The Uniform Force Method: A Concise Overview of This Geometric Method for Determining Force Distribution in Vertical Bracing Connections

The Uniform Force Method
AISC Live Webinars AISC Live Webinars

Thank you for joining our live webinar today.
We will begin shortly. Please standby. Today’s audio will be broadcast through the internet.
Alternatively, to hear the audio through the phone, dial
Thank you. 800 750 5861 .
International callers, dial 00+1+212 231 2900 .
Need Help? For additional support, please press *0 and you will be
Call ReadyTalk Support: 800.843.9166 connected to a live operator.
1 2
The Uniform Force

AISC Live Webinars Method
Today’s live webinar will begin shortly.
Please standby. Presented by
As a reminder, all lines have been muted. Please type any William A. Thornton, P.E., Ph.D.
questions or comments through the Chat feature on the left Corporate Consultant to the Cives Corporation of Roswell, GA.
portion of your screen.
Today’s audio will be broadcast through the internet.

Alternatively, to hear the audio through the phone, dial
800 750 5861 .
International callers, dial 00+1+212 231 2900 .
For additional support, please press *0 and you will be
connected to a live operator.
3 4
American Institute of Steel Construction 1

THE UNIFORM FORCE

METHOD
What is it?
THE UNIFORM FORCE
A geometric method to determine the
METHOD statically indeterminate force distribution in
a vertical bracing connection.
The method evolved from research
sponsored by AISC performed by Ralph
Richard at the University of Arizona
5 6
Geometry of UFM
All Parts are in Equilibrium
Uniform Force Method (UFM)

Geometry Control Points and
Admissible Force Field 7 8

An admissible force field is an The control point geometry is

internal force distribution in dictated by the constraint
equilibrium with the applied
α-βtanθ=ebtanθ-ec
external forces
α and β locate the gusset connection
centroids
The load path is defined by
the admissible force field
9 10
α and β Control points

vs
⎯α and ⎯β
When designing a connection, α and β can always
be chosen to satisfy the geometric constraint.
When checking a connection designed by some other
method the connection centroids may not satisfy the
geometric constraint.
This is where ⎯α and ⎯β appear. These locate the
actual connections centroids and will not satisfy the
constraint.Therefore, couples will exist on the gusset
edges. Manual 13th Ed. Part 13 addresses this.
11 12

Vc2 + H c2
UFM – Beam Control Point
V2 + H2 Column Control Point
b b
V 2 + H c2
b
H Beam Control Point

V 2 + H c2
b
Beam Control
Point UFM – Column
V
Control Point
13 14
UFM Special Case I UFM Special Case I

Non Concentric Work Point Non Concentric Work Point LARGE
15 16

UFM Special Case I

Admissible Force field UFM Special Case I
These forces are added algebraically to the UFM concentric Admissible Force field
forces
Note the extra moments in the beam and column
17 18
UFM Special Case II

Admissible Force Field
This reduces the beam to column shear
19 20

UFM Special Case II UFM Special Case II

Admissible Force Field Admissible Force Field
This reduces the beam to column shear This reduces the beam to column shear
21 22
UFM Special Case II

Admissible Force Field What forces the use of Special
This reduces the beam to column shear Case II
• Beam shear reactions based on beam strength
ΔVb rather than floor loads
• Most beams, especially those part of the lateral
bracing system, are designed for stiffness, not
strength
• This results in beams many times stronger than
those required for strength, and larger shear
reactions than those required for the floor loads
23 24

UFM Special Case III UFM Special Case III

Admissible Force Field Admissible Force Field
Connection to beam or column only Connection to beam or column only
25 26
Early Design Methods Method of Sections

Method of Sections
Recent Design Methods See, for instance:
Design of steel Structures, Gaylord and Gaylord,
Method of Parts McGraw-Hill, 1957 and 1972
Uniform Force Design of Welded Structures, Blodgett, Lincoln
Electric, 1966
KISS
Parallel Force
Truss Analogy
27 28

Method of Sections
From Blodgett, 1966 Section d-d
Section
d-d
Section From Blodgett,1966

a-a
29 30
Section d-d Admissible Force Field
Method of Parts
These date from the middle 1970’s to

Stress on d-d is calculated using the present
P/A +/- Mc/I
Slender beam formulas for a
decidedly un-slender element 31 32

Kiss
The KISS method

• Was used with and without the couples MB and
MC, but mostly without
• Was used with the brace vertical component on
the column connection and the brace horizontal
component on the beam connection
• Was used without regard to the Work Point
KISS METHOD
position
(Keep it Simple, Stupid!)
• INADMISSIBLE FORCE FIELDS
ADMISSIBLE FORCE FIELD
33 34
The KISS method The KISS method

An inadmissible force field does not In particular, the
satisfy what William McGuire of LOWER BOUND THEOREM IS
Cornell, in another context, called INVALID
“The niceties of Structural If an inadmissible force field is
Mechanics”
used
McGuire, Steel Structures, Prentice-
Hall, 1968, page 933
35 36

Kiss Method
vs
Uniform Force Method KISS vs UFM
COST
AISC 13th Ed. MANUAL
Is there an economic reason to use EXAMPLE
KISS?
It is simpler, even with the couples

37 38
o
f
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
DESIGN BY DESIGN BY
THE KISS METHOD THE UNIFORM FORCE METHOD
GUSSET 52X43 1/2 GUSSET 42X31 1/2
DESIGN EXAMPLE COMPARISON OF DESIGNS

AISC 13th ED. MANUAL 39 40

K
I
S
S
S
a
v
A $ 2 million dollar
savings was
i
n
KISS $840 per CONNECTION

g
s
attributed to
UFM $658 per CONNECTION bracing connection
design on these two
projects
DIFFERENCE is $182 per CONNECTION
40 STORY BUILDING WITH 32 CONNECTIONS PER FLOOR
EQUALS
The UFM rather than
$ 240,000 SAVED the KISS method was
used extensively
41 42
Ricker
Parallel Force Method
PARALLEL FORCE METHOD

(PFM)
ADMISSIBLE FORCE FIELD 43 44

Parallel Force Method

• Works well for connections to column
flanges, but not to column webs
• Is therefore not universally applicable
• Requires a couple M for an admissible force
field
• Suggested by Dave Ricker, a member of the
AISC Manual Committee, in 1989
45 46
Another Example
Admissible Force Field, PFM
UNIFORM FORCE METHOD

VS
PARALLEL FORCE METHOD
47 48

49 50
LOAD PATHS HAVE

CONSEQUENCES
UFM Design with UFM
admissible force field
Capacity is 320 kips
51 52

LOAD PATHS HAVE

CONSEQUENCES
UFM Design with PFM
admissible force field
Capacity is 30 kips
53 54
February 2002
Truss Analogy Method

Introduced in 1989
55 56


This method is counter intuitive.
It will bring a large part of the brace
vertical component to the beam when How can you decide which
it should be delivered to the column, method is closest to reality?
and a large part of the brace
horizontal component to the column The Lower Bound Theorem of Limit
when it should be delivered to the Analysis
beam.
It will not be considered further here.
57 58
Lower
Bound
FOR CONNECTIONS
LOWER BOUND THEOREM
GIVEN: ADMISSIBLE INTERNAL FORCE FIELD COROLLARY TO THE
(INTERNAL FORCES IN EQUILIBRIUM
WITH APPLIED LOAD)
LOWER BOUND THEOREM
GIVEN: SATISFACTION OF THE LIMIT STATES
THE ADMISSIBLE INTERNAL
RESULT: THE LOAD IN EQUILIBRIUM WITH
FORCE FIELD THAT MAXIMIZES
THE INTERNAL FORCE FIELD IS LESS THE CONNECTION CAPACITY IS
THAN OR AT MOST, EQUAL TO THE CLOSEST TO THE COLLAPSE
CONNECTION CAPACITY. SOLUTION
59 60

An Example
X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example
0.10
0.13
0.25
• As an example 0.33
Load
0.50
– Assume a simple system of three
0.67
identical bars supporting a load.
0.75
– This is an indeterminate structure, 0.88
though intuitively we know each bar 1.00
supports an equal load.
– However if we assume the center bar
supports a percentage of the load, x, and X
the results are plotted, we have a very 33.33 x = the % of total load supported by center member
bar capacity
simple example of the Lower Bound P = total load supported with assumed load distribution
Theorem.
61 Practical Connection Design 62
X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example
0.10 74.07 0.10 74.07
0.13 76.19 0.13 76.19
0.25 0.25 88.89
0.33 0.33
Load
Load
0.50 0.50
0.67 0.67
0.75 0.75
0.88 0.88
1.00 1.00
X X
33.33 x = the % of total load supported by center member 33.33 x = the % of total load supported by center member
bar capacity bar capacity
P = total load supported with assumed load distribution P = total load supported with assumed load distribution
Practical Connection Design 63 Practical Connection Design 64

X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example
0.10 74.07 0.10 74.07
0.13 76.19 0.13 76.19
0.25 88.89 0.25 88.89
0.33 100.00 0.33 100.00
Load
Load
0.50 0.50 66.67
0.67 0.67
0.75 0.75
0.88 0.88
1.00 1.00
X X
X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example
0.10 74.07 0.10 74.07
0.13 76.19 0.13 76.19
0.25 88.89 0.25 88.89
0.33 100.00 0.33 100.00
Load
Load
0.50 66.67 0.50 66.67
0.67 50.00 0.67 50.00
0.75 0.75 44.44
0.88 0.88
1.00 1.00
X X

X
0.00
P
66.67
An Example An admissible force field is an
0.10 74.07
0.13 76.19 internal force distribution in
0.25 88.89
0.33 100.00 equilibrium with the applied
Load
0.50 66.67
0.67 50.00 external forces
0.75 44.44
0.88 38.10
1.00 33.33
The load path is defined by

X
33.33 x = the % of total load supported by center member
the admissible force field
bar capacity
P = total load supported with assumed load distribution
Practical Connection Design 69 70

DESIGN The Uniform Force Method
The Uniform Force Method is not based
With UFM admissible force field on theory alone.
Capacity is 320 kips
With PFM admissible force field The concept of concentrically loaded
interfaces developed from observations of
Capacity is 30 kips the tests run by Richard.
71 72

i e
n
E
o l
f e
m
STEEL CONNECTION DESIGN

U e
F n
M t
A
n
BASED ON a
l
y
s
i
s
INELASTIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

A DESIGN REPORT PREPARED FOR
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

ORIGINS OF GEORGE C. WILLIAMS, Ph.D.
UNIFORM FORCE METHOD RALPH M. RICHARD, Ph.D.,P.E.

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
ALSO PROCEEDINGS, AISC NATIONAL STEEL

CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE, NASHVILLE, TN, 1986
73 74
r o
a r
c c
GUSSET EDGE FORCE RESULTANT ENVELOPES

i e
n
g –
30º WORKING POINT MODELS

C 3
o 0
n
n D
. e
g
r
e
e
s
W.P.
e M=Pe
a
P P
75 76

r r
GUSSET EDGE FORCE RESULTANT ENVELOPE

c c
e e
–
GUSSET EDGE FORCE RESULTANT ENVELOPES –
45º WORKING POINT MODELS 4

5
6
0
D
e
g
60º WORKING POINT MODELS D
e
g
r r
e e
e e
s s
77 78
r r
GUSSET EDGE FORCE RESULTANT ENVELOPE GUSSET EDGE FORCE RESULTANT ENVELOPE
c c
e e
– –

5 45º WORKING POINT MODELS 4
5
D D
e e
g g
r r
e e
e e
s s
79 80

r r
GUSSET EDGE FORCE RESULTANT ENVELOPE GUSSET EDGE FORCE RESULTANT ENVELOPE
c c
e e
– –

5 45º WORKING POINT MODELS 4
5
D D
e e
g g
r r
e e
e e
s s
81 82
Thornton
The force distributions shown on

the previous four slides, based on
the work of Ralph Richard, gave
rise to the UFM force distribution
shown on the next slide
(UFM)
83 ADMISSIBLE FORCE FIELD 84

The UFM was first introduced in Non-orthogonal UFM

1991
“On the Analysis and Design of
Bracing Connections”, William A.
Thornton, Proceedings of the 1991
AISC National Steel Construction
Conference, Washington, DC, June
A version of this paper is available on

the Cives Steel Company website at
www.cives.com 85 86
Non-Orthogonal UMF
87 88

n e
g n
a t
r
AIRCRAFT HANGAR ROOF TRUSS R

o
BOLTS: A325SC 1Ø t
o
MAIN MAT’L: GR50

o G
400’ SPAN f u
s
CONN. MAT’L: A36

T s
r e
u t
s
s E
d
g
e
s
KISS METHOD
89 90
o
r
c
e
M
e
t
h
o
d
Another Example

91 92

Bracing Connection with Sloping

Column
From AISC Bracing Design Guide
(To appear)
93 94
Design for a sloping building column

95 96

Calculations Calculations
• ec=0.0, eb=9.0 in. From the constraint,
• tan γ=2/12, γ=9.46 deg.
• sin γ=0.164, cos γ= 0.986 α= eb(tanθ-tan γ)-ec/cos γ+β(cosγ tanθ-sinγ)
• tan θ=10.75/12
• Set β=13.5 in.,centroid of gusset to column α=9.0(0.896-0.167)-0+13.5(0.986x0.896-
connection 0.164) = 16.3 in.
97 98
Calculations Calculations
continued continued
r = [(α+ebtanγ+βsinγ+ec/cosγ)2+(eb+βcosγ)2]1/2 Vb= eb(P/r)=9.0x11.7=105kips
r = [(16.3+9.0x0.167+13.5x0.164+0)2+(9.0+13.5x0.986)2]1/2 Vc= βcosγ(P/r)=13.5x0.986x11.7=156kips

= 30.0 in.
P/r = 350kips/30.0 in.=11.7kips/in. Σ(Vb+Vc)=261kips
Brace vertical component=350cosθ=261kips OK
99 100

Calculations Design for a sloping building column

continued
Hb= (α+ebtanγ)(P/r)=(16.3+9.0x0.167)(11.7)=208kips
Hc= (βsinγ+ec/cosγ)(P/r)=(13.5x0.164+0)(11.7)=25.9kips
Σ(Hc+Hb) = 234kips
Brace horizontal component = 350sinθ = 234kips OK
Q = Hc-Pcosθtanγ = 25.9-350(0.744)(0.167) = -17.6kips
101 102
The UFM applied to a truss to

truss connection
Jack Truss to Main Truss
103 104

The UFM applied to a truss to

truss connection
Jack Truss to Main Truss
105 106
A Jack Truss to Main Truss Connection
107 108

Admissible Force Field Control Point B

This is the column control point
109 110
Column Control Point (B) simplifies

Geometry of UFM
interface force calculation
111 112

Bolts: ¾”φ A325 W14x145 Bolts: 1”φ A490 W14x145

in std. holes in std. holes
W16x26 W16x26
2’-0” R=20 kips R=20 kips
2’-0”
¾” Stiff. Pl for ¾” Stiff. Pl for
strong axis strong axis
moment conn. moment conn.
HSS10x10x5/16 35” HSS10x10x5/16 35”

P=150 kips P=150 kips
½” Tab Pl. 1”Tab Pl.
Vertical Bracing w/ Ext. Tab Vertical Bracing w/ Ext. Tab

113 114
Optimum Load Path Standard Load Path
5/16” FILLET
WELDS
5/16
5/16
5/8
5/8
½” Tab Pl. ½” Tab Pl.
1/2” PLATE
(A36)
5/8”
1” PLATE 1”Tab Pl. 1”Tab Pl.
FILLET
(Gr50)
WELDS
115 116

5/16 FBD of
Optimum
Solution
ec is taken to
5/8
the first line
5/8
½” Tab Pl. of bolts,
10.25in.,
(14)- 3/4” rather than
A325 BOLTS zero
1”Tab Pl.
(24) - 1”
A490 BOLTS Practical Connection Design
117 118
General Summary General Summary

Connections can account • The Uniform Force Method is a rational method.
• In the context of the Corollary to the Lower
for 50% of the cost of Bound Theorem, it provides a design closer to the
erected steel actual unknown admissible internal force
distribution than any other known method.
Rational design of • It provides economical connections when properly
used.
connections requires • The geometry and loads determine whether to use
the general UFM or special cases I, II, or III.
engineering knowledge
119 120

References
Additional UFM discussion will be
found in the following:
1. Tamboli, A.K., 2010, Handbook of Structural
Steel Connection Design and Details, 2nd Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, Chapter 2
Questions?
2. Brockenbrough, R.L., and Merritt, F.S., 2006,
Structural Steel Designer’s Handbook, 4th
Ed., McGraw-Hill, Chapter 3
121 122
AISC Seminars AISC Steel Camp

• Design Steel Your Way II 2 day, 4 topics, 15 hours of Continuing
• Practical Connections for Economical Steel Structures Education, One low price.
• HSS Connections/Dos and Don’t of Steel Construction
• Listen to the Steel Seattle - December 9-10
www.aisc.org/seminars
www.aisc.org/steelcamp
123 124

AISC eLearning AISC Live Webinars

Over 50 hours of presentations available Please give us your feedback!
anytime, online.
www.aisc.org/cesurvey
CEUs/PDHs are available.
www.aisc.org/elearning Thank you.
125 126

The Uniform Force Method: A Concise Overview of This Geometric Method for Determining Force Distribution in Vertical Bracing Connections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Uniform Force Method: A Concise Overview of This Geometric Method for Determining Force Distribution in Vertical Bracing Connections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Uniform Force Method

AISC Live Webinars AISC Live Webinars

The Uniform Force

Today’s audio will be broadcast through the internet.

American Institute of Steel Construction 1

THE UNIFORM FORCE

Uniform Force Method (UFM)

American Institute of Steel Construction 2

An admissible force field is an The control point geometry is

α and β Control points

American Institute of Steel Construction 3

H Beam Control Point

UFM Special Case I UFM Special Case I

American Institute of Steel Construction 4

UFM Special Case I

UFM Special Case II

American Institute of Steel Construction 5

UFM Special Case II UFM Special Case II

UFM Special Case II

American Institute of Steel Construction 6

UFM Special Case III UFM Special Case III

Early Design Methods Method of Sections

American Institute of Steel Construction 7

Section From Blodgett,1966

Section d-d Admissible Force Field

These date from the middle 1970’s to

American Institute of Steel Construction 8

The KISS method

The KISS method The KISS method

American Institute of Steel Construction 9

It is simpler, even with the couples

DESIGN EXAMPLE COMPARISON OF DESIGNS

American Institute of Steel Construction 10

KISS $840 per CONNECTION

Parallel Force Method

PARALLEL FORCE METHOD

American Institute of Steel Construction 11

Parallel Force Method

Admissible Force Field, PFM

UNIFORM FORCE METHOD

American Institute of Steel Construction 12

LOAD PATHS HAVE

American Institute of Steel Construction 13

LOAD PATHS HAVE

Truss Analogy Method

American Institute of Steel Construction 14

Truss Analogy Method

American Institute of Steel Construction 15

Practical Connection Design 63 Practical Connection Design 64

American Institute of Steel Construction 16

Practical Connection Design 65 Practical Connection Design 66

Practical Connection Design 67 Practical Connection Design 68

American Institute of Steel Construction 17

The load path is defined by

Practical Connection Design 69 70

UNIFORM FORCE METHOD

American Institute of Steel Construction 18

STEEL CONNECTION DESIGN

INELASTIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

UNIFORM FORCE METHOD RALPH M. RICHARD, Ph.D.,P.E.

ALSO PROCEEDINGS, AISC NATIONAL STEEL