Example 11.

1—Slenderness Effects for Columns in a Nonsway Frame

Design columns A3 and C3 in the first story of the 10-story office building shown below. The clear height of
the first story is 21 ft-4 in., and is 11 ft-4 in. for all of the other stories. Assume that the lateral load effects on
the building are caused by wind, and that the dead loads are the only sustained loads. Other pertinent design
data for the building are as follows:

Material properties:

Concrete:
Floors: › = 4000 psi, wc = 150 pcf
Columns and walls: › = 6000 psi, wc = 150 pcf
Reinforcement: fy = 60 ksi 3 6
1 2 4 5

Beams: 24  20 in.
Exterior columns: 20  20 in.
Interior columns: 24  24 in. 28'-0" 28'-0" 28'-0" 28'-0" 28'-0"
Shearwalls: 12 in.
A
Weight of floor joists = 86 psf
28'-0"

Joists
Superimposed dead load = 32 psf (typ.)
Roof live load = 30 psf
B
Floor live load = 50 psf
28'-0"

Wind loads computed according

to ASCE 7. N
C
28'-0"

D
28'-0"

E
28'-0"

10

9
9 @ 13'-0" = 117'-0"

2
23'-0"

5 @ 28'-0" = 140'-0"

11-19
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

1. Factored axial loads and bending moments for columns A3 and C3 in the first story
Column A3
Bending Moment
Load Case Axial Load (ft-kips)
(kips) Top Bottom
Dead (D) 718.0 79.0 40.0
Live (L)* 80.0 30.3 15.3
Roof live load (L r) 12.0 0.0 0.0
Wind (W) 8.0 1.1 4.3
Eq. No. Load Combination
9-1 1 1.4D 1,005.2 110.6 56.0
9-2 2 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5Lr 995.6 143.3 72.5
3 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6Lr 920.8 110.0 55.7
9-3 4 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8W 887.2 95.7 51.4
5 1.2D + 1.6Lr - 0.8W 874.4 93.9 44.6
6 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.5Lr + 1.6W 920.4 111.7 62.5
9-4
7 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.5Lr - 1.6W 894.8 108.2 48.8
8 0.9D + 1.6W 659.0 72.9 42.9
9-6
9 0.9D - 1.6W 633.4 69.3 29.1
*includes live load reduction per ASCE 7

Column C3
Bending Moment
Load Case Axial Load (ft-kips)
(kips) Top Bottom
Dead (D) 1,269.0 1.0 0.7
Live (L)* 147.0 32.4 16.3
Roof live load (L r ) 24.0 0.0 0.0
Wind (W) 3.0 2.5 7.7
Eq. No. Load Combination
9-1 1 1.4D 1,776.6 1.4 1.0
9-2 2 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5L r 1,770.0 53.0 26.9
3 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6L r 1,634.7 17.4 9.0
9-3 4 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8W 1,563.6 3.2 7.0
5 1.2D + 1.6Lr - 0.8W 1,558.8 -0.8 -5.3
6 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.5L r + 1.6W 1,613.1 21.4 21.3
9-4
7 1.2D + 0.5L + 0.5L r - 1.6W 1,603.5 13.4 -3.3
8 0.9D + 1.6W 1,146.9 4.9 13.0
9-6
9 0.9D - 1.6W 1,137.3 -3.1 -11.7
*includes live load reduction per ASCE 7

Note that Columns A3 and C3 are bent in double curvature with the exception of Load Case 7 for
Column C3.

2. Determine if the frame at the first story is nonsway or sway

The results from an elastic first-order analysis using the section properties prescribed in 10.10.4.1 are
as follows:

ΣPu = total vertical load in the first story corresponding to the lateral loading case for which ΣPu is greatest

11-20
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

The total building loads are: D = 37,371 kips, L = 3609 kips, and Lr = 605 kips.
The maximum ΣPu is determined from Eq. (9-4):

ΣPu = (1.2  37,371) + (0.5  3609) + (0.5  605) + 0 = 46,952 kips

Vus = factored story shear in the first story corresponding to the wind loads
= 1.6  324.3 = 518.9 kips Eq. (9-4), (9-6)

Δo = first-order relative lateral deflection between the top and bottom of the first story due to Vus
= 1.6  (0.03-0) = 0.05 in.

ΣPu Δ o 46,952 × 0.05 Eq. (10-10)

Stability index Q = = = 0.02 < 0.05
Vus l c 518.9 × ⎡⎣( 23 × 12 ) − ( 20 / 2 ) ⎤⎦

Since Q < 0.05, the frame at the first story level is considered nonsway. 10.10.5.2

3. Design of column C3

Determine if slenderness effects must be considered.

Using an effective length factor k = 1.0,

10.10.6.3
kl u 1.0 × 21.33 × 12
= = 35.6
r 0.3 × 24

The following table contains the slenderness limit for each load case:
Axial loads Bending Moment
Eq. No. (kips) (ft-kips) Curvature M1 M2 M1/M2 Slenderness*
Pu Mtop Mbot (ft-kips) (ft-kips) limit
9-1 1 1776.6 1.4 1.0 Double 1.0 1.4 –0.70 40.00
9-2 2 1770.0 53.0 26.9 Double 26.9 53.0 –0.51 40.00
3 1634.7 17.4 9.0 Double 9.0 17.4 –0.52 40.00
9-3 4 1564.2 3.7 8.5 Double 3.7 8.5 –0.43 39.20
5 1558.2 –1.3 –6.9 Double 1.3 6.9 –0.19 36.27
6 1613.1 21.4 21.3 Double 21.3 21.4 –1.00 40.00
9-4
7 1603.5 13.4 -3.3 Single 3.3 13.4 +0.25 31.02
8 1146.9 4.9 13.0 Double 4.9 13.0 –0.38 38.54
9-6
9 1137.3 –3.1 –11.7 Double 3.1 11.7 –0.27 37.18
⎛ M1 ⎞
* 34 − 12 ⎜ ⎟ ≤ 40
⎝ M2 ⎠
⎛M ⎞
The least value of 34 – 12 ⎜ 1 ⎟ is obtained from load combination no. 7:
⎝ M2 ⎠

⎡M ⎤ ⎡ 3.3 ⎤
34 − 12 ⎢ 1 ⎥ = 34 − 12 ⎢ = 31.02 < 40
⎣ M2 ⎦ ⎣ 13.4 ⎥⎦

11-21
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

Slenderness effects need to be considered for column C3 since klu/r > 34 – 12 (M1/M2). 10.12.2

The following calculations illustrate the magnified moment calculations for load combination no. 7:

M c = δ ns M 2 Eq. (10-11)

where

Cm
δ nns= ≥ 1 Eq. (10-12)
Pu
1−
0.75Pc
⎛M ⎞
Cm = 0.6 + 0.4 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ≥ 0.40 Eq. (10-16)
⎝ M2 ⎠
⎛ 3.3 ⎞
= 0.6 + 0.4 ⎜ = 0.70
⎝ 13.4 ⎟⎠
π 2 EI Eq. (10-13)
Pc =
( kl u )
2

0.2E c Ig + E s Ie
E1 = Eq. (10-14)
1 + β ddns
6000
E c = 57,000 = 4415 ksi
1000
24 4
Ig = = 27,648 in.4
12
E s = 29,000 ksi

Assuming 16-No. 7 bars with 1.5 cover to No. 3 ties as shown in the figure.

21.69"

16.84"

12.00" 24"

7.16"

2.31"

24"
1.5" clear cover to No. 3 ties

11-22
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

Ise = 2 ⎡( 5 × 0.6 ) ( 21.69 − 12 ) + ( 2 × 0.6 ) (16.84 − 12 ) ⎤

2 2
⎣ ⎦

= 619.6 in.4

Since the dead load is the only sustained load,

1.2PD
β dns = ≤ 1 10.10.6.2
1.2PD + 0.5PL + 0.5PLr − 1.6W

1.2 × 1269
=
(1.2 × 1269 ) + ( 0.5 × 147 ) + ( 0.5 × 24 ) − (1.6 × 3)

= 0.95

( 0.2 × 4415 × 27,648) + ( 29,000 × 619.6 )

EI = = 21.73 × 106 kip-in.2
1 + 0.95

π 2 × 21.73 × 10 6
Ρc = = 3274 kips
(1 × 21.33 × 12 )2

0.7
δ ns = = 2.02 (see “Closing Remarks” at the end of the Example)
1603.5
1−
0.75 × 3274
Check miminum moment requirement:

M2, min = Pn(0.6 +0.03h)

= 1603.5[0.6+(0.03  24)]/12

= 176.4 ft-kip > M2

M2 = 2.02  176.4 = 356.3 ft-kip

The following table contains results from a strain compatibility analysis, where
compressive strains are taken as positive (see Part 6 and 7).

Therefore, since φMn > Mu for all φPn = Pu, use a 24  24 in. column with 16-No. 7 bars (ρg =1.7%).

11-23
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

Pu Mu c εt φ φPn φM n
No.
(kips) (ft-kips) (in.) (kips) (ft-kips)
1 1776.6 1.4 25.92 0.00049 0.65 1776.6 367.2
2 1770.0 53.0 25.83 0.00048 0.65 1770.0 371.0
3 1634.7 17.4 23.86 0.00027 0.65 1634.7 447.0
4 1563.6 7.0 22.85 0.00015 0.65 1563.6 480.9
5 1558.8 5.3 22.78 0.00014 0.65 1558.8 483.2
6 1613.1 21.4 23.55 0.00024 0.65 1613.1 457.8
7 1603.5 356.3 23.41 0.00022 0.65 1603.5 462.5
8 1146.9 13.0 17.25 -0.00077 0.65 1146.9 609.9
9 1137.3 11.7 17.13 -0.00080 0.65 1137.3 611.7

Design for Pu and Mc can be performed manually, by creating an interaction diagram as shown in example 6.4.
For this example, Figure 11-14 shows the design srength interaction diagram for Column C3 obtained from the
computer program pcaColumn. The figure also shows the axial load and moments for load combination 7.

4. Design of column A3

a. Determine if slenderness effects must be considered.

Determine k from the alignment chart of Fig. 11-9 or from Fig. R10.10.1.1:

⎛ 20 4 ⎞ 4
Icol = 0.7 ⎜ ⎟ = 9,333 in. 10.10.4.1
⎝ 12 ⎠

6000
E c = 57,000 = 4,415 ksi 8.5.1
1000

For the column below level 2:

⎛ EcI ⎞ 4,415 × 9,333 3

⎜⎝ l ⎟⎠ = ⎡( 23 × 12 ) − ( 20 / 2 ) ⎤ = 155 × 10 in.-kips
c ⎣ ⎦

For the column above level 2:

⎛ E c I ⎞ 4,415 × 9,333
⎜⎝ l ⎟⎠ = = 264 × 10 3 in.-kips
c 13 × 12
10.10.4.1
⎛ 24 × 20 3 ⎞ 4
Ibeam = 0.35 ⎜ ⎟ = 5,600 in.
⎝ 12 ⎠

EI 57 4, 000 × 5, 600
= = 60 × 10 3 in.-kips
l 28 × 12
ΣE c I / l c 155 + 264
ψA= = = 60 × 10 3 in.-kips
ΣE c I / l 60
11-24
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

P (kip)

(Pmax)

2000

fs=0

fs=0.5fy
1000

0
200 400 600 800
Mx (k-ft)

(Pmin)

-1000

Figure 11-14 Interaction Diagram for Column C3

11-25
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

Assume ψB = 1.0 (column essentially fixed at base)

From Fig. R10.10.1.1(a), k = 0.86.

⎛M ⎞
Therefore, for column A3 bent in double curvature, the least 34 − 12 ⎜ 1 ⎟ is obtained from
load combination no. 9: ⎝ M2 ⎠

⎛ −29.1 ⎞
34 − 12 ⎜ = 39.0
⎝ 69.3 ⎟⎠

kl u 0.86 × 21.33 × 12
= = 36.7 < 39.0
r 0.3 × 20
⎛M ⎞
For column A3 bent in single curvature, the least 34 − 12 ⎜ 1 ⎟ is obtained from load
combination no. 8: ⎝ M2 ⎠

kl u ⎛ 42.9 ⎞
= 36.7 > 34 − 12 ⎜ = 26.9
r ⎝ 72.9 ⎟⎠

Therefore, column slenderness need not be considered for column A3 if bent in double
curvature. However, to illustrate the design procedure including slenderness effects for
nonsway columns, assume single curvature bending.

b. Determine total moment Mc (including slenderness effects) for each load combination.

Mc = δnsM2 Eq. (10-11)

where

Cm
δ ns = ≥ 1.0 Eq. (10-12)
Pu
1−
0.75Pc

The following table summarizes magnified moment computations for column A3 for all load
combinations, followed by detailed calculations for combination no. 6 to illustrate the procedure.

Pu M2 βdns EI x 10 6 Pc Cm δ ns M2,min Mc
No. 2
(kips) (ft-kips) (kip-in. ) kips (ft-kips) (ft-kips)
1 1005.2 110.6 1.00 9.88 2013 0.80 2.40 100.5 265.6
2 995.6 143.3 0.87 10.60 2158 0.80 2.08 99.6 298.6
3 920.8 110.0 0.94 10.21 2080 0.80 1.96 92.1 215.3
4 887.2 95.7 0.97 10.03 2042 0.82 1.94 88.7 185.3
5 874.4 93.9 0.99 9.96 2028 0.79 1.86 87.4 174.5
6 920.4 111.7 0.94 10.21 2079 0.82 2.01 92.0 224.6
7 894.8 108.2 0.96 10.07 2051 0.78 1.87 89.5 201.8
8 659.0 72.9 0.98 9.98 2033 0.84 1.47 65.9 107.2
9 633.4 69.3 1.00 9.89 2014 0.77 1.32 63.3 91.7

11-26
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

Load combination no. 6:

U = 1.2D + 0.5L +0.5Lr + 1.6W

⎛ M1 ⎞
≥ 0.4 Eq. (10-16)
⎝ M 2 ⎟⎠
Cm = 0.6 + 0.4 ⎜

62.5 ⎞
= 0.6 + 0.4 ⎛⎜ = 0.82
⎝ 111.7 ⎟⎠

π 2 EI
Pc =
Eq. (10-13)
( kl u )2

EI =
( 0.2Ec Ig + Es Ise ) Eq. (10-14)
1 + β dns

` Ec = 57,000 6, 000 = 4,415 ksi 8.5.1

1, 000

20 4
Ig = = 13,333 in.4
12

8.5.2
E s = 29,000 ksi

Assuming 8-No. 8 bars with 1.5 in. cover to No. 3 ties:

⎡ ⎛ 20 1.00 ⎞ ⎤
2
Ise = 2 ⎢( 3 × 0.79 ) ⎜ − 1.5 − 0.375 − ⎟ ⎥ = 276 in.4
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

Since the dead load is the only sustained load,

1.2PD
β dns =
1.2PD + 0.5PL + 0.5PLr + 1.6Pw

1.2 × 718
= = 0.94
(1.2 × 718 ) + ( 0.5 × 80 ) + ( 0.5 × 12 ) + (1.6 × 8 )

EI =
( 0.2 × 4,415 × 13,333) + ( 29, 000 × 276 ) = 10.21 × 10 6 kip-in.2
1 + 0.94

11-27
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

From Eq. (10-12):

0.4E c I g
EI =
1 + β dns

0.4 × 4,415 × 13,333

= = 12.14 × 10 6 kip-in.2
1 + 0.94

Using EI from Eq. (10-10), the critical load Pc is:

π 2 × 10.21 × 10 6
Pc = = 2,079 kips
( 0.86 × 21.33 × 12 )2
Therefore, the moment magnification factor is:

0.82
δ ns = = 2.01 (see “Closing Remarks” at the end of the example)
920.4
1−
0.75 × 2, 079
Check minimum moment requirement:

M 2,min = Pu (0.6 + 0.03h)

Eq. (10-17)

= 920.4 [0.6 + (0.03  20)]/12

The following table contains results from a strain compatibility analysis, where
compressive strains are taken as positive (see Parts 6 and 7).

11-28
 Code
Example 11.1 (cont’d) Calculations and Discussion Reference

The following table contains results from a strain compatibility analysis, where
compressive strains are taken as positive (see Parts 6 and 7).

17.625"

10.0"
20"

2.375"

20"

Pu Mu c εt φ φPn φMn
No.
(kips) (ft-kips) (in.) (kips) (ft-kips)
1 1,005.2 265.6 17.81 0.00003 0.65 1,005.2 298.0
2 995.6 298.6 17.64 0.00000 0.65 995.6 301.1
3 920.8 215.3 16.42 -0.00022 0.65 920.8 321.4
4 887.2 185.3 15.88 -0.00033 0.65 887.2 329.3
5 874.4 174.5 15.67 -0.00037 0.65 874.4 332.1
6 920.4 224.6 16.41 -0.00022 0.65 920.4 321.6
7 894.8 201.8 16.00 -0.00030 0.65 894.8 327.6
8 659.0 107.2 12.36 -0.00128 0.65 659.0 364.8
9 633.4 92.4 12.00 -0.00141 0.65 633.4 367.2

Therefore, since φMn > Mu for all φPn = Pu, use a 20  20 in. column with 8-No. 8 bars (ρg = 1.6%).
Figure 11-15 obtained from pcaColumn 11,2, contains the design strength interaction diagram for Column A3
with the factored axial loads and magnified moments for all load combinations.

Closing Remarks

In the 2008 Code, Section 10.10, Slenderness effects in compression members, was reorganized. A limit of 1.4
was set on the moment magnification for sway and non-sway columns.

The braced column designs in Example 11.1 have a moment magnifier, δns, greater than the new limit of 1.4;
hence, by ACI 318-08 Section 10.10.2.1, these columns violate ACI 318-08 and would require larger column sizes
to reduce the δns to the 1.4 limit. ACI 318 committee is considering modifying the requirements for non-sway
(braced) columns to allow increased δns values to be utilized in design to reflect successful existing practice;
however, as this book goes to press, the exact nature of the proposed revision is unknown.

11-29