This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 87 (2013) 31–37

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Lateral–torsional buckling of steel web tapered tee-section cantilevers

Wei-bin Yuan a, Boksun Kim b,⁎, Chang-yi Chen a
a
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
b
School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper an analytical model is presented to describe the lateral–torsional buckling behaviour of steel web ta-
Received 17 January 2013 pered tee-section cantilevers when subjected to a uniformly distributed load and/or a concentrated load at the free
Accepted 29 March 2013 end. To validate the present analytical solutions finite element analyses using ANSYS software are also presented.
Available online xxxx
Good agreement between the analytical and numerical solutions is demonstrated. Using the present analytical so-
lutions, the interactive buckling of the tip point and uniformly distributed loads is investigated and a parametric
Keywords:
Lateral–torsional buckling
study is carried out to examine the influence of section dimensions on the critical buckling loads. It is found that
Web tapered tee sections web tapering can increase or decrease the critical lateral–torsional buckling loads, depending on the flange
Tapered cantilevers width of the beam. For a beam with a wide flange (width/depth = 0.96) the critical buckling load is increased
Analytical study by 2% by web tapering, whereas for a beam with a narrow flange (width/depth = 0.19) web tapering reduces
Finite element analysis the buckling load up to10% and 6% for the tip point loading and the uniformly distributed load respectively.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Tee-section beams are widely used in modern construction due to
their structural efficiency. The main feature of a tee-section beam is the
monosymmetry of the cross-section. For most tee-section cantilever
beams carrying gravity loading the flange is positioned at the top, in
which case the flange is in tension and the unstiffened portion of the
web is in compression. Because the neutral axis of a tee-section beam is
closer to the flange the maximum compressive stress in the web is
much higher than the maximum tensile stress in the flange. This means
that such beams fail by compressive stress and the lateral–torsional or
lateral–distortional buckling could be one of the main failure modes [1].
The instability of monosymmetric I-beams under various loading
conditions has been studied by many researchers [2–8]. The main diffi-
culty of the problem is the presence of an additional torque, owing to
the monosymmetry of the section, arising from the pre-buckling longi-
tudinal bending stresses as the beam twists during the buckling. This
additional torque causes an effective change in the torsional stiffness
of the beam. This feature does not exist in symmetric beams, and was
not addressed until the 1940s [9]. Since then different modifications
of the torsional stiffness to account for the effect of the additional torque
have been proposed [6].
Steel web tapered tee-section beams are very popular because of their
aesthetic features and light weight. These beams are mainly cantilevered
and have the advantage of low weight-to-strength ratios. They are struc-
turally efficient since the web can be tapered along the beam to closely
match the variation of the bending moment of the beam. The depth of
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1752 586135; fax: +44 1752 586101.
E-mail address: boksun.kim@plymouth.ac.uk (B. Kim).
the beam is largest at the fixed support, where its bending moment is
greatest, and gradually decreases towards the free end.
Although steel web tapered tee-section cantilevers are commonly
used, research into the instability of such beams is very limited. The ma-
jority of the existing literature deals with the lateral–torsional buckling
of tapered I-beams [10–18]. Studies into tapered tee-section cantilevers
are few. One rare example is by Fischer and Smida [19]. Kitipornchai
and Trahair [10] derived differential equations for the non-uniform tor-
sion of tapered I-beams by analyzing the deformations of the flanges
and investigated the elastic flexural–torsional buckling of simply sup-
ported tapered I-beams. Later, they extended their method to tapered
mono-symmetric I-beams. [11]. Yang and Yau [13], and Bradford and
Cuk [14] presented numerical investigations on the lateral–torsional
and lateral–distortional buckling of tapered monosymmetric I-beams
using finite element methods.
Studies by Andrade et al. [16,17] have shown that the lateral torsional
buckling loads of simply supported web tapered I-beams were decreased
by as much as 20 to 40% as the degree of taper increased. This disagrees
with the earlier work by Kitipornchai and Trahair [10], which concluded
that the critical loads of web tapered beams did not vary greatly as the
degree of taper increased since the torsional stiffness was insensitive to
the degree of taper. The disagreement could be because a very short
beam of 1.52 m span was used in the work of Kitipornchai and Trahair
[10], while Andrade et al. [16,17] used long beams of 6 m, 9 m, and 12 m.
The boundary conditions of a beam seem to influence the lateral tor-
sional buckling loads of web tapered I-beams. The buckling loads are
decreased for simply supported beams [16–18], while being increased
for fix-end beams [18] and cantilevers [16–18], compared with those
of un-tapered ones. The increase for the cantilevers is significant and in-
creases as the degree of taper increases. However those three studies

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.03.026
 Author's personal copy

32 W. Yuan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 87 (2013) 31–37

[16–18] are based on analytical and numerical analyses and hence the and z-axes, respectively, J is the torsional constant of the section, bf is
results should be validated by experimental work. the flange width, tf is the flange thickness, bwo is the web depth at the
Web tapered tee-section cantilevers may behave differently from ta- support (x = 0), tw is the web thickness, and α is the tapering angle.
pered I-beam cantilevers. The lack of a bottom flange means that the Assume that when lateral–torsional buckling occurs, the displace-
lower part of the web is in compression and this increases buckling insta- ments of the beam can be described as follows:
bility. A study by Fisher and Smida [19] discussed the failure modes of

xnþ2
such beams, however their experimental results were not compared to vðxÞ ¼ ∑ An ð5Þ
any un-tapered beams. Furthermore no analytical study has been carried n¼0 l
out on this topic.

xnþ2
In this paper an analytical model is presented to describe the lateral– wðxÞ ¼ ∑ Bn ð6Þ
torsional buckling behaviour of steel web tapered tee-section beams n¼0 l
when subjected to a uniformly distributed load and/or a concentrated
xnþ1
load at the free end. To validate the present analytical solutions finite el- ϕðxÞ ¼ ∑ C n ð7Þ
ement analyses using ANSYS software are also presented. Using the n¼0 l
present analytical solutions, the interactive buckling of the distributed
and concentrated loads is discussed and a parametric study is carried where v and w are the transverse and lateral displacements of the beam
out to provide the optimum design of tee-section beams against defined at the shear centre, respectively, ϕ is the angle of rotation of the
lateral–torsional buckling. cross-section, An, Bn and Cn (n = 0, 1, 2, …) are the constants to be
determined, and l is the length of the beam. Note that the displacement
functions assumed in Eqs. (5)–(7) satisfy the clamped boundary condi-
2. Lateral–torsional buckling analysis of steel web tapered
tions (v = w = ϕ = 0 and dv/dx = dw/dx = 0) at the support (x = 0).
tee-section cantilevers
The strain energy of a tee-section beam due to the buckling displace-
ments can be calculated using the following formula [20]:
Consider a web tapered tee-section cantilever subject to a uniformly
distributed load and a concentrated load at its free end, as shown in " !2 !2
l   #
Fig. 1. Let x be the longitudinal axis of the beam, y and z be the EIz d2 v EIy d2 w GJ dϕ 2
U¼∫ þ þ dx ð8Þ
cross-sectional axes parallel to the web and flange, respectively. For con- o
2 dx2 2 dx2 2 dx
venience, the origin of coordinates was chosen to be the centroid of the
section. Due to the tapering of the web, the section properties of the
where E is the Young's modulus and G is the shear modulus. Note that for
beam are a function of the coordinate x and can be expressed as follows:
a tee-section the warping constant is zero and thus no warping energy is
2
bf t f

 involved in Eq. (8). Substituting Eqs. (5)–(7) into Eq. (8) yields
2 þ t w ðbwo −x tan α Þ t f þ bwo −x2 tan α
y¼ ð1Þ 
xn 2 
xn 2
bf t f þ t w ðbwo −x tan α Þ l
EI z
l
EI y
U¼∫ 4
∑ An ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þ dx þ ∫ 4 ∑ Bn ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þ dx
o 2l n¼0 l o 2l n¼0 l
 

xn 2
t f b3f ðbwo −x tan α Þt 3w l
GJ
Iy ¼ þ ð2Þ þ∫ 2 ∑ C n ðn þ 1Þ dx: ð9Þ
12 12 o 2l n¼0 l
"  2 #
ðbwo −x tan α Þ2 b −x tan α
I z ¼ t w ðbwo −x tan α Þ þ wo þ t f −y The loss of the potential energy of the externally applied loads due
12 2
to the buckling displacements can be calculated using the following
" 2  2 #
tf tf formula [2,4,6,20]:
þ bf t f þ y− ð3Þ
12 2
l l  2
d2 w 1 dϕ
W ¼ −∫ M z ϕ dx− ∫ M z β z dx ð10Þ
3
bf t f þ ðbwo −x tanα Þt w
3
o dx2 2o dx
J¼ ð4Þ
3
where Mz is the internal bending moment about the z-axis of the beam in
where y is the distance from the top of the section to the neutral axis, Iy the pre-buckling stage, which is generated due to the externally applied
and Iz are the second moments of the cross-sectional area about the y- loads, and βz is the parameter describing the monosymmetric property

Fig. 1. A web tapered tee-section cantilever beam subject to a uniformly distributed load and a concentrated load at its free end.
 Author's personal copy

W. Yuan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 87 (2013) 31–37 33

of the section [2,4,6]. For a beam subject to a uniformly distributed load where Π = U + W is the total potential energy. Substituting Eqs. (9)
and a concentrated load at its free end Mz can be expressed as follows: and (13) into Eq. (14) yields

EIz
xmþn
q 2 l
Mz ðxÞ ¼ P ðl−xÞ þ ðl−xÞ ð11Þ
2 ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ∑ An ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þ∫ dx ¼ 0 ð15Þ
n¼0 o l4 l
where P an q are the concentrated and uniformly distributed loads re-
spectively, shown in Fig. 1. The monosymmetric property parameter is l
EIy
xmþn
ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ∑ Bn ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þ∫ dx
defined as [2,4,6] 4 l
n¼0 o l
Mz
xmþnþ1
l
! ¼ ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ∑ C n ∫ dx ð16Þ
1 2 3 l2 l
βz ¼ ∫ z ydA þ ∫ y dA −2y0 n¼0 o
Iz A A
!  
GJ
xmþn M
xmþnþ1
l l
1 2 3 tf
¼ ∫ z ydA þ ∫ y dA þ 2 y− ðm þ 1Þ∑ C n ðn þ 1Þ∫ dx ¼ ∑ Bn ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þ∫ 2z dx
Iz A A
2 n¼0 o l2 l n¼0 o l
l
    4 
t
4
M z β z
xmþn
3 l
bw t 3w b tf t f bf
¼ y−t f − w þ y− þ w y−t f − bw −y þ t f þ ðm þ 1Þ∑ C n ðn þ 1Þ∫ dx ð17Þ
12I z 2 12I z 2 4I z n¼0 o l2 l

   
bf 4 4 tf
þ y − y−t f þ 2 y− ð12Þ where m = 0, 1, … represents the number of equations. Eqs. (15)–(17)
4I z 2
can be further written as follows:

where bw = bwo–xtanα and y0 is the distance between the shear centre Am ¼ 0 ð18Þ
and the centroid, and positive as the convention is upwards, as shown in
Fig. 1. 1
ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ∑ ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þα mn Bn
Substituting Eqs. (6) and (7) into Eq. (10) yields n¼0
3
¼ λðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ∑ α mn C n ð19Þ

xnþ1  l 
xn  n¼0
M
W ¼ −∫ 2z ∑ C n ∑ Bn ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þ dx
o l n¼0 l n¼0 l 2 3
ð13Þ ðm þ 1Þ∑ ðn þ 1Þα mn C n ¼ λ∑ ðn þ 1Þðn þ 2Þα mn Bn
1 M β
l
xn i2 h n¼0 n¼0
4
− ∫ z2 z ∑ C n ðn þ 1Þ dx: þ λðm þ 1Þ∑ ðn þ 1Þα mn C n ð20Þ
2 o l n¼0 l n¼0

where m = 0, 1, … represents the number of equations and λ is the

Fig. 2 shows the variation of the monosymmetric property parameter k
loading factor and αmn (k = 1, 2, 3, 4) are defined as follows:
along the tapered beam length for three beams with various flange
widths. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that for a beam with a wide flange
the monosymmetric property parameter exhibits an initial decrease 1
l
EI y
xmþn
α mn ¼ ∫ dx
followed by a sharp increase in the value. l4 l
o !
3
When buckling occurs, the total energy function reaches to a EI yo 1 t l tan α 1
¼ − w ð21Þ
stationary condition, which requires l3 ðm þ n þ 1Þ 12Iyo ðm þ n þ 2Þ

!
∂Π ∂Π ∂Π
GJ
xmþn
l 3
¼ ¼ ¼0 ðn ¼ 0; 1; …Þ ð14Þ 2 GJ 1 t l tan α 1
∂An ∂Bn ∂C n α mn ¼ ∫ dx ¼ o − w ð22Þ
o l2 l l ðm þ n þ 1Þ 3J o ðm þ n þ 2Þ

M z
xmþnþ1
l
2 3 P
α mn ¼ ∫ dx ¼ ð23Þ
bf = 250 mm o l2 l ðm þ n þ 2Þðm þ n þ 3Þ
1.8
bf = 100 mm ql
þ
1.6 bf = 50 mm ðm þ n þ 2Þðm þ n þ 3Þðm þ n þ 4Þ

1.4
M z βz
xmþn
l
Pβk
α 4mn ¼ ∫ dx ¼ ∑
ð þ þ þ Þðk þ m þ n þ 2Þ
βz(x) / βz(0)

1.2 2 l k m n 1
l k¼0
o ð24Þ
qlβk
1 þ∑
k¼0 ðk þ m þ n þ 1Þðk þ m þ n þ 2Þðk þ m þ n þ 3Þ
0.8
where Iyo is the second moment of the cross-sectional area about
0.6
the y-axis at x = 0, Jo is the torsional constant of the section at x = 0,
0.4 and βk (k = 0,1, …) are the coefficients of Taylor-series of the
monosymmetric property parameter βz. They are defined as follows:
0.2

0 t f b3f þ bwo t 3w
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 I yo ¼ ð25Þ
12
x/l

Fig. 2. Variation of the monosymmetric parameter with the tapered beam length (tf = bf t 3f þ bwo t 3w
Jo ¼ ð26Þ
10 mm, bwo = 250 mm, tw = 10 mm, α = 2.5°). 3
 Author's personal copy

34 W. Yuan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 87 (2013) 31–37

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 4 shows the variation of the lateral–torsional buckling critical

loads of web tapered tee-section cantilevers with various lengths.
Fig. 4a is for the beam with a tip point load, whereas Fig. 4b is for
the beam with a uniformly distributed load. In order to validate the
present analytical solution, finite element solutions are also
superimposed in Fig. 4.
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that, for the beam subject to a tip point
load (Fig. 4a) the buckling displacements with the first three terms
can provide very good results. The n = 0–2 line agrees with the
n = 0–10 line. For the beam subject to a uniformly distributed load
(Fig. 4b) the buckling displacements need to include four terms in
order to achieve accurate results. Also, it can be observed from
Fig. 4b that, for beams shorter than 2 m the present analytical solu-
tion does not converge to the finite element solution. The reason for
this is probably because the beam is too short so that the traditional
bending theory of beams is no longer appropriate.
Figs. 5 to 7 compare the critical lateral–torsional buckling loads of
tapered tee-section cantilevers with those of un-tapered ones. It is
found that the critical buckling loads of the tapered beams can be in-
creased or decreased, depending on the flange width. This pattern
happens for both tip point and uniformly distributed load cases and
the difference in the buckling loads gradually increases as the length

a 60
n=0-1
55 n=0-2
n=0-10
FEA
50
Moment Pl, kN-m

45

40

Fig. 3. Lateral torsional buckling modes of a tapered tee-section cantilever subjected to 35

(a) a tip point load and (b) a uniformly distributed load (bf = 100 mm, tf = 10 mm,
bwo = 250 mm, tw = 10 mm, α = 2.5°, l = 3000 mm, E = 200 GPa, ν = 0.3). 30

25

xk 20
βz ¼ ∑ βk : ð27Þ 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
k¼0 l Beam length, m

b 80
Eqs. (19) and (20) are the standard eigen-value equations. For given di-
n=0-1
mensions of the tapered tee-section beam one can calculate the lowest 75 n=0-3
eigen-value of Eqs. (19) and (20) and thus obtain the critical load of the n=0-10
lateral–torsional buckling of the tapered tee-section beam. 70
FEA
Moment ql2/2, kN-m

65
3. Finite element analysis
60
In order to simulate the lateral–torsional buckling behaviour of
55
steel web tapered tee-section cantilevers finite element analyses
were carried out using ANSYS software. Tapered tee-section beams 50
with various lengths and flange widths were modelled using
45
four-node shell elements with six degrees of freedom at each node.
The boundary conditions of the fixed end support were implemented 40
by forcing all nodes along the web and flange lines to have zero dis-
35
placements and zero rotations. A concentrated load was applied at
the intersection point of the web and flange lines at the free end, 30
whereas a uniformly distributed load was applied on the intersection 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
line of the web and flange. The lateral–torsional buckling modes of a Beam length, m
3 m cantilever with a flange width of 100 mm are presented in Fig. 3a
Fig. 4. Comparison of lateral–torsional buckling critical loads obtained by the analytical
when subjected to a tip point load and in Fig. 3b when subjected to a and the finite element methods for a tapered tee-section cantilever subjected to (a) a
uniformly distributed load. The results of the finite element analyses tip point load and (b) a uniformly distributed load (bf = 100 mm, tf = 10 mm,
are discussed in the following section. bwo = 250 mm, tw = 10 mm, α = 2.5o, E = 200 GPa, ν = 0.3).
 Author's personal copy

W. Yuan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 87 (2013) 31–37 35

a a 50
26
Tapered tee-section beam Tapered tee-section beam
24 Un-tapered tee-section beam Un-tapered tee-section beam
45
22

20
40
Moment Pl, kN-m

Moment Pl, kN-m

18

16 35

14
30
12

10
25
8

6 20
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Beam length, m Beam length, m

b b
32
Tapered tee-section beam 55 Tapered tee-section beam
30 Un-tapered tee-section beam Un-tapered tee-section beam
28
50
26
Moment ql2/2, kN-m

Moment ql2/2, kN-m

24
45
22

20

18 40

16

14 35
12

10
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 30
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Beam length, m
Beam length, m
Fig. 5. Comparison of lateral–torsional buckling loads between tapered and un-tapered
Fig. 6. Comparison of lateral–torsional buckling loads between tapered and un-tapered
tee-section cantilevers subjected to (a) a tip point load and (b) a uniformly distributed
tee-section cantilevers subjected to (a) a tip point load and (b) a uniformly distributed
load (bf/(bwo + tf) = 0.19, bwo = 250 mm, tw = tf = 10 mm, α = 2.5°, E = 200 GPa,
load (bf/(bwo + tf) = 0.38, bwo = 250 mm, tw = tf = 10 mm, α = 2.5°, E = 200 GPa,
ν = 0.3).
ν = 0.3).

of the beam increases. For example, for a beam with a relatively
narrow flange (width/depth = 0.19) the tapering can reduce the
buckling load up to10% and 6% for the tip point loading and the uni-
formly distributed load respectively, as shown in Fig. 5, while for a
beam with a relatively wide flange (width/depth = 0.96) the taper-
ing can increase the buckling load by 2%, as shown in Fig. 7. This
contradictory result may stem from the fact that, for a cantilever
tee-section beam loaded on the flange, tapering brings about two
contradictory effects. One is the material reduction, which implies a
decrease in the critical load. The other is the reduction of the distance
between the centroid and shear centre, which decreases the value of
the monosymmetric property parameter and thus implies an increase
of the critical load. For the beam with a wide flange the latter effect
was found to be predominant; while for the beam with a narrow
flange the former effect became dominant.
A web tapered tee-section cantilever with an intermediate flange
width can increase the buckling loading when the beam is relatively
short and decrease it when the beam is relatively long, as shown in
Fig. 6. This indicates that not only the flange width but also the beam
length can affect the influence of the web tapering on the lateral–
torsional buckling behaviour of the tee-section cantilevers.
Fig. 8 shows the influence of tapering angle on the lateral–torsional
buckling loads of a tee-section cantilever whose width-to-depth ratio
(bf/(bwo + tf)) is 0.743. As this ratio implies a wide flange, tapering
will increase the buckling loads, compared with those of un-tapered
sections. The effect of tapering increases as the length of the beam in-
creases and when they are subjected to a tip point load. However the
maximum difference shown in Fig. 8 is less than 2% and 4% when
subjected to uniformly distributed load and tip point loads respectively.
Fig. 9 plots the critical buckling loads of the tapered and
un-tapered tee-section cantilevers when subjected to both tip point
and uniformly distributed loads. Two features can be found from the
figure. The first is that when the critical load curve is plotted using di-
mensionless parameters, there is almost no difference between the ta-
pered and un-tapered beams. This indicates that the interaction
behaviours between the tip point and uniformly distribution loads are
the same for both tapered and un-tapered beams. The second is that
the critical curves are not the straight lines but slightly arched, which
 Author's personal copy

36 W. Yuan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 87 (2013) 31–37

a 160
a 1.04
Tapered tee-section beam α =1o
150 Un-tapered tee-section beam 1.035 α =2.5o
α =4o

140 1.03

qcr,tapered/qcr,untapered
Moment Pl, kN-m

1.025
130

1.02
120
1.015
110
1.01
100
1.005
90
1
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Beam length, m
Beam length, m
b
b 165
1.02
α =1o
Tapered tee-section beam 1.018
160 α =2.5o
Un-tapered tee-section beam
1.016 α =4o
155
1.014
qcr,tapered/qcr,untapered
Moment ql2/2, kN-m

150
1.012
145
1.01
140
1.008
135
1.006
130
1.004
125
1.002
120
1
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
115
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 Beam length, m
Beam length, m
Fig. 8. Influence of tapering angle on the lateral–torsional buckling loads (a) a tip point
Fig. 7. Comparison of lateral–torsional buckling loads between tapered and un-tapered load and (b) a uniformly distributed load (bf/(bwo + tf) = 0.743, bwo = 350 mm,
tee-section cantilevers subjected to (a) a tip point load and (b) a uniformly distributed tw = tf = 10 mm, E = 200 GPa, ν = 0.3).
load (bf/(bwo + tf) = 0.96, bwo = 250 mm, tw = tf = 10 mm, α = 2.5°, E = 200 GPa,
ν = 0.3).
1
Tapered tee-section beam
0.9 Un-tapered tee-section beam
implies that the critical load curve can be represented by the equation
Uniformly distributed load q/qmax

(P/Pmax) k + (q/qmax) k = 1, where k > 1 is a fitting constant. 0.8

5. Conclusions 0.7

0.6
This paper has presented a series of analytical solutions for the
lateral–torsional buckling loads of steel web tapered tee-section canti- 0.5
levers subject to a uniformly distributed load and/or a concentrated
load at its free end. The analytical solutions have been validated using 0.4
the finite element analysis method. From the parametric study the fol- 0.3
lowing conclusions have been drawn:
0.2
• The analytical solutions employed for the lateral displacement and ro-
0.1
tation converge rapidly. In practice only a few terms are required to
predict the lateral–torsional buckling critical loads of web tapered 0
tee-section cantilevers. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
• The critical bending moment at the fixed support, when the lateral Concentrated load P/Pmax
torsional buckling occurs, gradually decreases with the increase of
Fig. 9. Comparison of lateral–torsional buckling loads between tapered and un-tapered
the beam length. The decrease rate is slightly quicker in the beam tee-section cantilevers subjected to both tip point and uniformly distributed loads
with a tip point load than in the beam with a uniformly distributed (bf = 100 mm, tf = 10 mm, bwo = 250 mm, tw = 10 mm, α = 2.5°, l = 5000 mm,
load. E = 200 GPa, ν = 0.3).
 Author's personal copy
W. Yuan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 87 (2013) 31–37
• Tapering can increase or decrease the critical buckling loads of web
tapered tee-section cantilevers, depending on the flange width. For
a beam with a relatively narrow flange (width/depth = 0.19) the ta-
pering can reduce the buckling load up to10% and 6% for the tip point
loading and the uniformly distributed load respectively, while for a
beam with a relatively wide flange (width/depth = 0.96) the taper-
ing can increase the buckling load by 2%.
• The interaction buckling curves between the tip point and uniformly
distributed loads are primarily the same for the tapered and
un-tapered tee-section cantilevers; both exhibit a slightly convex
shape.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Doug Wharf, Mike McCulloch and
Long-yuan Li for their help and advice on this project.
References
[1] Bradford MA. Elastic distortional buckling of tee-section cantilevers. Thin-Walled
Struct 1999;33:3–17.
[2] Anderson JM, Trahair NS. Stability of monosymmetric beams and cantilevers. J Struct
Div ASCE 1972;98(ST1):269–86.
[3] Nethercot DA. Effective lengths of cantilevers as governed by lateral buckling.
Struct Eng 1973;51(5):161–8.
[4] Kitipornchai S, Trahair NS. Buckling properties of monosymmetric I-beams.
J Struct Div ASCE 1980;106:941–57.
[5] Roberts TM, Burt CA. Instability of monosymmetric I-beams and cantilevers. Int J
Mech Sci 1985;27(5):313–24.
37
[6] Wang CM, Kitipornchai S. On stability of monosymmetric cantilevers. Eng Struct
1986;8:169–80.
[7] Wang CM, Kitipornchai S, Thevendran V. Buckling of braced monosymmetric
cantilevers. Int J Mech Sci 1987;29(5):321–37.
[8] Trahair NS. Inelastic buckling design of monosymmetric I-beams. Eng Struct
2012;34:564–71.
[9] Timoshenko SP. Theory of bending, torsion and buckling of thin-walled members
of open cross section. J Franklin Inst 1945;239(5):343–62.
[10] Kitipornchai S, Trahair NS. Elastic stability of tapered I-beams. J Struct Div ASCE
1972;98(ST3):713–28.
[11] Kitipornchai S, Trahair NS. Elastic behaviour of tapered monosymmetric I-beams.
J Struct Div 1975;101(ST8):1661–78.
[12] Brown TG. Lateral–torsional buckling of tapered I-beams. J Struct Div ASCE
1981;107(4):689–97.
[13] Yang YB, Yau JD. Stability of beams with tapered I-sections. J Eng Mech ASCE
1987;113(9):1337–57.
[14] Bradford MA, Cuk PE. Elastic buckling of tapered monosymmetric I-beams. J Struct
Eng ASCE 1988;114(5):977–96.
[15] Zhang L, Tong GS. Lateral buckling of web-tapered I-beams: a new theory. J Constr
Steel Res 2008;64:1379–93.
[16] Andrade A, Camotim D. Lateral–torsional buckling of singly symmetric tapered
beams: theory and applications. J Eng Mech ASCE 2005;131(6):586–97.
[17] Andrade A, Camotim D, Borges Dinis P. Lateral–torsional buckling of singly sym-
metric web tapered thin-walled I-beams: 1D model vs. shell FEA. Comput Struct
2007;85:1343–59.
[18] Raftoyiannis IG, Adamakos T. Critical lateral–torsional buckling moments of steel
web-tapered I-beams. Open Constr Build Technol J 2010;4:105–12.
[19] Fischer M, Smida M. Coupled instabilities of tapered cantilevers with a t-shaped
cross-section. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Coupled In-
stabilities in Metal Structures; 2000. p. 379–88.
[20] Li LY. Lateral–torsion buckling of cold-formed zed-purlins partial-laterally re-
strained by metal sheeting. Thin-Walled Struct 2004;42(7):995–1011.