See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237190945

Design of 60° equal-leg steel angles according

to CSA Standard S37-94

Article in Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · February 2011

DOI: 10.1139/l95-068

CITATIONS READS

0 1,481

2 authors, including:

Murty K. S. Madugula
University of Windsor
57 PUBLICATIONS 267 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Murty K. S. Madugula on 25 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design of 60' equal-leg steel angles
according to CSA Standard S37-94
Murty K.S. Madugula and Seshu Madhava Rao Adluri

Abstract: Sixty-degree equal-leg steel angles find widespread application as leg members of
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13

triangular-base lattice towers. Compared to 90' angles of the same size, these angles are weaker in
torsional-flexural buckling. The design of such angles is being explicitly covered for the first time in
CSA Standard S37-94, "Antennas, towers and antenna-supporting structures." Recent experimental
studies have shown that the design of 60" angles will be quite safe, if design is carried out using the
expressions for factored axial compressive resistances given in CANICSA-S16.1-M89, taking into
account only the effect of local buckling and flexural buckling about minor axis, and neglecting
torsional-flexural buckling. The Canadian Standards Association Technical Committee on Antenna
Towers also noted that the calculated resistances will still be less than the strengths according to the
widely used Standard ANSIIASCE 10-90, "Design of latticed steel transmission structures," which
considers all the three modes of buckling. The present paper explains the rationale behind the design
procedure adopted by the Technical Committee.
Key words: angles, buckling, compression, design strength, schifflerized angles, specifications, steel
towers, 60" angles.

Resume : L'utilisation de cornikres d'acier i ailes Cgales, comportant un angle de 60°, est largement
For personal use only.

r$andue dans la fabrication de pyldnes i treillis i section triangulaire. ComparCes aux comikres i angle
de 90" de m&medimension, celles avec un angle de 60" sont plus faibles lorsque soumises au flambage
en flexion et en torsion. La conception de ces comikres est traitCe de manikre explicite pour la premikre
fois dans la norme CSA S37-94, << Antennes, pyldnes et supports d'antenne >>.De rCcentes Ctudes
expCrimentales ont dCmontrC que la conception de cornikres i angle de 60" ne prCsente pas de problkme
de sCcuritC, se celle-ci est rCalisCe en utilisant les expressions pour le calcul des rksistances pondCrCes i
la compression axiale contenues dans la norme CANICSA-S16.1-M89, et si elle ne tient compte que de
l'effet du flambage local et du flambage en flexion autour d'un axe. Le ComitC technique sur les
pyldnes d'antenne de 1'Association canadienne de normalisation a Cgalement remarquC que les
resistances calculCes demeureront infkrieures aux rksistances obtenues avec la norme ANSIIASCE 10-90,
(( Design of latticed steel transmission structures B, qui tient compte des trois modes de flambage. Cet
article explique la logique derrikre la mkthode de conception adoptCe par le ComitC technique.
Mots clis : cornikes, flambage, compression, risistance de calcul, spCcifications, pyldnes d'acier,
cornikres i angle de 60".
[Traduit par la raaction]

I,Introduction usually consist of a mast with a triangular cross section sup-

The chief advantage of steel angles lies in the ease with
which they can be connected to other members. A great pro-
portion of their usage lies in latticed electrical transmission
towers and communication towers. These towers can be
either self-supporting or guyed. Guyed communication towers
Received July 14, 1993.
Revised manuscript accepted December 5, 1994.
M.K.S. Madugula and S.M.R. Adluri. Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada.
Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until October 31, 1995 (address inside
front cover).
ported by guy wires at different levels of the mast. he
triangular-base mast consists of three main leg members at
the vertices of an equilateral triangle and several cross mem-
bers bracing the main leg members at intervals. These brac-
ing members are either directly connected to the main leg
members without the use of any gusset plates, or, gusset
plates are used to facilitate the connection For rectangular-
base towers, this can be easily achieved, since the bracing
planes, as well as the leg plates of the main leg members,
intersect at 90" to each other. However, for triangular-base
towers, the bracing planes intersect at 60" to each other. If
triangular-base towers use hot-rolled 90" angles, the bracing
members cannot be directly attached to the leg members. If
gusset plates are used, they have to be bent- The most POP-
lar solution to the problem is to use angles whose leg plates

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 22: 603-610 (1995). Printed in Canada / Imprimt au Canada
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13
For personal use only.
 Madugula and Adluri
compressive resistance shall be calculated according to CSA
Standard S136, "Cold-formed steel structural members"
(Canadian Standards Association 1989a). For sections
greater than 4.5 rnrn thick which do not fail by torsional-
flexural buckling, factored compressive resistance is obtained
from the formulas given in CANICSA-S16.1-M89, where
the area A is taken as the effective area determined in accor-
dance with CSA-S136. Sections that are thicker than 4.5 mm
and are susceptible to torsional-flexural buckling shall be
designed by rational analysis. But no detailed recommen-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13
dations are given in CANICSA-S16.1-M89 regarding this
aspect.
The width-to-thickness ratios of a significant portion of
60" and 90" steel angles used in antenna towers exceed the
limit of 2 0 0 1 6 specified in CANICSA-S16.1-M89. A sig-
nificant portion of the 60" angles is also susceptible to
torsional-flexural buckling. However, the designers of steel
towers in Canada do not normally use CANICSA-S 136-M89
for the design of such angle members because of the practical
difficulties such as unfamiliarity with CANICSA-S136-M89.
To overcome the above problems encountered in the
design of steel angles with slender leg plates, the Canadian
Standards Association Technical Committee on Antenna
Towers decided to specify separate clauses to account for
local buckling.
For personal use only.
4. Local buckling of steel angles
Steel sections such as angles with width-to-thickness ratios
exceeding 2001fl can be subjected to local plate buckling,
which should be accounted for in their design. Usually, two
different procedures can be adopted for this purpose:
(1) use a reduced yield stress based on the susceptibility of
the individual leg plates to local buckling; and
(2) use a separate design equation that limits the strength of
the section based on local plate buckling.
The Technical Committee on Antenna Towers favoured
the first approach, while the second method has been adopted
in CSA Standard S136. Using the first approach, the speci-
fied guaranteed minimum yield stress, Fy, to be used in
evaluating the factored axial compressive resistance is
replaced by an effective yield stress, Fyl,which is a function
of the width-to-thickness ratio of steel angle legs (maximum
ratio is 25) as shown below:
(i) When w/t r 2 0 0 1 6 ,
(ii) When 200lfl < w/t r 3 8 0 1 6 ,
(iii) When 3 8 0 1 6 < w/t r 25,
where t is leg thickness and w is effective leg width. For
schifflerized angle, w is the distance from the toe to the edge
of fillet, i.e., w = a + b - t - rf in Fig. la. For cold-
+
formed 60" angles, w is the larger of b (r, - 0.5t)l2 and
b + r, - 2.5t in Fig. lb.
After determining the effective yield stress, FYI,the fac-
tored axial compressive resistance, Cr, corresponding to
flexural buckling about the minor axis (z-axis) is computed
from the following equations (same as in CANICSA-
S16.1-M89):
where
5. Torsional-flexural buckling strength of
60' equal-leg steel angles
Failure load under torsional-flexural buckling can be deter-
mined by substituting the equivalent torsional-flexural radius
of gyration, rtf, in place of the minor axis radius of gyra-
tion, r, in [7], for computing the value of the slenderness
parameter, X. Once the value of X is computed, the factored
axial compressive resistances can be obtained from [4] - [6]
in the usual manner. Equivalent torsional-flexural radius of
gyration, r ~ can
, be computed from the expressions given in
standard textbooks on the subject of elastic stability (e.g.,
Bleich 1952). The details of the method are given in Adluri
and Madugula (1991).
Before proceeding with the calculation of torsional-
flexural buckling load of a member (which involves rather
tedious computations), it is convenient to determine whether
such a failure mode governs that particular member. The
approximate effective length, Gf, below which the torsional-
flexural buckling mode governs the design can be estimated
from the following:
For schifflerized angles:
For cold-formed 60" angles:
where b, rf, r,, and t are shown in Fig. 1. If the effective
length of the member under consideration is less than the
length given by [8] or [9], it is necessary to proceed with the
calculation of torsional-flexural buckling strength.
6. Experimental investigation
Experimental investigations have been carried out at the
University of Windsor on the axial compressive strength of
37 schifflerized angles and 19 cold-formed 60" steel angles.
Tests were conducted under concentric axial compression.
The first test program (Adluri et al. 1991, 1992) contained
18 schifflerized angles (out of which six failed in torsional-
flexural buckling) and no cold-formed 60" angles. A second
 606 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 22, 1995

Table 1. Details of test specimens: schifflerized angles - first set.*

Actual measured
Specimen No. of Nominal size Effective length yield stress, Fya PI,, (average) Failure
designation specimens (mm) (mm) (MPa) (a) modet
S5-5/16 3 127 X 127 X 7.9 1654 333 436 T-F-B
S4-114 3 102 x 102 x 6.4 1654 356 292 T-F-B
S3.5-5/16 3 89 x 89 x 7.9 1654 369 355 F-B
S3-318 6 76 x 76 x 9.5 1654 475 286 F-B
S3-114 3 76 x 76 x 6.4 1654 363 204 F-B
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13

*Reference: Adluri et al. (1991, 1992).

t ~ - ~torsional-flexural
- ~ , buckling; F-B, flexural buckling.

Table 2. Details of test specimens: schifflerized angles - second set.*

Actual measured
Specimen No. of Nominal size Effective length yield stress, F,, Failure
designation specimens (mm) (mm) (MPa) modet
H1 76 x 76 x 6.4 T-F-B
H2 76 x 76 x 4.8 T-F-B
H3 76 x 76 x 4.8 T-F-B
H4 76 x 76 x 4.8 T-F-B
H5 102 x 102 x 6.4 T-F-B
H6 102 x 102 x 6.4 T-F-B
H7 102 x 102 x 6.4 T-F-B
For personal use only.

*Reference: Sankisa et al. (1993).

?T-F-B,torsional-flexural buckling.

Table 3. Details of test specimens: cold-formed 60" angles.*

Actual measured
Specimen No. of Nominal size Effective length yield stress, Fya P,,, (average) Failure
designation specimens (mm) (mm) (MPa) Ow mode?
C1 3 38 x 38 x 3.2 768 310 49 F-B
C2 3 38 x 38 x 3.2 553 3 14 61 T-F-B, F-B
C3 3 38 x 38 x 3.2 343 337 74 T-F-B
C4 3 51 x 51 x 4.8 1128 303 116 F-B
C5 3 51 X 51 X 4.8 747 303 136 F-B
C6 4 51 X 51 X 4.8 37 1 3 12 162 T-F-B
*Reference: Sankisa et al. (1993).
?F-B,flexural buckling; T-F-B, torsional-flexural buckling.

experimental program was designed to test 60" angles (both
schifflerized and cold-formed) predominantly failing in
torsional-flexural buckling and consisted of 19 schifflerized
angles and 19 cold-formed 60" angles (Sankisa et al. 1993).
The nominal sizes of schifflerized angles included in the first
set of experiments were 76 x 76 X 6.4, 76 x 76 x 9.5,
89 X 89 X 7.9, 102 x 102 x 6.4, and 127 x 127 x 7.9 mm
(3 x 3 x 1/,, 3 X 3 X 3/8, 3% X 3% X x 6 , 4 X 4 X 1/,, and
5 X 5 X X 6 in.). In the second set of experiments, the nomi-
nal sizes of hot-rolled sections were 76 x 76 x 4.8, 76 x
76 X 6.4, and 102 x 102 x 6.4 mm (3 x 3 x X 6 , 3 x 3 x
'/,, and 4 X 4 X '/, in.) and the nominal sizes of cold-formed
60" angles were 38 x 38 x 3.2 and 51 x 51 x 4.8 mm
(1% X 1% X 1/8 and 2 x 2 X 3/,, in.). The details of the
experimental investigations are given in the references cited
and therefore are not repeated here. Only the specimen sizes,
number of specimens for each size, effective lengths,
measured yield stresses, and the experimental failure loads
are given in Tables 1-3.
7. Comparison of calculated and
experimental failure loads
Calculated strengths are compared with the experimental
failure loads in Tables 4-6 for the following three cases:
Case 1: Only local buckling and flexural buckling are
considered. Actual measured yield stress, F,,, is used in the
computations. Resistance factor, 4, is taken as 1.0 in
141- [61.
Case 11: Same as Case I, but torsional-flexural buckling
is also considered.
Case 111: Calculations as per CSA Standard S37-94 (i.e.,
 Madugula and Adluri

Table 4. Comparison of calculated and experimental failulre loads: schifflerized angles - first set.
Case I Case II Case III

Specimen designation

S5-5/16
S4- 114
S3.5-5/16
S3-318
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13

S3-114
Weighted average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Notes: Case I: calculations based on measured yield stress, 6 = 1.0, considering only local buckling and
flexural buckling about minor axis; Case 11: calculations based on measured yield stress, 6 = 1.0, considering
local buckling, flexural buckling about minor axis, and torsional-flexural buckling; Case 111: calculations based
on CSA Standard S37-94 (nominal yield stress of 300 MPa, 6 = 0.9, and considering only local buckling and
flexural buckling about minor axis).

Table 5. Comparison of calculated and experimental failulre loads: schifflerized angles - second set.

Case I Case 11 Case III

Pcalc P,,I, Pca~c P,,,, Pca~c pcalC

Specimen designation A, (kN) P,,,, A, (kN) P,,,, A (kN) P,,,,
For personal use only.

H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
Weighted average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
-- --

For explanation of cases I, 11, and 111, refer to the notes in Table 4.

Table 6. Comparison of calculated and experimental failulre loads: cold-formed 60" angles.

Case I Case 11 Case 111

Pca~c -
Pca~c Pca~c P,,,, Pcalc P,,,,
Specimen designation A, (kN) P,,,, A, (kN) P,,,, A (kN) P,,,

C1 1.13
C2 0.81
C3 0.51
C4 1.21
C5 0.80
C6 0.40
Weighted average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
For explanation of cases I, 11, and 111, refer to the notes in Table 4.

local buckling and flexural buckling only are considered;
specified guaranteed minimum yield stress, F,, is used in
the computations; 6 is taken as 0.9 in [4] - [6].
The geometrical properties, required for strength compu-
tations, were calculated using the expressions given in Adluri
and Madugula (1991) for schifflerized angles. The expres-
sions presented in Appendix 2 were used to calculate the
properties of cold-formed 60" angles.
As mentioned above, Case I of Tables 4 -6 accounted for
local buckling and flexural buckling only (and ignored
 608 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 22, 1995

Fig. 2. Comparison of experimental failure loads with loads calculated according to CSA Standard S37-94.
1.4
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13

- CSA Standard S37-94

X Schifflerized Angles - Set I
+ Schifflerized Angles - Set 11
0 Cold-Formed 60° Angles

torsional-flexural buckling) and used CANICSA-S16.1-M89 Fig. 3. Comparison of effective yield stress, Fyl,according to
for the calculations of axial compressive resistances. This CSA Standard S37-94 and ANSIIASCE 10-90 (E, = 300 MPa).
resulted in the calculated strengths that exceeded the experi-
For personal use only.

mental failure loads by a maximum of only 3 %. In Case I1

of Tables 4 -6, torsional-flexural buckling was also included. -
300
The calculated failure loads for the specimens that failed in
torsional-flexural buckling are found to be 25 % less than the
test failure loads, resulting in an uneconomical design. This
is because of the conservative nature of the expressions used
to calculated the strengths.
-
n,
250 -

E 200-
As per CSA Standard S37-94, 9 = 0.9 is to be used and
L.7
specified minimum guaranteed yield stress has to be used (in -
150
place of actual measured yield stress), which results in a
reduction in the calculated strengths for Case III compared Nominal Fy = 300 MPa
to Case I. Therefore, the design according to CSA Standard 100- - CSA Standard S37-94
S37-94 is quite conservative, even though torsional-flexural --- ANSIIASCE 10-90
buckling is ignored. This is evident from Fig. 2 where 50
I I I I
experimental failure loads are compared with the factored 0 5 10 15 20 25

axial compressive resistances according to CSA Standard w It

S37-94 (i.e., Case ILI of Tables 4 -6).

The expressions for Fylin [lo] are as follows:
8. Comparison of CSA Standard S37-94 (i) For w/t I 209.61-,
and ANSllASCE 10-90
[12] Fyl=Fy
Standard ANSIIASCE 10-90, "Design of latticed steel trans-
mission structures" (American Society of Civil Engineers (ii) For 209.61- Iw/t 5 377.281-,
1992), is a very widely used standard for the design of elec-
trical transmission towers. It uses an ultimate strength
method (not a limit states design method) and therefore does
not have the resistance factor, 4. It requires all the three
modes of failure - local buckling, flexural buckling, and (iii) For 377.281- 5 w/t I 25,
torsional-flexural buckling - to be considered in the design
of 60" steel angles. It uses the following equations for the
calculation of axial compressive strength, Cu.
[lo] Cu= AFY1(1- 0.25X2) for X 5 4 As shown in Fig. 3, for given values of w/t, [12] -[I41
result in effective yield stresses which are higher than the
[l 11 Cu= T~EI,/(KL)~ for X r 4 values obtained from [I] - [3]. Also, for a given value of
 Madugula and Adluri
Fig. 4. Comparison of buckling stress according to
CSA Standard S37-94 and ANSIIASCE 10-90 (F, = 300 MPa).
300 -.--.-_- - Adluri, S. M.R., Madugula, M.K. S., and Monforton, G.R.
.-.
- Adluri, S.M.R., Madugula, M.K.S., and Monforton, G.R.
. 1992. Schifflerized angle struts. ASCE Journal of
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13
u'
loo - - latticed steel transmission structures. New York, N.Y.,
- CSA Standard S37-94
- ANSIIASCE 10-90
specified guaranteed minimum yield stress Fy, width-to-
thickness ratio w/t, and slenderness parameter A, the com-
pressive strength from [lo] and [ l l ] is higher than the
factored axial compressive resistance obtained from [4] -[6].
This comparison is carried out in Fig. 4 for Fy = 300 MPa.
The maximum value of X corresponds to the slenderness ratio,
KLIrz, of 120. This is the maximum permissible slenderness
For personal use only.
ratio for leg members, according to CSA Standard S37-94.
It can be shown that, for any given member, the factored
axial compressive resistance obtained from CSA Standard
S37-94 (which considers local buckling and flexural buckling
only) will be less than the compressive strength obtained
from ANSIIASCE 10-90 (which considers all three buckling
modes). The Canadian Standards Association Technical
Committee on Antenna Towers took this also into considera-
tion in deciding to ignore torsional-flexural buckling for the
design of 60" steel angles.
9. Summary
The paper has examined the factored axial compressive
resistance of 60" steel angles (both schifflerized and cold-
formed) in light of recent experimental results. Sixty-degree
angles are weaker in torsional-flexural buckling than 90"
angles. However, the results of experiments have shown that
the design according to CSA Standard S37-94 by taking into
account the effect of only local buckling and flexural buck-
ling will be conservative. This is because of the conservative
nature of the expressions for the calculation of factored axial
compressive resistances. The CSA Technical Committee on
Antenna Towers (CSA-S37) also took into consideration that
the proposed design method results in calculated resistances
that are less than the strengths computed according to the
very widely used Standard ANSIIASCE 10-90, which requires
all the three types of buckling to be considered for 60" angle
design.
Acknowledgement
The present work was carried out with the financial support
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada.
References
Adluri, S.M.R., and Madugula, M.K.S. 1991. Factored
axial compressive resistance of schifflerized angles.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(6):
926-932.
1991. Finite element failure analysis of schifflerized
angles. Computers and Structures, 41(5): 1087 - 1093.
Structural Engineering, 118(7): 1920- 1936.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1992. Design of
Standard ANSIIASCE 10-90.
Bleich, F. 1952. Buckling strength of metal structures.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.
Canadian Standards Association. 1989a. Cold formed
steel structural members. Rexdale, Ont., Standard
CANICSA-S 136-M89.
Canadian Standards Association. 19896. Limit states
design of steel structures. Rexdale, Ont., Standard
CANICSA-S16.1-M89.
Canadian Standards Association. 1994. Antennas, towers
and antenna-supporting structures. Rexdale, Ont.,
Standard S37-94.
Sankisa, K.K., Adluri, S.M.R., and Madugula, M.K.S.
1993. Further studies on the compressive strength of
60" equal-leg steel angles. Proceedings of the
Structural Stability Research Council Annual
Conference, April 5-7, Milwaukee, Wis.,
pp. 309-320.
Appendix 1. List of symbols
unbent portion of schifflerized angle leg (Fig. la)
cross-sectional area
bent portion of schifflerized angle leg (Fig. la; flat
portion of cold-formed 60" angle leg (Fig. lb)
factored axial compressive resistance
axial compressive strength according to ANSIIASCE
10-90
Young's modulus of elasticity (200 GPa)
specified guaranteed minimum yield stress (MPa)
actual measured yield stress (MPa)
effective yield stress (taking into account local buck-
ling) corresponding to Fy (MPa)
effective length
approximate effective length below which torsional-
flexural buckling governs
polar moment of inertia about shear centre
moment of inertia about major axis (u - u axis)
moment of inertia about minor axis (z-z axis)
Saint-Venant torsion constant
calculated failure load
experimental failure load
radius of fillet for schifflerized angle (Fig. la)
mean radius of bend for cold-formed 60" angle
(Fig. lb)
equivalent radius of gyration for torsional-flexural
buckling
 61 0 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 22, 1995

r, radius of gyration for flexural buckling about minor 3. Coordinate of the centroid along the major axis:
axis (z -z axis)
t thickness of angle leg -
Uc =
0.866b2+b(rm+t)+0.362rk+1.05trm
-
u, coordinate of the centroid along the u-u axis 2b + 2.09rm
i& distance between the centroid and the shear centre
w effective width of angle leg (for calculation of effec- 4. Moment of inertia about z-z axis (minor axis):
tive vield stress)
X slenierness par'ameter according to CSA Standard
S37-94 and ANSIIASCE 10-90 (i.e., based on speci-
fied guaranteed minimum yield stress, local buckling,
and flexural buckling) (A = ( K L I ~ , T ) ( ~ E ) ) + 2.09trm(0.173rm+ 0.5t)2 - A $
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/04/13

X1 slenderness parameter based on actual measured yield

stress, considering local buckling and flexural buck- 5. Saint-Venant torsion constant:
ling (XI = ( K L / r z . r r ) ( ~ E ) )
+ ~ ' m= (Area) -t2
X2 slenderness parameter based on actual measured yield
stress, considering local buckling, flexural buckling,
and torsional-flexural buckling (A2 equals the larger
(
J =4 3
3
b
3, 3

of XI and ( K L I ~ , ~ T > ( ~ E ) ) 6 . Distance between the centroid and the shear centre:
d, resistance factor
iis = 5(2b3 - 8.34b2rm+ 10.9brk + 4.11r;)
Appendix 2. Geometrical properties of 61,
cold-formed 60 O angles t
-rm--+ Ec
1. Cross-sectional area: 2
A = 2t(b + 1.047rm) 7. Polar moment of inertia about the shear centre:
2. Moment of inertia about u-u axis (major axis): + Iz+ A $
For personal use only.

Ips = I,,

View publication stats