CE 579 Homework 6

0.5 P

P
D

0.1 P

Ab = 24.8 in2
Ib = 2850 in4

0.5 P

24

E= 29000 ksi
Ac = 13.3 in2
Ic = 248 in4
A

C
20

40

a) Compute the critical buckling load and mode shape for the frame.
2

5
1

4
2

4
9

The MATLAB code idealizing the eigenvalue approach to find Pcr was used. The input file is
attached as well as the outputs.

Input File

clear;
close all;
%---------------------------------------------------%Problem 9.2 from book
%First will define the connectivity between the local and global
%coordinates
%
id = [0 1 0 4 7;...
0 2 0 5 8;...
0 3 0 6 9;...
1 4 4 7 0;...
2 5 5 8 0;...
3 6 6 9 0];
%Form element stifness matrices - 1st order
[k1] = frame(0,0,0,288,29000,248,13.3);
[k2] = frame(0,288,240,288,29000,2850,24.8);
[k3] = frame(240,0,240,288,29000,248,13.3);
[k4] = frame(240,288,720,288,29000,2850,24.8);
[k5] = frame(720,288,720,0,29000,248,13.3);
%
%Assemble global stifness matrix - 1st order
KO = zeros(9,9);
[KO] = addk(KO,k1,id,1);
[KO] = addk(KO,k2,id,2);
[KO] = addk(KO,k3,id,3);
[KO] = addk(KO,k4,id,4);
[KO] = addk(KO,k5,id,5);
%
% Form element geometric stiffness matrices - linearized
[k1g] = frameg(0,0,0,288,29000,248,13.3,0.5);
[k2g] = frameg(0,288,240,288,29000,2850,24.8,0.1);
[k3g] = frameg(240,0,240,288,29000,248,13.3,1);
[k4g] = frameg(240,288,720,288,29000,2850,24.8,0.1);
[k5g] = frameg(720,288,720,0,29000,248,13.3,0.5);
%
%Assemble global geometric stifness matrix - linearized
KG = zeros(9,9);
[KG] = addk(KG,k1g,id,1);
[KG] = addk(KG,k2g,id,2);
[KG] = addk(KG,k3g,id,3);
[KG] = addk(KG,k4g,id,4);
[KG] = addk(KG,k5g,id,5)
%
%Solving the eigenvalue problem
[V,D]=eig(KO,KG);
buckle=V
Pcr=D

buckle =

-0.0020
-0.7368
-0.0002
-0.0101
-0.2632
-0.0004
-0.0130
1.0000
-0.0005

-1.0000
-0.0284
-0.0022
0.6351
0.0174
0.0013
-0.2738
0.0110
-0.0004

0.5622
-0.0125
0.0014
0.2227
0.0274
0.0005
-1.0000
-0.0149
-0.0019

-0.0128
-0.7110
-0.0003
-0.0074
1.0000
0.0001
0.0385
-0.2890
0.0005

0.8948
0.6401
0.0759
0.9337
-0.5866
0.0388
1.0000
-0.0534
0.0181

Pcr =
4.3957e+006
0
0
0
0
2.4864e+006
0
0
0
0
9.2378e+005
0
0
0
0
1.2572e+006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-0.9997
-0.0019
-0.0003
-1.0000
0.0010
0.0000
-0.9995
0.0010
-0.0006

0
0
0
0
79301
0
0
0
0

-1.0000
0.1638
0.1065
-0.9201
-0.4307
-0.0760
-0.8373
0.2669
-0.1279

0
0
0
0
0
1249
0
0
0

-0.7075
-0.6649
0.2434
-0.6521
1.0000
-0.3616
-0.9000
-0.3351
0.5958

0
0
0
0
0
0
40307
0
0

-0.0000
-1.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
-1.0000
-0.0000
0.0000
-1.0000
-0.0000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21621
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Inf

Therefore, the critical buckling load (Pcr) = 1249 kips corresponding to the following mode
shape
= [-0.99971 -0.001944 -0.00033866 -1, 0.0009877 1.1568e-005 -0.99951 0.0009563 -0.00060994]T

The elastic critical buckling load as well as the modal shape was validated with the following
MASTAN 2 model.

(b) Perform a linear elastic analysis using any software for P=0.5 Pcre obtained in (a).

I have chosen to stick with MASTAN 2.

P = 0.5Pcre = 0.5*1249 = 624.5 kips.
Therefore: 0.1P = 62.45 kips 0.5P = 312.25 kips
The results are shown below. Scale factor = 5.

The displacements at the nodes as well as the member loads are shown below:
Node

Location

x-disp (in)

y-disp (in)

2
3
5

Left
Middle
Right

6.115
6.101
6.087

-0.221
-0.4709
-0.2408

Rotation
Rad
Deg
-0.00329
-0.1883
-0.00069
-0.0398
-0.00308
-0.1767

c) Perform a second-order elastic analysis using the same software and loads.

The MASTAN2 results are shown below. Scale factor = 5.

The displacements at the nodes as well as the member loads are shown below:
Node

Location

x-disp (in)

y-disp (in)

2
3
5

Left
Middle
Right

10.96
10.95
10.93

-0.4074
-0.6729
-0.4414

Rotation
Rad
Deg
-0.004969
-0.2847
-0.007351
-0.4212
-0.006073
-0.348

c) Add a notional load of Ni = 0.003Yi, and perform the second order analysis again.

Total gravity load applied in the vertical direction = 624.5 + 312.25 + 312.25 = 1249 kips
Ni = 0.003*1249 = 3.75 kips
Total lateral load at joint = 64.25 + 3.75 = 68 kips
The MASTAN2 results are shown below. Scale factor = 5.

The displacements at the nodes are shown below:

Node

Location

x-disp (in)

y-disp (in)

2
3
5

Left
Middle
Right

11.93
11.91
11.9

-0.4414
-0.7102
-0.4784

i) What is the value of B1 and B2 factors?

Rotation
Rad
Deg
-0.00531
-0.3042
-0.0007586
-0.0435
-0.006682
-0.3829

The results of the first order analysis are shown below:

Element
Description
1
Left Column
2
Left Beam
3
Center Column
4
Right Beam
5
Right Column

V (kips)
20.38
16.34
21.68
10.2
20.39

Mend1 (kip-in)
-3017
2853
-3139
2036
2859

Mend2 (kip-in)
2853
-1069
3105
-2859
-3013

P (kips)
295.9
42.07
630.6
20.39
322.4

Where Cm = 1 (Mlow/Mhigh)
Mlow corresponds to the lower absolute value of moment and Mhigh corresponds to the higher
absolute moment value.
B1:
For the left column.
G

Ic / Lc
248 / 288

0.0725
I g / L g 2850 / 240

From alignment chart, K1 = 0.52

2 EI 2 (29000)(248)
Pe1

1645.7 kips
K 1 L2
0.52 * 288 2
Pr = 295.9 kips (See Part iv)
B1

Cm
0.98

1.195
(1 Pr / Pe1 ) (1 295.9 / 1645.7)

For the center column.

Ic / Lc
248 / 288
G

0.0483
I g / L g 2850 / 240 2850 / 480
From alignment chart, K1 = 0.515
2 EI 2 (29000)(248)
Pe1

1661.7 kips
K 1 L2
0.515 * 288 2
Pr = 630.6 kips (See Part iv)
B1

Cm
1.00

1.611
(1 Pr / Pe1 ) (1 630.6 / 1661.7)

For the right column.

Cm
0.98
0.75
1.00
0.88
0.98

Ic / Lc
248 / 288

0.1450
I g / L g 2850 / 480

From alignment chart, K1 = 0.53

2 EI 2 (29000)(248)
Pe1

1614.7 kips
K 1 L2
0.53 * 288 2
Pr = 322.4 kips (See Part iv)
B1

Cm
0.98

1.224
(1 Pr / Pe1 ) (1 322.4 / 1614.7)

B2:
H = 64.25 kips
H = 6.1 in (From Part b)
L = 288 in
Rm = 0.85 for Moment Frames
Pe2 = Rm*HL/H = 0.85*64.25*288 / 6.1 = 2578.4 kips
Pu = 295.9 + 630.6 + 322.4 = 1249 kips
B2

(1

1
1

1.94
Pu / Pe1 ) (1 1249 / 2578.4)

ii) What is the ratio of second-order to first-order drift? Is it 1.5

Node
2
3
5

Location
Left
Middle
Right

Ratio of Second Order / First Order

1.792
1.795
1.796

Therefore, the second order drift to the first order drift ratio is about 1.795. Yes, this is larger than
1.5. Therefore, the direct analysis approach given in Appendix 7 must be used.

iii) Summarize the required member strengths (Pr, Vr, Mr) obtained from (b, c, and d).

Required member strengths from Part a)

Element
1
2
3
4
5

Description
Left Column
Left Beam
Center Column
Right Beam
Right Column

V (kips)
20.38
16.34
21.68
10.2
20.39

Mmax (kip-in)
3017
2853
3139
2859
3013

P (kips)
295.9
42.07
630.6
20.39
322.4

Required member strengths from Part b)

Element
1
2
3
4
5

Description
Left Column
Left Beam
Center Column
Right Beam
Right Column

V (kips)
36.43
30.05
37.78
16.72
35.73

Mmax (kip-in)
5273
5062
5246
4929
5177

P (kips)
281
36.78
636.9
23.24
327.8

V (kips)
39.69
32.95
41.12
18.08
38.84

Mmax (kip-in)
5745
5519
5739
5356
5629

P (kips)
277.8
39.89
638.3
25.2
-329

Required member strengths from Part c)

Element
1
2
3
4
5

Description
Left Column
Left Beam
Center Column
Right Beam
Right Column

iv) Compare the required member strengths (Pr, Vr, Mr) from (b) with those obtained from (c)
and (d). What are the percent differences? What causes them?
Comparisons of the values for Part a and Part b are shown below.
% Differences [(Values in table (Case b)-Values in table(Case a))/Values in table (Case a)
Element
Description
V ratio %
Mmax ratio %
P ratio %
1
Left Column
78.75
74.78
-5.04
2
Left Beam
83.90
77.43
-12.57
3
Center Column
74.26
67.12
1.00
4
Right Beam
63.92
72.40
13.98
5
Right Column
75.23
71.82
1.67
Comparisons of the values for Part a and Part b are shown below.
% Differences [(Values in table (Case b)-Values in table(Case a))/Values in table (Case a)

Element
1
2
3
4
5

Description
Left Column
Left Beam
Center Column
Right Beam
Right Column

V ratio %
94.75
101.65
89.67
77.25
90.49

Mmax ratio %
90.42
93.45
82.83
87.34
86.82

P ratio %
-6.12
-5.18
1.22
23.59
2.05

There are significant differences when comparing the results from the first order analysis
to the second order analysis. Second order effects cause the shears and moment demands in each
member to increase by 75% (At least by 67 %). The lateral load causes the beam to sway prior to
buckling causing a P- effect. Therefore, the axial loads have an eccentricity in relation to the
supports. This eccentricity subjects the member to curvature. Moment equilibrium takes into
account the offset of the axial loads, which therefore increases the moment demand. Note that if
the lateral load is removed from the structure, there are insignificant differences between the first
order and the second order analysis.
A second order analysis marginally changes the axial load demand in the columns.
However, the total axial load in all columns from Case a and Case b were very similar.
v) What is the impact of adding the notional load to the frame?
Although the increase in lateral load appeared to be small with respect to the initial
applied axial load, the shear and moment demand still increased significantly (about 9% higher
than without the notional load). The notional load increases the lateral displacement of the frame
which therefore further increases the P- effects. The % differences between the member forces
before to after the addition of the notional load are shown below.
Element
1
2
3
4
5

Description
Left Column
Left Beam
Center Column
Right Beam
Right Column

V ratio %
8.95
9.65
8.84
8.13
8.70

Mmax ratio %
8.95
9.03
9.40
8.66
8.73

P ratio %
-1.14
8.46
0.22
8.43
0.37

vi) Would it make sense to reduce the member flexural stiffness to EI*? Why?
EI* = 0.8EI

(1)

(App. 7, obtained from class handout)

Based on the results obtained in Part ii, the Direct Analysis Method in Appendix 7 must
be used. Therefore, we have to consider the above equation according to AISC-2005 (as
interpreted from the class handout). This parameter takes into account the initial residual stresses
in the cross section. With this parameter, all of the initial imperfections in the structure and
members that have been discussed in this course will be taken into consideration for this
homework problem. Initial residual stresses have a significant impact on the flexural stiffness of
the member if the demand causes early yielding. However, an elastic analysis was conducted
although the selection of a member may include an inelastic capacity. Therefore, the accuracy of
just stating that EI* is equal to the reduction shown above is not as accurate as performing a
second-order inelastic analysis of the structure which includes the initial residual stresses in each
member. The problem identified is that EI* should equal EI in some cases and should be altered
as the flanges undergo yielding. I still feel that EI* should be considered as it increases the
deflections significantly and therefore increases the moment and shear demands as well. As a
trial, E was reduced to 0.8E in the MASTAN2 model. The results drifts and moment demands in
the members are shown below. More rigorous analysis will need to be conducted to investigate
the accuracy of Equation 1.
Node

Location

x-disp (in)

2
3
5

Left
Middle
Right

18.73
18.72
18.69