AnalysisastheKeystoneto

theDesignProcess
AISCsDirectAnalysisMethod

RonZiemian
4June2015
Somethoughtson

STRUCTURALANALYSISSOFTWARE

2
Structural analysis software
lots of research
Computing hardware
Graphical user interfaces
1970s Material nonlinear: 1990s
Plastic hinge vs. zone
Geometric nonlinear:
2nd-order effects

3
ComputerAided
Design
Instructional
Facility(CADIF)in
the1980sat
CornellUniversity
4
ComputerAidedDesignInstructional
Facility(CADIF)inthe1980sat
CornellUniversity

Winter,198182 35yearsago! 5
 Bill Gillespie, SEAoP
President and
former CADIF
student (1987-88)
E1

My first
element
CarlBassispresidentand
chiefexecutiveofficerof
Autodesk,Inc.,formerco
founderofIthacaSoftware.
6
26yearsago! 7
Structural analysis software
lots of research
Computing hardware
Graphical user interfaces
1970s Material nonlinear: 1990s
Plastic hinge vs. zone
Geometric nonlinear:
2nd-order effects

U.S. steel design profession

initially very slow to adopt limit
states design philosophy (LRFD),
but this has improved
8
Somethoughtson

STRUCTURALSTABILITY

9
Funofdesigning
withsteel:

Strength/ Stiffness/ Competitive

Weight Weight $

Slender Systems, Members, and Crosssections

Design for Stability! 10

BucklingDesignMethods:
Load
BifurcationTheory
Loadlim
stiffness
Instability
deflections
Theory bending

Deflection
Deflectiono
Figureapplicabletosystem,member,
andcrosssectionbehavior11
 Column responseincludinginitial
P
P memberoutofstraightness
v
PE
x
o 1
(P) o
(P) 1
P
L/2 PE

o
Elasticinstabilityoccursascompressive
forceP approachesEulercriticalloadPE
2EI
PE
L2 12
InstabilityTheory:
Load

Loadlim
stiffness

deflections
bending

Letsgetthebasicsbyconsideringa
compressionmember
Deflectiono Deflection
InstabilityTheory:CompressionMember
P 1. Pcombinedwitho resultsinbending
P 2. Bendingproducesmore,whichproduces
morebending
3. Withequilibriumestablished,applymoreP
4. Resultinginmorebending,producing
M(P,) more,resultinginmorebending,
5. Repeatingsteps3&4,mayeventually

producesomeyielding(P/A+Mc/I+res)

6. Yieldedportionlosesstiffness EI
7. Resultinginanincreasein,producing
morebending,resultinginmoreyielding,
8. Withequilibriumestablished,applymoreP
9. Repeatingsteps6to8 untilinstability!
(equilibriumcannotbeestablished)
InstabilityTheory:CompressionMember
P 1. Pcombinedwitho resultsinbending
P 2. Bendingproducesmore,whichproduces
morebending
Keystothestabilityanalysis:
3. Withequilibriumestablished,applymoreP
Mustincludedeformations
4. Resultinginmorebending,producing
M(P,) Equilibriumonthedeformedshape
more,resultinginmorebending,
5. Repeatingsteps3&4,mayeventually
Initialgeometricimperfections

producesomeyielding(P/A+Mc/I+res)
Lossinstiffnessduetopartial
6. Yieldedportionlosesstiffness EI
yieldingaccentuatedby
7. Resultinginanincreasein,producing
res
morebending,resultinginmoreyielding,
8. Withequilibriumestablished,applymoreP
9. Repeatingsteps6to8 untilinstability!
(equilibriumcannotbeestablished)
 PartialYielding(Column)
P
P
ElasticResponse
v
PE
x
o Pn
InelasticResponse
(P)
L/2
Initialyielding
o
Notes:
1. Inelasticinstabilityoccursbelowthe
Eulercriticalload,i.e.Pn<PE
2. ThesmallerthecolumnslendernessL/r,
thefurtherPn isbelowPE (L r PE ) 16
TopView: M Beam responseincludinginitial
memberoutofstraightness
M
ME
M
o (x) o M
o

(x) M
o (x)
M (x)
o
x
Elasticinstabilityoccursasapplied
momentMapproachesME
z
M E
2

Me EIyGJ IyCw
Lb Lb 17
 PartialYielding(Beam)
M
ElasticResponse ElasticLTB
ME
InelasticLTB
Mn
M
InelasticResponse o M
Mr Initialyielding
o

o
InelasticinstabilityoccurswellbelowME 18
Frame responseincludinginitialoutofplumb

Applied ElasticBuckling
Load ElasticResponse (Bifurcation)
Ratio
InelasticResponse
PartialYielding(System)

LateralDisplacement,t (in) 19
InstabilityTheory:StructuralSystem
Load

Loadlim

LehighUniversity
1955

load deflections bending yielding stiffness

Deflectiono Deflection
InstabilityTheory:StructuralSystem
Load

Loadlim
Keystothestabilityanalysis:
Mustincludepertinentdeformations
Equilibriumonthedeformedshape
Initialgeometricimperfections
Lossinstiffnessduetopartial
load deflections bending yielding stiffness
yieldingaccentuatedbyres
Deflectiono Deflection
Designingforstability

THEBIGPICTURE

22
BucklingDesignMethods:

Load BifurcationTheory
(EffectiveLengthMethod)
Loadlim

InstabilityTheory
(DirectAnalysisMethod)

Deflection
Deflectiono

23
GeneralStabilityDesignMethods:
Analysisforloadeffects:
Reality:Equilibriumondeformedshape

Ru Rn
Effectivelengthmethod
bifurcationtheory
Directanalysismethod
instabilitytheory
NOTE!Bothmethodsrequire
consideration of2ndordereffects 24
Isittimetoaddanotherbumper
stickertoyourcar?

Equilibrium on
the deformed
shape

Equilibrium on
the deformed
shape
25
GeneralEffectiveLengthMethod
Analysisforloadeffects:
Equilibriumondeformedshape
Basedonbifurcation
Ru Rn theory(binarybuckling)

Effectivelengthsaccountforalleffects
knowntoimpactsystemandmember
instability
Giventhecorrect effectivelengthofall
compressionmembers,thismethodhas
beenprovenacceptable(50+yearsofuse!) 26
 EffectiveLengthMethod
DoestheKfactorreallyaccountforthose
systemstabilityeffects?
Indirectly,throughitsconservatism
CommonmethodsforcomputingKfactors
Alignmentchartsormodificationsbasedon
undoinginherentassumptions
beverycareful!
Bucklingorcriticalloadanalyses(eigenvalue)
KL EI P
beverycareful!
HowconfidentareyouinyourKfactors???
27
 EffectiveLengthMethod Alignment
(EI L)btm (EI L)top
Charts
G btm cols
G top cols
(EI L)btm
bms (EI L)top
bms

K=1.7,
right?

SoeasysomuchfunsoaddictiveBECAREFUL! 28
EffectiveLengthMethod

29
 E=29,000ksi,Fy =36ksi
Simple Frame LC1=1.2D+1.6L
(1980sIffland andBirnstiel) LC2=1.2D+0.5L+1.3W
D = 1.80 k/ft L = 1.80 k/ft
W1=
2.89 k
W21x44 B2-1 W27x102 B2-2
C2-1 W14x120 C2-2 C2-3

15-0
W8x13 W14x109
D = 3.86 k/ft L = 3.86 k/ft
W2=
6.75 k
W27x84 B1-1 W36x170 B1-2

C1-1 C1-2 C1-3

W14x132

20-0
W8x15 W14x120

20-0 48-0 30
 E=29,000ksi,Fy =36ksi
Simple Frame LC1=1.2D+1.6L
(1980sIffland andBirnstiel) LC2=1.2D+0.5L+1.3W
D = 1.80 k/ft L = 1.80 k/ft
W1=
2.89 k
1.00 W21x44 B2-1
1.22 W27x102
1.30
B2-2
0.55
C2-1 1.37
W14x120 C2-2 1.69
C2-3

15-0
W8x13
1.00 2.02 W14x109
2.50
W2=1.00 1.92
Alignmentcharts
D = 3.86 k/ft L = 3.86 k/ft
2.37
6.75 k Eigenvalueanalysis
W27x84 B1-1 W36x170 B1-2

1.60 1.80 Storybasedmethod1 1.82

C1-1 C1-2 C1-3
0.98
W14x132
1.93 Storybasedmethod2 2.52

20-0
W8x15 W14x120
1.12 2.50 3.17
1.00 1.98 2.51

20-0 48-0 31
 EffectiveLengthMethod
Resourcesforimprovingoddsofcomputing
accurateKs
ASCETaskCommitteeonEffectiveLength(1997),Effective
LengthandNotionalLoadApproachesforAssessingFrame
Stability:ImplicationsforAmericanSteelDesign,American
SocietyofCivilEngineers.
Ziemian,R.D.(ed.)(2010),GuidetoStabilityDesignCriteria
forMetalStructures,6thEd.,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.

KL/r Pn =#
L/r n=??
32
GeneralDirectAnalysisMethod
Analysisforloadeffects:
Equilibriumondeformedshape Basedoninstability
theory(approaching
Ru Rn buckling) stiffness
deflections
bending moments

Bydirectlymodelingeffectsknowntoimpact
system,member,andcrosssection
instability,simplificationsaregrantedin
computingdesignresistance
Designprocesswillnotpermitsystem,
member,andcrosssectioninstabilities 33
GeneralDirectAnalysisMethod
Analysisforloadeffects:
Primaryeffects:
Equilibriumondeformedshape Basedoninstability
Appliedloadandrelativestiffnessdistribution
theory(approaching
Initialimperfections(systemandcomponent)
R R
u n
buckling) stiffness
Yieldingaccentuatedbyresidualstresses
Allpertinentresultingdeformationsdeflections
Redistributionofstresses(F/Ms)resultingfrom
bending
changesinrelativestiffnessdistribution

Bydirectlymodelingeffectsknowntoimpact
system,member,andcrosssectioninstability,
simplificationsaregrantedincomputingdesign
resistance
Designprocesswillnotpermitsystem,member,
andcrosssectioninstabilities 34
GeneralDirectAnalysisMethod
AISCs
Analysisforloadeffects:
Equilibriumondeformedshape Basedoninstability
theory(approaching
Ru Rn buckling) stiffness
deflections
bending

Bydirectlymodelingeffectsknowntoimpact
system,member,andcrosssection instability,
simplificationsaregrantedincomputingdesign
resistance
Designprocesswillnotpermitsystem,member,and
crosssection instabilities 35
GeneralDirectAnalysisMethod
AISCs
Analysis forloadeffects:
Equilibriumondeformedshape Basedoninstability
theory(approaching
R R
Designbyelasticanalysis:
Poormansinelasticanalysis
buckling) stiffness
u n
- memberstiffnessreducedby0.8 deflections
- includesystemandmemberimperfectionsbending
Redistributionofstresses (F/Ms)resultingfromchangesin
relativestiffnessdistributionisnotaccountedfor
Bydirectlymodelingeffectsknowntoimpact
Designinelasticanalysis:
system,member,andcrosssection instability,
lossinstiffnessduetoyieldingisdirectlymodeled
systemandmemberimperfectionsaredirectlymodeled
simplificationsaregrantedincomputingdesign
Redistributionofstresses (F/Ms)resultingfromchangesin
resistance
relativestiffnessdistributionsisaccounted for
Designprocesswillnotpermitsystem,member,and
crosssection instabilities 36
GeneralDirectAnalysisMethod(200516)
AISCs
ElasticAnalysis forloadeffects:
Equilibriumondeformedshape Basedoninstability
Effectsmodeled: theory(approaching
R R
Appliedloadandstiffnessdistributionofcomponents
buckling)
Initialsystem imperfections(outofplumb) stiffness
u n
Yieldingaccentuatedbyresidualstresses deflections
(approximatedbyreducingmemberstiffnessby0.8)
bending
Allpertinentdeformations

Bydirectlymodelingeffectsknowntoimpact
system,member,andcrosssection instability,
Simplificationgranted:
Flexuralcompressive
simplificationsaregrantedincomputingdesign
strengthPn isbasedon
resistance unbraced length(KL=L)
Designprocesswillnotpermitsystem,member,and DM
crosssection instabilities 37
GeneralDirectAnalysisMethod(2016)
AISCs
ElasticAnalysis forloadeffects:
Effectsmodeled:
Equilibriumondeformedshape Basedoninstability
Appliedloadandinitialstiffnessdistribution
theory(approaching
Initialsystem imperfections(outofplumb)
R R
u n
buckling) stiffness
Initialmember imperfections(outofstraightness)
Yieldingaccentuatedbypresenceofresidualstresses
deflections
(approximatedbyreducingmemberstiffnessby0.8)
Allpertinentdeformations bending

Bydirectlymodelingeffectsknowntoimpact
system,member,andcrosssection instability,
Simplificationgranted:
simplificationsaregranted incomputingdesign
CompressivestrengthPn
resistance takenascrosssection
axialstrength
Designprocesswillnotpermitsystem,member,and
DMDMMI
crosssection instabilities 38
GeneralDirectAnalysisMethod(200516)
AISCs
InelasticAnalysis forloadeffects: Basedoninstability
Equilibriumondeformedshape
Effectsmodeled:
theory(approaching
Appliedloadandinitialstiffnessdistribution
R R
Initialmember
buckling) stiffness
Initialsystem imperfections(outofplumb)
u imperfections(outofstraightness)
n deflections
Yieldingaccentuatedbypresenceofresidualstresses
(directlymodeled) bending
Allpertinentdeformations
Redistributionofstresses (F/Ms)resultingfrom
changesinrelativestiffnessdistributions
Bydirectlymodelingeffectsknowntoimpactsystem,
member,andcrosssection instability,simplificationsare
grantedincomputingdesignresistance
Simplificationsgranted:
Designprocesswillnotpermitsystem,member,andcross
Specificationdesignequationswaived
section instabilities
DMInelastic Gobeyondfirstplastichinge! 39
 Additionalthoughts
Automatedmodelingandanalysisisnot the
objective,moreopportunities forbetter
engineeringistheaim
Goalistoimprovedesignprocessbyprovidinga
moredetailed,andhopefullymorerealistic
understandingofstructuralbehavior
Realquestioniswheredoesanengineerhavethe
mostknowledgeandconfidenceforagiven
designsituation?
More Prescriptivespecificationequations Less
GivenDesignSituation
Less Directlymodelingeffectsimpactingstability More
40
More Prescriptivespecificationequations Less
GivenDesignSituation
Less Directlymodelingeffectsimpactingstability More

ELM
DM

41
More Prescriptivespecificationequations Less
GivenDesignSituation
Less Directlymodelingeffectsimpactingstability More

DMDMMI

42
More Prescriptivespecificationequations Less
GivenDesignSituation
Less Directlymodelingeffectsimpactingstability More

DMInelastic
Excuseme,will
youplease
commenton
thoseladder
columns

Sure,theywere
designedusing
AISCsAppendix1

43
More Prescriptivespecificationequations Less
GivenDesignSituation
Less Directlymodelingeffectsimpactingstability More

AISCsDirectAnalysisMethodisintendedto
provideawiderangeofdesignopportunities
tothestructuralengineer
2005 DMappears,Elasticanalysis,Pn(KL=L),App.7
2010 DMupgradedandextended
Elasticanalysis,Pn(KL=L),upgradedtoCh.C
Extendedtoincludeinelasticity,fullyrevisedApp.1
2016 DM,extendedtoincludeDMMI
topermitdirectmodelingofmemberimperfections;
rigorouselasticanalysis,Pn =Pns (crosssectionstrength)
44
AISCInteractionEquationforMemberStrength

P andM arerequiredstrengthsfrom
thestructuralanalysisandmust
accountforeffectsthatmayimpact
stabilityofsystemanditscomponents

P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn Mn =flexuralstrength
P 1P M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn 2 Pn Mn
Pn =Compressivestrength
EffectiveLengthMethod(ELM)
2nd-order elastic analysis with:
E = Eo
no initial imperfections or
stiffness reduction
Pu 8 Mu
1.0
Pn 9 Mn

AISC column curve

based on KL
with K > 1.0
46
 DirectAnalysisMethod(DM)
2nd-order elastic analysis with:
E = 0.8 Eo
initial frame out-of-plumbness
o = H/500
Pu 8 Mu
1.0
Pn 9 Mn

AISC column curve

based on KL
with K = 1.0
47
 DirectModelingofMember
ImperfectionsMethod(DMDMMI)
2nd-order elastic analysis with:
E = 0.8 Eo
initial frame out-of-plumbness
o = H/500
initial member out-of-straightness
o = L/1000
Pu 8 Mu
1.0
Pn 9 Mn
Cross-section strength,
Pn = Pns = AeFy
48
Thebigtradeoff!

Mu increasing
ELM
DM (o,0.8)

DM-DMMI (o,0.8o)

Pu 8 Mu
1.0
Pn 9 Mn
ELM (KL>L) Methods
Pn increasing

DM (KL=L) oftengive
DMMI (Pn=AeFy) verysimilar
designs 49
 DidMotherNature
useELMwithK=2,or
DMwithK=1,or
DMDMMIwithK=0?
Details

CHAPTERCOFANSI/AISC36010
DESIGNFORSTABILITY

51
AnalysisEssentialstoobtainRequiredStrengths
P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Effectsthatmayimpactstabilityofsystem
anditscomponents(AISC,Ch C Designfor
Stability):
flexural,shear,axial,connection
deformations
secondordereffects(bothP andP)
geometricimperfections
stiffnessreductionsduetoinelasticity
AnalysisEssentialstoobtainRequiredStrengths
P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Effectsthatmayimpactstabilityofsystemandits
components(AISC,Ch C DesignforStability):
flexural,shear,axial,connectiondeformations
ML M FL3 FL

4EI 12EI GAs

P
PL F

EA
AnalysisEssentialstoobtainRequiredStrengths
P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Effectsthatmayimpactstabilityofsystemandits
components(AISC,Ch C DesignforStability):
secondordereffects(bothP andP)
P
P M
H
M

mid

HL M
Mbase=HL+P
M P Mmid=M+Pmid
 Thoughtsonincluding
2ndOrderEffects
Analysisoptionsfor:
Rigorousanalysis(recommended!)
loadsappliedincrementally/iteratively
geometricstiffnessmatrixorstabilityfunctions
updatinggeometryaftereachincrementofloading
B1 andB2 amplificationfactors
M =B1Mnt +B2Mlt
Approximateindicatorsoftheirsignificance
P providedbyB1
P providedbyB2
AnalysisEssentialstoobtainRequiredStrengths
P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Effectsthatmayimpactstabilityofsystemandits
components(AISC,Ch C DesignforStability):
geometricimperfections
Memberoutof Frameoutofplumb:
straightness: o M
o
o

(onlyforDMDMMI)
AnalysisEssentialstoobtainRequiredStrengths
P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Effectsthatmayimpactstabilityofsystemandits
components(AISC,Ch C DesignforStability):
stiffnessreductionsduetoinelasticity
M
Partialyieldingaccentuatedbyresidualstresses:
Mp=Zy
-y
Par al Yielding
-y
My=Sy E=0
E
+y
E=0 E I<<(E I)elas c
E
E I<(E I)elas +y
c

P M MP
-y y A

A S
A

(E I)elas +y
c

AnalysisEssentialstoobtainRequiredStrengths
P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn

Effectsthatmayimpactstabilityofsystem
anditscomponents(AISC,Ch C Designfor
Stability):
flexural,shear,axialdeformations
secondordereffects(bothP andP)
geometricimperfections
stiffnessreductionsduetoinelasticity
 EffectiveLengthMethod
2ndorderelasticanalysis

P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Effectsonsystemstability:
Pn basedoneffectivelengthKL, flexural,shear,axial
withKL > L: deformations
comparing KL r to 4.71 E y secondordereffects
y geometric
e
cr 0.658 y 2E
imperfections
or e stiffnessreductions
KL r
2
cr 0.877 e duetoinelasticity
 DirectAnalysisMethod
2ndorderelasticanalysis

P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Pn basedoneffective Effectsonsystemstability:
lengthKL,withKL =L flexural,shear,axial
deformations
secondordereffects
geometricimperfections
stiffnessreductionsdue
toinelasticity
 DirectAnalysisMethod (2)
2ndorderelasticanalysis

P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Effectsonsystemstability:
1. Memberoutofstraightness geometricimperfections
accountedforincolumncurve
2. Frameoutofplumb DirectModeling:distortcomputational
modeltoincludemaximumamount
o
consideredindesign(e.g.AISCCodeof
StandardPractice,o < H/500)
NotionalLoads:representeffectof
imperfectionbyequivalentlateralload
ofNi =0.002Yi forleveli
 DirectAnalysisMethod (3)
2ndorderelasticanalysis

P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn Effectsonsystemstability:
stiffnessreductionsdue
Lossinstiffnessdueto toinelasticity
partialyieldingaccentuated Fromextensivestudies
bypresenceofresidual calibratingDMtoadvanced
stresses FEAresults
(0.8isappliedtoallstiffness
(EI)analysis 0.8 (EI) contributingtosystemstability)

residualstresses
 DirectAnalysisMethod
2ndorderelasticanalysis

P P 8M
For 0.2, 1.0
Pn Pn 9 Mn
Pn basedoneffective Effectsonsystemstability:
lengthKL,withKL =L
flexural,shear,axial
deformations

secondordereffects

geometricimperfections
stiffnessreductionsdue

toinelasticity
 GoodreferencesonDM
Nair,R.S.(2009),SimpleandDirect,AISC
ModernSteelConstruction,Chicago,IL,
January.
Nair,R.S.(2009),A ModelSpecificationfor
StabilityDesignbyDirectAnalysis,Engineering
Journal,AISC,Vol.46,no.1,Chicago,IL.
Griffis,L.G.,andWhite,D.W.(2013),Stability
DesignofSteelBuildings,DesignGuide28,
AISC,Chicago,IL.
Background

DIRECTMODELINGOF
MEMBERIMPERFECTIONS
DMDMMI
65
 DMDMMIBackgroundStudies
As part of DM development
Surovek/White DM study (2000)
Martinez-Garcia/Ziemian DM study (2001)

Already employed by professionals

Experiences of TC10 members and others

TC10: Specifically focusing on DM-DMMI

Ziemian/Nwe Nwe system study (2012)
Henige W8x35 L/r=200 column study (2013)
Ziemian W14x145, W10x45 column study (2013-14)
Griffis, White, and Ziemian study (2014)

66
 W10x45,minor,L/r=40
Fcr = 0.9Fy
DM-DMMI (0.8, o)
= 45 ksi
Pu
Fcr = 0.836Fy
ELM&DM Fy

Fcr 0.9 0.658 F

Fcr
y
= 41.8 ksi
o
Fcr 0.8F 40ksi
y
Mu
Pu Pu 8 Mu
1.0
Pn 9 Mn

NocolumnsinDMDMMI,
onlybeamcolumns!

67
ColumnStrengthCurves

68
50
"Exact" FE++ (E, Fy, do = L/1000)
45 AISC DM (KL = L)
Appendix 1 (0.9E, 0.9Fy, do = L/1000)
40
Proposed DMMI (do = L/1000)
35 (L/r for
(15) (30) DMMI
(45) (do
(60) = 0)
(75) (90) (105) (120) A992)

30 Bjorhovde, 1972

25

20

15
W10x45, minor axis buckling
10
DMMI's with:
5
0.8E, Secant Modulus Tau, = 0.9
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Systems 1a 1bminoraxis 2 3

Studied

4 5 6 7a

7b 7cmajoraxis 7dminoraxis 8

Pn

70
 Frames spaced at 35-0
System 2 E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
LC1 = 1.2D+1.6Lr
LC2 = 1.2D+0.5Lr+1.3W

D=459.50k D=93.78psf D=459.50k

L=229.75k L=46.89psf L=229.75k

W27x84 B11 W27x84 W27x84

W = 23.44 psf

18-0
C11 C12
W10x49 W10x49

35-0 35-0 35-0

71
 Inelastic Analysis (0.9E 0.9Fy os )
1.00
AppliedLoadRatio(ALR)

0.80

0.60
LC1=1.2D+1.6L(controls)
o=H/500rightward
0.40

0.20

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
LateralDisplacement(in.) 72
 System 2: 1.2D + 1.6L (w/ o right)

AISC Spec. / 2nd-Order Elastic analysis

AllPu/Py < 0.5,b =1.0

Case 1: Imperfection: direct modeling; Stiffness adjustment: 0.8E and b = 1.0

Eq. H11 at Applied Load Ratio = 1.00 Applied Load Ratio when Eq. H11 = 1.00
1 DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y
Member P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n ALR P u /P n M u /M n ALR
C11 0.458 0.827 1.193 0.382 0.827 1.117 0.434 0.631 0.945 0.372 0.707 0.970
C12 0.473 0.589 0.996 0.395 0.589 0.918 0.473 0.589 1.000 0.402 0.664 1.015
B11 0.003 0.913 0.914 0.003 0.913 0.914 0.003 0.994 1.045 0.003 0.994 1.045

Case 2: Imperfection: NL (0.002Yi); Stiffness adjustment: 0.8E and no NL

Eq. H11 at Applied Load Ratio = 1.00 Applied Load Ratio when Eq. H11 = 1.00
2 DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y
Member P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n ALR P u /P n M u /M n ALR
C11 0.458 0.828 1.194 0.382 0.828 1.118 0.435 0.631 0.945 0.372 0.708 0.970
C12 0.473 0.589 0.997 0.395 0.589 0.918 0.473 0.589 1.000 0.402 0.664 1.015
B11 0.001 0.913 0.913 0.001 0.913 0.913 0.001 0.994 1.045 0.001 0.994 1.045

73
 System 2: 1.2D + 1.6L (w/ o right)

AISC Spec. / 2nd-Order Elastic analysis

AllPu/Py < 0.5,b =1.0

Case 1: Imperfection: direct modeling; Stiffness adjustment: 0.8E and b = 1.0

Eq. H11 at Applied Load Ratio = 1.00 Applied Load Ratio when Eq. H11 = 1.00
1 DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y
Member P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n ALR P u /P n M u /M n ALR
C11 0.458 0.827 1.193 0.382 0.827 1.117 0.434 0.631 0.945 0.372 0.707 0.970
C12 0.473 0.589 0.996 0.395 0.589 0.918 0.473 0.589 1.000 0.402 0.664 1.015
B11 0.003 0.913 0.914 0.003 0.913 0.914 0.003 0.994 1.045 0.003 0.994 1.045

Eq. H11 at Applied Load Ratio = 1.00

1 Eq. H11 at AppliedDM:
Case 2: Imperfection: NL (0.002Yi); Stiffness adjustment: 0.8E and no NL
K == 1.00
Load Ratio 1 DMDMMI:
Applied MDM:
Load P nEq.=H11
Ratio when P y= 1.00
2 DM: K = 1 MDM: P = P DM: K = 1 MDM: P = P
Member P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 n

Member P /P M /M Eq. H11 P /P M /M Eq. H11 P /P M /M

u n u n u n u n
P u
y
/P n
u
M
ALRn
u /M
P /P n MEq.
u n /M H11
ALRu n u
n

n
y

C11 0.458 0.828 1.194 0.382 0.828 1.118 0.435 0.631 0.945 0.372 0.708 0.970
C12
C11
0.473
0.458
0.589 0.997
0.827
0.395 0.589
1.193
0.918 0.473
0.382
0.589 1.000
0.827
0.402
1.117
0.664 1.015
B11 C12
0.001 0.473
0.913 0.913 0.5890.913 0.996
0.001 0.913 0.001 0.395
0.994 1.0450.5890.001 0.918
0.994 1.045

B11 0.003 0.913 0.914 0.003 0.913 0.914

74
 System 2: 1.2D + 1.6L (w/ o right)

AISC Spec. / 2nd-Order Elastic analysis

AllPu/Py < 0.5,b =1.0

Case 1: Imperfection: direct modeling; Stiffness adjustment: 0.8E and b = 1.0

Eq. H11 at Applied Load Ratio = 1.00 Applied Load Ratio when Eq. H11 = 1.00
1 DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y DM: K = 1 MDM: P n = P y
Member P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n Eq. H11 P u /P n M u /M n ALR P u /P n M u /M n ALR
C11 0.458 0.827 1.193 0.382 0.827 1.117 0.434 0.631 0.945 0.372 0.707 0.970
C12 0.473 0.589 0.996 0.395 0.589 0.918 0.473 0.589 1.000 0.402 0.664 1.015
B11 0.003 0.913 0.914 0.003 0.913 0.914 0.003 0.994 1.045 0.003 0.994 1.045

Eq. H11
Applied Loadat Applied
Ratio whenLoadEq. RatioH11 = 1.00
= 1.00
1 Eq. H11 at AppliedDM:
Case 2: Imperfection: NL (0.002Yi); Stiffness adjustment: 0.8E and no NL
K == 1.00
Load Ratio 1 DMDMMI:
Applied MDM:
Load P nEq.=H11
Ratio when P y= 1.00
2 DM: K = 1 MDM: P = P DM: K = 1 MDM: P = P
Member P u /P n M u /M n Eq.ALRH11
n

Member P /P M /M Eq. H11 P /P M /M Eq. H11 P /P M /M

u n u n u n u n
Py
u /P u
n M
ALR
n
u /M
uP /P n MEq.
n
ALR
/M H11
ALR
u n u
n

n
y

C11 0.458 0.828 1.194 0.382 0.828 1.118 0.435 0.631 0.945 0.372 0.708 0.970
C12
C11
0.473
0.458
0.434
0.589 0.997
0.827
0.631
0.395 0.589
1.193
0.945
0.918 0.473
0.382
0.372
0.589 1.000
0.827
0.707
0.402
1.117
0.970
0.664 1.015
B11 C12
0.001 0.473
0.913 0.913 0.5890.913 0.996
0.001 1.000
0.913 0.001 0.395
0.402
0.994 1.0450.589
0.664
0.001 0.918
1.015
0.994 1.045

B11 0.003 0.913

0.994 0.914
1.045 0.003 0.913
0.994 0.914
1.045

75
 AISC2010 AISC AISC
Specification 2016? 2010
Method: Effective Direct Inelastic
Length,ELM Analysis,DM DM-DMMI Analysis
Effect: (App. 7) (Ch. C) (App. 1)
Column Reduce
Member Reduce Inelastic
Strength Stiffness or
Inelasticity Stiffness Analysis
Curve notional load
Initial Out-of- Column Direct
Direct Direct
Plumbness Strength Modeling or
Modeling Modeling
(Erection Tol.) Curve notional load

Initial Out-of- Column Column

Direct Direct
Straightness Strength Strength
Modeling Modeling
(Fab. Tol.) Curve Curve
Strength
Analysis / Interaction Eq. H1-1 Analysis
Check

Axial Strength Based on L Pcross-section

Based on KL N/A
Term, Pn (K=1.0) (often Py) 76
 Thankyoufor
yourattention,
Questions?
 AISC2010 AISC AISC
Specification 2016? 2010
Method: Effective Direct Inelastic
Length,ELM Analysis,DM DM-DMMI Analysis
Effect: (App. 7) (Ch. C) (App. 1)
Column Reduce
Member Reduce Inelastic
Strength Stiffness or
Inelasticity Stiffness Analysis
Thankyouforyourattention,
Curve notional load
Initial Out-of- Column Direct
Direct Direct
Plumbness
(Erection Tol.) Curve
Questions?
Strength Modeling or
notional load
Modeling Modeling

Initial Out-of- Column Column

Direct Direct
Straightness Strength Strength
Modeling Modeling
(Fab. Tol.) Curve Curve
Strength
Analysis / Interaction Eq. H1-1 Analysis
Check

Axial Strength Based on L Pcross-section

Based on KL N/A
Term, Pn (K=1.0) (often Py) 78
Excerptsfromotherstudies

APPENDIX

79
Griffis,White,Ziemian
Study(Example)
ComparisonofDM,DMMI,andB1 Solutions

W21x68
KL/ry =160
0.79(E4,Fcrz) Datapoints
Lb /Lr =1.28 fromprevious
0.85(E3,Fy)
twoslides

1
2
3
4
5
(includestwist)

DMMIRIGuses
lineelements
withE =0.8Eo
5.45 49.8 and oy =L/1000
(MASTAN2)
ComparisonwithExactSolution

W21x68
KL/ry =160
Lb /Lr =1.28

1
2
4
5
6

ABAQUSusingfull
nonlinearshell
elementswithres,
o,and=0.9
ComparisonwithCommercialSoftware

1
2
5
7
8
W21x68 9
KL/ry =160 Inalloftheabove
Lb /Lr =1.28 programs,onlyline
elementsare
employed(noshell
elements)