LSPSCAT
Structural
- Dec 19, 2007
- 123
I have read through many of the threads from 2007 to about 2013 regarding the implementation of the Dynamic Analysis Method and Risa 3D. I have done several example problems on this topic and would like to finalize my understanding of the current state of the software.
I have an application more related to mechanical/industrial design requirements than a typical building frame so I would like to verify that I am understanding the final moments from the frame analysis correctly as presented by the software. I also want to verify that it is not necessary to introduce any additional notional load if a lateral load is present. As this is not part of a building, there is no true gravity load on the frame, so the use of a notional load would not be required.
The structure has a portal frame that has both both distributed loading across the main horizontal girder and a lateral loading applied. In the software, using the settings for AISC 14th Edition, allowing it to adjust the stiffness, and including P-Delta effects is it correct that the moments I obtain are the correct moments to use in an interaction equation or are there additional manipulations to these values. My conclusion at this point is that the values obtained using the above settings are the correct moments used for the design of the member.
For my investigation I started by attempting to validate a simple hand calculation of the frame loading:
First Iteration:
- Moment Frame Force Calculation - Exclude Direct Analysis Method - No P-Delta / No Stiffness Adjustment
- Software Setting - P-Delta effects turned off
- Software Setting - Adjust stiffness - Set to "NO"
- Columns model with only two nodes at the ends
Result - Moments in frame are exactly as anticipated from a hand calculation
I then progressively induced the P-Delta Effects, P- Little Delta, and Adjusted the Stiffness; the result was the moments increased in the frame as I would have expected.
Second Iteration:
- Moment Frame Force Calculation - Direct Analysis Method
- Software Setting - P-Delta effects turned "ON"
- Software Setting - Adjust stiffness - Set to "Yes - Iterative"
Columns model with several nodes along the length to introduce P-Little Delta
Result - Moments increase in frame, as expected considering P-Delta Effects
Now that I have a frame in the program with moments computed based on the effects of P-Delta, P-Little Delta, and the adjusted stiffness is that suitable to use those in the interaction equations "Mu" ? (This is in comparison to possibly a hand calculation where I might use moment amplification with B1 and B2 to compute the factored moment Mu.)
(For comparisons sake I had also run through breaking the load into a non-sway and sway frame and using moment magnifiers to obtain Mu, the final factored moment using the magnifiers was 15% greater than that obtained utilizing the software.)
I have an application more related to mechanical/industrial design requirements than a typical building frame so I would like to verify that I am understanding the final moments from the frame analysis correctly as presented by the software. I also want to verify that it is not necessary to introduce any additional notional load if a lateral load is present. As this is not part of a building, there is no true gravity load on the frame, so the use of a notional load would not be required.
The structure has a portal frame that has both both distributed loading across the main horizontal girder and a lateral loading applied. In the software, using the settings for AISC 14th Edition, allowing it to adjust the stiffness, and including P-Delta effects is it correct that the moments I obtain are the correct moments to use in an interaction equation or are there additional manipulations to these values. My conclusion at this point is that the values obtained using the above settings are the correct moments used for the design of the member.
For my investigation I started by attempting to validate a simple hand calculation of the frame loading:
First Iteration:
- Moment Frame Force Calculation - Exclude Direct Analysis Method - No P-Delta / No Stiffness Adjustment
- Software Setting - P-Delta effects turned off
- Software Setting - Adjust stiffness - Set to "NO"
- Columns model with only two nodes at the ends
Result - Moments in frame are exactly as anticipated from a hand calculation
I then progressively induced the P-Delta Effects, P- Little Delta, and Adjusted the Stiffness; the result was the moments increased in the frame as I would have expected.
Second Iteration:
- Moment Frame Force Calculation - Direct Analysis Method
- Software Setting - P-Delta effects turned "ON"
- Software Setting - Adjust stiffness - Set to "Yes - Iterative"
Columns model with several nodes along the length to introduce P-Little Delta
Result - Moments increase in frame, as expected considering P-Delta Effects
Now that I have a frame in the program with moments computed based on the effects of P-Delta, P-Little Delta, and the adjusted stiffness is that suitable to use those in the interaction equations "Mu" ? (This is in comparison to possibly a hand calculation where I might use moment amplification with B1 and B2 to compute the factored moment Mu.)
(For comparisons sake I had also run through breaking the load into a non-sway and sway frame and using moment magnifiers to obtain Mu, the final factored moment using the magnifiers was 15% greater than that obtained utilizing the software.)