562 MEMBERS sec. 5.31
2 So + fi = 373 4 496 — 9,170 + 0.274 = 0.444
1022 1803
The use of the AISC interaction formulas was illustrated in Examples
5.39 through 5.42. While one may be certain that this is not the final
word in design, it is the best method yet devised for treating a number of
rather complex, related problems in a rather simple fashion. The formulas
and their elements have been shown to have rational bases. However, the
large amount of ingenious empiricism that has gone into combining them
into a reliable multipurpose design approach must also be acknowledged.
5.31, LATERAL BRACING OF COLUMNS AND BEAM COLUMNS
In the buckling problems examined in previous sections, various conditions
were given: the type of loading, the geometrical configuration of the member
or frame, the cross-sectional properties, the type of supports and joints, and
the location of laterally supported points, The question was to determine the
load at which such a member or frame would buckle. This is the normal
sequence, the engineer having established these conditions from studies of
feasibility and economy. Answering the buckling problem proved rather easy
for simple structures. For more complex cases it was shown that there is an
approximate method (the interaction formulas and their adjuncts) which gives
a reliable indication of when a member will fail, provided its supports and
connections act as they are assumed to act. While there are satisfactory con-
ventional procedures for proportioning main joints and supports, there are no
simple, general analytical techniques for securing adequately strong and stiff
lateral bracing. This is perhaps the most vexing problem in the design of any
structure subject to instability
Codes and specifications are of little help. In a few cases they mentionPART HHL MEMBERS 363
details of attachment and arrangement of bracing, but they are generally silent
regarding its requisite strength and stiffness.
Lateral support may either be continuous or spaced at intervals, For
columns, noncontinuous bracing in the form of crossbeams, ties, or struts
attached at intervals is naturally more common. But when a column is em-
bedded in a masonry wall or, as in the case of light-gage studs, it has sheathing
attached throughout its length, the support may be practically continuous.
For beams, continuous bracing supplied by floor or roof decks secured to the
upper flange is more common than intermittent bracing. When the support is
continuous and obviously strong and stiff, full encasement of a column in a
brick wall or full covering of a beam’s compression flange by a concrete deck,
for example (Fig. 2.21b), there is no need to investigate the possibility of
buckling in the braced direction, When the support is continuous but of a
lighter variety, wood or light-gage steel sheathing or decking, for example, the
member should, at least in principle, be treated as one on nonrigid supports.
The same is true for the usual noncontinuous bracing. The trouble has been
that, until recently, there were no simple, practically useful theories for the
imeraction of main members and bracing. Consequently, proportioning of
lateral bracing has been at best empirical and, at worst, pure guesswork, In
Ref, 5.43, Winter has treated noncontinuous and continuous bracing of both
columns and beams, offering at least a partial answer for each. His suggestions
for the noncontinuous bracing of columns will be outlined here. Reference
5.38 may be consulted for tentative recommendations on the strength and
stiffness of bracing in plastically designed structures.
5.31.1. REQUIRED STIFFNESS
Consider first an ideally straight, slender, prismatic column of length 21. Its
critical load is P., = *EI/(2I)° (Fig. 5.97a). If a nondeflecting support is
placed at midspan, the critical load is increased fourfold (Fig. 5.97b). Next
assume an intermediate case, q member of the same total length but having
(a yielding support at midspan (Fig. 5.97c). The important characteristics of
this support are its stifiness and strength. The former will be investigated first.
The support may be treated as a linear elastic spring whose stiffness (spring
constant) is
kat @
To give reality to this concept, the support may be visualized as a straight
elastic bar. When pulled or compressed, its extension or shortening is
d= Fl,/A,E, where |, is its length and 4, its area, Its spring constant is
therefore
F _A,E
kaa ()
There are many other ways to furnish elastic or qua: