fe Fy x Y f ips ips 8 & Root 1 55.00 000-2545 7458 60.00 4h 1 4050 000 «47.83 7458 60.00 3rd 1 27.00 000 43.78 = 7458 60.00 2nd 1 1350 000041437438 60.00 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBCO6_2_Y-E. Level Ht Fx Fy t ips ipsRAM Frame v13.0 Page 4/12 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 Roof 3500 000 35a at, 40.50 000 47.83 3rd 27.00 000 43:78 2d 1350 0.004143, APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind_IBCO6_3_X+¥ Level Diaphutt mn Fx Fy x Y a Kips. Kips f & Roof 1 $500 14.76 25.45 105.00 0.09 ah 1 40502763 47.83 105.00 «0.0, 3rd 1 27.005. 43.78 —105.00 «0.00 20d 1 3503574143, 105.00 0.00, APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBC06_3_X+Y Level He Fr Fy 8 ips Kips Roof 5500-1476 25.45 4th 4050 27.63 47.83 3rd 2700 25.11 43.78 2nd 135023574143 9108 15849 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES Type: Wind_IBCO6_3_X-Y Level Diaphst He Fe Fy x Y ft ips Kips ® & Roof 1 55001476 -25.45 105.00 6.00, 4 1 4050 2763-4783 105.00 00, 3rd 1 27002811 43.78 105.00 6.00. 2a 1 135023574143 105.00 6.00 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBC06_3_X-Y Level Ht Fe Fy & kips ips Root 3500 1476-2545 au 4050 © 2763-4783, Bre 2700 25.11 43.78, 2nd 1350 2357-4143 9108 15849Loads and Applied Forces RAM Frame v13.0 Page 5/12 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind_IBCO6_4_X+Y_CW Level Diapht Ht Fe Fy x Y ft kis ips & 8 Root 1 55001107 19.09 74.58 75:52 4h, 1 4050-2072, 35877438 75:52 Sr 1 2700-1884 328474387552 2d 1 13801768 310774587555 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind_IBCO6_4_X+Y_CW Level He Fe Fy t ips ips Roof 35001107, 19.09 ath 40.50 2072 35.87 3rd 200° «1884 32.84 2nd 13501768 31.07 6831 «118.87 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind_IBC06_4_X+¥_CCW Level Disp He Fe Fy x Y 8 ips ips ft 8 Roof 1 55001107 19.09 138.42 aaa ath 1 4050 20723587 13542 ada 3rd 1 2700 as 3213542 ad as 2nd 1 13501768 31.07 13542 aa.as APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBCO6_4_X+Y_CCW Level Ht Fx Fy a ips ips Roof 5500 1107 19.09, ath 4050 2072 35.87 3rd 27001884 32.84 2nd 1350 1768 (31.07 31 11887 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBCO6_4_X-Y_CW Level Digpht ca Fe Fy x Y a ips ips t a Roof 1 5500 1107-1909 135427582. ath 1 4050 2072-3587 135427532RAM Frame v13.0 Page 6/12 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 aa T2700 isad__32R4_—“135a2_—TSSD 20d 1 1300 W768 317135427555 APPLIED STORY FORCES “Type: Wind_IBCO6_4_X-Y_CW Level Ht Fe ry 8 ips ips oot 5500107 -19.09, 4th 40.50 20.72 35.87 3rd 21001884 32.84 2nd 1350 1768-3107 sai 11887 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBC06_4.X-Y_CCW Level Diaph Ht Fx Fy x y & kis ips 8 8 Roof 1 550011071999 74.58 4a ath 1 4050 2072-3587 74.38 das 3rd 1 2700188432 743B ata 2nd 1 135017683107 7458 48.45 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: Wind IBCOS_4_X-Y_CCW Level Ht cs Fy & ips ips Roof 55001107 -19.09 4th 4050 © 2072-3587 3rd 270001884 3.8 2d 3501768 31.07 31 1887RAM Frame v13.0 Page 7/12 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 LOAD CASE: E Seismic ASCE 7-05 / IBC 2006 Equivalent Lateral Force Site Class: D_ Importance Factor: 1.00 Ss: 0.121 8 Sl: 02060 g TL: 6005 Fa 1600 Fv: 2.400 SDs: 0.129 @ SD1: 0.096 ¢ Occupancy Category: I Seismic Design Category: B Provisions for: Foree Ground Level: Base Dir Eocent = R ‘Ta Equation Building Period-T X +And- 30 Std,C1=0.020x=0.75 Calculated YY +And- 30 ‘Std,C1=0.020x=0.75_Caleulated Dir Ta Cu TusedBgl2.8-2 EQI2.8-3 Bgl28-5 k X 0404 1.700 1.896 0687 0.043. 0.047 0.0100 1.093 Y 0404 1.700 1.124 0.687 003.0047 0.0100 ——.093 ‘Total Building Weight (kips) = 8152.95 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: EQ_IBCO6_X_4E_F Level Disphat Ht Fe Fy x y fips ips ft a Roof 1 5500649100 105.00 6.05 4h 1 4050 48.39 0.00 105.00 66.05 Sed 1210095250. 105.00 66.05 2nd 1 1350 422100010500 62.77 APPLIED STORY FORCES Type: EQ._IBCO6_X.4EF Level Ht i ry ft kips ips Roof 5500 6491000 4h 4050 4839 0.00 3rd 21.00 9525.00 2nd 1350-4221 0.00 35076 000 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES Type: EQ. TBOO6_X_-EF Level Diaph# Ht Fe Ca x y ff —kips, skips a ft Roof 1 $500 6491.00 108.00 s.95 4th 1 4950 14839 0.00 1051005895 3d 1 2700 95.25 0.00 105.00 53.98 2nd 1 1350 42.21 0.00 105.00 55.67Loads and Applied Forces N a ee 8810 aISC Datafiase: 8610 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 a BOO 0009535 2nd 1350 0004221 000 ~ 350.76UN Loads and Applied Forces RAM Frame v13.0 Page 10/12 8810 AISC FE!) DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 LOAD CASE: N Notional AISC 360-05 Fraction of Gravity Load : 0.0020 Ground Level: Base Total Dead Load (kips) = 7403.09 ‘otal Live Load (kips) = 2399.55, ‘Total Snow Load (kips) = 638.28 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_DL_X Level Diaph.# ca Fx ry x Y ft ips ips t R Roof 1 $5.00 137 000 10500 60.00 4a 1 40.50 449 0.00 10500 60.00 3rd 1 27.00 449 0.00 105.00 60.00, 2nd 1 1350 425 0.00 05.00 61.69) APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_DL_X Level He Fx Ty ft ips ips Roof 55.00 137 0.00 4h 40.50 449 0.00 3rd 27.00 449 0.00 2nd 1350 425 0.00 ial 000 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_DL_Y Level Diaph.# Ht Fe Fy x Y ft ips ips ft ft Roof 1 55.00 0.00 157 10500 60.00 ah, 1 4050 0.00 449 10500 60.00, 3rd 12700 0.00 449 10500 60.00, 2d 1 1380 0.00 425° 10500 61.69. APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: NI_AISC360_DL_Y Level He Fe Fy # ips ips Roof 55.00 0.00 157 ah, 40.50 0.00 449 ard 27.00 0.00 449 2nd 1350 0.00 425 000 1481dA TAN sastrane vis0 Page 1112 10 alse DataBase: 8810 AISC o2ni9109 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_LL_X Level Diaph. Ht Fx Fy x Y a ips ips f ft Roof 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 4th 1 4050 163 0.00 10500 60.0 3rd 1 27.00 163 0.00 105.00 60.00 2nd 1 1350 Ls3 0.00 105.00 62.00, APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_LL_X Level He Ke Fy t ips kips Roof 35.00 0.00 0.00 ah, 40.50 1.63 0.00 3rd 27.00 163 0.00 2od 1350 153 0.00 480 0.00 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC350_LL_Y Level Diaphst A Fx Fy x Y a ips ips ft a Roof 1 $5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ah 1 4050 0.00 1.63 105.00 60.00 3rd 127.00 0.00 1.63 105.00 60.00 2od 1 1350 0.00 183 10500 62.00 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC350_LL_Y Level He Fe ry ft kips Kips. Roof 55.00 0.00 0.00, ath 40.50 0.00 163 3rd 27.00 0.00 163 2nd 1350 0.00 133 0.00 480, APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_ REX Level Diaph He Fe Fy x Y ft ips ips ® & Roof 1 55.00 1.28 0.00 105.00 60.00 ath 1 40.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00y Loads and Applied Forces MAN kan Frame v13.0 Page 12/12, 8810 AISC SAH) DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/1909 08:23:48 3a T2700 ‘O00 ‘000 000-000 2nd 1 1350 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 APPLIED STORY FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_ REX Level He rx ry & ips ips Roof 55.00 128 0.00 4h 40.50 0.00 0.00 3d 27.00 0.00 0.00 2nd 13.50 0.00 0.00 128 0.00 APPLIED DIAPHRAGM FORCES ‘Type: NL_AISC360_RLY Level Diaph.t ra Fe Fy x Y t ips ips & f Roof 1 $5.00 0.00 128 105.0000 4 1 4050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3rd 1 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2d 1 1350 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 APPLIED STORY FORCES: ‘Type: NL_AISC360_ RLY Level ca Fe Fy a ips kis Roof 58.00 0.00 128 4h 40:50 0.00 0.00 3a 27.00 0.00 0.00 2d 13.50 0.00 0.00 (0.00 128RAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 0/19/09 08:23:48 LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA: Roof Live Load: Snow Snow Factor Do Not Include Snow in Combinations with Seismic Notional Loads ‘Consider with Combinations containing only gravity loads Sas (for Ev) 0.000 RboX 1.000 RhoY 1.000 LOAD CASE DEFINITIONS: D DeadLoad RAMUSER Lp PosLiveLoad RAMUSER Sp PosRoofLiveLoad RAMUSER Wi Wind Wind IBCO6_1_X w2 Wind Wind_1BC06_1_Y ws Wind Wind IBC06_2_X+E wa Wind Wind IBC06_2_X-E ws Wind Wind_IBC06_2-Y+E Wo Wind Wind_IBCO6_2_Y-E wr Wind Wind IBC06_3_X+Y we Wind Wind 1BC06_3_X-¥ wo Wind Wind 1B006_4_X+¥_CW wi0 Wind Wind_IBCO6_4_X+¥_CCW Wil Wind Wind_IBCO6_4_X-Y “CW wi2 Wind Wind IBCO6_4_X-Y_CCW EI E EQIBCO6_X_+E_F ED E EQ_IBCO6_X_-E_F 5 E EQ IBC06_Y_+E_F EA E EQ IBC06_Y_-E_F NDI ON NL_AISC360_DL_X NDD ON NL_AISC360_DL_Y NL ON NL_AISC360_LL_X N20 N NL_AISC360_LL_Y NRI ON. NL_AISC360_RLX. NR ON NL_AISC360_REY LOAD COMBINATIONS: _ IBCO6/ASCE7-05 ASD 1,000 D + 1.000 NDI 1.000 DB + 1.000 ND2 1.000 D - 1.000 NDI 1.000 D - 1.000 ND2 1.000 D + 1.000 NDI + 1,000 Lp + 1.000 NL1 1,000 D + 1,000 ND2 + 1.000 Lp + 1,000 NL2 1,000 D = 1.000 NDI + 1.000 Lp - 1.000 NL1 1.000 D - 1.000 ND2 + 1.000 Lp - 1.000 NL2 1.000 D + 1,000 NDI + 1.000 Sp + 1.000 NRI 1,000 D + 1.000 ND2 + 1.000 Sp + 1.000 NR2RAM Frame v13.0 Page 2/5 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 T.000D - 1000 NDI + 1.000 Sp- 1-000 NRT 1,000 D - 1.000 ND2 + 1.000 Sp - 1.000 NR2 1,000 D + 1.000 NDI +0.750 Lp + 1.000 NL1 + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 NRI 1,000 D + 1.000 ND2 + 0.750 Lp + 1,000 NL2 + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 NR2 1,000 D - 1.000 NDI + 0.750 Lp - 1.000 NL + 0.750 Sp -0.750 NRI 1.000 D - 1.000 ND2 + 0.750 Lp - 1.000 NL2 + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 NR2 1.000 D + 1.000 Wi 1.000 D + 1.000 W2 1.000 D + 1,000 W3 1.000 D + 1.000 Wa 1.000 D + 1.000 Ws 1,000 D + 1.000 W6 1.000 D + 1.000 W7 1,000 D + 1.000 WS 1,000 D + 1.000 W9 1.000 + 1.000 Wi0 1.000 D + 1.000 Wit 1.000 D + 1.000 Wi2 1.000 D - 1,000 Wi 1.000 D - 1.000 w2 1.000 D - 1.000 W3 1.000 D - 1.000 wa 1.000 D - 1.000 Ws 1.000 D - 1.000 W6 1.000 D - 1.000 W7 1.000 D - 1.000 Ws 1.000 D - 1.000 W9 1,000 D - 1.000 W190 1,000 D - 1.000 Wit 1,000 D - 1.000 W12 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 WI 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp +0.750 Sp + 0.750 W2 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 W3 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 Wa 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 WS 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 W6 1,000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 W7 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 W8 1,000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 W9 1,000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 W10 1,000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp + 0.750 Wil 1,000 D + 0.750 Lp +0.750 Sp + 0.750 WI2 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 WI 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 W2 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 W3 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 W4v ‘Load Combinations NY aM Frame v13.0 Page 3/5 8810 aISC DataFase: 8810 AISC 7/1909 08:23:44 37 * 1.000 + 0.150 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 WS 58 * 1.000 +0.750Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 W6 59 * 1,000 D+ 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 W7 60 * 1.000 D+ 0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp -0.750 Ws. 61 * 1,000 D +0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp -0.750 W9 62 —* 1,000 D+0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp -0.750 W10 63 * 1,000 D+0.750.Lp +0.750 Sp - 0.750 WII 64 * 1,000 D+0.750 Lp + 0.750 Sp - 0.750 W12 65 * 1000D+0.750Lp+0.750 WI 66 * 1.000 +0.750Lp +.0.750 W2 67 — * 1.000 +0.750Lp + 0.750 W3 68 © * 1.000 +0.750Lp + 0.750 Wa 69 * 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.750 WS 10 * 1.000 D+0.750Lp + 0.750 W6 TL * 1.000 D+0.750 Lp + 0.750 W7 72 * 1.000 D+0.750 Lp + 0.750 WS TB * 1,000D+0.750Lp +0750 W9 74 * 1.000 +0.750Lp +0750 WO 75° * 1.000 +0.750Lp +0.750 WII 76 + 1.000D+0.750Lp +0750 WI2 17 * 1.000 +0.750Lp - 0.750 WI 78 — * 1,000 +0.750 Lp - 0.750 W2 79 * 1.000 D+0.750 Lp - 0.750 W3 80 * 1.000 D+0.750 Lp - 0.750 Wa 81+ 1.000D+0.730 Lp - 0.750 ws 82 * 1.000 D+0.750 Lp - 0.750 we 83 * 1.000 +0.750 Lp -0.750 W7 84 © * 1.000 +0.750 Lp -0.750 WB 85 * 1,000 +0.750 Lp -0.750 wo 86 * 1.000D+0.7501p-0.750 10 87 * 1.000 +0.750Lp- 0.750 Wil 88 + 1,000 +0.750Lp- 0.750 Wi2 89 * 1.000 +0.750 Sp +0.750 WI 90 * 1.000 D+0.750 Sp + 0.750 W2 91 * 1.000 D+0.750 Sp + 0.750 W3 92 * 1.000 D+ 0.750 Sp + 0.750 Ws 93 * 1.000 D+ 0.750 Sp + 0.750 WS 94 * 1000140750 Sp+0.750 We 95 * 1,000 +0.750 Sp +0.750 W7 96 * 1,000 +0.750 Sp +.0.750 WB 97 * 1.000 D +0.750 Sp + 0.750 W9 98 * 1,000 +0.750 Sp +0.750 Wi0 99 * 000 D+0.750 Sp +0.750 Wi 100 * 1,000.1 +0.750 Sp + 0.750 Wi2 101 * 1,000 +0.750 Sp - 0.750 WI 102 * :.000D +0.750 Sp - 0.750 W2wiv ‘Load Combinations ALN eaxcrame 13.0 ae 4s RAM ssi0 asc RBI Database: 810 AIS eai9n onset 103 * 1.000 + 0.750 Sp -0.750 WS 104 * 1,000 D +0.750 Sp -0.750 W4 105 * 1,000 +0.750 sp -0.750 Ws 106 * 1,000D +0.750 Sp - 0.750 W6 107 * 1,000 +0.750 Sp - 0.730 W7 108 * 1.000D +0.750 Sp - 0.750 Ws 109 * 1.000 D+ 0.750 Sp - 0.750 W9 110 * 1.000 D+ 0.750 Sp -0.750 W10 IIL * 1.000 D+0.750 Sp -0.750 Wil 112 * 1.000D+0.750 Sp - 0.750 WI2 113 * 0600+ 1.000 WI 114 * 0.600 + 1.000 W2 1S * 0.600 + 1.000 W3 116 * 0,600D+ 1.000 Wa 117 * 0.600D-+ 1.000 ws 118 * 0.6000 + 1.000 Wo 119 * 0.6000 + 1.000 7 120 * 0.6000 + 1.000 W8 121 * 0.600 + 1.000 wa 122 * 0.600D-+1.000 Wo 123 * 0600+ 1.000 WII 124 * 0600+ 1.000 WI2 125 * 0.600D- 1.000 WI 126 * 0.600D- 1.000 W2 127 * 0.600D- 1.000 W3 128 * 0600-1000 Wa 129 * 0.600D- 1.000 ws 130 * 0,600. 1.000 We 131 * 0.600 D- 1.000 W7 132 * 0.600 D- 1.000 ws 133 = 0,600 - 1.000 w9 134 * 0.600 1.000 W10 135. * 0.600 - 1.000 Wil 136 * 0.600D- 1.000 Wi2 137 * 1.000D+0.700E1 138 * 1.000 + 0,700 E2 139 * 1,000 +0.700 E3 40 * 1,000 +0.700 E+ 141 * 1,000 - 0,700 B1 142 * 1,000 - 0.700 B2 143 = 1.000D-0.70053 144 = 1.000D-0.70054 145+ 1000D+0.7501Lp +0525 BL 146 * 1.000D+0.750 Lp +0525 E2 147 * 1.000D +0.750.Lp +0525 E3 148 * 1.000 +0.750Lp +0525 BAy Load Combinations RAM Frame v13.0 Page SIS 8810 AISC Baws) DataBase 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44, 149 * 1000D+0750Lp-0595F1 150 * 1.090D+0.750Lp- 0.525 E2 151 * 1090D +0750 Lp - 0525 E3 152 * 1090 +0.750Lp-0.525 B4 153 * 0.600D+0700E1 154 * 0.600 +0.700 £2 155 * 0.600 +0.700E3, 156 * 0.600 +0.700E4 157 * 0.600D-0.700E1 158 * 0.600 D - 0.7002 159 * 0,600 -0.700E3 160 * 0,600 D - 0.70054 * =Load combination currently selected to useWY 2asice 30 8810 AISC Drift DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:20:50 seus) Building Code: IBC ‘Steel Code: IBC CRITERIA: Rigid End Zones: Ignore Effects Member Force Output: At Face of Joint P-Detta: No Diaphragm: Rigid Ground Level: Base LOAD CASE DEFINITIONS: D DeadLoad RAMUSER. Lp PosLiveLoad RAMUSER Sp PosRoofliveLoal RAMUSER wi Wind Wind_IBCO6_1_X w2 Wind ‘Wind_TBC06_1_Y ws Wind Wind TBC06_2_X+E wa Wind Wind BC06_2-X-E ws Wind Wind 1B006_2_Y+E we Wind Wind 1BC06_2_Y-E wr Wind Wind_IBC06_3_X+¥ ws Wind Wind_1B006_3_X-Y wo Wind Wind_IBCO6_4_X+¥_cw wi0 Wind Wind IBC06_4_X+Y_CCW Wil Wind ‘Wind IBC06_4_X-Y “CW wi Wind ‘Wind IBC06_4_X-Y_CCW EL E EQ IBC06_X_+EF 2 E EQ.IBCO5_X_-EF E3 E BQ_IBCO6_Y_+E_F Ea E BQ_IBCO6_Y_-EF NDI ON NL_AISC360_DL_X ND2 ON NL_AISC360_DL_Y NLL ON NL_AISC360_LL_X N2 ON NL_AISC360_LL_Y NRI ON NL_AISC360_REX NR2 ON NL_AISC360_REY RESULTS: Location (ft): (105.000, 0.000) Story lac Displacement Story Drift Drift Ratio x Y x Y x Y in in in in Root D 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 lp 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, Sp 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000Drift RAM Frame v13.0 Page 216 MANY ssi0 aisc DataBase: 8810 AISC (02/19/09 08:20:50 Building Code: IBC Steet Code: IBC Story Tac Displacement ‘Story Drift Drift Ratio wh 0.7325 0.0000 0.0895 -0.0000 0.0005. 0.0000 we 0.0000 0.4846 0.0000 0.0893 0.0000 0.0005, ws 0.5336 0.0000 0.0644 -0.0000 0.0004. 0.0000 wa 05652 0.0000 0.0698 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 ws 0.0536 0.3634 0.0092 0.0669 0,001. 0,0004 wo 000536 0.3634 0.0082 0.0669 0.0001 0,0004 wr 05494 0.3634 0.0671 0.0569 0.0004 0.0004 ws 05494-03634 0.0671 0.0669 0.0004 0.0004 wo 03600 02726 0.0414 0.0502 0.0002 0.0003, WI0 0.4641 0.2726 0.0593 040502 0.0003 0.0003 wii 03600-02726 0.0414 0.0502 0.0002 0.0003, Wi? 0.4641 0.2726 0.0593 0.0502 0.0003 0.0003 EL 24086 0.0000 0.3051 -0.0000 0.0018 0.0000 E2 24597 0.0000 0.3148 0.0000 0.0018 0.0000, 53 0.0481 0.9433 0.0085 0.1783 0.0000 0.0010 EA 0.0481 0.9433 0.0085 0.1783 0.0000 0.0010 NDI 0.0829 -0,0000 0.0082 -0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 ND2 0.0000 0.0310 0.0000 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 NEI 0.0238 0.0000 0.0011 -0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 NL2 0.0000 0.0085 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000, NRI 0.0142 -0.0000 0.0042 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NR? 0.0000 0.0062 0.0000 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000, 4th D 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Lb 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Sp 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, wh 0.6430 0.0000 0.1690 -0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 w2 0.0000 03953 0,000 0.1370 0.0000 0.0008, ws 0.4692 0.0000 0.1224 -0.00000.0008.—0.0000 wa 04953 0.0000 0.1312 0.0000 0.0008. «0.0000 ws 0.0444 0.2965 0.0148 0.1028 0.0001-—0.0006, Wo 0.0444 0.2965 0.0148 0.1028 0.0001_—0.0006 wi 04823 0.2965 0.1268 0.1028 0.0008 -—0.0006, we 04823 0.2965 0.1268 0.1028 0.0008 0.0006, wo 03186 0.2224 0.0807 0.0771 0,0005.-—0.0005, Wid 0.4048 0.2224 0.1095 0.0771 0.0007-—0.0005 WIL 0.3186 -0.2224 0.0807 0.0771 0,0005-—_0.000, WI2 04048 © 0.2224 0.1095 0.0771 0.0007-—_0.0005 El 2.0995 0.0000 0.6046 0.0000 0.0037 0.0000 ED 2.1450 0.0000 0.6215 0.0000 0.0038 0.0000 53 0.0396 0.7650 0.0147 0.2930 0.0001 0.0018 4 0.0396 0.7650 -0.0187 0.2930 0.0001 0.0018 NDI 0.0746 -0.0000 0.0183 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000, ND2 0.0000 0.0261 0.0000 0.0085 0.0000 0.0001 NLI 00226 -0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000RAM Frame v13.0 Page 3/6 MAN ssio aisc DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:20:50 Building Code: IBC ‘Steel Code: IBC Story Tac Displacement Story Drift Daft Ratio NZ 0.0000 0.0077 0.0000 0.0022 0.0000 0.0000 NRIL 0.0100 -0.0000 0.0038 -0.0000 0.0000 0,000 NR2 0.0000 0.0039 0.0000 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 3rd D 0.0000 0,000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 lp 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Sp 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, wi 04740 -0.0000 0.2516 -0.0000 0.0016 0.0000 w2 0.0000 0.2583 0,000 0.1314 0.0000 0.0008, w3 03468 -0.0000 0.1843 -0.0000 0.0011 0.0000 wa 0.3642 0.0000 0.1930 0.0000 0.0012. 0.0000 ws 0.0296 0.1937 0.0147 0.0985 0.0001 0.0006, We -0.0296 0.1937 0.0147 0.0985 0.0001 0.0006 wr 0.3555 0.1937 0.1887 0.0985 0.0012 0.0006 ws 0.3555 0.1937 0.1887 -0.0985 0.0012 0.0006 wo 02379 0.1453 0.1272 0.0739 0.0008 0.0005 WI0 02953 0.1453 0.1558 0.0739 a.0010 0.0005 Wil 02379 0.1453 01272 -0.0739 0.0008 0.0005, WI2 02953-01453 011558 -0.0739 0.0010 0.0005, EL 1.4949 -0.0000 0.8369 0.0000 0.0052 0.0000 2 1.5235 0.0000 0.8523 0,000 0.0083 0.0000, 3 00289 0.4720 0.0134 0.2595 0,001. 0.0016 EA 0.0249 0.4720 -0.0134 0.2595 0.0001 0.0016 NDI 0.0563 -0.0000 0.0294 -0.0000 0.0002. 0.0000 ND2 0.0000 0.0176 0.0000 0.0088. 0.0000 0.0001, NLL 0.0177 0.0000 0.0091 -0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 NL2 0.0000 0.0055 0.0000 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 NRL 0.0062 0.0000 0.0037 -0.0000 0000 0.0000 NR2 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0012 02.0000 0.0000 2nd D 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, Lp -0.0000 0.0000 -0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Sp 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 wi 02224 © -0.0000 0.2224 -0.0000 0.0014 0.0000 w2 0.0000 0.1270 0.0000 0.1270 0.0000 0.0008 w3 0.1625 -0.0000 0.1625 -0,0000 0.0010 0.0000 wa 0.1712 0.0000 0.1712 0.0000 0.0011 0.0000 ws 0.0149 0.0952 0.0149 0.0952 0.0001 0.0005 we 00149 0.0952 -0.0149 0.0952 0.0001 0.0006 wr 0.1668 0.0952 0.1668 0.0952. 0.0010 0.0006 ws 0.1668 -0.0952 0.1668 -0.0952 0.0010 0.0006 wo 0.1107 0.0714 0.1107 0.0714 0.0007 0.0008 WI0 0139500714 0.1395 0.0714 0.0009 0.0008 wil 01107-00714 0.1107 -0.0714 0.0007 0.0008 WI2 01395-00714 0.1395 -0.0714 0.0009 0.0008JAIN 2AM crane v3.0 Page 4/6 13810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:20:50 fixe) Building Code: IBC ‘Steel Code: IBC Story Tac Displacement ‘Story Drift Delft Ratio EL 0.6580 -0.0000 0.6580 -0,0000 0.0041 0.0000 2 0.6712 0.0000 0.6712 0.0000 0.0041 0.0000 3 001s 02125 B.0115 0.2125 0.0001 0.0013 E4 0.0115 02125-00115 0.2125 0.0001. 0.0013, NDI 0.0269 -0.0000 0.0269 -0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 ND2 0,000 0.0089 0.0000 0.0089 0.0000 0.0001, NU 0.0086 -0.0000 0.0086 -0.00000.0001._0.0000 NL2 0.0000 0.0029 0.0000 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 NRL 0.0025 0.0000 0.0025 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, NR2 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000, Location (0): (0.000, 60.000) Story Lac Story Drift Drift Ratio x y x Y in in Roof D 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 Ip 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 sp 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, wi 0.0895 0.0000 0.0005. 0.0000 w2 0.0000 0.0893 0.0000 0.0005 w3 0.0571 0.0048 0.0004 0,000, wa 0.0671 -0.0048 0.0004 0.0000 ws 0.0000 0.0508 0.0000 0.0003 wo (0.0000 0.0831 0.0000 0.0005 wr 0.0671 0.0669 0.0004 0.0004 ws 0.0671 -0.0669 0.0004 0.0004 wo 0.0503 0.0659 0.0003 0.0004 wi0 0.0503 0.0346 0.0003. 0.0002 wit 0.0503 -0.0346 0.0003 0.0002 wiz 0.0503 -0.0659 0.0003. 0.0004 El 03099 0.0085 0.0018 0.0000 E2 03099 0.0085 0.0018 0.0000 B 0.0000 0.1634 0.0000 0.0009 E 0.0000 0.1931 0.0000 0.0011 NDI 0.0082 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ND2 0.0000 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 NLI 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NL2 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 NR 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NR2 0.0000 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 th D -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Lp 0,000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 sp 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000RAM Frame 13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC Page 516, (02/19/09 08:20:50 E) Building Code: IBC ‘Steel Code: IBC Story Tac Displacement ‘Story Dat Drift Ratio Wi 0.6430 0.0000 0.1690 0.00% + 0.0010 0,000 wo 0.0000 0.3953 -0.0000 0.1370 0.0000 0.0008 ws 0.4823 0.0229 0.1268 0.0077 0.0008 0.0000, wa 0.4823 0.0229 0.1268 -0.0077 0.0008. 0.0000 ws -0.0000 0.2188 -0.0000 0.0758 0.0000 0.0005 Wo 0.0000 0.3742 0.0000 0.1287 0.0000 0.0008 wr 04823 0.2965 0.1268 0.1028 0.0008 0.0006 ws 04823 0.2965 0.1268 -0.1028 0.0008 0.0006 wo 03617 0.2978 0.0951 0.1023 0.0006 020006 WI0 03617 0.1469 0.0951 0.0518 0.0006 0.0008, wil 03617 0.1469 0.0951 0.0518 0.0006 0.0008, WI2 03617 0.2978 0.0951 0.1023 0.0006 0.0006 EL 21225 0.0402 0.6130 0187 0.0038 0.0001 ED 2.1225 0.0394 0.6130 0.0187 0.0038 0.0001 B 0.0000 0.6956 -0.0000 0.2673. 0.0000 0.0016 EA 0.0000 0.8343 0.0000 03187 0.0000 0.0020 NDI 0.0747 0.0000 0.0183 -0.0000 0.0001. 0.0000 ND2 0.0000 0.0261 0.0000 0.0085 0.0000 0.0001, NLI 0.0226 0.0000 0.0050 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NL2 0.0000 0.0077 -0,0000 0.0022 0.0000 0.0000 NR 0.0100 0.0000 0.0038 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NR2 — -0,0000 0.0039 0.0000 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 3rd D 0.0000 0,000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Lp 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0,000 0.0000, Sp -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, wi 04740 0.0000 02516 0.0000 0.0016 0.0000 w2 0.0000 0.2583 -0.0000 0.13:4 0,000 0.0008 w3 03555 0.0152 0.1887 0.0076 0.0012 0.0000 wa 03555-00152 0.1887 -0.0075 0.0012 0.0000 ws -0.0000 0.1420 -0.0000 0.0728 0.0000 0.0004 we 0.0000 0.2455 0.0000 0.1243 0.0000 0.0008 wi 3993011937 0.1887 0.0985 0.0012 0.0006 ws 03553 0.1937 0.1887 -0.0985 0.0012 0.0006 wo 02666 0.1955 0.1415 0.0989 0.0009 0.0006 WI0 02666. 0.0951 0.1415 0.0489 0.0009 0.0003 wil 02666 0.0951 0.1415 0.0489 0.0009 0.0003 WI2 0.2666 0.1955 0.1415 0.0989 0.0009 0.0006 EI 1.5094 0.0254 0.8446 0.0135 0.0052.-—_0.0001 B2 15094 0.0246 0.8446 0.0052 0.0001 3 0.0000 0.4284 0.0000 0.2340 0.0000 0.0015, 4 0.0000 0.5156 0.0000 0.2820 0.0000-—-0.0017 NDI 0.0563 0.0000 0.0294 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 NDZ -0.0000 0.0176 -0.0000 0.0088 0.0000 0.0001 NLL 00177 0.0000 0.0091 0.000 0.0001 0,000RAM Frame v13.0 Page 616 8810 AISC Dataase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:20:50 Building Code: IBC ‘Steet Coe: IBC Tac Displacement Story Dein Drift Ratio NL2 0.0000 0.0085 -0.0000 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 NRL 0.0062 0.0000 0.0037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000, NR2 0.0000 0.0020 -0.0000 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000, 2nd D -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 lb 0.0000 -0,0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Sp 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,000 wi 0.2224 0.0000 0.2224 0.0000 0.0014 0.0000 w2 0.0000 0.1270 0.0000 0.1270 0.0000 0.0008 ws 0.1668 0.0076 0.1668 0.0076 0.0010 0.0000 wa 0.1668 0.0076 0.1668 0.0076 0.0010 0.0000 ws 0.0000 0.0692 -0.0000 040692 0.0000 0.0004 we 0.0000 0.1212 0.0000 0.1212 0.0000 0.0007 wr 0.1668 0.0952 0.1668 0.0952 0.0010 0.0006 ws 0.1668 0.0952 0.1668 -0.0952 0.0010 0.0006 wo 0.1251 0.0966 0.1251 0.0966 0.0008. 0.0006 Wi0 0.1251 0.0462, 0.1251 0.0462 0.0008. 0.0008 WI 0.1251 -0.0462 0.1251 -0.0462 0.0008 0.0003 WI2 0.1251 -0.0966 0.1251 -0.0966 0.0008 0.0006 El 0.6648 0.0119 0.6648 0.0119 0.0081 0.0001 2 0.6648 0.0112 0.6548 | -0.0112 0.0081 0.0001 BB -0.0000 0.1924 -0.0000 0.1924 0.0000 0.0012 B4 0.0000 0.2326 0.0000 0.2326 0.0000 0014 NDI 0.0269 0.0000 0.0269 0.0000 0.0002. 0.0000 ND2_——-0.0000 0.0089 -0.0000 0.0089 0.0000 0.0001, NLL 0.0086 0.0000 0.0086 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 NL2 0.0000 0.0029 0.0000 0.0029 0.0000-0.0000 NRL 0.0025 0.0000 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NR2 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial 3 1" Members to be checkedBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Column in Braced Frame, #3, W12x53 — Controlling load combination D+0.75L-0.525E4 — Analysis results by load case D=168 kips 4-Story Commercial * Column in Braced Frame, #3, W12x53 = Sway amplification B,=1.07 Member amplification + No amplification since no moments = Member force P, = Py +0.15P, ~ B,(0.525P_4) P, =168+0.75(52.7)~1.07(0.525)(-146) = 290 kips 7Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial * Column in Braced Frame, #3, W12x53 — Determine member strength Kel L=135 ft 131 kips > 290 kips -W12x53 is adequate vane snnsoRAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:48 Building Code: IBC Steel Code: AISC360.05 ASD COLUMN INFORMATION: Story Level Frame Number = 3 Column Number = 3 Fy (ks) Column Size INPUT DESIGN PARAMETERS: XeAnls — YoAnis Lu(f) : Bs0 1350 Ko 7 1.00 1.00 ‘CONTROLLING COLUMN FORCES - SHEAR ‘Lond Combination: 1.000 D+ 0.700 £4 Shear Top Vinwjor (kip) 0.10 Veminor (kip) -0.00 Shear Bot. Vimgjr kip) ----. 0.10 Vminor (kip) 000 SHEAR CHECK: Vax (kip) = 0.10 Vnw/.S0 (ip) 8349 Vex/Vnw/150) = 0.001 Vay kip) = 0.00 Vny/L.67 (kip) = 20659 Vay/(Vny/i.67) = 0.000 CONTROLLING COLUMN FORCES - FLEXURE Load Combination: 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp - 0.525 E4 Axial [Load (kip) meee 289.00 Moment Top Major (kip) a 1.04 Minor (kip) == 0.00 ‘Moment Bot. Mijor (kip-t) an 0.00 Mininor(kp-) 0.00 CALCULATED PARAMETERS: Pa (kip) 289.00 Pril.67 (kip) 34172 Max (kip-) -1.04 MnwL.67 (kip-f) 19436 May (kip-8) 0.00 Mny/.67 (kip-) 72.60 Cox 060 Cmy = 060 Bix 100 Bly = 106 Bx 107 Bay = 100 Baxial = 106 @angle (degrees) = 90.00 Ox = 16 INTERACTION EQUATION: Pa(Pa/l.67)) 0.846 Bg HI-La: 0.846 + 8/9(0.005 + 0.000)Member Forces RAM Frame v13.0 l 8810 AISC ‘DataBase: 8810 AISC 022409 14:33:57 Building Code: TBC STEEL COLUMN INFORMATION: Column Number: 3 Frame Number: 3 Level Top: 2nd ‘Column Line (0.00.45.00) Bot: Base Fy (ksi) = 50,00 Column Size = W12X3 Elastic Modulus (ksi) = 29000.00 Orientation (deg) = 90.00 Length (A) = 13.50 INPUT PARAMETERS: ‘Top Bottom Frity Major Axis: Fix Pin Minor Axis: Fix Pin Torsion: Fix Fix Joint Face Dist (in) Major: 0.00 0.00 Minor. 0.00 0.00 Rigid End Zone in) Major: 0.00 0.00 (Ignore) Minor: 0.00 0.00 (ignore) ‘Member Force Output At Face of Joint P-Dekta No Ground Level: Base LOAD CASES: D DeadLoad RAMUSER Ip PosLiveLoad RAMUSER Sp PosRoofLiveLoad RAMUSER Wi Wind Wind TBCO6_1_X wr Wind Wind_1BC06_1_Y W3 Wind Wind_IBC06_2_X+E wa Wind Wind IBCO6_2_X-E ws Wind Wind IBC06_2_¥+E ws Wind Wind_IBCO6_2_Y-E wr Wind Wind_IBC05_3_X+¥ ws Wind Wind_IBC06_3_X-Y wo Wind Wind_IBC06_4_X+¥_CWw Wi0 Wind Wind IBC06_4_X+Y_CCW WIL Wind Wind TBC06_4_X-Y_CW wiz Wind ‘Wind_TBC06_4_X-Y_CCW EI E BQ_IBCO6_X_+EF BR E EQ IBCO6_X-EF B E EQ.IBO06_Y +E F 4 E 5Q_IBO06_Y_-EF NDI ON NL_AISC360_DL_X NDZ ON NL_AISC360_DL_Y MI ON NL_AISC360_LL_X M2 ON NL_AISC360_LL_YRAM Frame v13.0 Page 2/3 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC ox24i09 14:33:57 Building Code: IBC N NU_ABC30_REX N NL_AISC360_ REY Lac @ P Mmajor Mminor Vmajor—-Vminor Tors Kips kip-ft—_kip-ft ips Kips kip-ft D T 16849 0.00 000 = 0.00 -0.00 0.00 B 168.49 0.00 0.00 -0.00, 0.00 0.00 Lb T 5267 0.00 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0.00 B 5267 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 sp T 146 0.00 000 = 000 © 0.00 -0.00 Bo 14.66 0.00 000 = 000 © 000 -0.00 wi T 0.00 0.00 = 058 = -0.00 00s = 000 B 0.00 0.00 0.00 = -0.00 004 = 0.00 we T 6605 0.00 0.00 = 000-000 0.00 B -66.05 0.00 000 = 000-000 0.00 ws T 373-001-043 0.00 003 -0.00 Bo 373 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 wa T 323 ool == 043, -0.00 0.03 0.00 B 323 0.00 000 = -0.00 0.03, 0.00 ws T 36.89 0.05 0.00 = 0.00 -0.00 0.00 B 3689 0.00 0.00 = 0.00 -0.00 0.00 wo T6218 005 -0.00 0.00 000 = -0.00 B 62:18 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 © -0.00 wr T 494 0.00 © 043 -0.00 0.03 0.00 Bo 4954 0.00 0.00 -0.00, 0.03 0.00 ws T 4954 0.00 -043 0.00 003 = 000 Bo 4954 0.00 0.00 0.00 003 -0.00 wo T 4943-005 033 0.00 002 -0.00 Bo 4943 0.00 0.00 0.00 002 -0.00 wio T 2487 005 = 032 -0.00 0.02 0.00 Bo 2487 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 wil T 287 005-033 0.00 002 -0.00 Bo 2487 0.00 0.00 0.00 002 -0.00 wi T 4943 00s = 032 -0.00 0.02 0.00 Bo 4943 0.00 000-000, 0.02 0.00 EL T 680 00s = 279 -0.00 021-000 B 680 0.00 0.00 -0.00 021-000 2 T 679 0.09 2.79 oot 021 0.00 B 679 0.00 0.00 01 021 0.00 B3 T 12202 161-000 0.12 0.00 0.00 B -122.02 0.00 0000.12 0.00 0.00 7 T 145.71 185, 000-014 0.00 -0.00 Bo 145.71 0.00 000-014 0.00 0.00 NDI T 000-000 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bo 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 000 = -0.005 For RAM Frame v13.0 Page 39 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 0224909 14:33:57 Eisee) Building Code: IBC Tac @ P Mmajor —Miminor Vmajor Vinlnor Tors ND2 T 417-901 0.00 0.00 = -0.00 0.00 Bo 417-000 0.00 000 = -0.00 0.00 Nu T 0.00 000-002 0.00 000 = -0.00 B 000-000 0.00 0.00 000 -0.00 NL2 T 112-001 0.00 000 = -0.00 0.00 B 112 0.00 0.00 000 = 0.00 0.00 NR T 000 000 = 001 0.00 (0.00 0.00 B 0.00 0.00 000 = 0.00 0.00 -0.00, NR2 T 08s ool 000.00 0.00 0.00 Bo O88 0.00 000 = 9.00 0,00 0.00Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Brace in Braced Frame, #1, HSS 6x6x1/2 Controlling load combination D-0.7E4 — Analysis results by load case D=13.0 kips F4=-121 kips en Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Brace in Braced Frame, #1, HSS 6x6x1/2 — Sway amplification B, =1.05 Member amplification + No amplification since ne moments — Member force P= Fy 0.7 Py P, =13.0-1.05(0.7)(-121) = 102 kips aBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Brace in Braced Frame, #1, HSS 6x6x1/2 = Determine member strength Kel L=20.18 8 Fo-121 kips >102 kips f= 121 kip ps — HSS 6x6x1/2 is adequate a 5iw Member Code Check N RAM Frame v1.0 l N eae DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:48 Building Code: IBC Steel Code: A1SC360.05 ASD BRACE INFORMATION: StoryLevel = 2rd Frame Number = 3 Brace Number = 1 Fy (ksi) = 46.00 Brace Size = HSS6X6X1/2 INPUT DESIGN PARAMETERS: XAxis -Y-Axis Lat - : 20.18 20.18 K oe 1.00 1.00 CONTROLLING BRACE FORCES - SHEAR Load Combination: 1.000 D + 1.000 NDI Shear Top Vnajor (kip) 0.00 Vininor (kip) 0.00 Shear Bot. Vimgjor (kip) 0.00 Veninor (kip) 0.00 SHEAR CHECK: ‘Vax (kip) 0.00 Vnw/1.67 (kip) 92.22 Van(Vaw.67) = 0,000 Vay (kip) 0.00 Vny/.67 (kip) CONTROLLING BRACE FORCES - FLEXURE, ‘Load Combination: 1.000 D - 0.700 FA 92.22 Vayl(Vay/l.67) = 0.000 Axial Load (kip) 101.95 Moment Top Major (kip-t) 0.00 Maminr (kip-8) 0.00 ‘Moment Bot. Mmajor (kip-8) <= 0--- 0.00 Maminor (kip-t) . 0.00 CALCULATED PARAMETERS: Pa (kip) 10195 Pa/1.67 (kip) 121.09 Max (kip-t) 0.00 Mnw/l.67 (kip-t) 45.43 May (kip-ft) = 0.00 Mny/l.67 kip.) = 45.45, cm = 100 Cmy 1.00 Bix 295 Bly = 295 Box 105 Bay 1.00 Baxial = 105 @angle (degrees) -90.00 Cox 1.00 INTERACTION EQUATION: Pal(Pa/1.67)) 0.842 Bq Hi-1a: 0.842 + 8/5(0.000 + 0.000) = 0.842RAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC orang 14:33:57 Building Code: 1BC STEEL BRACE INFORMATION: ‘Brace Namber: 1 Frame Number: 3 Story Top: ad [End (): (0.00 60.00) Bot: Base 1-End (A): (0.00,45.00) Fy (ks) = 46.00 Brace Size = HSSOX6X1/2 Length (8) = 20.18, Blastic Modus INPUT PARAMETERS: Top Bottom Fixty Major Aus Pin Pin Minor Axis: Pin Pia Torsion: Pin Pin Merer Force Output At Centerne of Joint P.Detta No Ground Level: Base D DeadLoad Ip PosLiveload Sp PosRoofliveLoad Wi Wind w2 Wind w3 Wind ws Wind ws Wind Wo Wind wr Wind we Wind wo Wind wi0 Wind Wil Wind Wind_IBCO6_4_X-¥_¢ Wi2 Wind ‘Wind IBC06_4_X-¥_CCW EL E EQ_1BC06_X_4E_F E2 E EQ_IBCO6_X_E_F 3. E EQ_IBCO6_Y_+E_F 4 E EQ IBCO6_Y_E_F NDI ON NL_AISC360_DI_X ND. ON NL_AISC360_DL_Y NON NL_AISC360_LL_X NON NL_AISC360_LL_Y NRI oN NL_AISC360_ROX NR2 ON NL_AISC360_RLYRAM Frame vi3.0 Page 2/3 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 022409 14:33:57 Building Code: IBC MEMBER FORCES: Lac @ P Major = Mminor — Vmajor —-Vminor Tors Kips kip-ft pf ips Kips kip-ft D T 1297 000 = 000 = 0000.00 -0.00 B 1297-000 000 = 0000.00 -0.00 Ip T 616 000 = 000 000-0. 000 B 616-000 000 = 0.00 = 0.00 -0.00 Sp T 0.09 000 = 000 © 000 0.00 -0.00 B 009 -0.00, 000 © 0.00 0.00 © -0.00 wi T 0.00 000 = 000 -0.00 0.00 = -0.00 B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 w2 T 65.76 0.00 = 000 © -0.00 000 Bo 6576 = 0.00 0.00 -0.00 000 ws T 395 0.00 000-000 -0.00 Bo -395 0.00 0.00 -0.00, -0.00 wa T 3.95 000. -0.00 0.00 -0.00 B 395 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ws T 35.285 000 = 000-000 -0.00 Bo 3585-000 000 = 0.00 -0.00 we T 6279 000-000 -0.00 0.00 B 6279 = 0.00 000 = -0.00 0.00 wr T 4932 0.00 000 -0.00 0.00 Bo 4932-000 0.00 © -0.00, 0.00 ws T 4932 0.00 -0.00, 0.00 0.00 Bo 4932-000 0.00 0.00 -0.00 wo T 50.06 000 = 0.00 = -0.00 -0.00 B 5006 = -0.00 0.00 -0.00, -0.00 wio T 2392 000 = 000 = -0.00 -0.00 B 2392-000 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 wil T 2392 0.00 0.00 -0.00 Bo 239 0.00 0.00 -0.00 wiz T 50.06 0.00 0.00 -0.00 B 5006 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL T 617 0.00 000 0.00 B 6.17 000 -0.00 0.00 2 T 578 0.00 0.00 0.00 B 578 0.00 0.00 0.00 B3 T 9965 000-000 0.00 B 99.65 0.00 -0.00, 0.00 B T -12049 0.00 -0.00 0.00 B -12049 000 © -0.00 0.00 NDI T 002 000 -0.00, -0.00 Bo 902 000 = -0.00 -0.00 ND2 T 4.60 0.00 0.00 -0.00 BO 460 000-000 -0.00 Nu T 901 000 © 0.00 0.00Member Forces RAM Frame v13.0 Page 33 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 022409 14:33:57 Building Code: IBC Tac @ P_Mmajor —Mminor — Vmajor Vmiinor Tors Bo 0010.00 000 = -0.00 0.00 -0.00, Na T4149 000-000 © -0.00 0.00 -0.00 B 0.00 0.00 -0.00, 0.00 = -0.00 NRI T 0.00 000 © -0.00 0.00 -0.00 B -0.00 0.00 -0.00, 0.00 -0.00 NR2 T 000 = 0.00 -0.00 000 -0.00 B -0.00 000 -0.09, 0.00 = -0.00Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 — Controlling load combination D-0.7E2 — Analysis results by load case D P=226kips M, =3.75 ftkips _M, =-1.86 f-kips £2 P=Okips —M, =-105 ft-kips -M, =216 ft-kips Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 ~ Sway amplification B,=1.19 —Member amplification c,=08-04[ 386) 040 AP, =1.6(226 +0) =362 kips = F29,00031,110) _ Gasca 1210S vm nnn zBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial * Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 ~Member amplification =1.030.4)=041<1.0 P= Pa-R,(0.7Pe2) P, =226-1.19(0.7(0) = 226 kips ne Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 —Member moment M, = BMp~B,(0.7Mz2) M, =1.0(-1.86)-1.19(0.7)(216) = -182 ft-kips = Determine member strength K=10, L=13.5 ft, (eedBuilding Example 2 4-Story Commercial Column in Moment Frame, #11, W14x99 ~ Determine member strength Me = 430 ft-kips 1,=135f, ~ Interaction S(T) 030-038-0681 0 759" 9430 = W14x99 is adequateRAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 Fis) Building Code: IBC Steel Code: AISC360.05 ASD ‘COLUMN INFORMATION: Story Level Frame Number = 2 Column Number = 11 Fy (ks) Column Size INPUT DESIGN PARAMETERS: XAxie — Y-Axis Lu (ft)... ete 1350 13.50 K i ce 1.00 1.00 CONTROLLING COLUMN FORCES -SHEAR ‘Load Combination: 1.000 D - 0.700 E2 Shear Top Viajor (kip) “1842 Vininor (kip) 0.03 Shear Bot. Vmajor (kip) “18.42 ‘Viinor (kip) 0.03 SHEAR CHECK: Vax (kip) = -1842 — Vaw.S0 (kip) 137.74 Vaw/(Vnv/1.50) Vay (kip) 0.03 _-Vny/l.67 (kip) CONTROLLING COLUMN FORCES - FLEXURE. Load Combination: 1.000 D - 0.700 E2 409.15 Vay/(Vay/i.67) Axial ‘Load (kip) -.------- 7 225.84 Moment Top an 91.49 Minor (kip-f) -0.06 Moment Bot. Major (kip-f}) 182.88 Maminor(kip-f) 033 ‘CALCULATED PARAMETERS: a (kip) = 22584 Pr/.67 (kip) = 758.26 Max (kip-A) 182.88 | Mnw/1.67 (kip-Q) 2945 May (kip-t) 033 Mny/l.67 (kip-f) = 207.02 Cox 040 Cay 052 Bix 1.00 Bly = 1.00 Box 119 Bay 00 Baxial 119 @angle (degrees) 0.00 hx 27 INTERACTION EQUATION: Pal(Pa/i.67)) = 0.298 Bq Hi-La: 0.298 + $/9(0.426 + 0.002)| RAM Frame v13.0 810 alse DataBase: 8810 AISC vanans 14:33:57 Bling Code: IBC Frame Number: 2 Level Top: 2nd ‘Column Line (60.00,0.00) Bot: Base Fy (ksi) = 50.00 Column Size = W14x99 Elastic Modulus (ksi) = 29000.00 Orientation (deg) = 0.00 Length (8) INPUT PARAMETERS: ‘Top Bottom Fiity Major Axis: Fix Fix Minor Axis: Fix Fix Torsin: Fix Fax Joint Face Dist (a) Major: 11.80 0.00 Minor 0.00 0.00 Rigid End Zone lin): Major: 0.00 (0.00 dgnore) Minor: 0.00 0.00 (gnore) ‘Member Force Output: At Face of Joint P-Delta: No Ground Level: Base LOAD casi D DeadLoad RAMUSER Ip PosLiveLoad RAMUSER Sp Poskoofl.iveLoad RAMUSER wi Wind ‘Wind_IBC06_1_x we Wind ws Wind wa Wind Wind 1BC06_2_X-E ws Wind Wind_1BC06_2_Y+E Wo Win Wind_1BC06_2_Y-E wr Wine Wind 1BC06_3_X+Y we Wine ‘Wind_IBC06_3_X-Y wo Wine Wind IBC06_4_X+Y_CW Wi0 Wind Wind IBC06_4_X+Y_CCW Wil Wind wid Wind EL E 2 E B E EQ_IBO06_Y_+E_F Fs E EQ IBC06_Y_EF NDI ON NL_AISC360_DL_X ND2 ON NL_AISC360_DL_Y NLL ON NL_AISC360_LL_X NON NL_AISC360_LL_Y8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 0224/09 14:33:57 Building Code: IBC NRT NL_AISC360_REX NR2 ON NL_AISC360_ RLY | ! RAM Fame vI3.0 Page 27 Lac @ Pp ‘Vininor ips ips D T 2588 0.00 B 2588 0.00 Lp T ese 0.00 B 6834 0.00 Sp T 1847 0.00 B I8a7 0.00 wi T 02 0.00 B 0.02 -0.00 we T 0.00 121 B 0.00 121 wa T 0.01 0.03 B oo 0.03 wa T 0.01 -0.03 B 001 -0.03 ws T 0.00 0.80 B 0.00 0.80 wo T ~~ 0.00 1.02 B 0.00 102 wr T 0.01 ost B 0.01 091 ws T oor 091 B 01 091 wo T 01 079 B 0.01 0.79 wio T 0.01 ost B 0.01 0st wi T oot 037 B 0.01 057 win T oot 0.79 B oo1 0.79 EI T 0.05 0.05 B 0.05 0.05 2 T 0.06 004 B 0.06 2567-004 B T 0.00 046 176 B 0.00 046 176 FA T 0.00 0.46 191 B 0.00 0.46 191 NDI T 0.00 1.07 0.00 B 0.00 107 0.00RAM Frame v13.0 MAN ssio aise DataBase: 8810 AISC Exact Building Code: IBC Page 3/3 0224/09 14:33:57 Tac ND? NLI NL NRI NR? weeded esse P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mmajor — Miminor 0.00 0.00 “149 285 -0.00 0.00 0.36 0.80 000 0.00 0.25 091 -0.00 0.00 0.09 030 0:00 0.00 00 0.07 Vinajor 0.00 0.00 02s 035 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 Vininor 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 001 01Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Beam in Moment Frame, #69, W24x55 Controlling load combination D+0.75L +0.525E2 — Analysis results by load case Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Beam in Moment Frame, #69, W24x55 ~ Sway amplification B, =1.26 —Member amplification + No amplification since no axial load —Member moment M, =B(M, +0.75L)++B, (0.525M,,) 0(-139 + 0.75(-83.8)) +1.26(0.525(~133)) =-290 ft-kips a 2Building Example 2 4-Story Commercial + Beam in Moment Frame, #69, W24x55 Member strength 334 teks <290 fips ~W24x55 is adequate QD a mec noesRAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 02/19/09 08:23:44 Building Code: IBC Steel Code: AISC360-05 ASD BEAM INFORMATIO? SwryLevel = 2nd Frame Number = 2 Beam Number = 69 Fy (ksi) = 50.00 Beam Size = W24X55 INPUT DESIGN PARAMETERS: X-axis Y-Axis La for Axial (A)... 30.00 10.00 Lu for Bending (A) - 7 30.00 10.00 ice 1.00 1.00 ‘Top Flange Continuously Braced Yes Bottom Flange Continuously Braced -...-- No CONTROLLING BEAM SEGMENT FORCES - SHEAR Load Combination: 1.000 D + 0.750 Lp + 0.525 F2 Segment distance (ft) i- end... 20.00 jeend - 30.00 SHEAR CHECK: Vex (kip) = -39.21—Vnw/1.67 (kip) 16746 Vau(Vnw.67) Vay (kip) 0.00 Vny/.67 (kip) 12719 Vayl(Vay/i.67) CONTROLLING BEAM SEGMENT FORCES - FLEXURE Lead Combinat Segment distance (ft) i end a 20.00 Jrend ee 7 30.00 (CALCULATED PARAMETERS: Pa (kip) = 000 Pwil.67 (kip) = = 264.14 Max (kip-) 289.58 Mnv/.67 (kip-8) 334.33 May (kip-) 0.00 Mny/1.67 (kip-8) 3313, Bk 1.00 Bly 1.00 Bax = 126 Bay 1.00 Baxial 1.26 @angle (degrees) 0.00 Cx = 210 INTERACTION EQUATIO’ PalPa/l.67) = 0.000 EqHI-Ib: 0.000 + 0.866 + 0.000 = 0.866RAM Frame v13.0 8810 AISC ‘DataBase: 8810 AISC 0224/09 14:33:57 Building Code: IBC STEEL BEAM INFORMATION: Beam Number: 69 Frame Number: 2 Level: 2nd End (150.00,0.00) J-End (180.00,0.00) Fy (ks) = $0.00 Beam Size = W24X55 Length (ft) = 30.00 Elastic Modulus (ksi) INPUT PARAMETERS: End J-End Fixity Major Axis: Fix Fix Minor Axis: Fix Fix Torsion: Fix Fix Rigid End Zone (a) 0.00 0.00 (Ignore) “Member Force Output: AL Face of Joint P-Detta: No Ground Level: Base LOAD CASI D DeadLoad RAMUSER Ip PosLiveLoad RAMUSER Sp PosRoofLiveLoad RAMUSER Wi Wind Wind_IBCO6_1_X w2 Wind Wind IBC06_1"Y w3 Wind Wind TBC06_2_X+E wa Wind ws Wind wo Wind Wind 1BC06_2_Y-E wi Wind Wind 1BC06_3_X+Y ws Wind ‘Wind IBC06_3_X-Y wo Wind ‘Wind IBC06_4_X+¥_CW wi0 Wind ‘Wind IBC06_4_X+Y_CCW Wil Wind Wind 1BC06 4X. wi Wind Wind IBCO6_4_X-¥_« EL E EQ IBCO6_X_+EF 2 E EQ_IBCO6_X_E_F BB E EQ_IBOO6_Y_+E_F rm E EQ_IBCO6_Y_-E_F NDI ON NL_AISC360_DL_X NDD ON NL_AISC360_DL_Y NLL ON NL_AISC360_LL_X N200N NL_AISC360_LL_Y NRI ON NL_AISC360_REX NR2 ON NL_AISC360_REYRAM Frame v13.0 Page 213 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC on2si09 14:33:57 ‘Building Code: IBC MEMBER FORCES: Tac @ P Mmajor Kips kip-ft D i 0000-13633 i 0.00 -139.07 lp 1 0.00 82.09 j 9.00 83.76 Sp i 0.00 -0.04 i 0.00 0.07 wi i 0.00 41.67 ij 000 41.77 we i 0.00 0.00 i 000 © -0.00 w3 i000 3050 j 000 ©3057 wa i 000 3201 i 0.00 32.08 ws i 0.00 257 i 000-258 wo i 000-257 i 0.00 238 wr i 000 3125 i 0.00 31.32 ws i 000 31.25 j 0.003132 wo i 0.00 20.94 i 0.00 -2099 wi i 000-2593 j 000-2599 wil i 000 20.94 ij 000 20.99 wi i 000 2593 i 0.00 25.99 EL i 000 130.20 j 000 -13051 2 i 0.00 132.65 i 0.00 -132.96 BB i 0.00 213 i 000-24 rs i 000-23 i 0.00 24 NDI i 0.00 497 i 000-498 ND2 i 0.00 0.00 i 000 = -0.00 NLI i 0.00 Ls7RAM Frame v13.0 Page 3/3 8810 AISC DataBase: 8810 AISC 0224/09 14:33:57 Building Code: IBC Tac e P__Mmajor —Mminor —Vmajor _Vainor Tors i 000-157 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 NL2 i 0.00 0.00 000 = 000.00 -0.00 i 000 = 0000.00 000 = 0.00 -0.00 NRL 1 200 033 ow 804 voy 0.00 j 000-053 0.00 -0.04 0.00 0.00 NR2 i 0.00 0.00 0.00 = 000 = 0.00 -0.00 i 000 = 0.00 0.00 0000.00 0.00STABILITY AND ANALYSIS PROVISIONS OF THE 2005 AISC SPECIFICATION R. SHANKAR NAIR "RShanlar alr R, Shankar Nair, Ph.D.,P-E., S.E. isa principal and senior vice president of Teng & Associates, In. in Chicago.’ In a career that has focused on structural design of large architectural and civil ‘engineering projects, he has developed the structural concepts for numerous tall buildings and ‘major bridges, including the longest tied arch in the world and a 1047-ft all building now under construction in Chicago. His work has received many awards, including four AISC/NSBA. “Prize Bridge” awards and six Structural Engineers Association of Illinois “Most Innovative ‘Structure” awards. He has served as chairman of the Ccuncil on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and is, at present, a member of the AISC Specification Committee and chairman of its Stability Task Committee. He is a winner of AISC’s “Lifetime Achievement Award” and a ‘member of the National Academy of Engineering, ABSTRACT The provisions regarding analysis and, especially, stability ithe 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Stee! Buildings represent a significant departure from earlier editions. The changes Were intended to reflect the current state of knowledge and aso to make the specification more ‘transparent tothe user. The new provisions spell out the general safety- and rliability-based requirements that must be satisfied by all structural designs, giving designers the freedom to selector devise their own methods of analysis and design within these constrains, and also provide “prescriptive” methods fr those who prefer that approach, ‘This paper discusses the logical bass of the new Specification requirements for stability and ‘outlines the three alternative prescriptive methods that are specified, The most versatile and Powerful of these methods is the Direct Analysis Method. An Appendix to this paper offers @ ‘model specification reformulated around the Direct Analysis Method alone, making it easier to Understand and use. This represents the direction in which tke AISC Specification appears to be evolving; the stability section ofthe next edition is ikely to resemble this model specification,INTRODUCTION In today’s engineering practice, there is no such thing a8 « “normal” or “standard” structural analysis: Advanced analysis methods that were regarded as research tools a few years ago have entered some desig offices while other practices are sill using the same (except bigger and faster) analysis tools they had a generation ago. This is especially true inthe area of stability, where direct, rigorous second-order analysis is routine in some practices but notin others. This range in analysis options is especially important in the area of stability because of the close interetationship between stability design and analysis. ‘Tie provisions regarding analysis and, especially, stably In the 2005 AISC Specification Jor Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2008) represent a significant departure from earlier ‘ditions. The new specification recognizes the wide range of analyses in common wse. It spells ut the general safty~ and reliability-based requirements that must be satisfied by all suctural design, giving designers the freedom to select or devise their own methods of analysis and design within these constraints, and also provides “prescriptive” methods for those (possibly a larg majority of designers) who prefer that approach “This paper discusses the logical bass of the new specification requirements fr stability, and outlines the thee allemative prescriptive methods that are specified. The most versatile and Powerful ofthese methods isthe Direct Analysis Method. An appendix this paper offers a ‘model specification reformulated around the Diret Analysis Method alone, making it easier 10 understand and use. This represents the direction in which the AISC Specification appears tobe evolving; the stability section ofthe next edition i likly to resemble this model specification (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ‘The chapter ofthe Specification on Design Requirements (Chapter B) specifies that the design of structural components must be consistent with the assumptions made in the structural analysis used to determine the required strengths of the components. There are no other constraints on the method of analysis, ‘The chapter on Stability Analysis and Design (Chapter C) specifies thatthe d structure for stability must consider all ofthe following: ‘Flexural, shear and axial deformations of members. ‘+ Allother component and connection deformations that contibute t displacements of the structure ‘Pol effects, which are the effects of loads acting on the displaced location of points of intersection of members in the structure. (In typical building structures, this is the effect of loads acting onthe laterally displaced location of floors and roofs.) ‘+ P26 effects, which are the effects of loads acting on the deformed shape of individual members. Geometric imperfection, such as inital out-of-plumbness. ‘The reduction in member stiffness due to inelastcty (including residual stress effects) and, in particular, the effet of this stiffness reduction on the stability ofthe structure, of the Page20f 12When the required strengths of members have been determined from an analysis that ‘considers all the above effects, the members can be designed using the provisions for design of individual members (provided in Chapters D, E, F, G, H and I). ‘The Specification states explicitly that any method of analysis and design that considers all the specified effects is permissible, and then presents certain specific approaches that account for the last four ofthe listed effects (P-A effects, P- effects, geometric imperfections, inclastcity). DIRECT ANALYSIS METHOD The most generally-applicable method of accounting for P-A and P-8 effects, geometric imperfections and inelasticity isthe “Direct Analysis Method” (presented in Appendix 7 of the Specification). I is applicable to all types of structural systems; the provisions of the Direct “Analysis Method do not distinguish between braced frames, momen-resisting frames, shear wall, systems, and combinations ofthese and other structure types. Inthe Direct Analysis Method: ‘+ P-A and P-5 effects are accounted for through second-order analysis (either explicit second= ‘order analysis or second-order analysis by amplified first-order analysis, for which a procedure is presented inthe Specification) ‘+ Geometric imperfections are accounted for either by direct inclusion of imperfections in the analysis model or by the application of “notional loads” (which are a proportion of the gravity load, applied laterally), ‘+ Stifiness reductions due to inelasticity are accounted for by recueing the flexural and axial slifnesses of members by specified amounts or, atthe designer's option, by a combination of| reduced member stiffness and additional notional loads, ‘When the required strengths of members have been determined ‘tom an analysis conforming to the above requirements, individual members can be designed using an effective length factor ‘of unity in calculating the nominal strengths of members subject to compression, ‘The Specification provides enough direction to allow application of the Direct Analysis ‘Method in “cook book” fashion. But it also lays out the logial basis fr the provisions in a way that offers designers the option of tailoring the method to particular situations. For instance, itis spelled out that the specified 0.002 notional load coefficient to account for geometric imperfections is based on a maximum intial story out-of-plumbness ratio of 1/500; a diferent notional load can be used if the known or anticipated outf.plumbness is different; the imperfections can even be modeled explicitly instead of applying notional loads. In time, if not immediately, the Direct Analysis Method will dmost certainly become the “standard” method of stability design of stel building structures. INDIRECT METHODS For strctures in which second-order effects are not very large (where the rato of second-order Ari to first-order drift is below a specified threshold), the Specficaton offers two alternatives to the Direct Analysis Method, Page of 2Effective Length Method. In this method, the structure is analyzed using the nominal geometry and nominal elastic stiffness of all members; required member strengths are determined from a second-order analysis (either explicit second-order analysis or second-order analysis by amplified first-order analysis); all gravity-only load combinations include a minimum lateral load at each frame level of 0.007 of the gravity load applied at that level. Effective length factors (K) or buckling stresses for calculating the nominal strengths of compression members must be determined from a sidesway buckling analysis, except that K=1 may be used for braced frames ‘or where the ratio of second-order drift to first-order drift is less than 1.1 First-Order Analysis Method. This method is applicable only when the required compressive strength is less than half the yield strength in all members whose flexural stiffnesses are considered to contribute to the lateral stability of the structure. In this method, the structure is analyzed using the nominal geometry and nominal elastic stiffness of all members; required ‘member strengths are determined from a first-order analysis; all load combinations include an addtional lateral load at each frame level of a magnitude based on the gravity load applied at that level and the lateral stifress of the structure. The nominal strengths of compression members may be determined assuming K=1; beam-column moments must be adjusted (using a formula that is provided) to aceount for non-sway amplification, ‘Direct [Enea | Fora ‘Analysis | Length | “Analysis ‘Mathod_| Method | _‘Wetnod “pendix? | — Sexton | —Sachon Caz | Caan te Yer Yer ‘Sean | Seca | FRO ‘Order _| “Grider Reduced | Nominal | — Nerina elses | G1geq | eleen Yor Yer | ational ira oad Saeeway [Rt ‘bong sao TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OPTIONS ‘The alternative analysis methods and corresponding stability design requirements in the AISC Specification are summarized in Table 1. METHODS OF SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS ‘As noted inthe discussion of altemative analysis-design approaches, the Direct Analysis Method ‘and one of the two indirect methods require a second-order analysis of the structure. The second-order analysis ean take the form of an explicit second-order analysis that includes both P- Page 4 of 12A and P-5 effects, Alternatively, the second-order analysis can consist of amplified first-order analysis, for which a detailed procedure is provided in the Specification. (This is the “B1-B2” ‘procedure familiar to designers from previous editions ofthe Specification.) Since stability is an inherently nonlinear phenomenon, it is essential that all second-order ‘analyses be carried out atthe LRFD load Jevel. To obtain the proper level of reliability when ASD is used, the analysis must be conducted under 1.6 times the ASD load combinations and the results must then be divided by 1.6 to obtain the forces and moments for member design by ASD. (The 1,6 load multiplier must also be used, in ASD, when checking the ratio of second= order drift to first-order drift, as required under certain provisions.) SOURCE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ‘This outline of the analysis provisions in the 2005 AISC Specification is intended primarily as an introduction to these provisions and 10 show the logical progression of the provisions trom ‘general requirements applicable to all structures to specific procedures that designers may choose to use for the design of typical structures. More information on the rational basis of the new ‘Specification provisions ean be found in the Commentary to the Specification and the references, listed therein FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS ‘The most versatile and powerful ofthe thre altemative methods of stability analysis and design in the 2005 AISC Speciation isthe Direct Analysis Method. An appendix to this paper offers ‘model specfiation reformulated around the Direct Analysis Method alone, making it easier 9 understand and use. This represents the direction in which the AISC Specification appears to be evolving; the stability section of the next eition is ikely to resemble this model specification, A second appendix explains the substantive differences between this model specification and the present AISC Specification. REFERENCE AISC (2005), Specification for Structural Stee! Buildings, ANSVAISC 360-05, American Institute of Sel Construction, Inc., Chicago Page SofAPPENDIX ‘SPECIFICATION FOR STABILITY DESIGN BY DIRECT ANALYSIS ‘As discussed in the paper to which this is an appendix, the 2005 AISC Specifteation for Siructural Steet Buildings (AISC, 2005) offers three alternatives for the design of structures for stability. The main body of the Specification, in Chapter C, prescribes two methods: the Effective Length Method in Section C2.2a and the First-Order Analysis Method in Section €2.2b. Appendix 7 presents the Direct Analysis Method. ‘The Effective Length and First-Order Analysis Methods are of limited applicability; the Direct Analysis Method is applicable to all structures. Of the three methods, the Effective Length Method will be most familiar to users of previous editions of the Specification and that is why it was placed in the main body of the curent edition, ‘The Direct Analysis Method (nov in an Appendix) is, Bowever, the most powerful and versatile of the available methods and, as noted, i is applicable to all structures, unlike the other approaches. There is litle doubt that in time the Direct Analysis Method will become the “standard” method of design for stability. In this appendix, the stability provisions ofthe 2005 AISC Specification are rewritten around the Direct Analysis Method. The material is presented in the language and format of the AISC Specification, including “User Notes” and the italicizing of terms listed in the glossary. The focus on a single method has offered the opportunity to expand some of the provisions beyond ‘What is in the current Specification, both to improve clarity and to address issues that have arisen from use of the document. Where this involved substantive changes, they are explained in a second appendix. ‘What follows is not an approved AISC specification. In the author's judgment, however, a design that conformed tothe following “model” specification would also conform to the stability provisions of the 2005 AISC Specificarion (AISC, 2005). This reformulation represents the direction in which the AISC Specification appears to be evolving. The stability section (Currently Chapter C) of the next edition is likely to resemble this madel specification, except that it will almost certainly pernit variations of today’s Effective Length and First Order ‘Analysis Methods as alternate approsches, specified in appendices. STABILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ‘This specification addresses requirements for the analysis and design of structures for stability. It is organized as follows: 1. General Stability Requirements 2. Calculation of Required Strengths 3. Design of Components Page Gof 12. GENERAL STABILITY REQUIREMENTS Stability shall be provided for the structure as a whole and for each of is elements. The effects of all of the following on the stability of the structure and its elements shall be ‘considered: (1) flexural, shear and axial member deformations, and all other component ‘and connection deformations that contribute to displacements of the structure; (2) second- order effect (including P-A and P-® effects) caleulated at a level of loading corresponding to LRFD load combinations or 1.6 times ASD load combinations; (3) geometric imperfections; and (4) sifness reductions due to inelatciy, Any rational method of analysis and design that considers all of the listed effects is permitted. Calculation of required strengths in accordance with Section 2 and design of ‘components in accordance with Section 3 is permitted for al structures CALCULATION OF REQUIRED STRENGTHS. ‘The required strengths of components of the structure shall be determined from an analysis conforming to Section 2.1. The analysis sha include consideration of intial imperfections in accordance with Section 2.2 and adjustments to stiffness in accordance with Section 2.3 Method of Analysis ‘The analysis ofthe structure shall conform tothe following requirements: (1) The analysis shall be an elastic second-order analysis that considers both P-A and P- Beffects, except as provided in (2), below. 2) Methods of analysis that neglect the effects of P-8 on nodal displacements in the Structure are permitted where the axial loads satisfy Equation 2-1 in all members ‘whose flexural stffhesses are considered to contribute to the stability of the structure, aP,<0.15P a, ey required axial compre combinations, kips (N) a= Buler buckling load, "£7, evaluated in he plane of tending, kips (N) strength under LRFD or ASD load and @=1.0(LRFD) a=1.6 (ASD) Page 7 of 12G) The analysis shall consider flexural, shear and axial member deformations, and all, other component and connection deformations that contribute to displacements of the structure. The analysis shall use reduced stiffnesses for all components whose stiffness are considered to contribute tothe stability of the structure, as specified in Section 2.3. (®) For design by LRFD, the second-order analysis shall be caried out undet LRFD load ‘combinations. For design by ASD, the second-order analysis shall be carried out under 1.6 times the ASD load combinations, and the results shall be divided by 1.6 10 ‘obtain the required strengths of components. 22. Consideration of Initial Imperfections ‘The effect of initial imperfections on the stability of the structure shall be taken into account either by direct modeling of imperfections in the analysis as specified in Section 2.2a or by the application of norional loads as specified in Section 2.2. 2.2a, Direct Modeling of Imperfections In all cases, itis permissible to account for the effect of initial imperfections by including the imperfections in the analysis, The structure shall be analyzed with points of intersection of members displaced from their nominal locations by the maximum amount ‘considered inthe design. The patter of initial displacements shall be such that it provides the greatest destabilizing effect. In the analysis of structures to which Sections 2.2b and 2.2b(4) are applicable, subject to load combinations that would require no application of notional loads under Section 2.26(4), itis permissible to neglect the effec of initial imperfections. 2.2b. Use of Notional Loads to Represent Imperfections For building structures that support gravity loads primarily through nominally-vertcal columns, walls or frames, it is permissible to use notional loads to represent the effect of imperfections in accordance with the requirements of ths section. Page Bot 12@ @ ® Notional loads shall be applied as lateral loads at all levels, independently in two orthogonal directions. ‘The notional loads shall be additive o other lateral loads and shall be applied in all foad combinations, except a indicated in (4), below. The ‘magnitude ofthe notional loads shall be: N= 0.0027; 2) where 1N; = notional load applied at level i, kips (N) Y¥%; = gravity load from the LRFD load combination ot 1.6 times the ASD load combination applied at level i, kips (N) ‘The notional load at any level, Nj, shall be distributed over the level in the same ‘manner as the gravity load at that level. The notional loads shall be applied independently in opposite directions. ‘The notional load coefficient of 0.002 in Equation 2-2 is based on a nominal inital story out-of-plumbness ratio of 1/500. Where the use of a diferent maximum out-of- plumbness is justified, it is permissible to adjust the notional load coefficient ‘proportionally For frames in which the ratio of maximum second-order drift to maximum first-order dri (both determined for LRFD load combinations or 1.6 times ASD load ‘combinations in all stories is equal to or less than 1.7, it is permissible to apply the notional load, Ni, as a minimum lateral load (such that the total lateral load in any load combination at any level isnot less than 7) and not in combination with other lateral loads. The specified dri ratio threshold of 1.7 is based on analyses using stifnesses adjusted as indicated in Section 2.3. If the drift ratio ig determined from analyses using nominal, unreduced stiffnesses, the drift ratio threshold for applying the notional loads as minimum lateral loads shall be taken as 1.5 Adjustments to Stiffness ‘The analysis of the structure to determine the required strengths of components sball use reduced stiffnesses, as follows: Page 9of 12(1) A factor of 08 shall be applied to all axial, shear and flexural stiffnesses that are considered to contribute tothe stability of the structure. Itis permissible to apply this reduction factor to all stiffnesses in the structure. (2) An additional factor, x, shall be applied to the flexural stffnesses of all members ‘whose flexural stiffnesses are considered to contribute tothe stability of the structure, where: 0. for aPyP, £05 = SlaP-P, (-aP/P,)) for aP/P,> 0.5 P= required axiel compressive strength under LRFD of ASD load combinations, Kips) y= axial yield strength, kips (N) and @=10(LRFD) @=1.6(ASD) 3) In structures to which Section 2.2b is applicable, in liew of using ts < °0 where PZP, > 0.5, 1 is permissible to use 1» ~ 1.0 forall members if a notional load of 0.001; (as deSined in Section 2.26(1)) is applied at all levels, independently in two orthogonal directions, in all load combinations. These notional loads shall be added to those, if any, used to account for imperfections and shall not be subject to the limits of Section 2.26(4). DESIGN OF COMPONENTS. ‘When required strengths have been determined in accordance with Section 2, members and connections shall be designed to satisfy the provisions of Chapters D, E,F, G, H, and J, as applicable, of the 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, with vo further consideration of overall structure stability. The effective length factor, K, ofall members shall be taken as unity unless a smaller value ean be justified by rational analysis. Bracing intended to define the unbraced lengths of members shall have sufficien:sifness and strength to control member movement atthe braced points. Methods of satisfying this requirement are provided in Appendix 6, Stability Bracing for Columns and Beans, of the 2005 AISC Specification. Page 10 of 12A Comparison of Frame Stability Analysis Methods in ANSI/AISC 360-05 (CHARLES. CARTER and LOUIS F GESCHWINDNER A SSIBSC 005 Specteatinfor Scent Sat ildings (AISC, 2005, heeaier refered 0 a5 the ASC Specification, includes ver precripive approaches for stably analysis and design. Table 2-1 in the 1308 Bition AISC Stee! Construction Manual (AISC, 20056), reat refered os the AISC Manual provides compa isonof te methods and design option stated with each ‘A Tours aprosc, refered fo a the Siopifed Method, ‘ko presented in the AISC Manual (se pipe 2-12) and on ‘be AISC Bari Design Vluercards, These ow methods ae asain this paper in onder to give the reader 8 genera "understanding of he diferences between 1. The Second-Order Analysis Method ection C22) 2, The Firt-Order Analysis Method (Seton C2.26) 3. The Direct Analysis Method (Appendix 7) 4, The Simplied Method (Manual page 2-2; AISC Basie Design Values cris) ‘Two simple unbaced frames ae used i this paper. The ‘ne-bay frame shown in Figure I bas ang rot element ‘spanning between a Magple column (Column A) and ening umn (Colum B), Dat isntlimite forts fame, which ‘sls in a higher rao of second-order dif to frstorder ‘kif and allows illaseatin ofthe deta equrement ia ‘ech meth forthe caution of Kfatrs, oto loads, tad wequied and sviabe strengths. Te heey fame Shown ia Figure 2 bas igi oof element sganning Between Carlos J. Carter vce presidnt and chet strctral engineer, Arnercan “Instte 3t- Slow! Constucton, Chicago Louis Geschwindnerie vie president of pecs projects, ‘Armaan inte of Stes! Contucton, and potessor mers of aritectiral enginenrng st Pennayanin Stan ‘raversy, Univeclty Park, PA ‘wo Maggole columns (Columns D and B) and wo leaning lumns (Columns C and F)- This rare sed with adit Timi of 400 luseate the smpiyng fc i iit a have onthe analysis requirements in each method “Although thie example frames are not reals francs, the results obtained are representative of the impact of Seond-arde els an nla eet on srength equi ‘mens in el frames, parculaly when the aumbe of 0 tment coasecons i reduced The lds shown in Figures and 2 are fom the convoling load ae sesistarce factor eslgn (LRFD) load combination and the comespoding de ‘signs ae performed using LRED. The process essetlly identical for allowable strength design (ASD), whore ASD Toad combinations ae used with c= 1.6 as a multiple, ‘when required in each method, o account for he second ‘onder effects ate ulate oa eel ‘When i is required o inclode secondo ffs, the Bry amplification is used with fisorder analy. sis thoughoot this paper. A direct second-order analysis |ssaigtorvard and could have been wed instead ofthe BB, amplification ‘THE ONE-DAY FRAME Atrial shape is selected using first-order analysis without ‘onsderaton of dif fmits or second-order ees, There ‘fee, that wal shape i wie a the bai for comparzon of the four methods dscesed erie. 200 kis Comm ‘ety clu) Fe 1 Onebay nbraced frome weds examples [ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER /2008 159Selection of Til Shape Based Upon Strength (Consideration Only ‘Based upon the nading shown in Figure 1 he frond ain force, song-axis moment, ad design parameters fr (Colum ae: Pee 200Kips Me = QDs) (18 1) 20 = 500 ni G18 i aise Nowe that K,= 2. the theoretical value fra colume witha ‘Bed base and og hati fe to rotate and alt, sed rather than th vue of 21 recommended for design inthe AISC Speciation Commentary Table C-C22. The vale (0f 20 used becuse I consent with the formation ofthe lea sthess calculation below. Noe aso that the Impact of the leasing column on K, i ignored in electing the tial ie, albough it wl be considered in subsequent sections when Ky canto be taken equal oI for Column A. (Out ofthe plane he fame, Ki taken as 1.0. ‘A simple rule thumb fr tral bear-column selection i to seat equiva axial force equa oP, pis 24/d dimes -M, where dis thenomina ep of the ola (Geschsin et, Disque end Bjothovdo, 1994). Using d= 18 in for a ‘WI he equivalent axa fore it 716 hips and an ASTM. ‘A992 W490 isseleced a the tril hag, ‘Te lateral ities of the frame depends on Column A oly andi e =3em 329,000 ix999 ins 12st? 149 kp, ‘Te comespondin ist one dit ofthe fame i: ‘ye = QDkips}(14.9 ipsin) ein ‘Noe that this 4 very tebe Hare with A 05812 in ff) 13, 1a 13 ios sO kos + + Skips = Colean (caning colin) sign by Second-Order Analysis (Setion C2.2a) Design by second-order analysis is sen the traionl effecve length method with an aditonl requirement for { inimm lateral lod. Ii permied when te rao of Second-order di ow 0 fistorder eit sega 10 Jess than 5, and equtes the use of 1. A dict second-order aaa ora fsorder analysts ‘with 8-8, aplication 2. The minal frame geometry witha musimum Inter load (a "boional loa") N= 0.002%, whee is he toa gravity lead on level fom LRFD ond combina tions (or. times ASD led combinations). This 0- tina od is specified to cape the ees of inal ‘utofplumbeess up 1 te AISC Cle of Standard Practice maximum vale of 1500 In is metho, Isnotapplied when the tual lata fais arperhan the clelted notional fo ‘3. The nominal sitfeses EA and El 4 LRED load combinations, or ASD load combinations ‘multiplied by 116. Ths muller on ASD foal com Dinas ensures thatthe dit levis consistent for [ERED and ASD when determining second order ef ets, The frees and moment bic in this analy sis are then divided by 1.6 Tor ASD meaber design. When the ratio of second-order det to fistonder dit which is gen by Bi equal oor Hess thar LA, = 1.0 an be wen the design of moment ames Otherwise for ‘moment anes, is detemined fom a siesway bcking Analysis. Seetuon C2244) indests tat or ced frames, Keto. For the example fame given in Flgue 1, he minimum It «al oad bated upon the ttl gravity Toad, Y= 200 ips +200 kips 400 ips 150%ins 780s + ig 2 Teyana rma wd a nampoe 160 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL /THIRD QUARTER / 2008,Because this notion lon ess tha the cl ate Toad, ited ot be applied. For load combination that id ot include a Intra Toad, the notional load would need 10 be ince inthe apalyi, For Column A, sing fst onder analysis end 8-2, ampli P= 200kips, P= 0kips Moke M,=300 pk For P-arpication, sine terse no momete srocited wit he o-taplation cas tht so ee tell By Fora amplification the firstonderdriftrato determined from te calculated dito 13410 Thus, Aut = (134 inyi18 A % 12 inf) oom For moment fames, Ry = 085 and from Baration C2-60 with = 90347 ©20 pe, BPs" RBH) 085 720 Kips 0.00748) 2,280 ips For design by LRFD, @ = 1.0 snd 3? i the sum ofthe sarvity Toads. Ths, ‘ABP /2Pa ~ 1.0 200 kips +200 kip). 28 ips Sous From Equation 2-3, the amplification is: 1 ae EP Tons*! ia1z to 2121 ‘Because B; = 1.21, the second. order drift is ess than 1.5 times the fester dif. "Thus, the wae of Ws method is permied. Because By > 1.1, Keangot be taken af 1.0 fr ‘Column design inthe moment frame with is tio. Tus, 1 sus be eaulated nlaing the leaning clu effet Several approaches are avalable in the AISC Specfn ‘ion Commenary to include this effect A simple approach ‘hat uses he rato of the load on te leaning eras ote Toad on he stabilizing colomas had been provid in previ= ‘us Commentaries and is ued here (Lim and McNamara, wn»: BPP ay =(200 pt )(200 ips) =I KotH Pg EP ody 228 “Te amplified axial force (Equation C218) and associated =13R. =13 200k) 260 ins Ko 2283,K=10 The amped moment (withthe full nome amplified by 2) an ssocited design parameters forth ead ae: M,= 13M, ‘3900 up.0) = 390 pt 6 sh o b Based on these design parameters, the valbe axial com Presse suengh and tong aus avaiable exalt ‘ofthe ASTMASS2 W15390 are: P= 4,P.= 721 kips Ma=Oye= ST ip ‘To determine which inaction equation is appicable, the ‘ato of the requied asa compressive strength 0 avalabe ‘xia compressive suength must be determine, 2 _ 260 Kips 2 Tat kips 0361 Sep 1. Paro iat order analy, Use 02% of tata story gravity ond minimum eter loa in ald cobs Siep2. Esblsh he design soy dein and deermine the tera load reqs to produce Step 3. Determine the rato ofthe al story gravity load othe eal laud carmind in top 2 For ASD, mip by 6 Step 4 MuluplyTistorder ress by the ular value, KeI, xcept for moment fumes hen the tabla ve ett ha 1 ‘Fi. 3 Spied method from AISC osc deve wes a, ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER /2008/ 168‘Thus, because P,P, 2 02, Equation H Be 8M, ROM, is applicable. (90k oan3( es) 0.966 ‘The WI4390 is adequate since 0.966 <1. ‘Summary forthe One-Bas Frame All methods Museated in the foregoing sections prodice similar desis. Te results are tabulated bere for compa Sen, wee th result of the beaelumn interaction equ ton sve fr each method A lower neractin equation, ‘sult forthe same cola shape gies prediction oF higher eng Method Interaction Equation ‘Second-Order 0840 Firs Onler sir Dire Anaysis 0796 Simpied 0966 nts example, he direc analysis method recs the igh st stegth, hile the simplified method predicts the lowest, Scag This would be expected bacase he Diet Analy Matiod was dveloped as the most acurate approach while ‘he simplifed method was developed to praduce quick yet enserative saat, "Te designs compared here are ated onsen with x0 consideration of deft imitation, except the exe that he cal dating the agate othe second ode ees. ‘The usual drifts of approximately 1400 will neessiie framing memters and configurations with mere Intra si ness than this ae provides. Hea, the designer may fad at ame anid for dit et wl en equi i ease in member sie for stength, ncloding second-order fee Tis willbe explored further withthe they fae, ‘THE THRER-BAY FRAME For the fame sown in Figure 2, a wil shape islet sing fis ner di limit of 2600 under 8 service lee Intea Toad of 10 kp. There, that wal shape i used a thesis for camparisn of the four methods sed previously forthe one-bay fame. ‘Sclection of Tal Shape Based a the Drift Limit Only Forth dimensions shown in Figure 2 {Us00 = (5 x 12600 £0300‘, 108 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL /THIRD QUARTER / 2008, ‘The lateral stiffs ofthe kame depends on Colunas D and only and bated on x cli! tiffs derivation with the given ead conden, is calulted allows kaax36U 2% 329,000 sin x 12 ni) 0029810) ‘Wit the service level Intra Toad ca the frame of 10 ips: (2.02984) = (10 kips 0.30 in) hs, Jag = 1120 in* and an ASTM 99D WISCI09 i 240i k=2x 3600 2 328000 ksi, 240 ins (15 412i? 370 kisi ‘The conesponding stole dei of be fame under the [ERED later load of 15 Kips Aq = (15 kips}(97.0kipsin) =040sin, “The fist-der axl force, stong-ais nomeat, and design parameters for Colas D and E are: Pow1SOkips —My=(1Skipsy ts 2)2 220 F13kp Kolo G=ist Leben Geist [Not that © 20 the deoretal valu for a clam with 1 fted base and pinned opie rar than the vale of | 2.1 recommended for design inte AISCSpecicaton Com ‘mentary Table C-C22. The vale of 2.0 ed Deus iti ‘onsistent withthe formulation of the tral fess cal Ini ht flows. Note ako ta the impact ofthe ening columa on Kis ignored in selecting the ial sie, though {til be contre i sbrequet sections when K,caoot be taken equal to 1.0 fr Column A. Ox ofthe plane of he fea, istaken a 1.0. Design by Second-Order Analysis (Seton C228) For the example frame given in Figue 2, the misimam leer fod 1 75 hips + 150 kips +150 kip + 75 kip ‘Because this wosional lod i es than the ata ater os, ‘need not be applied,For Columns D and , sing stoder alysis nd Bs splat: My For P- ampiicaton, because thee ae no moment aoc Ae with he no-tarslaion ease, tee is no nee to clea- Inte For P- amplification, the fr-oder df rt is etrmined fom the calculated dt of 0408 a. Ts, Ball. =O40S in VIS Hx 12 int) =oomzs For momeat fames, R= 0.85 and from Bquaton C26 with y= and A= 15 hips, aH ee oss 15K coms) = S670 ps For design by LRED, a ravi oad, @3P,.2P a, = LOTS hips + 150 ips + 1S0kips + 2S kips¥5570 bps = 00738 rom Equation C23, the amplification is 1.0 and 2 is he sum of the Because B= 1.0, he second-order drt isles than |S ines theirs oer dit Thus, the seo his mebod is permis. ‘Because By <1 K ca be taken 381.0 for sokmn design in ‘he moment fame wih ths metiod. ‘The amplified ail free (Equation C218) and associated design parameters fords method ar: P= Pas BPs = 150 ips + 1.050 ips) 1S0kips Ke K=10 Laban ‘Te amplified moment Equation C2-1) and associated de- sion parameters fo this method a: a= BM BMy (ki) +109 113 ip 23 kip G 167 & =150 Based on these design parameters the aalble axial om pressive stength ad rong ax avilable fxiral sengts tthe ASTM A972 W109 ae: P= Py = 1220 kips Ma i= 20 A ‘To determine which iteration equation ssplicable, the ratio ofthereuied axial compressive svengh to evalble ‘al compressive strength must be determine. 2. 150 Kips 21.20 kins ons ‘Thus, because P./P,< 02, Equation H-b isapplieable, P| Ma 0123, kip 2M, 2 Tp om ‘The Wix109 is aequte because 0.2525 1 Design by Fies-Order Analy Seti C224) For the example frame given in igue 2, te ndiiona lt ‘ral load (with A= Ay) y= (0405 in y(15 Rx 12 in) =oo0ns Y =TS hips + 1S0kipt +150 kis +75 pe 2450s Np=2.4¢d/l)¥,2 00080, © 2.10.02253450 kis) 2 0.0042(480 ips) 2.13 kips 2189p 2213 ups ‘as previously determined inthe ilasaton of design by secondordr analysis example that the second-order det it less than 1S mes the store it Adit {= 1.00150 kip)» 150 kips nd forthe ASTM A992 WI4x109, osr, ENGINEERING JOURNAL THIRD QUARTER /2008/167Because Any 4, Ispermited. “Tee loading for this metod is the sume as shown in Figure 2ecep fo the ation of notional Toad of 213 ips eo incident with de tata od of 1S kp shown, esuling ina moment M, of 128 kp in each column “This moment must be ample by Ba determined from Bjuation C2. The Euler bucling lead is eaculated with = 10 Tiss, Poa REL KL? 990900 si,240inYL0% 15 fox inst 211,000 aps and aP,<05P, th use of his method Because the moment on one en f the column is 20 the ‘moment gratin tem Cy =06- 0.8066) 06-0.40/128) 206 From Equation C22, 1.050 kipsy(1,00 ips) = 00136 “The amplified moment and aseocited desig paneer for this method ae Ma= BM 104728 ip) = 128kpt G =187 Baise Based cn thse desgn parameter the wiabe aia om presi srength and stg aus avlableRexul suongts ‘of the ASTM ASS? We09 re: p= Py 1220 ips M= Oe = 720 kip “188 ENSINEERING JOURNAL /THIRD QUARTER / 20 To determine which interaction equation is applicable, de ratio ofthe required axial compressive stength to arable ‘val compressive suengdh must be determined B10 kins 2 imo Ks 0129 Thus, because P./P-< 0.2, Bguation H1-1b applicable. kip, 2 *ToKpe 0209 “The Wi4109 is adequate because 0.239 10 Direct Analysis Method (Appendix 7) leas previously determined in the illustration of design by second-order analysis example thatthe second-order dts Tes than 15 times the fis-onder eft (note tha thi heck is propery made wing the unredicd stiffness ED, Ths te rnotoal fad canbe applied as minimum lateral oa, and {hat mini 1 =75 kip, +150 hips + 180 kips +75 bps 50.8 ‘Because his notional lass tan the actual ater oad, ‘teed nt be applied or Columns D and E, using fst-order analysis and BB, smplicaion 30 kis, P= Okips M=0kip y= 13 pat ‘To dewemine the second-order amplification, the redond stfiass, £7", must be calculated, ‘aP, = 1.01150 igs) = 150 ips and forthe ASTM A992 W609, 05P, = 05F,Ay 0.5050 bix32.0 in") 2800 ips Thus, because aP,

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5814)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (845)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1866)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4770)
• Tensile Membrane Structures 2016

  

  Document63 pages

  Tensile Membrane Structures 2016

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  100% (2)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• The Bird of Happiness Dominoes Two PDF

  

  Document65 pages

  The Bird of Happiness Dominoes Two PDF

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Compu Meths Tension Structures

  

  Document37 pages

  Compu Meths Tension Structures

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• FIB 16 Design Examples For The 1996 FIP Recommendations Practical Design of Structural Concrete

  

  Document193 pages

  FIB 16 Design Examples For The 1996 FIP Recommendations Practical Design of Structural Concrete

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• StEERLagunasPeruMay262019EarthquakeP-VASTReport Final PDF

  

  Document106 pages

  StEERLagunasPeruMay262019EarthquakeP-VASTReport Final PDF

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Fed0 PDF

  

  Document73 pages

  Fed0 PDF

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Development of Analytical Model For Thrust Restraint Design - Part 2: Segmented Pipelines

  

  Document16 pages

  Development of Analytical Model For Thrust Restraint Design - Part 2: Segmented Pipelines

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• 4 Seminar-Mosalam-Minho-Oct-1-2012-Red

  

  Document117 pages

  4 Seminar-Mosalam-Minho-Oct-1-2012-Red

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Kaveh A., Colliding Bodies Optimization Extensions and Applications, 2015

  

  Document291 pages

  Kaveh A., Colliding Bodies Optimization Extensions and Applications, 2015

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Comparison of Foundation Design Specifications For Vibratory Machines

  

  Document10 pages

  Comparison of Foundation Design Specifications For Vibratory Machines

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Tower Foundation Design PDF

  

  Document90 pages

  Tower Foundation Design PDF

  boontharaksa

  No ratings yet
• FEM MATLAB Code For Geometric Nonlinear Analysis of Membranes PDF

  

  Document12 pages

  FEM MATLAB Code For Geometric Nonlinear Analysis of Membranes PDF

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Advance Steel 2018 Implementation Guide

  

  Document156 pages

  Advance Steel 2018 Implementation Guide

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet
• Engineering Structures: Ashraf El Damatty, Amal Elawady

  

  Document14 pages

  Engineering Structures: Ashraf El Damatty, Amal Elawady

  José Antonio Alarcón León

  No ratings yet