Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter18 PDF
Chapter18 PDF
In the previous chapter, the basic theory governing the behaviour of beams subjected to
torsion was discussed. A member subjected to torsional moments would twist about a
longitudinal axis through the shear centre of the cross section. It was also pointed out
that when the resultant of applied forces passed through the longitudinal shear centre axis
no torsion would occur. In general, torsional moments would cause twisting and warping
of the cross sections.
When the torsional rigidity (GJ) is very large compared with its warping rigidity (E),
the section would effectively be in uniform torsion and warping moment would unlikely
to be significant from the designer's perspective. Examples of this behaviour are closed
hot-rolled sections (e.g. rectangular or square hollow sections) and rolled angles and
Tees. Note that warping moment is developed only if warping deformation is restrained.
Warping deformation in angle and T-sections are not small, only warping moment would
be small. On the other hand, most thin walled open sections have much smaller torsional
rigidity (GJ) compared with warping rigidity (E) values and these sections will be
exhibiting significant warping moment. Hot rolled I sections and H sections would
exhibit torsional behaviour in-between these two extremes and the applied loading is
resisted by a combination of uniform torsion and warping torsion.
Any structural arrangement in which the loads are transferred to an I beam by torsion is
not an efficient one for resisting loads. The message for the designers is "Avoid Torsion
- if you can ". In a very large number of practical designs, the loads are usually applied
in a such a manner that their resultant passes through the centroid. If the section is
doubly symmetric (such as I or H sections) this automatically eliminates torsion, as the
shear centre and centroid of the symmetric cross section coincide. Even otherwise load
transfer through connections may - in many cases - be regarded as ensuring that the loads
are effectively applied through the shear centre, thus eliminating the need for designing
for torsion. Furthermore, in situations where the floor slabs are supported on top flanges
of channel sections, the loads may effectively be regarded as being applied through the
shear centre since the flexural stiffness of the attached slab prevents torsion of the
channel.
Copyright reserved
Version II 18 -1
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
design using box sections, tubular (hollow) sections or lattice box girders which are fully
triangulated on all faces. All these are more efficient means of resisting torsional
moments compared with I or H sections. Unless it is essential to utilise the torsional
resistance of an I section, it is not necessary to take account of it. The likely torsional
effects due to a particular structural arrangement chosen should be considered in the early
stages of design, rather than left to the final stages, when perhaps an inappropriate
member has already been chosen.
In the previous chapter, the concepts of uniform torsion and warping torsion were
explained and the relevant equations derived.
When a torque is applied only at the ends of a member such that the ends are free to
warp, then the member would develop only pure torsion.
The total angle of twist ( ) over a length of z is given by
Tq z
= (1)
GJ
where Tq = applied torque
GJ = Torsional Rigidity
When a member is in non-uniform torsion, the rate of change of angle of twist will vary
along the length of the member. The warping shear stress (w) at a point is given by
E S wms
w = (2)
t
The warping normal stress (w) due to bending moment in-plane of flanges (bi-moment)
is given by
w = - E .Wnwfs . ''
There will be some interaction between the torsional and flexural effects, when a load
produces both bending and torsion. The angle of twist caused by torsion would be
amplified by bending moment, inducing additional warping moments and torsional
shears. The following analysis was proposed by Nethercot, Salter and Malik in reference
(2).
Version II 18 -2
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
The maximum stress at the most highly stressed cross section is limited to the design
strength (fy /m). Assuming elastic behaviour and assuming that the loads produce bending
about the major axis in addition to torsion, the longitudinal direct stresses will be due to
three causes.
Mx
bx =
Zx
M yt
byt = (3)
Zy
w = E.Wnwfs . ''
byt is dependent on Myt, which itself is dependent on the major axis moment Mx and the
twist .
Myt = Mx (4)
Whenever lateral torsional buckling governs the design (i.e. when pb is less than fy) the
values of w and byt will be amplified. Nethercot, Salter and Malik have suggested a
simple "buckling check" along lines similar to BS 5950, part 1
Mx (
byt + w ) Mx
+ 1 + 0.5 1
Mb (
f y / m ) Mb
(6)
Version II 18 -3
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
M p + ( LT + 1) M E
in which B =
2
MP , the plastic moment capacity = fy . Zp / m
4.3 Applied loading having both Major axis and Minor axis moments
When the applied loading produces both major axis and minor axis moments, the
"capacity checks" and the "buckling checks" are modified as follows:
Capacity check:
Buckling check:
Mx
+
My
+
(
byt + w ) Mx
1 + 0.5 1
Mb fy Zy / m (
fy / m ) Mb
(8)
where M y = m y M y
byt = M y / Z y
Torsional shear stresses and warping shear stresses should also be amplified in a similar
manner:
Mx
vt = ( t + w ) 1 + 0.5
(9)
M b
This shear stress should be added to the shear stresses due to bending in checking the
adequacy of the section.
The analysis for the lateral torsional buckling is very complex because of the different
types of structural actions involved. Also the basic theory of elastic lateral stability
cannot be directly used for the design purpose because
Version II 18 -4
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
the formulae for elastic critical moment ME are too complex for routine use and
there are limitations to their extension in the ultimate range
A simple method of computing the buckling resistance of beams is given below. In a
manner analogous to the Perry-Robertson Method for columns, the buckling resistance
moment, Mb, is obtained as the smaller root of the equation
M p + ( LT + 1) M E
where B =
2
[ As defined above, ME = Elastic critcal moment
Mp = fy . Zp / m
LT = Perry coefficient, similar to column buckling coefficient
Zp = Plastic section modulus]
In order to simplify the analysis, BS5950: Part 1 uses a curve based on the above
concept (Fig. 1 ) (similar to column curves) in which the bending strength of the beam is
expressed as a function of its slenderness (LT ). The design method is explained below.
It should be noted that pb = fy for low values of slenderness of beams and the value of pb
drops, as the beam becomes longer and the beam slenderness, calculated as given below,
increases. This behaviour is analogous to columns.
E
LT = 2 LT (12)
fy
Mp
where LT =
ME
Version II 18 -5
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
200
Beam buckling
pb
N/mm2
100
0
50 100 150 200 250
LT
stocky beams which are able to attain the plastic moment Mp, for values of LT below
about 0.4.
Slender beams which fail at moments close to ME, for values of LT above about 1.2
Beams having short spans usually fail by yielding. So lateral stability does not influence
their design. Beams having long spans would fail by lateral buckling and these are
termed "slender". For the practical beams which are in the intermediate range without
lateral restraint, design must be based on considerations of inelastic buckling.
In the absence of instability, eqn. 11 permits that the value of fy can be adopted for the
full plastic moment capacity pb for LT < 0.4 . This corresponds to LT values of around
37 (for steels having fy= 275 N/mm2) below which the lateral instability is NOT of
concern.
Version II 18 -6
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Plastic yield
1.0
ME / MP
0.8
0.6
M / Mp
0.4
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
MP
LT =
ME
Fig.2 Comparison of test data (mostly I sections) with theoretical elastic critical moments
s
For flanged sections symmetrical about the major axis
1 1
I y Z p 2 4 A 2
u = and x = 1.132
A2 Iy J
Version II 18 -7
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
2 3 3
hs t1 t2 b1 b2
torsional warping constant
( )
=
12 t1 b13 + t2 b23
J = the torsion constant
hs = the distance between the shear centres of the flanges
t1, t2 = flange thicknesses
b1, b2 = flange widths
We can assume
For unequal flanged sections, eqn. 11 is used for finding the buckling moment of
resistance. The value of LT is determined by eqn.13 using the appropriate section
properties. In that equation u may be taken as 1.0 and v includes an allowance for the
degree of monosymmetry through the parameter N = Ic / (Ic + It ) . Table 14 of BS5950:
Part 1 must now be entered with (E /ry )/x and N .
For a member subjected to concentrated torque with torsion fixed and warping free
condition at the ends ( torque applied at varying values of L), the values of and
its differentials are given by
Tq
(1-
Tq .a sinh
z a cosh z
For 0 z , = (1 ) + sinh
GJ a tanh a a
a
Version II 18 -8
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Tq sinh a z
= (1 ) + cosh cosh
GJ tanh a a
a
Tq sinh a z
= cosh sinh
GJa a a
tanh
a
Tq sinh a z
= cosh cosh
G J a2 a a
tanh
a
Similar equations are available for different loading cases and for different values of .
Readers may wish to refer Ref. (2) for more details. We are unable to reproduce these on
account of copyright restrictions.
6.0 SUMMARY
This chapter is aimed at explaining a simple method of evaluating torsional effects and to
verify the adequacy of a chosen cross section when subjected to torsional moments. The
method recommended is consistent with BS 5950: Part 1.
7.0 REFERENCES
(1) British Standards Institution, BS 5950: Part 1: 1985. Structural use of steelwork in
Building part 1: Code of Practice for design in simple and continuous
construction: hot rolled sections. BSI, 1985.
(2) Nethercot, D. A., Salter, P. R., and Malik, A. S. Design of Members Subject to
Combined Bending and Torsion , The Steel construction Institute , 1989.
(3) Steelwork design guide to BS 5950: Part 1 1985, Volume 1 Section properties and
member capacities. The Steel Construction Institute, 1985.
(4) Introduction to Steelwork Design to BS 5950: Part 1,
The Steel Construction Institute, 1988.
Version II 18 -9
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Example 1
The beam shown below is unrestrained along its length. An eccentric load is applied
to the bottom flange at the centre of the span in such a way that it does not provide
any lateral restraint to the member.
The end conditions are assumed to be simply supported for bending and fixed against
torsion but free for warping. For the factored loads shown, check the adequacy of the
trial section.
A B Stiffener to
prevent flange
and web
buckling
e = 75 mm
W = 100 kN
W = 100 kN
2000mm
= 4000 mm
Tq = W.e
=
e negative angle of
twist due to Tq
W W
Version II 18 -10
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Generally wide flange sections are preferable to deal with significant torsion. In this
example, however, an ISWB section will be tried.
Version II 18 -11
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Additional properties
Torsional constant, J =
1
3
[
2BT 3 + (D 2T ) t 3 ]
=
1
3
[
2 250 14.7 3 + (500 2 14.7 ) 9.9 3 ] = 682 103 mm4
I y h2
Warping constant, =
4
2988 10 4 (500 14.7 )
2
= = 1.76 1012 mm6
4
E
Shear modulus, G =
2 (1 + )
2 10 5
= 2 (1 + 0.3) = 76.9 kN / mm
2
1
E 2
Torsional bending constant, a =
G J
1
2 10 5 1.76 1012 2
= = 2591 mm
76.9 10 3 682 10 3
Version II 18 -12
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
hB
Normalized warping function, Wnwfs =
4
=
(500 14.7 ) 250
4
= 30331 mm2
h B2 T
Warping statical moment, S wms =
16
485.3 250 2 14.7
=
16
= 2787 104 mm4
235.3
14.7 250 242.7 + 9.9 235.3 2
yw = = 194.2 mm
14.7 250 + 9.9 235.3
Qw = 6061 194.2
Version II 18 -13
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Mx
+
(
byt + w ) M
1 + 0.5 x 1
fy
Mb Mb
m
Mx = m M xB
m = 1.0
M x = 1.0 M xB = 102 kNm
ME M p
The buckling resistance moment, Mb =
(
B + B 2 M E M p )1
2
M p + ( LT + 1) M E
B = BS 5950:
2
Part I
where App.B.2
ME = elastic critical moment
Mp = plastic moment capacity
= fy.Zp / m =
Version II 18 -14
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Mp 2 E
Elastic critical moment, ME = BS 5950:
LT 2 p y Part I
LT = the equivalent slenderness = nuv App.B.2.2
v = 0.948
LT = nuv
Version II 18 -15
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
M p + ( LT + 1) M E BS 5950:
B = Part 1
2 App.B.2.3
Myt = Mx .
To calculate
Version II 18 -16
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Ref. 2.0
Tq .a sinh
z a cosh sinh z App. B
= (1 ) +
GJ a tanh a a
a
7.5 10 6 2591 sinh0.77
=
3 (1 0.5 ) 0.77 + cosh0.77 sinh0.77
76.9 10 681.6 10 3 tanh1.54
= 0.023 rads
w = E . Wnwfs .
To calculate
Tq sinh
a cosh z
= sinh Ref. 2.0
GJa a a App. B
tanh
a
7.5 10 6 sinh0.77
= tanh1.54 cosh 0.77 sinh0.77
3 3
76.9 10 681.6 10 2591
= 1.8 10 8
Version II 18 -17
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Mx
+
(
byt + w )
M
1 + 0.5 x 1
fy
Mb Mb
m
102 10 6 (9.9+ 109.2 ) 102 10 6
+ 1 + 0.5 = <
( )
0.86 1
411 10 6 250 411 10 6
1.15
Buckling is O. K
bx + byt + w fy / m
O. K
Strictly the shear stresses due to combined bending and torsion should be checked,
although these will seldom be critical.
At support:-
FVA . Qw 52 10 3 1166 10 3
In web, bw = =
I x .t 52291 10 4 9.9
= 11.7 N / mm 2
Version II 18 -18
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
FVA . Q f 52 10 3 428.2 10 3
In flange, bf = =
I x .T 52291 10 4 14.7
= 2.9 N / mm 2
At midspan :-
Tq sinh a z
= cosh cosh
G J a 2 tanh a a
a
At = 0.5,
0.5 4000
= = 0.77
a 2591
sinh = 0.851, cosh = 1.313, tanh = 0.913
a a a
Version II 18 -19
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
At support, z = 0
z
cosh = cosh(0) = 1.0
a
At midspan, z = 2000
z
cosh = cosh(0.77) = 1.313
a
At support
In web, tw = G.t.
= - 12.95 N / mm2
In flange, tf = G. T .
= - 19.22 N / mm2
Version II 18 -20
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
At midspan
= 0
7.5 10 6 0.851
= 3 3 2
1.313 1.313
76.9 10 681.6 10 2591 0.913
= 1.06 10 11
In web, tw = G.t. = 0
In flange, tf = G.T. = 0
Version II 18 -21
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
0 1 2
At support
Mx
vt = ( t + w ) 1 + 0.5
Mb
In web at 3, tw = 12.95 N / mm 2
102
vt = 12.95 1 + 0.5 = 14.6 N /mm 2
411
This must be added to the shear stresses due to plane bending.
= bw + vt
wf = - 3.1 N / mm2
102
vt = ( 19.2 3.1) 1 + 0.5 = 25.1 N / mm 2
411
= bf + vt = - 27.9 N / mm2 ( acting left to right)
Version II 18 -22
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
0.026
the corresponding value of = = 0.016 rads = 0.93
1.6
On the assumption that a maximum twist of 2 is acceptable at working load, in this
instance the beam is satisfactory.
Version II 18 -23
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Example 2
Additional properties
t3 h
Torsional constant J = + 2 K Ah
3
Area enclosed by the mean perimeter of the section, Ah = (B - t ) (D - T)
(neglecting the corner radii)
= ( 200 - 8 )(300 - 8)
= 56064 mm2
Version II 18 -24
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
2 Ah t 2 56064 8
K = = = 927 mm 2
h 968
8 3 968
Torsional constant, J = + 2 927 56064
3
= 104 106 mm 4
J
Torsional modulus constant, C =
t + K
t
104 106
= = 840 10 3 mm3
8 + 927 8
Material properties
Shear modulus, G E 2 10 5
= = = 76.9 kN / mm 2
2 (1 + ) 2 (1 + 0.3)
Mx
+
( byt + w ) 1 + 0.5 M x 1
fy
Mb Mb
m
Since slenderness ratio (E / ry = 4000 / 82.3 = 48.6) is less than the limiting value
350 275 250 = 385
250 f y given in BS 5950 Part 1, table 38, lateral torsional
buckling need not be considered..
Version II 18 -25
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
Hence Mb = Mcx
100 kN
100 kN
75 mm
T0 = Tq / 2
T0 = Tq / 2
Version II 18 -26
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
T0
= z
GJ
Tq 7.5
T0 = = = 3.75 kNm
2 2
At centre of span, z = / 2 = 2000 mm
M yt 0.102 10 6
byt = = = 0.195 N / mm 2
Zy 522 10 3
Check becomes
Mx byt Mx
+ 1 + 0.5 1
Mb fy M b
m
102 0.195 102
+ 1 + 0.5 = 0.6 <1
170 250 170
1.15
O. K
bx + byt + w fy /m
bx = MxB / Zy
Version II 18 -27
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
102 106
bx = = 196 N / mm 2
522 10 3
196 + 0.195 + 0 = 196.2 < 217 N / mm2
O. K
Qw = A1 y 150
8 y
A
A1 =
2
150
150 8 2 + 184 8 146
2 395
y = 10 3 = cm
A1 A1
395
Qw = A1 = 395 cm3
A1
52 10 3 395 10 3
bw = = 13.1 N / mm 2
9798 10 4 2 8
T0 Tq 7.5 106
t = = = = 4.5 N / mm 2
C 2C 2 837 10 3
Version II 18 -28
BEAMS SUBJECTED TO TORSION & BENDING-II
= bw + vt
Mx
vt = ( t
+ w ) 1 + 0.5
M b
Version II 18 -29