Direct Analysis Method Part II

Design of a Three Bay Frame

by

Dr. Siriwut Sasibut

(Application Engineer)

and

Kenneth Kutyn
(Jr. Application Engineer)

S-FRAME Software Inc.

#275 - 13500 Maycrest Way
Richmond, B.C.
CANADA
V6V 2N8

S-FRAME Software, LLC

#282, 800 Village Walk
Guilford, CT 06437
USA

Phone: 1-604-273-7737
Fax:
1-604-273-7731

Phone: 1-203-421-4800

Please contact us at [email protected] for more information about this publication or to download this
model for reference.
Copyright by S-FRAME Software Inc. Version 2.0 : August 5th, 2011

Introduction
As shown in Part One, S-FRAMEs implementation of P-Delta analysis is rigorous and accurate enough
for use in the Direct Analysis Method (DM) according to the requirements of ANSI/AISC 360-10. Part
One showed this by comparing S-FRAMEs calculated moment and deflection to those predicted by
theory for two columns.
In Design Steel Your Way II: Efficient Analysis for Steel Design Using the 2005 AISC Specification, Carter
and Geschwindner present a two-dimensional, three-bay unbraced frame and conduct its design
using DM. In this paper, S-FRAME will be used to analyze the same frame, also using DM.

Structure
The structure is composed of two internal columns with fixed bases and two external leaning
columns, as shown in Figure A. The columns are pin connected at the top to three rigid horizontal
elements. The only lateral stiffness is provided by the two internal columns. The columns are 15 feet
in height.

75 kips

150 kips

150 kips

75 kips

15 kips

15 ft

Figure A: Frame Geometry

Each column is loaded vertically and the system is loaded laterally at one of the horizontal rigid
members.

Copyright by S-FRAME Software Inc. Version 2.0 : August 5th, 2011

A preliminary design has been performed to choose a section based on drift limits alone. The chosen
section, W14x109 from ASTM A992 is applied to all columns. More details on this can be found in
Design Steel Your Way II.

Direct Analysis Method

An introduction to the Direct Analysis Method was provided in Part One:
Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-10, published by the American
Institute of Steel Construction, outlines the Direct Analysis Method (DM) and specifies its use in
the design of steel structures. DM is defined by AISC as a design method that captures the
effects of residual stresses and initial out-of-plumbness of frames by reducing stiffness and
applying notional loads in a second order analysis. DM also accounts for uncertainty in
material strength and stiffness as well as stiffness reduction due to inelasticity.
Perhaps the main advantage of DM is that it does not require calculation of effective length factors,
which can be time consuming and computationally expensive. Furthermore, DM is applicable to all
structures and does not distinguish between structural systems. According to Carter and
Geschwindner, the Direct Analysis Method was developed as the most accurate approach for
stability analysis and design.
While this paper does not aim to provide guidance +on the use of the DM outside of S-FRAME, it would
be prudent to discuss the steps undertaken in the AISC design guide en route to a solution. This will
also provide some insight into what takes place behind the scenes in S-FRAME, although, as one
would expect, the procedure in S-FRAME does vary in some respects to allow for automation when
appropriate
Carter and Geschwindner began by computing the reduced stiffness of the W14x109 sections and
using it to determine B2: the ratio of second order to first order drift. Next the notional loads were
calculated as 0.2% of the total vertical load. As B2 was found to be less than 1.5 and the notional loads
were found to be less than the 15 kip lateral load already applied, no notional loads were applied to
the structure.
Next, the design guide uses the first order amplification method to take second order effects into
account by increasing the magnitude of the axial and moment loads experienced by the columns.
Finally, a compression check, bending stability check, and flexure and compression interaction check
were performed to determine the adequacy of the chosen section.

Copyright by S-FRAME Software Inc. Version 2.0 : August 5th, 2011

S-FRAME Model
The model was constructed in S-FRAME using the same four W14x109 columns. Rather than use a
rigid member to span the columns, a rigid diaphragm was used to constrain the four nodes at the top
of the columns to each other. The supports prevented out of plane translation and rotation. For
proper application of the DM, it was necessary to identify steel as a material to be applied to Lateral
Force Resisting Members (LFRM) in the material properties. The steel with the LFRM option active
was applied to the two internal columns, while steel with this option turned off was applied to the
exterior, leaning columns. Other than this option, the material properties were identical.

Figure B: S-FRAME Model

After the loads were applied, notional load factors were defined by hand as 0.2% and added to a load
combination containing axial and lateral loads. S-FRAME will automatically calculate notional loads
from the notional load factor and apply the larger of lateral loads and notional loads if it finds B2 to be
less than 1.71. Otherwise, it will combine lateral and notional loads.

The discrepancy in B2 cutoff between Design Steel Your Way II and S-FRAME is related to how the check is performed.
Design Steel Your Way II performs the check with the unreduced stiffness EI while S-FRAME uses the reduced stiffness, EI*,
and hence a larger cutoff is expected.

Copyright by S-FRAME Software Inc. Version 2.0 : August 5th, 2011

The AISC 360-05 LFRD design code was selected with the DAM + 0.8 + b option. This automatically
scales the stiffness of all LFRMs by 0.8 plus b. b is calculated based on the following:
If
Pr/Py > 0.5 then

b = 4(Pr/Py*(1-Pr/Py))

else

b = 1
where
Pr = axial force in member
Py = Fy x Area
= 1.0 for LFRD and 1.6 for ASD
Next, the model was run with P-Delta analysis. As S-FRAME offers rigorous P-Delta analysis, it was not
necessary to use the amplified first order effects method used in Design Steel Your Way II; S-FRAME
calculates the actual P-Delta effects. Unlike some software implementations of the Direct Analysis
Method, S-FRAME only requires one run through analysis to calculate results.
To perform the three checks (compression, bending stability, and flexure and compression
interaction) performed in the design guide, the analyzed model was opened in S-STEEL to take
advantage of its code check features. Before performing a code check, it was necessary to change the
design settings to match the example. The effective+ length factors in S-STEEL were set to Kx = 1.0 and
Ky = 1.0 for all members as the Direct Analysis Method specifies. B1 and bending coefficients Cb and Cm
were all set to unity to reflect that P-delta effects were already taken into account in S-FRAME.
Finally, A992 High Strength Low Alloy steel was selected.
Once complete, a code check was run for the load combination containing the axial and lateral loads,
and the notional load factors.

Results
To check the accuracy of S-FRAMEs Direct Analysis Method, the results are compared to those
computed by hand in Design Steel Your Way II. The AISC design guide presents the results of three
checks: a compression check, a bending stability check, and a flexure and compression interaction
check. These are calculated as follows:

Copyright by S-FRAME Software Inc. Version 2.0 : August 5th, 2011

Compression Check


  
 
 



  
 
 


 


Bending Stability Check


  



 
 








 

Flexure and Compression Interaction Check


  
 
 

   

  
 
 



  




 
 





"




The results of S-FRAMEs analysis and the design guide are compared in Table 1.

Table 1: Results Comparison

Check
Compression
Bending Stability
Flexure and Compression Interaction

S-FRAME
0.123
0.174
0.236

Design Guide
0.123
0.174
0.235

In all three checks, S-FRAMEs results are very close to those calculated in the design guide, differing
by at most 0.4%. In fact, because the guide uses amplification of first order effects, while S-FRAME
actually performs P-Delta analysis, it is possible that S-FRAMEs results are closer to the true values.

Conclusion
In version 10.0, S-FRAME has added support for the Direct Analysis Method, as specified by AISC. Part
One of this paper demonstrated that S-FRAMEs P-Delta analysis is more than accurate enough for use
in DM. The second part of this paper used S-FRAMEs implementation of DM to determine the
required and available strengths of columns in a three bay frame. The frame had already been
analyzed by hand in the AISC design guide: Design Steel Your Way II. Comparing the results from SFRAME to those calculated in the design guide yielded very close agreement, demonstrating that SFRAME is a reliable tool for use in the Direct Analysis Method.

Copyright by S-FRAME Software Inc. Version 2.0 : August 5th, 2011