Practical Author Summary

he fundamental stability prob-

Problems in W illiam F. Baker joined
Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill
LLP (SOM) in 1981 after receiving
Stability of Steel his bachelor and master of sci-
ence degrees in civil engineering
Structures from the University of Missouri
and the University of Illinois,
respectively. Mr. Baker is the
partner in charge of structural and
civil engineering in the Chicago
office of SOM. His experience is
international and extends to a
variety of structural types, includ-
ing offices, hotels, churches,
museums, educational facilities,
exhibition/convention centers, air-
ports, retail and mixed-use devel-
opments. As structural/civil engi-
neering partner, Mr. Baker leads
the development of structural con-
cepts and oversees the quality of
all work contributed by his team.
Mr. Baker is a registered pro-
William F. Baker fessional engineer in Illinois,
Missouri and New York. He is a
member of numerous professional
and civic organizations including:
American Concrete Institute,
(ACI); American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC); American
Society of Civil Engineer (ASCE);
Council on Tall Buildings and
Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and
Structural Stability Research
Council (SSRC).
His recent publications and lec-
tures include "Bare Bones
Building," by W.F. Baker, S.H.
lyengar, R.B. Johnson and R.C.
Sinn, Civil Engineering,
November 1996, pp. 43-45; "Steel
Buildings and the Art of Structural
Engineering," R. Halvorson, W.F.
Baker and R.C. Sinn, In
Proceedings, First Argentinean
Conference on Steel
Construction, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, October, 1995; "Russia
Tower - 120-Story Office
Building," May 1995, Council on
Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T lem that a structural steel
designer must solve is the deter-
mination of the nominal compres-
sion capacity (Pn) of a structural
member or system. This paper
will discuss the calculation of Pn
for two systems: unbraced
frames and lattice/built-up mem-
bers. The traditional calculation
of Pn for the columns of an
unbraced frame using k-values is
extremely cumbersome; in addi-
tion it is difficult to properly correct
the k-values for deviations from
the assumptions contained in the
effective length factor nomograph.
This paper will demonstrate an
approach that allows the designer
to directly address the stability of
an unbraced frame and calculate
Pn for the columns without using
k-values. The proper calculation
of Pn for non-prismatic members
or lattice/built-up systems is not
well known. This paper will illus-
trate how to use a computer
eigenvalue buckling analysis and
the tangent modulus factors,
implied by the LRFD specifica-
tions, to accurately determine the
nominal compression capacity of
such systems.

2-1
 PRACTICAL PROBLEMS IN STABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

INTRODUCTION

Engineers must address stability in the design of all steel structures. The stability concerns can
be the local buckling of flanges or webs, the lateral torsional buckling of flexural members, the
flexural buckling of compression members, etc. A major stability design consideration is the
evaluation of the stability of systems composed of steel members. This paper will focus on
two important categories of system stability: unbraced frames and lattice/built-up systems.

There are several attributes that are desirable for a calculation methodology. The calculations
should be easily performed using commonly available resources. In the current office
environment, this implies that calculations that require the use of hand-held calculators or PC-
based finite element programs would be appropriate. The calculations should not be overly
complex in order to minimize the risk of errors caused by misinterpretation or misuse of the
methodology. The methodology should be based on the fundamentals of structural steel
behavior and the calculation process should assist the designer in understanding the behavior
of the structure being designed.

Often, calculation procedures seem to be a part of a cookbook recipe that hopefully will lead
to a safe structure but in fact can lead to incorrect solutions if the "recipe" is not understood
or is misapplied. Sometimes, the procedure is so complex that the designer is at risk of
making errors. Unfortunately, the preceding statements can be made about common
calculation methods used to determine the overall stability of a structure.

In the vocabulary of the AISC-LRFD Specification (AISC, 1993), the calculation of the
stability of a member or a system becomes the determination of the nominal axial strength, Pn .
In this paper, calculation methodologies are presented that are intended to assist the structural
steel designer with the calculation of Pn for unbraced frames and lattice/built-up systems.

UNBRACED FRAMES

It could be argued that the calculation procedure for Pn for unbraced frames is among the least
understood and most frequently misapplied procedures used in steel design. Traditionally,
calculations have been based on the determination of effective length factors (k-values).
These k-values are generally determined from a nomograph that is based on numerous
assumptions. Unfortunately, these assumptions are generally not satisfied in commonly
occurring structural systems. This leads to a complicated series of corrections that must be
made. The complexity of the corrections is such that the designer must expend great care to
avoid errors.

2-3
These assumptions and the corresponding corrections are discussed in the commentary to
Chapter C of the AISC-LRFD Specification. For an in-depth discussion of unbraced frames,
the reader is referred to ASCE (1997), White and Hajjar (1997a) and White and Hajjar
(1997b).

The stability of an unbraced frame is described by the term of the AISC-LRFD

interaction equations that are repeated here as Equations (1) and (2).

(1)

(2)

The following discussion will present a method that uses story drift to calculate

Drift Based Determination of Stability

The AISC formulae emphasize the calculation of Pn for an individual column when checking
the stability of an unbraced frame. The traditional methods of calculation of the Pn of an
individual column, based on k-values, have two unfortunate side effects. First, the designer
loses sight of the fact that stability is a system phenomenon (i.e. lateral collapse of an entire
story), not an individual column phenomenon. Second, greater stability can often be achieved
by increasing the size of other members of the lateral system instead of the individual column
being checked. The following is a discussion of methods of calculating Pn based on the lateral
stiffness of the unbraced frame.

The framing of a building is generally composed of two major groups: gravity-only framing
and lateral framing. The gravity-only framing is designed to only resist the vertical loads
imposed by gravity with the assumption that the lateral stability is provided by other systems
(shear walls, diagonal bracing, rigid moment resisting frames, etc.) The failure of a column in
the gravity-only framing occurs primarily through braced buckling. These columns are
commonly called leaning columns because they "lean" against the lateral system for sidesway
stability. The lateral system resists the lateral loads (wind, seismic, etc.). It also provides
stability to the gravity loads that are supported directly by the lateral system and to the
gravity-only framing (leaning columns). The basic stability failure (in addition to localized
buckling of a column in a braced mode) of the lateral system is through the simultaneous
sidesway buckling of all the columns in a story.

2-4
The lateral movement per unit height (drift) of a story under the action of a lateral load is a
fundamental indicator of lateral stability. This movement for a 50-year wind has traditionally
been limited to values such as 1/400 or 1/500, based on an elastic first order analysis. The
first order drift for a given lateral load along with the total vertical load provides the basis for
a stability analysis. In order to facilitate the discussion, the following terms are defined:

Lateral inter-story deflection of the story under consideration

Story Height
First order drift index
Lateral shear in an individual column
Lateral story shear causing D 1
Total service vertical load in the story under consideration
Total factored vertical load in the story under consideration

The elastic buckling load of a story can be approximated by (Nair, 1981).

This approximation is quite useful and is often given the term (LeMessurier, 1977).

(3)

Although it is common to use a 50-year wind load in the calculation of the actual
magnitude of the load is not important because the lateral movement is proportional to the
lateral load for a linear analysis. It is only important that the deflected shape approximate the
buckled shape. For this reason, it is often useful to use a lateral load that is proportional to
the gravity weight of the building. This is particularly true if the distribution of the weight of
the building is not uniform.

This is the same estimate of that is used in the moment magnification term of the
AISC-LRFD Specification. The formulation, as shown below, is commonly used as an
approximation of second order effects. A variation on the term is shown below as an
amplification factor, This amplification factor can be used to estimate the second order
drift, as is shown in Equation (6). This leads to the simple formulation of Equation (7).

(4)

(5)

(6)

2-5
 (7)

The value of used in the calculation of is dependent on the purpose of the calculation.
For strength, should be used for For serviceability, or the designer's estimate of
the total actual load on the story should be used.

The lateral movement of a structure is always a primary concern of the structural steel
designer. Even if the building has more than adequate lateral strength, the building's lateral
movement must be controlled in order to avoid damage to cladding, partitions and other non-
structural elements, and to avoid disturbing the occupants of the building. Although the first
order drift is useful for the calculation of (as it shall be demonstrated later in this paper),
it is the second order drift that the building actually experiences. The designer should
always calculate to see if it is excessive. Using the above approximation, the designer can
quickly evaluate

The following discussion will demonstrate how the lateral story shear and the first order
drift index can be used to calculate

The AISC-LRFD column formula for the calculation of the nominal strength of a column is
expressed as:
(8)

(9)

(10)

where:

(11)

Equations (8) through (11) can be simplified to:

(12)

(13)

2-6
The two values that are needed to calculate are the squash load, and the elastic buckling
load, The calculation of is simply is the portion of the story lateral buckling
strength that is attributed to an individual column and is denoted by for the
column. If the applied factored load, were increased by a factor until the story buckles,
then the buckling load for the story is and is equal to Therefore the for each
column is The task now is to calculate can be used to
approximate but the result tends to over-estimate for some frames. This can be
observed in the two frames shown below.

(a) (b)

Figure 1

Both frames have the same but have different The frame on the right has a that
is 82% of tends to over-estimate because it does not account for the loss of
flexural stiffness caused by the presence of axial loads effects) in the lateral force
resisting columns. This phenomenon is extensively discussed by LeMessurier in his 1977
landmark paper (LeMessurier, 1977). The relationship between and is a function of
the end conditions of the column in the unbraced frame and the amount of load supported by
leaning columns. The AISC commentary suggests a refinement of that can be used as an
estimate of for column i.

(14)

2-7
or

(15)

but (16)

is the fraction of the total story vertical load supported on leaning columns.

The last inequality (Equation (16)) is used in order to detect braced buckling of a column in a
frame and to avoid cases where the correction in Equation (15) is inadequate.

can now be calculated for all of the columns that participate in the unbraced frame. This
must be compared with the in the out-of-plane direction and the lowest value used in
the interaction equation for each column.

The use of has advantages over methods based on the determination of

effective length factors (k-values) in that it is a much easier method to calculate and that it
is based on information that is well known to the designer. In fact, the terms needed to
calculate based on are approximately known prior to the beginning of the design. It
is common for a target first order drift index to be established for a 50 year wind prior to the
beginning of the frame design. Also, the weight of the building is generally known from past
experience (i.e. an approximate building density of 10 pcf for service loads or 13 pcf for
factored loads is common for steel framed office buildings) and the ratio of and can
be estimated from the layout of the framing.

Another advantage of the method for determining is that it emphasizes controlling

inter-story drift as a method of achieving a desirable

Because lateral stability is a story behavior phenomenon, the first term in the interaction
equation, should be the same for every column in an unbraced frame unless out-of-
plane buckling or braced in-plane buckling controls the strength of an individual column.
However, it can be seen from the preceding equations that the for different columns
will be equal only if the ratio of are equal for all columns of an unbraced frame
(or if the on all of the columns are so small that they are all controlled by Equation (13)).
This variation of values for different columns in the same story is independent of the
method (drift method, corrected effective length method, eigenvalue buckling analysis
method, etc.) used to calculate This variation is an inherent limitation of using elastic
analysis to evaluate an inelastic behavior.

2-8
In an elastic analysis, the stability demand is distributed amongst the columns based on their
relative elastic stability capacities. Unfortunately, columns with lower values of have a
lower inelastic stability capacity relative to other columns in the system than is implied by
elastic analysis because of capacity reductions from inelastic effects (i.e. local yielding) in the
more highly stressed columns. When column capacity Equations (8) through (11) (or
Equations (12) and (13)) are applied to individual columns, it is done with the implied
assumption that all other columns have the same adjustments (tangent modulus corrections)
for inelastic effects. To the extent that the inelastic effects are not equal, the story capacity
based on an elastic analysis and the column capacity equations may overestimate or
underestimate the actual total story stability {story capacity
It has been the author's experience that the story stability based on an elastic
analysis and the column capacity equations may be underestimated or overestimated by more
than 10%, however, the maximum potential unconservatism has not been rigorously
established. It is for this reason that the term for all of the columns in an unbraced
frame should be based on the column with the highest value of unless a more
sophisticated analysis is performed.

The uniform, actual value of can be determined only if additional calculations are
done that accommodate an inelastic redistribution of stability demand (from the columns with
high values of to columns with low values of

TABLE 1
Column Individual Column Load Column Load Distribution
Mark Distribution for Both Rigid Frames
1 3.0% 6.0%
2 1.0% 2.0%
3 5.5% 11.0%
4 0.5% 1.0%
5 2.5% 5.0%
All Others 75.0%
100.0%

Note:

All steel is ASTM A572-Grade 50.

2-9
 Figure 3 - Example 1

The following example (Figures 2 and 3 and Table 1) will demonstrate the calculation of
based on The frame was chosen because it violates many of the assumptions of the k-
value nomograph (extremes in load variations, unequal bay sizes, etc.) and would require
extensive corrections if that method were used. However, the procedure is relatively straight
forward if the method is used. In order to equate to the AISC commentary for the k-
value nomograph relative to columns with pinned bases, a rotational spring stiffness of
6EI/GL with G equal to 10 was used at the base of each column to approximate the stiffness
that is expected from actual column base details. The lateral analysis calculates a first order
elastic drift of 0.362 inches. Based on this information, the designer can now calculate the
following:

The second order drift index at service loads is approximately:

(This may be excessive for some applications).

2-10
The story elastic buckling load is estimated by:

24 kip x 497 = 11,900 kips.

correcting based on Equation (15) leads to:

= 11,900 x (0.85 + 0.15 x 0.75) = 11,500 kips.

The value of 11,500 kips compares closely with a value of 11,700 kips from a computer
based elastic eigenvalue analysis.

is then prorated to the columns of the lateral load resisting frame by the ratio of
and is calculated for the individual columns using Equation (12) or (13). The results are
summarized in Table 2. An inspection of the results shows that the column with the highest
value of has the highest value of This is because they all have the same ratio of
(for this problem the ratio is 0.435) but the columns that are closest to yield strength
have the greatest strength reductions because of inelastic effects. The highest ratio of
will be a conservative estimate of the actual ratio of and the lowest ratio will be an
unconservative estimate. Unless an inelastic redistribution of the stability demand is made, the
designer should use the highest value of for all of the columns of the unbraced frame.
If greater precision is required, then an inelastic stability demand redistribution analysis should
be performed.

TABLE 2
Column 1.7 In-plane
Mark (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) for
Equations
(1)&(2)
1 150 780 0.192 345 1943 302 0.584 0.668
2 50 660 0.076 115 2007 101 0.584 0.668
3 275 850 0.324 632 2475 484 0.668 0.668
4 25 660 0.038 57 2043 50 0.584 0.668
5 125 660 0.189 287 1675 252 0.584 0.668

The following section will describe one method suggested by White and Hajjar (White and
Hajjar, 1997b) for redistributing the stability demand based on inelasticity.

2-11
Corrections for Inelastic Redistribution

The AISC-LRFD column equations can be formulated in terms of a tangent modulus/out-of-

straightness correction to the elastic buckling value. After some manipulation, Equations (12)
and (13) can be rewritten as:

(17)

(18)

(19)

A value 0.877 is included in Equations (13) and (14) to account for out-of-straightness.

Using the previous design example, the designer can re-run the lateral analysis after reducing
the moment of inertias for each column by the value for that column. It is suggested that the
initial estimates of (denoted as ) that are used to calculate be based on where
The "b" subscript refers to the column in the unbraced frame with the highest
from the preceding iteration. The new lateral analysis results in a new inter-story drift index
that can be used to calculate an inelastic for the story. It is now necessary to calculate
the elastic for each of the columns so that a new estimate of can be made. This is
accomplished by dividing Equation (15) by the value used in the analysis for each column
and calculating a new and thus a new The modified Equation (15') is given below:

(15')

This procedure is repeated until the designer is satisfied with the range of values. The
steps are outlined as follows:

1. Perform an elastic lateral analysis and calculate

2. Calculate for each column of the lateral load resisting frame using Equation (15'). Use
for the first pass. Check for braced buckling using Equation (16).
3. Calculate for each column of the lateral load resisting frame using Equations (12) and
(13).
4. Calculate for each column of the lateral load resisting frame and use the highest
value for all columns of the frame. The designer can stop at this point. If
desired, inelastic analysis to more accurately estimate may be used as follows.
5. Estimate (denoted as for each column as where
6. Calculate for each column using in Equations (18) and (19). Revise the moment of
inertia of each column of the unbraced frame to be
7. Perform a standard lateral analysis and calculate
8. Repeat steps 2 through 4.

2-12
For example (1), the convergence of is shown in Table 3. It can be derived from
Tables 1 and 3 that the total story capacity increases by 3% from the from the 1st to the 5th
run for this example.

TABLE 3
Calculated In-Plane
Column 1st-Run 2nd-Run 3rd-Run 4th-Run 5th-Run
Mark Elastic Stiff. Red Stiff. Red Stiff. Red Stiff. Red
1 0.584 0.587 0.594 0.597 0.598
2 0.584 0.587 0.594 0.597 0.598
3 0.668 0.624 0.610 0.604 0.601
4 0.584 0.587 0.594 0.597 0.598
5 0.584 0.587 0.594 0.597 0.598

An interesting variation on the first example is to fix the bases of the columns in the rigid
frame. This is shown as example 2 in Figure 4. The first order deflection is reduced to 0.133
inches which corresponds to a of 1357. The resulting calculated values of are
shown in the "1st-Run Elastic" column of Table 4. For example 2, column No. 3 has a
that is over twice that of some of the other columns. If an inelastic analysis iteration such as
that described above is made, it becomes clear on the next iteration from Equation (16) that
column No. 3 buckles in a braced buckling mode before the story buckles. Column No. 3 is
then treated as a pinned leaning column for subsequent inelastic analysis iterations. The
convergence of is shown in Table 4. It can be derived from Tables 1 and 4 that the
total story capacity increases by 10% from the from the 1st to the 5th run for this example.

Figure 4 - Example 2

TABLE 4 TABLE 5
Calculated In-Plane
Column 1st-Run 2nd-Run 3rd-Run 4th-Run 5th-Run Column
Mark Elastic Stiff. Red Stiff. Red Stiff. Red Stiff. Red Mark
1 0.320 0.326 0.321 0.318 0.317 1 0.357
2 0.215 0.236 0.311 0.314 0.315 2 0.282
3 0.468 Buckled Pinned Pinned Pinned 3 Pinned
4 0.214 0.236 0.311 0.314 0.315 4 0.282
5 0.317 0.324 0.321 0.318 0.317 5 0.355

2-13
In a rigid frame, when one column has a significantly larger than the other columns,
and the designer does not want to perform an iterative inelastic analysis, he/she may consider
the column as pinned (Figure 5) and calculate the for the remaining columns on that
basis. If this were done on the preceding problem (Figure 5), the results from the elastic
analysis would be as shown in Table 5. A value of 0.360 for for all of the columns is
close to the value from the more involved iterative process as shown in Table 4. The value of
for the pinned column would be based on k 1.0.

Figure 5 - Example 3

A final unbraced frame example is shown in Figure 6. For brevity, only the results are shown
in Table 6. The total story capacity decreases by 11% from the elastic analysis to the
converged inelastic analysis. For accuracy, these results are based on an eigenvalue buckling
analysis. This example illustrates why the value of must be based on the column with
the highest value of unless an inelastic analysis is made. For the example in Figure 6, a
value of 0.799 should be used for for both columns if only an elastic analysis is made.

Figure 6 - Example 4

2-14
TABLE 6
Column Elastic Analysis Inelastic Analysis
Mark (kip) (kip)
A 589 0.799 683 0.689
B 944 0.499 683 0.684
Total 1533 1366

LATTICE AND BUILT-UP SYSTEMS

The determination of for non-prismatic compression members or systems is difficult

because the LRFD column formulae (Equations (8), (9) and (10)) assume a constant cross
section. The systems shown in Figure 7 cannot be evaluated in the same manner as a simple
rolled wide-flange column. However, Equations (17), (18) and (19) can be used with
eigenvalue buckling or other numerical analysis procedures to calculate for a member or
system.

Figure 7

Consider the tapered member shown in Figure 8. The full elastic moment of inertia is shown
in Figure 9a and the squash load, is shown in Figure 9b. The full elastic buckling load,
can be determined using a commercially available computer eigenvalue buckling analysis
program or by hand calculated numerical methods that are available in the literature (Bleich,
1952).

2-15
 Figure 8

For a conservative estimate of the squash load, on the smallest cross section and for
the member or system can be used with Equations (17), (18) and (19). A more accurate value
for can be calculated on an iterative basis using estimates for in Equations (18) and (19)
to reduce the moment of inertia at each cross section and calculating the buckling value
for the system by analysis. When the estimated value for and the resulting buckling values
are equal, they represent a value of that can be used in design. Figure 9c shows the
reduced moments of inertia and the buckling strength of the system.

2-16
 Figure 9

CONCLUSION

The calculation methods described in this paper are intended to make the fundamental
behavior of a system being designed clear to the structural steel designer. These methods
permit the determination of the compressive strength, of an unbraced frame or lattice/built-
up system using standard analysis tools.

The calculation of for an unbraced frame focuses on story stability. The stability of a story
is a function of the lateral stiffness of the story in the presence of destabilizing forces from
leaning columns and out-of-straightness. The lateral stability of a story is also a function of
the softening of the flexural stiffness of the columns that participate in the braced frame from
and tangent modulus effects. The calculation methodology suggested here addresses
these issues and is easy to use.

The evaluation of lattice/built-up systems also directly addresses the issues of tangent modulus
and out-of-straightness and can be used on a wide range of design problems.

2-17
The better understanding the designer has on the limit state that is being considered by the
building code, the more likely it is that a safe and efficient design will be produced. The
methods presented in this paper are intended to help the designer understand the stability of
unbraced frames and lattice/built-up systems and produce designs that are consistent with the
AISC-LRFD specification.

REFERENCES

1. AISC (1993), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings and Commentary, AISC, Chicago, IL, 1993.

2. ASCE (1997) Structural Engineering Institute Technical Committee on Load and

Resistance Factor Design, "Effective Length and Notional Load Approaches for
Assessing Frame Stability: Implications for American Steel Design." Committee
Report, ASCE, New York, (to appear in 1997).

3. Bleich, F. (1952), Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

New York, NY, 1952.

4. LeMessurier, W. J. (1977), A Practical Method of Second Order Analysis, Part 2 -

Rigid Frames, AISC Engineering Journal, 2nd Qtr., 1977.

5. Nair, R. S. (1981), A Simple Method of Overall Stability Analysis for Multistory

Buildings, Structural Stability Research Council, Proceedings 1981.

6. White, D. W. and Hajjar, J. F. (1997a), Buckling Models and Stability Design of Steel
Frames: A Unified Approach, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, (to appear in
1997).

7. White, D. W. and Hajjar, J. F. (1997b), Accuracy and Simplicity of Calcualtions for

Stability Design of Steel Frames: A Unified Approach, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, (to appear in 1997).

2-18
 Fig. 1

Fig. 6

2-19
2-20
Fig. 2
 Fig. 3 - EXAMPLE 1

Fig. 4 - EXAMPLE 2

Fig. 5 - EXAMPLE 3

2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24