LATERALLY UNRESTRAINED BEAMS

1.0 LATERALLY UNRESTRAINED BEAMS

Generally, a beam resists transverse loads by bending action. In a typical building frame, main
beams are employed to span between adjacent columns; secondary beams when used –transmit
the floor loading on to the main beams. In general, it is necessary to consider only the bending
effects in such cases, any torsional loading effects being relatively insignificant. The main forms
of response to uni-axial bending of beams are listed in Table 1.

Under increasing transverse loads, beams of category 1 [Table1] would attain their full plastic
moment capacity.Two important assumptions have been made therein to achieve this ideal beam
behaviour. They are:

♦ The compression flange of the beam is restrained from moving laterally, and

♦ Any form of local buckling is prevented.

If the laterally unrestrained length of the compression flange of the beam is relatively long as in
category 2 of Table 1, then a phenomenon, known as lateral buckling or lateral torsional
buckling of the beam may take place. The beam would fail well before it could attain its full
moment capacity. This phenomenon has a close similarity to the Euler buckling of columns,
triggering collapse before attaining its squash load (full compressive yield load).

Lateral buckling of beams has to be accounted for at all stages of construction, to eliminate the
possibility of premature collapse of the structure or component. For example, in the construction
of steel-concrete composite buildings, steel beams are designed to attain their full moment
capacity based on the assumption that the flooring would provide the necessary lateral restraint
to the beams. However, during the erection stage of the structure, beams may not receive as
much lateral support from the floors as they get after the concrete hardens. Hence, at this stage,
they are prone to lateral buckling, which has to be consciously prevented.

Beams of category 3 and 4 given in Table 1 fail by local buckling, which should be prevented by
adequate design measures, in order to achieve their capacities.
SIMILARITY OF COLUMN BUCKLING AND LATERAL BUCKLING OF BEAMS

It is well known that slender members under compression are prone to instability. When slender
structural elements are loaded in their strong planes, they have a tendency to fail by buckling in
their weaker planes. Both axially loaded columns and transversely loaded beams exhibit closely
similar failure characteristics due to buckling.

Consider a simply supported and laterally unsupported (except at ends) beam of “short-span”
subjected to incremental transverse load at its mid-section as shown in Fig.1 (a). The beam will
deflect downwards i.e. in the direction of the load [Fig. 1(b)].

The direction of the load and the direction of movement of the beam are the same. This is similar
to a short column under axial compression. On the other hand, a “long-span” beam [Fig.2 (a)],
when incrementally loaded will first deflect downwards, and when the load exceeds a particular
value, it will tilt sideways due to instability of the compression flange and rotate about the
longitudinal axis [Fig. 2(b)].
The three positions of the beam cross-section shown in Fig. 2(b) illustrate the displacement and
rotation that take place as the midsection of the beam undergoes lateral torsional buckling. The
characteristic feature of lateral buckling is that the entire cross section rotates as a rigid disc
without any cross sectional distortion. This behaviour is very similar to an axially compressed
long column, which after initial shortening in the axial direction, deflects laterally when it
buckles. The similarity between column buckling and beam buckling is shown in Fig. 3.

In the case of axially loaded columns, the deflection takes place sideways and the column
buckles in a pure flexural mode. A beam, under transverse loads, has a part of its cross section in
compression and the other in tension. The part under compression becomes unstable while the
tensile stresses elsewhere tend to stabilize the beam and keep it straight. Thus, beams when
loaded exactly in the plane of the web, at a particular load, will fail suddenly by deflecting
sideways and then twisting about its longitudinal axis [Fig.3]. This form of instability is more
complex (compared to column instability) since the lateral buckling problem is 3-dimensional in
nature. It involves coupled lateral deflection and twist i.e., when the beam deflects laterally, the
applied moment exerts a torque about the deflected longitudinal axis, which causes the beam to
twist. The bending moment at which a beam fails by lateral buckling when subjected to a
uniform end moment is called its elastic critical moment (Mcr). In the case of lateral buckling of
beams, the elastic buckling load provides a close upper limit to the load carrying capacity of the
beam.

 The section possesses different stiffness in the two principal planes, and
 The applied loading induces bending in the stiffer plane (about the major axis).

Similar to the columns, the lateral buckling of unrestrained beams, is also a function of its
slenderness.

INFLUENCE OF CROSS SECTIONAL SHAPE ON LATERAL TORSIONAL

BUCKLING

Structural sections are generally made up of either open or closed sections. Examples of open
and closed sections are shown in Fig. 4.
Cross sections, employed for columns and beams (I and channel), are usually open sections in
which material is distributed in the flanges, i.e. away from their centroids, to improve their
resistance to in-plane bending stresses. Open sections are also convenient to connect beams to
adjacent members. In the ideal case, where the beams are restrained laterally, their bending
strength about the major axis forms the principal design consideration. Though they possess high
major axis bending strength, they are relatively weak in their minor axis bending and twisting.

The use of open sections implies the acceptance of low torsional resistance inherent in them. No
doubt, the high bending stiffness (EIx) available in the vertical plane would result in low
deflection under vertical loads. However, if the beam is loaded laterally, the deflections (which
are governed by the lower EIy rather than the higher EIx) will be very much higher. From a
conceptual point of view, the beam has to be regarded as an element having an enhanced
tendency to fall over on its weak axis. In contrast, closed sections such as tubes, boxes and solid
shafts have high torsional stiffness, often as high as 100 times that of an open section. The
hollow circular tube is the most efficient shape for torsional resistance, but is rarely employed as
a beam element on account of the difficulties encountered in connecting it to the other members
and lesser efficiency as a flexural member. The influence of sectional shapes on the lateral
strength of a beam is further illustrated in a later Section.

LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF SYMMETRIC SECTIONS

As explained earlier, when a beam fails by lateral torsional buckling, it buckles about its weak
axis, even though it is loaded in the strong plane. The beam bends about its strong axis up to the
critical load at which it buckles laterally [Fig. 5(a) and 5(b)].

For the purpose of this discussion, the lateral torsional buckling of an I-section is considered with
the following assumptions.

1. The beam is initially undistorted

2. Its behaviour is elastic (no yielding)

3. It is loaded by equal and opposite end moments in the plane of the web.

4. The loads act in the plane of the web only (there are no externally applied lateral or torsional
loads)
5. The beam does not have residual stresses

6. Its ends are simply supported vertically and laterally.

Obviously, in practice, the above ideal conditions are seldom met. For example, rolled sections
invariably contain residual stresses.

The critical bending moment capacity attained by a symmetric I beam subjected to equal end
moments undergoing lateral torsional buckling between points of lateral or torsional support is a
function of two torsional characteristics of the specific cross-section: the pure torsional resistance
under uniform torsion and the warping torsional resistance11

Mcr=[(torsional resistance)2 + (Warping resistance)2]1/2

1/2
  2 EI y  
M cr   EI y GJ   (1a)
   2 

This may be rewritten as

 1/2
 1/2   2 E 
M cr   EI y GJ  1  2  1(b)
   GJ 

EIy is the minor axis flexural rigidity

GJ is the torsional rigidity

EГ is the warping rigidity

The torsion that accompanies lateral buckling is always non-uniform. The critical bending
moment, Mcr is given by Eqn.1a.

It is evident from Eqn.1 (a) that the flexural and torsional stiffness of the member relate to the
lateral and torsional components of the buckling deformations. The magnitude of the second
square root term in Eqn.1 (b) is a measure of the contribution of warping to the resistance of the
beam. In practice, this value is large for short deep girders. For long shallow girders with low
warping stiffness, Γ ≈ 0 and Eqn. 1(b) reduces to


 EI y GJ 
1/2
M cr  (2)


An I-section composed of very thin plates will posses very low torsional rigidity (since J depends
on third power of thickness) and both terms under the root will be of comparable magnitude. The
second term is negligible compared to the first for the majority of hot rolled sections. But light
gauge sections derive most of the resistance to torsional deformation from the warping action.
The beam length also has considerable influence upon the relative magnitudes of the two terms
as shown in the term π2EΓ / λ2GJ. Shorter and deep beams (π2EΓ / λ2GJ term will be large)
demonstrate more warping resistance, whereas, the term will be small for long and shallow
beams. Eqn. (1) may be rewritten in a simpler form as given below.
Eqn. (4) is a product of three terms: the first term, α, varies with the loading and support
conditions; the second term varies with the material properties and the shape of the beam; and
the third term, γ, varies with the length of the beam. Eqn. (4) is regarded as the basic equation for
lateral torsional buckling of beams. The influence of the three terms mentioned above is
discussed in the following Section.

FACTORS AFFECTING LATERAL STABILITY

The elastic critical moment, Mcr, as obtained in the previous Section, is applicable only to a
beam of I section which is simply supported and subjected to end moments. This case is
considered as the basic case for future discussion. In practical situations, support conditions,
beam cross section, loading etc. vary from the basic case. The following sections elaborate on
these variations and make the necessary modifications to the basic case for design purposes.

a) Support conditions

The lateral restraint provided by the simply supported conditions assumed in the basic case is the
lowest and therefore Mcr is also the lowest. It is possible, by other restraint conditions, to obtain
higher values of Mcr, for the same structural section, which would result in better utilization of
the section and thus saving in weight of material. As lateral buckling involves three kinds of
deformations, namely lateral bending, twisting and warping, it is feasible to think of various
types of end conditions. But, the supports should either completely prevent or offer no resistance
to each type of deformation. Solutions for partial restraint conditions are complicated. The effect
of various support conditions is taken into account by way of a parameter called effective length,
which is explained, in the next Section.

b) Effective length

The concept of effective length incorporates the various types of support conditions. For the
beam with simply supported end conditions and no intermediate lateral restraint, the effective
length is equal to the actual length between the supports. When a greater amount of lateral and
torsional restraints is provided at supports, the effective length is less than the actual length and
alternatively, the length becomes more when there is less restraint. The effective length factor
would indirectly account for the increased lateral and torsional rigidities provided by the
restraints.
For simply supported beams and girders of span length, L, where no lateral restraint to the
compression flanges is provided, but where each end of the beam is restrained against torsion,
the effective length LLT of the lateral buckling shall be taken as in Table 2 (Table 8.3 of New IS:
800).

In simply supported beams with intermediate lateral restraints against lateral torsional buckling,
the effective length for lateral torsional buckling LLT, shall be taken as the length of the relevant
segment in between the lateral restraints. The effective length shall be equal to 1.2 times the
length of the relevant segment in between the lateral restraints.

Restraint against torsional rotation at supports in these beams may be provided by:

i) Web or flange cleats, or

ii) Bearing stiffeners acting in conjunction with the bearing of the beam, or
iii) Lateral end frames or external supports provide lateral restraint to the compression flanges at
the ends, or
iv) Their being built into walls

c) Level of application of transverse loads

The lateral stability of a transversely loaded beam is dependent on the arrangement of the loads
as well as the level of application of the loads with respect to the centroid of the cross section.
Fig. 6 shows a centrally loaded beam experiencing either destabilising or restoring effect when
the cross section is twisted.

A load applied above the centroid of the cross section causes an additional overturning moment
and becomes more critical than the case when the load is applied at the centroid. On the other
hand, if the load is applied below the centroid, it produces a stabilising effect. Thus, a load
applied below or above the centroid can change the buckling load by ± 40%. The location of the
load application has no effect if a restraint is provided at the load point. For example, New IS:
800 takes into account the destabilising effect of top flange loading by using a notional effective
length of 1.2 times the actual span to be used in the calculation of effective length (see Table 2).

Provision of intermediate lateral supports can conveniently increase the lateral stability of a
beam. With a central support, which is capable of preventing lateral deflection and twisting, the
beam span is halved and each span behaves independently. As a result, the rigidity of the beam is
considerably increased. This aspect is dealt in more detail in a later chapter.

d) Influence of type of loading

So far, only the basic case of beams loaded with equal and opposite end moments has been
considered. But, in reality, loading patterns would vary widely from the basic case. The two
reasons for studying the basic case in detail are: (1) it is analytically amenable, and (2) the
loading condition is regarded as the most severe. Cases of moment gradient, where the end
moments are unequal, are less prone to instability and this beneficial effect is taken into account
by the use of “equivalent uniform moments”. In this case, the basic design procedure is modified
by comparing the elastic critical moment for the actual case with the elastic critical moment for
the basic case. This process is similar to the effective length concept in strut problems for taking
into account end fixity.
Example 1: Calculate the moment carrying capacity of laterally unsupported ISMB400
member of length 3m.

Solution:Overall depth – 400mm

Width of flange (b) – 140mm

Thickness of flange (tf) – 16mm

Height of web (d) = h-2(tf+R) = 400-2 (6+14)= 3440mm

Thickness of web (tw) = 8.9mm

Iz = 20458.4x104 mm4, Iy = 622.1x104 mm4,

Elastic section modulus Ze = 1020x103 mm3,

Plastic section modulus Zp= 1175.2x103 mm3,

As the beam is laterally unsupported the bending strength is found by calculating lateral torsional
buckling moment (Cl. 8.2.2.1, P54)

 2 EI y   2 EI w 
M cr   GI  
 KL    KL  
2 t 2

E 2 105
G   76.923 103 N / mm2
2(1   ) 2(1  0.3)

bi ti3  2 140 163  400  16   8.9 

3

It       4.725 10 mm
3 3

3  3 3 

KL=3000mm, hf=400-16= 384mm

I w  (1   f ) f I y h2f  P129, IS800 : 2007 

I fc
f   0.5
I fc  I ft

I w  (1  0.5)0.5  622.1104  3842  2.29 1011 mm4

 2  2 105  622.1104   2  2 105  2.29 1011 

M cr   76.923 103  4.725 105  
 3000 
2
  3000 
2

 
 343.68kN  m

Section classification

Outstanding element of compression flange = b/tf = 70/16 = 4.38<9.4ε

Web with neutral axis at mid-section = d/tw = 340.4/8.9 = 38.2<84ε

Hence the section is plastic

Calculation of moment carrying capacity

b Z p f y 1.0 1175.2 103  250

LT    0.925
M cr 343.68 106

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2

LT  0.5 1  0.21(0.925  0.2)  0.9252 

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
1.004  1.0042  0.9252 

 LT  0.717  1.0

 LT f y 0.717  250
fbd    163N / mm2
 m0 1.1

M d  b Z p fbd  1.0 1175.2 103 163  191.56kN  m

The moment carrying capacity of the section is 191.56kN-m

Example 2. A proposed cantilever beam is built into a concrete wall and free at itsend. It
supports dead load of 20kN/m and a live load of 10kN/m. the length of the beam is 5m.
Select an available section with necessary checks. Assume bearing length of 100mm.

Solution.

Step 1: calculation of load

Dead load = 1.5x20 = 30kN/m

Live load = 1.5x10= 15kN/m

Total load = 45kN/m

Step 2: calculation of bending moment and shear force

Wl 2 45  52
BM    562.5kN  m
2 2

SF  Wl  45  5  225kN

Step 3: Selection of initial section

Assume   80; h / t f  20
 2 0.5
1.1 E  2
1  LLT / ry  

f cr ,b  1   
 LLT / ry   20  h / t f 
2
 

0.5
1.1  2  2 105  1  80  
2

f cr ,b  1      455.18 N / mm2
80   20  20  
2

fy 250
LT    0.741
f cr ,b 455.12

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2


LT  0.5 1  0.21(0.741  0.2)  0.7412   0.831

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
0.831  0.8312  0.7412 

 LT  0.828  1.0

 LT f y 0.828  250
fbd    188.18 N / mm2
 m0 1.1

BM 562.5 106
Therefore the required section moudulus    2989.16
fbd 188.18

Choose a section of ISWB 600@1.3377 Kn/m

Overall depth (h) = 600 mm

Width of flange (b) = 250mm

Thickness of flange (tf) = 21.3 mm

Thicness of web (tw) = 11.2mm

Depth of web (d) = h-2(tf+R) =600-2(21.3+17)=523.4

Moment of inertia about major axis Iz = 106199x104 mm4

Moment of inertia about minor axis Iy = 4702.5x104 mm4

Elastic section modulus (Ze) = 3540x103 mm3

Plastic section modulus (Zp) = 3986.6 x 103 mm3

Section classification

Outstanding element of compression flange = b/tf =125/21.3 = 5.86<9.4ε

Web with neutral axis at mid section = d/tw = 523.4/11.2 = 46.73<84ε

Hence the section is plastic

Since the flange thickness > 20 we have to use fy = 240MPa as per table 1 of IS800.

Step 4: calculation of lateral torsional buckling moments

 2 EI y   2 EI w 
M cr   GI  
 KL    KL  
2 t 2

KL= 0.85L = 0.85 x 5000= 4250mm (BS:5950-1:2000)

E 2 105
G   76.923 103 N / mm2
2(1   ) 2(1  0.3)

bi ti3  2  250  21.33  600  21.3 11.2 

3

It       1.88 10 mm
6 3

3  3 3 

KL=3000mm, hf=400+16= 384mm

I w  (1   f ) f I y h2f  P129, IS800 : 2007 

I fc
f   0.5
I fc  I ft

I w  (1  0.5)0.5  4702.5 104  578.72  3.94 1012 mm4

 2  2 105  4702.5 104   2  2 105  3.94 1012 

M cr   76.923 103 1.88 106  
 4250 
2
  4250 
2

 
 1719.28kN  m

Step 5: calculation of moment carrying capacity of a section

 b Z p f y 1.0  3986.6 103  240
LT    0.746
M cr 1719.28 106

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2


LT  0.5 1  0.21(0.746  0.2)  0.212   0.8356

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
0.8356  0.83562  0.7462 

 LT  0.825  1.0

 LT f y 0.825  240
fbd    180 N / mm2
 m0 1.1

M d  b Z p fbd  1.0  3986.6 103 180  717.6kN  m  562.5kN  m

Step 6: calculation of shear capacity of section

fy 250
Vd  htw  622 11.2  881.77kN
 m0 3 1.1 3

0.6Vd  0.6  881.77  529.06kN  225kN

Step 6: calculation of deflection

Total unfactored dead load = 30kN/m

wl 4 30  50004
b    11.03mm
8EI 8  2 105 106199 104

l 5000
Allowable deflection    33.33mm  11.03mm
150 150

Hence the section is safe against deflection.

Step 6: Check for web buckling (Cl. 8.7.3.1, P67))

Ab   b f  n1  tw
b1  100mm, n1  600 / 2  300mm
Ab  100  300  11.2  4480mm2

Effective length = 0.7d=0.7x523.4=366mm

bt 3 100 11.23 4
I   11.71103 mm4
12 12

A  100 11.2  1120mm2

I 11.71103
rmin    3.23mm
A 1120

leff 366
   113.31mm
rmin 3.23

fcd  89.79 N / mm2  from table 9 page 42 

Strength of section against web buckling = 89.79x4480=402.26kN>225kN

Hence the section is safe against web buckling

Step 9: Check for web bearing

f w   b1  n2  tw f y /  m 0
b1  100mm, n2  2.5  R  t f   2.5 17  21.3  95.75mm

f w  100  95.7511.2  250 /1.1

f w  498.27kN  225kN

Hence safe

Example 3. Design a continuous beam of span4.6m, 6m and 4.9m carrying a total

uniformly distributed load of 32.5kN/m and laterally unrestrained with a bearing length of
100mm.

Solution
Step 1: calculation of load

Factored load = 1.5x32.5=48.75kN/m

Maximum bending moment = 146.25 kN-m

Maximum shear force = 146.25+146.25=292.5kN

Step 2: Selection of initial section

Assume   100; h / t f  25

2 0.5
1.1 2 E  1  LLT / ry  

f cr ,b  1  
 LLT / ry   20  h / t f 
2
 

0.5
1.1 2 2 105  1  100  
2

f cr ,b  1      291.31N / mm2
100   20  25  
2

fy 250
LT    0.926
f cr ,b 291.31

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2


LT  0.5 1  0.21(0.926  0.2)  0.9262   1.005

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
1.005  1.0052  0.9262 

 LT  0.716  1.0

 LT f y 0.716  250
fbd    162.732 N / mm2
 m0 1.1

BM 146.25 106
Therefore the required section moudulus    898.89 103 mm3
fbd 162.73

Choose a section of ISLB 400@0.57kN/m

Overall depth (h) = 400 mm

Width of flange (b) = 165mm

Thickness of flange (tf) = 12.5 mm

Thicness of web (tw) = 8mm

Depth of web (d) = h-2(tf+R) =400-2(12.5+16)=343mm

Moment of inertia about major axis Iz = 1981.25x104 mm4

Moment of inertia about minor axis Iy = 716x104 mm4

Elastic section modulus (Ze) = 964.1x103 mm3

Plastic section modulus (Zp) = 1098.2 x 103 mm3

Section classification

Outstading element of compression flange = b/tf =82.5/12.5 = 6.6<9.4ε

Web with neutral axis at mid section = d/tw = 343/8 = 42.8<84ε

Hence the section is plastic

Step 4: calculation of lateral torsional buckling moments

 2 EI y   2 EI w 
M cr   GI  
 KL    KL  
2 t 2

E 2 105
G   76.923 103 N / mm2
2(1   ) 2(1  0.3)

bi ti3  2 165 12.53  400  12.5  8 

3

It       2.8110 mm
5 4

3  3 3 

KL=6000mm, hf=400-12.5= 387.5mm

I w  (1   f ) f I y h2f  P129, IS800 : 2007 

I fc
f   0.5
I fc  I ft

I w  (1  0.5)0.5  716 104  387.52  2.69 1011 mm4

  2  2 105  716 104   2  2 105  2.69 1011 
M cr   76.923 103  2.81105  
 6000 
2
  6000 
2

 
 119.48kN  m

Step 5: calculation of moment carrying capacity of a section

b Z p f y 1.0 1098.2 103  250

LT    1.516
M cr 119.48 106

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2


LT  0.5 1  0.21(1.516  0.2)  1.5162   1.79

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
1.79  1.792  1.5182 

 LT  0.365  1.0

 LT f y 0.365  250
fbd    83N / mm2
 m0 1.1

146.25 106
Therefore required section   1762 103 mm3
83

Therefore choose a section of ISLB 500@ 0.75kN/m

Overall depth (h) = 500 mm

Width of flange (b) = 180mm

Thickness of flange (tf) = 14.1 mm

Thickness of web (tw) = 9.2mm

Depth of web (d) = h-2(tf+R) =500-2(14.1+17)=437.8mm

Moment of inertia about major axis Iz = 38579x104 mm4

Moment of inertia about minor axis Iy = 1060x104 mm4

Elastic section modulus (Ze) = 1543x103 mm3

Plastic section modulus (Zp) = 1770.8 x 103 mm3

Section classification

Outstanding element of compression flange = b/tf =90/14.1 = 6.38<9.4ε

Web with neutral axis at mid section = d/tw = 437.8/9.2 = 47.58<84ε

Hence the section is plastic

Step 4: calculation of lateral torsional buckling moments

 2 EI y   2 EI w 
M cr   GI  
 KL    KL  
2 t 2

E 2 105
G   76.923 103 N / mm2
2(1   ) 2(1  0.3)

bi ti3  2 180 14.13  500  14.1  9.2 

3

It       4.63 10 mm
5 4

3  3 3 

KL=6000mm, hf=500-14.1= 387.5mm

I w  (1   f ) f I y h2f  P129, IS800 : 2007 

I fc
f   0.5
I fc  I ft

I w  (1  0.5)0.5 1060 104  485.92  6.256 1011 mm4

 2  2 105 1060 104   2  2 105  6.256 1011 

M cr   76.923 103  4.63 105  
 6000 
2
  6000 
2

 
 201.6kN  m

Step 5: calculation of moment carrying capacity of a section

b Z p f y 1.0 1770.8 103  250

LT    1.48
M cr 201.6 106

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2

LT  0.5 1  0.21(1.48  0.2)  1.482   1.7296

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
1.7296  1.72932  1.482 

 LT  0.381  1.0

 LT f y 0.381 250
fbd    86.6 N / mm2
 m0 1.1

M d  Z p fbd

M d  1770.8 103  86.6  153.34kN  m  146.25kN  m

Step 6: calculation of shear capacity of section

fy 250
Vd  htw  500  9.2  603.59kN
 m0 3 1.1 3

0.6Vd  0.6  603.59  362.15kN  292.5kN

Step 6: calculation of deflection

Total unfactored dead load = 32.5kN/m

5wl 4 5  32.5  60004

b    7.10mm
384 EI 384  2 105  38579 104

l 6000
Allowable deflection    20mm  7.10mm
150 300

Hence the section is safe against deflection.

Step 6: Check for web buckling

Ab   b1  n1  tw
b1  100mm, n1  500 / 2  250mm
Ab  100  250   9.2  3220mm2

Effective length = 0.7d=0.7x437.8=306.46mm

 bt 3 100  9.23 4
I   6489mm4
12 12

A  100  9.2  920mm2

I 16489
rmin    2.66mm
A 920

leff 306.46
   115.21mm
rmin 2.66

fcd  88.9 N / mm2  from table 9 page 42 

Strength of section against web buckling = 88.9x3220=286.26kN>292.5kN

Hence the section is same against web buckling

Step 9: Check for web bearing

f w   b1  n2  tw f y /  m 0
b1  100mm, n2  2.5  R  t f   2.5 14.1  17   77.75mm

f w  100  77.75 9.2  250 /1.1

f w  371.65kN  292.5kN

Hence safe

Example 4: Design a laterally unrestrained beam to carry a uniformly distributed load of

50kN/m. the beam is unsupported for a length of 1.5m and is simply supported for a length
of 1.5m and is simply placed on longitudinal beams at its ends.

Solution:

Step 1 : calculation of load

Factored load = 1.5x50 = 75kN/m

Step 2: calculation of bending moment and shear force

Wl 2 75 1.52
BM    21.09kN  m
8 2
 Wl
SF   75 1.5  56.25kN
2

Step 3: Selection of initial section

Assume   100; h / t f  25

2 0.5
1.1 2 E  1  LLT / ry  

f cr ,b  1  
 LLT / ry   20  h / t f 
2
 

0.5
1.1 2 2 105  1  100  
2

f cr ,b  1      291.31N / mm2
100   20  25  
2

fy 250
LT    0.926
f cr ,b 291.31

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2


LT  0.5 1  0.21(0.926  0.2)  0.9262   1.005

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
1.005  1.0052  0.9262 

 LT  0.716  1.0

 LT f y 0.716  250
fbd    162.7 N / mm2
 m0 1.1

BM 21.09 106
Therefore the required section moudulus    129.6 103 mm3
fbd 162.7

Choose a section of ISMB 175@0.19kN/m

Overall depth (h) = 175 mm

Width of flange (b) = 90mm

Thickness of flange (tf) = 8.6 mm

Thickness of web (tw) = 5.5mm

Depth of web (d) = h-2(tf+R) =286-2(8.6+10)=137.8mm

Moment of inertia about major axis Iz = 1270.6x104 mm4

Moment of inertia about minor axis Iy = 85.1x104 mm4

Elastic section modulus (Ze) = 145.2x103 mm3

Plastic section modulus (Zp) = 161.65 x 103 mm3

Minimum radius of gyration = 18.6mm

Section classification

Outstanding element of compression flange = b/tf =45/8.6 = 5.23<9.4ε

Web with neutral axis at mid section = d/tw = 137.8/5.5 = 25.05<84ε

Hence the section is plastic

Step 4: calculation of lateral torsional buckling moments

 2 EI y   2 EI w 
M cr   GI  
 KL    KL  
2 t 2

E 2 105
G   76.923 103 N / mm2
2(1   ) 2(1  0.3)

bi ti3  2  90  8.63 175  8.6   5.5 

3

It       47.39 10 mm
3 3

3  3 3 

KL=1500mm, hf=175-8.6= 166.4mm

I w  (1   f ) f I y h2f  P129, IS800 : 2007 

I fc
f   0.5
I fc  I ft

I w  (1  0.5)0.5  85.1104 166.42  5.89 109 mm4

  2  2 105  85.1104   2  2 105  5.89 109 
M cr   76.923 103  47.39 103  
1500 
2
 1500 
2

 
 1719.28kN  m

Step 5: calculation of moment carrying capacity of a section

b Z p f y 1.0 161.65 103  250

LT    0.7
M cr 81.11106

LT  0.5 1   LT (LT  0.2)  LT

2


LT  0.5 1  0.21(0.7  0.2)  0.72   0.7975

1
 LT  0.5
 1.0
0.7975  0.79752  0.72 

 LT  0.848  1.0

 LT f y 0.848  250
fbd    192.67 N / mm2
 m0 1.1

M d  b Z p fbd  1.0 161.65 103 192.67  31.14kN  m  21.05kN  m

Step 6: calculation of shear capacity of section

fy 250
Vd  htw  175  5.5  126.3kN
 m0 3 1.1 3

0.6Vd  0.6 126.3  75.78kN  56.25kN

Step 6: calculation of deflection

Total unfactored dead load = 50kN/m

5wl 4 5  50 15004
b    1.3mm
384 EI 384  2 105 1270.6 104

l 1500
Allowable deflection    5mm  1.3mm
300 300
Hence the section is safe against deflection.

Step 6: Check for web buckling

Assuming that the longitudinal beams are of the same size

Ab   b f  n1  tw
b1   b f  tw  / 2   90  5.5  / 2  42.25, n1  175 / 2  87.5mm
Ab   42.25  87.75   5.5  713.6mm 2

Effective length = 0.7d=0.7x137.8=96.46mm

bt 3 42.25  5.53 4
I   585.8mm4
12 12

A  42.25  5.5  232.38mm2

I 585.8
rmin    1.59mm
A 232.38

leff 96.46
   60.67
rmin 1.59

fcd  167 N / mm2  from table 9c page 42

Strength of section against web buckling 167x713.6=119.176kN>56.25kN

Hence the section is same against web buckling

Step 9: Check for web bearing

f w   b1  n2  tw f y /  m 0
b1  42.25mm, n2  2.5  R  t f   2.5 8.6  10   46.5mm

f w   42.25  46.5 5.5  250 /1.1

f w  110.9kN  56.25kN

Hence safe
UNRESTRAINED BEAM DESIGN – II

Doubly symmetric I- section has been used throughout for the development of the theory and
later discussion. It was established that practical beams fail by:

(i) Yielding, if they are short

(ii) Elastic buckling, if they are long, or

(iii) Inelastic lateral buckling, if they are of intermediate length.

CANTILEVER BEAMS

A cantilever beam is completely fixed at one end and free at the other. In the case of cantilevers,
the support conditions in the transverse plane affect the moment pattern. For design purposes, it
is convenient to use the concept of notional effective length, k, which would include both
loading and support effects. The notional effective length is defined as the length of the
notionally simply supported (in the lateral plane) beam of similar section, which would have an
elastic critical moment under uniform moment equal to the elastic critical moment of the actual
beam under the actual loading conditions. Recommended values of „k‟ for a number of cases are
given in Table 16 of IS:800-2000. It can be seen from the values of „k‟ that it is more effective to
prevent twist at the cantilever edge rather than the lateral deflection.

Generally, in framed structures, continuous beams are provided with overhang at their ends.
These overhangs have the characteristics of cantilever beams. In such cases, the type of restraint
provided at the outermost vertical support is most significant. Effective prevention of twist at this
location is of particular importance. Failure to achieve this would result in large reduction of
lateral stability as reflected in large values of „k‟, in Table given in IS 800.

CONTINUOUS BEAMS

Beams, extending over a number of spans, are normally continuous in vertical, lateral or in both
planes. In the cases, where such continuity is not provided lateral deflection and twisting may
occur. Such a situation is typically experienced in roof purlins before sheeting is provided on top
of them and in beams of temporary nature. For these cases, it is always safe to make no
assumption about possible restraints and to design them for maximum effective length.

Another case of interest with regard to lateral buckling is a beam that is continuous in the lateral
plane i.e. the beam is divided into several segments in the lateral plane by means of fully
effective braces. The buckled shapes for such continuous beams include deformation of all the
segments irrespective of their loading. Effective length of the segments will be equal to the
spacing of the braces if the spacing and moment patterns are similar. Otherwise, the effective
length of each segment will have to be determined separately

To illustrate the behaviour of continuous beams, a single-span beam provided with equally
loaded cross beams is considered (see Fig. 1).

Two equally spaced, equally loaded cross beams divide the beam into three segments laterally. In
this case, true Mcr of the beam and its buckling mode would depend upon the spacing of the cross
beams. The critical moment McrB for any ratio of λ1 / λb would lie in between the critical moment
values of the individual segments. The critical moments for the two segments are obtained using
the basic equation
(In the outer segment, m = 0.57. Using 1 / m and the basic moment, the critical moment is
determined)

(This segment is loaded by uniform moments at its ends – basic case)

Mcr1 and Mcr2 values are plotted against λ1 / λband shown in Fig. 2 for the particular case
considered with equal loading and a constant cross section throughout.

It is seen that for λ1 / λb = 0.37, Mcr1 and Mcr2 are equal and the two segments are simultaneously
critical. The beam will buckle with no interaction between the two segments. For any other value
of λ1 / λb there will be interaction between the segments and the critical load would be greater
than the individual values, as shown in the figure. For values of λ1 / λb< 0.37, outer segments will
restrain the central segment and vice-versa when λ1 / λb> 0.37.
The safe load for a laterally continuous beam may be obtained by calculating all segmental
critical loads individually and choosing the lowest value assuming each segment as simply
supported at its ends

It is of interest to know the behavior of beams, which are continuous in both transverse and
lateral planes. Though the behaviour is similar to the laterally unrestrained beams, their moment
patterns would be more complicated. The beam would buckle in the lateral plane and deflect in
the vertical plane. There is a distinct difference between the points of contraflexure in the
buckled shape and points of contraflexure in the deflected shape. These points will not normally
occur at the same location within a span, as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, it is wrong to use the
distance between the points of contraflexure of the deflected shape as the effective length for
checking buckling strength.

PROVISIONS OF NEW IS: 800 (LSM VERSION)

For beams, which are provided with members giving effective lateral restraint to the compression
flange at intervals along the span, in addition to the end torsional restraint required, the effective
length for lateral torsional buckling shall be taken as the distance, centre-to-centre, of the
restraint members in the relevant segment under normal loading condition and 1.2 times this
distance, where the load is not acting on the beam at the shear and is acting towards the shear
centre so as to have destabilizing effect during lateral torsional buckling deformation.
Where a member is provided as intermediate lateral supports to improve the lateral buckling
strength, these restraints should have sufficient strength and stiffness to prevent lateral
movement of the compression flange at that point, relative to the end supports. The intermediate
lateral restraints should be either connected to an appropriate bracing system capable of
transferring the restraint force to the effective lateral support at the ends of the member, or
should be connected to an independent robust part of the structure capable of transferring the
restraint force. Two or more parallel member requiring such lateral restraint shall not be simply
connected together assuming mutual dependence for the lateral restraint.

The intermediate lateral restraints should be connected to the member as close to the
compression flange as practicable. Such restraints should be closer to the shear centre of the
compression flange than to the shear centre of the section. However, if torsional restraint
preventing relative rotation between the two flanges is provided, they intermediate lateral
restraint may be connected at any appropriate level.

For beams which are provided with members giving effective lateral restraint at intervals along
the span, the effective lateral restraint shall be capable of resisting a force of 2.5 percent of the
maximum force in the compression flange taken as divided equally between the points at which
the restraint members are provided. Further, each restraint point should be capable of resisting 1
percent of the maximum force in the compression flange.

For Purlins which are adequately restrained by sheeting need not be normally checked for the
restraining forces required by rafters, roof trusses or portal frames that carry predominately roof
loads provided there is bracing of adequate stiffness in the plane of rafters or roof sheeting which
is capable of acting as a stressed skin diaphragm.

EFFECTIVE LATERAL RESTRAINT

Providing proper lateral bracing may increase the lateral stability of a beam. Lateral bracing may
be either discrete (e.g. cross beams) or continuous (e.g. beam encased in concrete floors). For the
continuously restrained beams, assuming lateral deflection is completely prevented, design can
be based on in-plane behaviour. It is important to note that in the hogging moment region of a
continuous beam, if the compression flange (bottom flange) is not properly restrained, a form of
lateral deflection with cross sectional distortion would occur.
Discrete bracing

In order to determine the behaviour of discrete braces, consider a simply supported beam
provided with a single lateral support of stiffness Kb at the centroid, as shown in Fig. 4.

The relationship between Kb and Mcr is shown in Fig. 5.

It is seen that Mcr value increases with Kb, until Kb is equal to a limiting value of Kbλ. The
corresponding Mcr value is equal to the value of buckling for the two segments of the beam. Mcr
value does not increase further as the buckling is now governed by the individual M cr values of
the two segments.

Generally, even a light bracing has the ability to provide substantial increase in stability. There
are several ways of arranging lateral bracing to improve stability. The limiting value of the
lateral bracing stiffness, Kbλ, is influenced by the following parameters.

 Level of attachment of the brace to the beam i.e. top or bottom flange.
 The type of loading on the beam, notably the level of application of the transverse load
 Type of connection, whether capable of resisting lateral and torsional deformation
 The proportion of the beam.

Provision of bracing to tension flanges is not so effective as compression flange bracing. Bracing
provided below the point of application of the transverse load would not be able to resist twisting
and hence full capacity of the beam is not achieved. For the design of effective lateral bracing
systems, the following two requirements are essential.

Bracing should be of sufficient stiffness so that buckling occurs between the braces

Lateral bracing should have sufficient strength to withstand the force transferred by the
beam.

A general rule is that lateral bracing can be considered as fully effective if the stiffness of the
bracing system is at least 25 times the lateral stiffness of the member to be braced. Provisions in
BS 5950 stipulate that adequate lateral and torsional restraints are provided if they are capable of
resisting 1) a lateral force of not less than 1% of the maximum factored force in the compression
flange for lateral restraints, 2) and a couple with lever arm equal to the depth between centroid of
flanges and a force not less than 1% of the maximum factored compression flange force.

Continuous restraint

In a framed building construction, the concrete floor provides an effective continuous lateral
restraint to the beam. As a result, the beam may be designed using in-plane strength. A few
examples of fully restrained beams are shown in Fig. 6.
The lateral restraint to the beam is effective only after the construction of the floor is completed.
The beam will have to be temporarily braced after its erection till concreting is done and it has
hardened.

For the case shown in Fig.6 (a), the beam is fully encased in concrete, and hence there will be no
lateral buckling. In the arrangement shown in Fig.6 (b), the slab rests directly upon the beam,
which is left unpainted. Full restraint is generally developed if the loadtransmitted and the area of
contact between the slab and the beam are adequate to develop the needed restraint by friction
and bond.

For the case shown in Fig.6(c), the metal decking along with the concrete provides adequate
bracing to the beam. However, the beam is susceptible to buckling before the placement of
concrete due to the low shear stiffness of the sheeting. Shear studs are provided at the steel-
concrete interface to enhance the shear resistance. The codal provisions require that for obtaining
fully effective continuous lateral bracing, it must withstand not less than 1% of the maximum
force in the compression flange.

BUCKLING OF MONOSYMMETRIC BEAMS

For beams symmetrical about the major axis only e.g. unequal flanged I- sections, the non-
coincidence of the shear centre and the centroid complicates the torsional behaviour of the beam.
The monosymmetric I-sections are generally more efficient in resisting loads provided the
compressive flange stresses are taken by the larger flange.
When a monosymmetric beam is bent in its plane of symmetry and twisted, the longitudinal
bending stresses exert a torque, which is similar to torsional buckling of short concentrically
loaded compression members. The longitudinal stresses exert a torque, TM given by

is the monosymmetry property of the cross section. Explicit expression for βx for a
monosymmetric I-section is given in Fig. 7.

The torque developed, Tm, changes the effective torsional rigidity of the section from GJ to
(GJ+Mx βx). In doubly symmetric beams the torque exerted by the compressive bending stresses
is completely balanced by the restoring torque due to the tensile stresses and therefore β x is zero.
In monosymmetric beams, there is an imbalance of torque due to larger stresses in the smaller
flange, which is farther from the shear centre.
Hence, when the smaller flange is in compression there is a reduction in the effective torsional
rigidity; Mxβx is negative and when the smaller flange is in tension Mx βx is positive. Thus, the
principal effect of monosymmetry is that the buckling resistance is increased when the larger
flange is in compression and decreased when the smaller flange is in compression. This effect is
similar to the Wagner effect in columns. The value of critical moment for unequal flange I beam
is given by.

Iycis the section minor axis second moment of area of the compression flange.Themonosymmetry
property is approximated to

Very little is known of the effects of variations in the loading and the support conditions on the
lateral stability of monosymmtric beams. However, from the available results, it is established
that for top flange loading higher critical loads are always obtained when the larger flange is
used as the compression flange. Similarly for bottom flange loading higher critical loads can be
obtained when this is the larger flange. For Tee- sections βx can be obtained by substituting the
flange thickness T1 or T2 equal to zero; also for Tee sections the warping constant, Γ is zero.
BUCKLING OF NON-UNIFORM BEAMS

Non-uniform beams are often used in situations, where the strong axis bending moment varies
along the length of the beam. They are found to be more efficient than beams of uniform sections
in such situations. The non-uniformity in beams may be obtained in several ways. Rectangular
sections generally have taper in their depths. I-beams may be tapered in their depths or flange
widths; flange thickness is generally kept constant. However, steps in flange width or thickness
are also common.

Tapering of narrow rectangular beams will produce considerable reduction in minor axis flexural
rigidity, EIy, and torsional rigidity, GJ; consequently, they have low resistance to lateral torsional
buckling. Reduction of depth in I-beams does not affect EIy, and has only marginal effect on GJ.
But warping rigidity, EΓ, is considerably reduced. Since the contribution of warping rigidity to
buckling resistance is marginal, depth reduction does not influence significantly the lateral
buckling resistance of I beams. However, reduction in flange width causes large reduction in GJ,
EIy and EΓ. Similarly, reduction in flange thickness will also produce large reduction in EIy, EΓ,
and GJ in that order. For small degrees of taper there is little difference between width-tapered
beams and thickness tapered beams. But for highly tapered beams, the critical loads of thickness
tapered ones are higher. Thus, the buckling resistance varies considerably with change in the
flange geometry..

Based on the analysis of a number of beams of different cross sections with a variety of loading
and support conditions, the elastic critical load for a tapered beam may be determined
approximately by applying a reduction factor r to the elastic critical load for an equivalent
uniform beam possessing the properties of the cross section at the point of maximum moment

Sx = section modulus.

T = flange thickness.
D = depth of the section.

B =flange width.

Subscripts 0 and 1 relate to the points of maximum and minimum moment respectively.

Where Asm and Alm are flange areas at the points of the smallest and largest moment, and m = 1.0

Shear center

Shear Centre is defined as the point in the cross-section through which the lateral (or transverse)
loads must pass to produce bending without twisting. It is also the centre of rotation, when only
pure torque is applied. The shear centre and the centroid of the cross section will coincide,
when section has two axes of symmetry. The shear centre will be on the axis of symmetry,
when the cross section has one axis of symmetry.

If the loads are applied away from the shear centre axis, torsion besides flexure will be the
evident result. The beam will be subjected to stresses due to torsion, as well as due to bending.

The effect of torsional loading can be further split into two parts, the first part causing twist and
the second, warping.

Warping of the section does not allow a plane section to remain as plane after twisting. This
phenomenon is predominant in Thin Walled Sections, although consideration will have to be
given to warping occasionally in hot rolled sections. An added characteristic associated with
torsion of non-circular sections is the in-plane distortion of the cross-section, which can usually
be prevented by the provision of a stiff diaphragm. Distortion as a phenomenon is not covered
herein, as it is beyond the scope of this chapter.

Uniform and Non-Uniform torsion

when torsion is applied to a structural member, its cross section may warp in addition to twisting.
If the member is allowed to warp freely, then the applied torque is resisted entirely by torsional
shear stresses (called St. Venant's torsional shear stress). If the member is not allowed to warp
freely, the applied torque is resisted by St. Venant's torsional shear stress and warping torsion.
This behaviour is called non-uniform torsion.

Hence (as stated above), the effect of torsion can be further split into two parts:
  Uniform or Pure Torsion (called St. Venant's torsion) - Tsv
 Non-Uniform Torsion, consisting of St.Venant's torsion (Tsv) and warping torsion
(Tw).

Uniform Torsion in a Circular Cross Section

Let us consider a bar of constant circular cross section subjected to torsion as shown in Fig. 1. In
this case, plane cross sections normal to the axis of the member remain plane after twisting, i.e.
there is no warping. The torque is solely resisted by circumferential shear stresses caused by St.
Venant's torsion. Its magnitude varies as its distance from the centroid.

For a circular section, the St. Venant's torsion is given by

d
Tsw  I p G
dz (1)

where,

ϕ - angle of twist

G - modulus of rigidity

Tsv - St. Venant's torsion.

Ip - the polar moment of inertia

z - direction along axis of the member

Uniform Torsion in Non-Circular Sections

When a torque is applied to a non-circular cross section (e.g. a rectangular cross section), the
transverse sections which are plane prior to twisting, warp in the axial direction, as described
previously, so that a plane cross section no longer remains plane after twisting. However, so long
as the warping is allowed to take place freely, the applied load is still resisted by shearing
stresses similar to those in the circular bar. The St.Venant‟s torsion (Tsv) can be computed by an
equation similar to equation (1) but by replacing Ip by J, the torsional constant. The torsional
constant (J) for the rectangular section can be approximated as given below:

J  Cbt 3 (1a)

where b and t are the breadth and thickness of the rectangle. C is a constant depending upon (b/t)
ratio and tends to 1/3 as b/t increases.

d
Tsv  JG
Then, dz (1b)

Torsional Constant (J) for thin walled open sections made up of rectangular elements

Torsional Constant (J) for members made up of rectangular plates (see Fig. 2) may be computed
approximately from

1
J  biti3
3 i (1c)
in which bi and ti are length and thickness respectively of any element of the section.

In many cases, only uniform (or St. Venant's) torsion is applied to the section and the rate of
change of angle of twist is constant along the member and the ends are free to warp (See Fig. 3)

In this case the applied torque is resisted entirely by shear stresses and no warping stresses result.

The total angle of twist φ is given by

Tz
T
GJ

where T = Applied Torsion = Tsv

The maximum shear stress in the element of thickness t is given by

 t  Gt 

Fig. 4 gives the corresponding stress pattern for an I section.

NON-UNIFORM TORSION

When warping deformation is constrained, the member undergoes non-uniform torsion. Non-
uniform torsion is illustrated in Fig. 5 where an I-section fixed at one end is subjected to torsion
at the other end. Here the member is restrained from warping freely as one end is fixed. The
warping restraint causes bending deformation of the flanges in their plane in addition to twisting.
The bending deformation is accompanied by a shear force in each flange.

Tn = Tsv + T w

where Tw is the warping torsion.

Shear force Vf in each flange is given by

dM f
Vf  
dz

Where Mf is the bending moment in each flange. Since, the flanges bend in opposite directions,
the shear forces in the two flanges are oppositely directed and form a couple. This couple, which
acts to resist the applied torque, is called warping torsion.

For the I-section shown in Fig. 5, warping torsion is given by

Tw = Vf h