TECHNICAL NOTES

Steel Girder Stability during Bridge Erection: AASHTO LRFD

Check on L / b Ratios
John S. Hastings, P.E.1; Qiuhong Zhao, P.E., M.ASCE2; and Edwin G. Burdette, P.E., F.ASCE3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 08/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The erection of steel plate girders during the construction process of a steel bridge is a complex operation, which is often left
to the contractor and/or the subcontractor to plan and execute. Rules of thumb have been developed through experience to check the
lateral torsional buckling of the steel girder during erection using the maximum L / b 共unbraced length/compressive flange width兲 ratio,
below which no lateral torsional buckling would occur. Although the L / b ratio check has proven to be useful and convenient on-site, it
is necessary to provide a more rational basis for the rules of thumb, and find the maximum L / b ratios by checking the lateral torsional
buckling failure of girders under erection according to the latest AASHTO LRFD code. A series of parametric studies were conducted on
cantilever and simply supported girders under self-weight as well as self-weight plus wind load, in order to: 共1兲 check the rules of thumb
on L / b ratios and 共2兲 determine the effects of girder flange width, flange thickness, web depth, web thickness, and yield strength on the
maximum L / b ratio and girder stability during erection. From the results, rules of thumb were modified for girders with common shapes,
and it was obvious that 共1兲 self-weight plus wind load controls the girder stability during erection in most cases and 共2兲 flange width and
web depth have the most effects on the maximum L / b ratio and girder stability during erection.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲BE.1943-5592.0000102
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, steel; Bridges, girder; Buckling; Construction.
Author keywords: Steel girder; Erection; Instability; Lateral torsional buckling.

Introduction and Background
When a steel girder is under erection during the construction pro-
cess of a steel bridge, it may experience instability and lateral
torsional buckling failure if the unbraced length is too large,
which in turn might cause collapse of the whole steel superstruc-
ture, as illustrated by the collapse of the State Route 69 Bridge at
Clifton, Tennessee on May 16, 1995.
In many cases, the steel girder erection was left to the contrac-
tor and/or the subcontractor to plan and execute, based mainly on
past experiences. Rules of thumb have been used when an erector
needs to conduct a quick stability check or make a decision on
temporary removal of cross frames on-site, since precise stability
analysis might not be available at the moment. One set of such
rules of thumb have been published in the Handbook for Con-
struction Engineers 共American Bridge Division 1983兲, in which
1
Civil Engineer Manager I, Tennessee Dept. of Transportation
共TDOT兲, Suite 1100 James K. Polk Building, Nashville, TN 37243-0349,
E-mail: john.s.hastings@state.tn.us
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Tennessee, 109A Perkins Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-2010,
E-mail: qzhao@utk.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Tennessee, 115 Perkins Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-2010. E-mail:
eburdett@utk.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 6, 2008; approved on
January 19, 2010; published online on January 22, 2010. Discussion pe-
riod open until April 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 6, November 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-
0702/2010/6-759–762/$25.00.
the girder stability during erection is checked by the L / b ratio
共unbraced length/compressive flange width兲. For a cantilever
girder during erection: 共1兲 if the L / b value is less than 30, stabil-
ity is guaranteed; 共2兲 if the L / b value is between 30 and 40,
stability is doubtful; and 共3兲 if the L / b value is over 40, tempo-
rary support will be required. For a simply supported girder, the
L / b ratio limits are doubled. Although the rules of thumb on L / b
ratios are convenient and useful on-site, there is no theoretical
background other than experiences, and a more rational basis is
urgently needed.
Checking Stability of Cantilever Girder during
Erection
The governing design code AASHTO LRFD Specifications
共AASHTO 2007兲 was adopted to check the rules of thumb on L / b
ratio. The girders in this study are longitudinally unstiffened,
straight, and prismatic with no braces along the span. According
to AASHTO LRFD, a steel girder will not experience elastic lat-
eral torsional buckling if f bu ⱕ ⌽ f Fcr, where f bu = external normal
stress and Fcr = elastic lateral torsional buckling stress. For a cer-
tain girder under erection, f bu increases while Fcr decreases with
the span L, therefore, a certain limit Lmax and 共L / b兲max exits,
beyond which the girder will experience elastic lateral torsional
buckling.
Parametric studies were then conducted, in which 共L / b兲max
ratios were obtained for a group of cantilever girders with varying
geometric and material parameters, including flange width, flange
thickness, web depth, web thickness, and material yield strength,
as summarized in Table 1. For each girder section, the span L was

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010 / 759

J. Bridge Eng., 2010, 15(6): 759-762

 Table 1. Parameters in Analytical Studies
Flange width, b Flange thickness, t f
Case 共mm兲 共mm兲
Cantilever—1 305–914 25–38a
Cantilever—2 914 38–102
Cantilever—3 914 38
Cantilever—4 914 38
Simple—1 305–914 25–38a
a
Flange thickness is constant for each given flange width.
b
Web thickness is constant for each given web depth.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 08/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increased in steps, and a spreadsheet was developed to check
f bu ⱕ ⌽ f Fcr for each step. When the equation did not satisfy any
more, the Lmax and 共L / b兲max values for this girder section were
then identified. The AASHTO Load Combination Strength IV
共1.5D兲 and Strength III 共1.25D + 1.40W兲 were considered, respec-
tively. Purposes of the parametric studies included: 共1兲 check the
rules of thumb on 共L / b兲max ratios for common girder shapes and
共2兲 determine the effects of girder flange width, flange thickness,
web depth, web thickness, and yield strength on 共L / b兲max ratios
and girder stability during erection.
AASHTO LRFD Load Combination Strength IV
„1.5D…
The AASHTO Load Combination Strength IV was considered for
the first set of analyses, which applies to a very high dead load
versus live load case. For Case 1 study, the 共L / b兲max ratios are
plotted in Fig. 1, where each curve represents a group of sections
with the same flange width and thickness, while the web depth
and thickness vary along the curve. It is obvious that the 共L / b兲max
ratio will increase with the web depth and thickness, indicating
that a lower girder section with a thinner web would generally
have more tendency for instability during erection compared to a
deeper girder section with a thicker web. From Case 2 to 4 stud-
ies, it turned out that the 共L / b兲max ratio would increase very
slightly with the flange thickness, while essentially not affected
by the material yield strength. In addition, the 共L / b兲max ratio de-
creased very slightly when the web depth was held constant and
the web thickness increased from a minimum value of 150 times
web thickness 共AASHTO 2007兲 to a maximum value of 25 mm,
mainly because the external load demand due to girder self-
weight would increase faster than the girder capacity in this case.
Fig. 1. Maximum L / b ratios for cantilevers under self-weight
760 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010
J. Bridge Eng., 2010, 15(6): 759-762
Web depth, D Web thickness, tw Yield strength, Fy
共mm兲 共mm兲 共MPa兲
1,016–2,438 13–17b 345
1,219–2,438 13–17b 345
1,219–2,438 10–25b 345
1,219–2,438 10–25b 248–483
1,016–2,134 13–14b 345
In summary, for any specific cantilever section, the flange width
and web depth are dominating parameters for girder stability dur-
ing erection, and the flange thickness, web thickness, and material
yield strength only have negligible effects; the 共L / b兲max ratio
could be directly read or interpolated from Fig. 1, beyond which
the girder will lose stability during erection.
Comparing the rules of thumb to the AASHTO LRFD results
in Fig. 1, it is obvious that the original lower limit of 30 on the
L / b ratios, below which stability is guaranteed for any girder
section, turned out to be slightly conservative, since any girder
section with an L / b ratio above 30 but below 35 would still
remain stable. But the lower limit could remain as 30, since not
all possible sections were checked. On the other hand, the original
upper limit of 40 on the L / b ratios, above which temporary sup-
port would be needed for any girder section, turned out to be
overly conservative, since numerous girders will remain stable
with a L / b ratio above 40 but below the 共L / b兲max ratios. There-
fore, the rules of thumb on the lower and upper limits of L / b
ratios for cantilever should be modified to 30 and 60, based on the
AASHTO LRFD check under only the dead load effects.
AASHTO LRFD Load Combination Strength III
„1.4D + 1.25W…
The AASHTO Load Combination Strength III was considered for
the second set of analyses, which applies to a high wind load
case. Minor-axis bending is then combined with major axis bend-
ing according to f bu + 共1 / 3兲f l ⱕ ⌽ f Fnc, where f l = external normal
stress due to wind load; f bu = external normal stress due to gravity;
and Fnc = nominal flexural resistance of the compression flange.
The lateral load also needs to be checked to ensure that minor-
axis failure does not occur before the onset of lateral torsional
buckling by f l ⱕ 0.6Fyc, where Fyc = yield strength of the compres-
sion flange 共AASHTO 2007兲.
The AASHTO code does not specify the magnitude of wind
pressure during erection but only for normal design, for which if
the height of the girder is less than 30 ft above ground, a design
wind pressure of 25.6 pounds per square foot 共psf兲 should be
used, corresponding to a wind velocity of 100 mi/h. However, the
design wind pressure is not suitable for a construction check,
since a contractor is not likely to erect a bridge during periods of
extremely high winds. There might be windy days during various
phases of bridge construction, but the contractor will usually have
multiple girders in place with bracing installed 共i.e., cross frames
and laterals if required兲. Unless something out of the ordinary
occurs, namely an extraordinary event, the steel girder under erec-
tion would not experience a high wind loading without any brac-
ing along the span. Therefore, the wind pressure experienced by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 08/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Maximum L / b ratios for cantilevers under self-weight plus
wind load
girder during erection should be modified for extraordinary
events.
Unfortunately, the AASHTO code does not specify the magni-
tude of wind pressure under extraordinary events either. ASCE
7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
共ASCE 2005兲 was then referred to, where the wind load factor for
extraordinary events is 1/8 of the wind load factor for normal
design, which means the wind pressure for extraordinary events is
also 1/8 of the wind pressure for normal design. Since the wind
pressure is proportional to the square of wind velocity, the wind
velocity for extraordinary events could be calculated as VDZ
= 冑共1 / 8兲 ⫻ 100 mi/ h = 35.4 mi/ h. Considering wind gusts in the
event of a sudden summer storm, the wind velocity for girder
under erection could be further increased to 45 mi/h, resulting in
a wind pressure of qz = 共45 mi/ h / 100 mi/ h兲2 ⫻ 25.6 psf
= 5.18 psf.
The same groups of parametric studies were conducted using
the Strength III combination. The effects of the web depth and
flange width on the 共L / b兲max ratio for Case 1 are shown in Fig. 2,
which generally looks similar to the Strength IV combination.
However, for some of the girders with narrow flanges, the
共L / b兲max ratio would decrease when the web depth and thickness
increase, probably because the wind load would affect the girder
stability more in these cases. From Case 2 to 4 studies, the results
were similar to the Strength IV combination, except that the
maximum L / b ratios are slightly higher.
For the same girder section, the 共L / b兲max ratios under the
Strength IV combination 共1.5D兲 and under the Strength III com-
bination 共1.25D + 1.4W兲 were compared together. It turned out
that for 73% of all shapes investigated, a lower 共L / b兲max ratio was
obtained under the Strength III combination, which means wind
load plus self-weight will control the girder stability during erec-
tion, except for girders with very wide flanges including the lower
bound curve. The difference becomes more obvious as the web
becomes deeper and the flange becomes narrower, since the wind
load effects dominate more. Therefore, it is necessary to consider
the combined wind load and dead load effects for most cases,
when checking girder stability during erection. The rules of
thumb on the lower and upper limits of L / b ratios for cantilever
were then further modified to 30 and 50, based on the AASHTO
LRFD check under the combined wind load and dead load effects.
Checking Stability of Simply Supported Girder
during Erection
Analyses were also conducted on simply supported girders to
determine the 共L / b兲max ratios under the Strength III load combi-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010 / 761
J. Bridge Eng., 2010, 15(6): 759-762
Fig. 3. Maximum L / b ratios for simply supported girders under self-
weight plus wind load
nation, which turned out to be more critical in most cases. For
Case 1 study, the 共L / b兲max ratios are plotted in Fig. 3, where each
curve represents a group of sections with the same flange width
and thickness, while the web depth and thickness vary along the
curve. For any specific simply supported girder section, the
共L / b兲max ratio could be directly read or interpolated from the
curve, beyond which the girder will lose stability during erection.
Unlike the cantilevers, the 共L / b兲max ratio would decrease obvi-
ously when the web depth and thickness increase, especially for
girders with relatively narrow flanges, since the wind load effects
will dominate in those cases.
Comparing the rules of thumb to the AASHTO LRFD results
in Fig. 3, it is obvious that the original lower limit of 60 on the
L / b ratios, below which stability is guaranteed, turned out to be
unsafe. All the 共L / b兲max ratios in Fig. 3 are below 60, while any
girder section with an L / b ratio below 60 but above 共L / b兲max will
become unstable during erection. In addition, the original upper
limit of 80 on the 共L / b兲max ratios, above which temporary support
would be needed, turned out to be unconservative as well, since
any girder with a L / b ratio above 60 would need temporary sup-
port already. Therefore, the rules of thumb on the lower and upper
limits of L / b ratios for simply supported girder should be modi-
fied to 45 and 60, based on the AASHTO LRFD check consider-
ing the combined wind load and dead load effects.
Conclusions
1. L / b ratio is convenient and useful on-site to check girder
stability during lifting, shipping, erection, and temporary
cross frame removal. A series of graphs for the 共L / b兲max
ratios were created for the convenience of constructors. Note
that the L / b ratio check cannot replace the more rigorous
stability check if deemed needed by the structural engineers.
2. Based on parametric studies using AASHTO LRFD, the
dominating factors for girder stability during erection are the
compression flange width and the web depth.
3. In most cases, especially for girders with narrow flanges or
deep webs, it is more critical to consider the combined wind
load and dead load effects when checking girder stability
during erection.
4. Based on parametric studies using AASHTO LRFD, the rules
of thumb on the lower limit of L / b ratios for cantilever were
slightly conservative, but could remain as 30; the rules of
thumb on the upper limit of L / b ratios were overly conser-
 vative, and could be modified to 50 considering the com- Fyc ⫽ specified minimum yield strength of
bined wind load and dead load effects. compression flange;
5. Based on parametric studies using AASHTO LRFD, the rules f bu ⫽ largest value of compressive stress throughout
of thumb on the lower and upper limits of L / b ratios for the unbraced length;
simply supported girder were unsafe or unconservative, and f l ⫽ flange lateral bending stress;
should be modified to 45 and 60 considering the combined L ⫽ actual unbraced length;
wind load and dead load effects. qz ⫽ wind stagnation pressure;
VDZ ⫽ design wind velocity;
W ⫽ wind load; and
␾ f ⫽ resistance factor for flexure.
Notation
References
The following symbols are used in this technical note:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Purdue University Libraries on 08/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

b ⫽ width of compression flange;
D ⫽ dead load due to girder self-weight;
Fcr ⫽ elastic lateral torsional buckling stress;
Fnc ⫽ nominal flexural resistance of a compression
flange;
Fy ⫽ specified minimum yield strength of steel;
AASHTO. 共2007兲. LRFD bridge design specifications, 4th Ed., Washing-
ton, D.C.
American Bridge Division. 共1983兲. Handbook for construction engineers,
United States Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh.
ASCE. 共2005兲. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures,
Reston, Va.

762 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010

J. Bridge Eng., 2010, 15(6): 759-762