NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI
LATERAL BRACING REQUIREMENTS FOR
CANTILEVER STEEL I-BEAMS
by
ShengLiu
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics
McGill University, Montreal
August, 2003
A thesis submitted to the Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral
Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements
of the degree of Master of Engineering
Sheng Liu, 2003
1+1
Library and
Archives Canada
Bibliothque et
Archives Canada
Published Heritage
Branch
Direction du
Patrimoine de l'dition
395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A ON4
Canada
395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4
Canada
NOTICE:
The author has granted a non-
exclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell th es es
worldwide, for commercial or non-
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
ln compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.
While these forms may be included
in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.

Canada
AVIS:
Your file Votre rfrence
ISBN: 0-612-98549-0
Our file Notre rfrence
ISBN: 0-612-98549-0
L'auteur a accord une licence non exclusive
permettant la Bibliothque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par tlcommunication ou par l'Internet, prter,
distribuer et vendre des thses partout dans
le monde, des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, lectronique
et/ou autres formats.
L'auteur conserve la proprit du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protge cette thse.
Ni la thse ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent tre imprims ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.
Conformment la loi canadienne
sur la protection de la vie prive,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont t enlevs de cette thse.
Bien que ces formulaires
aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
ABSTRACT
In the design of hot rolled steel structures, stability is one of the most important
considerations. In terms of flexural members, e.g., a steel I-s.ection beam, bent about the
major principal axis, lateral buckling about the minor principal axis in combination with
torsional buckling is the main stability concem. To prevent lateral-torsional buckling
from occurring, lateral braces are typically installed perpendicular to the longitudinal xis
of the flexural member, either on the top and/or bottom flange or near the shear-centre of
the beam. Nethercot developed an equation to predict the critical elastic lateral-torsional
moment resistance of cantilever beams, which involves a series of effective length
factors, which are dependent on the brace configuration, type and position of loading, as
well as cantilever system. This effective length factor approach has become widely used
as a simplified method to calculate the elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment
resistance of cantilever steel beams. However, no specific guidelines for the design of the
lateral braces are available in design standards.
This thesis will inc1ude background information on elastic beam buckling theories, an
inrtroduction to the development of research on lateral brace requirements, and a
discussion on the currently used lateral bracing requirements in North American and
British Standards. Details of a study conceming the lateral bracing design requirements
for cantilever I-beams, carried out with the use of the finite element software Buckling
Analysis of Stiffened Plates (BASP), are provided. Conceming the required brace
stiffness, the results from the numerical parametric study are compared with the results
from the Canadian Steel Design Standard CSA-S16 and the SSRC (Structural Stability
Research Council) method of the United States.
It is shown that the current code methods are generally conservative for top flange loaded
cantilever beam cases in terms of the predicted elastic lateral-torsional buckling capacity.
Furthermore, the current bracing design requirements provide adequate results in most
cases, except for the prop cantilever scenario without a tip brace.
RSUM
Dans le conception de structures fait es de profils lamins chaud, la stabilit est l'une
des considrations les plus importantes. Pour les membrures soumises la flexion, e.g.
une poutre constitue d'un profil d'acier en 1 flchie par rapport son axe fort, le
dversement le long de son axe faible combin avec les effets de torsion sont les
principaux problmes de stabilit. Afin de prvenir ce type de dversement, des supports
latraux sont gnralement placs perpendiculairement l'axe longitudinal de la poutre,
soit sur la semelle suprieure, sur la semelle infrieure ou le plus prs possible du centre
de torsion de la poutre. Nethercot a dvelopp une quation prdisant le moment critique
de dversement lastique des poutres en porte--faux en intgrant une srie de
coefficients de longueur effective qui dpendent de la configuration des supports, du type
et de la position de chargement ainsi que du systme de porte--faux privilgi. Cette
approche utilisant des coefficients de longueur effective est devenue largement utilise en
tant que mthode simplifie pour dterminer le moment de rsistance au dversement
lastique des poutres d'acier en porte--faux. Par contre, aucune mthodologie prcise de
conception des supports latraux n'est disponible dans les diffrents normes disponibles.
Le prsent mmoire relate la situation actuelle en termes de dversement lastique des
poutres, une introduction au dveloppement d'une recherche sur les besoins on exigences
de conception des supports latraux et une discussion sur les exigences des normes nord-
amricaines et britannique en ce qui concerne les supports latraux. Des dtails d'une
tude concernant les exigences en supports latraux pour une poutre de type 1 en porte--
faux, ralise l'aide du logiciel d'lments finis BASP, sont aussi prsents. Pour ce qui
est de la rigidit requise d'un support latral, des rsultats de tests numriques sont
compars avec les rsultats provenant de la norme canadienne de conception en acier
CSA-S16 et de la mthode amricaine du SSRC (Structural Stability Research Council).
Il est dmontr ici que les mthodes actuelles utilises par les diveres normes analyses
pour valuer la capacit au dversement lastique donnent des rsultats conservateurs
pour une poutre en porte--faux charge sur sa semelle suprieure. En outre, les exigences
11
des nonnes pour le support latral procurent des rsultats adquats dans la plupart des cas,
except pour une poutre en porte--faux taye sans support latral d'extrmit.
111
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 would like to express a deep appreciation to my supervisor Professor Colin A. Rogers,
for his patience, guidance, support and assistance throughout this thesis and my studies at
McGill University.
The completion of this research would not have been possible without the finite element
software BASP provided by Prof. J. A. Yura of the University of Texas at Austin. Also
thanks are extended to Prof. N. S. Trahair of University of Sydney for the use of the
photograph in Figure 1.3.
The technical assistance for our computer system from Dr. William D. Cook, who works
in the computer lab, is greatly appreciated.
Thanks to Felix-A. Boudreault for the French translation ofthe abstract ofthis thesis.
Thanks are extended to the secretarial staff of the Civil Engineering Department, in
particular Sandy Shewchuk-Boyd, Ann Bless, Anna Dinolfo, and Franca Della-Rovere.
Acknowledgements are also extended to my friend Wendong Zhao, for his help in the
finite element analysis.
As a final acknowledgement, 1 would like to express my deep gratitude to my family
members: my wife, Ms. Jiahui Wu, for her emotional support and the assistance with the
AutoCAD drawings; and my parents for their encouragement from the other side of the
earth.
IV
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract. ................................................................................................ .i
Rsum ................................................................................................ .ii
Acknow ledgements .................................................................................. .i v
Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v
L
t fF ..
IS 0 19ures ....................................................................................... Vll
List of Tables .......................................................................................... x
1. Introduction
1.1 General Overview ....................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................ 5
1.3 Scope ..................................................................................... 5
1.4 Thesis Outline ........................................................................... 5
2. Literature Review
2.1 Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling of Simple Cantilever Bearns ................. 7
2.2 The Effect ofRestraint on the Lateral-Torsional Buckling ofBeams ........... 19
2.3 Application of Finite Element Method to Stability Buckling .................... 29
3. Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling ofI-Beams Using BASP
3.1 Introduction to BASP ................................................................. 32
3.2 Verification of the BASP Software ................................................. 39
3.2.1 Basic Theory of Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling of Steel
I-Beams .................................................................... 40
3.2.2 Verification ofBASP ................................................... .46
4. r a c ~ Requirement of Cantilever I-beams
4.1 Cantilever I-beams ..................................................................... 66
4.2 BASP Analysis Procedure ............................................................ 72
4.2.1 General Analysis ofl-section Bearn W21X44 ........................ 72
4.2.2 Analysis and Discussion of the Simple Cantilever Scenarios ...... 74
v
4.2.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Suspended
Cantilever Scenarios ..................................................... 79
4.2.4 General Discussion of Brace Stiffuess Analysis findings .......... 89
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................. 93
5.2 Recommendations for Future Study ................................................ 94
References 95
Appendix 1 Summary Tables of BASP Analyses for Mer and Brace Stiffness 99
1. W12X19 ............................................................................... 100
2. W12X26 ............................................................................... 114
3. W12X65 ............................................................................... 128
4. W16X26 ............................................................................... 137
5. W16X57 ... , ........................................................................... 151
6. W21X44 ............................................................................... 161
7. W21X48 ............................................................................... 174
8. W8X10 ................................................................................. 181
9. W8X15 ................................................................................. 192
VI
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Lateral Deflection "p," and Twist about Centroid c "fjJ:'of a Buckled
I-Beam .................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2 Lateral Bracing Systems ofI-Bearn (Galambos, 1998) ............................. 3
Figure 1.3 Lateral Torsional Buckling of Cantilever Bearn .................................... .4
Figure 2.1 Principal Axes of Bearn Cross-sections .............................................. 7
Figure 2.2 Lateral Buckling ofI-Beams ............................................................ 7
Figure 2.3 Warping Displacement Due to Shear ................................................. 9
Figure 2.4 Pure Bending ofa Simply Supported I-Bearn ...................................... 10
Figure 2.5 Lateral Buckling of End-Ioaded Cantilever. ........................................ 11
Figure 2.6 Loading Conditions Associated with Lateral Stability ............................ 15
Figure 2.7 Effect of End Restraint on Lateral Stability ........................................ 15
Figure 2.8 Buckling ofUnrestrained and End-Restrained Section ........................... 16
Figure 2.9 Effective Length Factor for Tip Loaded Cantilevers .............................. 18
Figure 2.10 Effect of Change in Brace Stiffness on Mer ............................. '" ....... 18
Figure 2.11 Practical Example of Lateral Braces on Bearn ................................... .20
Figure 2.l2 Practical Example of Torsional Brace on Bearn ................................. .20
Figure 2.13 Lateral Buckling of an 1-Bearn with an Intermediate
Lateral Brace (Top View) ............................................................ 21
Figure 2.l4 Real Column with One Elastic Lateral Brace ..................................... 23
Figure 2.15 Compression and Tension Portions of an I-Bearn for Lateral
Brace Requirement ................................................................... 25
Figure 2.l6 Free End Simple Cantilever I-Beam .............................................. .26
Figure 2.17 Two Dimensional Mesh Configuration for I-Beam .............................. 30
Figure 3.1 Stiffener Elements and Plate Elements ofBASP Models ........................ 32
Figure 3.2 Suspended Cantilever Bearn with Lateral Braces ................................. 33
Figure 3.3 Simple Cantilever Bearn with Torsional Brace .................................... 33
Figure 3.4 Web Local Buckling ofBASP Model.. ............................................. 33
Figure 3.5 Flange Torsional Buckling ofBASP Model.. ...................................... 34
Figure 3.6 Distortion ofBASP Model.. ........................................................... 34
Vll
Figure 3.7 Exarnple ofBASP Stress Plot (T'x and flanges) .................................... 35
Figure 3.8 BASP Input of Cross-section Properties ............................................. 36
Figure 3.9 BASP Input of Material Properties and Creation ofMesh ........................ 36
Figure 3.10 Reassignment ofSpecified Nodal Coordinates in BASP ........................ 36
Figure 3.11 Boundary Condition, Loading, Brace and Stiffeners ofBASP Mode1.. ....... 37
Figure 3.12 Iteration Option ofBASP Analysis ................................................. 38
Figure 3.13 Miscellaneous Option ofBASP Analysis .......................................... 38
Figure 3.14 Initial Buckled Shape Option ofBASP Analysis ................................. 39
Figure 3.15 Eigenvalue from BASP Analysis ................................................... 39
Figure 3.16 Unbraced Length vs. Moment Capacity ofl-Beams ............................. .40
Figure 3.17 Ml, M2, M3 and Mmax for Equation 3.4 .... '" ..................................... .42
Figure 3.18 Linearly Varying Moment Case for Equation 3.5 ............................... .42
Figure 3.19 Load Cases for Calculation of B in Equations 3.6 ............................... .43
Figure 3.20 Effect of Load Application Height ................................................ .44
Figure 3.21 Flowchart of the BASP Verification ............................................... .47
Figure 3.22 Simply Supported Bearn with Uniformly Applied Moment .................... .48
Figure 3.23 BASP Input for Uniform End Moments .......................................... .49
Figure 3.24 The BASP Buckled Shape ofW16X26 Under Uniform End Moments ....... 50
Figure 3.25 The Cross-sections of Real W-shape Beams and BASP Models ............... 51
Figure 3.26 The Types of Loading in BASP Verification ..................................... 53
Figure 3.27 The Effect of Brace Stiffness on Column .......................................... 58
Figure 3.28 Ms and ML in double curvature BMD .............................................. 59
Figure 3.29 Centroid Point Load in Case 1. ..................................................... 59
Figure 3.30 Brace Effects on S-C Midspan Point-loaded Bearn .............................. 61
Figure 3.31 Effects ofBrace Location and Stiffener on Bearn with
Equal End Moment ................................................................... 62
Figure 3.32 Effects ofBrace and Load Position ................................................ 63
Figure 3.33 Effects of Multiple Lateral Bracing ................................................ 65
Figure 4.1 A Cantilever Bearn with Fixed Root and Moment Applied at Free End ........ 67
Figure 4.2 The Buckled Shape of the Cantilever Bearn in Figure 4.1 ........................ 67
V111
Figure 4.3 A Simply Supported Bearn with a Span ofTwo Times the
Above Cantilever. ..................................................................... 67
Figure 4.4 The Buckled Shape of the Simply Supported Bearn in Figure 4.3 .............. 67
Figure 4.5 Examples of a Simple Cantilever (above) and a Suspended
Cantilever Bearn ....................................................................... 68
Figure 4.6 Tip Brace Scenarios: (a) Free Tip (b) Top Flange and (c) Both Flanges ....... 69
Figure 4.7 An Example of the Suspended Cantilever Bearn (b) .............................. 69
Figure 4.8 Effect ofTip Point Load Application Positions on a Simple Cantilever. ....... 70
Figure 4.9 Effect ofUDL Application Positions on a Simple Cantilever .................... 71
Figure 4.10a M-L Curve ofW21X44 in Scenarios 1.1 & 1.2 (Top Flange Loading) ...... 73
Figure 4.1 Ob Moment vs. Unbraced Length Graphs for Top Flange Loaded
W21X44 in AlI Scenarios .......................................................... 73
Figure 4.11 Web Crippling ofW21X44 with 30in Span at Scenario1.1 ..................... 75
Figure 4.12 Scenario 1.2 ofW21X44 ............................................................. 76
Figure 4.13 The Buckled Shape ofW21X44 at Scenario 1.2 ................................. 76
Figure 4.14 Scenario 1.3 ofW21X44 ............................................................. 77
Figure 4.15 Mcr_theory, Mcr_BASP and MDesign ofW21X44 (Scenario 1.3) with
the Installation of Stocky Braces ................................................... 78
Figure 4.16 The Buckled Shape ofa W21X44 (Scenario 1.3) with a Required
Brace Stiffness Dependent on the Effective Length Factor k=0.6 ............. 79
Figure 4.17 Web Crippling ofa W21X44with 30 in Span (Scenario 2.1) .................. 80
Figure 4.18 Two Span Loaded W21X44 (Scenario2.1) ........................................ 81
Figure 4.19 Buckled 60 in Span W21X44 with One Span Load (Scenario 2.1) ............ 81
Figure 4.20 Buckled 60 in W21X44 with Two Span Load (Scenario2.1) ................... 82
Figure 4.21 Buckled W21X44 with a 120 in Span (Scenario2.1) ............................ 83
Figure 4.22 Comparison of the Brace Stiffness Requirements for W21X44 with
Top Flange UDL (Scenario 2.2) ..................................................... 86
Figure 4.23 Comparison of the Brace Stiffness Requirements for W21X44 with Top
Flange UDL (Scenario 2.3) ......................................................... 88
IX
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Effective-length Factor for Cantilevers ............................................... 17
Table 3.1 The BASP Results from Various Mesh Configurations (1) ........................ 50
Table 3.2 The BASP Results from Various Mesh Configurations (II) ....................... 50
Table 3.3 The BASP Verification for One-point Load .......................................... 54
Table 3.4 The BASP Verification for Two-point Load ........................................ 55
Table 3.5 The BASP Verification for UDL. ..................................................... 56
Table 3.6 Additional Calculations for Two-point Load ......................................... 57
Table 3.7 The BASP results ofStudy Case 1 .................................................... 60
Table 3.8 The BASP results of Study Case 2 .................................................... 62
Table 3.9 The BASP results ofStudy Case 3 ..................................................... 63
Table 3.10 The BASP results of Multiple Bracing ............................................. 64
Table 4.1 The Example Table of Mer with Stocky Braces (W21X44 L=260 in) ............ 91
Table 4.2 The Example Table of Comparison of Brace Stiffness
(W21X44 with L=120 in Top UDL) .................................................. 92
x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Overview
In the design of hot rolled steel structures, stability is one of the most important
considerations. In terms of flexural members, providing an adequate bending strength
about the major principal axis is also a main design requirement, in addition to shear,
bearing, web crippling, etc. The cross-sectional stress distribution caused by bending
naturally leads to the use of an I-shape flexural member. With this section shape, the two
flanges are positioned such that they carry a significant portion of the normal stress due to
bending, and the web carries most of the associated shear stress. When loading is applied
to a steel I-section beam in the plane of the web, the first response of the beam is to
deflect vertically. However, the extent of the vertical deflection will not typically become
significant because of the high major axis bending rigidity. In theory, once a critical
moment is reached, the I-beam will buckle suddenly by deflecting laterally about the
minor axis while simultaneously twisting about the geometric centroid (Fig.l.l). In reality
such lateral-torsional movement begins soon after loading commences due mainly to the
out-of-straightness of the steel member and possible eccentric loading. This behaviour,
which is known as e1astic lateral-torsional beam buckling, corresponds to an upper limit
of the beam's load-carrying capacity. The lower minor axis flexural and torsional
stiffnesses are the main reasons for the occurence of this phenomenon.
Lateral torsional buckling of a simple beam
Fig. 1. 1 Lateral Deflection "Ji" and Twist about Centroid c "fP:'of a Buckled I-Beam
1
In the case ofI-beams, the full flexuralload-carrying capacity of the cross-section can
be realized by specifying that the member be stocky with adequate lateral and torsional
stiffnesses, i.e. consist of flange and web elements with low slendemess ratios, or by
installing sufficient transvers bracing. Bearn bracing can be divided into lateral and
torsional categories, which restrain lateral movement and twist of the cross-section,
respectively. If the lateral bracing is provided at both flanges, twist of the cross-section
will also be prevented. For lateral bracing, the most effective bracing point is located at
the flange under compression, except for cantilever beams, in which the best bracing
position is the tension flange. Torsional bracing prevents twist only, that is lateral
movement of the beam may still be possible. A torsional brace that is attached at the
tension flange of a beam has the same restraint effect as a torsional brace located at the
shear centre or the compressive flange. For this reason the torsional stiffness of the beam
itself is also an important consideration for this type of bracing scenario. The connection
between a torsional brace and the beam must be capable of supporting the moment
required to prevent twist of the beam cross-section. There also exist four general kinds of
bracing systems: relative, discrete, continuous and lean-on (shown in Fig. 1.2) (Yura,
1993; Galambos, 1998). Relative bracing controls relative displacement of adjacent
beams. In contrast, discrete bracing prevents the movement of the braced point only. If
the distance between the braced points along a beam is short enough, then it is possible
for the member to reach its full moment resistance without buckling torsionally or
laterally. Continuous bracing provides restraint over the entire length of the beam span,
which also allows the member to develop its full flexural capacity. In the lean-on system,
the loaded beam in question depends on the stiffness, strength and possible buckling
modes of the unloaded or lowly loaded adjacent beam, as shown in Fig. 1.2.
In order for a lateral brace to supply adequate support to a flexural member
requirements for both stiffness and strength must be satisfied. The current edition of the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Limit States Design of Steel Structures S 16
Design Standard (CSA, 2001) allows for a direct method to be used, in place ofa second-
order analysis, to determine a required brace resistance in the direction perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the braced beam. Furthermore, a stiffness requirement based on
the allowed deflection of the brace may also be calculated.
2
Bracing between compression flanges
/
J- - --;- - - j
~ / " /
" /" /
,,/ ,,/
" / " /
E _v ___ v_ =-j
Relative bracing
f-I-
~
1 1
1 1
F-
1
-
Discrete bracing
1
1
~
Bracing
i
Continuous bracing
Lean-on bracing
Fig. 1.2 Lateral Bracing Systems ofI-Beam (Galambos, 1998)
In addition to the stiffness and lateral force provided by the brace, the point of
application of the load with respect to the shear centre of the beam cross-section is also
important in determining the critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment of a beam.
For example, if the load acts on the top flange of an I-beam, there is a tipping effect
which reduces the critical moment; if the load is suspended from the bottom flange the
critical moment increases because of the stabilizing action.
The shape of the bending moment diagram is also a consideration for the buckling
capacity of steel beams. Original studies of the criticalload for I-section steel beams are
based on a simply supported model subjected to a uniform moment. For the more
practical cases, where non-uniform bending moment distributions exist, there is a simple
modifier, Ch, that may be used to account for the effect of a moment gradient (Salvadori,
1955).
The initial imperfect shape of a beam is another characteristic that can influence its
flexural behaviour. Fabrication tolerance limits that are specified in the CSA-G40.20
(1998) and ASTM A6 (2003) standards stipulate a permissible variation in straightness
for I-shaped beams. This variation ranges from %00 to 7(000' where L is the member
length. The greater the out-of-straightness of a steel beam the larger the required bracing
stiffness and strength that are needed to ensure lateral movement of the section is
restrained.
3
Cantilever beams are a special case of flexural member, which when subjected to
loads in the plane of the web can suffer from lateral-torsional buckling as seen for simply
supported members. However, it is the tension flange of the cross-section that has the
greater lateral displacement (Fig.I.3), in contrast to the simply supported case where the
compression flange buckles. Because of this, the most effective bracing point for a
cantilever beam is on the top flange when the member is required to carry gravit y loads.
The elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment resistance is affected by the bracing
configuration at the tip and root of the bearn, as well as the loading conditions. However
the lateral bracing requirements for cantilevers is more complex than normal beams.
Calculation of the critical e1astic moment resistance at buckling has the same form as that
defined for a simply supported beam, except that an effective length factor k, which is
related to different lateral restraint configurations and loading conditions is introduced
(Trahair, 1963; Nethercot, 1973). The development of the effective length factors for
cantilever beams was based on the assumption that fully effective braces are supplied.
Design requirements that detail the needed stiffness and strength of the cantilever beam
brace such that the brace is fully effective are not specifically addressed in the CSA S16
Design Standard. In effect, when a k value is adopted in the design of a cantilever bearn, it
is not c1ear what the corresponding lateral bracing requirement should be.
Fig. 1.3 Lateral Torsional Buckling of Cantilever Bearn (Woolcock & Trahair, 1974)
4
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this thesis are to: 1) determine the rational of the effective length
factors for cantilever beams and to develop an understanding with regards to the
assumptions made in the derivation of the elastic lateral-torsional buckling capacity. 2)
Recommend a bracing requirement in terms of stiffuess for cantilever beams such that the
predicted elastic lateral-torsional buckling capacity can be achieved.
1.3 Scope
The scope of the investigation will inc1ude a detailed review and summary of the
literature with respect to lateral-torsional buckling and brace requirements. In addition,
the main portion of the thesis will contain an evaluation of the elastic critical lateral-
torsional buckling capacity of braced simple and suspended cantilever beams using the
buckling analysis software BASP (Buckling Analysis of Stiffened Plates) (Choo, 1987).
Various beam configurations, loading scenarios and restraint conditions will be inc1uded
in a parametric study ofbuckling capacity and brace requirements.
Only discrete lateral bracing set on the top flange, shear centre and bottom flange, as
well as on both flanges simultaneously, will be considered. The brace position along the
length of the cantilever beam will also be studied, e.g. at the tip or root of the beam or at
both locations. The loading conditions will vary with respect to the type of loading, i. e.
concentrated, uniformly distributed or pure applied moment, and the position of loading,
i. e. top flange, shear centre or bottom flange.
1.4 Thesis Outline
This thesis has been divided into five chapters, inc1uding the CUITent Chapter 1
(Introduction). Chapter 2 is the first primary part of this thesis, in which a detailed
literature review of the development of beam buckling theory and lateral bracing
requirements are located. In Chapter 3, an evaluation of the BASP stability buckling
5
software is presented. A parametric study of simple and suspended cantilever I-section
beams having different loading and bracing configurations is detailed in Chapter 4.
Finally in Chapter 5, conclusions and recommendations for design as weIl as suggestions
for future research are provided.
6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Elastic lateral-torsion al buckling of simple cantilever beams
A beam may be considered as an element that mainly carries transverse loads in
structures. Usually the common hot rolled steel beams available world-wide are doubly
symmetric, and hence, there are two principal axes for the beam cross-section: the major
X-X and the minor y-y axes (Fig.2.i), The loading is often applied only about one of the
axes, typically the X-X axis which often provides the greater bending resistance.
>-1 >-1 >-1
1 1 1
>-1 >-1 >-1
Fig. 2.1 Principal Axes ofBeam Cross-sections
In steel construction, the I-shape section is adopted to meet the requirement of
bending strength for the major axis. However, the typical wide flange beam or universal
beam shape has a much higher bending stiffness about the major principal (strong) axis
than the minor principal axis. Usually the minor axis stiffness is not sufficient to allow the
beam to reach its major axis capacity if suitable lateral support is not provided, although
this behaviour would depend on the length of the beam as well. As the load on the beam
is increased, a critical situation can be reached when lateral-torsional buckling results in a
slight weak axis deflection and twist of the cross-section (Fig.2.2) before the full major
YI
,
M ~ M,
Cf---u .. ____ J
p
1 L 1
Elevation TopView
Fig. 2.2 Lateral Buckling ofI-beams
7
axis strength is reached. This load at which the critical buckling situation occurs is
considered as the maximum elastic load that the beam can resist. The common types of
wide flange beams are susceptible to lateral-torsional buckling because they are often
dimensioned with narrow sections to move a larger portion of the cross-section away
from the neutral axis (increase Ix) and to avoid local buckling oftheir flanges.
Prandtl (1899) and Mitchell (1899) were the first to analyse the lateral stability of
narrow rectangular cross-section simply supported beams under pure bending. They
independently derived the same solution, that is a second order differential equation with
variable controlling factors, e.g. Young's modulus of elasticity E; the shear modulus of
elasticity G; the torsion constant J; the torsional rigidity C=GJ which can be defined as
the amount of the torsional moment corresponding to a unit angle of twist per unit length
and the moment of inertia 117 =Iy for minor principal axis rotation of the cross-section
(Fig. 2.2):
Ir lEI GJ
The solution of the above equation is : M = \j TI
cr L
where the L refers to the span length of the simply supported beam.
(2.1)
(2.2)
In their studies, two coordinate systems were adopted: the fixed x-y-z and the after
buckling coordinates - 17 - t; (Fig. 2.2). Timoshenko (1905) extended this case to I-
shape sections subject to pure bending, which based on equilibrium conditions is given as
the following equation:
(2.3)
Solving equation (2.3), the critical moment resistance Mer can be written as:
(2.4)
8
In which, h is the height of cross-section. Timoshenko (1905) utilized the same
controlling factors for the criticalload as given by the former research by Prandtl (1899)
and Mitchell (1899).
Since then, many researchers (e.g. Dumont and Hill, 1940; Winter, 1941&1944; Hill,
1942; de Vries, 1946; Flint, 1950;1952&1953; Bleich, 1952; Home, 1954; and Salvadori,
1955) have completed investigations on various aspects of the lateral-torsional buckling
problem of beams. Timoshenko, and Gere (1961), carried out the earliest theoretical
analyses using the energy method. In their text Theory of Elastic Stability they assumed
that a small lateral deflection occurs in doubly symmetric beams when loaded about the
axis of greater rigidity. They introduced a new controlling factor Cl = EC
w
in their
equations, where EC
w
' called warping rigidity, could be defined as the warping torque
while the value of (d
3
cp / dz
3
) equals (-1). The warping torque is exerted by the warping
shear stresses in the cross-section (Fig.2.3).
Shear-flow
z
y
Fig. 2.3 Warping Displacement Due to Shear
In addition, the following expressions for bending and twisting can be derived from the
equi1ibrium equations in the same coordinate system as shown above (Fig.2.2):
d
2
v
El --2 = M (bending about axis)
dz
d
2
u
El1] --2 = M 1] (bending about 1] axis)
dz
(2.5a)
(2.5b)
9
C dtjJ _ Cl d
3
tjJ = M (twisting)
dz dz
(2.Sc)
For the pure bending case (Fig.2.4), in which M = Mo,M'7 = tjJM
o
' and M = - du Mo,
dz
Fig. 2.4 Pure Bending of a Simply Supported I-Beam
solving the above differential equations (Eqn.2.5) with consideration of the boundary
conditions, it was possible to obtain the critical value of the lateral-torsional buckling
load:
(
M) - " El C(l + Cl ,,2)
cr - L '7 C L
2
(2.6)
Equation 2.6 forms the basis of the critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment
expression used in modern steel design standards, for example eSA S16 (2001), AISe
(1999), where
M =" El GJ(l+ EC
w
,,2)
cr L y GJ L
2
(2.7)
Timoshenko and Gere also derived the critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling
equation for a cantilever I-section. In the case of an end-loaded simple cantilever I-beam
with a concentrated load at the centroid of the cross-section (Fig.l.3 & 2.5), the critical
load may be expressed as:
10
(2.8)
where r 2' is related to the ratio of torsional rigidity C and warping rigidity Cl (Eqn.2.9),
as well as load position.
4.013
(2.9)
- -}J
x
-v
Fig. 2.5 Lateral Buckling of End-Ioaded Cantilever
Using the strain-energy method, Timoshenko and Gere analyzed the cases of a simply
supported beam with concentrated load and uniform load, respectively. The critical load
equation for the concentrated load case takes the same form as Eqn. 2.8. For the
uniformly loaded simply supported scenario the sum of the critical uniformly distributed
load is expressed as:
(2.10)
where the value of r 4 depends on the ratio L
2
%1 and on the position of the load. As
shown by the tabulated values in Table 6-6 (p268) of the Theory of Elastic Stability
(Timoshenko & Gere, 1961), r 4 decreases as the position of applied load is located
higher on the cross section, and with an increase of L
2
%1 .
11
ln the criticalload equation of simple cantilever beams (Eqn. 2.8 & 2.10), a factor' a'
may be introduced which represents the vertical distance of the load application point
ab ove the section centroid. The expression for the criticalload then becomes:
p =
cr L2 (L C)
(2.11)
From equation 2.11, it is clear that the criticalload will decrease with an increase of 'a',
that is the higher the point of loading on the cross-section the lower the critical lateral-
torsional buckling load.
The studies that were carried out by Timoshenko and Gere revealed that, the factors
that affect the criticalload are: beam section properties, 11]' C and Cl; the type of load,
concentrated or uniform load; the position of loads, a and the distance from the support
for concentrated load; the unsupported length L; also the material properties, E and G.
However, in terms of cantilever beams, the studies only covered the end loaded scenario.
Poley (1956) carried out an investigation of the lateral-torsional buckling of
uniformly loaded cantilever beams. An expression for the sum of the critical load for a
centroid loaded cantilever I-beam was derived as follows,
(2.12)
where m is a factor related to the torsional rigidity, the flexural rigidity and the cross
section dimensions, B denotes the minor axis flexural rigidity Ely, C is the torsional
rigidity GJ of the cross-section and L is the unbraced length of the beam.
In design standards, the criticallateral-torsional buckling capacity of a beam is based
on a model which is a perfect, simply supported beam bent about the major axis by equal
and opposite end moments while the flanges are fully restrained at the ends against lateral
deflection and free to rotate about the vertical axes. Trahair (1963) noticed that this
idealized model would rarely be found in a practical I-beam situation. For this reason
Trahair carried out a study conceming the effect of imperfections, different moment
12
shapes and various restraint conditions on the criticalload carrying capacity of an I-shape
beam. The results of this research show that for practical cases the critical buckling stress
that corresponds to the critical moment load will vary in comparison to that obtained with
the original theoretical model. A constant k (Eqn 2.13b) was then introduced into the
basic equation for the lateral-torsional buckling stress (Eqn. 2.13a).
(2. Ba)
Jr2Ely h 1+ 4GJ(kL)2
he = (kL)2 2Z
x
Jr
2
h
2
Ely
(2.l3b)
In the above two equations, besides the material properties E and G, and the geometrical
properties ly and J, h represents the distance between flange centroids. Comparing
Equations 2.13a and 2.13b, it is obvious that these two are of the same form except for
the k factor in Equation (2.13b). This research by Trahair led to the notion of the effective
length 1 of a beam, which was defined by l=kL, where k is called the effective length
factor.
In the 1960s, a standard form of presentation of the relationship between the buckling
and the physical proportions of structural components was developed. However, this did
not occur to the same extent with respect to the lateral-torsional buckling of beams. In
1971, Nethercot and Rockey, summarized almost aIl of the aspects studied in previous
years for simply supported and cantilever I-section beams. In the paper A unified
approach to the elastic lateral buckling of beams (Nethercot & Rockey, 1971), a general
equation for the critical elastic lateral-torsional moment resistance for both simply
supported and cantilever beams was presented. This approach not only considered the
loading scenarios, i.e. uniform or point loads and loading position relative to shear centre
of the cross-section, it also incorporated the various end support conditions, i.e. fixed and
simply supported ends. The expression is given as follows:
13
1
M
cr
= a(ElyGJ)
2
r, (2.14)
ff [ f f l ~
where r = L 1 + R
2
'
(2.15)
and R
2
= L
2
GJ , is called the torsional parameter
EC .
w
(2.16)
From Eqn.2.16, lower values ofR
2
imply a larger warping stiffness. Furthermore, a study
involving a series of commercial beams, inc1uding both hot rolled and cold formed
sections, showed that elastic buckling would usually be confined to values of R
2
above
about four (Nethercot & Rockey, 1971). In Eqn. 2.14, a is a lateral buckling coefficient
that varies with the type of loading, the level of load application, the lateral support
conditions and also with the shape of the beam. Compared with the former equations, a,
to sorne extent, has the same controlling function as r 2 (Eqn. 2.8), r 4 (Eqn. 2.10) and m
(Eqn. 2.12).
As an extension of the work completed in 1971, Nethercot (1973), developed the
concept of an effective buckling coefficient, r e' which can be used to determine the
elastic critical buckling load Mer of a cantilever I-beam with the basic expression
(Eqn.2.14) for cantilever beams:
1
M = re (El GJ)2
cr L y ,
(2.17)
where re = ar , and a depends on R
2
, the scenarios of loading and the conditions of
lateral support (Figs.2.6 & 2.7), rand R
2
can be determined using Eqn. 2.15, and
Eqn.2.16, respectively.
14
bottom loading
/
/
S-C loading
/
top loading
4 10 100 1000
Fig. 2.6 Loading Conditions Associated with Lateral Stability
completely fixed
/
shear center loading
free end
/
4 10 1 100C
Fig. 2.7 Effect of End Restraint on Lateral Stability
Nethercot (1973), also suggested that the equation with the effective length factor
which was first developed by Trahair (1963) for the critical elastic lateral torsional
buckling moment capacity of a cantilever beam with end restraint could be expressed as:
(2.18)
in which, 1 = kL, k is the effective length factor, which in simple terms indicates that the
buckling of a restrained section may be related to the buckling of a similar pin-ended
15
section. Equation 2.18 was later applied by N ethercot (1983) for the general design of
beams (Fig. 2.8).
l
r---------- L
1 = k L -----------1
Fig. 2.8 Buckling ofUmestrained and End-Restrained Section
Equations 2.18 and 2.17 merely represent alternative forms of the general elastic lateral
torsional buckling expression. From Tahair's (1967) equation (2.19a), Nethercot was able
to show the relationship between Y
e
and k in Equation 2.19b :
(2.19a)
Jr2 y2 ElyC . . PL2
where, N = 2 2 ' wIth C = GJ and Mmax the maxImum value of Mx; y = f""iiTr
2 Mmax L "ElyC
and t:c for point load and unifonnly distributed load (UDL), respectively; and
ElyC
K , with
CL
(2.19b)
Nethercot derived the effective length factors for simple cantilevers with six loading
conditions: end-loaded and uniformly loaded configurations corresponding to top-flange,
16
shear centre, and bottom-flange loading, respectively, As well, k-values were established
for cantilever beams with various forms of restraint at the tip, inc1uding the overhanging
portion of a continuous beam with different lateral restraints at the root. Nethercot
recommended that minimum values of k within the practical range of 7r should be used
R
in design (Table 2.1).
Table2.1 Effective-Iength Factor for Cantilevers
Restraint Condition Effective Length Factor k
Top Flange AlI other
Scenarios
At Root At Tip
Loading Cases
I
1.4 0.8 Scenario 1.1
~
l:
r
1.4 0.7 Scenario 1.2
:JCl
0.6 0.6 Scenario 1.3
I
2.5 1.0
Scenario 2.1
~ r:
2.5 0.9 Scenario 2.2
~
1.5 0.8
Scenario 2.3
I
7.5 3.0 Scenario 3.1
Or
r:
7.5 2.7 Scenario 3.2
~
4.5 2.4
Scenario 3.3
(Nethercot, 1973&1983)
As is evident in Eqns. 2.19a, 2.19b and 2.15, k is directly related to R
2
, where
typically k becomes lower for the top loading scenario with an increase ofR
2
(Fig. 2.9). It
can also be seen that for the tip loaded beam with a fixed root support the k values listed
in Table 2.1 are conservative when R
2
> 4. Nonetheless, this is a convenient approach for
practical design because of the complexity in determining more precise effective length
17
factors for the many possible loading and support scenarios. In Nethercot's studies of
1973 & 1983, a requirement in terms of the brace strength and stiffness that corresponds
ta the recommended k values was not indicated.
k
Je 1
1.4
1.2
top loading
10
/
0.8
0.6

/
bottom loading
OA
4 10
Fig. 2.9 Effective Length Factor for Tip Loaded Cantilevers
.........
E
1
Z

-
538
/(3=5kN/m
/
curve with
Nethercot's
k=1.4
2
(3=1 kN/m
UOL
r
(3=0 kN/m
/'
L(m)
Fig. 2.10 Effect of Change in Brace Stiffness on Moment Resistance
6 8 4 10 12
18
In order to show the effect of brace stiffness on the elastic lateral-torsional buckling
capacity of a cantilever beam, an example W21 x 44 (W530 x 66) member with different
brace stiffness, f3, at the tip was analyzed using BASP. A graphical presentation of the
critical buckling moment results compared with the beam length can be found in Fig.
2.10. In this case the effect of a change in brace stiffness is evident, that is the lower the
f3 value the lower the elastic buckling capacity. It is also shown that in this case ev en
when the lateral brace stiffness becomes zero, the calculated moment resistance based on
k = 1.4 is conservative. As introduced in Chapter 1, the brace requirement of cantilevers
for the k values listed in Table 2.1 will be the core of this research.
2.2 The effect of restraint on the lateral-torsion al buckling of beams
A common design scenario is to install braces on a beam such that lateral or torsional
movement of the cross-section is restrained. These braces allow for an increase in the
flexural resistance of the beam by preventing or limiting the degree of lateral-torsional
buckling. Suitable bracing of a beam can be provided without a great increase in
expenditure. As shown in Table 2.1, for cantilevers, the more efficient the tip lateral
bracing is, the smaller the effective length factor k will be. As can be seen in Eqn. 2.18,
the smaller the effective length factor the greater the moment resistance as govemed by
critical elastic lateral-torsional buckling. The effective length factors mainly reflect the
effect of the restraint on the minor axis bending and end warping for either simply
supported cantilever beams. The most efficient lateral and torsional bracing can be
provided in the span of a simply supported beam or at the tip of a simple cantilever beam,
as well as at both the tip and the root of the overhanging portion of a continuous beam
with a cantilever end. In practice, beams are usually connected to other structural
elements, e.g. floor slabs or other framing elements, which provide sorne measure of
restraint at the supports or/and along the span of the member (Figs.2.11 &2.12).
19
brace
\ ,/ '\\'l Buckled shape if
",,"" \
",,"" \ \ / brace stiffness is
",,"" 1 \ sufficient
<':" 'xl
", /\
',,> // \
",,"" / \
""",,"" / \ Buckled shape if
<: ( ) _____ brace stiffness is
',\ 1 insufficient
'," 1
',> "" 1
",,"" "1
",,"" "1
",,"" r
"" Il
<.:, / )
" 1 1
" Il
" f/
Fig. 2.11 Practical Exarnple of Lateral Braces on Bearn
: !
,
i
torque exerted by br.ce <: : J
'" ' l ~ , "
torsional brace
~ , / < i . /
iL)
Fig. 2.12 Practical Exarnple of Torsional Brace on Bearn
Winter (1944) described the influence ofrestraints on the lateral stability ofbearns for
the case of a sirnply supported rnernber with an intermediate lateral brace (Fig. 2.13).
These restraints are considered to lirnit the lateral deflection of the bearn, however, they
pro vide no support in the vertical direction.
20
1
xl
Lateral1xas fi
lxth flanges-
B
~ 8 B ----===::----__
1
Fig. 2.13 Lateral Buckling of an I-Beam with an Intennediate Lateral Brace (Top View)
Winter detennined the effect of the restraints on the horizontal rotations at each
support (e.g.(JA,(JB and (Je in Fig. 2. 13). From basic beam the ory, the expressions of (JA
and (Je for a non-Iaterally-restrained beam AC, i.e. braces have not been provided,
subjected to Mey where c refers to the moment applied at C, and y indicates that the
moment is about y-y axis are:
MeyL
(J =--
A 6El
y
"
(2.20)
(2.21)
Taking the moments MAy' Mey and Mx into account, the above equations become:
MAyL MeyL
(J - --!lF(a) + --A.(a)
A - 3EI '/' 6EI 'r
(2.22)
Y' Y'
and,
(2.23)
21
3 1 1 3 1
where, the terms = - (-. - - -) and \If ( a) = - (-- cot 2a) reflect the
a sm2a 2a 2a 2a
influence of Mx on the magnitude of the horizontal end rotation, L is the unrestrained
length, and BBI and BBr are the left-side and right-side rotations, respectively.
Timoshenko (1936), was able to show that,
(2.24)
in which, C
w
is the torsional constant and Ix" 1 y' are the moment of inertia about the axes
Xl and yi respectively. The value of 2a = aL can be obtained from tables that
correspond to different ljI(a)or rjJ(a) values (Timo shenko , 1936). For the beam under
pure flexure with the lateral restraint configuration shown in Fig. 2.13, where
MAy = M cy = 0 and M BI = -M Br' we can find the critical elastic buckling moment
considering the boundary condition B BI = B Br by:
,GJ
M = y
cr L
(2.25)
Furthermore, Winter (1960) indicated that the fully effective brace must posses both a
requisite strength and a definite minimum stiffness. The relation between the brace force
and stiffness is:
(2.26)
where F represents the axial force in the brace, k is the brace axial stiffness and is the
axial deformation of the brace. For a real imperfect column (with an initial deformation
Winter derived the requirement for the spring stiffness (Eqn. 2.27) to produce a fully
braced column (Fig. 2.14):
22
F/2
1 Pe
\\
\ \
\ \
\ \
L
\ \
\
\
1
\
F
(3
L
FiL..
Fig.2.14 Real Column with One Elastic Lateral Brace
where, n = 2, 3,3.41 for one, two and three equidistant braces respectively, and
Pe = 1[2 is the Euler buckling load,
L
k
id
= nPe is the required full brace stiffness for an ideal column (with ~ o =0).
L
The required strength for the full brace is:
23
(2.27)
(2.28)
(2.29)
The actual rigidity of the brace member should not be less than the required stiffness to
ensure that buckling of the column in this situation occurs between braces, that is
kact :?: k
req
. As for ~ o Winter suggested the initial displacement be govemed by the
permissible fabrication tolerance of the steel member if a respective specification is not
made in the design code being followed. It would be reasonable to consider that
additional imperfections could be twice that of the fabrication tolerance. The additional
axial deformation of the brace, can usually be set equal to the initial member out-of-
straight tolerance, ~ o .
The derivation of lateral bracing requirements was based on the investigation of
axially compressed columns as discussed above. It can be said that the lateral-torsional
buckling of beams is more involved than the flexural buckling of columns. A detailed
analysis of such lateral-torsional buckling is thought of as too complex for use in design,
and hence, it is often more practical to specify the safe lower limits of required bracing
strength and stiffness. Winter (1960) indicated that two bearn characteristics contribute to
the resistance of lateral-torsional buckling: 1) the tension flange, which provides a degree
of lateral bending resistance in comparison with the compression flange because it will
not buckle under bending, and 2) the torsional rigidity which counteracts the twist that is
coupled with the lateral buckling of beams. Ca1culations have shown that the total force
in the compressed portion of a bearn is of the sarne order of magnitude as the Euler
critical elastic flexural buckling column load when this portion of the cross-section is
considered in isolation. It follows that if one considers only the compressed part of the
beam cross-section, a relatively straightforward method to specify adequate lateral
bracing requirements can be developed. Considering the contribution of the tension flange
and the torsional stiffness of the whole section, there exists sorne additional safety when
the design approach is based on this assumption. Consequently, Winter (1960), suggested
that the requirements for effective lateral bracing against beam buckling should be
computed in the following fashion:
Determine the maximum compression force in a fully braced bearn, then,
Consider only the compressed portion of the beam (Fig. 2.15), to determine the
required bracing characteristics by the method described previously for the design
ofbraces that restrict flexural column buckling perpendicular to the loading plane.
24
~ ~ = = = = = = = = = = = = ~ ~ ~ ~
Mo
C
)Mo
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fig. 2.15 Compression and Tension Portions of an I-Beam for Lateral Brace Requirement
There are sorne exceptions for which the method described above may not be suitable.
For example, it is not applicable to the case where the load is located at a very
considerable distance ab ove the top flange of the beam. More precis el y, the entire beam
has less flexural buckling resistance than the isolated compression portion of the cross-
section alone. Modifications of this method are also needed if the plastic design approach
is utilised.
The equation provided in design standards for end-restrained beams is based on the
behaviour of a similar free-end beam. For cantilevers, the lateral-torsional buckling
behaviour is compared with a simple cantilever with a free end (Fig. 2. 16). Flint (1951)
completed a series of physical experiments which showed the extent of increment in
critical load produced by adding end restraints. This investigation revealed the nature of
the influence of different loading cases and different restraint configurations on the
lateral-torsional behaviour ofbeams. Flint summarized the influencing factors as:
End Fixity, will considerably increase the permissible flexural stress by employing
a reduced effective span in design,
Torsional Stiffness of Supports, will increase the stability by restraint of warping
at the supports,
Bending Restraints on the Span, will be most effective when they act at the
compression flange and the point of maximum displacement in the buckled mode,
Torsional Restraints on the Span.
Flint's study provided the background information for the British Standard used in that
period (1950s). Based on experimental results, he suggested the possibility of raising the
permissible flange stresses for restrained beams above the values of unrestrained beams,
25
which caused conservative designs in the case of lateral-torsional buckling at that time
because of the lack of experimental data.
Fig.2.16 Free End Simple Cantilever I-Beam
Later, Mutton and Trahair (1973) set the focus of their research mainly on the
restraint stiffness requirements. They simplified the definition of "restraint" to include
two types: elastic translational and elastic rotational. In the case of a restrained, simply
supported I-beam with equal and opposite end moments, the critical moment was
expressed by,
Mc
kL
=;r 1 + ;r2 ECO)
~ l y G J GJeL
2
'
(2.30)
where k is the effective length factor as described previously in this chapter. The
translational and rotational stiffness corresponding to the buckled shape, which is related
to 1/k, was determined from the equilibrium equations of minor axis flexure and torsion.
The solutions provided by Mutton and Trahair were evaluated using a finite element
approach, which accounted for the interaction of warping, flange loading, and end
restraints.
26
In the CUITent North American design philosophy, there are two basic methods to
determine the requirements for brace members: the Simplified method and the Detailed
analysis method. The latest CSA S16 defines the simplified method as:
Bracing systems shall be proportioned to have a strength perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the braced member in the plane of buckling equal to at
least 0.02 limes the factored compressive force at each brace point in the
member or element being braced. (Cl. 9.2.5 CSA S16, 2001)
The detailed analysis for the determination of brace requirements can also be in the
form of a second-order elastic structural analysis, which follows a similar procedure to
that demonstrated by Winter (1960), or a Direct Method (Eqn.2.31). This direct approach
may be used to ca1culate the factored resistance required by each brace in the direction
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam member in the plane ofbuckling.
(2.31 )
where I1b is the displacement of the bracing system, assumed to be equal to the initial
out-of-straightness 110 in practical cases; Cf represents the maximum factored
compression in the segments bound by the brace points; n carries the same values as Eqn.
2.27; and L represents the unbraced length of the beam. After determination of the
required brace strength, it is possible to ca1culate the required brace stiffness using the
basic method shown in Eqn. 2.26. The resulting design brace stiffness is:
nC 11
k =_1 (1+-0)
b L 11
b
(2.32)
The Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) also defines a strength and stiffness
requirement for bracing systems (Yura & Helwig, 2001). For relative braces the stiffness
IS:
27
K = 2"L.P (l1act) (2.33)
br rjJL 110 '
with rjJ = 0.75 and 110 = 0.002L; the strength requirement if 110 = 0.002L can be
calculated using the simple expression:
F
br
= 0.004"L.P
(2.34)
If a different brace stiffness from that resulting from Eqn. 2.33 is provided then the
strength requirement may be modified,
1
F
br
= 0.004"L.P----
2- K
br
/ Kact
(2.35)
K act is the actual brace stiffness.
For discrete bracing system, where actual displacement of the brace is set equal to the
initial displacement at the brace location 110 = 0.002L then,
K =n2P
br rjJL'
(2.36)
F
br
= O.OlP (2.37)
In lieu of using Eqn 2.37 it is permissible to revert to the basic definition of required
brace strength (Eqn.2.26) given a design brace stiffuess. In sorne instances the initial
deflected position of the beam at the brace location may be other than that defined above,
i.e. 110 ;j:. 0.002L . In this scenario the required brace stiffuess may be determined with the
use of the ideal brace stiffuess and a multiplier based on the initial and allowed brace
distortion,
28
(2.38)
in which, the ideal brace stiffness Ki is the brace stiffness that is required to prevent
lateral movement at the brace location of an initially perfectly straight element.
The British Standard 5950 (2000) for the design of steel structures, describes the full
brace requirement in a simple manner:
For full lateral restraint at the compressive flange, the total resistance force in
the brace should not less than 2.5% the maxforce in the compressionflange. The
lateral force should be considered distributed uniformly along the flange (Cl.
4.2.2 BS 5950-1:2000).
For intermediate lateral restra in t, a resistance force not less than 2.5% of the
max factored force in the compression flange within the relevant span should be
provided (Cl. 4.3.2.2.1 BS 5950-1:2000).
There are no specified requirements for brace stiffness in the British Standard.
2.3 Application of Finite Element Method to Stability Buckling
It is often overly complicated to carry out the exact buckling analysis of a structure
following a classical approach. Rence, with the advent of high speed computers the finite
element method (FEM) has come into regular use. In general, the finite element method
may be used to model a structure as an assemblage of small elements, each of which have
a simple geometry and therefore improve the ease with which an analysis may be
completed. This method does not involve the formation or solution of differential
equations and is more general than previous methods conducted by Timoshenko and
Trahair. In structural engineering, the Finite Element Method is recognized as an effective
tool for predicting buckling loads for relatively thin-walled member (Akay et al., 1977).
Powell and Klingner (J 970) were able to document the use of the finite element
method as applied to the solution of the elastic lateral-torsional buckling problem. The
29
same work were also done by Barsoum and Gallagher in 1970. They indicated that that
the FEM approach can accommodate for:
Beams with various cross-sections and various support conditions
Arbitrary loads inc1uding type and position.
Bearn problems with different bracing configurations, such as one flange braced
beam, as well as beams with insufficient braces, etc.
Inelastic effects in addition to elastic stability analyses.
Johnson and Will (1974) further developed the FEM beam buckling analysis
approach. They were able to utilize a two-dimensional finite element mode for wide-
flange sections that are loaded in the plane of the web (Fig. 2.17). This provided the
ability to account for cross-section distortion since the flanges and the web were divided
into separate elements. In their studies of lateral-torsional beam buckling, the equilibrium
equation 2.38 was adopted to calculate the criticalload with the assumption that linear-
elastic buckling would occur.
<)
x
z ~
IT
-..---- I ~ 7'"
"'--;7'"
Fig.2.17 Two Dimensional Mesh Configuration for I-Beam
(2.38)
where, Kc is the conventional elastic structural stiffuess matrix; Kg refers to the
geometric stiffuess matrix and the vector r represents the buckled shape. The
eigenvalue is a single parameter characterizing the applied loading, which can be used
to determine the critical buckling load. That is, the loading used for the analysis is
multiplied by the smallest value of to obtain the critical buckling load in practical
calculations. It is very important to note that for a beam both positive and negative critical
loads will exist, because buckling can take place for both upward and downward loading.
30
When an I-beam with a small or unsupported bottom flange is analysed, the negative
criticalload may be smaller than the required positive criticalload.
Based on the above theory, Akay, et al. (1977) developed the mainframe computer
software BASP15X, which has been used extensively for the lateral buckling analysis of
beams and frames. The software provides the capability to analyse the buckling of plates
with syrnmetrically placed stiffeners and braces. The mainframe based BASP15X was
later converted to mn on a personal computer by Choo (1987), and is now referred to as
BASP (Buckling Analysis of Stiffened Plates). Additional information on this software is
provided in Chapter 3.
31
CHAPTER 3 ELASTIC LATERAL - TORSIONAL BUCKLING
OF I-BEAMS USING BASP
3.1 Introduction to BASP
The computer program Buckling Analysis of Stiffened Plates (BASP) was first
developed by Johnson and Will (1974) as weIl as Akay et al. (1977), and has been used
extensively to analyze the elastic lateral buckling behaviour of beams and frames. BASP
has been formulated based on the finite element method, and is capable of carrying out an
elastic lateral-torsional buckling analysis of plates with symmetrically placed stiffener
elements, as weIl as a calculation of stresses under in-plane (plate plane) loading
(Fig.3.l). Various cross-section dimensions, span lengths, boundary conditions and
elastic lateral/torsional restraints may be considered.
In-plane
y r / Loading
(
x

Web
:Stiffener
Flange
Web Stiffener Plate Element Stiffener
Fig. 3.1 Stiffener Elements and Plate Elements ofBASP Models
The example shown in Fig. 3.2 is that of a simply supported beam 'CB' with a suspended
cantilever segment 'BA' on which top flange lateral braces (10 kip/in) are installed at the
end A and root B, respectively. Note: although the software is non-dimensional in nature,
the imperial system of units has been utilized in place of the S.I. system because of the
initial imperfections assumed by the pro gram, which correspond to a unit or fraction of a
unit of measurement. These initial imperfections cannot be adjusted by the user. After
repeated trials it was decided to use imperial units. In Fig. 3.3, a torsional brace is located
at the centroid of a simple cantilever beam.
32
A
B 1
Fig. 3.2 Suspended Cantilever Bearn with Lateral Braces
Fig. 3.3 Simple Cantilever Bearn with Torsional Brace
From Fig. 3. l, the finite element analysis model is constructed by using two-dimensional
elements in the web and one-dimensional (linear) elements in both flanges of an I-shaped
section. With this combination of elements BASP is able to account for local buckling of
the web (Fig.3.4), torsional buckling of the flanges (Fig.3.5), as well as cross-sectional
distortion (Fig. 3. 6).


Fig. 3.4 Web Local Buckling of BASP Model
33
Fig. 3.5 Flange Torsional Buckling ofBASP Model
Fig. 3.6 Distortion ofBASP Model
The procedure contained within BASP is based on the stiffuess analysis for loads
applied in the plane of the web (Eqn 3.1):
(3.1)
in which Ki represents the in-plane structural stiffness matrix of the cross-section and Ri
contains nodal forces due to in-plane loading. With the use of Eqn.3.1, the in-plane
displacements ri are calculated, and then used to determine the in-plane stresses (Fig. 3. 7).
Once the in-plane analysis has been completed, the software then assembles the out-of-
plane elastic structural stiffuess matrix, Kc, based on the displacement Yi at each corner
node of the finite element mode!. With the in-plane stresses BASP then generates the
geometric stiffuess matrix, Kg, for the computation ofthe critical out-of-plane buckling
34
Positive, Zone
Fig. 3.7 Example ofBASP Stress Plot (T'x and flanges)
load and buckled shape by assuming that the geometric stiffness is linearly proportional
to the applied loading. The mathematical relationship expressed by Eqn. 2.38 can then be
used to solve for the eigenvalue, jj., through the use of the inverse iteration procedure.
The elastic out-of-plane buckling load is obtained by multiplying the smaUest provided
in the analysis by the applied loading.
In BASP calculations, there are two options for the initial buckled shape:
Unsymmetric and Symmetric. The Unsymmetric option sets the initial buckled shape to be
a unit out-of-plane displacement for the left one third of the nodes, and a one half unit
out-of-plane displacement in the opposite direction for the remaining two thirds of the
nodes. The Symmetric option sets the initial buckled shape to be a unit out-of-plane
displacement for aU nodes.
The BASP operation starts with the cross-sectional properties input, which includes
the dimensions of the flanges and the web, the span of the beam and the offset distance
between the two ends of the beam (Fig.3.8). It is then possible to define the material
properties for the specified beam and to set a mesh to create the finite element model
(Fig. 3. 9). This symmetric mesh may then be modified by assigning nodal co-ordinates
that represent the true shape of the member (Fig. 3.1 0). After the geometric properties of
the beam have been set, the boundary conditions, including vertical supports, brace
location and stiffness, as weU as the loading conditions are then input. If required, web
stiffeners may also be specified, although only those that are symmetrically located about
the web can be utilized. At this stage, the BASP finite element model is ready to be
analyzed (Fig. 3. 11).
35
Fig. 3.8 BASP Input of Cross-section Properties
Fig. 3.9 BASP Input of Material Properties and Creation ofMesh
Fig. 3.10 Reassignment ofSpecified Nodal Coordinates in BASP
36
Boundary
-/<
Bracc
Load
StitTcner
Fig. 3.11 Boundary Condition, Loading, Brace and Stiffeners ofBASP Model
A number of analysis options are available to the user. The first is the Iteration option
(Fig. 3. 12). As described in Chapter 2, with the use of the finite element method both
positive and negative eigenvalues may be determined. A negative eigenvalue indicates
that a buckling mode exists for which the direction of force is opposite to the applied
load. In BASP the negative value is only available if the I-beam is perfectly symmetric
about the longitudinal axis (X-X). A negative eigenvalue may be obtained if its absolute
value is smaller than the smallest positive eigenvalue. In this case, it is possible to allow
BASP to converge on a solution that gives the smallest positive eigenvalue by shifting the
origin of the eigenvalue calculation from zero to a positive value. This is achieved by
letting the eigenvalue in Eqn. 2.38 be equal to = '+ s , such that Eqn. 2.38 becomes:
(3.2)
Equation 3.2 can be solved and obtained by relying on the inverse iteration procedure.
In the BASP analysis, after the initial Max. Cycle (Fig.3.12) number of iterations have
been completed, the calculated eigenvalue is multiplied by the value associated with
Factor, and is used as an estimated eigenvalue for the next Max. Cycle number of
iterations. This continues until either the convergence criteria is satisfied or when (Max.
Shift) *( Max. Cycle) iterations are completed (BASP instruction). Experience has shown
that the numbers illustrated in Fig. 3.12 allow for an accurate estimate of the buckling load
within a reasonable time.
37
Fig. 3.12 Iteration Option ofBASP Analysis
The second option is called Miscellaneous (Fig.3.i3). The user is able to select the
Torsional Geometrie Stiffness, if it is necessary to inc1ude elastic local flange buckling in
the an"alysis. The Approximate Shear Distortion is used when local web crippling at
concentrated loads or lateral web buckling must be considered. The details regarding the
Initial Buckling Shape (Fig. 3.i4) have been described previously.
Fig. 3.13 Miscellaneous Option ofBASP Analysis
Before running the BASP analysis (Fig.3.i5), an estimated eigenvalue should be
input. The iterations will converge much faster if the approximate eigenvalue approaches
the real value, otherwise it is safer to input zero as a shift. Upon convergence, the
38
required elastic critical buckling load can be found through multiplying the displayed
eigenvalue by the applied load.
1 M sc.
. ': . .. . . ",. , .. : . , .... ,.;;: .... !t: .. , ..................... r.; .. "J1
" --'",>::'
r: Unsy,rO,
>("Sym ..

Fig. 3.14 Initial Buckled Shape Option ofBASP Analysis
Fig. 3.15 Eigenvalue from BASP Analysis
3.2 Verification of the BASP software
Prior to the use of the BASP software in determining the bracing requirements of
cantilever steel I-beams it was necessary to carry out an evaluation of the program's
capabilities and degree of accuracy. The details of this evaluation are found below; where
first, the theoretical basis of the current lateral-torsional buckling design methods is
presented, followed by a comparison of the software output with the theoretical target
values.
39
3.2.1 Basic theory of elastic lateral-torsion al buckling of steel I-Beams
The approach to lateral-torsional buckling beam design detailed in this section is
based on the methodology followed by the CSA S16 Standard (2001), as well as that
recommended by the Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) (Galambos, 1998).
The information presented herein is an extension of that provided in the Literature
Review (Chapter 2).
Due to the existence of a minor principal axis in the cross-section of an l shape, lateral
torsional buckling will occur if the length of the unbraced span exceeds the characteristic
upper bound value typically expressed with the variable Lu. As graphically described in
Fig. 3.16, there are three phases ofbehaviour associated with steel I-section beams:
1) Elastic range, elastic lateral-torsional buckling will occur.
2) Intermediate range, inelastic lateral-torsional buckling will take place.
3) Stocky range, plastic local buckling (yielding) controls the beam capacity.
Mp
ieldingr
\
----- \-" -
Elastic
Elastic curve
---- \

---------",," O.67Mp
M M
r( ======,11)
f- L -j
Lu
Unbraced length
Fig. 3.16 Unbraced Length vs. Moment Capacity ofI-Beams
From Fig. 3.16, it can be seen that one of the principal factors that affects the moment
resistance of an I-beam is the unbraced length L (distance between the lateral braces).
Other factors inc1ude the following: the configuration of the loads (type and position on
the cross-section with respect to the shear centre), the lateral brace scenario (the location
40
in the span, and position on the cross-section), the cross-section geometry, the boundary
conditions at the vertical supports, the presence of stiffeners, the material properties, the
initial geometrical imperfections, and the interaction between local and overall buckling.
As described in Chapter 2, the exact solution of the elastic lateral torsional buckling
capacity of a beam is very complex. Based on research in this field, which has been
conducted for more than one century, a feasible c1osed-form solution has been adopted in
most steel structures design standards:
When the applied load is in the plane of the web of an I-shape beam, Equation 3.3 has
been adopted for the critical elastic moment capacity calculation:
(3.3)
where, almost all of the factors that affect the lateral-torsional buckling capacity have
been taken into account: the unbraced length L; minor axis (Y-Y) moment ofinertia of the
cross-section, ly; the material properties inc1uding the elastic modulus E and the shear
modulus G; cross-sectional geometric properties: the torsion constant J and warping
constant Cw. Another important variable, Cb, called the equivalent uniform moment factor
has been introduced. In part, Cb accounts for the difference between the theoretical
uniform moment loading case and the actual moment caused by the loading expected on
the beam. The calculation for Cb can be carried out through:
(3.4)
I2.5M
where A= max
, 2.5M
max
+3M, + 4M
2
+ 3M
3
(3.5a)
This portion of the Cb expression is used to evaluate the effect of moment diagrams with
arbitrary shape on Mer. Mmax is the absolute value of the maximum moment in the
unbraced span under consideration, Ml, M2 and M3 represent the absolute values of the
41
moments at the quarter, centre and three-quarter points in the same unbraced length,
respectively (Fig. 3.17).
An alternative expression for A can be used for linearly varying moment diagrams where
only the end moments in the unbraced span are taken into account:
A=1.75+1.05K+O.3K
2
:::;2.5, (3.5b)
and K =ratio of end moments (Fig. 3.18),
M 2 M max
BMD
f--- 1/4L +.
1/4L ~ ~ 1/4L ~ ~ 1/4L--1
Fig. 3.17 Ml, M2, M3 andMmax for Equation 3.4
M kM
(j,\==,2. ===;;11)
1... L ~
M ~ k M
Fig. 3.18 Linearly Varying Moment Case for Equation 3.5
The variable B in Eqn. 3.3 accounts for the effect of load position on the cross-section,
where the expression varies depending on the loading configuration (Fig. 3.19).
For case a in Fig. 3.19,
42
B =1-0.180W
2
+O.649W, (3.6a)
for load case b:
B = 1- O.154W
2
+ O.535W (3.6b)
and load case c:
B = 1-0.465aW
2
+ 1.636aW (3.6c)
:rfcfiC
where W = - --Qi
, L GJ
(3.7)
P w p p
==1 =======;;ll r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =1===1===;1,,1
1-- JI2L --+- JI2L ----1 1 L 1 f-aL-I f-aL-j
JI4PL

JI8wL
2

praL)
BMD
Load Case (a) Load Case (b) Load Case (c)
Fig.
3.19 Load Cases for Calculation of B in Equations 3.6
In Eqn. 3.3, y is the distance from the mid-height of the cross-section to the load point,
which is negative when the applied load is above the mid-height and is positive when
below the mid-height, and h is the beam depth. In the case of top flange loads, y/h = -112,
Eqn. 3.3 becomes:
(3.8a)
for loads applied at the mid-height, y/h = 0,
43
(3.8b)
for loads applied at the bottom flange, ylh = 112,
(3.8c)
The effect of the load application position can be seen in Fig. 3.20. The lateral buckling
strength of the beam will decrease as the position of load is moved higher on the cross-
section.
No moment about the
twist centre C
c
p
Load applied at
shear-centre
The load produces moment
about the twist centre C
C
p
Bottom load increases
moment capacity
The load produces moment
about the twist centre C
c
Top load decreases
moment capacity
Fig. 3.20 Effect ofLoad Application Position
From Figure 3.16, there are three stages for the behaviour of I-shape steel beams.
i) If the unbraced length is greater than Lu and Mer from Eqn.3.3 is smaller than 2/3Mp
(Class 1&2 sections) or 2/3My (Class 3 sections) (Eqn. 3.9&3.10), the beam behaviour
will be controlled by e1astic lateral-torsional buckling, and hence Equation 3.3 is used.
In the CSA S 16 Design Standard (2001), the width-to-thickness ratio is used as the
limit of cross-section classes. For the flanges ofI-sections the limits are:
. b 145
Class 1 sectIons: -::s; Fr ;
t F
y
. b 170
Class 2 sectIOns: -::s; Fr ;
t F
y
44
Class 3 sections: f s JF:200 ; where b is one-half of the flange width, and t is the
t F
y
thickness of the flanges.
For webs ofl-sections, the limits are:
. h 1100
Class 1 sectIons: - s JF: ;
w F
y
. h 1700
Class 2 sectIOns: - s JF: ;
w F
y
Class 3 sections: !!:.- s 1JF:900 , in which h is the height of the web between the two
w F
y
flanges, and w is the thickness of the web.
ii)For beams in the intermediate range, the unbraced span will be greater than Lu, and the
Mer from Eqn.3.3 is greater than 2/3Mp (Class 1&2 sections) or 2/3My (Class 3
sections). Inelastic lateral-torsional buckling will occur in this range. The CUITent CSA
S16 Design standard (2001) prescribes the following moment capacity equations for 1-
section beams in the intermediate range:
For Class 1&2 sections,
or, for Class 3 sections,
, My
M
R
=1.15M/1-0.28 M )sM
y
cr
in which,
M p = ZXF
y
, is the plastic moment capacity about x-x axis,
and
45
(3.9a)
(3.9b)
(3.9)
(3.10)
The value for Mer in Equations 3.9 is determined using Equation 3.3.
iii)For the case when the unbraced length of the beam is less than Lu then the behaviour
of the beam is govemed by plastic local buckling deformation of the flanges or web.
The moment capacity in this range is the plastic moment Mp for Class 1&2 sections,
and the yield moment My for Class 3 sections.
3.2.2 Verification of BASP
In this section, a discussion is presented of a series of computations conducted by
BASP to obtain the critical moment capacity of simply supported I-section steel beams
subject to elastic lateral-torsional buckling. The applicability of the BASP software is
verified by means of a comparison with theoretical lateral-torsional buckling capacity
values (Eqn.3.3). The model used to represent the beam in question is varied in an attempt
to obtain the most accurate prediction of the buckling capacity.
The beams that were used for this verification were selected from the rolled structural
W-shapes of the Handbook of Steel Construction (350W), (CISe, 2000). Imperial units
were adopted for the BASP computation because of the unit factor that is built in to the
software, as noted previously. The material properties for the hot-rolled steel beams are:
Elastic modulus: E = 200000MPa (29000 ksi),
Poisson ratio: v = 0.3, and
Elastic shear modulus: G = E = 77000MPa (11153ksi).
2(1 + v)
A selection of beam sizes, in the Class 1,2 and 3 ranges was inc1uded. Once a
specific size section had been chosen, then a verification procedure was carried out
following the procedure as shown in Fig. 3.21.
The first step of the verification was to refine the mesh of the finite element models.
To do this, the case of a simply supported beam with equal end moments was considered
46
(Fig. 3.22). To simplify the calculation procedure, for this configuration, the factor
Cb=1.0.
,---11
Simply Supported Beams
Il
ICl.Mesh Refinement: to chose a proper combination ofmesh
c::::== 2. Effect of Load Types
C[Brace ..
BASP Anal sis ..
1) Equal End-Mo ments
2) Point Loads
3) Uniformly Dist ributed Loads
1) Mid-span Later
Loads andEq
al Bracing for Point
ual End-Moments
2) Multiple Latera 1 Bracing at Quarter
al End-Moments Points for Equ
After each Analys
compare the result
is by BASP, to
with the
theoretIcal value received from
Eqn.3.3
Fig. 3.21 Flowchart of the BASP Verification
47
M M
(: JF==:y ========7lJ,))
~ L ~
M '--, ___ B_M_D ___ ' M
Fig. 3.22 Simply Supported Bearn with Uniformly Applied Moment
The mesh refinement procedure was carried out as per the following example:
A W16X26 (Imperial designation, equivalent to W4l0X39 in metric units) was selected
from the W -shape beam table, the yield strength is Fy = 345MPa and the necessary
geometric properties and dimensions were identified, as listed below:
Iy = 4.04 *106 mm4(9.7lin
4
) ,
CO) = 154*109 mm6(573.5in
6
) ,
d = 399mm(15.7in) , b = 140mm(5.5lin) , w = 6.4mm(0.25in) ,
The width-to-thickness ratios can be calculated:
and,
IJF:I00 = 59.22 < !!... = 59.59 < IJF:700 = 91.52
F w F
y y
Therefore, according to the CSA-S16 Standard (2001) Class limits, the W16X26 section
falls into the Class 2 category. From the beam selection tables in the Steel Handbook
(CISe, 2000), the maximum unbraced length of this beam for which the full moment
capacity of the beam can be reached is Lu=1730mm. In this example calculation the
48
unbraced span L is 6098mm (240in) long, and hence, because L > Lu, the beam will be
subject to lateral-torsional buckling. From Equation 3.3, the theoretical elastic critical
moment capacity for a W16X26 in this configuration is:
And the plastic moment capacity of this beam is: Mp = Zx * Fy = 252 kN-m = 2226 k-in,
therefore, O.67M
p
=1491 k-in >M
cr
' the W16X26with unbraced length of6098mm will
behave in the elastic lateral torsional buckling range.
The BASP documentation (Choo, 1987) advises that the aspect ratio for the web
plate elements should be kept less than two. Nevertheless, it was decided to carry out a
sensitivity study to obtain a mesh and an element aspect ratio that are used in the
parametric study discussed in Chapter 4. This mesh study was centered around elements
with an aspect ratio ofless than two. For the W16X26 section in this case, the meshes that
are listed in Tables 3.1&3.2 were considered. The equal end moments were applied to the
beam by me ans oftwo sets of unit force couples as shown in Fig. 3.23. The moment arm
between the unit forces was set equal to the centre-to-centre distance between the upper
and lower flanges, which for a W16X26 is 15.35 in,.giving a final applied moment of
15.35 k-in.
1 1
-- --
.. n Il III
...
-
-
'-
-
'-
Fig. 3.23 BASP Input for Uniform End Moments
An example of the buckled shape for one of the beams used in this software verification
can be seen in Figure 3.24.
49
j\
_L\
T\
Fig. 3.24 The BASP Buckled Shape ofW16X26 Under Unifonn End Moments
Table 3.1 The BASP Results from Various Mesh Configurations (I)
Mesh Aspect Ratio Eigenvalue Mcr_BASP (kin)i Error
ii
120X4 0.53 32.26 495.08 -6.47%
100X4 0.64 32.26 495.03 -6.48%
80X4 0.8 32.26 495.01 -6.49%
64X4 1 32.26 495.06 -6.48%
40X4 1.6 32.29 495.41 -6.41 %
..
1. Mcr_BASP IS the cntlcal moment capacIty ca1culated by BASP
ii. Error = (Mcr_BASP - Mcr_Theory) 1 Mcr_Theory * 100%
Table 3.2 The BASP Results from Various Mesh Configurations (II)
Mesh Aspect Ratio Eigenvalue Mcr_BASP (kin) i Error
ii
64X7 1.75 32.36 496.45 -6.21%
64X6 1.5 32.33 496.15 -6.27%
64X5 1.25 32.30 495.70 -6.36%
64X4 1 32.26 495.06 -6.48%
64X3 0.75 32.19 494.00 -6.68%
64X2 0.5 32.06 492.09 -7.04%
The results listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 indicate that the change of the mesh of the web
plate in the vertical direction can produce more of an effect on Mcr_BASP than a mesh
change in the horizontal direction, although the variation in buckling moment with
respect to the meshes used was not extensive. When using a finer mesh in the vertical
50
direction (Table 3.2), the error detennined for Mcr_BASP trends to decrease, even though
the decline is minimal.
Overall, the critical moments obtained from BASP are slightly smaller than the
theoretical values, partially because the BASP calculation does not consider the effect of
the curves at the joint between the flanges and the web of a real W-shape section (Fig.
3.25).
/
Curves
Cross-section of a
Real W -shape Bearn
Bearn Section in a
BASP Model
Fig. 3.25 The Cross-sections of Real W -shape Beams and BASP Models
An example to indicate the effect of the curves:
Select a W 40X264 beam from tables:
Tabled values: Iy = 205Xl0
6
mm
4
; J = 23300Xl0
3
mm
4
, Cw = 48400Xl0
9
mm
6
.
Geometrical property values of BASP model:
Iy'=1/12[ 2tb
3
+ (d -2t)w
3
] =204.66Xl0
6
mm
4
J'=1/3[ 2bt
3
+ (d -t)w
3
] =21797.275Xl0
3
mm
4
C
w
'=1/ 24(d _t)2 b
3
t=48084.3Xl0
9
mm
6
M ,_ Cb1r '+ 1rE , ,_ _.
( )
2
cr Jheory - L EIyGJ L Iy CO) - 59932 k zn
and the error ofBASP model is -1.6%.
51
In order to define a reasonable mesh configuration that could be easily used in later
studies, a batch of W -shape beams (including Class 1, 2 and 3 sections) from the beam
selection tables of the CISC Steel Handbook were utilized. The results of the
computations have shown that in sorne cases, i.e. for W8XI0 & W40X264 sections the
error is greater than 6%. However, as shown by the above calculations the BASP software
already causes an error due to the use of rectangular cross-section elements. It can be
concluded that the elastic lateral-torsional buckling predictions are within an acceptable
range when an aspect ratio of less than two is implemented for the cross-section elements.
From the above analysis, the errors of meshes with various aspect ratios do not vary
much, however an aspect ratio of 1: 1 is at a relatively moderate level. We will adopt this
aspect ratio (1.' 1) in later verifications.
The affect of load type and position on the elastic buckling capacity also had to be
verified for the BASP software. Previously, the equal end moment load case was only
considered, whereas for this section the concentrated load (includes one-point and two-
point load) and the uniforrnly distributed load (UDL) cases are considered (Fig. 3.26).
In these loading cases the equivalent factor Cb was calculated according to
Equations except for Equations 35b. Also in this study, the load application
position, which could be at one of three locations, i.e. the top flange, shear-centre and
bottom flange, along with the shape of the bending moment diagram (Fig. 3.19), were
taken into account. Again, the simply supported W-shape beam W16X26 (W410X39)
with a span of 240 in is used as an example case. A 60X4 mesh and an element aspect
ratio of 1.07 was used in the BASP model. The geometric properties of the cross-section
are as listed above. The factor W is calculated through the use of Equation. 3.7:
W = 1[ = 0.978
L GJ
52
-,;[...
/1"
-
-
One-point Concentrated Load

y

17
Two-point Concentrated Load
111 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 111 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
!
1

1 J
t.

t 1
1

1
-
17
_.
Uniformly Distributed Load
Fig. 3.26 The Types of Loading in BASP Verification
The details of the computations are listed below, where the Mcr_Theory is calculated by
Equation 3.3:
53
Table 3.3 The BASP Verification for One-point Load
W16X26; Mesh60X4; L-240in; One-point T ,,<Ir!
Bottom Flange Loading:
Eigenvalue: 16.62 A: 1.32
*
M_Joad: 60 k-in B: 1.46
**
Mer_BASP 996.9 k-in y: h/2
Cb=AB: 1.93
Mer Theory: 1019.2 k-in
Error = (996.9-1019.2)/1019.2*100% = -2.19%
Shear-centre Loading:
Eigenvalue: 10.77 A: 1.32
*
M_Joad: 60 k-in B: 1.46
**
Mer_BASP 645.96 k-in y: 0
Cb=A: 1.32
Mer Theory: 696.65 k-in
Errar = (645.96-696.65)/696.65*100% = -7.28%
Top Flange Loading:
Eigenvalue: 7.50 A: 1.32
*
lM_Joad: 60 k-in B: 1.463
lMer_BASP
**
449.93 k-in y: -h/2
Cb=A!B: 0.9
Mer Theory: 476.44 k-in
Error = (449.93-476.44)/476.44*100% = -5.56%
*M_Joad 1S the max moment produced by the applied loads
**Mer_BASP = M_Joad * Eigenvalue
54
Table 3.4 The BASP Verification for Two-point Load
1
W16X26; Mesh 60X4; L=240in; Two-Eoint Load; a=1/4
1
Bottom Flange Loading:
Eigenvalue: 11.40 A: 1
M_Joad*: 60 k-in B: 1.39
Mer_BASP
**
684.24 k-in y: h/2
Cb=AB: 1.39
Mer Theory: 733.18 k-in
Error = (684.24-733.18)/733.18*100% = -6.68%
Shear-centre Loading:
Eigenvalue: 8.39 A: 1
lM_Joad": 60 k-in B: 1.39
lMer_BASP
..
503.56 k-in y: 0
Cb=A: 1
Mer Theory: 529.37 k-in
Error = (503.56-529.37)/529.37*100% = -4.88%
rrop Flange Loading:
Eigenvalue: 6.27 A: 1
IM_Joal: 60 k-in B: 1.39
lMer_BASP
".
376.25 k-in y: -h/2
Cb=A/B: 0.72
Mer Theory: 382.2 k-in
Error = (376.25-382.2)/382.2*100% = -1.56%
55
Table 3.5 The BASP Verification for UDL
1
W16X26; Mesh 60X4; L=240in; UDL
1
lBottom Flange Loading:
Eigenvalue: 13.3 A: 1.14
IM_Ioad': 60 k-in B: 1.38
lMer_BASP
"
798 k-in h/2 y:
Cb=AB: 1.57
Mer Theory: 828.21 k-in
Error = (798-828.21)/828.21 *100% = -3.65%
IShear-centre Loading:
9.60 A: 1.14
IM_Ioact*: 60 k-in B: 1.38
lMer_BASP
..
576.29 k-in y: 0
Cb=A: 1.14
Mer Theory: 601.9 k-in
Error = (576.29-601.9)/601.9*100% = -4.25%
[Top Flange Loading:
IEigenvalue: 6.90 A: 1.14
M_Ioad*: 60 k-in B: 1.38
Mer_BASP
.,
414.09 k-in y: -h/2
Cb=AlB: 0.83
Mer Theory: 437.42 k-in
Error = (414.09-437.42)/437.42*100% = -5.33%
Most of the errors in Tables are in an acceptable range (near 5%), and
considering the effect of the cross-section shape of a real W -shape bearn, the BASP
results for the various loading scenarios can be considered as accurate. There, however,
exists an exception, that is if the a value (shear span) in the two-point load case is
relatively large (i.e. a = 1/3) then the BASP results could bec orne unacceptable, In the
exarnple given below the error exceeds 13% for the top flange loading case with a = 1/3
(Table 3.6), this phenornenon rnight have occurred because the concentrated stresses at
the load points affected the buckling pattern of the beam. Because of this finding, for the
pararnetric study only those values of a that are less than Y4 were used for the two point
load scenario.
56
Table 3.6 Additional Calculations for Two-point Load
W16X26; Mesh 60X4; L=240in; Two-point Load; a=1I3
Bottom Flange Loading:
Eigenvalue: 9.59 A: 1.14
M_loal: 80 k-in B: 1.39
Mer_BASP
**
767.14 k-in h/2 y:
Cb=AB: 1.57
Mer Theory: 832.89 k-in
Error = (767.136-832.89)/832.89*100% = -7.89%
Shear-centre Loading:
Eigenvalue: 6.62 A: 1.14
M_load*: 80 k-in B: 1.39
Mer_BASP
*.
529.92 k-in y: 0
Cb=A: 1.14
Mer Theory: 601.37 k-in
Error = (529.92-601.37)/601.37*100% = -11.88%
Top Flange Loading:
Eigenvalue: 4.71 A: 1.14
M_load*: 80 k-in B: 1.39
Mer_BASP
**
376.88 k-in -h/2 y:
Cb=AIB: 0.82
Mer Theory: 434.2 k-in
Error = (376.88-434.2)/434.2*100% = -13.2%
It is also relevant to verify the effect of braces on the predicted elastic buckling
capacity of W-shape beams by BASP. Similar to the effect of a discrete brace on a
perfectly straight column (Fig.3.21), the beam will buckle between brace points when the
ideal brace stiffness Pi (Fig. 2. 11) is provided. A greater brace stiffness will not increase
the moment capacity. For those braces which have a less than ideal brace stiffness the
critical elastic moment capacity of the beam will be proportionally lower than that
associated with an ideal brace. Considering a lateral beam brace, it will be most effective
when it is attached at the point of the beam cross-section that is subject to the largest
degree of twist. In the case of simply supported beams the most effective bracing point is
the compression (top) flange, while the tension (top) flange is the best bracing position
for a cantilever beam. The centroid brace can be thought of as almost ineffective because
57
it is very close to the centre of twist, and while it prevents lateral movement of the cross-
section it does not stop the beam from twisting. The installation of a cross-section
stiffener would be necessary in this case to reduce the amount of cross-sectional
distortion. The studies below were conducted by BASP to verify the effects of brace
position and cross-section stiffener.
Per
Pe -
1I4Pe
o
P
(3i
2 2
Pe=7T EI/Lb
Fig. 3.27 The Effect of Brace Stiffness on Column
Once again, the W16X26 simply supported beam is used to verify the brace effects.
The theoretical ideal brace stiffness will be calculated by Equation 3.11, which is
provided by Yura and Helwig (2001):
(3.11)
where, n has been defined in Chapter 2 in Eqn. 2.26, Cb is the equivalent factor as noted
previously,
(3.12)
58
lyc is half of the out-of-plane moment of inertia of the cross-section ly, Lb is the distance
between braces. And, CL = 1 + (1.2 /#), for top flange loading, CL = 1.0 for other loading,
in which # is the number of braces. For double curvature, the factor Cd = 1 + (Ms / M
L
)2
where Ms and ML are the maximum moments causing compression in the top and bottom
flanges (Fig. 3.28). The ratio Ms/ML must be equal to or less than one, and Cd = 1.0 for
single curvature. The results of the calculations are listed in Tables and in
Figures
P
+
7l
j---- 112L
1
1/2L --1
ML
V
Ms
Fig. 3.28 Ms and ML in double curvature BMD
Study case 1: simply supported W16X26 with a centroid concentrated load (Fig. 3.29), no
lateral bracing and a beam span of 240 in. In this initial case, where no brace has been
specified, the criticalload determined by BASP for elastic buckling is Po= 10.8 kips.
Fig. 3.29 Centroid Point Load in Case 1
The BASP results, in comparison with the Po value given above, are shown for various
brace positions in Table 3.7. The effect of the different brace scenarios can be clearly
59
seen in Figure 3.30: as described above the best brace position here is the top flange, with
the ideal brace stiffness from Eqn. 3.11,'
nCbP
t
2x1.7x429.2 .
fi= CLC
d
= xl.Oxl.Ox5.72=2.74(k/m)
1 Lb 3.048
This value is smaller than the ideal brace stiffness 3.4 k/in from BASP, it is mainly
because Equation 3.11 does not consider the cross-section distortion in this case. In our
study, if a symmetrical stiffener is installed on the cross-section, the ideal brace stiffness
will be 2.65 k/in (Fig. 3.32), which is very close to the theoretical value 2.74 k/in. In
practice, a symmetrical stiffener would be necessary. In this case, the ratio P cr_BASPlP
o
is
adopted to indicate the increment of elastic critical point-Ioad capacity of the beam with
the increase of the brace stiffness.
Table 3.7 The BASP results ofStudy Case 1
1
Top Flange Brace:
Il
Centroid Brace:
1
Stiffness (klin) Eigenvalue Pcr_BASP/PO Stiffness Eigenvalue Pcr_BASP/PO
0 10.8 1.0 0 10.8 1.0
1.0 24.61 2.28 1.0 15.3 1.42
2.5 40.3 3.73 2.5 19.85 1.84
2.74 42.38 3.92 3.41 21.93 2.03
2.9 43.71 4.05 4 23.08 2.14
3.0 44.52 4.12 15 34.67 3.21
3.4 47.59 4.41 30 40.39 3.74
4.0 51.76 4.79 60 44.59 4.13
4.5 48.45 4.49 90 46.30 4.29
5.0 47.82 4.44 110 46.97 4.35
15 47.82 4.44 120 47.23 4.37
30 47.82 4.44 130 47.46 4.39
Bottom Flange Brace: 140 47.65 4.41
Stiffness Eigenvalue Pcr_BASP/PO 150 47.81 4.43
0 10.8 1.0
1.0 10.93 1.01
2.5 10.98 1.02
2.84 11.01 1.02
3.41 11.02 1.02
4.0 11.06 1.02
15 11.07 1.03
30 11.07 1.03
60 11.07 1.03
90 11.07 1.03
60

PerlPo
=
Top Flange Braee
/ /
4
1 P
Centroid Braee
;
3
l
.L.

2 ]
i
f3
Botlom Flange Braee
/
r-
Lb
+
Lb ---1
1
o
3.4 30 60 90 110 120
f3
Fig. 3.30 Brace Effects on S-C Midspan Point-Ioaded Bearn
In the above example, because the concentrated load is applied at the centroid of the
cross-section, the centre of the position of cross-section twist moves downward. In this
situation, the centroid brace becomes more effective than it would in a top flange loading
case. Regardless, this brace position is not recommended, because a brace stiffness 41
times (140/3.4) that needed for a top flange brace will greatly increase the cost of
constructing such a structure.
Case 2: a simply supported 240 in long W16X26 with equal end moments braced at
the midspan. The theoretical ideal brace stiffness for the top flange brace is:
nCbP
j
2x 1.0x 429.2 .
fJ i= CLC
d
= x1.0x1.0x5.72=1.61(k/m)
Lb 3.048
AIso, in this case we will verify the effect of a stiffener installed at the mid-point of the
cross-section. The critical moment capacity when no brace is installed is Mo= 495.03 k-in.
A stiffener 4 in wide and 0.25 in thick is installed on both sides of the web over the full
height ofthe beam cross-section. As weIl, the results are tabulated in the following table:
61
Table 3.8 The BASP results ofStudy Case 2
I I ~ . ~
e (no stiffener):
I I ~
., aee (with stiffener):
Stiffness Eigenvalue Mcr_BASPlMo Stiffness Eigenvalue Mcr_BASPlMo
0.5 39.36 1.22 0.5 39.60 1.23
2 53.35 1.65 2 55.61 1.72
4 64.63 2 4 70.68 2.19
8 77.45 2.4 8 91.51 2.84
12 84.72 2.63 10 99.44 3.08
16 89.46 2.77 11 103.86 3.22
50 103.99 3.22 11.4 104.49 3.24
53.7 104.25 3.23 12 104.62 3.24
55 104.31 3.23 16 104.57 3.24
[ropFlange Braee (no stiffener):
Stiffness Eigenvalue Mcr_BASPlMo
0.5 56.46 1.75
1 79.36 2.46
1.2 88.1 2.73
1.5 101.26 3.14
1.6 104.48 3.24
2 104.46 3.24
8 104.46 3.24
Mer/Mo
Top Flange Braee
/
With Stiffener
/
No Stiffener ..
Centroid Brace
1
!f3
f-- Lb
+ Lb--1
o
1.6 4 8 12 16
Fig. 3.31 Effects of Brace Location and Stiffener on Bearn with Equal End Moments
62
It can be seen from Figure 3.31 that the installation of cross-section stiffeners can
increase the critical elastic moment capacity of the beam when a centroid brace is used.
However, the top flange brace remains more effective than the centroid brace.
In case 3, the effect ofbrace and load position has been studied.
Table 3.9 The BASP results ofStudy Case 3
Centorid Brace/Top Load (stiffener):
1
TOE F1ange Brace/ToE Load (stiffener):
1
Stiffness Eigenva1ue PCf_BASP Stiffness Eigenva1ue PCf_BASP
0 7.50 7.50 0 7.50 7.50
4 10.71 10.71 2 24.48 24.48
8 11.47 11.47 4 37.26 37.26
12 11.81 11.81 6 47.38 47.38
20 12.14 12.14 6.2 48.02 48.02
o ~ F1ange Brace/S-C Load (stiffener): Il 7 47.9 47.9
Stiffness Eigenva1ue PCf_BASP 10 47.89 47.89
0 10.8 10.8 20 47.89 47.89
1.0 24.61 24.61
2.5 40.3 40.3
2.55 49.11 49.11
2.65 48.26 48.26
2.7 48.05 48.05
2.75 47.95 47.95
3 47.89 47.89
Pcr(kips)
50
Centroid Load
/ P
l
~
wt
40
If
-,-,
T
Stiffener
30
20
(3
Top F1ange Load
r-- Lb
+
Lb --1
10
/
o
2.65 4 8 12 16
(3 (k/in)
Fig. 3.32 Effects ofBrace and Load Position
63
The top flange loading reduced the effectiveness of the top flange brace (Fig. 3.32),
because the centre of twist has shifted towards the top flange. Once more, the top brace is
proved more effective than the shear centre brace under this loading configuration.
ln practice, more than one brace is often used to limit the lateral displacement of a
beam. The effect of multiple lateral bracing is studied in the following case:
A W16X26 beam with a span of 480 in, is subjected to equal moments at both ends.
Three equally spaced top flange braces (120 in apart) are installed. The BASP results are
as listed below:
Table 3.10 The BASP results of Multiple Bracing
ge Brace/S-C Load (stiftl
Stiffness Eigenvalue Mer BASP
0 12.57 192.9
0.1 33.5 514.1
0.14 39.39 604.4
0.5 56.71 870.2
1 79.7 1223
1.14 85.1 1306
2 97.07 1490
2.75 104.77 1608
3 105 1611
3.5 104.76 1608
4 104.72 1607
It is c1ear from the Figure 3.33, that the 480 in long beam has the same elastic
critical moment capacity as the 240 in long beam with a single mid-Iength brace. The
reason behind this is that the multiple braces have reduced the braced length Lb, which
has increased the critical moment capacity to that which corresponds to 120 in.
ln the above calculations almost all the factors, i.e. loading configuration, bracing
scenarios and mesh refinement for the finite element models, that may affect the critical
moment capacity of the beam under lateral-torsional buckling have been considered.
Despite the finite element model in which the effect of the curves of real beam section are
ingored, BASP software is able to adequately deterrnine the elastic lateral-torsional
buckling capacity ofl-shape beams in comparison with the theoretical values.
64
Mer(k-in)
6
1600
1200
800
W16X26, span 240in,
uniforrn moment, one
top flange mid-span
braee \

400 ------
o
1 2
\
Braced Point
1
*
3 4
(3 (k/in)
Fig. 3.33 Effeets of Multiple Lateral Braeing
65
CHAPTER 4 BRACE REQUIREMENT OF CANTILEVER 1 -BEAMS
4.1 Cantilever I-beams
There are many factors that affect the elastic lateral-torsional buckling behaviour of
cantilever I-section beams. Similar to simply supported beams, the length of the unbraced
portion of a cantilever beam is the main factor. The loading configuration (including load
type and load application position) and the bracing scenario (at the root and/or at the tip)
also produce an effect on the elastic critical moment capacity. Additionally, the different
boundary conditions that may exist for the cantilever and simply supported beams are the
main reason that a modified critical elastic moment equation is adopted for the design of a
cantilever beam. As described in Chapter 2, Equation 2.18 has been prescribed by modem
steel design standards to calculate the critical elastic lateral-torsional moment capacity of
an I-section cantilever beam. Equation 2.18 can be rewritten in the form shown in
Equation 4.1:
(4.1)
where k is the effective length factor, L refers to the unbraced length of the cantilever
beam, E and G are the material properties, and l
y
, J and C
w
, are based on the beam's
geometrical cross-section properties as discussed in previous chapters. A fixed end
cantilever under a uniform moment, caused by an end moment applied at the free end is
shown in Fig. 4.1. For this situation, k=2 could be used in Eqn. 4.1, which means that the
moment capacity could be obtained by imagining the cantilever as a simply supported
beam with an unbraced span of two times the cantilever length and the same uniform
applied moment (Fig. 4.3). The buckled shape of the simply supported beam (Fig. 4.4)
could also be taken as the equivalent of two buckled cantilever beams combined together
(Fig. 4.2). The buckled shape, which bottom flange buckles more than top flange, shown
in Fig. 4.2 benefits from the direction of applied moment.
66
\ \
\ \ ;.,
, ,(\ \
\ \ ,
\ '
l '. \
Fig. 4.2 The Buckled Shape of the Cantilever Bearn in Figure 4.1
J
1\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
l , 1 1
1
{ 1 1 1
1

/
J
\ \
\
'i
\ \ \ \
\ \ \
'\J
fi,
1 1
\ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \
{
1
1 1
1
1\
1\,
1 \ \
*- \\ \
\ \
\ \00..\
\
\. \
1 i'J\lJ
1
1 .:.'"
\( \1 \J \j \J \1 \J \J ' \J\J
\}
",l_'" \1\1 ",l \J \L \r \J \1
(f'
....
\ \ \ \ \ ,,",/ \ \ \
....
\L
Fig. 4.3 A Sirnply Supported Bearn with a Span of Two Times the Above Cantilever
Fig. 4.4 The Buckled Shape of the Sirnply Supported Bearn in Figure 4.3
67
The simple cantilever beam in Figures 4.1 & 4.2 is a W12X65 (W310X97) I-section with
a 120 in long span. In Figures 4.3 & 4.4, a simply supported beam of the same cross-
section, which has a span of 240 in and has the same applied moment as in Figures 4.1 &
4.2 applied at both ends, may be considered as two cantilevers joined together at the free
ends (except for the boundary conditions). The eigenvalue of this simply supported case
is 540.3, which is very close to that of the simple cantilever case where the eigenvalue
was found equal to 538.8. BASP was used to determine the eigenvalues for this example.
For the other load types, e.g. concentrated load at the tip and uniformly distributed
load (UDL), as weIl as support and lateral restraint conditions, the corresponding
effective length factors, k, can be taken from Table 2.1. This table, which was first
published by Nethercot (1973) contains the effective length factors for nine scenarios that
address the various combinations of load position and lateral restraint configuration. In
practice, cantilever beams can be divided into two types: simple cantilevers and
suspended cantilevers (or prop cantilevers) (Fig. 4.5). A simple cantilever has a fixed
root, where rotation, torsion, warping and any translation of the cross-section are
, ,
,"':t::== ========:J
Root Fulcrum Tip
'7 '7 '7
F==I ===========11
Suspended portion of a
simply supported beam
-1
Fig. 4.5 Examples of a Simple Cantilever (ab ove) and a Suspended Cantilever Bearn
completely restrained. The loading conditions (type and position with respect to the
shear-centre of cross-section) and restraint configuration at the free tip of the beam must
be accounted for. Three lateral restraint situations (Fig. 4.6) are considered in Table 2.1
68
for the simple cantilever case; as well two loading conditions are listed: top flange
loading and all other cases (includes shear-centre and bottom flange loadings).
I (a)
r (h)



(c)
Fig. 4.6 Tip Brace Scenarios: (a) Free Tip (b) Top Flange and (c) Both Flanges
A suspended cantilever refers to the suspended portion of either a simply supported
beam (Fig. 4.5) or a fixed root supported beam (Fig. 4.7). For those beams with these two

==============j


i;j 'ST:' a fixed _1
Fig. 4.7 An Example of the Suspended Cantilever Bearn (b)
boundary conditions there are the same three brace scenarios as found for the simple
cantilever (Fig. 4.6) at both the fulcrum and the tip of the suspended cantilever.
69
From Table 2.1, there are three scenarios corresponding to three types of cantilever
root/fulcrum conditions: fixed root (for simple cantilevers in Scenarios 1), simply
supported fulcrum with both flanges braced (Scenario 2) and simply supported fulcrum
with top flange bracing only (Scenario 3). In each of these scenarios, the tip brace
conditions shown in Figure 4.6 are considered, respectively. Altogether, nine scenarios
are listed in Table 2.1; for each one top flange loading and other loading positions, i.e.
shear-centre and bottom flange loading, need to be considered.
Similar to simply supported beams, the critical moment capacity of a cantilever
beam under elastic lateral-torsional buckling may also be affected by the position of the
load application with respect to the shear centre ofthe cross-section. As an example, an I-
section cantilever beam W12X19 (W310X28) can be used to verify the effect of the
change of loading positions based on Mer obtained using BASP. The variation in elastic
critical moment capacity, Mer, with respect to the unbraced 1ength of the simple cantilever
when subjected to tip concentrated loads and uniformly distributed loads is illustrated in
1
1244
834 -
o 40 60 80 100 120
L (in)
Fig. 4.8 Effect ofTip Point Load Application Positions on a Simple Cantilever
70
1244
834 -
o
i!
~ ~
if
l'
\ ~
~ ----------------
~
~
~
40 60
~
~
~
80 100 120 L (in)
Fig. 4.9 Effect ofUDL Application Positions on a Simple Cantilever
Figures 4.8 & 4.9, respectively. From these two figures the tendency of Mer. which
increases with the lower loading position can be seen. The solid lines in Figs. 4.8 & 4.9
are the elastic curves, Mer, based on the BASP results, whereas the dotted lines in Figs.
4.8 & 4.9 refer to the design curves calculated according to Clause 13.6(d) of the CSA-
S16 Steel Design Standard (2001). In this case the beam curve given by Eqn. 3.9a was
utilized along with the Mer results from BASP in order to illustrate the effect of load
position. See Section 3.2.1 of this thesis for a rational method of analysis which can be
used to account for load position. Altematively the k values in Table 2.1 may be also
used, where top flange loading scenarios have larger effective length factors than the
other loading positions and hence result in lower Mer values.
In the listing of effective length factors by Nethercot (Table 2.1), there is no
indication given regarding the root boundary condition for the suspended cantilever
(Scenarios 2 & 3), which means that the two possible root conditions shown in Figs. 4.5
& 4.7 could exist in the studies of this case.
71
It has also been reported in the previous chapters that Nethercot did not present the
brace requirements that correspond to the effective length factors shown in Table 2.1.
Even though Equation 4.1 has been adopted by most design standards, to the knowledge
of the author there is no publication that shows evidence of whether or not the CUITent
code methods for lateral brace requirements are suitable for the cantilever brace scenarios
listed in Table 2.1. The information contained in the remainder of this chapter has been
presented in an attempt to evaluate the CUITent North American procedures for lateral
brace design.
4.2 BASP Analysis Procedure
Due to the number of combinations of various boundary conditions and loading
configurations (altogether there are 27 possible combinations in the scenarios listed in
Table 2.1), it is necessary to first describe the general analysis procedure used in this
study. In this section, two scenarios of a simple cantilever and a suspended cantilever,
will be studied as examples. Afterwards a summary of the results is presented.
Additionally detailed tabular results can be found in Appendix I.
4.2.1 General Analysis of I-section Bearn W21X44
To show the procedure of study, a hot rolled I-section beam W21X44 Grade 350W
(W530X66) was chosen from the beam selection tables of the CISC Handbook of Steel
Construction (2000). According to the width-to-thickness limitations of the CSA-S16
Steel Design Standard (2001) this section is in the Class 1 category. Because the scope of
this project involves the analysis of the elastic lateral-torsional buckling of an I-beam, the
spans are chosen from the elastic range of the Moment vs Unbraced-Iength curves of the
nine scenarios listed in Table 2.1. For this top flange loaded example, the M-L curves are
shown in Figures 4.10a & 4.10b, in which the plastic moment capacity is Mp=4768 k-in.
Elastic behaviour is expected for beam lengths with a corresponding moment resistance
less than 0.67Mp=3195 k-in. In these graphs, Lu, the maximum unbraced length at which
the plastic moment capacity can be reached, depends on the effective length factors of the
72
bracing scenarios. Lu can be calculated by setting Equation 3.9a (Class 1 & 2) or
Equation 3.9b (Class 3) equal to Mp (or My for Class 3 sections), solving for the
corresponding Mer value, and finalIy the required Lu, through the use of Equation 4.1.
1 W21X44-Scenarios 1.1&1.2 1
3195-- ..
Elastic
Lu=56
104
L(in)
Fig. 4.10a M-L Curve ofW21X44 in Scenarios 1.1 & 1.2 (Top Flange Loading)
W21X44-Top Flange Loading
4768
Scenarios 1.1&1.2
4768
r-'\ Scenarios 2.1&2.2
4768
~ c
~
3195 3195
~ ~
3195
l l
:e
~
::B
1
::B
1
::B
1
Lu=56 104
L(in)
Lu=31 58
L(in)
Lu=lO 19
L(in)
4768
Scenario 1.3
4768
Scenario 2.3 Scenario 3.3
.-.....,--
4768
~ ~
--...... ...., .........
~ ~
3195 ~ ~
3195
3195

.1
:?
:?
~ ~
~
::B
1
::B
1
::B
Lu=130 243
L(in)
Lu=52 97
L(in)
Lu=1732
L(in)
W21X44-Scenarios 1 W21X44-Scenarios 2 W21X44-Scenarios 3
Fig.4.10b Moment vs. Unbraced Length Graphs for Top Flange Loaded W21X44 in AlI
Scenarios
73
The e1astic range of the different scenarios is shown in Figure 4.10b. In this example the
span of the cantilevers, which is also the unbraced length, was set at L = 30 in, L = 60 in,
L = 120 in and L = 260 in for the elastic lateral buckling calculations. For the scenarios
listed by Nethercot in Table 2.1, a brace stiffness will exist that corresponds to an elastic
buckling capacity given a specific k value. The subsequent procedure may be applied to
obtain the corresponding brace stiffness: a very stiff brace is selected ~ 1 0000 kip/in) in
order to calculate the Mer of all the scenarios in Table 2.1 by BASP. As shown in Chapter
3, the moment capacity tends to increase up to a point with an increase in the brace
stiffness. These Mer values drawn from BASP are compared with the moment capacities
given by Equation 4.1, which may produce conservative results in sorne cases because of
the adoption of the lower bound effective length factors k for practical design (Section
2.1, Chapter 2), If the BASP values are higher than the theoretical values from Equation
4.1, then the brace stiffness is decreased such that the BASP Mer is approximately equal
to the theoretical value. This brace stiffness is then defined as the scenario brace stiffness
and is compared with the design brace determined using the North American code
. methods which inc1ude the CSA-S16 (2001) and SSRC (2001) approaches.
4.2.2 Analysis and Discussion of the Simple Cantilever Scenarios
The simple cantilever cases in Scenarios 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3 are relatively straight forward
in contrast to those for the suspended cases (Scenarios 2 & 3), and hence are described
first. In this section only the top flange loading condition is considered.
For Scenario 1.1 (no tip brace), we first consider the top flange UDL case:
When L = 30 in, the theoretical Mer value with the effective length factor k=1.4 is: Mcr =
34238 k-in, and the BASP result is 3485 k-in. This result has occurred because the span
of 30 in falls into the plastic range of this Scenario (Fig. 4.10), and the Equation 4.1 is for
the calculation of the elastic moment capacity of I-beams. The BASP result Mer_BAsP =
3485 k-in is lower than the plastic moment capacity Mp = 4768 k-in because elastic web
crippling was predicted to occur by ~ S P , and hence the moment capacity ofthis section
was reduced (Fig. 4.11). From Figure 4.10a, for the Scenarios 1.1 & 1.2, at L = 120 in it
is expected that the cantilever beam will buckle in the elastic range. For this span the
74
McUheory = 2503 k-in, and the BASP result is: Mcr_BASP = 3535 k-in. For this case, the
BASP result is higher than the theoretical r s u l t ~ which means the ca1culated elastic
moment capacity by Equation 4.1 is safe for practical use. This result most likely
occurred because of the conservative effective length factor k = 1.4 used in the current
case, which was selected by Nethercot as a lower bound value for design (Section 2.1,
Chapter 2). AIso, for L = 260 in, the theoretical moment capacity Mcr_theory = 765 k-in,
and the BASP result is Mcr_BASP = 1673 k-in. Again, the effective length factor k = 1.4
also pro duces a conservative theoretical result for this example.
Fig. 4.11 Web Crippling ofW21X44 with 30in Span at Scenario 1.1
In Scenario 1.2, the same effective length factor as Scenario 1.1, k = 1.4, is utilized,
except that a top flange brace at the tip of the cantilever beam is specified (Fig. 4.12). For
the unbraced span L = 120 in and a very stocky brace (10000kip/in stiffness) a moment
capacity of 6768 k-in was obtained from BASP. As shown in the Figure 4.13, no lateral
displacement at the top flange, which benefits from the high stiffness of the brace, was
observed. It is c1ear that the top flange brace greatly increases the moment capacity of
this cantilever beam. However, the brace stiffness used in this example is such that the
moment capacity is 2.5 times higher than the theoretical value with design k values,
McUheory. The brace stiffness was then decreased in order to set the BASP moment
capacity approximately equal to the Mcr_theory. In the case of Scenario 1.1, the moment
75
~ o o o o
,
Fig. 4.12 Scenario 1.2 ofW21X44
TopView
Fig. 4.13 The Buckled Shape ofW21X44 at Scenario 1.2
capacity ofBASP is higher than the theoretical value even though the brace stiffness was
equal to zero. This indicates that Nethercot's Equation 4.1 is conservative for this
W21X44 section under Scenario 1.2, because the addition of a top flange brace should
result in an increase of the moment capacity. There seems to be no consideration of the
brace in terms of the selection of the effective length factor (k=1.4) for Scenario 1.2 in
comparison with Scenario 1.1. For this reason a brace stiffness could not be obtained to
allow the beam to reach its theoretical moment resistance.
76
In Scenario 1.3 (Fig. 4.14), the effective length factor k = 0.6 is suggested in Table
2.1, which means the longest span length will be required for elastic lateral-torsional
buckling to take place. From Figure 4.10b, it is illustrated that a beam with a span larger
than 243 in will buckle in the elastic range. Regardless, an initial span of 120 in was
selected to verify the applicability of the effective length factor. For this span the
Mcf_theory from Equation 4.1 w ~ equal to 11924 k-in, and the BASP result was:
Fig. 4.14 Scenario 1.3 ofW21X44
MCf_BASP = 17640 k-in. In this case, the MCf_BASP > Mcf_theory, which indicates that
Equation 4.1 provides a conservative result. Through the theoretical analysis shown in
Figure 4.15, the elastic curve by Equation 4.1 at the L = 120 in is much higher than the
value given by the design curve at this length. There are two reasons for this
phenomenon: 1). as described before, BASP is designed for the elastic lateral-torsional
buckling analysis of I-beams; and 2). there is no web crippling, which implies that no
reduction of the moment capacity can be accounted for by BASP. In practical design, a
moment capacity greater than Mp would not be considered. As introduced in Chapter 3,
the moment capacity will follow the beam design curve when the elastic buckling
moment is higher than 0.67Mp (3195 k-in) rather than continue on the elastic curve. The
variation between the elastic curves, Mcf_theory, and MCf_BASP, along with the design curve
can be roughly expressed as shown in Figure 4.15.
77
4768
Elastic Curve by Equation 4.1
X
Design Curves by Equations
3.9, 3.9a, 3.9b and 3.10
jt.

Elastic Curve by BASP
3195 ------------------------------
1 W21X44-Scenario 1.3 1
120
Lu=130 243
L(in)
Fig. 4.15 MCf_theory, MCf_BASP and MDesign ofW21X44 (Scenario 1.3) with the Installation
of Stocky Braces
In the current example the results provided by BASP when a stocky brace (stiffness =
10000 kip/in) was specified were higher than the theoretical elastic moment values,
therefore the brace stiffness was reduced to achieve a moment capacity which was similar
to the theoretical elastic moment given by Equation 4.1. The BASP result at L = 120 in
become MCf_BASP = 11952 k-in when the brace stiffness is reduced to 4 kip/in. Because
this buckling moment is at a conservative level, i.e. lower than that obtained with a stiff
brace, a lateral displacement of the braced point (Fig. 4.16) must take place as the
moment resistance decreases. The required brace stiffness calculated using the CSA-SI6
standard (Eqn. 2.32) is 9.85 kip/in at a moment capacity level of 11952 k-in. In practical
design, one would only use the full plastic moment capacity, Mp = 4768 k-in for the
calculation of the required brace stiffness in this situation, which would result in a
required brace stiffness of 3.95 kip/in for each brace. In the SSRC method there are two
options for the brace stiffness calculation, which differ based on the estimated flange
compression force:
78
h
,
Fig. 4.16 The Buckled Shape of a W21X44 (Scenario 1.3) with a Required Brace
Stiffness Dependent on the Effective Length Factor k=0.6
1. Euler load P
E
= Jr2 ElyC / Lb
2
, and 2. the load based on the applied moment Cf = Mf / h.
The brace stiffuess equations can be found in Chapter 3.
At Mcr_BAsp=11952 k-in one obtains a required brace stiffuess of 8.52 hp/in for the
Euler load requirement (Eqn. 3.11) or 10.84 hp/in for the second SSRC approach. In
design the brace would be selected based on the moment capacity of Mp = 4768 k-in for
this length of beam, hence the required stiffuesses given by the SSRC method would be
8.52 kip/in and 4.33 hp/in. Both of these values exceed the 4 kip/in that was obtained
with BASP at an elastic moment of 11952 k-in. A similar method of analysis was used
for the other beam span lengths with a listing of results provided at the end of this
chapter.
4.2.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Suspended Cantilever Scenarios
In the scenarios which concem the suspended cantilevers cases (Scenarios 2 & 3), the
simply supported and fixed root conditions were analysed with different combinations of
79
the UDL and tip point load. In this example only the top flange loading position is
presented. The procedure of analysis is the same as that described in the previous section.
Considering Scenario 2.1, the effective length factor is k=2.5 for the top flange
loading case. Additionally, a uniformaly distributed load over a cantilever span of L = 30
in is specified, which results in the beam behaviour being classified in the plastic range
(Figure 4.10b). Note: in the suspended cantilever cases, the supported span was always
set equal to the cantilever span length. The theoretical moment capacity at this length as
given by Equation 4.1 is: Mer = 11021 k-in, and the corresponding BASP result (Figure
4.17) is: Mer_BASP = 1918 k-in for the fixed root case. In this instance the crippling of the
beam web (Figure 4.17) has reduced the moment capacity of the beam when determined
with BASP. When the root of the suspended cantilever changes to a simply supported
boundary condition, the Mer_BASP = 1561 k-in, which is also smaller than the theoretical
Fig. 4.17 Web Crippling of a W21X44 with 30 in Span (Scenario 2.1)
value Mer_theory. For the two span loading cases (Figure 4.18), the BASP results are 1375
k-in and 1093 k-in, for the fixed and simply supported root boundary situations,
respectively. In both cases crippling of the web occurred before lateral buckling could
take place, making it necessary to study beams with longer spans.
With a span length of 60 in, the W21X44 section should buckle in the elastic range
(Figure 4.10b). The theoretical moment capacity MeUheory is: 3047 k-in. The BASP result
for one span loading is: Mer_BASP = 3447 k-in and 3370 k-in for the fixed root and simply
supported root situation, respectively. When the beam is loaded on both spans, the results
from BASP for the fixed root and simply supported root become 2752 k-in and 2661 k-in.
80
For these BASP ca1culations, that is the fixed and simply supported root beams loaded by
the two-span and one-span loadings, crippling of the web reduced the moment capacity in
aU four of the cases (Figures 4.19 & 4.20).
~ o o o o o o
Fig. 4.18 Two Span Loaded W21X44 (Scenari02.1)
~ o o o o o o
,
Buckled Shape
Fig. 4.19 Buckled 60 in Span W21X44 with One Span Load (Scenario 2.1)
For the one-span loading cases, the MCf_BASP values remained higher than the
MCf_theory; and in the two-span loading cases, web crippling produced such an effect that
the MCf_BASP dropped to lower values than that given by the Mcf_theory equation. In the next
step of this example, only the one-span loading cases were adopted as the models to
81
verify the brace stiffuess requirement, although the effect of web crippling must be kept
in mind.
Buckled Shape
~ o o o o . o o
,
~ 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Fig. 4.20 Buckled 60 in W21X44 with Two Span Load (Scenario2.1)
In the fixed root situation, the required brace stiffuess by BASP is approximately 40
kip/in, for which the MCf_BASP is 2974 k-in (2.4% smaller than the MCf_theory = 3047 k-in).
The CSA-S16 brace stiffuess requirement for this Mcf_theofY is 5 kip/in; and the SSRC
required stiffuesses are 70 kip/in for the Euler load and 5.5 kip/in for the Cf flange
loading. Only the Euler load required stiffuess is satisfied here, the remaining brace
stiffuess requirements fall in the unsafe range. The theoretical unbraced length values in
Figure. 4. lOb are based on Nethercot's Equation 4.1, which was simplified by using the
lower bound effective factors. In sorne cases the resulting unbraced length obtained from
this equation could be approximate. In this instance, the length of 60 in falls in the
theoretical pure elastic range. Nonetheless web crippling happened at this unbraced
length in the BASP analysis, which may have affected the behaviour of the beam
buckling, causing the required brace stiffuess (40 kip/in) from the BASP analysis to be
much higher than the code required values, although this explanation has yet to be
confirmed.
82
At an unbraced span length of 120 in it was expected that a moment capacity
reduction would not occur because of web crippling or local buckling. The Mcr_theory is
1001 k-in, while for a beam with stocky braces BASP resulted in an Mcr_BASP = 2225 k-in
for two-span load fixed root; 2045 k-in, for the two-span load simply supported root;
2239 k-in for the one-span load fixed root and 2066 k-in for the one-span load simply
supported root. The BASP analysis did not show any crippling of the web as the beam
buckled (Fig. 4.21). For this example the brace stiffness was then decreased until the
McUheory moment level was reached.
h
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Buckled Shape
Il 0000.00
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l'+F-I-J 1 1 1
Top View
Fig. 4.21 Buckled W21X44 with a 120 in Span (Scenario2.1)
Further BASP analyses revealed that a brace with a stiffness of 4 kip/in for the two-
span load with simply supported root; 3.8 kip/in for two-span load with fixed root; and
3.5 kip/in for one-span load with either simply supported root or fixed root would be
sufficient. The design standard required brace stiffness for the Mcr_theory = 1001 k-in is
0.85 kip/in for the CSA-S16 method, and based on the SSRC methods is 8.5 kip/in and
0.9 kip/in for the Euler load and Cf requirement, respectively. Except for the Euler load
based SSRC stiffness requirement, the other code methods do not work well for this
beam length.
83
An additional check of the applicability of the code methods at an unbraced length of
L = 260 in was therefore carried out. The Mcf_theofY for this braced length using Equation
4.1 is 374 k-in, and the BASP moment capacity of the beam supported by very stocky
braces is MCf_BASP = 1212 k-in for the one-span load with fixed root; 1206 k-in for two-
span load with fixed root; 1156 k-in for one-span load with simply supported root; and
1159 k-in for the two-span load with simply supported root. Reduction of the brace
stiffnesses in the above models, to make the MCf_BASP approach the Mcf_theory value,
provided the following results: 0.4 kip/in for one-span load with simply supported root;
0.38 kip/in for one-span load with fixed root; 0.45 kip/in for two-span load with fixed
root; and 0.52 kip/in for the two-span load with simply supported root. The CSA-S 16
standard requires a brace stiffness of 0.15 kip/in for the Mcf_theofY moment level, and the
SSRC methods require 0.85 kip/in for the Euler load approach and 0.16 kip/in from the Cf
method. Once again, only the method that relies on the Euler load as the compressive
force in the flange of the two SSRC methods results in an adequate brace stiffness for the
W21X44 beam in this Scenario 2.I.
In Table 2.1, Scenario 2.2 has the same effective length factor k=2.5 as Scenario 2.1,
which implies no change in the theoretical moment capacity calculation. In fact, the
installation of a top flange brace at the tip would increase the elastic lateral-torsional
buckling moment capacity. The BASP results show that for the unbraced length L = 30
in, MCf_BASP = 1948 k-in when the beam is one-span loaded with a fixed root; MCf_BASP =
1573 k-in when the beam is one-span loaded with a simply supported root; MCf_BASP =
1288 k-in when the beam is two-span loaded with a fixed root; MCf_BASP = 1027 k-in when
the beam is two-span loaded with a simply supported root. For L = 60 in, MCf_BASP = 3670
k-in when the beam is one-span loaded with a fixed root; MCf_BASP = 3739 k-in when the
beam is one-span loaded with a simply supported root; MCf_BASP=2784 k-in when the
beam is two-span loaded with a fixed root; MCf_BASP=2689 k-in when the beam is two-
span loaded with a simply supported root, the moment capacity for the two span loaded
cases at this length are again reduced by the tendency of the web to cripple elastically.
For a span of L = 120 in, the MCf_BASP=3557 k-in when the beam is one-span loaded with
a fixed root; MCf_BASP=2959 k-in when the beam is one-span loaded with a simply
supported root; MCf_BASP=3593 k-in when the beam is two-span loaded with a fixed root;
84
Mef_BASp=3060 k-in when the beam is two-span loaded with a simply supported root.
Given an unbraced span length of L = 260 in, when the beam is one-span loaded plus a
fixed root, the Mef_BAsp=1565 k-in; and Mef_BAsp=1322 k-in when the beam is one-span
loaded with a simply supported root; for two span loading cases, the M
ef
_
BA
sp=1590 k-in
and 1400 k-in for the fixed and simply supported root, respectively. The Mef_BASP
buckling values increase for cases where there is no web crippling. In most of these cases
(e.g. L=30 in & L=60 in), the braces increased the moment capacity to sorne extent. In
the process of reducing the stiffness of the lateral braces such that the Mef_BASP would be
close to the values ofthe MCf_theory, the tip brace stiffness was kept equal to the total value
of the two fulcrum braces. This approach was followed because in the calculation of
brace stiffness by the different standard methods a combined stiffness is determined
which is then divided into two equal parts when a separate top and bottom flange brace
are provided. For Scenario 2.3, the tip brace stiffness determined from the standard
methods was also split into two equal parts, which means the four braces (two each at the
fulcrum and the tip) had equal stiffness. In the CUITent Scenario 2.2, the following
stiffness values were obtained by BASP: given a span length ofL = 60 in, under one-span
loading and fixed root, a brace stiffness of 9 kip/in is required for each of the fulcrum
braces, and 18 kip/in for the tip brace; with a simply supported root and one-span loading,
the stiffness becomes: Il kip/in at the fulcrum and 22 kip/in at the tip. At this length, the
CSA-S 16 standard requires a lateral brace stiffness of 8.4 kip/in for the fulcrum; whereas
the SSRC methods indicate that a stiffness of 76 kip/in for Euler load and 6.8 kip/in for
the Cf load approach are needed. As the span length is increased to L = 120 in, the brace
stiffnesses required by BASP to reach Mcf_theofY are: for the one-span loading fixed root
case 1.25 kip/in for the fulcrum and 2.5 kip/in for the tip brace; for the one-span loading
simply supported root case 1.5 kip/in for the fUlcrum and 3 kip/in for the tip brace; for the
two-span loading cases the braces r ~ 1.6 kip/in and 3.2 kip/in at the fulcrum and the tip
for the fixed root, and 2.1 kip/in and 4.2 kip/in for the simply supported root. The design
brace stiffnesses obtained using the code methods for this beam 1ength are: CSA-S16
requires 1.25 kip/in for fulcrum brace, and the SSRC requirements are: 9.5 kip/in and 1.0
kip/in for the Euler load and Cf requirement, respectively. When L = 260 in, the BASP
requires 0.18 kip/in at the fulcrum and 0.36 kip/in at the tip for the one-span loading fixed
85
root; for the one-span loading simply supported root case, it is 0.2 kip/in at the fulcrum
and 0.4 kip/in at the tip; the brace stiffness requires 0.22 kip/in and 0.44 kip/in for the
two-span loaded beam with fixed root; for the two-span loaded beam with simply
supported root, 0.28 kip/in and 0.56 kip/in are required for the fulcrum and tip,
respectively. The fulcrum brace stiffness calculated by the code methods are: 0.22 kip/in
by CSA-S 16, and by the SSRC methods they are 0.95 kip/in and 0.17 kip/in for the Euler
a-S16
b-SSRC
c-one span fixed end
d-one span simple end
e-two span fixed end
f-two span simple end
Fig. 4.22 Comparison of the Brace Stiffness Requirements for W21X44 with Top Flange
UDL (Scenario 2.2)
load and Cf load requirement, respectively. The required brace stiffnesses given by BASP
and those calculated using the CSA S16 standard, as weIl as the SSRC method are
graphed versus the span lengths of the W21X44 beam in Figure 4.22. This graph
86
illustrates the required brace stiffuess as the beam span becomes longer due to the smaller
Mer. The design based brace stiffuesses will approach the BASP results with an increase
in the span length. In this example the CSA-S 16 method required stiffuess is closer to the
BASP result for the longe st span considered.
Scenario 2.3 has the smallest effective length factor, k = 1.5, when considering the
fulcrum restraint situation. The theoretical moment capacity for the L = 30 in span is
29879 k-in; for L = 60 in Mer_theory is 7778 k-in; for L = 120 in and 260 in the Mer_theory
values become 2226 k-in and 698 k-in, respectively. The BASP moment capacities for an
unbraced span L = 30 in are: 1987 k-in and 1592 k-in, for the one-span loaded with fixed
and simply supported root conditions, respectively; and 1390 k-in and 1099 k-in for the
two-span loaded with fixed and simply supported root conditions, respectively. Web
crippling was also predicted to take place for these beams. For the L = 60 in cases the
BASP moment capacities are: 3765 k-in and 3880 k-in for the one-span loaded with fixed
and simply supported roots, respectively; and 2807 k-in and 2707 k-in for the two-span
loaded with fixed and simply supported roots, respectively. As the beam length was
increased to L = 120 in, it was expected that the member should buckle in the elastic
range (Figure 4.10b). The BASP moment capacities are: 6718 k-in and 7288 k-in for the
one-span loaded cases with fixed and simply supported roots, respectively; and 5421 k-in
and 5584 k-in for the two-span loaded beams with fixed and simply supported roots,
respectively. For the cases with an unbraced span length of L = 260 in, the BASP
moment capacities are: 3143 k-in and 2394 k-in for the one-span loaded cases with fixed
and simply supported roots, respectively; and the Mef_BASP values bec orne 3237 k-in and
2706 k-in, for the two-span loaded beams with fixed and simply supported roots,
respectively. In this bracing scenario, the cases with a braced length of L = 120 in and L
= 260 in could be used to study the elastic lateral buckling brace stiffuess requirements.
The Mef_BASP values approach the corresponding Mer_theory values when the brace stiffuess
in these cases is decreased to the following values, at L = 120 in, 2.5 hp/in and 2.9 hp/in
for the one-span loaded cases with fixed and simply supported roots, respectively; 3.3
hp/in and 4.3 hp/in for the two-span loaded beams with fixed and simply supported
roots, respectively. At this length, the code required brace stiffuesses are: for the CSA-
S16 standard 2.25 hp/in and for the SSRC methods 9.5 kip/in and 2.2 hp/in for Euler
87
load and Cf load requirements. At a braced length of L = 260 in, the BASP required brace
stiffness are: 0.32 kip/in and 0.35 kip/in for the one-span loaded cases with fixed and
simply supported roots, respectively; theyare 0.4 kip/in and 0.5 kip/in for the two-span
a-S16
b-SSRC
c-one span fixed end
d-one span simple end
e-two span fixed end
f-two span simple end
Fig. 4.23 Comparison of the Brace Stiffness Requirements for W21X44 with Top Flange
UDL (Scenario 2.3)
loaded beams with fixed and simply supported roots, respectively. The CSA-S16 requires
a brace stiffness of 0.4 kip/in for this length, and the SSRC methods require 0.95 kip/in
and 0.32 kip/in, for Euler and Cf load, respectively. A comparison of the required brace
stiffnesses for the unbraced lengths are shown in Figure 4.23. In this graph, the brace
stiffnesses of the longer unbraced span lengths become closer to the code required values.
The two span loaded cases, with their higher brace stiffness requirement, indicates that
the load in the inner span may be helpful in terms of the resistance against elastic lateral-
torsional buckling of the beam.
88
4.2.4 General Discussion of Brace Stiffness Analysis Findings
There are altogether nine W-shape beams, covering aIl three c1ass categories, that
were selected for this study and analysed using the procedure in the previous examples.
AU of the results from this study are listed in tabular form in Appendix 1. The tables used
for presentation are divided into two types: 1) verification of the applicability of the
Nethercot effective length factors k (Example Table 4.1), and 2) summary of the required
brace stiffnesses using the BASP, CSA-SI6 and SSRC methods (Example Table 4.2). In
the first type of table, aIl of the information used in the BASP analyses is shown, i.e. the
beam size (W21X44 in the example Table 4.1), the unbraced length L, the mesh in the
BASP model, the scenarios considered (corresponding to those in Table 2.1), the
different boundary and loading conditions (fixed end, simply supported end and two span
loaded cases), as weIl as the effective length factors. The main body of the table lists the
critical moment capacity calculated by BASP and the Nethercot equation, the predicted
modes of failure of the analysed beams, and finaIly comments about the elastic buckling
cases are given in the last column of the table. The content of the second type of table
consists mainly of the brace stiffness obtained from the BASP analyses and the currently
used code methods, i.e. CSA-SI6 and SSRC methods. These brace stiffness values are
shown in terms of the fulcrum brace and the tip brace corresponding to the various
boundary and loading conditions.
The BASP study indicates that Nethercot's effective length approach is applicable for
most of the scenarios in Table 2.1 when elastic lateral-torsional buckling occurs in an 1-
section steel beam. Exceptions occur for the cases in Scenarios 3.1 & 3.2 with simply
supported end conditions, where the BASP moment capacity is lower than the Nethercot
result in most cases when elastic lateral-torsional buckling occurs (Example Table i.56).
For these two scenarios (Scenarios 3.1 & 3.2 with simply supported end conditions) the
BASP moment capacity tends to close to the Nethercot results as the unbraced length
becomes longer. At sorne long spans (for example, L=400 in in the top flange loaded
89
WI2X65), the BASP moment capacity in these cases becomes higher than the Nethercot
moment capacity (Example Table i.44).
The situation is complex if the unbraced length L approaches the elastic limit shown
in Figure 3.16, that is L corresponds to the 0,67M
p
level for Class 1&2 sections or
0.67M
y
for Class 3 sections. Based on CUITent design standards the beam is expected to
experience sorne degree of ine1astic behaviour, which cannot be modelled with BASP,
and hence this behaviour was not reported. Typically the BASP software would predict
elastic lateral-torsional buckling, however, in sorne instances part of the web would
cripple locally, which caused a reduction in the predicted critical elastic moment
resistance of the beam. In sorne cases, the effect was such that Nethercot's result was
higher than that given by BASP (Example Table i.8l), which however, is not surprising
because the effective length approach is intended to model elastic lateral-torsional
buckling only. On a positive note, the BASP calculations were able to show the loading
position effects, i.e. lower load positions produce higher moment capacity.
The BASP study also indicates that the brace stiffness required by the CSA-S 16
Standard is conservative in most cases with elastic lateral-torsional buckling. The
compressive force approach in the SSRC method is conservative in most of the elastic
cases with top flange loading, but it is not conservative for the shear-centre loaded cases
even though elastic lateral-torsional buckling occurs. Conceming the SSRC Euler load
approach, it is conservative at most lengths. With the increase of the unbraced span
length, the Euler brace stiffness tends to approach the brace stiffness obtained from the
SSRC compressive force approach, and finally it will be lower than the compressive
force requirement (Example Table i.142). Only one of the SSRC methods (Euler load
approach) was found to be applicable in most cases of Scenarios 2.1 (induding all one
span and two span loaded cases) when elastic lateral-torsional buckling occurs (Example
Tables i.6 & i.1l). In those instances where web crippling along with lateral-torsional
buckling were predicted by BASP, the code required brace stiffnesses are conservative
in: i) Scenarios 1.2 & 1.3; ii) the one span loaded cases in Scenarios 2.2 & 2.3 and iii) the
fixed-end cases in Scenarios 3.1 & 3.2 plus the all cases of Scenarios 3.3. This finding
could coyer most cases but exceptions may exist due to the limited scope of this study
(nine W-shapes). These studies also prove that a higher moment resistance can be
90
developed when lateral braces are installed at both flanges compared with beams that
have a top flange brace only.
Table 4.1 Example Table of Mer with Stocky Braces (W21X44 L=260 in)
L=260 in k
Mode
Mesh 52X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End 2-s an Ld
Failure
1.1 1673 765 1.4 a
1.2 2914 765 1.4 a
1.3 6997 2845 0.6 a+b
2.1 1212 1156 1159 374 2.5 a
2.2 1565 1322 1400 374 2.5 a
2.3 3143 2394 2706 698 1.5 a
3.1 224 135 110 117 7.5 a
3.2 225 136 110 117 7.5 a
3.3 521 385 315 197 4.5 a
L Brace Stiffness adopted here is 10000klin
II. Two-span load calculations are based on sim ply supported end
III. Mp=4768 (k-in)
IV. The "a" in failure mode refers to elastic lateral-torsional buckling,
and "b" refers to local web crippling
The BASP result is higher th an (or equal to) the theoretical result
, ,':',Ii
, "" ,,:111iOne or two BASP results are less than the theoretical result
X The BASP results in ail cases are less than the theoretical result
91
Table 4.2 Example Table ofComparison of Brace Stiffness (W21X44 with L=120 in
Top UDL)
L=120 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (klin \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
t
)
1.4 1.1 - - 3535 2503 4.1 17.4/4.5
1.4 1.2 - 0 3535 2503 4.1 17.4/4.5
0.6 1.3 - 4 11952 11924 3.95 8.5/4.3
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 3.5 - 1008 1001 0.85 8.5/0.9
2.1_one-span_simple 3.5 - 1008 1001 0.85 8.5/0.9
2.1_two-span_fix 3.8 - 1008 1001 0.85 8.5/0.9
2.1_two-span_simple 4 - 1008 1001 0.85 8.5/0.9
2.2_one-span_fix 1.25 2.5 1008 1001 1.25 9.5/1.0
2.2_ one-span _simple 1.5 3 1008 1001 1.25 9.5/1.0
2.2_two-span_fix 1.6 3.2 1008 1001 1.25 9.5/1.0
2.2 two-span simple 2.1 4.2 1008 1001 1.25 9.5/1.0
1.5 2.3_ one-span _fix 2.5 2.5 2232 2226 2.25 9.5/2.2
2.3_ one-span _simple 2.9 2.9 2220 2226 2.25 9.5/2.2
2.3_two-span_fix 3.3 3.3 2220 2226 2.25 9.5/2.2
2.3 two-span simple 4.3 4.3 2220 2226 2.25 9.5/2.2
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 350 130 0.22 17/0.24
3.1_one-span_simple 0.01 - 163 130 0.22 17/0.24
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 308 130 0.22 17/0.24
3.1_two-span_simple 0.1 - 130 130 0.22 17/0.24
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 350 130 0.32 19/0.26
3.2_one-span_simple 0.01 0.01 163 130 0.32 19/0.26
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 308 130 0.32 19/0.26
3.2 two-span simple 0.1 0.1 130 130 0.32 19/0.26
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.2 0.1 485 465 0.58 19/0.92
3.3_one-span_simple 0.8 0.4 470 465 0.58 19/0.92
3.3_two-span_fix 0.3 0.15 472 465 0.58 19/0.92
3.3 two-span simple 1.4 0.7 466 465 0.58 19/0.92
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
92
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The focus of this thesis was on the elastic lateral-torsional buckling resistance and
lateral bracing requirements for hot-rolled steel I-section cantilever bearns. Starting from
the literature review in Chapter 2, the development of existing beam theories and brace
requirements were generally discussed, as weIl the currently used lateral bracing design
methods were introduced. The finite element software BASP was relied on to conduct a
pararnetric study in which the applicability of the following items was evaluated. 1) the
currently used effective length equation (Equation 4.1) for the prediction of the elastic
lateral-torsional buckling moment resistance of cantilever I-beams, and 2) the design
methods for lateral beam braces prescribed by the CSA-S 16 Standard and the Structural
Stability Research Council in the United States. As shown in Chapter 4, the lateral brace
requirement obtained from the BASP software in terrns of stiffness were compared with
the code based predictions.
The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the numerical parametric
study ofnine I-section cantilever beams using the BASP software:
1) The effective length factor approach, as developed by Nethercot, provides a
conservative prediction of the moment capacity when pure elastic lateral-
torsional buckling is expected in the cantilever steel beam.
2) For those cantilevers with long unbraced spans where elastic lateral-
torsional buckling is expected to occur, the CSA-S 16 Standard design
method for brace stiffness is applicable except for the cases in Scenarios
2.1, that is a prop cantilever with two equal stiffness flange braces at the
root location and no brace at the beam tip. At these spans, the brace stiffness
derived from the SSRC compressive force requirement is applicable to the
top flange loaded cases (except for Scenarios 2.1), but does not always
provide an appropriate design for cantilever bearns loaded at the shear-
centre. The SSRC stiffness approach that is based on the Euler load
93
requirement results in very conservative design for both short span
cantilevers and even for long span beams in the elastic range.
5.2 Recommendations for Future Study
To verify the findings of this research, which were based on numerical elastic
analyses and to make a better evaluation of the currently used lateral brace design
methods, the following recommendations are given:
1) An in-depth study should be carried out to develop a more accurate
method of the Lu prediction, other than the approximate method
implemented in this study, which was based on Equation 4.1.
2) Further research on the effect of plastic behaviour and localized buckling
on the lateral brace requirement for cantilevers should be conducted. In
this numerical study there were many cases in which elastic crippling of
the web took place prior to elastic lateral-torsional buckling in the
intermediate beam length range where sorne degree of plastic
deformation is expected.
3) Real-scale beam experiments are needed for the verification of the
numerical results from the fini te element software BASP.
4) Considering the unconservative results obtained for the shear-centre
loaded cases using the SSRC compressive force brace design method, a
re-evaluation of the safety factor might be appropriate.
5) The application of the Euler load approach in the SSRC method is also a
subject that needs to be studied further.
6) More detailed studies of the brace strength requirement are necessary,
considering that this research mainly concentrated on stiffness
requirements.
94
REFERENCES
Akay, H. u.; Johnson, C. P. and Will, K. M.(1977) Lateral and Local Buckling ofBeams
and Frames Structural Division, ASCE, Paper 13226 ST9 p.1821-1832
ASTM A6 (2003) Standard Specification for General Requirements for Rolled Structural
Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling
Barsoum, RS., and Gallagher, RH. (1970) Finite Element Analysis ofTorsional and
Torsional-Flexural Stability Problems International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol.2, 1970, p.335
Bleich, F. (1952) Buckling Strength of Metal Structures McGraw-Hill, New York
British Standard 5950 (2000) Structural Use of Steelwork in Building (Part 1) The
Institution of Structural Engineers
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (2000) Handbook of Steel Construction (350W)
Canadian Standards Association (2001) Limit States Design of Steel Structures CSA-S16
Canadian Standards Association (1998) General Requirements for Rolled or Welded
Structural Quality Steel/Structural Quality Steels) CSA-G40.20
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (2001) Limit States Design of Structural Steel
Choo, K. B. (1987) Buckling Pro gram BASP for Use On a Microcomputer Master's
Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Austin, TX, USA
de Vries, K. (1946) Strength of Beams as Determined by Lateral Buckling Proceedings
ASCE Vol.72, p.986-1011
Dumont, C. and Hill, H.N. (1940) The Lateral Stability of Equal Flanged Aluminium
Alloy I-beams Subjected to Pure Bending Nat. Adv. Ctee Aero. Tech. Note 770.
Flint, A.R. (1950) The Stability and Strength of Slender Beams Engineering, Vol.170,
p.545-559
Flint, A.R (1951) The Influence ofRestraints on the Stability ofBeams The Structural
Engineer, Vol.29, p.235-246
95
Flint, A.R. (1952) The Lateral Stability of Unrestrained Beams Engineering, Vol.173,
p.65-99
Flint, A.R. (1953) The Stability and Strength ofStocky Beams J. Mech. And Phys.
Solids, VoU, p.90-102
Galambos, T. V. (1968) Structural Members and Frames Prentice-Hall, Inc. United
Kingdom & Canada
Galambos, T. V. (1998) Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hill, H.N. (1942) The Lateral Instability ofUnsymmetrical I-Beams J. Aero. Sci., Vol.9,
p.175
Home, M.R. (1954) The Flexural-Torsional Buckling ofMembers ofSymmetric 1-
Sections Under Combined Thrust and Unequal Terminal Moments Q.J. Mech.
Appl. Math., Vol.7, Part 4
Johnson, C. P. and Will, K. M. (1974) Bearn Buckling by Finite Element Procedure
Structural Division ASCE Vol. 1 00 ST3 p.669-685
Michell, A.G.M. (1899) Elastic stability oflong beams under transverse forces
Philosophical Mag., 48
Mutton, B.R. and Trahair, N.S. (1973) Stiffness Requirement for Lateral Bracing
Proceedings, ASCE, ST10, Paper 10086, p.2167-2182
Nethercot, D.A. and Rockey, K.C. (1971) A Unified Approach to The Elastic Lateral
Buckling of Beams The Structural Engineer, Vol.49, p.321-330
Nethercot, D.A. (1973) The Effective Length of Cantilevers as Govemed by Lateral
Buckling The Structural Engineer, Vol.51, p.161-168
Nethercot, D.A. (1983) Elastic Lateral Buckling of Beams Bearns and Bearn Colurnns,
Stability and Strength, by Narayanan, R. Applied Science Publishers, London &
New York
Poley, S. (1956) Lateral Buckling ofCantilevered I-Beams Under Uniform Load
Transaction ASCE, Vo1.l21 p.786-790
96
Powell, G. and Klingner, R. (1970) Elastic Lateral Buckling of Steel Beams Structural
Division ASCE ST9 Vo1.96, p.1919-1932
Prandtl, L. (1899) Kipperscheinungen Dissertation, Munich.
Salvadori, M.G. (1955) Lateral Buckling ofI-Beams ASCE Transactions Vo1.120 Paper
2773 p.1165-1177
Timoshenko, S. P. (1905) Einige Stabilitatsprobleme der ElasticiHitstheorie Bulletin of
the Polytechnic Institute, St Petersburg; reprinted in Zeitschrift fr Mathematik
und Physik, 58 (1981)
Timoshenko, S. P. (1936) Theory of Elastic Stability McGraw-Hill, New York
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J.M. (1961) Theory of Elastic Stability McGraw-Hill, New
York
Trahair, N.S. (1963) The Effective Length of Simply supported Rolled Steel Joists Civil
Engineering Transaction, the Institution of Engineering, Australia
Trahair, N.S. (1967) Elastic Stability of Propped Cantilevers Civil Engineering
Transaction, the Institution of Engineering, Australia
Trahair, N.S. (1977) The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures Champman and Hal/,
London
Trahair, N.S. (1993) Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Structures CRC Press
Winter, G. (1941) Lateral Stability ofUnsymmetrical I-Beams and Trusses in Bending
Proceedings, ASCE Vo1. 61 p.1851-1864
Winter, G. (1944) The Strength ofSlender Beams Transactions ASCE Vo1. 109 p.1321-
1349
Winter, G. (1960) Lateral Bracing ofColumns and Beams Transaction ASCE, Vo1.125
p.807-826
Woolcock, S.T. and Trahair, N.S. (1974) Post-Buckling Behaviour of Determinate Beams
Eng. Mech. Division ASCE 1974 Vo1.1 00 EM2 p.151-171
97
Yura J.A. (1993) Fundarnentals of Bearn Bracing Is Your Structure Suitably Braced?
SSRC
Yura lA. and Helwig T.A. (2001) Bracing for Stability SSRC of AISC
98
Appendix 1
Summary Tables of BASP Analyses for Mer and Brace Stiffness
99
1. W12X19, Class 1:
1.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W12X19-Top Flange Loading
1244 ~ ,
Scenario J.J& 1.2
1244 ~ ,
Scenario 2J&22
1244 r,
Scenario 3.1&3.2
"
"
\\
"
834
"
834 -", " 834
~
:s
~
:s
~
'2
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
Lu=37 70
L(in)
Lu=21 39
L(in) Lu=713
L(in)
1244
Scenario 1.3
1244
Scenario 2.3
1244 ~ \
Scenario 3.3
'\
834
"
834 834
\
'-
..
\
'2 ~
~
:s
~
d c ~
~ ~ ~
Lu=86 162
L(in)
Lu=34 65
L(in)
Lu=11 22
L(in)
Wl2Xl9-Scenarios 1 Wl2Xl9-Scenarios 2 Wl2Xl9-Scenarios 3
Figure i.l M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW12X19
Table i.l The M
cr
ofW12X19 L=40 in with Stocky Braces
Mode
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Ld
Failure
1.1 1949 2216 1.4 a+b X
1.2 2872 2216 1.4 a+b
1.3 4303 11332 0.6 b
2.1 1160 1096 992 797 2.5 a+b
2.2 1344 1360 1024 797 2.5 a+b
2.3 1400 1456 1032 1950 1.5 b
3.1 344 72 56 172 7.5 a
3.2 368 72 56 172 7.5 a
3.3 1344 760 624 328 4.5 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1244 (k-in)
100
Table i.2 The Mer ofW12X19 L=70 in with Stocky Braces
Mode
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Scenarios Ld
Failure
1.1 1212 824 1.4 a
1.2 2252 824 1.4 a+b
1.3 5747 3813 0.6 a+b
2.1 790 736 730 341 2.5 a
2.2 1206 1012 1050 341 2.5 a
2.3 2239 2403 1849 735 1.5 a+b
3.1 174 64 51 93 7.5 a
3.2 176 65 52 93 7.5 a
3.3 541 317 258 163 4.5 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1244 (k-in)
Table i.3 The Mer ofW12X19 L=180 in with Stocky Braces
W12X19 T FI UDL op ange
L= 180 (in)
Mesh 64X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in)
BASP
Nethercot
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
525 - -
881 - -
1807 - -
398 381 386
485 411 442
823 670 731
73 50 42
73 52 42
156 128 105
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp=1244 (k-in)
101
212
212
702
109
109
195
35
35
59
k
Mode
Top Ld
of
Failure
1.4 a
1.4 a
0.6 a
2.5 a
2.5 a
1.5 a
7.5 a
7.5 a
4.5 a
Ok?
Ok?
'v/
\/
\/
v/
'v/
\/
Table i.4 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=40 in Top UDL
L=40 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mer (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 1949 2216
1.4 1.2 - 1.55 2217 2216 10.5 87/12
0.6 1.3 - 100000 4303 11332 10.5 87/12
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 21.3 - 799 797 3.4 44/3.7
2.1_one-span_simple 21 - 797
797
3.4 44/3.7
2.1_two-span_fix 23 - 799
797
3.4 44/3.7
2.1_two-span_simple 23.1 - 797
797
3.4 44/3J
2.2_ one-span _fix 5.7 11.4 799
797
5.1 48/4
2.2_one-span_simple 7 14 796
797
5.1 48/4
2.2_two-span_fix 7.2 14.4 798
797
5.1 48/4
2.2 two-span simple 9.4 18.8 797
797
5.1 48/4
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 1460 1950 8 48/6.3
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 1456
1950
8 48/6.3
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 1058
1950
8 48/6.3
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 1032
1950
8 48/6.3
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 224 172 1.5 87/1.6
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 69
172
1.5 87/1.6
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 198
172
1.5 87/1.6
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 56
172
1.5 87/1.6
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 224
172
2.2 95/1.7
3.2_ one-span_ simple 10000 10000 72
172
2.2 95/1.7
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 198
172
2.2 95/1.7
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 56
172
2.2 95/1.7
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.7 0.35 335 328 4.2 95/3.3
3.3_one-span_simple 2.8 1.4 328
328
4.2 95/3.3
3.3_two-span_fix 1 0.5 331
328
4.2 95/3.3
3.3 two-span simple 4.6 2.3 328 328
4.2 95/3.3
The above results are calculated by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=834 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen. 2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
102
Table i.5 The Cornparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=70 in Top UDL
L=70 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P a/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 1212 824
1.4 1.2 - 0 1212 824
0.6 1.3 - 3.65 3817 3813 3 8.1/3.3
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 3 - 337 341 0.85 8.1/0.9
2.1_one-span_simple 3.26 - 341
341
0.85 8.1/0.9
2.1_two-span_fix 3.6 - 343
341
0.85 8.1/0.9
2.1_two-span_simple 3.86 - 341
341
0.85 8.1/0.9
2.2_ one-span_fix 1.2 2.4 344
341
1.3 8.8/1
2.2_one-span_simple 1.5 3 346
341
1.3 8.8/1
2.2_two-span_fix 1.6 3.2 343
341
1.3 8.8/1
2.2 two-span simple 2.1 4.2 345
341
1.3 8.8/1
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 2.45 2.45 735 735 2.7 8.8/2.2
2.3_ one-span _simple 2.92 2.92 734
735
2.7 8.8/2.2
2.3_two-span_fix 3.37 3.37 734
735
2.7 8.8/2.2
2.3 two-span simple 4.34 4.34 735
735
2.7 8.8/2.2
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 299 93 0.45 16/0.5
3.1_ one-span _simple 10000 - 64
93
0.45 16/0.5
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 112
93
0.45 16/0.5
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 50
93
0.45 16/0.5
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 299
93
0.7 18/0.54
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 65
93
0.7 18/0.54
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 112
93
0.7 18/0.54
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 50
93
0.7 18/0.54
4.5 3.3_ one-span_fix 0.2 0.1 172 163 1.2 18/0.95
3.3_one-span_simple 0.8 0.4 163
163
1.2 18/0.95
3.3_two-span_fix 0.28 0.14 163
163
1.2 18/0.95
3.3 two-span simple 1.4 0.7 160
163
1.2 18/0.95
[he above results are calculated by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=834 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen. 2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
103
Table i.6 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=180 in Top UDL
L=180 Scenarios Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 525 212
1.4 1.2 - 0 525 212
0.6 1.3 - 0.063 702 702 0.65 1/0.75
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 0.23 - 109 109 0,1 0.5/0,11
"
2.1_one-span_simple 0.275 - 109
109
0.1 0.5/0,11
"
2.1_two-span_fix 0.29 - 109
109
0.1 0.5/0.11
2.1_two-span_simple 0.345 -
109 0.1 0.5/0.11
2.2_ one-span _fix 0.09 0.18 110
109
0.15 0.5/0.12
"
2.2_ one-span _sim pie 0.11 0.22 110
109
0.15 0.5/0.12
"
2.2_two-span_fix 0.14 0.28 109
109
0.15 0.5/0.12
"
2.2 two-span simple 0.18 0.36 110
109
0.15 0.5/0.12
1.5 2,3_one-span_fix 0.22 0.22 195 195 0.28 0.5/0.22
"
2.3_ one-span _simple 0.24 0.24 198
195
0.28 0.5/0.22
"
2.3_two-span_fix 0.3 0.3 195
195
0.28 0.5/0.22
"
2.3 two-span simple 0.34 0.34 194
195
0.28 0.5/0.22
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 63 35 0.07 0.95/0.07
3.1_one-span_simple 0.01 - 50
35
0.07 0.95/0.07
3.1_two-span_fix 0.01 - 57 35
0.07 0.95/0.07
3.1_two-span_simple 0.01 - 42 35
0.07 0.95/0.07
3.2_ one-span _fix 0.01 0.01 69
35
0.1 1/0.08
3.2_ one-span _simple 0.01 0.01 51
35
0.1 1/0.08
3.2_two-span_fix 0.01 0.01 60
35
0.1 1/0.08
3.2 two-span simple 0.01 0.01 42
35
0.1 1/0.08
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0 0 63 59 0.17 1/0.13
"
3.3_ one-span _simple 0.04 0.02 59
59
0.17 1/0.13
"
3.3_two-span_fix 0.01 0.005 61
59
0.17 1/0.13
"
3.3 two-span simple 0.12 0.06 59
59
0.17 1/0.13
The above results are calculated by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=834 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen. 2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
104
Table i.7 The M
cr
ofW12X19 L=50 in with Stocky Braces
Mode
p Ld
of
Ok?
Failure
1.1 939 1474 1.4 a+b X
1.2 1604 1474 1.4 a+b
1.3 1939 7313 0.6 b
2.1 659 615 558 2.5 a+b
2.2 1134 1003 558 2.5 a+b
2.3 1931 1929 1304 1.5 b
3.1 262 87 134 7.5 a
3.2 301 88 134 7.5 a
3.3 1151 657 245 4.5 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp= 1244 (k-in)
Table i.8 The M
cr
ofW12X19 L=120 in with Stocky Braces
W12X19 T P . op Flange Oint Load
L= 120(in)
Mesh 42X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
Fixed End Simp. End
408 - 361 1.4
685 - 361 1.4
2495 - 1402 0.6
329 321 172 2.5
460 413 172 2.5
1309 1041 328 1.5
116 73 53 7.5
125 77 53 7.5
296 219 90 4.5
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp= 1244 (k-in)
105
Mode
of
Ok?
Failure
a
v/
a
a
v/
a
" 1/
v
a
a 'c/
a
v/
a
a
v/
Table i.9 The Mer ofW12X19L=180 in with Stocky Braces
W12X19 T FI op ange
P . t L d
Oln oa
L= 180(in)
Mesh 64X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
Fixed End Simp. End
304 - 212 1.4
481 - 212 1.4
1303 - 702 0.6
257 254 109 2.5
333 301 109 2.5
704 569 195 1.5
82 61 35 7.5
92 71 35 7.5
190 164 59 4.5
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp= 1244 (k-in)
Mode
of
Failure
Ok?
a J
a
a
\,/
a
v/
a
a
v/
a
v/
a
a v : ~
Table i.10 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=50 in under Top
FI T L d ange
IP
oa
L=50 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 939 1474
1.4 1.2 - 8.4 1482 1474 8.4 32/9.3
0.6 1.3 - 10000 1939 7313 4.2 16/4.6
2.5 2.1 fix 21 - 547 558 1,9 16/2.1
2.1_simple 22 - 543 558 1,9 16/2,1
2.2 fix 2.5 5 544
558
2.9 17.4/2.3
2.2 simple 2.9 5.8 548
558
2.9 17.4/2.3
1.5 2.3 fix 3.6 3.6 1299 1304 6,3 17.4/5.5
2.3 simple 4.7 4.7 1305 1304 6.3 17.4/5.5
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 192 134 0.9 32/1
3.1_simple 10000 - 88
134
0.9 32/1
3.2 fix 0 0 192
134
1.4 35/1.1
3.2 simple 10000 10000 88
134
1.4 35/1.1
4.5 3.3 fix 0.2 0.1 237 245 2.5 35/2
3.3 simple 0.96 0.48 243 245 2.5 35/2
Irhe above calculations are conducted by BASP for the top flange tip point load
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
106
Table i.11 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=120 in under Top
Flange Tip Load
L=120 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-inl Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16
1.4 1.1 - - 408 361
1.4 1.2 - 0 408 361
0.6 1.3 - 1.1 1416 1402 1.8 1.2/1.9
2.5 2.1 fix 0.6 - 171 172 0,25 1.2/027
"
2.1_simple 0.7 - 173
172
"
2.2 fix 0.15 0.3 172
172 0.37 1.3/0.29
2.2 simple 0.21 0.42 173 172
1.5 2.3 fix 0.38 0.38 330 328 0.7 1.3/0.6
"
2.3 simple 0.42 0.42 330 328
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 99 53 0.15 2.3/0.16
3.1_simple 0.01 - 73
53
3.2 fix 0 0 99
53 0.22 2.5/0.18
3.2 simple 0.01 0.01 73 53
4.5 3.3_fix 0.01 0.005 104 90 0.38 2.5/0.3
"
3.3 simple 0.08 0.04 93 90
l'TL
- e calculations are conducted by BASP for the top flange tip point load
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
Table i.l2 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=180 in under Top
FI T' L d ange
IP oa
L=180 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (kIin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 304 212
1.4 1.2 - 0 304 212 0.6 0.68/0.44
0.6 1.3 - 0.31 702 702 0.65 0.34/0.75
2.5 2.1_fix 0.2 - 110 109 0.1 0.34/0,11
"
2.1_simple 0.24 - 110
109
"
2.2 fix 0.04 0.08 109
109
0.15 0.38/0.13
2.2 simple 0.06 0.12 109
109
1.5 2.3 fix 0.14 0.14 193 195 0.55 0.38/0.22
"
2.3 simple 0.15 0.15 196 195
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 73 35 0.07 0.68/0.07
3.1_simple 0.01 - 61
35
3.2 fix 0 0 73 35 0.1
3.2 simple 0.01 0.01 62 35
4.5 3.3_fix 0 0 73 59 0.17 0.75/0.13
"
3.3 simple 0.01 0.005 64 59
Irhe above calculations are conducted by BASP for the top flange tip point load
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
107
1.2 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
WI2XI9-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
1244
Scenario 1.1
1244
Scenario 2.1
1244
~ \ .
Scenario 3.1
- ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,
' .. ,
834
'"
834
~
834
..
g
~
g
~
~ d d
::8 ::8 ::8
Lu=63 121
L(in)
Lu=50 97
L(in)
Lu=17 32
L(in)
1244
Scenario 1.2
1244 "
Scenario 2.2
1244 -,
Scenario 3.2
"
'"
"
\ " ,
834
.
834 C" ' .
834
\
l l
~

~
d
::8 ::8 ::8
Lu=72 139
L(in)
Lu=56 108
L(in) Lu=19 36
L(in)
1244
Scenario 1.3
1244
Scenari 0 2.3
1244
r--------- ,
Scenario 3.3
'-'-
- , ~ ~ ~
- ' - - - ~ ~ ~
"
~ - .....
"-
..
,
834
"
834
"-
834
"
:?
. ~
:?
~
l
~
d d
::8 ::8 ::8
Lu=84 162
L(in)
Lu=63 121
L(in)
Lu=21 40
L(in)
Wl2Xl9-Scenarios 1 Wl2Xl9-Scenarios 2 Wl2Xl9-Scenarios 3
Figure i.2 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW12X19
Table i.13 The M
cr
ofW12X19 L=50 in with Stocky Braces
W12X19 s-c UDL
L=
Mode
Mesh 18X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim Ld
Failure
1.1 3829 4187 0.8 a+b X
1.2 6139 5418 0.7 a+b
1.3 7277 7313 0.6 a+b X
2.1 1752 1882 1425 2738 1 a+b X
2.2 1762 1903 1427 3342 0.9 b
2.3 1769 1918 1429 4187 0.8 b
3.1 563 141 108 424 3 a
3.2 582 141 110 496 2.7 a+b
3.3 1066 587 522 594 2.4 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1244 (k-in)
108
le i.14 The Mer ofW12X19 L=180 in with Stocky Braces
W12X19 s-c UDL
k
Mode
Mesh 64X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim Ld
Failure
1.1 1010 450 0.8 a
1.2 1214 551 0.7 a
1.3 2366 702 0.6 a+b
2.1 703 575 685 328 1 a
2.2 1644 592 730 380 0.9 a
2.3 899 665 862 450 0.8 a
3.1 104 74 65 90 3 a
3.2 111 81 68 101 2.7 a
3.3 176 145 131 114 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1244 (k-in)
Table i.15 The Mer ofW12X19 L=50 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
W12X19: S-C Point Load
k
Mode
op Ld
of
Ok?
Root
Failure
1.1 1509 4187 0.8 a+b X
1.2 2273 5418 0.7 a+b X
1.3 6620 7313 0.6 a+b X
2.1 1186 1130 2738 1 a+b X
2.2 1696 1531 3342 0.9 a+b X
2.3 2404 2710 4187 0.8 b
3.1 501 169 424 3 a+b
3.2 557 169 496 2.7 a+b
3.3 1156 657 594 2.4 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1244 (k-in)
109
Table i.16 The Mer ofW12X19 L=140 in with StockyBraces/S-C Point
W12X19: S-C Point Load
L=140(in)
Mesh 50X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (kin) k
BASP
Nethercot s-c Ld
Fixed End Simp. Root
714 - 663 0.8
1327 - 824 0.7
1942 - 1069 0.6
561 536 470 1
749 610 551 0.9
1028 820 663 0.8
140 94 118 3
155 105 132 2.7
245 193 151 2.4
See the under Table 4.1
Mp=1244 (k-in)
Mode
of
Failure
Ok?
a+b \/
a+b
a+b v/
a+b ,/
a+b

a:b v'
Table i.17 The Mer ofW12X19 L=180 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
S-C Point Load
k
Nethercot S-C Ld
1.1 519 450 0.8 a
1.2 967 551 0.7 a+b
1.3 1301 702 0.6 a+b
2.1 416 400 328 1 a+b
2.2 535 443 380 0.9 a+b
2.3 704 569 450 0.8 a+b
3.1 104 78 90 3 a
3.2 121 95 101 2.7 a
3.3 190 164 114 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1244 (k-in)
110
Table i.18 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=50 in under Shear
Centre UDL
L= 50 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRCWe/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 3829 4187
0.7 1.2 - 4.9 5414 5418 8.4 20/4.2
0.6 1.3 - 10000 7277 7313
1 2.1_one-span_fix 10000 - 1752 2738 4.2 10/2.1
2.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 1882
2738
2.1_ two-span _fix 10000 - 1422
2738
2.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 1425
2738
0.9 2.2_ one-span _fix 10000 10000 1762 3342 6.3 15/3.2
2.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 1903
3342
2.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 1425
3342
2.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 1427
3342
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 1769 4187 6.3 15/3.2
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 1918
4187
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 1427
4187
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 1429
4187
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0.8 - 424 424 2.9 20/1.4
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 141
424
3.1_two-span_fix 5 - 423
424
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 108
424
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0.5 0.5 495 496 5 30/2.5
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 141
496
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 479
496
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 110
496
2.4 3.3_ one-span_fix 1 0.5 593 594 6 30/3
3.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 587
594
3.3_two-span_fix 2 1 593
594
3.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 522
594
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
111
Table i.19 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=180 in under Shear
Centre UDL
L= 180 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (kIin) Mcrlk-in) Code's Stiffness (kIin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 1010 450
0.7 1.2 - 0 1010 551 1 0.43/0.52
0.6 1.3 - 0 1010 702 0.65 0.22/0.33
1 2.1_one-span_fix 1.3 - 323 328 0.3 0.22/0.15
2.1_one-span_simple 1.5 - 327
328
2.1_two-span_fix 1.4
- 328
328
2.1_two-span_simple 1.45
-
326
328
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix 0.51 1.02 390 380 0.5 0.33/0.27
2.2_one-span_simple 0.49 0.98 389
380
2.2_two-span_fix 0.61 1.22 382
380
2.2 two-span simple 0.62 1.24 279
380
0.8 2.3_ one-span _fix 0.68 0.68 452 450 0.65 0.33/0.32
2.3_ one-span _simple 0.66 0.66 453
450
2.3_two-span_fix 0.81 0.81 450
450
2.3 two-span simple 0.82 0.82 447
450
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 92 90 0.17 0.4/0.08
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 74
90
3.1_two-span_fix 0.08 - 90
90
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 65
90
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0.01 0.01 102 101 0.3 0.65/0.14
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 81
101
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 98
101
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 68
101
2.4 3.3_ one-span _fix 0.1 0.05 119 114 0.32 0.65/0.16
3.3_one-span_simple 0.4 0.2 113
114
3.3_two-span_fix 0.16 0.08 115
114
3.3 two-span simple 0.76 0.38 112
114
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
112
Table i.20 The Cornparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=50 in under Shear
Centre Tip Point Load
L= 50 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in 1 Mcr (k-in) Codets Stiffness lk/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 1509 4187
0.7 1.2 - 10000 2273 5418
0.6 1.3
- 10000 6620 7313
1 2.1_fix 10000 - 1186 2738
2.1_simple 10000 - 1130 2738
0.9 2.2_fix 10000 10000 1696 3342
2.2 simple 10000 10000 1531 3342
0.8 2.3_fix 10000 10000 2404 4187
2.3 simple 10000 10000 2710 4187
3 3.1 fix 1.7 - 425 424 2.9 15/1.4
3.1_simple 10000 - 169 424
2.7 3.2_fix 0.7 0.7 496 496 5 22/2.5
"
3.2 simple 10000 10000 169 496
2.4 3.3_fix 1.1 0.55 597 597 6 22/3
"
3.3 simple 12 6 591 597
[he above calculations are conducted ~ BASP for the tip ~ o i n t load at shear centrel
* Mp = 1244 (k-in)t 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
Table i.2l The Cornparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=140 in under Shear
Centre Tip Point Load
L=140 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Codets Stiffness Jk/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRCjP e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 714 663
0.7 1.2 - 0.1 931 824 2 0.66/1
0.6 1.3 - 0.2 1066 1069 1.3 0.33/0.65
1 2.1_fix 5 - 471 470 0.6 0.33/0.29
2.1_simple 4.9 - 472 470
0.9 2.2_fix 0.81 1.62 552 551 1 0.5/0.5
2.2 simple 0.72 1.44 550 551
0.8 2.3 fix 1.13 1.13 662 663 1.2 0.5/0.6
2.3 simple 1.01 1.01 662 663
3 3.1_fix 0 - 120 118 0.29 0.66/0.14
3.1_simple 10000 - 94 118
2.7 3.2_fix 0.01 0.01 132 132 0.48 1/0.24
..
3.2 simple 10000 10000 105 132
2.4 3.3_fix 0.1 0.05 153 151 0.55 1/0.27
3.3 simple 0.6 0.3 149 151
Irhe above calculations are conducted by: BASP for the tip point load at shear centre
* Mp = 1244 (k-in)t 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
113
Table i.22 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X19 with L=180 in under Shear
Centre Tip Point Load
L=180 W12X19 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr(k-inl Code's Stiffness Jklin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 519 450
0.7 1.2 - 0.01 561 551 1 0.3/0.52
0.6 1.3 - 0.07 712 702 0.65 0.15/0.33
1 2.1_fix 2.6 - 332 328 0.31 0.15/0.15
2.1_simple 2.5 - 330 328
0.9 2.2_fix 0.41 0.82 380 380 0.5 0.23/0.27
2.2 simple 0.36 0.72 382 380
0.8 2.3 fix 0.57 0.57 454 450 0.65 0.23/0.32
2.3 simple 0.5 0.5 452 450
3 3.1_fix 0 - 93 90 0.17 0.31/0.08
3.1_simple 10000 - 78 90
2.7 3.2_fix 0.01 0.01 105 101 0.29 0.47/0.14
"
3.2 simple 10000 10000 95 101
2.4 3.3_fix 0.05 0.025 114 114 0.32 0.47/0.16
.
3.3 simple 0.28 0.14 114 114
f[he above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre tiQ point load
* Mp = 1244 (k-in), 0.67Mp=833 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
2. WI2X26, Class 2:
2.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W12X26-Top Flange Loading
1865 ~
Scenario 1.1&1.2
1865
r------.
Scenario 2.1&2.2
1865 -',
Scenario 3.1 &3.2
...
,
...
\\
' ... \
1249
...
1249
r
~
1249
~ -
.....
'2
. .
'2
:?
J
1
~ 6
~
-'-
~ ~
Lu=64 123
L(in)
Lu=36 69
L(in)
Lu=1223
L(in)
1865
Scenario 1.3
1865
Scenario 2.3
1865
r-----\
Scenario 3.3
-.-., .......
.
"
...
'..
1249
"
1249 1249
"
~ ......
~
. ~
:? :s
6 6 6
~ ~ ~
Lu=149 287
L(in)
Lu=60 115
L(in)
Lu=20 38
L(in)
Wl2X26-Scenarios 1 Wl2X26-Scenarios 2 Wl2X26-Scenarios 3
Figure i.3 M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW12X26
114
Table i.23 The Mer ofW12X26 L=60 in with Stocky Braces
Mode
Nethercot k
of
Ok?
an Ld
Failure
1.1 3872 4472
1.2 5743
1.3 8645 23124
2.1 2079 2073 1680 1576
2.2 2160 2301 1694
2.3 2183 2351 1699 3930
3.1 655 117 94 324
3.2 699 118 96
3.3 2172 1517 1241 630
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1865 (k-in)
Table i.24 The Mer ofW12X26 L=120 in with Stocky Braces
W12X26:
L=120(in)
Mesh 42X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Top UDL
Mer (k'in)
BASP Nethercot
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
2042 - -
3901 - -
10331 - -
1335 1244 1234
2038 1695 1758
4023 4196 3425
283 109 87
286 110 89
854 508 414
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp=1865 (k-in)
115
1304
5989
544
1165
149
262
Mode
k
of
Ok?
Failure
1.4 a
\ /
,;
1.4 a
0.6 a+b \1'
2.5 a \/
2.5 a
1.5 b
7.5 a
~
7.5 a
4.5 a \/
Table i.25 The Mer ofW12X26 L=300 in with Stocky Braces
L= 300(in)
lMesh 105X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in)
BASP
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
899 - -
1509 - -
3055 - -
683 652 662
828 702 755
1389 1069 1233
122 87 72
125 90 72
264 218 179
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp=1865 (k-in)
Mode
Nethercot k
of
Failure
352 1.4 a
1.4 a
1165 0.6 a
181 2.5 a
2.5 a
324 1.5 a
58 7.5 a
7.5 a
98 4.5 a
Table i.26 The Mer ofW12X26 L=40 in with Stocky Braces
k
Mode
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Failure
1.1 1651 9721 1.4 a+b X
1.2 1671 1.4 b
1.3 1686 51673 0.6 b
2.1 1587 1572 3234 2.5 a+b X
2.2 1637 1633 2.5 b
2.3 1664 1664 8503 1.5 b
3.1 1112 143 544 7.5 a+b
3.2 1371 143 7.5 a+b
3.3 1658 1649 1165 4.5 b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp= 1865 (k-in)
116
Ok?
v/
\/
\/
v/
\ ~
v/
Table i.27 The Mer ofW12X26 L=120 in with Stocky Braces
W12X26 T FI op ange P . t L d
Oln oa
L= 120(in)
Mesh 14X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k'in) k
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
Fixed End Simp. End
1074 - 1304 1.4
2042 - 1.4
4966 - 5989 0.6
796 759 544 2.5
1287 1132 2.5
4758 3997 1165 1.5
308 144 149 7.5
337 145 7.5
1042 648 262 4.5
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp= 1865 (k-in)
Mode
of
Failure
Ok?
a X
a+b
b
a
v/
a
a+b \/
a \/'
a
a
v/
Table i.28 The Mer ofW12X26 L=300 in with Stocky Braces
W12X26 T FI op ange
P . t L d
Oln oa
L= 300(in)
Mesh 52X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
Fixed End Simp. End
519 - 352 1.4
818 - 352 1.4
2185 - 1165 0.6
439 433 181 2.5
567 512 181 2.5
1184 958 324 1.5
139 105 58 7.5
157 122 58 7.5
323 281 98 4.5
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp= 1865 (k-in)
117
Mode
of
Ok?
Failure
a
/
a
a v
/
a
?
v
a
,/
v
a \/
a
,/
\/
a \/
a
\,/
Table i.29 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=60 in under Top
FlangeUDL
L= 60 W12X26 Brace Stiffness Jk/in) Mcr(k-in) Code's Stiffness (klin)
k Scenarios Root Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 3872 4472
1.4 1.2 - 2.45 4475 10.5 118/11.6
0.6 1.3 - 10000 8645 23124
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 30 - 1581 1576 4.5 59/5
2.1_one-span_simple 29.5 - 1581
2.1_two-span_fix 32.5 - 1576
2.1_two-span_simple 32.5 - 1577
2.2_ one-span _fix 8 16 1584 1576 6.6 65/5.4
2.2_ one-span_ simple 9.5 19 1575
2.2_two-span_fix 9.8 19.6 1567
2.2 two-span simple 12.5 25 1569
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 2183 3930
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 2351
2.3_ two-span _fix - - -
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 1699
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 418 324 1.8 118/1
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 117
3.1_ two-span _fix 0 - 372
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 94
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 418 324 2.7 129/2.2
3.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 118
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 372
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 96
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 1 0.5 655 630 5.3 129/4.3
3.3_one-span_simple 3.6 1.8 627
3.3_ two-span _fix 1.3 0.65 634
3.3 two-span simple 5.8 2.9 632
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
118
Table i.30 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=120 in under Top
FlangeUDL
L= 120 W12X26 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr(k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Root Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 2042 1304
1.4 1.2 - 0 2042 3.7 15/4
0.6 1.3 - 2.6 5940 5989 2.6 7.5/2.9
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 2.8 - 549 544 0.76 7.5/0.85
2.1 _one-span_simple 2.9 - 541
2.1_two-span_fix 3.2 - 545
2.1_two-span_simple 3.5 - 545
2.2_ one-span _fix 1.1 2.2 547 544 1.2 8/0.9
2.2_one-span_simple 1.35 2.7 543
2.2_two-span_fix 1.45 2.9 541
2.2 two-span simple 1.9 3.8 542
1.5 2.3_ one-span _fix 2.3 2.3 1164 1165 2.5 8/2.0
2.3_one-span_simple 2.7 2.7 1163
2.3_two-span_fix 3.2 3.2 1176
2.3 two-span simple 4 4 1167
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 211 149 0.42 15/0.46
3.1 _one-span_simple 10000 - 109
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 184
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 87
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 211 149 0.63 16/0.5
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 110
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 184
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 89
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.14 0.07 263 262 1.1 16/0.9
3.3_one-span_simple 0.8 0.4 269
3.3_two-span_fix 0.26 0.13 262
3.3 two-span simple 1.4 0.7 263
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
119
1
Table i.31 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=300 in under Top
FlangeUDL
Brace Stiffness
L= 300 W12X26 (k/in) Mcr(k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 899 352
1.2 - 0 899
0.6 1.3 - 0.06 1185 1165 0.65 0.47/0.75
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 0.22 - 182 181 0.1 0.47/0.11
2.1 _ one-span _simple 0.26 - 180
2.1_two-span_fix 0.28 - 182
2.1_two-span_simple 0.35 - 185
2.2_one-span_fix 0.08 0.16 180 181 0.15 0.5/0.12
2.2_ one-span _simple 0.11 0.22 186
2.2_two-span_fix 0.13 0.26 181
2.2 two-span simple 0.17 0.34 180
1.5 2.3_ one-span _fix 0.23 0.23 325 324 0.27 0.5/0.22
2.3_one-span_simple 0.22 0.22 327
2.3_two-span_fix 0.3 0.3 327
2.3 two-span simple 0.34 0.34 325
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 108 58 0.07 0.94/0.07
3.1_one-span_simple 0.01 - 87
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 95
3.1_two-span_simple 0.01 - 72
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 108 58 0.1 1/0.08
3.2_ one-span _simple 0.01 0.01 87
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 95
3.2 two-span simple 0.01 0.01 72
4.5 3.3_ one-span _fix 0 0 108 98 0.17 1/0.13
3.3_ one-span_simple 0.034 0.017 98
3.3_two-span_fix 0.01 0.005 101
3.3 two-span simple 0.1 0.05 97
IThe above calculations are conducted ~ BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
120
1
Table i.32 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for Wl2X26 with L=40 in under Top
Flange Tip Point Load
L= 40 W12X26 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-inl Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 1651 9721
1.4 1.2 - 10000 1671
0.6 1.3 - 10000 1686 51673
2.5 2.1_fix 10000 - 1587 3234
..
2.1_simple 10000 - 1572
..
2.2_fix 10000 10000 1637
" 2.2 simple 10000 10000 1633
1.5 2.3_fix 10000 10000 1664 8503
..
2.3 simple 10000 10000 1664
7.5 3.1_fix 0 - 738 544 4.6 287/5.1
"
3.1 simple 10000 - 143
" 3.2_fix 0 0 544 544 6.9 313/5.5
" 3.2 simple 10000 10000 143
4.5 3.3 fix 2.4 1.2 1156 1165 15 313/12
..
3.3 simple 6.9 3.45 1157
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
Table i.33 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=120 in under Top
FI T P . t L d ange Ip om oa
L= 120 W12X26 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 1074 1304
1.4 1.2 - 0.35 1311 3.7 10.6/4
0.6 1.3 - 10000 4966 5989 2.7 5.3/2.9
2.5 2.1_fix 3.9 - 547 544 0.8 5.3/0.9
..
2.1_simple 3.8 - 547
..
2.2 fix 0.77 1.54 544 1.2 6/0.92
" 2.2 simple 0.95 1.9 548
1.5 2.3 fix 1.35 1.35 1166 1165 2.5 6/2.0
"
2.3 simple 1.6 1.6 1161
7.5 3.1_fix 0 - 242 149 0.42 10.6/0.46
..
3.1 simple 10000 - 144
" 3.2_fix 0 0 242 149 0.63 12/0.5
" 3.2 simple 10000 10000 145
4.5 3.3_fix 0.04 0.02 263 262 1.1 12/0.89
..
3.3 simple 0.36 0.18 264
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at ~ flange
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
121
Table i.34 The Cornparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=300 in under Top
Flange Tip Point Load
L= 300 W12X26 Brace Stiffness .(k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 519 352
1.4 1.2 - 0 519 352 0.4 0.68/0.44
0.6 1.3 - 0.3 1163 1165 0.66 0.34/0.73
2.5 2.1 fix 0.18 - 181 181 0.1 0.34/0.11
..
2.1_simple 0.23 - 182
..
2.2 fix 0.035 0.07 180 0.15 0.37/0.12
" 2.2 simple 0.06 0.12 186
1.5 2.3 fix 0.14 0.14 324 324 0.27 0.37/0.22
..
2.3 simple 0.15 0.15 330
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 126 58 0.07 0.68/0.07
..
3.1 simple 0 - 59
" 3.2 fix 0 0 126 58 0.1 0.74/0.08
" 3.2 simple 0 0 59
4.5 3.3_fix 0 0 126 98 0.17 0.74/0.13
..
3.3 simple 0.01 0.005 109
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
2.2 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
WI2X26-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
1865
Scenario l.l
1865
Scenario 2.1
1865
1---' ..
Scenario 3.1
- ~ ~ ",
'-',
...
'-.. . ' .
1249
...
1249
~
1249 c
~
:s- .S :?
6- 6- 6-
:;;; :;;; :;;;
Lu=112 215
L(in)
Lu=90 172
L(in)
Lu=30 57
L(in)
1865 '"
Scenario 1.2
1865 "
Scenario 2,2
1865 1----,
Scenario 3,2
".
"" ....,-.....
--""
,
...
\
1249 c ........ . > ~ 1249 -
...
1249
~
; ;
..... ~
:?
6-
:;;; :;;; :;;;
Lu=128 246
L(in)
Lu=IOO 191
L(in)
Lu=33 64
L(in)
1865 ..
',------.
Scenario 1.3
1865
Scenario 2,3
1865 ~
Scenario 3.3
.
-',
.....
1249
.
.
1249
c
...
1249
:?
~
:?
............ ~

~
6- 6- 6-
:;;; :;;; :;;;
Lu=150 287
L(in)
Lu=112 215
L(in)
Lu=37 72
L(in)
W12X26-Scenarios 1 W12X26-Scenarios 2 W12X26-Scenarios 3
Figure i.4 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW12X26
122
Table i.35 The Mer ofW12X26 L=80 in with Stocky Braces
W12X26 S-C UDL
Mer
Mode
BASP
Nethercot Ld
of
Ok?
Ld
Failure
1.1 8613 7507 0.8 a+b
1.2 13746 9721 0.7 a+b
1.3 14450 13130 0.6 a+b
2.1 2880 3200 2400 4903 b
2.2 2880 3200 2432 5989 0.9 b
2.3 2880 3232 2432 7507 0.8 b
3.1 992 256 192 747 3 a
3.2 1024 256 192 875 2.7 a
3.3 1920 1056 928 1051 2.4 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1865 (k-in)
Table i.36 The Mer ofW12X26 L=300 in with Stocky Braces
W12X26 S-C UDL
Mode
s-c Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios
Failure
1.1 1800 747 0.8 a
1.2 2250 914 0.7 a
1.3 4009 1165 0.6 a
2.1 1354 972 1354 544 1 a
2.2 1322 1000 1231 630 0.9 a
2.3 1519 1121 1449 747 0.8 a
3.1 992 126 126 149 3 a
3.2 1024 139 192 167 2.7 a
3.3 299 248 224 190 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1865 (k-in)
123
Table i.37 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=80 in under Shear
Centre UDL
L= 80 W12X26 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 8613 7507
0.7 1.2 - 0.7 9744 9721 7.9 23/3.9
0.6 1.3 - 4.5 13190 13130 4 12/2.0
1 2.1_one-span_fix 10000 - 2884 4903 4 12/2.0
2.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 3192
2.1_two-span_fix 10000 - 2356
2.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 2414
0.9 2.2_ one-span _fix 10000 10000 2890 5989 6 17/3
2.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 3207
2.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 2357
2.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 2416
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 2894 7507 6 17/3
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 3219
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 2359
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 2417
3 3.1_one-span_fix 1 - 748 747 3.2 23/1.6
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 241
3.1_two-span_fix 5 - 738
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 186
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0.7 0.7 881 875 5.6 34/2.8
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 243
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 847
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 189
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 1.2 0.6 1064 1051 6.7 34/3.3
3.3_ one-span_simple 10000 10000 1050
3.3_two-span_fix 2.2 1.1 1055
3.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 939
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer ta the fulcrum brace
124
Table i.38 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=300 in under Shear
CentreUDL
L=300 W12X26 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 1706 747
0.7 1.2 - 0 1706 914 1 0.43/0.5
0.6 1.3 - 0 1706 1165 0.65 0.22/0.33
1 2.1_one-span_fix 1.3 - 539 544 0,3 0.22/0,15
2.1_one-span_simple 1.5 - 546
2.1_two-span_fix 1.35 - 539
2.1_two-span_simple 1.45 - 544
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix 0.48 0.96 631 630 0.5 0.33iO.26
2.2_one-span_simple 0.46 0.92 630
2.2_two-span_fix 0.6 1.2 634
2.2 two-span simple 0.61 1.22 629
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 0.66 0.66 745 747 0.65 0.33/0.32
2.3_one-span_simple 0.64 0.64 746
2.3_two-span_fix 0.8 0.8 749
2.3 two-span simple 0.8 0.8 739
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 156 149 0.17 0.43/0.08
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 126
3.1_ two-span _fix 0.02 - 148
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 112
2.7 3.2_ one-span _fix 0.01 0.01 174 167 0.28 0.65/0.14
3.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 139
3.2_two-span_fix 0.2 0.2 166
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 116
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 0.06 0.03 191 190 0.32 0.65/0.16
3.3_one-span_simple 0.36 0.18 188
3.3_two-span_fix 0.14 0.07 192
3.3 two-span simple 0.64 0.32 186
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1249 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
125
Table i.39 The Mer ofW12X26 L=80 in with Stocky Braces
W12X26: S-C Point Load
Mode
Nethercot s-c Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . Root
Failure
1.1 2446 7507 0.8 a+b
1.2 3640 9721 0.7 a+b
1.3 10171 13130 0.6 b
2.1 1942 1855 4903 1 a+b
2.2 2775 2162 5989 0.9 a+b
2.3 3949 4601 7507 0.8 b
3.1 858 290 747 3 a
3.2 951 290 875 2.7 a
3.3 2063 1177 1051 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1865 (k-in)
Table i.40 The Mer ofW12X26 L=300 in with Stocky Braces
W12X26: S-C Point Load
L= 300(in) Mer (k-in) k
Mode
Mesh105X4 BASP
Nethercot S-C Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . Root
Failure
1.1 872 747 0.8 a
1.2 1625 914 0.7 a
1.3 2185 1165 0.6
2.1 702 676 544 1 a v'
2.2 903 747 630 0.9
/
a v"
2.3 1184 958 747 0.8 a
/
\/
3.1 176 132 150 3 a
3.2 206 164 167 2.7 a
3.3 323 281 190 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=1865 (k-in)
126
Table i.41 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffuess for W12X26 with L=80 in under Shear
C t T'p. tL d
en re
IP
om oa
L= 80 W12X26 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 2446 7507
0.7 1.2 - 10000 3640 9721
0.6 1.3 - 10000 10171 13130
1 2.1 fix 10000 - 1942 4903
2.1 simple 10000 - 1855
0.9 2.2 fix 10000 10000 2775 5989
2.2 simple 10000 10000 2162
0.8 2.3 fix 10000 10000 3949 7507
2.3 simple 10000 10000 4601
3 3.1 fix 2.6 - 747 747 3.2 16/1.6
3.1 simple 10000 - 290
2.7 3.2 fix 1.2 1.2 876 875 5.6 24/2.8
3.2 simple 10000 10000 290
2.4 3.3 fix 1.3 0.65 1054 1051 6.7 24/3.3
3.3 simple 12 6 1047 6.7 24/3.3
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre tip point load
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1250(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum braces
Table i.42 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X26 with L=300 in under Shear
Centre Tip Point Load
L= 300 W12X26 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (kIin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRClPJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 872 747
0.7 1.2 - 944 914 1 0.31/0.52
0.6 1.3 - 0.06 1166 1165 0.65 0.16/0.33
1 2.1 fix 2.4 - 545 544 0.31 0.15/0.15
2.1 simple 2.4 - 546
0.9 2.2 fix 0.4 0.8 628 630 0.51 0.23/0.27
2.2 simple 0.35 0.7 631
0.8 2.3 fix 0.55 0.55 746 747 0.65 0.32/0.32
2.3 simple 0.49 0.49 750
3 3.1 fix 0 - 158 150 0.17 0.31/0.08
3.1 simple 10000 - 132
2.7 3.2 fix 0.01 0.01 179 167 0.28 0.46/0.14
3.2 simple 10000 10000 164
2.4 3.3 fix 0.042 0.021 190 190 0.32 0.46/0.16
3.3 simple 0.26 0.13 191
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre tip point load
* Mp = 1865 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1250(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum braces
127
3. W12X65, Class 3:
3.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W12X65-Top Flange Loading
4402 -,
Scenario 1.1&1.2
4402 -'"
Scenario 2.1 &2.2
4402 -\
Scenario 3.1&3.2
,
"
,
".
\\
2949",
,
2949
\\
2949
\
l
' ~
:?
~
"
' ~
~
::E ::E ::E
Lu=140 312
L(in)
Lu=79 175
L(in)
Lu=2658
L(in)
4402
Scenario 1.3
4402 -'"
Scenario 2.3
4402
' .
Scenario 3.3
-.-- --_.. _ .. - - - - ~ ~
"
\\
2949
... "
2949"
'0,
2949
~
~

~

~
~ ~
::E ::E ::E
Lu=327 729
L(in)
Lu=131 292
L(in)
Lu=44 97
L(in)
Wl2X65-Scenarios 1 Wl2X65-Scenarios 2 Wl2X65-Scenarios 3
Figure i.5 M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW12X65
Table i.43 The Mer ofW12X65 L=80 in with Stocky Braces
Mode
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Ld
Failure
1.1 25326 25082 1.4 a
1.2 41504 25082 1.4 a+b
1.3 73741 127579 0.6 b
2.1 14745 13920 12591 9109 2.5 a+b
2.2 15928 17073 12770 9109 2.5 a+b
2.3 16074 17500 12803 22100 1.5 b
3.1 3897 824 661 2015 7.5 a
3.2 4106 831 674 2015 7.5 a
3.3 15688 8589 7022 3803 4.5 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** My=4402 (k-in)
128
Table i.44 The Mer ofW12X65 L=400 in with Stocky Braces
W12X65 T FI UDL op ange
L= 400(in)
Mesh 148X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in)
BASP
Nethercot
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
5706 - - 2184
9530 - -
18126 - - 6822
4414 4218 4305 1146
5254 4456 4831
8274 6889 7449 2015
790 590 497 371
820 627 506
1690 1456 1200 622
See the instructions under Table 4.2
My=4402 (k-in)
k
Mode
Top Ld
of
Failure
1.4 a
1.4 a
0.6 a+b
2.5 a
2.5 a
1.5 a
7.5 a
7.5 a
4.5 a
Table i.45 The Mer ofW12X65 L=80 in with Stocky Braces
Mode
op Ld
of
Ok?
Failure
1.1 14170 25082 1.4 a+b X
1.2 18144 1.4 b
1.3 18594 127579 0.6 b
2.1 9804 9074 9109 2.5 a+b
2.2 16566 15177 2.5 a+b
2.3 18570 18570 22100 1.5 b
3.1 3898 1064 2015 7.5 a
3.2 4595 1064 7.5 a
3.3 17833 10729 3803 4.5 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** My= 4402 (k-in)
129
Ok?
..../
\/
\,/
\/'
1
,.
,1
\/'
\/'
\/
Table i.46 The Mer ofWl2X65 L=400 in with Stocky Braces
W12X65 T FI op ange P' L d Oint oa
L= 400(in)
Mesh.148X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
Fixed End Simp. End
3354 - 2184 1.4
5250 - 1.4
12735 - 6822 0.6
2869 2831 1146 2.5
3644 3296 2.5
7004 5713 2015 1.5
888 697 371 7.5
1030 855 7.5
2063 1874 622 4.5
See the instructions under Table 4.1
My= 4402 (k-in)
Mode
of
Ok?
Failure
a \//
a
a \1/
a \//
a
a ,,/'
a
\/
a
a
\1/
Table i.47 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for Wl2X65 with L=80 in under Top
Flange Tip Point Load
L= 80 W12X65/ Class3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mt)
1.4 1.1 - - 14170 25082
1.4 1.2 - 10000 18144 25082 19 360/21
0.6 1.3 - 10000 18594 127579 9.5 180/10.5
2.5 2.1_fix 550 - 9102 9109 9.5 180/10.5
..
2.1_simple 10000 -
9074
..
2.2 fix 32 64 9073 9109 14.4 196/11.5
" 2.2 simple 34.5 69 9078
1.5 2.3 fix 10000 10000 18570 22100 14.4 196/11.5
..
2.3 simple 10000 10000 18570
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 2752 2015 8.7 360/9.6
..
3.1 simple 10000 - 1064
" 3.2 fix 0 0 2752 2015 13 392/10.5
-
" 3.2 simple 10000 10000 1064
4.5 3.3 fix 3 1.5 3807 3803 25 392/20
..
3.3 simple 10.3 5.15 3803
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top_ flange
* My = 4402 (k-in), 0.67My = 2949 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
130
Table i.50 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X65 with L=400 in under Top
Flange Tip Point Load
L= 400 W12X65/ Class3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/inl
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRCJP e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 3354 2184
1.4 1.2 - 0 3354 1.9 2.9/2.1
0.6 1.3 - 1.3 6853 6822 1.9 1.5/2.1
2.5 2.1 fix 0.86 - 1143 1146 0.5 1.45iO.55
"
2.1_simple 1.1 - 1148
"
2.2 fix 0.15 0.3 1140 1146 0.75 1.6/0.6
" 2.2 simple 0.24 0.48 1143
1.5 2.3 fix 0.67 0.67 2028 2015 1.3 1 .6/1 .1
"
2.3 simple 0.7 0.7 2056
7.5 3.1_fix 0 - 813 371 0.32 2.9/0.35
"
3.1 simple 0.01 - 697
" 3.2 fix 0 0 813 371 0.48 3.1/0.39
" 3.2 simple 0.01 0.01 699
4.5 3.3 fix 0 0 813 622 0.81 3.1/0.65
"
3.3 simple 0.1 0.05 747
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* My = 4402 (k-in), 0.67My = 2949 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
131
Table i.45 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W12X65 with L=80 in under Top
FlangeUDL
L= 80 W12X65/ Glass 3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (k/in'
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRG(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 25326 25082
1.2 - 0 25326 25082 19 501/21
0.6 1.3 - 10000 73741 127579 9.5 250/10.5
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 115 - 9140 9109 9.5 250/10.5
2.1_one-span_simple 114 - 9162
2.1_two-span_fix 125 - 9124
2.1_two-span_simple 126 - 9129
2.2_one-span_fix 34 68 9126 9109 14.4 273/11.5
2.2_one-span_simple 41.5 83 9176
2.2_two-span_fix 43 86 9116
2.2 two-span simple 55 110 9122
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 16074 22100 14.4 273/11.5
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 17500
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 12678
2.3 two-sQan simple 10000 10000 12803
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 2556 2015 8.7 501/9.6
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 824
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 2273
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 661
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 2556 2015 13 546/10.5
3.2_ one-span_ simple 10000 10000 831
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 2273
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 674
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 4.2 2.1 3813 3803 25 546/20
..
3.3_one-span_simple 17.6 8.8 3829
..
3.3_two-span_fix 6.2 3.1 3820
..
3.3 two-span simple 28.4 14.2 3802
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* My = 4402 (k-in), 0.67My = 2949 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
132
Table i.46 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for Wl2X65 with L=400 in under Top
Flange UDL
L=400 W12X65/ Glass 3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Md
1.4 1.1 - - 5706 2184
1.4 1.2 - 0 5706 1.9 4/2.1
0.6 1.3 - 0.16 6853 6822 1.9 2/2.1
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 1.05 - 1152 1146 0.5 2/0.55
2.1_one-span_simple 1.28 - 1150
2.1_two-span_fix 1.32 - 1144
2.1_two-span_simple 1.6 - 1146
2.2_one-span_fix 0.35 0.7 1142 1146 0.75 2.2/0.6
2.2_ one-span_ simple 0.45 0.9 1144
2.2_two-span_fix 0.6 1.2 1155
2.2 two-span simple 0.77 1.54 1148
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 1 1 2011 2015 1.3 2.2/1.1
2.3_one-span_simple 1.05 1.05 2017
2.3_two-span_fix 1.37 1.37 2017
2.3 two-span simple 1.55 1.55 2020
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 713 371 0.32 4/0.35
3.1_one-span_simple 0 - 626
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 630
3.1_two-span_simple 0 - 510
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 713 371 0.48 4.4/0.39
3.2_one-span_simple 0 0 626
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 630
3.2 two-span simple 0 0 510
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0 0 713 622 0.8 4.4/0.65
,.
3.3_ one-span _simple 0 0 626
"
3.3_two-span_fix 0 0 630
"
3.3 two-span simple 0.4 0.2 623
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* My = 4402 (k-in), 0.67My = 2949 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed abave in Scen.2&3 refer ta the fulcrum brace
133
3.3 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
WI2X65-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
4402
Scenario 1.1
4402
Scenario 2. 1
4402
Scenario 3.1
".
---",
"
'.
2949
"-
2949 2949
..

~

' ~
:s
. ~
6 6 6
:2 :2 :2
Lu=246 547
L(in)
Lu=196 437
L(in)
Lu=66 146
L(in)
4402
Scenario 1.2
4402 -"'. -"'-
Scenario 2.2
4402 r-----,
Scenario 3.2
" " ,
2949
'-'-....,,-
2949
,
2949
\
.......
. ~
~
. ~

l
:s
6 6
:2 :2 :2 ,
Lu=280 625
L(in)
Lu=218 486
L(in) Lu=73 162
L(in)
4402
Scenario 1.3
4402
Scenario 2.3
4402
-"...,
Scenario 3.3
~ - ~
- - - . - - - . ~ ~
"
-.""".....,
2949 2949 2949
'\
:5
..
:s
. ~
6 6 6
:2 :2 :2
Lu=327 729
L(in)
Lu=246 547
L(in)
Lu=82 182
L(in)
Wl2X65-Scenarios 1 Wl2X65-Scenarios 2 Wl2X65-Scenarios 3
Figure i.6 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW12X65
Table i.51 The M
cr
ofW12X65 L=280 in with Stocky Braces
W12X65 s-c UDL
Mode
BASP
s-c Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios
Failure
1.1 17139 7596 0.8 a
1.2 19513 9414 0.7 a+b
1.3 40560 12185 0.6 a+b
2.1 11537 9380 11103 5411 1 a+b
2.2 11587 9697 11965 6331 0.9 a+b
2.3 15223 11068 14306 7596 0.8 a+b
3.1 1609 1024 883 1382 3 a
3.2 1672 1071 892 1551 2.7 a
3.3 2673 2038 1846 1770 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.2
** My=4402 (k-in)
134
Table i.52 The Mer ofW12X65 L=280 in with Stocky Braces
W12X65: S-C Point Load
k
Mode
Nethercot s-c Ld
of
Ok?
End
Failure
1.1 8204 7596 0.8 a+b
1.2 15087 9414 0.7 a+b
1.3 22296 12185 0.6 a+b
2.1 6500 6228 5411 1 a+b
2.2 8636 7069 6331 0.9 a+b
2.3 11828 9443 7596 0.8 a+b
3.1 1629 1113 1382 3 a
3.2 1823 1267 1551 2.7 a
3.3 2875 2297 1770 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.2
** My=4402 (k-in)
Table i.54 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W12X65 with L=280 in under Shear
Centre Tip Point Load
L= 280 W12X65 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (klin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 8204 7596
0.7 1.2 - 0.3 9724 9414 5.5 3.8/2.7
0.6 1.3 - 1.2 12242 12186 2.3 1.9/1.4
1 2.1_fix 24 - 5541 5411 2.3 1.9/1.4
2.1 simple 28 - 5404
0.9 2.2_fix 4.6 9.2 6228 6331 4.1 2.9/2
2.2 simple 4.2 8.4 6352
0.8 2.3_fix 6.5 6.5 7530 7596 4.1 2.9/2
2.3 simple 5.8 5.8 7541
3 3.1_fix 0 - 1420 1382 1.7 3.8/0.9
3.1 simple 10000 - 1113
2.7 3.2_fix 0.1 0.1 1604 1551 2.9 5.7/1.4
3.2 simple 10000 10000 1267
2.4 3.3_fix 0.56 0.28 1781 1770 3.3 5.7/1.6
3.3 simple 3.3 1.65 1730
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre tip point load
* My = 4402 (k-in), 0.67My=2949(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum braces
135
Table i.53 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for Wl2X65 with L=280 in under Shear
Centre UDL
L= 280 W12X65/ Glass 3 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (klin
k Scenarios Fulcrum BASP Nethercot S16
0.8 1.1 - - 17139 7596
0.7 1.2 - 0 17139 9414 5.5 5.3/2.7
0.6 1.3 - 0 17139 12085 2.3 2.2/1.4
1 2.1_one-span_fix 13.8 - 5400 5411 2,3 2,2/1,4
2.1_one-span_simple 15,5
-
5430
2.1_two-span_fix 14.5 - 5401
2.1_two-span_simple 15.2 - 5404
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix 5.7 11.4 6352 6331 4,1 4/2,0
2.2_ one-span _sim pie 5.7 11.4 6357
2.2_two-span_fix 6.7 13.4 6176
2.2 two-span simple 7 14 6187
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 7.8 7.8 7534 7596 4,1 4/2,0
2.3_one-span_simple 7.8 7.8 7618
2.3_two-span_fix 9.1 9.1 7403
2.3 two-span simple 9.5 9.5 7481
3 3.1_ one-span _fix 0 - 1372 1382 1.7 5.3/0.9
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 1024
3.1_ two-span _fix 1.5 - 1381
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 883
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0.2 0.2 1577 1551 2.9 8/1.4
3.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 1071
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 1467
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 892
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 0.8 0.4 1782 1770 3.3 8/1.6
3.3_ one-span _simple 6 3 1728
3.3_two-span_fix 1.4 0.7 1738
3.3 two-span simpJe 18 9 1726
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* My = 4402 (k-in), 0.67My=2949 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
136
4. W16X26, Class 2:
4.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W16X26-Top Flange Loading
2231
-"
Scenario 1.1&1.2
2231
r-------\
Scenario 2.1&2.2
2231 r,
Scenario 3.1&3.2
"
\
,
\ ~
\
1495
"
1495 1495
~
'2
~
'2 '2
~ J ~
:E :E :E
Lu=49 91
L(in)
Lu=27 51
L(in)
Lu=917
L(in)
2231
Scenario 1.3
2231
Scenario 2.3
2231 -\
Scenario 3.3
"-
"-
~
\
1495
. ~
1495 f- .. 1495
\ ~
I
:?
~ ~
:E
,
:E :E
Lu=114 212
L(in)
Lu=46 85
L(in)
Lu=15 28
L(in)
W 16X26-Scenarios 1 Wl6X26-Scenarios 2 Wl6X26-Scenarios 3
Figure i.7 M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofWl6X26
Table i.55 The M
cr
ofWl6X26 L=60 in with Stocky Braces
1:
Mode
Nethercot Ld
of
Ok?
Ld
Failure
1.1 2795 3217 1.4 a+b X
1.2 4226 1.4 a+b
1.3 6507 16683 0.6 b
2.1 1624 1532 1370 1127 2.5 a+b \/
2.2 1800 1885 1399 2.5 a+b v
2.3 1843 1967 1406 2826 1.5 b
3.1 459 78 63 228 7.5 a
3.2 491 78 63 7.5 a
3.3 1800 1093 889 447 4.5 b/a/a
See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=2231 (k-in)
137
Table i.56 The Mer ofW16X26 L=100 in with Stocky Braces
op
Mode of
Ok?
Failure
1.1 1715 1270 1.4 a
'v'
1.2 3315 1.4 a
'y/
1.3 8379 6127 0.6 a+b
v/
2.1 1070 985 975 500 2.5 a
2.2 1735 1440 1490 2.5 a v
2.3 2855 3165 2380 1127 1.5 a+b
v/
3.1 236 74 59 127 7.5 a
3.2 241 74 60 7.5 a
3.3 825 466 379 228 4.5 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=2231 (k-in)
Table i.57 The Mer ofW16X26 L=200 in with Stocky Braces
W16X26: To UD
1.1 854 425
1.2 1530 a
,
v
1.3 3910 1668 0.6 a+b \/
2.1 604 574 574 201 2.5 a
,./
/
2.2 820 681 717 2.5 a
v'
2.3 1760 1342 1501 386 1.5 a '\/
3.1 114 63 51 62 7.5 a
3.2 115 63 51 7.5 a
3.3 280 195 160 105 4.5 a
138
Table i.58 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for Wl6X26 (L=60 in under Top UDL)
L=60 W16X26/ Glass 2 Brace Stiffness (kIin) Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRG(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 2795 3217
1.4 1.2 - 1.5 3284 9.7 66/11
0.6 1.3 - 10000 6507 16683 4.9 33/5.5
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 16 - 1109 1127 2.5 33/2.7
2.1_one-span_simple 16 - 1115
2.1_two-span_fix 18 - 1129
2.1_two-span_simple 18 - 1128
2.2_one-span_fix 4.3 8.6 1114 3.7 36/3
2.2_one-span_simple 5.2 10.4 1120
2.2_two-span_fix 5.5 11 1129
2.2 two-span simple 6.9 13.8 1120
1.5 10000 10000 1843 2826 7.3 36/6
2.3_ one-span _sim pie 10000 10000 1967
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 1414
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 1406
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 289 228 1 66/1.1
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 78
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 257
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 63
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 289 1.5 72/1.2
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 78
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 257
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 63
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.48 0.24 441 447 2.9 72/2.3
..
3.3_one-span_simple 2 1 450
..
3.3_two-span_fix 0.7 0.35 443
..
3.3 two-span simple 3 1.5 437
The above calculations are conduded by BASP for top flange UDL
139
Table i.59 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=100 in under Top UDL)
L=100 W16X26/ Glass 2 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in'
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 1715 1270
1.4 1.2 - 0 1715 3.3 14/3.6
0.6 1.3 - 3.5 6008 6127 2.9 7/3.2
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 3 - 513 500 0.65 7/0.7
2.1_one-span_simple 3 - 511
2.1_two-span_fix 3.3 - 507
2.1_two-span_simple 3.5 - 513
2.2_ one-span _fix 1 2 495 500 1 8/0.8
2.2_one-span_simple 1.25 2.5 505
2.2_two-span_fix 1.35 2.7 504
2.2 two-span simple 1.7 3.4 499
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 2.1 2.1 1134 1127 2.2 8/1.8
2.3_one-span_simple 2.3 2.3 1066
2.3_two-span_fix 2.8 2.8 1114
2.3 two-span simple 3.5 3.5 1086
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 166 127 0.33 14/0.36
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 74
3.1_two-span_fix 0.1 - 153
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 59
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 166 127 0.5 16/0.4
3.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 74
3.2_two-span_fix 0.1 0.1 173
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 60
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.2 0.1 251 228 0.9 16/0.7
"
3.3_ one-span_simple 0.6 0.3 225
"
3.3_two-span_fix 0.22 0.11 225
"
3.3 two-span simple 0.9 0.45 212
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
140
Table i.60 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=200 in under Top UDL)

r x26 / Class 2 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in)
Code's Sliffn=
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P
1.4 1.1 - - 854 425
1.4 1.2 - 0 854 0.55 1.8/0.6
0.6 1.3 - 0.22 1688 1668 1.1 0.9/1.2
2.5 2.1_ one-span _fix 0.4 - 209 201 0.13 0.9/0.15
2.1_one-span_simple 0.41 - 200
2.1_two-span_fix 0.45 - 202
2.1_two-span_simple 0.5 - 198
2.2_ one-span _fix 0.16 0.32 202 201 0.2 1/0.16
2.2_one-span_simple 0.2 0.4 206
2.2_two-span_fix 0.23 0.46 203
2.2 two-span sim2le 0.29 0.58 202
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 0.35 0.35 392 386 0.4 1/0.3
2.3_one-span_simple 0.38 0.38 389
2.3_two-span_fix 0.46 0.46 384
2.3 two-span sim2le 0.55 0.55 384
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 93 62 0.08 1.8/0.09
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 63
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 81
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 51
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 93 62 0.12 2/0.1
3.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 63
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 81
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 51
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.02 0.01 107 105 0.2 2/0.16
"
3.3_one-span_simple 0.14 0.07 109
"
3.3_two-span_fix 0.04 0.02 102
"
3.3 two-span simple 0.24 0.12 104
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
141
Table i.6l The Mer ofW16X26 L=30 in wth Stocky Braces
W16X26: Point Load
L= 30(in)
Mesh 8X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k'in) k
BASP
Simp,
Nethercot Top Ld
Fixed End End
1039 - 12314 1.4
1051 - 1.4
1060 - 66187 0,6
996 984 3990 2.5
1018 1009 2.5
1036 1029 10751 1.5
934 94 585 7.5
985 94 7.5
1032 1021 1353 4.5
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp= 2231 (k-in)
Mode
of
Ok?
Failure
a+b X
a+b X
b
a+b X
b
b
a+b/a -r-
b/a
b
Table i.62 The Mer ofW16X26 L=120 in wth Stocky Braces
W16X26: Point Load
Mer k'in k
Mode
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim. End
Failure
1.1 742 932 1.4 a X
1.2 1434 1.4 a+b
\,/
1.3 4034 4314 0.6 a+b X
2.1 542 514 385 2.5 a
\//
2.2 890 780 2.5 a
\//
2.3 3621 2844 832 1.5 a \/
3.1 207 93 105 7.5 a
3.2 227 94 7.5 a
3.3 734 452 184 4.5 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.2
** Mp= 2231 (k-in)
142
Table i.63 The Mer ofW16X26 L=200 in with Stocky Braces
W16X26 T p. L d op Oint oa
L=200(in) Mer (k'in) k
Mesh 50X4 BASP
Netherco Top Ld
Mode of
Ok?
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Fixed End Simp. End
464 - 425
790 -
2983 - 1668
372 362 201
525 471
3621 1223 386
131 81 62
141 85
341 250 105
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp= 2231 (k-in)
Failure
1.4 a
Il 1
1.4 a
. /
,
,.
0.6 a
\/
1
2.5 a \/
2.5 a
1.5 a
/
\/
7.5 a
v/
7.5 a \/
4.5 a
\ ~
Table i.64 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=200 in under Top Point)
L= 30 W16X26 / C/ass2 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Codets Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 1039 12314
1.2 - 10000 1051
0.6 1.3 - 10000 1060 66187
2.5 2.1 fix 10000 - 996 3990
2.1_simple 10000 - 984
2.2 fix 10000 10000 1018 3990
2.2 simple 10000 10000 1009
1.5 2.3 fix 10000 10000 1036 10751
2.3 simple 10000 10000 1029
7.5 3.1_fix 0 - 761 585 5.1 378/5.6
3.1 simple 10000 - 94
3.2_fix 0 0 761 585 7.6 412/6.1
3.2 simple 10000 10000 94
4.5 3.3_fix 10000 10000 1032 1353
3.3 simple 10000 10000 1021
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* Mp = 2231 (k-in)t 0.67Mp = 1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
143
Table i.65 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=120 in under Top Point)
L= 120 W16X26/ Class2 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - -
742 932
1.2 - 0.23 935 2 5.9/2.2
0.6 1.3 - 10000 4034 4314 2.4 3/2.7
2.5 2.1 fix 2.4 - 385 385 0.42 3/0.46
2.1_simple 2.4 - 388
2.2 fix 0.45 0.9 382 385 0.65 3.2/0.5
2.2 simple 0.55 1.1 390
1.5 2.3_fix 0.75 0.75 830 832 1.4 3.2/1.1
2.3 simple 0.9 0.9 835
7.5 3.1_fix 0 - 161 105 0.23 5.9/0.25
3.1 simple 10000 - 93
3.2_fix 0 0 161 105 0.34 6.4/0.27
3.2 simple 10000 10000 94
4.5 3.3 fix 0.03 0.015 180 184 0.6 6.4/0.48
3.3 simple 0.2 0.1 182
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
T bl 66 Th C a el. e ompansono fB race 1 ess or = zn un er op om st" ffn fi W16X26 (L 200 .
d T p. t)
L= 200 W16X26 / Class2 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 464 425
1.2 - 0 464
0.6 1.3 - 0.6 1668 1668 1.1 0.65/1.2
2.5 2.1 fix 0.36 - 200 201 0.13 0.65/0.15
2.1_simple 0.4 - 202
2.2 fix 0.1 0.2 209 201 0.2 0.7/0.16
2.2 simple 0.12 0.24 203
1.5 2.3 fix 0.21 0.21 388 386 0.38 0.7/0.3
2.3 simple 0.23 0.23 387
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 111 62 0.08 1.3/0.09
3.1 simple 0.01 - 81
3.2_fix 0 0 111 62 0.12 1.4/0.1
3.2 simple 0.01 0.01 82
4.5 3.3_fix 0 0 111 105 0.2 1.4/0.16
3.3 simple 0.01 0.005 87
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
144
4.2 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
WI6X26-Shear-centre & Bottom F1ange Loading
2231
Scenario 1.1
2231
Scenario 2.1
2231
r---\
Scenario 3.1
",
" ....................

"

1495
"
1495 ...

1495
l
......
'2
l J
::8 ::8 ::8
Lu=86 159
L(in)
Lu=69 127
L(in)
Lu=2343
L(in)
2231
Scenario 1.2
2231
Scenario 2.2
2231 f--"
Scenario 3.2
"
"
'.
\
1495
...
.........
1495

1495

:s :?

::8 ::8 ::8
Lu=98 182
L(in)
Lu=76 142
L(in) Lu=25 47
L(in)
2231
Scenario 1.3
2231
Scenario 2.3
2231
Scenario 3.3
".
"
, '-.
1495
"
"
1495
-.
1495 ..



:? :s :s

::8 ::8 ::8
Lu=114 212 L(in)
Lu=86 159
L(in)
Lu=29 53
L(in)
W 16X26-Scenarios 1 Wl6X26-Scenarios 2 Wl6X26-Scenarios 3
Figure i.8 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW16X26
Table i.67 The M
cr
ofWl6X26 L=60 in with Stocky Braces
W16X26 S-C UDL
k
Mode
Nethercot s-c Ld
of
Ld
Failure
1.1 6920 9472 0.8 a+b X
1.2 7669 12314 0.7 a+b X
1.3 10911 16691 0.6 b
2.1 1926 2063 1583 6130 b
2.2 1931 2073 1540 7524 0.9 b
2.3 1936 2082 1542 9472 0.8 b
3.1 1075 174 131 832 3 a
3.2 1124 175 133 990 2.7 a
3.3 1845 1181 1015 1210 2.4 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.2
** Mp=2231 (k-in)
145
Table i.68 The Mer ofWl6X26 L=240 in with Stocky Braces
W16X26 s-c UDL
Mode
BASP
Nethercot s-c Ld
of
Fail
Scenarios Ld
1.1 1668 749 0.8
1.2 1873 932 0.7 a
1.3 4009 1210 0.6 a
2.1 1111 905 1070 531 1 a
2.2 1114 1953 2707 623 0.9 a
2.3 1490 1081 1404 749 0.8 a
3.1 152 95 81 133 3 a
3.2 157 98 81 150 2.7 a
3.3 255 191 173 171 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.2
** Mp=2231 (k-in)
Table i.69 The Mer ofWl6X26 L=60 in with Stocky Braces
W16X26: S-C Point Load
L= 60(in)
Mesh 16X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot S-C Ld
Fixed End Simp. Root
2259 - 9472 0.8
2751 - 12314 0.7
7336 - 16691 0.6
1744 1649 6130 1
2122 2028 7524 0.9
2635 2935 9472 0.8
833 210 832 3
943 210 990 2.7
2363 1340 1210 2.4
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp=2231 (k-in)
146
Mode
of
Ok?
Failure
a+b X
a+b X
b
a+b X
a+b X
b
a+b
Jill < <
a+b X
a+b
Ok?
Table i.70 The Mer ofW16X26 L=240 in with Stocky Braces
W16X26' S-C Point Load
L= 240(in)
Mesh 60X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot s-c Ld
Fixed End Simp. Root
812 - 749 0.8
836 - 932 0.7
2199 - 1210 0.6
633 604 531 1
850 687 623 0.9
1155 919 749 0.8
154 103 133 3
171 116 150 2.7
273 214 171 2.4
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp=2231 (k-in)
Mode
of
Failure
Ok?
a
a+b
a
a
a
a
i ~ l ~
a
a
"
a
Table i.71 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=240 in under S-C Point)
L= 60in W16X26 Brace Stiffness (kIin) Mcr(k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJMd
0.8 1.1 - - 2259 9472
0.7 1.2 - 10000 2751 12314
0.6 1.3 - 10000 7336 16691
1 2.1_fix 10000 - 1744 6130
2.1 simple 10000 - 1649
0.9 2.2 fix 10000 10000 2122 7524
2.2 simple 10000 10000 2028
0.8 2.3 fix 10000 10000 2635 9472
2.3 simple 10000 10000 2935
3 3.1 fix 100 - 826 832 3.6 22/1.8
3.1 simple 10000 - 210
2.7 3.2 fix 10000 10000 943 990 6.4 32/3.2
3.2 simple 10000 10000 210
2.4 3.3_fix 2.1 1.05 1213 1210 7.9 32/3.9
3.3 simple 16 8 1200
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point load
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1495(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum brace
147
Table i.n The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=240 in under S-C Point)
L= 240in W16X26 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRc(Pe/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 812 749
0.7 1.2 - 10000 836 932 1 0.34/0.51
0.6 1.3 - 0.1 1222 1210 0.65 0.17/0.33
1 2.1 fix 2 - 539 531 0.29 0.17/0.15
2.1 simple 1.921 -
522
0.9 2.2 fix 0.41 0.82 620 623 0.5 0.25/0.25
2.2 simple 0.37 0.74 634
0.8 2.3_fix 0.59 0.59 757 749 0.6 0.25/0.3
2.3 simple 0.51 0.51 744
3 3.1_fix 0 - 133 133 0.14 0.34/0.07
3.1 simple 10000 - 103
2.7 3.2 fix 0.01 0.01 152 150 0.24 0.5/0.12
3.2 simple 10000 10000 116
2.4 3.3_fix 0.05 0.025 170 171 0.28 0.5/0.14
3.3 simple 0.4 0.2 173
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point load
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1495(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum brace
148
Table i.73 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=60 in under S-C UDL)
L= 60 W16X26/ Class 2 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 6920 9472
0.7 1.2 - 10000 7669 12314
0.6 1.3 - 10000 10911 16691
1 2.1_one-span_fix 10000 - 1926 6130
2.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 2063
2.1_two-span_fix 10000 - 1548
2.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 1583
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix 10000 10000 1931 7524
2.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 2073
2.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 1548
2.2 two-span sim2ie 10000 10000 1540
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 1936 9472
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 2082
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 1548
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 1542
3 3.1_ one-span _fix 2.3 - 831 832 3.6 30/1.8
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 174
3.1_two-span_fix 15 - 821
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 131
2.7 3.2_ one-span _fix 1.2 1.2 985 990 6.4 45/3.2
3.2_ one-span _sim pie 10000 10000 175
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 899
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 133
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 1.5 0.75 1206 1210 7.9 45/3.9
3.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 1181
3.3_two-span_fix 4 2 1219
3.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 1015
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
149
Table i.74 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X26 (L=240 in under S-C UDL)
L= 240 W16X26 / Class 2 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mil_
0.8 1.1 - - 1668 749
0.7 1.2 - 0 1668 932
0.6 1.3 - 0 1668 1210
1 2.1_one-span_fix 0.85 - 538 531 0.3 0.25/0.15
2.1_one-span_simple 0.9 - 525
2.1_two-span_fix 0.9 - 535
2.1_two-span_simple 0.92 - 525
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix 0.37 0.74 628 623 0.5 0.35/0.25
2.2_one-span_simple 0.37 0.74 626
2.2_two-span_fix 0.46 0.92 626
2.2 two-span simple 0.49 0.98 628
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 0.51 0.51 746 749 0.6 0.35/0.3
2.3_ one-span _simple 0.51 0.51 748
2.3 _two-span _fix 0.62 0.62 747
2.3 two-span simple 0.65 0.65 749
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 154 133 0.14 0.5/0.07
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 95
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 139
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 81
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 154 150 0.24 0.7/0.12
3.2_ one-span _sim pie 10000 10000 98
3.2_two-span_fix 0.01 0.01 153
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 81
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 0.02 0.01 177 171 0.28 0.7/0.14
3.3_ one-span _simple 0.2 0.1 172
3.3_two-span_fix 0.04 0.02 169
3.3 two-span simple 0.36 0.18 169
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 2231 (k-in), 0.67Mp=1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
150
5. W16X57, Class 1:
5.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W16X57-Top Flange Loading
5288 -',
Scenario 1.1&1.2
5288
Scenario 2.1&2.2
5288 r,
Scenario 3.1&3.2
'"
"- \
"
\
\
3543- 3543

3543
\


E:
'2







Lu=71 147
L(in)
Lu=40 82
L(in)
Lu=1327
L(in)
5288
'-
Scenario 1.3
5288
-'oc
Scenario 2.3
5288 1--,
Scenario 3.3
..
'0 . _-._" ....
-.. ,
'.
-..
"
"
3543
"-
" 3543

3543
\
E:

:?
'2

J


Lu=166 343
L(in)
Lu=66 137
L(in)
Lu=2246
L(in)
Wl6X57-Scenarios 1 Wl6X57-Scenarios 2 W16X57-Scenarios 3
Figure i.9 M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW16X57
Table i.75 The Mer ofW16X57 L=40 in with Stocky Braces
W16X57 T FI UDL op ange
L= 40(in)
Mesh 11X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in)
BASP
Nethercot
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
14650 - - 32594
16608 - -
18446 - - 170646
7274 6780 4899 11210
7562 7019 4927
7791 7214 4956 28590
4413 616 492 2144
4911 619 497
7751 7026 4897 4307
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp=5288 (k-in)
151
k
Mode
Top Ld
of
Failure
Ok?
1.4 b
1.4 b
0.6 b
2.5 b
2.5 b
1.5 b
7.5

7.5
4.5
Table i.76 The Mer ofW16X57 L=180 in with Stocky Braces
W16X57 T FI UDL op ange
L= 180(in)
Mesh 48X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in)
BASP
Nethercot
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
6048 - - 2684
10299 - -
23113 - - 9805
4451 4252 4276 1324
5664 4802 5096
10788 8302 9377 2452
833 514 417 415
841 518 417
1868 1393 1140 701
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp=5288 (k-in)
152
k
Mode
Top Ld
of
Failure
Ok?
1.4 a
1.4 a
0.6 a+b
2.5 a
2.5 a
1.5 a
7.5 a
7.5 a
4.5 a
Table i.77 The Cornparison ofBrace Stiffness for W16X57 (L=40 in under Top UDL)
L=40in W16X57/ Glass 1 Brace Stiffness (k/in' Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (k/int
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 14650 32594
1.4 1.2 - 10000 16608
0.6 1.3 - 10000 18446 170646
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 10000 - 7274 11210
2.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 6780
2.1_two-span_fix -
2.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 4899
2.2_ one-span _fix 10000 10000 7562 11210
2.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 7019
2.2_two-span_fix
2.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 4927
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 7791 28590
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 7214
2.3_two-span_fix
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 4956
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 2810 2144 14 989/15
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 616
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 2514
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 492
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 2810 2144 20 1079/16
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 619
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 2514
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 497
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 6.8 3.4 4335 4307 41 1079/33
"
3.3_ one-span _sim pie 28 14 4325
"
3.3_two-span_fix 9.4 4.7 4338
"
3.3 two-span simple 46 23 4329
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 5288 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 3543 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
153
Table i.78 The Cornparison ofBrace Stiffness for W16X57 (L=180 in under Top UDL)
.... =180in W16X57/ Glass 1 Brace Stiffness (k/in Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (kIin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 6048 2684
1.4 1.2 - 0 6048
0.6 1.3 - 1.1 9824 9805 3.7 5.4/4.1
2.5 2.1_ one-span_fix 2.3 - 1337 1324 0,95 6/1,0
2.1 _ one-span _simple 2.7 - 1332
2.1_ two-span _fix 2.8 - 1323
2.1_two-span_simple 3.4 - 1335
2.2_one-span_fix 0.95 1.9 1339 1324 1.4 6/1.1
2.2_ one-span _simple 1.2 2.4 1333
2.2_ two-span _fix 1.4 2.8 1325
2.2 two-span simple 1.85 3.7 1322
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 2.2 2.2 2457 2452 2.6 6/2.1
2.3_one-span_simple 2.4 2.4 2444
2.3_two-span_fix 3 3 2453
2.3 two-span simple 3.55 3.55 2442
7.5 3.1 _ one-span _fix 0 - 708 415 0.59 10.9/0.65
3.1 _one-span_simple 0.01 - 514
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 617
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 417
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 708 415 0.88 12/0.7
3.2_one-span_simple 0.01 0.01 514
3.2_ two-span _fix 0 0 617
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 417
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.02 0.01 724 701 1.5 12/1.2
..
3.3_one-span_simple 0.64 0.32 706
..
3.3_two-span_fix 0.2 0.1 707
..
3.3 two-span simple 1.4 0.7 700
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 5288 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 3543 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
154
5.2 Shera-Centre Loaded Cases
W16X57-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
5288
Scenario 1.1
5288
Scenario 2. 1
5288
-\
Scenario 3. 1
'-.'-.
"
"
".
, .
,
""" ..
'. \
3543 3543
"
3543 -
.. ~
.....
. ~
~ ~
:s
~
::E ::E ::E
Lu=124 257
L(in)
Lu=99 206
L(in)
Lu=3369
L(in)
5288
' ..
Scenario 1.2
5288
Scenario 2.2
5288
f--"
Scenario 3.2
-.. --.. , ~ -. " .. ~ - - ,
,
, ..............
,
3543
. ~
3543
~
3543
~ -

:s :s
~ ~
::E ::E ::E
Lu=142 294
L(in)
Lu=111 229
L(in)
Lu=36 76
L(in)
5288
Scenario 1.3
5288
Scenario 2.3
5288
~
Scenario 3.3
'-
,
3543
. , ~
3543
. ~
3543 \
.S :?
~
~
~
::E ::E ::E
Lu=166 343 L(in) Lu=124 257
L(in)
Lu=41 86
L(in)
W16X57-Scenarios 1 W 16X57 -Scenarios 2 W 16X57 -Scenarios 3
Figure i.l0 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW16X57
Table i.79 The M
cr
ofW16X57 L=120 in with Stocky Braces
W16X57 s-c UDL
Mode
BASP
Nethercot s-c Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Ld
Failure
1.1 23032 12046 0.8 a+b
1.2 23323 15303 0.7 a+b
1.3 50711 20307 0.6 a+b
2.1 15003 12660 14292 8194 1 a+b
2.2 15131 13077 16411 9805 0.9 a+b
2.3 19995 16353 17074 12046 0.8 a+b
3.1 2132 986 802 1716 3 a
3.2 2175 987 804 1949 2.7 a
3.3 3595 2289 2067 2257 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.2
** Mp=5288 (k-in)
155
Table i.80 The Mer ofW16X57 L=360 in with Stocky Braces
W16X57 S-C UDL
L= 360 (in) Mer (k-in) k
Mode
Mesh 96X4 BASP
Nethercot s-c Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
4901 - - 2257
6717 - - 2684
11334 - - 3311
3720 3076 3692 1716
4004 3158 3864 1949
4518 3450 4444 2257
635 517 486 521
758 677 568 580
1175 1103 998 656
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp=5288 (k-in)
Failure
0.8 a
,,/
0.7 a v
0.6 a \/
1 a ,,/
0.9 a
/
v'
0.8 a
v/
3 a
l ' : ~ ~ ' ; '
2.7 a
2.4 a \/
Table i.81 The Mer ofW16X57 L=120 in with Stocky Braces
W16X57: S-C Point Load
Mode
Mesh 32X4 BASP
Nethercot
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . End
Failure
1.1 8867 12046 0.8 a+b X
1.2 9010 15303 0.7 a+b X
1.3 32522 20307 0.6 a+b
2.1 7140 6867 8194 1 a+b X
2.2 7246 7048 9805 0.9 a+b X
2.3 17686 14110 12046 0.8 a+b
3.1 2145 1132 1716 3 a
3.2 2320 1167 1949 2.7 a
3.3 3839 2555 2257 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.2
** Mp=5288 (k-in)
156
Table i.82 The Mer ofW16X57 L=360 in with Stocky Braces
W16X57: S-C Point Load
L= 360(in)
Mesh 96X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot s-c Ld
Fixed End Simp. End
2666 -
2257 0.8
4773 -
2684 0.7
6279 - 3311 0.6
2268 2216 1716 1
2802 2399 1949 0.9
3576 2969 2257 0.8
609 512 521 3
826 790 580 2.7
1285 1265 656 2.4
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp=5288 (k-in)
Mode
of
Ok?
Failure
a
v/
a
a \;
a
v/
a'
a
v/
a
a
a \/
Table i.83 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X57 (L=120 in under S-C Point)
L=120 in W16X57 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (klin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 8867 12046
0.7 1.2 - 10000 9010 15303
0.6 1.3 - 12 20665 20307 5.5 5.6/2.8
1 2.1 fix 10000 - 7140 8194 5.5 5.6/2.8
2.1 simple 10000 - 6867
0.9 2.2_fix 10000 10000 7246 9805 8.5 9/4.2
2.2 simple 10000 10000 7048
0.8 2.3_fix 20 20 12022 12046 8.5 9/4.2
2.3 simple 18 18 11963
3 3.1 fix 0 - 1716 3.6 12/1.8
3.1 simple 10000 - 1132
2.7 3.2_fix 0.15 0.15 1933 1949 6.2 18/3.1
3.2 simple 10000 10000 1167
2.4 3.3 fix 0.9 0.45 2222 2257 7.2 18/3.6
3.3 simple 12 6 2224
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point load
* Mp = 5288 (k-in), 0.67Mp= 3543(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum brace
157
Table i.84 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W16X57 (L=360 in under S-C Point)
L=360 in W16X57 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRCfF'JMf)
0.8 1.1 - - 2666 2257
0.7 1.2 - 0 2666 2684
0.6 1.3 - 0.07 3403 3311 1.2 0.22/0.6
1 2.1 fix 5.7 - 1718 1716 0,6 0.22/0.3
2.1 simple 5.7 - 1704
0.9 2.2 fix 0.7 1.4 1953 1949 1 0.33/0.5
2.2 simple 0.6 1.2 1961
0.8 2.3 fix 0.9 0.9 2235 2257 1.2 0.33/0.6
2.3 simple 0.8 0.8 2250
3 3.1 fix 0 - 572 521 0.37 0.44/0.18
3.1 simple 10000 - 512
2.7 3.2 fix 0.01 0.01 629 580 0.62 0.66/0.31
3.2 simple 0.15 0.15 580
2.4 3.3 fix 0.08 0.04 675 656 0.7 0.66/0.35
3.3 simple 0.22 0.11 628
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point
load
* Mp = 5288 (k-in), 0.67MQ= 3543(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum brace
158
Table i.85 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for Wl6X57 (L=120 in under S-C UDL)
L= 120 W16X57/ Glass 1 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-inl Gode's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRG(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 23032 12046
0.7 1.2 - 0 23032 15303
0.6 1.3 - 0 23032 20307
1 2.1_one-span_fix 34 - 8137 8194 5.6 8.3/2.8
2.1_one-span_simple 37 - 8209
2.1_two-span_fix 37 - 8160
2.1_two-span_simple 38 - 8155
0.9 2.2_ one-span _fix 17.5 35 9922 9805 8A 12.5/4.2
2.2_one-span_simple 20 40 9917
2.2_two-span_fix 21.5 23 9804
2.2 two-span simQle 23.5 47 9863
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 25 25 12362 12046 8.4 12.5/4.2
2.3_one-span_simple 25 26 12286
2.3_two-span_fix 31 31 12245
2.3 two-span simple 32 32 12253
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0.25 - 1712 1716 3.6 16.6/1.8
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 986
3.1_two-span_fix 3.5 - 1708
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 802
2.7 3.2_ one-span _fix 0.4 0.4 1947 1949 6.2 25/3.1
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 987
3.2_two-span_fix 8 8 1830
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 804
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 1.1 0.55 2182 2257 7.2 25/3.6
3.3_one-span_simple 100 50 2248
3.3_two-span_fix 2.4 1.2 2193
3.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 2067
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 5288 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3543 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
159
Table i.86 The Cornparison ofBrace Stiffness for W16X57 (L=360 in under S-C UDL)
L= 360 W16X57/ Glass 1 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 4901 2257
0.7 1.2 - 0 4901 2684
0.6 1.3 - 0 4901 3311
1 2.1_one-span_fix 3.2 - 1729 1716 0.6 0.3/0.3
2.1_one-span_simple 3.7 - 1727
2.1_two-span_fix 3.2 - 1719
2.1_two-span_simple 3.4 - 1720
0.9 2.2_ one-span _fix 0.8 1.6 1941 1949 1 0.46/0.5
2.2_one-span_simple 0.74 1.48 1949
2.2_two-span_fix 1 2 1926
2.2 two-span simple 1.05 2.1 1953
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 1.1 1.1 2268 2257 1.2 0.46/0.6
2.3_one-span_simple 1.05 1.05 2284
2.3_two-span_fix 1.35 1.35 2280
2.3 two-span simple 1.35 1.35 2257
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 591 521 0.37 0.6/0.18
3.1_one-span_simple 0.01 - 517
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 559
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 486
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 591 580 0.62 0.92/0.31
3.2_one-span_simple 0.2 0.2 575
3.2_two-span_fix 0.01 0.01 599
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 568
2.4 3.3_ one-span _fix 0.06 0.03 674 656 0.7 0.92/0.35
3.3_one-span_simple 0.32 0.16 650
3.3_two-span_fix 0.2 0.1 677
3.3 two-span simple 0.6 0.3 665
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 5288 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3543 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
160
6. W21X44 Classl:
6.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W21X44-Top F1ange Loading
4768
Scenarios 1.1&1.2
4768
r-----------,.
Scenarios 2.1&2.2
4768
r-----,. Scenarios 3.1&3.2
,
,
\
"
~ .
\
\\ ,
"
~
3195
~
3195
3195
~
<?
:?
<?
~ ~ ~
::8 ::8 ::8
Lu=56 104
L(in)
Lu=31 58
L(in)
Lu=lO 19
L(in)
4768
Scenario 1.3
4768
Scenario 2.3 Scenario 3.3
,
,
4768
r.
~
\
, ,
,
" 3195
.
I ~
3195
. ~
3195
\,
:s ~
:s
~
~
~
::8 ::8
::8
Lu=130 243
L(in)
Lu=52 97
L(in)
Lu=1732
L(in)
W21X44-Scenarios 1 W21X44-Scenarios 2 W21X44-Scenarios 3
Figure i.ll M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW21X44
Table i.87 The Mer ofW21X44 L=120 in with Stocky Braces
W21X44 T FI UDL op ange
L=120(in)
Mesh 24X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k'in)
BASP
Nethercot
Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
3535 - -
6768 - -
17640 - -
2239 2066 2045
3557 2959 3060
6718 7288 5584
489 163 140
498 164 133
1651 945 768
See the instructions under Table 4.1
Mp=4768 (k.in)
161
2503
11924
1001
2226
130
465
k
Mode
Top Ld
of
Failure
1.4 a
a+b
0.6 a+b
2.5 a
a+b
1.5 a+b
7.5 a
a
4.5 a
Ok?
'v/
\/
,/
'//
,/
v/
k
Mode
Nethercot op Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Ld
Failure
1.1 1673 765 1.4 a
1.2 2914 a
1.3 6997 2845 0.6 a+b
2.1 1212 1156 1159 374 2.5 a
2.2 1565 1322 1400 a
2.3 3143 2394 2706 698 1.5 a
3.1 224 135 110 117 7.5 a
3.2 225 136 110 a
3.3 521 385 315 197 4.5 a
Table i.89 The Mer ofW21X44 L=120 in with Stocky Braces/Top Flange Point Ld
W21X44: Top Flange Point Load, Mp=4768 (k-in
L=120(in) Mer (k'in) k
Mode
IMesh 12X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 3823 - 2503 1.4 a+b \./
1.2 3698 - 1.4 a+b
1.3 7950 - 11924 0.6 a+b X
2.1 1353 1276 1001 2.5 a
2.2 2291 2001 2.5 a
2.3 7760 7325 2226 1.5 a+b
\/
3.1 520 213 130 7.5 a \,/
3.2 577 214 7.5 a
3.3 1999 1194 465 4.5 a ./-
Table i.89 The Mer ofW21X44 L=260 in with Stocky Braces/Top Flange Point Ld
W21X44: Top Flange Point Load, Mp=4768 (k-in)
L=260(in) Mer (k"in) k
Mode
Mesh 52X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 930 - 765 1.4 a
'v/
1.2 1534 - 1.4 a
1.3 5220 - 2845 0.6 a \/
2.1 760 744 374 2.5 a
Il'
2.2 1037 933 2.5 a
2.3 2734 2172 698 1.5 a
v'
3.1 259 172 117 7.5 a \/
3.2 280 184 7.5 a
3.3 636 493 197 4.5 a
'v/
162
Table i.89 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=120 in under Top UDL)
L=120 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (kIin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 3535 2503 4.1 17.4/4.5
1.4 1.2
-
0 3535
0.6 1.3 - 4 11952 11924 3.95 8.5/4.3
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 3.5 - 1008 1001 0.85 8.5/0.9
2.1_one-span_simple 3.5 - 1008
2.1_two-span_fix 3.8 - 1008
2.1_two-span_simple 4 - 1008
2.2_ one-span _fix 1.25 2.5 1008 1.25 9.5/1.0
2.2_one-span_simple 1.5 3 1008
2.2_two-span_fix 1.6 3.2 1008
2.2 two-span simple 2.1 4.2 1008
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 2.5 2.5 2232 2226 2.25 9.5/2.2
2.3_one-span_simple 2.9 2.9 2220
2.3_two-span_fix 3.3 3.3 2220
2.3 two-span simple 4.3 4.3 2220
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 350 130 0.22 17/0.24
3.1 _one-span_simple 0.01 - 163
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 308
3.1_two-span_simple 0.1 - 130
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 350 0.32 19/0.26
3.2_ one-span _sim pie 0.01 0.01 163
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 308
3.2 two-span simple 0.1 0.1 130
4.5 3.3_ one-span_fix 0.2 0.1 485 465 0.58 19/0.92
3.3_one-span_simple 0.8 0.4 470
3.3_two-span_fix 0.3 0.15 472
3.3 two-span simple 1.4 0.7 466
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
163
Table i.90 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=260 in under Top UDL)
L=260 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 1673 765 0.58 1.71/0.64
1.4 1.2 - 0 1673
"
0.6 1.3 - 0.2 3042 2845 1.08 0.86/1.19
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 0.38 - 411 374 0.14 0.86/0.16
2.1_one-span_simple 0.4 - 411
2.1_ two-span_fix 0.45 - 411
2.1_two-span_simple 0.52 - 411
2.2_one-span_fix 0.17 0.34 411 0.22 0.94/0.17
2.2_ one-span _sim pie 0.2 0.4 411
2.2_ two-span _fix 0.22 0.44 411
2.2 two-span simple 0.28 0.56 411
1.5 2.3_ one-span _fix 0.32 0.32 676 698 0.4 0.94/0.32
2.3_ one-span _simple 0.35 0.35 676
2.3_two-span_fix 0.4 0.4 676
2.3 two-span simple 0.5 0.5 676
7.5 3.1_ one-span _fix 0.05 - 200 117 0.09 1.71/0.1
3.1_one-span_simple 0.05 - 135
3.1_two-span_fix 0.05 - 174
3.1_two-span_simple 0.06 - 110
3.2_ one-span _fix 0.01 0.01 203 0.13 1.87/0.11
3.2_ one-span _sim pie 0.01 0.01 135
3.2_two-span_fix 0.01 0.01 175
3.2 two-span simple 0.02 0.02 110
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.04 0.02 227 197 0.22 1.87/0.18
"
3.3_one-span_simple 0.1 0.05 194
"
3.3_two-span_fix 0.04 0.02 196
"
3.3 two-span simple 0.22 0.11 195
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp =4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
164
Table i.91 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=120 in under Top Point)
... =120 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k'in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 3823 2503
1.4 1.2 - 0 3823
0.6 1.3 - 10000 7950 11924
2.5 2.1 fix 5.8 - 1008 1001 0.85 6.5iO.9
"
2.1_simple 5.8 - 1014
"
2.2 fix 1 2 1014 1.3 7/1.0
" 2.2 simple 1.15 2.3 1012
1.5 2.3 fix 2.2 2.2 2777 2226 2.3 7/2.2
"
2.3 simple 2.2 2.2 2521
7.5 3.1 fix 0.22 - 418 130 0.22 13/0.24
"
3.1 simple 0.22 - 213
" 3.2 fix 0.2 0.2 502 0.32 14/0.26
" 3.2 simple 0.2 0.2 213
4.5 3.3 fix 0.4 0.2 702 465 1.2 14/0.9
"
3.3 simple 0.4 0.2 460
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the top flange tip point load
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
Table i.91 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=260 in under Top Point)
L=260 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (kIin) Mcr (k'in) Code's Stiffness (k/in'
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJMiL
1.4 1.1 - - 930 765
1.4 1.2 - 0 930
0.6 1.3 - 1.08 3820 2845 1.08 0.65/1.2
2.5 2.1 fix 0.3 - 362 374 0.14 0.65/0.16
"
2.1_simple 0.35 - 362
"
2.2 fix 0.17 0.34 487 0.22 0.7/0.17
" 2.2 simple 0.17 0.34 470
1.5 2.3 fix 0.3 0.3 842 698 0.4 0.7/0.32
"
2.3 simple 0.3 0.3 826
7.5 3.1 fix 0.1 - 241 117 0.09 1.3/0.1
"
3.1 simple 0.1 - 172
" 3.2 fix 0.1 0.1 271 0.13 1.4/0.11
" 3.2 simple 0.1 0.1 175
4.5 3.3_fix 0.1 0.05 325 197 0.22 1.4/0.18
"
3.3 simple 0.1 0.05 244
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tOjJ_ flange tip point load
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
165
6.2 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
W21X44-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
4768
Scenario 1.1
4768
Scenario 2.1
4768
-'.
Scenario 3.1
'"
" "'-, "
,
'"
"
3195
"
3195
~
3195
\
E
~
.s
I
~
6 6
::E ::E ::E
Lu=97 182
L(in)
Lu=78 146
L(in)
Lu=2649
L(in)
4768
Scenario 1.2
4768 "
Scenario 2.2
4768 -',
Scenario 3.2
---' .. ~
"
,
,
,
",
3195 "', 3195
~
3195
'.

~
I ~
. ~
6
::E ::E ::E
Lu=lll 208
L(in)
Lu=87 162
L(in)
Lu=2954
L(in)
4768
Scenario 1.3
4768 '"
Scenario 2.3
4768
~ ,
Scenario 3.3
....
- , ~ "
"
.
,
,
3195
.
.
3195
" .
3195
".
~
~ ~ I I

6
::E ::E ::E
Lu=130 243 L(in)
Lu=97 182
L(in)
Lu=33 61
L(in)
W21X44-Scenarios 1 W21X44-Scenarios 2 W21X44-Scenarios 3
Figure i.12 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW21X44
Table i.92 The M
cr
ofW21X44 L=60 in with Stocky Braces/Shear-Centre UDL
W21X44: s-c UDL
Mer k
Mode
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim Ld
Failure
1.1 15547 26311 0.8 a+b X
1.2 21236 34238 0.7 a+b X
1.3 24919 46449 0.6 a+b X
2.1 4018 4143 3054 16989 1 a+b X
2.2 4032 4162 3057 20877 0.9 b X
2.3 4048 4182 3062 26311 0.8 b X
3.1 2841 403 299 2226 3 a+b
3.2 2973 405 303 2664 2.7 a+b
3.3 3923 3063 245 3274 2.4 a+b
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=4768 (k-in)
166
Table i.92 The Mer ofW21X44 L=80 in with Stocky Braces/Shear-Centre UDL
W21X44: S-C UDL
___________ __ ____ -+ __
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
14066
21710
25670
4953
4977
4995
1869
1946
3672
BASP
5335
5382
5420
376
378
2011
4018
4023
4029
284
290
1777
14982 0.8 a+b
19442 0.7 a+b
26311 0.6 a+b
9736 a+b
11924 0.9 b
14982 0.8 b
1397 3 a
1650 2.7 a
1999 2.4 a+b
Ok?
x
x
x
Table i.93 The Mer ofW21X44 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/Shear-Centre UDL
W21X44: S-C UDL

Top Ld of Ok?
Ld Failure
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
21102
7975
13162
490
500
837
5543
3120
3854
250
250
560
3539
9000
4963
205
205
507
2722 0.8 a
3442 0.7 a
4578 0.6 a+b
1869 1 a+b
2226 0.9 a+b
2722 0.8 a+b
410 3 a
465 2.7 a
536 2.4 a
Table i.94 The Mer ofW21X44 L=260 in with Stocky Braces/Shear-Centre UDL
W21X44: S-C UDL
L=260(in) Mer (k-in) k
Mode
Mesh 40X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. Root 2-span Ld
Failure
1.1 3914 - - 1753 0.8 a \/'
1.2 4348 - - 2185 0.7 a
1.3 9393 - - 2845 0.6 a \/
2.1 2593 2116 2492 1236 1 a
v/
2.2 2598 4565 6298 1454 0.9 a
2.3 3504 2542 3293 1753 0.8 a \/
3.1 354 215 183 305 3 a

3.2 365 222 184 343 2.7 a
3.3 593 439 397 392 2.4 a
v/
167
Table i.95 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=60 in under S-C UDL)
L=60 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (klin \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 15547 26311
0.7 1.2 - 0 21236 34238
0.6 1.3 -
24919 46449
1 2.1_ one-span _fix 10000 - 4018 16989
2.1_one-span_simple " - 4143
2.1_two-span_fix " -
2.1_two-span_simple " - 3054
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix " 10000 4032 20877
2.2_one-span_simple " " 4162
2.2_two-span_fix " "
2.2 two-span simple " " 3057
0.8 2.3_ one-span_fix " " 4048 26311
2.3_one-span_simple " " 4182
2.3_two-span_fix " "
2.3 two-span simple " " 3062
3 3.1_one-span_fix 7.3 - 2305 2226 7.3 63/3.7
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 403
3.1_two-span_fix " -
3.1_two-span_simple " - 299
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 6 6 2775 2664 13.2 95/6.6
3.2_ one-span _sim pie 10000 10000 405
3.2_two-span_fix
3.2 two-span simple 303
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 5 2.5 3461 3274 16.2 95/8.1
3.3_one-span_simple 3063
3.3_two-span_fix
3.3 two-span simple 245
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), O.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
168
Table i.96 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=80 in under S-C UDL)
L=80 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 14066 14982
0.7 1.2 - 6.5 19470 19442 6 13.5/3
0.6 1.3 - 10000 25670 26311
1 2.1_one-span_fix 10000 - 4953 9736
2.1_one-span_simple " - 5335
2.1_two-span_fix " -
2.1_two-span_simple " - 4018
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix " 10000 4977 11924
2.2_one-span_simple " " 5382
2.2_two-span_fix " "
2.2 two-span simple " " 4023
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix " " 4995 14982
2.3_one-span_simple " " 5420
2.3_two-span_fix " "
2.3 two-span simple " " 4029
3 3.1_one-span_fix 1.7 - 1431 1397 3.5 27/1.7
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 376
3.1_two-span_fix " -
3.1_two-span_simple " - 284
2.7 3.2_ one-span _fix 3.1 3.1 1827 1650 6.1 40/3.1
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 378
3.2_two-span_fix " "
3.2 two-span simple " " 290
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 2 1 2257 1999 7.4 40/3.7
3.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 2011
3.3_two-span_fix " "
3.3 two-span simple " " 1777
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), use this value to calculate the stiffness when the Mcr_theory > Mp
The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
169
Table i.97 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=200 in under S-C UDL)
1,-=200 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (klin'
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 5797 2722
0.7 1.2 - 0 5797 3442
0.6 1.3 - 0 5797 4578 2.3 0.85/1.2
1 2.1_one-span_fix 4 - 1963 1869 0.9 0.85/0.45
2.1_one-span_simple 4 - 1889
2.1_two-span_fix 4 - 1899
2.1_two-span_simple 4 - 1867
0.9 2.2_ one-span _fix . 1.7 3.4 2211 2226 1.7 1.3/0.85
2.2_one-span_simple 1.7 3.4 2127
2.2_two-span_fix 2 4 2157
2.2 two-span simple 2.1 4.2 2133
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 2.4 2.4 2717 2722 2 13/1
2.3_one-span_simple 2.4 2.4 2723
2.3_two-span_fix 2.8 2.8 2661
2.3 two-span simple 2.9 2.9 2665
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0.4 - 454 410 0.4 1.7/0.2
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 250
3.1_two-span_fix 0.4 - 400
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 205
2.7 3.2_ one-span _fix 0.7 0.7 493 465 0.7 2.6/0.35
3.2_ one-span_ simple 10000 10000 250
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 433
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 205
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 0.8 0.4 688 536 0.8 2.6/0.4
3.3_one-span_simple 3 1.5 523
3.3_two-span_fix 0.8 0.4 618
3.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 507
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
170
Table i.98 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=260 in under S-C UDL)
L=260 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in)_ Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJMt}
0.8 1.1 - - 3914 1753
0.7 1.2 - 0 3914 2185
0.6 1.3 - 0 3914 2845
1 2.1_ one-span _fix 1.9 - 1232 1236 0.47 0.39/0.24
2.1_one-span_simple 2.1 - 1236
2.1_two-span_fix 2 - 1231
2.1_two-span_simple 2.1 - 1236
0.9 2.2_ one-span _fix 0.85 1.7 1492 1454 0.85 0.6/0.41
2.2_one-span_simple 0.85 1.7 1481
2.2_two-span_fix 1 2 1455
2.2 two-span simple 1 2 1413
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 1.1 1.1 1717 1753 1 0.6/0.5
2.3_one-span_simple 1.1 1.1 1734
2.3_two-span_fix 1.35 1.35 1742
2.3 two-span simple 1.4 1.4 1753
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0.23 - 336 305 0.23 0.8/0.12
3.1 _one-span_simple 10000 - 215
3.1_two-span_fix 0.25 - 301
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 183
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0.39 0.39 362 343 0.39 1.2/0.2
3.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 222
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 319
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 184
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 0.45 0.23 485 392 0.45 1.2/0.22
3.3_one-span_simple 0.68 0.34 368
3.3_two-span_fix 0.45 0.23 440
3.3 two-span simple 1.8 0.9 366
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness Iisted above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
171
Table i.99 The Mer ofW21X44 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/Shear-Centre Point
W21X44: S-C Point Load
Mer
koin
k
Mode
Mesh40X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . Root
Failure
1.1 2574 2722 0.8 a+b X
1.2 2574 3442 0.7 a+b X
1.3 8071 4578 0.6 a+b
2.1 1987 1887 1869 1 a
2.2 6032 4476 2226 0.9 a
2.3 4190 3298 2722 0.8 a
3.1 506 285 410 3 a
3.2 544 299 465 2.7 a
3.3 894 627 536 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** Mp=4768 (k.in)
Table i.l 00 The Mer of W21X44 L=260 in with Stocky Braces/Shear-Centre Point
W21X44: S-C Point Load
L= 260(in)
IMesh 52X4
Scenarios
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
*
**
Mer (k-in) k
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
Fixed End Simp. Root
1903 - 1753
1948 - 2185
5215 - 2845
1478 1408 1236
1486 1612 1454
2733 2172 1753
361 237 305
398 263 343
636 493 392
See the instructions under Table 4.2
Mp=4768 (k.in)
172
0.8
0.7
0.6
1
0.9
0.8
3
2.7
2.4
Mode
of
Ok?
Failure
a
a X
a
a
a
a
a
{ ~ : j
a
a
Table i.101 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=200 in under S-C Point)
... =200 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 2574 2722
0.7 1.2 - 10000 2574 3442
0.6 1.3 -
0.8 5056 4578 2.3 0.65/1.2
1 2.1_fix 8 - 1744 1869
O,g 0.65/0,45
2.1 simple 8 - 1735
0.9 2.2_fix 1.7 3.4 2504 2226 1.7 0.9/0.85
2.2 simple 1.7 3.4 2178
0.8 2.3_fix 2 2 2699 2722 2 0.9/1
2.3 simple 2 2 2912
3 3.1_fix 0.4 - 472 410 0.4 1.2/0.2
3.1 simple 10000 - 285
2.7 3.2_fix 0.7 0.7 538 465 0.7 1.9/0.35
3.2 simple 10000 10000 299
2.4 3.3_fix 0.8 0.4 729 536 0.8 1.9/0.4
3.3 simple 0.9 0.45 511
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded tip point load
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
Table i.102 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W21X44 (L=260 in under S-C Point)
L=260 W21X44 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1
- - 1903 1753
0.7 1.2 - 10000 1948 2185
0.6 1.3 - 0.2 2988 2845 1.1 0.28/0.5
1 2.1_fix 4 - 1237 1236 0.47 0.28/0.24
2.1 simple 4 - 1241
0.9 2.2_fix 0.95 1.9 1141 1454 0.85 0.42/0.41
2.2 simple 0.85 1.7 1579
0.8 2.3_fix 1 1 1808 1753 1 0.42/0.5
2.3 simple 0.9 0.9 1826
3 3.1_fix 0.24 - 346 305 0.23 0.56/0.12
3.1 simple 10000 - 237
2.7 3.2_fix 0.39 0.39 392 343 0.39 0.84/0.2
3.2 simple 10000 10000 263
2.4 3.3_fix 0.45 0.225 509 392 0.45 0.84/0.22
3.3 simple 0.5 0.25 385
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded tip point load
* Mp = 4768 (k-in), 0.67Mp=3195(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
173
7. W21X48 Class3:
7.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W21X48-Top Flange Loading
4646
r----"
Scenario 1.1&1.2
4646
\
Scenario 2.1&2.2
4646 _ ..\
Scenario 3.1 &3.2
"
\ \.
3113
"
3113
\,
3113
\
r
...
r
~
~
J
'2
~
~ c
:::;;: :::;;: :::;;:
Lu=78 145
L(in)
Lu=43 81
L(in)
Lu=1527
L(in)
4646
Scenario 1.3
4646
Scenario 2.3
4646 -\
Scenario 3.3
-- .. . _ . _ ~ .
"
\
3113 " 3113 3113
\
~
.....
~
~
'2
~
C ~ C
:::;;: :::;;: :::;;:
Lu=181 339
L(in)
Lu=72 136
L(in)
Lu=2445
L(in)
W21X48-Scenarios 1 W21X48-Scenarios 2 W21X48-Scenarios 3
Figure i.13 M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW21X48
Table i.103 The M
cr
ofW21X48 L=90 in with Stocky Braces
Mode
Nethercot k
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Ld
Failure
1.1 7281 7508
1.2 11755
1.3 19905 38966
2.1 4314 3952 3836 2627
2.2 5060 5323 4052
2.3 5135 5571 4069 6594
3.1 1080 186 150 530
3.2 1150 187 152
3.3 4839 2577 2108 1039
174
Table i.1 04 The Mer of W21X48 L=210 in with Stocky Braces
W21X48: T
Mode
BASP Nethercot k
of
Ok?
Scenarios Ld
Failure
1.1 2888 1687
1.2 5571
1.3 15753 7508
2.1 1906 1783 1770 727
2.2 2834 2349 2444
2.3 7422 5660 6163 1513
3.1 382 163 130 206
3.2 384 163 132
3.3 1103 683 558 358
Table i.105 The Mer ofW21X48 L=90 in with Stocky Braces
W21X48: Top Point Load, My=4646 (k-in)
L= 90(in) Mer (k'in) k
Mode
Mesh 27X6 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 4137 - 7508 1.4 a+b X
1.2 5791 - 1.4 a+b X
1.3 6160 - 38966 0.6 b
2.1 2818 2583 2627 2.5 a+b v"
2.2 4924 4437 2.5 a+b
2.3 6145 6143 6594 1.5 b
3.1 1073 239 530 7.5 a
3.2 1280 239 7.5 a
3.3 5495 3213 1039 4.5 a+b \/
Table i.1 06 The Mer of W21X48 L=210 in with Stocky Braces
W21X48 T FI P . t L d op ange oln oa
L=210(in) Mer (k-in) k
Mode
Mesh 63X6 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 1514 - 1687 1.4 a X
1.2 2833 - 1.4 a
1.3 12973 - 7508 0.6 a+b
Vi
2.1 1138 1091 727 2.5 a \/
2.2 1784 1572 2.5 a
2.3 6695 5245 1513 1.5 a \/
3.1 427 216 206 7.5 a j
3.2 462 218 7.5 a
3.3 1354 877 358 4.5 a
v/
175
Table i.107 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X48 (L=90 in under Top UDL)
L=90in W21X48/ Class 1 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in}
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 7281 7508
1.4 1.2 - 0.5 7798 10.2 78/11.3
0.6 1.3 - 10000 19905 38966 5.1 39/5.6
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 18 - 2618 2627 2.9 39/3,2
2.1_one-span_simple 18 - 2640
2.1_two-span_fix 20 - 2648
2.1_two-span_simple 20 - 2648
2.2_ one-span _fix 5.3 10.6 2665 2627 4.4 43/3.5
6.3 12.6 2662
2.2_two-span_fix 6.5 13 2636
2.2 two-span simple 8.3 16.6 2659
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 10000 10000 5135 6594 7.5 43/6.1
2.3_one-span_simple 10000 10000 5571
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 4038
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 4069
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 680 530 1.2 78/1.3
3.1_ one-span _sim pie 10000 - 186
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 606
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 150
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 680 530 1.7 85/1.4
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 187
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 606
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 152
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 1 0.5 1263 1039 3.4 85/2.7
"
3.3_one-span_simple 3 1.5 1189
"
3.3_two-span_fix 1 0.5 1112
"
3.3 two-span simple 3.6 1.8 1032
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* My = 4646 (k-in), 0.67My = 3113 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
176
Table i.108 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W21X48 (L=2l0 in under Top UDL)
L=210 in W21X48/ Class 1 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 2888 1687
1.4 1.2 - 0 2888
0.6 1.3 - 0.9 7565 7508 2.2 3.1/2.4
2.5 2.1_ one-span _fix 1.2 - 738 727 0.34 3.1/0.4
2.1_one-span_simple 1.2 - 710
2.1_two-span_fix 1.3 - 710
2.1_two-span_simple 1.5 - 726
2.2_ one-span _fix 0.46 0.92 711 727 0.5 3.4/0.41
2.2_ one-span _simple 0.6 1.2 738
2.2_two-span_fix 0.65 1.3 726
2.2 two-span simple 0.85 1.7 736
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 1 1 1512 1513 1.1 3.4/0.85
2.3_ one-span _simple 1.2 1.2 1555
2.3_two-span_fix 1.4 1.4 1536
2.3 two-span simple 1.7 1.7 1516
7.5 3.1 _ one-span _fix 0 - 290 206 0.2 6.2/0.2
3.1_ one-span _simple 10000 - 163
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 254
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 130
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 290 206 0.3 6.7/0.2
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 163
3.2_ two-span _fix 0 0 254
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 132
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0.2 0.1 468 358 0.5 6.7/0.4
.,
3.3_ one-span _simple 0.4 0.2 381
"
3.3_two-span_fix 0.12 0.06 353
"
3.3 two-span simple 0.6 0.3 352
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
177
Table i.109 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X48 (L=90 in under Top Point)
L= 90 W21X48/ Class3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - -
3214 7508
1.2 - 10000 5151
0.6 1.3 - 10000 5753 38966
2.5 2.1 fix 80 - 2591 2627 2.9 39/3.2
2.1_simple 10000 - 2583
2.2 fix 5 10 2626 4.3 43/3.5
2.2 simple 5.5 11 2675
1.5 2.3_fix 10000 10000 6145 6594 7.6 43/6.1
2.3 simple 10000 10000 6143
7.5 3.1_fix 0 - 728 530 1.2 78/1.3
3.1 simple 10000 - 239
3.2_fix 0 0 728 530 1.7 85/1.4
3.2 simple 10000 10000 239
4.5 3.3_fix 0.4 0.2 1011 1039 3.4 85/2.7
3.3 simple 1.5 0.75 1059
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* My = 2231 (k-in), 0.67My = 1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
Table i.110 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W21X48 (L=21 0 in under Top Point)
L= 210 W21X48/ Class3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 1514 1687
1.2 - 0.01 1747 1.6 6.2/1.7
0.6 1.3 - 2.1 7526 7508 2.2 3.4/2.6
2.5 2.1 fix 1.5 - 738 727 0.34 3.1/0.38
2.1_simple 1.35 - 714
2.2 fix 0.3 0.6 711 0.5 3.4/0.41
2.2 simple 0.4 0.8 737
1.5 2.3 fix 0.6 0.6 1531 1513 1.2 3.4/0.85
2.3 simple 0.7 0.7 1537
7.5 3.1_fix 0 - 340 206 0.2 6.2/0.2
3.1 simple 0.1 - 216
3.2 fix 0 0 340 206 0.29 6.7/0.23
3.2 simple 0.1 0.1 216
4.5 3.3_fix 0.1 0.05 468 358 0.51 6.7/0.4
3.3 simple 0.16 0.08 365
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* My = 2231 (k-in), 0.67My = 1495 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
178
7.2 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
W21X48-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
4646
Scenario 1.1
4646
Scenario 2.1
4646 -",
Scenario 3.1
",
"
,
,
'.
" "
""
"',
~ -
3113
"
, . , ~
3113
~
3113
:s
6 6 6
::E ::E ::E
Lu=135 255
L(in)
Lu=108 204
L(in) Lu=3668
L(in)
4646
Scenario 1.2
4646
Scenario 2.2
4646 ,
Scenario 3.2
,
"
\
3113
~
3113
~
3113
. ~
E :s :s
6 6 6
::E ::E ::E
Lu=155 291
L(in) Lu=120 226
L(in)
Lu=40 75
L(in)
4646 -",-
Scenario 1.3
4646
Scenario 2.3
4646 1---,
Scenario 3.3
''-''.
~ ~
", ,
,
" '. '.
3113
'.
~
3113
'.
3113
:s :s
~
:s
. ~
6 6 6
::E ::E ::E
Lu=181 339 L(in)
Lu=135 255
L(in)
Lu=45 85
L(in)
W21X48-Scenarios 1 W21X48-Scenarios 2 W21X48-Scenarios 3
Figure i.14 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW21X48
Table i.lll The M
cr
of W21X48 L= 180 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
W21X48: S-C Point Load
Mode
Nethercot Ld
of
Ok?
Failure
1.1 4000 5846 0.8 a+b X
1.2 6834 7508 0.7 a+b X
1.3 16385 10066 0.6 a+b
2.1 3098 2942 3887 1 a+b
2.2 4605 3870 4705 0.9 a+b
2.3 8664 6818 5846 0.8 a+b
3.1 906 391 701 3 a
3.2 978 395 806 2.7 a
3.3 1736 1075 948 2.4 a
179
Table i.112 The Mer ofW21X48 L=240 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
W21X48: S-C Point Load
Mer k
Mode
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . End
Failure
1.1 3138 3464 0.8 a+b X
1.2 3142 4403 0.7 a+b 'X
1.3 10377 5846 0.6 a+b
2.1 2407 2282 2354 1 a
2.2 3484 2809 2818 0.9 a
2.3 5345 4184 3464 0.8 a+b
3.1 615 327 490 3 a
3.2 661 338 557 2.7 a
3.3 1103 748 645 2.4 a
Table i.113 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W21X48 (L=180 in under S-C Point)
L=180 W21X48 Brace Stiffness (kIin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRCJPJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 4000 5846
0.7 1.2 - 10000 6834 7508
0.6 1.3 - 3 10249 10066 2.6 1.6/1.3
1 2.1 fix 10000 - 3098 3887 2.2 1.6/1.1
2.1_simple 10000 - 2942
0.9 2.2 fix 10000 10000 4605 4705 3.9 2.4/1.9
2.2 simple 10000 10000 3870
0.8 2.3 fix 5 5 5693 5846 3.9 2.4/1.9
2.3 simple 4.5 4.5 5681
3 3.1_fix 0 - 691 701 0.77 3.2/0.39
3.1_simple 10000 - 391
2.7 3.2_fix 0.4 0.4 932 806 1.3 4.8/0.66
"
3.2 simple 10000 10000 395
2.4 3.3_fix 0.3 0.15 1017 948 1.6 4.8/0.78
"
3.3 simple 2 1 917
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at shear centre
* My = 4646 (k-in), 0.67My=3113 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
180
Table i.114 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W21X48 (L=240 in under S-C Point)
L=240 W21X48 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (klin \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 3138 3464
0.7 1.2 - 3-10000 3142 4403 3.6 1.4/1.8
0.6 1.3 - 0.6 5754 5846 1.9 0.7/0.95
1 2.1_fix 15 - 2264 2354 0.95 0.7/0.5
2.1_simple 100 - 2272
0.9 2.2_fix 1.5 3 2805 2818 1.3 1/0.85
2.2 simple 2.5 5 2707
0.8 2.3_fix 2.2 2.2 3479 3464 2.2 1/1.1
2.3 simple 1.9 1.9 3381
3 3.1_fix 0 - 494 490 0.4 1.4/0.2
3.1_simple 10000 - 327
2.7 3.2 fix 0.02 0.02 557 557 0.69 2/0.34
3.2 simple 10000 10000 338
2.4 3.3_fix 0.1 0.05 634 645 0.8 2/0.4
3.3 simple 0.94 0.47 620
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at shear centre
* My = 4646 (k-in), 0.67My=3113 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
8. W8X10 Class3:
8.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W8X10-Top Flange Loading
388 -'-.,
Scenario 1.1&1.2
388
-----\
Scenario 2.1 &2.2
388 1-',
Scenario 3.1&3.2
,
\ ~ -
260
,
~
260
~ -
260
:s
'2
1
~ ~ c
~ ~ ~
Lu=36 75
L(in)
Lu=20 42
L(in)
Lu=7 14
L(in)
388
- . ~ , ....
Scenario 1.3
388 r---,
Scenario 2.3
388 ~ ' .
Scenario 3.3
. _"- ,
".
,
>---,
"- ~
\,\
260 f- "
260
~
260
E
~
'2
~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
Lu=84 175
L(in)
Lu=34 70
L(in)
Lu=11 23
L(in)
W8XI0-Scenarios 1 W8X10-Scenarios 2 W8X10-Scenaros 3
Figure i.15 M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW8X10
181
Table i.115 The Mer ofW8X10 L=40 in with Stocky Braces/Top UDL
W8X10: T UD
Mode
Nethercot k
of
Ok?
Scenarios Ld
Failure
1.1 845 791
1.2 1491
1.3 2932 4044
2.1 505 457 454 284
2.2 715 696 585
2.3 736 807 589 696
3.1 119 24 19 62
3.2 126 24 19
3.3 519 275 224 117
Table i.116 The Mer ofW8X10 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/Top UDL
W8X10: Top Flange UDL, MX=388 (k-in)
L=200Un) Mer (k-in)
Mode
IMesh 110X4 BASP Nethercot k
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
Failure
1.1 165 - - 67 1.4 a 'v/
1.2 276 - - 1.4 a
1.3 554 - - 212 0.6 a 'c/
2.1 126 120 122 35 2.5 a \/
2.2 151 128 138 2.5 a
/
v
2.3 250 193 223 62 1.5 a \/
3.1 22 16 14 11 7.5 a \,/
3.2 23 17 14 7.5 a
3.3 49 41 34 19 4.5 a \/
182
Table i.117 The Mer of W8X1 0 L=40 in with Stocky Braces/Top Point
k
Mode
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . End
Failure
1.1 471 791 1.4 a+b X
1.2 781 1.4 a+b
1.3 861 4044 0.6 b
2.1 316 290 284 2.5 a+b
2.2 578 506 2.5 a+b
2.3 859 858 696 1.5 a+b
3.1 119 30 62 7.5 a
3.2 140 30 7.5 a
3.3 613 344 117 4.5 a
Table i.118 The Mer ofW8XlO L=40 in with Stocky Braces/Top Point
W8X10 T FI op ange
P . t L d
Oln oa
L= 200 (in) Mer (k-in) k
Mode
Mesh 110X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 96 - 67 1.4 a \/
1.2 151 - 1.4 a
1.3 392 - 212 0.6 a \/
2.1 81 80 35 2.5 a
\,/
2.2 104 94 2.5 a
2.3 212 172 62 1.5 a
\,/
3.1 25 20 11 7.5 a \/
32 29 23 7.5 a
3.3 59 53 19 4.5 a
\j/
183
Table i.l19 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W8XlO (L=40 in under Top UDL)
L=40in W8X10/ Class 3 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
104 1.1 - - 845 791
104 1.2 - 0 845
0.6 1.3 - 10000 2932 4044
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 10.6 - 282 284 1.4 24/2
2.1 _one-span_simple 10.6 - 288
2.1_ two-span _fix 11.85 - 285
2.1_two-span_simple 11.85 - 288
2.2_one-span_fix 3.2 604 283 284 2.8 26/2.2
2.2_one-span_simple 3.9 7.8 287
2.2_two-span_fix 4 8 282
2.2 two-span simple 5.1 10.2 282
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 6.2 6.2 677 696 3.8 26/3
2.3_ one-span _simple 8.2 8.2 704
2.3 _two-span_fix 10000 10000 581
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 589
7.5 3.1 _ one-span _fix 0 - 77 62 0.8 48/0.9
3.1 _one-span_simple 10000 - 24
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 68
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 19
3.2_one-span_fix 0 0 77 62 1.2 52/1
3.2_ one-span _simple 10000 10000 24
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 68
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 19
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 004 0.2 117 117 2.3 52/1.8
..
3.3_one-span_simple 1.6 0.8 118
..
3.3_two-span_fix 0.6 0.3 119
3.3 two-span simple 2.6 1.3 118
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* My = 388 (k-in), 0.67My = 260 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer ta the fulcrum brace
184
Table i.120 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W8X10 (L=200 in under Top UDL)
L=200in W8X10 / Class 3 Brace Stiffness (klin' Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mfl
1.4 1.1 - - 165 67
1.4 1.2 - 0 165
0.6 1.3 - 0.05 253 212 0.28 0.19/0.3
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 0.1 - 34 35 0.05 0.19/0,05
2.1_one-span_simple 0.13 - 35
2.1_two-span_fix 0.14 - 36
2.1_two-span_simple 0.15 - 34
2.2_ one-span _fix 0.04 0.08 35 35 0.07 0.21/0.05
2.2_ one-span _sim pie 0.05 0.1 36
2.2_two-span_fix 0.06 0.12 34
2.2 two-span simple 0.08 0.16 35
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 0.1 0.1 62 62 0.12 0.21/0.095
2.3_ one-span _sim pie 0.1 0.1 61
2.3_two-span_fix 0.13 0.13 61
2.3 two-span simple 0.15 0.15 62
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 20 11 0.03 0.38/.03
3.1_one-span_simple 0.01 - 16
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 18
3.1_two-span_simple 0.01 - 14
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 20 11 0.04 0.42/0.03
3.2_ one-span _sim pie 0.01 0.01 16
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 18
3.2 two-span simple 0.01 0.01 14
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0 0 20 19 0.07 0.42/0.06
..
3.3_one-span_simple 0.02 0.01 19
..
3.3_two-span_fix 0 0 18
..
3.3 two-span simple 0.05 0.025 19
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UOL
* My = 388 (k-in), 0.67My = 260 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
185
Table i.121 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W8X10 (L=40 in under Top Point)
L= 40 W8X10 / Class3 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - -
471 791
1.2 - 100 778
0.6 1.3 - 10000 861 4044
2.5 2.1 fix 20 - 256 284 1.85 17/2
2.1_simple 50 - 275
2.2 fix 3 6 283 284 2.8 18.5/2.2
2.2 simple 3.2 6.4 281
1.5 2.3 fix 3.7 3.7 684 696 3.8 18.5/3
2.3 simple 5 5 702
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 82 62 0.8 34/0.9
3.1 simple 10000 - 30
3.2_fix 0 0 82 62 1.2 37/1
3.2 simple 10000 10000 30
4.5 3.3 fix 0.8 0.3 150 117 2.3 37/1.8
3.3 simple 1.5 0.75 150
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
Table i.122 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W8X10 (L=200 in under Top Point)
L= 200 W8X10/ Class3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 96 67
1.2 - 0 96
0.6 1.3 - 0.15 225 212 0.23 0.14/0.3
2.5 2.1 fix 0.1 - 36 35 0.045 0.14/0.05
2.1_simple 0.1 - 34
2.2_fix 0.02 0.04 35 35 0.07 0.15/0.05
2.2 simple 0.025 0.05 35
1.5 2.3 fix 0.07 0.07 65 62 0.12 0.15/0.1
2.3 simple 0.07 0.07 64
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 23 11 0.03 0.27/0.03
3.1 simple 0.01 - 20
3.2 fix 0 0 23 11 0.04 0.3/0.03
3.2 simple 0.01 0.01 20
4.5 . 3.3_fix 0 0 23 19 0.07 0.3/0.06
3.3 simple 0.02 0.01 23
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top
flange
186
8.2 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
W8XlO-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
388
Scenario 1.1
388
Scenario 2.1
388
~ \
Scenario 3.1
--""
"--,"-.
""
260
',,--
260 260
o ~
~
~
:?
l
:s
6 6
::s ::s ::s
Lu=67 132
L(in)
Lu=53 lOS
L(in)
Lu=1835
L(in)
388
.....
Scenario 1.2
388
Scenario 2.2
388
-,
Scenario 3.2
""
0,
"
'",
"
260
...
260
...
...
260
~
o o ~
~
:?
l
:?
6 6
::s ::s ::s
Lu=76 ISO
L(in)
Lu=59 117
L(in)
Lu=20 39
L(in)
388
Scenario 1.3
388
Scenario 2.3
388
~ .
Scenario 3.3
........ , .. ,.,
...
260
> ~
260
...
...
260
~
c
...
~
:? E :?
6 6 6
::s ::s ::s
Lu=89 176 L(in) Lu=67 132
L(in)
Lu=22 44
L(in)
W8XIO-Scenarios 1 W8X10-Scenarios 2 W8X10-Scenarios 3
Figure i.16 M-L Curves for Shear Centre Loadings ofW8X10
Table i.123 The M
cr
ofW8X10 L=60 in with Stocky Braces/S-C UDL
W8X10 s-c UDL
Mode
BASP
Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios
Failure
1.1 1708 1055 0.8 a+b \/
1.2 1713 1361 0.7 a+b
1.3 3828 1831 0.6 a+b
2.1 1056 912 946 696 a+b
2.2 1116 1008 1049 846 0.9 a+b
2.3 1813 1203 922 1055 0.8 a+b
3.1 149 45 35 117 3 a
3.2 153 45 36 136 2.7 a
3.3 283 160 145 161 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** My=388 (k-in)
187
Table i.124 The Mer ofW8X10 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/S-C UDL
W8X10 s-c UDL
Mode
of
Failu
Ok?
1.1 138 0.8 a
1.2 168 0.7 a
1.3 722 212 0.6 a
2.1 214 175 209 102 1 a
2.2 237 180 221 117 0.9 a
2.3 272 201 261 138 0.8 a
3.1 32 23 21 29 3 a
3.2 34 26 22 32 2.7 a
3.3 55 46 42 36 2.4 a
* See the instructions under Table 4.1
** My=338 (k-in)
Table i.125 The Mer ofW8X10 L=60 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
W8X10: S-C Point Load
Mode
Mesh 33X4 BASP
of
Ok?
Scenarios Root
Failure
1.1 567 1055 0.8 a+b X
1.2 614 1361 0.7 a+b X
1.3 2711 1831 0.6 a+b
2.1 442 420 696 1 a+b
2.2 656 570 846 0.9 a+b
2.3 1434 1189 1055 0.8 a+b
3.1 147 55 117 3 a
3.2 161 55 136 2.7 a
3.3 302 178 161 2.4 a
Table i.126 The Mer ofW8X10 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
W8X10: S-C Point Load
Mode
Nethercot s-c Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . Root
Failure
1.1 159 138 0.8 a
1.2 175 168 0.7 a
1.3 392 212 0.6 a
2.1 128 123 102 1 a
2.2 163 135 117 0.9 a
2.3 212 172 138 0.8 a
3.1 32 24 29 3 a
3.2 38 31 32 2.7 a
3.3 59 53 36 2.4 a
188
Table i.l27 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffuess for W8XIO (L=60 in under S-C UDL)
L= 60 W8X10 / Glass 3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (k/in \
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRG(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 1708 1055
0.7 1.2 - 0 1708 1361
0.6 1.3 - 0.1 1864 1831 1.7 3.2/0.85
1 2.1_one-span_fix 12 - 682 696 1.7 3.2/0.85
2.1_one-span_simple 12 - 677
2.1_two-span_fix 13 - 675
2.1_two-span_simple 13 - 676
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix 6 12 849 846 2.5 4.8/1 .3
2.2_one-span_simple 9 18 822
2.2_two-span_fix 6.5 13 879
2.2 two-span simple 7 14 872
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 9.5 9.5 1030 1055 2.5 4.8i1.3
2.3_one-span_simple 9.5 9.5 1050
2.3_two-span_fix 10000 10000 888
2.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 922
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0.5 - 121 117 1 6.4/0.5
3.1_one-span_simple 10000 - 45
3.1_two-span_fix 1 - 111
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 35
2.7 3.2_ one-span _fix 0.5 0.5 141 136 1.8 9.6/0.9
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 45
3.2_two-span_fix 1 1 121
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 36
2.4 3.3_ one-span _fix 0.3 0.15 152 161 2.1 9.6/1.0
3.3_ one-span_simple 10000 10000 160
3.3_two-span_fix 0.6 0.3 155
3.3 two-span simple 10000 10000 145
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* My = 388 (k-in), 0.67My=260 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
189
Table i.128 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W8X10 (L=200 in under S-C UDL)
1 .... = 200 W8X10/ Glass 3 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (k/inl
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRG(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 304 138
0.7 1.2 - 0 304 168
0.6 1.3 - 0 304 212
1 2.1_one-span_fix 0.6 - 101 102 0.14 0,085/0,065
2.1_one-span_simple 0.7 - 103
2.1_two-span_fix 0.7 - 107
2.1_two-span_simple 0.7 - 105
0.9 2.2_one-span_fix 0.2 0.4 114 117 0.23 0.13/0.11
2.2_one-span_simple 0.2 0.4 118
2.2_two-span_fix 0.25 0.5 115
2.2 two-span simple 0.25 0.5 113
0.8 2.3_one-span_fix 0.28 0.28 136 138 0.27 0.13/0.14
2.3_ one-span _simple 0.28 0.28 139
2.3_two-span_fix 0.35 0.35 140
2.3 two-span simple 0.35 0.35 138
3 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 28 29 0.08 0.17/0.04
3.1 _one-span_simple 10000 - 23
3.1_two-span_fix 0.1 - 29
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 21
2.7 3.2_one-span_fix 0.01 0.01 33 32 0.13 0.26/0.06
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 26
3.2_two-span_fix 10000 10000 30
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 22
2.4 3.3_one-span_fix 0.04 0.02 36 36 0.14 0.26/0.07
3.3_one-span_simple 0.2 0,1 36
3.3_two-span_fix 0.08 0.04 36
3.3 two-span simple 0.4 0.2 36
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the shear centre loaded UDL
* My = 388 (k-in), 0.67My=260 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
190
Table i.l29 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W8X10 (L=60 in under S-C Point)
L= 60in W8X10 Brace Stiffness (klin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 567 1055
0.7 1.2 - 10000 614 1361
0.6 1.3 - 7 1828 1831 1.1 2.3/1.4
1 2.1 fix 10000 - 442 696 1.7 2.3/1 A
2.1 simple 10000 - 420
0.9 2.2 fix 10000 10000 656 846 2.5 3.5/1.1
2.2 simple 10000 10000 570
0.8 2.3_fix 8 8 1069 1055 2.5 3.5/1.1
2.3 simple 7 7 1057
3 3.1_fix 0.2 - 117 117 1 4.6/0.5
3.1 simple 10000 - 55
2.7 3.2 fix 0.1 0.1 134 136 1.8 6.9/0.9
3.2 simple 10000 10000 55
2.4 3.3 fix 0.3 0.15 159 161 2.1 6.9/1
3.3 simple 4 2 160
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point load
* My = 388 (k-in), 0.67My= 260(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum brace
Table i.130 The Comparison of Brace Stiffness for W8X10 (L=200 in under S-C Point)
L= 200in
k
0.8
0.7
0.6
1
0.9
0.8
3
2.7
2.4
*
**
W8X10 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.1 - - 159 138
1.2 - 0.05 169 168 0.44 0.12/0.22
1.3 - 0.03 220 212 0.28 0.06/0.14
2.1 fix 1.2 - 103 102 0.14 0.06/0.07
2.1 simple 1.2 - 103
2.2_fix 0.19 0.38 123 117 0.23 0.09/0.12
2.2 simple 0.16 0.32 122
2.3 fix 0.25 0.25 142 138 0.27 0.1/0.14
2.3 simple 0.21 0.21 139
3.1 fix 0 - 29 29 0.08 0.12/0.04
3.1 simple 10000 - 24
3.2_fix 0.01 0.01 34 32 0.13 0.19/0.06
3.2 simple 10000 10000 31
3.3_fix 0.02 0.01 35 36 0.14 0.19/0.07
3.3 simple 0.1 0.05 35
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point load
My = 388 (k-in), 0.67My= 260(k-in)
The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum
brace
191
9. W8X15 Classl:
9.1 Top Flange Loaded Cases
W8X15-Top F1ange Loading
679
r-------",
Scenario 1.1&1.2
679
-,
Scenario 2.1&2.2
679 -\
Scenario 3.1&3.2
"
'\
" \
455
~
455
'.
455
~
l
:?
~
l :::s
::E ::E ::E
Lu=40 80
L(in)
Lu=22 45
L(in) Lu=7 15
L(in)
679
Scenario 1.3
679
f--------,
Scenario 2.3
679 -',
Scenario 3.3
o,,
,
,
"-
\
\,
455 ...................... 455
r
~
455
~ .
l
:?
l :::s
::E ::E ::E
Lu=93 187
L(in)
Lu=37 75
L(in)
Lu=1225
L(in)
W8X15-Scenarios 1 W8X15-Scenarios 2 W8X15-Scenarios 3
Figure i.17 M-L Curves for Top Flange Loadings ofW8X15
Table i.131 The Mer ofW8X15 L=40 in with Stocky Braces/Top UDL
Mode
Nethercot k
of
Ok?
Failure
1.1 1753
1.2 3192
1.3 7412
2.1 1099 1010 1003
2.2 1732 1478 1522
2.3 2236 2435 1782
3.1 256 75 59
3.2 263 75 61
3.3 923 509 414
192
Table i.132 The Mer ofW8Xl5 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/Top UDL
W8X15 T FI UOL op ange
L=200(in) Mer (k-in)
Mode
Mesh 110X4 BASP Nethercot k
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End 2-span Ld
Failure
1.1 397 - - 146 1.4 a \/
1.2 664 - - 1.4 a
1.3 1699 - - 416 0.6 a \/
2.1 318 303 313 79 2.5 a
v/
2.2 367 312 344 2.5 a
2.3 525 435 487 135 1.5 a
v/
3.1 58 47 41 26 7.5 a
v/
3.2 63 54 44 7.5 a
3.3 126 117 97 43 4.5 a
v/
Table i.133 The Mer ofW8X15 L=40 in with Stocky Braces/Top Point
W8X15 T p. t L d op Oln oa
L= 40(in) Mer (k'in) k
Mode
Mesh 22X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 961 - 1396 1.4 a+b X
1.2 1811 - 1.4 a+b
1.3 2616 - 6804 0.6 b
2.1 676 633 542 2.5 a+b
j
2.2 1169 1024 2.5 a+b
2.3 2599 2593 1238 1.5 b
3.1 266 97 135 7.5
a:b ~ ; ~
3.2 301 97 7.5
3.3 1109 639 244 4.5
Table i.134 The Mer ofW8X15 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/Top Point
W8X15 T p. t L d op Oln oa
L= 200(in) Mer (k'in) k
Mode
Mesh 110X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 241 - 146 1.4 a
1.2 377 - 1.4 a
1.3 781 - 416 0.6 a
v/
2.1 210 208 79 2.5 a \./
2.2 260 236 2.5 a
2.3 441 365 135 1.5 a v/
3.1 63 53 26 7.5 a \,/
3.2 79 73 7.5 a
3.3 154 150 43 4.5 a \/
193
Table i.135 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W8X15 (L=40 in under Top UDL)
L=40in W8X15/ Glass 1 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.4 1.1 - - 1753 1396
1.4 1.2 - 0 1753
0.6 1.3 - 40 6507 6804 4.4 39/4.8
2.5 2.1_one-span_fix 16 - 547 542 3.5 39/3.8
2.1 _one-span_simple 16 - 544
2.1_two-span_fix 18 - 548
2.1_two-span_simple 18.5 - 544
2.2_ one-span _fix 5.2 10.4 533 542 5.2 42.5/4.2
2.2_one-span_simple 6.5 13 531
2.2_two-span_fix 7 14 541
2.2 two-span simple 9 18 533
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 11 11 1241 1238 6.5 42.5/5.3
2.3_one-span_simple 14 14 1267
2.3_two-span_fix 16 16 1273
2.3 two-span simple 20 20 1233
7.5 3.1 _ one-span _fix 0 - 176 135 1.7 78/1.9
3.1 _one-span_simple 10000 - 75
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 157
3.1_two-span_simple 10000 - 59
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 176 135 2.6 85/2.1
3.2_one-span_simple 10000 10000 75
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 157
3.2 two-span simple 10000 10000 61
4.5 3.3_ one-span _fix 0.7 0.35 244 244 4.7 85/3.8
..
3.3_ one-span_simple 3 1.5 236
..
3.3_two-span_fix 1.2 0.6 248
..
3.3 two-span simple 5.4 2.7 240
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 679 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 455 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
194
Table i.l36 The Comparison of Brace Stiffuess for W8X15 (L=200 in under Top UDL)
.... =200in W8X15 / Glass 1 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Gode's Stiffness (kIin)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRG(Pe/M
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 397 146
1.4 1.2 - 0 397
0.6 1.3 - 0.01 434 416 4.4 39/4.8
2.5 2.1 _one-span_fix 0.2 - 80 79 0.1 0.31/0.11
2.1_one-span_simple 0.3 - 85
2.1_two-span_fix 0.25 - 79
2.1_two-span_simple 0.3 - 79
2.2_ one-span _fix 0.05 0.1 79 79 0.15 0.34/0.12
2.2_ one-span _simple 0.07 0.14 81
2.2_two-span_fix 0.09 0.18 79
2.2 two-span simple 0.12 0.24 79
1.5 2.3_one-span_fix 0.19 0.19 139 135 0.26 0.34/0.21
2.3_one-span_simple 0.19 0.19 138
2.3_two-span_fix 0.26 0.26 139
2.3 two-span simple 0.28 0.28 138
7.5 3.1_one-span_fix 0 - 54 26 0.07 0.6/0.07
3.1 _one-span_simple 0.01 - 47
3.1_two-span_fix 0 - 48
3.1_two-span_simple 0.01 - 41
3.2_ one-span _fix 0 0 54 26 0.1 0.68/0.08
3.2_one-span_simple 0.01 0.01 48
3.2_two-span_fix 0 0 48
3.2 two-span simple 0.01 0.01 41
4.5 3.3_one-span_fix 0 0 54 43 0.17 0.68/0.13
"
3.3_ one-span _sim pie 0.04 0.02 52
"
3.3 _two-span_fix 0 0 48
"
3.3 two-span simple 0.01 0.05 50
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for top flange UDL
* Mp = 679 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 455 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffnesses above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
195
Table i.l37 The Cornparison of Brace Stiffuess for W8Xl5 (L=40 in under Top Point)
L= 40 W8X15/ Class1 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
1.4 1.1 - - 961 1396
1.2 - 5 1394 8.7 56/9.6
0.6 1.3 - 10000 2616 6804
2.5 2.1 fix 34 - 545 542 3,5 28/3.8
2.1_simple 34 - 542
2.2 fix 5 10 567 542 5.2 31/4.2
2.2 simple 5.5 11 564
1.5 2.3 fix 6.5 6.5 1241 1238 6.5 31/5.2
2.3 simple 8.2 8.2 1239
7.5 3.1 fix 0 - 197 135 1.7 56/1.9
3.1 simple 10000 - 97
3.2_fix 0 0 197 135 2.6 61/2.1
3.2 simple 10000 10000 97
4.5 3.3 fix 0.6 0.3 265 244 4.7 61/3.8
3.3 simple 2 1 258
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
* Mp = 679 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 455 (k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness Iisted above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum brace
Table i.138 The Cornparison of Brace Stiffuess for W8X15 (L=40 in under Top Point)
L= 200
k
1.4
0.6
2.5
1.5
7.5
4.5
*
**
W8X15/ Class1 Brace Stiffness (k/in \ Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P e/Mf)
1.1 - - 241 146
1.2 - 0 241
1.3 - 0.2 418 416 0.55 0.22/0.6
2.1 fix 0.2 - 82 79 0.1 0.22/0.11
2.1_simple 0.25 - 82
2.2 fix 0.03 0.06 83 79 0.15 0.24/0.12
2.2 simple 0.04 0.08 82
2.3 fix 0.13 0.13 138 135 0.26 0.24/0.21
2.3 simple 0.13 0.13 140
3.1 fix 0 - 59 26 0.07 0.45/0.07
3.1 simple 0.01 - 54
3.2 fix 0 0 59 26 0.1 0.49/0.08
3.2 simple 0.01 0.01 54
3.3_fix 0 0 59 43 0.17 0.49/0.13
3.3 simple 0.02 0.01 56
The above calculations are conducted by BASP for the tip point load at top flange
Mp = 679 (k-in), 0.67Mp = 455 (k-in)
The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to the fulcrum
brace
196
9.2 Shear-Centre Loaded Cases
W8X15-Shear-centre & Bottom Flange Loading
679
Scenario 1.1
679
Scenario 2.1
679 -',
Scenario 3.1

"-
"

\
455 "- 455 455

l

l
=-
J
,
Lu=67 140
L(in)
Lu=54 112
L(in) Lu=1837
L(in)
679
Scenario 1.2
679
Scenario 2.2
679

Scenario 3.2
455 " 455
,
455
\



:s


Lu=76 160
L(in) Lu=60 125
L(in)
Lu=20 42
L(in)
679
Scenario 1.3
679 -'-.
Scenario 2.3
679

Scenario 3.3

--''''-''''
"-
455 455
"
455
"
l


=-



Lu=89 187 L(in) Lu=67 140
L(in)
Lu=22 47
L(in)
W8Xl5-Scenarios 1 W8X15-Scenarios 2 W8X15-Scenarios 3
Figure i.18 M-L Curves for Shear-Centre Loadings ofW8X15
Table i.139 The M
cr
ofW8X15 L=100 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
W8X15: S-C Point Load
Mer k
Mode
BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Sim . End
Failure
1.1 822 766 0.8 a+b
1.2 1539 953 0.7 a+b
1.3 2252 1238 0.6 a+b
2.1 643 614 542 1 a+b
2.2 863 702 636 0.9 a+b
2.3 1187 946 766 0.8 a+b
3.1 159 106 135 3 a
3.2 177 118 152 2.7 a
3.3 280 219 174 2.4 a
197
Table i.140 The Mer ofW8X15 L=200 in with Stocky Braces/S-C Point
W8X1S S-C Point Load
L=200(in) Mer (kin) k
Mode
Mesh110X4 BASP
Nethercot Top Ld
of
Ok?
Scenarios Fixed End Simp. End
Failure
1.1 329 - 283 0.8 a
"v/
1.2 594 - 337 0.7 a
1.3 781 - 416 0.6 a
v/
2.1 278 271 215 1 a \/
2.2 344 294 244 0.9 a
2.3 441 365 283 0.8 a v/
3.1 74 62 65 3 a
v/
3.2 98 93 73 2.7 a
3.3 154 150 82 2.4 a
v/
Table i.141 The Comparison of Brace Stiffuess for W8X15 (L=100 in under S-C Point)
L=100in W8X15 Brace Stiffness (k/in) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(P s/Mf)
0.8 1.1 - - 822 766
0.7 1.2 - 0.1 951 953 3.5 1.6/1.7
0.6 1.3 - 0.6 1288 1238 1.8 0.8/0.9
1 2.1 fix 5 - 544 542 1.4 0.8/0.7
2.1 simple 10 - 522
0.9 2.2 fix 1.9 3.8 619 636 2.5 1.3/1.3
2.2 simple 1.7 3.4 617
0.8 2.3 fix 2.7 2.7 750 766 2.6 1.2/1.3
2.3 simple 2.5 2.5 767
3 3.1 fix 0:6 - 152 135 0.7 1.6/0.34
3.1 simple 10000 - 106
2.7 3.2_fix 0.05 0.05 157 152 1.2 2.4/0.6
3.2 simple 10000 10000 118
2.4 3.3 fix 0.3 0.15 180 174 1.3 2.4/0.7
3.3 simple 1.6 0.8 172
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point load
* Mp = 679 (k-in), 0.67Mp= 455(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum brace
198
Table i.142 The Comparison ofBrace Stiffness for W8X15 (L=200 in under S-C Point)
L=200in W8X15 Brace Stiffness (kIin) Mcr (k-in) Code's Stiffness (k/in)
k Scenarios Fulcrum Tip BASP Nethercot S16 SSRC(PJM
f
)
0.8 1.1 - - 329 283
0.7 1.2 - 0 329 337
0.6 1.3 - 0.04 432 416 0.55 0.1/0.26
1 2.1 fix 2.8 - 218 215 0.28 0.1/0.14
2.1 simple 2.8 - 216
0.9 2.2 fix 0.3 0.6 234 244 0.47 0.15/0.23
2.2 simple 0.3 0.6 254
0.8 2.3_fix 0.4 0.4 272 283 0.55 0.15/0.27
2.3 simple 0.36 0.36 276
3 3.1 fix 0 - 69 65 0.17 0.210.08
3.1 simple 0.1 - 62
2.7 3.2 fix 0.01 0.01 79 73 0.28 0.3/0.14
3.2 simple 0.2 0.2 78
2.4 3.3 fix 0.1 0.05 89 82 0.32 0.3/0.16
3.3 simple 0.2 0.1 86
The above calculations are for the shear centre tip point load
* Mp = 679 (k-in), 0.67Mp= 455(k-in)
** The code required brace stiffness listed above in Scen.2&3 refer to fulcrum brace
199