Flange Lateral Bending Stress (fl) Under the

Wind Pressure
By
Atorod Azizinamini, Ph.D.,P.E.
1- Introduction and Objectives
The purpose of preparing this document is to evaluate the application
of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (Third edition) to
calculate flange lateral bending stress, fl, for a specific design example
and compare the results to detail finite element analysis. Specific
objectives are as follows:
a) calculate the flange lateral bending stress using two and three
dimensional finite element analyses
b) calculate

the

flange

lateral

bending

stress

using

code

recommendations
c) calculate the magnification factor using detail finite element
analysis approach and that recommended by the code
d) Incorporate flange lateral bending stress term in constructability
limit state check for a three span continuous bridge designed
using High performance steel
e) Provide preliminary conclusions with respect to advantage and
shortcomings of the procedures suggested by AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specification to calculate flange lateral bending
stress
2- Brief Summary of the Bridge Configuration

Bridge Considered is a three span continuous steel plate girders. Following is

brief summary of the specific design information:
No. of Spans = 3

Length
Span No.
(ft)
_________________________________________________________________
1
135
2
175
3
135
No. of Lanes
No. of Girders
Skew Angle
Dist. Curbline To Exterior Girder

=
=
=
=

3
4
0
3

DECK DATA AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES

_________________________________
Slab Thickness = 8.5 in
Haunch Thickness = 3 in
Sacrificial Wearing Surface = 0.5 in
Concrete Compressive Strength (f'c) = 3000 psi
COMPOSITE TYPE FOR ANALYSIS:
Deck is Considered Composite Throughout
LOADING
_______
The Live Load Vehicle is the AASHTO HL-93 Loading
ADDITIONAL DEAD LOADS
_____________________
Superimposed Dead Load = 175 plf
Future Wearing Surface = 20 psf
Additional Girder Dead Weight = 10 % of Girder Dead Load
3- Wind Load Analysis

a-

Elastic

Three

Dimensional

Finite

Element

Analysis-

Complete Bridge Model

Three dimensional model of the bridge was developed using both
SAP2000 and ANSYS5.7. The purpose of this exercise was to ensure
the accuracy of the three dimensional modeling. The modeling
techniques used in developing three dimensional model of the
bridge is based on the past experiences gained from full scale
testing and modeling of the steel bridges in both laboratory and
field. Both model were subjected to same loading and produced
approximately same results. ANSYS5.7 model was selected to
carryout all three dimensional analysis as one of the objective of the
work was to conduct geometrical non-linear analysis.
The code specified lateral load (non-factored) due to wind is 0.3 kips
per linear foot. The depth of the girder used is 54 inches. In the three
dimensional finite element analysis a pressure loading of 65 lb/ft 2 was
applied to outside girder (perpendicular to the web face), which is
approximately equivalent to 0.3 kips per linear ft wind load.
The stress contours and deflected shape of the bridge under the
applied wind pressure is shown in Figure 1. The close up of the model
for the first span is shown in figure 2.

Deflected shape (plan view)

Stress in x-direction

Figure 1 the deflection and stress of the bridge under the wind pressure

Figure 2 Flange stress under the wind pressure, a closer view- First Span

The maximum lateral deflection of the girder is approximately 10

inches (due to unfactored wind load of 65 lb/ft2).

Summary of the flange lateral bending stresses obtained from three

dimensional finite element analysis of the entire bridge is shown in
Table 1 (see column no. 7) for three different locations along outside
girder. Section 1 in table 1 is located in the first span. As indicated in
table 1, location of maximum flange lateral bending stresses is

different for various analyses types. Section 2 in table 1 is located over

the pier and section 3 is located at mid-span of middle span.
Table 1 Bottom flange stress under wind pressure from a 3-span bridge

Sec

Sy

(in3 )
Sec.
Mod.

(1)

(2)

53

232

Maximum Flange Lateral Bending

M (kips-in)

Stresses, (ksi)

2D Sap,

2D Sap,

2D Sap,

Constant

specified

Specified

properties

Properties

Properties

(3)

(4)

1092
(x=49.5ft)

2213(x=135ft)

832.5

2941

3D Ansys, One

3D Ansys,

Girder Model

Entire Bridge

(5)

(6)

(7)

15.7

12.1

9.4

(x=66.3 ft)

(x=43.5ft)

(x=45.1ft)

12.7
(x=135ft)

8.4 (x=135ft)

8.4

(x=135ft)

3
49

1232
(x=222.5 ft)

535

10.9
(x=222.5ft)

9.5
(x=222.5ft)

8.2
(x=222.5ft)

0.3 k/ft applied to one girder and resulting stress divided by number of girders
65 lb/ft2 which is equivalent of 0.3 k/ft applied to outside girder only. Analysis
takes care of number of girders

The maximum and minimum flange lateral bending stresses shown in

figure 1 and 2 are for first span and are approximately 9.4 ksi. The
maximum and minimum flange lateral bending stresses over the pier is
8.4 ksi. The maximum and minimum flange lateral bending stresses in
middle of the second span is 8.2 ksi.

b- Elastic Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis- One

Girder Model
A three dimensional model of one outside girder was also constructed
using Ansys 5.7. In this model the shell elements were used to model
both the web and flanges using the actual web and flange dimensions.
The applied load was in the form of pressure and was specified at the
65 pounds per square ft, which is equivalent to 0.3 kips per linear ft.
From this three dimensional model the maximum flange lateral
bending stresses at the same locations as that reported for complete
model of the bridge were extracted and are shown in column 6 of table
1. It should be noted that the stresses obtained from this three
dimensional analysis were divided by four (number of girders in the
cross section).
c- Two Dimensional Analysis
One of the objectives of the work reported here was to determine the
best approach to calculate the flange lateral bending stresses. As a
result, series of two dimensional analyses were carried out.
Two different two dimensional analyses were carried out using
Sap2000. In each analysis one outside girder was modeled using two
dimensional beam elements. One of the analysis used constant section
properties (section sizes at the middle of the first span) over the entire
length of the bridge. The other analysis used actual section properties
along the girder. Results of the Sap2000 in terms of moment for
uniform cross section are shown in figure 3. Section 2 is over the pier
and section 3 is at middle of the middle span.

Figure 3 the moment diagram from the 2-D analysis with uniform section
properties along the girder

The moment obtained from two dimensional analyses were converted

to flange lateral bending stresses using equation (1) shown below.
f

M
Sy

(1)

Where, Sy is the section modulus about the minor axis of one flange
and M is the wind induced moment per each girder (the moment
shown in Figure 3 is for one girder. It is assumed that total wind load is
resisted by all four girders, which is in accordance with results obtained
from three dimensional finite element analyses).
Table 1 shows summary of the results obtained from two dimensional
analyses in terms of moment and stresses at three locations along one
girder.
d- Calculating the Flange Lateral Bending Stresses using
AASHTO Recommendation
Section 4.6.2.7 of AASHTO LRFD in its commentary provides a
recommendation on how to calculate the resulting moments in the
girders due to wind pressure. The recommendation are as follows:

WL2b WL2
Mw

10
8N b

(2)

Using equation (2), the maximum moment for first span could be
calculated as follows:
Mw

(0.3klf )(23.4 ft ) 2 (0.3klf )(135 ft ) 2

187.3k f
10
8( 4)

(3)

Using equation (2) the maximum moment for middle span could be
calculated as follows:
Mw

(0.3klf )(23.1 ft ) 2 (0.3klf )(175 ft ) 2

303.1k f
10
8( 4)

(4)

The flange lateral bending stresses could then be obtained by dividing

the resulting moments by section modules. Table 2 provides summary
of

flange

lateral

bending

stresses

using

the

AASHTO

LRFD

recommendation.

Table 2 Lateral flange bending stress under the wind pressure based on the
AASHTO recommendations

Se

Flange Lateral Bending Stresses,

Sy (in3 )

M (kips-in)

Section

AASHTO LRFD

Modules

Recommendation

53

2247.6

42.4

232

N.A.

N.A.

49

3637.4

74.2

c.

(ksi)
AASHTO LRFD Recommendation

As noted from table 2 the flange lateral bending stresses, using

AASHTO LRFD recommendations, are not calculated for section near
pier. It is believed that the AASHTO LRFD recommendations are only
applicable for middle of each span.

4- Magnification Factor
It is assumed that the compression flange, when subjected to lateral
loads, acts as a beam column. The lateral load causes the flange to
displace in lateral direction. As a result the maximum moment in the
compression flange will increase due to secondary effects. AASHTO
LRFD treats this magnification in a similar way that AISC building code
treats design of beam columns. Appendix A provides derivation of the
moment magnification factor as used in AISC building code.
As indicated in appendix A the general from of the magnification factor
is as follows:
Cm
P
1
Pek

Where P is the applied axial load to the beam column and P ek is the
critical column buckling load. Cm is a factor that accounts for different
loading cases. Appendix A provides more detail discussion of this
magnification factor.

As noted from Appendix A the derivation of the moment magnification

factor is based on assuming a beam column being supported at both
ends and subjected to end axial load and some type of lateral load.

The magnification factor used in Equation 6.10.1.6-4 of the AASHTO

LRFD is similar to that shown above and is as follows:
0.85
f
1 bm
Fcr

According to AASHTO LRFD code the lateral flange bending stress

should be magnified only if the unbraced length between the cross
frames exceeds that shown below:

Lb 1.2 L p

C b Rb
f bm
Fyc

(5)

Where
LP rt

E
Fyc

(6)

For the design example under consideration the Lp is as follows:

LP 3.3in

29000
6.6 ft
50

(7)

Equation (5) is function of the compressive stress in the flange due to

gravity load as indicated in fbm term.

The Strength Limit State III is where wind load on structure WS

influences the loading combination. The Strength Limit State III could
be written as follows:
1.25 fDC1 + 1.4 fWS
During the construction phase the fbm in equation (5) could be due to
dead weight of the steel girders or weight of the steel girders plus the
wet concrete.
For the sake of discussion, the calculation of magnification factor is
shown for middle span.
a) magnification factor using self weight of concrete
This is a very unlikely event where concrete is placed and high wind
loads are applied to the girders before concrete has had a chance to
harden. Therefore this scenario is a safe guard for approximately 24
hour time period where concrete is cast but is not hardened yet. For
this scenario, for the middle span the maximum factored compressive
stress, fbm due to gravity load only is 25.8 ksi. This includes the weight
of the girder plus the concrete. The limiting unbraced length between
cross frames would then become:

Lb 23.1 ft 1.2(6.6)

1.0(1.0)
11.0 ft
25.8
50

(8)

Since actual unbraced length between the cross frames is 23.1 ft and
the limiting value is 11.0 ft, we must then magnify the fl term.
Substituting the numerical values, magnification factor becomes:

MF

0.85
2.29
25.8
1
41

(10)

b) Magnification factor using only the weight of the girder

If concrete is not cast during severe wind condition, the fbm can be
computed based on the self weight of the steel girders. The moment
induced in mid-span of the middle span, due to weight of the girder
only

is

2021

ft-kips.

The

resulting

compressive

stress

in

the

compression flange could then be obtained as follows:

f bm

M 1.25( 2021)

3.0ksi
Sx
833

(11)

The limiting value for the unbraced length is calculated using Equation
(5).

Lb 23.1 ft 1.2(6.6)

1.0(1.0)
32.3 ft
3.0
50

(12)

Therefore, for this scenario, there is no need to magnify the flange lateral bending stress
due to wind loads.
c- Magnification factor using Nonlinear Geometric Analysis
Nonlinear finite element analyses were carried out to account for
second order effect directly. ANSYS5.7 was used. Complete three
dimensional model of the bridge was used in the analysis.
Several scenarios were simulated in the nonlinear geometrical finite
element analysis using the full three dimensional model of the bridge.
A) scenario where the dead weight consisted of the weight of the
girders only, b) scenario where dead weight consisted of weight of the

girders plus the weight of the wet concrete before it is hardened and c)
scenario where dead weight consisted of weight of the girder plus
weight of the concrete after concrete is hardened.
For the three cases described above, Table 3 gives the magnification
factors to be used in conjunction with flange lateral bending stresses at
mid-span of the middle span (section 3 in table 2). The magnification
factors reported in Table 3 is simply the ratios between flange lateral
stresses obtained from nonlinear finite element analysis divided by the
corresponding value from linear finite element analysis.

Table 3 Maginification factor for mid-span of middle span

Dead Load Considered

fbm, ksi
2D

Magnification Factor
AASHTO

Analysis
Self weight of Girders

Ansys, 3D
nonlinear

3.0

1.0

1.01

25.8

2.29

1.31

1.0

1.03

only
Wet concrete & Girder
weight
Composite girder

Figures 4 through 5, gives maximum flange lateral stresses any where

along the bridge as obtained from nonlinear and corresponding linear

finite element analysis for the three construction scenarios described

above. The magnification factors reported in Table 4 is the maximum
flange lateral bending stresses anywhere along the flanges obtained
from nonlinear finite element analysis divided by maximum flange
lateral bending stress anywhere along the bridge obtained from linear
finite element analysis.

Linear Analysis

Nonlinear Analysis
Figure 4 The longitudinal stress contours in x-direction under wind and steel girder weight

Linear Analysis

Nonlinear Analysis
Figure 5 The longitudinal stress contours in x-direction under wind, steel girder weight and slab
weight

Linear Analysis

Nonlinear Analysis
Figure 6 The longitudinal stress contours in x-direction under wind, steel girder weight and slab
weight in composite condition

Table 4 Maginification factor for various construction scenarios

Dead Load Considered

Magnification Factor
AASHTO

Ansys, 3D
nonlinear

Self weight of Girders

1.0

1.06

2.29

1.24

1.0

1.03

only
Wet concrete & Girder
weight
Composite girder

5- Summary
Previous sections provided different approaches for calculating the
flange lateral bending stresses. Methods used included
a) Three dimensional model of the entire bridge
b) Three dimensional model of one girder
c) Two dimensional model of girder using uniform sectional
properties
d) Two dimensional model of the girder using specified section
properties
e) AASHTO LRFD code recommendations
Table 5 provides summary of the flange lateral bending stresses for
mid-span of the middle span

Table 5- Unfactored flange lateral bending stresses due to 0.3

k/ft. wind load

Method Used

Flange

Lateral

Bending

Stresses, ksi
3-D Entire bridge

8.2

3-D One girder

9.5

2-D Uniform Section Properties

25.1

2-D Specified Section Properties

10.9

AASHTO Recommendations

74.2

Further, the magnification factors to be used in conjunction with flange

lateral bending stresses due to wind loads were calculated using
different approaches. Methods used included:
a) magnification factors calculated using dead weight of the girder
only
b) magnification factor calculated using dead weight of wet
concrete and steel girder

c) magnification

factor

calculated

using

weight

of

hardened

concrete and steel girder

Table 6 provides summary of the magnification factor for flange lateral
bending stresses for mid-span of the middle span

Table 6 Maginification factor for mid-span of middle span

Dead Load

fbm, ksi

Magnification Factor

Considered

Self weight of

2D

AASHTO

Nonlinear

Analysis

Requirement

Analysis

3.0

1.0

1.01

25.8

2.29

1.31

1.0

1.03

Girders only
Wet concrete &
Girder weight

6- Constructibility Flexural Checks (AASHTO 6.10.3.2)

The Strength Limit State III is where wind load on structure appear. This
load combination is as follows:
1.25 fDC1 + 1.4 fWS
For the sake of discussion the calculations are shown for mid-span of
middle span.

For this example, during construction, the maximum compressive

stress in the compression flange, fbu , due to factored (1.25 factor)
gravity load is given by table 7

Table 7 Factored Stress in Compression Flange Due to Gravity Load

Dead Load Considered

fbu, ksi
2D Analysis

Self weight of Girders

3.0

only
Wet concrete & Girder

25.8

weight

According to AASHTO equation 6.10.1.6-1 the flange lateral bending

stress should be less than 0.6Fyc.
In addition the girder section must satisfy Equations 1 to 3 in Article
6.10.3.2.1 for the compression flange and Equation 6.10.3.2.2 for the
tension flange. In the current example the web is non-compact
according to the AASHTO Article 6.10.6.2.2.3, thus the following
equations should be checked.
f bu f l f Rh Fyc

f bu

(13)

1
f l f Fnc
3

a) Calculations
provisions

(14)
based

on

values

obtained

from

code

The flange lateral bending stress is fl is 74.2 ksi which exceeds the
Fy and therefore code requirement is violated regardless of which
dead loads are considered in the calculations

fl = 74.6 ksi x 1.4 = 104.4 ksi

fbu = 3 ksi or 25.8 ksi
b) Calculations based on values obtained from 2-D Analysis
and magnification factor from AASHTO Dead Weight of
Wet Concrete and Steel Girder only

fl = 10.9 ksi x 1.4 = 15.3 ksi ( Using specified section properties)

fbu = 25.8 ksi
Magnification factor = 2.29
Fnc = 36.2 ksi Compressive capacity of compression flange
f bu f l f Rh Fyc

25.8+ 15.3 (2.29) = 60.9 > 50 ksi N.G.

f bu

1
f l f Fnc
3

25.8+ (1/3) 15.3 x 2.29 = 37.4 > 36.2 ksi N.G.

c) Calculations based on values obtained from 2-D Analysis

and magnification factor from AASHTO Dead Weight of
Steel Girder only

fl = 10.9 ksi x 1.4 = 15.3 ksi ( Using specified section properties)

fbu = 3 ksi
Magnification factor = 1.0
Fnc = 36.2 ksi Compressive capacity of compression flange
f bu f l f Rh Fyc

3 + 15.3 = 18.3 < 50 ksi O.K.

f bu

1
f l f Fnc
3

3+ (1/3) 15.3 = 8.1 <36.2 ksi O.K.

Appendix A
Derivation of the Moment Magnification
factor Used in AISC Building Code

BEAM-COLUMNS
A beam-column is a member that is subjected to both axial force and
bending moment.
To begin our discussion, let us consider a simply supported beam-column
subjected to an axial force P and uniformly distributed lateral load.
w (intensity)
P

EI = constant
y
w
P

M
o
wl
2

V
x

M0 0
M

wx 2
wl
Py
x0
2
2

M Py

wx 2 wl

x
2
2

But,
M EIy ''

EIy '' Py

EIy
Letting

k2

wx 2 wl

x
2
2

"

wx 2
Py
2

P
EI
y" k

w
2 EI

y yh y p

y h A sin kx x cos K x x

To find yp assume the following formula:

y p C1 x 2 C 2 x C

This results in:

yp

wl
x
2

w
wl
w
x2
x
2
2
2 Elk
2 EIk
Elk 4

Thus, the general solution is:

y=A sin Kx +Bcos Kx +K

w
wl
w
x2
x
2
2
2 EIk
2 EIk
EIk 4

The constant A and B are obtained using the following B.Cs.

y (0) 0 B

w
EIk 4

wl
2 EI

w
hl
l
y'( ) 0 A
tan
4
2
2
EIk

Introducing the notation

kl
2

the general solution could be written as follows:

y

wl 4
16 EIu 4

2ux
2ux
wl 2

tan
u
sin

cos

x (l x )

l
l
8 EIu 2

from which the moment distribution along the length of the member is:
wl 2
2ux
2ux

tan u sin
cos
1
2
1
1
4u

M EIy 2

For this problem, the maximum deflection occurs at the midspan.

ymax =
ymax =

2
wl 4 1 cos u
wl 4

16 EIu 4 cos u
32 EIu 2
y

Ymax can be written as:

Ymax =

5wl 4
384 EI

12( 2 sec u u 2 2)

5u 4

12(2 sec u u 2 2)

5u 4

= yo
where

yo

5wl 4
384 EI

is the deflection if only uniform lateral load had existed.

Several observations could be made from this equation.

1. The term in the brackets could be viewed as amplification factor due
to axial load.
2. As axial load increases, the amplification factor increases as shown in
figure below.

When P=0 A.F. (amplification factor), reduced to 1. When u = / 2

(P

2 EI
). , the value of A.F. approaches infinity. In other words, as
l2

P approaches the Euler load, the lateral deflection of the member

increases without bound.
3. If P remains constant, ymax is linear function of w. Thus for several
beam with constant axial load and varying lateral load, the law of
superposition is held. However, if axial load is varied superposition
does not hold.
For the design purpose, the term in the brackets (A.F.) could be
simplified.
Expanding sec u in a power series:
1 2 5 4 61 6 277 8
u
u
u
u ....
2
24
720
8064

sec u 1

Substituting this in the expression for ymax yields:

y mzx y o 1 0.4067u 2 o.1649u 4 ....

Noting that:
u

kl l

2 2

Pe

ymax =

EI
2

P
Pe

2 EI

l 2

P
P
y o 1 1.003( ) 1.004( ) 2 ...
Pe
Pe

Or approximately
ymax

P P

yo 1

Pe Pe

...

Also from a power series (Maclaurin Series):

oo
1
x m 1 x x 2 ...
1 x m 0

Therefore:

y max y 0

1 P

Pe

The maximum moment also occurs at midspan.

L
wl 2
M max M ( )
(sec u 1)
2
4u 2

(from expression on page __)

or

M max

wl 2 2(sec u 1)

8
u2

2(sec u 1)

u2

M max M 0

M0 is the moment, that would exist if only lateral load had been
applied. Therefore, the term in brackets represents amplification
factor due to axial load.
Again using the power series, expansion for sec u, ,the expression for
Mmax could be simplified as follows:

M max M 0 1 0.4167u 2 0.1694u 4 0.0687u 6 ...

Using the expression for u

u

kl

u
2

Mmax= M0
or

P l
EI 2

P
Pe

Pe

2 EI

l 2

P
P
1.031

1 1.028

Pe
Pe

EI

1.032
Pe

Pe l 2

...

M max

P
P
P
1 1.003
1.004

M 0 1 1.028
Pe
Pe
Pe

...

or approximately,

P
P P
1

1 1.028

Pe
Pe Pe

Mmax =Mo

M max

P
1

M 0 1 1.028
Pe 1 P

Pe

...

P
1 0.028 P

M0

P
1
Pe

or

M max M 0

1 P

Pe

Where the term in brackets is the design moment amplification factor.

BEAM COLUMN WITH A

CONCENTRATED LATERAL LOAD

Q
a
P

EI = constant
L
y
P

M
P

Q L a
L
x

For this case the governing D.E.s are:

Q (l a )
x Py
l

EIy "

l x

EIy " Qa
For the case of

tan u
u

M max M o

Where
existed)

Mo

Ql
4

l
it
2

for 0 x a

Py

for a x l

can be shown that:

(H.W.)
(Moment if only concentrated load had

and

kl
2

To simplify the expression for maximum moment, we will use the power
series expansion for tan u.
1
2
17 7
tan u u u 3 u 5
u ....
3
15
315
1
2
17 6

M max M o 1 u 2 u 4
u ...
3
15
315

kl

2
2

P
Pe

P
P
0.812

M max M o 1 0.823
P

e
Pe

0.811
Pe

P
P
P
1 0.987
0.985

M 0 1 0.823
Pe
Pe
Pe

P
P P
1

M o 1 0.823
Pe
Pe Pe

P
1 0.18 P

P
1 0.2 P

P
1
Pe

M o

P
P
1 P 0.823 P
e
e
Mo
P

Pe

M max M o

M max

...

P
1

M o 1 0.823
P
e 1 P

Pe

P
1
Pe

...

...

For convenience, lets write this expression in the following form:

M max

M0

Where

P
Pe
P
1
Pe

M0

QL
and
4

=0.2

Notice that for the previous case,

So in summary:

M max

has the same form except that =0.

P
l

P
Pek

MB

Note that in each case, the amplification factor =

Cm

Cm 1

where 0.2

MA

Table below gives the summary of

Cm 1

Cm
P
1
Pek

for different loading cases.

MA
0.4
Cm 0.6 0.4
MB
(Simplified Form)

BEAM-COLUMN WITH UNEQUAL END MOMENTS

MB MA

MA
P

P
EI = Constant

MB

MA
M

MA MB
l
x

Assume M B M A
The D.E. for this case is as follows:

EIy " Py

M
l

it can be shown that the solution to this D.E. is as follows:

y

M A cos kl M B
2

EIk sin kl

MA
M M
M
cos kx A 2 B A2
2
EIk
lEIk
EIk

2
k

EI

x M

In the previous cases, we knew the location of the maximum moment.

However, in this case, the location is not too obvious. Remember that
M EIy" and M max is found by evaluating

y"

M EIy

at maximum location and substituting it in

".

The moment is the maximum where shear is zero, therefore to calculate the
location where the moment is maximum, we could equate:

dm
V EIy"' to zero.
dx
For this problem, it can be shown that:

M A / M B 2 2( M A ) cos kl 1

MB
sin 2 kl

M max M B

If the member had been bent in a single curvature,

found by M B M B
or

M max M B

M A / M B 2 2 M A / M B cos kl 1
sin 2 kl

for the case: M A M B M

M max M

21 cos kl
sin 2 kl

And its location is at midspan as shown below:

M max could

be simply

Primary
Moment

M
+

Secondary
Moment

Total
Moment
Mmax
l

When a beam is subjected to axial load and unequal end moment, calculation
of M max could be simplified using the concept of equivalent moment.
The figure below shows schematically the concept of equivalent moment.

MA

MB
P

Meq

Meq
P

MB>MA

MA

Meq

MB
Mmax

Meq

Mmax

could be found by equating the expressions for M max for two cases
derived:
M eq

M A / M B 2 2 M A / M B cos kl 1

MB

sin 2 kl

M eq

21 cos kl
sin 2 kl

or
M eq

M A / M B 2 2 M A / M B cos kl 1
21 cos kl

MB )

or
M eq C m M B

where C m

MA / M B 2 2 M A / M B cos kl 1
21 Coskl

Austin has shown that an expression approximating C m is as follows:

C m 0.6 0.4 M A / M B 0.4

This expression has been adopted by both AISC/ASD and LRFD.

Thus the M max for a beam subjected to axial load and unequal end moment
could be calculated as follows:
M max M eq

21 cos kl
sin 2 kl

M max C m M B

21 cos kl
sin 2 kl

(Assuming

The above expression could be simplified noting that

1 cos kl 2 sin 2

kl
2

and
kl
2 kl
cos

2
2

sin 2 kl 4 sin 2

kl
M max C m M B sec

2
kl
u
2

Letting
sec u 1

1 2 5 4 61 6
u
u
u ...
2
24
720

kl

2
2

P
Pe

P
P

sec u 1 1.23
1.268
Pe
Pe
P
P P

1
1 1.23

Pe
Pe Pe

...

1.27
Pe

...

MB MA)


P
1

1 1.23
P
Pe
1

Pe

P
P
1.23
Pe
Pe
P
1
Pe

1 0.23

P
Pe

P
Pe

P
Pe

Therefore:
M max

Note that

Cm M B
P
1
Pe

Cm
P
1
Pe

is an amplification factor.

In all the cases considered, beams were simply supported. In the event that
end conditions are different than simply supported it could be shown that
Pe

2 EI
2 EI
Pe k
would
be
replaced
by:
where k is the effective length
kl 2
l2

factor if only axial load had existed.

Therefore:

M max

Cm
MB
P
.
1
Pe k