562 MEMBERS sec. 5.31 2 So + fi = 373 4 496 — 9,170 + 0.274 = 0.444 1022 1803 The use of the AISC interaction formulas was illustrated in Examples 5.39 through 5.42. While one may be certain that this is not the final word in design, it is the best method yet devised for treating a number of rather complex, related problems in a rather simple fashion. The formulas and their elements have been shown to have rational bases. However, the large amount of ingenious empiricism that has gone into combining them into a reliable multipurpose design approach must also be acknowledged. 5.31, LATERAL BRACING OF COLUMNS AND BEAM COLUMNS In the buckling problems examined in previous sections, various conditions were given: the type of loading, the geometrical configuration of the member or frame, the cross-sectional properties, the type of supports and joints, and the location of laterally supported points, The question was to determine the load at which such a member or frame would buckle. This is the normal sequence, the engineer having established these conditions from studies of feasibility and economy. Answering the buckling problem proved rather easy for simple structures. For more complex cases it was shown that there is an approximate method (the interaction formulas and their adjuncts) which gives a reliable indication of when a member will fail, provided its supports and connections act as they are assumed to act. While there are satisfactory con- ventional procedures for proportioning main joints and supports, there are no simple, general analytical techniques for securing adequately strong and stiff lateral bracing. This is perhaps the most vexing problem in the design of any structure subject to instability Codes and specifications are of little help. In a few cases they mentionPART HHL MEMBERS 363 details of attachment and arrangement of bracing, but they are generally silent regarding its requisite strength and stiffness. Lateral support may either be continuous or spaced at intervals, For columns, noncontinuous bracing in the form of crossbeams, ties, or struts attached at intervals is naturally more common. But when a column is em- bedded in a masonry wall or, as in the case of light-gage studs, it has sheathing attached throughout its length, the support may be practically continuous. For beams, continuous bracing supplied by floor or roof decks secured to the upper flange is more common than intermittent bracing. When the support is continuous and obviously strong and stiff, full encasement of a column in a brick wall or full covering of a beam’s compression flange by a concrete deck, for example (Fig. 2.21b), there is no need to investigate the possibility of buckling in the braced direction, When the support is continuous but of a lighter variety, wood or light-gage steel sheathing or decking, for example, the member should, at least in principle, be treated as one on nonrigid supports. The same is true for the usual noncontinuous bracing. The trouble has been that, until recently, there were no simple, practically useful theories for the imeraction of main members and bracing. Consequently, proportioning of lateral bracing has been at best empirical and, at worst, pure guesswork, In Ref, 5.43, Winter has treated noncontinuous and continuous bracing of both columns and beams, offering at least a partial answer for each. His suggestions for the noncontinuous bracing of columns will be outlined here. Reference 5.38 may be consulted for tentative recommendations on the strength and stiffness of bracing in plastically designed structures. 5.31.1. REQUIRED STIFFNESS Consider first an ideally straight, slender, prismatic column of length 21. Its critical load is P., = *EI/(2I)° (Fig. 5.97a). If a nondeflecting support is placed at midspan, the critical load is increased fourfold (Fig. 5.97b). Next assume an intermediate case, q member of the same total length but having (a yielding support at midspan (Fig. 5.97c). The important characteristics of this support are its stifiness and strength. The former will be investigated first. The support may be treated as a linear elastic spring whose stiffness (spring constant) is kat @ To give reality to this concept, the support may be visualized as a straight elastic bar. When pulled or compressed, its extension or shortening is d= Fl,/A,E, where |, is its length and 4, its area, Its spring constant is therefore F _A,E kaa () There are many other ways to furnish elastic or qua: