3. OVERALL STABILITY OF STRUCTURE 3.1 Introduction + In addition to ensuring the stability of each element and member in compression, the designer must also ensure that the structure as a whole is stable under all probable loading conditions. Since all structures will deflect under load, consideration must also be given to stability-of the structure in its deflected position. + A common assumption in structural analysis is that the displacements of the structure under applied loads are small so that the geometry of the structure and the position of the loads do not change significantly, If this assumption is reasonable then the magnitude and distribution of internal loads and moments will not change appreciably during deformation and an analysis based on the undeformed geometry will be sufficiently accurate. This type of analysis is called a first order analysis. + In fact, all structures will deform to some extent under load and the geometry of the structure will change. Since the point of application for each load moves with the structure, the relative positions of the loads and reactions will change, modifying the resultant magnitude and distribution of intemal forces and moments. + A more accurate approach, therefore, is to analyze the structure using its deformed rather than its original geometry. Structural analysis methods that are based on the deformed geometry of the structure are called second order analysis methods. Since the deformed geometry is not known initially, second order analysis methods invariably entail iteration. These second order effects are commonly called sway effects or stability effects. + For most rectangular buildings, the most significant sway effects occur as a result of lateral deflections under horizontal loads. Vertical acting gravity loads that are displaced laterally generate additional moments that must be resisted by the structural system. + Gravity loads acting alone can also cause lateral deflections and, hence sway moments, if either the load or the building is not symmetric. Fabrication and erection misalignments can also lead to sway, even in supposedly symmetric buildings. + Unlike previous versions, CAN/S16.1-M89 now requires that second order effects be explicitly considered in the design of all structures, braced or rigid. In the case of rigid frames, sway effects will generate additional moments in the columns and girders. For braced frames, second order effects will increase the axial forces in the bracing system. Even buildings that rely on relatively stiff shear walls must be checked for stability. + Ina major departure from previous design philosophies, it is no longer permissible to compensate for sway effects using the sidesway permitted nomographs to determine effective column lengths (KL 2 L). Under the new provisions, the design moments and loads must include an allowance for second order effects. Once these effects have been included in the design loads, the columns can be designed for the sidesway prevented case (KL < L). 193.2 Background Theory + The rigid frame shown below is symmetric and is subjected to two symmetrically placed vertical loads, P. In addition to the vertical loads, the frame is also subjected to a horizontal load, H. P P Since they are symmetrically x—<>| keo>p-« placed, the vertical loads will t= generate moments within the frame but will cause no lateral displacement. Therefore, the lateral displacement of the frame is solely due to the horizontal load, H. ‘The magnitude of A can be determined by any suitable elastic >a analysis method. Consider one of the frame columns in its displaced configuration after the first-order displacements, A, have taken place. Note that the lateral force, H, is divided equally between the two columns so that each column is acted on by a lateral force, V = 4 H. * Taking ©M =0 about the bottom end of the column: Mr + Mp = Vh + PA Internal resisting moment at top end ‘Mg = Internal resisting moment at bottom end + 1 Order Analysis: In a 1* order analysis of the frame, only the first term on the right hand side of the equation, V h, would be considered. + 2" Order Analysis: Lateral displacement of the columns induces an additional moment due to vertical loads, P A, which must also be resisted by the intemal moments, My and Ms. Note that the second-order moment, P A, is acting in such a way as to increase the lateral displacement of the frame. Therefore, it has a destabilizing effect on the frame. The additional lateral displacement, A, , due to the second-order moment, P A, would then increase the second-order moment by an amount equal to P A;. This additional moment would, in tum, lead 20to further deflections, and so on. In a stable structure, the incremental lateral displacement due to each successive P-A cycle becomes progressively smaller and eventually becomes insignificant. In order to produce further lateral displacements of the frame, more external lateral load must be applied. If the frame is too flexible, however, the incremental lateral displacements continue to grow with suocessive P-A cycles until the structure collapses. Such a frame is said to be unstable, Even when the P-A analysis eventually converges, if the secondary effects represent a significant portion of the total response (say 40%), the structure may be susceptible to stability problems and should be stiffened. : Conceptually, the sway moment, P A, , for the “ith” iteration can be replaced by a fictitious lateral force, Vy, acting at the top of the frame and equal to: PA, Ya This fictitious lateral force would generate the same bending moment in the column as the original sway moment. The idea of replacing sway moments by fictitious lateral forces is the basis of the conventional P-A analysis that is outlined in Appendix J of CAN/CSA-S16.1. Strictly speaking, a rigorous second-order analysis is further complicated by the fact that the effective stiffness of a column depends upon the amount of axial load it is carrying. An increase in axial load reduces the stiffness of a column until, at its buckling load, the column has essentially zero stiffness. A number of commercial computer analysis packages are available that perform a second-order structural analysis and also account for the effect of axial load on column stiffness. + Fortunately, the reduction of column stiffness with axial load is relatively small in typical structures and is generally ignored in analysis. 213.3 CAN/CSA-16.1-M89 Code Provisions for Stability Recommended Reference: Kennedy, D.J.L., Picard, A., and Beaulieu, D., New Canadian provisions for the design of steel beam-columns. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 17, No. 6, May 1990, pp. 873 - 893. ‘The 1989 standard requires that second-order effects must be considered explicitly, at least in some approximate manner. It is no longer permissible to compensate for sway effects in rigid frames by increasing the effective lengths of columns (ic. using KL > L), as was allowed in previous codes. Although the modification of effective column length did reduce allowable column capacities, it did not reflect the increase in beam moments that occurs during lateral displacement. Because the new provisions account for sway effects acting in all members, they represent a more realistic approach to building stability. + Clause 8.6.1 of S16.t-M89 reads in part: The analysis referred to in Clauses 84 and 8.5 (ie. the elastic or plastic analysis of a structure] shall include the sway effects in each storey produced by the vertical loads acting on the structure in its displaced configuration. + The sway, or second-order, effects may be accounted for by one of three methods: 1) A full second-order analysis, preferably using a computer program that includes the effects of axial load on the stiffness of columns. (P-FRAME will perform a second-order stability analysis on 2D structures) 2) Amplifying the translational effects obtained from a first-order elastic analysis by the amplification factor U, as defined in Clause 8.6.1 (a) 3) Performing an elastic P-A analysis in accordance with procedures described in Appendix J of the steel code. + Since the first method requires the use of specific analysis packages, this course will concentrate on the last two more approximate methods. + To limit the possibility of significant inelastic behaviour and to avoid excessive flexibility in rigid frames, the code limits the magnitude of second-order effects to no more than 40% of the first- order translational effects. If this limit is exceeded by a structure, the designer has two options: i) Increase the stiffness of the structure to reduce sway effects, or ii) Perform a more rigorous second-order elasto-plastic analysis to prove that the large lateral displacements will not be unsafe for the structure. In this range, inelastic action resulting in the formation of plastic hinges in structural members can substantially reduce the capacity of the frame as a whole. + Fortunately, second-order effects in most rigid frames that meet serviceability requirements for lateral deflections under service loads tend to be less than 20% of the first-order translational effects (Kennedy et. al. 1990). 22Amplification Factor Method: U, + In the amplification factor method, intemal moments and forces related to translational displacements are multiplied by an amplification factor, U, , which is defined separately for each storey in a building by the expression wi zy, ‘The total factored vertical load on or above the storey in question where: Ya Xv, = The total factored lateral load acting on or above the storey in question ‘A, = Difference in lateral deflection between top and bottom ends of the columns of the storey in question due to factored loads h = Height of storey in question A different amplification factor must be defined for each storey of a building. This may lead to minor discrepancies when it comes to moment equilibrium at storey boundaries. If U, > 1.4, then the designer must either stiffen the structure or perform an elasto-plastic second order analysis. + The amplified factored moment (or member force), including a provision for sway effects, can be approximated by M, = M, + UM, ‘M, = Factored moment (or member force) due to gravity loads, as determined by a first-order elastic analysis assuming there is no lateral translation of the building M, = Factored moment (or member force) associated with translation, as determined by a first-order clastic analysis which allows the building to move laterally + In order to use the equation given above, the effects associated with translation must be separated from the purely gravitational effects since only the translational effects are amplified as a result of sway motion, + The term effects is used here to describe either an intemal moment or a member force. + The distinction between gravitational and translational effects is straightforward in the case of a symmetric building subjected to a combination of symmetric vertical loads and lateral loads. In 23this case, all of the translational effects will be due to the lateral loads. ‘Therefore, gravity loads and lateral loads can be treated as individual load cases and the structure can be analyzed separately for each, + Ifeither the structure or the load is not symmetric, however, gravity loads can also contribute to translational displacements of the structure. In order to isolate the translational effects of the vertical load, fictitious lateral supports have to be added during the analysis for gravity loads effects, M, . The fictitious supports will prevent the structure from moving laterally; however, they will also apply nonexistent lateral support reactions, To correct for the fictitious support reactions, forces equal to the fictitious reactions but opposite in direction must be added to the lateral load case. : + The procedure can be explained conceptually using the example of the nonsymmetric rigid frame building shown below. As shown, the building is subjected to a combination of vertical and lateral loads. “ _, wey vy : let — H ft + Initially, only the factored gravity load is applied to the structure. Since the frame is nonsymmetric, one fictitious lateral support must be placed at each of the two floor levels to prevent any lateral displacements. In order to restrain the frame from lateral motion, the fictitious supports must apply imaginary support reaction forces, R, and Ry as shown. ‘These imaginary reaction forces cannot exist in reality. Therefore, additional imaginary forces that are equal to the reactions but opposite in direction must be included in the lateral force load case. If there is no tendency for the frame to translate under gravity loads, the horizontal reactions will be equal to zero. 24‘The intemal moments (and member forces) from this load case provide the values for M, to be used in the amplification equation. Once the translational reaction forces due to gravity loads have been determined, the frame is analyzed with only lateral loads acting (including the imaginary support reactions). Ra ‘The first-order elastic analysis results — => from this load case provide the values for H, M, to be used in the amplification equation. Ry = H Gravity Loads Acting Alone For load combinations consisting entirely of gravity loads (eg. dead plus live load), the translational moments and member forces, M, , shall be taken as the greater of: i) Those due to the fictitious support reactions required to prevent the structure from displacing laterally under gravity loads, as described above, or ii) Those due to so-called pseudo-lateral loads applied at each story. ‘These pseudo-lateral loads are intended to account for fabrication and erection eccentricities and must be equal in magnitude to 0.005 times the factored vertical load acting on each storey. This provision is equivalent to assuming that the columns for a given storey are out of plumb by a distance equal to 0.005 times the storey height. Therefore, a load combination consisting of purely vertical loads is not permitted in the design of the structure for stability considerations. 25Numerical Example: (Taken from Kennedy et. al.) The symmetric building shown below consists of a rigid frame 10 meters wide located in the middle portion of the building and a lean-to section 12 meters wide attached on either side of the rigid frame. Both lean-to sections are supported laterally by the central rigid frame. The building is subjected to symmetric vertical loads as well as lateral loads. ‘The magnitudes of the specified loads are given as: + Vertical Loads: Dead Load = 18kNim (Level 2) = 10.8 kN/m (Level 3) Live Load = 18kN/m (Level 2) = 22.5 kN/m (Level 3) + Lateral Load: Q = 366K (wind load) = 17.5 RY (Leved 2) + 38.0 RY (Leved3) Since both the building and the vertical loads are symmetric, the building will have no tendency to displace laterally under gravity loads. Therefore, fictitious lateral support reactions will not be required for the gravity load case. Load Combination No. 1: Dead plus Live Load Factored Loads: i) Gravity Loads: = Level 2: wy = (1.25 x 18) + (1.5 x 18) = 49.50 kN/m = Level 3: w; = (1.25 x 10.8) + (1.5 x 22.5) = 47.25 kN/m 262 ii) Minimum Factored Lateral Load: -Level 2: Q = 0.005 (49.5 x 34) = 8.42 KN ~ Level 3: Q 0.005 (47.25 x 34) = 8.03 kN ‘The results of a first-order elastic analysis of the central rigid frame gives the following results: 9) io, 090 1044) 85) 106440 16400 a) Gravity Loads b) Lateral Loads (Showing deflections) Amplification Factors: i) Storey 1 - 2: hy, = 60m = 6,000 mm XG = 9.5 kNim + 47.25 KN/m) (34 m) = 3290 KN Ly, = 842 kN +803 KN = 16.45 KN A, = A - A, = 4.75 mm - 0.0 = 4.75 mm 27ii) Storey 2 - 3: Ing = 5.0m =5,000mm : © c = (47.25 kNAm) (34m) = 1607 KN Ly, = 803 kN Ay = Ay - d, = 699 mm - 4.75 mm = 2.24 mm U, 1.10 Moments including Sway Effects: + Sample Calculations: i) Column for Storey 1-2: Right Side + Top End: M, = 986kNm, = M, = 224kNm ‘M, = M, + UM, = 986 + (1.19) 22.4) = 125.3 kNm i) Column for Storey 2-3: Left Side + Bottom End: M, = 2015kKNm, ™M, = -8.4kNm (CCW) M, = M, + U;M, = 2015 + (1.10) (84) = 192.3 kNm ‘The remaining results are summarized on the figures given on the following page. 2829) wea) on c) Amplified Lateral Moments (U,M,) fen 29 one. (ome) wen, aol osm sosenn ps3) ssi 07, 27 (MTT yea, smo * tas) ms, 017 ean 3mm b) Total Moments CM, + U;M,)vem q mud) =p me teh ea wea sum i. oT (TTY " my matt yp inf en pen tal ad en vy van seo c) Amplified Lateral Moments d) Total Moments (UM) CM, + UM.) Load Combination No, 2: Gravity plus Wind Loads + There are two load combinations that should be considered for combined gravity and wind loads: i) Dead plus Wind (Load combination factor, Y = 1.0) ii) Dead plus Live plus Wind (Load combination factor, Y = 0.7) Only the second combination (D+L+W) will be considered here as it induces more severe sway effects. + Factored Loads: i) Gravity Loads: -Level 2: w, " (1.25 x 18) + (0.71.5 x 18) = 41.40 kN/m -Level 3: wy u (1.25 x 10.8) + (0.7)(1.5 x 22.5) = 37.13 kKN/m ii) Factored Lateral (Wind) Load: -Level2: Q (0.7) (5 x 38) = 39.9 KN -Level 3: Q = (0.7) (1.5.x 17.5) = 18.4 KN 29The results of a first-order elastic analysis of the central rigid frame gives the following results: pa : ay 7° ' ( 1 1 / avs su € (299) mstim eon c= =m, mate ean) (41) 0: (0) H saosm i it (424) ea eq w.. 4 ha wv e) Gravity Loads f) Lateral Loads (Showing deflections) Amplification Factors: i) Storey 1 - 2: bya = 6.0m = 6,000 mm XG = (14 kNim + 37.13 kN/m) (34 m) = 2670 KN Ly, = 184 kN +39.9 KN = 58.3 KN Ay = 4 - 4, = 164 mm - 0.0 = 164 mm = 114 ii) Storey 2 - 3: has = 5.0m =5,000mm Lc; = 7.13 kNim) (34 m) = 1262 KN Lv, = 184kN 30Ap =; - dy = 224 mm - 164mm = 6.0 mm ‘Moments including Sway Effects: + Sample Calculations: : i) Column for Storey 1-2: Left Side + Bottom End: M, = 424kNm, —M, = -94.8kNm (CCW) M, = M, + U,M, = 424 + (1.14) (-94.8) = -65.7 kNm (CCW) i) Column for Storey 2-3: Right Side + Top End: M, = -181.8kNm (CCW), M, = -29.0kNm (CCW) M, = M, + U;M, = -181.8 + (1.09) (-29.0) = -213.4 kNm (CCW) ‘The remaining results are summarized below: 4 mi » Y 1110.2) YY ro) rs , | Vprvens yrs ad 1300) waz saz 8) Amplified Lateral Moments h) Total Moments (U,M,) (M, + UM) 31