Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D.

White 2011

D. White

FRAME DESIGN USING

WEB-TAPERED MEMBERS
MODULE 6
BASIC GABLED FRAME EXAMPLE USING THE DM

Problem
 Check the adequacy of a clear-span gable frame
with a mezzanine level using the DM
15 ft
30 ft

16 ft

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 1
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Problem
15 ft
30 ft
 Compare to the results obtained by the ELM

16 ft

Problem Features 1
 Representative interior clear-span gable frame
supporting a mezzanine level
 Geometry typical of fabricated metal building
moment frames, but using wide-flange sections
 All moment frame members are W30x116 A992 steel
 W30x116 sections are cut as shown to form
haunches at the knees of the moment frame
(very common practice in the UK)
 Specific checking of stability of the knee region is
not considered in this study
 All column bases are a typical 4-bolt detail & are
idealized as pins for the analysis UNO
 Mezzanine level contains only gravity framing
 Typical outset purlin, girt & eave strut layouts
4

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 2
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Problem Features 2
 The rafters are braced out-of-plane at their top
(outside) flange by the purlins
 Diagonal braces are provided intermittently from the
purlins to the inside flange as shown in the drawing
 The left-hand column of the moment frame is braced
out-of-plane by the girts at its outside flange
 Diagonal struts are provided to the inside flange at
16 and 24.75 ft above the column base
 Both flanges of the right-hand column of the moment
frame are braced out-of-plane at the level of the
connection to the mezzanine, at the bottom of the
haunch, and at the bottom of the column
 In addition, the outside flange of this column is
braced out-of-plane by girts at 8 ft above its base
5

Problem Features 3
The stability design solution for this frame is not
immediately obvious due to:
 The non-rectangular geometry
 The variation of the axial load along the members
 The effects of the mezzanine on the right-hand
column of the moment frame
 The tendency of the gable frame knees to spread
apart under application of the gravity loads and
potentially in the buckling mode of the frame
 The influence of axial compression in the rafters on
the frame stability

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 3
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Problem Features 4
 Explicit o/L = 0.002 used instead of notional loads
 Sidesway amplification limit checked based on
weighted average column drifts
 Pn = QPy utilized where e /  > 10
 Use of deep wide-flange sections requiring consider-
ation of web local buckling under axial compression
 Handling of gravity load eccentricity at simple shear
connections into a column flange
 Discussion of the importance of unbalanced snow
loads on gable moment frames
 Potential member limit states involving constrained-
axis torsional buckling about the centroid of the
purlins & girts
 Influence of partial base fixity on service drift
7

Loadings
 Dead load, including the self-weight of the primary
framing, is taken as 9 psf over the projected
horizontal area of the roof
 Nominal Live load on mezzanine = 100 psf,
reduced to 50 psf based on ASCE 7-05 for
influence area of 3600 ft2
 Representative snow load per ASCE 7-05, including
unbalanced snow on the gable roof
 Ground snow load taken as pg = 30 psf, ps = 21 psf
 Representative wind load per ASCE 7-05 Method 2
 Basic wind speed = 85 mph
 All loads modeled as uniformly distributed line
loads

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 4
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Loadings (cont’d)
 Dead & Live loading calculated using the area
within the building envelope (120 ft – 2 x 10 in =
118.3 ft width)
 Snow & wind loading calculated using the full roof
area including the outset dimensions of the
building envelope (120 ft building width & 30 ft
eave height)

ASCE 7 Strength Load Combinations

1) 1.4D
2-1) 1.2D + 1.6Lreduced + 0.5Sbalanced
2-2) 1.2D + 1.6Lreduced + 0.5SunbalancedRight
3-1) 1.2D + 1.6Sbalanced + 0.5Lreduced (governs)
3-2) 1.2D + 1.6Sbalanced + 0.8WtoLeft
3-3) 1.2D + 1.6SunbalancedRight + 0.5Lreduced
3-4) 1.2D + 1.6SunbalancedRight + 0.8WtoLeft
4-1) 1.2D + 1.6WtoLeft + 0.5Lreduced + 0.5Sbalanced
4-2) 1.2D + 1.6WtoLeft + 0.5Lreduced + 0.5SunbalancedRight
5) 0.9D + 1.6WtoLeft

Earthquake loading is assumed not to govern relative

to the wind loading
10

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 5
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

ASCE 7-05 Unbalanced Snow Load

24.5 psf rectangular surcharge

ps = 21 psf
0.3 ps = 6.3 psf

15 ft

11

ASCE 7-05 Wind Load

12

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 6
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

ASCE 7 Service Load Combinations

1) 1.0D + 0.5Sbalanced + 0.5Lreduced
2) 1.0D + 0.5SunbalancedRight + 0.5Lreduced
3) 1.0D + 0.5SunbalancedRight + 0.5Lreduced + 0.7WtoLeft
4) 1.0D + 1.0Lreduced

Service Deflection Design Criteria:

 Column drifts < L/100
 Roof girder vertical deflections < Span/240

13

DM ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS

14

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 7
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Second-Order Analysis 1
 Although amplified 1st-order analysis procedures
can be applied to this type of frame, their accuracy
in capturing all of the stability attributes is
relatively uncertain
 Therefore, the analysis of this frame is conducted
using a general purpose 2nd-order analysis that
includes both P- & P- effects in the element
formulation
 Both flexural and shear deformations are included
in the analysis, although the influence of shear
deformations is relatively small here

15

Second-Order Analysis 2
 Joint size is included in determining the lean-on
& connection eccentricity effects of the gravity
framing, & in setting the “member end” locations
 The rigid-zone size of all the joints is taken as zero
 The haunch is modeled using a tapered frame elem.
 Panel zone deformations at the haunch are
considered in a coarse fashion via the use of a zero
rigid-zone size
 The moment frame connections are assumed to be
Fully-Restrained (FR)

16

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 8
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Second-Order Analysis 3
 Reduced modulus of 0.8 E = 23,200 ksi employed in
all the DM strength analysis calculations
 Out-of-plumbness of 0.002 to the left explicitly
modeled in strength analysis calculations
– Initial out-of-plumb nodal displacements = 0.002 x
vertical coordinate above the base
 Nominal modulus of E = 29,000 ksi employed in all
the service load analysis calculations
 Perfect frame geometry assumed in all the service
load analysis calculations

17

Out-of-Plumbness Imperfections

18

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 9
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Equivalent Notional Lateral Loads

19

Strength LC (3-1) Results

0.1959(80)  0.1329(52  133 )

 1st   0.0336 inches
80  52  133  2nd
 1.16  1.70
1st
0.1919 (80 )  0.1390 (52  133 )
 2nd   0.0391 inches
80  52  133
20

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 10
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Strength LC (3-1) Results

 The sidesway amplification is relatively
small (1.16 vs the 1.70 limit)
 However, this is a gravity-only load
combination
 Therefore, the out-of-plumbness (or
notional lateral load) still must be included

21

Strength LC (3-1) Results

Axial Force (kips)

Moment (ft-kips)

22

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 11
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Out-of-Plumbness to the Right

 Given the deflected geometry of the mezzanine for
the critical strength LC (3-1), it is apparent that out-
of-plumbness to the right may have a larger
destabilizing effect for this load combination

 With OOP to the right, the axial forces are essentially

unchanged, the max. moments on the rhs increase
by approximately 10 to 13 ft-kips & the moments on
the lhs decrease by the same amount
23

DM RESISTANCE
CALCULATIONS

24

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 12
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Determine cPnx
 The maximum Pu, Pumax = 133 kips, is in the bottom
portion of the column on the rhs
 Lx = 24.75 ft

 Pex = 2 (29000) (4930)/ (24.75)2/144 = 16,000 kips

 Pumax/Pex = 133/16,000 = 0.0083 << 0.1

  cPnx may be taken as cQPy

 From Table 6-1, p. 6-29 of the AISC Manual,
cQPy = 1/p = 1000/0.713 = 1403 kips

25

Determine cPnx
 Note, for the rafters, Lx should generally be taken as
the on-slope length from column to column
 Lx = 129.5 ft
 However, AISC DG 25 explains that in-plane non-
sway buckling of the rafters is fully addressed by the
DM for cases where mid-span work point is offset
above the rafter chord by Lchord / 50 or more

  Pex = 2 (29000) (4930)/ (129.5)2/144 = 584 kips

doesn’t need to be considered

26

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 13
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Determine cPnCAT
 The out-of-plane axial resistance in the bottom
segments of both the rhs and lhs columns is
governed by Constrained-Axis Torsional (CAT)
Buckling
 Conservatively take the length between the points
where twisting is prevented as LT = 16 ft

27

Determine cPnCAT
 The equation for the theoretical column elastic CAT
buckling is…
 2E(C w  Iy a 2s )  1
PeCAT    GJ 2 2
 rx  ry  ac
2 2
 LT
 

28

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 14
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Determine cPnCAT
 E = 29,000 ksi, G = E/2.6
 Cw = 34,900 in6, Iy = 164 in4, J = 6.43 in4,
 A = 34.2 in2, rx = 12.0 in, ry = 2.19 in

 PeCAT = 1550 kips

 FeCAT = PeCAT / A = 45.4 ksi

 Pumax / PeCAT = 133 /1550 = 0.086 < 0.1

  cPnCAT may be taken as cQPy = 1403 kips

29

Determine cPny
 The largest unsupported length for minor-axis
flexural buckling is Ly = 8.75 ft

 Pey = 2 (29000) (164)/ (8.75)2/144 = 4258 kips

 Pu/Pey = 80.1/4258 = 0.0019 << 0.1 on lhs column

  cPny may be taken as cQPy = 1403 kips

30

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 15
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Synthesis… cPn
 When using the DM, cPn may be taken as
cQPy = 1403 kips for any location within this frame

 By recognizing that the largest value of Pu/cQPy is

0.095 throughout the frame, it is clear that the
most critical segments will be the ones with the
largest Mu/bMn

31

Strength LC (3-1), OOP to Left

Axial Force (kips)

Moment (ft-kips)

32

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 16
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Identifying the critical strength UC

 By comparing LC (3-1) with out-of-plumbness to
the left to the other load combinations, ….
 It appears that the lhs column is likely to be the
critical component in this structure
 This is in spite of the long on-slope length of the
rafters or the larger axial compression in the
bottom of the rhs column

33

Critical column & rafter loadings

1.2D + 1.6Sbalanced + 0.5Lreduced

34

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 17
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Determine bMn
 Consider the top unbraced segment of the lhs
column, Lb = 8.75 ft
 From Table 3-10 of the AISC Manual, p. 3-107,
bMn1 = 1377 ft-kips for uniform bending (Cb = 1)
 M2 = 1078 ft-kips, M1 = 696 ft-kips 
 Cb = 1.75 – 1.05 (M1/M2) + 0.3 (M1/M2)2 = 1.2
 bMn = min(Cb bMn1, bMp) = 1420 ft-kips

35

Determine bMn
 Consider the left-most unbraced segment of the
lhs rafter, Lb = 15 ft
 From Table 3-10 of the AISC Manual, p. 3-111,
bMn1 = 1148 ft-kips for uniform bending (Cb = 1)
 M2 = 747.6 ft-kips, M1 = 238.4 ft-kips 
 Cb = 1.75 – 1.05 (M1/M2) + 0.3 (M1/M2)2 = 1.4
 bMn = min(Cb bMn1, bMp) = 1420 ft-kips

36

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 18
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Synthesis… bMn
 The flexural resistance may be taken as the
“plateau strength” bMn = 1420 ft-kips for all of the
potentially critical unbraced lengths in this frame

37

Critical Beam-Column Unity Checks

 Top segment of the lhs column:
Pu/2cPn + Mu/ bMn =
80.1/ 2 / 1403 + 1078 / 1420 = 0.03 + 0.76 = 0.79

 Left-most segment of the lhs rafter:

Pu/2cPn + Mu/ bMn =
49.4/ 2 / 1403 + 747.6 / 1420 = 0.02 + 0.53 = 0.54

38

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 19
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Service Deflection Checks

 Using…
– Nominal elastic stiffness (E = 29,000 ksi)
– No geometric imperfections

39

Critical Service Deflection Checks

Vertical deflection of roof
SLC1: 1.0D + 0.5Sbalanced + 0.5Lreduced

2.63 in = Span / 529

2.42 in = Span / 574 using G = 10 < Span / 240, ok

base restraint, Krot = 0.6EIc / Lc

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 20
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Critical Service Deflection Checks

Lateral deflection at eaves
SLC3: 1.0D + 0.5SunbalancedRight + 0.5Lreduced + 0.7WtoLeft

1.38 in = L / 233 2.63 in = Span / 529

< L / 100, ok 0.98 in = L / 329 using G = 10

base restraint, Krot = 0.6EIc / Lc
41

Critical Service Deflection Checks

Lateral deflection at mezzanine floor
SLC5 (new case considered “after the fact”):
1.0D + 0.5SunbalancedLeft + 0.7WtoRight

0.77 in = L / 230

0.57 in = L / 310 using G = 10

base restraint, Krot = 0.6EIc / Lc

< L / 100, ok
Assuming no interior partitions, no brittle exterior walls & no frame
mounted equipment
42

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 21
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

Critical Service Deflection Checks

Vertical deflection at mezzanine floor
SLC4: 1.0D + 1.0L

4.02 in = Span / 175

> L / 240, NG
Deflection under 1.0 L is L/280 > L/360
Increase girder size to a W36x135 section
43

ELM CALCULATIONS

44

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 22
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

ELM Strength Checks

 The key in applying the Effective Length Method to
this type of frame is in determining the appropriate
member buckling load Pex
 K is ALWAYS (implicitly, or explicitly) determined by
equating the load in the member at buckling to the
Euler buckling load based on KLx …
i.e., [Pex = ex Pu] = 2 EIx/(KLx)2 …

and back-solving for K … K = { [2 EIx/Lx2 ]/Pex }0.5

 Pex can be determined by any legitimate buckling

calculation
 Note: in the end, the column strength for in-plane
buckling is based on Pex, not K …
Once we have a value for Pex, K isn’t necessary
45

ELM Strength Checks

 For this frame, the column strengths in the ELM
may be based on an eigenvalue linear buckling
analysis of the full structure under LC 3-1
(1.2D + 1.6Sbalanced + 0.5Lreduced )…

ex = 11.02

Pex = ex Pu
= 11.02 (80.1)
= 883 kips

But Pu / Pex = 1 / ex = 0.09 < 0.1, so lets use cPnx = cQPy = 1403 kips
46

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 23
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

ELM Strength Checks

 Analyze using ….
– Perfect geometry
– Nominal elastic stiffness
 From LC (3-1), Mu = 1069 ft-kips
 Versus 1078 ft-kips in the DM Analysis
 Versus 1057 ft-kips from a linear elastic analysis
 bMn = 1420 ft-kips
 Pu/2cPn + Mu/bMn
= 80.1/2/1403 + 1069/ 1420 = 0.78
(0.81 if we calculate Pn using KLx)
 Versus 0.79 from the DM Calculations
47

ELM Strength Checks

 Note:

1/(1 – 1/ex) = 1 / (1 – 1/ 11.02) = 1.10

is also a reasonable check of the sidesway

amplification limit for the ELM ( < 1.5) for this
frame

We would obtain 1.13 using the weighted average

1st & 2nd-order deflections as illustrated previously

48

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 24
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

ELM Strength Checks

 The rafters clearly “go along for the ride”
and predominantly serve to provide
rotational restraint to the tops of the
columns in the above buckling mode
 Therefore, use of the above buckling
solution for the rafters can be very
conservative

49

ELM Strength Checks

 For this frame, the rafter strengths in the ELM may
be based on the next highest buckling mode in an
eigenvalue linear buckling analysis of the full
structure under LC 3-3, the critical combination for
the lhs rafter (1.2D + 1.6SunbalancedRight + 0.5Lreduced )
ex = 55.0

Pex = ex Pu
= 55.0 (49.3)
= 2712 kips

But Pu / Pex = 1 / ex = 0.018 << 0.1, so lets use cPnx = cQPy = 1403 kips
50

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 25
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

ELM Strength Checks

 For the critical rafter strength check, we obtain
UC = 0.54
 UC = 0.54 also if the column strength is based on
the critical elastic PeCAT value for the 15 ft rafter
unsupported segment (LT = 15 ft)

 We also obtained UC = 0.54 using the DM

51

Observations
 Frames with more complex geometries such
as the example clear-span gable structure
are certainly solveable using the ELM
 However …
 The DM is simpler and it gives internal
forces and deflections that are more
representative of the true strength
responses
 Clear-span gable frames rarely have
substantial overall stability effects
 Use the DM

52

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 26
Module 6 Gabled Frame Example  D. White 2011

D. White

FRAME DESIGN USING

WEB-TAPERED MEMBERS
END MODULE 6
BASIC GABLED FRAME EXAMPLE USING THE DM

Overview of AISC Design Guide 25

Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members 27