applied

sciences
Article
Lateral Torsional Buckling of Steel Beams Elastically
Restrained at the Support Nodes
Rafał Piotrowski * and Andrzej Szychowski
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Kielce University of Technology, 25-314 Kielce, Poland;
aszychow@tu.kielce.pl
* Correspondence: rafalp@tu.kielce.pl; Tel.: +48-41-34-24-577




Received: 25 March 2019; Accepted: 9 May 2019; Published: 12 May 2019


Featured Application: Lateral torsional buckling of beams is a very important issue in the design
of steel structures. Currently, this phenomenon is accounted for in a simplified way, namely by
determining the critical moment of lateral torsional buckling for the theoretical fork support. The
literature on the subject does not provide clear analytical solutions for other support conditions.
This paper reports an original approach to the elastic restraint of warping and the elastic restraint
of lateral rotation of beams at the support nodes. A decided advantage offered by the proposed
solution is more optimal design of steel beams.

Abstract: The study shows the results of theoretical investigations into lateral torsional buckling of
bisymmetric I-beams elastically restrained against warping and against rotation in the plane of lateral
torsional buckling (i.e., against lateral rotation) at the support nodes. The analysis accounted for the
whole variation range of node stiffnesses, from complete warping freedom to full restraint, and from
complete lateral rotation freedom to full restraint. It was assumed the beams are simply supported
against bending about the major axis of the section. To determine the critical moment, the energy
method was used. Both the twist angle function and the lateral deflection function of the beam were
described using power polynomials with simple physical interpretation. Computer programmes were
developed to make numerical and symbolic “computations”. General approximation formulas for
the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling were derived. The formulas covered the basic and
most frequently found loading diagrams. Detailed computations were performed for different values
of the index of fixity against warping and against rotation in the plane of lateral torsional buckling.
The critical moments determined using the programmes devised and approximation formulas were
compared with the values obtained with LTBeam software (FEM). A very good congruence of results
was found.

Keywords: critical moment for lateral torsional buckling; elastic restraint against warping; elastic
restraint against lateral rotation; the energy method; power polynomials; approximation formulas

1. Introduction
Due to high strength of steel, beams of this material used in structures are characterized by
small thicknesses of section walls. Therefore, they are susceptible to various forms of stability loss.
One of the basic forms of general stability loss of beams in bending is the lateral torsional buckling.
Consequently, in the design of steel beams, lateral torsional buckling should be taken into account, as
it can significantly reduce load-bearing capacity and affect the safety of the entire structure.
In such cases, bisymmetrical I-sections are the most commonly used. This happens because,
compared with other profiles of similar heights (e.g., C or Z sections), I-sections show considerable
stiffness in warping torsion [1], which increases the beam resistance to the lateral torsional buckling. In

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944; doi:10.3390/app9091944 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 2 of 17

metal structures, single-span beams are the most common, which is related to, e.g., ease of assembly. In
many technically important cases, beam static schemes are found, in which beams are freely supported
in bending with respect to the stronger axis of the section. Additionally, they are elastically restrained
against warping and rotation relative to the weaker axis of the section at the supports. As a result, the
calculation model widely used for such beams so far (i.e., theoretical fork support) leads to a gross
simplification. In contrast, the model proposed in the paper, which takes into account the beam elastic
fixing at support nodes, allows a much more accurate representation of actual boundary conditions.
This produces a more accurate value of the critical moment of beam lateral torsional buckling, and
more optimal design of such elements.
The literature on different issues related to lateral torsional buckling (LTB) of beams is vast,
yet in a majority of cases it focuses on the determination of critical moments with the assumption
that fork support is used. For such idealised support conditions, among others, the impact of the
following was investigated: (a) distribution of the bending moment [2–7], (b) points at which various
transverse loads are applied over the section height [2,8–11], (c) elastic restraint against torsion over
the beam length [11–17], (d) geometric ratios of monosymmetric sections [3,5,9], (e) coped beams and
“incomplete” end plates [14,18–23], and (f) point lateral bracings [16,17,24–27].
In real steel structures (e.g., grates, frames or framework structures), however, complex support
conditions of beams and girders occur. In addition to the elastic restraint against rotation about the major
axis of the section (i.e., in the plane of the beam greater stiffness), a restraint of warping and rotation with
respect to the minor axis in the support sections is also found. Theoretical, e.g., [14,18,19,21,22,28–34],
and also experimental investigations [20,23,30] indicate that taking into account the actual conditions
of beam support at the structure nodes can significantly affect the value of the elastic critical moment.
The problem of the beam elastic restraint at the support sections was analysed, among other,
in studies [14,19,28–30,32–36], but in most cases, they dealt exclusively with the elastic restraint
against warping.
Lindner and Gietzelt [30] were concerned with theoretical and experimental determination of
the critical loading of beams stiffened with end plates at supports. The authors derived a formula
for the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling in which a limited freedom of warping of the
support sections was taken into account. The effect of the thickness of end plates on the value of the
critical moment was shown in the graphs. Then, in study [14], the impact of various constructional
details on the critical moment and the ultimate resistance of beams was analysed. In the discussion,
the influence of “complete” end plates connected to flanges and the web, and also “incomplete” end
plates connected only to the web was taken into consideration.
In study [19], Giżejowski discussed different aspects of lateral torsional buckling of beams that
have limited rotational freedom at supports. The author considered a situation in which the bent
element is strengthened (“complete” end plates used and connected to the structure at the nodes), and
the one in which the beam is weakened compared with fork support (e.g., the use of “incomplete”
end plates welded only to the web, and of coped beam flanges at the support nodes). The author
reported an advantageous effect of the additional stiffness of “complete” end plates connected to other
structural members. However, for connections in which “incomplete” end plate is welded only to
the web, and at the same time, the section is reduced due to flange coped, lower critical resistance of
the beam is found compared with the fork support. That may have a disadvantageous effect on the
evaluation of the member resistance, and consequently, on the structural system reliability.
In study [29], the impact of “complete” end plates on the increase in the critical moment for lateral
torsional buckling was considered. Computations for different cases of beams were done analytically
and validated using the Finite Element Method (Abaqus). In studies [18,22], the influence of reduced
connection of beams (“incomplete” end plate welded only to the web and coped flanges of the section)
on the critical moment was analysed. It was confirmed that such a structural design options lower the
value of the critical load compared with the fork support.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 3 of 17

In study [28], Kowal and Malec determined the critical moments for beam lateral torsional
buckling for the case of stiffening against warping with the support ribs with closed circular section.
The solution to the problem was obtained for a single-span beam, and a cantilever beam loaded with
a constant bending moment over the member length. In such a case, the solution to the differential
equation for lateral torsional buckling is known. It was shown that the use of support ribs with closed
section significantly increased the critical loading of the beams of under consideration. In study [37],
the influence of various types of supporting ribs with a closed cross-section on the critical moment of
the lateral torsional buckling for differently loaded beams was examined. Detailed calculations were
made for uniformly loaded beams. It was found that from the technical and practical standpoint, ribs
made of channels offer the most favourable option as they do not need to be cut along the length as is
the case with circular tubes.
The impact of different types of stiffeners (ribbings) against warping that are located at the site
of beam support, on the value of the critical moment was examined in study [33]. The formulas for
flexural stiffness of ribs and for the degree of elastic restraint against warping for a few types of rib
arrangements were provided. It was confirmed that the greatest restraint of section warping is ensured
by closed ribs that show the highest torsional stiffness. The analytical results were compared with
FEM findings (Abaqus). Study [35] reported theoretical and experimental investigations into beam with
cold-bent open sections, to which the transverse load was applied outside the section shear centre. The
impact of the partial stiffening against warping in the support sections was analysed. The experimental
and theoretical results were compared with FEM data (Abaqus).
Gosowski, e.g., in studies [24,25], took into account the influence of point bracings located in the
plane of lateral torsional buckling, and also the impact of point elastic bracings that confine warping
on the value of the critical moment. The author analysed single- and multi-span beams and also
and beams with cantilevers. Experimental investigations were conducted for selected arrangements
of point elastic bracings. The author demonstrated that point elastic bracings significantly affected
the values of the critical loads of the examined beams. The results of theoretical analyses and the
experimental results were presented in the graphic form.
Study [34] reported the results of theoretical investigations into lateral torsional buckling of
bisymmetric I-beams elastically restrained against warping at the supports. To describe the twist angle,
power polynomials were employed. They were the “deflection functions” of single-span beams, both
hinged and restrained. “Hinged” polynomials were coupled with “restrained” ones by means of the
index of fixity (κ) acc. the original concept first proposed in [38,39]. Programmes for numerical and
symbolic computations were devised. Also, approximation formulas for the determination of the
critical moments for the most commonly found beam loading diagrams were derived. The results of
analytical calculations were validated with FEM computations. It was demonstrated that “coupled”
power polynomials make suitable tools for the approximation of the twist angle function of the element
in those cases, in which elastic restraint against warping at support nodes occurs. Detailed analyses
were carried out for the beams with end plates, however the proposed solution [34] allows taking into
account any type of ribs at the end of beam.
The studies quoted above essentially do not provide unambiguous analytical formulas for the
critical moment for lateral torsional buckling that would simultaneously account for the effect of the
elastic restraint against warping and restraint against lateral rotation at the support nodes. Such
computations can surely be performed using the FEM method, e.g., LTBeam software that utilises finite
bar elements, or by applying more advanced modelling (3D) with the use of the Abaqus software, in
which shell or volumetric elements are employed. However, it should be emphasised that in order
to enhance structural reliability, already at the design stage, FEM computations should be verified
with analytical estimation, even a simplified one. Approximation formulas of that kind could allow
more advanced preliminary design, or for basic loading diagrams, could be employed at the proper
design stage.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 4 of 17

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 4 of 18

In order to correctly model support conditions in the LTBeam software, it is necessary to precisely
should be noted that earlier versions of LTBeam, i.e., 1.0.11, contained an error in the inputting of the
determine and put into the programme appropriate stiffnesses of the elastic restraint. It should be
data on the degree of elastic restraint against warping. The error was eliminated from the latest
noted that earlier versions of LTBeam, i.e., 1.0.11, contained an error in the inputting of the data on the
version of the LTBeamN, namely 1.0.3.
degree of elastic restraint against warping. The error was eliminated from the latest version of the
With regard to the analysis of lateral torsional buckling with the Abaqus software, it is much
LTBeamN, namely 1.0.3.
more complicated to correctly define spring stiffeners at the supports. It is obvious the best solution
With regard to the analysis of lateral torsional buckling with the Abaqus software, it is much more
would be to model a larger part of structure with the representation of relevant details of connection
complicated to correctly define spring stiffeners at the supports. It is obvious the best solution would
to the beam of concern. Such models, however, take much longer time to build and make it
be to model a larger part of structure with the representation of relevant details of connection to the
necessary for the designer to have wide experience in FEM spatial modelling. A design engineer
beam of concern. Such models, however, take much longer time to build and make it necessary for the
needs a faster tool for estimating the critical moment, even at the expense of lower approximation
designer to have wide experience in FEM spatial modelling. A design engineer needs a faster tool
accuracy. Therefore, LTBeam software and approximation formulas need to be relied on. The
for estimating the critical moment, even at the expense of lower approximation accuracy. Therefore,
simplest solution is obviously to assume the fork support regardless of the node structure, yet such
LTBeam software and approximation formulas need to be relied on. The simplest solution is obviously
an approach will gradually become outdated. Modern computational models aim at more precise
to assume the fork support regardless of the node structure, yet such an approach will gradually become
rendering of the actual conditions of the structure operation. The goal is to adopt a more informed
outdated. Modern computational models aim at more precise rendering of the actual conditions of
approach to the structural reliability of members, not relying on unknown bearing capacity reserves
the structure operation. The goal is to adopt a more informed approach to the structural reliability of
but on objective criteria.
members, not relying on unknown bearing capacity reserves but on objective criteria.
In this study, the authors were concerned with lateral torsional buckling of single-span beams
In this study, the authors were concerned with lateral torsional buckling of single-span beams
with bisymmetric I-sections. They are elastically restrained against warping and against rotation in
with bisymmetric I-sections. They are elastically restrained against warping and against rotation in the
the plane of lateral torsional buckling (i.e., against lateral rotation) at the support nodes. In bending
plane of lateral torsional buckling (i.e., against lateral rotation) at the support nodes. In bending with
with respect to the major axis of section stiffness, simple support conditions are found at the
respect to the major axis of section stiffness, simple support conditions are found at the supports. In
supports. In the analysis of lateral torsional buckling, the energy method [10] was used. The twist
the analysis of lateral torsional buckling, the energy method [10] was used. The twist angle function
angle function and the function of the beam lateral deflection were approximated with appropriately
and the function of the beam lateral deflection were approximated with appropriately selected power
selected power polynomials [34]. Programmes for numerical and symbolic “computations” were
polynomials [34]. Programmes for numerical and symbolic “computations” were developed and
developed and approximation formulas were derived to estimate the elastic critical moment for
approximation formulas were derived to estimate the elastic critical moment for lateral torsional
lateral torsional buckling for most frequently found loading diagrams. Detailed computations were
buckling for most frequently found loading diagrams. Detailed computations were made for beams
made for beams with different values of the index of fixity (against warping κω and against lateral
with different values of the index of fixity (against warping κω and against lateral rotation κu ) with the
rotation κu) with the assumption of the symmetry of boundary conditions with respect to the beam
assumption of the symmetry of boundary conditions with respect to the beam midspan. The results
midspan. The results received were compared with FEM results (LTBeam [40]).
received were compared with FEM results (LTBeam [40]).
2.
2. Elastic
Elastic Restraint
Restraint Against
Against Warping
Warping and
and Against
Against Lateral
Lateral Rotation
Rotation at
at the
the Support
Support Nodes
Nodes
The static diagram
The static diagramofof
thethe
beambeam elastically
elastically restrained
restrained against
against warpingwarping and against
and against lateral
lateral rotation
rotation at the support nodes is shown in Figure 1. The springs in colour symbolically
at the support nodes is shown in Figure 1. The springs in colour symbolically represent the elastic represent the
elastic restraint
restraint in the support
in the support sections,sections, i.e., in red—warping
i.e., in red—warping restraintrestraint
(αω ), and(αin
ω), and in blue—lateral
blue—lateral rotation
rotation restraint
restraint (α ). (αu).
u

αω
z αu z
Mf z
z u(x)
x
y L y y
Mz
h

αω x
Mf αu y φ(x)
B = M f·h
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1.
Figure Static diagram
1. Static diagramofofthe beam:
the beam: (a)(a)
bimoment
bimoment(B) and
(B) moment (Mz ) at
and moment (M the support, (b) elastic restraint
z) at the support, (b) elastic
against warping (αω )
restraint against warpingand against lateral rotation (α
(αω) and against lateral u ), (c) twist angle φ(x) and lateral
rotation (αu), (c) twist angle deflection
ϕ(x) and u(x).
lateral
deflection u(x).

The degree of elastic restraint against warping εω [33–35] can be determined from formula:
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 5 of 17

The degree of elastic restraint against warping εω [33–35] can be determined from formula:

αω L
εω = (1)
EIω

where: αω —stiffness of the elastic restraint against warping [33–35] acc. formula:

−B
αω = dφ
(2)
dx

dφ
where: B—bimoment at the site of beam support, φ—twist angle, dx —warping of the section.
The degree of elastic restraint εω acc. formula (1), ranges from εω = 0 for complete warping
freedom to εω = ∞ for full prevention of warping.
In this study, the degree of elastic restraint against rotation in the plane of lateral torsional buckling
εu , was derived. It was written in the following form:

αu L
εu = (3)
EIz

where: αu —stiffness of the elastic restraint against lateral rotation acc. formula:

Mz
αu = du
(4)
dx

where: Mz —bending moment with respect to the minor axis of the section at the support, u—lateral
deflection, du
dx —rotation about axis z.
The degree of elastic restraint εu , acc. formula (3), ranges from εu = 0 for complete rotational
freedom to εu = ∞ for full prevention of rotation in the plane of lateral torsional buckling.
In order to account, in an explicit manner, for the beam elastic restraint, in the twist angle function
φ(x) and the lateral deflection function u(x), the dimensionless indexes of fixity against warping κω [34]
and against lateral rotation κu were introduced acc. formulas:

αω L αu L
κω = κu = (5ab)
2EIω + αω L 2EIz + αu L

Indexes of fixity range from κω = 0 (κu = 0) for complete freedom of warping or lateral rotation,
respectively, to κω = 1 (κu = 1) for complete blockage of warping or lateral rotation.
Inverse relations, i.e., αω (κω ) and αu (κu ), have the following form:

2κω EIω 2κu EIz

αω = αu = (6ab)
(1 − κω )L (1 − κu )L

The relations holding between the degree of elastic restraint εi (1) and (3) and the index of fixity κi
(5ab) (for i = ω, u) are as follows [34,38,41]:

εi 2κi
κi = εi = (7)
2 + εi 1 − κi

3. Twist Angle Function and Lateral Deflection Function

In study [42], in which lateral torsional buckling of fork-supported beams was analysed, the
function of the twist angle of the section was approximated using power polynomials that described
“the deflection function” of the hinged beam (Table 1, polynomials WPi ). In Table 1, formulas for the
polynomials of deflection were written in the dimensionless coordinates ρ = x/L. To account for the
elastic restraint against warping in the beam support section, in study [34], the twist angle function (φ)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 6 of 17
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, 1944
1944 6 of 18
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, 1944
1944 666 of
of 18
of 18
18

was deflection
extended. That was of
function”
deflection function”
function” done
of theby
the introducing
restrained
restrained beamadditional
beam (Table
(Table 1, 1, polynomialsW
polynomials
1, polynomials
polynomials that
W ). describe
). “Hinged”
“Hinged” “the deflection((W
polynomials
polynomials WPi )
Pi))
Ui
Ui Pi
Pi
deflection of the restrained beam (Table W Ui).
Ui
Ui “Hinged” polynomials (W Pi
function”
were of
were coupledthe
coupled restrained
with
coupled with beam
“restrained”
with “restrained” (Table 1, polynomials
polynomials
polynomials (((W
“restrained” polynomials W
WUi ) by W ).
means
Ui “Hinged”
of the polynomials
index of fixity (W
against
Pi ) were
warping
Ui)) by by means
means of the
the index
index ofof fixity
fixity against
against warping
Ui
Ui
were Ui of warping
coupled
κ with
(5a) “restrained”
[34] acc. formula:polynomials (W Ui ) by means of the index of fixity against warping κω
κκωωω (5a)
ωω (5a) [34]
[34] acc.
acc. formula:
formula:
(5a) [34] acc. formula:
3
333
aiiii (κ 
(((11ω--)κκ·Wωωωω Pi))⋅⋅W )
3
( )
ϕ =
φ(x) = ϕ (x)a=i ((1 a−
x
 κω+ κκωω ⋅⋅W
Ui )
X
W Pi
+Pi
Pi
Pi +·W ωωUiW Ui
) Ui
Ui (8)
(8)
(8) (8)
i=11
i=1 iii==
=11

where:
where:
where:
where: aaaiiiii—free
ai —free —free
—free parameters
parameters
parameters
parameters of
of the
of the
oftwisttwist
the twist
the twist angle
angleangle
angle function,
function,
function,
function, W
WPi , W
WPi
W Pi
Pi
Ui
Pi
Pi
W
,,, W
WUi
Ui
Ui —polynomials
—polynomials
—polynomials
Ui—polynomials
Ui acc.
acc.acc.
acc. Table
Table 1.
1. 1.
Table
Table 1.

1. Polynomials
TableTable 1. used used
Polynomials and their
and physical
their interpretation
physical (where
interpretation ρ = x/L)
(where ρρ ==[34,43].
x/L) [34,43].
Table 1.
Table 1. Polynomials
Polynomials used
used and
and their
their physical
physical interpretation
interpretation (where
(where ρ x/L) [34,43].
= x/L) [34,43].
Item Item
Item Polynomials
Polynomials
Polynomials Physical Interpretation
Physical
Physical Interpretation
Interpretation
Item Polynomials Physical Interpretation
111
2 22
333
1
2 z
zzz
111 = ρ− −
WPP=11 = − ρ+3333 ρ+
23ρ ρ 4444
+4 ρ
1 WP1
W P11 ρ ρ
P
2ρ2 x
xxx
z
zzz
2 =ρρ−−10ρ
103ρ+33 + 154ρ−446ρ
− 56 ρ 55
33 44 55
222 W
P 22 = ρ − 10 ρ + 15 ρ − 6 ρ
2 WW
P2 P
P= 15ρ
P2 xxx
z
zzz
==ρρ−−26ρ
263ρ+ 734ρ−44472ρ 5ρ 6 ρ 66
3 4 5 6
W 333 + − 72 + 24
+55524ρ
333
3 WW 6
P33 = ρ − 26 ρ + 73ρ − 72 ρ + 24 ρ
P3 P 73ρ
x
xxx
P33
P
z
zzz
4 444 WUU=11 =
WU1
W ρ−222 2ρ
=ρ2ρ − ρ+333 ρ+
− 223ρ2
ρ 444
+4 ρ 3 4
xxx
U11
U
z
zzz
2 =ρ ρ+3 5ρ ρ−42ρ ρ5
22 33 44 55
WUU= 22 − 43ρ + 554ρ − 522 ρ
555
2 3 4 5
5 WW U222 =ρρ −−
U2U 4ρ4 + − xxx
z
zzz
666 WUU3= ρ2 2222−−
= 22ρ −13ρ ρ+
133ρ 333 + 294ρ 444 − 27
3 4
29ρ− 27ρ ρ 55559ρ+
ρ ρ 6666
+699 ρ
U333 = 2ρ +29ρ − 27
WW 5+
6 U3U 13 x
xxx

The polynomials
The polynomials
The polynomials
The polynomials used used
(Table
used
used (Table 1) satisfy
(Table
(Table 1) the boundary
satisfy
1) satisfy
1) satisfy the boundary
the boundary
the boundary conditions of the twist
conditions
conditions
conditions of the
of the
of theangle
twist
twist
twist function
angle for the for
function
angle function
angle function for
for
fork the
support
the
the fork
fork W
support
support
Pi (φ = WW0,
Pi
Pi φ”
(
( ϕ
ϕ =
=
= 0
0,
0, ϕ
for
ϕ ”
” x
=
= =
0
0 0
for
for andx
x =
= x
00 = L),
and
and x
and
x =
= LL
fork support WPiPi (ϕ = 0, ϕ” = 0 for x = 0 and x = L), and for full restraint WUi
Pi for
),), full
and
and restraint
for
for full
full W
restraint
restraint
Ui (φW
W =Ui
Ui0,
(
( φ’
ϕ
ϕ =
= =
0,
0, ϕ
0ϕfor
’
’ =
= x
0
0 =
for
for
Ui (ϕ = 0, ϕ’ = 0 for x =
Ui 0 x
x == 000
= L),
and xand
and
and x
x == L
respectively.
L ),
), respectively.
respectively.
x = L), respectively.
In this
Instudy,
In
In this
this study,
this to account
study,
study, to for the elastic
account
to account
to account for
for the
for therestraint
the elastic of
elastic restraint
elastic the beam
restraint
restraint of against
of
of the
the beam
the beam
beam lateral rotation
against
against
against at the
lateral
lateral
lateral support
rotation
rotation
rotation at the
at the
at the
support
nodes, the
support nodes,
lateral
nodes, the
deflection
the lateral
lateral deflection
function (u)
deflection wasfunction
functionwritten (
( u
u )
) in was
was
support nodes, the lateral deflection function (u) was written in a way analogous to (8). Thusa written
way
writtenanalogousin
in a
a way
wayto analogous
(8). Thus
analogous to (8).
“hinged”
to (8). Thus
Thus
“hinged”
polynomials
“hinged”
“hinged” polynomials
(Wpolynomials
Pi ) and “restrained”
polynomials W
(((W
WPi ) and
Pi)) and
Pi
Pi
Pi and “restrained”
polynomials
“restrained”
“restrained” (WUipolynomials
) were “coupled”
polynomials
polynomials W
(((W
WUi ) by
were
Ui)) were
Ui
Ui
Ui were “coupled”
means“coupled”
“coupled” by
of the index means
of fixity
by means
by means of the
of the
of the
κu (5b)
index
acc.
index of
of fixity
formula:
fixity κ
κ u
u (5b)
(5b) acc.
acc.
index of fixity κu (5b) acc. formula: 3
u
u
formula:
formula:
X
3
bi ((3331 − κu )·WPi + κu ·WUi )

u(x) = (9)
u
iu=(x1) = bbiiii ((((11 -- κκuuuu ))⋅⋅ W
( x ) =
 WPiPi
Pi
Pi
+κ
+ κ uu ⋅⋅ W
u
u
WUi Ui
Ui
Ui
)
) (9)
(9)
(9)
ii==11
where: bi —free parameters of the lateral deflection ii==11 function.

where:
where: bbbiiiii—free
The polynomials
where: —free parameters
—free parameters
parameters
used (Table of
of1)
of the
the
the lateral
lateral
satisfy
lateral thedeflection
deflection
boundary
deflection function.
function.
conditions of the lateral deflection function
function.
The
The
for the
The polynomials
polynomials
fork support Wused
polynomials used
used (Table
=
(Table
Pi (u (Table 0, u”1) 1)
1) satisfy
= satisfy
satisfy
0 for x the the
=
the boundary
boundary
0 boundary
and conditions
x = L) conditions
conditions
and for fullof of the lateral
ofrestraint
the lateral
the lateral deflection
deflection
WUideflection function
(u = 0, u’function
= 0 for for
function for
for
the
x = 0the
the fork
fork
andfork support
x =supportsupport
L). W
W Pi
Pi (
( u
u =
= 0,
0, u
u ”
” =
= 0
0 for
for xx =
= 00 and
and xx =
= LL))
WPiPi (u = 0, u” = 0 for x = 0 and x = L) and for full restraint WUi
Pi and
and for
for full
full restraint
restraint W
W Ui
Ui (
(uu =
= 0,
0, uu ’
’ =
= 00 for
for
Ui (u = 0, u’ = 0 for x =
Ui xx =
= 000
and
and xx =
=
Functions
and x = L). L
L ).
). (8) and (9) make it possible to model boundary conditions at the nodes for the elastic
Functions
Functions
restraint against
Functions (8)
warping
(8) and
(8) and
and and(9)
(9) make
(9)against
make it
make it possible
itlateral
possible
possible to
rotation
to model
to model
model boundary
boundary(i.e.,
for arbitrary
boundary conditions
conditions
from 0 to
conditions at the
at1the
at the nodes for
nodes values
interval)
nodes the
for the
for elastic
the of
elastic
elastic
restraint
restraint
the indexes of against
against
fixity
restraint against warping κwarping
warping
ω acc. (5a)and
andand against
and againstκ
against
u acc. lateral
lateral
(5b). rotation
rotation for
for arbitrary
arbitrary (i.e.,
(i.e., from
from
lateral rotation for arbitrary (i.e., from 0 to 1 interval) values of 0
0 to
to 1
1 interval)
interval) values
values of
of
the indexes
the indexes
the indexes of of fixity
of fixity
fixity κ κ ω
ω acc.
κωωω acc. (5a)
acc. (5a) and
(5a) and
and κ κ uu acc.
κuuu acc.
acc. (5b).(5b).
(5b).
4. The Critical Moment for Lateral Torsional Buckling
4.
4.
4. The
The
The Critical
Critical
Critical Moment
Moment
Moment for
for Lateral
Lateral Torsional
Torsional Buckling
Buckling
The energy method was for used Lateral Torsional
to determine theBuckling
critical moment (Mcr ) of a single-span beam with
bisymmetricThe
The energy
The energy
I-section method
energy methodwhile
method was was
taking used
was used into
used to to determine
account
to determine
determine the elastic the critical
therestraints
critical moment
critical (κω , κu(()(M
moment
moment M
M ))) of
atcrcrcrcrcrthe of aaa single-span
single-span
of support nodes.
single-span beam with
Thewith
beam
beam with
bisymmetric
totalbisymmetric
potential energy
bisymmetric I-section
of
I-section the while
while taking
beam—load
taking into
system
into account
account was elastic
determined
elastic restraints
restraints
I-section while taking into account elastic restraints (κωω, κuu) at the support nodes. The from ( κ ,
formula:
( κω
ω
ω , κ
κ uu
u )) at
at the
the support
support nodes.
nodes. The
The
total potential
total potential
total potential energy energy
energy of of the
of the beam—load
the beam—load
beam—load system system
system was was determined
was determined
determined from from formula:
from formula:
formula:
Π = Us,1 + Us,2 + Us,3 − T (10)
Π= =U U ss,,11 ++ U s ,2 + U s ,3 - T (10)
Π ss ,,11 U sss,,,222 + U sss,,,333 - T (10)
(10)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 7 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 7 of 18

where: UUs,1—elastic strain energy of beam bending and torsion; Us,2—energy of the elastic restraint
where: s,1 —elastic strain energy of beam bending and torsion; Us,2 —energy of the elastic restraint
against warping; U
against warping; Us,3—energy of the elastic restraint against lateral rotation; T—work done by
s,3 —energy of the elastic restraint against lateral rotation; T—work done by
external
external forces.
forces.
The
The elastic
elastic strain
strain energy
energy of
of the
the beam
beam bending
bending and
and torsion
torsion [10]
[10] was
was expressed
expressed with
with the
the equation:
equation:
1  Z L  d 2 u!2 2 Z LL  dϕ !22 ZL L d 2ϕ2  !2 
2

Us,1 = 
2EI z
 L 2 
 

0 dx dx + GIt 0  dx  dx + EIω 0 dx

U s ,1 =1  EI z d u 2  dx + GI t  dφ  dx + EIω  d2 φ dx 
 dx2 dx
 (11)
(11)
2   0 dx2  0 dx 0

The energy of the elastic restraint against warping (Us,2) [34] and against lateral rotation (Us,3)
The energy of the elastic restraint against warping (Us,2 ) [34] and against lateral rotation (Us,3 )
was determined from formulas:
was determined from formulas:
 α !2dϕ  2  d!2ϕ   
2  α !2 du  2 2   
 !du
2
ω  u  
U sα,2ω= dφ   +dφ
  U α = du   +
du  (12ab)
 2   dx +   Us,3 = s ,3  2   dx  +  
u 
Us,2 =  dx   dx  (12ab)
 
2 dx x = 0
 x =0 dx x = L x = L
 2 dx x = 0 x =0 dx x = L L 
x =

The work done by external forces is a function of the loading diagram and the co-ordinate of the
The work done by external forces is a function of the loading diagram and the co-ordinate of the
point of load application. For instance, for a simply supported beam (Figure 2), loaded with linearly
point of load application. For instance, for a simply supported beam (Figure 2), loaded with linearly
varied distribution of transverse load, for an arbitrary co-ordinate (zg) of the point of load application
varied distribution of transverse load, for an arbitrary co-ordinate (zg ) of the point of load application
over the section height, the work done by external forces can be written as follows:
over the section height, the work done by external forces can be written as follows:
q Z L d 2u  L x22! z ZL !
T =
T=
2 0

qz z  L ϕd2 u2 L

 - x xdx + z gg Lϕ 2 dx 
2  0φ dx2  3− 3 L xdx + 2 0 φ dx
2 (13)
(13)
dx 3 3L 2 0

q z (x) = (x/L)·q z z A-A

z A q z (x)
z
αω αω u(x)
αu
+z g

αu c=s
y x y y

A
L φ(x)

Figure 2. Exemplary diagram of beam loading. qz (x)—function of transverse load.

Figure 2. Exemplary diagram of beam loading. qz(x)—function of transverse load.
To determine Mcr, a programme for numerical computations, namely McrLT_elastic_warping_rotation_2.nb
To determine Mcr, a programme for numerical computations, namely
(MLTB,EL,2 for short) was developed in the environment of the Mathematica® package. The programme
McrLT_elastic_warping_rotation_2.nb (MLTB,EL,2 for short) was developed in the environment of the
allows the determination of the critical load as a function of the indexes of fixity (κω , κu ), for arbitrary
Mathematica® package. The programme allows the determination of the critical load as a function of
geometric parameters of the bisymmetric I-section, an arbitrary value of the co-ordinate (zg ) of the load
the indexes of fixity (κω, κu), for arbitrary geometric parameters of the bisymmetric I-section, an
application point (see Figure 2), for beam loading diagrams that are most commonly found in practice
arbitrary value of the co-ordinate (zg) of the load application point (see Figure 2), for beam loading
(Table 2; Table 3). In the programme, the first three terms (a1,2,3 ) of the twist angle function acc. (8) and
diagrams that are most commonly found in practice ( Table 2; Table 3). In the programme, the first
the first three terms (b1,2,3 ) of the lateral deflection function acc. (9) were employed.
three terms (a1,2,3) of the twist angle function acc. (8) and the first three terms (b1,2,3) of the lateral
In study [34], McrLT_elastic_fix.on.warp._sym.cal.nb programme was developed to make symbolic
deflection function acc. (9) were employed.
“computations” for those cases, in which elastic restraint against warping (κω ) occurs. In order to
In study [34], McrLT_elastic_fix.on.warp._sym.cal.nb programme was developed to make
receive possibly simple approximation formulas, only the first term {a1 ((1 − κω )WP1 + κω WU1 )} of the
symbolic “computations” for those cases, in which elastic restraint against warping (κω) occurs. In
beam twist angle function (8) was employed. Still, a very good congruence between the results thus
order to receive possibly simple approximation formulas, only the first term {a1((1 − κω)WP1 + κωWU1)}
obtained and those produced by FEM (LTBeam, Abaqus) was noted.
of the beam twist angle function (8) was employed. Still, a very good congruence between the results
In this study, McrLT_elastic_warping_rotation_sym.cal.nb programme was formulated, in analogous
thus obtained and those produced by FEM (LTBeam, Abaqus) was noted.
terms, in the environment of the Mathematica® package. The programme is geared towards symbolic
In this study, McrLT_elastic_warping_rotation_sym.cal.nb programme was formulated, in
“computations”, and it accounts for both elastic restraint against warping (κω ) and against rotation in
analogous terms, in the environment of the Mathematica® package. The programme is geared
the plane of lateral torsional buckling (κu ). In this case, for the loading diagrams shown in Tables 2
towards symbolic “computations”, and it accounts for both elastic restraint against warping (κω) and
and 3, the first term of the twist angle function (8) and the first or the second term {bi ((1 − κu )WPi +
against rotation in the plane of lateral torsional buckling (κu). In this case, for the loading diagrams
κu WUi )}i = 1 or 2 of the lateral deflection function (9) were employed.
shown in Tables 2 and 3, the first term of the twist angle function (8) and the first or the second term
{bi((1 − κu)WPi + κuWUi)}i = 1 or 2 of the lateral deflection function (9) were employed.
 B4 L2 form:
to centre of the section sheer (see Figure 2), has the following
Table 2. Coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4 and D1 for selected diagrams of transverse load.
where: B1, B2, B3, B4 and D1—coefficients z g +Table
- B1 EI zacc. 2.2 GI t L2 + B3 EI ω + B12 EI z z g2
EI z B ( )
Item Load Diagram M cr = D1 Coefficients (14)
B4 L2
1 2 3
Table 2. Coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4 and D1 for selected diagrams of transverse load.
B1 = 11.52 ⋅ (1.2acc.
where: B1, B2, B3, B4 and D1—coefficients
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944
− κ uTable)⋅ 1.563 2. − 2.5κ ω + κ ω2 ( )
( )
Item Load Diagram Coefficients 8 of 17
1 B = 30 .719 ⋅ B ⋅ (1 .2 − κ
2 2. Coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4 and D1 for selected diagrams
2 4 u ) ⋅ 1 .457 − 2 .43 κ ω + κ ω
2
Table of transverse load.

Diagram BD
B13 == 11
B 368 .52 ⋅ (1⋅.2B−4 κ
.638 ⋅ (u1.)2⋅ − u ) ⋅−
1.κ563 (
(12.2.5−κκω ω+)κ; ω2 B4 = α1 − α 2κω + α 3κω2 )
Table 2. Coefficients 1 , B2β , B3 , B4 and D1 for selected diagrams of transverse load.
( )
Item Load + β 2⋅ zBg ⋅ (1.2 − κ ) ⋅ 1.457 Coefficients
1 2 Pz B21 == 30 1.719
4 u − 2.34κ ω + κ ω2
Item 1 Load
L/2 Diagram auxiliary
BB13==11 368.52.638⋅ (1.2⋅ B−4κ⋅u(1).⋅21−.563
coefficients: Coefficients
(
κ u )−⋅ (21..52κ−ωκ+ω κ) ;ω2 B4 = α1 − α 2κω + α 3κω2 )
1 2
L

B
αD1 ==1β.488
1= 30 .
1719
⋅ 1 .761 − 2 .654
+ β⋅2Bz g ⋅ (1.2 − κ ) ⋅u1.457 κ ( + κ u ; α 2 = 2.44
2
− 2 .4 κ
3
+ κ 2
⋅ 1.752 − 2.647κ u + κ u2
( ) )( )
Pz 2 4 u ω ω

α 3 =B11.742 − 2.64(κ
= 11.52· 1.2 − κu2)· 1.563 − 2.5κω + κ2ω
u + κu
1 L/2 auxiliary
= coefficients:
⋅ ⋅ ( − κ ) ⋅ (
4 4 ·(1.2 −u κu )· 1.457ω− 2.4κ4ω +α
− κ ) = κ12− α 2κω + α 3κω
2

)( )( ( ) )
B 368 .638 B 1 .2 1 .2 ; B
 
L
D
β
3 B2 = 30.719·B
=
α11 ==Bβ1.488
0 .
31 =
043 ⋅ (
⋅ 1z .761 − 2·.(654
21
+ β368.638·B
.855 − κ ) +
u κ +κ (
0 .004 2⋅ − 1.399 + κ 5 ω
; α = 2.44u ⋅ 1.752 ⋅
4 1.2 −uκu )·(u1.2 − κ2ω ); B4 = α1 − α2 κω + α3 u
κ ω + ⋅ − + κ u2− κ u ⋅ κ ω
− 2.647κ0κ.2398
0.081 3 5

( ) ( )
1 2 g ω
= ⋅β−(102+ u )κ+u0.0001⋅ 0.182 − κ u ⋅ κ ω + 0.001 ⋅ 0.327 + κ u ⋅ κ ω
Pz
αβ 23 =
=D101..742
001 ..42
64 +zuκg +
β2κ 2 2 5 5
1 1 auxiliary coefficients:
( ) ()
L/2

)( ( ) )
auxiliary coefficients:
L
αBβ111===α170.1488
..5043⋅ (1⋅.12(21 .−
 ) ⋅ 1.476 − 2.429
κ.855(− 2−.654 κ−u )2.654κ
κ+u0+.004 κuu2+⋅κ; κ−ωα
 κ2
21+.;399 ω + κ2.44·
u⋅ 1⋅ .κ752
5
+−0.2081 ⋅ κ− 0+ κ u2κ−2u κ u ⋅ κ ω
.398
 3 5
= ⋅1.488· u 2 α=2 2=

761 u1.761 .44 ω1.752 −.647
2.647κ u u+

αBβ322===α11803.742 .=
.001 749 ⋅ (2⋅0B
−1.742 ..644−
42 ⋅κ(+12.64κ
.κ2 −) κ
u +uκ u
0).0001
+2u u+ ⋅κ12u .457 ⋅ 0−.182 ( (
2.4κ−ωκ u+ 2 κ 2
⋅ κωω + 0.001⋅ 0.327 ) )  + κ u ⋅ κω 
5 5
( )
β1 = 0.043·(21.855 − κu ) + 0.004· −1.399
( κ
) )
5 ·κ + 0.081· −0.398 − κ3 ·κ5
κ4u⋅)(⋅1−.1κ2.476 − κ u−).⋅2004 (.1429 )κ; ω2B+4κ=52α⋅ κ1u− α+20κ.081
( ( )
+
.5 ⋅.(001
ω
.2⋅ −κ−κω1ω.+399 ω +α  3κ ω 2
B13===07225 1(.221− ⋅ .B855  3 u 5ω
βB 1 β2.043 = ⋅0.001· (0.42 +u )κ+u )0+ 0.0001· 0.182 − κuu ·κωω + 0.001·⋅ 0.327 − 0.398 + κ−5uκ·κ u 5ω⋅ κ ω

qz
D =
βB22==B018
1 β
.001 1 +
.749 β
⋅ (0⋅ .B42
2 z g
4 ⋅+(1κ.2 )−+κ0u.0001
1 = 7.5·(1.2 − uκu )· 1.476 − 2.429κω +uκω ω 
 )⋅ 1.457 ⋅ 0.182 ( (
− 2.4−κκω +2⋅κκω + 0.001⋅ 0.327 + κ ⋅ κ 5
2  2
) ) 5
u ω ( )
( )
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 9 of 18
2 −⋅ κBu4 )⋅⋅(411·.(.21.2 − κ−−uκ)2u⋅.)(429 )
2 auxiliary coefficients:
.25 ⋅=(.1001 2κ− κ+ =α 21 − α 2κ ω + α 3κ ω
2
L BB13==B 7225 1· .1.457 κ ;2 Bω4 + κ
( ) ( )
.18.749·B 476 ω ω
− 2.4κ
ω ω
α 1 =B13β.474 ⋅ 1z.675 − 2·.(588 κ uκ+)κ·(u21.2; −ακ2ω )=; 2B.4429 = ⋅α1.664 −α − 58ακ3uκ2+ κ u2
qz BD2 1==18
=+ β225.001·B
.1749
= β−12+
⋅2B4g ⋅ (1.24− κ u 2) ⋅ 1.u457
β2EI
1.2 −
zκg z +Bκ2GIt L + B3 EIω 2
( (
− 2.4κ ω + κ ω2 1 2 ω
)
κ 2.+
) ω
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 α =D11.653 . 571
= ⋅Dcoefficients:
9 of 18
2 Bauxiliary coefficients: 1 ⋅ (1.2 − κ ) ⋅ (12.2 − κ ) ; B = α − α κ + α κ 2 (15)
2 3 M.cr001 u u
=
( ) )
L auxiliary
225 B
β
3
=
α11 ==αβ11.474
0 . 029
= 1.474·
1 + β2 zg
⋅ (
⋅ 1.6751.675
33 .
4
337 ( −
− 2.588 κ )uB L
+
ω
κ u + κu u+ κ; uα; 2α2= 2=.429
−u 2.588κ 0 )
4 .0062⋅ (−20.432 − κ ) ⋅ κ + 0.103 ⋅ − 0.2932+
4 1
u ⋅ 1ω.664
2.429·
2 ω
1.664 −−
3 ω
58κ uu++κκu u u ⋅ κ ω
2.2.58κ 2( κ
 5 5

As regards the qbeam z

D
loadedα
1
α03.001
β 23 ==with
1M .653=moments⋅−0D
1.653
= 2..246 − EI
571 ( κz u2Bκ2+uGI
+ concentrated
2.571κ
κ u+ u
2+0.t0002 ()
2
κL2u + ⋅B0at 3 .EI
015 ω −ends
the (
κ u5 ⋅ κ(for ω +−1 0.001)
≤ ψ⋅ ≤−1, )
Table
0.002 − κ3), 5
κω5
⋅the
u (15) ( )
2 auxiliary crcoefficients:
β κ
( κ
) ( κ
1 (33.337 2 5 ·κ5
( ) )
L = 0.029· − ) + 0.006· ( −0.432 − ) ·κ ω + 0.103· −0.293 +
029⋅⋅(0.001·
formula for the critical moment for1 lateral torsional κ ) ⋅ 1.476 B L
buckling, which
 κ 2 accounts for arbitrary (0 ÷u 1) ω
( )
u u
β1 ==β1702.474
B ..68 ⋅1(.33.2675−.337 −u 2−.588 κ+u )κκ+2u0−4++ 2κ.4292 ⋅ (κ −ω0.+432 −κκu5u)⋅ ⋅·κ
= 2ω.−429 1κ.ωω664+ 00.001·
2.58⋅ κ − 0+.293 2 + 5κ5 5⋅ κ 5
values of the indexes of fixityα(κ11ω=, κ u ; α 20.015 u κ u− κu u·κω ω
.006 −.103
 
u),= has1the 0.246
following u form: 0.0002· + −0.002
As regards the beam loaded
αBβ322===with
119
0.653 .66
.001= −7.68·⋅⋅ B
moments
20.4.571 (
⋅ (1κ.2+concentrated
(1.2 u−κ+κuκ
246 − κ2 u+2)⋅01.0002 .457 − ) ( ⋅ 0at κ ω−+ends
4the
2..015 (
κκu5ω2 ⋅κ(for
2
))
−1 ≤ ψ ≤ 1, Table 3),
ω + 0.001 ⋅ − 0.002 − κ u ⋅ κ ω
5 the 5
( )
formula for the critical moment
B
for1 lateral torsional
B =B7235 ⋅⋅(19.66·B
=(133 2⋅.B
u )u· 1.476
EI.z2C−1κGI)t⋅L(1.+2 C
4κ⋅4u(·1 )(⋅1.2 ((
buckling,
) +κu0u−).form:
2 − 2.429κ
−κ 2κ−
which
EI)ω; B
ω+κ
+ κ ω2 4+=κα
ω 
accounts ) )
for
2 1 − α 2κ ω + α 3κ ω
arbitrary2 (0 ÷ 1)
( )
2 ⋅ (− 0ω.432ω− κ u ) ⋅ κ ω + 0.103 ⋅ − 0.293
=cr.929
values of the indexes of fixity β(Bκ113ω=,=κ −

0.2uM .),68
029 has .D
the 1337 −
following κ1u.476− · 21.457
006 .429 ω2.4κ ω + κ u5(16) ⋅ κ ω5
= β + β
(
Cκ3 L
( )
() ( ) ) ( )
D B 1.66 ⋅ 2B g⋅ (1.2 −2κ ) ⋅ 1.457 − 2.4κ + κ
= z
235.929·B · ( 1.2 − ) · ( 1.2 − κ ω ) ; B 2 = α − α κ ω + α κ 2
ω
βB221==D
3 4 u 4 1 2 3
qz 019 .1001 = ⋅ β01.246 4+ β +
2 zg u
κ u+ 0.0002 ⋅ 0.015ω− κ u5 ω⋅ κ ω + 0.001⋅ − 0.002 − κ u5 ⋅ κ ω5
EI3.z C1GIt L2 + C 2 EIω 2
3
where: 3 C1, C2, C3 and L
D auxiliary
1—coefficients
BB13==7auxiliary
235
.68
αD1 ==α11β.474
acc.
Mcr⋅.929
coefficients:
Table
(1=.2Dcoefficients:
⋅−B
⋅ 1z.6751.675
1κ4u ) ⋅ 1.476u− 2.2429
( − 2.588
(
⋅ (1.2 − κ ) ⋅ (1.2 −κκ ω+) κ; B4 = α 1 −α 2κω + α 3κω2
κCu3 L+ κu u+ 2 ω2
; uα; 2α=
κ
ω
) ⋅ −
) ( κ + +κ κ22
 (16)
)
( 2 2
)
=+ β1.474· − 2.588κ =.429 2.429· 1 .664
1.664 2
− .58
2.58κ
1 19.166 ⋅ B2 ⋅g(1.2 − κ ) ⋅ 1.457
u u u u
2 − 2.4κ ω + κ ω concentrated at supports.
2
qz
Table 3. Coefficients C1, C2B
,C 2 3=and
α3 D =1 for 1.653 4the−beam 2.571κ u2+ κu with moments
uloaded
where:3 C1, C2, C3 and D1—coefficients α = 1 . 653acc. − 2 .
Table571 κ 3. + κ
auxiliary
3 coefficients: ( u
−uκ)u⋅)(1+.20.005·
u
()−0.512
 
= β2351 = 0.033· ⋅ (⋅29.373 − κ − κ = −ακ1u−)·κ α κ + α
+ω 0.103· κ 2
−0.279 + κ5u ·κ5ω
( ) )
L B .929 B 1 . 2 ; B ω
Item Load Diagram
α
3
β11 ==β012..033
, C13 =and
C1, C2D β 1474 (=+ 1βfor
⋅⋅ (129
0.001· .675
4
.373

−−2κ
0.174 .588
+
2 z gthe beam loaded with moments
)
u )κ+ κ2u 0u+

.+
005 κ u2⋅ (−
0.0002·
ω
(
Coefficients
; 0α.−0.054
 4
− κ−u κ) ⋅⋅5κ1·κ
2 = 2.429
512

u ω.664
2
+ 0.103
ω +− 2.58
0.001·
3 ω
⋅ −κ0.024
0u .+
279κ−u2+κκ5u u·κ⋅5ωκ ω
5 5

⋅−(02..174 + κ + )κ+ 0.0002 ⋅ (− 0.054 − κ )⋅ κ ω + 0.001⋅ (0.024 − κ )⋅ κ ω

1 Table 3. Coefficients
2 qz D 3 concentrated at supports.
β == 01..001
⋅ (1.κ + κ )⋅ (1.457 − 2.4 ⋅ κ ω + κ ω )
2 5 5 5
α C = 207
auxiliary 653 .407
coefficients:571
23
667 − 2.611⋅ κCoefficients u u
2
u 2 u 2 u
Item3.3 Coefficients
2.58⋅ (κ− 0+.279
κ )+ κ )⋅ κ ω
L
Load Diagram 1 u u
⋅ (1.889
( .675⋅ −(12.667 ) ) ; −α+0κ.3512
( =)2⋅ − κ.2 −)⋅⋅(κκ
Table C1 , C2 , C3βand= D for⋅ the beam
− κ loaded
+ with
⋅ moments concentrated at supports. 5 5
α C= 1=.474
0 .033 29 . 373 .588−κ2.611 0 + κ ⋅κ
.005 (.1429 )+ 0−.103
1 2 2 2
1 2 2488 11 2 u 1ω.ω664
u u 2 u u u u u

(20..571 κ+ κ−) +2.0611 ⋅ κ ⋅ (+−2κ0Coefficients κ )−⋅ κ2ω.4+⋅ κ0.001 ⋅ (0.024 −moment

κ )⋅ κ ω is
u
αβ C 2⋅ (1κ )⋅ (1−.457 ω + κω )
3 = (1 −ψ ) ⋅ (α1 − α 2κω + α 3κω )
For loads applied at the 2 2 5 5 5
C==1=
section
001−.⋅407 shear
.+
Item Load Diagram 0.653
.207 174 centre (z
.0002 = 0), the
.054 formula for
g the critical
2 2
32 1 667 u u u u u
u u

κ )⋅−3(1κ.2)−⋅ κκ +) 0.103 ⋅ (− 0.279 + κ )⋅ κ ω

reduced to the following form:
⋅ (29 ⋅ (1−.667
κ )−+ 20.611 005 ⋅κ(− 0+.512
D = β + β κ ω + β κ ω − (β + β κ ω + β κ ω )⋅ eωωψ
1 2 β C= 0=.033 2488 .889 .373
1 2 2 u 6 u
2
u u6 3
5
u
5
M ψM

(1 −(0coefficients: −)α+20κ.0002
(z =⋅ (0),
)2 ⋅ +(ακ11.667 + α 3κ−ω20).054− κ )⋅ κ ω + 0.001⋅ (0.024 − κ )⋅ κ ω
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
For loads applied at βthe= sectionC = ⋅207.407· shear centre
1.667 − 2.611·κ +theκ · formula
21.457 − 2.4·κ for the+ κ critical moment is
2 5 ω
2
ω 5 5
C 0=.001 ψ.174
1 g u u
L auxiliary 2 u u u
reduced to the following form:3C = 2488.889· −ω2.611·κ + κ ·(1.2 − κ ) 2
⋅ (1.248 − 2.234 ⋅ κ + κ ) ; α = 2.321⋅ψ(1.241 − 2.228 ⋅ κ + κ )
u ω

α ω −−α(βκ ++βακκω + β κ ω )⋅ e
2 u
αD ==1β.347 2 2
C = + β(1κ−ω ψ+)β· κ
q 2 2 6 6 3
M ψM 11 1 2 3 1 4u u5 2 2 6 u u
2 ω
ψ − 
+=β0.κ022+⋅ (β48κ.545 ·e − 0.727 ⋅ κ + κ )
∈ 1 ÷ − 0.5 3 3 ω
For loads applied at the α section shear κ β+κκ(z−; =ββ0),
centre the formula  for the critical moment is
2g 10
D= 1= .235 −+2.β222 κ ⋅+

L auxiliary βcoefficients:3 1 1
2
2 ω u 3 6u
ω 41 5 ω 6 ω
6 3ψ u u

206⋅ (1−.248 ⋅ κ⋅ κ+ κ+ κ) ; α ) = 2.321⋅ (1.241 − 2.228 ⋅ κ + κ  )

reduced to the following form: auxiliary coefficients:
αβ = 10..347 0 .068
12 − 2−.234
0.981 7 2 10
u u u u 2 u
2
u
∈ −
ψψ ∈ 0.5
1 ÷÷−−0.5i
; β⋅ κ = +0.κ132; ⋅ (β12.=909
α = 1.347· 1.248 − 2.234·κ + κ ; α = 2.321· 1.241 − 2.228·κ + κ
(48.⋅545 ) ⋅κ + κ  )
h−1 2 2
1 2 u 2 u10
αβ = 10..235 615−⋅ κ2.222 7
0.022− 5.⋅114
4 u κ +−κ0.727
u 2 1
u 10
u 10u
u
α = 1.235 − 2.222·κ + κ ; β = 0.022· 48.545 − 0.727·κ + κ
3 u u u

⋅ (0−.593 +κ)κ; β ) 6 = 0.857 ⋅ (0.251 + κ u7 )

3 u u 1 u u
⋅ κ u7⋅ κ+ κ +
7 10
β 5β= 0=.167
206 0−0.068
.068 − 1−.06
0.0.981·κ
981 10
 
0.206· 2 2 − u7u u10
 u u

− 2.⋅4(12 + κ−ω5).114 ⋅ κ + κ )
1 1
(1.2⋅ κ−κ; ; )ββ⋅ (1.=

Cβ β== 48 ⋅ 0.615·κ
0=.615 13
3 =457 00.132·
.132 77
⋅ κ.ω909
12.909
u uu
− 5.114·κ + κ
44
2 u u
10 10
u u

⋅ (1⋅ (.02.593 .2 ⋅−κκuω+)κ u ) ; β 6 = 0.857 ⋅ (0.251 + κ u )


β = 0.167· 0.593 − 1.06·κ7 + κ10 ; β = 0.857· 0.251 + κ 7 7 10 7
Cβ 5 = 0576.167 − κ −) ⋅1(.106
2
5
u
u u 6 u
1
.2 )−2 κ⋅ (α) ⋅ (−1.α457 .43⋅κκω2ω )+ κ ω )
− κ )· 1.457 − 2.4·κ +κ 2
C3 = 48(1⋅ (+1ψ
C = 48·(1.2 ω 2ω
κω−−+2α
1 u
1 u
C = 576·(1.2 −1κ )·2(1.2 κ ) ω
C = 576 ⋅q(1.2 − κ ) ⋅(1.2 − κ ω )
2 u

M ψM D C= β= + β(1κ+ ω +
2
1 3ψ)β · καω −
1 −α (β κ+ +β ακωκ +β κω )⋅ e ψ
2
2 u2 6
3 1 24 ω
2
5 3 ω 6
6 −2 ,5

L C3D=1 =(1 +βcoefficients:

auxiliary 1ψ+
2
(
) β⋅2 κα2ω1 +−αβ32κκ6ωω −+ αβ34κ+ωβ5 κω + β6 κ6ω ·e−2,5ψ 2
)
M ψM αD1auxiliary
1α= β=1 +1.44·
(
= 1.44 ⋅β1coefficients:
 2 +−β2.κ
.475
2κ ω
6 ⋅ κ + κ 2 ; α = 2.64 ⋅ 1−.457
429
ω − βu4 +
1.457 3− 2.429·κ κ α
( )
βu52κ ω +2β 6κ ω ⋅ e 2 ,5ψ − 2.414 ⋅ κ u + κ2 u
κ
2
)( )
∈ ((−
ψψ ∈ −0.5 ÷ 11
0.5 ÷
L
1
α 3α= 1=
auxiliary −
.441.44
u +
κ u + κ+u2κ; 2 ;ββ1 ==0.029
2.−4 ⋅2.4·κ
coefficients:
u ; 2 = 2.4· 1.457 − 2.414·κ
 .103 − 0.345 ⋅ κ − κ 10
⋅ 35
0.029· 35.103 − 0.345·κu u− κ10 u
u

+ u
( )
(( )) ( )
3 u u 1 u
αβ 12β=2 10=.44 ⋅ ⋅1.0475 − +2.0+ ⋅ κ⋅ κ + −κ−κ2κ66; α = 2.4 ⋅ 1.457 − 2.414 ⋅ κ u + κ u2
 
011
0.011· .027
0.027 429
.182
0.182·κ
 u u u u uu 2 
ψ ∈ (−0.5 ÷ 1
( ) (( ))
 
β 3β=3 1−=.044 +22κ;u; β;ββ4=== 345⋅⋅κκuuu−−−κκuκu10
2 1010
α −0.025·
.025 κ0.36
− 2⋅.40⋅.36u+ +κκ uu 019⋅ ⋅ 35
.0.019·
14 00.029 103+
55.684
..684 +−101.789·κ
..789 u

.002⋅ (⋅0(.0027 ⋅ κ ⋅−κ κ − κ) ; )β = −0.006 ⋅ (2.333 + κ − κ )


β5 = −0.002· 0.5 + 4.5·κ 2u−κ
2
10u 6; β6 = −0.006· 2.333 + κu − κu10
10 10
β =−0.0011 .5 ++40.5.18252 u uu u 6 u u

β = −0.025 ⋅ (0.36 + κ ) ; β = 0.019 ⋅ (5.684 + 1.789 ⋅ κ − κ )

3
2
u 4 u
10
u

β = −0.002 ⋅ (moments
Formula (16), derived for concentrated 0.5 + 4.5 ⋅ κfrom
5 − κ the ) ; interval 006 ⋅ (<2.ψ333
β = −0.−0.5 ≤ 1+ κ
(see− κ ) 3), in
Table 2
u
10
u 6 u
10
u
which symmetric or slightly asymmetric (with respect to the beam midspan) lateral torsional
buckling mode occurs, was approximated with the first term of the twist angle function (8) and the
Formula (16), derived for concentrated moments from the interval −0.5 < ψ ≤ 1 (see Table 3), in
first term of the lateral deflection function (9). However, for the interval −1 ≤ ψ ≤ −0.5, where much
which symmetric or slightly asymmetric (with respect to the beam midspan) lateral torsional
more asymmetric mode of lateral torsional buckling is found, the best results were obtained for the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 9 of 17

The formula for the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling, which addresses the indexes of
fixity (κω , κu ) and an arbitrary ordinate (zg ) of the point of transverse load application with respect to
centre of the section sheer (see Figure 2), has the following form:
q  
−B1 EIz z g + EIz B2 GIt L2 + B3 EIω + B21 EIz z2g
Mcr = D1 (14)
B4 L2

where: B1 , B2 , B3 , B4 and D1 —coefficients acc. Table 2.

For loads applied at the section shear centre (zg = 0), the formula for the critical moment is reduced
to the following form:
p
EIz (B2 GIt L2 + B3 EIω )
Mcr = D1 (15)
B4 L2
As regards the beam loaded with moments concentrated at the ends (for −1 ≤ ψ ≤ 1, Table 3),
the formula for the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling, which accounts for arbitrary (0 ÷ 1)
values of the indexes of fixity (κω , κu ), has the following form:
p
EIz (C1 GIt L2 + C2 EIω )
Mcr = D1 (16)
C3 L2

where: C1 , C2 , C3 and D1 —coefficients acc. Table 3.

Formula (16), derived for concentrated moments from the interval −0.5 < ψ ≤ 1 (see Table 3), in
which symmetric or slightly asymmetric (with respect to the beam midspan) lateral torsional buckling
mode occurs, was approximated with the first term of the twist angle function (8) and the first term
of the lateral deflection function (9). However, for the interval −1 ≤ ψ ≤ −0.5, where much more
asymmetric mode of lateral torsional buckling is found, the best results were obtained for the first term
of the twist angle function (8) and the second term of the lateral deflection function (9).
The design of approximation formulas makes it possible to develop relatively simple spreadsheets.

5. FEM Verification
To verify the results of numerical calculations performed acc. MLTB,EL,2 programme and the results
of analytical calculations made with approximation Formulas (14), (15) and (16), LTBeam software
(FEM) [40] was used. The software allows the adoption of the classic boundary conditions i.e., fork
support or complete fixity. Also, it accounts for the beam elastic restraint against the section warping
and against rotation in the plane of lateral torsional buckling. As mentioned already, the LTBeam
software version 1.0.11 contains an error in the units of the coefficient of the elastic restraint against
warping (αω ). The error results in the lowering of the actual value of αω when it is given in the
commonly used unit [kNcm3 /rad]. The drawback was eliminated in the LTBeamN latest version,
i.e., 1.0.3.
For the sake of comparison, in checking computations, predetermined values of the indexes of
fixity κω and κu were assumed. In this case, the stiffness of the elastic restraint against warping (αω )
and the stiffness of the elastic restraint against lateral rotation (αu ), which are necessary to make LTBeam
computations were determined from Formula (6ab).
Figure 3 shows the form of lateral torsional buckling of the beam (Figure 3b) for the critical
moment determined with the LTBeam programme.
An exemplary IPE300 beam, with span L = 5 m, was loaded with a concentrated force applied at
the midspan to the upper flange of the beam (zg = +h/2). The elastic restraint against warping (κω = 0.75)
and lateral rotation (κu = 0.5) of the beam at support nodes were taken into account. The critical
moment of the lateral torsional buckling of beam was obtained, having the value of Mcr = 163.71 kNm
(Figure 3a). The critical moments for beams analysed in this paper, for different types of sections, spans
commonly used unit [kNcm3/rad]. The drawback was eliminated in the LTBeamN latest version, i.e.,
1.0.3.
For the sake of comparison, in checking computations, predetermined values of the indexes of
fixity κω and κu were assumed. In this case, the stiffness of the elastic restraint against warping (αω)
Appl. the
and Sci. 2019, 9, 1944of the elastic restraint against lateral rotation (αu), which are necessary to 10
stiffness of 17
make
LTBeam computations were determined from Formula (6ab).
and Figure 3 shows and
load diagrams, the for
form of lateral
different torsional
degrees buckling
of elastic of the
restraint beam warping
against (Figure 3b)
andfor the critical
against lateral
moment determined with the LTBeam programme.
rotation, were determined in the way presented above. The results are discussed in Section 6.

Figure 3. Exemplary beam modeled using the LTBeam software: (a) the critical moment for lateral
Figure 3. Exemplary
torsional buckling of beam
beam,modeled usingshape
(b) deformed the LTBeam software: (a) the critical moment for lateral
of beam.
torsional buckling of beam, (b) deformed shape of beam.
6. Examples
An exemplary IPE300 beam, with span L = 5m, was loaded with a concentrated force applied at
To make a comparative analysis, steel beams (E = 210GPa, G = 81GPa) made from IPE300, HEA300,
the midspan to the upper flange of the beam (zg = +h/2). The elastic restraint against warping (κω =
HEB300 sections with a span of L = 5 and 7 m, and beams fabricated from IPE500, HEA500, HEB500
0.75) and lateral rotation (κu = 0.5) of the beam at support nodes were taken into account. The critical
sections with a span of L = 8 and 10 m were assumed. In computations, the loads were as those in the
moment of the lateral torsional buckling of beam was obtained, having the value of Mcr = 163.71
diagrams shown in Tables 2 and 3. For the diagrams in Table 2, transverse loads were applied to the
kNm (Figure 3a). The critical moments for beams analysed in this paper, for different types of
top flange (zg = +h/2), to the section weight axis (zg = 0) and to the bottom flange (zg = −h/2). When the
sections, spans and load diagrams, and for different degrees of elastic restraint against warping and
loads were moments concentrated at supports (Table 3), the whole range of variation of the ratio of the
moments (−1 ≤ ψ ≤ 1) was taken into account for the following parameter values ψ = {−1; −0.75; −0.5;
−0.25; 0; 0.25; 0.5; 0.75; 1}. Analyses were carried out for the full range of variation of the index of fixity
against warping κω (from 0 to 1) and against lateral rotation κu (from 0 to 1) for the following values
of κi = {0; 0.25; 0.5; 0.75; 0.9; 1}. Computations were run for various combinations of the values of
indexes κω and κu . For each of the beams analysed, the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling
was determined acc. MLTB,EL,2 programme using 3 terms of both series (8) and (9). The critical moment
was estimated with Formulas (14), (15) and (16), and then compared with the values obtained from
FEM (LTBeam). As the number of received values of the critical moment of beams was large, the paper
reports only selected results of detailed cases (Tables 4 and 5, Figure 4; Figure 5). Cumulative analyses
of results (for all cases included in the paper) are presented in Table 6.
for lateral torsional buckling was determined acc. MLTB,EL,2 programme using 3 terms of both series
(8) and (9). The critical moment was estimated with Formulas (14), (15) and (16), and then compared
with the values obtained from FEM (LTBeam). As the number of received values of the critical
moment of beams was large, the paper reports only selected results of detailed cases (Tables 4 and 5,
Figure 4; Figure 5). Cumulative analyses of results (for all cases included in the paper) are
Appl. Sci.in2019,
presented Table9, 1944
6. 11 of 17
Table 4 lists exemplary results of calculations obtained for IPE300 beam, with a span of L = 5 m,
loaded with a concentrated force applied to the upper flange (zg = +h/2) at the midspan. Percentage
differences in the results obtained 4. Comparison
Tablewith of Mcr for beam
MLTB,EL,2 programme IPE300
(Column 6) (L = 5 m).to the LTBeam
relative
programme (Column 5) are shown in Column 7. Analogous comparison ofMthe[kNm] results obtained with
Item Load8)
Diagram κω κu cr
Formula (14) (Column and the LTBeam programme (Column 5) can be seen in Column 9.
LTBeam MLTB,EL,2 % 6-5 Formula (14) % 8-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Table 4. Comparison 0of Mcr for111.2 111.9
beam IPE300 (L = 5m). 0.6 110.5 −0.6
Appl. Sci. 2019,
2 9, 1944 0.25 117.2 118.0 0.7 116.3 12 of 18−0.8
Appl. Sci. 2019,
3 9, 1944 0.5 124.4 M cr [kNm] 0.8
125.4 123.5 12 of 18−0.7
0
419
Item Load Diagram κω u0
κ0.75 145.7
133.4 146.9
134.6 % 0.8 Formula
0.9144.6 %−0.8
132.4 −0.7
19
520 0 LTBeam
0.9
0.25 140.1 MLTB,EL,2
145.7
153.9 146.9 0.8 1.0
141.5 6-5
155.2 0.8 144.6
152.7
(14) −0.8
138.7
−0.8
8-5 −1.0
620 1
0.25 145.1
153.9 146.8 0.8 1.2152.7
155.2 142.7
−0.8 −1.7
121 2 3 40.5 163.7
5 165.3
6 71.0 162.4
8 −0.8
9
21 0.75 0.5 163.7 165.3 1.0 162.4 −0.8 −0.6
1722 0.75
0.75 00.25
0 117.5
176.0
111.2 118.2
177.9
111.9 1.1
0.6 0.6174.4
110.5 116.8
−0.9
−0.6
822 0.75 123.9
176.0 124.8
177.9 1.1 0.7174.4 123.0
−0.9 −0.7
2923 0.9
0.250.5
185.0
117.2
131.6
187.4
118.0
132.7
1.3
0.7 182.7
116.3
0.8
−1.2
−0.8
130.7 −0.7
10
23
324 0.25 0.5 0.9
1
0.75
185.0
191.9
124.4
141.3
187.4
194.6
125.4
142.6
1.3
1.4
0.8 0.9
182.7
187.9
123.5 −1.2
−2.1
−0.7
140.4 −0.6
24 0
425
11 0.7501
0.9 191.9
166.8
148.3
133.4 194.6
168.4
149.9
134.6 1.4
1.0
0.9 1.1187.9
165.1
132.4 −2.1
−1.0
147.2
−0.7 −0.7
1225
526 01
0.25
0.9 166.8
153.8
176.1
140.1 168.4
155.6
177.9
141.5 1.0
1.0
1.0 1.2165.1
174.4
138.7 −1.0
151.5
−1.0
−1.0 −1.5
1326
627 10.25
0.50 176.1
127.4
187.4
145.1 177.9
128.3
189.5
146.8 1.0
1.1
1.2 0.7174.4
185.3
142.7 −1.0
126.7
−1.1
−1.7 −0.5
14 0.9 0.25 134.5 135.5 0.7197.9 133.6 −0.7
727
28 Pz 0.9 00.5
0.5
0.75 187.4
201.3
117.5 189.5
203.9
118.2 1.1
1.3
0.6 185.3
116.8 −1.1
−1.7
−0.6
1528 0.75 143.0
201.3 144.2
203.9 1.3 0.8197.9 142.1
−1.7 −0.6
829 L/2 0.5 0.25 0.9 211.5
123.9 214.7
124.8 1.5
0.7 206.4
123.0 −2.4
−0.7
16 0.75 153.6 155.1 1.0 152.8 −0.5
29 L 0.9 211.5 214.7 1.5 206.4 −2.4
930
17 0.51
0.9 219.4
131.6
161.4 222.9
132.7
163.2 1.6
0.8 212.0
130.7
1.1 −3.4
−0.7
160.4 −0.6
30 IPE300 0.25
18
1031 IPE300 0.75011 219.4
167.4
191.8
141.3 222.9
169.4
194.0
142.6 1.6
1.1
0.9 1.2212.0
189.8
140.4 −3.4
165.2
−1.0
−0.6 −1.3
31 L=
L 5m
= 5m 00 191.8 194.0 1.1 189.8 −1.0
11
1932 0.25
0.9 202.3
148.3
145.7 204.9
149.9
146.9 1.3
1.1 200.7
147.2
0.8 −0.8
−0.7
144.6 −0.8
20
12 32
33 zzgg == +h/2
+h/2
10.25
0.25
0.5 202.3
153.9
215.0
153.8 204.9
155.2
217.9
155.6 1.3
1.3
1.2 0.8200.7
212.9
151.5 −0.8
152.7
−1.0
−1.5 −0.8
2133 1 0.5
0.5 163.7
215.0 165.3
217.9 1.3 1.0212.9 162.4
−1.0 −0.8
1334 0.751 0.75
0 230.5
127.4 234.1
128.3 1.6
0.7 226.2
126.7 −1.9
−0.5
22 0.75 176.0 177.9 1.1 174.4 −0.9
14 34
35 0.75
0.9
0.25 230.5
241.9
134.5 234.1
246.1
135.5 1.6
1.7
0.7 226.2
235.4
133.6 −1.9
−2.7
−0.7
23 0.9 185.0 187.4 1.3 182.7 −1.2
15
2435
36 0.50.9
11 241.9
250.5
143.0
191.9 246.1
255.3
144.2
194.6 1.7
1.9
0.8 235.4
242.6
142.1
1.4 −2.7
−3.2
−0.6
187.9 −2.1
0.5
25 1636 0 0.751
166.8
250.5
153.6
168.4
255.3
155.1 152.8
1.0
1.9
1.0 165.1
242.6 −3.2
−0.5
−1.0
26
17 0.25 161.4
0.9 176.1 177.9 1.1
163.2 1.0
160.4 174.4
−0.6 −1.0
When compared with LTBeam, the critical moments determined using MLTB,EL,2 programme
27
18 1 0.5 187.4
167.4 189.5 1.2
169.4 1.1
165.2 185.3
−1.3 −1.1
When
showed the compared with LTBeam, 0.9 the critical moments determined using MLTB,EL,2Formula
programme
28differences of +0.6 to +1.9% (Table 0.754). The application
201.3 of the approximation
203.9 1.3 197.9 (14)−1.7
showed the
produced thedifferences
29 values thatofdiffered
+0.6 to +1.9% (Table
from −3.4 4). The
to −0.5%
0.9 inapplication
comparison
211.5 ofwith
214.7 the approximation
FEM.
1.5 Formula (14)−2.4
206.4
produced the
Table30 values
5 lists that differed
exemplary resultsfrom −3.4 1to −0.5%219.4
of computations in IPE300
for comparison
beam,with
222.9 L = 5FEM.
m, 212.0values of−3.4
1.6 and selected
Table
indexes κω315and
listsκexemplary results
u, and loading of computations
diagrams acc.
0 for 2IPE300
Tables
191.8 and 3.beam, L = 5 1.1
m, anddifferences
The percentage
194.0 selected
189.8values
in theof−1.0
results κω32and κwith
indexesobtained u, andthe
loading diagrams
MLTB,EL,2 acc. Tables
0.25
programme 202.32 and
(Column 3. The percentage
7) 204.9
relative differences
1.3 LTBeam
to the 200.7 in the−0.8
programme
(Column 33 are shown
results obtained
6) with thein M 0.5
LTB,EL,2 programme
Column 215.0
(Column 7) 217.9
relative to 1.3
the LTBeam212.9
1 8. Analogous comparison of the results obtained from the
programme−1.0
34
(Column (14)
6) are 0.75 230.5 234.1 1.6 226.2from the−1.9
Formulas andshown in Column
(16) (Column 9) and8.the
Analogous comparison
LTBeam programme of the 6)
(Column results obtained
is given in Column 10.
35 0.9 241.9 246.1 1.7 235.4 −2.7
Formulas (14) and (16) (Column 9) and the LTBeam programme (Column 6) is given in Column 10.
36 1 250.5 255.3 1.9 242.6 −3.2
Table 5. Comparison of Mcr for beam IPE300 (L = 5 m).
Table 5. Comparison of Mcr for beam IPE300 (L = 5 m).
(L = 5 m).
Mcr [kNm]
Table 5. Comparison of Mcr for beam IPE300
Item Load Diagram κω κu ψ Mcr [kNm]
% Formula %
Item Load LTBeam MLTB,EL,2 %Mcr Formula [kNm]
Item Load Diagram
Diagram κκωω κuu
κ ψψ
LTBeam MLTB,EL,2 7-6 (14), (16) %
9-6
1 2 3 4 5 LTBeam
6 MLTB,EL,2
7 7-6
%8 7-6 (14), (16) 9-6
9Formula 10
(14), (16) % 9-6
11 22 qz 133 044 −55 66
177.2 77
177.4 88
0.1 9
174.9 910
−1.3 10
211 qz 0.9
1
1 00
0.25 −−− 177.2
163.1
177.2
177.4
163.1
177.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
174.9 174.9
159.9 −1.3
−1.9 −1.3
L
322 L
0.9 0.25
0.9
0.75 0.25
0.5 −−− 163.1
163.1
152.8 163.1
163.1
152.8 0.0
0.0
0.0 159.9 159.9
150.0 −1.9
−1.8 −1.9
IPE300 − −1.8
433 0.75
0.75 0.5
0.5 0.75 − − 152.8
152.8
145.7 152.8
152.8
145.7 0.0
0.0
0.0 150.0
143.2 150.0
−1.8
−1.7
4 LIPE300
IPE300
= 5m 0.5 0.75 − 145.7 145.7 0.0 143.2 −1.7
554 0.5
0.25 0.75
0.9 −−− 145.7
142.8 145.7
142.9 0.0
0.1 143.2
140.0 140.0−1.7
−1.9
zLgL===+h/2
55m
m 0.25 0.9 142.8 142.9 0.1 −1.9
665 zzgg = +h/2
= +h/2
0.25
00 0.9
11 −−− 142.8
141.6
141.6 142.9
141.6
141.6 0.1
0.0
0.0 140.0 138.2
138.2 −1.9
−2.4 −2.4
776 qz 110 1
00 −−− 141.6
180.6
180.6
141.6
181.1
181.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
138.2
179.7 179.7−2.4
−0.5 −0.5
87 L
qz 0.91 0
0.25
0.25 −−− 180.6
165.9
165.9 181.1
166.4
166.4 0.3
0.3
0.3 179.7 164.0
164.0 −0.5
−1.1 −1.1
998 L
0.9 0.25
0.75
0.75 0.5
0.5 −−− 165.9
155.2
155.2 166.4
155.9
155.9 0.3
0.4
0.4 164.0 153.6
153.6 −1.1
−1.0 −1.0
10 9 IPE300
IPE300 0.5
0.75 0.75
0.5 −− 147.7
155.2 148.6
155.9 0.6
0.4 153.6 146.4
−1.0 −0.9
10 = 0.5 0.75 − 147.7 148.6 0.6 146.4 −0.9
11
10 LLIPE300
5m
= 5m 0.25
0.5 0.9
0.75 −
− 144.8
147.7 145.7
148.6 0.7
0.6 146.4 143.1
−0.9 −1.1
11 zL g= +h/2 0.25 0.9 −− 144.8 145.7 0.7 143.1 141.1
−1.1
12
11 zg ==+h/2
5m 0
0.25 0.9
1
−
143.5
144.8
144.4
145.7
0.6
0.7 143.1 −1.1
−1.7
12 zg = +h/2 0 1 − 143.5 144.4 0.6 141.1 −1.7
12
13 1 0 01 −1 − 143.5
622.6 144.4
641.0 0.6
3.0 141.1
624.7 −1.7
0.3
M ψM
13
14 0.91 0
0.25 −1
−0.75 622.6
534.1 641.0
539.8 3.0
1.1 624.7
535.6 0.3
0.3
M ψM
14 L 0.9 0.25
15 0.75 0.5 −0.75
−0.5 534.1
454.8 539.8
457.4 1.1
0.6 535.6
456.1 0.3
0.3
L
15
16 IPE300 0.75 0.5 −0.25
0.5 0.75 −0.5 454.8
419.7 457.4
422.0 0.6
0.5 456.1
424.7 0.3
1.2
16
17 LIPE300
= 5m 0.5 0.75
0.25 0.9 −0.25
0 419.7
407.8 422.0
410.3 0.5
0.6 424.7
407.0 1.2
−0.2
17 L = 5m 0.25 0.9 0 407.8 410.3 0.6 407.0 −0.2
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 qz 1 0 − 177.2 177.4 0.1 174.9 −1.3
2 0.9 0.25 − 163.1 163.1 0.0 159.9 −1.9
L
3 0.75 0.5 − 152.8 152.8 0.0 150.0 −1.8
IPE300
4 0.5 0.75 − 145.7 145.7 0.0 143.2 −1.7
L = 5m
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 12 of 17
5 0.25 0.9 − 142.8 142.9 0.1 140.0 −1.9
zg = +h/2
6 0 1 − 141.6 141.6 0.0 138.2 −2.4
7 qz 1 0 −Table 5.180.6
Cont. 181.1 0.3 179.7 −0.5
8 L
0.9 0.25 − 165.9 166.4 0.3 164.0 −1.1
κ0.75 κ0.5 M cr [kNm]
Item 9 Load Diagram ω u ψ− 155.2 155.9 0.4 153.6 −1.0
IPE300 LTBeam
10 0.5 0.75 − 147.7 MLTB,EL,2
148.6 %0.6
7-6 Formula −0.9
146.4 (14), (16) % 9-6
L = 5m
111 2 0.25
3 0.9
4 5− 144.8
6 7145.7 0.7
8 143.1 9−1.1 10
zg = +h/2
1312 10 01 −1− 143.5
622.6 144.4
641.0 0.6
3.0 141.1 −1.7
624.7 0.3
1413 0.91 0
0.25 −0.75
−1 622.6
534.1 641.0
539.8 3.0
1.1 624.7 535.6
0.3 0.3
M ψM
1514 0.75 0.5
0.9 0.25 −0.5
−0.75 454.8534.1 457.4
539.8 0.6
1.1 535.6 456.1
0.3 0.3
16 L 0.5 0.75 −0.25 419.7 422.0 0.5 424.7 1.2
17
15 0.75 0.9
0.25
0.5 −0.5
0
454.8
407.8
457.4
410.3
0.6
0.6
456.1 407.0
0.3 −0.2
16 IPE300
IPE300 0.5 0.75 −0.25 419.7 422.0 0.5 424.7 394.5
1.2
18 0 1 0.25 399.3 401.2 0.5 −1.2
LL==55mm
1917 Formula (16) 0.25 0.5
0.5 0.9 0
0.5 407.8
222.2 410.3
222.3 0.6
0.0 407.0 221.1
−0.2 −0.5
20 0.75 0.75 0.75 259.3 259.4 0.1 259.7 0.2
21Sci. 2019, 9, 1944
Appl. 1 1 1 342.4 342.5 0.1 347.2 141.4
of 18

Figure 4. The critical moment of lateral torsional buckling of beam as a function of the index of fixity
Figure
κω , for4.selected
The critical
indexmoment
of fixityofκlateral torsional buckling of beam as a function of the index of fixity
u : (a) beam with concentrated force load, (b) beam with uniformly
ω, for selected index of fixity κu : (a) beam with concentrated force load, (b) beam with uniformly
κdistributed load.
distributed load.

The comparison of the critical moments of lateral torsional buckling (Figure 4), obtained for the
full warping restraint (κω = 1) in relation to its full freedom (κω = 0), shows +71% (Figure 4a) and +81%
(Figure 4b) increase in Mcr, basically regardless of the value of the κu index. The dependence Mcr(κω)
is strongly non-linear throughout the whole range of the κω restraint index (from 0 to 1).
Figure 5 shows the courses of variation of critical moments of lateral torsional buckling of the
beam, for geometric parameters according to Figure 4, depending on the value of the index of fixity
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 13 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 15 of 18

Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2019,
Sci. 2019, 9,
2019, 9, 1944
9, 1944
1944 13
13 of
13 of 18
of 18
18

18
18
18 Formula
Formula (16)
Formula (16)
(16) 000 111 0.25
0.25
0.25 399.3
399.3
399.3 401.2
401.2
401.2 0.5
0.5
0.5 394.5
394.5
394.5 −1.2
−1.2
−1.2
19
19
19 0.5
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.5 222.2
222.2
222.2 222.3
222.3
222.3 0.0
0.0
0.0 221.1
221.1
221.1 −0.5
−0.5
−0.5
20
20
20 0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75
0.75 259.3
259.3
259.3 259.4
259.4
259.4 0.1
0.1
0.1 259.7
259.7
259.7 0.2
0.2
0.2
21
21
21 111 111 111 342.4
342.4
342.4 342.5
342.5
342.5 0.1
0.1
0.1 347.2
347.2
347.2 1.4
1.4
1.4

In
In addition
In addition to
addition to the
to the comparison
the comparison of
comparison of the
of the values
the values of
values of M
of Mcrcrcr,,, the
M results
the results
the compiled
compiled in
results compiled in Tables
in Tables 444 and
Tables and 555 can
and can be
can be
be
employed
employed in
employed in the
in the tests
the tests on
tests on the
on the correctness
the correctness
correctness of of the
of the design
the design
design of of Formulas
of Formulas (14)
Formulas (14) and
(14) and (16)
and (16) in
(16) in spreadsheets.
in spreadsheets.
spreadsheets.
Table
Table 666 lists
Table lists the
lists the maximum
the maximum percentage
maximum percentage differences
percentage differences between
differences between the
between the results
the results obtained
results obtained by
obtained by the
by the authors
the authors
authors
and
and
and those
those
those produced
produced
produced using
using
using LTBeam
LTBeam
LTBeam for
for
for beams
beams
beams IPE300,
IPE300,
IPE300, HEA300,
HEA300,
HEA300, HEB300,
HEB300,
HEB300, IPE500,
IPE500,
IPE500, HEA500
HEA500
HEA500 and
and
and
Figure 5. The critical moment of lateral torsional buckling of beam as a function of the index of fixity
HEB500.
Figure
HEB500.
HEB500. 5. The critical moment of lateral torsional buckling of beam as a function of the index of fixity
κ , for selected index of fixity κ : (a) beam with concentrated force load, (b) beam with uniformly
u ω
κdistributed
u, for selected index of fixity κω : (a) beam with concentrated force load, (b) beam with uniformly
load.
distributed load.
6. Percentage
TableTable
Table 6. differences
6. Percentage
Percentage in thein
differences
differences values
in the of Mcrof
the values
values offor
Mcrcrall
M analysed
cr for
for all beams.
all analysed
analysed beams.
beams.
Table 6. Percentage differences in the values of M for all analysed beams.
The comparison of the critical moments of lateral torsional buckling (Figure 5), obtained for the
MLTB,EL,2 vs. Formulas (14), (15) Formula (16)
Item
full lateral
Itemrotation
Item
Item
Load
Load
Load
Load
Diagram
restraint
Diagram
Diagram
Diagram (κu = 1) in relation
M tovs.
LTB,EL,2
LTBeam
MLTB,EL,2
M LTB,EL,2
vs.
vs. full freedomFormulas
itsLTBeam
LTBeam
LTBeam
Formulas
Formulas
(κuLTBeam
vs.
(14),
(14), (15)
(14),
= 0), shows (15)
(15) Formula
Formula
Formula
+29%vs.(Figure
LTBeam
(16)
(16)
(16)
5a) and
+43% (Figure 5b) increase in Mcr, basically regardless of the valuevs. vs.
vs. LTBeam
LTBeam
of LTBeam
the κω index. In this vs.
vs. LTBeam
vs. case,
LTBeam
LTBeam the
1 2 3 4 5
dependence 111 Mcr(κu) is mildly
222 non-linear throughout 333 the entire range of the 444 κu restraint index (from 555 0
P
P
Pz zz
to 1). 1
1 11 L/2
L/2
L/2 from+0.5
from
from
from +0.5
+0.5toto
+0.5 to+2.6%
to +2.6%
+2.6% from
+2.6% from
from
from to +4.1%
−3.8
−3.8−3.8
−3.8 to
to +4.1%
to +4.1%
+4.1% − −−−
In the case ( Figure 4;
L
LL
Figure 5) warping and lateral rotation are fully restrained at supports
qqqzzz
(i.e., κω = κu = 1) of the IPE300 beam with the span L = 5 m, nearly +120% (Figures 4a and 5a) and
222
+159% 2(Figures 4b andLLL 5b) increase infrom
from
from
from 000toto
the 0critical
to +0.7%
to+0.7%
+0.7%
+0.7%moment
from
from
from
from
M −3.0 −3.0
−3.0
cr was
to
to +2.6%
−3.0 to +2.6%
to +2.6%
+2.6%
found compared − with −−− the
q
qqqzzzz of warping and lateral rotation (i.e., κω = κu = 0), which correspond to fork
conditions of full freedom
33 from
from−0.5−0.5
−0.5toto to +0.7%
to+0.7%
+0.7% from from
from −2.3
−2.3 to +3.3%
to +3.3%
+3.3% −
support. 33 3 L
LLL
from
from
from −0.5
−0.5 to +0.7%
+0.7% from
from −2.3
−2.3−2.3 to
to +3.3%
to +3.3% − −−−
M
M ψψ M
ψ M
M M ψM M
7. Conclusions
4 from
4
4
44 L
L
LL from00000toto
from
from
from
to
to +4.9%
to+4.9%
+4.9%
+4.9%
+4.9% − − −−− from
from
−3.2
from from −3.2
fromto−3.2
−3.2
−3.2 to
to
to
+4.0%
to +4.0%
+4.0% +4.0%
+4.0%
ψ
ψ ∈ − 1
−111÷÷ 1 
∈∈− 
÷1111i
A natural trendψ in
∈ −the ÷÷development of modern design methods is to account for the factors that
ψ
ψ∈ h−1
influence the structure bearing capacity and reliability.

In
In addition
In addition
addition to
addition to
to the
to the
the data
the data
data shown
data shown
shown in
shown in
in Table
in Table
Table 6,
Table 6,
6, it
6, it should
it should
it should be
should be noted
be noted
be that
noted that
noted that for
that for Scheme
for Scheme
for Scheme 1,
Scheme 1, the
1, the
1, values
the values
the values
values
In
received
received
received with
with
with M
M
M LTB,EL,2 programme differed from +0.5 to +2.6% (HEB300, L = 5 m), and the results
programme
LTB,EL,2 programme
LTB,EL,2 differed
differed from
from +0.5
+0.5 to
to +2.6%
+2.6% (HEB300,
(HEB300, LL =
= 55 m),
m), and
and the
the results
results
received with MLTB,EL,2 programme differed from +0.5 to +2.6% (HEB300, L = 5 m), and the results
obtained
obtained acc.
obtained acc.
acc. Formula
acc. Formula
Formula (14)
Formula (14)
(14) showed
(14) showed
showed differences
showed differences
differences of
differences of
of from
of from −3.8
from −3.8
from (IPE500,
−3.8 (IPE500,
−3.8 (IPE500, L
(IPE500, LL === 10
L 10 m)
10 m) to
m) to
m) +4.1%
to +4.1%
to (HEA300,
+4.1% (HEA300,
+4.1% (HEA300, L
(HEA300, LL ===
L
obtained = 10 =
5
5
5 m)
m)
m) compared
compared
compared with
with
with LTBeam.
LTBeam.
LTBeam. As
As
As regards
regards
regards Scheme
Scheme
Scheme 2,
2,
2, M
M
M LTB,EL,2 program gave critical moments that
program
LTB,EL,2 program
LTB,EL,2 gave
gave critical
critical moments
moments that
that
5 m) compared with LTBeam. As regards Scheme 2, MLTB,EL,2 program gave critical moments that
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 14 of 17

Table 4 lists exemplary results of calculations obtained for IPE300 beam, with a span of L = 5 m,
loaded with a concentrated force applied to the upper flange (zg = +h/2) at the midspan. Percentage
differences in the results obtained with MLTB,EL,2 programme (Column 6) relative to the LTBeam
programme (Column 5) are shown in Column 7. Analogous comparison of the results obtained with
Formula (14) (Column 8) and the LTBeam programme (Column 5) can be seen in Column 9.
When compared with LTBeam, the critical moments determined using MLTB,EL,2 programme
showed the differences of +0.6 to +1.9% (Table 4). The application of the approximation Formula (14)
produced the values that differed from −3.4 to −0.5% in comparison with FEM.
Table 5 lists exemplary results of computations for IPE300 beam, L = 5 m, and selected values of
indexes κω and κu , and loading diagrams acc. Tables 2 and 3. The percentage differences in the results
obtained with the MLTB,EL,2 programme (Column 7) relative to the LTBeam programme (Column 6) are
shown in Column 8. Analogous comparison of the results obtained from the Formulas (14) and (16)
(Column 9) and the LTBeam programme (Column 6) is given in Column 10.
In addition to the comparison of the values of Mcr , the results compiled in Tables 4 and 5 can be
employed in the tests on the correctness of the design of Formulas (14) and (16) in spreadsheets.
Table 6 lists the maximum percentage differences between the results obtained by the authors and
those produced using LTBeam for beams IPE300, HEA300, HEB300, IPE500, HEA500 and HEB500.
In addition to the data shown in Table 6, it should be noted that for Scheme 1, the values received
with MLTB,EL,2 programme differed from +0.5 to +2.6% (HEB300, L = 5 m), and the results obtained
acc. Formula (14) showed differences of from −3.8 (IPE500, L = 10 m) to +4.1% (HEA300, L = 5 m)
compared with LTBeam. As regards Scheme 2, MLTB,EL,2 program gave critical moments that differed
from 0 to +0.7% (HEA500, L = 10 m), and the differences for Formula (14) were from −3.0 to +2.6%
(HEA300, L = 5 m). For Scheme 3, MLTB,EL,2 programme values differed from −0.5 to +0.7% (HEB500,
L = 10 m), and Formula (14) values showed differences of −2.3 to +3.3% (HEA300, L = 5 m). Finally, for
Scheme 4, MLTB,EL,2 programme generated critical moments that were 0 to +4.9% (HEA300, L = 5 m)
different, and acc. Formula (16), from −3.2 (HEA300, L = 5 m) to +4.0% (IPE300, L = 7 m).
Figure 4 presents the courses of variation of Mcr for a beam made of an IPE300 profile with a span
L = 5 m, depending on the value of the index of fixity against warping κω (from 0 to 1) for selected
values of the index of fixity against lateral rotation κu = {0; 0.25; 0.5; 0.75; 0.9; 1}. Concentrated force
load (Figure 4a) or uniformly distributed load (Figure 4b) was applied to the upper flange of the beam
(zg = +h/2). Critical moments of the beam were determined with Formula (14).
The comparison of the critical moments of lateral torsional buckling (Figure 4), obtained for the
full warping restraint (κω = 1) in relation to its full freedom (κω = 0), shows +71% (Figure 4a) and +81%
(Figure 4b) increase in Mcr , basically regardless of the value of the κu index. The dependence Mcr (κω )
is strongly non-linear throughout the whole range of the κω restraint index (from 0 to 1).
Figure 5 shows the courses of variation of critical moments of lateral torsional buckling of the
beam, for geometric parameters according to Figure 4, depending on the value of the index of fixity
against lateral rotation κu (from 0 to 1) for selected values of the index of fixity against warping κω = {0;
0.25; 0.5; 0.75; 0.9; 1}.
The comparison of the critical moments of lateral torsional buckling (Figure 5), obtained for the
full lateral rotation restraint (κu = 1) in relation to its full freedom (κu = 0), shows +29% (Figure 5a)
and +43% (Figure 5b) increase in Mcr , basically regardless of the value of the κω index. In this case,
the dependence Mcr (κu ) is mildly non-linear throughout the entire range of the κu restraint index
(from 0 to 1).
In the case (Figure 4; Figure 5) warping and lateral rotation are fully restrained at supports (i.e.,
κω = κu = 1) of the IPE300 beam with the span L = 5 m, nearly +120% (Figures 4a and 5a) and +159%
(Figures 4b and 5b) increase in the critical moment Mcr was found compared with the conditions of full
freedom of warping and lateral rotation (i.e., κω = κu = 0), which correspond to fork support.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 15 of 17

7. Conclusions
A natural trend in the development of modern design methods is to account for the factors that
influence the structure bearing capacity and reliability.
When actual conditions of beam support at the nodes are well represented, critical moments can
be computed more accurately. Consequently, the coefficient of lateral torsional buckling and the design
resistance of the beam can also be calculated more precisely. Such an approach allows taking more
informed decision regarding the structural reliability of members. Intuitive estimation of the bearing
capacity reserves is substituted with objective criteria.
The comparison of the critical moments (Tables 4–6), which were determined using MLTB,EL,2
programme and estimated from Formulas (14), (15) and (16), with the values obtained from LTBeam
revealed a very good congruence of the results. The critical loads were computed for: (1) different
variants in the selection of the indexes of fixity (κω , κu ) which changed in the interval from 0 to 1; (2)
various (characteristic) points at which transverse loads were applied (top flange, weight axis of the
section and bottom flange); and (3) full range of variation in the ratio of the moments concentrated at
the supports (−1 ≤ ψ ≤ 1).
The results obtained by the authors indicate that the estimations of the critical moments produced
with the Formulas (14), (15) and (16) derived in the study, give approximations that are sufficient
from the engineering standpoint. If the formulas mentioned above are written in the spreadsheet, it is
necessary to compare the results obtained with Tables 4 and 5.
With an increase in the indexes of fixity (κω , κu ), the value of the critical load of the beams grows.
The critical moment for lateral torsional buckling is affected, to a greater extent, by the restraint of the
support sections of the beam against warping.
Finally, in order to ensure the recommended level of structural reliability already at the design stage,
it should be recommended to check computer calculations with the use of an available analytical method.

Author Contributions: Introduction was prepared by R.P. and A.S. Mathematical description was written by R.P.
and A.S. Results were obtained by R.P. The analysis of the results and conclusions were written by R.P. and A.S.
Funding: Project financed under the programme of the Minister of Science and Higher Education under the name
“Regional Initiative of Excellence” in the years 2019–2022 project number 025/RID/2018/19 amount of financing 12
000 000 PLN.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Szychowski, A. A theoretical analysis of the local buckling in thin-walled bars with open cross-section
subjected to warping torsion. Thin-Walled Struct. 2014, 76, 42–55. [CrossRef]
2. Bijak, R. Critical Moment for Lateral Torsional Buckling of Unbraced Bisymmetric I-Beams with Fork Support;
XII ICMS Wrocław: Wrocław, Poland, 2011; pp. 144–151. (In Polish)
3. Lim, N.H.; Park, N.H.; Kang, Y.J.; Sung, I.H. Elastic buckling of I-beams under linear moment gradient. Int. J.
Soldis Struct. 2003, 40, 5635–5647. [CrossRef]
4. López, A.; Yong, D.J.; Serna, M.A. Lateral-torsional buckling of steel beams: A general expression for the
moment gradient factor. In Proceedings of the Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Lisbon, Portugal,
6–8 September 2006.
5. Mohri, F.; Damil, N.; Potier-Ferry, M. Linear and non-linear stability analyses of thin-walled beams with
monosymmetric I sections. Thin-Walled Struct. 2010, 48, 299–315. [CrossRef]
6. Serna, M.A.; López, A.; Puente, I.; Yong, D.J. Equivalent uniform moment factors for lateral-torsional buckling
of steel members. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2006, 62, 566–580. [CrossRef]
7. Trahair, N.S.; Bradford, M.A.; Nethercot, D.A.; Gardner, L. The Behavior and Design of Steel Structures to EC3,
4th ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2008.
8. Bijak, R. The lateral buckling of simply supported unrestrained bisymmetric I-shape beams. Arch. Civ. Eng.
2015, LXI, 127–140. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 16 of 17

9. Mohri, F.; Brouki, A.; Roth, J.C. Theoretical and numerical stability analyses of unrestrained, mono symmetric
thin-walled beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2003, 59, 63–90. [CrossRef]
10. Timoshenko, S.P.; Gere, J.M. Theory of Elastic Stability; Arkady: Warszawa, Poland, 1963. (In Polish)
11. Weiss, S.; Giżejowski, M. Stability of Metal Structures. Rod Systems; Arkady: Warszawa, Poland, 1991.
(In Polish)
12. Bijak, R. The lateral buckling of steel I-shape beams with continuous torsional elastic restraints. Bud. I Archit.
Lub. Krynica 2013, 12, 181–188. (In Polish)
13. Larue, B.; Khelil, A.; Gueury, M. Elastic flexural-torsional buckling of steel beams with rigid and continuous
lateral restraints. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2007, 63, 692–708. [CrossRef]
14. Lindner, J. Influence of constructional details on the load carrying capacity of beams. Eng. Struct. 1996, 18,
752–758. [CrossRef]
15. Szymczak, C. Sensitivity analysis of thin-walled members, problems and applications. Thin-Walled Struct.
2003, 41, 271–290. [CrossRef]
16. Valentino, J.; Trahair, N.S. Torsional restraint against elastic lateral buckling. J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 124,
1217–1225. [CrossRef]
17. Yura, J. Fundamentals of beam bracing. Eng. J. 2001, First Quarter, 11–26.
18. Bijak, R.; Brzezińska, K. Reduction In The Critical Moment for Lateral Torsional Buckling of Coped Beams.
Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 797, 3–10. [CrossRef]
19. Giżejowski, M. Lateral buckling of steel beams with limited rotation ability at supports. Inżynieria I Bud.
2001, 57, 589–594. (In Polish)
20. Johnston, G.; Driver, R.G.; Callele, L. Behaviour and Stability of Double-coped Beam-to-girder Connections
under Combined Loading. In Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Structural Stability Research
Council, Toronto, ON, Canada, 25–28 March 2014.
21. Maljaars, J.; Stark, J.W.B.; Steenbergen, H.M.G.M. Buckling of coped steel beams and steel beams with partial
endplates. HERON 2004, 49, 233–271.
22. Maljaars, J.; Stark, J.W.B.; Steenbergen, H.M.G.M.; Abspoel, R. Lateral–torsional buckling resistance of coped
beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2005, 61, 1559–1575. [CrossRef]
23. Maljaars, J.; Stark, J.W.B.; Steenbergen, H.M.G.M.; Abspoel, R. Development and validation of a numerical
model for buckling of coped beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2005, 61, 1576–1593. [CrossRef]
24. Gosowski, B. Non-uniform torsion of stiffened open thin-walled members of steel structures. J. Constr. Steel
Res. 2007, 63, 849–865. [CrossRef]
25. Gosowski, B.; Redecki, M. Lateral-torsional buckling moments for I-beams with local lateral restraints.
Inżynieria I Bud. 2012, 68, 140–144. (In Polish)
26. Lee, H.E.; Nguyen, C.T.; Moon, J.H.; Joo, H.S. Lateral-torsional buckling of discretely-braced i-girder. Procedia
Eng. 2011, 14, 264–271. [CrossRef]
27. Stroetmann, R. Lateral torsional and distortional buckling of cross-connected beams. In Proceedings of the
Eighth International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, Lisbon, Portugal, 22–24 July 2015.
28. Kowal, Z.; Malec, M. Critical resistance of beams with support ribs with closed section. Inżynieria I Bud.
1989, 2, 71–74. (In Polish)
29. Kurzawa, Z.; Rzeszut, K.; Szumigała, M.; Chybiński, M. The influence of frontal plates on the load-carrying
capacity of beams in bending. Inżynieria I Bud. 2006, 62, 163–166. (In Polish)
30. Lindner, J.; Gietzelt, R. Stabilisierung von Biegeträgern mit I-Profil durch angeschweiβte Kopfplatten.
Stahlbau 1984, 3, 69–74.
31. Masarira, A. The effect of joints on the stability behaviour of steel frame beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2002, 58,
1375–1390. [CrossRef]
32. Pałkowski, S. Lateral torsional buckling of I-beams with end plates. Inżynieria I Bud. 1997, 8, 394–395.
(In Polish)
33. Pi, Y.-L.; Trahair, N.S. Distortion and warping at beam supports. J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 1279–1287.
[CrossRef]
34. Piotrowski, R.; Szychowski, A. Lateral-torsional buckling of beams elastically restrained against warping at
supports. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2015, LXI, 155–174. [CrossRef]
35. Gotluru, B.P.; Schafer, B.W.; Pekoz, T. Torsion in thin-walled cold-formed steel beams. Thin-Walled Struct.
2000, 37, 127–145. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1944 17 of 17

36. Živner, T.J. The influence of constructional detail to lateral-torsional buckling of beams. Procedia Eng. 2012,
40, 504–509. [CrossRef]
37. Piotrowski, R.; Szychowski, A. Impact of support closed section ribs on the critical moment for lateral
torsional buckling of steel beams. Struct. Environ. 2018, 10, 5–18. [CrossRef]
38. Szychowski, A. Stability of the Compressed Box Girder Chord at Longitudinal Stress Variation; XII ICMS Wrocław:
Wrocław, Poland, 2011; pp. 202–211. (In Polish)
39. Szychowski, A. Local stability of the compressed flange of a cold-formed thin-walled section. ZNPRz 2011,
276, 307–314. (In Polish)
40. Galéa, Y. Moment critique de déversement élastique de poutres fléchies. Présentation du logiciel LTBEAM.
Revue Construction Métallique. CTICM 2003, 2. Available online: https://www.cticm.com/centre-de-ressources/
(accessed on 20 April 2019).
41. Szychowski, A. Stability of cantilever walls of steel thin-walled bars with open cross-section. Thin-Walled
Struct. 2015, 94, 348–358. [CrossRef]
42. Piotrowski, R.; Szychowski, A. Applying the Energy Method and Polynomials to the Determination of the Critical
Buckling Moments in Beams; Konstr. Betonowe I Met. Bydg.: Krynica, Poland, 2015; pp. 249–257. (In Polish)
43. Jakubowski, S. Buckling of Thin-Walled Girders under Compound Load. Thin-Walled Struct. 1988, 6, 129–150.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).