Evaluation of the Effective Length Method and the Direct Analysis Method for the Design of Steel Columns

in Frame Structures. Author Justin Prajzner University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Fall 2006 Advisor Ricardo A. Medina, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742

1. Introduction Current AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) design specifications [1] provide engineers with different methods to design columns that form part of steel frame structures. Traditionally, the Effective Length Method (ELM) has been used in the design of steel columns. This method relies on the use of effective length factors, K, that account for the contribution of boundary conditions to the axial load carrying capacity of a steel column. Because the ELM is based on several assumptions on geometry, boundary condition, and material properties of columns, it may not always be appropriate for the design of steel columns, especially for frame configurations in which the conditions of a given column are not consistent with these assumptions. In an attempt to provide a design methodology that would more accurately capture the main factors that affect column behavior, the Direct Analysis Method (DAM) was introduced into the steel design specifications in 2005 as an alternative to the more traditional ELM. As stated by Andrea Suroveck [2], a major advantage of the DAM is its ability to account for member and construction imperfections within a frame which creates additional stresses and reduces the load-carrying capacity of the structure. In this context, imperfections have to do with member camber, out-of-plumbness of the frame, and bearing elevations. To capture the effects from imperfections, the DAM relies on the use of notional loads that are applied to the structure in the horizontal direction. These notional loads are meant to mimic the influence of second-order effects in the structural response, which could be viewed as effects that reduce the effective lateral stiffness of a frame. The DAM is based on calculations that assume an effective length factor, K, equal to one, which significantly reduces the number of calculations as compared to those required to design a column based on the ELM. Both the ELM and the DAM use column interaction equations to estimate the capacity of individual steel columns. However, because these two methods are different, they will not necessarily produce the same column sizes for a given structural configuration. If substantial differences in size are produced by the two methods, the adequacy of each method to provide structural members with sufficient capacity to resist the imposed demands becomes a concern. In order to assess the adequacy of both the ELM to the DAM, this study deals with the evaluation of case studies that correspond to steel columns that form part of various structural configurations. These case studies include a portal frame, a leaning column frame, a multi-story structure, and a multi-bay frame. If any of these frames produce significant differences in the member sizes when the two design approaches are implemented, an additional analysis method will be needed for comparison. This additional method should provide a reasonable representation of real frame behavior, which includes the incorporation of material and geometric nonlinearities in the analysis. In this study, the basic analysis approach used to quantify frame behavior and assess the adequacy of design methods is a 2nd order plastic analysis. As it is shown in subsequent sections of this paper, in most cases, both the ELM and the DAM provide consistent results that adequately capture the most important characteristics that control the behavior of a steel frame. In addition, an evaluation of cases and conditions in which each one of these methods may not be appropriate is also conducted.

2. Overview of Design Methods 2a. Effective Length Method (ELM) The ELM accounts for the influence of the total frame on the behavior of an individual column. In order to do this, alignment charts are used to determine the effective length factor of a member. However, these alignment charts are based on several assumptions as stated in the AISC specifications. These assumptions are presented next: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Behavior is purely elastic. All members have constant cross section. All joints are rigid. For braced frames, rotations at opposite end of beams are equal in magnitude, producing single curvature. For unbraced frames, rotations at opposite ends of the restraining beams are equal in magnitude, producing reverse-curvature bending. The stiffness parameters of all columns are equal. Joint restraint is distributed to the column above and below the joint in proportion to I/L of the two columns. All columns in a frame buckle simultaneously. No significant axial compression force exists in the girders.

As expected, in many cases, the frame to be analyzed does not comply with all the assumptions listed above, yet designers still use this method to design frame structures. A significant flaw with this method is that for many frame structures to fail, several members within the structure need to fail first. Therefore, the load-carrying capacity for the entire frame is overestimated. In many situations, this causes the ELM to be too conservative, which tends to counterbalance the effect of inconsistencies between frame behavior and the assumptions that form the basis for this method. Another drawback of this method is its inability to clearly account for the effects of imperfections, which include the out-of-plumbness of the frame. 2b. Direct Analysis Method (DAM) The DAM was introduced into the AISC Specification in an attempt to account for the drawbacks present with the ELM. The DAM uses a 2nd order elastic analysis (EA) of a frame with notional loads and a reduced stiffness to design members. The net effect of incorporating notional loads and reduced stiffness properties is to approximately account for member inelastic behavior, imperfections, and load re-distribution effects within the frame structure. In this method, the 2nd order elastic analysis used to estimate demands is conducted with the following loads and reduced stiffness properties: (1) A notional load, Ni = 0.002Yi, is applied horizontally to the structure at each level where Yi is the factored gravity load from that level. This 0.002 factor was calibrated using plastic zone solutions that included the effects of slenderness, yield strength, and end-moment restraints [3].

(2)The reduced stiffness of members that contribute to the stability of the frame is given by EI* = 0.8bEI, where b = 1 for Pr/Py <= 0.5 or 4[Pr/Py (1- Pr/Py)] for Pr/Py > 0.5. Pr is the required axial compressive strength for the column in question and Py = AFy. (3)The reduced axial strength of members that contribute to the stability of the frame is given by EA* = 0.8EA. A major advantage of the DAM is that it simplifies the calculations by letting K be a constant equal to 1, which eliminates the need for alignment charts. In addition, the implementation of notional loads and stiffness-reduction factors provide a better representation of the distribution of demands due to the member-system interdependence and inelastic behavior of the frame. 3. Analysis Methodology 3a. 2nd Order Analyses As stated before, results from 2nd order analyses are utilized for each case study to assess the adequacy of the design method under consideration. In order to conduct second-order analyses, the structural analysis program Mastan2 [4] was used. Mastan2 was selected for its ability to capture the additional demands imposed by 2nd order effects. Two types of second-order analyses were conducted in this study: a 2nd order elastic and a 2nd order inelastic (plastic) analysis. For each type of 2nd order analyses, a solver based on predictor-corrector calculations was utilized. Frame capacities for the plastic analyses were determined once the first column had plasticized due to stresses developed from both bending and compression. These numerical models used a concentrated plasticity approach as opposed to a distributed plasticity one. Calculations conducted by the author with frame structures similar to those used in this study where concentrated plasticity was used provided frame capacities that were reasonable close to those obtained assuming a distributed plasticity model. Each member within the frame was divided into 10 smaller elements so that 2nd order effects could be calculated more accurately. Out-of-plane buckling, lateral-torsional buckling, and local buckling were ignored. 3b. Frame Configurations Each frame structure has a tributary width, i.e., beam spans of 35with the same loading. A uniformed load is applied across each horizontal beam. The basic design loads in all analyses corresponds to a dead load equal to 80 psf and a live load of 40 psf. All connections are either fully restrained or pinned. All frames are analyzed with four methods: (1) 2nd order plastic analysis with unfactored loads (PA). (2) 2nd order plastic analysis with factored loads and a reduced stiffness properties 0.9EI and 0.9EA (FPA). (3) 2nd order elastic analysis with factored loads (ELM). (4) 2nd order elastic analysis with factored loads including

notional loads (DAM). The FPA is based on the work of Maleck [3]. The purpose of providing stiffness reduction factors is to account for the effect of load factors on the calculated demand-tocapacity ratios. An out-of-plumbness of L/500 [1] was utilized in all cases to account for the effect of geometric imperfections. In concept, the PA can be considered the most accurate model and the FPA a reasonable representation of true behavior. To validate the adequacy of the stiffness-reduction factors in the FPA, the PA along with the ELM and DAM will be used.

3c. Validation of FPA In order to use FPA on different frames as a basis for design, the validation of the stiffness-reduction factors of the FPA is conducted by analyzing a simple portal frame as shown in Fig. 1.

. Figure 1 Portal Frame Table 1 and 2 show the ratio of total load that caused failure under the Failure column and the reciprocal of that ratio under Pu/Pf column for various beams and column sizes. The loading was applied to the structure in incremental steps of 1% of the total applied load to the structure. After 100% of the factored load or unfactored load, the program continues to apply a larger percent until the structure fails. The failure is written in terms of the ratio of (% Load that causes failure / 100% Load, Pf / Pu). A clear relationship between the two methods is obvious if the failure ratios of the FPA to PA are compared. This is shown in Table 3.

Table 1
Column W33x118 W27x84 W18x76 W18x65 PA Beam Failure W18x175 4.28 W24x104 2.84 W14x90 1.93 W14x90 1.54 Pu/Pf 0.233645 0.352113 0.518135 0.649351

Table 2
Column W33x118 W27x84 W18x76 W18x65 FPA Beam Failure W18x175 2.89 W24x104 1.92 W14x90 1.32 W14x90 1.04 Pu/Pf 0.346021 0.520833 0.757576 0.961538

Table 3
FPA Failure/ PA Failure 0.675234 0.676056 0.683938 0.675325

The ratios obtained in Table 3 are very similar to one another with a mean ratio of 0.678. The reciprocal of the mean ratio is 1.476, which can be thought of as a Safety Factor. This Safety Factor is used as a basis to evaluate the reliability obtained using codecompliant design methods. Table 4
Columns W33x118 W27x84 W18x76 W18x65 Beams W18x175 W24x104 W14x90 W14x90 Pu (kips) 98.07 98.11 98.27 98.31 ELM Mu (kip-in) 5955 5348 5769 5549 Pn (kips) 1432.5 1010 873 744 Mn (kip-in) 18675 10980 7335 6650 Ratio 0.353106 0.535637 0.842786 0.900505

Table 5
Columns W33x118 W27x84 W18x76 W18x65 Beams W18x175 W24x104 W14x90 W14x90 Pu (kips) 98.15 98.21 98.41 98.46 DAM Mu (kip-in) 5971 5366 5791 5572 Pn (kips) 1445.3 1023 919.9 763.9 Mn (kip-in) 18675 10980 7335 6650 Ratio 0.353687 0.536708 0.842992 0.902340

Table 4 and 5 show the results for the ELM and the DAM. The term Ratio in the last column is calculated from the design beam-column interaction equations. In concept, this Ratio should provide a reasonable representation for the safety factor in the design of each member. In this case, both the ELM and the DAM produced similar results for this case. For a correlation to be made between the FPA to the ELM and the DAM, the ratio Pu/Pf is compared to the Ratio obtained using the ELM and DAM (Fig. 2). It can be observed that the ELM and the DAM correlate well with the FPA. As a result of this comparison, two important observations can be made: (1) The ELM and DAM when used to analyze a simple frame produce similar results. (2) The FPA can be used as a basis to compare the accuracy of the ELM and the DAM to estimate the reliability of a design. With the FPA as a good basis for design, it can be used to compare the ELM and the DAM when designing a frame structure that may be susceptible to increased stress due to the presence of imperfections. This is the subject of the following section.

Ratio Comparison for Simple Frame

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Applied 0.5 Load/Capacity 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 W33x118 W27x84 W18x76 W18x65 Columns

Elastic Notional Load Analysis Plastic .9E +.9Fy

Figure 2 Portal Frame Capacities

4. Case Studies 4a. Case 1: Frame with a Leaning Column In this case, a column leaning with a slope of 2.25, rigidly attached to a beam, W27x84, is designed as shown in Fig. 3. The beam is supported at the other end by a pin/pin connected column, W10x33. The length of the beam is 27 while the height of beam at both ends is 18. This frame geometry was chosen because the slope of the leaning column may affect the ability for the two design methods to adequately predict the capacity its capacity.

Figure 3 Leaning Column Portal Frame Table 6

FPA Columns W10x54 W10x60 W10x68 W10x77 W10x88 W10x100 Failure 0.80 0.88 0.99 1.11 1.25 1.39 Pu/Pf 1.2500 1.1299 1.0101 0.9009 0.8000 0.7194

Table 7 ELM
Columns W10x54 W10x60 W10x68 W10x77 W10x88 W10x100 g 0.1459 0.1642 0.1897 0.2191 0.2572 0.3001 k 1.18 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.20 1.21 0.842265 0.838428 0.836011 0.833649 0.824467 0.820494 Pn (kips) 528.3 590.1 671.7 760.3 876.9 998.1 Pu (kips) 59.23 59.48 59.78 60.09 60.43 60.79 Mn (kip-in) 2997 3357 3839 4392 5085 5850 Mu (kip-in) 3698 3729 3780 3843 3931 4032 Ratio 1.289953 1.161209 1.029256 0.914517 0.807514 0.719683

Table 8
Pn (kips) 574.45 641.14 732.02 830.98 956.54 1091.3 DAM Pu (kips) 58.58 58.87 59.22 59.57 59.95 60.37 Mn (kip-in) 2997 3357 3839 4392 5085 5850 Mu (kip-in) 3797 3822 3866 3924 4007 4105

Columns W10x54 W10x60 W10x68 W10x77 W10x88 W10x100

0.71378 0.71053 0.70253 0.69470 0.68705 0.67809

Ratio 1.317921 1.184427 1.047613 0.929286 0.819341 0.729367

Leaning Column Design

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 Ratio 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Factored Plastic Analysis Alignment Chart Analysis Direct Anlysis

W 1 0 x 5 4 W 1 0 x 6 0 W 1 0 x 6 8 W 1 0 x 7 7 W 1 0 x 8 8 W 1 0 x 1 0 0

Columns

Figure 4 Leaning Column Capacities Table 7 and 8 show the results for both the ELM and the DAM. Each of the analyses predicted similar results with the W10x77 as the column of choice. In Figure 4, both the ELM and the DAM remained slightly conservative as compared to the results for the FPA in Table 6. It is clear in this case that each of these methods correlate well and are adequate design methods.

4b. Case 2: Multi-Story Structure The general configuration of the multi-story, moment-resisting frame structure is presented in Fig. 5. The beams correspond to W27x84 sections and have a span of 35 ft. The story heights are each 15 ft. This frame is utilized to evaluate the contribution of outof-plumbness along several story heights on the design of steel columns.

TC

MC

LC Figure 5 Multi-Story Frame

Table 9
FPA Columns W12x58 W10x54 W10x49 W10x45 W10x39 W10x33 W12x26 W12x22 Failure 1.10 1.06 1.02 0.97 0.90 0.81 0.68 0.61 Pu/Pf 0.9124 0.9433 0.9832 1.0309 1.1135 1.2391 1.4705 1.6528

Table 10
ELM Mu Pn (kip-in) (kips) 3376 640.6 2569 634.0 1850 631.3 2679 573.1 2173 566.6 1512 556.6 2517 526.0 2071 521.6 1429 511.0 2383 484.8 1983 482.0 1359 470.8 2141 416.5 1819 409.1 1229 405.3 1874 350.5 1627 348.4 1081 344.2 2108 294.3 1796 293.2 1212 294.9 1759 246.6 1541 248.1 1016 249.6 Mn (kip-in) 4320 4320 4320 3330 3330 3330 3020 3020 3020 2745 2745 2745 2340 2340 2340 1940 1940 1940 1860 1860 1860 1465 1465 1465

Columns W12x58

W10x54

W10x49

W10x45

W10x39

W10x33

W12x26

W12x22

Section TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC

Pu (kips) 98.23 196.1 294.1 98.22 196.1 294.1 98.22 196.1 294.1 98.22 196.1 294.1 98.22 196.1 294.1 98.22 196.1 294.1 98.22 196.1 294.1 98.22 196.1 294.1

Ratio 0.858152 0.837907 0.846523 0.890196 0.926146 0.93199 0.926809 0.985524 0.996142 0.974265 1.048984 1.064754 1.049118 1.170323 1.192492 1.138877 1.308334 1.349749 1.341148 1.52713 1.576499 1.46557 1.725409 1.794743

Worst Ratio 0.85815179

0.93199024

0.99614155

1.06475425

1.19249193

1.34974864

1.57649869

1.79474335

10

Table 11
DAM Mu Pn (kip-in) (kips) 3397 663.6 2605 663.6 1894 663.6 2697 593.2 2210 593.2 1558 593.2 2535 540.0 2109 540.0 1476 540.0 2400 497.9 2021 497.9 1406 497.9 2158 429.2 1857 429.2 1278 429.2 1891 360.6 1665 360.6 1132 360.6 2125 297.5 1834 297.5 1260 297.5 1775 249.6 1579 249.6 1067 249.6 Mn (kip-in) 4320 4320 4320 3330 3330 3330 3020 3020 3020 2745 2745 2745 2340 2340 2340 1940 1940 1940 1860 1860 1860 1465 1465 1465

Columns W12x58

W10x54

W10x49

W10x45

W10x39

W10x33

W12x26

W12x22

Section TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC TC MC BC

Pu (kips) 98.39 196.5 294.9 98.37 196.5 294.9 98.37 196.5 294.9 98.36 196.6 295.0 98.35 196.6 295.0 98.33 196.6 295.0 98.34 196.6 295.0 98.32 196.6 295.0

Ratio 0.860476 0.83212 0.834106 0.892825 0.921177 0.913017 0.930487 0.984639 0.980548 0.97472 1.049301 1.047781 1.0489 1.163475 1.172795 1.139122 1.308089 1.336752 1.346086 1.537304 1.593747 1.470892 1.745719 1.829293

Worst Ratio 0.86047611

0.92117747

0.98463944

1.04930083

1.17279534

1.33675222

1.59374718

1.82929338

The FPA results seen in Table 9 predict that a W10x49 would be the last adequate column for design. The ELM and DAM both conclude that the same column is also the most efficient design as seen in Table 10 and 11. When comparing results from all four analysis methods, the ELM and the DAM produced slightly conservative results when compared to the FPA as shown in Fig. 6. Once again, the results obtained using the ELM and the DAM are consistent with those obtained using the FPA. This observation is also consistent with those made in 3c and 4a. The FPA has given consistent results for three different frames and proven its effectiveness to judge the accuracy of the ELM and the DAM.

11

Multi-Story Ratio Comparison

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 Ratio 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

W 1 2 x 5 8

W 1 0 x 5 4

W 1 0 x 4 9

W 1 0 x 4 5

W 1 0 x 3 9

W 1 0 x 3 3

W 1 2 x 2 6

W 1 2 x 2 2

Factored Plastic Analysis Effective Length Method Direct Analysis Method

Columns
Figure 6 Multi-Story Capacities It is important to note that this frame, though small and not overly complex, became time consuming to design when using the ELM. Due to the geometry of the frame, various column sizes caused different columns to fail first for each analysis. As a result, the calculation of every effective length factor for each column was needed; this resulted in 3 additional calculations for each change in column size when compared to the DAM, which required only the calculation of the notional load - one additional calculation for the entire design. With similar results from each method, the fact that the DAM required less calculations makes this method a more efficient design alternative. 4c. Case 3: Multi-Bay Structure A multi-bay structure was generated by expanding the simple frame utilized in section 3c into 11 bays with additional pin/pin columns at every 35 ft (see Fig. 7). These new columns are the same size as the two moment restrained columns in the center bay. Each of the beams connecting the pin/pin columns are W27x102 simply-supported beams. The beams which are rigidly attached to the two moment columns are W27x84. This 11-bay frame was first developed by Maleck and was chosen because of its susceptibility to an out-of-plumbness, which creates addition stresses in the central columns.

12

Figure 7 11-Bay Frame Table 12

FPA Columns W10x54 W10x49 W10x45 W10x39 W10x33 W10x30 W12x26 W12x22 Failure 1.306 1.243 1.143 0.980 0.817 0.797 0.859 0.690 Pu/Pf 0.76569 0.80450 0.87489 1.02040 1.22399 1.25470 1.16414 1.44927

Table 13
PA Columns W10x54 W10x49 W10x45 W10x39 W10x33 W10x30 W12x26 W12x22 Failure 1.934 1.840 1.694 1.453 1.210 1.180 1.273 1.022 Pu/Pf 0.517063 0.543478 0.590319 0.688231 0.826446 0.847458 0.785546 0.978474

For FPA and PA, various sized columns were used with the failure ratios and Pu/Pf calculated seen in Tables 12 and 13. The comparison of failure ratios can be made between this frame and the frame in 3d as shown in Table 14.

13

Table 14
Ratio of Factored to Unfactored Portal 11-Bay Frame Frame 0.675234 0.675284 0.676056 0.675543 0.683938 0.674734 0.675325 0.674467 0.675207 0.675424 0.674784 0.675147

The mean of the values in Table 14 for the 11-bay frame is 0.675. This nearly matches the mean value corresponding to the portal frame (0.678). This implies that a similar safety factor would result in both cases. Therefore, by using the factored plastic analysis as a basis, the last predicted safe column is a W10x45. Table 15
Pu (kips) 216.2 216.2 216.1 216.0 216.0 215.9 216.0 215.9 Mu (kip-in) 466.4 422.7 387.9 329.7 270.8 268.9 320.5 245.6 ELM Pn (kips) 523.6 476.1 438.2 376.7 315.0 293.5 272.3 226.2 Mn (kip-in) 2997 2718 2471 2106 1746 1647 1674 1465

Columns W10x54 W10x49 W10x45 W10x39 W10x33 W10x30 W12x26 W12x22

Ratio 0.551242 0.592345 0.632692 0.712559 0.823579 0.880731 0.963427 1.103483

Table 16
Pu (kips) 214.7 214.2 213.5 207.1 Mu (kip-in) 1126 1257 1501 4067 DAM Pn (kips) 561.6 511.0 470.8 405.3 Mn (kip-in) 2997 2718 2471 2106

Columns W10x54 W10x49 W10x45 W10X39

Ratio 0.716264 0.830265 0.993436 2.227556

Based on the information presented in Tables 15 and 16, the ELM predicts a safe column design with a W10x26, while the DAM predicts a safe column design with a W10x45. Comparing the two design methods for a W10x45, the difference in ratios is 0.993 to 0.633. The difference between the two columns size and properties is significant. These

14

sizeable differences in ratios can be seen for each one of the columns in the aforementioned tables.
11-Bay Frame Ratio Comparison
2.5 2 R a 1.5 t i 1 o 0.5 0
W 1 0 x 5 4 W 1 0 x 4 9 W 1 0 x 4 5 W 1 0 x 3 9 W 1 0 x 3 3 W 1 0 x 3 0 W 1 2 x 2 6 W 1 2 x 2 2

Unfactored Plastic Analysis Factored Plastic Analysis Direct Analysis Method Effective Length Method

Columns

Figure 8 11-Bay Frame Capacities

True Failure vs. Alignment Charts 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
W 1 0 x 5 4 W 1 0 x 4 9 W 1 0 x 4 5 W 1 0 x 3 9 W 1 0 x 3 3 W 1 0 x 3 0 W 1 2 x 2 6 W 1 2 x 2 2

R a t i o

Unfactored Plastic Analysis Effective Length Method

Columns

Figure 9 11-Bay Frame PA and ELM Capacity Comparison Figure 8 shows a comparison between all four analysis methods in this case. Using the FPA as the benchmark to estimate design capacity, the two design methods can be evaluated. For the DAM, the capacity ratios are similar up until the plastic design predicts an unsafe member (failure). It is at this point that the DAM predicts a ratio of 2.23. This

15

does not match with the plastic analysis which is only slightly over failure. As a result, the DAM produces a member that is more conservative than required. On the other hand, the ELM predicts that the W12x26 is the most efficient member, but when compared to the FPA, it is too liberal of a design. The FPA gives a capacity ratio of 1.164 which is much greater than 1. Furthermore, when compared to the PA, as seen in Fig. 9, the ELM closely follows the PA capacity ratio, and at one point is even greater than the true failure ratio. One could argue that because the ELM correlates well with the results from the PA, the ELM is the better design approach. But as was shown earlier in each section 3d, an appropriate Safety Factor of 1.476 must be applied. When comparing the ratios for the ELM to the PA for this frame, a safety factor of 1.078 is calculated. This is not an adequate safety factor for the design of beam columns. 4d. Case 4: 13-Bay Structure Due to the inadequacy in properly designing columns with a reasonable safety factor, the 11-bay frame is adapted to see if a worse capacity ratio for the PA could occur. In order to do this, a bay is added to each side of the structure with another leaning column. The ELM and PA were evaluated (see Table 17). Table 17
13 Bay to 11 Bay Comparison Mu Capacity W12x26 Columns Pu (kips) (kip-in) Ratio 13-Bay Effective Length 216 320.5 0.963 True Plastic 0.873 Factored Plastic 1.316 11-Bay Effective Length 216 320.5 0.963 True Plastic 0.786 Factored Plastic 1.168

In both cases, the ELM predicts the same capacity. It is seen though that the 13-bay frame has a decrease in its PA available capacity. This occurs due to the added stress on the moment-restrained columns caused by the out-of-plumbness of the frame. It is evident that if additional frames are added to the structure, the ELM would provide member sizes that would fail before the entire unfactored loads are applied. Though it is not shown, in this case, the DAM produces a conservative column size since the added bays would add an additional notional load. It now becomes apparent that the ELM is not always an effective or adequate design approach, particularly when second-order effects become significant.

16

5. Discussion & Conclusion Various design methods are currently available to design steel columns that form part of frame structures. The ELM is the traditional method used for analysis by designers. Restrictions and assumptions inherent in the ELM do not make it appropriate for all frame geometries. However, it is not clear when this design method will provide unreasonable member sizes. Therefore, in this study, 2nd order plastic analyses of various frame configurations were conducted to evaluate the ability of the ELM to provide an adequate level of safety in the design of steel columns. It was concluded that the FPA, which is based on factor loads and reduced member stiffnessess was appropriate to evaluate the adequacy of design methods. By using the developed FPA as the true behavior for the structure, the ELMs accuracy could be quantified. In several case studies with varying structural configurations, the ELM provided results which reasonably matched the FPA. Such structural systems included a multi-story frame and a leaning column frame. As expected, the ELM provided accurate results for the multi-story structure since this configuration is similar to that of the portal frame, which is consistent with the assumptions that form the basis of the ELM. Moreover, the leaning column frame also produced accurate design results when using the ELM, even though this structural configuration was not consistent with the assumptions behind the development of this method. The implication is that the conservativism present in the evaluation of empirical effective length factors may offset the effects produced by the lack of consistency of a given structural frame configuration with the assumptions present in the ELM. The DAM, which has been newly introduced into the Specification, was developed so stresses created by inaccuracies in construction and imperfections in structural members would be accounted for when designing a frame. A major advantage of this method is its simplicity, i.e., a relatively small number of calculations are required when designing for compression members. In order to test the accuracy of the DAM and evaluate whether or not this method correlates well with the ELM, the DAM was used on the same design examples. Similar to the ELM, the DAM also provided results consistent with those obtained using the FPA. The DAM in each example provided equally reliable results as the ELM, which based on the results from this study, raises the question of why a newer method would be needed if it provides results consistent with those obtained using the traditional ELM. Based on the results from this study, the DAM has several advantages with respect to the ELM: (a) it is simpler to implement, (b) it is more accurate when second-order effects are significant. The simplicity of the DAM was demonstrated with the design of the multi-story structure. In this case, for each column capacity check, nine additional equations needed to be calculated when using the ELM as compared to the DAM. The conclusion is that the DAM has the advantage of being easier and faster to implement. The case study with the 11-bay frame demonstrated that the ELM, though adequate for most models, provided an unreliable design, while the DAM produced adequately designed members. For a designer, it is imperative that a member designed by any method has a capacity at least

17

equal to the expected loading conditions the frame may encounter during its service life. Such considerations have been adopted into the AISC, and can be seen as Safety Factors, Load Factors, and Resistance Factors. Without being able to neither predict every type of load, including the magnitude of that load, nor predict every member imperfection and construction flaw, the method of analysis must produce conservative results. Therefore, if a specific method of analysis provides design that either is not "safe enough," or for that matter would fail under just the service loads, this method must be restricted and boundaries must be specified for its implementation. The ELM produced unsafe designs for the case of the multi-bay structure analyzed in the third cases study and should be restricted in such cases. In this case, second-order effects due to the combination of loading and imperfections became significant and the ELM was unable to appropriately account for them. These second-order effects could be quantified by using a sway factor. The sway factor should be related to the total area loaded that contributes to the capacity of the moment-restrained column along with other variables such as geometry of the frame, intensity of the load, and the loading pattern. All of these factors and the way they affect the sway factor are not completely understood at this time, and additional research is needed to have a better understanding of the role of second-order effects on current design approaches and quantify appropriate sway factors. In concept, the sway factor for each column may be reduced by adding additional moment-restraining columns in the structure. Stresses which develop due to the out-ofplumbness of the structure are now distributed between all the moment-restraining columns. In addition to distributing the stresses, the added columns would stiffen the structure, which then would reduce the stresses developed from 2nd order effects. The DAM captures the 2nd order effects due to out-of-plumbness, but at times can significantly overestimate these effects. As seen in the 11-Bay frame example, when the design capacity ratio is near 1.0, the design becomes overly conservative with a ratio of 2.23. The DAM could be improved in situations where the sway factor is substantial with a reduction in the magnitude of the specified notional load. This reduction factor, possibly developed from a quantification of the sway factor, would make the DAM a more accurate method when designing framing structures. The results from this study demonstrated that the FPA can be used to evaluate and quantify the capacity of individual steel frames. In addition, in general, the DAM when compared to the ELM, was just as accurate or better. The DAMs calculations were also easier and fewer. The DAM, though not perfect, is a step toward more accurate analysis approaches which will allow the designer to have more confidence in his or her design. It would be valuable if a clear definition of the sway factor could be derived so that the DAM could be more accurate in all frames. It is with further research that new and old analysis methods can be tested and modified so that the design of structures can become more accurate and reliable.

18

6. References 1. AISC (2005), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL, March 9, 2005. Suroveck,S.E. and Zienmian, R.D. (2005), The Direct Analysis Method: Bridging the Gap from Linear Elastic Analysis to Advanced Analysis in Steel Frame Design, Structures Congress, New York, April 2005. Maleck, A.E., Alternative Approaches for Elastic Analysis and Design of Steel Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, August 2004. pp 1186-1205. Zienmian, R.D. and McGuire, W., Mastan2 v2.0, John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2002.

2.

3.

4.

19