The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Stability Design for Steel Structures and the Implication due to Wind and
Seismic Loads
Alexander Vega Vasquez¹, Gerardo Chacon Rojas²*
¹Grupo Industrial GRUINSA/ BA Ingenieria, San Jose, Costa Rica
²Terraba Ingenieria SA,,Heredia, Costa Rica

Abstract
The stability design has evolved from a conceptual behavior of a small column (Euler) to the global behavior of
structural systems. It is presented in the latest specifications of AISC; which represents the major changes in that
publications.
The 2005 AISC-360 specification included chapter C Stability and introduced in Appendix 7 a new concept of stability
design called the Direct Analysis Method (DAM). In 2010 the specification, in order to make more efficient the design
process, rewrites the chapter of stability and introduces the DAM as the optimal solution. The traditional method of
effective length (ELM) is relocated to the appendix, in order to start leaving aside the calculation of "K" value.
The DAM due to stiffness reduction, has implications in the structures design with static and dynamic loads. For the
seismic design of structures the guidelines of current design codes must be respected. The required load is determined
with the nominal stiffness, but the response of the structure is based on the reduced stiffness. Any subsequent static
second order analysis can be carried out by the DAM using the reduced member properties and taking account that load
effect.
The successful application of the stability design methodology for seismic conditions lies in meeting all requirements for
seismic detailing, drift control, and P-Δ effects demanded by the codes.
Keywords: Stability Design; Seismic loads; Steel design; Direct Analysis Method; Effective Length Method; Notional Load; Initial
imperfections; Stability Coefficient

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge about the stability has been expanded and conceptually evolved over time. The current investigations and
problems are based on the local and global behavior of structural systems, which exalts the Leonhard Euler formula on
the behavior of columns published in 1744. The investigation applicable to stability have developed from that milestone.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +506-8843-0885 / +506-2537-0044; Fax: +506-2537-0044.
E-mail address: avegav@gruinsa.com / alexvegvaq@hotmail.com
 Currently the development of all kind of projects, and the technological progress mean that there is a greater demand
to produce lighter but stronger structures. It has to increase the strength and slenderness of members, which creates
instability problems. In that lies the importance of been up to date in stability design.

STABILITY: THEORY AND DEFINITIONS

Stability is defined as the capacity of a compression member to remain in position and support load, even if perturbed
slightly out of position by the addition of a lateral load (Ziemian, 2010). An engineering concept for stability is associated
with buckling.
Buckling is the loss of the original shape as a result of elastic or inelastic deformation due to kinks, wrinklings or
bulges (Ziemian, 2010). Euler defined the formula (1) of elastic buckling for columns, P, in 1744, a milestone in the
research related to stability.

(1)

Where E is the modulus of elasticity, I is the second moment of area of the cross section where buckling occurs and
the L is the length of the column.
The stability theory studies the problems associated with instability. Instability is the condition reached during
buckling under an incremental load in a compression member, element or frame where the ability to withstand additional
load is exhausted, which causes an increase in deformation with a loss in the ability to resist loads (Ziemian, 2010).
An isolated column with concentric load, ideal conditions and not a frictionless perfect pin, the elastic buckling load,
, is determined by the equation (2).

(2)

Where K is the effective length factor. The effective length KL defines the portion of the deformed shape between the
inflection points. Isolated column can be considered as a theoretical concept and rarely exists in practice. The columns
are usually part of a structural frame system and it’s stability is related to the stability, stiffness and strength of the
structure for which is surrounded by (Ziemian, 2010).
Stability should be verified for the structural system, frames being the most widespread system. Frame stability
requires that all connections and structural members have adequate strength to withstand the applied loads accomplished
statically equilibrium with the deformed geometry of the structure (Ziemian, 2010). Deformations to consider are the
initial imperfections, the displacements due to the effects of first order and additional displacements due to second order
effects, as shown in Figure 1.
It must be considered in the stability design: the uncertainties by variability in the magnitude and distribution of loads;
and the factors affecting the strength and stiffness. Both of them are affected by the properties of materials, connections,
residual stresses and by manufacturing and assembly tolerances.
 Fig. 1. Frame stability considering the balance with the deformed geometry (White, 2007).

STABILITY DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) in the specification AISC 360-10 allows using several
methodologies for stability design, as long as its validity has been proven. Direct Analysis Method (DAM) is introduce in
the Chapter C, and is the philosophy adopted for frame analysis. In Annex 7, two alternative methodologies for stability
design are presented, the Effective Length Method (ELM) and First Order Analysis Method (FOM). The procedures to be
followed in the design methods for stability as well as its advantages, disadvantages and limitations of their application
are developed extensively in the Design Guide 28 AISC.
Table 1 summarize the main provisions for each design methodology for stability shown.
DAM came up in the 2005 specification following the development of computer packages of second-order analysis for
structural design, in addition to the upgrade of the notional loads application, make possible to improve the procedure for
design stability, which remove the use of the widespread K factor and standardize the design process for all types of
structural system.
DAM main advantages are: use applies to all system frameworks, effective length factor is unitary (K = 1), provides
more accurate estimation values of internal forces and the method can be used for elastic and inelastic analysis and
design. The main disadvantages are: it requires an additional step to modify the stiffness of the members, the application
of additional notional loads, it is more sensitive to the accuracy of the analysis of second order, and is based on an initial
imperfections that may be much lower than estimated.
The ELM was introduced in 1961. Its application was developed primarily for moment resisting frames where the K
factor must be calculated to determine the axial load capacity of the member. The K factor depends on the support
restrictions of the Member and becomes an iterative design process as factor value changes according to the members
connected. It is also permitted to use a value of K=1 for braced frames. The problem occurs in the use of combined
systems, since K is based on buckling of the general system and for such cases it is difficult to define.
Table 1. Main provisions for stability analysis and design, Design Guide 28: Design of stability for steel buildings, AISC.
(Griffis, 2013)

Effective Length Method First Order Analysis

Item Direct Analysis Method (DAM) (ELM) Method (FOM)
AISC 360-10
Chapter C Appendix 7.2 Appendix 7.3
Reference
Limitations on the Δ2nd/Δ1st or B2 ≤ 1.5,
No Δ2nd/Δ1st or B2 ≤ 1.5
use of the Method αPr/Py ≤ 0.5
Second Order Analysis (See Note Second Order Analysis (See
Analysis type First Order Analysis
1) Note 1)

Structure geometry
Nominal Nominal Nominal
in the analysis

0.002Yi
Notional Loads in Minimum if Δ2nd/Δ1st ≤ 1.5 0.002Yi Minimum 2.1(Δ/L)Yi ≥ 0.0042Yi/α
the analysis (See
note 3) Addtional if Δ2nd/Δ1st ≤ 1.5 (See note 2) Additional
(Se note 2)
EA* = 0.8EA
EI* = 0.8τbEI
Member’s stiffness τb = 1.0 for αPr/Py ≤ 0.5 Nominal: EA and EI Nominal: EA and EI
in the analysis τb = 4[(αPr/Py)(1- αPr/Py)] for
αPr/Py > 0.5
(See Note 4)
Chapters E, F, G, H, I Chapters E, F, G, H, I Chapters E, F, G, H, I

Determine K for calculating

K=1 for calculating members member strengths K=1 for calculating members
strengths fromsidesway buckling strengths
Individual analysis (Note 5)
Members Design

Apply amplification
No further member stability No further member stability
considerations considerations B1 = Cm/(1-αPr/Pe1) ≥ 1
to beam-column moments
†
General Note: Δ2nd/ Δ1st is the ratio of second-order drift to first-order drift (this ratio can be taken to be equal to B2
calculated as specified in AISC Specification Section C2.1b). The ratio Δ/ L in the FOM is the maximum first-order story
drift ratio for all stories in the building. Δ/ L in the FOM is calculated using the LRFD or ASD required loads directly (i.e.,
with no increase of the ASD loads by α = 1.6). All other terms should be calculated using the LRFD load combinations or
using 1.6 times the ASD load combinations, i.e., α = 1.0 for LRFD and α = 1.6 for ASD. When using ASD with an explicit
second-order analysis, the resulting internal forces are divided by α = 1.6 prior to conducting member design checks. When
using ASD with amplifier-based procedures, the 1.6 factor is embedded in the amplifier, permitting all the first-order
analyses to be conducted at the α = 1.0 load level but implicitly considering the amplification at the 1.6 level.
Note 1: Any method of second-order analysis that properly incorporates both P-Δ and P-δ effects is allowed, including
procedures such as the amplified first-order analysis “B1-B2” method described in Appendix 8.
Note 2: It’s allowed to model the corresponding nominal initial imperfection directly in lieu of applying the 0.002Yi
minimum or additive notional loads.
Note 3: Notional loads are lateral loads applied at each level of the structure, either as minimum lateral loads in gravity-
only load combinations or as lateral loads applied in addition to other lateral loads in all load combinations. These loads are
equivalent to the destabilizing effects of a nominal out-of plumbness.
Note 4: It can be use τb = 1.0 in all members if additional notional loads of 0.001Yi are applied, additive with any lateral

† Taken from the AISC Steel Design Guide 28: Stability Design of Steel Buildings
loads. Reduction of all flexural rigidities by 0.8τb and all other elastic stiffnesses by 0.8 is recommended
Note 5: It can be use K=1 to braced frames and when Δ2nd/Δ1st ≤ 1.1

ELM main advantages are: is less sensitive to the accuracy of the analysis of the second order, has been the traditional
design method for more than 50 years and is less complicated for simple structures. The main disadvantages are: is not as
accurate to estimate the actual internal forces of the structure, requires calculation of effective length factor, application
of the method has a ratio limit of 1.5 with the displacement of the second order between the first order analysis,
Δ2nd/Δ1st, and requires an expert engineer criteria to apply in complicated cases.
FOM is a simplified and conservative methodology that AISC allows to use under certain conditions for stability
design of steel structures, is not widely used.

STABILITY GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: STRENGTH REQUIRED

AISC 360-10 indicates that the entire structure and its members should be provided to ensure stability and should be
considered: (1) all effects that contribute to the structure displacement; (2) the second order effects (P-Δ and P-δ); (3)
geometric imperfections; (4) stiffness reduction due to the inelasticity; and (5) stiffness and strength uncertainty. The
application of each requirement is presented for each design for stability methodology in Table 1.
Deformations must be considered in the analysis and design due to axial, shear and bending loads; especially for the
contribution they have on the structure displacement.
Second order effects are determined by performing an analysis that satisfies equilibrium in the deformed shape
condition for the structural system, it has to be considered the P-Δ and P-δ effects. P-Δ effects are all loads acting on
nodes due to their displacements. P-δ are all effects of the loads acting on the members deformed shape (Nair, 2011).
AISC360-10 allows to determine the second order effects through a rigorous calculation in the structural analysis and
directly obtaining the required internal forces, which can be done using a computer program where the P-Δ effects are
incorporated. Structure’s stiffness is usually modified due to gravitational loading, generating an iterative process.
Additionally, AISC 360-10 allows to determine second-order effects by applying approximate methods in which
amplification factors of first-order analysis are used. The methodology is widely developed in Appendix 8 and involves
the use of and factors. The procedure is summarized by equations (3) to (6).

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)
 Where is the multiplier factor that accounts for the P-δ effects, is the multiplier factor that accounts for the P-Δ
effects, is the required second order moment, is the required second order axial load, is the not translational
first order moment, is the translational first order moment, is the not translational first order axial load, is the
translational first order axial load, is the coefficient to assume no translational movement, α is the coefficient
modifier according to the design philosophy LRFD or ASD, is the critical load for elastic buckling member in the
analysis direction, is the total vertical load above the floor and is the critical load for elastic buckling in
the analysis direction of the total level.
Geometric imperfections that should be considered are the loss of verticality and out-of-plumbness. Loss of verticality
is refer to the curve can members have due the manufacturing process with a maximum eccentricity of 1/1000 according
to ASTM standard A6; its impact is incorporated into the specification equations to determine the compressive stress of
any member (Ziemian, 2010). Out-of-plumbness corresponds to the tolerance in the erection process, the common
practice is to allow a deviation of 1/500, the effects can be incorporated in the modeling analysis directly by
incorporating the initial displacement or notional loads (see note 3 in Table 1).
Notional loads should not be applied in the lateral load combinations for ELM, but for DAM can be applied if the ratio
of displacements between second and first order, Δ2nd/Δ1st, is greater than 1.5 for nominal stiffness or 1.7 for reduced
stiffness.
Stiffness reduction due to the inelasticity members is an effect due the manufacturing process of several steel sections.
The manufacturing process generates residual stresses affecting flexural stiffness. To consider this effect by the DAM,
there is a stiffness parameter reduction, τb, or additional notional load applies to the structural system. In the case of ELM
effects they are incorporated by the application of effective length factor, K, to determine the elastic buckling.
Effects due to uncertainty in the stiffness and strength are reflected in the design methodology incorporating the
reducing resistance factors, φ, in the case of combinations of LRFD and safety factors, Ω, in the case of combinations
ASD. Additionally, the stiffness is reduced for the DAM.

STABILITY UNDER SEISMIC LOADS: STATIC AND DYNAMIC EFFECTS

The development of seismic loads has a current focus on codes as the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE 7) to reduce the elastic load required as the first expected significant yield on structure will occur.
Costa Rica Seismic Code (CSCR 2010) focus on the constant inelastic spectra response of the structure based on the
expected behavior of the building due to it structuring. In both cases it is expected and is designed that the building has an
inelastic response during the earthquake. The building response expected for an earthquake and wind loads has
considerable differences. For wind loads is expected to be an elastic response even at ultimate loads level.
Seismic design is carried out by the Equivalent Lateral Force method (ELF) or by the Modal Response Spectrum
method (MRSA). ELF is based from the first building’s mode to determine the total shear and it is placed as a lateral
force at each level according to the mass distribution. MRSA is based in the determination of the natural vibration modes
of the building to obtain the internal forces of all members, which, combined with a suitable method to determine the
demanded forces for the members.
It is expected that any form of local and global buckling is controlled to develop the ductility level of inelastic
deformation during the seismic event for the structure. P-Δ effects must be determined for a seismic load but only under
nominal gravitational loads, it is further noted that the "true" seismic response of the building can be addressed by
running a second-order inelastic dynamic time history analysis under a suite of probable ground motions (Griffis, 2013).
Nair indicates that the P-delta effects under seismic loads can be obtained on a rational analysis that can be the Nonlinear
Static Analysis ("pushover"), and/ Nonlinear Response History Analysis (Nair, 2011). The development of seismic
design discussion with stability will performed for DAM and LRFD.
To perform the seismic design should be determined natural vibration modes of the structure; the first mode for ELF;
and for MRSA the necessary modes to obtain at least 90% of the mass (CSCR 2010). These modes have an associated
frequency and period, which is determined from the nominal participation mass and stiffness of the structure (Nair,
2011). Seismic coefficient is obtained as a function of the design spectrum and period; and the seismic force is calculated
by multiplying the seismic coefficient by the weight of the building. Subsequently any static second order by the DAM
analysis can be performed with reduced properties (Griffis, 2013).
The application of the P-Δ and P-δ effects varies according to the specs regulations. The AISC 360-10 recommends
apply P-Δ effects for analysis and members’ design, and P-δ only for individual effects on members design. ASCE 7
recommends not to apply P-Δ effects when the structure coefficient of stability is less than 0.1, which is similar to a value
of 1.2 for the multiplier on the AISC Appendix 8 (Nair, 2011). CSCR 2010 in its comments indicate that could be
ignore the second-order analysis unless some other article required, as long as the displacements are calculated by Article
7.6 and comply with the drift imposed limits.
ASCE 7 stability coefficient, θ, is approximately the ratio of the actual vertical force on a level of a building with the
vertical force would cause the elastic lateral buckling on the level. The coefficient is determined with nominal stiffness,
there is no reduction, and for nominal combinations, using equation (7).

(7)

Where the nominal total vertical load at the x level, Δ is the inelastic displacement occurs under seismic loads
performed, is the importance factor, is the seismic shear load under the level x, is the height at level x and is
the deflection amplification factor.
Stability coefficient and controlling drift limits are the initial parameters to control the structural system stability for
earthquakes and the replicas events. There is an upper limit for the stability coefficient, , which is variable up to a
value of 0.25, which is similar to 1.7 for the multiplier on the AISC Appendix 8 (Nair, 2011). The limit value is
determined by the equation (8).

(8)

Where β is the ratio of the required shear against the capacity shear below the level at study. If the stability coefficient
is higher than the limit, the structure is unstable. Alternatively to performed a rational analysis when is required to
account the second order effects, ASCE 7 allows multiply the values obtained by the first order for the estimation of P-Δ,
equation (9).

(9)

AISC Design Guide 28 indicates the value obtained is similar to from the AISC 360 -10 Appendix 8 with the use of
Rm = 1 instead of 0.85 for moment resistant frames under nominal gravitational loads.
Nair expose the steps for earthquake resistant design and stability under MRSA and ELF procedures, which are shown
in the following paragraphs. Also it is shown a series of recommendations, which are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparison of analytical and stability provisions in ASCE 7 and AISC 360 and recommendations for earthquake
resistant design (Nair, 2011)

Earthquake design
Item ASCE 7 ELF Procedure AISC 360 DAM
recommendations

Observe ASCE limit, which

Stability Coefficient θ must
P-Δ effects’ Limits not exceed θmax. No limits corresponds to P-Δ ≤ 1.33
(See note 1)

Must P-Δ effects be Only when θ is greater than Yes, in all cases Always consider P-Δ effects
considered? 0.1

P-Δ Effects calculations Rational analysis may be

It’s permitted It’s permitted
by rational methods used

P-Δ Effects calculations It’s permitted Multiply lateral It’s permitted. Multiply lateral The AISC method may be
by approximate methods load effects by 1/(1 - θ) load effects by B2 used, 1/(1 - θ) ≈ B2

Must P-δ effects be 360-05: generally yes Observe AISC 360-10 (See
Not specified
calculated in the analysis? 360-10: generally not not2 2)

Observe AISC:
Not specified for rational LRFD: LRFD load
combinations LRFD: LRFD load
Load in the stability analysis. Load factor not combinations
analysis greater than 1.0 for θ ASD: 1.6 times ASD load
calculation combinations ASD: 1.6 times ASD load
combinations

Structure Stiffness in the EA* = 0.8EA Apply factor of 0.8 (sin τb) to
Not specified
stability analysis EI* = 0.8τbEI all stiffneses

Must Initial Yes, with exceptions; either Need not consider initial
Imperfections be Not specified model directly or apply imperfections (neither direct
considered? notional loads. modeling nor notional loads).

Analysis to evaluate the Use of same analysis as for

Elastic stiffness; same type of strength is permissible but
conformance of drift analysis as for strength. Not specified may be too conservative (See
limits
note 3)

Use linear analysis (without

Analysis to determine Not specified, although upper Not specified P-Δ effects) with nominal,
period limits are defined.
unreduced stiffnesses.
Note 1: The stability coefficient, θ, is calculated at lower load than used in AISC stability analyses; therefore, P-Δ multipliers
corresponding to the ASCE 7 thresholds are not strictly comparable to AISC 360 parameters.
Note 2: Regardless of whether it is considered in the analysis of the overall structure, P-δ must always be considered in the
strength check of individual beam-columns.
Note 3: Nair recommends when it is a case that is not extremely conservative review the drift with nominal stiffnesses.

The steps to properly develop earthquake resistant design for the ELF procedure are as follows (Nair, 2011):
1. Determining the fundamental period of the building by analysis or by using approximate methods. If it is
determined by analysis, a first order analysis should be performed with nominal properties, not the reduce ones.
a. Consider second-order effects, either by including these effects in the analysis or amplification of a first-
order analysis as indicated in Appendix 8 AISC 360-10. Consideration of the effects can be done by:
b. A second-order analysis considering P-Δ and P-δ effects.
c. Second-order analysis considering only P-Δ, followed by amplification factor for individual members
(not allowed to perform in exceptional cases where the inclusion of P-δ effects on the overall analysis is
required for the AISC Specification).
2. Analysis of the first order amplified by and multipliers.
3. The analysis of second order or first order amplified using LRFD load combinations for designing with that
philosophy.
4. Apply a factor of 0.8 for all members’ stiffness in the second-order analysis or calculating and multipliers.
No need to be reduced by τb for seismic load combinations.
5. It is not necessary to model imperfections or apply initial notional loads to consider.

The steps to properly develop earthquake resistant design process by MRSA are (Nair, 2011):
1. Determine modes and frequencies using a first-order analysis, with nominal (unreduced) stiffness.
2. Determine the forces in each member due to the gravitational load for a first-order analysis with reduced stiffness
(factor of 0.8).
3. Use the properties of each mode and the design response spectrum to determine the lateral forces for each mode.
Use the lateral force to perform a first order analysis. To determine the internal forces of each member with the
stiffness reduce by a factor of 0.8. It should be repeated for modes into consideration.
4. Second order effects should be considered using the approximate method of Appendix 8 AISC calculating a
single factor for all modes, depending on the level and direction of lateral translation, based on the reduced
stiffness (factor of 0.8) and the total vertical load at each level. Nair indicates that must be perform for the LRFD
combination, AISC Design Guide 28 states that may be the nominal load.
5. Combine the modal results of the first order (item 3). Apply the factor to internal forces caused by the lateral
load. The combined results loss the algebraic signs in modal combinations; and therefore, the internal forces due
to seismic effects must be considered reversible.
6. Combine internal forces at the members due to seismic effects (point 5) and the gravity loads effects (point 2),
with the corresponding load factors specified in the code (ASCE 7 or CSCR 2010).
7. Apply the amplification factor to individual members. should be based on the total axial force of the
LRFD combination for each member. It should also include the axial forces due to lateral loads, but should only
apply when caused by gravitational loading (usually applied conservatively to the total moment).

After performing the analysis for either case it should perform the resistance checks according to the AISC
Specification. The effective length factor, K, is equal to 1 unless a lower value is justified for some rational method
(DAM).
 Finally performed the check for the drift limits according to the code in use (ASCE 7 or CSCR 2010). It is allowed to
use the resistance analysis to check the drift limits with extremely conservative results or is possible to performed a
different analysis with not reduce stiffness. From the displacements obtained by any of the chosen analysis, amplified the
elastic displacement to obtain the inelastic displacements and them perform the corresponding revision.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. Consider the P-Δ effects in the analysis and design of all structures and P-δ effects in the analysis when required
by AISC Specification. Should always apply the P-δ effects for the individual member’s design.
2. Stability design for wind loads consists to apply the steps in the AISC 360 -10 specification and Design Guide
28, because wind loads are generally considered static and buildings usually have an elastic response.
3. P-Δ effects must be calculated for seismic load obtained by the reduced elastic spectrum or constant ductility
inelastic spectrum, and not for a seismic load from inelastic analysis or the amplified seismic load.
4. P-Δ effects are determined for seismic effects with nominal gravitational loads and not for the ultimate loads.
5. P-Δ effects corresponding to seismic loads are determined by codes for the elastic displacements due to the
reduced level of seismic loads, not to the amplified displacements or for expected inelastic displacements.
6. Successful use of any stability design methods lies in meeting all requirements for applying the detailed seismic
codes, also must meet drift limits and P-Δ effects limits.
7. It is recommended for steel structures to determine by the nominal properties the effect of seismic loading, either
by the ELF or MRSA. Any subsequent statically second order effect can be carried out by the DAM using the reduced
member properties and accounting of that load effect.

REFERENCES

[1] American Institute of Steel Construction. (2010). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. ANSI/AISC
341-10. Chicago, USA.
[2] American Institute of Steel Construction. (2010). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-10.
Chicago, USA.
[3] Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica. (2011). Código Sísmico de Costa Rica 2010. Editiorial
Tecnológica. Cuarta Edición. Cartago, Costa Rica.
[4] Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica. (2013). Comentarios al Código Sísmico de Costa Rica
2010. Editiorial Tecnológica. Primera Edición. Cartago, Costa Rica.
[5] Griffis L. and White D. (2013). Steel Design Guide 28: Stability Design of Steel Buildings. AISC. Chicago, USA.
[6] Nair, S. Malley, J. and Hooper, J. (2011). “Design of Steel Buildings for Earthquake and Stability by Application of
ASCE 7 and AISC 360”. AISC. Engineering Journal. Third Quarter 2011, pp. 199-204.
[7] White, D. Surovek, A. and Chang, C. (2007). “Direct Analysis and Design Using Amplified First-Order Analysis
Part 2: Moment Frames and General Framing Systems”. AISC. Engineering Journal. Fourth Quarter 2007, pp. 323-
340.
[8] Ziemian, R. (2010). “Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures”. Sixth Edition. Wiley. New Jersey,
USA.