Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Revised 5195
JosephA. Yuca
University of Texas at Austin
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to provide a fairly comprehensiveview of the subject of beam
stability bracing. Factorsthat affect bracing requirementswill be discussedanddesignmethodsproposed
which are illustrated by designexamples. The designexamplesemphasizesimplicity. Before going into
specific topics relatedto beambracing, someimportant conceptsdevelopedfor column bracingby Winter
(1960) will be presentedbecausetheseconceptswill be extended10beamslater.
where Pe
bracepointsat full or idealbracing;in Pcr
this casethe ideal brace stiffness.Bi = 2 Pel Lb
= ~
EI/Lb2. Any brace with a
full bracing
~
lt¡ t
p
f. to the ideal value, the heavy solid line in Fig. 2(a) showsfue relationshipbetweentJ.r and P. For P =
l:- O, tJ.r= .6.0. WhenP increases thebucklingload,r2 EI/Lb2, fue total deflectiontJ.r
andapproaches
t,
t
becomesvery large. For example,whenthe appliedload is within 5% ofthe buckling load, tJ.r= 20.6.0.
If abrace stiffness twice fue value of the ideal stiffnessis used, much smaller deflectionsoccur. When
the loadjust reachesthe bucklingload,the tJ.r= 2~. For .BL= 3.BiandP = Pe , tJ.r= 1.5~. The
brace force, Fbr , is equalto (tJ.r - .6.0 ).BL and is directly relatedto fue magnitudeof the initial
imperfection. If a member is fairly straight, the braceforce will be small. Conversely,memberswith
r~ large initial out-of-straightnesswill require larger braces. Ifthe bracestiffnessis equalto the ideal value,
: then the brace force gets very large as the buckling load is approachedbecausetJ.r gets very large as
1 1
~
3
0.8 0.8
P ti¡.¡.p ~ 7
Pe O.6 L Pe 0.6 ~I
b
04 ~ 0.4
0.2 L 0.2 40 =0.002~
Ao =0.002L b tp /0.8 % p.
00 4 8 12 16 20 00 1% 2% 3% 4'1
2
! shown in Fig. 2(a). For example, at P = 0.95Pcr and.1.0=Lb / 500, the braceforce is 7.6% of Pe which
i is off the scale of the graph. Theoretically the brace force will be infinity when the buckling load is
I reachedif the ideal bracestiffnessis used. Thus. a braces~stemwill not be satisfactorvif the theoretical
- ideal stiffness is ¡!rovided becausethe brace forces get toa large. If the bracestiffness is overdesigned,
asrepresented by the.BL= 2.B¡and 3.B¡curves in Fig. 2(b), then the braceforces will be more reason-
able. For abracestiffnesstwicethe idealvalueanda Lb / 500,the braceforceis onIy 0.8%Pe at .1.0=
P = Pe ' not infinity as in the ideal brace stiffness case. For abrace stiffnessten times the ideal value,
the brace force will reduceeven further to 0.44%. The braceforce cannotbe less than 0.4%P corres-
ponding to .1.= O (an infinitely stiff brace)for .1.0= Lb / 500. For designFbr = 1%Pis recommended
basedon abrace stiffness of twice the ideal value and an initial out-of-straightnessof Lb / 500 because
the Winter model gives slightly unconservativeresults for the midspanbraceproblem (Plaut, 1994).
Published bracing requirementsfor beamsusually onIy consider the effect of brace stiffness
becauseperfectly straight beamsare considered. Such solutions should not be used directly in designo
Similarly, designroles basedon strengthconsiderationsonIy, suchas a 2 % role, can result in inadequate
bracing systems. Both strength and stiffness of the brace systemmust be checked.
whereas
!
co
umn
uc
mg
mvo
ves
pnmarl
y
en
mg
'.'---:::
,i an~ torsion. An eff~tive beam brace res~sts ~, "'" "'...~.~:- '
f
1r
~ ~
I~ that twist of the cross section is restrained. TORSIONAL BRACING
1 F . 1 ed b b . ed Through
'1 or a slmp y support eam su ~ect to Girders ,
Lateral bracing can be divided into four categories:relative, discrete, continuousand lean-on.
A relative bracesystemcontrols the relative lateral movementbetweentwo points along the spanof the
1 2 3 :v- ten. flg. restraint 3
1 ~..A is best
tive
a) brace location ~A
- center of twist
.
ce
~ ~:~A
ange
~ ~
A .
R- centroid brace
relatively i.neffective
center of twist
rder b) top flange loadlng
brac~ ~A
]0- brace location
~, ,\ comp.flg.can
\~ ..-J
A ~) movelaterally
c) cross section distortion sect A -A
girder. The top flange horizontal truss system shown in Fig. 4 is an example of a relative brace system.
The system relies on fue fact that if fue girders buck1e laterally, points a and b would move different
amounts. Since fue diagonal brace prevents points a and b from moving different amounts, lateral
buck1ing cannot occur except between fue brace points. Typically, if a perpendicular cut anywhere along
fue span length passesthrough one of fue bracing members, fue brace system is a relative type. Discrete
systems can be represented by individual lateral springs along fue span length. Temporary guy cables
attached to fue top flange of a girder during erection would be a discrete bracing system. A lean-on
system relies on fue lateral buck1ing strength oflightly loaded adjacent girders to laterally support a more
heavily loaded girder when all fue girders are horizontally tied together. In a lean-on system all girders
must buck1e simultaneously. In continuous bracing systems, there is no "unbraced" length. In this paper
only relative and discrete systems that provide full bracing will be considered. Design recornmendations
for lean-on systems and continuous lateral bracing are given elsewhere (Yura, 1992,1993). Torsional
brace systems can be discrete or continuous as shown in Fig. 3. Both types are considered herein.
Some of fue factors that affect brace design are shown in Fig. 5. A lateral brace should be
attached where it best offsets fue twist. For a cantilever beam in (a), fue best location is fue top tension
tlange , not fue compression flange. Top tlange loading reduces fue effectiveness of a top flange brace
because such loading causes fue center of twist to shift toward fue top flange as shown in (b). Larger
lateral braces are required for top flange loading. If cross members provide bracing above fue top flange,
case (c),the compression tlange can still deflect laterally if cross-section is not prevented by stiffeners.
In fue following sections fue effect of loading conditions, load location. brace location and cross-section
distortion on brace requirements will be presented. All fue casesconsidered were solved using fue elastic
finite element program BASP (Akay, 1977; Chao, 1987) which considerslocal and lateral-torsional
buck1ing including cross-section distortion. The BASP program will handle many types of restraints
including lateral and torsional braces at any nade point along fue span along with transverse and
longitudinal stiffeners. The solutionsand fue designrecornmendations presentedare consistent with the
work of others: Kirby and Nethercot (1979), Linder and Schmidt (1982), Medland(1980), Milner (1977),
Nakamura (1981, 1988), Nethercot (1989), Taylor and Ojalvo (1966), Tong and Chen (1988), Trahair
and Nethercot (1982), Wakabayashi (1983), and Wang and Nethercot (1989).
Behavior. The uniform moment condition is the basic case for lateral buckling of beams. If a
lateral brace is placed at the midspan of such a beam, the effect of different brace sizes (stiffness) is
illustrated by the BASP solutionsfor a W16x26 section20 ft long in Fig. 6. Fo. abrace attachedto the
top (compression) flange, the beam buckling capacity initially increases almost linearly as the brace
stiffness increases. If the brace stiffness is less than 1.6 k/in., the beam buckles in a shape resembling
.'
i 4 '
does not increase fue beam buckJing capacity 1 ,. No Brace 'C~ W16x26W M
and fue buckJed shape is a full sine curve. ~~~ cr
When fue brace is attached at fue top flange, 8 j:;ids~an bracE
j there is no cross section distortion. No 00 . 8 12 16
stiffener is required at fue brace point. LATERALBRACE STIFFNESS (k/in)
O
j 'f For fue case of a beam with a O 30 60 90 120 150
.~ .con~entratedcentro id loa~ at midspan, shown LATERAL BRACE STIFFNESS (k/in)
1 m Flg. 7, fue rnornent varles along fue length.
The ideal centroid brace (110 k/in.) is 44 Fig. 7 Midspan Load at Centro id
( times larger than fue ideal top flange brace
:'t
lo!
![
(2.5 k/in.). For both brace locations cross
. ...
sectlondl~tortlonhada rnmoreffect« 3%).
The rnaxlmum beam rnomentat rnidspan
50 \oad at Centrold o
-~ ~
---~-- ""'~-'~..c~'~ ;~ "" ~--~ ~
cross sectiondistonion since a stiffener was used at fue bracepoint. The top flange loading causesfue 5
center of twist at buckJingto shift to a position clase to mid-depth for most practical unbracedlengths,
as shown in Fig. 5. Since there is vinually no lateral displacementnear fue centroid for top flange
loading, a lateral brace at fue centroid will not brace fue bearn. Becauseof cross-sectiondistonion and
top flange loading effects, lateral bracesat fue centroid are not recornmended. Lateral bracesmust be
placed near fue top flange of simply supponed and overhangingspans. Design recornmendationswill
be developedonly for fue top flange lateral bracing situation. Torsional bracing nearfue centroid or even
fue bottom flange can be effective as discussedlater.
for reverse curvature becausetwist at midspan is not prevented. If lateral bracing is attachedto both
flanges, fue buckling moment increasesnonlinearly as fue bracestiffnessincreasesto 24 k/in, fue ideal
value shown by fue black doto Greaterbracestiffnesshasno effect becausebuckJingoccursbetweenfue
brace points. The ideal bracestiffness for a bearnwith a concentratedmidspanload is 2.6 k/in at Mcr
= 2920 in-k as shown by fue dashedlines. For fue two load casesfue momentdiagramsbetweenbrace
points are similar, maximum momentat one end and zero momentat fue other end. In designa Cb =
1.75 is used for fuese caseswhich correspondsto an expectedmaximum moment of 2810 in-k. The
double curvature casereacheda maximum moment25% higher becauseof warping restraintat midspan
provided by fue adjacenttensionflange. In fue concentratedload caseno suchrestraint is availablesince
fue compressionflanges of both unbracedsegmentsare adjacentto eachother. On fue other hand, fue
brace stiffness at eachflange must be 9.2 times fue ideal value of fue concentratedload caseto achieve
fue 25 % increase. Since warping restraint is usually ignored in design Mcr = 2810 in-k is fue maximum
; .. .
-
~::;~I-=-:~'~¿:
6
design momento At this moment level the double curvaturecaserequires abrace stiffness of 5.6 k/in
which is about twice that required for the concentratedload case. The results in Fig. 10 show that not
only is it incorrect to assumethat an inflection point is abrace point but also that bracing requirements
for beamswith inflection points are greater than casesof single curvature. For other casesof double
curvature such as uniform1y loadedbeamswith end restraint (moments),fue observationsare similar.
20'
single midspan lateral brace have been
Up to this point only beams with a 1600 1 brace
~f=~~ "" .,.0--' ~
?0_00_0_00_00_._0 ...m ¿¡¡y
switches to two waves and fue relative BRACE STIFFNESS @ EACH LOCATION (k/ In)
: effectivenessof fue lateral brace is reduced.
i For 1.4 < .BL < 2.75, fue bucked shapeis Fig. 11 Multiple Lateral Bracing
three waves. The ideal bracestiffnessis 2.75
i
:,
¡ k/in. at which fue unbracedlength can be considered10 ft. For fue 20 ft span with a single brace at
l
' midspandiscussedpreviously which is shownby the dashedline , abrace stiffnessofonly 1.6 k/in. was
i, required to reducefue unbracedlength to 10 ft. Thus fue numberof lateral bracesalong fue spanaffects
J fue brace requirements. A similar behaviorhasbeenderivedfor columns(fimoshenko and Gere, 1961)
:¡ where changingfrom one brace to three bracesrequired an increasein ideal column brace stiffnessof
1f t 1.71, which is fue sameas that shown in Fig. 9 for beams,2.75/1.6 1.72. =
, :; Yuca and Phillips (1992) report fue - 7 9
resultsof a test programon fue lateraland ~ 9
\
'1
1'
1
f
torsional bracing of bearns for comparison ;g, 6
with the theoretical studiespresentedabove. 5 ~ ~ '---BASP
Some typical test results show good O Ea. (1)
1\
Lateral Brace Design. In the previous sectionit was shownthat fue buckling load increasesas
the brace stiffness increasesuntil full bracing causesthe beam to buckle between braces. In many
instancesthe relationship betweenbracing stiffness and buckling load is nonlinear as evidencedby the
responseshown in Fig. 11 for multiple braces. A generaldesignequationhasbeendevelopedfor braced
beamswhich is gives good correlation with exact solutionsfor the entire range of lero bracing to full
bracing (Yura, 1992b).That bracedbeamequationis applicableto both continuousand discretebracing
systems,but it is fairly complicated. In most designsituationsfull bracing is assumedor desired,that
is, buckling betweenthe brace points is assumed. For full bracing a simpler design alternativebased
on Winter's approachwa..~ developed(Yura, 1992b)and is presentedbelow.
~
T bl 1 B C ffi . t 7
For elastic beams under uniforrn moment fue Winter ideal
1 al b .ffn . b kI. b th b a e. cace oe Iclen
ater cacestl ess requlred to ~.orce uc mg etween e faces
=
iS.6i #P{ / Lb where p{ = ~ EIyc / L2b' lyc is the out-Qf-plane
moment of inertia of the compressionflange which is Iy/2 for doubly Number Brace
syrnmetric cross sections, and # is a coefficient dependingon the of Braces Coef.
number of braces n within the span, as given in Table 1(Winter, 1 2
1960)or approximated =
by # 4 - ( 2/n). The Cb factor given in 2 3
designspecificationsfor nonuniforrn momentdiagramscanbe usedto 3 341
estímatethe increasedbracerequirementsfor other loading cases.For .
example, for a simply supported beam with a load and brace at 4 3.63
midspan shown in Fig. 7, fue full bracing stiffness required is 1.56 Many 4.0
times greater than the uniform moment case.The Cb = 1.75 for this
loading case provides a conservative estímateof the increase. An
additional modifying factor Cd = 1 + (Ms / MJ2 is required when there are inflection points along the
span (double curvature), where Ms and ML are the maximum momentscausingcompressionin the top
and bottom flanges as shown in Fig. 13. The momentratio must be equal to or less than one, so Cd
varíes between 1 and 2. In double curvature caseslateral bracesmust be attachedto both flanges. Top ..
¡
flange loading increasesthe brace requirementseven when bracing is provided at the load point. The
magnitude of the increaseis affectedby the numberof bracesalong
fue spanas given by the modifying factor CL = 1 + ( 1.2/n). For MS
one braceCL= 2.2; for manybracestop flangeloadinghasno
effect on brace requirements,i.e. Cd= 1.0.
.6i
. = --~
# CbPj
CLCd (1)
MS
For the W12x14 beamslaterally bracedat midspanshown in Fig. Fig. 13 Double Curvature
12, Lb = = =
144 in., # 2, Cb 1.75,CL = 1 + 1.2/1= 2.2,and
p{ = ~ (29000) (2.32/2)/(144)2 = 16.01 kips, .6i. = 0.856 k/in.
which is shown by the * in Fig. 12. Equation (1) comparesvery favorably with the test resultsand with
the theoretical BASP results. For designthe ideal stiffnessgiven by Eq. (1) must be doubledfor beams
with initial out-Qf-straightness
so braceforcescanbe maintainedat reasonablelevels asdiscussedearlier.
The braceforce requirementfor beamsfollows directly from the column Fbr = O.OIPfor discretebraces
given earlier. The column load P is replacedwith the equivalentcompressivebeamflange force, either
(Cbp{) or M{ /h, where M{ is the maximum beammomentand h is the distancebetweenflange centroids.
The M{ /h estímateof the flange force is applicablefor both fue elasticand inelasticregions.For relative
bracing the force requirementis one half the discretevalue. The lateral bracedesignrecommendations
which follow are basedon an initial out-Qf-straightness ofadjacentbracepoints ofLb/500. The combined
where # = 4 - (2/n) or the coefficient in Table 1 for discretebracing; = 1.0 for relative bracin
CbP { = Cb ~ E Iyc / Lb2 ; or = (M{ / h) where M{ is the maximum beammoment
CL = l + ( 1.2/n ) for top flange loading; = 1.0 for other loading
Cd = 1 + (Ms / MJ2 for double curvature; = 1.0 for single curvature
n = number of braces
,
, ","'*". .
8 values of # and CLvary between 4.0 and 4.8 for all values of n so Eq. (2) can be conservatively
simplified for all situationstO.8L. = 10 Mf / hLb for single curvatureand .8L. = 20 Mf / hLb for double
curvature.
.:. Lateral Brace Design Examples. Two different lateral bracing systemsare usedto stabilize five
~t compositesteel plate girders during bridge construction; a discretesystemin Example 1 and a relative
j". bracing in Example 2. The AASHTO- Load Factor Design Specificationis used. Each brace shown
,~ dashedin Example 1 controls the lateral movementof one point along the span, whereasthe diagonals
.,1 in the top flange truss systemshownin Example2 control the relative lateral displacementoftwo adjacent
points. Relative systemsrequire 1/2 the brace force and from 1/2 to 1/4 of the stiffness for discrete
'í systems. In both examples,a tensiontype structural systemwas usedbut the bracing formulas are also
applicableto compressionsystemssuch as K-braces. In Example 1 the full bracing requirementsfor
strength and stiffness given by Eqs. (2) and (3) are basedon eachbrace stabilizing five girders. Since
; the moment diagram gives compressionin one flange, Cd for double curvature is not considered.
!
: In both examples,stiffnesscontrols the bracearea,not the strengthrequirement. In Example 1 the
stiffness criterio n required abrace area 3.7 times greaterthan the strengthformula. Even if the brace
was designedfor 2 % of the compressionflange force (a cornmonlyusedbracing rule), the bracesystem
would be inadequate. It is important to recognizethat bQ1hstiffnessand strength must be adequatefor
a satisfactorybracing system.
¡¡
\,
11.
Torsional Bracing of Beams 4
""
Tong & Chen
/
"
Behavior. The BASP solution for a simply supportedbeam with a top flange torsional brace
attachedat midspan is shown in Fig. 14. The buckling strength- bracestiffnessrelationshipsare non-
linear and quite different from the top flange lateral bracinglinear responsegiven in Fig. 6 for the same
beam and loading. For top flange lateral bracing a stiffener has no effect. A torsional brace can only
increasethe buckling capacityabout fifty percentabovethe unbracedcaseif no stiffener is used. Local
cross-sectiondistortion at midspanreducesthe brace effectiveness.If a web stiffener is used with fue
--
9
torsional braceattachedto the compressionflange, then the buckling strengthwill increaseuntil buckling
occurs betweenthe bracesat 3.3 times the no-bracecase. The ideal or full bracing requires a stiffness
of 1580 in-k/radian for a 4 x 1/4 stiffener and 3700 in-k/radian for a 2.67 x 1/4 stiffener. Tong and
Chen (1988) developeda closedform solution for ideal torsional bracestiffnessneglectingcross-section
distortion that is given by the solid dot at 1450in-k/radian in Fig. 14. The differencebetweenthe Tong
solution and the BASP results is due to web distortion. Their solution would require a 6 x 3/8 stiffener
to reach the maximum buckling loado If the Tong ideal stiffness (1450 in-k/radian) is used with a 2.67
x 1/4 stiffener, the buckling load is reducedby 14%; no stiffener gives a 51% reduction.
w = 1165Ib/ft=1.165k/ft
M = 91x10 6 (1.0)16x12~
32.0 _1 0.772 12.9 ~ + 9.87l16"~1
(/ 50
~n )\22
. = 2 3.5 (248)(1.0)(1.0)
~L 16 x 12 =. 9 04 k/.In. f or ea. glr. d er = 45.2 k/ln.
. for 5 girders = F/~
AE
Brace stiffness = cos2 e~T ) = Ab (29000)
2 = 45.2 k/in.
A
/~-).. F
b <--r5 ) 335 ~Ab
I ~ = 2.61 in~ I .(-- CONTROLS
.
10
LATERAL BRACING - DESIGN EXAMPLE2
;
¡
,
'
'v' 'v' Same as Example 1 exceptthe bracingsystem is a relativesystem -
lA, R ti I~' - a top flange horizontaltruss. Each truss stabilizes2-1/2 girders.
1
'v' 'v' A-. The unbracedlengthof the girder flange is 16 ft which was checked
, 16ft .
", t
~ A
i 1" In ExampIe 1.
i , 1 " -
" B st.
lA,
\1
,~,Top flg race Ift ness: Pf = 248 kips
, "" '1
"
V
!g irder
R* 2 Pf C b C L Cb _
- 10
.
A ~ P =
1" , ,l' , L Lb C = 1.0
" " L
': 't 2(248) 1.0 (1.0)
,", ,", = 16 x 12 = 2.58 k/in for ea. girder
PLANVIEW = 6.45 k/in for 2 1/2 girders
cos26
~) =(-
AE
1 )2 .Ao (29000)
,_w = 6.45k/in; A b = 0.239 in 2 +-
L b -.J5"" (8 x 12 AV5)
dashed shape. The overall angle of tWISt for ~'e ee e e ~jMcr ¡¡o
the braced beam is much smaller than the L- 30' -..1 .I¡
twist in the unbracedcase(dot-dashcurve). W16x26 / stiffened
-.'..
~
/ -- Mcr=
1582
in-k
no stiffeners
: significant, as shown in Fig. 17. The d111er- 0= cF In- McF 1133 in-k
! ence in load betweenthe two curves for top
flange and centroid loading for bracedbeams
is almost equal to the difference in strength Fig. 16 Effect of Cross Section Distortion
,
",,--
11
for fue unbraced beams (zero brace stiffness). 50 --
loading is 18% greater than for centroid
The ideal brace stiffness for top flange P 40 ~"", ---Top Flange Load
~
wave. Only in fue stiffness. range of 1400- 1b
race
"" "" ,.' ~ ~..rrIrrtt wJJY
1600 in-k/radian did multl-wave buckled 1200 ,/'
shapesappear. The ideal brace stiffness at ~r ,/// "-
each location was slightly greater than 1600 (in-k) """", ~
in-k/radian. This behavior is very different 800 /,," ~Hr W19x26
W ~
from fue multiple lateral bracing casefor fue /" H~8~g
samebeam shown in Fig. 11. For multiple 400 10
1 al b . th b b kled . 3 braces
ater racrng e eam uc rnto two
waves when fue moment reached 600 in-k O
andthenintothreewavesat Mcr = 1280in- O 400 800 1200 1600 2000
k. For torsional bracing, fue single wave TORSIONALSTIFFNESS@ EACHBRACE(in-k/rad)
controlled up to Mcr 1520in-k. Sincefue =
maximum moment of 1600 correspondsto Fig. 18 Multiple Torsional Braces
buckling betweenfue braces,it canbe assumed,for designpurposes,that torsionally bracedbeamsbuckle
in a single wave until fue brace stiffness is sufficient to force buckling betweenfue braces. The figure
also shows that a single torsional brace at midspanof a 2Q-ft span (unbracedlength = 10 ft) requires
about fue sameideal brace stiffness as three bracesspacedat 10 ft. In fue lateral brace casefue three
brace system requires 1.7 times fue ideal stiffness of fue single brace system, as shown in Fig. 11.
Tests have been conductedon torsionally bracedbeamswith various stiffener details which are
presentedelsewhere(Yura, 1992). The tests show good agreementwith fue Basp solutions.
Buckling Strength 01 Torsionally Braced Beams. Taylor and Ojalvo (1973) give fue following
exact equation for fue critical moment of a doubly syrnmetric beam under uniform moment with
continuoustorsional bracing
6 Topflg brace ~ M .~Q~
M = V M~
M ++ P' b El y
P' E 1
( 5) ., - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ cr
~vW16x26v *J
",0(\ ,.,
o\s\<?""g\"s
cr o b y 5 t-::.: l ~ ~""3\\ \e{\
.'
.,.'" l = 30'
. .. 4 ",""" = 283 in-k)
where Mo lS fue bucklrng capaclty of fue ~r .,." o
- 3" 20'
unbracedbeam and :B b = attachedtorsional ~ .".,.' (504 in-k)
brace stiffness (k-in/rad per in. length).
Equation (5), which assumesno crosss~cti~n 1 (161~~~k)
distortion, is shown by fue dot-dash Ime rn
Fig. 19. The salid lines are BASP resultsfor 00 10 20 30 40
a W16x26 sectionwith no stiffenersandspans ~EI 1M2
of 10ft, 20 ft, and 30 ft under uniform y o
moment with braces attached to fue
compressionflange. Cross-sectiondistortion Fig. 19 Approximate Buckling Formula
::~"tt;~"",~;:";~:t~j - 'c,
The t3bof some cornmontorsional bracesystemsare given in Figs. 20 and 21. Systemscomprised
:, of diaphragms, slabs, and floor systemsfor through girders in Fig. 20 assumethat the connection
,;! betweenthe girder and the bracecan support a bracing momentMbr If partially restrainedconnections
are used, their flexibility should also be included in Eq. (5). Elastic truss analyseswere usedto derive
the stiffness of the crosstrame systemsshown in Fig. 21. If the diagonalsof a X-system are designed
for tension only, then horizontal members are required in the system. In the K-brace system a top
horizontal is not required.
~ ~A
TENSION SYSTEM I/..~~ /f/.If e- 6 +6 h . M =Fh
F ~~/ hb' b
~ ~ Ah ~b = MI e
b 2 2
F:
F Pb -
- 2C ES hb
53 .
Tenslon System-
2Fh S 2Fh ~A +_
A horizontalsare required
=...:..:p =...:..:p c h
S S
COMPRESSION
F
SYSTEM
and
F
1><1
~ ~b = ~ ES hb
L~
2 2
Tension - CompressionSystem
horizontalsnot required
F: F
K BRACE
F O
~ F
-~-7
22
~b = 2E5 h
K Brace System -
.::;=..s. + A diagonals designedfor
F: F Ac h tension and compression
- E [(N + 1.5h ) t w
3 t s b s3 ] (8) h
.B
leC
- 3.3-h 12
+ - 12 t
Torsional Brace
where fw = thickness of web, h = depthof web, t. = N
thickness of stiffener, b. = width of stiffener, and N = r
contactlength of the torsional braceas shown in Fig. 23. For I
continuousbracing use an effective net width of 1 in. instead h
of (N + 1.5h) in .B1eC and lib in place of.Bb to get liT, The L (N + 1.5 h)
In general, stiffeners or connectiondetails such as clip angles, can be usedto control distortion.
For decks and through girders, the stiffener must be attachedto the flange that is braced. Diaphragms
are usually W shapesor channelsectionsconnectedto the web of the stringer or girders through clip
angles, shear tabs or stiffeners. When full depth stiffeners or connectiondetails are used to control
distortion,the stiffener sizeto give the desiredstiffnesscanbe determinedfrom Eq. (8). For partial depth
stiffening illustrated in Fig. 24, the stiffness of the various sections of the web can be evaluated
separately,then combinedas follows:
3 3
( h )2 ( (N+1.5h¡)tw tsbs
.B
I
~
-3.3E
h¡ -+-
h. 12 12 ) ()9
I
;
--
Equation (5) was developedfor doubly-syrnrnetricsections. The torsional bracing effect for
singly-syrnrnetricsectionscan be approximatedby replacing!y in Eqs. (5) with leff defined as follows:
where lyc and ~ are the lateral moment of inertia of the compressionflange and tension flange
respectively, and c and t are the distances from fue neutral bending axis to fue centroid of fue
compressionand tension flanges respectively,as shownin Fig. 25(a). For a doubly syrninetric section
c = t and Eq. (11) reducesto !y. A comparisonbetweenBASP solutions and Eqs. (5) and (11) for three
different girders with torsional bracesis shown in Fig. 25(b). The curves for a W16x26 show very
good agreement. In the other two cases,one of the flanges of the W16x26 section was increasedto
10xl/2. In one casefue small flange is in tensionand in the other case,fue compressionflange is fue
smallest. In all casesEq. (11) is in good agreementwith the theoreticalbuckling load given by BASP.
Equation (5) showsthat the buckling load increaseswithout limit asfue continuoustorsional brace
stiffnessincreases.When enoughbracing is provided, yielding will control fue bearnstrengthso Mcr can
not exceedMy, fue yield or plastic strength of the section. It was found that Eq. (5) for continuous
bracing could be adaptedfor discretetorsional bracesby surnrningthe stiffnessof eachbracealong the
span and dividing by fue bearnlength to get an equivalentcontinuousbracestiffness. In this caseMcr
~b M
5000 ~6I@ eee~*' cr Flg.10x1/2
comp. flg. - 1..;5.5x1/4 stiffel}-,r ~
l.
c
-~
.E 4000
~
I
3000 BASP
40'
.l
x ~E
o 2000 ---
Y t ~
:"§ 1000
1
W16x26
. U
tenslon flg.
OO 2 4 6 8 10
(a) (b) Pb Brace Stiffness (k-in/rad/in. length)
Fig. 25 Singly SyrnrnetricGirders
15
will be limited to M., fue moment corresponding to buckJing between fue brace points. By adjusting Eq.
(5) for top flange loading and other loading conditions, fue following generalformula canbe usedfor fue
buckJingstrengthof torsionally bracedbeams :
M = C2 M2 + C2
bb pT El ~ ~ M o, M (12)
cr bll o C 'y.r
T
where Cbu and Cbb are fue two 1imiting Cb factors corresponding to an unbraced beam (very weak braces)
and an effectively bracedbeam (buckJingbetweenfue braces);Cr is a top flange loading modification
factor; Cr = 1.2 for top flange loading and Cr = 1.0 for centroid 10ading;and 13T is fue equivalent
effective continuous torsional brace (in-k/radian/in. 1ength)from Eq.(6). The following two cases
illustrate fue accuracyof Eq. (12). 7
6 BASP~
For fue caseof a singletorsionalbrace - 4x1/4 stiffener
"
at midspan shown in Fig. 26, Cbu= 1.35 for .9. 5
a concentrated10adat fue midspanof an 4 ~ E 12
q ~
unbracedbeam(Galambos , 1988). Usually ~
useCb= 1.0for this = 3
designersconservatively nostiffener
case. For the beam assumedbraced at mid- ~2 Top Flange Load Cr= 1.2
span, Cbb= 1.75 for a straight 1ine moment "8 ~.~~~~. ~ -. -,h/, ~ = 1.35
diagram with zero moment at one end afilie 1 ~W12x14-24ft..1 Cbb=1.75
unbraced1ength. Thesetwo valuesof Cb are 00 100 200 300 400 500 600
used with any value of brace torsional . . .
stiffnessin Eq. (12). For accuracyat small Torslonal Brace Stlffness (k-ln/rad)
values of brace stiffness fue unbracedbuck-
1ingcapacity ChuMoshould algOconsidertop Fig. 26 Effect of Stiffener
flange 10ading effects. Equation (12) shows exce1lentagreementwith fue BASP theory. With no
stiffener, .Bacc from Eq. (8) is 114 in-k/radian, so fue effective brace stiffness ~ from Eq. (6) cannotbe
greater than 114 regard1essof fue brace stiffness magnitudeat midspan. Equations (6), (8) and (12)
predict fue buck1ingvery accurate1y for al1valuesof attachedbracing, evenat very 10wvaluesof bracing
stiffness. A 4 x 1/4 stiffener increased.Baccfrom 114 to 11000in-k/radian. This makesfue effective
brace stiffness very c10seto fue app1iedstiffness, .Bb' With a 4 x 1/4 stiffener, fue effective stiffnessis
138 in-k/radian if fue attachedbrace stiffness is 140 in-k/radian. The bracing equationscan be usedto
determine fue required stiffener size to reducefue effect of distortion to someto1erance1evel,say 5 %.
Torsiona/ Brace Design. There are two basictorsional bracing systemsshown in Figs. 20 and 21:
bending membersrepresentedby diaphragms,decks or floor beams; and trussesfor the cross trames.
The two systems can be correlated by noting that Mbr = Fbr hb' where hb is the depth of the cross trame.
The term "braceforces" usedhereinafterrefers to both Mbr andFbr" Equation (12) gives the relationship
betweenbrace stiffness and Mcr for an ideally straight beam. For beamswith an initial twist, 80, it is
assumedthat the brace designrequirementsare affectedin a similar manneras that developedfor lateral
bracing of beamswith initial out-of-straightness. The requiredbracestiffness ~T' which must be at least
-.
twice the ideal stiffness to keep braceforces small, can be obtainedby rearrangingEq. (12)
For discrete braces~ * = p;L/n. The braceforce Mbr = ~ * 80. An initial twist 80= 10 ( 0.0175
radians) is recornmended.For a 14-in deepsectionthis assumedinitial twist correspondsto a 0.25 in.
relative displacementbetweenthe top andbottom flanges. Equation(13) canbe conservativelysimplified
by neglecting the ChuMoterm which will be small comparedto Mcr at full bracing and by taking the
maximum ~, which is 1.2 for top flangeloading. The simplified stiffnessandbraceforce requirements
are given in fue following surnmary.
.
Stlrrn~s: * =:BT
.8T * L In = 2.4LM¡ 2 I (nEleffCbb)
2 (14)
~ =~ + ~ + ..!. + ~ +~ (16)
.BT .8c .8. .8t .8b .8g
h
3 3
.8c' .8s' = 3.3E ( - h )2 ( (N+1.5h¡)lw Isbs
I - h.
.B
12 + - 12 ) (17)
I h.I
The torsional brace stiffness requirement, Eq. (14), must be adjusted for the different design
specifi-cations as discussed earlier for the lateral brace requirements:
AISC-LRFD: Pr ~ Pro / <t> where <t>= 0.75 is suggested
AISC-ASD: Pr ~ 3 Pro , ~'d ~ 1.5x (Eqn. 15) w/ service moment
AASHTO-LFD: Pr ~ Pro no change
The 40-in. deep cross frarne design in Example 4 required a brace force of7.13 kips from Eq. (15).
The factored girder moment of 1211 k-ft. gives an approximate compression force in the girder of 1211 x
12/49 = 296 kips. Thus, the brace force is 2.5% of the equivalent girder force in this case. The framing
details provide sufficient stiffi1ess. The 3-in. unstiffened web at the top and bottom flanges was small
enough to keep P- well above the required value. For illustration purposes, a 30-in. deep cross frarne
attached near fue compression flange is also considered. In this case,the cross frame itself provides a large
stiffness, but fue 14-in. unstiffened web is too flexjble. Cross-sectiondistortion reducesfue systemstiffness
to 16,900 in.-k/radian, which is less than the required value. If this same cross frame was placed at the
girder midheight, fue two 7-in. unstiffened web zones top and bottom would be stiff enough to satisfy the
brace requirements. For a fixed depth of cross frarne, attachmentat the mid-<lepthprovides more effective
brace stiffness than attachment close to either flange.
The recommendations do not address the bracing requirements for moment redistribution or
ductility in seismic designo The bracing fonnulations will be accurate for design situations in which the
buckling strength does not reir on effective lengths lessthan one. Lateral restraint provided by ligbtly
loaded sirle spansshould, in general, not be consideredbecausethe brace requirements would be much
larger than fue recornrnendationsherein. AIso, laboratoryobservationsin fue author's experience ( usually
unplanned failures of test setups ) show that brace forces can be very large when local flange or web
buckling occurs prior to lateral instability. After local buckling the cross section is unsymrnetric and
verticalloads develop very significant out of plane load components. The bracing recommendationsdo
not address such situations.
References
Akay, H.U., Johnson, C.P., and Will, K.M., 1977, "Lateral and Local Buckling ofBeams and Frames,"
Journal o/ Ihe Structural Division, ASCE, ST9, September,pp. 1821-1832.
Ales, J. M. and Yum, J. A., 1993, "Bracing Design for lnelastic Structures", Structural Stability Research
Council Conference-ls Your Structure Suitably Braced?, April 6-7, Milwaukee, WI..
r 18"1
:
I
x
= .
17500 I = 32.0 , L~= 352 i~
yc -yt
with Examples1 & 2, a four-bracesystemwill be
=
designed. Mreq'd 1211k-ft (see Ex. 1)
!
Eq. (11): I eff= 32 + 3Q85
18,15 352 = 239 .In4
,
!
¡ Eq. (15) ~r = 12)-2
0.0.4.~~~~_~2!_(!~~~.~ =293 in-k A36 Steel:
4 (29000)239 (1.0) Req'd S x = 293/36 =~~ ~ 3
. TryC10x 15.39- 4 . 3 . . .4
; Ix = 67.4 in. Sx = 13.5 In. t f = 0.436 In , b = 2.60 In , J = 0.21 In
j" Checklateralb~Ckling
of the diaphragm T~ T
\ =
{ Iyc = (2.60) (0.436)/12 =0.639 in .!-' ~Cb 2.3
(0.21) ( 10 \2
;1
1
M
r
= 91 x 106(2.3) ~--
96 \JI .7720.639 \ -gs- )
+ /7t.,!E.1Q..
J (AASHTO 10-102c)
Distortion: From Fig 23 and Eq. (17) dete~ine the requiredstiffenersize t = 3/8 in .s
R = 3.3(29000) (~' 2( 1.5X19.5X.5 3
+ ~~ 3 ) (1)
Ps 19.5 19.5'} 12 12 .
From Eq (16)
.
1
17550
= 1
195500
+ 1
406000
+ -..?:-.- '~ s
~s' = 40500 in-k/radian (2)
Equating (1) and (2) gives b = 3.17 in, - Use 3/8 x 3-1/2 stiffener
s
'-
19
From Fig. 21 : Max force = diagonal force = 2Fbr Lc = 2(7.31) 62.5 = 9.52 kips - comp
S 96
The AASHTO Load Factor method does not give a strength formula for compression members
so the formulation in Allowable Stress Design will be used. Convert to ASO by dividing the
member force by the 1.3 load factor to get an equivalent service load force.
Diagonal Force (ASO) = 9.52/1.3 = 7.3 kips
R
ti b = 2(29000) (96)3 2(30) 2(2.38)
3 = 490000 in-k/radian
8 (56.6) + (96)
~t = 3.3 14.0
(29000) (~14.0 )(
2 1.5 (14.0) (.5)'3
12 ) -- 18300 In-
. k/ rad
1 t = "4'§~555'"
+ 4aiI5OD+ ~ ; ~T = 16900 < 17550 in-k/rad NG
T
Linder, l., and Schmidt, 1.S., 1982, "Biegedrillknicken van I-Tragem unter Berücksichtigung
wirk1ichkeitsnaher Lasteinleitung," Der Stahlbau, 51, H.9, S. 257-263.
Milner, H.R., 1977, "Design of Simple SupportedBeamsBraced Against Twisting on the Tension
Flange," Civil Engineering Transactions,lnstitute of Engineers,Australia, CE 20(1), pp. 37-42.
Nakamura, T. (1988), "Strength and Deformability of H-Shaped Steel Beams and Lateral Bracing
Requirements",J. ConstructionalSteelResearch,9, p 217-228
Nethercot, D. A., (1989), "The Design of Bracing Systemsfor Plate Girder Bridges", Structural Eng /
Eal1hquakeEng., Vol. 6, No. 1, 59s-68s,Review,(Proc lSCE, No 404 / 1-11), April.
Plaut, R. S.,(1993), "Requirementsfor Lateral Bracing of Columns with Two Spans", 10umal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vo1119,No. 10, October,pp 2913-2931
Raju, S., Webb, S. and Yura, 1.,1992, "Bracing Effects of Bridge Decks", Proceedings,9th Annual
Intemational Bridge Conference,Pittsburgh, lune 15, 9 p.
Taylor, A.C., and Ojalvo, M., 1966, "Torsional RestraintofLateral Buckling," JournaJofthe Structural
Division, ASCE, S1'2, April, pp. 115-129.
Timoshenko, S., and Gere, 1.,1961, TheoryofElastic Stabiliry, New York: McGraw-Hill .
Tong, G.S., and Chen, S.H., 1988, "Buckling of Laterally and Torsionally Braced Beams," Journal
ConstructionSteelResearch, 11. p 41-55
Trahair, N.S., and Nethercot, D.A., 1982, "Bracing Requirementsin Thin-Walled Structures,"Chapter
3, Developmenrsin Thin-WalledStructures- Vol. 2, RhodesandWalker - Ed., Elsevier , pp. 93-129.
Winter, G., 1960, "Lateral Bracing ofColumns andBearns," ASCETransactions,Vol. 125,pp. 809-825.
Yura, 1.A., and Phillips, B., 1992, "Bracing Requirementsfor Elastic SteelBeams,"ReportNo. 1239-1,
Center for TransportationResearch,University of Texasat Austin, May ,73 p.
Yura, l.A., Phillips, B., Raju, S. andWebb, S.,1992, "BracingofSteel Bearnsin Bridges," Report No.
1239-4F, Center for TransportationResearch,University ofTexas at Austin, October, 80 p.