Design

g of Beam
Column

By

Ass. Prof. Dr. Ehab B. Matar

 B
Beam-Column
C l
 Nearly all-structural members in building frames or industrial
portal frames are subjected to both bending moments and
axial load either in tension or compression forms


(a) (b) (c)

BEHAVIOR OF BEAM
BEAM-COLUMN
COLUMN UNDER AXIAL
LOAD AND BENDING MOMENT

 Behavior of beam column = behavior of beam

(considering effect of lateral torsional buckling)
+
behavior of columns (considering effect of global
M
buckling)
M ult

P = const.
M varies
M' ult

M
M' 
My

P


Fig. Relationship for I beam

Modes of failure of Beam- Column
Johnson [3] has mentioned a number of modes of failure that
characterizes a beam-column behavior which are summarized as
follows:
 Failure by yielding: in the case of member subjected to
bending moment and axial tension force.
 Failure
F il by
b instability
i t bilit in i the
th plane
l b di without
off bending ith t
twisting for the case of beam-column that is transversely loaded
but is stable w.r.t. Lateral torsional buckling.
 Failure
F il by
b lateral
l t l torsional
t i b kli for beam-column
l buckling
loaded about their strong axis without adequate bracing.
 Failure byy instability
y about one of the p principle
p
axes for members subjected to axial compressive force and
biaxial bending moment with stiff sections (W-shapes).
 Failure by combined twisting and bending for the
case of thin walled open sections (that are torsionally weak
sections) subjected to axial compression force and biaxial
bending moment.
Design Criteria of Beam-
Column
 Assessment of Buckling length
 Effect of P-
 Design of sections subjected to M,T and
others
th subjected
bj t d tto M
M,N
N
 Checking g local buckling
g
 Preliminary section design
Assessment of Buckling
Length
1. Kinds of buckling in beam column:
 Buckling out of plan (Lby): will be
governed by the vertical bracing profile
 B kli in
Buckling l (Lbx): will
i plan ill b
be governeddb
by
the end conditions of the columns and the
relative stiffness between different
members.
Ex.:- Buckling out of0 plan
1:1 4

1.5m 1 0.7I 0.7I

2.5m
I 0 23I
0.23I
4m

Vertical wind bracing

24m

 Lby=4m
 Buckling in Plane
 F well
For ll defined
d fi d end
d conditions
di i , the
h bbuckling
kli llength
h could
ld b
be
estimated as per the following table

Buckling Shape

k values = 0.65 0.80 1.00 1.20 2.00 2.10

Rotation fixed & translation fixed

End condition Rotation free & translation fixed
R i fixed
Rotation fi d & translation
l i free
f
Rotation free & translation free
 For Portal Frames: the alignment chart is used to determine
the buckling coefficient factor k based on the following
assumptions:
assumptions:-
 All behavior is elastic.
 The members are prismatic.
 All columns reach their respective buckling loads
simultaneously.
 For braced frames (no side sway), the girders are assumed to be
in single curvature while for un-braced frames (side sway is
permitted), the girders are assumed to be in double curvature.
 At a joint
joint, the restraining moment provided by the girders is
distributed among the columns in proportion to their stiffness.
 The girders are elastically restrained at their ends by the
columns,
l andd att the
th onsett off buckling
b kli theth rotations
t ti off the
th
girders at its ends are equal and opposite.
 The ggirders carry y no axial loads.
 Determine the factor G expressing the relative
stiffness at the two ends of the columns as follows:
Ec I c
 Lc
G
Eg I g
 Lg

 Where EcIc, EgIg are flexural stiffness of the column

and girder meeting at a joint while Lc, Lg are the
column
l and
d girder
i d llengths
th
 It is to be noted based on ECP recommendations
that:
 When the col. End is hinged G=10
 When the col.
col End is fixed G=1.0
G=1 0
Alignment Chart
Steps to use alignment chart
1. Calculate
C l l t ththe G coefficient
ffi i t att both
b th ends
d off th
the columns
l
2. It is to be noted that when the far end of the girder is fixed or
hinged a modification factor is to be applied as follows:
 The far end is hinged, then multiply EgIg /Lg ratio by 0.5 for the
case of side sway is permitted and 1.5 for the case of side sway
is prevented.
prevented
 The far end is fixed, then multiply EgIg /Lg ratio by 0.67 for case of
side sway is permitted and 2.0 for case of side sway is
prevented.
t d

3. Decide
ec de whether
e e the
e frame
a e is
s pe
permitted
ed o
or p
prevented
e e ed from
o sside
de
sway and then use proper alignment chart
upper col. is upper col. is
permitted to sidesway permitted to sidesway

lower col. is lower& upper col. are lower col. is

prevented from both permitted to prevented from
sidesway sidesway sidesway
 For truss frame: two options may be adopted
1. Treating the column of the frame truss as a column partially
fixed at truss end or
2. Solving the truss frame as a portal frame with girder stiffness
50 to 100 times column stiffness
stiffness.

2a

h'
50 - 100 Ic

h'=h+a

Fig.(6.5) Buckling for column-truss frames

Beam- Column with Crane
Beam
 Examples
Ex1
 Required: Calculate the column
buckling
b kli llength
th iin plane
l off th
the
frame if end A is hinged and end
D is fixed considering the frame
is permissible to side sway 1:10
 Solution: B I I C

 For Column AB 7m 1.5 I 1.5 I

 End A is hinged,
g , then GA=10
A D
 At end B GB = ( ∑Ic/Lc)/( ∑ 26m

IG/LG) = (1.5I/7)/(I/26.13) = 5.6

 From the alignment chart with
side sway permitted, K = 2.6
 Then, Lbx = 2.6x7 = 18.2m
 However, on substituting into equation 6.4 for GA and
GB K approaches
GB, h a value
l off 2.63
2 63 to
t satisfy
ti f the
th
equality sign.
 For Column CD
 End D is fixed, then GD = 1.0
 And at end C Gc = ( ∑Ic/Lc)/( ∑ IG/LG) =
(1.5I/7)/(I/26.13) = 5.6
 From the alignment chart with side sway permitted K =
1.72
 Then, Lbx = 1.72x7 = 12.04m.
 It is worth noting that the fixation at column end has
reduced the buckling g length
g factor K by y nearly
y 33.85%
compared with hinged case.
 Ex2
 Given: The shown two story
building frame, knowing that C I F I H
end G and H of the girders is
fixed to the adjacent R.C. shear 3m 2I 2I

wall. B 2I E 2I G Shear Wall

 Required: Calculate the 4m

4I 3I

columns buckling length in

A D
plane of the frame if end A is 6m 7m

fi d and
fixed d endd D iis hi
hinged.
d
 Solution:
 For Column AB
 GA = 1.0 (end A is fixed)
 GB = (4I/4+2I/3)/(2I/6)=5.0
 From the alignment chart
for side sway prevented
K=0
K 0.85
85
 Lbx = 0.85 x 4 = 3.4m
 For Column DE
 GD = 10 (end D is hinged)
 GE = (3I/4+2I/3)/(2I/6+2x2I/7) = 1.57
 From the alignment chart for side sway
prevented K=0.89
K 0.89
 Lbx = 0.89 x 4 = 3.56m

Ex.3
Given: The shown truss
frame, knowing that end A is
hi
hinged
d and d end
d B iis fi
fixed
d 3 5m
3.5m

 Required: Calculate the 8m

columns buckling length in A B
plane of the truss frame
frame. 16x2.4=38.4m

 Solution:
9.75m
 For Column A
 The buckling length can be 75 Ic
found by two different 9.75m

methods:
38 4
38.4m
 Method 1: assuming the
column as hinged – partial
fixed to the truss. Then
f
from table
t bl (5.3)
(5 3) iin th
the
Egyptian code K=2.0. The
height of the column h’ =
8+3 5/2 = 9.75m.
8+3.5/2 9 75m
 Lbx = 9.75x2.0=19.5m
 Method 2: transforming the truss frame into an
equivalent
q g
gable frame with an assumed largeg stiffness
value of the rafter (assumed here 75Ic)
 GA = 10 as the column is hinged and
 GB = (Ic/9.75)/(75Ic/(2x19.3)=0.05
 From the alignment chart with side sway permitted
K=1.68
 Lbx=1.68x9.75=16.38m
 The difference in the two methods is referred to the
approximate assumption of modeling the truss stiffness.
However in the second method if the truss stiffness is
varied between 50Ic and 100Ic then the K factor will vary
between 1.7 and 1.67 respectively.
 For Column B
 Again the buckling length will be found by two different methods:
 Method 1: assuming the column as fixed – partial fixed to the
truss. Then from table (5.3) in the Egyptian code K=1.2.
K 1.2. The
height of the column h’ = 8+3.5/2 = 9.75m.
 Lbx = 9.75x1.2=11.7m
 M th d 2:
Method 2 transforming
t f i the
th truss
t frame
f into
i t an equivalent
i l t gable
bl
frame with an assumed large stiffness value of the rafter
(assumed here 75Ic)
 GA = 1.0 as the column is fixed and
 GB = (Ic/9.75)/(75Ic/(2x19.3)=0.05
 From the alignment chart with side sway permitted K=1K=1.16
16
 Lbx=1.16x9.75=11.31m
 Pb Pb

P- Effect
Pt Pt Pc Pc

f b
b f
t c

 Sections sub. to M, T  Sections sub. To M, N

Pb L 3
Pt f L
2
Pb L 3
Pc f L2
 f  b  t   f  
48 EI 8 EI 48 EI 8 EI
Pb L Pt Pt Pb L Pc f Pc
fb    f  fb    
4Z x Z x A 4Z x Zx A
Moment Magnification factor for beam
columns prevented from side sway
W(z)

 Assuming that Pe = P P

π2EI/L2 and α = P/Pe y 

y1
z
L

Mo
Mi
b- Intial B.M.D.
   2 EI 0   1
M z max  M 0 1   .  1. p(y1+ )
  1
2
  M 0L
L/II
L/2
  2 EI 0 
cm  1   . 2
 1 c- P -  effect
Fig. (6.6) Simplified Analysis of Beam-column
 M 0 L 
cm
Am 
1

M z max  M 0 . Am
 Moment Magnification
g factor for beam
columns permitted to side sway
L
cm
M max  M 0 . Am  M 0 . H
P P
 y1

1 IG=infinity
L

  2 EI 0 
cm  1   2
 1 P P(+ y1)

 4M 0 L
H/2
/

 y1

L Secondary B.M
assumed as a qurter sine curve
P 4 PL2
  2 H/2

Pe  EI P

( H / 2) L3 HL  effective length
g 2L is
 0  & M0  used in calculating the
3EI 2
  2 EI  HL3  2  
value of α, Cm
 cm  1   2     1
 4 L  6 EI  HL  
 Design of sections subjected
to M,T
 Failure of these members is governed by
yielding
y g
f N  f M  f pt
N
fN 
Anet
Mx My
fM  
Z xnet Z ynet
 Moreover, the compressive bending stress
shall be checked against the lateral
torsional buckling stress.
Examples
Example 1
 Given:-
M=20mt,, T=15t,, St.37,,
Beam is restrained laterally at supports
 Required:- Design of steel beam

 Solution:-
f N  f M  f ptt
T M
  f pt , then multiplying by A;
A Zx
A
T .M  f pt . A  PEQ
Zx
 Assuming A/Zx = 0.07 then:
 PEQ = 15+20E2x0.07
15+20E2x0 07 = 155t
 Areq = PEQ/fpt = 155/1.4 = 110.7cm2
 Trying IPE 500 with the following geometrical
properties
 Zx = 1930cm3, A = 116cm2, L’ =258.2cm,
h=d=50cm, Af=20x1.6=32cm
f 2, rt = 5.17cm

 Checking the class of the cross section

 flange is subjected
s bjected to p
pure
re compression
 C/tf = (20/2-1.02/2-2.1) /1.6=4.6  O.K. class 1
 web is subjected to bending and tension force
therefore
  < 0.5. Then,, a = N/(2tw.Fy)=
( y) 3.06cm,,
 , dw/tw = 42.6/1.02 = 41.76
 63.6
 which is smaller than  95.5 O.K. Class 1
 Fy
T M
fN  fM  
A Zx
15
fN   0.129t / cm 2
116
20 E 2
fM    1.036t / cm 2
1930
 f N  f M  0.129  1.036   1.17 & 0.91t / cm 2

 the resultant tensile stress is +1.17 t/cm2 < fpt for steel 37,
OK
O.K.
 Checking compressive stresses of –0.91 t/cm2, and as the
top flange is braced laterally at supports only which results
i unsupported
in t d llength
th off 500cm
500 > Lumax = 258.2cm
258 2
therefore, a check for the lateral torsional buckling should
be carried out.
 3 The
3- Th allowable
ll bl compressive i stress
t iis governeddb
by th
the
lateral torsional buckling stress which is given as the
maximum of either:
 800
f ltb  .Cb
Lu .d / A f
Cb  1.0
800 x32
f ltb  .1.0  1.024t / cm 2
500 x(50)
Lu 500 C C
  96.71  188 b &  84 b
rt 5.17 fy fy
 Lu / rt 2 . f y 
 f ltb  0.64  . f y
 1.176 E 5 xC 
b

 (96.71) 2 x 2.4 
f ltb  0.64   x 2.4  1.08t / cm  0.58 f y
2

 1.176 E 5 x1.0 

 Then fltb = 1.08 t/cm

/ 2 and this value < fbc and
therefore controls.
 Fact=0.91t/cm2<Fbc=1.08t/cm2 => O.k safe
 Design of sections subjected
to M,N
 Failure of these members may be governed by
instability f ca f bx f by
 . A1  . A2  1
fc f bcx f bcy
cmx cmy
A1  & A2 
f ca f ca
1 1
f Ex f Ey
 fca = actual compressive stress due to axial
compressive force = P/A
 fc = the
h allowable
ll bl b
buckling
kli stress off the
h memberb
considered as a column
 fbx, fby = the bending stresses about the x and
y axes
 fbcx, fbcy = the allowable compressive bending
stress
Allowable Bending Stresses
 The allowable bending stress will depends
on:
on:-
1. Section Class
2. L t l un-supported
Lateral t d length
l th off compression
i
flange
 Local buckling for eccentric Sec.

N
The maximum web to thickness ratio for compact sections are 1- a 
699 / F y
2t w.Fy
dw
for   0.5 then 
tw 13   1
dw 63 . 6 2- Then determine the value of  as follows:
for   0.5 then 
tw  Fy
h
The maximum web to thickness ratio for non-compact sections are For rolled section dw  a c 
2
dw 190 / Fy
for   - 1 then 
tw 2 h
95 (1   )  
For welded section dw  a  tf S
d
for   - 1 then w  2
tw Fy
 Allowable Stresses in Bending

 For compact sections bent about major axis

Fbc  0.64 Fy bf
C tf
in condition that the max. lateral unsupported length Lu is not excceding
either of d dw tw
20b f 1380 A f
or Cb
Fy dFy
where M1 M2
Af  b f * t f
2
M  M 
Cb for beams without transverse loadingg  1.75  1.05 1   0.3 1   2.3
 M2   M2 
 For transverse loaded members Cb is taken from table (4.2)
 For compact section bent about minor axis Fbc=0.72F
=0 72Fy
 concrete slab concrete slab

Flange embedded composite beam with shear connector

open web joist

welded

unbraced braced

stiffener
welded or bolted roof purlin
lateral buckling of floor system
strut

Types of lateral restraints

 For Compact sections not satisfying the above limits or Non-
Compact sections satisfying the above mentioned limits,
Fbc=Fbt=0.58Fy
 When the lateral unsupported length Lu exceeds the maximum Lu
then the maximum bending compression Fbc is the min. of either
0.58Fy or max. of either Fltb1 and Fltb2
800
Fltb1  Cb
Lu .d / A f
Cb
When Lu / rt  84 then
Fy
3
Fltb 2  0.58Fy t f b f / 12
rt 
C C b f t f  1 / 6 Aw
When 84 b  Lu / rt  188 b then
Fy Fy
  L 
2

  u r  .Fy 
Fltb 2   0.64   t  5  Fy  0.58 Fy
 1.17 x10 Cb 
 
 
Cb
When Lu / rt  188 then
Fy
12000
Fltb 2  2
Cb  0.58Fy
 Lu 
 r 
 t
continue
where
7500 7500
f Ex  & f Ey 
x 2 y 2
Cm  moment modification factor
 M1 
Cm  0.6  0.4  for frames prevented from side sway
 M2 
without transverse loadingg
Cm  0.85 for frames prevented from side sway with transverse
loading and moment restraint at ends
Cm  1.0 for frames prevented from side sway with transverse
loading and simply supported at ends
Cm  0.85 for frames permitted to side sway
 M2

M1

frames prevented from side sway frames prevented from side sway frames prevented from side sway
without transverse loading with transverse loading with transverse loading
M1<M2 with end moment restraints without end moment restraints
 00
7500 7500
00
f Ex  & f Ey 
x 2
y 2
Preliminary Section Design
Based on the AISC specifications [4] a simplified treatment was carried
out to facilitate the first trial of choosing the beam column cross section.
f ca f b
 .A1  1.0
f c f bc
 
 
P M  cm   1.0
 
A.f c Z.f bc  f ca 
1 
 fE 
Multiplying the last equation by A.fc
 
 
 A   f c  c m   A.f  P
 P  M .
 Z   f bc  1  f ca  c EQ
 
 fE 
The term (cm/(1-(fca/fE))) may be taken unity & the ratio of A/Z may be
termed B which is given in the steel tables and may roughly be taken equal to
0.07 for most steel sections, then,
f
PEQ  P  M.B. c .................................................................(6.23)
f bc

PEQ
Thus
h a cross sectional b assumedd as A g 
i l area may be while
hil a section
i
fc
modulus can be calculated the same way as before where Z/A14-15
Z f bc
M EQ  P. .  M ..............................................................(6.24)
A fc
M EQ
Thus a trial sectional modulus can be obtained as Z 
f bc
Example 2
 Given:- St. 37, shown beam
Case M1 M2 P
1 +20mt +20mt -15t
2 +20mt -20mt -15t
3 +20mt +20mt -60t
4 +80mt +80mt -15t

 Required:- Design the beam for different combinations

 Solution:-

 Case
C 2
 M1= +20mt, M2=-20mt i.e. double curvature, P = -15t

 Assuming
Ass ming that B = A/Z is nearly
nearl equal
eq al to 0.07
0 07 &
the slenderness ratio in the range of 40, and therefore for St.
37 fc will equal to 1.3t/cm2 and while fbc is 1.4t/cm2
 fc 1.3
PEQ  P  M .B.  15  0.07 x 20 E 2 x  145t
f bc 1.4
PEQ 145
 Areq    111 .5cm 2
fc 1.3

 If λ = 40,, then ix ≥ 500/40 ≥12.5cm

 iy ≥ 250/40 i.e. ≥ 6.25 cm,
 Zx > 2000/1.4
2000/1 4 i.e.
i e >1428
>1428.6cm
6cm3.
 Try section of I.P.E. 500 may be checked knowing
the following geometrical properties:
 A = 116 cm2, Zx = 1930 cm3, ix = 20.4cm, iy =
4 31cm rt = 5.17cm,
4.31cm, 5 17cm
 Lumax = 258.2cm, h = d = 50cm, Af = 20x1.6 = 32cm2
 Checking class of the chosen section; Flange
C/tf = 10/1.6=6.25 16.9 / Fy = 10.33 O.K class 1

 For web; Npw=(50-2x1.6)x1.02x2.4=114.57t >> N=15t.

Therefore:
 a = N/(2tw.Fy) = 3.06cm,
h 50
d w  ac   3.06  3.7    0.57
2 2
dw/tw  42.6/1.02  41.76 which is smaller than
699
 70.4
(13  1) Fy
 O.K. Class 1
 P 15
 f ca    0.129t / cm 2
A 116
500 250
x   24.51 &  y   58
20.4 4.31
max  58, f c  1.4  0.000065 x(58) 2  1.18t / cm 2
f ca
 0.109  0.15  A1  1.0
fc
M 20 E 2
f bx    1.04t / cm 2
Z x 1930
As the maximum lateral unsupported length L’=258.2cm for this section,
which is greater than the actual distance between lateral restraints of the
compression flange (250cm), therefore there is no need to check for the lateral
torsional buckling stress.
stress Therefore the value of fbc is controlled by the
allowable bending stress, which is 1.4 t/cm2.
f ca fb
 . A1  1.0
fc f bc
0.129 1.04
   0.85  1.0
1.18 1.4
O k safe
O.k
Example 3 5.33

12.16mt
1:10 4
3 3
 Given:- 1.5m 1 0.7I 0.7I 2

9.5mt
2.5m
I 0.23I B.M.D
4
4m

Vertical wind bracing

24m 24m

I.P.E.
360mm 360 338.7
N.A.
1
2 I.P.E. 360
320 8
12.7
170

the distance between purlins or side girt is restricted to 2m.

Sec. M(mt) N(t)
1 -16.93(case I) -5.19(case I)
2 0(case I) -11.22(case I)
-4.72(case II) -6.85 (case II)
3 -22.02(case I) -2.66(case I)
4 +10.38(case I) -2.13(case I)
Required:-
Design
D i th the shown
h fframe using
i StSt. 52 considering
id i ththe effect
ff t
of existing knee bracing or not for sections 1 and 3 and
compare between the two cases
Solution:-
Design of Sec. 1
M = 16.93mt, N = -5.19 t
Considering that λmax will nearly be 80 then fc = 1.24t/cm2.
Calculating the buckling length: Lby = 400cm
For calculating Lbx, the frame is permitted to side sway, GA = 10
I/8
(hinged base) and G B   4 . 3 therefore from the alignment
0 . 7 I / 24 . 12
chart K = 2.5. Thus Lbx = 2.58=20m.
2000 400
Then for λ = 80, i x   25 cm & i y   5 cm
80 80
Hence
f 1 . 24
P EQ  P  M .B . c  5 . 19  0 . 07 x16 . 93 E 2 x  75 . 17 t
f bc 2 .1
P EQ
Q 75
 A req    60 . 62 cm 2
fc 1 . 24
Zx > 16.93E2/2.1 i.e. >806.19cm3.
Case of existing of knee bracing
Knee bracing detail for the rafter
Knee bracing detail for the column
 When a knee bracing is used then Lu= the
di t
distance between
b t side i t i.e.
id girt i 200cm
200
 When there is no knee bracing then Lu= the
distance between the point of maximum moment
and the point of zero moment i.e. 800cm.
 Case 1: no knee bracing
 A trial section of I.P.E.. No. 360 was tried first and
found to be unsafe for low lateral torsional buckling
stress, therefore another section of I.P.E. No.500
may be checked knowing the following geometrical
properties
ti
 A = 116cm2, Zx = 1930cm3, ix = 20.4cm, iy =
4 31cm rt = 5.17cm,
4.31cm, 5 17cm
 L’ = 258.2cm, h = d = 50cm, Af = 201.6 = 32cm2
 Checking Section class and actual stresses
a- Flange:
Fl C/tf=10/1.6=6.25
10/1 6 6 25 16.9 / Fy =8.9
89O O.K
K class
l 1

b- Web: is subjected to bending moment and compression

force then:
force,
Npw = (50-21.6) 1.023.6 = 171.85t >> N = 5.19t.
h
( w.Fy))= 0.71cm,, d w   a  c    0.52 ,
Therefore,, a = N/(2t
2
699
dw/tw=42.6/1.02=41.76 which is smaller than  63.96
(13  1) Fy
O K Cl
O.K. Class 1
P 5.19
 f ca    0.045t / cm 2
A 116
2000 400
x   98.04 &  y   92.81
20.4 4.31
 max  98.04, f c  2.1  0.000135x (98.04) 2  0.8t / cm 2
f ca
 0.06  0.15  A1  1.0
fc
M 16.93E2
f bx    0.88t / cm 2
Zx 1930
 As Luact=800cm > Lumax=258cm, a check for lateral torsional buckling is
needed as follows
fltb is controlled by the greater value of
800A f 800x32
f ltb  .C b  .1.75  1.12t / cm 2
L u .d 800x 50

Where: α = 0/16.93 = 0 and Cb = 1.75

or
L u 800 C
  154.74  188 b
rt 5.17 fy
12000
 f ltb  .C b
2
 Lu 
 
 rt 
12000x1.75
f ltb   0.88t / cm 2  0.58f y
154.74 2

Fbc=1.12 t/cm2.
On checking the stabilit
stability interaction equation
eq ation it was
as found
fo nd that the section
is safe:
f ca f b
 .A1  1.0
f c f bc
0.045 0.88
   0.84  1.0
0.8 1.12
Case 2: of existing knee bracing
Searching for these approximate initial requirements a trial section of
I.P.E. No. 400 may be checked knowing the following geometrical properties:
A = 84.5 cm2, Zx = 1160cm3, ix = 16.5cm, iy = 3.95cm, L’ = 189.7cm
Checking class of the chosen section:
a- Flange: C/tf=9/1.35=6.6716.9 / Fy =8.9 O.K class 1
b- Web: is subjected to bending moment and compression force, then Npw =
(40-21.35) 0.86  3.6 = 115.48t >> N = 5.19t.
h
Th f
Therefore, a = N/(2tw.F
Fy) = 0.84cm,
0 84 d w   a  c    0.53 ,
2
699
dw/tw=33.1/0.86 = 38.49 which is smaller than  62.55 O.K.
(13  1) Fy
Class 1
 P 5.19
 f ca    0.061t / cm 2
A 84.5
2000 400
x   121.21 &  y   101.27
16.5 3.95
 max  121.21, f c  7500 /(121.21) 2  0.51t / cm 2
f ca
 0.119  0.15  A1  1.0
fc
M 16.93E2
f bx    1.46t / cm 2
Zx 1160

Lumax’=189.7cm < Luact =200cm, therefore there is a need to check for

the lateral torsional buckling stress.
12.6975
  0.75
18.93
C b  1.75  1.05x 0.75  0.3x (0.75) 2  1.13
fltb is controlled by the greater value of
800A f 800x18x1.35
f ltb  .C b  .1.13  2.75t / cm 2  0.58f y
L u .d 200x 40
 Therefore the value of fbc is controlled by the allowable bending stress for
that type of steel, which is 2.1t/cm2.
O checking
On h ki the
h stability
bili interaction
i i equation
i it
i was found
f d that
h the
h
section is safe:
f ca f b
 .A1  1.0
f c f bc
0.061 1.46
   0.815  1.0
0.51 2.1
Therefore on using knee bracing there is a saving on column steel
weights that reach 36.8%.
 Design of Sec. 3
M = 22.02mt, N = -2.66 t
For the rafter, the effect of the normal force is generally very small and
the rafter may be designed only for bending
bending.
Hence:
M 22.02E2
 Z req    1233cm 2
f bt 0.85x 2.1

When knee bracing is used Luact = dist. Between purlins=200cm otherwise

for no knee bracing Luact= distance between the maximum bending moment
and the point of zero moment i.e. 5.33m

Case 1: of no knee bracing

I.P.E.
450mm 450 416.19
N.A.
1
I.P.E. 450
2
414 9.4
14.6
190
 Searching for these approximate initial requirements a trial section of built
up section composed of I.P.E. No. 450 + 1/2 I.P.E. No. 450 was tried first and
may be checked knowing the following geometrical properties:
A = 164.084cm2, Zt = 3292.2cm3, Zc = 3059.73cm3, ix = 28.9cm,
iy = 3.91cm, rt = 5.54cm, d = 86.4cm, Af = 19x1.46 = 27.74cm2,
L’ = 200.3cm
M 22.02E2
f bc    0.72t / cm 2
Z c 3059.73
M 22.02E2
f bt    0.79t / cm 2  2.1t / cm 2 .O.K safe
Z t 3292.2 x 0.85
 As Lumax’ = 200.3cm considering that Cb = 1.75 as α = 0 for this section,
< Luact =533cm, therefore there is a need to check for the lateral torsional
buckling stress.
fltb is controlled by the greater value of
800A f 800x 27.74
f ltb  .C b  .1.75  0.84t / cm 2
L u .d 533x86.4

Where: α = 0/22.02 = 0 and Cb =1.75

Or
Lu 533 C C
  96.21  188 b &  84 b
rt 5.54 fy fy
 L u / rt 2 .f y 
 f ltb  0.64  .f y
 1.176E5xC b 
 
 (96.21)2 x3.6  2
f ltb  0.64   x3.6  1.72t / cm  0.58f y
 1.176E5x1.0 

Therefore the lateral torsional buckling fltb = 1.72t/cm2. Therefore the allowable
value of fbc is controlled by the lateral torsional buckling stress which is 1.72 t/cm2
which is larger than the actual stress = 0.72 t/cm2 O.K safe.
Case 2 of existing knee bracing
I.P.E.
360mm 360 338.7
N.A.
1
2 I P E 360
I.P.E.
320 8
12.7
170

Searching for these approximate initial requirements a trial section of built

up section composed of I.P.E.. No. 360 + 1/2 I.P.E.. No. 360 was tried and
may be checked knowing the following geometrical properties
A = 118.874cm2, Zt = 2015.73cm3, d = 68cm,
Af = 17x1.27 = 21.59cm2 , rt = 5.07cm, L’ = 153.35cm
M 22.02E2
f bc    0.826t / cm 2
Z c 2000.38
M 22.02E2
f bt    1.29t / cm 2  2.1t / cm 2 .O.K
Z t 2015.73x0.85
 As Lumax’ = 153.35cm considering that Cb = 1.26 as α = -12.16/22.08 =
-0.55 for this section,, <Luact=200cm,, therefore there is a need to check for the
lateral torsional buckling stress:
fltb is controlled by
y the g
greater value of
800A f 800x 21.59
f ltb  .C b  .1.26  1.6t / cm 2
L u .d 200x 68

or
Lu 200 C
  39.43  84 b
rt 5.07 fy

 f ltb  0.58.f y  2.1t / cm 2

Therefore the value of fbc is controlled by the lateral torsional buckling stress of
2 1 t/cm2, which is greater than the compressive bending stress of
a value of 2.1
0.826 t/cm2 . Therefore the chosen section is safe. Although using smaller
section may be quite safe but this section satisfies the maximum permissible
deflection and any reduction in member stiffness may fall beyond the allowable
deflection limits. However, on using knee bracing there is a saving on rafter
steel weights that reach 27.56%
Thank you
y
&
Good Luck
Ass. Prof. Dr. Ehab Boghdadi Matar