See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225124063

Flexural-torsional buckling of stepped beams subjected to pure bending

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · January 2004

DOI: 10.1007/BF02829083

CITATIONS READS

7 271

2 authors:

Jong Sup Park Young Jong Kang

Sangmyung University Korea University
71 PUBLICATIONS   494 CITATIONS    177 PUBLICATIONS   825 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stepped Beam View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Young Jong Kang on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering Structural Engineering
Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004
pp. 75~82

Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Stepped Beams Subjected to Pure Bending

By Jong Sup Park* and Young-Jong Kang**

···············································································································································································································································

Abstract

The cross sections of continuous multi-span beams are sometimes increased suddenly, or stepped, at interior supports of continuous beams
to resist high negative moments. An investigation of the elastic flexural-torsional buckling (FTB) behavior of I-shaped stepped beams was
conducted using finite element method (FEM) and resulted in the development of design equations for beams having singly or doubly stepped
cross sections within a laterally unbraced length. The finite element models are subjected to pure bending moment in the entire beam span.
Results from the design equations were demonstrated with comparisons between the proposed equations or the weighted average approach
(WAA) and FEM results for doubly and singly stepped beam spans of existing highway bridges. The new equations proposed definitely
improve current design methods for the FTB problem and increase efficiency in building and bridge design. The proposed solutions can be
easily used to develop new design equation for FTB resistance of stepped beams subjected to general loading condition such as a concentrated
load, a series of concentrated loads or uniformly distributed load.
Keywords: lateral stability, stability analysis, buckling, beams

···············································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
The cross sections of continuous multi-span beams are sometimes
increased suddenly, or stepped, at interior supports of continuous
beams to resist high negative moments. For beams that do not meet
the criteria for width to thickness ratios to inhibit local buckling,
stepped I-beams are most efficiently used when they have sufficient
lateral supports so that the flexural strength is only limited by the
yield strength of the material. When lateral support is not available,
the strength of a beam is governed by the flexural-torsional buckling
(FTB) resistance, but the beam can be economical provided that the
flange material is so distributed as to improve the buckling resistance
of the beam.
Design equations for FTB in the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Specifications (1998) account for only prismatic and web-tapered
beams. Formulas for the FTB resistance of non-composite sections in
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Specifications (1998) are simplifications
of the formulas presented in AISC (1998), and by Kitipornchai and
Trahair (1980) for FTB capacity of unsymmetrical girders. The cross
section between brace points can conservatively be assumed as a
constant having the smaller cross section. For bridges with composite
section between brace points, AASHTO LRFD Specifications (1998)
suggested that the effect of the variation in the lateral stiffness
properties could be conservatively accounted for by using the
minimum value that occurred anywhere between the brace points, or
that a weighted average approach (WAA) could be used. The average
values of cross-section parameters (I, J, and Cw) are calculated by
weighting the actual parameters in the individual segments of the
span by the proportion of the total span in that segment. The WAA
provides an unconservative estimate of FTB moment resistance of
the beam alone, but when the effect of the restraint offered by the
concrete slab is considered, the WAA gives a very conservative value
for the girders with continuous lateral top bracing.
Most past studies of stepped beams have considered simply
supported beams with increased moment of inertia near midspan.
None provides a method that can be readily used for design of
stepped beams having end moments and increased moment of inertia
at the ends of the span. This paper addresses these latter cases which
are significant in design of continuous beams. Finite element method
(FEM) buckling analyses were performed to study the FTB behavior
of stepped beams with or without continuous top bracing provided
by concrete slab. Equations were developed that can be used to
determine the FTB moment resistance of beams having increased
moment of inertia at one or both of the ends subjected to pure
bending moment.
2. Background and Previous Work
In the development of design equations for flexural-torsional
buckling, the case of equal and opposite end moments along a
laterally unbraced length is usually used as the basic case. The first
reason for using uniform moment is that it is the easiest to treat
analytically and therefore the easiest with which to demonstrate the
basic principles. The second reason is that it is generally regarded as
the most severe loading condition. Timoshenko (1961) presented the
elastic FTB resistance for an I-shaped prismatic section under the
action of constant moment in the plane of the web over the laterally
unbraced length as fallowing equation:
π πE 2
Mocr = ----- EIy GJ + ⎛ ------- ⎞ Iy Cw (1)
Lb ⎝ Lb ⎠
where Lb is the laterally unbraced length; E is the modulus of
elasticity of steel; G is the shear modulus of elasticity of steel; J is the

*Member, Research Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering, 238 Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA
(E-mail: parkjo1@eng.auburn.edu)
**Member, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Korea (E-mail: yjkang@mail.korea.ac.kr)

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004 − 75 −

 Jong Sup Park and Young-Jong Kang
St. Venant torsional constant of the cross section; Iy is the moment of
inertia of the cross section about the Y-axis; and Cw is the warping
constant of the cross section.
In addition to the basic beam case under uniform bending moment,
many design specifications include a moment gradient factor, Cb, to
consider non-uniform bending moment variation for a laterally
unbraced beam segment. The maximum moment in the unbraced
segment is always used for comparison with the resistance that is
obtained by multiplying the resistance for uniform moment by Cb.
The AISC LRFD Specifications (1998) and AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (1998) include two kinds of Cb equations. One is the
equation that has been used since 1961 to adjust for cases with a
straight-line moment diagram along the unbraced length. This
equation is not appropriate for beam cases with applied loading
between points of bracing. The other equation, which is based on the
work of Kirby and Nethercot (1979), allows a more accurate
determination of the modification factor when the unbraced segment
has a nonlinear moment variation. Structures Stability Research
Council (SSRC) Guide (Galambos, 1998) showed good agreement
between the latter equation and exact theoretical solutions. However,
the new equation seems questionable when it is applied to particular
cases that have top or bottom flange loading of a beam, a nonprismatic
cross section along an unbraced length, or a very slender beam web.
The general cases of stepped beams are two types, doubly stepped
and singly stepped beams. The interior spans in the continuous girder
bridges often have stepped flanges near the internal supports to
increase the moment resistance at the supports. The exterior spans in
the continuous girder bridges have stepped flanges near an internal
support. When an interior span is braced at the center of span, it can
be also considered as two singly stepped beams. Sometimes in
interior spans, the flanges are stepped at both the center of the span
near maximum positive moment area and the supports at the negative
moment areas. The last case can be conservatively considered doubly
stepped beam. For beams with an I-shaped cross section, steps in the
web depth lead to physical breaks in the flanges, while steps in the
web thickness have little effect on the moment capacity. In practice,
therefore, the significant steps are those in the flange width or
thickness. In plate girders, these steps are usually achieved by adding
plates of variable length to each flange or using different flange
plates with a constant web depth along the span.
The elastic FTB of simply supported stepped I-beams under
central concentrated loads was studied by Trahair and Kitipornchai
(1971). The results of the study were presented graphically with the
results for tapered beams in Trahairs book (1993). Trahair and
Kitipornchai (1971) suggested the following approximate solution
for the elastic FTB resistance load of stepped beams of constant
depth:
Q =Q1,1 − 2α (Q1,1−Qβ,γ) (2)
in which Q1,1 is the buckling load for a uniform member having the
larger cross section along entire beam span (β = γ =1); Qβ, γ is the
buckling load for a uniform member having a reduced cross section
corresponding to the values of β and γ ; α , β , and γ are ratios
defining the relative length and relative width and thickness of the
large and small cross sections, respectively. Eq. (2) was developed
for beams with increased moment of inertia near midspan under a
concentrated load.
Yura (1993) studied various loading and bracing combinations to
develop improved moment gradient factors, Cb, for cases involving
− 76 −
FTB. A solution of Yura’s that is particularly pertinent to this
research is for beams braced at the ends and with continuous lateral
bracing of the top flange (Galambos, 1998). If the moment at neither
end of the segment produces a compressive stress on the bottom
flange, there is no buckling in the segment. If the moments at either
or both ends produce a compressive stress on the bottom flange, the
moment gradient factor is given as:
2 M 8 MCL -
Cb = 3.0 – --- ⎛ ------1 ⎞ + --- ---------------------- (3)
3 ⎝ M0 ⎠ 3 ( M0 + M1 )
where, M0 is the end moment that produces the largest compressive
stress on the bottom flange; M1 is the other end moment; and MCL is
the moment at the centerline of the segment. Positive values should
be substituted into above equation for M0 and M1 when these
moments produce compressive stress in the bottom flange. A positive
value should be substituted for MCL when this moment produces
tensile stress in the bottom flange. For the quantity (M0 +M1) in the
equation, M1 should be taken as zero when term M1 is negative. In
other words, the term (M0 +M1) must be between M0 and 2M0. It
should also be noted that there is no upper bound for Cb. Eq. (3) is
easy to use in beam design, but its accuracy is not well documented.
An investigation of the accuracy of Eq. (3) is presented by Park et al.
(2004). Eq. (3) can be reasonably applied in design of prismatic
beams having uniformly distributed load, or both combination of
concentrated loads and uniformly distributed load, along with end
moments.
3. Finite Element Modeling
The three-dimensional finite-element program MSC/NASTRAN
(1998) and a graphical package MSC/PATRAN (2000) were used to
analytically investigate the flexural-torsional buckling behavior of
stepped beams subjected to pure bending moment. MSC/NASTRAN
(1998) is a well-established general-purpose finite-element code that
is extremely versatile and powerful, especially in modeling the
behavior of metal structures. Practically any structure of interest can
be modeled and a number of solution sequences including linear
static, nonlinear static, buckling solutions, etc. can be used. For the
present investigation of the FTB behavior of beams, NASTRAN was
used to model the full three-dimensional configuration of the cross
section using QUAD4 elements. This modeling technique offers the
advantages of being able to give much flexibility in accurately
modeling the loading and boundary conditions.
Convergence tests were conducted to determine the optimum mesh
refinement and model configuration. It was concluded that 6 or 8
elements through the web and 2 or 4 elements across the each flange
gave sufficient accuracy while minimizing computation time. An
isometric view of the typical three-dimensional mesh pattern for an I-
section used in this study is shown in Fig. 1. The typical buckling
mode shape of simply supported stepped beam subjected to pure
bending moment is represented in Fig. 2.
Two basic types of stepped beams are considered here: Singly
stepped beams with increased flange size at one end, and doubly
stepped beams with increased flange size at both ends. Fig. 3 shows
the doubly and singly stepped beams used in this study. As shown in
Fig. 3, the flanges of the smaller cross section were fixed at 30.48 by
2.54 cm while the width and/or thickness of the flanges of the larger
cross section were varied. The web thickness and height of beam was
kept at 1.65 cm and 88.9 cm, respectively. The ratio of the flange
thicknesses, γ , the ratio of the flange widths, β , and the ratio of
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Stepped Beams Subjected to Pure Bending

Fig. 1. Typical Mesh Pattern for Finite Element Model Fig. 2. Typical Buckling Modeshape of Stepped Beam due to Pure
Bending

Fig. 3. Definition of Three Ratios in the Doubly and Singly Stepped Beam

stepped length of beam, α , are also defined in Fig. 3. For the special Table 1. Ranges of Ratios for Stepped Beams Investigated
case of β =1 and γ =1, the beam is prismatic. From the geometry of Flange Width Flange Thickness
typical stepped bridge girders, ranges of the three ratios for stepped Model Type Length Ratio (α)
Ratio (β) Ratio (γ)
(1) (2)
beams were established, and these ranges are given in Table 1. The (3) (4)
ranges given in Table 1 define the limits of the FEM investigation. Doubly-Stepped Beam 0.167 - 0.333 1.0 - 1.4 1.0 - 1.8
The length, Lb, in Fig. 3 represents a typical unbraced length in a Singly-Stepped Beam 0.167 - 0.5 1.0 - 1.4 1.0 - 1.8
beam. At the ends of the unbraced length, the beam was free to warp.
The ratio of the unbraced length to the height of the stepped beam
models was varied from 15 to 25 in the investigation of beams
subjected to pure bending moment. It was found that the value of Cst for stepped beams increases as the length-height ratio increases, and

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004 − 77 −

 Jong Sup Park and Young-Jong Kang

these results are presented later in this paper. were used for singly stepped beams.

4. Finite Element Results and Design Recommen- 4.1. Doubly Stepped Beams
dations From the results of the finite element investigation, it was found
that the buckling moments varied approximately with the square of
81 models were analyzed for doubly stepped beams, and 108 the length ratio (α), and a change of flange thickness is more
models were analyzed for singly stepped beams. Span-to-height significant than a change of flange width on the FTB capacity of a
ratios of 15, 20, and 25 were used. At each span-to-height ratio, the
27 combinations of α, β , and γ shown in Table 2 were used for Table 3. Parameters Used in the FEM Analyses of Singly Stepped
Beams
doubly stepped beams, and the 36 combinations shown in Table 3
α β γ
(1) (2) (3)
Table 2. Parameters Used in the FEM Analyses of Doubly Stepped
0.167 1.0 1.2; 1.4; 1.8
Beams
0.167 1.2 1.0; 1.4; 1.8
α β γ
(1) (2) (3) 0.167 1.4 1.0; 1.4; 1.8
0.167 1.0 1.2 0.25 1.0 1.2; 1.4; 1.8
0.167 1.2 1.0; 1.4; 1.8 0.25 1.2 1.0; 1.4; 1.8
0.167 1.4 1.0; 1.4; 1.8 0.25 1.4 1.0; 1.4; 1.8
0.25 1.0 1.4; 1.8 0.333 1.0 1.2; 1.4; 1.8
0.25 1.2 1.0; 1.4; 1.8 0.333 1.2 1.0; 1.4; 1.8
0.25 1.4 1.0; 1.4; 1.8 0.333 1.4 1.0; 1.4; 1.8
0.333 1.0 1.2; 1.4; 1.6; 1.8 0.5 1.0 1.2; 1.4; 1.8
0.333 1.2 1.0; 1.4; 1.8 0.5 1.2 1.0; 1.4; 1.8
0.333 1.4 1.0; 1.2; 1.4; 1.6; 1.8 0.5 1.4 1.0; 1.4; 1.8

Fig. 4. FEM Results and Proposed Solution for Doubly Stepped Beams

− 78 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Stepped Beams Subjected to Pure Bending

stepped beam. The proposed design equation for doubly stepped
beams under pure bending is:
Most=Cst Mocr (4)
in which
Cst =1+6α2 (βγ 1.3−1) (5)
where Most is the critical FTB moment of stepped beams under pure
bending; Mocr is the FTB moment of an equal length prismatic beam
having the smaller cross section along the entire span as presented in
Eq. (1); α , β , and γ are the ratios previously defined in Fig. 3; and the
subscript “st” designates stepped flange at top and bottom flanges.
Fig. 4(a),(b), and (c) provide comparisons between FEM results
and the proposed solution for span-to-height ratios of 15, 20, and 25,
respectively. Cst from Eq. (5) is plotted as a solid line. Individual
FEM results were plotted by dividing the critical moment from the
FEM analysis by Mocr as defined for Eq. (1). The FEM results of
these figures show that Cst values increase as span-to-height ratios
increase. Fig. 4(d) shows a comparison between the proposed solution
and all FEM results from Fig. 4(a),(b), and (c). The proposed solution
is linear in the quantity α2( βγ 1.3−1). Fig. 4 shows that the proposed
solution is conservative for most cases, but it is unconservative for
some cases with Lb /h=15 and 20 at α =0.333. The maximum
difference for an unconservative estimate is 10% at Lb/h=15 with α
=0.333, β =1.4, and γ =1.8. The maximum difference for a conservative
estimate is 16% at Lb/h=25 with α =0.167, β =1.2, and γ =1.8. The
accuracy of the proposed solution is acceptable over the range of
parameters investigated.
Table 4 presents that the FTB moment resistances of four existing
doubly stepped beams in continuous span bridges as described by
Park (2002) are compared with predicted values from Eq. (4). The
percentage in the last column is the difference between FEM results
and values from Eq. (4). Table 4 also presents the estimates using the

Table 4. Comparison between Proposed Solution and FEM Results of Real Structural System for Doubly Stepped Beams
Stepped Ratio Flexural-Torsional Buckling Moments (kN-m)
Difference
Model Flange Flange Mcr Mocr Cst Most Mcr
Length (α) (%)
(1) Width (β) Thickness (γ) (WAA) (Eq. 1) (Eq. 5) (Eq. 4) (FEM)
(2) (10)
(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
I 0.17 1.01 1.33 1115 883 1.08 954 1102 13.2
II 0.22 1.36 1.07 811 541 1.14 617 632 2.3
III 0.24 1.13 1.67 456 243 1.42 343 372 7.6
IV 0.13 1.00 1.80 541 376 1.12 419 494 15.0

Fig. 5. FEM Results and Proposed Solution for Singly Stepped Beams

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004 − 79 −

 Jong Sup Park and Young-Jong Kang

WAA gives unconservative values for all these cases, and the Eq. (4) bending is:
provides reasonable FTB capacities of doubly stepped beams under Most =Cst Mocr (6)
pure bending.
in which
4.2. Singly Stepped Beams Cst =1+1.5α1.6( βγ 1.2−1) (7)
The proposed design equation for singly stepped beams under pure

Table 5. Comparison between Proposed Solution and FEM Results of Real Structural System for Singly Stepped Beams
Stepped Ratios Flexural-Torsional Buckling Moments (kN-m)
Difference
Model Flange Flange Mcr Mocr Cst Most Mcr
Length (α) (%)
(1) Width (β) Thickness (γ) (WAA) (Eq. 1) (Eq. 6) (Eq. 7) (FEM)
(2) (10)
(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
I 0.25 1.39 1.53 998 557 1.21 675 724 6.7
II 0.30 1.37 1.34 899 538 1.21 650 674 3.6
III 0.17 1.00 1.80 686 538 1.09 587 633 7.3
IV 0.26 1.01 1.16 579 536 1.04 555 572 3.0

Fig. 6. Stepped Beams with Continuous Top Bracing: (a), (c), and (e) Doubly Stepped Beams; (b), (d), and (f) Singly Stepped Beams

− 80 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Stepped Beams Subjected to Pure Bending
where Most is the critical FTB moment of the singly stepped beam
under pure bending; Mocr is the FTB moment of an equal length
prismatic beam having the smaller cross section; and α , β , and γ are
the ratios previously defined in Fig. 3.
Comparisons between FEM results and the proposed solution for
span-to-height ratios of 15, 20, and 25 are shown in Fig. 5(a),(b), and
(c). These graphs also show that the Cst values from the FEM results
for singly stepped beams increase as span-to-height ratios increase.
Fig. 5(d) shows that the proposed solution gives conservative values
for most cases, but for some cases, it is unconservative. The maximum
difference for an unconservative estimate is 7% at Lb/h=15 with α =
0.5, β =1.4, and γ =1.8. The maximum difference for a conservative
estimate is 9% at Lb/h =25 with α =0.25, β =1.0, and γ =1.8. Fig. 5
shows that the proposed solution is in good agreement with the FEM
results.
In Table 5, the FTB moment resistances of the four existing singly
stepped beams as described by Park (2002) are compared with values
calculated using proposed Eq. (6). The table shows that the WAA
gives unconservative values for all these cases and that the proposed
solution gives reasonable FTB capacities for these singly stepped
beams under pure bending.
4.3. Stepped Beams with Continuous Top Bracing
From the FEM investigation, the proposed design equation for
stepped beams with continuous top bracing subjected to pure
bending is
Most =CbCst Mocr (8)
in which Cb is a moment gradient factor defined by Eq. (3); Cst=1+
6α2 ( βγ1.3 −1) for doubly stepped beams and Cst =1+1.5α1.6( βγ1.2 −1)
for singly stepped beams; Mocr is the FTB moment of an equal length
prismatic beam having the smaller cross section along the entire span
as presented in Eq. (1).
Comparisons of FEM results with Eq. (8) are provided in Fig. 6. In
this figure the ratios of the FEM results to predicted values from Eq.
(8) are plotted against the value of α, β, and γ . If the predicted value
from Eq. (8) is exactly same as the FEM result, the value on the
vertical axis in this figure is 1. The data below line of 1 in the vertical
axis indicate unconservative estimates with respect to FEM results.
Fig. 6 shows that the ratio of FEM results to predicted values
increases as the stepped ratio of flange thickness, γ , increases. These
figures also show that Eq. (8) gives conservative values for most
cases. The maximum difference of a conservative estimate is 45%
for the doubly stepped beams with α =0.25, β =1.0, and γ =1.8, and is
38% for the singly stepped beam with α =0.25, β =1.0, and γ =1.8.
The minimum difference for a conservative estimate is 17% for
doubly stepped beam with α =0.333, β =1.4, and γ =1.0, and is 24%
for singly stepped beam with α =0.5, β =1.4, and γ =1.4.
5. Summary and Concluding Remarks
The study of FTB capacity of stepped beams, which are used to
resist high negative moments at interior supports in continuous
bridges, is important because of the significant increase in the critical
moment resistance of this type beam. An investigation of the elastic
FTB behavior of I-shaped stepped beams was conducted using finite
element method and resulted in the development of design equations
for beams having singly or doubly stepped cross sections within a
Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004 − 81 −
laterally unbraced length. The finite element models are subjected to
pure bending moment in the entire beam span. First, the equations for
Cst factors were developed to account for stepped beams under pure
bending loading. It was found that the buckling moments varied
approximately with the square or the 1.6th power of the length ratio,
α , for doubly or singly stepped beams, that a change of flange
thickness is more significant than a change of flange width, and that
Cst values increase as span-to-height ratios increase. Two Cst equations
proposed gave a good agreement with the FEM results. Second, the
equation for the moment gradient effect presented in SSRC Guide
(Galambos, 1998) was considered along with the Cst equations.
Results from the design equations were demonstrated with
comparisons between the proposed equations or the WAA and FEM
results for doubly and singly stepped beam spans of existing
highway bridges. The comparisons indicated that the FTB estimates
from the WAA were unconservative and the proposed solution
produced reasonable estimates. The new equations proposed definitely
improve current design methods for the FTB problem and increase
efficiency in building and bridge design. The proposed solutions can
be easily used to develop new design equations for FTB resistance of
stepped beams subjected to general loading condition such as a
concentrated load, a series of concentrated loads, or uniformly
distributed load.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Cb = modifier for moment gradient;
Cst = stepped beam factor based on action of pure bending;
Cw = warping constant of beam;
E = modulus of elasticity of steel;
G = shear modulus of elasticity of steel;
h = beam depth;
Iy = moment of inertia of beam about Y-axis;
J = St. Venant torsional constant for beam;
Lb = laterally unbraced length;
M0 = end moment that produce largest compressive stress on
bottom flange;
M1 = smaller end moment of beam;
MCL = moment at centerline of segment;
Mocr = flexural-torsional buckling strength of prismatic beam
under pure bending;
Most = flexural-torsional buckling strength of stepped beam under
pure bending;
α = ratio of stepped length along span;
β = ratio for defining relative flange width of large and small
cross section; and
γ = ratio for defining relative flange thickness of large and
small cross section.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) (1998). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge
Design Specifications, Second Edition, Washington, D.C.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (1998). Load and Resistance
Factor Design, Second Edition, Chicago, Illinois.
Galambos, T.V. (1998). Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures,
Wiley, New York. NY.
Kirby, P.A. and Nethercot, D.A. (1979). Design for Structural Stability,
Wiley, New York. NY.
 Jong Sup Park and Young-Jong Kang

Kitipornchai, S. and Trahair, N.S. (1980). “Buckling Properties of
Monosymmetric I-Beams.” ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol.
106, No. 5, pp. 941-957.
MSC/NASTRAN (1998). Quick Reference Guide (Version 70.5), MacNeal-
Schwindler Corporation, Los Angeles, CA.
MSC/PATRAN (2000). Introduction to MSC PATRAN (Version 9.0),
MacNeal-Schwindler Corporation, Los Angeles, CA.
Park, J.S. (2002). “Lateral-Torsional Buckling of Beams with Top Flange
Bracing.” Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Park, J.S., Stallings, J.M., and Kang, Y.J. (2004). “Lateral-Torsional
Buckling of Prismatic Beams with Continuous Top-Flange Bracing.”
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 60, Issue 2, pp.147-160.
Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. (1961). Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York.
Trahair, N.S. (1993). Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Structures, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Fla.
Trahair, N.S. and Kitipornchai, S. (1971). “Elastic Lateral Buckling of
Stepped I-Beams.” ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 97, No.
10, pp. 2535-2548.
Yura, J.A. (1993). “Fundamental of Beam Bracing.” Proceeding, Annual
Conference of “Is your structure suitably braced?”, Structural Steel
Research Council, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April, 20pp.
(Received on August 8, 2003 / Accepted on November 6, 2003)

− 82 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

View publication stats