Combined Forces Theory

Developed by Scott Civjan
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

1
COMBINED FORCES:
Structural member subjected to
axial load, bending and shear
Va
Pa
Vb
Ma
Pb
Mb
Combined Forces Theory
COMBINED FORCES:
Major Issues to Address:
Combination of multiple states of stress.
Second Order load effects.
Direct analysis versus traditional K methods.
Combination of multiple states of stress:

Bending about the major
and minor axis will
combine to provide
maximum stresses in the
corner of a W shape.
Axial load will provide
uniform stresses across
the member and add to
other maximum stresses.
=Mxcy/Ix
=Mycx/Iy
3=P/A
(elastic range)
Combination of multiple states of stress

Bending in each direction occurs
simultaneously with associated shear stresses.
For elastic analysis one can superimpose
stresses and arrive at a maximum value.
Actual design may include inelastic behavior
and needs to account for residual stresses.
Once behavior becomes inelastic the resulting
stresses are very difficult to calculate.
Combination of multiple states of stress

Design provisions are simplified and rely on the
inherent ductility of steel to redistribute stresses
throughout the section.
The basic principle for design is an interaction equation
which combines axial and bending forces with shear
being checked independently.
Modes of failure from all independent modes are
analyzed independently of other modes and forces. This
does not capture complete behavior, but is sufficiently
accurate for design purposes.
Second Order Effects

Equilibrium is based on DEFORMED GEOMETRY.
Initially, consider a member subjected to flexure only.

Initially, consider a member subjected to flexure only.
Application of load results in mid-span deflection
5 L4
0
384 EI
from basic derivations.

Now consider the same member with Axial load P.

Axial force acting through deformations results in
additional moment P(0) at center of span.
10

additional moment P(0) at center span.
Additional moment then results in displacement .
11

Resulting in additional moment P()
12

Resulting in additional moment P()
13

This either results in an incremental failure, or
stabilizes.
> 0 and M > M0
where 0 and M0 are first
order results based on
original geometry.
M = M0 + P
but depends on M
14

When considering a frame with loads applied at joints
the same principles can be applied.
In these cases, we define joint deflections as , with 0
being the first order joint deflection.
15
16
17
18

Tension forces and Flexure
Tension forces on a member tend to straighten the
member. Usually, they do not introduce 2nd order effects.
Multiple states of stress are still present and need to be
accounted for.
Tension in a member can also make lateral torsional
buckling less likely to occur.
19
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
2nd Order Analysis Theory
20

Assuming deflections are in the shape of a sine curve
HL3
0
3EI
Mmax= HL
Moment Diagram
21

L
Mmax = HL + P
Moment Diagram
22

4 PL2
' 2 , due to P
EI
23

4 PL2
' 2 , due to P
EI
P
' 2
EI
4 L2
24

4 PL2
' 2 , due to P
EI
P
' 2
EI
4 L2
P
'
PE
25

4 PL2
' 2 , due to P
EI
P
' 2
EI
4 L2
P
'
PE
Since 0 +'
P
0 , and
PE
26

4 PL2
' 2 , due to P
EI
P
' 2
EI
4 L2
P
'
PE
Since 0 +'
P
0 and
PE
1
0
1 P
PE
27

Mmax = HL + PP
28

Mmax = HL + PP
P
M max
1
M 0 P 0
1 P
PE
29

Mmax = HL + PP
P
M max
1
M 0 P 0
1 P
PE
P
P 0
PE
P
1
PE
M0 M0
M max
30

M max
P PE 0

1 1
PE
M0
M0
P
1
P
E
31

M max
P PE 0

1 1
PE
M0
M0
P
1
P
E
C
M M0 m
1 P
PE
32

M max
P PE 0

1 1
PE
M0
M0
P
1
P
E
C
M M0 m
1 P
PE
For design Cm is
usually taken equal to
1 for this condition
(translation of member
ends), calculated for
the condition where
deflections are within a
member length (P-).
33

Note that the maximum moment is similar to this case:
H+P/L
L
Mmax = HL + P
Moment Diagram
34

H+P/L
However, the shape of the moment

diagram is slightly altered,
now assumed to be a straight line.
Previous case
moment
Mmax = HL + P
Moment Diagram
35

H+P/L
36

P L3
H
L 3EI
H+P/L
37

H+P/L
P L3
H
L 3EI
3
P HL
1
HL 3EI
38

H+P/L
P L3
H
L 3EI
3
P HL
1
HL 3EI
P
1
0
HL
39

H+P/L
P L3
H
L 3EI
3
P HL
1
HL 3EI
P
1
0
HL
P 0
0
HL
40

H+P/L
P L3
H
L 3EI
3
P HL
1
HL 3EI
P
1
0
HL
P 0
0
HL
P 0
1 0
HL
41

H+P/L
P L3
H
L 3EI
3
P HL
1
HL 3EI
P
1
0
HL
P 0
0
HL
P 0
1 0
HL
1
0
P 0
1
HL
42
The previous theory is applicable

to deflections and moments within
a single member.
General equations are similar.
2H
HL3
0
3EI
Amplification Factor)
43
Amplification Factor
Amplification factors approach infinity as P approaches PE.
1.0
Axial Force, P
Pe
44
Transverse Load on Beam
Therefore, can not superimpose results from different P values.

P = 0 No amplification of M or
P1 > 0 Amplification of M and
P2 = 2xP1 Amplification of M
and is GREATER
than P1 results times 2
Mid Span Deflection,

45
MEMBERS WITHIN STRUCTURE
46

Note that in a full structure all displacements within a story are similar.
P1
P2
P3
P4
47

P1
P2
P3
P4
48

P1
P2
P3
P4
1
0
1 P 0
HL
49

This concept is directly applicable to the case of Leaner
Columns as discussed in the Compression Member module.
P1
P2
P3
P4
50

This concept is directly applicable to the case of Leaner
Columns as discussed in the Compression Member module.
P1
P2
P3
P4
51
NOTIONAL LOADS
52
Notional Loads
Notional loads are a function of the gravity load being applied.
Notional loads are applied as a lateral load at each floor level in
the direction that adds to the destabilizing effects of the load
combination being considered.
Notional loads can account for geometric imperfections,
inelasticity of members, and other non-ideal conditions.
Notional loads can be thought of as representing an initial
out-of-plumbness in each story of the structure of 1/500
times the story height.
53
Notional Loads
H+P/L
Recall that a vertical

load acting through a
displacement, is
similar to the
application of a
horizontal load P/L.
Therefore, a notional
load can be
considered the
equivalent effect of an
assumed geometric
imperfection,
54
DIRECT ANALYSIS
55
DIRECT ANALYSIS METHOD

Analysis of entire structure interaction.
Additional lateral Notional loads.
Reduced stiffness of structure.
No K values required.
56
Axial Force, P
Initially consider a traditional analysis
Moment, M
57

Axial strength is defined as
PnKL which includes K factors
(Py indicates crushing).
Axial Force, P
Py
PnKL
Moment, M
58

Axial strength is defined as
PnKL which includes K factors
(Py indicates crushing).
Axial Force, P
Py
PnKL
Bending Strength is defined as

Mn, assumed here to be Mp for
a laterally braced member.
Moment, M
Mp
59
Axial Force, P
Traditional design accounts for

interaction by calibrating the
member design to column curves.
Py
Elastic 2nd Order
PnKL
Pu
Mu
Moment, M
Mp
60
Axial Force, P
Traditional design accounts for

interaction by calibrating the
member design to column curves.
Py
Elastic 2nd Order
Actual Response
PnKL
Pu
Mu
Moment, M
Mp
Actual response produces a

higher internal moment in
the member. This is
accounted for in calibrating
the member check, but does
not get transferred into
adjacent members and
connections.
61

Elastic 2nd Order
Axial Force, P
Py
Actual Response
PnKL
Pu
Mu
Moment, M
Mp
62
Axial Force, P
Now consider the Direct analysis
Moment, M
63
Axial Force, P

Axial strength is defined as PnL
which assumes K=1 for all cases.
Py
PnL
Moment, M
64
Axial Force, P

Py
PnL
Bending strength is defined as

Moment, M
Mp
65
Axial Force, P

Py
PnL
PnKL

Bending strength is defined as
Mp
Moment, M
Therefore, design curve is shifted upwards from traditional
assumptions.
66
Axial Force, P
Direct analysis accounts for

interaction by including
additional lateral notional loads
and reducing the
Py frame stiffness
thus calibrating
PnLthe member
design to K = 1 analysis.
Elastic 2nd order (direct

analysis includes notional
loads and reduced stiffness).
Pu
Mu
Moment, M
Mp
67
Axial Force, P
Direct analysis accounts for

interaction by including
additional lateral notional loads
and reducing the
Py frame stiffness
thus calibrating
PnLthe member
design to K = 1 analysis.

Actual Response
Pu
Mu
Moment, M
Mp
Actual response then

should match the internal
moment, transferring this
moment into adjacent
members and connections
during analysis.
68
Axial Force, P

Py
PnL
Actual Response
Pu
Mu
Moment, M
Mp
69

Direct Analysis and Traditional methods are valid for design.
Each is reliant on calibration to match the response curves
shown on previous slides.
The Direct Analysis method has been calibrated for typical
building structures. Unusual structures (such as a cantilever with
compression and bending) may require additional calibration.
70

Analysis and Calibration
With proper calibration design strength approaches
the actual response.
Calibration consists of a combination of notional
load values and reduction in member stiffness.
Analysis is referenced to K = 1 member capacities.
71
MODELING ISSUES
72

Final deflections and moments can be calculated in
several different ways.
Closed form mathematical solutions:
Derivations exist for standard results, but very difficult,
if not impossible, for a full structure.
Approximate Methods:
Amplification factor applied to first order displacement
and moments by simple method
OR
approximate computer methods will provide results
within a given tolerance.
73

2nd order analysis is any method that accounts for
P- and P- effects.
Exact Closed-Form Solution
Computer Analysis
Amplified First Order Analysis
74
Exact Closed-Form Solution
Exact solutions for P- and P- can be derived for

simple structures.
For full structures typically encountered in design
the process is generally too tedious to perform.
75
Computer Analysis
Most structural analysis programs will include some form of
second order analysis.
To satisfy a rigorous 2nd order analysis a program must
include both P- and P- analysis, or the designer must
verify that P- effects are minimal in the structure.
Computer software uses approximate solutions rather than
exact closed form solutions, and iterate until a specified error
tolerance is reached.
76
Computer Analysis
Designers must verify that second order effects are correctly
handled by the programs being used.
Verify that load combinations include second order effects.
Some programs analyze individual load cases only. Load
case results are factored and summed to produce load
combinations, but are not re-analyzed.
Therefore, moments resulting from lateral loads in one load
case may not be correctly amplified by axial load in a
separate load case when combined in a load combination.
77
Computer Analysis
H
Verify computer programs correctly

analyze load combinations.
Load Case 1
+
P
Load Case 2
78
Computer Analysis
H
Verify computer programs correctly

analyze load combinations.
Load Case 1
+
P
Load Case 2
H
P
Load Combination (LC1+LC2)

OR
Load Case 3
Compare 2nd order analysis from the load combination and load case 3. If results are
identical, the program correctly includes 2nd order analysis in load combinations.
79
Computer Analysis
80
Computer Analysis
To determine the capabilities of a specific program compare
first and second order analysis results for known load cases
typically a flagpole (P-) and simple beam (P-) with axial
and lateral loads applied. (Figures C-C2-2 and C-C2-3)
Most programs only include P-. If P- effects are
significant the designer can use multiple elements to provide
equivalent P- effects within the original element.
81
Computer Analysis
H
P
Some computer programs do not analyze

P- effects such as the case shown.
82
Computer Analysis
H
P

P
Provide additional joints in the member.
Member shown is now made up of 4
shorter members.
83
Computer Analysis
H
H
P

P
Provide additional joints in the member
(Member shown is now made up of 4
shorter members)
P- analysis of the overall member is now analyzed as P- analysis of

each individual member, which most programs will be able to analyze.
Such an analysis is only required for members which will have significant P- effects
84
Combined Forces
Braced frames with pinned member connections:

If loads applied at the nodes, members are
subjected to axial forces only.
Beams and girders may be subjected to
combined forces, but designers should take
care in understanding whether analysis results
represent compressive forces present in the
steel section or carried by the floor slab.
85
Combined Forces
Moment frames with fixed member connections:

Most if not all members will be subjected to a
combination of axial forces, flexure and shear.
86

Combined Forces Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combined Forces Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developed by Scott Civjan

University of Massachusetts, Amherst