Table 16.

Types of beam not susceptible to lateraltorsional bucklingloading produces bending about the minor axisbeam provided with closely spaced or continuous lat Fig.16.4 Lateraltorsional buckling

The central feature in the above process is the determination of a measure of thebeams lateraltorsional buckling strength ( p b ) in terms of a parameter ( l LT

) whichrepresents those factors which control this strength.Modications to the basicprocess permit the method to be used for unequal anged sections includ p b and l LT of BS 5950:Part 1 (and between s li / s yc and l LT ( s yc / 355 ) in BS 5400:Part 3) assumes the beam between lateral restraints to besubject to uniform moment.Other patterns,such as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing n ,the value of which has been selected so as to ensure that theresulting value of p b correctly reects the enhanced strength due to the non-uniformmoment loading.An alternative approach consists of basing l LT on the geometricaland support conditions alone but making allowance for the benecial effects of non-uniform moment by comparing the resulting value of M b with a suitably adjustedvalue of design moment . is taken as a factor

m times the maximum momentwithin the beam M max ; m = 1.0 for uniform moment and m < 1.0 for non-uniformmoment.Provided that suitably chosen values of m and n

are used,both methodscan be made to yield identical results;the difference arises simply in the way inwhich the correction is made,whether on the slenderness p b versus l LT relationship for the n -factor method or on the strength axis for the m -factor method.Figure 16.5 illustrates both concepts,although for the purpose of the gure the m -factor method has been shown as an enhancement of p b by 1/ m rather than a reduc-tion in the requirement of checking M b against = mM max .BS 5950:Part 1 uses the m -factor method for all cases,while BS 5400:Part 3 includes only the n -factormethod.When the m -factor method is used the buckling check is conducted in terms of a moment less than the maximum moment in the beam segment M max

;then aseparate check that the capacity of the beam cross-section M c is at least equal to M max must also be made.In cases where is taken as M max ,then the bucklingcheck will be more severe than (or in the ease of a stocky beam for which M b = M c

,identical to) the cross-section capacity check.Allowance for non-uniform moment loading on cantilevers is normally treatedsomewhat differently.For example,t MMMMM 444 Beams

an end moment such as horizontal wind load acting on a faade,should be regardedas an ordinary beam since it does not have the benet of non-uniform mom M E .Values of M E may conveniently be obtainedfrom summaries of research data. 6 For example,BS 5950:Part 1 permits l LT to becalculated from -16.3

As an example of the use of this approach Fig.16.6 shows how signicantly higherload-carrying capacities may be obtained for a cantilever with a tip load appl 16.3.7Fully restrained beams

The design of beams is considerably simplied if lateraltorsional buckling effectsdo not have to be considered explicitly a situation which will occur if one or M b may be taken as itsmoment capacity M c and,in the absence of any reductions in M c due to local bucklp

LTypE #NAME? () () 2 EpMM // Basic design 445 Fig.16.5 Design modications using m -factor or n -factor methods

ling,high shear or torsion,it should be designed for its full in-plane bending strength.Certain of the conditions corresponding to the case where a beam may be l below which buckling will not affect M b of Table 38 of BS 5950:Part 1,are sufciently high ( l = 340,225 and 170 for D/B ratios of 2,3 and 4,and p y = 275N/mm 2

) that only in very rare cases will lateraltorsional buckling be a design consideration.Situations in which the form of construction employed automatically provi 446 Beams Fig.16.6 Lateraltorsional buckling of a tip-loaded cantilever

that the restraints will effectively prevent movement at the braced cross-sections,thereby acting as if they were rigid supports.In practice,bracing will possess a Basic design 447 Fig.16.7 Effect of type of cross-section on theoretical elastic critical moment

16.4Lateral bracing

For design to BS 5950:Part 1,unless the engineer is prepared to supplement the coderules with some degree of working from rst principles,only restraints cap 7,8 Where properly designed restraint systems areused the limits on l LT for M b = M c (or more correctly p b = p y

)are given in Table 16.7.For beams in plastically-designed structures it is vital that premature failure dueto plastic lateraltorsional buckling does not impair the L / r y

to ensure satisfactory behaviour;it is not necessarilycompatible with the elastic design rules of section 4 of the code since acceptablebehaviour can include the M p .The expression of clause 5.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1, -16.4

makes no allowance for either of two potentially benecial effects:(1)moment gradient(2)restraint against lateral deection provided by secondary structural me Lr fpx mycy + ()() [] 3813027536 2212 /// 448 Beams Table 16.7 Maximum values of l LT forwhich p b

= p y for rolledsections p y (N/mm 2 ) Value of l LT up to which p b = p y 245 37265 35275 34325 32340 31365 30415 28430 27450 26

of Brown, 9 the basis of which is the original work on plastic instability of Horne. 10

This is covered explicitly in clause 5.3.3.A method of allowing for both effects whenthe beam segment being checked is either elastic or partially plastic is give L m with an enhanced value L s 16.5Bracing action in bridges U-frame design

obtained from clause 5.3.4 of BS 5950:Part 1.In both cases the presence of a change in cross-section,for example,as producedby the type of haunch usually u

The main longitudinal beams in several forms of bridge construction will,by virtueof the structural arrangement employed,receive a signicant measure of restr U-frame

action.Figure 16.8 illustrates the original concept based on the half-through girderform of construction.(See Chapter 4 for a discussion of different bridge types Bracing action in bridges

vided with closely spaced or continuous lateral restraintclosed section

e used for unequal anged sections including tees,fabricated Is for which the section properties must be calculated,sections contain-ing slender plate elements,members with

uch as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing from a maximum at one end or the parabolic distribution produced by a uniformload,are generally less severe in terms of their effec

ent by comparing the resulting value of

ection is made,whether on the slenderness axis of the

e beam segment

treatedsomewhat differently.For example,the set of effective length factors given in Table14 of Reference 1 includes allowances for the variation from the arrangement useda

es not have the benet of non-uniform momentloading.For more complex arrangements that cannot reasonably be approximated by oneof the standard cases covered by cor

btained for a cantilever with a tip load applied toits bottom ange,a case not specically covered by BS 5950:Part 1.

citly a situation which will occur if one or moreof the conditions of Table 16.6 are met.In these cases the beams buckling resistance moment

onding to the case where a beam may be regardedas fully restrained are virtually self-evident but others require either judgement orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling ca

construction employed automatically providessome degree of lateral restraint or for which a bracing system is to be used toenhance a beams strength require careful conside

supports.In practice,bracing will possess a nitestiffness.A more fundamental discussion of the topic,which explains the exactnature of bracing stiffness and bracing strength

king from rst principles,only restraints capable of acting as rigid supports are acceptable.Despite the absence of a specic stiffnessrequirement,adherence to the strength re

eraltorsional buckling does not impair the formation of the full plasticcollapse mechanism and the attainment of the plastic collapse load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit o

since acceptablebehaviour can include the provision of adequate rotation capacity at momentsslightly below

ection provided by secondary structural membersattached to one ange as by the purlins on the top ange of a portal framerafter.The rst effect may be included in Equation

d is either elastic or partially plastic is given inAppendix G of BS 5950:Part 1;alternatively the effect of intermittent tension angerestraint alone may be allowed for by replacin

as producedby the type of haunch usually used in portal frame construction,may be allowedfor.When the restraint is such that lateral deection of the beams compressionan

oyed,receive a signicant measure of restraintagainst lateraltorsional buckling by a device commonly referred to as

4 for a discussion of different bridge types.) Ina simply-supported span,the top (compression) anges of the main girders,althoughlaterally unbraced in the sense that no brac

n-ing slender plate elements,members with properties that vary along their length,closed sections and ats.Various techniques for allowing for the form of the appliedloading a

generally less severe in terms of their effect on lateral stability;a givenbeam is likely to be able to withstand a larger peak moment before becoming lat-erally unstable.One me

the variation from the arrangement usedas the basis for the strengthslenderness relationship due to both the lateral supportconditions and the form of the applied loading.W

y oneof the standard cases covered by correction factors,codes normally permit the directuse of the elastic critical moment

orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling cannot occur in beams loaded in their weaker princi-pal plane;under the action of increasing load they will collapse simply by plasticac

e a beams strength require careful consideration.The fundamental require-ment of any form of restraint if it is to be capable of increasing the strength of themain member is t

e of bracing stiffness and bracing strength,may be found in References 7 and8.Noticeably absent from the code clauses is a quantitative denition of adequatestiffness,altho

srequirement,adherence to the strength requirement together with an awareness thatadequate stiffness is also necessary,avoiding obviously very exible yet strongarrangem

e load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit on

he rst effect may be included in Equation (16.4) by adding the correction term

traint alone may be allowed for by replacing

al deection of the beams compressionange is prevented at intervals,then Equation (16.4) applies between the pointsof effective lateral restraint.A discussion of the applicat

aterally unbraced in the sense that no bracing may be attached directly to them,cannot buckle freely in the manner of Fig.16.4 since their lower anges arerestrained by the d

llowing for the form of the appliedloading are also possible;some care is required in their use.The relationship between

efore becoming lat-erally unstable.One means of allowing for this in design is to adjust the beams slen-derness by a factor

tions and the form of the applied loading.When a cantilever is subdivided byone or more intermediate lateral restraints positioned between its root and tip,thensegments othe

g load they will collapse simply by plasticaction and excessive in-plane deformation.Much the same is true for rectangularbox sections even when bent about their strong axis.

easing the strength of themain member is that it limits the buckling type deformations.An appreciation of exactly how the main member would buckle if unbraced is a prerequis

tative denition of adequatestiffness,although it has subsequently been suggested that a bracing system that is25 times stiffer than the braced beam would meet this require

obviously very exible yet strongarrangements,should lead to satisfactory designs.Doubtful cases will merit exami-nation in a more fundamental way.

ateral restraint.A discussion of the application of this and otherapproaches for checking the stability of both rafters and columns in portal framesdesigned according to the prin

e their lower anges arerestrained by the deck.Buckling must therefore involve some distortion of thegirder web into the mode given in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames

etween its root and tip,thensegments other than the tip segment should be treated as ordinary beam segmentswhen assessing lateraltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a

ns even when bent about their strong axis.Figure 16.7,which is based onelastic critical load theory analogous to the Euler buckling of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will

ber would buckle if unbraced is a prerequisite for theprovision of an effective system.Since lateraltorsional buckling involves bothlateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.1

n the braced beam would meet this requirement.Examinationof Reference 7 shows that while such a check does cover the majority of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrang

fundamental way.

ortal framesdesigned according to the principles of either elastic or plastic theory is given insection 18.7.

in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames preventlateral movement of the top ange).An approximate way of dealing with this isto regard each longitudinal girder as a truss i

raltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a cantilever subject to

of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will be of the order of ten times more stable than UB or UCsections of the same area.The limits on

ateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.16.4,either or both deformations maybe addressed.Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1 set out the principles gov-erning the a

of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrangements in which even much stiffer bracing cannotsupply full restraint.

regard each longitudinal girder as a truss in which the tension chord is fully

art 1 set out the principles gov-erning the action of bracing designed to provide either lateral restraint or torsionalrestraint.In common with most approaches to bracing design

on with most approaches to bracing design these clauses assume

Table 16.6

Types of beam not susceptible to lateraltorsional bucklingloading produces bending about the minor axisbeam provided with closely spaced or continuous lat Fig.16.4 Lateraltorsional buckling

The central feature in the above process is the determination of a measure of thebeams lateraltorsional buckling strength ( p b ) in terms of a parameter ( l LT

) whichrepresents those factors which control this strength.Modications to the basicprocess permit the method to be used for unequal anged sections includ p b and l LT of BS 5950:Part 1 (and between s li / s yc and l LT ( s yc / 355 ) in BS 5400:Part 3) assumes the beam between lateral restraints to besubject to uniform moment.Other patterns,such as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing n ,the value of which has been selected so as to ensure that theresulting value of p b correctly reects the enhanced strength due to the non-uniformmoment loading.An alternative approach consists of basing l LT on the geometricaland support conditions alone but making allowance for the benecial effects of non-uniform moment by comparing the resulting value of M b with a suitably adjustedvalue of design moment . is taken as a factor

m times the maximum momentwithin the beam M max ; m = 1.0 for uniform moment and m < 1.0 for non-uniformmoment.Provided that suitably chosen values of m and n

are used,both methodscan be made to yield identical results;the difference arises simply in the way inwhich the correction is made,whether on the slenderness p b versus l LT relationship for the n -factor method or on the strength axis for the m -factor method.Figure 16.5 illustrates both concepts,although for the purpose of the gure the m -factor method has been shown as an enhancement of p b by 1/ m rather than a reduc-tion in the requirement of checking M b against = mM max .BS 5950:Part 1 uses the m -factor method for all cases,while BS 5400:Part 3 includes only the n -factormethod.When the m -factor method is used the buckling check is conducted in terms of a moment less than the maximum moment in the beam segment M max

;then aseparate check that the capacity of the beam cross-section M c is at least equal to M max must also be made.In cases where is taken as M max ,then the bucklingcheck will be more severe than (or in the ease of a stocky beam for which M b = M c

,identical to) the cross-section capacity check.Allowance for non-uniform moment loading on cantilevers is normally treatedsomewhat differently.For example,t MMMMM 444 Beams

an end moment such as horizontal wind load acting on a faade,should be regardedas an ordinary beam since it does not have the benet of non-uniform mom M E .Values of M E may conveniently be obtainedfrom summaries of research data. 6 For example,BS 5950:Part 1 permits l LT to becalculated from -16.3

As an example of the use of this approach Fig.16.6 shows how signicantly higherload-carrying capacities may be obtained for a cantilever with a tip load appl 16.3.7Fully restrained beams

The design of beams is considerably simplied if lateraltorsional buckling effectsdo not have to be considered explicitly a situation which will occur if one or M b may be taken as itsmoment capacity M c and,in the absence of any reductions in M c due to local bucklp

LTypE #NAME? () () 2 EpMM // Basic design 445 Fig.16.5 Design modications using m -factor or n -factor methods

ling,high shear or torsion,it should be designed for its full in-plane bending strength.Certain of the conditions corresponding to the case where a beam may be l below which buckling will not affect M b of Table 38 of BS 5950:Part 1,are sufciently high ( l = 340,225 and 170 for D/B ratios of 2,3 and 4,and p y = 275N/mm 2

) that only in very rare cases will lateraltorsional buckling be a design consideration.Situations in which the form of construction employed automatically provi 446 Beams Fig.16.6 Lateraltorsional buckling of a tip-loaded cantilever

that the restraints will effectively prevent movement at the braced cross-sections,thereby acting as if they were rigid supports.In practice,bracing will possess a Basic design 447 Fig.16.7 Effect of type of cross-section on theoretical elastic critical moment

16.4Lateral bracing

For design to BS 5950:Part 1,unless the engineer is prepared to supplement the coderules with some degree of working from rst principles,only restraints cap 7,8 Where properly designed restraint systems areused the limits on l LT for M b = M c (or more correctly p b = p y

)are given in Table 16.7.For beams in plastically-designed structures it is vital that premature failure dueto plastic lateraltorsional buckling does not impair the L / r y

to ensure satisfactory behaviour;it is not necessarilycompatible with the elastic design rules of section 4 of the code since acceptablebehaviour can include the M p .The expression of clause 5.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1, -16.4

makes no allowance for either of two potentially benecial effects:(1)moment gradient(2)restraint against lateral deection provided by secondary structural me Lr fpx mycy + ()() [] 3813027536 2212 /// 448 Beams Table 16.7 Maximum values of l LT forwhich p b

= p y for rolledsections p y (N/mm 2 ) Value of l LT up to which p b = p y 245 37265 35275 34325 32340 31365 30415 28430 27450 26

of Brown, 9 the basis of which is the original work on plastic instability of Horne. 10

This is covered explicitly in clause 5.3.3.A method of allowing for both effects whenthe beam segment being checked is either elastic or partially plastic is give L m with an enhanced value L s 16.5Bracing action in bridges U-frame design

obtained from clause 5.3.4 of BS 5950:Part 1.In both cases the presence of a change in cross-section,for example,as producedby the type of haunch usually u

The main longitudinal beams in several forms of bridge construction will,by virtueof the structural arrangement employed,receive a signicant measure of restr U-frame

action.Figure 16.8 illustrates the original concept based on the half-through girderform of construction.(See Chapter 4 for a discussion of different bridge types Bracing action in bridges

vided with closely spaced or continuous lateral restraintclosed section

e used for unequal anged sections including tees,fabricated Is for which the section properties must be calculated,sections contain-ing slender plate elements,members with

uch as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing from a maximum at one end or the parabolic distribution produced by a uniformload,are generally less severe in terms of their effec

ent by comparing the resulting value of

ection is made,whether on the slenderness axis of the

e beam segment

treatedsomewhat differently.For example,the set of effective length factors given in Table14 of Reference 1 includes allowances for the variation from the arrangement useda

es not have the benet of non-uniform momentloading.For more complex arrangements that cannot reasonably be approximated by oneof the standard cases covered by cor

btained for a cantilever with a tip load applied toits bottom ange,a case not specically covered by BS 5950:Part 1.

citly a situation which will occur if one or moreof the conditions of Table 16.6 are met.In these cases the beams buckling resistance moment

onding to the case where a beam may be regardedas fully restrained are virtually self-evident but others require either judgement orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling ca

construction employed automatically providessome degree of lateral restraint or for which a bracing system is to be used toenhance a beams strength require careful conside

supports.In practice,bracing will possess a nitestiffness.A more fundamental discussion of the topic,which explains the exactnature of bracing stiffness and bracing strength

king from rst principles,only restraints capable of acting as rigid supports are acceptable.Despite the absence of a specic stiffnessrequirement,adherence to the strength re

eraltorsional buckling does not impair the formation of the full plasticcollapse mechanism and the attainment of the plastic collapse load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit o

since acceptablebehaviour can include the provision of adequate rotation capacity at momentsslightly below

ection provided by secondary structural membersattached to one ange as by the purlins on the top ange of a portal framerafter.The rst effect may be included in Equation

d is either elastic or partially plastic is given inAppendix G of BS 5950:Part 1;alternatively the effect of intermittent tension angerestraint alone may be allowed for by replacin

as producedby the type of haunch usually used in portal frame construction,may be allowedfor.When the restraint is such that lateral deection of the beams compressionan

oyed,receive a signicant measure of restraintagainst lateraltorsional buckling by a device commonly referred to as

4 for a discussion of different bridge types.) Ina simply-supported span,the top (compression) anges of the main girders,althoughlaterally unbraced in the sense that no brac

n-ing slender plate elements,members with properties that vary along their length,closed sections and ats.Various techniques for allowing for the form of the appliedloading a

generally less severe in terms of their effect on lateral stability;a givenbeam is likely to be able to withstand a larger peak moment before becoming lat-erally unstable.One me

the variation from the arrangement usedas the basis for the strengthslenderness relationship due to both the lateral supportconditions and the form of the applied loading.W

y oneof the standard cases covered by correction factors,codes normally permit the directuse of the elastic critical moment

orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling cannot occur in beams loaded in their weaker princi-pal plane;under the action of increasing load they will collapse simply by plasticac

e a beams strength require careful consideration.The fundamental require-ment of any form of restraint if it is to be capable of increasing the strength of themain member is t

e of bracing stiffness and bracing strength,may be found in References 7 and8.Noticeably absent from the code clauses is a quantitative denition of adequatestiffness,altho

srequirement,adherence to the strength requirement together with an awareness thatadequate stiffness is also necessary,avoiding obviously very exible yet strongarrangem

e load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit on

he rst effect may be included in Equation (16.4) by adding the correction term

traint alone may be allowed for by replacing

al deection of the beams compressionange is prevented at intervals,then Equation (16.4) applies between the pointsof effective lateral restraint.A discussion of the applicat

aterally unbraced in the sense that no bracing may be attached directly to them,cannot buckle freely in the manner of Fig.16.4 since their lower anges arerestrained by the d

llowing for the form of the appliedloading are also possible;some care is required in their use.The relationship between

efore becoming lat-erally unstable.One means of allowing for this in design is to adjust the beams slen-derness by a factor

tions and the form of the applied loading.When a cantilever is subdivided byone or more intermediate lateral restraints positioned between its root and tip,thensegments othe

g load they will collapse simply by plasticaction and excessive in-plane deformation.Much the same is true for rectangularbox sections even when bent about their strong axis.

easing the strength of themain member is that it limits the buckling type deformations.An appreciation of exactly how the main member would buckle if unbraced is a prerequis

tative denition of adequatestiffness,although it has subsequently been suggested that a bracing system that is25 times stiffer than the braced beam would meet this require

obviously very exible yet strongarrangements,should lead to satisfactory designs.Doubtful cases will merit exami-nation in a more fundamental way.

ateral restraint.A discussion of the application of this and otherapproaches for checking the stability of both rafters and columns in portal framesdesigned according to the prin

e their lower anges arerestrained by the deck.Buckling must therefore involve some distortion of thegirder web into the mode given in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames

etween its root and tip,thensegments other than the tip segment should be treated as ordinary beam segmentswhen assessing lateraltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a

ns even when bent about their strong axis.Figure 16.7,which is based onelastic critical load theory analogous to the Euler buckling of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will

ber would buckle if unbraced is a prerequisite for theprovision of an effective system.Since lateraltorsional buckling involves bothlateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.1

n the braced beam would meet this requirement.Examinationof Reference 7 shows that while such a check does cover the majority of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrang

fundamental way.

ortal framesdesigned according to the principles of either elastic or plastic theory is given insection 18.7.

in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames preventlateral movement of the top ange).An approximate way of dealing with this isto regard each longitudinal girder as a truss i

raltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a cantilever subject to

of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will be of the order of ten times more stable than UB or UCsections of the same area.The limits on

ateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.16.4,either or both deformations maybe addressed.Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1 set out the principles gov-erning the a

of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrangements in which even much stiffer bracing cannotsupply full restraint.

regard each longitudinal girder as a truss in which the tension chord is fully

art 1 set out the principles gov-erning the action of bracing designed to provide either lateral restraint or torsionalrestraint.In common with most approaches to bracing design

on with most approaches to bracing design these clauses assume

Table 16.6

Types of beam not susceptible to lateraltorsional bucklingloading produces bending about the minor axisbeam provided with closely spaced or continuous lat Fig.16.4 Lateraltorsional buckling

The central feature in the above process is the determination of a measure of thebeams lateraltorsional buckling strength ( p b ) in terms of a parameter ( l LT

) whichrepresents those factors which control this strength.Modications to the basicprocess permit the method to be used for unequal anged sections includ p b and l LT of BS 5950:Part 1 (and between s li / s yc and l LT ( s yc / 355 ) in BS 5400:Part 3) assumes the beam between lateral restraints to besubject to uniform moment.Other patterns,such as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing n ,the value of which has been selected so as to ensure that theresulting value of p b correctly reects the enhanced strength due to the non-uniformmoment loading.An alternative approach consists of basing l LT on the geometricaland support conditions alone but making allowance for the benecial effects of non-uniform moment by comparing the resulting value of M b with a suitably adjustedvalue of design moment . is taken as a factor

m times the maximum momentwithin the beam M max ; m = 1.0 for uniform moment and m < 1.0 for non-uniformmoment.Provided that suitably chosen values of m and n

are used,both methodscan be made to yield identical results;the difference arises simply in the way inwhich the correction is made,whether on the slenderness p b versus l LT relationship for the n -factor method or on the strength axis for the m -factor method.Figure 16.5 illustrates both concepts,although for the purpose of the gure the m -factor method has been shown as an enhancement of p b by 1/ m rather than a reduc-tion in the requirement of checking M b against = mM max .BS 5950:Part 1 uses the m -factor method for all cases,while BS 5400:Part 3 includes only the n -factormethod.When the m -factor method is used the buckling check is conducted in terms of a moment less than the maximum moment in the beam segment M max

;then aseparate check that the capacity of the beam cross-section M c is at least equal to M max must also be made.In cases where is taken as M max ,then the bucklingcheck will be more severe than (or in the ease of a stocky beam for which M b = M c

,identical to) the cross-section capacity check.Allowance for non-uniform moment loading on cantilevers is normally treatedsomewhat differently.For example,t MMMMM 444 Beams

an end moment such as horizontal wind load acting on a faade,should be regardedas an ordinary beam since it does not have the benet of non-uniform mom M E .Values of M E may conveniently be obtainedfrom summaries of research data. 6 For example,BS 5950:Part 1 permits l LT to becalculated from -16.3

As an example of the use of this approach Fig.16.6 shows how signicantly higherload-carrying capacities may be obtained for a cantilever with a tip load appl 16.3.7Fully restrained beams

The design of beams is considerably simplied if lateraltorsional buckling effectsdo not have to be considered explicitly a situation which will occur if one or M b may be taken as itsmoment capacity M c and,in the absence of any reductions in M c due to local bucklp

LTypE #NAME? () () 2 EpMM // Basic design 445 Fig.16.5 Design modications using m -factor or n -factor methods

ling,high shear or torsion,it should be designed for its full in-plane bending strength.Certain of the conditions corresponding to the case where a beam may be l below which buckling will not affect M b of Table 38 of BS 5950:Part 1,are sufciently high ( l = 340,225 and 170 for D/B ratios of 2,3 and 4,and p y = 275N/mm 2

) that only in very rare cases will lateraltorsional buckling be a design consideration.Situations in which the form of construction employed automatically provi 446 Beams Fig.16.6 Lateraltorsional buckling of a tip-loaded cantilever

that the restraints will effectively prevent movement at the braced cross-sections,thereby acting as if they were rigid supports.In practice,bracing will possess a Basic design 447 Fig.16.7 Effect of type of cross-section on theoretical elastic critical moment

16.4Lateral bracing

For design to BS 5950:Part 1,unless the engineer is prepared to supplement the coderules with some degree of working from rst principles,only restraints cap 7,8 Where properly designed restraint systems areused the limits on l LT for M b = M c (or more correctly p b = p y

)are given in Table 16.7.For beams in plastically-designed structures it is vital that premature failure dueto plastic lateraltorsional buckling does not impair the L / r y

to ensure satisfactory behaviour;it is not necessarilycompatible with the elastic design rules of section 4 of the code since acceptablebehaviour can include the M p .The expression of clause 5.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1, -16.4

makes no allowance for either of two potentially benecial effects:(1)moment gradient(2)restraint against lateral deection provided by secondary structural me Lr fpx mycy + ()() [] 3813027536 2212 /// 448 Beams Table 16.7 Maximum values of l LT forwhich p b

= p y for rolledsections p y (N/mm 2 ) Value of l LT up to which p b = p y 245 37265 35275 34325 32340 31365 30415 28430 27450 26

of Brown, 9 the basis of which is the original work on plastic instability of Horne. 10

This is covered explicitly in clause 5.3.3.A method of allowing for both effects whenthe beam segment being checked is either elastic or partially plastic is give L m with an enhanced value L s 16.5Bracing action in bridges U-frame design

obtained from clause 5.3.4 of BS 5950:Part 1.In both cases the presence of a change in cross-section,for example,as producedby the type of haunch usually u

The main longitudinal beams in several forms of bridge construction will,by virtueof the structural arrangement employed,receive a signicant measure of restr U-frame

action.Figure 16.8 illustrates the original concept based on the half-through girderform of construction.(See Chapter 4 for a discussion of different bridge types Bracing action in bridges

vided with closely spaced or continuous lateral restraintclosed section

e used for unequal anged sections including tees,fabricated Is for which the section properties must be calculated,sections contain-ing slender plate elements,members with

uch as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing from a maximum at one end or the parabolic distribution produced by a uniformload,are generally less severe in terms of their effec

ent by comparing the resulting value of

ection is made,whether on the slenderness axis of the

e beam segment

treatedsomewhat differently.For example,the set of effective length factors given in Table14 of Reference 1 includes allowances for the variation from the arrangement useda

es not have the benet of non-uniform momentloading.For more complex arrangements that cannot reasonably be approximated by oneof the standard cases covered by cor

btained for a cantilever with a tip load applied toits bottom ange,a case not specically covered by BS 5950:Part 1.

citly a situation which will occur if one or moreof the conditions of Table 16.6 are met.In these cases the beams buckling resistance moment

onding to the case where a beam may be regardedas fully restrained are virtually self-evident but others require either judgement orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling ca

construction employed automatically providessome degree of lateral restraint or for which a bracing system is to be used toenhance a beams strength require careful conside

supports.In practice,bracing will possess a nitestiffness.A more fundamental discussion of the topic,which explains the exactnature of bracing stiffness and bracing strength

king from rst principles,only restraints capable of acting as rigid supports are acceptable.Despite the absence of a specic stiffnessrequirement,adherence to the strength re

eraltorsional buckling does not impair the formation of the full plasticcollapse mechanism and the attainment of the plastic collapse load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit o

since acceptablebehaviour can include the provision of adequate rotation capacity at momentsslightly below

ection provided by secondary structural membersattached to one ange as by the purlins on the top ange of a portal framerafter.The rst effect may be included in Equation

d is either elastic or partially plastic is given inAppendix G of BS 5950:Part 1;alternatively the effect of intermittent tension angerestraint alone may be allowed for by replacin

as producedby the type of haunch usually used in portal frame construction,may be allowedfor.When the restraint is such that lateral deection of the beams compressionan

oyed,receive a signicant measure of restraintagainst lateraltorsional buckling by a device commonly referred to as

4 for a discussion of different bridge types.) Ina simply-supported span,the top (compression) anges of the main girders,althoughlaterally unbraced in the sense that no brac

n-ing slender plate elements,members with properties that vary along their length,closed sections and ats.Various techniques for allowing for the form of the appliedloading a

generally less severe in terms of their effect on lateral stability;a givenbeam is likely to be able to withstand a larger peak moment before becoming lat-erally unstable.One me

the variation from the arrangement usedas the basis for the strengthslenderness relationship due to both the lateral supportconditions and the form of the applied loading.W

y oneof the standard cases covered by correction factors,codes normally permit the directuse of the elastic critical moment

orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling cannot occur in beams loaded in their weaker princi-pal plane;under the action of increasing load they will collapse simply by plasticac

e a beams strength require careful consideration.The fundamental require-ment of any form of restraint if it is to be capable of increasing the strength of themain member is t

e of bracing stiffness and bracing strength,may be found in References 7 and8.Noticeably absent from the code clauses is a quantitative denition of adequatestiffness,altho

srequirement,adherence to the strength requirement together with an awareness thatadequate stiffness is also necessary,avoiding obviously very exible yet strongarrangem

e load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit on

he rst effect may be included in Equation (16.4) by adding the correction term

traint alone may be allowed for by replacing

al deection of the beams compressionange is prevented at intervals,then Equation (16.4) applies between the pointsof effective lateral restraint.A discussion of the applicat

aterally unbraced in the sense that no bracing may be attached directly to them,cannot buckle freely in the manner of Fig.16.4 since their lower anges arerestrained by the d

llowing for the form of the appliedloading are also possible;some care is required in their use.The relationship between

efore becoming lat-erally unstable.One means of allowing for this in design is to adjust the beams slen-derness by a factor

tions and the form of the applied loading.When a cantilever is subdivided byone or more intermediate lateral restraints positioned between its root and tip,thensegments othe

g load they will collapse simply by plasticaction and excessive in-plane deformation.Much the same is true for rectangularbox sections even when bent about their strong axis.

easing the strength of themain member is that it limits the buckling type deformations.An appreciation of exactly how the main member would buckle if unbraced is a prerequis

tative denition of adequatestiffness,although it has subsequently been suggested that a bracing system that is25 times stiffer than the braced beam would meet this require

obviously very exible yet strongarrangements,should lead to satisfactory designs.Doubtful cases will merit exami-nation in a more fundamental way.

ateral restraint.A discussion of the application of this and otherapproaches for checking the stability of both rafters and columns in portal framesdesigned according to the prin

e their lower anges arerestrained by the deck.Buckling must therefore involve some distortion of thegirder web into the mode given in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames

etween its root and tip,thensegments other than the tip segment should be treated as ordinary beam segmentswhen assessing lateraltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a

ns even when bent about their strong axis.Figure 16.7,which is based onelastic critical load theory analogous to the Euler buckling of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will

ber would buckle if unbraced is a prerequisite for theprovision of an effective system.Since lateraltorsional buckling involves bothlateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.1

n the braced beam would meet this requirement.Examinationof Reference 7 shows that while such a check does cover the majority of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrang

fundamental way.

ortal framesdesigned according to the principles of either elastic or plastic theory is given insection 18.7.

in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames preventlateral movement of the top ange).An approximate way of dealing with this isto regard each longitudinal girder as a truss i

raltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a cantilever subject to

of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will be of the order of ten times more stable than UB or UCsections of the same area.The limits on

ateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.16.4,either or both deformations maybe addressed.Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1 set out the principles gov-erning the a

of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrangements in which even much stiffer bracing cannotsupply full restraint.

regard each longitudinal girder as a truss in which the tension chord is fully

art 1 set out the principles gov-erning the action of bracing designed to provide either lateral restraint or torsionalrestraint.In common with most approaches to bracing design

on with most approaches to bracing design these clauses assume

Table 16.6

Types of beam not susceptible to lateraltorsional bucklingloading produces bending about the minor axisbeam provided with closely spaced or continuous lat Fig.16.4 Lateraltorsional buckling

The central feature in the above process is the determination of a measure of thebeams lateraltorsional buckling strength ( p b ) in terms of a parameter ( l LT

) whichrepresents those factors which control this strength.Modications to the basicprocess permit the method to be used for unequal anged sections includ p b and l LT of BS 5950:Part 1 (and between s li / s yc and l LT ( s yc / 355 ) in BS 5400:Part 3) assumes the beam between lateral restraints to besubject to uniform moment.Other patterns,such as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing n ,the value of which has been selected so as to ensure that theresulting value of p b correctly reects the enhanced strength due to the non-uniformmoment loading.An alternative approach consists of basing l LT on the geometricaland support conditions alone but making allowance for the benecial effects of non-uniform moment by comparing the resulting value of M b with a suitably adjustedvalue of design moment . is taken as a factor

m times the maximum momentwithin the beam M max ; m = 1.0 for uniform moment and m < 1.0 for non-uniformmoment.Provided that suitably chosen values of m and n

are used,both methodscan be made to yield identical results;the difference arises simply in the way inwhich the correction is made,whether on the slenderness p b versus l LT relationship for the n -factor method or on the strength axis for the m -factor method.Figure 16.5 illustrates both concepts,although for the purpose of the gure the m -factor method has been shown as an enhancement of p b by 1/ m rather than a reduc-tion in the requirement of checking M b against = mM max .BS 5950:Part 1 uses the m -factor method for all cases,while BS 5400:Part 3 includes only the n -factormethod.When the m -factor method is used the buckling check is conducted in terms of a moment less than the maximum moment in the beam segment M max

;then aseparate check that the capacity of the beam cross-section M c is at least equal to M max must also be made.In cases where is taken as M max ,then the bucklingcheck will be more severe than (or in the ease of a stocky beam for which M b = M c

,identical to) the cross-section capacity check.Allowance for non-uniform moment loading on cantilevers is normally treatedsomewhat differently.For example,t MMMMM 444 Beams

an end moment such as horizontal wind load acting on a faade,should be regardedas an ordinary beam since it does not have the benet of non-uniform mom M E .Values of M E may conveniently be obtainedfrom summaries of research data. 6 For example,BS 5950:Part 1 permits l LT to becalculated from -16.3

As an example of the use of this approach Fig.16.6 shows how signicantly higherload-carrying capacities may be obtained for a cantilever with a tip load appl 16.3.7Fully restrained beams

The design of beams is considerably simplied if lateraltorsional buckling effectsdo not have to be considered explicitly a situation which will occur if one or M b may be taken as itsmoment capacity M c and,in the absence of any reductions in M c due to local bucklp

LTypE #NAME? () () 2 EpMM // Basic design 445 Fig.16.5 Design modications using m -factor or n -factor methods

ling,high shear or torsion,it should be designed for its full in-plane bending strength.Certain of the conditions corresponding to the case where a beam may be l below which buckling will not affect M b of Table 38 of BS 5950:Part 1,are sufciently high ( l = 340,225 and 170 for D/B ratios of 2,3 and 4,and p y = 275N/mm 2

) that only in very rare cases will lateraltorsional buckling be a design consideration.Situations in which the form of construction employed automatically provi 446 Beams Fig.16.6 Lateraltorsional buckling of a tip-loaded cantilever

that the restraints will effectively prevent movement at the braced cross-sections,thereby acting as if they were rigid supports.In practice,bracing will possess a Basic design 447 Fig.16.7 Effect of type of cross-section on theoretical elastic critical moment

16.4Lateral bracing

For design to BS 5950:Part 1,unless the engineer is prepared to supplement the coderules with some degree of working from rst principles,only restraints cap 7,8 Where properly designed restraint systems areused the limits on l LT for M b = M c (or more correctly p b = p y

)are given in Table 16.7.For beams in plastically-designed structures it is vital that premature failure dueto plastic lateraltorsional buckling does not impair the L / r y

to ensure satisfactory behaviour;it is not necessarilycompatible with the elastic design rules of section 4 of the code since acceptablebehaviour can include the M p .The expression of clause 5.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1, -16.4

makes no allowance for either of two potentially benecial effects:(1)moment gradient(2)restraint against lateral deection provided by secondary structural me Lr fpx mycy + ()() [] 3813027536 2212 /// 448 Beams Table 16.7 Maximum values of l LT forwhich p b

= p y for rolledsections p y (N/mm 2 ) Value of l LT up to which p b = p y 245 37265 35275 34325 32340 31365 30415 28430 27450 26

of Brown, 9 the basis of which is the original work on plastic instability of Horne. 10

This is covered explicitly in clause 5.3.3.A method of allowing for both effects whenthe beam segment being checked is either elastic or partially plastic is give L m with an enhanced value L s 16.5Bracing action in bridges U-frame design

obtained from clause 5.3.4 of BS 5950:Part 1.In both cases the presence of a change in cross-section,for example,as producedby the type of haunch usually u

The main longitudinal beams in several forms of bridge construction will,by virtueof the structural arrangement employed,receive a signicant measure of restr U-frame

action.Figure 16.8 illustrates the original concept based on the half-through girderform of construction.(See Chapter 4 for a discussion of different bridge types Bracing action in bridges

vided with closely spaced or continuous lateral restraintclosed section

e used for unequal anged sections including tees,fabricated Is for which the section properties must be calculated,sections contain-ing slender plate elements,members with

uch as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing from a maximum at one end or the parabolic distribution produced by a uniformload,are generally less severe in terms of their effec

ent by comparing the resulting value of

ection is made,whether on the slenderness axis of the

e beam segment

treatedsomewhat differently.For example,the set of effective length factors given in Table14 of Reference 1 includes allowances for the variation from the arrangement useda

es not have the benet of non-uniform momentloading.For more complex arrangements that cannot reasonably be approximated by oneof the standard cases covered by cor

btained for a cantilever with a tip load applied toits bottom ange,a case not specically covered by BS 5950:Part 1.

citly a situation which will occur if one or moreof the conditions of Table 16.6 are met.In these cases the beams buckling resistance moment

onding to the case where a beam may be regardedas fully restrained are virtually self-evident but others require either judgement orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling ca

construction employed automatically providessome degree of lateral restraint or for which a bracing system is to be used toenhance a beams strength require careful conside

supports.In practice,bracing will possess a nitestiffness.A more fundamental discussion of the topic,which explains the exactnature of bracing stiffness and bracing strength

king from rst principles,only restraints capable of acting as rigid supports are acceptable.Despite the absence of a specic stiffnessrequirement,adherence to the strength re

eraltorsional buckling does not impair the formation of the full plasticcollapse mechanism and the attainment of the plastic collapse load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit o

since acceptablebehaviour can include the provision of adequate rotation capacity at momentsslightly below

ection provided by secondary structural membersattached to one ange as by the purlins on the top ange of a portal framerafter.The rst effect may be included in Equation

d is either elastic or partially plastic is given inAppendix G of BS 5950:Part 1;alternatively the effect of intermittent tension angerestraint alone may be allowed for by replacin

as producedby the type of haunch usually used in portal frame construction,may be allowedfor.When the restraint is such that lateral deection of the beams compressionan

oyed,receive a signicant measure of restraintagainst lateraltorsional buckling by a device commonly referred to as

4 for a discussion of different bridge types.) Ina simply-supported span,the top (compression) anges of the main girders,althoughlaterally unbraced in the sense that no brac

n-ing slender plate elements,members with properties that vary along their length,closed sections and ats.Various techniques for allowing for the form of the appliedloading a

generally less severe in terms of their effect on lateral stability;a givenbeam is likely to be able to withstand a larger peak moment before becoming lat-erally unstable.One me

the variation from the arrangement usedas the basis for the strengthslenderness relationship due to both the lateral supportconditions and the form of the applied loading.W

y oneof the standard cases covered by correction factors,codes normally permit the directuse of the elastic critical moment

orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling cannot occur in beams loaded in their weaker princi-pal plane;under the action of increasing load they will collapse simply by plasticac

e a beams strength require careful consideration.The fundamental require-ment of any form of restraint if it is to be capable of increasing the strength of themain member is t

e of bracing stiffness and bracing strength,may be found in References 7 and8.Noticeably absent from the code clauses is a quantitative denition of adequatestiffness,altho

srequirement,adherence to the strength requirement together with an awareness thatadequate stiffness is also necessary,avoiding obviously very exible yet strongarrangem

e load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit on

he rst effect may be included in Equation (16.4) by adding the correction term

traint alone may be allowed for by replacing

al deection of the beams compressionange is prevented at intervals,then Equation (16.4) applies between the pointsof effective lateral restraint.A discussion of the applicat

aterally unbraced in the sense that no bracing may be attached directly to them,cannot buckle freely in the manner of Fig.16.4 since their lower anges arerestrained by the d

llowing for the form of the appliedloading are also possible;some care is required in their use.The relationship between

efore becoming lat-erally unstable.One means of allowing for this in design is to adjust the beams slen-derness by a factor

tions and the form of the applied loading.When a cantilever is subdivided byone or more intermediate lateral restraints positioned between its root and tip,thensegments othe

g load they will collapse simply by plasticaction and excessive in-plane deformation.Much the same is true for rectangularbox sections even when bent about their strong axis.

easing the strength of themain member is that it limits the buckling type deformations.An appreciation of exactly how the main member would buckle if unbraced is a prerequis

tative denition of adequatestiffness,although it has subsequently been suggested that a bracing system that is25 times stiffer than the braced beam would meet this require

obviously very exible yet strongarrangements,should lead to satisfactory designs.Doubtful cases will merit exami-nation in a more fundamental way.

ateral restraint.A discussion of the application of this and otherapproaches for checking the stability of both rafters and columns in portal framesdesigned according to the prin

e their lower anges arerestrained by the deck.Buckling must therefore involve some distortion of thegirder web into the mode given in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames

etween its root and tip,thensegments other than the tip segment should be treated as ordinary beam segmentswhen assessing lateraltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a

ns even when bent about their strong axis.Figure 16.7,which is based onelastic critical load theory analogous to the Euler buckling of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will

ber would buckle if unbraced is a prerequisite for theprovision of an effective system.Since lateraltorsional buckling involves bothlateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.1

n the braced beam would meet this requirement.Examinationof Reference 7 shows that while such a check does cover the majority of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrang

fundamental way.

ortal framesdesigned according to the principles of either elastic or plastic theory is given insection 18.7.

in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames preventlateral movement of the top ange).An approximate way of dealing with this isto regard each longitudinal girder as a truss i

raltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a cantilever subject to

of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will be of the order of ten times more stable than UB or UCsections of the same area.The limits on

ateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.16.4,either or both deformations maybe addressed.Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1 set out the principles gov-erning the a

of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrangements in which even much stiffer bracing cannotsupply full restraint.

regard each longitudinal girder as a truss in which the tension chord is fully

art 1 set out the principles gov-erning the action of bracing designed to provide either lateral restraint or torsionalrestraint.In common with most approaches to bracing design

on with most approaches to bracing design these clauses assume

Table 16.6

Types of beam not susceptible to lateraltorsional bucklingloading produces bending about the minor axisbeam provided with closely spaced or continuous lat Fig.16.4 Lateraltorsional buckling

The central feature in the above process is the determination of a measure of thebeams lateraltorsional buckling strength ( p b ) in terms of a parameter ( l LT

) whichrepresents those factors which control this strength.Modications to the basicprocess permit the method to be used for unequal anged sections includ p b and l LT of BS 5950:Part 1 (and between s li / s yc and l LT ( s yc / 355 ) in BS 5400:Part 3) assumes the beam between lateral restraints to besubject to uniform moment.Other patterns,such as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing n ,the value of which has been selected so as to ensure that theresulting value of p b correctly reects the enhanced strength due to the non-uniformmoment loading.An alternative approach consists of basing l LT on the geometricaland support conditions alone but making allowance for the benecial effects of non-uniform moment by comparing the resulting value of M b with a suitably adjustedvalue of design moment . is taken as a factor

m times the maximum momentwithin the beam M max ; m = 1.0 for uniform moment and m < 1.0 for non-uniformmoment.Provided that suitably chosen values of m and n

are used,both methodscan be made to yield identical results;the difference arises simply in the way inwhich the correction is made,whether on the slenderness p b versus l LT relationship for the n -factor method or on the strength axis for the m -factor method.Figure 16.5 illustrates both concepts,although for the purpose of the gure the m -factor method has been shown as an enhancement of p b by 1/ m rather than a reduc-tion in the requirement of checking M b against = mM max .BS 5950:Part 1 uses the m -factor method for all cases,while BS 5400:Part 3 includes only the n -factormethod.When the m -factor method is used the buckling check is conducted in terms of a moment less than the maximum moment in the beam segment M max

;then aseparate check that the capacity of the beam cross-section M c is at least equal to M max must also be made.In cases where is taken as M max ,then the bucklingcheck will be more severe than (or in the ease of a stocky beam for which M b = M c

,identical to) the cross-section capacity check.Allowance for non-uniform moment loading on cantilevers is normally treatedsomewhat differently.For example,t MMMMM 444 Beams

an end moment such as horizontal wind load acting on a faade,should be regardedas an ordinary beam since it does not have the benet of non-uniform mom M E .Values of M E may conveniently be obtainedfrom summaries of research data. 6 For example,BS 5950:Part 1 permits l LT to becalculated from -16.3

As an example of the use of this approach Fig.16.6 shows how signicantly higherload-carrying capacities may be obtained for a cantilever with a tip load appl 16.3.7Fully restrained beams

The design of beams is considerably simplied if lateraltorsional buckling effectsdo not have to be considered explicitly a situation which will occur if one or M b may be taken as itsmoment capacity M c and,in the absence of any reductions in M c due to local bucklp

LTypE #NAME? () () 2 EpMM // Basic design 445 Fig.16.5 Design modications using m -factor or n -factor methods

ling,high shear or torsion,it should be designed for its full in-plane bending strength.Certain of the conditions corresponding to the case where a beam may be l below which buckling will not affect M b of Table 38 of BS 5950:Part 1,are sufciently high ( l = 340,225 and 170 for D/B ratios of 2,3 and 4,and p y = 275N/mm 2

) that only in very rare cases will lateraltorsional buckling be a design consideration.Situations in which the form of construction employed automatically provi 446 Beams Fig.16.6 Lateraltorsional buckling of a tip-loaded cantilever

that the restraints will effectively prevent movement at the braced cross-sections,thereby acting as if they were rigid supports.In practice,bracing will possess a Basic design 447 Fig.16.7 Effect of type of cross-section on theoretical elastic critical moment

16.4Lateral bracing

For design to BS 5950:Part 1,unless the engineer is prepared to supplement the coderules with some degree of working from rst principles,only restraints cap 7,8 Where properly designed restraint systems areused the limits on l LT for M b = M c (or more correctly p b = p y

)are given in Table 16.7.For beams in plastically-designed structures it is vital that premature failure dueto plastic lateraltorsional buckling does not impair the L / r y

to ensure satisfactory behaviour;it is not necessarilycompatible with the elastic design rules of section 4 of the code since acceptablebehaviour can include the M p .The expression of clause 5.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1, -16.4

makes no allowance for either of two potentially benecial effects:(1)moment gradient(2)restraint against lateral deection provided by secondary structural me Lr fpx mycy + ()() [] 3813027536 2212 /// 448 Beams Table 16.7 Maximum values of l LT forwhich p b

= p y for rolledsections p y (N/mm 2 ) Value of l LT up to which p b = p y 245 37265 35275 34325 32340 31365 30415 28430 27450 26

of Brown, 9 the basis of which is the original work on plastic instability of Horne. 10

This is covered explicitly in clause 5.3.3.A method of allowing for both effects whenthe beam segment being checked is either elastic or partially plastic is give L m with an enhanced value L s 16.5Bracing action in bridges U-frame design

obtained from clause 5.3.4 of BS 5950:Part 1.In both cases the presence of a change in cross-section,for example,as producedby the type of haunch usually u

The main longitudinal beams in several forms of bridge construction will,by virtueof the structural arrangement employed,receive a signicant measure of restr U-frame

action.Figure 16.8 illustrates the original concept based on the half-through girderform of construction.(See Chapter 4 for a discussion of different bridge types Bracing action in bridges

vided with closely spaced or continuous lateral restraintclosed section

e used for unequal anged sections including tees,fabricated Is for which the section properties must be calculated,sections contain-ing slender plate elements,members with

uch as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing from a maximum at one end or the parabolic distribution produced by a uniformload,are generally less severe in terms of their effec

ent by comparing the resulting value of

ection is made,whether on the slenderness axis of the

e beam segment

treatedsomewhat differently.For example,the set of effective length factors given in Table14 of Reference 1 includes allowances for the variation from the arrangement useda

es not have the benet of non-uniform momentloading.For more complex arrangements that cannot reasonably be approximated by oneof the standard cases covered by cor

btained for a cantilever with a tip load applied toits bottom ange,a case not specically covered by BS 5950:Part 1.

citly a situation which will occur if one or moreof the conditions of Table 16.6 are met.In these cases the beams buckling resistance moment

onding to the case where a beam may be regardedas fully restrained are virtually self-evident but others require either judgement orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling ca

construction employed automatically providessome degree of lateral restraint or for which a bracing system is to be used toenhance a beams strength require careful conside

supports.In practice,bracing will possess a nitestiffness.A more fundamental discussion of the topic,which explains the exactnature of bracing stiffness and bracing strength

king from rst principles,only restraints capable of acting as rigid supports are acceptable.Despite the absence of a specic stiffnessrequirement,adherence to the strength re

eraltorsional buckling does not impair the formation of the full plasticcollapse mechanism and the attainment of the plastic collapse load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit o

since acceptablebehaviour can include the provision of adequate rotation capacity at momentsslightly below

ection provided by secondary structural membersattached to one ange as by the purlins on the top ange of a portal framerafter.The rst effect may be included in Equation

d is either elastic or partially plastic is given inAppendix G of BS 5950:Part 1;alternatively the effect of intermittent tension angerestraint alone may be allowed for by replacin

as producedby the type of haunch usually used in portal frame construction,may be allowedfor.When the restraint is such that lateral deection of the beams compressionan

oyed,receive a signicant measure of restraintagainst lateraltorsional buckling by a device commonly referred to as

4 for a discussion of different bridge types.) Ina simply-supported span,the top (compression) anges of the main girders,althoughlaterally unbraced in the sense that no brac

n-ing slender plate elements,members with properties that vary along their length,closed sections and ats.Various techniques for allowing for the form of the appliedloading a

generally less severe in terms of their effect on lateral stability;a givenbeam is likely to be able to withstand a larger peak moment before becoming lat-erally unstable.One me

the variation from the arrangement usedas the basis for the strengthslenderness relationship due to both the lateral supportconditions and the form of the applied loading.W

y oneof the standard cases covered by correction factors,codes normally permit the directuse of the elastic critical moment

orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling cannot occur in beams loaded in their weaker princi-pal plane;under the action of increasing load they will collapse simply by plasticac

e a beams strength require careful consideration.The fundamental require-ment of any form of restraint if it is to be capable of increasing the strength of themain member is t

e of bracing stiffness and bracing strength,may be found in References 7 and8.Noticeably absent from the code clauses is a quantitative denition of adequatestiffness,altho

srequirement,adherence to the strength requirement together with an awareness thatadequate stiffness is also necessary,avoiding obviously very exible yet strongarrangem

e load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit on

he rst effect may be included in Equation (16.4) by adding the correction term

traint alone may be allowed for by replacing

al deection of the beams compressionange is prevented at intervals,then Equation (16.4) applies between the pointsof effective lateral restraint.A discussion of the applicat

aterally unbraced in the sense that no bracing may be attached directly to them,cannot buckle freely in the manner of Fig.16.4 since their lower anges arerestrained by the d

llowing for the form of the appliedloading are also possible;some care is required in their use.The relationship between

efore becoming lat-erally unstable.One means of allowing for this in design is to adjust the beams slen-derness by a factor

tions and the form of the applied loading.When a cantilever is subdivided byone or more intermediate lateral restraints positioned between its root and tip,thensegments othe

g load they will collapse simply by plasticaction and excessive in-plane deformation.Much the same is true for rectangularbox sections even when bent about their strong axis.

easing the strength of themain member is that it limits the buckling type deformations.An appreciation of exactly how the main member would buckle if unbraced is a prerequis

tative denition of adequatestiffness,although it has subsequently been suggested that a bracing system that is25 times stiffer than the braced beam would meet this require

obviously very exible yet strongarrangements,should lead to satisfactory designs.Doubtful cases will merit exami-nation in a more fundamental way.

ateral restraint.A discussion of the application of this and otherapproaches for checking the stability of both rafters and columns in portal framesdesigned according to the prin

e their lower anges arerestrained by the deck.Buckling must therefore involve some distortion of thegirder web into the mode given in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames

etween its root and tip,thensegments other than the tip segment should be treated as ordinary beam segmentswhen assessing lateraltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a

ns even when bent about their strong axis.Figure 16.7,which is based onelastic critical load theory analogous to the Euler buckling of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will

ber would buckle if unbraced is a prerequisite for theprovision of an effective system.Since lateraltorsional buckling involves bothlateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.1

n the braced beam would meet this requirement.Examinationof Reference 7 shows that while such a check does cover the majority of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrang

fundamental way.

ortal framesdesigned according to the principles of either elastic or plastic theory is given insection 18.7.

in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames preventlateral movement of the top ange).An approximate way of dealing with this isto regard each longitudinal girder as a truss i

raltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a cantilever subject to

of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will be of the order of ten times more stable than UB or UCsections of the same area.The limits on

ateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.16.4,either or both deformations maybe addressed.Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1 set out the principles gov-erning the a

of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrangements in which even much stiffer bracing cannotsupply full restraint.

regard each longitudinal girder as a truss in which the tension chord is fully

art 1 set out the principles gov-erning the action of bracing designed to provide either lateral restraint or torsionalrestraint.In common with most approaches to bracing design

on with most approaches to bracing design these clauses assume

Table 16.6

Types of beam not susceptible to lateraltorsional bucklingloading produces bending about the minor axisbeam provided with closely spaced or continuous lat Fig.16.4 Lateraltorsional buckling

The central feature in the above process is the determination of a measure of thebeams lateraltorsional buckling strength ( p b ) in terms of a parameter ( l LT

) whichrepresents those factors which control this strength.Modications to the basicprocess permit the method to be used for unequal anged sections includ p b and l LT of BS 5950:Part 1 (and between s li / s yc and l LT ( s yc / 355 ) in BS 5400:Part 3) assumes the beam between lateral restraints to besubject to uniform moment.Other patterns,such as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing n ,the value of which has been selected so as to ensure that theresulting value of p b correctly reects the enhanced strength due to the non-uniformmoment loading.An alternative approach consists of basing l LT on the geometricaland support conditions alone but making allowance for the benecial effects of non-uniform moment by comparing the resulting value of M b with a suitably adjustedvalue of design moment . is taken as a factor

m times the maximum momentwithin the beam M max ; m = 1.0 for uniform moment and m < 1.0 for non-uniformmoment.Provided that suitably chosen values of m and n

are used,both methodscan be made to yield identical results;the difference arises simply in the way inwhich the correction is made,whether on the slenderness p b versus l LT relationship for the n -factor method or on the strength axis for the m -factor method.Figure 16.5 illustrates both concepts,although for the purpose of the gure the m -factor method has been shown as an enhancement of p b by 1/ m rather than a reduc-tion in the requirement of checking M b against = mM max .BS 5950:Part 1 uses the m -factor method for all cases,while BS 5400:Part 3 includes only the n -factormethod.When the m -factor method is used the buckling check is conducted in terms of a moment less than the maximum moment in the beam segment M max

;then aseparate check that the capacity of the beam cross-section M c is at least equal to M max must also be made.In cases where is taken as M max ,then the bucklingcheck will be more severe than (or in the ease of a stocky beam for which M b = M c

,identical to) the cross-section capacity check.Allowance for non-uniform moment loading on cantilevers is normally treatedsomewhat differently.For example,t MMMMM 444 Beams

an end moment such as horizontal wind load acting on a faade,should be regardedas an ordinary beam since it does not have the benet of non-uniform mom M E .Values of M E may conveniently be obtainedfrom summaries of research data. 6 For example,BS 5950:Part 1 permits l LT to becalculated from -16.3

As an example of the use of this approach Fig.16.6 shows how signicantly higherload-carrying capacities may be obtained for a cantilever with a tip load appl 16.3.7Fully restrained beams

The design of beams is considerably simplied if lateraltorsional buckling effectsdo not have to be considered explicitly a situation which will occur if one or M b may be taken as itsmoment capacity M c and,in the absence of any reductions in M c due to local bucklp

LTypE #NAME? () () 2 EpMM // Basic design 445 Fig.16.5 Design modications using m -factor or n -factor methods

ling,high shear or torsion,it should be designed for its full in-plane bending strength.Certain of the conditions corresponding to the case where a beam may be l below which buckling will not affect M b of Table 38 of BS 5950:Part 1,are sufciently high ( l = 340,225 and 170 for D/B ratios of 2,3 and 4,and p y = 275N/mm 2

) that only in very rare cases will lateraltorsional buckling be a design consideration.Situations in which the form of construction employed automatically provi 446 Beams Fig.16.6 Lateraltorsional buckling of a tip-loaded cantilever

that the restraints will effectively prevent movement at the braced cross-sections,thereby acting as if they were rigid supports.In practice,bracing will possess a Basic design 447 Fig.16.7 Effect of type of cross-section on theoretical elastic critical moment

16.4Lateral bracing

For design to BS 5950:Part 1,unless the engineer is prepared to supplement the coderules with some degree of working from rst principles,only restraints cap 7,8 Where properly designed restraint systems areused the limits on l LT for M b = M c (or more correctly p b = p y

)are given in Table 16.7.For beams in plastically-designed structures it is vital that premature failure dueto plastic lateraltorsional buckling does not impair the L / r y

to ensure satisfactory behaviour;it is not necessarilycompatible with the elastic design rules of section 4 of the code since acceptablebehaviour can include the M p .The expression of clause 5.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1, -16.4

makes no allowance for either of two potentially benecial effects:(1)moment gradient(2)restraint against lateral deection provided by secondary structural me Lr fpx mycy + ()() [] 3813027536 2212 /// 448 Beams Table 16.7 Maximum values of l LT forwhich p b

= p y for rolledsections p y (N/mm 2 ) Value of l LT up to which p b = p y 245 37265 35275 34325 32340 31365 30415 28430 27450 26

of Brown, 9 the basis of which is the original work on plastic instability of Horne. 10

This is covered explicitly in clause 5.3.3.A method of allowing for both effects whenthe beam segment being checked is either elastic or partially plastic is give L m with an enhanced value L s 16.5Bracing action in bridges U-frame design

obtained from clause 5.3.4 of BS 5950:Part 1.In both cases the presence of a change in cross-section,for example,as producedby the type of haunch usually u

The main longitudinal beams in several forms of bridge construction will,by virtueof the structural arrangement employed,receive a signicant measure of restr U-frame

action.Figure 16.8 illustrates the original concept based on the half-through girderform of construction.(See Chapter 4 for a discussion of different bridge types Bracing action in bridges

vided with closely spaced or continuous lateral restraintclosed section

e used for unequal anged sections including tees,fabricated Is for which the section properties must be calculated,sections contain-ing slender plate elements,members with

uch as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing from a maximum at one end or the parabolic distribution produced by a uniformload,are generally less severe in terms of their effec

ent by comparing the resulting value of

ection is made,whether on the slenderness axis of the

e beam segment

treatedsomewhat differently.For example,the set of effective length factors given in Table14 of Reference 1 includes allowances for the variation from the arrangement useda

es not have the benet of non-uniform momentloading.For more complex arrangements that cannot reasonably be approximated by oneof the standard cases covered by cor

btained for a cantilever with a tip load applied toits bottom ange,a case not specically covered by BS 5950:Part 1.

citly a situation which will occur if one or moreof the conditions of Table 16.6 are met.In these cases the beams buckling resistance moment

onding to the case where a beam may be regardedas fully restrained are virtually self-evident but others require either judgement orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling ca

construction employed automatically providessome degree of lateral restraint or for which a bracing system is to be used toenhance a beams strength require careful conside

supports.In practice,bracing will possess a nitestiffness.A more fundamental discussion of the topic,which explains the exactnature of bracing stiffness and bracing strength

king from rst principles,only restraints capable of acting as rigid supports are acceptable.Despite the absence of a specic stiffnessrequirement,adherence to the strength re

eraltorsional buckling does not impair the formation of the full plasticcollapse mechanism and the attainment of the plastic collapse load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit o

since acceptablebehaviour can include the provision of adequate rotation capacity at momentsslightly below

ection provided by secondary structural membersattached to one ange as by the purlins on the top ange of a portal framerafter.The rst effect may be included in Equation

d is either elastic or partially plastic is given inAppendix G of BS 5950:Part 1;alternatively the effect of intermittent tension angerestraint alone may be allowed for by replacin

as producedby the type of haunch usually used in portal frame construction,may be allowedfor.When the restraint is such that lateral deection of the beams compressionan

oyed,receive a signicant measure of restraintagainst lateraltorsional buckling by a device commonly referred to as

4 for a discussion of different bridge types.) Ina simply-supported span,the top (compression) anges of the main girders,althoughlaterally unbraced in the sense that no brac

n-ing slender plate elements,members with properties that vary along their length,closed sections and ats.Various techniques for allowing for the form of the appliedloading a

generally less severe in terms of their effect on lateral stability;a givenbeam is likely to be able to withstand a larger peak moment before becoming lat-erally unstable.One me

the variation from the arrangement usedas the basis for the strengthslenderness relationship due to both the lateral supportconditions and the form of the applied loading.W

y oneof the standard cases covered by correction factors,codes normally permit the directuse of the elastic critical moment

orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling cannot occur in beams loaded in their weaker princi-pal plane;under the action of increasing load they will collapse simply by plasticac

e a beams strength require careful consideration.The fundamental require-ment of any form of restraint if it is to be capable of increasing the strength of themain member is t

e of bracing stiffness and bracing strength,may be found in References 7 and8.Noticeably absent from the code clauses is a quantitative denition of adequatestiffness,altho

srequirement,adherence to the strength requirement together with an awareness thatadequate stiffness is also necessary,avoiding obviously very exible yet strongarrangem

e load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit on

he rst effect may be included in Equation (16.4) by adding the correction term

traint alone may be allowed for by replacing

al deection of the beams compressionange is prevented at intervals,then Equation (16.4) applies between the pointsof effective lateral restraint.A discussion of the applicat

aterally unbraced in the sense that no bracing may be attached directly to them,cannot buckle freely in the manner of Fig.16.4 since their lower anges arerestrained by the d

llowing for the form of the appliedloading are also possible;some care is required in their use.The relationship between

efore becoming lat-erally unstable.One means of allowing for this in design is to adjust the beams slen-derness by a factor

tions and the form of the applied loading.When a cantilever is subdivided byone or more intermediate lateral restraints positioned between its root and tip,thensegments othe

g load they will collapse simply by plasticaction and excessive in-plane deformation.Much the same is true for rectangularbox sections even when bent about their strong axis.

easing the strength of themain member is that it limits the buckling type deformations.An appreciation of exactly how the main member would buckle if unbraced is a prerequis

tative denition of adequatestiffness,although it has subsequently been suggested that a bracing system that is25 times stiffer than the braced beam would meet this require

obviously very exible yet strongarrangements,should lead to satisfactory designs.Doubtful cases will merit exami-nation in a more fundamental way.

ateral restraint.A discussion of the application of this and otherapproaches for checking the stability of both rafters and columns in portal framesdesigned according to the prin

e their lower anges arerestrained by the deck.Buckling must therefore involve some distortion of thegirder web into the mode given in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames

etween its root and tip,thensegments other than the tip segment should be treated as ordinary beam segmentswhen assessing lateraltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a

ns even when bent about their strong axis.Figure 16.7,which is based onelastic critical load theory analogous to the Euler buckling of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will

ber would buckle if unbraced is a prerequisite for theprovision of an effective system.Since lateraltorsional buckling involves bothlateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.1

n the braced beam would meet this requirement.Examinationof Reference 7 shows that while such a check does cover the majority of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrang

fundamental way.

ortal framesdesigned according to the principles of either elastic or plastic theory is given insection 18.7.

in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames preventlateral movement of the top ange).An approximate way of dealing with this isto regard each longitudinal girder as a truss i

raltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a cantilever subject to

of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will be of the order of ten times more stable than UB or UCsections of the same area.The limits on

ateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.16.4,either or both deformations maybe addressed.Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1 set out the principles gov-erning the a

of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrangements in which even much stiffer bracing cannotsupply full restraint.

regard each longitudinal girder as a truss in which the tension chord is fully

art 1 set out the principles gov-erning the action of bracing designed to provide either lateral restraint or torsionalrestraint.In common with most approaches to bracing design

on with most approaches to bracing design these clauses assume

Table 16.6

Types of beam not susceptible to lateraltorsional bucklingloading produces bending about the minor axisbeam provided with closely spaced or continuous lat Fig.16.4 Lateraltorsional buckling

The central feature in the above process is the determination of a measure of thebeams lateraltorsional buckling strength ( p b ) in terms of a parameter ( l LT

) whichrepresents those factors which control this strength.Modications to the basicprocess permit the method to be used for unequal anged sections includ p b and l LT of BS 5950:Part 1 (and between s li / s yc and l LT ( s yc / 355 ) in BS 5400:Part 3) assumes the beam between lateral restraints to besubject to uniform moment.Other patterns,such as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing n ,the value of which has been selected so as to ensure that theresulting value of p b correctly reects the enhanced strength due to the non-uniformmoment loading.An alternative approach consists of basing l LT on the geometricaland support conditions alone but making allowance for the benecial effects of non-uniform moment by comparing the resulting value of M b with a suitably adjustedvalue of design moment . is taken as a factor

m times the maximum momentwithin the beam M max ; m = 1.0 for uniform moment and m < 1.0 for non-uniformmoment.Provided that suitably chosen values of m and n

are used,both methodscan be made to yield identical results;the difference arises simply in the way inwhich the correction is made,whether on the slenderness p b versus l LT relationship for the n -factor method or on the strength axis for the m -factor method.Figure 16.5 illustrates both concepts,although for the purpose of the gure the m -factor method has been shown as an enhancement of p b by 1/ m rather than a reduc-tion in the requirement of checking M b against = mM max .BS 5950:Part 1 uses the m -factor method for all cases,while BS 5400:Part 3 includes only the n -factormethod.When the m -factor method is used the buckling check is conducted in terms of a moment less than the maximum moment in the beam segment M max

;then aseparate check that the capacity of the beam cross-section M c is at least equal to M max must also be made.In cases where is taken as M max ,then the bucklingcheck will be more severe than (or in the ease of a stocky beam for which M b = M c

,identical to) the cross-section capacity check.Allowance for non-uniform moment loading on cantilevers is normally treatedsomewhat differently.For example,t MMMMM 444 Beams

an end moment such as horizontal wind load acting on a faade,should be regardedas an ordinary beam since it does not have the benet of non-uniform mom M E .Values of M E may conveniently be obtainedfrom summaries of research data. 6 For example,BS 5950:Part 1 permits l LT to becalculated from -16.3

As an example of the use of this approach Fig.16.6 shows how signicantly higherload-carrying capacities may be obtained for a cantilever with a tip load appl 16.3.7Fully restrained beams

The design of beams is considerably simplied if lateraltorsional buckling effectsdo not have to be considered explicitly a situation which will occur if one or M b may be taken as itsmoment capacity M c and,in the absence of any reductions in M c due to local bucklp

LTypE #NAME? () () 2 EpMM // Basic design 445 Fig.16.5 Design modications using m -factor or n -factor methods

ling,high shear or torsion,it should be designed for its full in-plane bending strength.Certain of the conditions corresponding to the case where a beam may be l below which buckling will not affect M b of Table 38 of BS 5950:Part 1,are sufciently high ( l = 340,225 and 170 for D/B ratios of 2,3 and 4,and p y = 275N/mm 2

) that only in very rare cases will lateraltorsional buckling be a design consideration.Situations in which the form of construction employed automatically provi 446 Beams Fig.16.6 Lateraltorsional buckling of a tip-loaded cantilever

that the restraints will effectively prevent movement at the braced cross-sections,thereby acting as if they were rigid supports.In practice,bracing will possess a Basic design 447 Fig.16.7 Effect of type of cross-section on theoretical elastic critical moment

16.4Lateral bracing

For design to BS 5950:Part 1,unless the engineer is prepared to supplement the coderules with some degree of working from rst principles,only restraints cap 7,8 Where properly designed restraint systems areused the limits on l LT for M b = M c (or more correctly p b = p y

)are given in Table 16.7.For beams in plastically-designed structures it is vital that premature failure dueto plastic lateraltorsional buckling does not impair the L / r y

to ensure satisfactory behaviour;it is not necessarilycompatible with the elastic design rules of section 4 of the code since acceptablebehaviour can include the M p .The expression of clause 5.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1, -16.4

makes no allowance for either of two potentially benecial effects:(1)moment gradient(2)restraint against lateral deection provided by secondary structural me Lr fpx mycy + ()() [] 3813027536 2212 /// 448 Beams Table 16.7 Maximum values of l LT forwhich p b

= p y for rolledsections p y (N/mm 2 ) Value of l LT up to which p b = p y 245 37265 35275 34325 32340 31365 30415 28430 27450 26

of Brown, 9 the basis of which is the original work on plastic instability of Horne. 10

This is covered explicitly in clause 5.3.3.A method of allowing for both effects whenthe beam segment being checked is either elastic or partially plastic is give L m with an enhanced value L s 16.5Bracing action in bridges U-frame design

obtained from clause 5.3.4 of BS 5950:Part 1.In both cases the presence of a change in cross-section,for example,as producedby the type of haunch usually u

The main longitudinal beams in several forms of bridge construction will,by virtueof the structural arrangement employed,receive a signicant measure of restr U-frame

action.Figure 16.8 illustrates the original concept based on the half-through girderform of construction.(See Chapter 4 for a discussion of different bridge types Bracing action in bridges

vided with closely spaced or continuous lateral restraintclosed section

e used for unequal anged sections including tees,fabricated Is for which the section properties must be calculated,sections contain-ing slender plate elements,members with

uch as a linear moment gradient reduc-ing from a maximum at one end or the parabolic distribution produced by a uniformload,are generally less severe in terms of their effec

ent by comparing the resulting value of

ection is made,whether on the slenderness axis of the

e beam segment

treatedsomewhat differently.For example,the set of effective length factors given in Table14 of Reference 1 includes allowances for the variation from the arrangement useda

es not have the benet of non-uniform momentloading.For more complex arrangements that cannot reasonably be approximated by oneof the standard cases covered by cor

btained for a cantilever with a tip load applied toits bottom ange,a case not specically covered by BS 5950:Part 1.

citly a situation which will occur if one or moreof the conditions of Table 16.6 are met.In these cases the beams buckling resistance moment

onding to the case where a beam may be regardedas fully restrained are virtually self-evident but others require either judgement orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling ca

construction employed automatically providessome degree of lateral restraint or for which a bracing system is to be used toenhance a beams strength require careful conside

supports.In practice,bracing will possess a nitestiffness.A more fundamental discussion of the topic,which explains the exactnature of bracing stiffness and bracing strength

king from rst principles,only restraints capable of acting as rigid supports are acceptable.Despite the absence of a specic stiffnessrequirement,adherence to the strength re

eraltorsional buckling does not impair the formation of the full plasticcollapse mechanism and the attainment of the plastic collapse load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit o

since acceptablebehaviour can include the provision of adequate rotation capacity at momentsslightly below

ection provided by secondary structural membersattached to one ange as by the purlins on the top ange of a portal framerafter.The rst effect may be included in Equation

d is either elastic or partially plastic is given inAppendix G of BS 5950:Part 1;alternatively the effect of intermittent tension angerestraint alone may be allowed for by replacin

as producedby the type of haunch usually used in portal frame construction,may be allowedfor.When the restraint is such that lateral deection of the beams compressionan

oyed,receive a signicant measure of restraintagainst lateraltorsional buckling by a device commonly referred to as

4 for a discussion of different bridge types.) Ina simply-supported span,the top (compression) anges of the main girders,althoughlaterally unbraced in the sense that no brac

n-ing slender plate elements,members with properties that vary along their length,closed sections and ats.Various techniques for allowing for the form of the appliedloading a

generally less severe in terms of their effect on lateral stability;a givenbeam is likely to be able to withstand a larger peak moment before becoming lat-erally unstable.One me

the variation from the arrangement usedas the basis for the strengthslenderness relationship due to both the lateral supportconditions and the form of the applied loading.W

y oneof the standard cases covered by correction factors,codes normally permit the directuse of the elastic critical moment

orcalculation.Lateraltorsional buckling cannot occur in beams loaded in their weaker princi-pal plane;under the action of increasing load they will collapse simply by plasticac

e a beams strength require careful consideration.The fundamental require-ment of any form of restraint if it is to be capable of increasing the strength of themain member is t

e of bracing stiffness and bracing strength,may be found in References 7 and8.Noticeably absent from the code clauses is a quantitative denition of adequatestiffness,altho

srequirement,adherence to the strength requirement together with an awareness thatadequate stiffness is also necessary,avoiding obviously very exible yet strongarrangem

e load.Clause 5.3.3provides a basic limit on

he rst effect may be included in Equation (16.4) by adding the correction term

traint alone may be allowed for by replacing

al deection of the beams compressionange is prevented at intervals,then Equation (16.4) applies between the pointsof effective lateral restraint.A discussion of the applicat

aterally unbraced in the sense that no bracing may be attached directly to them,cannot buckle freely in the manner of Fig.16.4 since their lower anges arerestrained by the d

llowing for the form of the appliedloading are also possible;some care is required in their use.The relationship between

efore becoming lat-erally unstable.One means of allowing for this in design is to adjust the beams slen-derness by a factor

tions and the form of the applied loading.When a cantilever is subdivided byone or more intermediate lateral restraints positioned between its root and tip,thensegments othe

g load they will collapse simply by plasticaction and excessive in-plane deformation.Much the same is true for rectangularbox sections even when bent about their strong axis.

easing the strength of themain member is that it limits the buckling type deformations.An appreciation of exactly how the main member would buckle if unbraced is a prerequis

tative denition of adequatestiffness,although it has subsequently been suggested that a bracing system that is25 times stiffer than the braced beam would meet this require

obviously very exible yet strongarrangements,should lead to satisfactory designs.Doubtful cases will merit exami-nation in a more fundamental way.

ateral restraint.A discussion of the application of this and otherapproaches for checking the stability of both rafters and columns in portal framesdesigned according to the prin

e their lower anges arerestrained by the deck.Buckling must therefore involve some distortion of thegirder web into the mode given in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames

etween its root and tip,thensegments other than the tip segment should be treated as ordinary beam segmentswhen assessing lateraltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a

ns even when bent about their strong axis.Figure 16.7,which is based onelastic critical load theory analogous to the Euler buckling of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will

ber would buckle if unbraced is a prerequisite for theprovision of an effective system.Since lateraltorsional buckling involves bothlateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.1

n the braced beam would meet this requirement.Examinationof Reference 7 shows that while such a check does cover the majority of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrang

fundamental way.

ortal framesdesigned according to the principles of either elastic or plastic theory is given insection 18.7.

in Fig.16.8 (assuming that the end frames preventlateral movement of the top ange).An approximate way of dealing with this isto regard each longitudinal girder as a truss i

raltorsional buckling strength.Similarly a cantilever subject to

of struts,shows thattypical RHS beams will be of the order of ten times more stable than UB or UCsections of the same area.The limits on

ateral deection and twist,as shown in Fig.16.4,either or both deformations maybe addressed.Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of BS 5950:Part 1 set out the principles gov-erning the a

of cases,it isstill possible to provide arrangements in which even much stiffer bracing cannotsupply full restraint.

regard each longitudinal girder as a truss in which the tension chord is fully

art 1 set out the principles gov-erning the action of bracing designed to provide either lateral restraint or torsionalrestraint.In common with most approaches to bracing design

on with most approaches to bracing design these clauses assume