See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269079992

A Comparison of International Design Standards for Assessing Lateral

Stability of Steel Beams

Conference Paper · January 2010

DOI: 10.3850/978-981-08-6218-3_SS-Th036

CITATIONS READS

0 352

4 authors, including:

Andrea Surovek Ian Macphedran

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology University of Saskatchewan
62 PUBLICATIONS   264 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Verification of joist and joist-girder design tables View project

Integrated Structural and Ventilation System for Buildings through Biomimicry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Surovek on 20 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 4th International Conference on Steel & Composite Structures
Wednesday 21 – Friday 23 July 2010
Sydney, Australia

A Comparison of International Design Standards for Assessing

Lateral Stability of Steel Beams

1 2 3 4
A. SUROVEK , I. MACPHEDRAN , V. PALANISWAMY , M.A. BRADFORD
1
Civil and Environmental Eng., South Dakota School of Mines and Tech., Rapid City, SD, USA
<surovek@sdsmt.edu>
2
I.T.S., University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada <Ian.MacPhedran@usask.ca>
3
Civil and Environmental Eng., South Dakota School of Mines and Tech., Rapid City, SD, USA
<varunaraaja.palaniswamy@mines.sdsmt.edu>
4
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, UTS Sydney, Broadway, NSW, Australia
<dean@eng.uts.edu.au>

ABSTRACT

This paper compares the basic design approaches for assessing the lateral stability and
strength of steel beams of many major international structural steel design standards
including the US, European, Australian, Canadian and Indian standards. Included is a
discussion of basic design approaches and how each standard accounts for variations from
the assumptions built into the derivation of the classical elastic critical buckling moment
including inelastic buckling, imperfections, moment gradient, restraint and load position.

1. INTRODUCTION

Structural engineering has increasingly become a global commodity. As engineers are

required more often to develop designs in international locations or work with international
collaborators, it becomes necessary for them to understand the basic philosophies and
methodologies of the numerous international structural design codes and standards. This
paper compares the basic design approaches for assessing the lateral stability and strength
of steel beams of many major international structural steel design standards including:
• United States: AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings [1]
• Australia: AS4100, Steel Structures [2]
• Canada: CAN/CSA-S16-09 Limit States Design of Steel Structures [3]
• Europe: EN 1993-1-1 Design of Steel Structures [4]
• India: IS: 800 Code of Practice for Construction in Steel [5]

All of the standards are based on limit states design. While the US specification allows the
use of Allowable Strength Design (formerly called Allowable Stress Design) along with Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), both use the same strength formulae; only the load
combinations and application of safety factors are different in the two methodologies.
In providing a basic comparison of standards, the paper is limited in scope to doubly
symmetric sections that are capable of reaching the plastic section strength with adequate
lateral bracing (i.e. sections classified as Class 1 or 2, compact, or plastic).

2. OVERVIEW OF CLASSICAL BEAM BEHAVIOUR

2.1 Basis for the strength equations

The basic behaviour of doubly-symmetric steel beams has been extensively studied and is
relatively well understood, particularly in the arena of building construction. For compact or
plastic sections where the flexural strength is not limited by local buckling, beam limit states
are generally categorized by section strength and member strength, the latter being defined
by the elastic critical buckling moment. In each of the five standards, the moment strength is
bounded by the plastic section strength, and the design curve (or curves) is based the elastic
critical buckling moment, as derived in classical stability theory. The main focus of this paper
is to provide an introduction to the strength equations of each of the standards with an
emphasis on how each handles deviations from the basic assumptions inherent in the
derivation of the elastic critical buckling moment.

2.2 The critical elastic buckling moment

In order to compare the specifications, a brief review of the classical derivation of the critical
elastic buckling moment is presented, in which a compact, doubly-symmetric, simply-
supported beam is considered with bending about the major-axis, loaded with a constant
moment. An applied uniform moment represents the most conservative loading scenario
since the compression flange is subjected to a uniform compressive stress up to the point of
buckling when subjected to uniform moment.

In the derivation of the theoretical critical moment, Mcr, the following conditions are assumed.
§ The beam is simply supported beam (warping is unrestrained);
§ Torsion is restrained at the supports;
§ A uniform moment gradient is applied at the shear centre of the beam;
§ The beam is compact with a doubly-symmetric cross-section;
§ Small deflection theory applies (small in-plane deflections and angles of twist);
§ There is no local buckling or distortion of the cross-section;
§ The material is elastic, homogeneous, and isotropic;
§ Bending is about the strong axis.

The derivation can be found in any number of texts on structural stability or behaviour of steel
members [e.g. 6,7]. The differential equation governing the beam behaviour is based upon
the combined effects of St. Venant torsion and warping restraint torsion, and The solution of
the governing differential equation leads to the well known elastic critical buckling moment
equation on which the strength of laterally unbraced beams are based, shown in one of many
published forms, in equation 1

% % . /01
𝑀"# = 𝐸𝐼) 𝐺𝐽 1 + (1)
& 23&.

where G = shear modulus, Iy = weak axis moment of inertia, CW = warping constant and J =
polar moment of inertia.
The following section will provide a comparison of the international standards with an
emphasis on how each accounts for deviations from the ideal conditions in the above
derivations, namely end conditions, moment gradient, yielding, and imperfect geometry.

Standard Short beam / Intermediate Beam Cb and notes

Long beam Equation
Transitions
AISC é æ öù
)çç LL -- LL
E
L £ 1.76 rt
Fy
(
Cb ê M p - M p - 0.7 M y
p
÷ú
÷ú 12.5 M max
/ êë è r p øû £ 3. 0
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
M cr £ 0.7 M y
AS4100 L< æ M p2 M p ö÷
Cb çç 0.6 + 3.0 - Mp 1.7 M max
M cr2 M cr ÷ £ 2.5
è ø M + M B2 + M C2
2
A

N/A
æ 0.28 M p ö 4 M max
S16-09 1.15M p çç1 - ÷÷ £ 2.5
Mp M cr M 2
+ 4 M A2 + 7 M B2 + 4 M C2
£ 0.4688 è ø max
M cr / or
M cr £ 0.67 M p 2
M æM ö
1.75 + 1.05 1 + 0.3çç 1 ÷÷ £ 2.5
M2 è M2 ø
EN1993-1-1 Mp Cb M p Values tabulated for particular
£ 0. 4 cases.
M cr f LT + f LT
2
- 0.75l2LT or
/ ,
CD
Mp 1 − 0.5 1 − 𝑘" ∗
N/A lLT = 𝐶5 =
M cr [1 − 2.0 𝜆&? − 0.8 A ]
, Note: three values of a used
1 + a (lLT - 0.4) + 0.75l2LT based on shape, slenderness,
f LT =
2 and rolled vs welded.
IS 800 Mp Cb M p Values tabulated for particular
£ 0.2 load cases.
M cr f LT + f LT
2
- l2LT
/ ,
Mp Note: two values of a used,
N/A lLT = based on welded or rolled.
M cr
,
1 + a (lLT - 0.2) + l2LT
f LT =
2

MP - plastic moment capacity; My - elastic moment with yield at extreme fibre ; Mcr - elastic buckling moment
Cb - equivalent moment factor; Mn - nominal design capacity; l, a, f = intermediate values for Perry-Robertson
formulae; Lp, Lr – transition lengths in the AISC strength equations; kc = tabulated correction factor considering
moment gradient; M1, M2, MA, MB, MC = moment values at specified points on the moment diagram.

Table 1 Comparison of the basic moment strength equations

3. MOMENT STRENGTH EQUATIONS

3.1. Beam design strength in the specifications

Each of the standards uses the plastic section check for the strength of laterally supported
compact beams, or in most instances, for those beams in which the unsupported length falls
below a limiting value for which the plastic strength may be used. Table 1 provides a
comparison of the base equations for each of the specifications. When appropriate, common
symbols have been used in the equations for ease of comparison.
The US Specification and Canadian standard both employ a three part curve with a linear
transition between the plastic moment capacity and the elastic buckling moment. In the US
Specification, the transition from inelastic to elastic buckling occurs at 70% of the yield
moment, implicitly providing for a residual stress equal to 0.3Fy; the linear transition equation
is given in Table 1. This is consistent with the use of the Galambos and Ketter [8] residual
stress pattern in accounting for the effects of residual stresses in the US column curves. The
US Specification uses an expression linear in the beam length, and the Canadian expression
is linear in the ratio of the plastic moment to the elastic buckling moment.

The remaining standards employ a single curve equation for compact sections, although
unlike the US Specification, most differentiate between rolled and welded sections. The
Canadian standard is a function of the plastic and critical buckling modes as is essentially
unchanged from S16-1974. The Australian curve employs two factors that modify the plastic
moment capacity, an equivalent moment factor and a slenderness reduction factor, and is
essentially a lower bound curve based on extensive experimental tests [7]. The En 1993-1-1
uses multiple curves for rolled compact shapes, depending on depth to width ratios, and is
based on both experimental investigations and distributed plasticity analyses [9]. The Indian
code references numerous specifications, and the beam design provisions are predominantly
a derivative of equations in EN 1993-1-1 and the previous British Standard BS5950. All the
standards, except AISC, employ a ratio of the plastic to critical buckling moment in the
strength equations.

Figure 1 shows a comparison of the strength curves for a simply supported beam with equal
end moments (Cb = 1) , loaded at the shear centre with

EF
𝜆= (2)
EGH

0.8
Mn/Mp

0.6

0.4 S16
AISC
EC3 B
IS 800
AS4100
0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
l
Figure 1 Comparison of international equations for uniform moment
The following sections discuss how each of the specifications account for variations from the
assumptions inherent in the elastic critical buckling moment derivation including moment
gradient, end restraint, imperfections and load location.

3.2 Consideration of moment gradient

Each of the standards includes a factor that accounts for increased beam strength for
moment gradients that create a flexural stress state less severe than that of the case of the
uniform moment. The modification factors are universally labelled as Cb and presented in
Table 1. In AISC, EN 1993-1-1, IS800 and AS4100, the moment gradient factor is used a
direct amplifier of the moment capacity determined from the strength curves. In contrast, S16
specifies application of the moment modification factor to the critical buckling moment rather
than the computed nominal strength. In all instances, the buckling moment computed
considering the moment gradient has an upper bound limit of the plastic section capacity.

3.3 Consideration of end restraint / lateral support / load position

Both load position and end restraint are explicitly considered in AS4100, EC3 and IS800
through use of an effective unsupported length in calculating the buckling moment. The
AS4100 effective length is given by:

𝑙J = 𝑘 K 𝑘 L 𝑘 # 𝑙 (3)

where kt, kl and kr factors are all tabulated values and account for twist restraint, load height
and lateral rotation restraint, respectively. Cross-section restraints are differentiated as
classified as either rotational (twist) or lateral restraint which are further defined as either fully
or partially restrained.

EN 1993-1-1 states that “Mcr is based on the gross cross sectional properties and takes into
account the loading condition, the real moment distribution and the lateral restraints,” and
allows for rational calculation of the elastic buckling load using computational or computer
models such as PRFELB [12]. The critical buckling load can be calculated using an effective
length factor, Lcr = kcrL, in which kcr is an effective length factor that accounts for end restraint.
If the load placement is destabilizing, this must be considered in the calculation of Mcr.

IS800 provides tabulated values for the effective length, LT, used in the buckling equation.
These range from 0.7L and 0.85L for full torsional and warping restraint with the load placed
in the normal or destabilizing position, respectively, to a maximum value of 1.4L+2D (where
D = beam depth) for a beam with partial torsional restraint, no warping restraint and a
destabilizing load placement. EC3 and IS800 are the only two specifications that include an
explicit reduction parameter to account for imperfection effects. The factor aLT in the
equations in Table 1 directly account for the detrimental effect of member imperfections.

The AISC and S16 equations do not explicitly consider end restraint or location of applied
load in the main equation. New provisions in the 2010 AISC specification consider one
special condition: beams laterally braced on one flange in double curvature bending to
account for conservative results that may be obtained in these cases where the braced
flange provides some restraint to the unbraced flange subjected to compressive stresses but
does not prevent the potential for LTB. A variety of Cb equations are included that can be
used in these cases [10]. For example, gravity loaded beams with top flange restraint (see
Figure 2) have the Cb value shown:
 A EP R EST
𝐶5 = 3.0 − −
O EQ O EQ CEP

Figure 2 Example of moment gradient factor for beams with single flange restraint (AISC Figure C-F1.3 [1])

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The paper presents a comparison of basic beam strength equations for five international
specifications. While all vary in form, the different design strength equations are consistent in
that they are based on limit states design in which the plastic section capacity is the upper
bound beam strength, and the strength of unrestrained lengths is based in some form on the
classically derived critical elastic buckling load. The primary deviation in the approaches
comes from the means by which each accounts for inelasticity, whether mechanistically or
empirically, and how each accounts for characteristics of real beams that differ from the
idealized beam model in the classical derivation of the elastic buckling moment.

5. REFERENCES

[1] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-
2010, AISC Chicago, IL, (2010)
[2] Standards Association of Australia (SAA), Steel Structures, AS4100-1998, SAA, Australian Institute of Steel
Construction, Sydney, Australia (1998)
[3] Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Limit States Design of Steel Structures, CAN/CSA-S16-01, CSA,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2001)
[4] CEN, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (EN 1993-1-1),
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2005)
[5] Bureau of Indian Standards, General Construction in Steel – Code of Practice, IS 800: 2007, BIS, New Delhi,
India (2007)
[6] Galambos, T.V., Surovek, A.E., Structural Stability of Steel: Concepts and Applications for Structural
Engineers, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2008)
[7] Trahair, N.S., Bradford, M.A., Nethercot, D.A., Gardner, L., The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures to
th
EC3, 4 Edition, Taylor and Francis, New York, NY, USA (2008)
[8] Galambos, T.V., Ketter, R.L., "Columns Under Combined Bending and Thrust," Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, 85(EM2), 135-152, (1959)
[9] Ziemian, R.D. (ed), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ,
USA (2010)
st
[10] Yura, J.A., “Fundamentals of Beam Bracing,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 38, No.1, 1 Qtr., pp 11-26
(1995).
[11] Papangelis, J.P, Trahair, N.S., Hancock, G.J., “Elastic Flexural Torsional Buckling of Structures by
Computer,” Computers and Structures, 68, pp.125-37 (1998)
[12] Wong, E., Driver R.G., “Critical Evaluation of Equivalent Moment Factor Procedures for Laterally
Unsupported Beams”, Engineering Journal, AISC, (2010)

View publication stats