Professional Documents
Culture Documents
kr
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-03551, USA
Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA
3
RAM International, 2744 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA, 92010, USA
4
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
5
Hermanson Egge Engineering, Rapid City, SD, USA
1
2
Abstract
The 2005 AISC Specification reflects the latest advances in the stability analysis and design of structural steel buildings. The
new Specification defines the general requirements for stability analysis and design and gives engineers the freedom to select
or devise their own methods within these constraints. It also provides several specific procedures. This paper first gives an
overview of the elastic analysis and design procedures in AISC (2005) as well as specific second-order distributed plasticity
methods upon which, in part, these procedures are based. The relationship between the AISC elastic provisions and the refined
inelastic methods is explained. Secondly, the paper highlights one interpretation of the AISC inelastic analysis and design
provisions that greatly facilitates the application of elastic-plastic hinge methods of analysis. The paper closes by presenting
four basic examples selected to illustrate key characteristics of each of the methods.
Keywords: Advanced analysis, distributed plasticity analysis, direct analysis, effective length, plastic hinge analysis
1. Introduction
72
only
fa
Fa
Cm fb
fa
F
Fe b
---- + -----------------------
(1)
1.0
1 -----
'
The expression
Cm
AF
fa
Fe
(2)
----------------- =
1 -----
'
Fe
E
2
(KLb rb )
(3)
12
' = --------------------------23
Pu
Mu
c P n b Mn
------------- + ----------2
Pu
c Pn
Mu
b Mn
8
---------- + -- ----------9
for
1.0
for
1.0
Pu
<
c Pn
----------
Pu
c Pn
----------
(4a)
0.2
(4b)
0.2
direct
analysis
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
f C
P M
-----r + 8---------r 1.0
P c 9 Mc
P M
-------r- + 8---------r 1.0
2 P c 9 Mc
P
P
P
----- < 0.2
P
for
et al
P /
M /
et al
general
The AISC (2005a) equation numbers are denoted by AISC followed by the equation number.
73
74
2.
Figure 3.
the plane of bending. Martinez-Garcia (2002), SurovekMaleck and White (2003), and Deierlein (2003) summarize
the results from other more comprehensive studies.
If the above distributed plasticity analysis is to be used
in an AISC (2005a) LRFD context, the resistance factors
c = b = 0.9 must be included. One way of doing this is
to determine the nominal beam-column strength curves as
shown in Fig. 4, and then to multiply both the abscissa
and the ordinate by c = b = 0.9 to obtain the final
member design resistance. However, identical results are
obtained if both the yield strength Fy and the elastic
modulus E are factored by 0.9. If only the yield strength
Fy is factored by 0.9, the design strengths are overestimated
for highly slender columns that fail by elastic buckling.
The factoring of both E and Fy by 0.9 up front is
preferred, since this approach facilitates the general
inelastic analysis and design of structural systems. There
is no straightforward way of applying distributed plasticity
analysis, or any other form of inelastic analysis, in the
context of ASD. In as such, AISC (2005a) disallows the
use of inelastic analysis for this approach. Most of the
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
75
EI/L
et al
76
ni
ni
ni
ni
ni
ni
ni
eL
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
77
Summary of specific AISC (2005a) elastic analysis-design procedures adapted from White and Kim (2006)
Direct analysis (Appendix 7) Effective length (Section C2.2a) First-order analysis (Section C2.2b)
Limitations on the
2nd/1st 1.5, Pr 0.5Py
None
2nd/1st 1.5
(See Note 5)
use of the method
First-order, B1 is applied to the
Type of analysis
Second-order (See Note 1)
Second-order (See Note 1)
member total moment
Structure geometry
Nominal (See Note 2)
Nominal
Nominal
used in the analysis
i Minimum if 2nd/1st
Notional load to be 0.002
1.5
Additive
0.002 i minimum
2.1(/ )Yi 0.0042 i additive
applied in the analysis (See Note 2) if 2nd/1st > 1.5
Table 1.
EI
Effective stiffness
used in the analysis
P /P
Nominal
Nominal
P /P
Pni
in moment-frame columns is
based on a buckling analysis or
the corresponding effective
length ; ni in all other cases
is based on i = i (i.e., = 1).
Pni
KL P
KL
In-plane flexural
buckling strength ni
KL
eL
eL
el
el
eL
eL
eL
78
(7a)
or
Ki =
( E ) ( Li r i )
-------------------------------
Fei
(7b)
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
79
often significantly more accurate. Therefore, the firstorder analysis method is not considered further in this
paper.
80
3. Illustrative Examples
This section provides a number of basic examples
aimed at illustrating the relative merits of the various
analysis and design procedures outlined in Section 2. The
first example addresses the strength predictions for one of
the major-axis bending cases of the Fig. 3 cantilever
beam-columns. Since this is a statically determinate
structure, inelastic analysis and design does not provide
any advantage. This example is representative of numerous
nonredundant stability critical benchmark problems
considered in the development of the direct analysis
method (Deierlein 2003; Surovek-Maleck and White
2003 & 2004). The second example is a nonredundant
portal frame previously posed by LeMessurier (1977).
This frame exhibits significant sway under gravity loadings,
due to lack of symmetry of its geometry. Also, the beam
governs its maximum resistance rather than the columns.
et
al
P/P
et al
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
81
1st
82
(Distributed Plasticity)
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
resistance is governed by in-plane limit states. A live-todead load ratio of 3.0 is assumed for the LRFD
calculations. The loading 1.2 + 1.6Lr + 0.8W, with the
wind applied in the direction of the sway under the
gravity load, is the most critical of the ASCE 7-05 load
combinations for this structure. The following discussions
focus on the behavior of the frame under this load
combination.
Figure 9 shows the fraction of the design load versus
the drift /L from the different analysis methods, Fig. 10
shows the moment diagrams and the diagrams of the
effective moment of inertia Ie at the distributed plasticity
analysis limit load, Fig. 11 shows the deflected shape, the
location of the single plastic hinge and the design load
fraction at the formation of the plastic hinge from the
direct elastic-plastic hinge analysis, Fig. 12 shows the
applied fraction of the design load versus the girder
maximum bending moment from the different analysis
methods, and Fig. 13 shows the force-point trace at the
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
Ie
83
13.
84
Figure 14.
Lr
Lr
et al
calculations.
Figures 15 through 19 present the same results as Figs.
9 through 13 for LeMessuriers (1977) Example 3
structure, but illustrate the responses for Malecks (2001)
frame. Figure 19 shows the force-point trace at the top of
the left-hand lateral load resisting column. This location
has the most critical combination of column axial force
and bending moment. Figure 18 shows the girder negative
bending moment versus the design load fraction just to
the left of the left-hand column. This is the location of the
largest girder bending moment.
Again, the direct elastic-plastic hinge analysis provides
a reasonable estimate of the distributed plasticity analysis
solution. Due to the smaller stiffness reduction factor in
the plastic hinge analysis (0.8 versus 0.9), the elastic
deflections are slightly larger than those predicted by the
distributed plasticity analysis. Also, the sway deflection
at the limit load is slightly larger in the plastic hinge
analysis. The maximum resistance in the plastic hinge
analysis (1.155 of the design load level) corresponds to
the formation of a plastic hinge at the top of the left-hand
column. Subsequently, plastic hinges form at the other
ends of the lateral load resisting columns within the postpeak range of the response at 1.115, 1.075 and 0.930 of
the design load level (see Fig. 17). If the example frame
were not so sensitive to stability effects, there would be
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
Ie
85
17.
86
Force-point trace at the top of left-hand lateralload resisting column obtained from the different analysisdesign methods, Malecks frame, 1.2 + 1.6L .
Figure 19.
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
87
Applied fraction of the design loads giving a value of 1.0 for the in-plane strength check from Eqs. (5) for the
AISC (2005a) direct (elastic) and effective length methods with and without minimum lateral loads, maximum capacities
predicted by direct elastic-plastic hinge analysis using Mastan2, and maximum capacities predicted by distributed plasticity
analysis using GT-Sabre, DP-13 LC1
LC1
LC2
Direct (elastic) analysis
1.17
0.95
AISC (2005a) effective length
0.76
0.82
Effective length with zero N
0.78
0.82
Direct elastic-plastic hinge analysis first-hinge strength, Mastan2
1.19
0.96
Direct elastic-plastic hinge analysis limit load, Mastan2
1.19
1.02
Distributed plasticity analysis
1.13
1.06
Table 3.
88
Plastic hinges and deflected shape from direct elastic-plastic hinge analysis and effective moment of inertia
at the distributed plasticity analysis limit load, DP-13 LC2.
Ie
Plastic hinges and deflected shape from direct elastic-plastic hinge analysis and effective moment of inertia
at the distributed plasticity analysis limit load, DP-13 LC1.
Ie
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Force-point traces for the right-hand beamcolumn by the original effective length method, the direct
analysis method and the distributed plasticity analysis
method versus the effective length and direct analysis
strength curves, DP-13 LC1.
Figure
25.
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
n(KL)
4. Conclusions
89
90
Acknowledgments
Many of the concepts discussed in this paper have
benefited greatly from discussions with the members of
the AISC Technical Committee 10 (TC10), the Structural
Stability Research Council (SSRC) Task Group 4 on
Frames, and the former SSRC Task Group 29 on Inelastic
Analysis for Frame Design. Professor J. Yura of the
University of Texas at Austin, Dr. S. Nair of Teng and
Associates, Inc. and Prof. G.G. Deierlien of Stanford
University are thanked for their guidance of the TC10
efforts toward the implementation of the AISC (2005a)
provisions. Various portions of this work were funded by
the National Science Foundation, the Georgia Institute of
Technology, the American Society of Civil Engineers,
and the Metal Building Manufacturers Association. The
funding by these organizations is gratefully acknowledged.
The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this
paper are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the above individuals, groups and organizations.
References
AISC (2005a). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2005b). Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings
and Bridges, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Inc., Chicago, IL.
AISC (1999). Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (1989). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings:
Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design, 9 Ed.,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (1986). Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (1969). Specification for the Design, Fabrication and
Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (1961). Specification for the Design, Fabrication and
Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, New York, NY.
Alemdar, B.N. and White, D.W (2005), Displacement,
Flexibility and Mixed Beam-Column Finite-Element
Formulations for Distributed Plasticity Analysis, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(12), pp. 18111819.
ASCE (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-05, ASCE, Reston, VA.
ASCE (1997). Effective Length and Notional Load Approaches
for Assessing Frame Stability: Implications for American
Steel Design, Task Committee on Effective Length,
Technical Committee on Load and Resistance Factor
Design, Structural Engineering Institute, American
Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 442.
Battini, J.-M. and Pacoste, C. (2002). Plastic Instability of
Beam Structures Using Co-rotational Elements, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191, pp.
th
5811-5831.
CEN (2003). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part
1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Final Draft
prEN 1993-1-1:2003 E, European Committee for
Standardization.
Chang, C.-J. (2005). GT-Sabre User Manual, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Davies, J.M. and Brown, B.A. (1996). Plastic Design to BS
5950, The Steel Construction Institute, Blackwell
Science, U.K., pp. 326.
Deierlein, G. (2003). Background and Illustrative Examples
on Proposed Direct Analysis Method for Stablity Design
of Moment Frames, Report on behalf of AISC TC10,
July 13 2003, pp. 17.
Deierlein, G. (2004). Stable Improvements: Direct Analysis
Method for Stability Design of Steel-Framed Buildings,
Structural Engineer, November, pp. 24-28.
Galambos, T.V. and Ketter, R.L. (1959). Columns Under
Combined Bending and Thrust, Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 85(EM2), pp.
135-152.
Izzudin, B.A., and Smith, D.L, (1996) Large-Displacement
Analysis of Elasto-plastic Thin-Walled Frames.
I:Formulation and Implementation, Journal of structural
Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 8, pp. 905-914
King, C. (2001). In-Plane Stability of Portal Frames to BS
5950-1:2000, SCI Publication P292, The Steel Construction
Institute, Berkshire, U.K., pp. 213.
Kuchenbecker, G.H., White, D.W. and Surovek-Maleck,
A.E. (2004). Simplified Design of Building Frames
using First-Order Analysis and K = 1.0, Proceedings,
SSRC Annual Technical Sessions, April, pp. 20.
LeMessurier, W. J. (1977). A Practical Method of Second
Order Analysis. Part 2: Rigid Frames, Engineering
Journal, AISC, 13(4), pp. 89-96.
Maleck, A.E. and White, D.W. (2003). Direct Analysis
Approach for the Assessment of Frame Stability:
Verification Studies, Proceedings, SSRC Annual
Technical Sessions, pp. 18.
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, pp. 579.
Martinez-Garcia, J.M. (2002). Benchmark Studies to
Evaluate New Provisions for Frame Stability Using
Second-Order Analysis, M.S. Thesis, School of Civil
Engineering, Bucknell Univ., pp. 241.
McGuire, W. (1995). Inelastic Analysis and Design in
Steel, A Critique, Restructuring America and Beyond,
Proceedings of Structures Congress XIII, M. Sanayei
(ed.), ASCE, pp. 1829-1832.
McGuire, W., Gallagher, R.H. and Ziemian, R.D. (2000).
Matrix Structural Analysis, with Mastan2, Wiley, New
York.
Nair, R.S. (2005a). Stability and Analysis Provisions of the
2005 AISC Specification for Steel Buildings,
Proceedings, Structures Congress 2005, ASCE, pp. 3.
Nair, R.S. (2005b), Stability and Analysis, Modern Steel
Construction, September 2005.
Nukala, P.K.V.V. and White, D.W. (2004). A Mixed Finite
Stability Analysis and Design of Steel Building Frames: The AISC (2005) Specification and Beyond
91