Tension-Field Design of Tapered Webs

W. E. FALBY AND G. C. LEE

THIS PAPER deals with the formulation of design guides for of the AISC Specification find their genesis in this tension-
tapered webs based on post-buckling strength. Answers are field concept.
sought to two specific problems: In determining the slope of the tension field,5 the
assumption was made that only an effective band width, be,
1. Formulation of necessary modifications to the current
takes part in transmitting the additional tension force.
AISC "tension-field formula" of prismatic girders for
However, when the ultimate shear force is determined, a
the application to tapered webs
complete tension field across the depth of the web is
2. The adequacy of using the AISC tension-field
assumed. This inconsistency will be referred to again when
formula for tapered roof beams in frames of the
formulas for allowable stress in tapered webs are being
gable type presently encountered in structural
derived.
engineering practice
In this study, formulas for the allowable stress for
Following the basic format and approach used in earlier tapered webs will be derived from the same proposition as
studies1,2,3,4 and Basler's tension-field model,5 allowable has been employed for the AISC design formulas for shear
stress expressions are derived for tapered webs. They are stress in thin webs. It is to be anticipated that the formulas so
compared with the current AISC Specification. It is shown obtained will bear some resemblance and relationship to the
that for small or even moderately large tapering ratios, the corresponding AISC formulas.
average depth of the tapered segment can be used in the The procedure for obtaining the post-buckling stress is as
AISC prismatic girder design formula for tapered members. follows: (1) the contribution of the tension force in the
The results of this study can be used in the design of tension field to the vertical shear force is determined for a
tapered roof girders of the gable frames commonly field of width be; (2) the slope of the tension field is
encountered. calculated such that the vertical force is maximized; (3) the
post-buckling tension stress, ft, which is prescribed by the
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM direct yield stress, is applied to the complete web to obtain
The design criteria for thin-web girders of uniform depth the shear force derived from this source; (4) finally, the total
have been established based on the post-buckling strength of shear stress is obtained from the sum of the initial shear
plate elements. For thin-web panels buckled in shear between buckling stress and the post-buckling shear stress.
vertical stiffeners, the stress at the onset of buckling is easily
obtained by classical methods. The post-buckling stress can DERIVATION OF TENSION FIELD FORMULAS
be accounted for by the well-known "tension field concept" It will be found to be useful at this juncture to introduce
of Basler,5 in which the web with the neighboring sections of AISC Formula (1.10-2) for the allowable shear stress of thin
flanges and the stiffeners are conceived to behave like a Pratt webs of uniform depth and to define the symbols. The
truss, with the stipulation that no additional compression formula may be compared with those to be derived
stress may be taken by the web in the buckled state. In this subsequently. It is:
circumstance a diagonal band of the web transmitting tension
Fy  1 − Cv 
force in that direction is assumed to support additional web Fv = Cv +  < 0.4 Fy (1)
shear. The allowable shear stress formulas 2.89  . 1 + (a / h) 2 
 115 
where
W. E. Falby is Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y. Fy = direct yield stress, ksi
G. C. Lee is Professor and Chairman, Department of Civil t = web thickness, in.
Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, a = clear distance between transverse stiffeners, in.
N.Y. h = clear distance between flanges, in.

11
FIRST QUARTER / 1976
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 45,000k The contribution to the vertical shear from the total tension
Cv = when Cv < 0.8 (for.steel)
Fy ( h / t ) 2 force in the tension field is obtained by assuming that the
tension stress, ft, across be is uniform and is:
190 k
= when Cv > 0.8 (for steel) Vt = ft be t sin φ (3)
h/t Fy
Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (3):
.
534 h a 
k = 4.00 + when a/h < 1.0 Vt = f t t  1 sin 2φ − [cos α − cos (2φ + α )] sec α 
(a / h ) 2 2 2 
4.00 (4)
= 534
. + when a/h > 1.0
( a / h )2 The slope of the tension field is obtained by invoking the
condition for Vt(max) :
Equation (1) may be adapted to tapered beams with small dVt
angle of taper by substituting the term hav in place of h, =0 (5)
dφ
where hav is the average clear distance between flanges:
When Eq. (5) is simplified, the expression for the slope is
Fy  1 − Cv  found to be:
Fv = Cv +  < 0.4Fy (1a) h1
2.89  . 1 + (a / hav ) 
115 tan 2φ = − tan α (6)
a
A somewhat similar expression may be derived for But,
beams with more severe angle of taper. Figure 1 represents a tan α = (h1 – h0)/a (7)
section of tapered web bounded by vertical stiffeners, a Therefore,
horizontal top flange, and a sloping bottom flange. For this
h0
case, the following nomenclature is introduced: tan 2φ = = tan θ (8)
a
h0 = clear distance between flanges at shallower end Thus, as in the case of uniform depth,5
of the tapered segment, in. 2φ = θ (9)
h1 = clear distance between flanges at deeper end of i.e., the slope angle of the diagonal is twice that of the
the tapered segment, in. tension field.
α = angle between tapered and horizontal flanges At this point, following Basler's treatment, it is assumed
φ = slope angle of tension field that the tension field develops down the complete depth of the
θ = slope angle of web diagonal stiffener. Therefore, the shear force at the deeper end (see
be = width of tension field for calculating slope, in. Fig. 1) is:
a = clear distance between transverse stiffeners, in.
β = tan α = (h1 – h0)/a Vt1 = ft h1 t cos φ sin φ (10)
ft = uniform tension stress in tension field From Eqs. (9) and (10):
Vt1 = ½ ft1 h1 t sin θ (11)
The width of the tension field be is:
Noting that sin θ = 1 / 1 + (a / h0 ) 2 and representing the
be = h1 cos φ – a(tan α + tan φ) cos φ shear stress at initial buckling by τ cr, the total shear stress is:
= h1 cos φ – a sin(α + φ) sec α (2)
f v1 = τ cr1 + 12 f t 1 (1 / 1 + (a / h0 ) 2 ) (12)
It may be shown that for a web of uniform depth h1:
kπ 2 E
τ cr1 =
12(1 − µ 2 )( h1 / t ) 2
1 kπ 2 E
= (13)
(1 + γ) 2 (12) (1 − µ 2 )( h0 / t ) 2
f t = Fy − 3τ cr1 (14)
and the yield shear stress is assumed to be

Fvy = Fy / 3 (15)

Fig. 1. Tapered web between stiffeners In Eq. (13), k is a dimensionless parameter.

12
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 For small tapering angles, since the initial buckling stress
is small, Eq. (13) may be employed for the tapered web.
Substituting Eqs. (13), (14) and (15) into (12) and
simplifying:
Fy  3 
f v1 = Cv1 + (1 − Cv ) / 1 + ( a / h0 )2  (16)
3  2 
where
Cv1 = τ cr1/Fvy
When the safety factor of 1.65 is incorporated into Eq. (16),
an expression for the total allowable shear stress at the deep
end of the panel comparable to Eq. (1) is obtained: Fig. 2. Assumed tension field stress distributions
Fy  
Fv = Cv1 + 1 (1 − Cv1 ) 1  and
2.89  .
115 1 + ( a / h ) 2 
β = (h1 – h0)/a
 0 
< 0.4Fy (17)
The development of Eq. (21) is quite straightforward. It
The parameter Cv1 for steel is a function of Fy1, h1, and t may represents a lower bound to the allowable shear stress.
be taken conservatively as: In summary, the formulas for allowable shear stress in a
stiffened tapered web at a specified section may be expressed
45,000k in the following general form:
Cv1 = (18)
Fy ( h1 / t )2 Fy  1 − Cv 
Fv =  Cv + A
2.89  115
. 
The AISC Specification limits this value of Cv1 to 0.8.
It can be shown that when the tension field is oriented where Cv = Fvcr/Fvy at the section and A is as indicated in
along the other diagonal the allowable shear stress at the Table 1.
shallow end of the panel is:
Fy  
Fv = Cv 0 + 1 (1 − Cv 0 ) 1  Table 1
2.89  .
115 1 + ( a / h ) 2  AISC Spec. (h = hav)
 1  A = 1 / 1 + ( a / hav ) 2
(Based on Basler's Eq. (1a)
<0.4Fy (19)
assumptions)
where Modified AISC
Eq. (17) A = 1 / 1 + ( a / h0 ) 2
45,000k (Based on Basler's
Cv 0 = < 0.8 (20) assumptions)
Fy ( h0 / t )2 Eq. (19) A = 1 / 1 + ( a / h1 ) 2
Modified AISC
Equations (17) and (19) are similar in general form to Eq. (21) A = tan φ /(1 + β /2)
the AISC formula for allowable shear stress, given in Eq. (Lower bound)
(1).
The inconsistency regarding the width of the tension
field, alluded to earlier, may be removed by assuming a DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN PROVISIONS
stress distribution across the tension field. Thus, it may be
assumed that the full uniform stress, ft, extends across the The formula for allowable shear stress given in Eq. (21) is
width, be, and that the stress then decreases linearly to zero based upon the assumption of an extremely conservative
at the tapered flange as shown in Fig. 2. This assumption is stress distribution, and is not directly comparable to the other
conservative and purely intuitive, but it may be used both for equations in Table 1. Equations (1a) and (17) will be
the determination of slope5 and shear force.10 When it is compared directly by examining the corresponding
employed in this manner, the allowable stress at the deep end representations of A in Table 1.
of the tapered segment is derived. It may be written as: The expression for A in Eq. (1a) is:
Fy  1 tan φ  A = 1 / 1 + ( a / hav ) 2
Fv1 = Cv1 + (1 − Cv1 ) < 0.4Fy
.  1 + β / 2 
(21)
289 115
. where the average depth of web is hav = (h0 + h1)/2.
where The corresponding expression for A in Eq. (17) is:
tan 2φ = 2 [(h1 + h0)/2]/a = 2hav/a A = 1 / 1 + ( a / h0 ) 2

13
FIRST QUARTER / 1976
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 The degree of taper β may be expressed in three ways: DESIGN EXAMPLES
β = (h1 – h0)/a (i)
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the application
β = (h1 – hav)/2a (ii)
of the formulas previously derived for allowable shear stress
β = (hav – h0)/2a (iii) in a stiffened web and to indicate, wherever possible, how
existing formulas from the AISC Specification may be
From Eq. (iii) modified for the design of webs with moderately large
h0 hav − 2aβ tapering angle between vertical stiffeners. The first example
=
a a is typical of Case 4 of the preceding section, while the second
or is typical of Case 2.
a a
= (iv)
h0 hav − 2aβ
Therefore, Example 1
2
 a  For the A36 steel girder shown in Fig. 3, determine the
A=1 1+  
 hav − 2aβ  allowable shear stress for third point loading by the
following methods:
or
  a 2 − 2 −1/ 2
2aβ   (a) AISC formula using h = (h0 + h1)/2 = hav [Eq. (1a)]
A = 1 +   1 −   (v) (b) Modified formula [Eq. (17) or (19)]
  hav   hav  
  (c) Modified formula [Eq. (21)]

When the term (2aβ /hav) is less than unity, the first two terms (a) Using Eq. (1a):
of a binomial expansion may be employed to simplify the hav = ½ (60 + 66) = 63 in.
equation, thus:
−1/ 2 a/hav = 84/63 = 1.33
  a  2  4aβ  
A = 1 +   1 +  (vi) hav/t = 63/¼ = 252
  hav   hav   4.0
  k = 534
. + for a / hav > 10
.
−1/ 2 (a / hav )2
  a 2  a  
3

A = 1 +   + 4β    (vii) = 534
. +
4.0
= 7.60
  hav   hav  
 . )2
(133
It must be noted that β must be always less than or equal to 45,000k 45,000( 7.60)
Cv = = = 015
.
[hav/(a/2)]. The equality obtains only when h0 = 0. Some Fy ( hav / t ) 2
36.0( 252)2
specific cases will be considered:
Case 1: a/hav large, β small
Case 2: a/hav small, β small
Case 3: a/hav large, β moderate
Case 4: a/hav small, β moderate

Case 1—When a/hav ≈ 30 and β ≈ 1/60, the value of A is

approximately zero both for Eq. (v) and Eq. (1a) in Table 1;
therefore, these properties will not control the design in this
Case.

Case 2—When a/hav ≈ 1 and β ≈ 1/40, the term [1 –

(2aβ /hav)] ≈ 1. Equation (v) then becomes identical to Eq.
(1a) for this Case.

Case 3—This Case involves relative values of the

parameters hav that have no physical significance.

Case 4—When a/hav ≈ 1 and β ≈ 1/15, Eq. (vii) becomes A ≈

[1 + (a/hav)2], which is the same expression for A as in Eq.
(1a) in Table 1. Fig. 3. Comparison of allowable stresses for tapered girder

14
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Fy   Example 2
−C
Fv = Cv + 1 v 1  ≤ 0.4Fy
2.89  115
. 1 + ( a / hav ) 2  The second example is taken from a recent paper4 in which

Eq. (1a) the allowable bending stress and calculated bending stress at
specified sections of a tapered beam are compared. Figure 4
36  . ) 
(1 − 015
= ( 015
. )+  shows the beam as it appears in the reference, as well as
2.89  + 2  additional details of problem data. The shear diagram is
 115
. (1 133
. ) 
directly relevant and has been added for completeness.
= (12.46)(0.15 + 0.44) = 7.35 ksi
The allowable shear stress will be determined for the two
panels shown in Fig. 5, centered on sections 2 and 4,
(b) Using Eq. (17):
assuming tension field action.
h −h 66 − 60 1
β= 1 0 = = The allowable shear stresses will be calculated for Eq.
a 84 14 (1a), Eq. (17) and Eq. (19). Equation (21) will not be
4.0 checked here. For panel I the applicable formula is Eq. (19),
k = 534
. + for a / h1 > 10
.
(a / h1 ) 2 while for panel II the applicable formula is Eq. (17).
4.0
= 534
. + = 781
.
(84 / 66)2
a/h0 = 1.4
h1/t = 66/¼ = 264
45,000k
Cv1 = [1 / ( h1 / t ) 2 ]
Fy
45,000 ( 781
. )
= (1 / 264)2 = 014
.
36.0
Fy  
Fv = Cv1 + 1 (1 − Cv1 ) 1 
2.89  .
115 1 + ( a / h0 )2 
 
Eq. (17)
 1 
= 12.46014
. + ( 086 . ) 2  = 710
. ) / (14 . ksi
 115
. 

(c) Using Eq. (21):

2(h1 + h0 )
tan 2φ = a = 2hav / a
2
= 2(1/1.33) = 1.504
2φ = 56.6°
φ = 28.3°

From method (b), above: Fig. 4. Design of tapered propped cantilever

Cv1 = 0.14 and β = 1/14
β /2 = (1/14)/2 = 0.036
Fy  1 tan φ 
Fv1 =  Cv1 + (1 − Cv1 )
. 
289 115
. 1 + β / 2 
Eq. (21)
  0.86  0.54  
= 12.46014
. +  
  115
.   1036
. 
= 12.46 (0.14 + 0.39)
= 6.6 ksi (lower bound solution) Fig. 5. Details of design panels

15
FIRST QUARTER / 1976
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Panel I: Panel II:
(a) Using Eq. (1a): (a) Using Eq. (1a):
hav = ½ (28 + 29) = 28.5 in. hav = ½(35 + 36) = 35.5 in.
a/hav = 30/28.5 = 1.05 a/hav = 30/35.5 = 0.845
hav/t = 28.5/¼ = 114 hav/t = 35.5/¼ = 142.0
4.00 .
534
k = 534
. + for a / h > 10
. k = 4.00 + for a / h < 10
.
(a / hav )2 ( a / hav ) 2
4.00 534
.
= 534
. + = 8.97 = 4.00 + = 1148
.
. )2
(105 (0.845) 2
45,000k (45,000)(1148 . )
Cv = Cv = = 0.712 < 08. o.k.
Fy / (hav / t ) 2 (36)(142 ) 2

( 45,000)(8.97) Eq. (1a):

= = 0862
. > 0.8 n.g.
(36)(114)2 36.0  0.288 1 
Fv = 0.712 + 
2.89  115
. + 2 
Use  1 ( 0845
. ) 
= (12.46)(0.712 + 0.191) = 11.25 ksi
190 k
Cv =
hav / t Fy (b) Using Eq. (17):
190 8.97 a/h0 = 30/35 = 0.857
= = 0.832 > 08
. o.k.
114 36 h1/t = 36/(¼) = 144.0
Fy   534
.
k = 4.00 + for a / h < 1.0
Cv + − v
1 C 1
Fv =  ( a / h0 ) 2
2.89  115
. 2 
1 + ( a / hav ) 
 534
.
≤ 0.4Fy Eq. (1a)
= 4.00 + = 1127
.
(0.857) 2
36  .
017 1  (45,000)( k )
= . +
083  Cv1 =
. 
289 .
115 1 + 105
. 2  ( Fy )( h1 / t ) 2
= (12.46)(0.83 + 0.094) (45,000)(11.27)
= = 0.68 < 0.8 o.k.
= 11.51 ksi < 14.4 ksi o.k. (36)(1442 )
Eq. (17):
(b) Using Eq. (19):
 
a/h1 = 30/29.0 = 1.034  
h0/t = 28/¼ = 112 Fy  1 1 
Fv = Cv1 + (1 − Cv1 ) 
4.0 . 
289 115
.  a 
2
k = 534
. + = 9.08
. )2
(1034  1+   
  h0  
190 k
Cv 0 =   0.32  
(h0 / t ) Fy = (12.46) 0.68 +   (0.759) = 1109. ksi
  115
.  
190 9.08
= = 0.852 > 08
. o.k.
112 36 The allowable shear stresses calculated in Examples 1
and 2 by Eqs. (1a), (17), and (19) are compared in Table 2.
Fy  
Fv = Cv 0 + 1 (1 − Cv 0 ) 1 
2.89  115
. 1 + (a / h1 ) 2  Table 2. Summary of Allowable Stresses
 
Eq. (1): Eq. (17)
Eq. (19 Example Taper Fv or (19):Fv Error
(ksi) (ksi) (%)
 1 1  1 1/14 7.35 7.10 +3.5
= 12.46 0852
. + (0148
. ) 
 115
. 1 + 1034
. 2  2 (Panel I) 1/30 11.51 11.72 –1.8
= 12.46 [0.852 + 0.089] = 11.72 ksi 2 (Panel II) 1/30 11.25 11.09 +1.4

16
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 CONCLUSIONS
Beams and girders having small or moderate tapers comprise
over 90% of tapered beams used in practice. The allowable
shear stress of such beams may be obtained either by
employing the present AISC provision based on tension-field
action, with the average depth replacing the uniform depth,
Eq. (1a), or it may be obtained by employing Eq. (17) or
(19). The latter expressions will give results that are
somewhat more accurate.
When the taper is more severe, approaching β = 1/15, the
discrepancy between the two expressions may approach 5%.
For tapers larger than β = 1/15, Eq. (17) or (19) should
suffice. When the tapers approach 1/8 (for example, tapers at
haunched connections), an expression such as Eq. (21)
should be used. Equation (21) is quite conservative, because
the stress distribution on which it is based is a safe lower
bound distribution.
A task for the immediate future is the determination of a
better approximation to this stress distribution and the
development of an expression similar to Eq. (21) for severe
tapers, but less conservative, for application in design of
haunched connections.
Other problems remain to be investigated in this
connection. Two of these are: the location of stiffeners and
the effects of other changes in dimensions (for instance,
cover plates) on post-buckling stress.
17
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The results presented in this study are based on a research
grant on the study of tapered structural members funded
jointly by the American Institute of Steel Construction, the
Metal Building Manufacturers Association and the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command. Technical guidance to this
research project was provided by the joint Column Research
Council and Welding Research Council subcommittee on
Tapered Members and the Tapered Member subcommittee of
the Metal Building Manufacturers Association Research
Committee.
REFERENCES
1. Lee, G. C., M. L. Morrell, and R. L. Ketter Design of Tapered
Members WRC Bulletin No. 173, June 1972.
2. Lee, G. C. and M. L. Morrell Behavior of Tapered Roof Girders
Braced Along the Top Flange 1975 Technical Session and
Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canadian Column Research Council,
May 1975.
3. Morrell, M. L. and G. C. Lee Allowable Stress for Web Tapered
Beams with Lateral Restraints WRC Bulletin No. 192, Feb.
1974.
4. Lee, G. C., and M. L. Morrell Application of the AISC Design
Provisions for Tapered Members Engineering Journal, AISC,
First Quarter, 1975.
5. Basler, K. Strength of Plate Girders in ShearTrans. ASCE, Vol.
128, 1963.
FIRST QUARTER / 1976