Stability - AISC's Direct Analysis Method - How To Engineer

Stability - AISC's Direct Analysis Method - How To Engineer http://howtoengineer.
com/stability-aiscs-direct-analysis-method/
ABOUT • SPREADSHEETS • CONTACT US
November 2013
Enter your email address to
March 2013
subscribe to our email list and
February 2013
receive notifications of new posts
January 2013
by email.
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
Subscribe
April 2012
March 2012
In the 14th Edition of the American Steel Construction Manual the Direct February 2012
Analysis Method (DAM) is moved into the main specification from the January 2012
appendix. I know many are not used to this new approach and some will say
1 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
Stability - AISC's Direct Analysis Method - How To Engineer http://howtoengineer.com/stability-aiscs-direct-analysis-method/
that if it’s not broke don’t fix it but I like the DA Method. Like anything else Ryan Freund on ASD
you need to put some time into learning it but it’s really not so bad in the Stress vs ASD Strength
end. It is a very interesting approach in that most design codes / manuals do vs LRFD All are LSD
not get into the analysis meaning that they don’t tell you how to get the Edgar Peetam on ASD
required/design forces but rather they give an allowable/capacity of the Stress vs ASD Strength
member to which you are designing. However in DAM, AISC vs LRFD All are LSD
is assisting you in your analysis to make the design simpler. Essentially we Edgar Peetam on
need to address two different types of deflection/deformation associated Stability – AISC’s
with axial load that amplify moments in the structure. The first is P-δ (I may Approximate
refer to this as P-d) which are moments associated with the axial load and Second-Order Analysis
deflection due to column curvature (Think of these as local displacements). B1 B2 Method
The second is P-Δ (I may refer to this as P-D) moments which are caused ali on Seismic Design
by axial load and the translation of the end of the column (i.e. interstory drift) ASCE7 Part 1
think of these as global displacements. Neither of these moments will show RauneyR on Masonry
up in a first order elastic analysis. Well they may…sorta. I don’t want to get Subject to Compression
off track so I will explain what I mean later (this refers to common FEM and Flexure – Stability –
models and placing multiple nodes along a member). We will now cover the ASD
DAM for a computer based approach and a simplified hand method.
2 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
Pd and PD Sketch
The direct analysis method is basically accounting for (3) issues:
1. Effects of initial geometric imperfections

2. Second-Order effects – Axial-Displacement Moments P-D and P-d
(as shown above).
3. Effects of material non-linearity – In-elasticity due to residual
stresses.
AISC actually states that there are (5) requirements. Below these
requirements are listed and how they are addressed (AISC C-C1.1).
3 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
1. Consider all deformations

Note that this says ‘consider’ not necessarily include, i.e.
column shears deformation, in-plane ‘rigid’ diaphragm
displacement.
The model or analysis shall ‘consider’ all deformations.
2. Consider P-d and P-D
Perform a rigerous second order analysis
Use B1, B2 Method
3. Consider geometric imperfections
This typically this stems from column out of plumbness
This may be directly modeled in the analysis
A notional load may be applied to the analysis
Use KL = L
4. Consider stiffness due to inelasticity. This is typically due to residual
stresses in framing members. Therefore some elements may soften
‘inelastically’ prior to reaching their design strength.
Apply a stiffness reduction factor
Use KL = L
5. Consider uncertainty in strength and stiffness
Apply a stiffness reduction factor.
Use KL = L
First we will look at applying this method in a strict sense and assuming the
4 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
use of a computer model. Then we will get to a more conservative hand calc
method.
1. Model your structure and apply all loads. Set up your load
combinations according to LRFD or ASD (Most likely see IBC load
combo’s).
2. Run a first-order analysis and determine deflections.
Amplify the ASD loads x 1.6
Modify the stiffness of all members. For a first trial run use a
0.8 factor. This would be applied to axial (0.8*EA) and flexural
(0.8EI) stiffness.
AISC states that the stiffness reduction need only be
applied to members that contribute to the stability of the
structure however they can be applied to all members to
prevent artificial distortion.
3. Run a second-order analysis.
Amplify the ASD loads x 1.6
Modify the stiffness of all members. For a first trial run use a
0.8 factor. This would be applied to axial (0.8*EA) and flexural
(0.8EI) stiffness.
AISC states that the stiffness reduction need only be
applied to members that contribute to the stability of the
structure however they can be applied to all members to
prevent artificial distortion.
So this is just a mouse click away right? Well not quite. You
should really know what your analysis software is doing. It is
difficult if not impossible in some situations for software
5 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
programs to perform a rigorous second-order analysis. For the

program to perform this analysis it usually needs to run an
iterative process on many nodes which may not be realistic.
Therefore the program may use a geometric stiffness method
which only accounts for P-D moments. Therefore P-d moments
are still unaccounted for. However these moments may be
“semi” captured if the column element is broken into several
nodes. This way the deflection between nodes is captured in
the analysis. AISC recognizes this practical problem and states
that the P-d effects on the structure may be neglected if the
second order drift to first order drift ratio (also known as B2) is
equal or less than 1.7, also no more than 1/3 of the total gravity
load on the structure is supported by columns that are part of
the moment-resisting frames in the direction of translation
being considered.
In the commentary they equate the 1.7 to a 1.5 limit with no
stiffness reduction.
Furthermore P-d effects must be considered to individual
members subject to compression and flexure. In this case B-1
could be used.
4. Find the drift ratio (B2) of second order to first order drift. This will be
used to determine what sort of notional loads will need to be applied.
5. Notional loads – Initial Imperfections
Initial imperfections may be directly applied in the model.
Typically an out of plumbness of 1/500 is used the maximum
specified in the Code of Standard Practice.
6 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
If not modeled directly notional loads may be applied. These

are lateral loads Ni =0.002*α*Yi. These loads are distributed
over the level in the same maner as the gravity load.
Ni = notional load at level i
α = 1.0 (LRFD); α = 1.6 (ASD)
Yi = gravity load applied at level i under each respective
load combination
If B2 (drift ratio) is <= 1.7 then the notional loads may be
applied as a minimum. Meaning that they are applied to gravity
only load combinations but are not applied if the ‘actual’ lateral
loads i.e. wind/EQ forces are greater than the notional load.
6. Adjust stiffness
For all stiffness that contribute to the stability of the structure a
0.8 factor shall be applied i.e. EI, AE, etc.
Additionally for flexure the stiffness should be multiplied by 0.8
:
For
For
α = 1.0 (LRFD); α = 1.6 (ASD)

Pr = required axial compressive strength of the
member
Py = axial yield strength = Fy*Ag (yield stress x
gross area)
In lieu of using taub a notional load of 0.001*α*Yi may be
applied to the structure in similar fashion as the notional loads
7 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
for initial imperfections. However these notional loads are

additive for all load combinations.
7. Rerun second order analysis and check drift ratio, B2. Update any
parameters based on the new drift ratio.
8. Design members using K=1. No Alignment Chart Required, Yeah!!!
Now for a simplified hand calc to demonstrate the use of B1 and B2.
This post got to be a tad long so I’m going to break this into a separate post
here.
AISC 14th Edition CSC’s “Simple Guide to Direct Analysis” and webinar.
Note that CSC’s Fastrak software does perform a rigorous second order
analysis. RISA’s Practical Analysis with the AISC 13th Edition by Josh
Plummer AISC Engineering Journal 3th Q 2008 “A comparison of Frame
Stability Analysis Methods”
Be the first to like this.
8 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
Tags: AISC DAM Direct Analysis Method Stability Steel Design
← Surcharge Analysis – Elastic Portal Method – Moments and

and
Methods – Strip Load Deflection →
Deflection
9 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
Girish
July 23, 2013 at 4:39 pm
I am designing a three tier pipe rack by direct analysis

method in Risa 3D using AISC 13th edition. Is it
compulsory to apply notional loads when we are using
direct analysis.
Reply
Ryan Freund
July 23, 2013 at 9:20 pm
The short answer – yes, notional loads should

be applied for all load combinations. However –
If the ratio of the second order drift to first order
drift (referred to as B2 in the approximate
second order method) is less than 1.5 (or less
than 1.7 if you are running the analysis using the
reduced stiffness) than the notional loads may
be applied as minimums. Meaning – for load
10 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
combinations that have lateral forces (i.e. wind

and seismic) if the lateral force due to
wind/seismic is greater than the notional load
then the notional load does not need to be
applied. However if the load combination does
not include any lateral forces (no wind/seismic)
than the notional load should be applied.
If the drift ratio is greater than 1.5 than you must

apply the notional load as additive to all load
cases in the same direction as the lateral force
(i.e. worst case).
Reply
Reply
Rhett
June 26, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Actually, how do we reduce the stiffness about 20% in

structural analysis software? If we adjust E or A (E or I),
then the required strength will be correctly adjusted
following the modified stiffness. But how about the
available strength? If we adjust E or A (E or I), then the
available strength will be wrong.
Reply
11 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
Ryan Freund (@ryanfreund)

June 27, 2014 at 9:34 am
That is a good point. Some software packages have the

direct analysis method built in, however if it is not I
suppose you could use the reduced E in your member
design. Or manually determine the member capacity. Or
even have two models. Actually you may need two
models anyway or atleast run the model twice as you
would not check the drift requirements using the reduced
stiffness.
Here http://communities.bentley.com/products/structural
/structural_analysis___design
/w/structural_analysis_and_design__wiki/6011.asce-
7-aisc-360-and-the-direct-analysis-method-in-the-
ram-structural-system.aspx
Is one software that walks through the DAM. RISA is

another one that has this option and I’m sure there are
many more.
Reply
Rhett
July 15, 2014 at 3:51 am
12 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52
Thanks for your kind explanation.
In addition, regarding P-d (small d) effect, you mentioned

that the moment may be “semi” captured if the column
element is broken into several nodes.
I agree that the P-d moment may be added, but in that

case there is a problem. Many software automatically
calculate whether the AISC’s requirements are satisfied
or not, and it is broadly called as ‘Code Check’.
If, like you said, the element is divided with some parts
using additional nodes, the software performs code
check along the divided length. So the unbraced length
will be shorter than the original one and it causes wrong
results. In this case, I think, the only way to solve the
problem is to input the unbraced length manually.
Could it also be controlled easily in software?
Reply
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 How To
To Engineer
Engineer. All
All Rights Reserved. The
The Magazine Basic Theme by bavotasan.com .
13 of 13 13/12/2016 16:52

Stability - AISC's Direct Analysis Method - How To Engineer

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Stability - AISC's Direct Analysis Method - How To Engineer

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Stability - AISC's Direct Analysis Method - How To Engineer http://howtoengineer.

ABOUT • SPREADSHEETS • CONTACT US

The direct analysis method is basically accounting for (3) issues:

1. Effects of initial geometric imperfections

1. Consider all deformations

programs to perform a rigorous second-order analysis. For the

If not modeled directly notional loads may be applied. These

α = 1.0 (LRFD); α = 1.6 (ASD)

for initial imperfections. However these notional loads are

Be the first to like this.

Tags: AISC DAM Direct Analysis Method Stability Steel Design

← Surcharge Analysis – Elastic Portal Method – Moments and

I am designing a three tier pipe rack by direct analysis

The short answer – yes, notional loads should

combinations that have lateral forces (i.e. wind

If the drift ratio is greater than 1.5 than you must

Actually, how do we reduce the stiffness about 20% in

Ryan Freund (@ryanfreund)

That is a good point. Some software packages have the

Is one software that walks through the DAM. RISA is

Thanks for your kind explanation.

In addition, regarding P-d (small d) effect, you mentioned

I agree that the P-d moment may be added, but in that

Could it also be controlled easily in software?

Potrebbero piacerti anche