Unified Flexural Resistance Equations for Stability Design of

Steel I-Section Members: Uniform Bending Tests

Donald W. White, M.ASCE1; and Se-Kwon Jung, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: The 2004 AASHTO and 2005 AISC provisions for flexural design of steel I-section members have been revised in their
entirety relative to previous specifications to simplify their logic, organization, and application, while also improving their accuracy and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

generality. This paper evaluates the lateral-torsional and flange local buckling 共LTB and FLB兲 predictions from these and previous
specifications versus uniform bending experimental test results. A total of 154 rolled and 123 welded I-section member LTB tests, and 11
rolled and 36 welded I-section member FLB tests are considered. Reliability indices are estimated for load and resistance factor design
共LRFD兲 of buildings based on the test statistics combined with established statistics for material and fabrication bias factors and the ASCE
7 load model. The notional reliability for LTB is found to be reasonably constant and consistent with the targeted level in the first AISC
LRFD specification of 1986. The unified equations, combined with a design-oriented procedure for calculation of elastic LTB K factors,
are shown to capture the test results accurately throughout the inelastic and elastic LTB ranges, leading to substantial liberalization of the
calculated resistances in certain cases. The mean resistances for inelastic LTB and FLB are captured accurately by a linear equation in the
corresponding slenderness parameters. The reliability for FLB is found to be slightly higher than that for LTB.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2008兲134:9共1450兲
CE Database subject headings: Synthesis; Steel beams; High strength steel; Flexural strength; I beams; Structural stability; Experi-
mental data; Bending.

Introduction Overview of Unified Flexural Resistance Provisions

The calibration of the original AISC 共1986兲 load and resistance
factor design 共LRFD兲 flexural resistance provisions was based on
limited experimental testing of the many different types of
I-section members 共Yura et al. 1978; Cooper et al. 1978兲. A num-
ber of important additional experimental studies have been con-
ducted in subsequent years. As a part of the process of developing
updated AASHTO 共2004兲 and AISC 共2005兲 provisions for flex-
ural design of steel I-section members, an effort was made to
collect and analyze the results from a large set of relevant experi-
mental tests. Also, updated material and fabrication bias factors
have been published subsequent to the original LRFD effort. This
paper presents an analysis of the data from statically determinate
uniform bending tests. The statistics obtained for the ratio of the
test to predicted strengths 共M test / M n兲 are utilized along with es-
tablished statistics for material and fabrication bias factors and the
ASCE 7 load model to assess the reliability associated with the
updated provisions in the context of building design. The com-
panion paper 共White and Kim 2008兲 presents the results for
moment-gradient tests.
1
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355.
2
Civil Structural Engineer, Bechtel Power Corp., Frederick, MD
21705; formerly, Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Note. Associate Editor: Scott A. Civjan. Discussion open until
February 1, 2009. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on August 24, 2005; approved on May 16, 2006. This
paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 9,
September 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2008/9-1450–1470/
$25.00.
The unified flexural resistance equations in AASHTO 共2004兲 and
AISC 共2005兲 are closest in form and function to those of AISC
共1999兲. White 共2008b兲 provides a detailed technical overview of
the updated provisions. The new AISC and AASHTO provisions
are largely equivalent, but with an emphasis on streamlined de-
sign of slender-web I-section members in AASHTO 共2004兲 and
compact doubly symmetric I-section members in AISC 共2005兲.
All the flange local buckling 共FLB兲 and lateral-torsional buckling
共LTB兲 equations in the new specifications are based consistently
on the two anchor points shown in Fig. 1. Anchor Point 1 is
located at the length KLb = L p for LTB, or the flange slenderness
关␭fc = bfc / 2tfc兴 = ␭pf for FLB, corresponding to development of the
maximum potential flexural resistance. This resistance is labeled
in Fig. 1 as M max 共in terms of the bending moment兲 or Fmax 共in
terms of the compression flange flexural stress兲. The resistance
M max⫽plastic moment M p for I sections having a compact web.
However, it is generally less than M p for other cross sections.
Anchor Point 2 is located at the largest compression flange stress
or member bending moment for which the buckling behavior is
nominally elastic. The ordinate of Anchor Point 2 is taken 共in
terms of moment兲 as RbFyrSxc = Rb共0.7Fy兲Sxc = Rb共0.7M yc兲 for
most I shapes, where M yc⫽yield moment associated with the
compression flange, FycSxc, and Rb⫽web bend buckling strength
reduction factor, equal to 1.0 for sections with a compact or non-
compact web, but equal to a value less than 1.0 for sections with
a slender web. The abscissa of Anchor Point 2 is denoted by the
length Lr, or the flange slenderness ␭rf. The inelastic LTB and
FLB resistances are expressed simply as straight lines between
the anchor points. For KLb ⬎ Lr or ␭ f ⬎ ␭rf, the nominal resistance
is defined explicitly as the theoretical elastic buckling moment or
flange stress. The format shown in Fig. 1, adapted from AISC

1450 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Basic form of unified FLB and LTB resistance equations
共1999兲, greatly facilitates the definition of simple yet comprehen-
sive flexural resistance equations.
There are a number of minor differences between AASHTO
共2004兲 and AISC 共2005兲. To facilitate the understanding of both
specifications, White 共2008b兲 presents the base unified flexural
resistance provisions and explains the minor deviations from
these provisions in the places they occur. Correspondingly, the
base unified provisions are utilized in this paper as a point of
departure, followed by consideration of the effects of deviations
from these provisions. One exception is made relative to the uni-
fied provisions in this paper. The unified provisions require the
use of the slender-web member equations when Fyf ⬎ 485 MPa
共70 ksi兲. This restriction, which is implemented in AASHTO
共2004兲, is due to the more limited testing of girders with these
steels, the implications of the use of these steels with conven-
tional strength concrete slabs in composite bridge construction,
and the larger potential reduction in the LTB resistance due to
web distortional flexibility for large Fyf. For the noncomposite
tests considered in this paper, this restriction is waived, generally
producing a more liberal and more accurate estimate of the test
strengths. In a few cases, the notation is different in AISC 共2005兲
and AASHTO 共2004兲. In these situations, the notation from
AASHTO 共2004兲 is utilized for purposes of discussion. The cor-
responding AISC 共2005兲 terms are provided in the notation list
and are defined along with the AASHTO terms where the terms
first appear.
Some of the key improvements in the unified provisions rela-
tive to AISC 共1999兲 and AASHTO 共1998兲 are as follows:
• The flange stress corresponding to the nominal onset of yield-
ing, Fyr 关FL in AISC 共1999, 2005兴, has been updated. The
equation for Fyr in the new provisions is essentially the same
for all types of I-section members. For most I shapes, Fyr
= 0.7Fyc. This represents a substantial enhancement in the FLB
and LTB resistances for slender-web I girders having unbraced
lengths or flange slenderness values near the maximum limits
for inelastic buckling 共Anchor Point 2兲, justified by the results
presented in this paper as well as other studies. The previous
AISC 共1999兲 Appendix G and AASHTO 共1998兲 slender-web
member provisions assumed Fyr = 0.5Fyc at Anchor Point 2
共Fig. 1兲.
• A single equation is employed for the compact bracing limit L p
for all types of I-section members. This equation provides a
better fit to the experimental results summarized in this paper
than prior specification equations for L p. The recommended L p
equation is generally more restrictive than the corresponding
equations in AISC 共1999兲 and AASHTO 共1998兲. However, in
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1451
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
many practical situations, the use of a LTB effective length
factor K ⬍ 1 in critical unbraced segments more than offsets
this decrease in the value of L p. For unbraced lengths with
substantial end-restraint, more accurate and more liberal esti-
mates are obtained when the effective length KLb is used,
where K is determined using a design-oriented procedure rec-
ommended by Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 and by Galambos
共1998兲.
• Web local buckling is no longer handled as a separate limit
state for noncompact-web I-section members. Rather,
noncompact-web effects are handled in a fashion similar to the
way that slender-web effects are addressed in Appendix G of
AISC 共1999兲. That is, coefficients similar to the web bend-
buckling strength reduction factor for slender-web members,
R PG in AISC 共1999兲 and Rb in AASHTO 共1998兲, are used to
quantify the influence of a noncompact web on the M max val-
ues for FLB and LTB in Fig. 1. These coefficients are termed
the web plastification factors Rpc and Rpt, as they account for
the development of web yielding necessary to achieve M max
⬎ M yc or M yt. The parameter Rpc applies to the FLB and LTB
limit states whereas Rpt applies to the limit state associated
with tension flange yielding 共TFY兲, which governs only for
highly monosymmetric sections with a larger flange in com-
pression. For compact-web sections, Rpc and
Rpt⫽cross-section shape factors M p / M yc and M p / M yt.These
improvements are based on observations, discussed in this
paper, that the shape of the FLB and LTB strength curves is
influenced by the web slenderness, not just the maximum re-
sistance M max. The new provisions define the governing resis-
tance as the smaller of the values determined from the FLB,
LTB, and TFY calculations, similar to the approach in Appen-
dix G of AISC 共1999兲 but applicable to compact-,
noncompact-, and slender-web members.
• The web compactness limit ␭pw has been updated for singly
symmetric I sections to provide an improved characterization
of the demands on the web for development of the plastic
moment resistance M p. This is important particularly for mem-
bers with a smaller flange in compression, typical of compos-
ite bridge I girders in positive bending prior to their being
made composite, or for negative moment regions of composite
members, where the depth of the web in compression may be
large due to the large effective tension flange.
• The elastic LTB resistance is based on a single equation appli-
cable for all types of I-section members. This equation gives
the exact beam-theory solution for LTB of doubly symmetric
members, and it gives an accurate to somewhat conservative
approximation for singly symmetric noncomposite members
and composite members in negative bending 共White and Jung
2003a,b; White 2008b兲. This equation can be written in terms
of the compression flange flexural stress as
冑
␲ 2E 0.078
Fcr = Cb 1+ 共KLb/rt兲2 共1兲
共KLb/rt兲2 X2
where
Sxch
X2 = 共2兲
J
rt⫽radius of gyration of the compression flange plus one-third
of the area of the web in compression; Sxc⫽elastic section
modulus to the compression flange; h⫽distance between the
centroids of the flange elements; and J⫽St. Venant torsion
constant of the steel I section. Eq. 共2兲 is a simple ratio of the
 bending and torsional efficiencies of the cross section. For
doubly symmetric sections, Eq. 共2兲 is approximately equal to
2Ix / J.
For column-type I sections with d / bfc ⬵ 1 and compact web
and/or flange elements, the second term under the radical in
Eq. 共1兲 tends to be significantly larger than 1. As such, it
would be quite uneconomical to discount this major contribu-
tion to the resistance to obtain a simpler form for Eq. 共1兲.
However, in many situations involving beam- or girder-type I
sections with D / bfc greater than about 2 and b f / 2t f near the
compact-flange limit ␭pf or larger, the contribution from the
second term in Eq. 共1兲 is relatively small 共White and Jung
2003a兲. For slender-web members, the contribution from this
term is neglected altogether, due to the reduction in the effec-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tive St. Venant torsional stiffness associated with web distor-
tional flexibility 共i.e., the deformation of the web into an S
shape upon twisting of the cross section, and the correspond-
ing reduction in the twist rotation of the flanges兲 共White and
Jung 2007兲. In this case, Eq. 共1兲 reduces to the form
␲ 2E
Fcr = Cb
共KLb/rt兲2
used traditionally by AISC and AASHTO for slender-web
members.
Eq. 共1兲 results in a more succinct expression for the noncom-
pact lateral brace spacing than in AISC 共1999兲,
冑 冑 冉 冊
1.95rt E Fyr 2 4
Lr = 1+ 1 + 6.76 X 共4兲
X Fyr E geometry measurements are provided to a small number of sig-
applicable for all types of compact- and noncompact-web I
sections, whereas Eq. 共3兲 gives
冑
E approximate measured geometry.” A single exception to this rule
Lr = ␲rt
Fyr
AISC 共1999兲 does not provide an Lr equation for singly
symmetric I-section members in its Appendix F. Engineers
often assume that this noncompact bracing limit must be cal-
culated iteratively. White and Jung 共2003b兲 give a closed-form
expression for Lr based on the rigorous application of open-
section thin-walled beam theory. However, Eq. 共4兲 is simpler
to evaluate and provides good accuracy for most practical sin-
gly symmetric members. Also, due to the larger influence of
web distortion in singly symmetric members, the rigorous
beam theory equation does not necessarily give a better esti-
mate of the physical buckling resistance 共White and Jung
2007兲.
White 共2008b兲 discusses many other improvements in the uni-
fied provisions. The reader is referred to this companion paper for
a complete overview of the developments. When specialized to
apply only to compact doubly symmetric I-section members, the
unified provisions are dramatically simplified. AISC 共2005兲 gives
these simplified provisions explicitly at the beginning of its Chap-
ter F. However, welded bridge I girders typically have a larger
web slenderness, are not doubly symmetric, and are composite in
their final constructed condition. As such, AASHTO 共2004兲 em-
phasizes the simplified design of general slender-web I-section
members.
1452 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
Interrogation of Test Data and Prediction of Test
Flexural Resistances
The flexural resistances are calculated in this paper using the
measured geometry and material properties for each component
plate, where available, and using the specific design-oriented pro-
cedure detailed by Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 and Galambos
共1998兲 for determining the LTB effective length factors, K. White
共2008a兲 discusses the application of this approach to singly-
symmetric I-section members and composite I-section members
in negative bending. For rolled members, separate flange and web
yield strengths are utilized in this research, when this information
is available, and also the web-to-flange fillet areas are included in
the calculations.
These details typically affect the predicted strengths by only a
few percent, but prior research demonstrates that their inclusion
gives the best correlation with physical test results, e.g., see Fu-
kumoto et al. 共1980兲. For welded members, separate web and
flange yield strengths are utilized whenever the data are available,
but web–flange fillets are not included in the calculation of the
cross-section properties as in common practice. The use of an
effective length factor K is essential for accurate prediction of test
共3兲
resistances in the inelastic and elastic LTB ranges of the response.
This paper evaluates the accuracy associated with the use of the
design-oriented procedure originally proposed by Nethercot and
Trahair 共1976兲. Using this procedure, a consistent set of K values
is obtained for all of the considered tests. Somewhat different K
values are reported in a number of the experimental studies using
other methods of calculation.
A large number of test results have been reported in the litera-
ture in which only the nominal section geometry is specified, the
nificant digits, and/or only a single yield strength is listed for the
entire cross section. In this research, cases in which the flange
dimensions and/or the web or section depth are specified as nomi-
nal values or reported to less than three significant digits are
handled as a separate group, labeled as “tests with nominal or
共5兲
is made for deep girders in which the web depth is reported as an
integer value in inches, but based on the assumption that the
actual dimensions are rounded to the reported integer values, the
actual dimensions differ from the reported values by less than 1%.
Also, cases in which only the web thickness is nominal or ap-
proximate and tests where only a single yield strength is listed are
still classified as “tests with accurate measured geometry.” This is
because deviations in the web thickness and yield strength from
reported values tend to influence the predicted resistance to a
minor degree compared to deviations in the flange geometry and
the web depth. For rolled members that do not have cross-section
areas reported including a contribution from the web-to-flange
fillets, circular fillet areas are included in this work based on the
difference between the nominal area listed in section property
tables and the area calculated using only the nominal plate dimen-
sions. The average cross-section area including the web–flange
fillets can be determined by weighing the member and dividing
by the steel weight density and the member length. However, this
information is rarely reported. The flange yield strength is used
for the web–flange fillets in this work. Specific geometric dimen-
sions, material yield strengths, test configurations, and observa-
tions about the test behavior are detailed by White and Jung
共2004兲 for all of the tests.
In concept, measured static yield strengths from tension cou-
pon tests are utilized for all the resistance calculations. Galambos
 共1998兲 in Appendix B8 specifies a recommended procedure for
determining these static yield strengths. This procedure involves a
modification of the ASTM E8 共2000兲 method for tension testing.
It is well recognized that the rate of loading in tension tests has a
significant impact on the measured yield properties. The proce-
dure recommended by Galambos 共1998兲 requires that the cross-
head motion be stopped for approximately 5 min at several
intervals within the yield plateau. At these stages, the plot of the
load–strain curve drops from its original course, indicating a de-
crease in load. The magnitude of the load is recorded at the end of
this time, or when the load has stabilized. Five minutes is sug-
gested as a maximum time limit as, in the case of hydraulic ma-
chines, strain reversal and a lower equilibrium load may be
recorded due to leakage of oil in the system. Nevertheless, Adams
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
et al. 共1964兲 show test data in which the load does not stabilize
completely until a period of roughly 24 h has elapsed. They con-
clude that the static yield strength problem is not one of deter-
mining a difference in load, but of determining a value of the load
共stress兲 corresponding to the desired duration of loading on the
structure. Thus the wait time in determining the static yield stress,
as well as the duration at which the displacements are held con-
stant on the structure during static testing at inelastic load levels,
are sources of variability in M test / M n. In some cases, the tension
coupon and the flexural member tests were conducted at specifi-
cally reported slow rates that correspond to near static yield
strengths. These tests are still included in the collected data. The
tests conducted by Dibley 共1969, 1970兲 are examples of this sort.
Another common source of error in the calculation of M test / M n
is the determination of the steel elastic modulus. It is well known
that measured E values are sensitive to numerous attributes of test
procedures 共ASTM 1997; Galambos and Ravindra 1978; Adams
et al. 1964兲. Baker and Kennedy 共1984兲 report a bias factor for
the elastic modulus, equal to the ratio of the mean from test data
to E = 200 GPa 共29,000 ksi兲, of ¯␳E = 1.02 with a coefficient of
variation VE = 0.012 based on a reanalysis of the data from Galam-
bos and Ravindra 共1978兲. This is consistent with recent unpub-
lished data from extensive elastic modulus testing of bridge steels
by the Federal Highway Administration. Elastic moduli listed in
experimental reports often are not based on procedures such as
ASTM E111 共1997兲 necessary for accuracy of the measurements.
For this reason, the elastic modulus is taken uniformly as the
nominal value E = 200 GPa in all the calculations of this work.
Variations in the actual E from its nominal value are reflected
automatically in the M test / M n ratios and need not be considered
further.
For the slender-web members considered in this research, the
web bend-buckling strength reduction factor Rb is calculated
based on the compression flange stress M n共Rb=1兲 / Sxc, where
M n共Rb=1兲⫽resistance obtained using Rb = 1. The use of this stress
rather than Fyc gives a more precise, more liberal value for Rb.
This is similar to the calculation of R PG in AISC 共1999兲 and is
specifically allowed in AASHTO 共2004兲. AISC 共2005兲 requires
the simpler use of just Fyc in its corresponding web strength re-
duction factor. The effect of M n共Rb=1兲 / Sxc versus Fyc in the Rb
equation is minor 共less than a few percent兲 in the majority of the
tests, but is significant in some cases with extremely large 2Dc / tw
and in which M n共Rb=1兲 is significantly smaller than M yc.
Of more than 300 uniform bending tests reviewed in this work,
a number of tests are discarded for the following reasons:
• Measured static yield strengths or yield strengths from coupon
tests conducted at specified slow rates are not reported.
• The reported maximum load and moment do not satisfy equi-
librium on the reported geometry.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1453
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
• The reported M p or M y deviate substantially from values cal-
culated using the specified dimensions and yield strengths.
• The tests were stopped prior to achieving a significant reduc-
tion in the slope of the load-deflection curve associated with
the limit load, typically such that the members could be modi-
fied and used in subsequent tests.
• The predominant failure occurred in a component other than
the test segment subjected to uniform bending.
• Significant lateral movement of a brace point or failure of one
or more of the braces occurred prior to reaching the limit load
of the test.
Also, a number of investigators have tested annealed beams in
their research programs, to facilitate assessment of the effect of
residual stresses in other tests. No annealed beam tests are in-
cluded in the data collected in this research. Further, members
with longitudinally stiffened webs are not addressed in this work.
Lastly, tests in which the adjacent unbraced lengths are subjected
to moment gradient and are more critical for LTB 共using calcu-
lated KLb values and including Cb ⬎ 1 for these segments兲 are not
included here. These tests are classified as moment-gradient cases
and are addressed by White and Kim 共2008兲.
White and Jung 共2004兲 list a number of tests in which the
specimens were repaired from a failed 共i.e., damaged兲 condition
and then retested as well as other tests in which the specimens
had D / b f ⬎ 7.5. The results from these tests are not considered in
the statistical analyses of this research. Obviously, prior damage
may influence the member resistance. Also, the predictions are
highly variable for the limited number of tests with D / b f ⬎ 7.5:
two tests have M test / M n = 0.77 and 0.82 whereas another two tests
have M test / M n = 1.11 and 1.28. The low M test / M n values are con-
sistent with the results from a number of high-shear high-moment
tests with D / b f ⬎ 6 considered by White et al. 共2008兲. AASHTO
共2004兲 restricts the design of I-section members to D / b f 艋 6.
For some slender-web members, the predominant failure mode
involves vertical flange buckling 共VFB兲, i.e., a folding of the
compression flange into the web. As reported in prior experimen-
tal studies, VFB failures occur generally only after significant
yielding of the compression flange 共e.g., see Cooper 1967; Lew
and Toprac 1968; Owen et al. 1970兲. Correspondingly, the reduc-
tion in the resistance due to VFB is small. Therefore, the test data
involving VFB are included in the statistical analyses of this
study.
Representative Comparisons of Predictions to Test
Strengths: LTB Tests
In this study, experiments in which the LTB equations govern the
calculated resistance are categorized as LTB tests. The LTB test
category includes members with compact, noncompact, and slen-
der lateral brace spacing 共see Fig. 1兲. The accuracy of the predic-
tions is evaluated for specific ranges of the LTB slenderness in the
subsequent developments. Members in which the calculated resis-
tance is governed by the FLB equations are categorized as FLB
tests.
Figs. 2 and 3 show comparisons of predicted resistances to
measured test strengths using the above-outlined procedures for
two sets of representative LTB tests. The test results are compared
to both the unified equations 共White 2008b兲 as well as the AISC
共1999兲 equations. Fig. 2 illustrates the predictions for a number of
compact rolled universal beams 共250UB37兲 tested by Dux and
Kitipornchai 共1983兲 and Wong-Chung and Kitipornchai 共1987兲,
whereas Fig. 3 compares the predictions to measured strengths for

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Comparison of 250UB37 rolled beam test results from Dux
and Kitipornchai 共1983兲 and Wong-Chung and Kitipornchai 共1987兲 to
unified and AISC 共1999兲 resistance equations 共b f / 2t f = 6.6 to 6.8,
D / tw = 35 to 37, D / b f = 1.6, Fyf = 285 and 293 MPa兲
several doubly symmetric compact-flange noncompact-web
welded members tested by Richter 共1998兲. The rolled member
tests all have D / tw = 34– 37, a cross-section aspect ratio of D / b f
= 1.6, and Fyc = 285– 293 MPa. The above-presented welded tests
all have D / tw = 110, a cross-section aspect ratio of D / b f = 3.6, and
Fyc = 334 MPa.
The above-presented plots show the predicted and test M n / M p
and M test / M p values versus the normalized LTB slenderness
KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt. Anchor Point 1 共see Fig. 1兲 corresponds to M n
= M p and KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt = 1.1 in the unified provisions for the
rolled beam tests and to M n = 0.92– 0.93M p and KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt
= 1.1 for the welded member tests. Anchor Point 2 corresponds to
M n = FytSxc = 0.7FycSxc in all of the above-presented tests, and to
KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt = 4.76– 4.80 in the rolled beam tests versus
KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt = 3.87 in Richter’s tests.
One important attribute of the above-presented tests is that the
rolled beams have an elastic LTB K factor ranging from 0.66 to
0.91 due to the restraint provided by less critically loaded un-
braced lengths on each side of the critical test segment共s兲. Con-
versely, in the welded member tests, the unbraced lengths on each
side of the critical segment共s兲 are the same length and are loaded
equally in uniform bending. These conditions give K = 1 accord-
ing to the recommended calculation procedure. One can observe
Fig. 3. Comparison of welded member test results from Richter
共1998兲 to unified and AISC 共1999兲 resistance equations 共Tests 5 – 10,
b f / 2t f = 8.0– 8.1, D / tw = 110, D / b f = 3.6, Fyf = 334 MPa兲
1454 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
that the unified predictions are quite good for both K = 1 as well as
for a computed K covering a reasonably large range of practical
values. Also, these examples have KLb values covering the com-
plete inelastic LTB range. This suggests that the accuracy of the
elastic K values determined using the Nethercot and Trahair
共1976兲 procedure is sufficient for all ranges of inelastic and elastic
LTB. Additional comparisions of predicted and measured test re-
sults for 23 other welded members studied by Richter 共1998兲, 28
high-strength rolled beam tests conducted by Dibley 共1969兲, and
14 rolled beam tests conducted by Galambos and his colleagues
between 1962 and 1964 are provided by White and Jung 共2004兲.
The predictions are similar in quality and characteristics to those
shown in Figs. 2 and 3 in all cases.
It is important to note that the use of K = 1 for the tests in Fig.
2 results in predictions that are from 2% conservative for one of
the tests with a shorter unbraced length and K = 0.91 to as much as
49% conservative for one of the tests with a longer unbraced
length and K = 0.66. Generally, the use of K = 1 results in a sub-
stantial increase in the mean M test / M n for the LTB tests consid-
ered in this work, as well as a substantial increase in the
dispersion of the M test / M n values. In practice, the writers recom-
mend that designs can be conducted initially using K = 1 共or a
value of K ⬍ 1 estimated based on judgment兲. However, the engi-
neer may wish to check critical unbraced lengths that have Lb
⬎ L p in subsequent design stages by calculating a K factor using
the Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 approach. One useful property
of the Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 procedure is that it utilizes
the elastic LTB strengths based on K = 1 as a first step.
Another important characteristic illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 is
the accuracy of the linear equation for inelastic LTB of both
rolled and welded members. The subsequent summary statistics
presented in this paper show that the simple linear equation be-
tween Anchor Points 1 and 2 in Fig. 1 provides an accurate esti-
mate of the mean test strengths over the complete inelastic LTB
range.
Figs. 2 and 3 also illustrate the result that the AISC 共1999兲
equations tend to slightly overpredict the mean test strengths for
both compact- and noncompact-web members in the inelastic
LTB range. As illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3, this is mainly due to
the use of
L p = 1.76ry 冑 Fyc
E
共6兲
versus
L p = 1.1rt 冑 Fyc
E
共7兲
in the unified provisions. Given that rt / ry varies from approxi-
mately 1.1 to 1.3 for typical I sections, the coefficient of 1.76 in
Eq. 共6兲 corresponds to a coefficient of 1.4–1.6 in Eq. 共7兲. The
rt / ry ranges from 1.15 to 1.17 for the rolled members in Fig. 2,
giving a value for the AISC 共1999兲 Anchor Point 1 of
KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt = 1.76/ 1.15= 1.53 to 1.51. The rt / ry for the
welded members in Fig. 3 is 1.23–1.24, giving a value for the
AISC 共1999兲 Anchor Point 1 of Lb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt = 1.43– 1.42. In-
terestingly, the relatively large percentage difference between the
L p coefficient of 1.1 in Eq. 共7兲 versus the above-mentioned values
of 1.42–1.53 generally translates into a maximum difference of
less than 6% in the calculated M n. However, the statistical corre-
lation of the predictions with the test results is improved, and the
corresponding reliability indices are more uniform, when L p is
based on Eq. 共7兲. White and Jung 共2003a兲 and White 共2008b兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. M test / M n versus KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt for 154 rolled beam tests 共Sources: Driscoll and Beedle 1957; Lee and Galambos 1962; Prasad and
Galambos 1963; Lee et al. 1964; Adams et al. 1964; Janss and Massonnet 1967; Iyengar et al. 1969; McDermott 1969; Dibley 1969, 1970; Suzuki
and Ono 1970; Wakabayashi et al. 1970; Fukumoto and Kubo 1972; Suzuki and Kubodera 1973; Udagawa et al. 1973; Dux and Kitipornchai
1983; Wong-Chung and Kitipornchai 1987兲

address why rt is conceptually and practically a more appropriate
radius of gyration for the L p equation compared to the multiple
parameters ry, ryc, rT, and rt in AISC 共1999兲 and AASHTO
共1998兲.
Fig. 3 illustrates a second source of some discrepancy between
the AISC 共1999兲 equations and the test strengths for noncompact-
web members. Fig. 3 shows two strength curves from the AISC
共1999兲 calculations, one corresponding to the AISC 共1999兲 LTB
prediction and the other corresponding to the AISC 共1999兲 web
local buckling 共WLB兲 check. In AISC 共1999兲, WLB is handled as
a separate and independent resistance calculation. As a result, the
WLB resistance acts in effect as a cap on the resistance associated
with the LTB limit state. The AISC 共1999兲 WLB resistance for the
members considered in Fig. 3 is approximately 0.94M p. The in-
tersection of this resistance with the LTB strength curve, labeled
as the Effective Anchor Point 1 for AISC 共1999兲 in Fig. 3, is
approximately Lb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt = 1.8. Fig. 3 illustrates the general
result that improved LTB predictions are obtained by using Eq.
共7兲 for L p along with an ordinate of Anchor Point 1 共M max
⬍ M p兲 that accounts for web slenderness effects, via the param-
eters Rb, Rpc, and Rpt discussed previously. White 共2008b兲 shows
an example that indicates the above-mentioned discrepancies are
larger for singly symmetric members with the smaller flange in
compression.
The AISC 共1999兲 L p and WLB resistance equations were a
part of the original AISC 共1986兲 LRFD specifications. Interest-
ingly, the original research in Galambos and Ravindra 共1976兲
used Eq. 共6兲 with a coefficient of 1.4 共when expressed in normal-
ized form using the ratio E / Fy兲. This corresponds to a coefficient
of 1.1– 1.3 in Eq. 共7兲. However, the summary paper by Yura et al.
共1978兲 used Eq. 共6兲 for L p. Yura et al. 共1978兲 justify the more
liberal L p equation in part based on the fact that, in many cases,
less critical adjacent spans provide some restraint to the critical
unbraced length. The unified equations are based on the philoso-
phy that, if such restraint exists, it can be quantified accurately
using the Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 K factor calculation. This
gives benefits not only with respect to checking compactness of
the lateral brace spacing, but also it can result in a substantial
increase in the calculated resistances for larger unsupported
lengths 关see White 共2008b兲兴. The development of the unified
equations for Rpc, Rpt, and L p has been possible due to improved
understanding of the limit states behavior from experimental tests
as well as refined finite element analyses not available at the time
of the original LRFD research.
Assessment of Data: LTB Tests
After discarding tests based on the criteria discussed previously,
154 rolled and 123 welded member LTB tests are retained for
statistical analysis. Figs. 4 and 5 show the M test / M n values versus
KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt for these two sets of tests. There is some notice-
able dispersion in M test / M n about the ideal value of 1.0 in both of
these plots. The data points shown in Figs. 4 and 5 include the
results from the tests that have accurate geometry measurements
as well as from the tests in which only the approximate or nomi-
nal geometry is available. The dispersion is reduced significantly
when only the tests with accurate measured geometry are consid-
ered.
A number of the tests with approximate/nominal geometry
have attributes, other than just the approximate flange geometry
and/or web depth, that may influence the accuracy of the predic-
tions:

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1455

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. M test / M n versus KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt for 123 welded member tests 共Sources: Green 2000; Richter 1998; Fukumoto et al. 1971; Fukumoto
1976; Suzuki and Ono 1973, 1976; Suzuki and Kubodera 1976; Fukumoto and Kubo 1971; Hisamitu and Okuto 1971; Morikawi and Fujino 1971;
Dimitri and Ostapenko 1970; McDermott 1969; Lew and Toprac 1968; D’Apice et al. 1966; Frost and Schilling 1964; Basler et al. 1960兲
• Twenty-nine welded and two rolled member tests have ideally
fully fixed end conditions. These are the tests conducted by
Fukumoto and Kubo 共1972兲 in Fig. 4, and by Fukumoto et al.
共1971兲, Fukumoto 共1976兲, and Fukumoto and Kubo 共1971兲 in
Fig. 5. It is well known that fully fixed end conditions are
exceedingly difficult to achieve. A value of K = 0.52 is assumed
for these tests in this study. This gives a mean M test / M n of 1.00
for the above-mentioned 31 tests, which is the mean M test / M n
for the other tests with a theoretical K ⬎ 0.5. The mean
M test / M n for the 31 fixed–fixed tests is 0.97 when K = 0.50 is
used. The coefficient of variation on M test / M n for these 31
tests is V = 10.4% using K = 0.52 and 9.6% with K = 0.50.
• Twelve welded and 14 rolled member tests have cantilever
spans for the unbraced lengths adjacent to the critical test seg-
ment. All of these tests were conducted by Suzuki and Ku-
bodera 共1973兲 and are documented by Fukumoto and Kubo
共1977兲. Fukumoto and Kubo 共1977兲 specify K = 1.0 for these
tests, and correspondingly K = 1.0 is used for these tests in the
current research. The specific effects of the cantilever end
spans on the stability of the critical unbraced length in these
tests is uncertain. The mean M test / M n for the above-mentioned
26 tests is 0.98 with a coefficient of variation of 10.0%.
The mean and median M test / M n for the 220 combined rolled
and welded tests obtained by excluding the above-mentioned
groups is 1.00 with a coefficient of variation of 5.8% 共a mean and
median of 1.00 and V = 5.2% for 138 rolled tests and a mean of
1.000, median of 1.007, and V = 6.7% for 82 welded member
tests兲. Further, the mean and median M test / M n for the 136 com-
bined rolled and welded members having accurate measured ge-
ometry are 1.013 and 1.003, respectively, with V = 5.2% 共a mean
and median of 1.012 and 1.007 and V = 5.0% for 86 rolled mem-
bers versus 1.015 and 0.999 and V = 5.7% for 50 welded mem-
bers兲. These groups do not include any of the above-mentioned
tests with fixed–fixed end conditions or cantilever side spans. One
might surmise from the above-presented statistics that there is
some discernible error associated with the idealization of the end
1456 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
conditions for the tests with fixed and cantilever-span end condi-
tions. However, a large fraction of the tests with fixed–fixed end
conditions or cantilever side spans, as well as other tests with
approximate/nominal geometry, are at larger values of the LTB
slenderness KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt. Therefore, the extent to which the
different mean and higher dispersion in M test / M n for these tests
are due to errors in the boundary conditions and geometric dimen-
sions, versus errors in the prediction model for larger LTB slen-
derness, is uncertain. For this reason, two broad sets of tests are
considered for further statistical analysis and for estimation of
reliability indices in this research: 共1兲 tests with accurate mea-
sured geometry 共86 rolled and 50 welded members兲 and 共2兲 all of
the above-mentioned 154 rolled and 123 welded member tests,
including the tests with fixed–fixed and cantilever side-span end
conditions.
Table 1 summarizes the statistics for M test / M n using the uni-
fied equations for the tests with accurate measured geometry.
Table 2 does the same for the larger data set obtained when the
tests with nominal or approximate measured geometry are in-
cluded with the data from Table 1. Tables 1 and 2 further subdi-
vide the rolled and welded member results into five ranges of the
normalized LTB slenderness, denoted by c = KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt : c
艋 1, 1 ⬍ c 艋 2, 2 ⬍ c 艋 3, 3 ⬍ c 艋 4, and c ⬎ 4. The statistics for
M test / M n are evaluated separately for each of these ranges to as-
sess the quality of the predictions over the full range of compact
and noncompact 共inelastic LTB兲 slenderness values. The range c
艋 1 corresponds to compactly braced members as defined by
AASHTO 共2004兲. That is, AASHTO 共2004兲 uses a coefficient of
1.0 rather than 1.1 in Eq. 共7兲. Conversely, the range c ⬎ 4 corre-
sponds to members that flirt with the noncompact unbraced length
limit Lr. Some of the tests in this range have KLb ⬎ Lr; however,
the largest ratio of KLb to Lr considered is 1.21.
Experimental verification of the elastic LTB equations is ad-
dressed quite effectively in the seminal research by Galambos and
Ravindra 共1976兲, where the statistics of 185 tests from four re-
search studies were considered. Therefore, the focus in the current
 Table 1. Summary of M test / M n Statistics, Unified Flexural Resistance Equations, Tests with Accurate Measured Geometry, c = KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt
Quantity All c艋1 1⬍c艋2 2⬍c艋3 3⬍c艋4 c⬎4
共a兲 Rolled members
N 86 26 33 12 8 7
Minimum 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.90 0.90
Median 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.98
Maximum 1.17 1.15 1.17 1.13 1.05 1.08
Mean 1.01 1.03 1.01 1.03 0.99 0.98
V 共%兲 4.95 4.34 4.35 5.48 5.55 5.99
共b兲 Welded members
N 50 6 20 16 8 0
Minimum 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.95
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Median 1.00 1.03 1.00 0.98 1.02

Maximum 1.18 1.11 1.18 1.09 1.11
Mean 1.02 1.03 1.02 0.99 1.03
V 共%兲 5.73 6.11 7.05 3.93 4.47
共c兲 Rolled and welded members combined
N 136 32 53 28 16 7
Minimum 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.90 0.90
Median 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.99 1.01 0.98
Maximum 1.18 1.15 1.18 1.13 1.11 1.08
Mean 1.01 1.03 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.98
V 共%兲 5.23 4.60 5.55 4.88 5.17 5.99
共d兲 Welded members with compact webs
N 6 1 4 1 0 0
Minimum 0.99 0.99
Median 1.02 1.01
Maximum 1.17 1.17
Mean 1.05 1.11 1.05 1.02
V 共%兲 6.66 7.86
共e兲 Welded members with noncompact webs
N 16 0 9 5 2 0
Minimum 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.03
Median 0.99 1.00 0.98
Maximum 1.14 1.14 1.00 1.04
Mean 1.01 1.02 0.98 1.03
V 共%兲 4.98 6.21 1.38
共f兲 Welded members with slender webs
N 28 5 7 10 6 0
Minimum 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.94 0.95
Median 0.99 1.01 0.98 0.98 1.01
Maximum 1.18 1.07 1.18 1.09 1.11
Mean 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.02
V 共%兲 5.85 5.50 8.39 4.83 5.25

study is predominantly on tests in the compact and noncompact
ranges shown in Fig. 1. Eq. 共5兲 gives cr, the coefficient associated
with the Lr limit, equal to 3.75 for most slender-web members
共based on Fyr = 0.7Fy兲. Therefore, slender-web members with c
⬎ 4 are governed typically by Eq. 共3兲. No slender-web member
tests with this characteristic were identified in this research, with
the exception of three I girders that have fully fixed end condi-
tions 共these members have M test / M n values between 1.03 and
1.10兲. For compact- and noncompact-web members, cr can be
substantially larger than 4 due to the effect of the St. Venant
torsional stiffness in Eq. 共4兲. Values as large as cr = 7.64 are ob-
tained for several of the column-type I-section members tested by
Dibley 共1969兲 关this emphasizes the severe loss of economy that
would occur for these types of members if Eqs. 共1兲 and 共4兲 were
replaced uniformly with Eqs. 共3兲 and 共5兲兴. However, for beam-
type rolled sections cr is usually smaller than 5. With the excep-
tion of one case with cr = 7.19, the cr values for the welded
members considered in this work are less than or equal to 5.61.
Table 1 shows that the predictions based on the unified provi-
sions are generally quite good for the tests with accurate mea-
sured geometry, both for rolled and welded members. The largest
deviation from a mean of M test / M n = 1 occurs for rolled members

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1457

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.

 Table 2. Summary of M test / M n Statistics, Unified Flexural Resistance Equations, All Tests 共Accurate and Nominal/Approximate Geometry兲, c
= KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt
Quantity All c艋1 1⬍c艋2 2⬍c艋3 3⬍c艋4 c⬎4
共a兲 Rolled members
N 154 36 73 19 12 14
Minimum 0.85 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.85 0.90
Median 1.00 1.02 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.01
Maximum 1.17 1.15 1.17 1.13 1.07 1.15
Mean 1.00 1.02 0.99 1.01 0.99 1.04
V 共%兲 5.68 4.75 4.81 5.74 6.69 8.30
共b兲 Welded members
N 123 13 42 34 25 9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Minimum 0.78 0.90 0.92 0.83 0.78 0.82

Median 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.03 1.03
Maximum 1.22 1.11 1.18 1.18 1.11 1.22
Mean 1.00 0.97 1.02 0.98 1.00 1.03
V 共%兲 8.16 7.15 5.74 8.36 9.96 11.15
共c兲 Rolled and welded members combined
N 277 49 115 53 37 23
Minimum 0.78 0.90 0.89 0.83 0.78 0.82
Median 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.01
Maximum 1.22 1.15 1.18 1.18 1.11 1.22
Mean 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.03
V 共%兲 6.88 5.78 5.34 7.64 8.96 9.27
共d兲 Welded members with compact webs
N 70 8 24 19 13 6
Minimum 0.78 0.90 0.92 0.83 0.78 0.82
Median 0.99 0.92 1.01 0.94 0.95 1.00
Maximum 1.22 1.11 1.17 1.18 1.10 1.22
Mean 0.98 0.94 1.01 0.96 0.96 1.01
V 共%兲 9.50 7.02 5.12 10.65 12.44 13.70
共e兲 Welded members with noncompact webs
N 16 0 9 5 2 0
Minimum 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.03
Median 0.99 1.00 0.98
Maximum 1.14 1.14 1.00 1.04
Mean 1.01 1.02 0.98 1.03
V 共%兲 4.98 6.21 1.38
共f兲 Welded members with slender webs
N 37 5 9 10 10 3
Minimum 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.94 0.94 1.03
Median 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.98 1.03 1.08
Maximum 1.18 1.07 1.18 1.09 1.11 1.10
Mean 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.03 1.07
V 共%兲 5.86 5.50 7.30 4.83 5.95 3.50

with c ⬎ 4, where the mean M test / M n = 0.98. However, there are
no welded members with accurate measured geometry and c ⬎ 4.
Also, for c ⬎ 2, the dispersion in M test / M n is smaller for the
welded than for the rolled members. Based on the similarity of
the means and coefficients of variation for the rolled and welded
members, one can conclude that these data sets can be combined.
Therefore, Table 1 also shows the summary statistics for the com-
bined sets of rolled and welded members. Further, the statistics
for three different welded categories—compact-, noncompact-,
and slender-web members—are shown in Table 1 to illustrate the
trends for different web and LTB slenderness ranges, and to indi-
cate the number of tests conducted in each of these ranges.
Table 2 indicates that if the tests with nominal or approximate
measured geometry are included, the mean strength predictions
are still quite good for the rolled member tests, with the largest
deviation in the mean M test / M n from a value of 1.0 occurring for
c ⬎ 4 共M test / M n = 1.04兲 and the smallest mean M test / M n value
共M test / M n = 0.99兲 occurring for 1 ⬍ c 艋 2 and 3 ⬍ c 艋 4. However,
the dispersion in the M test / M n values for the rolled members is

1458 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.

 larger in Table 2 than in Table 1 for all of the ranges of the
parameter c.
For the welded members, the M test / M n for c 艋 1 drops to 0.97
in Table 2, and the coefficient of variation of M test / M n increases
to V = 9.96% for 3 ⬍ c 艋 4. The drop in the mean M test / M n for c
艋 1 is due to the inclusion of seven compact welded beam tests
conducted by Suzuki and Ono 共1973兲 in which all of the test
strengths are between 0.90 and 0.93M p. The source of the smaller
M test / M n for these tests is uncertain. It may be due in part to the
influence of residual stresses due to cutting and welding. It should
be noted that four other tests conducted in the same study, but
with c slightly greater than 1.0, exhibited M test / M p values be-
tween 1.00 and 1.02. Also, Table 2 includes six compact-web
welded members with c ⬎ 4. The mean M test / M n for these tests is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1.01. Two of these tests have fixed-end conditions, c = 4.28 and
4.39 versus cr = 4.12 and 4.00, and M test / M n = 1.10 and 1.22, re-
spectively. The other four of these tests have cantilever side
spans, c = 4.40, 5.21, 5.50, and 5.87 versus cr = 4.88, 5.22, 5.06,
and 4.88, and M test / M n = 0.82, 0.92, 0.99, and 1.01, respectively.
Based on the above-noted test characteristics and results, one
must conclude that additional uniform bending tests would be
useful, particularly for compact-web welded members with c
艋 1 and c ⬎ 4. Also, there are no noncompact-web member tests
listed in Table 2 for c 艋 1 and c ⬎ 4. Therefore, it would be useful
to conduct a number of additional noncompact-web member tests
in these ranges of the LTB slenderness. Finally, there are only a
few compact-web member tests with accurate measured geometry
in the intermediate range of the LTB slenderness 关see Table 1共d兲兴.
For this reason, a number of additional tests would also be useful
for compact-web members with 1 ⬍ c 艋 4. It is important to note
that for the six compact-web member tests with accurate mea-
sured geometry considered in Table 1共d兲, M test / M n ranges from
0.99 to 1.17. A substantial number of compact-, noncompact-, and
slender-web welded members have been tested for various ranges
of c under moment-gradient loading. These tests are addressed by
White and Kim 共2008兲.
The means and coefficients of variation for the rolled and
welded tests in Table 2 are sufficiently close such that, as in Table
1, one might consider combining these data sets. Also, it is im-
portant to understand the trends in the welded member data for
different web and LTB slenderness ranges. Therefore, all the sta-
tistical summaries from Table 1 are again repeated in Table 2.
Most of the slender-web and all of the noncompact-web member
uniform bending tests have accurate measured geometry.
Prior to considering estimates of the reliability index 共␤兲, it is
important to consider several other categories of the above-
mentioned welded tests: hybrid members and singly symmetric
members. There are only eight singly symmetric member tests in
Table 2. The mean M test / M n for these tests is 0.97 and V = 0.069.
Six of these tests have only nominal/approximate measured ge-
ometry as well as fully fixed end conditions. Only two have ac-
curate measured geometry and less than fully fixed end conditions
共M test / M n = 1.04 for both of these tests兲. There are a total of ten
hybrid member tests. Their mean M test / M n is 1.00 and V = 0.115.
The large V in this case is due in part to one four-point bending
test conducted by Frost and Schilling 共1964兲 with M test / M n
= 1.17. The web is A7 and the flanges are USS T-1 Type A steel
共Fyf = 820 MPa兲 in this test. Also, the adjacent unbraced lengths,
which are nearly equally critical with respect to elastic LTB by
the Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 calculations, are subjected to
high moment gradient and have reinforced webs to prevent shear
failure. This test reaches M test = 1.05M p, although its value of c
= 1.92, possibly due to end restraint from the less heavily yielded
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1459
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
end spans. In addition, the large V in the 10 hybrid member tests
is due in part to three replicate tests of hybrid girders with a more
typical Fyw / Fyf ⬵ 0.64 conducted by Hisamitu and Okuto 共1971兲
in which M test / M n ranges from only 0.84 to 0.86. It should be
noted that another two replicate hybrid girders tested by Hisamitu
and Okuto 共1971兲 have M test / M n = 1.02 and 1.00. Only four of the
ten hybrid tests in Table 2 have accurate measured geometry. The
M test / M n for these experiments is 1.17 关the test by Frost and
Schilling 共1964兲兴, 1.09, 1.08, and 1.00.
Estimation of the Reliability Index „␤…: LTB Tests
The structural reliability is quantified in this paper by the reliabil-
ity index ␤ 共Ellingwood et al. 1980, 1982; Galambos et al. 1982;
Galambos 2004兲 in the context of LRFD of steel building mem-
bers. The general format of the LRFD equations is
␾Rn 艌 兺 ␥ iQ i 共8兲
where Rn represents the nominal resistance defined in the design
provisions; Qi represents the nominal load effects from ASCE 7
共ASCE 2006兲; the resistance factor ␾ accounts for the uncertainty
in the resistance; and the load factors ␥i account for the probabili-
ties associated with the various loads acting in combination on the
structure. This format provides the most effective design-oriented
means of accounting for the separate and distinctly different sta-
tistical properties of various resistance limit states and design load
combinations. If the resistance R and the load effect Q are as-
sumed to be lognormally distributed, then
␤=
ln 冉冊 R̄
Q̄
共9兲
冑V2R + VQ2
where R̄ and Q̄⫽mean values of the resistance and load effects
and VR and VQ⫽corresponding coefficients of variation. The re-
sistances R are expressed by
R = R n␳ M ␳ G␳ P 共10兲
where ␳ M , ␳G, and ␳ P⫽material, geometry, and professional bias
coefficients. These coefficients are assumed to be independent
random parameters that characterize the variability of the resis-
tance due to uncertainties in the material properties, the cross-
section geometry, and the prediction model used for the
calculation of Rn. The mean resistance and its coefficient of varia-
tion are thus given by
R̄ = Rn¯␳ M¯␳G¯␳ P = Rn¯␳R, VR = 冑V2M + VG2 + V2P 共11兲
For flexural members, the parameter ¯␳ P⫽mean M test / M n and
V P⫽coefficient of variation of M test / M n, where M n is to be cal-
culated strictly using the actual 共measured兲 geometric and static
material properties of the test specimens. Using a similar first-
order reliability approach, the mean and the coefficient of varia-
tion of the load effects are
冑兺 共␳¯ QiV QiQ i兲
2
Q̄ = 兺 ¯␳Q Qi,
i
VQ =
Q̄
共12兲
where Qi⫽nominal load effects; ¯␳Qi⫽ratios of the respective
mean values to the nominal values; and VQi⫽corresponding coef-
ficients of variation.
 ASCE 7 共ASCE 2006兲 specifies dead and live load factors of
1.2 and 1.6 for the combination of dead plus live load. Galambos
共2004兲 shows that this load combination gives the most critical
共smallest兲 ␤ values for all but small live-to-dead load ratios 共L / D兲
less than about 0.2. As a simplification, the reliability is consid-
ered only in the context of the ASCE 7 dead plus live load com-
bination in this paper. Given the above-presented expressions, Eq.
共9兲 can be rearranged into the form
冋冉 冊册
1 ¯␳R 1.2 + 1.6共L/D兲
␤= 共13兲
冑V2R + VQ2 ln ␾ ¯␳D + ¯␳L共L/D兲
for a given L / D and ␾, and the coefficient of variation of the load
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
effects may be written as
冑共␳¯ DVD兲2 + 共␳¯ LVL共L/D兲兲2
VQ = 共14兲
¯␳D + ¯␳L共L/D兲
The following statistical parameters are obtained from Elling-
wood et al. 共1980兲 for the effects of dead and live load due to use
and occupancy: ¯␳D = 1.05, VD = 0.10, ¯␳L = 1.00, and VL = 0.25. It
should be noted that the AASHTO 共1998, 2004兲 load models and
their corresponding statistical properties are different than these
value, resulting in a base target reliability index of ␤ = 3.5 for
bridge design. The ␤ values are estimated only in the context of
building design in this paper.
Material Bias and Coefficient of Variation
The parameters ¯␳ M and V M account for the differences between
the relevant measured static material properties and the nominal
material properties used in design. These parameters were taken
as representative values of 1.05 and 0.10, respectively, for all
I-section member flexural limit states in the seminal LRFD re-
search 共Yura et al. 1978; Cooper et al. 1978兲 based on the con-
siderations discussed by Galambos and Ravindra 共1978兲. In
subsequent research, Kennedy and Gad Aly 共1980兲 used a more
refined approach to determine the effective material bias for the
different flexural resistance limit states in Canadian Standards As-
sociation 共CSA兲 S16.1 共1984兲. Subsequently, Baker and Kennedy
共1984兲 and Kennedy and Baker 共1984兲 used a simpler approach
for determining ¯␳ M and V M in the context of the design of steel
highway bridges and in a separate assessment of CSA resistance
factors for laterally unsupported steel beams. In their approach,
the bias and coefficient of variation of Fy are used for limit states
involving full cross-section plastification, and the effective ¯␳ M
and V M vary from ¯␳Fy and VFy to ¯␳E and VE as the unbraced length
increases from the CSA equivalent of L p to the CSA equivalent of
Lr. As noted previously, Baker and Kennedy 共1984兲 determined
¯␳E and VE as 1.02 and 0.012, respectively, based on a reanalysis
of the data from Galambos and Ravindra 共1976兲. Kennedy and
Baker 共1984兲 also determined ¯␳Fy = 1.06 and VFy = 0.051 for rolled
beams based largely on data collected from Canadian mills by
Kennedy and Gad Aly 共1980兲. Kennedy and Gad Aly 共1980兲 de-
termined ¯␳Fy values of 1.11 and 1.05, respectively, from web and
flange coupon data, and recommended the use of ¯␳Fy = 1.05 for
flexure, where the strength of the flanges predominates. The val-
ues suggested for ¯␳E, VE, ¯␳Fy and VFy by Kennedy and Baker
共1984兲 include consideration of other than normal distributions of
the data as well as an adjustment for errors in measurement 共using
the method described subsequently in this paper兲.
1460 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
Kennedy and Baker also recommended the use of two inde-
pendent values for ¯␳Fy and VFy for welded members, one based on
the variation in the yield strength expected from heat to heat, and
the other based on the variation between coupons taken at differ-
ent locations across the width and along the length of steel plates.
The first set of these parameters was developed from the data
collected by Kennedy and Gad Aly 共1980兲 from Canadian mills
for CSA G40.20-1974 grade 44W and 44T steels, whereas the
second set of parameters was based on data from the American
Iron and Steel Institute 共AISI 1974兲. The recommended values
were ¯␳Fy1 = 1.10, VFy1 = 0.092, ¯␳Fy2 = 1.00, and VFy2 = 0.061. These
parameters give a combined net ¯␳Fy of 1.10 and VFy = 0.110. The
writers are not aware of published values for other plate steels
such as A572 Grade 345 commonly used in the United States.
At the present time, most rolled shapes are produced to the
single material grade specification ASTM A992. Bartlett et al.
共2003兲 assess the properties of this steel based on 207 flat-strap
tensile test specimens from 38 heats of steel and eight different
shapes provided by three producers. Galambos 共2004兲 recom-
mends the uniform application of ¯␳ M = 1.06 and V M = 0.06 for both
rolled and welded members based on the data from this study.
Given the above-presented knowns and unknowns, it was de-
cided to adopt the recommendations of Galambos 共2004兲 to ob-
tain ␤ estimates for LTB slenderness values of c 艋 4 in this work.
For assessment of the data for c ⬎ 4, the response is assumed to
be affected predominantly by the variability associated with the
elastic modulus. In this regard, the values ¯␳E = 1.02 and VE
= 0.012 are adopted for calculation of ␤ using the results from
prior elastic LTB tests collected by Galambos and Ravindra
共1976兲, where the measured elastic modulus was used in deter-
mining ¯␳ P and V P. For the test data with c ⬎ 4 collected in the
present work, ¯␳ M is taken equal to 1.00 and V M is taken equal to
zero as E = 200 GPa 共29,000 ksi兲 is used in all of the calculations.
Therefore, the variability associated with the elastic modulus is in
essence folded into the calculation of the professional bias and
coefficient of variation in these cases.
Geometry Bias and Coefficient of Variation
The parameters ¯␳G and VG account for the differences between the
actual 共measured兲 geometry and the nominal values used for the
geometry in design. The effective values of ¯␳G and VG vary as a
function of the flexural limit state 共e.g., full plastification of com-
pactly braced compact sections, compression flange yielding of
compact-flange slender-web I girders, inelastic LTB of compact-,
noncompact-, or slender-web members, elastic LTB of compact-,
noncompact-, or slender-web members, etc.兲, similar to variations
in the effective ¯␳ M and V M . Kennedy and Baker 共1984兲 concluded,
based on a review of the more rigorous studies by Kennedy and
Gad Aly 共1980兲, that it was appropriate to base ¯␳G and VG on the
statistics for the plastic section modulus throughout the entire
range of inelastic buckling for all types of rolled and welded
I-section members in their work. Also, they concluded that essen-
tially the same final ¯␳R and VR values are obtained for elastic LTB
as in the more rigorous study by Kennedy and Gad Aly 共1980兲 if
¯␳G and VG are taken as ¯␳Iy and VIy along with ¯␳ M = ¯␳E and V M
= VE. Further, Kennedy and Baker 共1984兲 recommended ¯␳Zx
= 0.99, VZx = 0.038, ¯␳Iy = 1.00, and VIy = 0.058 for rolled I sections,
and ¯␳Zx = 1.02, VZx = 0.015, ¯␳Iy = 1.030, and VIy = 0.020 for welded I
sections based on the data collected by Kennedy and Gad Aly
共1980兲. Bartlett et al. 共2003兲 report ¯␳Zx = 1.00 and VZx = 0.034 in
 their recent study of rolled members. They do not report statistics
for other geometric properties.
The original LRFD research adopted ¯␳G = 1.00 and VG = 0.05
uniformly for all flexural limit states as a reasonable estimate,
indicating good control in fabrication 共Yura et al. 1978; Cooper et
al. 1978兲. These values are retained by Galambos 共2004兲 and also
are selected as reasonable representative values for this work.
Accounting for Errors in Measurement
Kennedy and Gad Aly 共1980兲, Kennedy and Baker 共1984兲, and
Baker and Kennedy 共1984兲 also recognized that variations in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
measured values are due in part to errors in the measurements
themselves. They concluded that since measurement errors are
not part of the variability of the test data per se, the corresponding
coefficients of variation for the test data should be determined on
a net basis. Kennedy and Baker explain their approach to account
for measurement errors as follows:
“MacGregor, in Ellingwood et al. 共1980兲, shows, in consider-
ing the results of tests, that errors in the measurements of tests
themselves contribute to the variation in the results and that,
therefore, such variation should be removed from the variation of
the measured property. Mirza and MacGregor 共1982兲 suggested a
coefficient of variation equal to 0.040 to account for errors in
measurement when assessing the strength of both prestressed and
reinforced concrete beams. This coefficient in itself is obtained as
共0 . 0272 + 0 . 0302兲1/2. The first term represents errors due to varia-
tions in actual specimen dimensions, and differences in material
strengths at the failure section and those measured in control
specimens. The second term represents uncertainties in the load-
ing and measuring procedures.
For this study, when the coefficient of variation on the mea-
sured property was equal to or less than about 0.06 the coefficient
of variation for the errors in measurement was considered to vary
linearly from a value of 0.00 to a value of 0.04 when the coeffi-
cient of variation on the measured property varied from 0.00 to
0.06. Above a value of 0.06 for the coefficient of variation of the
measured property, the coefficient of variation for the errors in
measurement was taken to be a constant value of 0.04. Most
measurements fell in the latter category. Using this method, the
maximum reduction in the coefficient of variation, taking into
account the errors in measurement, is 25%. This procedure was
not applied to the measurements of geometric properties, which
had relatively small coefficients of variation.”
The above-mentioned procedure is adopted in this research to
adjust the previously reported coefficients of variation on
M test / M n, prior to their use in Eqs. 共11兲 and 共13兲 to estimate the
reliability index ␤. The values of V P reported in Tables 1 and 2
are unadjusted values. It should be noted that no attempt is made
in this work to account for the dispersion in the M test / M n values
due the lack of precise geometric dimensions in the tests with
nominal or approximate measured geometry. The data for these
tests could be adjusted potentially in a manner similar to the
above-presented adjustment for errors in measurement, and a
pooled standard deviation could be calculated using the separate
statistics for the data sets with accurate and approximate geom-
etry. However, it was felt that such a process would be too exces-
sive of a manipulation of the data given the other approximations
invoked in estimating the reliability indices. One might consider
that the above-presented reductions in the coefficients of varia-
tion, accounting for measurement error, compensate to some ex-
tent for the additional dispersion in M test / M n due to imprecise
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1461
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
geometry information. The above-presented reductions might also
be considered to account to some extent for reporting of the same
yield strength for the flanges and web in some of the tests.
Reliability for Elastic LTB
The focus of this research is primarily on the collection and
analysis of the data from tests in which KLb is less than Lr.
Galambos and Ravindra 共1976兲 collected results from 185 elastic
LTB tests by various investigators in their research. The resulting
¯␳ P was 1.03 and V P was 0.093. These results are considered to be
representative in this range of the response. Upon adjusting for
measurement error using the above-discussed procedure, V P is
modified to 共0 . 0932 − 0 . 042兲1/2 = 0.084. The bias factor and coef-
ficient of variation for the resistance are then obtained as ¯␳R
VR = 冑V2M + VG2 + V2P
= ¯␳ M¯␳G¯␳ P = 共1.02兲共1.00兲共1.03兲 = 1.05 and
冑 2 2 2
= 0 . 012 + 0 . 05 + 0 . 084 = 0.098. The use of these values in Eq.
共13兲 along with a resistance factor ␾ = 0.9 and an assumed live-
to-dead load ratio of L / D = 3 gives ␤ = 2.6. This value is identical
to the targeted reliability index for statically determinate beams
subjected to uniform bending moment in the first 1986 AISC
LRFD specification 共Galambos 2004兲. For statically determinate
beams under moment gradient, and for statically indeterminate
beams and simple frames, the estimated reliability is higher 共Yura
et al. 1978; White and Kim 2008兲.
Reliability for Inelastic LTB
Fig. 6 shows the estimated ␤ values obtained using the above-
mentioned approach and the statistics from Tables 1 and 2. Each
of the plots shows the estimated ␤ values for live-to-dead load
ratios L / D of 1 to 5 in increments of 1 for each range of c
= KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt considered in the previous tables, i.e., c 艋 1,
1 ⬍ c 艋 2, 2 ⬍ c 艋 3, 3 ⬍ c 艋 4, and c ⬎ 4. Also, the reliability in-
dices for the elastic LTB assessment summarized in the previous
section are shown for L / D from 1 to 5 as the rightmost set of data
points in each of the plots. A resistance factor of ␾ = 0.9 is as-
sumed in all cases. The first three plots in Fig. 6 correspond to the
data including tests with nominal or approximate measured ge-
ometry from Table 2, whereas the last three plots correspond to
the data for the tests with accurate measured geometry from Table
1. Figs. 6共a and d兲 show the estimated ␤ values for rolled mem-
bers, Figs. 6共b and e兲 summarize the results for welded members,
and Figs. 6共c and f兲 show the reliability indices based on the
combined statistics for rolled and welded members.
One can observe that most of the ␤ values are above about 2.5.
This is in the range of the reliability index of 2.6 associated with
the first 1986 AISC LRFD specification 共Galambos 2004兲. The ␤
values for larger c tend to be slightly less than 2.5 at L / D = 3 in
several of the plots. For example, in Fig. 6共d兲, corresponding to
the rolled members with accurate measured geometry, ␤ = 2.4 for
c ⬎ 4 and L / D = 3. This estimate is based on seven tests 关see Table
1共a兲兴.
There are no welded member tests with accurate measured
geometry and c ⬎ 4 关see Table 1共b兲兴. Therefore, no data points are
shown for c ⬎ 4 in Fig. 6共e兲. There are only nine welded member
tests with nominal or approximate measured geometry in this
LTB slenderness range 关Table 2共b兲兴. Six of these are compact
welded I-section members, the specifics of which have been dis-
cussed previously. For the welded members with c ⬎ 4 关Table

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Reliability indices for various ranges of c = KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt,
and from elastic LTB studies by Galambos and Ravindra 共1976兲, for
several live-to-dead load ratios 共L / D兲 and ␾ = 0.9
2共b兲兴 and L / D = 3, ␤ = 2.4 is obtained as shown in Fig. 6共b兲. A
reliability index of approximately 2.5 is obtained for the ranges
2 ⬍ c 艋 3 and 3 ⬍ c 艋 4. However, if one considers the welded
member tests with accurate measured geometry and 3 ⬍ c 艋 4
关eight tests, Table 1共b兲兴, a ␤ of 2.9 is obtained at L / D = 3 关Fig.
6共e兲兴. Also, if one considers the combined data sets of rolled and
1462 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
welded members with accurate measured geometry 关Table 1共c兲兴,
the estimated ␤ values are approximately constant for c 艋 4 共be-
tween 2.7 and 2.9 for L / D = 3兲 关Fig. 6共f兲兴. A smaller ␤ = 2.4 is
obtained for c ⬎ 4 in Fig. 6共d兲 关Fig. 6共f兲 shows the same ␤ as Fig.
6共d兲 for c ⬎ 4 as there are no welded member tests with accurate
measured geometry and c ⬎ 4兴 largely due to two compact welded
member tests with low M test / M n discussed previously. Therefore,
the majority of the test data supports the conclusion that the uni-
fied provisions provide a reliability commensurate with the level
targeted for determinate beams in uniform bending in the original
LRFD specification. As noted previously, more tests of compact-
and noncompact-web welded members would be useful.
Fig. 6共b兲 shows a decrease in the estimated reliability, index
for welded members with short unbraced lengths 共c 艋 1兲. This is
due to seven compact-web welded beam tests from Suzuki and
Ono 共1973兲, noted previously, which had M test values between
0.90 and 0.93M p. However, four additional tests with c slightly
larger than 1.0 in this same study had M test values between 1.00
and 1.02. The low ␤ values for c 艋 1 in Fig. 6共b兲 are influenced
somewhat by the subdivision of the data into the discrete ranges
of c. A better estimate of ␤ for small c values in Fig. 6共b兲 can be
determined as a weighted average of the values for c 艋 1 and 1
艋 c ⬍ 2. This gives a reliability index between 2.5 and 2.8, which
is consistent with the ␤ values estimated using just the welded
member data with accurate measured geometry in Fig. 6共e兲. This
also reduces the estimated ␤ value for welded members with 1
艋 c ⬍ 2 关Fig. 6共b兲兴 to a value comparable to that shown for rolled
members with 1 艋 c ⬍ 2 in Fig. 6共a兲.
Given the above-noted qualities and limitations of the col-
lected test data, possibly Fig. 6共c兲 represents the best overall es-
timate of the reliability index for statically determinant beams
subjected to uniform bending moment for different ranges of c
= 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt and values of L / D. For L / D = 3, this plot in-
dicates that ␤ decreases slightly from a value of 2.7 for c 艋 1 to
␤ = 2.5 for tests with c slightly larger than 4. These values are
reasonably consistent with the estimate of ␤ = 2.6 for elastic LTB
using the data from the original studies by Galambos and Ravin-
dra 共1976兲.
Influence of Lp and Fyr Equations on the Reliability
for Inelastic LTB
Fig. 7 illustrates the influence of several important variations of
the L p and Fyr equations from those associated with the base
unified provisions. These plots have the same format as the plots
in Fig. 6 except that the results are only for L / D = 3. They are
based on the larger data sets from Table 2, as the number of tests
in several of the categories considered are rather sparse in Table
1. Figs. 7共a and b兲 show the influence of using a coefficient of
either 1.1 or 1.4 in Eq. 共7兲 as well as the influence of using Eq. 共6兲
for L p 关such that the corresponding coefficient in Eq. 共7兲 is c p
= 1.76ry / rt as shown in the legends for these plots兴 for rolled and
compact-web welded beams. One can observe that Eq. 共7兲 with a
coefficient of either 1.1 共as specified in the base unified provi-
sions兲, or 1.0 关as specified in AASHTO 共2004兲兴 gives essentially
the same level of reliability. The ␤ values are slightly larger for
the intermediate LTB slenderness values when Eq. 共7兲 is used
with the AASHTO 共2004兲 coefficient of 1.0. Conversely, the use
of Eq. 共6兲 for rolled and compact-web welded members in AISC
共2005兲 results in a small dip in the estimated reliability, relative to
the use of Eq. 共7兲, for intermediate slenderness values. The small-
est estimated ␤ for rolled shapes is 2.5 关Fig. 7共a兲兴 based on 12

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Reliability indices for various ranges of c = KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt
and from elastic LTB studies by Galambos and Ravindra 共1976兲 for
L / D = 3 and ␾ = 0.9—effect of equations for L p and Fyr
tests in the range of 3 艋 c ⬍ 4 关Table 2共a兲兴. Smaller ␤ values are
obtained using Eq. 共6兲 compared to Eq. 共7兲 for compact-web
welded members, as shown in Fig. 7共b兲. Similar to the previous
plots in Fig. 6共b兲, the ␤ estimates vary significantly between the
different ranges c 艋 1, 1 ⬍ c 艋 2, and 2 ⬍ c 艋 3 in this figure. For
2 ⬍ c 艋 3, the estimated ␤ is reduced to 2.1 based on the use of
Eq. 共6兲 versus 2.3 based on the use of Eq. 共7兲. The unified LTB
equations result in an estimated ␤ of 2.2 for compact-web welded
shapes with c ⬎ 4, using either Eq. 共6兲 or Eq. 共7兲 for L p. Unfortu-
nately, there are only six LTB tests of compact-web welded mem-
bers with accurate measured geometry 关see Table 1共d兲兴. The
results for noncompact- and slender-web members are signifi-
cantly better. As noted previously, additional tests of compact-
and noncompact-web welded members should be conducted.
Fig. 7共c兲 shows the effect of coefficients of 1.0 共AASHTO
2004兲, 1.1 关unified provisions and AISC 共2005兲兴, and 1.76 关AISC
共1999兲 Appendix G兴 in Eq. 共7兲 for slender-web members, with all
the other calculations conducted as specified in the unified provi-
sions. The range c ⬎ 4 corresponds to elastic LTB for all the
slender-web members considered in this research, with the excep-
tion of two hybrid girders with A514 flanges and A36 webs tested
by Lew and Toprac 共1968兲, where cr = 4.44. Only three of the
slender-web member tests collected in this research have c ⬎ 4
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1463
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
关see Table 2共f兲兴. Fig. 7共c兲 shows a significant drop in the reliabil-
ity index at intermediate, lengths in the inelastic LTB region if the
AISC 共1999兲 L p equation is used in the context of the unified
equations 关the reliability of the specific AISC 共1999兲 Appendix G
LTB equations is discussed subsequently兴. However, use of either
of the coefficients 1.0 as in AASHTO 共2004兲 or 1.1 as in AISC
共2005兲 gives a nearly constant ␤ of 2.7 to 2.8 for L / D = 3 through-
out the inelastic LTB range. For c ⬎ 4, the estimated ␤ shown in
Fig. 7共c兲 is 2.9, which is larger than the ␤ = 2.6 determined using
the Galambos and Ravindra 共1976兲 elastic LTB test data 共illus-
trated by the rightmost data point in this figure兲. This greater
conservatism for slender-web members is expected, as Eq. 共3兲 is
based on J = 0 whereas generally there is some contribution from
St. Venant torsion to the resistance 共White and Jung 2007兲. Un-
fortunately, due to web distortion, the full contribution from the
St. Venant torsional stiffness predicted by beam theory is, in gen-
eral, not realized for these types of members.
The AASHTO 共2004兲 L p coefficient of 1.0 in Eq. 共7兲 is based
on early results from this research as well as independent linear
regression analyses conducted by Yu and Sause 共2002兲 using the
data from statically determinate tests with L p 艋 Lb 艋 Lr. Yu and
Sause 共2002兲 determined that the L p coefficient in Eq. 共7兲 should
be approximately 1.1 from a linear regression analysis of the data
for compact I-section members, whereas slightly smaller coeffi-
cients were obtained from their linear regression analyses for
noncompact- and slender-web members. The L p coefficient of 1.1
was selected in the development of the unified provisions as, at
Fyc = 350 MPa 共50 ksi兲, this coefficient gives an unbraced length
approximately equal to: 共1兲 the requirement for plastic design
共Lpd兲 in AISC 共1999, 2005兲 and 共2兲 the requirement for use of
M n = M p and the enhanced resistance based on the Q-factor for-
mulas in AASHTO 共1998兲. For larger Fyc, Eq. 共7兲 is somewhat
less conservative than the AISC 共1999, 2005兲 equation for Lpd.
The AISC Lpd equation, which is identical to the requirement for
the use of M n = M p or the use of the Q-factor formulas in
AASHTO 共1998兲, is based on development of the plastic mecha-
nism strength in three-span continuous beams having short end
spans 共Yura et al. 1978; Bansal 1971兲. These tests exhibited sub-
stantial deformation capacity, expressed in terms of the total load
versus the middle-span transverse displacement. This definition of
overall deformation capacity is somewhat different than the defi-
nition of inelastic rotation capacity often cited in discussions of
the Lpd equation.
Fig. 7共d兲 shows the effect of using the AISC 共1999兲 equation
FL = Fyc − 69 MPa 共or FL = Fyc − 10 ksi兲 for rolled I-section mem-
bers versus the unified equations. The reliability index drops to
␤ = 2.3 in the range 3 艋 c ⬍ 4 for L / D = 3. This estimate is based
on 12 tests 关see Table 2共a兲兴. Lastly, Fig. 7共e兲 shows the effect of
using the AISC 共1999兲 equation Fyc − 114 MPa 共or Fyc − 16.5 ksi兲
as the base equation for the Fyr of all types of welded members,
including slender web girders, rather than Fyr = 0.7Fy 关for hybrid
and/or for highly monosymmetric I sections with the larger flange
in compression, both the unified as well as the AISC 共1999兲 Ap-
pendix F provisions specify other equations that may govern the
calculation of FL or Fyr; these equations are employed where they
apply兴. One can observe that the reliability is essentially the same
for welded members based on either of these equations. This is
not surprising, since for Fyc = 345 MPa, which is a representative
midrange value for the welded member tests, Fyr = 0.7Fyc
= 242 MPa, whereas FL = Fyc − 114 MPa= 231 MPa. Both values
are nearly the same. Plots provided by White and Jung 共2004兲
indicate that for Fyc ⬎ 690 MPa, the M test / M n values are consis-
tently larger 共i.e., the predictions are more conservative兲 when the

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Reliability indices for various ranges of c = KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt
and from elastic LTB studies by Galambos and Ravindra 共1976兲 for
L / D = 3 and ␾ = 0.9—comparison of unified and AISC 共1999兲 equa-
tions
unified provisions are employed. There is no significant trend in
the M test / M n values as a function of Fyc for the more common
tests with smaller Fyc values.
Reliability of Unified Provisions Relative to the AISC
„1999… Provisions
Fig. 8 illustrates the effect of using the specific L p and FL equa-
tions from AISC 共1999兲 on the estimated values of the reliability
index. Fig. 8共a兲 shows the influence of using Eq. 共6兲 for L p and
Fyc − 69 MPa 共Fyc − 10 ksi兲 for Fyr on the ␤ values for rolled
members. One can observe that the dip in the estimated reliability
for intermediate LTB slenderness values is slightly larger in this
case compared to the corresponding curves in Figs. 7共a and d兲,
where the above-mentioned alternative equations for L p and Fyr
were considered separately. The estimated reliability index is only
2.3 for 3 艋 c ⬍ 4 when these equations are employed 关based on 12
tests, Table 2共a兲兴. The use of Eq. 共7兲 for L p and 0.7Fyc for Fyr
clearly produces a more consistent ␤ for all values of LTB slen-
derness based on the calculations performed in this research.
Fig. 8共b兲 shows the effect of using the L p equations of AISC
共1999兲 Appendix F for compact- and noncompact-web welded
I-section members and the L p equation of AISC 共1999兲 Appendix
G for slender-web welded I girders, combined with the AISC
共1999兲 Appendix F equations for FL for all I-section member
types. This is slightly different than in AISC 共1999兲, as AISC
共1999兲 Appendix G effectively uses FL 共or Fyr兲 = 0.5RhFyc. Fig.
8共c兲 investigates the effect of using FL 共or Fyr兲 = 0.5Fyc along with
the AISC 共1999兲 Appendix G equation for L p for slender-web
members. Fig. 8共b兲 shows that the use of the AISC 共1999兲 L p
equations along with the AISC 共1999兲 Appendix F equations for
1464 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
FL causes the estimated reliability index to dip to values some-
what smaller than associated with the unified provisions in the
intermediate ranges of the parameter c. However, both of these
provisions tend to give approximately the same level of reliability
for unbraced lengths approaching the elastic LTB range. Fig. 8共c兲
shows that the use of FL = 0.5Fyc 共or Fyr = 0.5Fyc in the context of
the unified equations兲 results in designs that are significantly more
conservative than those associated with the unified equations for
slender-web members with Lb values close to Lr. This conserva-
tism offsets the effect of the more liberal AISC 共1999兲 Appendix
G L p equation to some extent, leading to a larger ␤ for 2 艋 c
⬍ 3 than the corresponding curve in Fig. 7共c兲. As noted previ-
ously, the unified equations give a ␤ of 2.7– 2.8 for slender-web
members for all values of c 艋 4 and L / D = 3.
Assessment of Data: FLB Tests
Fig. 9 shows the M test / M n values versus the normalized FLB
slenderness 共Fyc / E兲0.5bfc / 2tfc from 11 rolled and 36 welded mem-
ber tests retained after discarding certain tests using the criteria
previously described. All but ten of these tests have accurate ge-
ometry measurements; also, all the tests with approximate/
nominal geometric dimensions happen to have relatively small
values of the normalized slenderness parameter. Table 3 provides
the summary statistics for the FLB tests. The mean and coefficient
of variation of M test / M n are essentially the same whether the tests
with approximate/nominal geometry measurements are included
or not. Therefore, the following discussions focus on the full set
of FLB tests.
Table 3 further subdivides the FLB tests into the following
categories: noncompact-flange, ultracompact-web, rolled 共NCF,
UCW, Rolled兲, slender-flange, ultracompact-web, rolled 共SF,
UCW, Rolled兲, noncompact-flange, compact-web, nonhybrid
welded 共NCF, CW, NHW兲, noncompact-flange, noncompact-web,
nonhybrid welded 共NCF, NCW, NHW兲, noncompact-flange,
slender-web, nonhybrid welded 共NCF, SW, NHW兲, slender-
flange, slender-web, nonhybrid welded 共SF, SW, NHW兲,
noncompact-flange, slender-web, hybrid 共NCF, SW, Hybrid兲 and
slender-flange, slendered-web, hybrid 共SF, SW, Hybrid兲. Ultra-
compact webs satisfy the traditional AISC 共1989兲 limits for plas-
tic design. One can observe that the mean and coefficient of
variation are quite similar for all the above-mentioned categories
with the exception of the 共SF, SW, NHW兲 and 共NCF, SW, Hybrid兲
groups. The mean and coefficient of variation are significantly
larger for these exceptions. Therefore, for estimating the reliabil-
ity index ␤, all the noncompact-flange rolled and nonhybrid
welded members are combined into one group, whereas the 共SF,
SW, NHW兲 and 共NCF, SW, Hybrid兲 groups are addressed sepa-
rately. The single 共SF, UCW, Rolled兲 and 共SF, SW, Hybrid兲 tests
are not included in calculating the statistics.
All the hybrid members in Fig. 9 and Table 3 have A514
flanges and slender A36 webs. The larger mean and coefficient of
variation for M test / M n in these tests appears to be due largely to
the extreme difference between the flange and web yield
strengths, as well as the multiplicative combination of the bend
buckling and hybrid strength reduction factors, Rb and Rh, for
these members. The hybrid girders with larger normalized web
slenderness 共Fyc / E兲0.52Dc / tw and smaller Rb values tend to have
the most conservative predictions. As can be observed from Fig.
9, with two exceptions, the normalized flange slenderness falls
between 0.45 and 0.62 for the girders having the largest M test / M n
values 共values greater than 1.20兲. These are all hybrid girders.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. M test / M n versus 共Fyc / E兲0.5 bfc / 2tfc for 11 rolled and 36 welded I-section members, flexural resistance governed by FLB 共Sources: Johnson
1985; Holtz and Kulak 1973, 1975; Abe and Mizukoshi 1973; Dibley 1970; McDermott 1969; Lew and Toprac 1968; Carskaddan 1968; Janss and
Massonnet 1967; Basler et al. 1960兲

The limited number of slender-flange member results in Table
3 and Fig. 9 indicates that the unified provisions are somewhat
more conservative for these member types compared to
noncompact-flange members governed by FLB. The majority of
the slender-flange member tests have flanges that are only mar-
ginally slender, i.e., 共Fyc / E兲0.5 bfc / 2tfc is close to the noncompact
flange limit. Also, the yield strength of the flanges Fyc is between
375 and 437 MPa in these tests. These are Johnson’s 共1985兲 stud-
ies with 共Fyc / E兲0.5 bfc / 2tfc between 0.69 and 0.73 共see Fig. 9兲.
There are two tests with significantly larger 共Fyc / E兲0.5 bfc / 2tfc in
Fig. 9, one with a slender nonhybrid web tested by Basler et al.
共1960兲 and one with a slender hybrid web tested by Lew and
Toprac 共1968兲. The flexural strength predictions for these tests are
quite conservative. However, McDermott 共1969兲 tested one A514
rolled member whose flange classifies as slender based on the
unified provisions. The FLB strength of this test is predicted rea-
sonably well 共M test / M n = 1.04兲.
White and Jung 共2004兲 show that the FLB tests collected in
this work fill a matrix of flange and web slenderness values rea-
sonably well for 7.5艋 bfc / 2tfc 艋 15 and 70艋 2Dc / tw 艋 250, or
0.38艋 共Fyc / E兲0.5 bfc / 2tfc 艋 0.62 and 1 艋 共Fyc / E兲0.5 2Dc / tw 艋 12.
There are a number of tests beyond these ranges, but the corre-
sponding combinations of web and flange slenderness are some-
what sparse and do not include combinations of the bounding
values of the web and flange slendernesses.
The unified FLB equations are based on the following expres-
sion for the elastic flange local buckling coefficient, retained from
AISC 共1999兲:
kc = 4/冑D/tw, 0.35 艋 kc 艋 0.76 共15兲
Eq. 共15兲 is used with the exact analytical expression for elastic
FLB 共for a given kc兲 to describe the elastic FLB resistance and to
locate the abscissa ␭rf for Anchor Point 2 in Fig. 1 共White 2008a兲.
Eq. 共15兲 defines a transition from a constant maximum kc value of
0.76 for D / tw 艋 28 to a constant minimum value for kc of 0.35 for
D / tw 艌 131. For rolled members, kc is taken equal to 0.76 in all
cases. This is consistent with the elastic FLB coefficient used
implicitly for rolled I sections in the original 1986 AISC LRFD
specifications. The assumed kc = 0.76 is believed to be an adequate

Table 3. Statistical Summary, 11 Rolled and 36 Welded I-Section Members, Flexural Resistance Governed by FLB
Tests
with NCF
accurate NCF SF NCF NCF NCF SF NCF SF Rolled
measured UCW UCW CW NCW SW SW SW SW and
Quantity All geometry rolled rolled NHW NHW NHW NHW hybrid hybrid NHW
N 47 37 10 1 6 7 8 5 9 1 31
Minimum 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.01 1.09 0.96 0.91
Median 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.12 1.23 1.05
Maximum 1.46 1.46 1.17 1.18 1.11 1.26 1.39 1.46 1.26
Mean 1.11 1.12 1.06 1.04 1.08 1.04 1.08 1.17 1.20 1.37 1.06
V 共%兲 10.59 11.39 7.16 6.18 4.83 8.88 10.55 12.42 6.92
Note: UCW⫽ultracompact web; NCF⫽noncompact flange; SF⫽slender flange; CW⫽compact web; NHW⫽nonhybrid welded; NCW⫽noncompact web;
SW⫽slender web.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1465

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.

 conservative value for atypical I sections having compact webs
combined with noncompact or slender flanges with bfc / 2tfc or
共Fyc / E兲0.5bfc / 2tfc larger than the above-mentioned ranges 共the the-
oretical kc for ideal full fixity at the web–flange juncture is 1.28兲.
In addition to the result from the single test by McDermott 共1969兲
discussed earlier, Hasham and Rasmussen 共2002兲 present finite
element analysis results that indicate the AISC 共1999兲 and unified
provisions are adequate for such members. The transition and
lower-bound values for kc in Eq. 共15兲 also are believed to provide
an adequate conservative characterization of the flexural resis-
tance for I sections having larger bfc / 2tfc and 共Fyc / E兲0.5bfc / 2tfc
than the above-mentioned ranges within the limits 2Dc / tw 艋 250
and 共Fyc / E兲0.52Dc / tw 艋 12. This is due to the fact that the kc for
elastic FLB tends to be larger at greater flange slenderness values
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for a given web slenderness.
It is important to recognize that a slender web is theoretically
in a postbuckled state at the limit of the resistance in the
AASHTO 共1998兲, AISC 共1999兲, and unified equations. Also, for
most practical I sections, the limit of the flexural resistance in-
volves significant inelastic actions. Therefore, elastic FLB coeffi-
cients determined from precise analytical or numerical buckling
solutions do not, in general, provide an accurate characterization
of the true FLB limit state.
As noted previously, the flexural resistance is defined as the
smaller of the independently calculated LTB and FLB resistances
in the unified provisions. For I-section beams, Bradford and Han-
cock 共1984兲 show theoretically, and Cherry 共1960兲 and Richter
共1998兲 show experimentally, that the interaction between FLB
and LTB may be neglected except for members with slender
flanges and thick webs 共Cherry’s tests are not included in this
research as they are small scale specimens fabricated from an
alloy material兲. It is believed that the FLB coefficient of kc
= 0.76 is sufficiently conservative such that FLB–LTB interaction
is not an issue for these atypical cases. Further study of these
types of members would be useful to provide additional confir-
mation of the FLB and LTB equations at these limits. However,
members with b f / 2t f ⬎ 12 can be prone to welding distortion and
other handling problems. AASHTO 共2004, 1998兲 limits b f / 2t f to
a maximum of 12 to facilitate handling and to alleviate welding
distortion issues.
Estimation of Reliability Index „␤…: FLB Tests
The procedures for estimating ␤ values from the FLB tests are
essentially the same as those discussed previously for LTB. Based
on the characteristics shown in Table 3, it was decided to calcu-
late the reliability indices for noncompact-flange rolled and non-
hybrid welded members 共the last column of Table 3兲 as one data
set, and to assess the reliability of noncompact-flange slender-web
hybrid members and slender-flange slender-web nonhybrid
welded members separately. The number of FLB tests is more
limited than the number of LTB tests considered in the previous
sections. This number is judged to be insufficient to support any
finer subdivision of the data into separate flange and web slender-
ness ranges than shown in Table 3. Fig. 10 gives the estimated ␤
values versus the live-to-dead load ratio L / D for the above-
mentioned member categories. At L / D = 3, the reliability index is
estimated as 2.9 for noncompact-flange rolled and nonhybrid
welded members. For the extreme hybrid members collected in
this study, the estimated ␤ is 3.2 at L / D = 3, and for the slender-
flange slender-web nonhybrid members, the comparable esti-
mated ␤ is also 3.2. The one SF, SW, NHW test conducted by
1466 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
Fig. 10. Reliability index for FLB versus the live-to-dead load ratio
共L / D兲, 31 noncompact-flange rolled and nonhybrid welded members
共NCF Rolled and NHW兲, nine noncompact-flange slender-web hybrid
members 共NCF, SW, Hybrid兲 and five slender-flange slender-web
nonhybrid welded members 共SF, SW, NHW兲, ␾ = 0.9
Basler et al. 共1960兲 has a significantly larger M test / M n than the
other tests in this category. If this test is removed as an outlier, the
mean M test / M n = 1.12 and V = 2.24% for the four remaining tests
conducted by Johnson 共1985兲. This mean and coefficient of varia-
tion for these tests gives an estimated ␤ of 3.7.
White and Kim 共2008兲 discuss additional FLB test results for
members subjected to moment gradient loadings. Their estimates
of the reliability for nonhybrid members subjected to moment
gradient is essentially the same as the above. The hybrid members
tested under moment gradient conditions have a mean M test / M n
close to 1.0 as well as a small coefficient of variation comparable
to the values determined for the LTB tests in this study.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper evaluates the flexural resistances predicted by the base
unified provisions implemented in AASHTO 共2004兲 and AISC
共2005兲 versus a large set of uniform bending test results. The test
data are subdivided into two main groups, one in which the flange
dimensions and web depth are measured to three or more signifi-
cant digits, and one in which the geometry is measured with less
accuracy or only nominal geometric properties are reported.
Within these groups, the predictions for members in which the
resistance is governed by FLB and the predictions for all other
members, referred to in this study as LTB tests, are considered
separately. Key summary statistics for the professional bias factor
␳ P = M test / M n are determined for these subgroups, as well as for
various categorizations of the members and ranges of slenderness
parameters in these subgroups. The reliability index for combined
dead-and-live load in building LRFD is determined based on the
statistics from the collected test data, established values for the
bias and coefficient of variation associated with the fabricated
geometry and the material properties, and established building
design load statistics. The reliability index associated with lateral
torsional buckling is shown to be more uniform using the unified
provisions, both for various ranges of the normalized slenderness
KLb 共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt and for various types of rolled and welded
members. Also, the paper emphasizes that the calculation of an
effective length factor K ⬍ 1 provides substantially larger pre-
dicted resistances and substantial improvements in the accuracy
in many cases for members in which the resistance is governed by
LTB. The use of K = 1 for members with noncompact- or slender
brace spacing results in substantially greater conservatism and
larger implicit values for the reliability index than those dis-
cussed. A design-oriented procedure for calculation of elastic LTB
K factors, presented originally by Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲, is
used for all the LTB calculations in this study. The reliability
 indices for FLB are shown to be generally larger than those for the inside face of the compression flange; for
LTB. nonwelded built-up shapes, the nearest line of
fasteners at the compression flange; denoted
by 2h p in AISC 共2005兲;
Acknowledgments d ⫽ total depth between the extreme fibers of the
flange elements;
The writers express their sincere thanks to the members of AISC E ⫽ elastic modulus of steel, 200 GPa 共29 000 ksi兲;
TC4 共Louis Geschwindner, Chair兲, the AISI LRFD Specification Fmax ⫽ maximum potential flexural resistance
Task Force 共Dennis Mertz, Chair兲, and the AASHTO T14 Tech- expressed in terms of a flange bending stress;
nical Committee for Steel Design 共Ed Wasserman, Chair兲 for their Fn ⫽ flexural resistance expressed in terms of an
efforts in the updating of the AISC and AASHTO flexural elastically computed flange stress;
strength provisions. Also, the NCHRP Project 12-38 共Dann Hall Fy ⫽ specified minimum yield stress;
and Chai Yoo, co-PIs兲 and 12-52 共John Kulicki, PI兲 teams are Fyc ⫽ specified minimum yield stress for the
thanked for providing substantial contributions. Special thanks compression flange;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

are extended to Michael Grubb of Bridge Software Development Fyf ⫽ specified minimum yield stress for the flange
International, Ltd. for extensive input on all attributes of the de- under consideration, or where Fyc = Fyt, of both
velopments. Professors Ted Galambos of the University of Min- flanges;
nesota and Bruce Ellingwood of Georgia Institute of Technology Fyr ⫽ compression flange flexural stress at the
provided valuable input. Professors Yuhshi Fukumoto and Masa- nominal onset of yielding, including
hiro Kubo of Nagoya University, Japan, catalogued a large num- compression flange residual stress effects;
ber of LTB tests originally in Fukumoto and Kubo 共1977兲. The denoted by FL in AISC 共1999, 2005兲;
research by these investigators greatly facilitated the data collec- Fyw ⫽ specified minimum yield stress for the web;
tion and analyses conducted in this study. Professor Richard h ⫽ distance between the centroids of the flange
Sause and Mr. Daming Yu of Lehigh University secured a number elements, denoted by h0 in AISC 共2005兲;
Lehigh reports for the writers. This research was funded by Pro- Ix ⫽ moment of inertia of the cross section about
fessional Services Industries, Inc. and the Federal Highway Ad- the centroidal major axis of bending;
ministration, and by the ASCE Structural Engineering Institute. J ⫽ St. Venant torsion constant;
The financial support from these organizations is gratefully ac- K ⫽ effective length factor for lateral torsional
knowledged. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in buckling;
this paper are the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views kc ⫽ flange local buckling coefficient;
of the above-mentioned individuals, groups, and organizations. L ⫽ live load;
Lb ⫽ laterally unbraced length;
Lp ⫽ limiting unbraced length to achieve the
Notation maximum potential flexural resistance of the
section, uniform moment case 共Cb = 1.0兲;
The following symbols are used in this paper: Lr ⫽ limiting unbraced length to achieve the onset
b f ⫽ flange width; of yielding in uniform bending 共Cb = 1.0兲;
bfc ⫽ width of a rectangular compression flange; M max ⫽ maximum potential flexural resistance
bft ⫽ width of a rectangular tension flange; expressed in terms of bending moment;
Cb ⫽ moment-gradient factor for lateral-torsional Mn ⫽ flexural resistance expressed in terms of
buckling; bending moment, calculated for the tests
c ⫽ normalized slenderness parameter for LTB considered in this research using the measured
equal to KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt; geometry and static material properties;
cr ⫽ value of c corresponding to Lr, equal to M n共Rb=1兲 ⫽ M n calculated assuming Rb = 1;
Lr共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt; Mp ⫽ section plastic bending resistance;
D ⫽ for rolled shapes, clear distance between M test ⫽ measured static moment capacity from an
flanges less the fillet or corner radius; for welded experimental test;
shapes, the clear distance between the flanges; My ⫽ yield moment, FySxc = FySxt for doubly
for nonwelded built-up shapes, the distance symmetric sections; smaller of M yc and M yt for
between adjacent lines of fasteners; singly symmetric sections;
D ⫽ dead load; M yc ⫽ yield moment at the nominal onset of
Dc ⫽ distance from the cross-sectional centroid to yielding of the compression flange, FySxc;
the following: for rolled shapes, the inside M yr ⫽ moment corresponding to the onset of
face of the compression flange less the fillet or yielding, including compression flange residual
corner radius; for welded shapes, the inside stress effects, FyrSxc;
face of the compression flange; for nonwelded M yt ⫽ yield moment at the nominal onset of
built-up shapes, the nearest line of fasteners yielding of the tension flange, FySxt;
at the compression flange; denoted by 2hc in N ⫽ size of population;
AISC 共2005兲; Q̄ ⫽ mean load effect;
Dcp ⫽ distance from the cross-sectional plastic Qi ⫽ nominal load effect;
neutral axis to the following: for rolled shapes, R ⫽ resistance;
the inside face of the compression flange R̄ ⫽ mean resistance;
less the fillet or corner radius; for welded shapes,

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1467

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.

 Rb ⫽ slender-web bend buckling flange-strength
reduction factor, denoted by R PG in AISC
共1999兲 and R pg in AISC 共2005兲;
Rh ⫽ hybrid web strength reduction factor;
Rn ⫽ resistance calculated using nominal design
values for the geometry and material
properties;
Rpc ⫽ web plastification factor associated with the
lateral-torsional buckling and flange local
buckling resistance;
Rpt ⫽ web plastification factor associated with the
tension flange yielding resistance;
rt ⫽ effective radius of gyration for lateral-torsional
buckling, represented approximately by the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
radius of gyration of the compression flange
elements plus one-third of the depth of the
web in compression; denoted by rT in AISC
共1999兲;
ry ⫽ radius of gyration of a noncomposite I section
about the plane of the web;
ryc ⫽ radius of gyration of the compression flange
about the plane of the web;
Sxc ⫽ elastic section modulus corresponding to the
extreme compression fiber;
Sxt ⫽ elastic section modulus corresponding to the
extreme tension fiber;
t f ⫽ flange thickness;
tfc ⫽ thickness of a rectangular compression flange;
tft ⫽ thickness of a rectangular tension flange;
tw ⫽ thickness of the web;
V ⫽ coefficient of variation, subscripts indicate the
associated quantity;
X2 ⫽ ratio of the bending and torsional efficiencies
of the cross section, Sxch / J;
␤ ⫽ reliability index;
␥i ⫽ load factor;
␭ ⫽ width-thickness ratio of a compression
element;
␭fc ⫽ compression flange slenderness ratio bfc / 2tfc;
␭pf ⫽ limiting slenderness parameter for a compact
flange;
␭pw ⫽ limiting slenderness parameter for a compact
web corresponding to 2Dcp / tw;
␭rf ⫽ limiting slenderness parameter for a
noncompact flange;
␳ ⫽ bias factor, subscripts indicate the associated
quantity;
¯␳ ⫽ mean bias factor, subscripts indicate the
associated quantity;
¯␳G ⫽ mean geometry bias factor, equal to the mean
effect on the calculated resistance of the
differences between the actual geometry and
the nominal values used in design;
¯␳ M ⫽ mean material bias factor, equal to the mean
effect of the differences between the relevant
static material properties and the nominal values
used in design;
¯␳ P ⫽ mean professional bias factor, equal to
M test / M n, where M n is calculated strictly using
measured values for the geometric and
static material properties;
1468 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
¯␳R ⫽ mean bias factor for the resistance, equal to
R̄ / Rn; and
␾ ⫽ resistance factor.
References
AASHTO. 共1998兲. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 2nd Ed.
with 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 interim provisions, Washing-
ton, D.C.
AASHTO. 共2004兲. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd Ed.
with 2005 interim provisions, Washington, D.C.
Abe, H., and Mizukoshi, N. 共1973兲. “Buckling tests on plate girders under
bending.” Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers,
preprint, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo.
Adams, P. F., Lay, M. G., and Galambos, T. V. 共1964兲. “Experiments on
high strength steel members.” Fritz Engineering Laboratory Rep. No.
297.8, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, Pa.
AISC. 共1986兲. Load and resistance factor design specification for struc-
tural steel buildings, Chicago.
AISC. 共1989兲. Specification for structural steel buildings, allowable
stress design and plastic design, Chicago.
AISC. 共1999兲. Load and resistance factor design specification for struc-
tural steel buildings, Chicago.
AISC. 共2005兲. “Specification for structural steel buildings.” ANSI/AISC
360-05, Chicago.
American Iron and Steel Institute 共AISI兲. 共1974兲. The variation of product
analysis and tensile properties of carbon steel plates and wide flange
shapes, Washington, D.C.
ASCE. 共2006兲. “Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
tures.” ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, Va.
ASTM. 共1997兲. “Standard method for Young’s modulus, tangent modulus
and chord modulus.” ASTM E111-97, Philadelphia.
ASTM. 共2000兲. “Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic
materials.” ASTM E8-00b, Philadelphia.
Baker, K. A., and Kennedy, D. J. L. 共1984兲. “Resistance factors for lat-
erally unsupported steel beams and biaxially loaded steel beam col-
umns.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 11共4兲, 1008–1019.
Bansal, J. P. 共1971兲. “The lateral instability of continuous steel beams.”
Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Bartlett, F. M., Dexter, R. J., Graeser, M. D., Jelinek, J. J., Schmidt, B. J.,
and Galambos, T. V. 共2003兲. “Updating standard shape material prop-
erties database for design and reliability.” Eng. J., 40共1兲, 2–14.
Basler, K., Yen, B. T., Mueller, J. A., and Thurlimann, B. 共1960兲. “Web
buckling tests on welded plate girders.” WRC Bulletin No. 64, Weld-
ing Research Council, New York.
Bradford, M. A., and Hancock, G. J. 共1984兲. “Elastic interaction of local
and lateral buckling in beams.” Thin-Walled Struct., 2共1兲, 1–25.
Canadian National Standards Association 共CSA兲. 共1984兲. “Steel struc-
tures for buildings—Limit states design.” National Standard of
CanadaCAN3-S16.1-M84, Rexdale, Ont., Canada.
Carskaddan, P. S. 共1968兲. “The bending behavior of slender-web girders
with A514 steel flanges.” Applied Research, Rep. No. 57.019-904 (5)
(AS-EA-23-ps), U.S. Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh.
Cherry, S. 共1960兲. “The stability of beams with buckled compression
flanges.” Struct. Eng., 38共9兲, 277–285.
Cooper, P. B. 共1967兲. “Strength of longitudinally stiffened plate girders.”
J. Struct. Div., 93共2兲, 419–451.
Cooper, P. B., Galambos, T. V., and Ravindra, M. K. 共1978兲. “LRFD
criteria for plate girders.” J. Struct. Div., 104共9兲, 1389–1407.
D’Apice, M. A., Fielding, D. J., and Cooper, P. B. 共1966兲. “Static tests on
longitudinally stiffened plate girders.” WRC Bulletin No. 117, Welding
Research Council, New York.
Dibley, J. E. 共1969兲. “Lateral torsional buckling of I-sections in Grade 55
steel.” Proc., Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 43, 599–627, Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers, London.
Dibley, J. E. 共1970兲. “A preliminary investigation into the use of high-
 strength structural steel in structures designed plastically.” BIRSA
Open Rep. No. EG/A/13/70, British Steel Corporation, London.
Dimitri, J. R., and Ostapenko, A. 共1970兲. “Pilot tests on the static strength
of unsymmetrical plate girders.” WRC Bulletin No. 156, Welding Re-
search Council, New York.
Driscoll, G. C., and Beedle, L. S. 共1957兲. “The plastic behavior of struc-
tural members and frames.” Weld. J. (Miami, FL, U.S.), 36共6兲, 275-
s–286-s.
Dux, P. F., and Kitipornchai, S. 共1983兲. “Inelastic beam buckling experi-
ments.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 3共1兲, 3–9.
Ellingwood, B. E., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A.
共1980兲. “Development of a probability based load criterion for Ameri-
can National Standard A58.” NBS Publication No. 577, Washington,
D.C.
Ellingwood, B. E., MacGregor, J. G., Galambos, T. V., and Cornell, C. A.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
共1982兲. “Probability-based load criteria: Load factors and load com-
binations.” J. Struct. Div., 108共5兲, 978–997.
Frost, R. W., and Schilling, C. G. 共1964兲. “Behavior of hybrid beams
subjected to static loads.” J. Struct. Div., 90共3兲, 55–88.
Fukumoto, Y. 共1976兲. “Lateral buckling of welded beams and girders in
HT 80 steel.” Preliminary Rep. of 10th Congress, International Asso-
ciation for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Tokyo, 403–408.
Fukumoto, Y., Fujiwara, M., and Watanebe, N. 共1971兲. “Inelastic lateral
buckling tests on welded beams and girders.” Proc., Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, Tokyo, Vol. 189, 39–51 共in Japanese兲.
Fukumoto, Y., Itoh, Y., and Kubo, M. 共1980兲. “Strength variation of lat-
erally unsupported beams.” J. Struct. Div., 106共1兲, 65–181.
Fukumoto, Y., and Kubo, M. 共1971兲. “Inelastic lateral buckling strength
of monosymmetrical I-beams.” Annual Meeting of the Japanese Soci-
ety of Civil Engineers, preprint 共in Japanese兲.
Fukumoto, Y., and Kubo, M. 共1972兲. “Lateral buckling strength of girders
with bracing systems.” Preliminary Rep. of 9th Congress, Interna-
tional Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 299–304.
Fukumoto, Y., and Kubo, M. 共1977兲. “An experimental review of lateral
buckling of beams and girders.” International Colloquium on Stability
of Structures Under Static and Dynamic Loads, ASCE, New York,
541–562.
Galambos, T. V. 共1998兲. Guide to stability design criteria for metal struc-
tures, T. V. Galambos, ed., Structural Stability Research Council,
Wiley Interscience, New York.
Galambos, T. V. 共2004兲. “Reliability of the member stability criteria in
the 2005 AISC Specification.” Int. J. Steel Struct., 4共4兲, 223–230.
Galambos, T. V., Ellingwood, B. E., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A.
共1982兲. “Probability-based load criteria: Assessment of current design
practice.” J. Struct. Div., 108共5兲, 959–977.
Galambos, T. V., and Ravindra, M. K. 共1976兲. “Load and resistance factor
design criteria for steel beams.” Research Rep. No. 27, Structural
Division, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Washington
Univ., St. Louis.
Galambos, T. V., and Ravindra, M. K. 共1978兲. “Properties of steel for use
in LRFD.” J. Struct. Div., 104共9兲, 1459–1468.
Green, P. S. 共2000兲. “The inelastic behavior of flexural members fabri-
cated from high performance steel.” Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh
Univ., Bethlehem, Pa.
Hasham, A. S., and Rasmussen, K. J. R. 共2002兲. “Interaction curves for
locally buckled I-section beam-columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 58共2兲,
213–241.
Hisamitu, S., and Okuto, K. 共1971兲. “Lateral buckling tests on beams
with residual stresses.” Annual Meeting of AIJ, Architectural Institute
of Japan, Tokyo, preprint 共in Japanese兲.
Holtz, N. M., and Kulak, G. L. 共1973兲. “Web slenderness limits for com-
pact beams.” Structural Engineering Rep. No. 43, Univ. of Alberta,
Alta., Canada.
Holtz, N. M., and Kulak, G. L. 共1975兲. “Web slenderness limits for non-
compact beams.” Structural Engineering Rep. No. 51, Univ. of Al-
berta, Alta., Canada.
Iyengar, S. N. S., Lu, L.-W., and Beedle, L. S. 共1969兲. “Experiments on
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1469
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
A512 Grade 65 steel beams.” Fritz Engineering Laboratory Rep. No.
343.4, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, Pa.
Janss, J., and Massonnet, C. 共1967兲. “The extension of plastic design to
steel A52.” Publications of the IABSE, 27, 15–30.
Johnson, D. L. 共1985兲. “An investigation into the interaction of flanges
and webs in wide flange shapes.” Proc., Annual Technical Session,
Structural Stability Research Council, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla,
Mo., 395–405.
Kennedy, D. J. L., and Baker, K. A. 共1984兲. “Resistance factors for steel
highway bridges.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 11共2兲, 324–334.
Kennedy, D. J. L., and Gad Aly, M. 共1980兲. “Limit states design of steel
structures—Performance factors.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 7共1兲, 45–77.
Lee, G. C., Ferrara, A. T., and Galambos, T. V. 共1964兲. “Experiments on
braced wide-flange beams.” Welding Research Council Bulletin No.
99, Welding Research Council, New York.
Lee, G. C., and Galambos, T. V. 共1962兲. “Post-buckling strength of wide-
flange beams.” J. Engrg. Mech. Div., 88共1兲, 59–75.
Lew, H. S., and Toprac, A. A. 共1968兲. “The static strength of hybrid plate
girders.” S.F.R.L. Technical Rep. No. P550-11, Structures Fatigue Re-
search Laboratory, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Austin,
Tex.
McDermott, J. F. 共1969兲. “Plastic bending of A514 steel beams.” J.
Struct. Div., 95共9兲, 1851–1871.
Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G. 共1982兲. “Probabilistic study of
strength of reinforced concrete members.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 9共3兲,
431–448.
Morikawi, N., and Fujino, S. 共1971兲. “Ultimate bending strength of plate
girders.” Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers,
preprint 共in Japanese兲.
Nethercot, D. A., and Trahair, N. S. 共1976兲. “Lateral buckling approxi-
mations for elastic beams.” Struct. Eng., 54共6兲, 197–204.
Owen, D. R. J., Rockey, K. C., and Skaloud, M. 共1970兲. “Ultimate load
behavior of longitudinally reinforced webplates subjected to pure
bending.” IABSE Publ., 30共1兲, 113–148.
Prasad, J., and Galambos, T. V. 共1963兲. “The influence of the adjacent
spans on the rotation capacity of beams.” Fritz Engineering Labora-
tory Rep. No. 205H.12, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, Pa.
Richter, J. F. 共1998兲. “Flexural capacity of splender web plate girders.”
M.S. thesis, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Suzuki, T., and Kubodera, M. 共1973兲. “Inelastic lateral buckling of steel
beams.” Annual Meeting of Architectural Institute of Japan, Architec-
tural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, preprint 共in Japanese兲.
Suzuki, T., and Ono, T. 共1970兲. “Experimental study of inelastic beams.
1: Beam under uniform moment.” Transactions of the Architectural
Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Vol. 168,
77–84 共in Japanese兲.
Suzuki, T., and Ono, T. 共1973兲. “Inelastic lateral buckling of steel
beams.” Annual Meeting of Architectural Institute of Japan, Architec-
tural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, preprint 共in Japanese兲.
Suzuki, T., and Ono, T. 共1976兲. “Deformation capacity of high-strength
steel members.” Preliminary Rep., 10th Congress of the International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, preprint.
Udagawa, K., Saisho, M., Takanashi, K., and Tanaka, H. 共1973兲. “Experi-
ments on lateral buckling of H-shaped beams subjected to monotonic
loadings.” Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol.
48共212兲, 22–33.
Wakabayashi, M., Nakamura, T., Okamura, N. 共1970兲. “Studies on lateral
buckling of wide flange beams 共1兲.” Disaster Prevention Research
Institute Annuals, Vol. 14A, Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, Japan 共in Japanese兲.
White, D. W. 共2008a兲. “Structural behavior of steel.” Chap. 6, Steel
bridge design handbook, National Steel Bridge Alliance, Chicago.
White, D. W. 共2008b兲. “Unified flexural resistance equations for stability
design of steel I-section members—Overview.” J. Struct. Eng.,
134共9兲, 1405–1424.
White, D. W., Barker, M., and Azizinamini, A. 共2008兲. “Shear strength
and moment-shear interaction transversely-stiffened steel I-girders.”
J. Struct. Eng., 134共9兲, 1437–1449.
White, D. W., and Jung, S.-K. 共2003a兲. “Simplified lateral-torsional buck-
ling equations for I-and channel-section members.” Structural Engi-
 neering, Mechanics and Materials Rep. No. 24a, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
White, D. W., and Jung, S.-K. 共2003b兲. “Simplified lateral-torsional buck-
ling equations for singly-symmetric I-section members.” Structural
Engineering, Mechanics and Materials Rep. No. 24b, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, At-
lanta.
White, D. W., and Jung, S.-K. 共2004兲. “Unified flexural resistance equa-
tions for stability design of steel I-section members—Uniform bend-
ing tests.” Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials Rep. No.
28, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta.
White, D. W., and Jung, S.-K. 共2007兲. “Effect of web distortion on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1470 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1450-1470.
buckling strength of noncomposite discretely-braced I-beams.” Eng.
Struct., 29共8兲, 1872–1888.
White, D. W., and Kim, Y. D. 共2008兲. “Unified resistance equations for
stability design of steel I-section members—Moment gradient tests.”
J. Struct. Eng., 134共9兲, 1471–1486.
Wong-Chung, A. D., and Kitipornchai, S. 共1987兲. “Partially braced in-
elastic beam buckling experiments.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 7共3兲, 189–
211.
Yu, D., and Sause, R. 共2002兲. “Regression study on the inelastic lateral
torsional buckling strength of I-beams.” ATLSS Center, Lehigh Univ.,
Bethlehem, Pa.
Yura, J. A., Galambos, T. V., and Ravindra, M. K. 共1978兲. “The bending
resistance of steel beams.” J. Struct. Div., 104共9兲, 1355–1369.