Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.4.2

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 1 of 6
Revision
Second-Order Effects: Longitudinal Bracing & Date
1 (01/13)

General discussion about second order effects and its application to moment frame systems is
presented in the companion section DP 2.4.1.

A. LONGITUDINAL BRACING SYSTEMS

Depending upon the method of analysis used, longitudinal bracing systems can be slightly
more complex to analyze than primary frames for two reasons.

The leaning columns dependant on the bracing systems are not an integral part of the
frame under consideration.
When multiple braced frames with different lateral stiffness are present along a line of
bracing, the allocation of the leaning column effects is somewhat more complex.

However, if an entire elevation of bracing is modeled in an iterative stiffness analysis

procedure as is done for BlueScope structures; much of the analysis complexity is
eliminated. The key to correct results then lies with proper load application.

A1. Loading the Stiffness Model

Figure 1 depicts a line of braced frames with leaning columns in which the two braced frames
have different stiffness.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11

N1 N2 L1 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 L2 N9 N10 N11

Braced Braced
frame A frame B

Figure 1 Applied Bracing System Loads using the Direct Analysis Method

A1.1 Applied Lateral Loads

The most obvious load required to be applied to the stiffness model are the applied lateral
loads from wind, seismic, cranes, etc. Figure 1 shows the appropriate application of the
applied lateral loads L1 and L2 delivered to the bracing system by the roof diaphragm or other
sources. These loads are unchanged throughout the course of the analysis.

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:
DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.4.2
Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 2 of 6
Revision
Second-Order Effects: Longitudinal Bracing & Date
1 (01/13)

A1.2 Applied Column Axial Loads

The applied column loads are equal to the vertical column reactions for the load combination
under consideration based on a first order analysis. The magnitude and location of these
loads remain constant throughout the analysis procedure. The loads are applied to the tops of
the individual columns as shown in Figure 1 (P1, P2, etc.). The exception to this is column
loads that are applied at an elevation between the top and bottom of the column such as
mezzanine loads or crane loads. These loads are applied to the columns at the elevation at
which they occur. Therefore, the column loads applied to the tops of the columns as shown in
Figure 1 would be equal to the column reactions for the given load combination minus any
partial height point loads.

A1.3 Notional Loads

Notional loads are fictitious lateral loads applied to the columns to account for the possibility
that the columns are not perfectly plumb. The notional loads are always applied in the same
direction as the applied lateral loads. A notional load is applied to each column at each column
point load location. Therefore, if a given column has a load at its top and another load at mid
height, two notional loads are required to be applied to the column at the two respective
locations. The magnitude of the each notional load is equal to the magnitude of the applied
column load from the first order analysis divided by 500 (Factored column gravity load divided
by 200 for Canada). The notional loads also remain constant throughout the analysis
procedure.

A1.4 Load Factor

When LRFD or LSD load combinations are used, the loads described above need not be
factored. If ASD load combinations are used each of the loads described above must be
multiplied by 1.6. If the column axial loads are multiplied by 1.6 prior to calculation of the
notional loads, then the notional loads will automatically contain the 1.6 factor and will not
require any further factoring.

When ASD load combinations are used in the analysis, after the analysis is completed, all
member forces and reactions are divided by 1.6 prior to member size selection.

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:
DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.4.2
Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 3 of 6
Revision
Second-Order Effects: Longitudinal Bracing & Date
1 (01/13)

A1.5 Accounting Leaning Interior Columns in the Analysis.

Figure 2 shows an isometric view of a line of bracing with only one braced frame that must
support multiple leaning columns.

P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

FLAT
b

Interior Leaning Column

a
(Loads added to roof truss
model and distributed to walls)
Leaning Sidewall Column

Figure 2 Interior Column Considerations

A1.6 Interior column notional loads

The interior column notional loads are handled in a similar fashion. The notional loads will
simply be equal to:
P1/500 (P1/200 for Canada)
P2/500 (P2/200 for Canada)
Etc.

nd
Commentary: For roof diaphragm design VISION uses stiffness analysis, with 2 order effects (included to
account for the changes in geometry of the analysis model. The roof diaphragm stiffness combines the stiffness of
the selected roof covering and the X-braces in the roof plane. User can modify the shear stiffness parameter G
only by changing the roof covering type (no direct input for G). The stiffness of the bracing diagonals (X-braces)
will correspond to the actual sizes used.

The combined stiffness mentioned above is used in the determination of P-delta related displacements only,
which is an attempt to achieve more realistic secondary effects. The combined stiffnesses are not used in the
calculation of diaphragm forces in the roof truss analysis afterwards. Hence, the statement in DP 5.3.1 is true.

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:
DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.4.2
Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 4 of 6
Revision
Second-Order Effects: Longitudinal Bracing & Date
1 (01/13)

A2. Multi-tier Bracing

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
This entire system must
N1 N2 L1 N3 N4 N5 be modeled for the
second-order analysis of
the portal frame.

P7 P8 P9 P10 L6
P6 L2 L4 L5

N6 N7 L3 N8 N9 N10

Figure 3 Multi-tier Bracing

Figure 3 shows the structural model and applied loads for a below eave portal frame system.
For this structural system, all of the loading concepts discussed above are equally applicable.

No external loads are applied directly to the portal frame. Therefore, the structural model could
employ lateral springs to simulate the lateral stiffness of the portal frame and then the portal
frame can be designed after the analysis results are available making sure that the lateral
stiffness of the portal frame is at least as much as the spring stiffness used in the analysis
model.

This model is equally applicable to multi-tiered rod bracing. The lateral loads, column loads
and notional loads are determined in exactly the same way discussed above.

D4. Partial Height Bracing and Portal Braces

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

N1 N2 L1 AST1 N3 N4 N5

AR

AST2

Iy

Figure 4 Partial Height Bracing

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:
DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.4.2
Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 5 of 6
Revision
Second-Order Effects: Longitudinal Bracing & Date
1 (01/13)

Figure 4 shows a typical sidewall elevation with partial height bracing. The load application is
identical to that discussed above. The structural model is somewhat different in that the
columns in the braced bay will be subject to minor axis flexure. Therefore, the minor axis
moment of inertia of the columns must be known. If the minor axis moment of inertia is not
sufficient, the second-order analysis will not converge. The higher the minor axis moment of
inertia, the lower the member forces will be and vice versa. As long as the actual moment of
inertia of the frame columns is not less than the actual frame design values, the preliminary
design will be conservative if no other member sizes are changed.

Commentary: VISION uses the roof plane as the main (and only) diaphragm for distribution of longitudinal forces.
Additional analysis may be required (non-automated) for buildings with multiple floor/roof diaphragm levels and
buildings where roof diaphragm is not the main diaphragm.

A3. Partial Height Column Loads

Partial height column loads can be applied directly to the analysis model as discussed above
in A1.2. However, in some cases it may be necessary to convert the mid height loads to loads
at the tops of the columns. This can be done using the model shown in Figure 5.

h h

Ph Ph + Py(y/h)

A B

y y
h h

Py
y y

Figure 5

y = h(y/h) Equivalent loading

This method is convenient when leaning interior columns have mid-height loads. The mid
height loads can be converted to equivalent top-of-column loads and the total load can be
accrued to the sidewall column as discussed above.

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:
DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.4.2
Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 6 of 6
Revision
Second-Order Effects: Longitudinal Bracing & Date
1 (01/13)

This method should not be used unless necessary, since the mid-height leaning column loads
without struts will also produce a minor axis bending moment in the leaning columns.

My = Py y) (Eq. D3.1)

Where:
y = the final lateral displacement at elevation y from a second-order analysis modified by the
provisions of the Direct Analysis Method. When the load is reduced as above the column
moments will be underestimated.

B. SERVICEABILITY CHECKS

Serviceability load combinations do not require a second order analysis. A first order linear
elastic analysis without notional loads or stiffness reduction is used.

C. LEANING COLUMN EFFECT

The leaning column effect for full height interior frame columns is included in Vision analysis,
as shown previously in section A1.5.

For other situations see explanation in DP 2.4.1.

Document and Revision History

REV. # DATE NAME DESCRIPTION
0 01/01/10 Igor Marinovic Original Document
1 01/21/13 Igor Marinovic Leaning column effect moved to DP 2.4.1, with additional explanation.

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic