T e c h n i c a lN o t e : Harris
Lateral-torsional bucklina of steel
beams in domestic buildyngs
W
e are accustomed, some-
times, to applying load
to beams without giving
much thought to theinherent
stiffness of the load itself,either in
the direction of the force or nor-
mal to it. Whether or not we con-
sider arching of masonry is a mat-
ter of ‘engineering judgment’,
perhaps influenced by the re-
quirements of BS 5977: Part 1:
Lintels. Studwork partitions have
considerable load-relieving stiff-
ness, which we wisely ignore, at
least for strength considerations.
Items of plant, such as water
tanks, have inherent degrees of
stiffness that, frequently, are able
to distribute load towards the
beam’s bearings. In a particular
situation, it may be worthwhile
considering these factors when we
make an ultimate or serviceabili-
ty limit state assessment of a
beam’s behaviour.
Concrete floors are generally
seen as providing top flange
restraint through frictional
effects. This becomes suspect in
the case of floors made of precast
units, if diaphragm action does
not occur in ungrouted or
unscreeded applications. This
could be because individual units
may slip relative to one another.
Friction between units cannot be
relied upon to guarantee
restraint.
Rotation of the concrete floor
(about its support along the top
flange of the beam) will inducenot
only a cross-flangebending stress
but also torsional stresses. These
can be additive, either directly or
according to the Hencky-von
Mises plane stress failure criteri-
on, to the longitudinal bending
stress. They are usually ignored,
because the stresses tend to be
quite low. Where the line of action
of the load doesnot pass through
the shear centre, torsion will be
induced. Frequently, the beam
supports the load system (e.g. a
wall or floor) in a way that coun-
ters torsion. (Thisis described
later in the section on restoring
moment.) However, in thecase of
channel sections, this does not
happen, even where walls o r
floors bear onto the top flange,
because the shear centre is out-
side of the section, on the side of
the web opposite to the flanges.
Volume 78/No 7 4 April 2000
Beam designers, in the author’s
experience, almost invariably
Richard Harris overlook this.
Frequently,then, our paradigm
investigates two of loadheam interaction is quite
effects that strongly inaccurate, although it is often,
but not always, conservatively
influence load beams biased. I intend here to investigate
interaction, which two effectsthat strongly influence
loadheam interaction, which are
are often either often either overlooked or not
overlooked or not recognised by somechecking engi-
neers. These two effects are addi-
recognised by some tive in most situations. They are
checking engineers both entirely defensible in terms
of the relevant Code requirements,
and are therefore suitable for con-
sideration in showing that the
requirements of Schedule 1,Part A
of the Building Regulations 1991
are satisfied, i.e. that thebeam is
safe from failure. They are:
(1)friction fromtimber floors or
roofs and
(2) restoring moment from load
that crosses theentire flange
width.
In considering the benefits of
friction or restoring moment, the
prudent designer should ensure
that the loadbeam model is not
unconservative in other respects
and that serviceability criteria are
adequately accommodated. Al-
though a value for the coefficient
of friction of timber to steel is not
published in the steelwork design
Codes, a conservative value is pro-
vided in a SCI publication’.
The role of engineers has
changed so that we are now often
employed as structuraldesigners
and providers of calculations,
withoutany control over what
happens on site; thereis no guar-
antee that anyone on site will be
sufficiently competent to perform
that lost role. It is therefore advis-
able that the designer specifies
quite precisely, with tolerances,
how the beams support the rest of
the construction.
The force that causes
buckling
The manner of buckling is that of
overall instability of the entire
section, causing lateral deflection
and twisting of the beam about a
point of rotation some distance
beneath the bottom flange. The
reason for the instability is anal-
ogous to that of Euler column
buckling. The buckling force is
derived fromeccentricitieswithin
the section (and residual stress-
es). For the usual case of vertical
loading about the major axis, a
couple is developed that has a
lever arm that acts horizontally
between the centroids of the
flanges. The couple results from
the necessity of maintaining equi-
librium in the absence of exter-
nally-applied horizontal loads and
implies that vertical loading is
eccentric to the shear centre of the
beam: hence the term ‘lateral-tor-
sional buckling’. A part of the hor-
izontal buckling force mayobtain
equilibrium by causing opposite
and equal reactions at the beam
bearings. This is essentially unre-
lated to local bucklingof elements
of the cross-section,which is inti-
mately associated with the
breadth-to-thicknessratio of parts
in compression andis charac-
terised by localised abrupt distor-
tion.
In the UK, the various steel-
work design Codes, such as BS
5950: Part l’,propose that, to pre-
vent lateral buckling of a beam’s
compression flange, it must be
provided with either lateral or tor-
sional restraint. The magnitude of
the lateralforce to be restrained is
2.5% of the force in the compres-
sion flange (caused by major-axis
bending), applied along the
beam’s length. There are also
rules for the distribution of the
force where restraint is applied
incrementally, with similar mag-
nitudes for both lateral and tor-
sional restraint. A lateral re-
straint must be capable of
transferringthe force to the
beam’s effectivepoints of support.
A torsional restraint may be pro-
vided by holding the flanges in
position relative to each other.
The level at which the load is
applied to the beam has a signifi-
cant influence on the beam’s resis-
tance in cases where restraint is
not assured. The line of action of a
load applied above the centroid
will deviate further outside of it
relative to the point of rotation as
buckling occurs,destabilising the
system and exacerbating torsion-
al effects. Wherea load is applied
beneath the centroid, the line of
action passes between the cen-
troid and the point of rotation.
This has an entraining or restor-
-
13
T e c h n i c a lN o t e : Harris
ing effect with reduced torsional
moment, and hence greater beam
resistance. The effects of load posi-
tion are accounted for only par-
tially inthe British steelwork
design Codes.
Friction from timber floors or
roofs
Frictional resistance between two
surfaces (measured in N) is the
product of their characteristic
coefficient of friction (a dimen-
sionless number) and the force
(measured in N) normal to them.
Intuition
suggests that
area
should also be involved, but it is
not, at least not the nominal area
of interface between the two sur-
faces. Accordingto a recent article
in New Scientist, tribologists do
not havea 'theory of friction',
despite several hundred years of
investigation. It is a field littered
with unpublished resultsand
speculative theories involving van
der Waals forces and quantum
effects. Nevertheless, friction is
real and reliable, a fact attested to
by our willingness to drive cars or
ride bicycles.(An equivalent to
snow and ice would not normally
affect beams.) In that context,fric-
tion's exclusion from engineering
analysis seems unreasonable.
I was brought up to ignore the
benefits of friction where resist-
ance was available from dia-
phragm action of timber floors
and roofs, and some structural
design texts counsel this app-
roach. I suspect that this derived
from the days when steelwork
was painted with red lead, which
lubricated interfaces with timber,
whereas interfaces with concrete
were affected less adversely. My
own crude (and unpublished)
experimental results show that,
with modern materials, a coeffi-
cient of friction of about 0.3 is
reliably obtained. The SCI has
recommended a value of 0.1 (from
unpublished resultsl); asafety
factor is not required. Other pub-
lished values that Ihave seen
range from 0.2-0.6 for timber on
metals and 0.25-0.5 for timber on
timber. The value of 0.1 is ade-
quate to provide restraint for the
(iii)
range of spans usually encoun-
tered in domestic-type construc-
tion and wouldallowfor steel-
work being galvanised or painted
(other than red lead paint).
For benefit to be derived from
friction, the timber joists must
either be fixed against horizontal
movement (say, by being built into
a suitably robust wall) or be held
in position relative to oneanother
by diaphragm action, e.g. by
nailed boards or with the friction
developed between these ele-
14
TABLE l - Effective length factors for some common conditions in simple beams in domestic-
type construction: hot-rolledsections
I t is necessary that theguidance is used by an experienced engineer who can evaluate the
relative importance of the following considerations:
- Does loading provide diaphragm restraint or is it suitably fixed at far ends?
- Is there a significant dynamic component to the load orvibrations in thebuildings?
- Is the coefficient of friction between the load and the flange adequate to resist lateral
buckling?
- Does the load have sufficient lateral stiffness to resist lateralbuckling?
- Does the loading have vertical stiffness that would relieve bending stress?
- Does the loading create torsional stress?
- At supports, what are conditions of torsional and warping restraint?
- Is cross-flange bending significant?
- On rolled steel channel sections, torsion must be considered.
Loading arrangements Comments Le
J- Boarding nailed - Hanger tek screwed to flange
screwed
or Saddle -
tY Pe -Tight fit at edge of flange or flange Full
Timber hanger plate Less than 5.0 restraint
joist
- Check torsion if appropriate
3eam depth - max span
Timber 127 - 3.65
joist or 152 - 4.37
concrete - Friction and restoring moment Full
effects may be additive 178 - 5.13 restraint
203 - 5.84
254 - 7.31
305 - 8.78
- If loading is significantly
asymmetrical, check that restoring
moment is adequate to resist lateral 0.85L
buckling, and check torsion
- If loading is significantly
3 asymmetrical, check that restoring
moment is adequate to resist lateral Less than 8.0 1.OL
buckling, and check torsion
Lateral
restraint -Wall not free standing
at any level
- 215mm wall on 8m span, 1OOmm
3 wall on 5.3m span may be stiff
enough to provide full lateral
1.OL
restraint
- ensure that any possible horizontal
load can be resisted
The above values maybe refined in accordance with the accompanying text
Discretionary modification factors
For conditions at supports, factor the above values of Le bythe following values, assuming that both ends are similar. If they
differ, use the average.
Torsional
restraint
1.OLe 0.9 Le 0.8Le
(ii)
Moderate warping Substantial warping
restraint + torsional restraint + torsional
restraint 0.7Le restraint 0.6Le
(iv) (v)
ments. In a buckling situation, the pitched roofs with slates or tiles sary level of resistance.
middle part of the flange would on battens and plasterboarded Conservatively in most cases,
have t o slide under the joists, ceilings, and floors with boards, the lever arm may be taken as
whereas the ends remain station- are all capable of providing 0.9h, where h is the beam depth.
ary. Flat roofs with boards, diaphragm action t o the neces- For a uniformly distributed load,
The Structural Engineer
 Technical Note: Harris

using theusual abbreviations, span will be shifted to the raised between supports, or by a timber accordance with relevant British
flange force Ff= (WL)/(8x 0.9h), toe of the flange, and from the joist and plasterboard ceiling even Standards, without the necessity
hence required frictional resist- other span it will shift towards a storey height above the beam, in of providing mechanical connec-
ance pW = (0.025WLY7.2h.Set- the central region of the flange, traditional domestic-type con- tions. This is adequate for consid-
ting p = 0.1, then L = 28.8h. As therebyresisting the buckling. struction. eration in showing that the
the load is factored out, it does not This is effective for many practi- To allow for eccentricities and requirements of Schedule 1,Part
matter whether limit states or cal situations. The method t o ensure that there isstill a good A of the Building Regulations
working stress design methods becomes even more effective margin of safety, the line of action 1991 are satisfied. A number of
are adopted. It follows that a 152 where the load system passes of the vertical load causing the factors that affect the load-beam
UB or UC will berestrained up to unbroken across the entire flange restoring moment may be con- paradigm and that are not always
a span of 4.38m, a 178 UB up to width, even for an edge beam sit- fined to the middle third of the explicitly considered have been
5.13m, and a203 UB up to 5.85m. uation. However, because of the wall. This also means that theide- identified; these should be borne
For a 203 x 133 x 30 UB,with M,, lack of site control on the part of alised elastic stress distribution in mind when considering
= 86 kNm, L = 5.85m, then W = the engineer that is nowcom- across the wall does not go into whether or not full restraint is
118kN, hence F f = 472kN and monplace, in the case of timber tension. The buckling moment = achievable, or in selecting effec-
2.5% of the flange force = 0.025 x joists, especially, it may not be suf- (0.025Ff) X 0.9h = (0.025WL)B. tive length factors.
472 = 11.8kN. The floor or roof ficiently reliable to assume that With the restoring moment = W x Table 1 gives effective length
must be able t o resist this value in they actually cross the flange. In (0.1/6),then L = 5.3m fora 100mm factors, based on the above con-
shear between the joists and new-build situations, thisshould, wall, regardless of the beam siderations, that areapplicable to
boards or tiling and battens.With of course, be specified. depth. The wallis now required to domestic-type construction. The
an effective W (since not all the Where lintels support walls, the sustain abending moment of W x values in the table may be modi-
load will contribute to the fric- benefits of restoring moment are (0.1/6)/5.3= O.O032WkNm/m. For fied, by the methods demonstrat-
tional resistance) = 0.8 x 118kN, more reliable than with timber W = 2.4kPa x 2.4m x 5.3m, the ed above, to suit particular appli-
and p = 0.25, shear resistance = floors or roofs. The British steel- moment = 0.lkNm at the base. cations. The table includes a
24kN, which is easily adequate work Codes refer to destabilising Ignoring any contribution of grav- common case of bottom flange
without even considering nailing. load conditions, which occur when ity load to flexural strength, the loading, where justification for
If the above limits are adopted, load is applied to the top flange wall’s resistance = (2.4kPd100) x using an effective length factor of
there will still probably be a con- and both are free to deflect later- 2.4m x lo3 x 0.12/6 = 0.lkNm. less than unity may be obtained
siderable degree of conservatism, ally (and rotationally, also) rela- Increasing the load on the wall from ref. 2.An additional en-
because of the added benefitof the tive to the beam centroid. A free- proportionally increases the hancement may be derived from
restoring moment effect that is standing wall on the top flange restoring moment, so the re- the considerations of Appendix G
almost certain to be present, as fits this condition,but free-stand- strained spanlength of 5.3m to ref. 1, which is strictly applica-
described below. ing walls are not normally a fea- (based on the conservative mid- ble onlyto UB sections and which
ture of buildings. The masonry dle-third rule) always holds true, has a diminishing influence for
Restoring moment design Code, BS5628:Part1:1992, regardless of the vertical load on shorter spans. The quoted value
The force that must be restrained subclause 28.2.2 and Appendix C, the wall. Even a 2.4m-high, of 0.85 in the table is conservative
is derived from a nominal eccen- indicates that any wall in domes- 100mm-thick, 2.8MPa blockwork for domestic-typesituations.
tricity of the line of action of the tic construction will have hori- wall (with supports having en- The discretionary modification
load about the shear centre of the zontal lateral support if it carries hanced resistance to lateral move- factors at thefoot of the table are
beam. It is essentially a torsional a floor or roof of normal construc- ment) has a design vertical load not intended to supplant the fac-
effect; if the load system is able to tion. Typically, walls also have resistance of 62kN/m. This is un- tors quoted in Table 9 of ref. 2,
resist the torsional force, the vertical lateral support from but- likely to beexceeded, even in which deals with beams unre-
beam will not be subject to its tressing walls that will stabilise three-storey domestic construc- strained either within their span
effects. This is always taken them. Even where floor or roof tion. The builder should be sup- or between restraints. They are
advantage of where secondary members are parallel to the wall, plied with a detail to ensure that intended for situations where
beams frameinto the webs of but not necessarily strapped in semi-dry mortar or dry-packingis there is a degree of top flange
main beams and the connection accordance with the Code, there well compressed betweenthe wall restraint,as indicated inthe
has sufficient moment capacity.It is likely to be restraint afforded and beam, evenly across the table, and they should be used
is very rare for a check to be car- by the proximity of the floor con- flange, along its entire length. with discretion and engineering
ried out on the suitability of the struction. If there is no restraint, judgment. m
connection to meet this criterion, the wall willbe unstableand Summary
because of the relatively low force wouldform a dangerous struc- A degree of compression flange
involved. In situations where the ture. If an engineer is called upon restraint has been shown to be
load system is on both sides of the to design a lintel for a wall, he or afforded by top flange loading to
compression flange (i.e. where a she should not be obliged toantic- steel beams. Full lateral restraint
wall is supported by a lintel or ipate a dangerous structure, as can normally be relied upon,with- Richard Harris (M) is a consult-
where flooring bears onto the this is such a rare eventuality. in useful limits, and generally in ing engineer.
entire width of the flange),a This is not t o say that walls in
restoring moment of sufficient domestic buildings are never
magnitude to counter lateral-tor- unstable; but when they are, it is
sional buckling can be developed apparent and repairsare re-
for quite significant spans. In the quired. It is therefore reasonable
case of timber floors or roofs, this to presume that, in domestic-type
effect is additive to frictional construction, walls to be support-
effects and would further extend ed have adequate restraint. As the
the span lengthsachievable with- buckling mode is rotational, the 1. Lateral stability of steel beams and columns: Common
out the necessity of providing restoring moment comes into play cases of restraint, Ascot, Steel Construction Institute,
mechanical connectors. immediately to counter the hori- Publication 093
SCI has investigateda case zontal couple that can develop. 2. BS 5950 Structural use of steelwork in building: Part 1:
with precast flooring units of This means that the horizontal Code of practice for design in simple and continuous
equal span that arejointed at the resistance required for restraint construction:hot rolledsections, London, British
beam’s centreline’. The restoring of the wall is negligible; it is easi- Standards Institution, 1990
moment develops as the beam ly provided by the out-of-plane
starts to twist. The load from one bending strength of the wall

Volume 78/No 7 4 April 2000

15