You are on page 1of 42

Flange Lateral Bending Stress (f

l
) 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 = 3
No. of Girders = 4
Skew Angle = 0
Dist. Curbline To Exterior Girder = 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.
S
y
(in
3
)
M (kips-in)
Maximum Flange Lateral Bending
Stresses,

(ksi)
Sec.
Mod.
2D† Sap,
Constant
properties
2D† Sap,
specified
Properties
2D† Sap,
Specified
Properties
3D† Ansys, One
Girder Model
3D†† Ansys,
Entire Bridge
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 53
1092
(x=49.5ft)
832.5
15.7
(x=66.3 ft)
12.1
(x=43.5ft)
9.4
(x=45.1ft)
2 232 2213(x=135ft) 2941
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.
y
f
S
M
· σ
(1)
Where, S
y
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:
b
b
w
N
WL WL
M
8 10
2 2
+ ·
(2)
Using equation (2), the maximum moment for first span could be
calculated as follows:
f k
ft klf ft klf
M
w
− · + · 3 . 187
) 4 ( 8
) 135 )( 3 . 0 (
10
) 4 . 23 )( 3 . 0 (
2 2
(3)
Using equation (2) the maximum moment for middle span could be
calculated as follows:
f k
ft klf ft klf
M
w
− · + · 1 . 303
) 4 ( 8
) 175 )( 3 . 0 (
10
) 1 . 23 )( 3 . 0 (
2 2
(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
c.
S
y
(in
3
) M (kips-in)
Flange Lateral Bending Stresses,
(ksi)
Section
Modules
AASHTO LRFD
Recommendation
AASHTO LRFD Recommendation
1 53 2247.6 42.4
2 232 N.A. N.A.
3 49 3637.4 74.2
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:
ek
m
P
P
C
− 1
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:
cr
bm
F
f
− 1
85 . 0
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:
yc
bm
b b
p b
F
f
R C
L L 2 . 1 ≤
(5)
Where
yc
t P
F
E
r L ·
(6)
For the design example under consideration the Lp is as follows:
ft in L
P
6 . 6
50
29000
3 . 3 · · (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 f
DC1
+ 1.4 f
WS
During the construction phase the f
bm
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,
f
bm
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:
ft ft L
b
0 . 11
50
8 . 25
) 0 . 1 ( 0 . 1
) 6 . 6 ( 2 . 1 1 . 23 · > ·
(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:
29 . 2
41
8 . 25
1
85 . 0
·

· MF
(10)
b) Magnification factor using only the weight of the girder
If concrete is not cast during severe wind condition, the f
bm
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:
ksi
S
M
f
x
bm
0 . 3
833
) 2021 ( 25 . 1
· · ·
(11)
The limiting value for the unbraced length is calculated using Equation
(5).
ft ft L
b
3 . 32
50
0 . 3
) 0 . 1 ( 0 . 1
) 6 . 6 ( 2 . 1 1 . 23 · < ·
(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 f
bm
, ksi Magnification Factor
2D
Analysis
AASHTO Ansys, 3D
nonlinear
Self weight of Girders
only
3.0 1.0 1.01
Wet concrete & Girder
weight
25.8 2.29 1.31
Composite girder 1.0 1.03
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
only
1.0 1.06
Wet concrete & Girder
weight
2.29 1.24
Composite girder 1.0 1.03
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
Considered
f
bm
, ksi Magnification Factor
2D AASHTO Nonlinear
Analysis Requirement Analysis
Self weight of
Girders only
3.0 1.0 1.01
Wet concrete &
Girder weight
25.8 2.29 1.31
1.0 1.03
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 f
DC1
+ 1.4 f
WS
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, f
bu
, 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 f
bu
, ksi
2D Analysis
Self weight of Girders
only
3.0
Wet concrete & Girder
weight
25.8
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.
yc h f l bu
F R f f φ ≤ +
(13)
nc f l bu
F f f φ ≤ +
3
1
(14)
a) Calculations based on values obtained from code
provisions
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
f
l
= 74.6 ksi x 1.4 = 104.4 ksi
f
bu
= 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
f
l
= 10.9 ksi x 1.4 = 15.3 ksi ( Using specified section properties)
f
bu
= 25.8 ksi
Magnification factor = 2.29
F
nc
= 36.2 ksi Compressive capacity of compression flange
yc h f l bu
F R f f φ ≤ +
25.8+ 15.3 (2.29) = 60.9 > 50 ksi N.G.
nc f l bu
F f f φ ≤ +
3
1
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
f
l
= 10.9 ksi x 1.4 = 15.3 ksi ( Using specified section properties)
f
bu
= 3 ksi
Magnification factor = 1.0
F
nc
= 36.2 ksi Compressive capacity of compression flange
yc h f l bu
F R f f φ ≤ +
3 + 15.3 = 18.3 < 50 ksi O.K.
nc f l bu
F f f φ ≤ +
3
1
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.
0
0
· ∑M
0
2 2
2
· − − + x
wl
Py
wx
M
w (intensity)
P
x
y
EI = constant
P
P
w
V
2
wl
x
y
M
o
x
wl wx
Py M
2 2
2
+ − ·
But,
' '
EIy M − ·

x
wl wx
Py EIy
2 2
2
' '
+ − · −
x
wl wx
Py EIy
2 2
2
"
− · +
Letting
EI
P
k ·
2
x
EI
wl
x
EI
w
y k y
2 2
"
2 2
− · + →
p h
y y y + ·
x K kx A y
x x h
cos sin β + ·
To find y
p
assume the following formula:

C x C x C y
p
+ + ·
2
2
1
This results in:

4 2
2
2
2 2 Elk
w
x
EIk
wl
x
Elk
w
y
p
− − ·
Thus, the general solution is:
y=A sin Kx +Bcos Kx +K
4 2
2
2
2 2 EIk
w
x
EIk
wl
x
EIk
w
− −
The constant A and B are obtained using the following B.C’s.
4
0 ) 0 (
EIk
w
B y · ⇒ ·
A
l
y ⇒ · 0 )
2
(
'
2
tan
4
hl
EIk
w
·
Introducing the notation
2
kl
u ·
the general solution could be written as follows:
) (
8
1
2
cos
2
sin tan
16
2
2
4
4
x l x
EIu
wl
l
ux
l
ux
u
EIu
wl
y − −
1
]
1

¸

− + ·

from which the moment distribution along the length of the member is:

,
_

¸
¸
− + · − · 1
1
2
cos
1
2
sin tan
4
2
2
2
ux ux
u
u
wl
EIy M
For this problem, the maximum deflection occurs at the midspan.
y
max
=

,
_

¸
¸
2
l
y
y
max
=
2
4
4
4
32 cos
cos 1
16 EIu
wl
u
u
EIu
wl

1
]
1

¸

Y
max
can be written as:
Y
max
=
1
]
1

¸
− −
4
2 4
5
) 2 sec 2 ( 12
384
5
u
u u
EI
wl
=
1
]
1

¸
− −
4
2
5
) 2 sec 2 ( 12
u
u u
y
o

where
EI
wl
y
o
384
5
4
· 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 / π
). (
2
2
l
EI
P
π
· , the value of A.F. approaches infinity. In other words, as
P approaches the Euler load, the lateral deflection of the member
increases without bound.
3. If P remains constant, y
max
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:
....
8064
277
720
61
24
5
2
1
1 sec
8 6 4 2
+ + + + + · u u u u u
Substituting this in the expression for y
max
yields:
[ ] .... 1649 . 4067 . 0 1
4 2
+ + + · u o u y y
o mzx
Noting that:
e
P
P
EI
P l kl
u
2 2 2
π
· · ·

,
_

¸
¸
·
2
2
l
EI
P
e
π
y
max
= 1
]
1

¸

+ + + ... ) ( 004 . 1 ) ( 003 . 1 1
2
e e
o
P
P
P
P
y
Or approximately
y
max

1
1
]
1

¸

+

,
_

¸
¸
+ + ≈ ... 1
2
e e
o
P
P
P
P
y
Also from a power series (Maclaurin Series):
... 1
1
1
2
0
+ + + · ·


·
x x x
x
oo
m
m
Therefore:
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸



e
P
P
y y
1
1
0 max
The maximum moment also occurs at midspan.
) 1 (sec
4
)
2
(
2
2
max
− · · u
u
wl L
M M
(from expression on page __)
or
1
]
1

¸

·
2
2
max
) 1 (sec 2
8 u
u wl
M
1
]
1

¸

·
2
0 max
) 1 (sec 2
u
u
M M
M
0
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
M
max
could be simplified as follows:
[ ] ... 0687 . 0 1694 . 0 4167 . 0 1
6 4 2
0 max
+ + + + · u u u M M
Using the expression for u
2 2
l
EI
P kl
u · ·
e
P
P
u
2
π
·

,
_

¸
¸
·
2
2
l
EI
P
e
π

,
_

¸
¸
·
2
2
π
l P
EI
e
M
max=
M
0
1
1
]
1

¸

+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+ ... 032 . 1 031 . 1 028 . 1 1
3 2
e e e
P
P
P
P
P
P

or
1
1
]
1

¸

+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+
1
]
1

¸

,
_

¸
¸
+ · ... 004 . 1 003 . 1 1 028 . 1 1
2
0 max
e e e
P
P
P
P
P
P
M M

or approximately,
M
max =
M
o
¹
¹
¹
;
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
1
1
]
1

¸

+
,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+
1
]
1

¸

,
_

¸
¸
+ ... 1 028 . 1 1
2
Pe
P
P
P
P
P
e e

¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
;
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸


1
]
1

¸

,
_

¸
¸
+ ·
e
e
P
P
P
P
M M
1
1
028 . 1 1
0 max

1
1
1
1
]
1

¸


+
·
e
e
P
P
P
P
M
1
028 . 0 1
0
or
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸



e
P
P
M M
1
1
0 max
Where the term in brackets is the design moment amplification factor.

BEAM COLUMN WITH A
CONCENTRATED LATERAL LOAD
For this case the governing D.E.’s are:
Py x
l
a l Q
EIy +

· −
) (
"
for
a x ≤ ≤ 0
Py
l
x l
Qa EIy +
,
_

¸
¸ −
· −
"
for
l x a ≤ ≤
For the case of
2
l
a ·
it can be shown that:
P x
y
EI = constant
P
Q
L
a
P
P
( )
L
a L Q −
x
y
M
1
]
1

¸

·
u
u
M M
o
tan
max (H.W.)
Where
4
Ql
M
o
·
(Moment if only concentrated load had
existed)
and
2
kl
u ·
To simplify the expression for maximum moment, we will use the power
series expansion for tan u.
....
315
17
15
2
3
1
tan
7 5 3
+ + + + · u u u u u
1
]
1

¸

+ + + + · ...
315
17
15
2
3
1
1
6 4 2
max
u u u M M
o

e
P
P kl
u
2 2
π
· ·
1
1
]
1

¸

+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+ · ... 811 . 0 812 . 0 823 . 0 1
3 2
max
e e e
o
P
P
P
P
P
P
M M

¹
¹
¹
;
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
1
1
]
1

¸

+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+ · ... 985 . 0 987 . 0 1 823 . 0 1
2
0
e e e
P
P
P
P
P
P
M
¹
¹
¹
;
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
1
1
]
1

¸

+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+ ≈ ... 1 823 . 0 1
2
e e e
o
P
P
P
P
P
P
M
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
;
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹

,
_

¸
¸
+ ≈
e
e
o
P
P
P
P
M
1
1
823 . 0 1
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸


+ −

e
e e
o
P
P
P
P
P
P
M M
1
823 . 0 1
max
[ ]
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸




1
1
1
1
]
1

¸




e
e
o
e
e
o
P
P
P
P
M
P
P
P
P
M M
1
2 . 0 1
1
18 . 0 1
max
For convenience, let’s write this expression in the following form:
1
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸

,
_

¸
¸
+
·
e
e
P
P
P
P
M M
1
1
0 max
ψ
Where
and
QL
M
4
0
·
ψ =0.2
Notice that for the previous case, max
M
has the same form except that ψ =0.
So in summary:
Note that in each case, the amplification factor =
ek
m
P
P
C
− 1
Table below gives the summary of m
C
for different loading cases.
P
P
P
P
P
P
M
B
M
A
2
l
2
l
1 ·
m
C
2 . 0 where
1
− ·
+ ·
ψ
ψ
ek
m
P
P
C
Form) d (Simplifie
4 . 0 4 . 0 6 . 0 ≥

,
_

¸
¸
− ·
B
A
m
M
M
C
BEAM-COLUMN WITH UNEQUAL END MOMENTS

A B
M M >
Assume
A B
M M ≥
The D.E. for this case is as follows:
A
B A
M x
l
M M
Py EIy −
+
· +
"
it can be shown that the solution to this D.E. is as follows:
( )
2 2 2 2
cos
sin
cos
EIk
M
lEIk
M M
kx
EIk
M
kl EIk
M kl M
y
A B A A B A

+
+ +
+
− ·

,
_

¸
¸
·
EI
P
k
2
M
A
M
B
P P x
y
l
EI = Constant
P
P
l
M M
B A
+
x
y
M
M
A
In the previous cases, we knew the location of the maximum moment.
However, in this case, the location is not too obvious. Remember that
" EIy M − ·
and max
M
is found by evaluating
" y
at maximum location and substituting it in
"
EIy M − ·
.
The moment is the maximum where shear is zero, therefore to calculate the
location where the moment is maximum, we could equate:
' "
EIy
dx
dm
V − · ·
to zero.
For this problem, it can be shown that:
( )
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸

+ +
− ·
kl
kl
M
M
M M
M M
B
A
B A
B
2
2
max
sin
1 cos ) ( 2 /
If the member had been bent in a single curvature, max
M
could be simply
found by
B B
M M − ·
or

( ) ( )
1
1
]
1

¸

+ −
·
kl
kl M M M M
M M
B A B A
B
2
2
max
sin
1 cos / 2 /

for the case:
M M M
B A
· − ·

( )
kl
kl
M M
2
max
sin
cos 1 2 −
·
And its location is at midspan as shown below:
When a beam is subjected to axial load and unequal end moment, calculation
of max
M
could be simplified using the concept of equivalent moment.
The figure below shows schematically the concept of equivalent moment.
M M
P P
l
M M
+
=
2
l
2
l
M
max
Primary
Moment
Secondary
Moment
Total
Moment
eq
M
could be found by equating the expressions for max
M
for two cases
derived:
( ) ( ) ( )
kl
kl
M
kl
kl M M M M
M
eq
B A B A
B
2 2
2
sin
cos 1 2
sin
1 cos / 2 / −
·
1
1
]
1

¸

+ −

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

+ −
· (
B
M
)
or
( )
B m eq
M C M ·
where
( ) ( )
( ) Coskl
kl M M M MA
C
B A B
m

+ −
·
1 2
1 cos / 2 /
2
α
Austin has shown that an expression approximating m
C
is as follows:
M
A
M
B
M
eq
M
eq
P P P P
M
B
>M
A
M
A
M
B
M
eq
M
eq
M
max
M
max
( ) 4 . 0 / 4 . 0 6 . 0 ≥ − ·
B A m
M M C
This expression has been adopted by both AISC/ASD and LRFD.
Thus the max
M
for a beam subjected to axial load and unequal end moment
could be calculated as follows:
( )
kl
kl
M M
eq
2
max
sin
cos 1 2 −
·
( )
kl
kl
M C M
B m
2
max
sin
cos 1 2 −
· (Assuming
A B
M M ≥
)
The above expression could be simplified noting that
2
sin 2 cos 1
2
kl
kl · −
and

,
_

¸
¸

,
_

¸
¸
·
2
cos
2
sin 4 sin
2 2 2
kl kl
kl

,
_

¸
¸
·
2
sec
max
kl
M C M
B m
Letting
u
kl
·
2
...
720
61
24
5
2
1
1 sec
6 4 2
+ + + + · u u u u
e
P
P kl
u
2 2
π
· ·

... 27 . 1 268 . 1 23 . 1 1 sec
3 2
+

,
_

¸
¸
+

,
_

¸
¸
+ + · →
e e e
P
P
P
P
P
P
u

1
1
]
1

¸

+

,
_

¸
¸
+ + + ≈ ... 1 23 . 1 1
2
e e e
P
P
P
P
P
P
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸


+ ≈
e
e
P
P
P
P
1
1
23 . 1 1
e
e e
P
P
P
P
P
P

+ −

1
23 . 1 1
e
e
P
P
P
P

+

1
23 . 0 1
e
P
P


1
1
Therefore:
e
B m
P
P
M C
M

·
1
max
Note that
e
m
P
P
C
− 1
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
2
2
l
EI
P
e
π
· would be replaced by:
( )
2
2
kl
EI
P
k e
π
·
where k is the effective length
factor if only axial load had existed.
Therefore:

B
k e
m
M
P
P
C
M

·
1
max
.