Design For Stability Direct Analysis Method CE 470 (Fall 2016)

Design for Stability
Direct Analysis Method

CE 470 (Fall 2016)
Saahastaranshu R. Bhardwaj
HOW WILL YOU DESIGN??
12/14/21
STABILITY
 “the capacity of a compression member, element,

or frame to remain in position and support load,
even if forced slightly out of line or position by an
added lateral force” (Galambos, 1998)
Figure from NASCC: The Steel Conference

2014, Session N40, Geschwindner
3
Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

AISC DESIGN FOR STABILITY
 Stability to be provided for structure as whole, and
each elements.
 Discusses the effects that need to be considered
 Any rational method considering these effects can

be used
 Methods identified
 Chapter C: Direct Analysis Method (DAM)
 Appendix 7: Alternative Methods (effective length
method & first order analysis methods) subject to 4
constraints
12/14/21
5 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STABILITY
 Member, component, and connection deformations
 Second-order effects (P-D and P-d)
 Geometric imperfections (out-of-plumbness or out-

of-straightness)
 Stiffness reductions due to inelasticity (residual

stresses)
 Variability in component and system stiffness

5

SECOND ORDER EFFECTS

CHAPTER C
DAM: ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
 Consider axial, flexural, and shear deformations in
members, and connection deformations: accounted
for directly by analysis
 Consider second order effects: perform rigorous

analysis or use approximate method in Appendix 8
 Allloads influencing the stability need to be

considered. For LRFD, use combinations. For ASD,
use 1.6 times the combinations for analysis, divide
the demands by 1.6
7
12/14/21
SECOND ORDER ANALYSIS
 Rigorous non-linear analysis in the software
considering second order effects
 Approximate second order analysis (Appendix 8)

 Multipliers B1 and B2 to consider the second order
effects
12/14/21
CHAPTER C
DAM: INITIAL IMPERFECTIONS
 Directly model the imperfections
 Use Notional Loads

CHAPTER C
DAM: INITIAL IMPERFECTIONS
10

CHAPTER C
DAM: STIFFNESS
 Reduce stiffness contributing to stability by 20%
 Furtherreduce flexural stiffness by a factor ,

depending of the ratio of axial compression demand
and yield strength
11
12/14/21
CHAPTER C
DAM: AVAILABLE STRENGTHS
 Provisions of Chapters D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K.
 Effective length, K=1
12
12/14/21
5 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STABILITY (DAM)
 Member, component, and connection deformations:

addressed directly in analysis
 Second-order effects (P-D and P-d) : rigorous

second-order analysis or first-order with B1-B2
 Geometric imperfections (out-of-plumbness

[notional loads or direct modeling] or out-of-
straightness [column design equations; and
reduced stiffness for effect on structure stiffness]
13

5 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE STABILITY (DAM)
 Stiffness reductions due to inelasticity (residual

stresses) : column design equations; and reduced
stiffness for effect on structure stiffness
 Variability
in component and system stiffness: in
resistance and safety factors!
14

APP. 7
EFFECTIVE LENGTH METHOD (ELF): LIMITATIONS
 Gravity
loads supported primarily by vertical
columns, walls or frames
15
12/14/21
APP. 7
EFFECTIVE LENGTH METHOD (ELF)
 Required Strength: Analysis same as for DAM,

except stiffness reduction is not applied. Notional
load is applied, second order analysis is performed.
 Available Strength: with provisions of Chapters D-K.

K needs to be calculated for each case
 Alignment charts provided in the commentary can be
used
16
12/14/21
17
12/14/21
COMPARISON
18
AISC C-C2.3 12/14/21

HOW WILL YOU DESIGN??
19
12/14/21
DIRECT ANALYSIS METHOD: EXAMPLE
 SAP 2000 is used to analyze the frame shown
below, using the provisions of Chapter C.
20
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: ASSUMPTIONS
 The
loads provided are factored loads from
combinations
 Self-weight is included in the loads provided
 Sincethere is a lateral load applied, notional load is

considered in one direction
21
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: PROCEDURE
 Checkif the software to be used considers the P-Δ
and P-δ effects
 Thisis done using the benchmarking problems

provided in the commentary to Chapter C
 Anelastic first order analysis is performed, then a

second order analysis based on Chapter C is
performed
 The results of both the analysis are compared

22
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: BENCHMARKING
23
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: ELASTIC ANALYSIS
 The frame is modeled with W shapes chosen according
to the section properties in problem (Beam section: W
27x84 , Column Section: W 10x45).
 LinearStatic Loading category is selected and the

given loads are applied.
 Model is analyzed and member forces and story drifts

are noted.
24
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
 TheLoading is changed to Non-Linear static category
and P-Δ effects are selected (to take care of second
order effects).
 P-δeffects are considered by creating nodes along the

length of the members.
 The top ends of columns are offset by H/500 (to take

care of initial out-of plumbness, instead of applying
notional load). Notional load can be applied by
selecting notional loads from ‘More’ submenu under
Load patterns. 25
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
 The stiffness of all beam columns is reduced by 20% by
using area and inertia reduction factors (to take into account
the residual stresses in the elements). Can also be done by
reducing E value (will need to be changed again if design is
performed by the software)
 For central column, Pr > 0.5×Py . Hence, its flexural stiffness

needs to be further reduced by Instead of doing this, an
additional Notional Load of 0.1% of the Gravity Load is
applied at the corresponding locations of the gravity loads
(SAP has option to automatically calculate , but one needs
to design and then go back and analyze again).
 Model is analyzed and member forces and story drifts are 26

noted.
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: COMPARISON
27
12/14/21
DAM EXAMPLE: CONCLUSION
 Themoment magnification is of the order of 2.5. This is
due to high magnitude of forces being applied.
 Thesecond order drift is about three times the first

order drift.
 Whendesigned, it is observed that the member

demands (considering second order effects) exceed the
member design strengths.
28
12/14/21
THANKS!!
29
12/14/21

Design For Stability Direct Analysis Method CE 470 (Fall 2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design For Stability Direct Analysis Method CE 470 (Fall 2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Design For Stability Direct Analysis Method CE 470 (Fall 2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design for Stability

Direct Analysis Method

 “the capacity of a compression member, element,

Figure from NASCC: The Steel Conference

Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

 Discusses the effects that need to be considered

 Any rational method considering these effects can

 Second-order effects (P-D and P-d)

 Geometric imperfections (out-of-plumbness or out-

 Stiffness reductions due to inelasticity (residual

 Variability in component and system stiffness

Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

 Consider second order effects: perform rigorous

 Allloads influencing the stability need to be

 Approximate second order analysis (Appendix 8)

 Use Notional Loads

Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

 Furtherreduce flexural stiffness by a factor ,

 Effective length, K=1

 Member, component, and connection deformations:

 Second-order effects (P-D and P-d) : rigorous

 Geometric imperfections (out-of-plumbness

Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

 Stiffness reductions due to inelasticity (residual

Slide from Dr. Liu’s presentation 12/14/21

 Required Strength: Analysis same as for DAM,

 Available Strength: with provisions of Chapters D-K.

AISC C-C2.3 12/14/21

 Self-weight is included in the loads provided

 Sincethere is a lateral load applied, notional load is

 Thisis done using the benchmarking problems

 Anelastic first order analysis is performed, then a

 The results of both the analysis are compared

 LinearStatic Loading category is selected and the

 Model is analyzed and member forces and story drifts

 P-δeffects are considered by creating nodes along the

 The top ends of columns are offset by H/500 (to take

 For central column, Pr > 0.5×Py . Hence, its flexural stiffness

 Model is analyzed and member forces and story drifts are 26

 Thesecond order drift is about three times the first

 Whendesigned, it is observed that the member

You might also like