×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Direct Analysis Method

Direct Analysis Method

Direct Analysis Method

(OP)
I have been trying to replicate the results of a Direct Analysis Method example given in an article in "Structural Engineer".  The analysis is of a fixed-free column subjected to an axial and lateral load at the free end.  However, I have tried many different approaches and can not seem to match the values they get.

I know that many computer programs are now capable of doing second order analysis and even the Direct Analysis Method, but I would really like to understand how to obtain the answer by hand.

I have attached a file containing the article with the example, as well as my work.  Does anyone know where I am going wrong?

RE: Direct Analysis Method

I just printed it out and ran through it quickly and I noticed that you used 0.47 for taub, but it should actually be 1.0.
If you look at page 16.1-198 of the 13th edition manual, you will see that for alphaPr/Py<=0.5 taub=1.
In your case alphaPr/Py = 0.43 so taub=1.
You used the equation when you shouldn't have.

RE: Direct Analysis Method

(OP)
Thank you StructuralEIT.  I guess I was convinced that my error was in the procedure or theory, and overlooked my simple mistake.  Sometimes it just takes another set of eyes.

RE: Direct Analysis Method

No problem.  I just finished up the rest of it.  One other thing I noticed is that the article uses an out-of-plumbness of 0.01 (I assume they actually mean 0.001 - which is 1/1000).  I hope they don't actually mean 1/100.  
Anyway, using 0.001 and taub=1.0, I get a Mu = 1772K-in.  This is not exactly what they get in 1753K-in, but it's pretty close.  Do you have the rest of the article?  I would be interested in seeing it.  
Check out the article I posted in this thread.  You would probably be interested in reading it.  It's directly from AISC

 thread507-221470: "Do not use K-factors if you're running a p-delta/p-sigma analysis"

RE: Direct Analysis Method

(OP)
So did you use a lateral load of 0.001Pu instead of 0.01Pu for your calculations, or did you just use the out-of-plumbness value of 0.001 for the calculation of Pe2?

And I actually found that article you posted yesterday, which was extremely helpful.  I had been looking everywhere for an actual numerical example on the application of the Direct Analysis Method.  It seems like DAM theory is everywhere, but what good is that if you don't know how to apply it?

I attached the full article that I was referencing.  It is a little outdated, but still useful.

RE: Direct Analysis Method

I used a lateral load of 0.001Pu instead of 0.01Pu.
Thanks for the article.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources