Explorar E-books

Categorias

Explorar Audiolivros

Categorias

Explorar Revistas

Categorias

Explorar Documentos

Categorias

0 notas0% acharam este documento útil (0 voto)

38 visualizações10 páginasNew specification

The new 2005 AISC Specification

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

New specification

© All Rights Reserved

0 notas0% acharam este documento útil (0 voto)

38 visualizações10 páginasThe new 2005 AISC Specification

New specification

© All Rights Reserved

Você está na página 1de 10

Leon

(A nova norma americana do AISC 2005)

Roberto T. Leon

Professor - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 300332-033, USA

E-mail: roberto.leon@ce.gatech.edu.

Resumo Abstract

No final de 2005, o American Institute of Steel In late 2005, the American Institute of Steel

Construction editou a versão mais recente da norma Construction issued its most recent Specification for

norte-americana para estruturas de edifícios em aço, Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05). This

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings specification includes updated design provisions in both

(ANSI/AISC 360-05). Essa norma inclui prescrições para allowable strength design (ASD) and load and

projetos com base nos métodos das tensões admissíveis resistance factor design methods (LRFD), and

(ASD) e dos estados-limites (LRFD) e incorpora, ainda, incorporates the design provisions for hollow structural

prescrições para seções tubulares e cantoneiras. Entre as sections and single angles. Amongst the major changes

mais importantes modificações destacamos a completa are a complete revamping of the methodologies for

renovação das metodologias para a verificação da assessing stability of framed structures, new provisions

estabilidade de estruturas aporticadas, novas prescrições for composite columns and updated material

para pilares mistos e atualização das especificações dos requirements. This paper will describe the changes and

materiais. O presente artigo descreve essas alterações e highlight those of practical significance.

destaca aquelas com interesse prático.

Keywords: Steel design, specifications, codes, ultimate

Palavras-chave: Projeto em aço, normas, resistência strength, allowable stress.

última, tensão admissível.

REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007 241

The new 2005 AISC specification

coded tables are used to highlight the

For the past 20 years, the American Rn

Ra ≤ difference between LRFD and the NEW

Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Ω ASD. Figure 1 shows one such table for

has maintained two different

specifications: a limited state or ultimate Note that the nomenclature the flexural capacity of beams. The blue

strength one (AISC LRFD 1999), whose maintains the use of the terms resistance color for LRFD and the highlighted green

first edition dates to 1986, and an and safety factors. While the origin of background for ASD clearly separate the

allowable or working stress design one the former is clear and rooted in reliability two design cases.

(AISC ASD 1989), whose last edition theory, the latter is based mostly on In addition to supporting two

dates to 1989. In the USA, although experience and cannot be given a different approaches, at least the

limited state design of reinforced consistent meaning across all forms of following major editorial changes in the

concrete structures has been common loading. Thus, while for simple loading

since the early 1960’s, design for metal new AISC Specification should be

conditions such as tension, the NEW highlighted:

structures has remained for the most part ASDF and OLD ASD are the same, this

under the allowable stress approach. In is not a statement that can be generalized 1. Nomenclature: An attempt has been

this last cycle of its main specification, to the rest of the code. made to coordinate the nomenclature

AISC decided that it could no longer to a standard one to be adopted by

afford to maintain two separate The procedure for determining the

all metal specifications. This was

specifications, and decided to develop a new ASD safety factors (Duncan 2006)

achieved through the work of a joint

set of unified provisions that merged is based on the concept of an effective

committee of the American Institute

both approaches. With the new load factor. The effective load factor, γ,

Specifications, AISC intends to is determined by setting the ASCE 7 of Iron and Steel (AISI) and AISC,

consolidate its design provisions into (ASCE, 2005) LRFD load combination - and gives greater clarity and

four broad documents: basic for live load (L) and dead load (D) only - transparency to this code.

requirements (AISC 2005a/ ANSI 360-05), equal to the equivalent ASD load 2. Mandatory language: All non-

seismic design (AISC Seismic 2005b/ combination. An effective load factor, γ, mandatory language has been

ANSI 341-05), nuclear design (AISC 2006 may be determined for the ASD side of eliminated, and very few locations

/ N690) and contractual provisions (Code the equation as follows. remain where designers are given a

of Standard Practice for Structural Steel

Buildings, AISC 2005c). 1.2D + 1.6L = γ(L + D) (1) choice of whether to use or not a

particular clause of the code.

In order to rationalize the design 1.2 + 1.6(L/D) = γ ((L/D) + 1) (2)

process along an ultimate strength 3. Loading: All references to loads have

where

design approach, the 2005 version of this been eliminated; all loading is taken

specification contains a dual set of γ = effective load factor. from ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 7, 2005). This

provisions. One set of provisions will The AISC LRFD Specification for means that AISC has now completely

follow closely the current Load and Structural Steel Buildings (1986) was decoupled the loading and

Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) format resistance part of the design process,

originally calibrated to the OLD ASD at

and the other set will follow an Allowable and loads have become material

Strength Design (henceforth, NEW ASD) L/D = 3. For L / D = 3, Equation 2 yields

independent as they should be.

approach. Although the NEW ASD 1.2 + 4.8 = γ (4)

bears a similar name to the older 4. New section types: All requirements

Allowable Stress Design (henceforth, γ = 6/4 = 1.5 pertaining to single angles and pipe/

OLD ASD), the two are not to be hollow structural (HSS) sections

Therefore, for calibration at L/D = 3

confused. In the 2005 AISC have been incorporated into the main

with γ = 1.5 as the target effective load

Specification, a single expression will be Specification. These two types of

factor, and using the following inequality

given for the nominal resistance of a sections were covered in separate

member or component (Rn), and that that the design strength (φRn) must equal

documents in the past. While the

resistance will be reduced by a resistance or exceed the required strength (γR), and

consolidation of all the rules into the

factor (f) for LRFD design or divided by solving for the safety factor, Ω, yields: main specification was deemed as

a safety factor (W) for the NEW ASD.

φRn ≥ γR very desirable, it has led to some very

The general format is: large chapters. For example,

For LRFD: Rn γ 1.5 incorporation of these section types

Ω= ≥ =

Ru ≤ φ Rn R φ φ has nearly doubled the size of

Chapter F - Flexure.

242 REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007

Roberto T. Leon

5. Reorganization: The content has In the next sections of this paper, 2. Highlights of new

been extensively reorganized, so that some of the more notable changes are

each topic is clearly addressed in a discussed. The sections referenced are

2005 AISC specification

chapter. For example, there is now a given in parenthesis after the title; issues 2.1 Scope (Section A1)

chapter on shear (Chapter G) that related to stability (Chapter C and

groups provisions that were A major change in the scope of the

Appendices 1 and 7) are left to the latter 2005 Specification is the elimination from

scattered through many chapters in

parts of the paper because they are the this section of the traditional

previous codes (mainly section F2).

In previous editions, Chapter G was more complex. The entire provisions and construction types (FR and PR for LRFD

very short and only addressed plate commentary are downloadable free from and Types 1 through 3 for ASD).

girders. In general, one can say that www.aisc.org. Designers are directed to Differentiation between different

each chapter now addresses a the new AISC Manual and its construction types is now embedded in

specific type of failure mode. accompanying CD, which contains appropriate sections, such as in Chapter

hundreds of design examples and tables, C for issues related to stability. In

6. Importance: In addition to the addition to this major change in

reorganization of the material along for more details. Finally, it should be

approach, the new Specification now

failure modes, the chapters are noted that this is the first steel

explicitly recognizes its applicability for

organized such that the more specification issued under the American design in areas of low to moderate

commonly used provisions are at the National Standards Institute (ANSI) seismicity (Seismic Design Categories A

front. The intent of the Specification approval. The ANSI process insures a through C). This is a significant change

committee was that even though a more public development of the because as new areas of the USA become

topic may cover many pages, 90% of provisions, a careful documentation of zoned at higher seismic levels, this

the everyday design requirements the changes made, and the development clause intends to alert designers that

are covered by the first few pages of of future specifications under a traditional steel structural systems can

each chapter. consistent basis. still be used.

7. User Notes: The new specification

makes extensive use of “user notes.”

These are the equivalent of a quick

commentary or clarification, and are

embedded inside the specification

although they are not legally part of

it. The intent of these notes, which

are highlighted inside a gray box in

the text, is to provide designers with

guidance where legal requirements

force an arcane wording of the

provisions. An example of its use is

in Chapter D (Tension) where the

limitations on the maximum

slenderness have been removed

from the Specification. A user note

has been inserted to indicate that this

limit should preferably not exceed L/

300, but that this recommendation

and does not apply to rods or

hangers in tension.

8. Commentary: The commentary has

been completely rewritten to provide

more useful information to designers.

Where possible, all historical

descriptions have been eliminated

and emphasis has been put on

documenting why changes have

been made. Figure1 - Example design table highlighting differences in LRFD and ASD values.

REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007 243

The new 2005 AISC specification

2.2 Materials (Sections A2-A3) 2. Sections B3 and B4 give concise but 2.4 Compression (Chapter E)

complete descriptions of the dual

The confusing collection of material approaches (LRFD and NEW ASD) One of the main logistical decisions

and codes referenced in Chapter A of used in the specification. in the development of the 2005

previous specifications has been Specification hinged on the choice of the

completely revamped, with standards 3. Section B6 now contains a clear format of the equations for compression,

clearly labeled and material description of connection types, which is the first difficult design topic to

specifications grouped by type. Given which are now divided into simple be addressed by the Specification. While

the great variety of steel grades available and moment connections, with the the LRFD and OLD ASD curves were

throughout the world and the fact that a latter further subdivided into fully very similar, they were specified in

designer is unlikely to know the source (PR) and partially restrained (PR) different formats and units. Those for

of the steel that will be used in a particular ones. It allows the designer to use LRFD were couched mostly on a strength

project, AISC has taken great care to limit simple and rigid conditions in the basis (units of load) while those for the

the Specification to the more common analysis of most connections, but OLD ASD where on a stress basis. The

ASTM grades, including the new ASTM requires the explicit use of moment- new Specification opted to adopt the

rotation curves in the analysis of PR

913 and 992. Perhaps the greatest stress format but using the existing

frames.

changes in the materials area are (1) the LRFD equations with a non-dimensional

allowance of materials with yield points 4. Sections 7 through 11 explicitly slenderness parameter (function of

up to 100 ksi (about 700 MPa) and (b) require that the designer account for √E/Fy). The specification has removed

the requirements for a minimum impact serviceability, ponding, fatigue, fire, all limits on slenderness ratios, includes

resistance for thick sections to be welded and corrosion in the design. These ASD provisions for singly and non-

using complete joint penetration welds sections do not contain specific symmetrical members, and includes all

(20 ft-lbs at 70º F / 27 J 21º C). requirements for these conditions; the necessary provisions for the design

those are given in other parts of the of slender members within the chapter.

In addition, the new specification

Specification (Chapter L for

takes into account the large differences serviceability and Appendix IV for

in properties due to the manufacturing fire, for example). While a number of

process. For example, the fact that some 2.5 Flexure (Chapter F)

these have been present in the

of the hollow structural section (HSS) Specification for some time, they had The new specification has

grades (ASTM A500, Grade A) do not been relegated to later Chapter or collapsed the 5 equations based on the

meet the ductility requirements, Appendices, often falling “below the unbraced length of the compression

necessitated that the usable stress be radar screen” of many designers. By flange in the OLD ASD into three

limited to 80% of its yield stress. explicitly calling for their equations based on lateral-torsion

incorporation into the basic design buckling conditions similar to those in

requirements, the Specification now the existing LRFD. In most cases, this

2.3 Design Requirements

makes clear that many limit states, has resulted in increases in capacity for

(Chapter B) besides strength, need to be members designed under the ASD

Several important changes have considered. approach and on the removal of a number

occurred in this chapter. Amongst them of the step functions that characterized

5. The requirements for local buckling

are: the design of some wide flange shapes

(formerly Section B5 and now Section

under the OLD ASD procedures (see

1. Section B2 now contains no B4) have been considerably

Figure 2). The equations have also been

information on load combinations. expended and clarified.

changed so that the flexural breakpoint

For all such information, the reader 6. Section B6 on evaluation of existing between inelastic and elastic buckling

is referred to ASCE 7. A user note structures has now been reduced to (Mr) has been substituted by the much

reminds the reader of the ASCE 7 a reference to the new Appendix 5, simpler expression of 0.7SxFy.

section where load combinations can which contains all the provisions. In

be found for either LRFD or ASD the past, the move to an Appendix The chapter now covers all types

design. This is important because has implied considerable interest in of members, including single angles and

the load combination for ASD design the topic and the possible future square and rectangular hollow sections

have been considerably expanded in development of a stand-alone (HSS), as well as unsymmetrical shapes.

the latest ASCE 7 document, specification. There is now a new A especially useful user note, in the form

effectively eliminating the large Appendix on fire design (Appendix of a table (Figure 3), now clearly gives

disparity between the design 4), which may in the future also be a designers guidance on the applicability

methods inherent in the existing separate document or incorporated of different failure modes and relevant

LRFD and OLD ASD approaches. into the main Specification. clauses of the chapter to the flexural

244 REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007

Roberto T. Leon

design of all different types of members. Thus, while the Chapter itself appears as 2.7 Interaction (Chapter H)

more dense and complicated in the new version, its usability has been considerably

improved by careful attention to the governing failure modes. Chapter H addresses members

subjected to axial force and bending

about one or both axes, with or without

2.6 Shear (Chapter G) torsion, and members subject to torsion

alone. The chapter basically preserves

Chapter G, which used to cover only the design of plate girders, now has the existing LRFD approach, in which

condensed all the shear design provisions (including the old section F2 which the interaction between flexure and axial

governed the shear design for most other members) into a single section. The load is handled by equations involving

provisions have been calibrated to the OLD ASD one, with the result that while the sum of the ratios of the required to

expressions similar to those in the existing LRFD are used, the limits and resistance the available strengths. However, new

factors have changed in some cases. equations have been developed in

conjunction with the stability provisions

Probably the most striking change for those used to the LRFD format, is the use

of Chapter C. For an unsymmetrical

of a φv = 1.00 (and corresponding Ωv = 1.50) for the shear capacity of doubly-

section, the summation is for the stresses

symmetric sections and channel sections. In addition, provisions are now given for

rather than strengths. For double-

the shear strength of HSS sections as follows:

symmetric sections under uniaxial

bending and axial load, the new

Ag Fcr

Vn = specification permits the separation into

2 two independent limit states (in-plane

instability and out-of-plane instability/

where F cr is the larger of: flexural torsion buckling).

1.60 E 0.78 E

Fcr = or Fcr =

5 3 2.8 Composite members

Lv ⎛ D ⎞ 4 ⎛ D ⎞2 (Chapter I)

⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

D⎝ t ⎠ ⎝ t ⎠

The 2005 version of Chapter I

and Ag is the gross area based on the design wall thickness, D is the outside diameter, includes both extensive technical and

Lv is the distance from maximum to zero shear force, and t is the design wall thickness format changes as well as significant new

(equal to the nominal wall thickness for submerged arc welded (SAW) and 0.93 for material when compared to previous

electric resistance welded (EWS) HSS). editions. The major technical change

consist of new design provisions for

composite columns (Section I2), which

now includes new cross-sectional

strength models, provisions for tension

and shear design, and a liberalization of

the slenderness limits for HSS tubes and

pipes. Other significant technical

changes are the new, more rational shear

stud strengths values for design (Section

I3.2d), the use of an ultimate strength

model for ASD design of composite

beams (I3.2), and new material limits

usable for design (Section I1.2).

The new provisions require that the

strength of composite sections shall be

computed based on first principles of

mechanics and robust constitutive

models for materials. Two approaches are

given to satisfy this requirement. The

first is the strain compatibility approach,

Figure 2 - Comparison of OLD ASD and the unified 2005 Specification for the flexural which provides a general method. The

capacity of a W36 x 182, F y = 50 ksi beam (W920x271, 350 MPa) second is the plastic stress distribution

REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007 245

The new 2005 AISC specification

approach, which is a subset of the strain

compatibility one. The plastic stress

distribution model provides a simple and

convenient calculation method for the

most common design situations, and is

thus treated first.

An example of the differences in

design strength for encased composite

columns is given in Figure 4, which

contrasts the capacities given by current

reinforced concrete provisions (ACI 318,

2005) and the 1999 LRFD (AISC 1999)

ones with two versions proposed in the

2005 Specification (AISC 2005a). The

AISC 2005 (1) curve corresponds to the

polygonal approach pioneered in the

Eurocodes and adopted into the 2005

specification, and the AISC 2005 (2)

shows a simplified bi-linear approximation

useful for design.

Chapter C, which covers stability

provisions, is probably the most

radically changed chapter in the

Specification. While the older methods

(the effective length method for

individual members, for example) remain

valid, Chapter C takes an important step

towards recognizing advanced analysis

and design techniques rendered possible

by personal computers and advanced

commercial software. The chapter is the

result of several years of work of a joint

AISC - SSRC (Structural Stability

Research Council) committee that

examined a number of techniques ranging

from full-advanced analysis including

geometrical and material non-linearities

to the nominal load concepts such as

those incorporated in the Australian and Figure 3 - User note from the beginning of Chapter F indicating applicability of different

European codes. The General clauses and failure modes in design.

Requirements to Chapter C state it as

follows1:

to residual stresses on the stability

Stability shall be provided for the of the structure and its elements is

1

structure as a whole and for each of permitted. The methods prescribed Parts of the Specification and Commentary

its elements. Any method that in this Chapter and Appendix 7 are include here because precise language is

considers the influence of second- satisfy these requirements. All needed in order not to confuse the reader;

thus rather than paraphrasing these parts

order effects (including P-∆ and P-δ component and connection

with the possibility of distorting the meaning,

effects), flexural, shear and axial deformations that contribute to the parts of the introductory material to Chapter

deformations, geometric imperfections, displacements shall be considered C and Appendix 7 are reproduced verbatim

and member stiffness reduction due in the stability analysis. in Sections 2.9 and 2.10.

246 REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007

Roberto T. Leon

In structures designed by elastic

analysis, individual member

stability and stability of the

structure as a whole are provided

jointly by:

(1) Calculation of the required

strengths for members, connections

and other elements using one of the

methods specified in Section C2.2,

and

(2) Satisfaction of the member and

connection design requirements in

this specification based upon those

required strengths.

In structures designed by inelastic

analysis, the provisions of Appendix

1 shall be satisfied.

The commentary says that:

The stability of structures must be Figure 4 - Comparison of the design strength for a 24 in. x 24 in. encased column

considered from the standpoint of the (f’ c = 5 ksi) with 4 # 8 bars and a Grade 50 W10x49 section (610 mm x 610mm concrete

structure as a whole, including not column (35 MPa) with 4 D25 bars and a W250x73 column (350MPa).

only compression members, but also

beams, bracing systems, and

nominal geometric imperfection and as an alternative method to improve

connections. The stability of

stiffness reduction effects directly and simplify design for stability. In

individual components also must be

within the structural analysis. In this case, the inclusion of nominal

provided. Considerable attention

either the Effective Length or the geometric imperfection and member

has been given in the technical

Direct Analysis approaches, the stiffness reduction effects directly in

literature to this subject, and various

structural analysis by itself is not the analysis allows the use of

methods are available to assure

sufficient to ensure the stability of K = 1.0 in calculating the in-plane

stability (Galambos, 1998). In all

the structure as a whole. The overall column strength Pn within the beam-

approaches, the method of analysis

stability of the structure as well as column interaction equations of

and the equations for checking of

the stability of individual elements Chapter H. This simplification comes

component resistances are

is ensured by the combined about because the Direct Analysis

inextricably interlinked. Traditionally,

calculation of the required strengths Method provides a better estimate

the effects of unavoidable geometric

by structural analysis and the of the true internal forces within the

imperfections (within fabrication

satisfaction of the member and structure. The Effective Length

and erection tolerances) and

connection design provisions of the Method, in contrast, includes the

distributed yielding at strength limit

Specification. above effects indirectly within the

states (including residual stress

member resistance equations.

effects) are addressed solely within In general, it is essential that an

member resistance equations. accurate second-order analysis of

Correspondingly, the structural the structure be performed. The

analysis is conducted using the analysis should in general consider 2.10 Direct Design Method

nominal structure geometry and the influence of second-order effects (Appendix 7)

elastic stiffness. The Specification (including P-∆ and P-δ effects as The commentary to Appendix 7

addresses this traditional shown in Figure C-C1.1), flexural, says:

approach, termed the Effective shear, and axial deformations. More

Length Method in this commentary, rigorous analysis methods allow The Direct Analysis Method,

as well as a new approach which is formulation of simpler limited state addresses a new method for the

termed the Direct Analysis Method models. One such example can be stability analysis and design of

and is addressed in Appendix 7. The found in Appendix 7 where the new structural steel systems comprised of

Direct Analysis Method includes Direct Analysis Method is presented moment frames, braced frames, shear

REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007 247

The new 2005 AISC specification

walls or combinations thereof structures, although this buckling, flexural buckling, and

(AISC-SSRC, 2003a). While the application is not explicitly lateral-torsion or torsion-flexure

precise formulation of the method is addressed in this edition. buckling.

unique to the AISC Specification,

5. For the in-plane buckling check, the

some features of it have similarities Chapter C requires that the Direct effective length can be assumed to

to other major design specifications Analysis Method, as described be equal to 1.

around the world including the herein, be used wherever the value

Eurocodes, the Australian Standard, 6. Residual stresses are assumed to be

of the sidesway amplification

the Canadian Standard, and ACI linearly distributed and have a

∆ 2nd order / ∆ 1st order (or B 2 from

318. maximum value of 0.3 Fy at the flange

Equation C2-3), determined from a

tips.

first-order analysis of the structure,

The Direct Analysis Method has exceeds 1.5. It may also be used in

been developed with the goal to lieu of the methods described in The direct design method requires

more accurately determine internal Chapter C for the analysis and that:

forces in the structure in the analysis design of any lateral load resisting

1. A rigorous second-order analysis be

stage and to eliminate the need for frame in a steel building.

conducted that accounts for both

calculating the effective buckling

P-∆ and P-δ effects.

length (K factor) for columns in the

first term of the beam-column Some of the most important 2. The application of a notional load

interaction equations. This method assumptions embedded in the direct Ni = 0.002 Yi where Yi is the gravity

is, therefore, a major step forward in design method are: load from the appropriate load

the design of steel moment frames combination acting on level i.

1. Initial member out-of-straightness is

from past versions of the 3. That the analysis be based on a

L/1000, where L is the length of the

specification. In addition, it can be reduced stiffness (EI* = 0.8τbEI and

member.

used for the design of braced frames EA* = 0.8EA) in the structure.

and combined frame systems. Thus, 2. The initial frame out-of-plumbness

this one method can be used for the for a story is assumed as H/500, Figure 5 shows a comparison of the

design of all types of steel framed where H is the story height of the in-plane beam-column interaction checks

structures used in practice. The building. using the two main different methods

method can be expanded in the allowed in Chapter C. On the left part

3. The total out-of-plumbness of the

future beyond its use as a second- (Figure 5(a)), the conventional effective

structure is bounded by the limits

order elastic analysis tool as length approach is shown. In this case,

given in the Code of Standard

presented here. For example, it can the yield strength (Py) is reduced by the

Practice.

be applied with inelastic or plastic conventional approach (kL effect) and

analysis. Also, it can be used in the 4. The limit states considered include the usual interaction equations applied.

analysis of composite and hybrid cross section yielding, local On the right side of the figure (Figure

Figure 5 - Comparison of in-plane interaction checks for (a) the Effective Length Method and (b) the Direct Analysis Method (Figure

C-A-7.1 in AISC 2005a).

248 REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007

Roberto T. Leon

5(b)), the direct analysis method is shown. Note that for this ry = radius of gyration about minor axis, in. (mm)

case, because of the reductions on the axial and flexure stiffness

(M1 / M2) is positive when moments cause reverse curvature

of the members, the elastic second-order response falls below

and negative for single curvature.

the actual response for much of the load path.

(b) For solid rectangular bars and symmetric box beams:

L pd = ⎢0.17 + 0.10 1 ⎥ r y ≥ 0.10 ry (A-1-6)

(Appendix 1) ⎣ M 2 ⎦ Fy Fy

Inelastic analysis is permitted for LRFD but not ASD There is no limit on Lb for members with circular or square

design. As the design is governed by the ductility of the plastic cross sections or for any beam bent about its minor axis.

hinge zones, the specified minimum yield stress for members

undergoing plastic hinging shall not exceed 65 ksi (450 MPa) The required axial strength of members subjected to plastic

and the compacteness criteria are those of Table B4.1 for λp hinging in combined flexure and axial compression shall not

modified as follows: exceed 0.7AgFy. The column slenderness ratio L/r of members

subjected to combined flexure and axial compression shall not

(a) For webs of doubly-symmetric wide flange members and

rectangular HSS in combined flexure and compression exceed 4.71 E / F y .

(i) for Pu/φb Py ≤ 0.125 Connections shall be designed with sufficient strength

and ductility to sustain the forces and deformations imposed

E ⎛ 2.75Pu ⎞ under the required loads.

h/tw ≤ 3.76 ⎜1 − ⎟

Fy ⎜ φ b Py ⎟

⎝ ⎠

Stability: Second-order effects may be neglected in frames

(ii) for Pu/φb Py > 0.125 where the ratio of the elastic buckling load to the loading

requirements specified in Section B3.3

⎛ ⎞

h/tw ≤ 1.12

E ⎜ 2.33 − Pu ⎟ ≥ 1.49 E (A-1-2) λcr > 10 (A1-7)

Fy ⎜ φ b Py ⎟ Fy

⎝ ⎠

For 5 < λcr < 10, second-order effects may be neglected

(b) For flanges of rectangular box and hollow structural sections provided that the design load effects are amplified by the factor:

of uniform thickness subject to bending or compression,

flange cover plates and diaphragm plates between lines of 0 .9

fasteners or welds: AF =

1

1−

λ cr

b/t ≤ 0.94 E / Fy

For λcr < 5, the design shall be based on a second-order

(c) For circular hollow sections in flexure:

inelastic analysis. Two options are given: direct elastic-plastic

D/t ≤ 0.045E/Fy hinge analysis or distributed plasticity.

The laterally unbraced length, Lb, of the compression

flange adjacent to plastic hinge locations shall not exceed Lpd, Direct analysis: The requirements for direct elastic-plastic

determined as follows. hinge analysis are governed by the provisions of Appendix 7,

with the following modifications:

(a) For doubly symmetric and singly symmetric I-shaped

members with the compression flange equal to or larger than (1) Inelastic redistribution is permitted in members satisfying

the tension flange loaded in the plane of the web: the provisions of Section 1.2. Moments shall be

redistributed based on the assumption of elastic-perfectly

⎡ M ⎤ E plastic hinge response at the member resistance defined

L pd = ⎢0.12 + 0.076 1 ⎥ ry by the provisions of Appendix 7.

⎣ M 2 ⎦ Fy

(2) The notional load Ni shall be applied as an additive lateral

where load for all load combinations.

M1 = smaller moment at end of unbraced length of beam, kip-

in. (N-mm) Distributed plasticity: A second-order inelastic analysis

M2 = larger moment at end of unbraced length of beam, kip-in. that takes into account the relevant material properties,

(N-mm) geometric imperfections, residual stresses, partial yielding of

REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007 249

The new 2005 AISC specification

member cross sections and connection

force-deformation characteristics may be

used to assess the design strength of

structural frames, provided that the

analysis is shown to model the behavior

and the following requirements are

satisfied:

(1) All contributions to the elastic

stiffness of the structure shall be

reduced by a factor of 0.9.

(2) The material strength used in the

analysis shall be reduced by a factor

of 0.9.

(3) Unless member torsion-flexure

instabilities are captured by the

analysis, doubly-symmetric I-section

members shall satisfy Eq. H1-2 and

all other members shall satisfy

Eq. H1-1 for the limited state of out- Figure 6 - Computer model for the 300m long (200 m clear span) trusses of the

of-plane buckling. retractable roof of the Houston Reliant Energy Stadium (SAP 2000 model by Walter P.

Moore and Assoc., Houston, TX)

Moments shall be redistributed

based on the assumption of elastic-

perfectly plastic hinge response at the Specification presents a unified treatment of both the ASD and LRFD approach, and

member resistance defined by the incorporates the latest knowledge in material, member, connection and structural

provisions of Section H1, with the system behavior. In particular, through the new material in Chapters C and Appendices

nominal column strengths, P n , 1 and 7, the new Specification brings in advanced analysis methods into the design

determined using K = 1.0. For members of steel structures. It is expected that this will lead to more safe and reliable designs,

where the required axial strength is less more economical steel structures, more efficient design and use of steel in even more

than 0.15P y , moments may be daring structures (Figure 6).

redistributed based on the assumption

of elastic-perfectly plastic hinge

response at a member resistance of φbMp, 4. References

where φb = 0.9. 1. ACI Committee 318. ACI 318-02/ACI 318R-02 Building code requirements for reinforced

concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills, MI. 2002.

2. AISC LRFD. Specification for steel buildings - load and resistance factor design (3rd

Edition). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago. 1999.

3. Conclusions 3. AISC ASD. Manual of steel construction - allowable stress design (9th Edition). American

The 2005 AISC Specification Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago. 1989.

represents a significant improvement 4. AISC 2005a/ ANSI 360-05. Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute

over previous editions from both the of Steel Construction, Chicago.

editorial and technical standpoint. From 5. AISC 2005b/ ANSI 341-05.Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American

Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.

the editorial standpoint, the

6. AISC, 2005c. Code of standard practice for steel buildings and bridges. American Institute

nomenclature has been tightened and of Steel Construction, Chicago.

the organization of the material follows 7. AISC, 2006/ ANSI N690L-06. Design specification for steel safety-related structures for

more closely how designers would use nuclear facilities, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.

the specification in practice. From the 8. DUNCAN, 2006. Private communication (to be published in AISC EJ in 2006).

technical standpoint, the 2005 Artigo recebido em 04/12/2006 e aprovado em 05/12/2006.

www.rem.com.br

250 REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 60(2): 241-250, abr. jun. 2007