Unified Flexural Resistance Equations for Stability Design

of Steel I-Section Members: Moment Gradient Tests

Donald W. White, M.ASCE1; and Yoon Duk Kim, S.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, simultaneously improving their accuracy
and generality. This paper evaluates the lateral-torsional and flange local buckling 共LTB and FLB兲 resistance predictions from these
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

specifications versus the results from moment gradient experimental tests. Two types of moment gradient tests are considered: 共1兲
“end-loaded” tests in which the moment varies linearly within the critical unbraced length and 共2兲 “internally loaded” tests in which the
member is subjected to concentrated transverse load, resulting in a multilinear moment diagram within the critical unbraced length. A total
of 27 welded and 10 rolled I-section end-loaded FLB tests, 73 rolled and 93 welded end-loaded LTB tests, and 129 rolled and 111 welded
internally loaded LTB tests are considered. Reliability indices are estimated for load and resistance factor design of buildings based on the
statistics from these tests combined with established statistics for material and fabrication bias factors and the ASCE 7 load model.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2008兲134:9共1471兲
CE Database subject headings: Steel beams; Girders; High strength steel; Flexural strength; I beams; Composite beams; Structural
stability; Experimental data.

Introduction
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, an effort
was made to collect and analyze the results from a large set of
relevant experimental 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 for statically
determinate moment gradient tests. Two types of loading are con-
sidered: 共1兲 “end-loaded” tests in which the moment varies lin-
early within the critical unbraced length; and 共2兲 “internally
loaded” tests in which the member is subjected to concentrated
transverse load, resulting in a multilinear moment diagram within
the critical unbraced length. The end-loaded tests include a wide
variety of internal bracing arrangements, whereas the internally
loaded tests are all braced only at the member ends. The statistics
obtained for the professional bias 共M test / M n兲 are utilized along
with established statistics for material and fabrication bias factors
1 buckling behavior is nominally elastic. The ordinate of Anchor
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355. E-mail: don.white@
ce.gatech.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355.
Note. Associate Editor: Benjamin W. Schafer. 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 February 1, 2008. This
paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 9,
September 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2008/9-1471–1486/
$25.00.
and the ASCE 7 load model to assess the reliability associated
with the updated provisions in the context of building design. A
companion paper 共White and Jung 2008兲 presents the results for
uniform bending tests.
Overview of Unified Flexural Resistance Provisions
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. All the Flange local buckling 共FLB兲 and
lateral-torsional buckling 共LTB兲 equations in the new specifica-
tions are based consistently on two anchor points for the case of
uniform major-axis bending 共see Fig. 1兲. Anchor Point 1 is lo-
cated 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 is equal to the 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 compres-
sion flange stress or member bending moment for which the
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 asso-
ciated with the compression flange, FycSxc, and Rb⫽web bend
buckling strength reduction factor, equal to 1.0 for sections with a
compact or noncompact 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 inelas-
tic 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

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1471

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Basic form of FLB and LTB resistance equations
moment or flange stress. The format shown in Fig. 1, adapted
from AISC 共1999兲, greatly facilitates the definition of simple yet
comprehensive flexural resistance equations.
For members subjected to moment gradient loading, the base
uniform bending LTB resistance is scaled by the moment gradient
factor, Cb, with the exception that the resistance is capped by Fmax
or M max. In the unified provisions, Cb is the sole parameter that
addresses the effect of moment gradient. In general, this param-
eter also is used to account for load height effects from any trans-
verse loads applied within the unbraced length. In many practical
situations, Cb is greater than one. However, load height effects
can in general lead to Cb values smaller than 1.0. In these situa-
tions, the LTB strength is reduced relative to the base uniform
bending resistance and the scaled linear equation corresponding
to the inelastic buckling or noncompact range is extended into the
compact range until the reduced strength CbM n共Cb=1兲 reaches M max
共where M n共Cb=1兲 is the strength in uniform bending兲. The calcu-
lated FLB resistance for moment gradient cases is the same as
that for uniform bending, neglecting the potential influence of
moment gradient effects.
Several attributes of the above-mentioned procedures deserve
scrutiny:
1. The equations for Cb are typically derived from elastic LTB
studies using open-section thin-walled beam theory. The ra-
tionale for this approach has been justified in prior research,
such as, Yura et al. 共1978兲. However, it useful to understand
the specific qualities of the predictions by this approach com-
pared to the results from a wide range of inelastic buckling
experimental tests. Further, it is desirable to consider the pre-
dictions for both the more basic end-loaded 共linear moment
gradient兲 cases as well as for internally loaded cases in which
the influence of the load height is an important attribute of
the stability behavior.
2. Similarly, in light of the simplification that moment gradient
has negligible influence on the FLB limit state, it is useful to
understand the extent to which moment gradient can influ-
ence the FLB resistance by comparison of predictions to ex-
perimental test results.
There are a number of minor differences between AASHTO
共2004兲 and AISC 共2005兲. White 共2008b兲 presents the base unified
flexural resistance provisions and explains the minor deviations
from these provisions in the places that they occur. White and
Jung 共2008兲 utilize the base unified provisions as a point of de-
parture and then consider the effect of the minor deviations from
these provisions. The reader is referred to these references for a
1472 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
summary of key improvements and discussion of the minor dif-
ferences between the unified, AASHTO 共2004兲 and AISC 共2005兲
rules. This paper focuses on an evaluation of the unified predic-
tions versus the results from moment gradient experimental tests.
Similar to the developments in White and Jung 共2008兲, one ex-
ception is made relative to the unified provisions in this paper.
These provisions use the slender-web member equations when
Fyf ⬎ 485 MPa 共70 ksi兲. This restriction is waived in this study,
generally producing a more liberal and more accurate estimate of
the physical strengths for the limited number of tests having these
yield strengths.
Calculation of the Moment Gradient Factor Cb
For the end-loaded tests considered in this study
Cb = 1.75 − 1.05
M1
M2
冉 冊
+ 0.3
M1
M2
2
艋 2.3 共1兲
is used to capture the effect of the moment gradient on the LTB
resistance. In this equation, M 1 / M 2 is the ratio of the smaller to
the larger end moment, positive for single-curvature bending.
This equation gives a lower-bound approximation of the increased
theoretical elastic LTB resistance for the above-mentioned types
of members 共Galambos 1998兲.
For the internally loaded tests considered in this study
12.5M max
Cb = 共1.42y/h兲R 共2兲
2.5M max + 3M A + 4M B + 3M C
is adopted from Galambos 共1998兲, where M max⫽absolute value of
the maximum moment within the unbraced length; M A, M B, and
M C⫽absolute values of the moments at the 1 / 4, middle, and 3 / 4
points of the unbraced segment; y⫽distance from the middepth of
the cross section to the point of the load application; and
h⫽distance between the compression and tension flange cen-
troids. The value y is taken as negative for downward loads ap-
plied above the middepth and positive for downward loads
applied below the middepth. The term 共1.42y/h兲 in Eq. 共2兲 accounts
for the destabilizing or tipping effect of loads applied transversely
to the top flange, or the stabilizing or restoring effect of loads
applied transversely to the bottom flange. The last term in Eq. 共2兲,
R, is always taken equal to 1.0 with the exception of singly sym-
metric I-section members subjected to reversed curvature loading.
The writers have not identified any experimental tests of this type.
Therefore, R is always equal to 1.0 in this study.
White 共2008a兲 shows that Eq. 共1兲 can be generalized to give
comparable or better accuracy, relative to Eq. 共2兲, for cases in
which there are one or more brace points within the span and load
height effects are negligible. On the other hand, White explains
that Eq. 共2兲 is generally more accurate for noncomposite members
where the moment diagram is highly nonlinear between the brace
points and/or load height is an important attribute of the stability
behavior. Eq. 共1兲 originates from Salvadori 共1956兲 as a lower-
bound solution for end-loaded unbraced lengths; however, it has
been extended by White 共2008a兲 and Kim and White 共2007兲 to
address cases including nonlinear moment diagrams or envelopes
and/or web-tapered member geometry. Eq. 共2兲 comes from Hel-
wig et al. 共1997兲, who suggest the multiplication of the original
equation from Kirby and Nethercot 共1979兲 by the terms 共1.42y/h兲
to account for the effects of load height and R to account for the
effects of I-section monosymmetry combined with reversed-
curvature bending in prismatic members. Helwig et al. 共1997兲
 also explain that for cases with brace points in the span and single
curvature bending, load height effects tend to be insignificant.
White and Kim 共2004兲 consider the predictions by Eq. 共1兲,
Eq. 共2兲 and several other modifiers from the literature. Eq. 共1兲
gives the best overall accuracy of the equations considered for
end-loaded unbraced lengths and Eq. 共2兲 gives the best accuracy
for internally loaded tests. Thus, to simplify the discussions, all
the predictions are made using these equations in this paper.
Interrogation of Test Data and Prediction of Test
Flexural Resistances
The flexural resistances are calculated in this paper using the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
measured geometry and material properties for each of the mem-
ber component plates, where available, using the equations out-
lined in the previous section for calculation of the moment
gradient factor Cb, and using the design-oriented procedure de-
tailed by Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 and Galambos 共1998兲 for
determining the LTB effective length factor, K. White 共2008a兲
discusses the application of the Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 ap-
proach to singly symmetric I-section members and to I-section
members tied to a composite slab and subjected to negative bend-
ing at any position along their unbraced length. For rolled beams,
separate flange and web yield strengths are utilized in this work,
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 correla-
tion with physical test results, e.g., see Fukumoto 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 es-
sential for accurate prediction of test resistances in the inelastic
and elastic LTB ranges 共White and Jung 2008兲. This paper evalu-
ates the accuracy associated with the use of the design-oriented
procedure originally proposed by Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲
along with the use of the previously discussed equations for the
moment gradient factor Cb.
A large number of tests have been reported in the literature in
which only the nominal section geometry is specified, the geom-
etry measurements are provided to a small number of significant
digits, and/or only one yield strength is listed for the entire cross
section. Cases in which the flange dimensions and/or the web or
section depth are specified as nominal values or are reported to
less than three significant digits are handled as a separate group,
labeled as “tests with nominal or approximate measured proper-
ties,” in this research. A single exception to this rule is made for
deep girders in which the web depth is reported as an integer
value, but based on the assumption that the actual dimensions
round to the reported integer values, the actual dimensions differ
from the reported values by less than 1%. Cases in which only the
web thickness is nominal or approximate and tests where only a
single cross-section yield strength is listed are still classified as
“tests with accurate measured properties.” This is because devia-
tions in the web thickness and yield strength from reported values
tend to influence the predicted resistance to a minor degree com-
pared to deviations in the flange geometry and the web depth. For
rolled members that do not have cross-section properties reported
including a contribution from web-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
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1473
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
calculated using the nominal plate dimensions. The flange yield
strength is used for the web-flange fillets. The specific geometric
dimensions, material yield strengths, test configurations, and ob-
servations about the test behavior are detailed in White and Kim
共2004兲 for all of the considered tests.
In concept, measured static yield strengths are utilized for all
the calculations in this study. White and Jung 共2008兲 point out
that the specific wait times 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 are potential sources of
variability in the M test / M n values for members that fail by inelas-
tic buckling. The elastic modulus is taken uniformly as the nomi-
nal value E = 200 GPa in all the calculations. Variations in this
quantity from its nominal value are reflected automatically in the
M test / M n ratios and need not be considered further. The elastic
modulus is handled in this way due to the fact that values listed in
experimental reports often are not based on procedures necessary
for accuracy of the measurements; in some cases, measured val-
ues for E are not provided at all. The reader is also referred to
White and Jung 共2008兲 for further discussion of this consider-
ation.
With one exception, all of the collected tests considered in this
study have measured static yield strengths or yield strengths from
coupon tests conducted at specified slow rates—Hechtman et al.
共1957兲 provide measured upper yield points and proportional lim-
its from compression tests of 5 cm 共2 in.兲 coupons cut from the
flanges in their internally loaded experiments. However, the load-
ing rates for their coupons and beams are unspecified. Therefore,
the Hechtman et al. 共1957兲 tests in which the resistances are gov-
erned by inelastic LTB are grouped with the tests with nominal or
approximate measured properties; however, the Hechtman et al.
共1957兲 tests that are governed by elastic LTB are grouped with the
tests with accurate measured properties.
For the slender-web members considered in this research, the
web bend-buckling strength reduction factor Rb is calculated
using the compression flange stress M n共Rb=1兲 / Sxc, where M n共Rb=1兲
is the resistance obtained using Rb = 1. The term Rb is the
AASHTO 共2004兲 equivalent of Rpg in AISC 共2005兲. As in White
共2008b兲 and White and Jung 共2008兲, the notation from AASHTO
共2004兲 is utilized for purposes of discussion in this paper. The
corresponding AISC 共2005兲 terms are provided in the notation
list. The use of the stress M n共Rb=1兲 / Sxc rather than Fyc gives a more
precise, more liberal value for Rb. This is similar to the calcula-
tion of RPG 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 Rpg equation. 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 considered, but it can be substantial in
some tests with extremely large 2Dc / tw and in which M n共Rb=1兲 is
significantly smaller than M yc.
Of more than 450 moment gradient tests reviewed in this
work, a number of tests are discarded for the following reasons:
• The description of the test geometry is incomplete.
• The reported maximum load and moment do not satisfy equi-
librium on the reported geometry.
• 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.
• Significant lateral movement of the brace points 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.
The following tests are documented by White and Kim 共2004兲,
but the results are not included in the statistical analyses of this
study:
1. In the case of one transversely stiffened specimen with a low
M test / M n = 0.84 共relative to the ideal value of 1.0兲, M test / M n
⬵ Vtest / Vn with Vn calculated using the AASHTO–AISC
shear resistance equations. The failure was dominated by
shear in this test. The low value of Vtest / Vn for this test is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
well within the scatter band of the shear resistances consid-
ered for high shear high moment and high shear low moment
in White et al. 共2008兲 and White and Barker 共2008兲. There-
fore, this test is included in the tests addressed in these ref-
erences.
2. In several highly monosymmetric I-section member tests, the
web qualifies both as a compact and as a slender element in
AISC 共1999兲 and AASHTO 共1998兲. In this situation, the uni-
fied provisions specify conservatively that the web should be
taken as a slender element. This approach produces large
共conservative兲 M test / M n values for the limited number of
highly monosymmetric tests having these properties.
3. Several highly monosymmetric specimens have stocky webs
satisfying traditional limits for plastic design, but their Iyc / Iyt
is smaller than 0.3. The unified provisions handle I-section
members with Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 0.3 as slender-web members. As such,
the contribution from the St. Venant torsional stiffness to the
LTB resistance and the ability to develop resistances poten-
tially larger than M y are neglected for these member types.
For monosymmetric I sections with highly stocky webs and
relatively large moment gradient, this results in large
M test / M n values. However, for uniform bending and shallow
moment gradient cases, the distortional flexibility of the web
still can lead to significant reductions in the resistance for
these member types 共White and Jung 2007兲. The slender-web
member resistance equations adequately predict the test
strengths in these cases.
4. Several specimens are fabricated with intentionally large
geometric imperfections. Although these tests are useful to
investigate the imperfection sensitivity, these tests should not
be used in assessing the accuracy of the resistance equations.
5. One test has an extremely large cross-section aspect ratio
D / b f ⬎ 7.5. White and Jung 共2008兲 observe that the predic-
tions are highly variable for the limited number of uniform
bending tests with large D / b f . A number of tests with D / b f
⬎ 6 that fail in shear combined with high moment 共White et
al. 2008兲 exhibit low strengths. AASHTO 共2004兲 restricts the
design of I-section members to D / b f 艋 6.
Exclusion of the tests in Cases 共2兲 and 共3兲 is justified due to the
fact that the omitted tests are unusual cases having large M test / M n
values. By excluding these tests, both the mean and the coeffi-
cient of variation on M test / M n are reduced. Similar exclusions
have been applied in other studies such as those by Nethercot and
Byfield 共1997兲 and White and Barker 共2008兲.
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 explained by White and Jung
共2008兲, VFB failures occur generally after substantial yielding of
the compression flange and the corresponding reduction in the
1474 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
flexural resistance is small. Therefore, the test data involving
VFB are included with the other data for statistical analysis in this
research.
All of the tests addressed in this paper are of noncomposite
I-section members. White and Kim 共2004兲 summarize the results
from nine composite I-girder tests subjected to moment gradient
and negative bending. Given the myriad potential combinations of
design parameters, the number of these tests is not sufficient for
statistical analysis. The predictions for these tests are generally
accurate to somewhat conservative, with M test / M n ranging from
0.94 to 1.29.
Estimation of the Reliability Index ␤
The structural reliability is quantified in this paper by the reliabil-
ity index ␤ 共Ellingwood et al. 1982; Galambos et al. 1982兲 in the
context of LRFD of steel building members. White and Jung
共2008兲 review the procedures for estimating the reliability index
established by these and other researchers. The calculations gen-
erally require the mean and coefficient of variation of the profes-
sional bias factor M test / M n as well the mean and coefficient of
variation of the material and fabrication bias factors and the cor-
responding statistics for the ASCE 7 共ASCE 2006兲 load model.
This paper uses the values discussed by White and Jung 共2008兲
for all of these latter quantities. The AISC 共2005兲 flexural resis-
tance factor of ␾ = 0.9 is assumed in all cases.
Assessment of Data—FLB Tests
After discarding tests based on the above-mentioned criteria, 10
rolled and 27 welded member FLB tests are retained for statistical
analysis. Fig. 2 shows the specific M test / M n values versus
共Fyc / E兲0.5bfc / 2tfc for these tests. There is some noticeable disper-
sion in the M test / M n values in this plot. However, one can observe
that the majority of the tests have M test / M n values larger than
one. Table 1 gives summary statistics for the complete group
of 37 tests as well as for several subgroups. White and Kim
共2004兲 show that these tests fill a matrix of flange and web
slenderness values reasonably well for 7.5艋 bfc / 2tfc 艋 11.2 and
60艋 2Dc / tw 艋 150, or 0.38艋 共Fyc / E兲0.5bfc / 2t fc 艋 0.48 and 1.5
艋 共Fyc / E兲0.52Dc / tw 艋 7.
The data points shown in Fig. 2 include the results for 29 tests
that have accurate property measurements, as well as 8 additional
tests in which only approximate or nominal properties are avail-
able. The statistical results for a number of uniform bending test
categories considered by White and Jung 共2008兲 show a smaller
dispersion in M test / M n when only the tests with accurate property
measurements are considered. However, for the tests included in
Fig. 2, the dispersion in M test / M n is essentially the same whether
the tests with nominal/approximate properties are considered or
not 共see the second and third columns of Table 1兲.
There are numerous attributes that may potentially affect the
physical FLB strengths. These include the flange slenderness it-
self, the web slenderness, whether the web is hybrid or nonhybrid,
and the symmetry or monosymmetry of the cross section. The
unified FLB prediction equations estimate the contributions from
all of these attributes. Also, moment gradient can potentially in-
crease the test strengths, by delaying the onset of local buckling,
or particularly in sections with stocky plate elements, by causing
the onset of strain hardening at small overall member deforma-
tions. The FLB prediction equations do not account for these
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. M test / M n versus 共Fyc / E兲0.5 b fc / 2t fc for 37 noncompact-flange member tests 共end-loaded兲 with the calculated flexural resistance governed
by FLB 共Sources: Salem and Sause 2004; Zentz 2002; Hash 2001; Green 2000; Fahnestock and Sause 1998; Kemp 1996; Barth 1996; Mikami
et al. 1991; Kuhlmann 1989; Schilling 1985; Kamtekar et al. 1974; Rockey and Skaloud 1972; Lew and Toprac 1968; Janss and Massonnet 1967兲

attributes. Conversely, in some cases, high moment gradient may
lead to some reduction in the test capacity due to interaction
between the shear and flexural resistances. White et al. 共2008兲
demonstrate that the effect of high shear is captured adequately by
the shear strength formulas without consideration of any
moment–shear strength interaction. However, high web shear
does in general have some influence on M test / M n.
Table 1 subdivides the complete set of 37 FLB tests from Fig.
2 into the following six subgroups for consideration of summary
statistics: nonhybrid members with ultracompact webs subjected
to low-shear 共UCW, NH, LS兲, nonhybrid members with compact
webs subjected to low-shear 共CW, NH, LS兲, nonhybrid members
with noncompact webs subjected to low-shear 共NCW, NH, LS兲,
nonhybrid slender-web members subjected to low-shear 共SW,
NH, LS兲, nonhybrid slender-web members subjected to high-
shear 共SW, NH, HS兲, and slender-web hybrid members 共SW, H兲.
Webs that satisfy the traditional plastic design slenderness limit of
2Dcp / tw 艋 2.3共E / Fyc兲0.5 are referred to as ultracompact. Trans-
versely stiffened members in which the internal shear force V is
greater than 0.6Vn are defined as high shear.
The most significant trend in the data is a substantial increase
in the mean M test / M n for the ultracompact and compact web
members. The mean M test / M n for five ultracompact-web welded
members is statistically the same as that for ten ultracompact-web
rolled beams, although the dispersion is significantly smaller for
the five welded tests 关in all cases in this research, when compar-
ing the means of two samples, a two-tailed test is employed at a
significance level of 2% assuming unknown and unequal vari-
ances; when comparing two variances, a two-tailed F-test is em-
ployed at a significance level of 2% assuming unknown means
共Kottegoda and Rosso 1997兲兴. Therefore, the welded and rolled
beam 共UCW, NH, LS兲 tests are combined in Table 1. After per-
forming additional statistical hypothesis tests, it was decided to
combine the UCW and CW subgroups as one data set and to

Table 1. Statistical Summary, 37 Noncompact-Flange Members 共End-Loaded Tests兲 with the Calculated Flexural Resistance Governed by FLB
共3兲
Tests with 共4兲 共5兲 共6兲 共7兲 共8兲 共10兲
accurate UCW CW NCW SW SW 共9兲 UCW and
共1兲 共2兲 measured NH NH NH NH NH SW CW NH 共11兲
Quantity All properties LSa LSb LS LSc HS Hd LS Other
N 37 29 15 3 4 4 4 7 18 19
Minimum 0.90 0.90 1.05 1.07 0.90 1.00 1.03 0.95 1.05 0.90
Median 1.10 1.09 1.17 1.12 1.01 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.17 1.03
Maximum 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.21 1.11 1.09 1.21 1.12 1.37 1.21
Mean 1.11 1.11 1.20 1.13 1.01 1.03 1.09 1.03 1.19 1.04
V共%兲 10.08 9.76 8.11 6.08 9.82 3.74 7.29 6.32 7.98 6.98
Note: UCW⫽ultracompact web; CW⫽compact web; NCW⫽noncompact web; SW⫽slender web; NH⫽nonhybrid; H⫽hybrid; LS⫽low shear; and
HS⫽high shear.
a
Ten tests are rolled beams.
b
One test has a monosymmetric cross section with Dc / D ⬎ 0.5.
c
Three tests have monosymmetric cross sections with Dc / D ⬎ 0.5.
d
Six tests have high shear, one has low shear and M test / M n = 1.10.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1475

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.


Fig. 3. Reliability index for FLB versus the live-to-dead load ratio
共L / D兲, 18 noncompact-flange nonhybrid members with ultracompact
or compact webs subjected to high-moment and low-shear and 19
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
members of all other types, all end-loaded tests, ␾ = 0.9
combine all the other subgroups as a separate population for es-
timating reliability indices. The 18 nonhybrid UCW and CW
members have a mean M test / M n of 1.19, whereas the other 19
tests have a mean M test / M n of 1.04 共see the tenth and eleventh
columns of Table 1兲. The coefficient of variation on M test / M n is
similar for both of these subgroups–7.98% for the CW and UCW
members and 6.98% for the other tests.
Interestingly, no significant influence of web slenderness on
M test / M n can be discerned from the uniform bending test results
analyzed by White and Jung 共2008兲. However, for the UCW and
CW members tested under moment gradient loading, it is appar-
ent that M test / M n is influenced significantly by strain hardening.
Although the normalized flange slenderness values range up to
共Fyc / E兲0.5bfc / 2tfc = 0.48, all of the UCW and CW members tested
under moment gradient have M test values larger than the plastic
moment M p. These beneficial strain-hardening effects are not evi-
dent for UCW and CW members subjected to uniform bending.
Also, it is interesting that the mean and standard deviation for the
19 other moment gradient tests 共shown in the last column of Table
1兲 are similar to the mean of 1.06 and V = 6.92% for 31 noncom-
pact flange rolled and nonhybrid welded uniform bending tests
共including all web types兲 considered by White and Jung 共2008兲.
Fig. 4. M test / M n versus 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt for 73 end-loaded rolled beams governed by LTB 共Sources: Kemp 1996; Boeraeve et al. 1993; Dux and
Kitipomchai 1983; Kemp 1986; Kim 1970; Suzuki and Ono 1970a,b; Lukey et al. 1969; Janss and Massonnet 1967; Adams et al. 1964; Sawyer
1961; Driscoll and Beedle 1957兲
1476 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
Estimation of the Reliability Index ␤—FLB Tests
Fig. 3 shows the estimated reliability index ␤ versus the live-to-
dead load ratio L / D. At L / D = 3, the estimated ␤ is 3.4 based on
the UCW and CW member tests versus 2.8 for the other member
types. The corresponding reliability indices determined from the
uniform bending test data are 2.9 for general noncompact-flange
rolled and nonhybrid welded members, 3.2 for slender-flange
slender-web nonhybrid members, and 3.2 for noncompact-flange
slender-web hybrid members with large differences between the
flange and web yield strengths 共White and Jung 2008兲.
In summary, for L / D = 3, the reliability index for FLB ranges
from slightly less than three to slightly more than three for all
types of members, with the exception of UCW or CW members
with noncompact flanges subjected to moment gradient and hav-
ing a normalized flange slenderness 共Fyc / E兲0.5 bfc / 2tfc less than
about 0.48. In these latter cases, the reliability index is approxi-
mately equal to 3.4. The primary reason for the increased level of
reliability in this latter case is the early onset of strain hardening.
Assessment of Data—End-Loaded LTB Tests
Fig. 4 shows the M test / M n values versus the normalized LTB slen-
derness 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt for 73 end-loaded rolled beam tests
collected in this study. Fig. 5 shows the same information for 93
end-loaded welded member tests having various geometric at-
tributes. Fig. 4 illustrates a dramatic increase in the mean and
dispersion of M test / M n at 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt ⬵ 1.0 and smaller. The
trends in the welded member results in Fig. 5 are not as apparent.
This is due in part to the wide range of welded cross-section
geometries relative to the cross-sectional geometries for rolled
beams.
Table 2 provides the summary statistics for the above-
mentioned rolled beam tests. Only five of the tests in this group
have approximate/nominal flange properties, and the inclusion of
these tests has little effect on the mean and coefficient of variation
of M test / M n. The fourth through sixth columns of Table 2 give the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. M test / M n versus 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt for 92 end-loaded welded members governed by LTB 共Sources: Salem and Sause 2004; Green 2000;
Zentz 2002; Hash 2001; Lee and Yoo 1999; Yakel et al. 1999; Barth 1996; Kemp 1996; Mikami et al. 1991; Kuhlmann 1989; Schilling and
Morcos 1988; Nakai et al. 1985; O’Eachteim 1983; Grubb and Carskaddan 1979, 1981; Fukumoto 1976; Holtz and Kulak 1973; Rockey and
Skaloud 1972; Climenhaga and Johnson 1972; Schuller and Ostapenko 1970; Patterson et al. 1970; Dimitri and Ostapenko 1970; McDemott
1969; Carskaddan 1968; Nishino and Okumura 1968; Sakai et al. 1966; Frost and Schilling 1964; Basler et al. 1960兲

separate summary statistics for the 43 ultracompact-flange tests in Table 2, the inclusion of these tests has only a small effect
ultracompact-web 共UCF–UCW兲 and 29 compact-flange on the mean and coefficient of variation of M test / M n. Columns
ultracompact-web 共CF–UCW兲 members from this group, and re- four and five of Table 3 show the overall statistical results for the
port the result for a single compact-flange compact-web member five hybrid versus 87 nonhybrid members in the above group. It
test 共flanges that satisfy the traditional plastic design slenderness should be noted that the hybrid tests include two members with
limit of bfc / 2tfc 艋 0.29共E / Fyc兲0.5 are referred to as ultracompact in compact webs, one member with a noncompact web, and two
this research兲. One can observe that the mean M test / M n for the members with slender webs. Also, three of these tests involve
UCF–UCW beams is slightly larger than that for the CF–UCW high web shear. Given the small number of hybrid tests and the
members. However, the coefficient of variation is also somewhat large number of factors that can influence the accuracy of the
larger for the UCF–UCW beams. predictions, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the
Table 3 gives summary statistics for the 92 welded member relative mean and coefficient of variation for the hybrid and non-
LTB tests from Fig. 5. Only 13 of these 92 tests have nominal or hybrid members considered here. Columns six through eight of
approximate properties. Similar to the results for the rolled beam Table 3 summarize the results for 28 monosymmetric section
members with the smaller flange in compression 共Dc / D ⬎ 0.5 and
Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 1兲 and two monosymmetric section members with the
Table 2. Statistical Summary, 73 End-Loaded Rolled Beams with the larger flange in compression 共Dc / D ⬍ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬎ 1兲, versus
Calculated Flexural Resistance Governed by LTB 62 doubly symmetric welded member tests. After performing sta-
共3兲 tistical hypothesis tests, it was concluded that there is no signifi-
Tests with cant difference in the mean M test / M n for these monosymmetric
accurate 共4兲 共5兲 共6兲 and doubly symmetric welded members. Finally, the last two col-
共1兲 共2兲 measured UCF CF CF umns of Table 3 show the overall statistics for 18 members sub-
Quantity All properties UCW UCW CW jected to high shear versus the other 74 of the 92 members
N 73 67 43 29 1 subjected to low shear. The high-shear tests have a smaller mean
Minimum 0.91 0.96 0.91 0.98 M test / M n equal to1.08 and a smaller coefficient of variation of
Median 1.14 1.16 1.16 1.14 6.46%. It is believed that this is related in large part to the fact
Maximum 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.41 that noncompact- and slender-web members are more apt to be
Mean 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.15 1.01 subjected to high shear. This is especially true when the web is
V 共%兲 11.84 11.70 13.21 9.18 also hybrid. Table 4 共discussed next兲 shows that, on average, the
M test / M n values are closer to 1.0 for noncompact- and slender-
Note: UCF⫽ultracompact flange; UCW⫽ultracompact web; and CF
⫽compact flange. web member types. Of the 18 members subjected to high shear,

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1477

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.

 Table 3. Statistical Summary 共1兲, 92 End-Loaded Welded Members with the Calculated Flexural Resistance Governed by LTB
Tests with
accurate
measured Monosym. Monosym. High Low
Quantity All properties Hybrida Nonhybrid Dc / D ⬎ 0.5,b Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 1 Dc / D ⬍ 0.5, Iyc / Iyt ⬎ 1 Sym.c sheard shear
N 92 79 5 87 28 2 62 18 74
Minimum 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.04 0.94 0.94 0.91
Median 1.11 1.11 1.04 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.08 1.12
Maximum 1.43 1.43 1.12 1.43 1.43 1.12 1.36 1.21 1.43
Mean 1.13 1.14 1.04 1.14 1.13 1.08 1.13 1.08 1.14
V 共%兲 10.85 10.86 5.97 10.87 11.51 10.75 6.46 11.37
a
Two members with compact webs, 1 with a noncompact web, 2 with slender webs; 3 members with high shear, 2 with low shear.
b
Five members with an ultracompact web, five with a compact web, 11 with a noncompact web, 3 in which the resistance is calculated using the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

slender-web member equations 共due to Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 0.3兲, and 4 with an slender web 共due to 2Dc / tw being larger than the noncompact web limit兲.
c
Thirty members with an ultracompact web, 15 with a compact web, 11 with a noncompact web, and 6 with a slender web.
d
Three members with compact webs, 8 with noncompact webs, and 7 with slender webs.

seven have slender webs and eight have noncompact webs.
Table 4 lists summary statistics for other subgroups of the
welded member tests, focusing on the influence of flange and web
slenderness. Table 4 illustrates a general tendency that members
with stockier plate elements have larger M test / M n values. How-
ever, the mean M test / M n for the 25 CF-UCW member tests 共1.24兲
is somewhat larger than the mean M test / M n for the 11 UCF–UCW
member tests 共1.16兲. Also, the six UCF–SW member tests have a
larger mean M test / M n 共1.13兲 than the eight UCF–NCW and eight
UCF–CW tests 共1.09 and 1.10 respectively兲.
Several important trends can be discerned for ultracompact
web members if: 共1兲 The magnitude of the moment gradient fac-
tor Cb is considered and 共2兲 the 36 welded UCW member tests
from Fig. 5 and Table 4 are combined with the 72 rolled UCW
beam tests from Fig. 4 and Table 2. The results are summarized in
Table 5 for different Cb and c = 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt values. In Table
2, the UCW tests are subdivided into separate groups based on
whether the flange is ultracompact or compact, and whether Cb is
equal to the largest value considered 共i.e., Cb = 1.75, based on
M 1 = 0兲, or values ranging from 1.10 to 1.38 共end-loaded tests
with M 1 ⬎ 0兲. The following trends can be discerned from Table
5:
• There is a substantial increase in the mean M test / M n relative to
the other groups for UCF–UCW beams with Cb = 1.75 and c
= 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt 艋 1.
• For c 艋 2, there is a substantial increase in the mean M test / M n
relative to the other groups for UCF–UCW and CF–UCW
beams with Cb = 1.75, but the increase is not as large as that for
the above-mentioned group.
• The increases in the mean M test / M n associated with the change
from compact to ultracompact flanges are smaller for the tests
with c 艋 1 and Cb ⬍ 1.75 compared to the increases associated
with the change from compact to ultracompact flanges for the
tests with c 艋 1 and Cb = 1.75.
• For c ⬎ 2, there is no significant statistical difference between
the mean M test / M n values for the tests with Cb = 1.75 versus
the tests with smaller Cb values. However, for 1 ⬍ c 艋 2, there
is a significant increase in the mean M test / M n for the tests with
Cb = 1.75 versus Cb = 1.10– 1.38.
The italicized cells in Table 5 are utilized to estimate the reliabil-
ity indices discussed in the next section. For the ranges or values
of c and Cb where the differences between the UCF and the CF
beam tests are statistically significant, the statistics for the sepa-
rate groups are considered. Otherwise, the UCF and CF beam
tests are combined.
It should be noted that the data for c ⬎ 2 in Table 5 include
three ultracompact flange rolled beam tests, two ultracompact
flange welded beam tests, and three compact flange welded beam
tests in which the M n is slightly less than M max after scaling by Cb
共see Fig. 1兲. All of the other tests examine the accuracy for mem-
bers with a wide range of c values where the scaled LTB resis-
tance CbM n共Cb=1兲 is capped by M n = M max.
Estimation of the Reliability Index ␤—End-Loaded
LTB Tests
Fig. 6 gives a summary of the estimated reliability indices for the
above-mentioned 72 rolled and 36 welded ultracompact-web
members in which the calculated resistance is governed by LTB.
The live-to-dead load ratio L / D is taken equal to three in Fig. 6.

Table 4. Statistical Summary 共2兲, 92 End-Loaded Welded Members with the Calculated Flexural Resistance Governed by LTB
UCF CF UCF CF UCF CF UCF SCF UCF
Quantity UCW UCW CW CW NCW NCW SW W SW⬘
N 11 25 8 12 8 15 6 4 3
Minimum 0.94 1.00 0.98 0.94 1.04 0.97 1.05 0.94 0.91
Median 1.12 1.27 1.02 1.08 1.10 1.06 1.13 1.05 1.01
Maximum 1.43 1.36 1.38 1.23 1.13 1.16 1.21 1.12 1.08
Mean 1.16 1.24 1.10 1.08 1.09 1.06 1.13 1.04 1.00
V 共%兲 13.37 8.24 14.73 8.77 2.83 4.92 5.85 7.38 8.63
Note: UCW⫽ultracompact web; CW⫽compact web; NCW⫽noncompact web; SW⫽slender web; SW⬘⫽slender-web section equations apply due to
Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 0.3; UCF⫽ultracompact flange; and CF⫽compact flange.

1478 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.

 Table 5. Summary of M test / M n Statistics, 72 Rolled and 36 Welded
Ultracompact-Web Beams Combined, End-Loaded Tests with the
Calculated Flexural Resistance Governed by LTB, c = 共Fyc / E兲0.5KLb / rt
Quantity All c艋1 1⬍c艋2 c⬎2
共a兲 UCF-UCW beams, Cb = 1.10 to 1.38
N 15 4 4 7
Minimum 0.94 1.10 1.04 0.94
Median 1.04 1.15 1.10 1.00
Maximum 1.23 1.23 1.16 1.04
Mean 1.06 1.16 1.10 0.99
V 共%兲 7.97 5.12 5.05 3.78 Fig. 6. Reliability indices for several ranges of c = KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt,
共b兲 CF-UCW beams, Cb = 1.18 to 1.36 72 rolled and 36 welded ultracompact-web beams, end-loaded tests
governed by LTB, L / D = 3 and ␾ = 0.9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N 8 3 1 4
Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.03
Median 1.09 1.15 1.08 large as that for the UCF–UCW members 共␤ = 3.4兲.
Maximum 1.18 1.18 1.14 • UCF–UCW and CF–UCW members with Cb = 1.10– 1.38 still
Mean 1.09 1.11 1.08 1.08 have a relatively large reliability index, but slightly smaller
V 共%兲 5.80 8.84 4.53 than that for the above group 共␤ = 3.3兲. This value is somewhat
共c兲 All UCW beams, Cb = 1.10 to 1.38 larger than the ␤ = 2.7 from uniform bending tests with c 艋 1
共White and Jung 2008兲.
N 23 7 5 11 For 1 ⬍ c 艋 2, the UCF–UCW and CF–UCW member tests can be
Minimum 0.94 1.00 1.04 0.94 statistically combined into the separate groups for Cb = 1.75 and
Median 1.07 1.15 1.08 1.03 Cb = 1.10– 1.38, but the results for these two Cb categories are
Maximum 1.23 1.23 1.16 1.14 statistically different. Combining the UCF and CF tests into the
Mean 1.07 1.14 1.09 1.03 above Cb categories results in the following estimates for the
V共%兲 7.24 6.53 4.45 5.84 reliability index:
共d兲 UCF-UCW beams, Cb = 1.75 • ␤ = 3.4 for UCF and CF members with ultracompact webs and
Cb = 1.75 and
N 39 12 17 10
• ␤ = 3.1 for UCF and CF members with ultracompact webs and
Minimum 0.91 1.23 0.91 0.97 Cb = 1.10– 1.38.
Median 1.24 1.31 1.18 1.08 It is apparent that the larger ␤ values for the above groups with
Maximum 1.48 1.48 1.41 1.43 smaller c and larger Cb are due to the more substantial influence
Mean 1.21 1.33 1.18 1.14 of strain hardening. The M test values for all of the above-
V 共%兲 12.76 6.20 11.79 15.83 mentioned members with c 艋 1 are substantially larger than the
共e兲 CF-UCW beams, Cb = 1.75 cross-section plastic moment M p. Conversely, for larger c and
smaller Cb values, the M test values are smaller relative to M p.
N 46 12 29 5
For c ⬎ 2, the estimated reliability index for both categories
Minimum 0.98 0.98 1.02 1.03
of flange slenderness and Cb coalesce effectively to one value,
Median 1.21 1.25 1.22 1.06 ␤ ⬵ 2.8. It is believed that this behavior is due to the fact that the
Maximum 1.41 1.33 1.41 1.25 beneficial effects of strain hardening no longer occur for these
Mean 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.11 longer unbraced lengths, due to the predominance of LTB. This
V 共%兲 9.19 10.10 8.45 8.17 value of ␤ = 2.8 is slightly larger than the range of ␤ = 2.5 to 2.7
共f兲 All UCW beams, Cb = 1.75 estimated by White and Jung 共2008兲 from uniform bending tests
with c ⬎ 2.
N 85 24 46 15
Fig. 7 shows the estimated reliability indices for compact-,
Minimum 0.91 0.98 0.91 0.97
Median 1.22 1.28 1.21 1.07
Maximum 1.48 1.48 1.41 1.43
Mean 1.21 1.27 1.21 1.13
V 共%兲 10.93 9.41 9.79 13.57
Note: Italic entries are utilized to estimate the reliability indices discussed
in the section entitled “Estimation of the Reliability Index
␤—End-Loaded LTB Tests.”

The results shown in Fig. 6 can be understood most succinctly by

focusing separately on each of the ranges of c = 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt.
The key attributes for c 艋 1 are as follows:
• UCF–UCW members with Cb = 1.75 have the largest estimated
reliability index of ␤ = 4.1. Fig. 7. Reliability indices for several ranges of c = KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt,
• CF–UCW members with Cb = 1.75 have a relatively large reli- compact-, noncompact-, and slender-web welded members,
ability index compared to other member groups, but not as end-loaded tests governed by LTB, L / D = 3 and ␾ = 0.9

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1479

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. M test / M n versus c = Lb 共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt for 129 rolled beams, 83 doubly symmetric welded members, and 28 monosymmetric welded
members subjected to transverse loading within their unbraced length 共K = 1兲 共Sources: Fukumoto et al. 1980; Lindner 1977; Kitipornchai and
Trahair 1975; Suzuki and Ono 1970c; Hechtman et al. 1955; Kubo et al. 1997; Roberts and Narayanan 1988; Fukumoto and Itoh 1981兲

noncompact-, and slender-web welded members governed by
LTB, determined using statistics reported by White and Kim
共2004兲. The summary statistics associated with Fig. 7 are based
on subdivision of the tests into cases with Cb = 1.75 or Cb ⬍ 1.75,
with one exception—two tests with Cb = 1.14 and 1.20 are com-
bined with two tests having Cb = 1.75 to estimate the reliability
for slender-web members with c ⬎ 2. The specific ranges of Cb
considered for the different data points are summarized in the
legend of the plot. Included in the tests are two slender-web mem-
bers with Cb = 1.14 and 1.20 and M n ⬍ M max; M n = M max for the
other tests. For c 艋 1, the range of the estimated ␤ values is only
3.1–3.3 for all the above-mentioned member types. This range is
2.7–3.1 for 1 ⬍ c 艋 2 and 2.7–3.0 for c ⬎ 2.
Based on the above syntheses of the test data and comparisons
to the results presented by White and Jung 共2008兲, one can con-
clude that for end-loaded segments with c 艋 1, the reliability
index is generally somewhat larger for moment gradient loading
relative to uniform bending for all member types. For 1 ⬍ c 艋 2,
there is an increase in the reliability for noncompact web
members due to the moment gradient, but the benefits are not as
large 共␤ = 2.9– 3.1 versus 2.7 for uniform bending兲. However,
for compact web members with 1 ⬍ c 艋 2, the estimated ␤ for
moment gradient loading is essentially the same as that for uni-
form bending 共␤ = 2.7兲. Only two slender-web member tests with
1 ⬍ c 艋 2 have been collected in this research 共M test / M n = 1.01
with Cb = 1.06 and M test / M n = 1.12 with Cb = 1.75兲; thus Fig. 7
does not show any ␤ value for slender-web members in this LTB
slenderness range. For c ⬎ 2, the reliability for compact web
members subjected to a linear moment gradient with Cb = 1.75 is
somewhat larger than that determined for uniform bending by
White and Jung 共2008兲 共␤ = 2.7 versus 2.5兲; there are no compact-
web member moment-gradient tests with Cb ⬍ 1.75, although
Fig. 6 shows ␤ = 2.8 for ultracompact-web members having these
characteristics. Also, for c ⬎ 2, the estimated ␤ for noncompact
web members is somewhat larger for moment gradient cases with
Cb = 1.75 compared to uniform bending 共␤ = 3.0 versus 2.7兲. How-
ever, for slender web members and c ⬎ 2, the reliability is about
the same for moment gradient and uniform bending 共␤ = 2.7 ver-
sus 2.8兲.
Assessment of Data—Internally Loaded LTB Tests
Fig. 8 shows the M test / M n values versus 共Fyc / E兲0.5 Lb / rt for 129
rolled beams, 83 doubly symmetric welded members and 28

Table 6. Statistical Summary, 129 Simply Supported Unbraced Rolled Beams Loaded Transversely at Their Midspan or at Their 1/4 Span Points
共Internally Loaded Tests兲; All These Members Have Ultracompact Webs and Ultracompact or Nearly Ultracompact Flanges
Midspan 1/4 span loads
Tests with load above middepth
accurate
measured Above At Below Inelastic Elastic
Quality All properties middepth middepth middepth LTB LTB
N 129 101 90 4 2 16 17
Minimum 0.86 1.07 1.08 0.98 0.86 0.88 1.07
Median 1.18 1.20 1.17 1.16 1.16 1.29
Maximum 1.65 1.65 1.45 1.20 1.06 1.26 1.65
Mean 1.21 1.23 1.21 1.13 0.96 1.15 1.31
V 共%兲 9.99 9.60 8.31 8.76 8.85 11.90

1480 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.

 Table 7. Statistical Summary, 83 Doubly Symmetric Simply Supported above the cross-section middepth in all of these tests. The specific
Unbraced Welded Beams Loaded Transversely at Their Midspan 共All load heights are listed for all of the tests in White and Kim
These Members have Ultracompact or Nearly Ultracompact Flanges and 共2004兲.
Loads Applied above the Section Middepth兲
Table 6 shows the summary statistics for the centrally loaded
Tests with rolled beam tests separately for each of the load positions relative
accurate to the cross-section middepth. Interestingly, the predictions are
measured Inelastic Elastic UCW CW conservative for all of the 90 tests with midspan loading above
Quantity All properties LTB LTBa members members the middepth 共with a minimum M test / M n = 1.08兲. Also, for the four
N 83 76 77 5 75 7 centrally loaded tests with the loading applied at the cross-section
Minimum 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.05 0.83 0.81 middepth, the mean and minimum M test / M n are 1.13 and 0.98,
Median 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.11 1.18 0.96 respectively. However, the two centrally loaded tests with loading
Maximum 1.53 1.53 1.43 1.16 1.43 1.12 below the middepth have M test / M n values of 0.86 and 1.06. This
Mean 1.16 1.17 1.16 1.10 1.17 0.99 is consistent with the finite element analysis results presented by
V 共%兲 Helwig et al. 共1997兲. These investigators found that the 共1 . 42y/h兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11.30 11.05 11.05 4.08 9.95 10.36

a term in Eq. 共2兲 tends to be unconservative by 8–15 % relative to
One test with M test / M n = 1.53 is removed as an outlier.
monosymmetric welded members subjected to transverse loading
within their unbraced length. The member ends are torsionally
simply supported and K is equal to 1.0 for all of these tests. The
legend of Fig. 8 indicates which data points correspond to each of
the above member types. Plots are provided for each of these
separate groups of tests in White and Kim 共2004兲. Tables 6–8
give the summary statistics for each of the groups.
Similar to the results for the end-loaded FLB and LTB tests,
inclusion of the small number of tests with nominal or approxi-
mate measured flange properties has little influence on the mean
and dispersion of the data. Therefore, the tests with and without
accurate measured properties are combined for statistical analysis.
For the rolled beam tests, two different internal loadings are con-
sidered: 共1兲 a single concentrated load located at the member
midspan and 共2兲 concentrated loads located at the 1 / 4-span loca-
tions. In 90 of 96 centrally loaded rolled beam tests, the loads are
applied above the middepth of the cross section. However, four
tests are considered in which the midspan loads are located at the
cross-section middepth and two are considered in which the mid-
span loads are applied below the middepth. These tests were con-
ducted by Suzuki and Ono 共1970a,b,c兲 and are denoted as their
Series B 共indicating below the middepth兲 and C 共for centroidal or
middepth loading兲 in the Fig. 8 legend 共the loads are applied
above the middepth in the Series A of Suzuki and Ono兲. For the
doubly and singly symmetric welded member tests in Fig. 8, all of
the loadings are at the midspan and the loads are applied above
the cross-section middepth. Thirty-three 1/4-span loaded rolled
beam tests are considered in this research 关these are the tests
conducted by Hechtman et al. 共1957兲兴. The loads are applied
rigorous elastic LTB solutions for members with Lb / h = 20, with
the results being more accurate for larger Lb / h. The above-
mentioned test with M test / M n = 0.86 has an Lb / h of 19 whereas the
test with M test / M n = 1.06 has an Lb / h = 29.
The last two columns of Table 6 subdivide the 1/4-span loaded
tests into two groups, the first corresponding to beams in which
the calculated resistance is governed by the inelastic LTB equa-
tions 共i.e., the linear interpolation between Anchor Points 1 and 2,
scaled by Cb, as shown in Fig. 1兲, and the second corresponding
to members in which the calculated resistance is governed by the
elastic LTB equations. One can observe that the predictions from
the elastic LTB equations are conservative in all cases for these
specific tests, and on average tend to be substantially more con-
servative than the predictions where the resistance is governed by
the inelastic LTB equations. It is important to note that all of the
separate 90 centrally loaded rolled beam tests with loading above
the middepth 共the Fourth column of Table 6兲 are either governed
by the inelastic LTB equations, or the unbraced length is only
slightly larger than the noncompact bracing limit. The other six
centrally loaded rolled beam tests 共the fifth and sixth columns of
Table 6兲 are all governed by elastic LTB.
Table 7 gives the summary statistics for the centrally loaded
doubly symmetric welded member tests 共all loads applied above
the section middepth兲. The majority of these tests 共75 of the total
83兲 have ultracompact webs; also, the resistance is governed by
the inelastic LTB equations in 77 of the 83 tests. Table 7 shows
the summary statistics for the subdivision of the data into inelastic
and elastic LTB tests and UCW and CW member tests. One of
the CW member tests governed by elastic LTB has an M test / M n
of 1.53. This test is removed as an outlier, resulting in a moderate
reduction in the mean and a large reduction in the coefficient

Table 8. Statistical Summary, 28 Monosymmetric Simply Supported Unbraced Beams Loaded Transversely at Their Midspan
Dc / D ⬍ 0.5, Iyc / Iyt ⬎ 1 Dc / D ⬎ 0.5, Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 1

Tests with NCW

accurate NCW NCW inelastic and
measured Inelastic Elastic inelastic elastic elastic LTB
Quantity All properties LTB LTB LTB LTBa combineda
N 28 20 10 6 9 2 11
Minimum 0.84 0.84 0.95 1.01 0.84 0.99 0.84
Median 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.06 0.96 0.99
Maximum 1.60 1.60 1.31 1.14 1.16 1.02 1.16
Mean 1.07 1.07 1.10 1.07 0.99 1.01 1.00
V 共%兲 14.07 16.49 9.67 4.57 13.85 12.39
a
One test with M test / M n = 1.60 is removed as an outlier.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1481

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.


Fig. 9. Reliability index for LTB versus the live-to-dead load ratio
共L / D兲, doubly symmetric simply supported unbraced beams with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
transverse loads applied at or above the compression flange
of variation of M test / M n for the elastic LTB and CW member
groups.
Table 8 gives the summary statistics for the centrally loaded
singly symmetric welded members. All of the members consid-
ered in Table 8 have ultracompact or nearly ultracompact flanges.
These tests are categorized based on whether the compression
flange is larger than the tension flange, in which case Dc / D
⬍ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬎ 1, or the compression flange is smaller than the
tension flange, where Dc / D ⬎ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 1. It turns out that
the web is noncompact for all of the tests with the smaller flange
in compression. Also, the tests are further subdivided into groups
in which the calculated resistance is governed by the inelastic
versus the elastic LTB equations. One of the tests with a smaller
flange in compression and in which the calculated resistance is
governed by the elastic LTB equations has an M test / M n of 1.60.
Similar to the earlier case from Table 7, this test is removed as an
outlier. Based on the close proximity of the M test / M n values for
the two elastic LTB tests with Dc / D ⬎ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 1 to the
mean of the nine corresponding inelastic LTB tests, and due to the
fact that the LTB slenderness for the elastic LTB tests is only
marginally larger than the noncompact bracing limit, these tests
are combined into one group 共see the last column of Table 8兲.
One can observe that the mean M test / M n for the tests with
Dc / D ⬍ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬎ 1 is significantly larger than one 共1.10
and 1.07 for the inelastic and elastic LTB cases, respectively兲.
Also, the coefficient of variation of M test / M n is reasonably small
for these groups 共V = 9.67 and 4.57%, respectively兲. However, for
the tests with the smaller flange in compression 共i.e., Dc / D
⬎ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 1兲, the mean M test / M n is equal to 1.00 and the
coefficient of variation is larger 共V = 12.39% 兲. It is not possible to
discern whether the lower mean and higher coefficient of varia-
tion in these tests is due to the section monosymmetry, or due to
the noncompact web 共or possibly a combination of these charac-
teristics兲. The finite-element analysis results from Helwig et al.
共1997兲 suggest that Eq. 共2兲 is accurate for centrally loaded mem-
bers in which distortion of the web is prevented. However, Hel-
wig et al. 共1997兲 do not consider web distortion effects in their
research. It should be noted that all of the 11 NCW member tests
with Dc / D ⬎ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬍ 1 were conducted by Kubo et al.
共1997兲. Also, it should be noted that the seven doubly symmetric
CW member tests listed in Table 7 are from the study by Kubo et
al. 共1997兲, and that the same nominal D and tw are used for the
webs in all of these tests 共mean D = 236.4 mm and mean tw
= 3.14 mm, giving D / tw = 75兲. As shown in Table 7, the mean
M test / M n for these tests 共0.99兲 is significantly smaller than the
mean M test / M n for the other doubly symmetric centrally loaded
1482 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
Fig. 10. Reliability index for LTB versus the live-to-dead load ratio
共L / D兲, monosymmetric simply supported unbraced welded beams
with midspan transverse loads applied at or above the compression
flange
tests. The authors recommend that additional centrally loaded
tests should be conducted to provide further data on the influence
of cross-section monosymmetry and web slenderness.
Estimation of the Reliability Index ␤—Internally
Loaded LTB Tests
Fig. 9 summarizes the estimated reliability indices versus L / D for
the above doubly symmetric rolled and welded member internally
loaded LTB tests with loads applied above the section middepth.
The reliability indices are estimated using the italicized cells in
Tables 6 and 7. At L / D = 3, ␤ ranges from 3.2 to 3.5 for the rolled
beam tests. The largest of these ␤ values corresponds to the mid-
span loading whereas the smallest corresponds to the 1/4-point
loading and beams in which the strength is governed by the in-
elastic LTB equations. The estimated ␤ values for centrally
loaded welded members are somewhat smaller than those for in-
ternally loaded rolled beams with the exception of some cases
with small L / D. At L / D = 3, ␤ ranges from 3.0 to 3.1 for the
centrally loaded welded member tests versus the above-
mentioned values of 3.2–3.5 for the centrally loaded rolled beam
tests.
Fig. 10 shows the estimated ␤ values for the above-mentioned
singly symmetric I-section member tests versus L / D. In Fig. 10,
the reliability indices are estimated using the italicized cells from
Table 8. The ␤ values for inelastic and elastic LTB of members
with the larger flange in compression 共Dc / D ⬍ 0.5 and Iyc / Iyt ⬎ 1兲
are approximately the same throughout the range shown for L / D.
At L / D = 3, these ␤ values are 2.9 and 3.0, respectively. Con-
versely, the estimated reliability for members having the smaller
flange in compression is substantially smaller 共␤ = 2.4 at L / D = 3兲.
However, as noted in the previous section, the source of the low
M test / M n = 1.00 and high V = 12.39% leading to this low ␤ esti-
mate is uncertain. Additional tests should be conducted to gain a
better understanding of the factors influencing the low M test / M n
for members with a smaller flange in compression. These tests
should be conducted using a range of practical web slenderness
values.
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 moment gradient flexural test results.
 Separate predictions for members in which the flexural resistance
is governed by flange local buckling and lateral-torsional buck-
ling are considered. Two types of moment gradient loading are
studied: end loading giving a linear variation in the moment in the
critical unbraced length and internal loading giving a multilinear
moment diagram within the critical length. Summary statistics for
the professional bias factor M test / M n are determined for the
above-mentioned groups, as well as for various categorizations of
the member cross-section geometry and ranges of FLB and LTB
slenderness parameters. Reliability indices for combined dead-
and-live load in building load and resistance factor design are
determined based on the statistics from the collected test data,
established values for the bias and coefficient of variation associ-
ated with the fabricated geometry and the material properties, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
established building design load statistics.
The estimated reliability index associated with FLB of end-
loaded segments is found to be about the same as the base value
determined by White and Jung 共2008兲 for uniform bending
共slightly less than three at L / D = 3兲 for all cases except for
ultracompact- and compact-web members with noncompact
flanges having 共Fyc / E兲0.5 bfc / 2tfc less than about 0.48. In these
latter cases, the reliability index is approximately 3.4 based on the
above-mentioned L / D value. The main reason for the increase in
the reliability for ultracompact- and compact-web members with
stockier noncompact flanges is the early onset of strain hardening
due to the moment gradient. In the limit of uniform bending, this
benefit is lost. A live-to-dead load ratio of L / D = 3 is also assumed
in the following summary assessments.
For LTB of end-loaded segments, the estimated reliability is
similar to or only slightly larger than that estimated by White and
Jung 共2008兲 from uniform bending LTB tests for values of the
normalized LTB slenderness c = 共Fyc / E兲0.5 KLb / rt ⬎ 2. The ␤
value for end loading and c ⬎ 2 ranges from 2.7 to 3.0 for the
various groups of tests considered in this work. Based on these
estimates, one can conclude that for end-loaded segments with
moderate to large unbraced lengths, the combined use of the
Galambos 共1998兲, Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 procedure for K
and the suggested simplified Eq. 共1兲 for Cb gives similar to
slightly more conservative results relative to calculations for uni-
form bending using this K factor procedure and Cb = 1.
For c 艋 2 and end loading, the reliability increases with de-
creasing c. This increase is moderate for slender-, noncompact-
and compact-web members. In these cases, the estimated ␤ values
range from 3.1 to 3.3 for c 艋 1 共with the larger value correspond-
ing to slender-web members with a shallow moment gradient兲.
However, ␤ is larger for members having ultracompact flanges,
ultracompact webs and Cb = 1.75. In these cases, the estimated
reliability index reaches 4.1 for c 艋 1. For compact-flange mem-
bers with ultracompact webs and Cb = 1.75, or for ultracompact-
flange members with ultracompact webs and smaller Cb values,
␤ ⬵ 3.4 for c 艋 1.
For LTB and internal loading, with the loading applied above
the cross-section middepth, the estimated reliability index ranges
from 2.9 to 3.5 for all the cases considered, with the exception
that a low value of ␤ = 2.4 is estimated for singly symmetric
I-section members with the smaller flange in compression. How-
ever, this estimate is based on eleven tests having relatively small
M test / M n values from a single research investigation. Also, there
is some evidence that the web slenderness also has an effect on
these test results. It is recommended that additional experimental
studies should be conducted to gain an improved understanding of
the factors influencing the low M test / M n values for these mem-
bers. The number of internally loaded tests with loads positioned
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1483
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
at or below the middepth collected in this study is small, and
therefore, ␤ estimates are not considered for these cases. How-
ever, the relatively low M test / M n value obtained for one of two
tests with load applied below the cross-section middepth is con-
sistent with finite element solutions reported by Helwig et al.
共1997兲.
It is emphasized that in many practical situations, the use of
Cb ⬎ 1 results in a calculated LTB resistance equal to the maxi-
mum potential resistance, illustrated by M n = M max or Fn = Fmax in
Fig. 1. In cases where the inclusion of Cb ⬎ 1 is not sufficient to
obtain M n = M max, the use of the design-oriented Galambos
共1998兲, Nethercot and Trahair 共1976兲 procedure for calculation of
elastic LTB K factors will often give M n = M max. For these cases,
the use of Cb = 1 and K = 1 results in substantial conservatism.
Acknowledgments
The writers express their sincere thanks to the members of AISC
TC4 共Louis Geschwindner, Chair兲, the AISI LRFD Specification
Task Force 共Dennis Mertz, Chair兲, and the AASHTO T14 Tech-
nical Committee for Steel Design 共Ed Wasserman, Chair兲 for their
efforts in the updating of the AISC and AASHTO flexural
strength provisions. Also, the NCHRP Project Nos. 12-38 共Chai
Yoo and Dann Hall, co-PIs兲 and 12-52 共John Kulicki, PI兲 teams
are thanked for providing substantial contributions. Special
thanks are extended to Michael Grubb of Bridge Software Devel-
opment International, Ltd. for extensive input on all attributes of
the developments. Professors Ted Galambos of the University of
Minnesota and Bruce Ellingwood of Georgia Institute of Technol-
ogy provided valuable input. Professors Yuhshi Fukumoto and
Masahiro Kubo of Nagoya University, Japan, catalogued a large
number of LTB tests originally in 共Fukumoto and Kubo 1977兲.
Professors Fukumoto, Kubo, and Yoshito Itoh of Nagoya Univer-
sity provided measured properties and tests results from 171 in-
ternally loaded tests. The research by these investigators greatly
facilitated the data collection and analyses conducted in this
study. This research was funded by Professional Services Indus-
tries, Inc. and the Federal Highway Administration, and by the
ASCE Structural Engineering Institute. The financial support
from these organizations is gratefully acknowledged. The opin-
ions, findings and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of
the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the above
individuals, groups, and organizations.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
bfc ⫽ width of a rectangular compression flange;
Cb ⫽ moment-gradient factor for lateral-torsional
buckling;
c ⫽ normalized slenderness parameter for LTB,
equal to KLb共Fyc / E兲0.5 / rt;
D ⫽ for rolled shapes, clear distance between
flanges less the fillet or corner radius; for
welded shapes, the clear distance between the
flanges; for nonwelded built-up shapes,
the distance between adjacent lines of
fasteners;
Dc ⫽ distance from the cross-section centroid to
the following: for rolled shapes, the inside
face of the compression flange less the
 fillet or corner radius; for welded shapes,
the inside face of the compression flange; for
nonwelded built-up shapes, the nearest
line of fasteners at the compression flange;
denoted by 2hc in AISC 共2005兲;
Dcp ⫽ distance from the cross-section plastic
neutral axis to the following: for rolled
shapes, the inside face of the compression
flange less the fillet or corner radius;
for welded shapes, the inside face of the
compression flange; for nonwelded built-up
shapes, the nearest line of fasteners at
the compression flange; denoted by 2h p in
AISC 共2005兲;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
E ⫽ elastic modulus of steel, 200 GPa
共29,000 ksi兲;
Fmax ⫽ maximum potential flexural resistance
expressed in terms of a flange bending stress;
Fn ⫽ flexural resistance expressed in terms of an
elastically computed flange stress;
Fy ⫽ specified minimum yield stress;
Fyc ⫽ specified minimum yield stress for the
compression flange;
Fyf ⫽ specified minimum yield stress for the
flange under consideration, or where
Fyc = Fyt, of both flanges;
Fyr ⫽ compression flange flexural stress at the
nominal onset of yielding, including
compression flange residual stress effects;
denoted by FL in AISC 共1999, 2005兲;
h ⫽ distance between the centroids of the
flange elements, denoted by h0 in AISC
共2005兲;
Iyc ⫽ moment of inertia of the compression
flange about the plane of the web;
Iyt ⫽ moment of inertia of the tension flange
about the plane of the web;
K ⫽ effective length factor for lateral-torsional
buckling;
Lb ⫽ laterally unbraced length;
Lp ⫽ limiting unbraced length to achieve the
maximum potential flexural resistance of
the section, uniform moment case 共Cb = 1.0兲;
Lr ⫽ limiting unbraced length to achieve the
onset of yielding in uniform bending
共Cb = 1.0兲;
M A, M B, M C ⫽ absolute values of the moments at the 1/4,
middle, and 3/4 points of an unbraced
segment;
M max ⫽ maximum potential flexural resistance
expressed in terms of bending moment;
Absolute value of the maximum moment
within the unbraced length;
Mn ⫽ flexural resistance expressed in terms of
bending moment, calculated for the tests
considered in this research using the
measured geometry and static material
properties;
M n共Rb=1兲M n ⫽ calculated assuming Rb = 1;
Mp ⫽ section plastic bending resistance;
M test ⫽ measured static moment capacity from an
experimental test;
1484 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
M y ⫽ yield moment, FySxc = FySxt for doubly
symmetric sections; smaller of M yc and
M yt for singly symmetric sections;
M yc ⫽ yield moment at the nominal onset of
yielding of the compression flange, FySxc;
M yr ⫽ moment corresponding to the onset of
yielding, including compression flange
residual stress effects, FyrSxc;
M 1 ⫽ smaller end moment, end-loaded unbraced
lengths;
M 2 ⫽ larger end moment, end-loaded unbraced
lengths;
N ⫽ size of population;
Rb ⫽ slender-web bend buckling flange-strength
reduction factor, denoted by R PG in AISC
共1999兲 and Rpg in AISC 共2005兲;
Rn ⫽ resistance calculated using nominal values
for the geometry and material properties;
rt ⫽ effective radius of gyration for
lateral-torsional buckling, represented
approximately by the 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;
Sxc ⫽ elastic section modulus corresponding to
the extreme compression fiber;
tfc ⫽ thickness of a rectangular compression
flange;
tw ⫽ thickness of the web;
V ⫽ coefficient of variation, subscripts indicate
the associated quantity; internal shear force;
Vn ⫽ shear resistance;
Vtest ⫽ maximum shear force in a beam test;
y ⫽ distance from the web middepth to the
point of application of a transverse load,
negative if above the middepth;
␤ ⫽ reliability index;
␭ ⫽ width–thickness ratio of a compression
element;
␭fc ⫽ compression flange slenderness ratio
bfc / 2tfc;
␭pf ⫽ limiting slenderness parameter for a
compact flange;
␭rf ⫽ limiting slenderness parameter for a
noncompact flange; and
␾ ⫽ resistance factor.
References
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共1998兲. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 2nd
Ed. with 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 Interim Provisions, Wash-
ington D.C.
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共2004兲. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd
Ed. with 2005 Interim Provisions, Washington, D.C.
Adams, P. F., Lay, M. G., and Galambos, T. V. 共1964兲. “Experiments on
high strength steel members.” Report No. 297.8, Fritz Engineering
Laboratory, Bethlehem, Pa.
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共1986兲. Load and
resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings,
Chicago.
 American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共1999兲. Load and
resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings,
Chicago.
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共2005兲. “Specification
for structural steel buildings.” ANSI/AISC360-05, Chicago.
ASCE. 共2006兲. “Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
tures.” ASCE/SEI7-05, Reston, Va.
Barth, K. E. 共1996兲. “Moment-rotation characteristics for inelastic design
of steel bridge beams and girders.” Doctoral dissertation, Purdue
Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.
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.
Boeraeve, P., Lognard, B., Janss, J., G’erady, J. C., and Schleich, J. B.
共1993兲. “Elasto-plastic behavior of steel frameworks.” J. Constr. Steel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Res., 27共1–3兲, 3–21.
Carskaddan, P. S. 共1968兲. “Shear buckling of unstiffened hybrid beams.”
J. Struct. Div., 94共8兲, 1965–1990.
Climenhaga, J. J., and Johnson, R. P. 共1972兲. “Local buckling in continu-
ous composite beams.” Struct. Eng., 50共9兲, 367–374.
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.
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., MacGregor, J. G., Galambos, T. V., and Cornell, C. A.
共1982兲. “Probability-based load criteria: Load factors and load com-
binations.” J. Struct. Div., 108共5兲, 978–997.
Fahnestock, L. A., and Sause, R. 共1998兲. “Flexural strength and ductility
of HPS-100W Steel I-girders.” ATLSS Rep. No. 98-05, Lehigh Univ.,
Bethlehem, Pa.
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. 10th Congress, IABSE, Tokyo, 403–
408.
Fukumoto, Y., and Itoh, Y. 共1981兲. “Statistical study of experiments on
welded beams,” J. Struct. Div., 107共1兲, 89–103.
Fukumoto, Y., Itoh, Y., and Kubo, M. 共1980兲. “Strength variation of lat-
erally unsupported beams.” J. Struct. Div., 106共1兲, 165–181.
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, Reston, Va.,
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., 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.
Green, P. S. 共2000兲. “The inelastic behavior of flexural members fabri-
cated from high performance steel.” Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh
Univ., Bethlehem, Pa.
Grubb, M. A., and Carskaddan, P. S. 共1979兲. “Autostress design of high-
way bridges. Phase 3: Initial moment rotation tests.” Research Labo-
ratory Rep., United States Steel Corporation, Monroeville, Pa.
Grubb, M. A., and Carskaddan, P. S. 共1981兲. “Autostress design of high-
way bridges, phase 3: Moment rotation requirements.” Research
Laboratory Rep., United States Steel Corporation, Monroeville, Pa.
Hash, J. B. 共2001兲. “Shear capacity of hybrid steel girders.” MS thesis,
Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Hechtman, R. A., Hattrup, J. S., Styer, E. F., and Tiedemann, J. L. 共1957兲.
“Lateral buckling of rolled steel beams.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
122, 823–843.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1485
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
Helwig, T. A., Frank, K. H., and Yura, J. A. 共1997兲. “Lateral-torsional
buckling of singly symmetric I-beams.” J. Struct. Eng., 123共9兲, 1172–
1179.
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,
Edmonton, Alta., Canada.
Janss, J., and Massonnet, C. 共1967兲. “The extension of plastic design to
steel A52.” Pub. IABSE, 27, 15–30.
Kamtekar, A. G., Dwight, J. B., and Threlfall, B. D. 共1974兲. “Tests on
hybrid plate girders 共report 3兲.” Rep. No. CUED/C-Struct/TR41, Cam-
bridge Univ., Cambridge, Mass.
Kemp, A. R. 共1986兲. “Factors affecting the rotation capacity of plastically
designed members.” Struct. Eng., 64B共2兲, 28–35.
Kemp, A. R. 共1996兲. “Inelastic local and lateral buckling in design
codes.” J. Struct. Eng., 122共4兲, 374–382.
Kim, Y. D., and White, D. W. 共2007兲. “Practical buckling solutions for
web-tapered members.” Proc., Annual Stability Conf., Structural Sta-
bility Research Council, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology,
Rolla, Mo., 259–278.
Kirby, P. A., and Nethercot, D. A. 共1979兲. Design for structural stability,
Wiley, New York.
Kitipornchai, S., and Trahair, N. S. 共1975兲. “Inelastic buckling of simply
supported steel I-beams.” J. Struct. Div., 101共7兲, 1333–1345.
Kottegoda, N. T., and Rosso, R. 共1997兲. Statistics, probability and reli-
ability for civil and environmental engineers, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Kubo, M., Kitahori, H., and Yagi, T. 共1997兲. “Lateral-torsional buckling
of monosymmetric I-beams with compact section.” Struct. Eng./
Earthquake Eng., 14共2兲, 229s–241s.
Kulhmann, U. 共1989兲. “Definition of flange slenderness limits on the
basis of rotation capacity values.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 14共1兲, 21–40.
Lee, S. C., and Yoo, C. H. 共1999兲. “Experimental study on ultimate shear
strength of web panels.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共8兲, 838–846.
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
Research Laboratory, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Aus-
tin, Tex.
Lindner, J. 共1977兲. “Developments on lateral torsional buckling.” Inter-
national colloquium on stability of structures under static and dy-
namic loads, ASCE, Reston, Va., 532–540.
Lukey, A. F., Smith, R. J., Hosain, M. U., and Adams, P. F. 共1969兲.
“Experiments on wide-flange beams under moment gradient.” Weld-
ing Research Council Bulletin No. 142, New York.
McDermott, J. F. 共1969兲. “Plastic bending of A514 steel beams.” J.
Struct. Div., 95共9兲, 1851–1871.
Mikami, I., Kimura, T., Koichi, T., and Fujisaki, A. 共1991兲. “Ultimate
strength test of plate girders with unsymmetrical cross-section under
bending/shear.” Technology Rep. of Kansai Univ., Osaka, Japan, 165–
186.
Nakai, H., Kitada, T., and Ohminami, R. 共1985兲. “Experimental study on
buckling and ultimate strength of curved girders subjected to com-
bined loads of bending and shear.” Proc., JSCE, 356, 445–454.
Nethercot, D. A., and Byfield, M. P. 共1997兲. “Calibration of design pro-
cedures for steel plate girders.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 1共2兲, 111–126.
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.
Nishino, F., and Okumura, T. 共1968兲. Experimental Investigation of the
Strength of Plate Girders in Shear, 8th Congress, IABSE, New York,
451–463.
O’Eachteirn, P. O. 共1983兲. “An experimental investigation into the lateral
buckling strength of plate girders.” Doctoral dissertation, Department
of Civil and Structural Engineering, Univ. of Sheffield, Sheffield,
U.K.
Patterson, P. J., Corrodo, J. A., Huang, J. S., and Yen, B. T. 共1970兲.
“Fatigue and static tests of two welded plate girders.” Welding Re-
search Council Bulletin No. 155, New York, 1–18.
Roberts, T. M., and Narayanan, R. 共1988兲. “Strength of laterally unre-
strained monosymmetric beams.” Thin-Walled Struct., 6共4兲, 305–319.
 Rockey, K. C., and Skaloud, M. 共1972兲. “The ultimate load behavior of
plate girders loaded in shear.” Struct. Eng., 50共1兲, 29–47.
Sakai, F., Doi, K., Nishino, F., and Okumwa, T. 共1966兲. “Failure tests of
plate girders using large sized models.” Structural Engineering Rep.,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo.
Salem, E. S., and Sause, R. 共2004兲. “Flexural strength and ductility of
highway bridge I-girders fabricated from HPS-100W steel.” ATLSS
Rep. No. 04–12, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, Pa.
Salvadori, M. G. 共1956兲. “Lateral buckling of eccentrically loaded
I-columns.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 121共1兲, 1163–1178.
Sawyer, H. A. 共1961兲. “Post-elastic behavior of wide-flange steel beams.”
J. Struct. Div., 87共8兲, 43–71.
Schilling, C. G. 共1985兲. “Moment-rotation tests of steel bridge girders.”
Project 188 autostress design of highway bridges, American Iron and
Steel Institute, Chicago.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Schilling, C. G., and Morcos, S. S. 共1988兲. “Moment-rotation tests of
steel girders with ultracompact flanges.” Rep. on Project. 188, Ameri-
can Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.
Schuller, W., and Ostapenko, A. 共1970兲. “Tests on a transversely stiffened
and on a longitudinally stiffened unsymmetrical plate girder.” Welding
Research Council Bulletin No. 156, New York, 23–47.
Suzuki, T., and Ono, T. 共1970a兲. “Experimental study of inelastic beams
共1兲—Beam under uniform moment.” Trans. Architectural Institute of
Japan, 45共168兲, 77–84 共in Japanese兲.
Suzuki, T., and Ono, T. 共1970b兲. “Experimental study of inelastic beams
共2兲—Beam under moment gradient.” Trans. Architectural Inst. of
Japan, 45共171兲, 31–36 共in Japanese兲.
Suzuki, T., and Ono, T. 共1970c兲. “Experimental study of inelastic beams
共3兲—Beam bracing on the both sides of plastic hinge.” Trans. Archi-
tectural Inst. of Japan, 45共175兲, 69–74 共in Japanese兲.
1486 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1471-1486.
White, D. W. 共2008a兲. “Structural behavior of steel.” Steel bridge design
handbook, Chap. 6, 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., and Barker, M. 共2008兲. “Shear resistance of transversely
stiffened steel I-girders.” J. Struct. Eng., 134共9兲, 1425–1436.
White, D. W., Barker, M., and Azizinamini, A. 共2008兲. “Shear strength
and moment-shear interaction in transversely stiffened steel
I-girders.” J. Struct. Eng., 134共9兲, 1437–1449.
White, D. W., and Jung, S.-K. 共2007兲. “Effect of web distortion on the
buckling strength of noncomposite discretely braced I-beams.” Eng.
Struct., 29共8兲, 1872–1888.
White, D. W., and Jung, S.-K. 共2008兲. “Unified flexural resistance equa-
tions for stability design of steel I-section members—Uniform bend-
ing tests.” J. Struct. Eng., 134共9兲, 1450–1470.
White, D. W., and Kim, Y. D. 共2004兲. “Unified resistance equations for
stability design of steel I-section members—Moment gradient tests.”
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials Rep. No. 26, School
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technol-
ogy, Atlanta.
Yakel, A. J., Mans, P., and Azizinamini, A. 共1999兲. “Flexural capacity of
hps-70w bridge girders.” NaBRO Rep., Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Neb.
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.
Zentz, A. 共2002兲. “Experimental moment-shear interaction and TFA be-
havior in hybrid plate girders.” MS thesis, Univ. of Missouri–
Columbia, Columbia, Mo.