Author Summary
R. Shankar Nair is a principal with Today's computational technology
Nair/KKBNA, consulting engineers,
in Chicago. He is also senior vice
R. Shankar Nair president and national technical
director of KKBNA Incorporated,
consulting engineers, headquar-
tered in Denver.
Nair received his doctorate
degree in civil engineering from the
Simple Solutions University of Illinois, Urbana, in
1969. He spent 15 years with a
to Stability Problems structural/civil engineering design
in the Design Office firm in Chicago and two years as
an independent structural engineer-
ing consultant before joining
KKBNA in 1986.
During his career, Nair has been
responsible for the structural design
of many high-rise buildings of 30 to
70 stories in Chicago. He has also
designed several major bridges,
including long-span structures over
the Mississippi. These designs
have received numerous awards for
engineering excellence.
An active lecturer, researcher
and participant in professional
activities, Nair has written numer-
ous technical papers on structural
analysis and design. He is a mem-
ber of several technical commit-
tees, including the ASCE Commit-
tee on Design of Steel Building
Structures, and chairman of the
ICTBUH Publications Committee.
38-1
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
permits rigorous solution of almost
any stability analysis problem that
might arise in the course of struc-
tural engineering design. Complete
large-deformation analysis can be
performed now on structures for
which even a linear analysis would
have been practically impossible 30
years ago. Nonetheless, stability
analysis and design for stability
remain among the most intractable
of problems in structural design
office practice.
The sophisticated tools that exist
today for stability analysis have not
yet been integrated into normal
design office procedure. Stability
effects are not included routinely in
the analyses that are used for
structural design. Consequently,
stability remains an issue that must
be addressed separately in the
design, separate from the basic lin-
ear analysis on which the design is
based. The treatment of stability
effects as a separate issue is not
necessarily a source of great ineffi-
ciency, thanks to the existence of
certain simple but effective meth-
ods of considering stability in struc-
tural design.
As explained in this paper, simple
solutions sufficiently accurate for
use in design are available for
many of the stability problems
faced in structural engineering prac-
tice. These problems include lateral
stability of buildings and towers,
connection of columns to floor dia-
phragms, treatment of floors that
are bypassed by the overall lateral
load-resisting system, truss bracing,
and many other situations.
 SIMPLE SOLUTIONS TO STABILITY PROBLEMS
IN THE DESIGN OFFICE

by R. Shankar Nair

INTRODUCTION

Today's computational technology permits rigorous solution of

almost any stability analysis problem that might arise in the
course of structural engineering design. Complete
large-deformation analysis can be performed now on structures for
which even a linear analysis would have been practically
impossible thirty years ago. However, these sophisticated
computational tools have not yet been integrated into normal
design office procedure.
Stability effects are not included routinely in the analyses that
are used for structural design. Consequently, stability remains
an issue that must be addressed separately in the design,
separate from the basic linear analysis on which the design is
based. The treatment of stability effects as a separate issue is
not necessarily a source of great inefficiency, thanks to the
existence of certain simple but effective methods of considering
stability in structural design.
Simple solutions sufficiently accurate for use in design are
available for many common stability problems including lateral
stability of buildings and towers, connection of columns to floor
diaphragms, connection of floor diaphragms to the lateral
load-resisting system, and truss bracing.

STABILITY OF MULTISTORY BUILDINGS

The special characteristics of multistory buildings have been

used to develop very simple techniques for including lateral
stability or "P-delta" effects in the design of these structures
(1,2). Though orginally developed for tall buildings, these
simple techniques are applicable to all buildings in which the
floors act as diaphragms that are rigid in their own plane. The
rational basis of these techniques is explained in Ref. 1. The
procedures are outlined below.

Preliminary Assessment of Stability Effects

The importance of lateral stability effects in a building can be

assessed even before any analysis is performed. The ratio of
actual vertical load on the building to the load that would cause

38-2
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
lateral buckling (of either a single story, by shear racking, or
an entire tall building, as a flexural cantilever) can be
estimated using the following equation:

In this equation, "Wind Drift/Height" is the maximum drift/height

ratio (either single story or for the entire building)
anticipated due to the "Wind Pressure" shown in the denominator.
"Depth" is the plan dimension of the building in the direction of
wind loading and buckling being considered. "Density" is the
total weight of the building and its contents divided by its
total volume.
Typical values of density range from about 10 lb/cu. ft for steel
office buildings to 20 lb/cu. ft for concrete apartment
buildings. Concrete office buildings lie near the middle of this
range.
As an example of the application of Equation 1, consider a steel
office building that has a depth of 120 ft in the direction of
loading and buckling being considered. It is to be designed to
have a drift/height ratio no greater than 1/450 for a uniform
wind pressure of 30 psf. The ratio of actual to critical load
is:

The corresponding magnification factor (applicable to all

moments, forces and displacements caused by lateral loading) is:

For design purposes, load/resistance factors should be applied in

the computation of the magnification factor, which yields:

These factors provide a preliminary assessment of the importance

of lateral stability effects in the building and can be used in
the initial proportioning of members, before any lateral load
analysis is done. After linear lateral load analyses have been
performed, stability effects can be determined with greater
accuracy and included in the design of members and connections by
means of the following procedure.

38-3
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Procedure for Design

The suggested procedure for including lateral stability or

"P-delta" effects in the design of buildings is based on the
magnification factor concept. Separate magnification factors are
used for overall moment or overturning effects and for horizontal
shear or "racking" effects. [ In a particular building, either
of these effects (overturning or racking) might be insignificant,
in which case the suggested procedure will yield an
unrealistically high magnification factor for that effect. This
is not a major drawback since the high factor would be applied to
very small moments and forces.]
The magnification factors are determined from the results of
linear, first-order analysis of the structure. The procedure is
as follows:

1. Perform linear analysis of the structure for the design

lateral loadings.
2. Compute the critical vertical load for overall flexural (or
overturning) buckling, per unit height, from the
following:

where H is the total height of the building; f is a lateral

load per unit height; and is the lateral displacement at
the top caused by load f. [If the loadings in the analysis
do not include a uniform lateral loading, for f use the value
of uniform load that would produce the same base moment as
the lateral loading actually used in the analysis.
Alternatively, if the design loadings are extremely
non-uniform, include an arbitrary uniform lateral loading
among the loadings in the analysis and use this uniform
loading for computing .] Equation 2 is illustrated in
Figure 1.
3. Compute the magnification factor for overall moment or
overturning effects from the following:

where is the magnification factor; is the critical load

determined in Step 2; and p is the actual average vertical
load on the building per unit height. (Load factors should
be included as explained later.)

38-4
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
4. Apply magnification factor to the following effects of
lateral loading: Axial forces in columns; moments and axial
forces in shearwalls.
5. For each story of the building (or for each of a few
representative stories) compute the critical load for shear
racking buckling, from the following:

where h is the story height; V is the total horizontal shear

force in the story for a particular loading condition; and
is the lateral deformation of the story caused by that
loading. The factor of 0.82 may be replaced by 1.00 if most
of the vertical force in the story is in columns or walls
that remain essentially straight between floors.
Intermediate values may be used. Equation 4 is illustrated
in Figures 2 and 3.
6. Compute the magnification factor for shear racking effects in
the story from the following:

where is the magnification factor; is the critical load

determined in Step 5; and P is the actual total vertical
force in the story. (Load factors should be included as
explained later.)
7. Apply magnification factor to the following effects of
lateral loading: Moments ana shear forces in columns;
moments and shear forces in beams; shear forces in
shearwalls; axial forces, moments and shears in diagonal
bracing members.
8. After all member forces and moments due to lateral loading
have been multiplied by or , as appropriate, the members
should be designed in accordance with the "braced against
sideway" provisions in the design specifications. Column
effective lengths may be taken (conservatively) as the actual
length between floors. All connections must be designed for
the magnified forces and moments.
Load Factors.- When and are to be used to design members
and connections for strength and safety, load factors should be
applied to p and P and strength reduction factors should be
applied to and in Equations 3 and 5. If load factor design
is being used, the load and strength factors should be as
specified explicitly in the design specifications. If working
stress design is being used, a combined load and strength factor
of 23/12 may be applied to Load factors and

38-5
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
strength reduction factors should not be included in the
calculation of and values that are to be used only for
evaluating serviceability conditions.
Sidesway Effects of Vertical Loading.- In Steps 4 and 7 of the
design procedure, magnification factors are applied to the
effects of lateral loading. In buildings in which vertical
loading causes significant sidesway, and should also be
applied to the sidesway effects of vertical loading.

CONNECTION OF COLUMN TO FLOOR DIAPHRAGM

In the design of multistory buildings, it is assumed customarily

that individual columns cannot buckle laterally at the floors;
they are held by the floor diaphragms, which force all columns to
move together at every floor. While this assumption is
reasonable (and is implicit in the stability design procedure
outlined above), there is considerable disagreement among
designers as to the required strength of the column to floor
diaphragm connection. Connection strengths ranging from 0.004 to
0.020 of the axial force in the column have been used in design.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the force required to restrain a
column at a floor can be approximated by the algebraic difference
between the products of column force and tilt in the stories
above and below the floor. (The "tilt" is the mean
out-of-plumbness of the column in the story.) The relationship
is approximate in that shear force in the column has been
neglected; the shear would tend to reduce the required
restraining force.
For multistory buildings, changes in column axial force from
story to story are relatively small and the restraining lateral
force required at a floor can be represented by the column force
below the floor times the difference in tilt in the stories above
and below the floor.
For a column in a multistory building, the sources of
out-of-plumbness are erection imperfections and horizontal floor
movements due to deformation of the lateral load-resisting
system. Deformation of the lateral load-resisting system can be
caused by external lateral loading and also by P-delta effects.
The maximum erection out-of-plumbness may be taken as 0.002,
which is the tolerance specified in AISC's Code of Standard
Practice. Since the column can tilt in opposite directions in
adjacent stories, the maximum difference in tilt above and below
a floor due to erection imperfections can be taken as 0.004.
The maximum relative horizontal movement of adjacent floors due
to deformation of the lateral load-resisting system (caused by
lateral loading and P-delta effects) can be expected to be in the
range of 0.002 to 0.003 of story height, i.e., the maximum column

38-6
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
tilt due to floor movements is 0.002 to 0.003. Since column
out-of-plumbness caused by load-induced floor movement is not
likely to be in opposite directions in adjacent stories, the
maximum difference in tilt between adjacent stories due to floor
movement may be taken as 0.002.
It can be concluded that connections between columns and floor
diaphragms should be designed to transmit a horizontal force of
0.006 times the axial force in the column below the floor. [This
is in addition to any horizontal force applied directly to the
column.]

Types of Connections

Consider a fully stressed W14X730 Grade 50 column. The force in

the column is about 5800 kips. The required capacity of the
column to floor diaphragm connection is 0.006 X 5800 = 35 kips.
If a 3" thickness of concrete is bearing on the column on all
sides, the minimum bearing area is about 3 X 18 = 54 sq. in. and
the bearing stress is 35/54 = 0.65 ksi, which is well within
allowable limits.
It is clear from this example that interior columns fully
surrounded by concrete slabs generally have ample lateral
restraint and do not require special connections to the floor
diaphragms. However, special connections might be required for
columns adjacent to edges and openings in floors.
If a composite beam from the interior of the floor frames into an
edge column, the beam to column connection can be designed for
the horizontal restraining force in combination with the usual
vertical reaction. This might require an increase in the size of
the connection for small beams at heavy columns.
Two types of simple, direct connection between column and floor
diaphragm are sketched in Figure 5. In one case, a U-shaped
reinforcing bar wraps around the outside of the column. In the
other type, a long U-bolt (or, alternatively, one or two straight
or J bolts) is connected directly to the column. In either case,
the anchoring element must be developed into the interior of the
concrete floor slab and must extend far enough into the interior
to avoid a pulling-out failure of the part of the floor engaged
by the bar or bolt.

CONNECTION OF FLOOR TO LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING SYSTEM

The connection of columns to floor diaphragms has been discussed.

The sum of the horizontal forces transmitted to a floor diaphragm
through these connections must, eventually, be fed to the lateral
load-resisting system. The connection of the floor diaphragm to
the lateral system must be of adequate capacity to achieve this
load transfer.

38-7
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
A simple and conservative approach is to check the connection for
a horizontal force of 0.006 times the total vertical force in the
story below the floor under consideration, excluding forces in
components of the lateral load-resisting system. [This
horizontal force is in addition to forces that result directly
from external loading.]
The horizontal force of 0.006 times vertical force can be applied
in any direction. If torsion is a concern, horizontal forces of
0.006 times column force could be applied in different directions
at different column locations, in such a way as to create the
greatest torsional loading on the connection to the lateral
load-resisting system.
The forces suggested for designing or checking the floor
diaphragm connections are not additive over successive floors.
They are conservative estimates of the maximum force that can
occur at a particular floor. It is not necessary to check the
lateral load-resisting system for the summation of these forces
over two or more floors.

FLOOR NOT ENGAGED BY LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING SYSTEM

An elevation of a large braced frame is sketched in Figure 6.

This can be a very effective and efficient lateral load-resisting
system. However, careful inspection of the frame layout will
reveal that even-numbered floors are not provided with lateral
restraint by the bracing system. [If all members, including the
beam segments on each side of the diagonals, are considered to be
pin-ended, the even-numbered floors have no lateral stiffness.
If the beams at even-numbered floors are flexurally continuous
across their connections to diagonals, the floors would derive a
small degree of lateral stiffness from the flexural stiffness of
the beams.]
Situations similar to that sketched in Figure 6 are not unusual
in multistory buildings with large braced frames. Certain
mezzanines and partial floors are other examples of floors that
are not engaged by the overall lateral load-resisting systems of
buildings.
One approach to these situations is to add members as necessary
to create an essentially rigid connection between the floor in
question and the overall bracing system. Another approach is to
leave the floor unconnected to the lateral load-resisting system
and to account for this in the design of columns and other
components.
Figure 7 shows the same structure that was shown in Figure 6, but
with additional members to provide lateral restraint to the
even-numbered floors. All floors can be considered "braced" if
the connections to the lateral load-resisting system meet the
strength requirements discussed earlier.

38-8
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
If the additional members indicated in Figure 7 are not provided,
the even-number floors cannot be considered to be laterally
restrained by the overall lateral load-resisting system. The
simplest approach, in this case, is to design all columns as
though they were laterally unsupported at the unrestrained
floors. This procedure might be excessively conservative,
especially if some of the columns are much more slender than
others.
A more reasonable technique is to combine the stiffnesses of all
columns into a single imaginary column extending between
laterally restrained floors (two stories in the present example),
and to check this combined column for the sum of the loads in all
columns. Individual columns also should be checked; they may be
assumed to be supported laterally at every floor.
The general design approach, when some floors in a multistory
building are bypassed by the overall lateral load-resisting
system, is to treat the structure between laterally restrained
floors as an imaginary single column of appropriate stiffness,
supported laterally at top and bottom. If there are no
beam-column moment connections, the stiffness of the imaginary
column is simply the sum of the individual column stiffnesses.
If the framing is more complicated, the subassembly between
laterally restrained floors can be analyzed separately (under
unit lateral loads at appropriate locations) to determine the
characteristics of an equivalent single column.

TRUSS BRACING

The restraining forces exerted on an out-of-straight truss

compression chord by a bracing system are illustrated in Figure
8. [As a simplifying idealization, lateral flexure and shear in
the chord are neglected.] As indicated in the figure, the
restraining force at a bracing point is the algebraic difference
between the products of chord compression and skew angle on the
two sides of the bracing point.
The forces exerted by the out-of-straight chord on the bracing
system are, of course, the reverse of the restraining forces on
the chord. The resultant lateral shear in the bracing in any
panel is the product of chord compression and skew angle in that
panel (see Figure 8). This result could be arrived at by
summation of the forces at the bracing points. It could also be
obtained directly as the lateral component of the compression in
the truss chord.
The sources of chord out-of-straightness are construction
imperfections and deformation of the lateral bracing system.
Deformation of the bracing can be caused by external lateral
loading and also by the forces required to restrain the
out-of-straight chord.

38-9
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
AISC's Code of Standard Practice specifies that compression
members must be straight to within 1/1000 between points of
lateral support. However, there do not appear to be standards
for the skew of the straight line between lateral support points
( in Figure 8). In the absence of a specific standard
tolerance, this writer assumes a maximum skew of 0.003 and an
algebraic difference in skew between adjacent panels of 0.006 due
to imperfections in fabrication and erection.
The maximum likely skew due to deformation of the lateral bracing
system depends on the type of bracing. A panel of diagonal
bracing with a 45" diagonal angle is shown in Figure 9. If the
forces on this bracing system cause a strain of 0.00103 (which
corresponds to a stress of 30 ksi) in the diagonal and negligible
strain in the chord, the resulting skew of the chord would be
0.00207. This result is not very sensitive to the angle of the
diagonal. For angles of 22.5° to 67.5° the maximum chord skew
caused by a strain of 0.00103 in the diagonal is 0.00293. These
skew calculations are valid both for bracing systems with
diagonals that support tension and compression and for those in
which diagonals carry only tension, provided that the strain in
the cross strut is small.
From these simple calculations, the maximum chord skew due to
bracing deformation can be assumed to be 0.003 for trusses with
diagonal bracing consisting of bolted or welded steel members.
This is in addition to the chord skew caused by construction
imperfections, which is also assumed to be 0.003, as discussed
earlier. Thus, the maximum total skew in any panel can be taken
to be 0.006 and the maximum difference in skew between adjacent
panels can be assumed (very conservatively) to be 0.012.
It can be concluded that the lateral bracing system should be
designed for a transverse shear at any location of 0.006 times
the axial force in the compression chord at that location. The
connection of the chord to the bracing system should be designed
for a transverse force of 0.012 times the compression in the
chord (average of adjacent panels). These shears and connection
loads are the requirements for restraining the compression chord
against lateral buckling. The bracing system must be designed
for externally-applied lateral loading (if present) in addition
to the chord-restraining effects.
The shears and connection loads suggested for design of the
bracing system are the maximum values at each location. These
maximum values do not occur simultaneously at different locations
and are not additive or cumulative. Application of the suggested
connection design loads as external forces would result in
grossly overconservative bracing design.
If two or more parallel trusses are braced by a single bracing
system, the total force in all chords should be used to determine
the design loads on the bracing. Struts connecting remote
trusses to the bracing system should be designed for the sum of
the single-point restraining forces (0.012P) from all the trusses

38-10
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
restrained by the strut. If there is a possibility of
significant length change in the strut, the bracing design
factors of 0.006 and 0.012 should be increased to account for the
greater possible skew of the truss chords.
The suggested forces and shears for design of bracing to provide
lateral restraint to truss chords (0.012 and 0.006 of chord
compression) are for diagonally braced systems with the following
characteristics: diagonal angles of 22° to 68°; diagonal member
axial stress no greater than 30 ksi due to chord-restraining
effects plus externally-applied lateral loading; negligible axial
strain in bracing system cross struts; negligible axial strain in
truss chord due to lateral effects; lateral skew of unloaded
truss chord not greater than 0.003. For trusses and bracing
systems having different characteristics, different design
factors can be derived by modifying the simple calculations that
were used to arrive at the 0.006 and 0.012 factors.

SUMMARY

Simple solutions have been suggested for some of the stability

problems frequently encountered in structural engineering
practice. The solutions are approximate, but they are
sufficiently accurate for use in structural design in most
practical situations. Enough information about the suggested
solutions is provided to permit the designer to judge whether the
solutions are applicable in particular instances.

REFERENCES

1. Nair, R.S., "Tall Building Stability—Practical

Considerations," Materials and Member Behavior, Proceedings
of Structures Congress '87, ASCE, Aug. 1987.
2. Nair, R.S., "A Simple Method of Overall Stability Analysis
for Multistory Buildings," Developments in Tall
Buildings—1983, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 1983.

38-11
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 1.- Bending and Buckling of Flexural Cantilever

Figure 2.- Lateral Loading and Buckling of Shear Element

Figure 3.- Alternative Loading and Buckling Configurations

in Story of Building

38-12
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 4.- Restraining Force on Out-of-Plumb Column
at Floor

Figure 5.- Direct Connection of Column to Floor Diaphragm

38-13
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 6.- Braced Frame; Even-Numbered Floors
Laterally Unrestrained

Figure 7.- Braced Frame; With Additional Members

to Restrain Even-Numbered Floors

38-14
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 8.- Restraining Forces on Out-of-Straight Truss
Compression Chord From Bracing System

Figure 9.- Chord Skew Due to Strain in Bracing System

38-15
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.