Engineering Structures,Vol. 18, No. 10, pp.

821-825, 1996
Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
S0141-0296(96)00014-4 0141~)296/96 $15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Winter's bracing approach revisited

Joseph A. Yura
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78727, USA

Winter's classic bracing paper is reviewed and his method for full
bracing is extended to cases when less than full bracing is used.
Full bracing, as redefined in this paper, permits the column or
beam to support load levels corresponding to an unbraced length
of KL where L is the distance between braces and K is an effective
length factor taken as 1.0. Using Winter's rigid bar model, an
approximate buckling load for members with less than full bracing
is developed that compares very favourably with an exact solution.
It is also shown that Winter's model rigid bar model can be
extended to cases where the brace spacing is unequal. Copyright
© 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords:bracing, stability, brace force

1. Introduction
Most practical bracing fi)rmulations used in design of col-
umns and beams are based on the principles developed by
Winter 1. He developed a simple rigid link model with fic-
titious hinges at the brace joints to calculate the bracing
stiffness and strength requirements for columns and beams.
The purpose of his dewdopment as directly quoted from
his paper,
'to devise a single method which permits:
(1) To calculate a safe lower limit (rather than an
exact value) of the necessary rigidity of the bracing
such that the strength of the braced member will
attain its maximum possible value, and
(2) For a bracing of rigidity equal to or larger than so
calculated, to determine a safe, lower limit (rather
than an exact value) of the strength required of
such bracing.'
His paper concentrated on requirements for 'full bracing'
which was defined or inlerpreted as:
(1) buckling is forced to occur between braces
(2) the brace is equivalent to an unyielding support
In this paper Winter's approach to design of equally
spaced beams is reviewed and his methods are extended to
cases when less than full bracing is provided and when
braces have unequal spacing. Full bracing will also be rede-
fined.
2. Basic concepts
The exact relationship between column load and brace stiff-
ness for the case of a uniform straight column with a brace
at mid-height 2 is shown in Figure 1. The column buckles
between braces when/3i --: 2Pe/L where/3 is the brace stiff-
P,
full bracing
4¢P
-i P ~=
x2EI L~
Q
L2
¢
0 2 L/p,
Figure 1 Effect of brace stiffness
ness, L is the distance between braces and P = rtaEl/L 2, the
load corresponding to buckling between the braces. At
brace stiffnesses less than the ideal value,/3i, buckling will
occur with lateral movement at the brace point. However,
the buckling load, Pcr increases almost linearly with
increases in brace stiffness until full bracing is reached. For
/3 ->/3~, the column will buckle between the supports. The
exact relationship between Pcr and /3 for 0 -</3 </3i is a
trigonometric function that is too complex for general
design purposes 2. Since the brace stiffness requirements for
full bracing are small, Winter concentrated only on this
particular bracing stiffness. To calculate the ideal stiffness,
Winter developed a rigid-link model with a fictitious hinge
at the brace points as illustrated in Figure 2 for the case
of a single brace. Multiple braces will be discussed later.
Displacing the structure with the axial load P by an amount
A, cutting the structure at the hinge at mid-height and
satisfying equilibrium gives PA = L/3A/2. The A cancel and
taking P = Pe at full bracing, the/3 = / 3 i = 2Pe/L which cor-
responds to the ideal /3~ shown in Figure 1. Winter credits
Fr. Bleich with introducing the concept of the use of tic-

821
822
Pi = 2 P
L in Figure 4a shows the relationship between AT and P
Figure2 Winter's model
titious hinges to calculate the ideal stiffness. This approach
is applicable to any number of equally spaced braces. The
number of braces does affect the value of/3~.2.
Prior to the publication of his 1958 paper, Winter and
his students conducted extensive studies on the bracing
problem, both experimental and theoreticaP ,4. Since the test
columns were not perfectly straight, the theoretical work
concentrated on members with initial out-of-straightness.
With this background of experiments and exact elastic the-
ory, Winter observed that braces with /3 =/3i were not
adequate for real columns. He noted that for perfectly
straight columns with full bracing there is no force in the
brace even at buckling because there is no displacement at
the brace point. Tests showed that brace forces develop so
he extended the rigid link model with fictitious hinges to
cases with column out-of-straightness.
For the column shown in Figure 3 with an initial out-of-
straightness, Ao, there will be additional deflection as load
P is applied which can be determined by taking moments
about point n
L/3A/2 = P(Ao + A) (1)
and
/3=~- 1+~- (2)
P not infinity as in the ideal brace stiffness case.
2 inter-relationship between brace stiffness and brace force.
pA
2
PI
Figure 3 Imperfect column
Winter's bracing: J. A. Yura
Substituting the total deflection Ax = Ao + A into equation
(1) and noting that/3~ = 2PdL gives
Ao Ao Ao
Ar- 2P - ~ - /3i (3)
1-~ 1-~o~ 1-~
If Ao = 0 and P = Pe, equation (1) gives /3 =/3i the ideal
stiffness. If/3 =/3i and Ao is not zero, the heavy solid line
given by equation (3). For P = 0 , AT=Ao. When P
increases and approaches the buckling load, 7flEI/L2, the
total deflection AT becomes very large. For example, when
the applied load is within 5% of the buckling load,
AT = 20Ao. If a brace stiffness twice the value of the ideal
stiffness is used, equation (3) gives much smaller deflec-
tions, as shown in Figure 4a. When the load just reaches
the buckling load, the AT = 2Ao. For /3L = 3/3i and P = P,,
AT = 1.5Ao. The larger the brace stiffness, the smaller AT.
For Figure 3 and equations (2) and (3), the force in the
brace, Fbr, is
2P 2P Ao 2P Ao
F b r = /3A = S~_ (A 0 + A) = -- (4)
L P L /3i
1--- 1---
Pe /3
which shows that the brace force is directly related to the
magnitude of the initial imperfection. If a member is fairly
straight, the brace forces will be small. Conversely, mem-
bers with large initial out-of-straightness will require larger
braces. A plot of equation (4) for an initial imperfection
Ao = Lb/500 is shown in Figure 4b. If the brace stiffness is
equal to the ideal stiffness, then the brace force gets very
large as the buckling load is approached because AT gets
very large, as shown in Figure4a. For example, at
P = 0.95Pe, equation (4) gives a brace force of 7.6% of Pe.
Winter noted that a brace system will not be satisfactory if
the theoretical ideal required stiffness is provided because
the brace forces get too large. If the brace stiffness is 'over
designed', as presented by the /3L = 2/3i and 3/3i curves in
Figure 4b, then the brace forces will be more reasonable.
For a brace stiffness twice the ideal value and Ao = Lb/500,
equation (4) gives a brace force of only 0.8% Pe at P = Pe,
Winter's major contribution was his development of the
His emphasis on the importance of both properties is still
widely ignored. Practising engineers generally use strength
alone, like a 2% rule, and researchers tend to examine per-
fect systems which give only stiffness criteria.
3. Expanded Winter model
Winter developed the rigid-link fictitious-hinge model to
calculate the ideal brace stiffness for full bracing, i.e. the
bracing necessary to force the column to buckle between
brace points. However, the model can also be used to deter-
mine the critical load on the column if the brace stiffness
is less than the full bracing value. As an example, the P -
/3 relationship will be derived for a column with three inter-
mediate braces.
The exact solution given in Figure 5 was developed
using a finite element program. It checks with the energy
solution developed by Green 3. With no bracing,
Winter's bracing: J. A. Yura 823

1 ;~2A =Ao 1 !
I

P
0.8

Pe 0.6
P
0.8

0.6
-//
3p/i

P " Pl

0.4 0.4

0.2

°o
(a)
4 8
Ao=0.002Lb

I'=
AT/Ao
~p

16
0.2

f
(b)
,,0.8~ P.

FI~ ( % of P)
Ao = O'O02Lb

3~

Figure 4 Effect of initial imperfections

1 P~Aa = ~ (3Ae + 2Ac + Ao) (5)

P 0.8
P@ Similarly, cuts at C and D give
0.6 c
P.Ac = ~ (2An + 4Ac + 2AD) (6)
0.4
PeAD = ~ (AB + 2Ac + 3AD) (7)
0.2
P
Defining X~ = m c / m B and X2 = AD/AB and solving equa-
2 3 J~i 4 tions (5), (6) and (7) simultaneously gives three solutions:
PL,/Pe
Figure 5 Column with three supports ( 1) X~ = ~/2; X2 = 1 and/3L/Pe = 0.586
(2) X~ -- 0; X2 = -1 and/3L/Pe = 2.000
Pcr='TrZEI/(4L) 2. At low brace stiffness, the column
buckles into a single (lst mode) wave. As the brace stiff- (3) X~ = -~/-2; )(2 = 1 and/3L/Pe= 3.414
ness is increased, the buckled shape changes and additional
brace stiffness becomes less effective. Full bracing occurs Case 3 controls since it requires the largest brace stiffness.
at Pcr=Tr2EI/L2 when /3L/Pe=3.41 which compares The buckled shapes corresponding to the three solutions
exactly with the value gJLvenby Timoshenkoz. are shown in Figure 7. They are similar to the three modes
The rigid-link mode} shown in Figure 6 has three shown in Figure 5 before full bracing is reached. Winter
unknown displacements, A~, Ac and AD at each of the brace only utilized the root that gave the required brace stiffness
locations where fictitiou,; hinges are shown. Taking sum- for full bracing. However, all the roots can be utilized to
mation of moments at point E gives ,cA = (/3/4)(3AB + 2Ac approximate the complete solution for any brace stiffness.
+ AD); similarly, FD = (/3/4)(AB + 2Ac + 3AD). Cutting the The approach is illustrated in Figure 8 (the exact solution
structure at /3 and summing moments gives from Figure 5 is shown as the solid line). The solid line
can be approximated as follows. With no bracing the col-
P umn can support a load of Pe/16, so Pcr/Pe= 0.625 (point
A~
o
ec'V~
L
FA~FA13A
B 17LX *
L
~
707&

c, ~V~-I
L
,<
D, '%'VM 707&

E~
L
F
P f-" 'G
Figure 6 Winter's model -- three supports Figure 7 Three roots - Winter's model
824 Winter's bracing: J. A. Yura

~P

P
p

e
0.8

0.6

0.4
;,.+"7
,j,/"
BI
i i ....
sf'e""
A
7. I' L
Try7
0.4L

3_
pa

-I,v@

,L
0.2 a2

-(9
1 2
pLo/P,
a
Figure 8 Unequal brace spacing
1). The brace stiffness required for the first mode shape is
obtained from Case 1, i.e. [3L]P e = 0.586 at Pcr/Pe= 1.0
(point 2). A straight line is constructed, shown dashed,
between points 1 and 2. At zero brace stiffness the second
mode starts at Per = 7flEI/(2L) 2 or P,/Pe = 0.25 (point 3)
and the Case 2 stiffness is f3L/Pe = 2.000 (point 4). A
straight line connects points 3 and 4. For the third mode
and no bracing, Per = w2EI/(4L/3) 2 and PJPe=0.5625
(point 5) is connected to the Case 3 stiffness,
f~Z/Pe --- 3.414. The lower bound of the dashed lines defines
the response which is a good approximation of the exact
theory.
The rigid link model which has been used to determine
the full bracing stiffness requirement can also be used to
construct the complete P-/3 relationship for any value of
brace stiffness.
4. Unequal bracing spacing
The examples and illustrations used by Winter ~ were all
associated with members that had equally spaced braces.
But this was done for simplicity. Lesser known are the fol-
lowing two sentences in his paper.
'By the same simple means of writing equations about
the fictitious hinges at the braces it is also possible to
analyze the required bracing for columns with unequally
spaced supports and/or with cross-sections which differ
in the individual spans. In this case it is merely necessary
to introduce for each portion between braces its appro-
priate P e depending on length and cross-section of that
portion.'
Plaut 5 has solved the problem of a column with a single
brace at any location, as shown in Figure 9a. The lengths
are chosen to be consistent with the Plaut presentation. The
column is divided into two segments, a~ and a2, with L
defined as the total length. For a typical brace location,
a~/L = 0.4, the Winter model is shown in Figure 9b. Equi-
librium gives the external reaction at A and C as 0.6/3A and
0.4/3A, respectively. Cutting the structure at the hinge gives
e p,~
t
P
(a) Ibl
Figure9 Winter model approximation
For this case Pe = 7flEI/(O.6L) 2 which would cause buck-
ling in the longest segment. Substituting Pe for P in equ-
ation (9) gives the ideal /3i= 4.167[~EI/(O.6L) 2]
L = 114.2 EI/L 3. Results for other values of a~/L are given
in Table 1. The Winter results are exactly the same as those
presented by Plaut for the brace stiffness required for col-
umn load to reach a level corresponding to Euler buckling
of the longest unbraced segment. It may be surprising that
Winter's solution is exact for this complex problem so
some further comments are needed.
The Winter solution is exact only for the load level corre-
sponding to an assumed Euler buckling load controlled by
the longest segment. Of course this is exactly the maximum
load that would usually be assumed in design. The column
can support loads higher than this segmental Euler load
because the shorter segment can provide some rotational
restraint to the longer segment but this is usually ignored
in design. If load levels higher than the Euler segment load
are desired, greater bracing will be required as derived
by Plaut 5.
If the /3i as derived above is used, there will be move-
ment at the brace point at the Euler load, as shown by the
buckled shape in Figure 10. The Winter model does not
give results that correspond to a column load with an
immovable support in this case. Winter's 'full bracing'
comments should more correctly be defined as the bracing
to reach a load corresponding to an effective length factor
of 1.0. If the support was immovable, the column could
support a load 20% higher than the Euler load 5 but the
bracing requirement would be substantially increased.
Table I Comparison of Winter and Plaut
Winter Plaut
al/L /3L3/EI k.

PA = 0.6/3A(0.4L) (8) O.1 135.4 135.4

0.2 96.4 96.4
0.3 95.9 95.9
or 0.4 114.2 114.2
0.5 157.9 157.9
= 4.16P/L (9)
Winter's bracing: J. A. Yura 825

1 Buckled shape, ..xx××~' derived by the Winter approach are only equivalent to
E \/
/Y
immovable supports when the problem is symmetric and
X
¢- X
X
the unbraced segments want to buckle simultaneously.
.o
"G 0.5 ×
X
However, Winter's solution is valid for all cases in which
X K = 1.0 is used in design, even when the bracing spacing is
(D X
X not uniform. Use of the Winter solution will enable critical
D X
0 column segments to reach the Euler load.
0 2'0 4'0 60 8'0 100

References
0.6Lm -~! P = 27.55
()<[---- 1 Winter, G. 'Lateral bracing of columns and beams', Proc. ASCE
EIIL2= 1
L = 100 cm
~ 1.14 kNIcrff-"
1958, 84 (ST2), 1561-1-1561-22
2 Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. Theory of elastic stability, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1961
3 Green, G., Winter, G. and Cuykendall, T., 'Light gage steel columns
Figure 10 Buckled shape in wall-braced panels', Cornell Engineering Experiment Station, Bull-
etin No. 35, Part 2, Ithaca, NY, 1947
5. Conclusions 4 Zuk, W. 'Lateral bracing forces on beams and columns', J. Engng
Mech., ASCE 1956, 82 (EM3), 1032-1-1032-16
Winter's method was shown to provide a very general sol- 5 Plaut, R. H. 'Requirements for lateral bracing of columns with two
ution. It is important to note that the bracing requirements spans', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1993, 119 (10), 2913-2931