Compendium of Design Office Problems—Volume III
Committee on Design of Steel Building Structures of the Technical Administrative Committee on Metals1
Abstract: This is the third in a series of papers aimed at resolving structural engineering issues faced by the designers of steel building
structures. The emphasis is on practical solutions that the designer can use directly, without extensive further research. Each issue is listed
separately, with a technical discussion of the problem followed by a suggested solution, and references provided where appropriate. In
addition, topics currently under study by the ASCE Committee on Design of Steel Building Structures are listed, as are subjects identified
by the Committee as being in need of investigation.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2002兲128:5共559兲
CE Database keywords: Structural engineering; Steel structures; Building design; ASCE Committees.
Introduction
The Committee on Design of Steel Building Structures of the
Committee on Metals of the Structural Division of ASCE was
formed in 1981 with the purpose of studying problems that are
uniquely associated with the design of the overall structural steel
building. There are committees that address individual aspects of
structural behavior, such as stability or fatigue, while others deal
with problems related to certain classes of structural components
and assemblies such as compression and flexural members or tu-
bular structures. However, many of the technical problems faced
in the design office involve the overlap of these established areas
of specialization and are not addressed by other committees. De-
signers have been largely on their own, with little organized sup-
port from the academic and research communities, when faced
with these problems. The ASCE Committee on Design of Steel
Building Structures is addressing problems of this type in a com-
pendium, which will be published as an ongoing series of papers.
The first volume of the compendium was published in Decem-
ber 1992 in ASCE’s Journal of Structural Engineering under the
title ‘‘Compendium of Design Office Problems.’’ That paper pro-
vides a general overview of the work of the ASCE Committee on
Design of Steel Building Structures and describes the genesis of
the compendium, the process by which it is being developed, and
its organization. The second volume was published in February
1996.
As explained at greater length in the first paper, each volume
of the compendium presents design office problems organized
into three categories:
• Problems that have been addressed,
• Problems currently being addressed, and
• Problems needing to be addressed.
Problems in the first category are presented together with sug-
1
ASCE Structural Engineering Institute, 1801 Alexander Bell Dr.,
Reston, VA 20191. E-mail: sei@asce.org
Note. Associate Editor: C. Dale Buckner. Discussion open until Oc-
tober 1, 2002. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa-
pers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on . This paper is part of
the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 5, May 1, 2002.
©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2002/5-559–568/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
gested solutions, and references where appropriate. Problems in
the other two categories are presented, without solutions, to in-
form designers that they are being addressed by the Committee,
or probably will be addressed in the near future, and that solutions
are likely to appear in future volumes of the compendium.
Problems that have been addressed
This section presents problems for which the ASCE Committee
on Design of Steel Building Structures has developed solutions
since the previous volume of the compendium went to press in
1996. Most of these problems were listed in the previous volume
as ‘‘Problems Currently Being Addressed’’ or ‘‘Problems Needing
to be Addressed.’’
The Committee’s intent is to provide practical state-of-the-art
knowledge that the designer can use directly. References are pro-
vided where appropriate, but the designer is not expected to en-
gage in extensive additional research before using the information
presented. Of course, the designer’s own professional judgment
remains the final arbiter of the applicability and appropriateness
of the suggested solution in each particular situation.
Lateral Bracing of Continuous Beams
Does a point of inflection constitute a safe ‘‘lateral bracing point’’
for computation of the lateral-torsional buckling flexural strength
of a continuous beam? Are there any other guidelines for this
issue?
Response
A flexural point of inflection occurs in a beam where there is a
change in curvature from negative to positive. Even though at this
point the value of the moment is zero, it is not equivalent to a
brace point.
The American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲 共1994兲
notes this distinction in the commentary 共Section F1, ‘‘Design for
Flexure,’’ pp. 195–199兲 where it states that ‘‘the length between
braces, not the distance to inflection points, and C b is used in the
resistance equation.’’ Also, Ricles and Walsh 共1993兲 note the ne-
cessity for providing bracing at the point of inflection.
Section B.6 of the AISC specification requires ‘‘at points of
support, beams, girders and trusses shall be restrained against
rotation about their longitudinal axis 共AISC 1994兲. In addition,
lateral or rotational restraint must be provided along the beam
length if the beam is assumed to be fully braced. For continuous
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 559
beams, restraint is necessary for that portion of the bottom flange,
which is in compression. Restraint may be provided by the joists
themselves depending on the relative proportions of the assembly.
A procedure for calculating the restraint is described by Essa and
Kennedy 共1995兲 and Rongoe 共1996兲.

References

AISC. 共1994兲. LRFD manual of steel construction, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., Chi-
cago.
Essa, H. S., and Kennedy, D. J. L. 共1995兲. ‘‘Design of steel beams in
cantilever-suspended-span construction.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 121共11兲,
1667–1673.
Rongoe, J. 共1996兲. ‘‘Design guidelines for continuous beams supporting
steel joist roof structures.’’ Proc., 1996 National Steel Construction
Conf., AISC, Chicago, 23.1–23.44.
Ricles, J. M., and Walsh, D. 共1993兲. ‘‘Is your structure suitably braced?’’
Structural Stability Research Council, Lehigh Univ., Fritz Engineering
Laboratory, Bethlehem, Pa.

Floor Vibration Criteria

Currently floor vibration criteria are based on heel-drop impact
excitations. Criteria using walking excitation may provide more
reliable results. Current criteria seem to provide more reliable
results for steel beam framed floors than for steel joist floors.
Better floor vibration criteria are needed and reasons for the dif-
ference cited need to be found.

Response
The AISC Design Guide No. 11 共1997兲 is a comprehensive docu-
ment, which provides solutions to most floor vibration design
problems. The Design Guide provides basic principles and simple
analytical tools to evaluate steel framed floor systems and foot-
bridges for vibration serviceability due to human activities. Both
human comfort and the need to control movement for sensitive
equipment are considered. Criteria for both walking and rhythmic
activity induced vibrations are given along with example calcula-
tions. Special consideration is given to open web joist supported
floors. Criteria to minimize the adverse effects of floor motion on
sensitive equipment are presented and applied to typical floor
framing systems. Guidance on developing remedial measures for
problem floors is also included in the guide.
Reference
Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E., and Ungar, E. E. 共1997兲. ‘‘Floor vibrations
due to human activity.’’ Design Guide No. 11, AISC, Chicago.
Design for Skewed Connections
Standard connection details assume that the members being con-
nected frame at right angles to each other. In most structures there
will be some members that do not meet at right angles. These are
referred to as skewed connections. What are the recommended
design approaches to achieve safety and economy in this type of
connection.
Response
Configurations for Skewed Connections to Beams. Considering
both economy and safety, the preferred skewed connections to
Fig. 1. Skewed connections to beams
beams use single plates and end plates as shown in Fig. 1. Single
plates are the most versatile and economical skewed connection
with excellent dimensional control when using short slotted holes.
While capacity is limited, this is usually not a problem because
skewed members generally carry less tributary area. Using the
standard 3 in. hole gauge from the AISC manual connection
tables, single plates can be utilized for intersection angles of 90°
to 30°. Single bent plates also work well at very acute angles but
involve two eccentricities. Snug tight bolts are preferred because
they are more economical and greatly simplify installation when
there are adjacent beams.
End plates designed for shear only are able to provide more
capacity than single plates and, if horizontal slots are utilized with
snug tight bolts in bearing, some dimensional adjustment is pos-
sible. Tables for eccentric bolt groups 共AISC 1994兲 may be used
to size eccentric end plates. Hole gauges can be adjusted to pro-
vide bolt access for more acute skews. The only real constructa-
bility problems arise when there are opposing beams that limit
access to the back side of the connection.
Configurations for Skewed Connections to Columns. Skewed
connections to wide flange columns present special problems.
Connections to webs have very limited access and, except for

560 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002

 Fig. 2. Skewed connections to column webs

columns where the flange width is less than the depth, or for skew
angles less than 30°, connections to flanges are preferred.
When connecting to column webs, it may be possible to use
either a standard end plate or an eccentric end plate as shown in
Fig. 2. Single plate connections should not be used unless the
bolts are positioned outside the column flanges.
Skewed connections to the column flange will also be eccen-
tric when the beam is aligned to the column centerline. However,
if the beam alignment is centered on the flange, the minor axis
eccentricity is eliminated, and the major axis eccentricity will not
generally govern the column design. Fig. 3. Skewed connections to column flanges
When the beam is aligned to the columns centerline either
single plates, eccentric end plates, or single bent plates can be
used as shown in Fig. 3. The eccentricity for each of these con-
nections is again similar to that for the same connection to a beam Astaneh, A., Call, S., and McMullin, K. 共1989兲. ‘‘Design of single plate
web. The column may need to be designed for the eccentric load. connections.’’ Eng. J., 26共1兲, 21–32.
A more detailed discussion of the design of this type of con- Kloiber, L., and Thornton, W. 共1997兲. ‘‘Design approaches to shear con-
nection including a discussion of the eccentricities and design nections for skewed members in steel structures.’’ Proc., Structures
procedures for welds in skewed connections can be found in the Congress XV, ASCE, New York.
references below.
Simple-Beam Connections with Shear and Axial Load
References and Bibliography How should simple-beam end connections that must transmit
shear and beam axial force be designed? The connection must not
AISC. 共1994兲. LRFD manual of steel construction, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., Chi- provide much more rotational restraint than ‘‘standard’’ simple
cago. beam shear connections, yet the connection should be quite stiff

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 561

in the axial force direction if it is to act as a stability brace. Axial
tension would generally be the more severe case.
Response
In building design, it is not uncommon for a simple-shear con-
nection to be required to transfer both shear 共due to the gravity
loads兲 and direct axial force 共tension or compression兲 due to lat-
eral loads or as required for stability. In addition to adequate
strength for gravity and lateral loads, the connection must also
provide a degree of rotational capacity to accommodate the end
rotation due to the gravity loads and a predictable degree of stiff-
ness for the axial loads.
A paper by Thornton 共1997兲 covers much of this subject in
detail. The following response is a summary of this paper.
Strength. As its name implies, a simple-shear connection is in-
tended to transfer shear load out of a beam while allowing the
beam to act as a simply supported beam. The most common
simple-shear connection is the double-angle connection with
angles shop bolted or welded to the web of the carried beam and
field bolted to the carrying beam or column. This response will
deal with these connections. Other shear connections, such as
shear end plates and Tees, can be treated in a similar manner.
Under shear load, the double-angle connection is flexible re-
garding the simple-beam end rotation, because of the angle leg
thickness and the gauge of the field bolts in the angle legs, the
angle is allowed to flex. The AISC manuals 共AISC 1989, pp. 4 –9;
AISC 1994, pp. 9–12兲 recommend angle thickness not exceeding
5/8 in. with the usual gauges to provide for ductility.
Thornton 共1996; 1997兲 shows that this ductility limitation is
justified for 3/4 in. diameter A325 bolts, and provides a ductility
guideline that can be used in lieu of the 5/8 in. ‘‘rule of thumb,’’
when thicker angles and larger bolts are used.
For shop and field bolted double clips, the ductility guideline
is
d b min⫽0.163t 冑 冉 冊
Fy b2
b L2
(1)
where d b min is the minimum bolt diameter 共A325 bolts兲 to pre-
clude bolt fracture under a simple beam end rotation of 0.03 ra-
dian, and t⫽angle leg thickness 共inches兲; b⫽distance from the
field bolt line to the k distance of the angle 共inches兲; L⫽length of
the connection angles 共inches兲; and F y ⫽yield strength of the
angles thousand pounds per square inch. This formula can be used
for allowable stress design 共ASD兲 and load and resistance factor
design 共LRFD兲 designs in the form given above.
The design of double angle connections subjected to shear and
axial tension, can be accomplished as shown in the following
AISC publications:
1. AISC 共1989, pp. 4 –94, Ex. 34兲 where the beam web plays
the same role as the gusset of this example;
2. AISC 共1992兲 Vol. II, pp. 7-123–7-126 and pp. 7-167–7-170;
and
3. AISC 共1994, pp. 11-38 –11-42兲.
While the design is being completed in the usual way, as shown in
these publications, the ductility guideline given earlier can be
consulted to guide the design and maintain ductility, if appropri-
ate.
Stiffness. In order for a strut to enforce a node, i.e. a point of
lateral support at which there is no lateral displacement, in a
member which is known to have a stability limit state 共such as a
column兲, a certain magnitude of axial stiffness as well as axial
562 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002
strength is required. An estimate of this stiffness can be deter-
mined as follows. A strut with its connections can be considered
to be a set of linear springs arranged in series. If the stiffness of
the connections is denoted by k a and that of the body of the strut
by k S , then the stiffness, K, of the series of these springs repre-
senting the connections and the body of the strut is
1
K⫽ (2)
1 1 1
⫹ ⫹
k ai k s k a j
where i and j refer to the two ends of the strut.
The above formula assumes that the end of the strut that is not
attached to the member requiring lateral support, is attached to a
rigid support. If the end connections are double angles of leg
thickness t and length L, the stiffness of the angles can be written
as
k a ⫽EL␣ 冉 冊
t
b⬘
3
(3)
where E⫽Young’s Modulus⫽29,000 ksi, b ⬘ ⫽b⫹k⫺(t/2), and
␣⫽1 when the angle leg length b ⬘ is in single curvature and ␣⫽2
when it is in double curvature.
The true curvature state of the angle leg will lie between the
limits of single and double curvature and a lower bound stiffness
estimate would be obtained by using the single curvature formula.
The stiffness of the strut of cross-sectional area A 共squared
inches兲 and length l 共inch兲 is
AE
k s⫽ (4)
l
References
AISC. 共1989兲. ASD manual of steel construction, 9th Ed., Chicago.
AISC. 共1992兲. ASD 9th Ed./LRFD 1st Ed: manual of steel construction,
Vol. 2, Chicago.
AISC. 共1994兲. LRFD manual of steel construction, Vol. 2, 2nd Ed., Chi-
cago.
Thornton, W. A. 共1996兲. ‘‘A rational approach to design of tee shear
connections.’’ Eng. J., 33共1兲, 34 –37.
Thornton, W. A. 共1997兲. ‘‘Strength and ductility requirements for simple
shear connections with shear and axial load.’’ Proc., AISC National
Steel Construction Conf., Chicago, 38-1–38-17.
Practical Design of Unbraced Moment Frames
with ‘‘Leaning’’ Columns
The typical steel building frame includes a combination of col-
umns rigidly connected to beams and columns pinned to beams.
The rigidly connected columns form moment-resisting frames,
which provide lateral stiffness for the building while the pinned
columns, referred to as ‘‘leaning’’ columns, provide no lateral
stiffness. Since this situation is an extremely common one in
building structures, these leaning columns must be addressed
regularly by most designers.
The leaning columns just described not only provide no lateral
stiffness, they actually increase the stiffness demand on the re-
maining members of the lateral system. Thus, the lateral stiffness
of the frame that is available to resist applied load is reduced due
to the presence of these leaning columns. Guidance is needed for
the designer faced with the task of designing frames, which in-
clude these leaning columns.
Response
Numerous approaches have been proposed in the literature to deal
with the design of frames including the effect of ‘‘leaning’’ col-
umns. The Commentary to the LRFD Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings includes a discussion in Section C2. A paper by
Geschwindner 共1994兲 reviewed the approaches that were origi-
nally presented by LeMessurier 共1977兲, Lim and McNamara
共1972兲 and Yura 共1971兲 and form the basis for the commentary
discussion.
References
Geschwindner, L. F. 共1994兲. ‘‘A practical approach to the ‘leaning’ col-
umn.’’ Eng. J., 31共4兲, 141–149.
LeMessurier, W. J. 共1977兲. ‘‘A practical method of second order analy-
sis.’’ Eng. J., 14共2兲, 49– 67.
Lim, L. C., and McNamara, R. J. 共1972兲. ‘‘Stability of novel building
system.’’ Structural design of tall steel buildings, Vol. II-16, Proc.,
ASCE-IABSE Int. Conf. on the Planning and Design of Tall Buildings,
ASCE, New York, 499–524.
Yura, J. A. 共1971兲. ‘‘The effective length of columns in unbraced frames.’’
Eng. J., 8共2兲, 37– 42.
Minimum Eccentricity for Simple Columns
For the design of simple 共laterally braced at floors兲 columns sup-
porting simply supported beams, should one design the column
for some minimum gravity bending moment about at least one
axis?
More and more, columns are being designed automatically
with computer programs. The computer will design to the limit,
unless programmed differently, and will provide some columns in
which f a /F a ⫽0.999. Does such a column have any reserve mo-
ment capacity due to the actual end conditions providing a re-
straint? For columns which have been selected assuming pin
ended conditions 共i.e., simple columns兲 should one consider de-
signing for a minimum eccentricity?
Response
Gravity columns, braced against side sway at the top and bottom,
are typically designed for an effective length factor 共K-factor兲 of
1.0. However, even simple connections provide a certain amount
of rotational restraint, thereby reducing the effective length of the
column. Ioannides 共1995兲 reviewed the assumptions made in the
design of simple columns and evaluated whether typical construc-
tion provides a ‘‘reserve’’ moment capacity. In his analysis, Ioan-
nides assumed that simple beam connections provide sufficient
restraint to the column to produce an effective length factor of 0.8
and, on this basis, developed simple equations for the reserve
moment capacity. These equations are cast in the form of reserve
axial force, which is that portion of the total axial load that may
act at the assumed connection eccentricity. Goverdhan 共1983兲 pre-
sented moment-rotation curves for most types of bolted connec-
tions, which could be used to derive more exact effective length
factors if required.
For loading about the strong axis 共x-axis兲, the eccentricity of
loading, e x , was taken to be
d EI
e x ⫽ ⫹e c (5)
2 nL
where d⫽column depth and e c ⫽connection eccentricity which
Ioannides assumed to be 3 in. The allowable bending stress was
assumed to be
F bx ⫽0.6F y (6)
The axial force, which can be carried eccentrically 共i.e., reserve
moment capacity兲 for loading about the strong axis 共x-axis兲, was
found to be
P x⫺e ⫽2.4W 冉 冊
D
b 2f
(7)
where, W⫽column weight in pounds per foot; D⫽nominal col-
umn depth; and b f ⫽column flange width. Alternatively, a more
precise expression for P x⫺e was found to be
P x⫺e ⫽7.5W 0.75 冉冑 冊
b 1.5
f
d
(8)
For loading about the weak axis 共y-axis兲 and assumed eccentricity
of e y ⫽e c , Ioannides found the following equation for the portion
of the force, which can be carried eccentrically
Wt
P y⫺e ⫽1.8 (9)
b 0.75
f
Note that P x⫺e and P y⫺e are the portions of the total load which
can be carried eccentrically and not additional axial load capaci-
ties.
Finally, analyses of all column sections 共W8 through W14兲,
revealed that the minimum reserve capacity about either the
strong or weak axis is 12 kips.
References
AISC. 共1989兲. ASD manual of steel construction, 9th Ed., Chicago.
Goverdhan, A. V. 共1983兲. ‘‘A collection of experimental moment-rotation
curves and evaluation of prediction equations for semi-rigid connec-
tions.’’ MS thesis, Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, Tenn.
Ioannides, S. A. 共1995兲. ‘‘Minimum eccentricity for simple columns?’’
Proc., 1995 Structures Congress XIII, ASCE, New York, 349–352.
Partial Fixity from Simple Beam Connections
Are there simple rules for utilizing the fixity of simple beam
connections at service loads for calculating deflections?
Response
Serviceability design often controls the selection of steel beam
sizes. In calculating deflections for simply supported beams 共with
standard shear connections at the ends兲 the rotational stiffness of
the connections is usually ignored. Rigorous inclusion of semi-
rigid connections in the analysis requires advanced computer soft-
ware and moment-rotation properties, which are usually not avail-
able to the average designer.
The minimum connection stiffness required to produce a de-
sirable reduction 共say 20%兲 in the simple beam deflection was
presented in a paper by Ioannides 共1996兲. Determination of the
minimum connection stiffness is based on a method for predicting
the amount of deflection reduction for beams with semirigid con-
nections with known stiffness 共Geschwindner 1991兲. The reduc-
tion in deflection is given by
4
冉 冊
R⫽ (10)
5 2 ⫹1
where R⫽reduction in simple beam deflection; E⫽modulus of
elasticity; I⫽beam moment of inertia; and n⫽connection stiff-
ness.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 563
 Using Eq. 共10兲, Ioannides computed the connection stiffness
required to produce a 20% reduction in simple beam deflection
for wide flange sections ranging from W4⫻13 to W36⫻300. In
an attempt to find a simple expression for n in terms of commonly
known section properties, he found that
n⫽3•W•d (11)
where W⫽beam weight 共pound/foot兲 and d⫽beam depth 共inch兲.
Despite its simplicity, Eq. 共11兲 approximates the exact results
within roughly 20%. Furthermore, since the independent variables
are the weight per foot and the depth of the section 共parameters
always known兲, the minimum connection stiffness required to
produce 20% reduction in the simple beam deflection can easily
be calculated.
In addition, Ioannides illustrates that most ‘‘standard shear
connections’’ are capable of developing a stiffness of roughly
5,000 ft-kip/rad at a rotation of 0.01 radians.
References
Ioannides, S. A. 共1996兲. ‘‘Partial fixity from simple beam connections.’’
Connections in Steel Structures III, R. Bjorhovde, A. Colson, and R.
Zandonini, eds., Pergamon, Tarrytown, N.Y.
Geschwindner, L. F. 共1991兲. ‘‘A simplified look at partially restrained
beams.’’ Eng. J., 28共2兲, 73–78.
Composite Beams with Adjacent Slab Openings
Are there any guidelines to determine the effect of local slab
openings on composite beams? Up to what point can the openings
be neglected in design? How should the openings be considered
in design?
Response
The effects of slab openings may be neglected when 共1兲 all open-
ings are located near end共s兲 of the beam, not farther from support
than 1/8 the distance from end support to point of maximum
moment, and 共2兲 distance from center of beam web to edge of any
opening is not less than the larger of span/80 or 6 in.
A procedure for calculating effect of one or more slab open-
ings on composite beam strength and stiffness is given by
Wiesner 共1995兲. The procedure is applicable to simple span com-
posite beams loaded so as to have maximum bending moment
near midspan, and with at least one essentially opening-free slab
span on each side of the slab span共s兲 containing openings. This
procedure establishes effective slab widths at several points along
the beam, and requires calculating the beam bending capacity at
those points, relative to the applied bending moment. It also re-
quires checking the approximate slab in-plane bending stresses,
and providing adequate reinforcing in the slab next to the open-
ings to resist tensile stresses.
References
Wiesner, K. B. 共1995兲. ‘‘Composite beams with adjacent slab openings.’’
Proc. Structures Congress XIII, ASCE, New York, 523–526.
Alternatives to Column Stiffeners and Doubler Plates
Transverse stiffeners and web doubler plates are expensive detail
materials that increase the cost of fabricated structural steel con-
struction, needlessly in many cases. How can the economic im-
564 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002
pact of column stiffening requirements at strong-axis beam-to-
column moment connections be lessened?
Response
There is a significant potential economic benefit when transverse
stiffeners and web doubler plates can be eliminated. Therefore,
the designer should consider alternatives that eliminate the need
for column stiffening, when possible.
1. Specify column material with a yield strength of 50 ksi, such
as A992 steel. The increased minimum yield strength will
increase the design strength of the column, yet there will be
little or no impact on the material cost. Mill grade extras for
50 ksi wide-flange material are largely nonexistent in shapes
that weigh as much as 150 lbs/ft. Even for W-shapes in
weight ranges that have grade extras, these nominal cost dif-
ferences are negligible when compared to the advantage
gained in detail material savings. Column material with even
higher yield strength, such as ASTM A913 Grade 65 mate-
rial, is also available; however, the associated material cost
differential is greater.
2. Consider a different column section that has a thicker flange
and/or web, as appropriate. This increase in material cost,
given today’s typical mill price for common grades of steel,
is in most cases easily offset by the savings in labor costs.
3. Consider a deeper cross section for the beam that is con-
nected to the column. Increasing the depth of the beam de-
creases the flange force delivered due to the increase in mo-
ment arm between the flange-force couple. If it were
possible to replace a W16⫻50 with a W18⫻50, the material
cost would not be increased; if a lighter, deeper shape were
suitable, the material cost would in fact be decreased. Even
if there were an increase in material cost, it would in most
cases be easily offset by the savings in labor costs. Note that
when the moment connection is designed to develop the
strength of the beam this approach may be undesirable be-
cause the flange force is essentially a function of the flange
area.
4. Increase the number of moment-resisting joints and/or
frames to reduce the magnitude of the moment delivered to a
given joint to a level that is more compatible with the design
strength of the column section.
In some cases, the need for column stiffening may not be avoid-
able. When this is the case, the following suggestions may help
minimize the cost impact for building structures in nonseismic
applications:
1. Where allowed by governing building codes, design col-
umn stiffening in response to the actual moments and re-
sulting flange forces rather than the full moment resistance
of the cross section; the latter simply wastes money.
2. If designing in allowable stress design, take advantage of
the allowable stress increase in wind-load applications
共load combinations in LRFD inherently account for such
concurrent occurrence of transient loads兲.
3. Properly address reduced design strength at column-top ap-
plications. The typical beam depth is usually such that the
reduced design strength provisions for column-top applica-
tions apply only at the top flange force.
4. Increase the number of moment-resisting joints and/or
frames to reduce the magnitude of the moment delivered to
a given joint to a level that is more compatible with the
design strength of the column section.
 5. Give preference to the use of fillet welds instead of groove
welds when their strength is adequate and the application is
appropriate.
6. When possible, use a partial-depth column stiffener, which
is more economical than a full-depth stiffener because it
need not be fitted between the column flanges. Select the
partial-depth stiffener length to minimize the fillet weld
size for the stiffener-to-column-web weld.
7. While transverse stiffeners are required in pairs when the
limit states of local flange bending or local web yielding are
less than the required strength, a single transverse stiffener
is permitted and should be considered when either the limit
state of web crippling or the limit state of compression
buckling of the web only is less than the required strength.
8. In cases when the flange force is only compressive, allow
the option to weld the stiffener end or to finish it to bear on
the inside flange. In most lateral load resisting frames, how-
ever, moments are reversible and the design flange force
may be either tensile or compressive.
9. Use a single web doubler plate up to a required thickness of
3/4 in. If thicker web reinforcement is required consider the
use of two plates, one on each side of the column web. This
practice may be more economical and is likely to reduce
heat input, weld shrinkage, and member distortion.
10. Recognize that in the concentrated-flange-force design pro-
visions in AISC LRFD Specification Section K1, it is as-
sumed that the connection is a directly welded flange or
flange-plated moment connection, not an extended end-
plate moment connection. All else being equal, column
flange and web strength is generally higher when extended
end-plate moment connections are used as discussed in the
AISC LRFD manual 共AISC 1994, pp. 10-35–10-40兲.
11. Limit the number of different thicknesses that are used
throughout a project for transverse stiffeners and web dou-
bler plates. Production economy is achieved when many
repetitive elements can be nested within the fewest number
of source materials.
In seismic applications, the use of transverse stiffeners is recom-
mended in the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Build-
ings 共AISC 1997兲 unless testing indicates they are unnecessary.
Earlier stated economy suggestions 5, 6 共when a moment connec-
tion is made to one flange only兲, 9, 10 and 11 remain applicable in
such cases.
References
AISC. 共1994兲. LRFD Manual of steel construction, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., Chi-
cago.
AISC. 共1997兲. Seismic provisions for structural steel building, Chicago.
Carter, C. J. 共1999兲. ‘‘Stiffening of wide-flange columns at moment con-
nections: Wind and seismic applications.’’ Design guide 13, AISC,
Chicago.
Ricker, D. T. 共1992兲. ‘‘Value engineering and steel economy.’’ Modern
steel construction, Chicago.
Design of Temporary Bracing
What criteria are appropriate for the design of temporary bracing
for steel structures?
Response
The AISC Code of Standard Practice, Section 7.10 共2000兲, states
‘‘the erector shall determine, furnish and install all temporary
supports...required for the erection operation. These temporary
supports shall be sufficient to secure the bare structural steel
framing or any portion thereof against loads that are likely to be
encountered during erection . . . .’’
AISC Design guide 10, 共Fisher and West 1987兲 addressed the
design requirements for the temporary bracing for low rise steel
buildings. The Design Guide consists of two parts. In Part one,
information is provided for the determination of loads that act on
the structure during erection. Load combinations for the design of
the temporary support system are discussed. Design procedures
are provided for the determination of the resistance by the perma-
nent structure and the temporary bracing components. In Part two,
prescriptive temporary bracing requirements are provided. The
requirements are based on various bay sizes and eaves heights.
Although the Design Guide was written for low-rise buildings,
many of the items presented are applicable to high-rise construc-
tion as well.
References
AISC. 共2000兲. Code of standard practice for steel buildings and bridges,
Chicago.
Fisher, J. M., and West, M. A. 共1987兲. ‘‘Erection bracing of low rise
structural steel buildings.’’ Design guide No. 10, AISC, Chicago.
Eccentricities in Truss Members
In the AISC specification 共1989, 1994兲, the designer is allowed to
provide bolted or welded connections at the ends of statically
loaded single-angle, double-angle, and similar members without
aligning the center of gravity of the bolt or weld group with the
center of gravity of the member 共LRFD Specification Section
J1.8; ASD Specification Section J1.9兲. The corresponding com-
mentary indicates that ‘‘slight eccentricities . . . have long been
ignored as having negligible effect on the static strength of such
members.’’ However, the eccentric effect in some members con-
stitutes an appreciable increase in stress when comparing P/A to
共P/A⫹Pec/I兲, even for slight eccentricities. Is it also permissible
to neglect eccentricity in the design of the member?
Response
Two types of eccentricity that result from the above conditions
are illustrated in Fig. 4. First, one case in which eccentricity re-
sults in the truss chord is illustrated in Fig. 4共a兲. This case was
addressed previously 共Nair 1988兲. Second, eccentricity results in
the truss web member itself under axial load as illustrated in Fig.
4共b兲. This latter case is the subject of this discussion.
For tension member design, the slight eccentricity that result
when the centroid of the end connection is not aligned with the
centroid of the member need not be considered. Based upon the
results of testing by Gibson and Wake 共1942兲, it is far more im-
portant to consider the effects of shear lag in the perpendicular
direction on the effective net area.
For compression member design, however, the eccentricity
must be considered and the designer has two options. The mem-
ber itself can be designed for the eccentric axial load while the
end connection is designed for a concentric end reaction. Alter-
natively, the member can be designed for a concentric axial load
if the end connection and the chord are designed to transmit the
eccentric end reaction.
References
AISC. 共1989兲. Specification for structural steel buildings—Allowable
stress design and plastic design, Chicago.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 565
 Fig. 4. Eccentricites in truss members
AISC. 共1994兲. LRFD manual of steel construction, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., Chi-
cago.
Gibson, G. J., and Wake, B. T. 共1942兲. ‘‘An investigation of welded
connections for angle tension members.’’ Welding J., January.
Nair, R. S. 共1988兲. ‘‘Secondary stresses in trusses.’’ Eng. J., 25共4兲, 144.
Problems Currently Being Addressed
The design office problems dealt with in this section represent
current studies of ASCE’s Committee on Design of Steel Building
Structures. Solutions to many or most of these problems can be
expected to appear in future volumes of the compendium.
Composite Beams as Struts
In steel-framed buildings with two or more basement levels, com-
posite beams are often used to support below-grade floors. The
earth pressures against basement walls produce large horizontal
compressive forces in these floor framing systems, which result in
significant compressive stresses in the slab as well as the steel
beams. How should one design such composite beams for axial
force plus bending?
Questions, such as the following, arise:
• What concrete modulus (E c ) should be used to assess the dis-
tribution of compressive force between slab and steel beams?
• What concrete modulus (E c ) should be used to compute
composite-beam section properties?
566 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002
• How should the ASD Code interaction formulas be applied?
Use composite r x to calculate F ⬘ex , but what ‘‘r’’ value to use
for KL/r and Fa calculations? 共Note: Concrete stress may well
be controlling.兲
• How should required number of shear connectors be deter-
mined?
• How is connection designed?
Problems Needing To Be Addressed
Listed in this section are unresolved issues that have been identi-
fied by the ASCE Committee on Design of Steel Building Struc-
tures as being within the scope of the ‘‘Compendium of Design
Office Problems.’’ The Committee expects to address these issues
in the future, either directly through the efforts of its members or
by referral to organizations that sponsor research. Additional
items are continually being added to the ‘‘needing to be ad-
dressed’’ list. It is anticipated that the eventual resolution of these
issues will be disseminated to the profession through subsequent
volumes of the compendium.
Shallow Depth Floor Systems
In commercial, industrial, and institutional building construction,
depth of floor construction is not usually a disadvantage for struc-
tural steel since the conventional steel joist/girder or steel beam/
girder and concrete slab floor system accommodates a suspended
ceiling within which HVAC, electrical fixtures, fire sprinklers,
and fireproofing can be located. In residential-type construction
共hotels, apartments, condominia, assisted living, etc.兲 however,
the need for suspended ceilings disappears 共utilities supplied run
vertically兲 and flat plate concrete is often the choice due to its
shallow 8- to 10-in. depth of floor construction. For taller residen-
tial buildings 共10 to 20 stories and higher兲 owners can gain sev-
eral additional floors of usable space if there are imposed height
restrictions. Even if the steel-framed building is the least expen-
sive 共construction cost兲, fastest to build, and the best choice for
other reasons, concrete may be selected. This also occurs in hos-
pital additions when the existing floor system to be matched is
concrete.
What conventional and innovative concepts are available to
design professionals for minimizing depth of structural steel floor
systems in cases where depth is a major factor in selection of the
framing system?
Bolted End-Plate Moment Connection—Seismic
Applications
The Massachusetts State Building Code 共6th Edition兲, in effect
since February 1997, is perhaps the first in the Eastern United
States to require welded beam-to-column moment connections in
all buildings framed with structural steel to be fabricated and
erected in accordance with an ‘‘enhanced’’ pre-Northridge detail;
specifically
• Use of high-toughness weld metal;
• Removal of bottom backing bar;
• Backgouging and rewelding at the root;
• Reinforcing fillets, top and bottom of bottom flange; and
• Reinforcing fillet at top of top flange.
As Massachusetts, along with most of the East, is generally be-
lieved to be of low to moderate earthquake risk, these require-
ments represent substantial changes to the standard practice with
which these connections have been constructed for many decades.
Moreover, the added costs and uncertainties are forcing engineers
toward braced frames—where braced frames are not functionally
acceptable—to less desirable alternatives for structural framing.
The excellent results of published research by Meng and Murray
共1997兲 at Virginia Tech on bolted end-plate moment connections
has excited both structural engineers and fabricators/erectors as to
the promise of an economic, labor-saving alternative connection
that appears to resolve all of the issues exposed by the poor per-
formance of the welded pre-Northridge connection. However, the
use of the end-plate connection in Massachusetts, even for ordi-
nary moment frames in low-rise applications for seismic hazard
exposure group I and II buildings, has been questioned by some
Massachusetts code authorities who believe that the only accept-
able alternatives are those endorsed by FEMA and the SAC Joint
Venture, or established by testing programs recognized by those
agencies. Others question the acceptability of end-plate connec-
tions only for metal building rigid frames and not for structural
steel.
The 1997 AISC seismic provisions, incorporated into the In-
ternational Building Code, will likely have similar provisions to
Massachusetts and will thus impact many other states. Is there
enough information available to recommend acceptance of the
basic bolted end-plate moment connection, as tested by Meng and
Murray 共1997兲, as an alternative to the enhanced pre-Northridge
moment connection in states of low to moderate seismicity?
References
Meng, R. L., and Murray, T. M. 共1997兲. ‘‘Seismic performance of bolted
end-plate moment connections.’’ Proc., AISC National Steel Construc-
tion Conf., AISC, Chicago.
Thermal Analysis of Steel Structures
The analysis and design of steel building structures, particularly
those involving long spans, often times requires consideration by
the designer of stresses and deformation caused by thermal load-
ing.
During the erection phase, the exposed steel framework will
be subjected to direct sunlight that could significantly raise the
effective temperature of the steel cross section of the members.
This exposure could affect member stresses and elongations
which may, along with other load conditions 共e.g., dead, live,
lateral load兲 influence member sizes and detailing of connections.
Considering outside air temperature and direct exposure to
sunlight, what are the factors that affect the selection of a tem-
perature loading appropriate for design and how can the designer
determine the appropriate thermal loading to use in the design?
Seismic Moment Connections: Beam-to-Column Weak
Axis
In areas where seismic forces are moderate or low, engineers are
designing buildings with some beams moment connected to the
column weak axis. Such connections generally occur in the end
bay of a multibay frame, where the end column web is oriented at
90° to the end bay due to participation in an orthogonal frame.
The problems of steel moment connections discovered after
the 1994 Northridge earthquake are being heavily researched for
beam-to-column strong axis conditions. What are appropriate and
prudent engineering guidelines for beam-to-column weak axis
moment connections?
Specifically
1. What minimum plastic rotation angle must be achieved for
共a兲 ordinary moment frames? and 共b兲 special moment
frames?
2. Is the strong column/weak beam concept mandatory?
3. If not mandatory, under what conditions is it allowable to
have a plastic hinge form in the column 共weak axis兲? How
should the beam to column connection be designed and de-
tailed?
4. If the engineer does make the column weak axis strength
larger than the beam strength, how should the connection be
designed and detailed so as to achieve the necessary connec-
tion rotation capacity?
5. What research studies have been conducted on beam-to-
column weak axis moment connections, and have any of
these been made after the Northridge earthquake?
Acknowledgments
This ‘‘Compendium of Design Office Problems’’ is part of the
continuing effort of the ASCE Committee on Design of Steel
Building Structures to bring practical structural engineering solu-
tions to the design profession. The editors of Volume III of the
compendium are John L. Gross and Louis F. Geschwindner. The
present and past members of the Committee who have made
major contributions to the development of this volume of the
compendium are as follows:
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 567
William F. Baker, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Chicago
Reidar Bjorhovde, The Bjorhovde Group, Tucson, Ariz: Committee
Chairman, 1982–1987
Lew Burgett, Consultant, Lilburn, Ga.
Charles Carter, AISC Chicago
Robert O. Disque, GNCB, Inc., Old Saybrook, Conn.; Committee Chair-
man, 1987–1990
Michael F. Engestrom, Nucor-Yamato Steel, Weston, Fla.
James M. Fisher, Computerized Structural Design, Inc., Milwaukee;
Committee Chairman, 1990–1993
Louis F. Geschwindner, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, Pa.;
Committee Chairman, 1999–present
Lawrence G. Griffis, Walter P. Moore & Assoc., Austin, Tex.
John L. Gross, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers-
burg, Md.; Committee Chairman, 1996–1999
Socrates A. Ioannides, Structural Affiliates International, Inc., Nashville,
Tenn.
Arthur J. Julicher, Consultant, Gaithersburg, Md.
Larry Kloiber, LeJuene Steel Co., Minneapolis
James O. Malley, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco
568 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002
Enrique Martinez-Romero, Enrique Martinez-Romero, S.A., Mexico City,
Mexico
Thomas M. Murray, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacks-
burg, Va.
R. Shankar Nair, Teng & Associates, Chicago; Committee Chairman,
1993–1996
David T. Ricker, Consultant, Payson, Ariz.
James J. Rongoe, Consultant, Darien, Conn.
John L. Ruddy, Structural Affiliates International, Inc., Nashville, Tenn.
Jack Stecich, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Chicago
William A. Thornton, Cives Steel Co., Roswell, Ga.
Emile W. J. Troup, Consultant, Canton, Mass.
Kenneth B. Wiesner, LeMessurier Consultants, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Nabih F. G. Youssef, Nabih Youssef & Associates, Los Angeles
Many associates and professional colleagues of the committee
members have also offered suggestions and comments for the
material presented. Sincere appreciation is extended to all com-
mittee members and all the others, too numerous to name indi-
vidually, for their contributions and interest in the development of
this compendium.