The Direct Analysis Method: Bridging the Gap from Linear Elastic Analysis to

Advanced Analysis in Steel Frame Design

Andrea E. Surovek
1
and Ronald D. Ziemian
2
1
Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701-3995; Phone (605) 394-1932; Fax (605) 394-5171;
e-mail: surovek@sdsmt.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bucknell University,
Lewisburg, PA 17837; Phone (570) 577-1784; Fax (570) 577-3415; email:
ziemian@bucknell.edu
Abstract
Developments in analytical software and computer hardware over the past few
decades provide engineers with powerful tools for more realistically considering the
behavior of steel structures. More sophisticated methods of analysis offer significant
advantages in steel frame design by eliminating the need to calculate effective length
factors and more directly including factors that affect system and member strength .
One such method, the Direct Analysis approach, accounts for the effects of member
inelasticity and frame imperfections in the assessment of both member and system
strength. The latter is achieved by directly including these effects in calculating the
distribution of forces in the structural system. This approach is applicable for use in
the design office using commercially available software and it is applicable to a wide
variety of structural problems including braced frames, moment frames and mixed
systems. Just as importantly, the approach it allows for a natural transition between
current elastic analysis procedures and the future availability of second-order inelastic
analysis programs suitable for use with an advanced analysis-design approach.
Introduction
Limit states design has been in place in the U.S. for close to twenty years with the
publication of the first edition AISC-LRFD Specification (1986). One of the primary
benefits of limit states design is that it allows for a more explicit and rational
assessment of the inelastic and nonlinear behavior inherent in frames prior to reaching
maximum load capacity. Assessment of frame stability in the 3
rd
edition of the AISC-
LRFD Specification (1999) is performed on a member by member basis through use
of the beam-column interaction equations. One of the principal disadvantages to both
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
the AISC implementation of limit states design (AISC 1999) and allowable stress
design (AISC 1989) is the need to calculate column effective length factors, or K-
factors, in order to address the interdependence between beam-column strength and
overall frame stability.
Per the specifications, second order effects must be considered in the assessment of a
member or system. The most direct means of including these P-A and P-o effects in
the calculation of member forces and moments is by using a commercial software
package with an algorithm that directly calculates second-order effects. Linear elastic
analysis, however, is still the common choice for design professionals. Use of such
an analysis requires that approximations be used when assessing member and system
strength to account for second-order effects (the NT-LT approach) as well as member
end-restraint and system interdependencies (K-factors).
Developments in analytical software and computer hardware over the past few
decades provide engineers with powerful tools to more realistically consider the
behavior of steel framing systems. As knowledge of analytical methods and the
development of design tools have expanded, specification based assessment of
member and frame stability has become more transparent with regards to the factors
that affect member strength and the inclusion of second-order effects. This paper
presents an overview of known frame analysis methods and how these methods are
connected to specification based approaches for assessment of frame stability.
Development of the Direct Analysis approach proposed for inclusion in the 2005
AISC Specification (AISC 2004) is discussed with respect to the move towards
greater transparency in the analysis and greater simplification in the design checks.
Assessment of Frame Stability
The most recent draft of the 2005 AISC Specification states that any method that
considers the influence of second order effects (including P-A and P-o effects),
flexural, shear and axial deformations, geometric imperfections and member stiffness
reduction due to residual stresses on the stability of the structure is permitted. In
this paper, three design approaches are discussed for the assessment of frame
stability: the AISC-LRFD Effective Length based assessment (AISC 1999), Direct
Analysis (Surovek-Maleck and White 2004, Deierlein 2003), and Advanced Analysis.
The main differences in the three approaches are:
The level of analysis required
The method of accounting for the effects of member inelasticity
The means for including the effects of geometric imperfections due to
fabrication and erection tolerances.
An overview of the three approaches is provided in Table 1. Discussion of the
analysis methods, inclusion of geometric imperfections and member inelasticity, and
the required strength checks for each of the three methods follows.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Table 1. Overview of Approaches
Effect
Effective Length
Approach
Direct Analysis
Approach
Advanced Analysis
Approach
Member Inelasticity
Column Strength
Curve
Stiffness
Reduction
Inelastic Analysis
Initial Out-of-
Plumbness (Erection
Tolerance)
Column Strength
Curve
Change in frame
geometry in model
or additional
0.002EQ notional
load
Change in frame
geometry in model
Initial Out-of-
Straightness
(Fabrication
Tolerance)
Column Strength
Curve
Column Strength
Curve
Direct Modeling
Strength Check
Axial Strength Term P
n
based on KL
P
n
based on actual
member length
No individual
member strength
check required
Analysis Methods Employed in the Design Approaches
In the Effective Length and Direct Analysis approaches, two levels of analysis may
be used:
In a first-order elastic analysis, the material is modeled as linear-elastic, and
equilibrium is only satisfied on the undeformed configuration of the structure. The
relationship between applied loads and the resulting deformations is linear.
In a second-order elastic analysis, the material is still considered linear-elastic, but
equilibrium is formulated on the deformed geometry of the structure. This typically
results in larger internal forces and moments due to the inclusion of the nonlinear P-A
and P-o effects. In lieu of employing rigorous second-order analysis software, P-A
and P-o effects may be included by use of approximate means, such as the NT-LT
analysis approach outlined in the specification.
Since both of the aforementioned design approaches are based on elastic analysis,
potential member inelasticity is not directly accounted for in the analysis. In addition,
geometric imperfections are not included in the analysis when the AISC Effective
Length approach is employed.
For the Advanced Analysis Approach, a second-order inelastic analysis is required.
This type of analysis explicitly models the decrease in system stiffness due to both
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
member yielding and large deflections. The approach allows for force redistribution
after initial yielding has taken place, thus taking advantage of the inelastic capacity of
a structure to resist loads beyond first yield. The upper bound of the load-deflection
curve obtained with this analysis is called the inelastic stability limit, and it is
considered the most accurate representation of the actual strength of the frame.
AISC-LRFD Effective Length
Since member inelasticity (including the effects of residual stresses) and geometric
imperfections are not considered in the analysis associated with this approach, these
factors are represented within the resistance terms and for beam-columns, the
mathematical functions used to represent the corresponding interaction design
equations. It is important to note that the interaction equations do not represent a
limit of resistance with respect to the actual member; rather it is calibrated to
correspond to second-orderelastic analysis results on an idealized initially-perfect
structure. Hence, neither the calculated force distribution nor the resistance terms are
necessarily representative of the actual limit state behavior of the structure.
The AISC-LRFD beam-column interaction equations are used in conjunction with an
effective length or K-factor to assess overall frame stability effects. The effects of
member residual stresses and imperfections are accounted for only in the axial
strength term of the interaction equations. This method is generally conservative, but
as previously stated, it does not provide a transparent means of including inelasticity
and imperfection effects. It also does not provide a mechanism for including the
influence of these effects on the moments of adjoining members or connections.
Direct Analysis
In the Direct Analysis approach, the effects of member inelasticity and frame
imperfections are accounted for not only in the assessment of member strength, but
also in the calculated distribution of forces and corresponding system strength. Direct
Analysis only requires features that are available in commercial software and is
applicable to a wide variety of structural design problems including braced frames,
moment frames and mixed systems. This approach provides a natural transition
between current elastic analysis procedures and the future availability of second-order
inelastic analysis programs suitable for use with the Advanced Analysis design
approach described below.
The development of the Direct Analysis approach for general framing systems is
presented by Maleck & White (2003), Deierlein (2003), and Surovek-Maleck &
White (2004). In this approach, two modifications are made to a conventional elastic
analysis
1
:
1. All contributions to the elastic stiffness are reduced by a base value of 20
percent relative to their nominal values, i.e., they are multiplied by a factor of
1
Additional background to these modifications may be found in Appendix 1.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
0.8. For any member in which the factored axial force P
r
exceeds 0.5P
y
, the
flexural rigidity is taken as 0.8tEI, where
|
|
.
|

\
|
= t
y
r
y
r
P
P
1
P
P
4
(1)
This reduction should not be included in serviceability checks based on
unfactored loads.
2. An additional lateral notional load of N
i
= 0.002Y
i
is applied at each level,
where Y
i
is the total factored gravity load acting on the particularlevel. This
modification is equivalent to a uniform nominal out-of-plumbness of L/500,
based on erection tolerances specified in (AISC 2000).
If these two relatively minor modifications are performed in the context of a second-
order elastic analysis, the beam-column member strength checks can be performed
using the interaction equations (AISC 1999) with the nominal axial resistance P
n
term
based on the actual member length. Hence, member strength checks are simplified
since the need to calculate effective length factors is eliminated.
In general, the second-order analysis used in the Direct Analysis approach must be
rigorous; that is, the analysis should include both P-A and Po effects. Approximate
P-A analysis methods are permitted only if the applied axial loads on all compression
members satisfy the following limit:
P
r
< 0.15 P
eL
(2)
where
P
eL
= t
2
EI
e
/L
2
(3)
and P
eL
is determined in the plane of bending.
Advanced Analysis
The most direct means of assessing system strength is through the use of an advanced
analysis. Advanced Analysis is typically defined as any analysis in which the
primary limit states of a structure are modeled directly and hence, separate member
strength checks are not needed. Any limit states that are not directly modeled by the
analysis (e.g. local buckling) must still be checked through the use of design
equations. A large volume of research has addressed the modeling of two and three-
dimensional limit states of structural members, systems and connections.
Additionally, recommended definitions of appropriate advanced analysis methods for
assessment of member and system behavior are presented by Ziemian et al. (1992a,
1992b), White & Chen (1993), Chen & Kim (1997), SSRC (1998) and Maleck &
White (2004).
The Advanced Analysis approach allows the designer to accurately assess the limit
state response of a structural system subjected to a given load condition. The design
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
4P 4P
L
=
1
8
'
3 @ 35' =105'
DL = 80 psf
LL = 40 psf
Wind = 20 psf
Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
W27 x 84
W
Frame spacing = 35'
W
1
0
x
4
9
Figure 1. Idealized model of 11-bay single story frame
check is vastly simplified in that, if the structure withstands the prescribed loading
without failure, and if deformation capacity checks are satisfied, the system is deemed
adequate with respect to the strength limit states that are captured by the analysis. It
should be noted that to date, the AISC Specification has not formally adopted the
Advanced Analysis approach.
Advanced analysis requires software that includes the effects of both geometric and
material nonlinearity. While the ability to perform such analyses has been
demonstrated (Ziemian 1990, White and Chen 1993, Maleck et al 1995, Maleck
2001), these capabilities are not yet readily available to the design profession.
Design Example
The following example compares the above design approaches. Figure 1 shows an
idealized model of an 11-bay single-story frame developed by Maleck (2001) and
further studied by Martinez-Garcia (2002), Deierlein (2003) and Surovek-Maleck &
White (2004). Only in-plane behavior is considered, and all members are subject to
major-axis bending. Five pinned-pinned gravity columns on each side of the interior
moment frame are represented by two leaning columns each with a load of 4P, where
P is approximately the axial load in each of the gravity columns. To illustrate
distinctive features of the design approaches, relatively large gravity loads are applied
which produce significant P-A effects. One of the primary attributes of this frame is
that it is sensitive to initial imperfection effects, although it meets drift limits based
on a service wind load of 0.7W (Surovek-Maleck & White 2004). It is further noted
that in all cases the factored gravity load combination controlled.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
The AISC-LRFD Effective Length approach employed a conventional elastic analysis
of the geometrically-perfect nominally-elastic structure. The effective length for in-
plane buckling is determined using the story buckling approach that includes the
effects of the leaning columns (Eq. C-C2-6, AISC 1999). To be consistent with the
assumption of fully-fixed base conditions within the analyses of all of the approaches,
a theoretical value of G= 0 is used at the column bases. Second-order effects are
accounted for using the moment amplification NT-LT approach. Due to the
symmetry of the loading and the structure, the sidesway moments M
lt
are zero within
the geometrically-perfect structure, and based on Eq. (C1-2) of (AISC 1999), B
1
is
calculated as 1.0.
A rigorous second-order elastic analysis is used in the Direct Analysis approach. In
lieu of using a notional load, an initial out-of-plumbness of A
o
= L/500 is directly
included.
The Advanced Analysis approach employs a distributed plasticity model that includes
the effect of residual stresses. A nominal out-of-plumbness of A
o
= 0.002L is
included. Resistance factors are incorporated by factoring both the material yield
strength and stiffness by 0.9.
Comparison of Internal Forces
Table 2 shows the axial force and maximum internal second-order moments in the
lateral load resisting columns obtained by each of the above approaches. The
internal moment in the conventional NT-LT analysis approach is simply the first-
order NT moment, since B
1
= 1 and M
lt
= 0. The internal moment within the Direct
Analysis approach is equal to this moment plus the first- and second-order effects of
the factored story gravity load EP
r
acting through the initial out-of-plumbness.
The axial forces are similar in each method, but the column internal moments differ
substantially. The percent difference in the moments relative to those determined in
the Advanced Analysis approach is expressed as c = 100(M - M
AA
)/M
AA
, where M
AA
is the moment determined in the Advanced Analysis. One can observe that analysis
of the geometrically-perfect nominally-elastic structure (part of the AISC Effective
Length approach) substantially underestimates the internal moments determined from
the Advanced Analysis. The reason for this is that the internal moments in this frame
are highly sensitive to any potential out-of-plumbness of the structure, a situation
which is not directly modeled in the analysis of the AISC Effective Length approach.
The Direct Analysis approach is conservative in calculating the internal moments
within this stability critical structure. The column end moments are overestimated
somewhat in this frame predominantly because the columns are essentially elastic at
the factored load, although the approach includes a reduction in material stiffness due
to inelasticity.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Table 2. Comparison of internal force (1.2D + 1.6L)
Design Approach P
r
[kips] M
r
[in-kips] c cc c
AISC-LRFD Effective Length 216 397 -61 %
Direct Analysis 218 1276 24 %
Advanced Analysis 215 1030
Table 3. In-Plane Strength checks (1.2D + 1.6L)
Design Strengths
Design Approach K
x
|P
n
[kips]
|M
n
[in-k] Interaction Eq. Check
AISC-LRFD
Effective Length 2.3 236 2718 1.05
Direct Analysis 1.0 511 2718 0.78
Advanced Analysis n/a n/a n/a n/a
Design Check
Since P
r
/|P
n
exceeds 0.2 in each design approach, the beam-columns are checked for
their in-plane strength according to interaction Eq. H1-1a of AISC-LRFD
specification (1999). In all cases, the beam-columns are assumed to be fully braced
out-of-plane. A summary of these results are presented in Table 3.
As indicated above, the AISC-LRFD Effective Length approach does not include any
initial imperfections and hence, the internal moment is substantially underestimated.
However, a relatively large effective length factor of 2.3 (compared to 1.0) results in
underestimating the axial resistance of the beam-column and the net effect is a
conservative interaction check that exceeds 1.0. This illustrates that the Effective
Length approach may produce conservative results, but these results are based on a
comparison of internal forces and resistance terms that are not necessarily
representative of the actual limit state behavior of the structure, as previously stated.
Conclusions
The proposed inclusion of the Direct Analysis approach in the 2005 AISC
Specification marks a move towards more transparent accounting of the factors that
affect member and system strength, including member inelasticity, geometric
imperfections and member end restraint in assessment of system strength and
stability. As analysis methods available to the engineer continue to improve, the
engineer will have more options in evaluating designs, from methods based on linear
elastic analyses to advanced methods involving second-order, inelastic analyses. In
addition, the actual behavior of the framing system can be more accurately
represented in the analysis, leading towards less need for approximate devices, such
as effective length factors, to assess frame strength and stability.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Donald W. White and Jose Martinez-Garcia for
their contributions to this paper.
References
AISC (1986), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Steel Buildings,
1
st
Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (1989), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings Allowable Stress Design
and Plastic Design, Ninth Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
AISC (1999), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Steel Buildings,
3
rd
Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (2000), Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (2004), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Draft Edition, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL, August 11, 2004.
Chen, W.F. and Kim, S.E. (1997) , LRFD Steel Design Using Advanced Analysis,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 1997.
Deierlein, G. (2003). Background and Illustrative Examples on Proposed Direct
Analysis Method for Stability Design of Moment Frames, Background Materials ,
AISC Committee on Specifications, Ballot 2003-4-360-2, August 20, 17 pp.
Maleck, A. E., White, D.W. and Chen, W. F. (1995), "Practical Application of
Advanced Analysis in Steel Design," Structural Steel, Proceedings 4th Pacific
Structural Steel Conf., Vol. 1, Steel Structures, pp. 119-126.
Maleck, A.E. (2001), Second-Order Inelastic and Modified Elastic Analysis and
Design Evaluation of Planar Steel Frames, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 579 pp.
Maleck, A.E. and White, D.W. (2003), Direct Analysis Approach for the
Assessment of Frame Stability: Verification Studies, North American Steel
Construction Conference, AISC, Baltimore, April.
Martinez-Garcia, Jose M. (2002), Benchmark Studies to Evaluate New Provisions
for Frame Stability Using Second-Order Analysis, M.S. Thesis, School of Civil
Engineering, Bucknell Univ., 241 pp.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
SSRC (1998), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 5
th
Edition,
T.V. Galambos (ed.), Structural Stability research Council, Wiley.
Surovek-Maleck, A.E. and White, D.W. (2004), Alternative Approaches for Elastic
Analysis and Design of Steel Frames. I: Overview, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 8, pp. 1986-1996.
White, Donald W. and Chen, W. F., eds. (1993), Plastic Hinge Based Methods for
Advanced Analysis and design of Steel Frames an assessment of the State of the Art,
Structural Stability research Council, Bethlehem, PA, 299 pp.
Ziemian, R. D. (1990), Advanced Methods of Inelastic Analysis for in the Limit
States Design of Steel Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Ziemian, R.D., McGuire, W., and Deierlein, G.G. (1992a), "Inelastic Limit States
Design: Part I - Planar Frame Studies", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 118, No. 9, pp. 2532-2549.
Ziemian, R.D., McGuire, W., and Deierlein, G.G. (1992b), "Inelastic Limit States
Design: Part II - Three-Dimensional Frame Study", Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 9, pp. 2550-2568.
Appendix 1 Background for Direct Analysis
Elastic Stiffness Reduction
In the Direct Analysis approach, a 0.8 multiplier is used to reduce the nominal elastic
stiffness of the structural system. This multiplier is the product of two separate
factors. The first represents a resistance factor of | = 0.9. The second factor, which
is also 0.9, accounts for the influence of distributed plasticity effects on the nominal
stiffness as the strength limit state associated with the most critical component in the
structural system is approached. If a rigorous distributed plasticity analysis that
accounts for all gradual yielding effects in the members, connections and base
conditions is employed, this second factor could be set to one. The product of these
to two factors is rounded from 0.81 to 0.8.
The above reductions in stiffness are used only for checking strength limit states.
Serviceability limits are checked using nominal (unreduced) stiffnesses. It should be
noted that the uniform reduction of 0.8 influences only the second-order effects
within the system. That is, for structures in which the second-order effects are small,
the 0.8 stiffness reduction will have a negligible effect on the magnitude and/or
distribution of the internal forces.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Geometric Imperfections
In the Direct Analysis approach, notional loads are included to model a physical
attribute of the structure. They are not meant to be a minimum horizontal load that
can be neglected in the presence of a larger applied lateral load; consequently they are
additive to applied lateral loads. For frames that have significant sidesway flexibility
or are subjected to large vertical loads, the influence of potential nominal out-of-
plumb imperfections on the internal second-order moments within the structural
system can be significant, even in the presence of an applied lateral load (Maleck and
White 2004). In frames with sufficient lateral stiffness, the effect of the nominal
uniform nonverticality, or the equivalent notional loads, tends to be small.
Unpublished studies indicate that a B
2
< 1.5 is an appropriate limit for which the
notional horizontal load effects may be neglected. Nevertheless, the simplest
conceptual approach, particularly if the method is implemented in software, isto
always compute and apply the notional horizontal loads or the corresponding out-of-
plumbness to the structure. Maleck and White (1999) present an approach for
handling of the nonverticality in frames greater than about 83 ft. in height, for which
the nominal uniform verticality starts to violate the tolerances on exterior column
plumbness in (AISC 2000).
While out-of-straightness can have an important influence on the maximum strength
of members in which the strength limit involves a non-sway failure mode, the
modeling of member out-of-straightness within an analysis of the overall structural
system is more cumbersome than the modeling of a uniform frame nonverticality. In
lieu of direct modeling, the effect of out-of-straightness on the strength is accounted
for in the axial strength term of the interaction equation, that is, by calculating P
n
based on the actual unsupported length.
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

2
0
0
5

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

G
e
o
r
g
i
a

T
e
c
h

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
n

0
6
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
N
o

o
t
h
e
r

u
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

(
c
)

2
0
1
2
.

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
o
c
i
e
t
y

o
f

C
i
v
i
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.