MBMA What's New in The AISI Spec 2009

Whats new in the 2007 AISI Specification
MBMA Workshop, July 2009

Ben Schafer, Ph.D., P.E. Swirnow Family Faculty Scholar Associate Professor and Chair Department of Civil Engineering Johns Hopkins University
Civil Engineering
at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Overview
Introduction 2004 Supplement 2007 Specification Distortional Buckling 2008 Design Manual (as time allows) Biggies in the pipeline (as time allows) Conclusions
AISI Specifications
1946 1st Edition 1962 (26 pages small format) 1986 Unified effective width method 1991 Combined LRFD/ASD 2001 North American Specification 2004 Supplement: Direct Strength added 2007 2nd order analysis added, distortional buckling added, anchorage + more.
Major Changes since 2001

2004 Supplement
A1.1 Rational engineering analysis clause added B3.2 Unstiffened elements with stress gradients C3.4 Web crippling coefficients, changed for multi-web deck sections C3.6 Bearing stiffener provisions C4.7 Compression of Zs with one flange fastened to standing seam roof Appendix 1, the Direct Strength Method for beams and columns
A1.1 Rational engineering analysis
2007 version..
A1.1 Rational engineering analysis

How many have used this clause? Why/Why not?
Potential situations for use?
B3.2 Unstiffened elements with stress gradient
pity the simple lip stiffener, calcs got harder
B3.2 Unstiffened elements with stress gradient

Lip on a Zee may get a tiny bump up in effective width Other opportunities to utilize these improved capacities?
in framing this matters for track in bending
C3.4 Web crippling coefficients

2001
2007
C3.4 Web crippling coefficients

2001
Do you ever let web crippling control? Do you ever test? Analysis?
2007
C3.6* Bearing Stiffeners

**
web crippling capacity of the member to be stiffened
axial capacity of the stiffener
* in 2007 this was moved to C3.7 ** rational analysis extension to Zs seems reasonable
C3.6* Bearing Stiffeners

**
web crippling capacity of the member to be stiffened
axial capacity of the stiffener
Do you ever use bearing stiffeners, why/why not?
* in 2007 this was moved to C3.7 ** rational analysis extension to Zs seems reasonable
C4.7 Compression of Z + standing seam

D6.1.4 Compression of Z-section members having one flange fastened to a standing seam roof
D6.1.4 in 2007
This is weak axis only.
C4.7 Compression of Z + standing seam

D6.1.4 Compression of Z-section members having one flange fastened to a standing seam roof
D6.1.4 in 2007
This is weak axis only. In my personal opinion this is an odd approach and should be used with care. Stay inside the dimensional limits. Your reaction?
Appendix 1: Direct Strength Method

This was the topic of the MBMA Workshop we enjoyed together a few years ago. In 2004 the method was formally adopted into the Specification as Appendix 1 Pn Pcr Pcrl,Pcrd,Pcre Pnl,Pnd,Pne FSM direct strength curves capacity
anyone trying out DSM at all? Framing industry has several folks now doing it...
Overview

2007 Specification
Reorganization systems to Chapter D B4 Effective width and edge stiffeners B5 Effective width and intermediate stiffeners C3.1.4 Distortional buckling in bending C3.6 Combined Bending and Torsion C4.2 Distortional buckling in compression D3.3 Bracing of Axially loaded compression members D6.2.1 Standing Seam Roof Panels (revisions) D6.3 Roof System Bracing and Anchorage App1 Direct Strength new prequalified limits App2 2nd order analysis provisions COFS Standards all updated in 2007 too!
2007 Reorganization
Chapter D: systems provisions
D1 Built-up Sections D2 Mixed Systems D3 Lateral and Stability Bracing D4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction D5 Floor, Roof, or Wall Steel Diaphragm Construction D6 Metal Roof and Wall Systems
Mostly cobbled together from all around the Spec. does provide some clarity between members and systems
2007 Reorganization
These are the metal building provisions. New anchorage work here, base test, etc. here. Some opportunity here to think bigger now...
2007 Reorganization
Do you ignore these standards? Why? Opportunities here? (more later)
B4 Effective Width and Edge Stiffeners

Prior to 2007 all types of edge stiffeners covered, now only simple lip edge stiffeners are covered For sections with compound/complex lip stiffeners Appendix 1 Direct Strength Method is the preferred solution
B4 Effective Width and Edge Stiffeners

Justification came from nonlinear FE studies, sample of results:
B B d+a d+a a H H a d+a d+a B (a) B d a H a H a 2 a 2 d B (e) B (b) B d a 2 a 2 H a a 2 d 2 B (f) d B (c) B d a a 2 2 H
test-to-predicted ratio
AISI 0.96 0.89 0.90 0.88 0.87 DSM 1.02 0.99 1.08 1.00 1.04
B d
simple lip inside angled outside angled inside hooked outside hooked ..see Schafer et al. 2006 for further information
d B (d)
poor performance of 2001 Spec. method lead to restriction of main Spec. method to only simple lips.
C3.1.4 Distortional Buckling in Bending

This will be discussed in significant detail in the 2nd part of this presentation. Recall:
Mcr
Lcr
local buckling
distortional buckling
lateral-torsional buckling
B4 Effective width and edge stiffeners

Why we are on the subject...
Angling the stiffener is bad news for distortional buckling. As you add more lip (to counteract DB say) the angle becomes even more critical. Old optimals about lip angle are likely to be upset by the new DB provisions.
from Schafer (1997)
Reactions?

2007 Specification
C3.6 Bending + Torsion
exception clause applies to flexural members with one flange through-fastened to deck or sheathing or fastened to standing seam (R factors and base test)
Mn=RSeFy
Z??
exception clause applies to flexural members with one flange through-fastened to deck or sheathing or fastened to standing seam (R factors and base test)
Mn=RSeFy
8 6 4
Long. Stress (MPa)
2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 100 200 300 400
M + B M
Location in the unfolded section (mm)
15% overstress allowed here, but nearby? intent is to check at fold lines?
Mn=RSeFy
R=m/(m+b)<1
example R values...

8
8
6
6
4 Long. Stress (MPa) 2 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8

Long. Stress (MPa)
4 2 0 0 100 -2 -4 -6 -8 Location in the unfolded section (m m ) 100 200 200
Rotational spring + + Rotational spring lateral support lateral support Rotational Spring Rotational Spring
300
300
400
400
500 500
No No restriction restriction
Restrained Restrained in in both both flanges, M.y / I flanges, M.y / I
Location in the unfolded section (m m )
from Vieira et al. 2009

A comparison from Vieira et al. 2009 with base test R factors
AISI D6.1.1 section AISI C3.6 Direct Strength Method =1.0M =MM+BB* MnDSM2 MnDSM2/SeFy 0.48 0.55 0.46 0.55 0.41 0.44 0.49 0.51
MnR RT* MnT span RD MnDSM1 (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (m) 0.70 150x60x20x1.5 4.8 0.7 4.26 4.26 4.45 0.76 6.5 4.63 0.71 200x75x20x2 5.8 0.65 8.69 9.49 9.02 0.77 8.2 10.29 0.71 250x85x25x2 7.5 0.4 7.86 13.95 11.70 0.74 9.6 14.54 0.74 250x85x25x3 7.5 0.4 12.17 22.52 17.64 0.79 9.6 24.04 * 15% increase for max stress at web/flange juncture not applied.
(kN.m)
2.92 3.35 6.14 7.33 8.14 8.74 14.83 15.38

2.500 2.000 Long. Stress (MPa) 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 -0.500 0 -1.000 -1.500 -2.000 Location in the unfolded section (m m ) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Long. Stress (MPa) 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 Location in the unfolded section (mm) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(kN.m)
2.92 3.35 6.14 7.33 8.14 8.74 14.83 15.38
impact of torsional stresses decrease for longer span lengths leading to increased Rs. In the limit (L=infinity) the R factor will come back to 1 (of course LTB will go to zero, but you get the point..)
(a) span = 2.7 m
(b) span = 17.1 m

AISI D6.1.1 section AISI C3.6 Direct Strength Method =1.0M =can+BB* What MM FSM
tell us?
6 MnR RT* MnT span RD MnDSM1 MnDSM2 MnDSM2/SeFy Analyzed Spans 5 (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (m) 4 3 0.70 150x60x20x1.5 4.8 0.7 4.26 4.26 4.45 2.92 0.48 2 0.76 6.5 4.63 3.35 0.55 1 0 0.71 200x75x20x2 5.8 0.65 8.69 9.49 9.0210 6.14 0.46 100 1000 10000 100000 Half-wavelength (mm) 0.77 8.2 10.29 7.33 0.55 0.71 250x85x25x2 7.5 0.4 7.86 13.95 11.70 Here we have added lateral 8.14 0.41 0.74 9.6 14.54 8.74 restraint, but used 0.44 =My/I for 0.74 250x85x25x3 7.5 0.4 12.17 22.52 17.64 the applied stress. 0.49 see 14.83 We 0.79 9.6 24.04 15.38 restrained LTB... 0.51 * 15% increase for max stress at web/flange juncture not applied. Mcr/My
Long. Stress (MPa)
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 Location in the unfolded section (mm) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(a) span = 2.7 m
(b) span = 17.1 m

AISI D6.1.1 section AISI C3.6 Direct Strength Method =1.0M =can+BB* What MM FSM
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
tell us?
MnDSM2/SeFy 0.48 0.55 0.46 0.55 0.41 0.44 0.49 actual 0.51
cr /y 10
Long. Stress (MPa) 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 Location in the unfolded section (mm) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
MnDSM2
(kN.m)
2.92 3.35 6.14 7.33 8.14 8.74 14.83 we 15.38 apply
158.5, 0.86 100
7524, 1.58
1000
10000
100000
half-wavelength (mm)
If the stress distribution we see the above
(a) span = 2.7 m
(b) span = 17.1 m

(kN.m)
2.92 3.35 6.14 7.33 8.14 8.74 14.83 15.38
finally we get DSM generated R factors. globally, they look a lot like the base test....

2007 Specification
C4.2 Distortional Buckling in Compression

Again, more discussion on this issue in the 2nd part of the presentation. For now, recall
0.5 Z-section with lips (AISI 2002 Ex. I-10) 0.45 0.4 0.35 Flexural 0.3 P cr / P y 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 10 Local P cr /P y =0.16 Distortional P cr /P y =0.29 P y =45.23kips
10
10 half-wavelength (in.)
10
D3.3 Bracing of Axially loaded...

AISC style bracing provisions are coming
note use of Pn instead of Pr (demand) How have AISC bracing provisions impacted your practice? What would it mean if AISI had similar provisions? good/bad/indifferent?
Bracing has a long way to go...

Torsional brace (1) restricts torsion due to loads not applied through s.c. (2) restrict torsion due to enforcing bending about a non-principal axes Stability brace restricts buckling at the brace location, (1) flexural: restricts translation column-, (2) flexural-torsional, or lateral-torsional restricts appropriate translation and rotation beam and columnDiscrete Bracing Cross-section Bending (Beam) Torsion Brace Stiffness Strength Stability Brace Stiffness Strength Torsion + Stability Brace Combining stiffness Combining strength Compression (Column) Stability Brace Stiffness Strength Bending + Compression (Beam-column) Torsional Brace Stability Brace (beam) Stability Brace (column) Torsion+Stability (beam+column) Brace Combining stiffness Combining strength singly point doubly
? D3.2.1 (Cee) ? ? don't need to? simply add?
? D3.2.1 (Zed) ? ? don't need to? simply add?
? same as Cee AISC? Can D3.1.1 more? AISC? don't need to? simply add?
D3.3 lateral, FT needed! D3.3 lateral, FT needed! see beam see beam see column max stiffness? all additive?
D3.3 lateral, FT needed! D3.3 lateral, FT needed! see beam see beam see column max stiffness? all additive?
D3.3 lateral D3.3 lateral see beam see beam see column max stiffness? all additive?
the above was compiled by Ben Schafer and Tom Trestain in April 2009
D6.2.1 standing seam roof panels (revisions)

basic idea is to hold on to tests that have already been run, that is the intent.. implementation?
discussion?
no free lunch
D6.3 Roof system bracing and anchorage

I defer to the master
App1 Direct Strength

New in 2004 Minor updates in the 2007 version
Significant updates coming in next version

2007 Specification
App2 2nd order analysis

Users of AISC 2nd order provisions / Direct Analysis Method??
e.g., C5 ASD: becomes

M P2 ndOrder M + x 2 ndOrder + y 2 ndOrder 1.0 Pn (K = 1) / c M nx / b M ny / b
How to generate these 2nd order demands?
App 2 2nd order analysis (cont.)

2.2.1 General
Must include P- and P- For ASD do analysis at 1.6xASD loads, ASD demand=result/1.6
2.2.2 Types of Analysis

Analyze the model with initial imperfections, or use notional loads
2.2.3 Reduced Stiffnesses

EA*=0.8EA and EI*=0.8EI for members that contribute to the lateral stability of the structure Can ignore which kicks in at axial loads > 50% squash load, by bumping up the notional load an additional (1/1000)xGravity
2.2.4 Notional Loads

Ni=(1/240)xGravity Load 1/240 is based on 1/240 imperfection. can adjust (>1/500
App 2 2nd order analysis (cont.)

2.2.1 General
do not assume.. All of this came from research on racks!
Must include P- and P- For ASD do analysis at 1.6xASD loads, ASD demand=result/1.6
2.2.2 Types of Analysis

Analyze the model with initial imperfections, or do this use notional loads
advantage LRFD
2.2.3 Reduced Stiffnesses
EA*=0.8EA and EI*=0.8EI for members that contribute to the lateral stability of the structure Can ignore which kicks in at axial loads > 50% squash load, by bumping up the notional load an additional (1/1000)xGravity
follows AISC, not research, J? Cw? is from hot-rolled....
2.2.4 Notional Loads
Ni=(1/240)xGravity Load 1/240 is based on 1/240 imperfection. can adjust (>1/500
bump up the imperfection instead (rational eng. analysis extension)
Development of 2nd order analysis..
Effective length
Notional load
Notional load EI*=0.9EI

recall Spec uses 0.8EI very conservative
Notional load EI*=0.9EI

recall Spec uses 0.8EI very conservative
As Kx = 1 this frame is going from a sway frame to a no-sway frame, what are the implications of this high level of conservatism for nosway frames.. in AISC? troublesome
COFS Standards
North American Standards for Cold-Formed Steel Framing include:
General Provisions (AISI S200-07), Product Data (AISI S201-07), Floor and Roof System Design (AISI S210-07), Wall Stud Design (AISI S211-07), Header Design (AISI S212-07), Lateral Design (AISI S213-07), and Truss Design (AISI S214-07).
These standards attempt, when possible, to treat the system as opposed to the individual members.
users?
Floor and Roof System Design (AISI S210-07)

Covers the design of floors and roofs by either the discretely braced design or continuously braced design philosophy. For continuously braced design prescriptive sheathing requirements are provided (insuring a level of rigidity for the brace) along with the forces required to counteract rolling of the joists. S210 also provides a simple means to design clip angle bearing stiffeners, based on recent research (Fox 2006).
The Wall Stud Design standard (AISI S211-07)

Covers the design of wall studs by either the all steel design or sheathing braced design philosophy. Prescriptive load limits are provided for gypsum sheathed designs based on experimental testing (Miller and Pekoz 1994). Sheathing braced design does not imply diaphragmbased design methods, which were essentially abandoned for sheathed walls, based on the observation that local fastener deformations, not sheathing in shear, dominates the response. Also covered in this Standard are stud-to-track connection strength including web crippling (Fox and Schuster 2000) and deflection track strength.
Header Design (AISI S212-07)

The general built-up section provisions in AISI Spec. (2007) are rudimentary, but significant research has been conducted on built-up headers used in light frame construction (Elhajj and LaBoube 2000; Stephens and LaBoube 2000; Stephens and LaBoube 2003) This research has lead to provisions for box headers, double L headers, and single L headers covering web crippling, bending and web crippling, and simplified moment calculations.
Lateral Design (AISI S213-07)

Has had a significant impact on practice as this standard provides a means to determine the lateral strength of cold-formed steel systems used in wind and seismic demands. The standard provides compiled test results for coldformed steel shear walls and diaphragms with a variety of sheathing, fastener spacing, stud spacing, etc. Specific seismic detailing provisions are provided, for example for strap-braced shear walls (Al-Kharat and Rogers 2007). In addition to strength, expressions are provided for deflection calculations (Serrette and Chau 2006).
Truss Design (AISI S214-07)

Provides specific guidance on beam-column design for chord and web members of cold formed steel trusses. In addition due to the presence of concentrated loads (Ibrahim et al. 1998) in locations with compression and bending a unique interaction equation check for compression, bending, and web crippling is provided. Specific guidance is also provided for gusset plate design (Lutz and Laboube 2005) and methods for testing trusses.
Overview
Distortional Buckling Overview

Introduction Research
Distortional buckling Restrained distortional buckling
AISI Design provisions CFSEI Design Aid

Example 1: Table lookup Example 2: Table lookup ++ Example 3: The whole enchilada
DSM Design Manual Aids...
consider your friend, the floor
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff31/medscntst/Dscf0148.jpg
or purlins, if you must
http://www.axiominspection.com/images/g_purlins.jpg
joist/purlin buckling modes
(a) applied stress
(b) local
(c) distortional
(d) lateral-torsional
Figure 1: Stability modes of an 800S200-54 joist under major-axis bending stress*
Cross-section Instability
- distortional buckling of CFS beams
Mcr
Lcr
local buckling
lateral-torsional buckling


Research background
Early 80s Cornell research developed a mixed localdistortional buckling effective width provision (B4 of the AISI Spec.) Late 80s early 90s U Sydney research, showed problems, and generated a new design method (Adopted in Australia, proposed to U.S. in 95) Complication: 80s Cornell research, and others conducted in 90s did not distinguish between local and distortional buckling beam failures Resolution: AISI funded a series of experiments and analysis conducted at JHU Today: AISI-S100-07 adopted distortional buckling provisions in C3.1.4 for beams (columns too)
Tests on CFS beams
Phase 1 tests (Local Buckling)
Phase 2 tests (Distortional Buckling)
Range of test specimens
Z-section
C-section
Tested industry standard CFS Z and C-sections
Details
Phase 1 local buckling tests
local buckling
Panel fastener configuration
continuous spring analysis
adding a spring boosts Mcr a great deal
(Elastic) FE model to develop detail
single fastener still get distortional buckling
panels removed for visual purposes only
single vs. double fastener
paired fastener now local buckling is first
panels removed for visual purposes only
Test results with different fastener details

Specimen 8.5Z0735E6W 8.5Z0731E2W 8.5Z0734E3W Mtest/My 0.78 0.80 0.86 Mtest/Maisi96 note 0.86 0.88 0.96 single panel-to-purlin screws - 12" o.c. single panel-to-purlin screws on both sides of raised corrugation paired panel-to-purlin screws on both sides of raised corrugation
8.5Z073-5E6W
8.5Z073-4E3W
Phase 2 distortional buckling tests
Distortional buckling
Test 8.5Z092
Pcrd Py
Comparisons
local distortional
Local buckling test
Distortional buckling test
Test 8C043
Pcrd Py PcrL
99% of NAS01
83% of NAS01
P
distortional local
Local buckling test
Distortional buckling test
106% of NAS01
90% of NAS01
Comparisons (cont.)
9 pairs of tests having nominally identical geometry and material yield stresses
Code comparison
Total 25 local buckling tests and 24 distortional buckling tests have been completed. Comparison with design methods
App1
Mtest/ MAISI96 Local buckling tests 1.01 0.08 0.86 0.08
Mtest/ Mtest/ MS13694 MNAS01 1.07 0.06 0.92 0.08 1.02 0.07 0.87 0.09
Mtest/ MAN95 1.01 0.08 1.01 0.07
Mtest/ MEN94 1.01 0.06 0.96 0.09
Mtest/ MDSM 1.04 0.06 1.01 0.07
Distortional buckling tests
Overview

Moment Gradient
p
Moment diagram
local buckling MG effect ignored
distortional buckling MG effect unaddressed
lateral-torsional buckling MG effect considered
Modeling
2 3 1
M2
Fix 1, 2 for all nodes at end
Fix 1, 2 for all nodes at end
M1
Fix 1, 2, 3 for one node at the corner
FE model
Buckled shape
Mcr boost for distortional buckling

1.5 1.45 1.4 1.35 Md /Mcrd 1.3 r=0
1.25 1.2 1.15 1.1 1.05 1 Md /Mcrd =1.0<=1+0.4(Lcrd /L)0.7 <=1.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 L/Lcrd 7 8 9 10 11
Proposed equation for the MG effect:
M d /M crd = 1.0 1 + 0.4(Lcrd /L )0 .7 (1 M 1 M 2 )0 .7 1.3
|M 1| |M 2 |
Ultimate strength boost?

P
Moment diagram
PL 4
Moment gradient r = 0.5
Moment gradient r = 0
Geometric imperfection and material nonlinearity were considered. 55 industry standard C and Z-sections were analyzed.
Verificaton of model parameters

Local buckling test 11.5Z092-1E2W Distortional buckling test D11.5Z092-3E4W
Moment Gradient Effect on Distortional Buckling - for ultimate strength of DB

P
Moment gradient r = 0.5
Moment gradient r = 0
Comparison with predictions

1.2 1.1 MFE /My 1 d 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 mean FE-to-predicted = 1.04 DSM-dist MFE d
1.2 1.1 MFE /My d 1
DSM-dist MDSd r = 0.5 MDSd r = 0
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

1 1.2 (My/Mcrd)0.5 1.4 1.6
mean FE-to-predicted = 1.22
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 1.2 (My/Mcr)0.5
1.4
1.6
case with no moment gradient (shows model works)
moment gradient present, but ignored in design (too conservative!)
Comparison with predictions (cont.)

1.2 DSM-dist MDSd r = 0.5 MDSd r = 0
DSM for DB of CFS beams:
1.1 MFE /My 1 d 0.9 0.8 0.7
d 0.673
M nd = M y
l > 0.673
M nd 1 0.22 M crd = M y
0 .5
M crd M y
My
0 .5
0.6 0.5
mean FE-to-predicted = 1.15 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 (My/M*crd-M )0.5 G 1.4 1.6
MG is included in the elastic buckling moment, strength prediction is still conservative...
Restraint from sheeting/sheathing
Restraint from sheeting/sheathing
Models to account for sheathing

600 k=0 k = 0.79 k = 1.0 500
400 Mcr (kips-in.) 300 Mcrd-FE
FE result including
200
panel details
100
8.5Z092 section in bending

0 0 10 10
1
10 half wavelength (in.)
10
Numerical vs. hand methods

k
6C054 160 150 140 130 120 110 (kips-in.) 100 90 80 70 60 50 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 local buckling moment by CUFSM distortional buckling moment by CUFSM distortional buckling moment by Eq. 8.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 k (kips-in./rad/in.) 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Mcr
1. Finite strip method (CUFSM) 2. Analytical method

f d pp
kfe + kwe + k k = ~ = fd + ~ ~ ~ kfg + k wg kfg + kwg
Available sheeting test data

For members with profiled steel panels providing k:
Testing on 8 in. and 9.5 in. (203 and 241 mm) deep Z-sections with a thickness between 0.069 in. (1.75 mm) and 0.118 in. (3.00 mm), through-fastened 12 in. (205 mm) o.c., to a 36 in. (914 mm) wide, 1 in. (25.4 mm) and 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) high steel panels, with up to 6 in. (152 mm) of blanket insulation between the panel and the Z-section, results in a k between 0.15 to 0.44 kip-in./rad./in. (0.667 to 1.96 kN-mm/rad./mm) (MRI 1981).

Additional testing on C- and Z-sections with pairs of through-fasteners provides considerably higher rotational stiffness:
for 6 and 8 in. deep C-sections with a thickness between 0.054 and 0.097 in., fastened with pairs of fasteners on each side of a 1.25 in. high steel panel flute at 12 in. o.c., k is 0.4 kip-in./rad./in.; and for 8.5 in. deep Z-sections with a thickness between 0.070 in. and 0.120 in., fastened with pairs of fasteners on each side of 1.25 in. high steel panel flute at 12 in. o.c., k is 0.8 kip-in./rad./in. (Yu and Schafer 2003, Yu 2005).

Typical Upperbound Source 0.15-0.44 kip-in/rad/in 0.40-0.80 kip-in/rad/in Commentary to C3.1.4
Discussion that follows provides a way to fine tune this much further, but keep these typical and upperbound numbers in mind.
Overview
Distortional buckling Restrained distortional buckling (in framing)

Restraint of DB in framing systems

exterior joist
(a) typical floor system (SFA 2000)
interior joist (b) distortional buckling of a sheathed floor joist

exterior joist
(a) typical floor system (SFA 2000)

k
interior joist (b) distortional buckling of a sheathed floor joist
k fe + k we + k Fd = ~ ~ k fg + k wg
Eq. C3.1.4-10 of AISI-S100-07
(c) model in AISI distortional buckling provisions
DB and cantilever test for k
details of cantilever test to quantify k

t ho
L tw
test matrix
Sheathing --> Joist Spacing (L) --> Fastener # --> Fastener Spacing --> 362S162-33 362S162-68 800S200-54 800S250-54 800S200-97 1200S200-54 1200S200-97 conducted tests Plywood OSB Gypsum 12" 24" 24" 12" 24" 6 10 6 6 10 6 10 6 10 6" 12" 6" 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 2 1
The goal in the testing is not to test every condition and fill out a test matrix... We attempt to do the testing required to inform simple mechanical models of the behavior and make corrections, modifications, enhancements as needed.
(178 N-mm/mm) 40
typical response
overall response (slope = k 2) 7/16 in. OSB
35
30
Moment (lbf-in./in.)
25
SB O
20
15
10 1/2 in. Gypsum 5
od lywo P
15/32 in. Plywood
800S200-54 L=24in. #6@12in. 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 (57.3 deg.) 1.2
(rad)
800S200-54 joist with #6 fasteners spaced 12 in. (25mm) on-center attached to OSB, plywood, and gypsum sheathing (24 in. (610mm) long, 54 in. (1372 mm) wide)
rotational stiffness (k) decomposition

kw kw kc
typical component response

(178 N-mm/mm) 40
40
35
sheathing response (slope = k w ) 800S200-54 L=24in. #6@12in. 7/16 in. OSB
35
connection response (slope = k c2) 800S200-54 L=24in. #6@12in. 7/16 in. OSB
30
30
Moment (lbf-in./in.)
20
Moment (lbf-in./in.) 15/32 in. Plywood
25
25
OS B
20
15
15
10
10 15/32 in. Plywood 5 1/2 in. Gypsum
1/2 in. Gypsum
d w oo P ly
0.3 (rad) 0.4
w
0.5
(28.6 deg.)
c2
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 (rad) 0.4 0.5
(28.6 deg.)
0.1
0.2
sample of plywood sheathed results

(67 N-mm/mm)
15
ID:4 800S200-54 L=24in. #6@12
10 Moment (lbf-in./in.)
ID:4
ID:4
ID:1 800S200-54 L=24in. #6@12 ID:1
ID:1
ID:5 800S200-54 L=24in. #6@12 5 ID:5 ID:5
2 w c2
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 (rad) 0.8 1
(57.3 deg.)
1.2
rotational stiffness (k) decomposition

kw kw kc
k = (1/kw + 1/kc)-1
test-to-predicted ratio for k

Plywood kw test ave. EIw test ave. EIw test ave. EIw industry EIw kc2 tested values thickness only* proposed eq. proposed eq. ave. 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.03 st. dev. 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 OSB ave. 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.47 st. dev. 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.26 gypsum board ave. 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.30 st. dev. 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.21
* connection rotational stiffness is determined from the average tested values for a given joist thickness
kw
kw = EIw/Li
EIw = sheathing bending rigidity, for plywood and OSB use EIw values of APA (2004), for gypsum board use minimum EIw values of GA (2001); note gypsum may be used for serviceability only, not for ultimate strength Li = one half the joist spacing
kc
250
(1112 N-mm/mm)
mean (tests) Plywood 200 OSB Gypsum Board kc2 (lbf-in./in./rad)
150
100
kc2=0.00035Et2+75
50 whiskers denote one standard deviation above and below the mean 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 thickness (in.) 0.08 0.1
(2.54 mm)
0.12
Overview

AISI-S100-07
AISI-S100-07
Find the distortional buckling stress by (a) simplified provisions (b) C and Z provisions (c) rational elastic buckling analysis
C3.1.4(a) simplified provisions
C3.1.4(b) C and Z provisions
C3.1.4(b) C and Z provisions
C3.1.4(c)
free, open source, software www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer select a link to CUFSM tutorials, etc. available
AISI-S210 adopted k methods

B6 Continuously Braced Design for Distortional Buckling Resistance Calculation of the nominal distortional buckling strength [resistance] in flexure in accordance with Section C3.1.4 of AISI S100 [CSA S136] or Appendix 1 of AISI S100 [CSA S136] shall be permitted to utilize the beneficial restraint provided by structural sheathing attached to the compression flange of floor joists, ceiling joists, and/or roof rafters through determination of the rotational stiffness provided to the bending member, k of Eq. B6-1. It is also permitted, and conservative, to assume no rotational restraint exists, i.e., k = 0. Calculation of the nominal distortional buckling strength [resistance] in compression in accordance with Section C4.2 of AISI S100 [CSA S136] or Appendix 1 of AISI S100 [CSA S136] shall be permitted to utilize the beneficial restraint provided by structural sheathing attached to both flanges of floor joists, ceiling joists, and/or roof rafters through determination of the rotational stiffness provided to the bending member, k of Eq. B6-1. It is also permitted, and conservative, to assume no rotational restraint exists, i.e., k = 0.

The rotational stiffness k shall be determined as follows:
k = (1/kw + 1/kc) -1 (Eq. B6-1) where kw = Sheathing rotational restraint = EIw/L1 + EIw/L2 for interior members (joists or rafters) with structural sheathing fastened on both sides (Eq. B6-2) for exterior members (joists or rafters) with structural sheathing = EIw/L1 fastened on one side (Eq. B6-3) where = Sheathing bending rigidity EIw = Values as given in Table B6-1(a) for plywood and OSB Values as given in Table B6-1(b) for gypsum board shall be permitted only for serviceability calculations in accordance with AISI S100 Appendix 1 Section 1.1.3. L1, L2 = One half joist spacing to the first and second sides respectively, as illustrated in Figure B6-1 kc = Connection rotational restraint = Values as given in Table B6-2 for fasteners spaced 12 in. o.c. or closer (Eq. B6-4)

k = (1/kw + 1/kc) -1
Table B6-1 (a)1,2 Plywood and OSB Sheathing Bending Rigidity, EIw (lbf-in2/ft)
Span Rating 24/0 24/16 32/16 40/20 48/24 16oc 20oc 24oc 32oc 48oc Note: 1. To convert to lbf-in2/in., divide table values by 12. To convert to N-mm2/m, multiply the table values by 9415. To convert to N-mm2/mm, multiply the table values by 9.415. 2. Above Plywood and OSB bending rigidity is obtained in accordance APA, Panel Design Specification (2004). Strength Parallel to Strength Axis Plywood OSB 3-ply 4-ply 5-ply 66,000 66,000 66,000 60,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 440,000 440,000 440,000 440,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 715,000 715,000 715,000 715,000 1,265,000 1,265,000 1,265,000 1,265,000 Stress Perpendicular to Strength Axis Plywood OSB 3-ply 4-ply 5-ply 3,600 7,900 11,000 11,000 5,200 11,500 16,000 16,000 8,100 18,000 25,000 25,000 18,000 39,500 56,000 56,000 29,500 65,000 91,500 91,500 11,000 24,000 34,000 34,000 13,000 28,500 40,500 40,500 26,000 57,000 80,500 80,500 75,000 615,000 235,000 235,000 160,000 350,000 495,000 495,000
(Eq. B6-1)

k = (1/kw + 1/kc) -1 (Eq. B6-1)
Table B6-21 Connection Rotational Restraint
t t kc k c (in.) (lbf-in./in./rad) (N-mm/mm/rad) (mils) 18 0.018 78 348 27 0.027 83 367 30 0.03 84 375 33 0.033 86 384 43 0.043 94 419 54 0.054 105 468 68 0.068 123 546 97 0.097 172 766 Note: 1. Fasteners spaced 12 in. (25.4 mm) o.c. or less.


www.cfsei.org focused on resources for engineers key market is framing, but much of the information could be of value to you CFSEI is part of the AISI family and has become a secondary pathway for dissemination and outreach encourage you to join and become involved
*full disclosure: I am a Past-President of CFSEI
TechNotes:
Table 3 excerpt
80S200-54, beam, Table 3
80S200-54, beam, Table 3
(note, 46.5ksi w/o k)
(compare with 62.4 kip-in. when no rotational restraint was included)
Section properties Local buckling Lateral-torsional buckling

continuous bracing, including brace forces
C3.1.4(a), simplified quickie equations without rot. restraint C3.1.4(b), detailed full and bloody method with and without rot. restraint C3.1.4(c), rational elastic buckling analysis with rot. restraints
Section properties Local buckling Lateral-torsional buckling

continuous bracing, including brace forces
C3.1.4(a), simplified quickie equations without rot. restraint C3.1.4(b), detailed full and bloody method without rot. restraint and with rot. restraint k C3.1.4(c), rational elastic buckling analysis with rot. restraints
Overview
Highlights - 2008 Design Manual

I Dimensions and Properties
DB flange properties Z: effective section properties illustrating new lip under stress gradient provisions Delicious little note buried in Section 3.6 about avoiding large r/t, or if needed use DSM
Highlights 2008 Design Manual

II-Beam Design
Extensively covered (toc) Beam strength table (note, no DB) Beam charts, note diamond Z section DB tables Complete four span purlin example Full DB example, like technote Combined bending and torsion example DSM for a sigma section
Highlights 2008 Design Manual

III-Columns
nearly as complete as beams beam-colums treated here Full DB table for Zs Full DB examples Frame design (for a rack) using 2nd order...
Overview
In the Pipeline (next Ed.)

Tension members
finally merged between U.S. and Canada
Diaphragm Standard
patterned after SDI, but coming under the AISI Standards umbrella
Direct Strength Method

how to handle holes how to handle inelastic reserve (Mn>My) unique beam-column method
Conclusions/Discussion
Hopefully brought you back up to speed a little bit on the cold-formed steel universe Distortional buckling provisions are a big change, you can mitigate them, but they have an influence on design no doubt Some nice resources..
2007 Spec. and Commentary, 2007 COFS standards too! CFSEI documents 2008 Design Manual

MBMA What's New in The AISI Spec 2009

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MBMA What's New in The AISI Spec 2009

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Whats new in the 2007 AISI Specification

MBMA Workshop, July 2009

Major Changes since 2001

A1.1 Rational engineering analysis

A1.1 Rational engineering analysis

Potential situations for use?

B3.2 Unstiffened elements with stress gradient

pity the simple lip stiffener, calcs got harder

B3.2 Unstiffened elements with stress gradient

C3.4 Web crippling coefficients

C3.4 Web crippling coefficients

C3.6* Bearing Stiffeners

web crippling capacity of the member to be stiffened

axial capacity of the stiffener

C3.6* Bearing Stiffeners

web crippling capacity of the member to be stiffened

axial capacity of the stiffener

Do you ever use bearing stiffeners, why/why not?

C4.7 Compression of Z + standing seam

This is weak axis only.

C4.7 Compression of Z + standing seam

Appendix 1: Direct Strength Method

Major Changes since 2001

Do you ignore these standards? Why? Opportunities here? (more later)

B4 Effective Width and Edge Stiffeners

B4 Effective Width and Edge Stiffeners

C3.1.4 Distortional Buckling in Bending

B4 Effective width and edge stiffeners

from Schafer (1997)

Major Changes since 2001

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

Long. Stress (MPa)

2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 100 200 300 400

Location in the unfolded section (mm)

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

4 Long. Stress (MPa) 2 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8

4 2 0 0 100 -2 -4 -6 -8 Location in the unfolded section (m m ) 100 200 200

Location in the unfolded section (m m )

from Vieira et al. 2009

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

(a) span = 2.7 m

(b) span = 17.1 m

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

(a) span = 2.7 m

(b) span = 17.1 m

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

If the stress distribution we see the above

(a) span = 2.7 m

(b) span = 17.1 m

C3.6 Bending + Torsion

Major Changes since 2001

C4.2 Distortional Buckling in Compression

D3.3 Bracing of Axially loaded...

Bracing has a long way to go...

? D3.2.1 (Cee) ? ? don't need to? simply add?

? D3.2.1 (Zed) ? ? don't need to? simply add?

D6.2.1 standing seam roof panels (revisions)

D6.3 Roof system bracing and anchorage

App1 Direct Strength