, FUNDAMENT AlS OF BEAM BRACING ~""") 1

Revised 5195
JosephA. Yuca
University of Texas at Austin

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide a fairly comprehensiveview of the subject of beam
stability bracing. Factorsthat affect bracing requirementswill be discussedanddesignmethodsproposed
which are illustrated by designexamples. The designexamplesemphasizesimplicity. Before going into
specific topics relatedto beambracing, someimportant conceptsdevelopedfor column bracingby Winter
(1960) will be presentedbecausetheseconceptswill be extended10beamslater.

For a perfectly straight column with a

midheight brace stiffnes~ .BL' the ~elati~nship
p:
e "" -/
t
I
between Pcr and .BL IS shown In FIg. 1
(fimoshenko, 1961). The column buckles
between

where Pe
bracepointsat full or idealbracing;in Pcr
this casethe ideal brace stiffness.Bi = 2 Pel Lb

= ~
EI/Lb2. Any brace with a
full bracing

~
lt¡ t
p

stiffness up to the ideal value will significantly ~ ti L

tp: p =
increasethe column buckling loado Winter e L2
(1960) showed that effective braces require not b t
only adequate stiffness but also sufficient 2 4
strengtb. The strength requirement is directly O /
PLLb ~
related to the magnitude of the initial out-of- e
i
straightnessof the memberto be braced. . 1 Effiect of BcaceSti.ffne..~s
FIg.
I

¡ For a column with an initial out-of-

I straightness
(half sinecurve)with a displacement at midheightanda midheightbracestiffnessequal
.6.0

f. to the ideal value, the heavy solid line in Fig. 2(a) showsfue relationshipbetweentJ.r and P. For P =
l:- O, tJ.r= .6.0. WhenP increases thebucklingload,r2 EI/Lb2, fue total deflectiontJ.r
andapproaches
t,
t
becomesvery large. For example,whenthe appliedload is within 5% ofthe buckling load, tJ.r= 20.6.0.
If abrace stiffness twice fue value of the ideal stiffnessis used, much smaller deflectionsoccur. When
the loadjust reachesthe bucklingload,the tJ.r= 2~. For .BL= 3.BiandP = Pe , tJ.r= 1.5~. The
brace force, Fbr , is equalto (tJ.r - .6.0 ).BL and is directly relatedto fue magnitudeof the initial
imperfection. If a member is fairly straight, the braceforce will be small. Conversely,memberswith
r~ large initial out-of-straightnesswill require larger braces. Ifthe bracestiffnessis equalto the ideal value,
: then the brace force gets very large as the buckling load is approachedbecausetJ.r gets very large as

1 1

~
3
0.8 0.8
P ti¡.¡.p ~ 7
Pe O.6 L Pe 0.6 ~I
b
04 ~ 0.4
0.2 L 0.2 40 =0.002~
Ao =0.002L b tp /0.8 % p.

00 4 8 12 16 20 00 1% 2% 3% 4'1

(a) !J.T / !J.o (b) Fbr(%ot P)

Fig. 2 BracedColumn with lnitial Out-of-Straightness

 ~ ""e- -

2
! shown in Fig. 2(a). For example, at P = 0.95Pcr and.1.0=Lb / 500, the braceforce is 7.6% of Pe which
i is off the scale of the graph. Theoretically the brace force will be infinity when the buckling load is
I reachedif the ideal bracestiffnessis used. Thus. a braces~stemwill not be satisfactorvif the theoretical
- ideal stiffness is ¡!rovided becausethe brace forces get toa large. If the bracestiffness is overdesigned,
asrepresented by the.BL= 2.B¡and 3.B¡curves in Fig. 2(b), then the braceforces will be more reason-
able. For abracestiffnesstwicethe idealvalueanda Lb / 500,the braceforceis onIy 0.8%Pe at .1.0=

P = Pe ' not infinity as in the ideal brace stiffness case. For abrace stiffnessten times the ideal value,
the brace force will reduceeven further to 0.44%. The braceforce cannotbe less than 0.4%P corres-
ponding to .1.= O (an infinitely stiff brace)for .1.0= Lb / 500. For designFbr = 1%Pis recommended
basedon abrace stiffness of twice the ideal value and an initial out-of-straightnessof Lb / 500 because
the Winter model gives slightly unconservativeresults for the midspanbraceproblem (Plaut, 1994).

Published bracing requirementsfor beamsusually onIy consider the effect of brace stiffness
becauseperfectly straight beamsare considered. Such solutions should not be used directly in designo
Similarly, designroles basedon strengthconsiderationsonIy, suchas a 2 % role, can result in inadequate
bracing systems. Both strength and stiffness of the brace systemmust be checked.

Beam Bracing Systems

Beam bracmg IS a much more com-

plicated topic compared to column bracing.
. . h
LATERAL BRACING
Beam "b" has lower load so it can
brace the top flange of girder "a",

,r This is due mainIy to the fact that most a b b kl d h k f '

!; beambuckling involves both flexure ~-:-~~A::~ buckledshape- strong framing

1 b kl . . 1 . . 1 b d . - uc e s ape -wea rammg

whereas
!
co
umn
uc
mg
mvo
ves
pnmarl
y
en
mg
'.'---:::
,i an~ torsion. An eff~tive beam brace res~sts ~, "'" "'...~.~:- '

:¡ twlst of the cross sectlon. In generalbracmg Glrder TopFlangeFrammg

;¡ mar be divided into two main categories, PLANVIEW
'¡ lateral and torsional bracing as illustrated in 11MtFfMt11Mt1tM'1;.t
; Fig. 3. Lateral bracing restrains lateral dis- l,+-ij~.u+~.u+~~+l-r
Metal Deck Forms
1 placementas its nameimplies. The effective-
nessof a lateral brace is relatedto the degree

f
1r

~ ~
I~ that twist of the cross section is restrained. TORSIONAL BRACING
1 F . 1 ed b b . ed Through
'1 or a slmp y support eam su ~ect to Girders ,

I1 uniform moment,the centerof twist is located =5[llaPhragms Cross

. .d th . fl th rames
at a pomt Outsl e e tenslon ange; e top :
1: flange moves laterally much more than the
bottom flange. Therefore, a lateral brace /
restricts twist best when it is located at the PLANVIEW floor beam
top flange. Lateral bracing attachedat the /ecking
bottom flange of a simply supportedbeam is
almost totally ineffective. A torsional brace 11===::II:~
can be differentiated
f th from a...lateral braceed
in A A B~kl ed Shape
.
that tWlSt O e cross sectlon IS restram
directly, as in the caseof twin beamswith a SECTA -A
cross frame or diaphragm between the. .
members. The cross frame location, while Flg. 3 Types of BeamBracmg
able to displacelaterally, is still considereda
bracepoint becausetwist is prevented' Somesystemssuchas concreteslabscan act both as lateral and
torsional braces. Bracing that controls both lateral movementand twist is more effectivethan lateral or
torsional bracesacting alone(Tong and Chen, 1988;Yura, 1992). However, sincebracing requirements
are so minimal, it is more practical to developseparatedesignrecommendationsfor thesetwo types of
systems.

Lateral bracing can be divided into four categories:relative, discrete, continuousand lean-on.
A relative bracesystemcontrols the relative lateral movementbetweentwo points along the spanof the
 1 2 3 :v- ten. flg. restraint 3
1 ~..A is best

tive
a) brace location ~A
- center of twist
.

ce
~ ~:~A
ange
~ ~
A .
R- centroid brace
relatively i.neffective
center of twist
rder b) top flange loadlng

brac~ ~A
]0- brace location

~, ,\ comp.flg.can
\~ ..-J
A ~) movelaterally
c) cross section distortion sect A -A

Fig. 4 Relative Bracing Fig. 5 Factors That Affect Brace Effectiveness

girder. The top flange horizontal truss system shown in Fig. 4 is an example of a relative brace system.
The system relies on fue fact that if fue girders buck1e laterally, points a and b would move different
amounts. Since fue diagonal brace prevents points a and b from moving different amounts, lateral
buck1ing cannot occur except between fue brace points. Typically, if a perpendicular cut anywhere along
fue span length passesthrough one of fue bracing members, fue brace system is a relative type. Discrete
systems can be represented by individual lateral springs along fue span length. Temporary guy cables
attached to fue top flange of a girder during erection would be a discrete bracing system. A lean-on
system relies on fue lateral buck1ing strength oflightly loaded adjacent girders to laterally support a more
heavily loaded girder when all fue girders are horizontally tied together. In a lean-on system all girders
must buck1e simultaneously. In continuous bracing systems, there is no "unbraced" length. In this paper
only relative and discrete systems that provide full bracing will be considered. Design recornmendations
for lean-on systems and continuous lateral bracing are given elsewhere (Yura, 1992,1993). Torsional
brace systems can be discrete or continuous as shown in Fig. 3. Both types are considered herein.

Some of fue factors that affect brace design are shown in Fig. 5. A lateral brace should be
attached where it best offsets fue twist. For a cantilever beam in (a), fue best location is fue top tension
tlange , not fue compression flange. Top tlange loading reduces fue effectiveness of a top flange brace
because such loading causes fue center of twist to shift toward fue top flange as shown in (b). Larger
lateral braces are required for top flange loading. If cross members provide bracing above fue top flange,
case (c),the compression tlange can still deflect laterally if cross-section is not prevented by stiffeners.
In fue following sections fue effect of loading conditions, load location. brace location and cross-section
distortion on brace requirements will be presented. All fue casesconsidered were solved using fue elastic
finite element program BASP (Akay, 1977; Chao, 1987) which considerslocal and lateral-torsional
buck1ing including cross-section distortion. The BASP program will handle many types of restraints
including lateral and torsional braces at any nade point along fue span along with transverse and
longitudinal stiffeners. The solutionsand fue designrecornmendations presentedare consistent with the
work of others: Kirby and Nethercot (1979), Linder and Schmidt (1982), Medland(1980), Milner (1977),
Nakamura (1981, 1988), Nethercot (1989), Taylor and Ojalvo (1966), Tong and Chen (1988), Trahair
and Nethercot (1982), Wakabayashi (1983), and Wang and Nethercot (1989).

Lateral Bracing of Beams

Behavior. The uniform moment condition is the basic case for lateral buckling of beams. If a
lateral brace is placed at the midspan of such a beam, the effect of different brace sizes (stiffness) is
illustrated by the BASP solutionsfor a W16x26 section20 ft long in Fig. 6. Fo. abrace attachedto the
top (compression) flange, the beam buckling capacity initially increases almost linearly as the brace
stiffness increases. If the brace stiffness is less than 1.6 k/in., the beam buckles in a shape resembling

.'
 i 4 '

a half sine curve. Even though there is .

lateral rnovement at fue brace point fue load Top Flange Brace
, r
increase can be more than three times fue 3
required to force fue beam to buckJe between
unbraced case. The ideal brace stiffness -:!:-
M ñQ-stItTéñér

lateralsupportsis 1.6 k/in. in this example. Mno br 2 ,,--,,-- Centroid Brace

Any brace stiffnessgreaterthan this value ~

does not increase fue beam buckJing capacity 1 ,. No Brace 'C~ W16x26W M
and fue buckJed shape is a full sine curve. ~~~ cr
When fue brace is attached at fue top flange, 8 j:;ids~an bracE
j there is no cross section distortion. No 00 . 8 12 16
stiffener is required at fue brace point. LATERALBRACE STIFFNESS (k/in)

! A lateralbraceplacedat fue centroid Fig. 6 Effectof LateralBraceLocation

f . of fue crosssectionrequiresanidealstiffness
; of 11.4kIffi. if a 4 x 1/4stiffeneris attached
; I at rnidspanand 53.7 k/in. (off scale)if no 5
.a . ed S b .all b . Top FIangeBrace
stlllener ISus . U Stantl y more racmg ~ /
is requiredfor fueno stiffenercasebecause of 4
. web dIstortlon
'. .
at th e b race pomt. Th e '
,,. Braceat Centroid ideal brace
centroidbracingsystemis lessefficientthan P
fue top flange brace because fue centroid ~
brace force causes fue centerof twist to no br 2 P at centroid
rnove ~ fue bottomflangeandcloserto ~W1~~;;
, fue brace point which is undesirablefor 1 ~1~f~
¡ lateral bracing. 8 j~mid~pan brace

O
j 'f For fue case of a beam with a O 30 60 90 120 150
.~ .con~entratedcentro id loa~ at midspan, shown LATERAL BRACE STIFFNESS (k/in)
1 m Flg. 7, fue rnornent varles along fue length.
The ideal centroid brace (110 k/in.) is 44 Fig. 7 Midspan Load at Centro id
( times larger than fue ideal top flange brace
:'t
lo!
![
(2.5 k/in.). For both brace locations cross
. ...
sectlondl~tortlonhada rnmoreffect« 3%).
The rnaxlmum beam rnomentat rnidspan
50 \oad at Centrold o

ji whenfue beambuckJes betweenfue bracesis ~r 40 nr

'j! 1.80 times greater than fue uniform rnoment (kips) P
;¡i case which is close to fue Cb factor = 1.75 30 ~wk~
given in specifications (AISC, AASHTO). -VY'~f-L
This higher buckJing moment is fue main 2 Ti FlangeLoad midspanbrace
requirement is 1.56 times greater (2.49 vs.
reason why fue ideal top flange brace 10 "'"
1.6 k/in.) thanfue uniformrnomentcase. m-'Y4
O
O 4 8 12 16 20
Fi~re 8 shows fue e~ects ofload and LATERAL BRACE STIFFNESS (k/in )
brace posltlon on fue buckllng strength of
r laterally braced beams. If fue load is at fue F . 8 Ea t f Lo d d B ..
! . Ig. llec O a an race Posltlon
top flange, fue effectlveness of a top flange
brace is greatly reduced. For example, for a
brace stiffness of 2.5 k/in., fue beam would buckJe between fue ends and fue midspan brace at a centro id
load close to 50 kips. If fue load is at fue top flange, fue beam will buckJe at a load of 28 kips. For top
flange loading, fue ideal top flange brace would have to be increased to 6.2 k/in. to force buckJing
between fue braces. The load position effect must be considered in fue brace dcsign requirements. This
effect is even more important if fue lateral brace is attached at fue centroid. The results shown in Fig.
8 indicate that a centro id brace is almost totally ineffective for top flange loading. This is not due to

-~ ~
---~-- ""'~-'~..c~'~ ;~ "" ~--~ ~

cross sectiondistonion since a stiffener was used at fue bracepoint. The top flange loading causesfue 5
center of twist at buckJingto shift to a position clase to mid-depth for most practical unbracedlengths,
as shown in Fig. 5. Since there is vinually no lateral displacementnear fue centroid for top flange
loading, a lateral brace at fue centroid will not brace fue bearn. Becauseof cross-sectiondistonion and
top flange loading effects, lateral bracesat fue centroid are not recornmended. Lateral bracesmust be
placed near fue top flange of simply supponed and overhangingspans. Design recornmendationswill
be developedonly for fue top flange lateral bracing situation. Torsional bracing nearfue centroid or even
fue bottom flange can be effective as discussedlater.

The load position effect discussedabove

assumesthat the load remains vertical during
buckJingand passesthrough fue planeof fue web.
In fue laboratory, a top flange loading condition
is achievedby loading through a knife edgeat fue
middle of fue flange. In structures fue load is
applied to fue bearnsthrough secondarymembers
or fue slab itself. Loading through fue deck can RestoringTorque CrossSectlonDistortion
provide a beneficial "tipping" effect illustrated in ( a) ( b)
Fig. 9. As fue bearntries to buckJe,fue contact .. . E
point shifts from mid-flange to fue flange tip Flg. 9 Tlppmg ffect
resulting in a restoringtorque which increasesfue
buckling capacity. Unfonunately, cross-sectiondistonion severelylimits fue beneficialeffectsoftipping.
Linder (1982, in German)hasdevelopeda solution for fue tipping effect which considersfue flange-web
distonion. The test data (Linder,1982; Raju, 1992)indicatesthat a cross member merely resting (not
positively attached)on fue top flange can significantly increasefue lateral buckling capacity. The tipping
solution is sensitiveto fue initial shapeof fue crosssectionand location of fue load point on fue flange.
Becauseof fuesedifficulties, it is recornmendedthat fue tipping effect not be consideredin designo

When a bearn is bent in 4000 ~ ~

double curvature fue compression flange 4
switches from fue top flange to fue bottom ""
flange at fue inflection point. Bearns with M 3000 --
compression in both fue top and bottom ( inC!k
) t~-~Mu
flangesalongfue spanhavemore severe
bracing requirements than bearns with
compressionon just one sirle as illustrated by 1000í
2000 /IJ~
r "'ItIlIID"

fue comparisonof fue casesgiven in Fig. 10. ~1~~~

The salid lines are BASP solutionsfor a 20 ft ""Tnldspan
flg.brace
long W16x26 beam subjected to equal but 00 5 10 15 20 25
opp~site end ~omen~ ando with. lateral BRACESTIFFNESS( k/in)
bracmg at fue mldspanmflectlon pomt. For
no bracing fue buckJingmomentis 1350in-k. F. 10 B . th I fl . P .

caceattac to one ange lS mellectlve

A b hed fl .. && . Ig. earns WI n ectlon omts

for reverse curvature becausetwist at midspan is not prevented. If lateral bracing is attachedto both
flanges, fue buckling moment increasesnonlinearly as fue bracestiffnessincreasesto 24 k/in, fue ideal
value shown by fue black doto Greaterbracestiffnesshasno effect becausebuckJingoccursbetweenfue
brace points. The ideal bracestiffness for a bearnwith a concentratedmidspanload is 2.6 k/in at Mcr
= 2920 in-k as shown by fue dashedlines. For fue two load casesfue momentdiagramsbetweenbrace
points are similar, maximum momentat one end and zero momentat fue other end. In designa Cb =
1.75 is used for fuese caseswhich correspondsto an expectedmaximum moment of 2810 in-k. The
double curvature casereacheda maximum moment25% higher becauseof warping restraintat midspan
provided by fue adjacenttensionflange. In fue concentratedload caseno suchrestraint is availablesince
fue compressionflanges of both unbracedsegmentsare adjacentto eachother. On fue other hand, fue
brace stiffness at eachflange must be 9.2 times fue ideal value of fue concentratedload caseto achieve
fue 25 % increase. Since warping restraint is usually ignored in design Mcr = 2810 in-k is fue maximum

; .. .
-
~::;~I-=-:~'~¿:
6
design momento At this moment level the double curvaturecaserequires abrace stiffness of 5.6 k/in
which is about twice that required for the concentratedload case. The results in Fig. 10 show that not
only is it incorrect to assumethat an inflection point is abrace point but also that bracing requirements
for beamswith inflection points are greater than casesof single curvature. For other casesof double
curvature such as uniform1y loadedbeamswith end restraint (moments),fue observationsare similar.
20'
single midspan lateral brace have been
Up to this point only beams with a 1600 1 brace
~f=~~ "" .,.0--' ~
?0_00_0_00_00_._0 ...m ¿¡¡y

discussed. The bracing effect of a beamwith o/

multiple braces is shown in Fig. 11. The M 1200

response of a beam with three equally spaced (in:k )
bracesis shown by fue solid line. When fue 800
lateral brace stiffness, .BL' is less than 0.14 ~ W16~ o;;¡
k/in., fue beamwill buckle in a single wave. 40 -.:!!1~ ~r
In this region a small increase in brace 8--¡:7--}~
stiffness greatly increasesfue buckling loado O 3 braces 1
For 0.14 < .BL < 1.14, fue buckled shape O 1 2 3 4 o

switches to two waves and fue relative BRACE STIFFNESS @ EACH LOCATION (k/ In)
: effectivenessof fue lateral brace is reduced.
i For 1.4 < .BL < 2.75, fue bucked shapeis Fig. 11 Multiple Lateral Bracing
three waves. The ideal bracestiffnessis 2.75
i
:,
¡ k/in. at which fue unbracedlength can be considered10 ft. For fue 20 ft span with a single brace at
l
' midspandiscussedpreviously which is shownby the dashedline , abrace stiffnessofonly 1.6 k/in. was
i, required to reducefue unbracedlength to 10 ft. Thus fue numberof lateral bracesalong fue spanaffects
J fue brace requirements. A similar behaviorhasbeenderivedfor columns(fimoshenko and Gere, 1961)
:¡ where changingfrom one brace to three bracesrequired an increasein ideal column brace stiffnessof
1f t 1.71, which is fue sameas that shown in Fig. 9 for beams,2.75/1.6 1.72. =
, :; Yuca and Phillips (1992) report fue - 7 9
resultsof a test programon fue lateraland ~ 9
\
'1

1'
1

f
torsional bracing of bearns for comparison ;g, 6
with the theoretical studiespresentedabove. 5 ~ ~ '---BASP
Some typical test results show good O Ea. (1)
1\

1( correlation with fue BASP theory in Fig. 12. ~4

i: Sincethe theoreticalresultswere found to be ~ 3 Top FlangeLoad
¡, reliabl~, signific~t variablesfrom the theory ~ l..,{
: were mcluded m the development of the
design recornmendations given in the m
g 1
A .~ -. -~
~ W12x14- 24 n...1
following section. In surnmary, moment O
gradient, brace location, load location, brace O 0.5 1 1.5 2 205
stiffness and number of braces affect the LATERAL BRACE STIFFNESS (k/in)
buckling strength of laterally bracedbearns.
The effect of cross section distortion can be Fig. 12 Lateral Bracing Tests
effectively eliminated by placing the lateral
brace near the top flangeo

Lateral Brace Design. In the previous sectionit was shownthat fue buckling load increasesas
the brace stiffness increasesuntil full bracing causesthe beam to buckle between braces. In many
instancesthe relationship betweenbracing stiffness and buckling load is nonlinear as evidencedby the
responseshown in Fig. 11 for multiple braces. A generaldesignequationhasbeendevelopedfor braced
beamswhich is gives good correlation with exact solutionsfor the entire range of lero bracing to full
bracing (Yura, 1992b).That bracedbeamequationis applicableto both continuousand discretebracing
systems,but it is fairly complicated. In most designsituationsfull bracing is assumedor desired,that
is, buckling betweenthe brace points is assumed. For full bracing a simpler design alternativebased
on Winter's approachwa..~ developed(Yura, 1992b)and is presentedbelow.
~

T bl 1 B C ffi . t 7
For elastic beams under uniforrn moment fue Winter ideal
1 al b .ffn . b kI. b th b a e. cace oe Iclen
ater cacestl ess requlred to ~.orce uc mg etween e faces
=
iS.6i #P{ / Lb where p{ = ~ EIyc / L2b' lyc is the out-Qf-plane
moment of inertia of the compressionflange which is Iy/2 for doubly Number Brace
syrnmetric cross sections, and # is a coefficient dependingon the of Braces Coef.
number of braces n within the span, as given in Table 1(Winter, 1 2
1960)or approximated =
by # 4 - ( 2/n). The Cb factor given in 2 3
designspecificationsfor nonuniforrn momentdiagramscanbe usedto 3 341
estímatethe increasedbracerequirementsfor other loading cases.For .
example, for a simply supported beam with a load and brace at 4 3.63
midspan shown in Fig. 7, fue full bracing stiffness required is 1.56 Many 4.0
times greater than the uniform moment case.The Cb = 1.75 for this
loading case provides a conservative estímateof the increase. An
additional modifying factor Cd = 1 + (Ms / MJ2 is required when there are inflection points along the
span (double curvature), where Ms and ML are the maximum momentscausingcompressionin the top
and bottom flanges as shown in Fig. 13. The momentratio must be equal to or less than one, so Cd
varíes between 1 and 2. In double curvature caseslateral bracesmust be attachedto both flanges. Top ..
¡
flange loading increasesthe brace requirementseven when bracing is provided at the load point. The
magnitude of the increaseis affectedby the numberof bracesalong
fue spanas given by the modifying factor CL = 1 + ( 1.2/n). For MS
one braceCL= 2.2; for manybracestop flangeloadinghasno
effect on brace requirements,i.e. Cd= 1.0.

In summary, a modified Winter's ideal bracingstiffnesscan M ML

defined as follows,

.6i
. = --~
# CbPj
CLCd (1)

MS
For the W12x14 beamslaterally bracedat midspanshown in Fig. Fig. 13 Double Curvature
12, Lb = = =
144 in., # 2, Cb 1.75,CL = 1 + 1.2/1= 2.2,and
p{ = ~ (29000) (2.32/2)/(144)2 = 16.01 kips, .6i. = 0.856 k/in.
which is shown by the * in Fig. 12. Equation (1) comparesvery favorably with the test resultsand with
the theoretical BASP results. For designthe ideal stiffnessgiven by Eq. (1) must be doubledfor beams
with initial out-Qf-straightness
so braceforcescanbe maintainedat reasonablelevels asdiscussedearlier.
The braceforce requirementfor beamsfollows directly from the column Fbr = O.OIPfor discretebraces
given earlier. The column load P is replacedwith the equivalentcompressivebeamflange force, either
(Cbp{) or M{ /h, where M{ is the maximum beammomentand h is the distancebetweenflange centroids.
The M{ /h estímateof the flange force is applicablefor both fue elasticand inelasticregions.For relative
bracing the force requirementis one half the discretevalue. The lateral bracedesignrecommendations
which follow are basedon an initial out-Qf-straightness ofadjacentbracepoints ofLb/500. The combined

LATERAL BRACING DESIGN REQUlREMENTS

Stirrn~s: .6i =2 # (CbPpCLCd/4 or 2#(Mj/h)CLCD/4 (2)"

where # = 4 - (2/n) or the coefficient in Table 1 for discretebracing; = 1.0 for relative bracin
CbP { = Cb ~ E Iyc / Lb2 ; or = (M{ / h) where M{ is the maximum beammoment
CL = l + ( 1.2/n ) for top flange loading; = 1.0 for other loading
Cd = 1 + (Ms / MJ2 for double curvature; = 1.0 for single curvature
n = number of braces

Strength: Discrete bracing: Fbr = 0.01 CL Cd Mf /h (3)

Relative bracing: Fbr = 0.004 CL Cd Mj /h (4)

. C;.-.nI e rv q,; \'1~ ~ \~ lt ,~ E't('¡) .O;LC 10 (M+/~) C<::t/ lb ~r- Q~y Y\

,
, ","'*". .

8 values of # and CLvary between 4.0 and 4.8 for all values of n so Eq. (2) can be conservatively
simplified for all situationstO.8L. = 10 Mf / hLb for single curvatureand .8L. = 20 Mf / hLb for double
curvature.

Someadjustmentsto the designrequirementsare necessaryto accountfor the different designcode

methodologies,i.e. allowablestressdesign,load factor designoetc.. In AASHTO-LFD andAISC-LRFD,
Mf is the factored moment; in Allowable StressDesign, Mf is basedon service loads. The CbPf form
of Eq (2) can be used directly for all specificationsbecauseit is basedon geometric properties of the
beam, i.e., .8L~ .8L. where .8Lis the brace stiffness provided. The brace strength requirements,Eqs.
(3) and (4), can also be used directly since the design strengthsor resistancesgiven in each code are
consistentwith the appropriatefactored or service loads.'Only the Mf I h form of Eq. (2) which relies
on the applied load level usedin the structural analysismust be altered as follows:
AISC-LRFD: .8L ~ .8L./ 4> where4> = 0.75 is suggested
AISC-ASD: .8L ~ 2 .8L. where 2 is a safety factor
AASHTO-LFD: .8L ~ .8L
. no change
The discreteandrelative lateralbracing requirementsare illustratedin the following two designexamples.

.:. Lateral Brace Design Examples. Two different lateral bracing systemsare usedto stabilize five
~t compositesteel plate girders during bridge construction; a discretesystemin Example 1 and a relative
j". bracing in Example 2. The AASHTO- Load Factor Design Specificationis used. Each brace shown
,~ dashedin Example 1 controls the lateral movementof one point along the span, whereasthe diagonals
.,1 in the top flange truss systemshownin Example2 control the relative lateral displacementoftwo adjacent
points. Relative systemsrequire 1/2 the brace force and from 1/2 to 1/4 of the stiffness for discrete
'í systems. In both examples,a tensiontype structural systemwas usedbut the bracing formulas are also
applicableto compressionsystemssuch as K-braces. In Example 1 the full bracing requirementsfor
strength and stiffness given by Eqs. (2) and (3) are basedon eachbrace stabilizing five girders. Since
; the moment diagram gives compressionin one flange, Cd for double curvature is not considered.
!
: In both examples,stiffnesscontrols the bracearea,not the strengthrequirement. In Example 1 the
stiffness criterio n required abrace area 3.7 times greaterthan the strengthformula. Even if the brace
was designedfor 2 % of the compressionflange force (a cornmonlyusedbracing rule), the bracesystem
would be inadequate. It is important to recognizethat bQ1hstiffnessand strength must be adequatefor
a satisfactorybracing system.
¡¡
\,
11.
Torsional Bracing of Beams 4
""
Tong & Chen
/
"

Id eaI brace, BASP

/---
:\ Examples of torsional bracing systems 3 4x1/4sti~
were shownin Fig. 3. Twist can be Mcr
preventedby attachinga deck to the top ~ no b r2
flange of a simply supportedbeam, by floor "

beamsattachednearthe bottom tensionflange no stlffener

of through girders or by diaphragms
T located
. 1 no brace 111 {Hr W~:~6W Mcr
-2~
near the centroid of the stringer. Wlst can 8 @ _,~_8
also be restrained by cross frames that O midspan brace
prevent the relative movementof the top and O 1000 2000 3000 4000
bottomflanges.Theeffectiveness
oftorsional TORSIONALBRACE STIFFNESS(in-k/rad)
braces attachedat different locations on the
cross section will be presented. Fig. 14 Torsional Brace at Midspan

Behavior. The BASP solution for a simply supportedbeam with a top flange torsional brace
attachedat midspan is shown in Fig. 14. The buckling strength- bracestiffnessrelationshipsare non-
linear and quite different from the top flange lateral bracinglinear responsegiven in Fig. 6 for the same
beam and loading. For top flange lateral bracing a stiffener has no effect. A torsional brace can only
increasethe buckling capacityabout fifty percentabovethe unbracedcaseif no stiffener is used. Local
cross-sectiondistortion at midspanreducesthe brace effectiveness.If a web stiffener is used with fue
--
9
torsional braceattachedto the compressionflange, then the buckling strengthwill increaseuntil buckling
occurs betweenthe bracesat 3.3 times the no-bracecase. The ideal or full bracing requires a stiffness
of 1580 in-k/radian for a 4 x 1/4 stiffener and 3700 in-k/radian for a 2.67 x 1/4 stiffener. Tong and
Chen (1988) developeda closedform solution for ideal torsional bracestiffnessneglectingcross-section
distortion that is given by the solid dot at 1450in-k/radian in Fig. 14. The differencebetweenthe Tong
solution and the BASP results is due to web distortion. Their solution would require a 6 x 3/8 stiffener
to reach the maximum buckling loado If the Tong ideal stiffness (1450 in-k/radian) is used with a 2.67
x 1/4 stiffener, the buckling load is reducedby 14%; no stiffener gives a 51% reduction.

LATERAL BRACING - DESIGN EXAMPLE 1

... .. Span = 80 ft.; 10 in. concrete slab

, \
, \\\ 5 girders @ 8 ft spacing, A36 steel
-r'- ,~? Girder Properties \\
D . I Ib . t t t b.l'
~,'~ \\ eslgn a atera raclng sys em o s a Ilze th e
~.' 14x 8 \\\ girders during the deck pour. Use the external
~
.. ~ = 561 i
\\
-
tension system shown. The form supports
transmit some load to the botlom flange so
~ x 48 t .d I d.
~= 32.0 i assume cen rol oa Ing.
J = 12.9 i 1/4 x 15 Use Load Factor Design for the construction
condition - L.F. = 1.3

Loads: Steel girder: A = 48.75 in.2. wt = 165 Ib/ft

Canco slab: . 8' x~ x 150 Ib/ft 3 = 1000 Ib/ft

w = 1165Ib/ft=1.165k/ft

M = 81 w l 2 x L.F. = 81 (1.165 ) (80) 21.3 = 1211 k-ft

My= 36 (561)/12 = 1682 k-ft > 1211 k-ft = 1.0

Try 4 lateral braces @ 16-ft spacing

Check lateral buckling - center 16-ft is most critical (AASHTO 10-102c)

M = 91x10 6 (1.0)16x12~
32.0 _1 0.772 12.9 ~ + 9.87l16"~1
(/ 50
~n )\22

= 15020000 lb-in = 1251 k-ft> 1211 k-ft 4 braces required

Brace Design: Use the full bracing formula - discrete system -

See Eq 2 & 3

~ = 7t2 (29000) (32.0)

(16 x 12)2 -- 248 klpS,
'. #
-- 4
2
- 4" -- 3.5,. Cb -- 1.0.. ~ -- 1.0

. = 2 3.5 (248)(1.0)(1.0)
~L 16 x 12 =. 9 04 k/.In. f or ea. glr. d er = 45.2 k/ln.
. for 5 girders = F/~

AE
Brace stiffness = cos2 e~T ) = Ab (29000)
2 = 45.2 k/in.
A
/~-).. F
b <--r5 ) 335 ~Ab
I ~ = 2.61 in~ I .(-- CONTROLS

Brace Strength: Fb = 0.01 (5) (1211 x 12 149.0) = 14.83 k

(A36 steel) r ~ve girders
A F = 14.831 cose; ~ = 14.3
863...[i; = 0.92 in~
bY

.
 10
LATERAL BRACING - DESIGN EXAMPLE2

;
¡
,
'
'v' 'v' Same as Example 1 exceptthe bracingsystem is a relativesystem -
lA, R ti I~' - a top flange horizontaltruss. Each truss stabilizes2-1/2 girders.
1
'v' 'v' A-. The unbracedlengthof the girder flange is 16 ft which was checked
, 16ft .
", t
~ A
i 1" In ExampIe 1.
i , 1 " -
" B st.
lA,
\1
,~,Top flg race Ift ness: Pf = 248 kips
, "" '1
"
V
!g irder
R* 2 Pf C b C L Cb _
- 10
.
A ~ P =
1" , ,l' , L Lb C = 1.0
" " L
': 't 2(248) 1.0 (1.0)
,", ,", = 16 x 12 = 2.58 k/in for ea. girder
PLANVIEW = 6.45 k/in for 2 1/2 girders

cos26
~) =(-
AE
1 )2 .Ao (29000)
,_w = 6.45k/in; A b = 0.239 in 2 +-
L b -.J5"" (8 x 12 AV5)

Brace strength: Fbr = 0.004 (2 1/2) (1211x12)

49 = 2.97 .
klps

AbFy = 2.97-f5 ; Ab= 2.97...[5

36 = ~~ 2

Stiftnesscontrolsthe bracesize; 9/16 41 OK A = 0.248 in2

Figure 15 shows that torsional bracing 3000 .

on the tension flange (dashedline) is just as nodistortion ! nges
effective as compressionflange bracing (solid "---1 ed
line), even with nol .stiffener.
.&& . bIf the
. beamall
has 2000 !
!! 11 braced
no Stllleners, sp Ittmg racmg equ y ~
between the two flanges gives a greater (in-k)
capacity than placing all the bracing on just 1000 9 braced
one flange. The dot-dash curve is the
solution if web distortion is prevented by )Mcr
transversestiffeners. The distortion doesnot O
have to be gross to affect strength, as shown 1 10 10 10 10 101
in Fig. 16 for a total torsional brace stiffness TOTALTORSIONAL
BRACESTIFFNESS
(in-kI rad)
of 3000 in-k/radian. If the W16x26 section
has transverse stiffeners, the buckled cross Fig. 15 Effect of Torsional Brace Location
sectionat midspanhas no distortion as shown
by the heavy solid lines and Mcr= 1582in-k.
If no stiffeners are used, the buckling load
. k , a 280170 decrease,yet there Total top flg brace
drops to 1133m- 3000in-k/radian
is only slight distortion as shown b.y the 1- - - _/- ' I ."'..

dashed shape. The overall angle of tWISt for ~'e ee e e ~jMcr ¡¡o

the braced beam is much smaller than the L- 30' -..1 .I¡
twist in the unbracedcase(dot-dashcurve). W16x26 / stiffened

The effect of load position on

torsionally braced beams is not very
.&&
no bracing
M M 283. k
-', ¡¡
¡

-.'..
~
/ -- Mcr=
1582
in-k

no stiffeners
: significant, as shown in Fig. 17. The d111er- 0= cF In- McF 1133 in-k
! ence in load betweenthe two curves for top
flange and centroid loading for bracedbeams
is almost equal to the difference in strength Fig. 16 Effect of Cross Section Distortion

,
",,--
11
for fue unbraced beams (zero brace stiffness). 50 --
loading is 18% greater than for centroid
The ideal brace stiffness for top flange P 40 ~"", ---Top Flange Load

loading. This behavior is different from that ( kips

cr ~ """ .- Load at Centroid
shown in Fig. 8 for lateral bracing where fue O ""
top flange loading ideal brace is 2.5 times ,,'
that for centroid loading. 2 "" rfr tP
10 " W ,Ir, W16x26 M
Figure 18 surnmarizesfue behavior of mid;;;~~ topflg
a 4Q-ft spanwith three equaltorsional braces o
spaced 10ft
- ap.art Th e beam was st 111~n
'"-' ed o 1000 2000 3000 4000
. 5000
.
at each brace point to control fue distortion. TORSIONAL BRACE STIFFNESS (In- k I radian
The responseis non-linear and follows the. ..
pattern discussedearlier for a single braceo Flg. 17 Effect of Load POSltlOn
For brace stiffness less than 1400 in- .
k/radian, fue stringer buckled into a single 1600~f~~~=:;~~=ft" --_o ~/-~

~
wave. Only in fue stiffness. range of 1400- 1b
race
"" "" ,.' ~ ~..rrIrrtt wJJY
1600 in-k/radian did multl-wave buckled 1200 ,/'
shapesappear. The ideal brace stiffness at ~r ,/// "-
each location was slightly greater than 1600 (in-k) """", ~
in-k/radian. This behavior is very different 800 /,," ~Hr W19x26
W ~
from fue multiple lateral bracing casefor fue /" H~8~g
samebeam shown in Fig. 11. For multiple 400 10
1 al b . th b b kled . 3 braces
ater racrng e eam uc rnto two
waves when fue moment reached 600 in-k O
andthenintothreewavesat Mcr = 1280in- O 400 800 1200 1600 2000
k. For torsional bracing, fue single wave TORSIONALSTIFFNESS@ EACHBRACE(in-k/rad)
controlled up to Mcr 1520in-k. Sincefue =
maximum moment of 1600 correspondsto Fig. 18 Multiple Torsional Braces
buckling betweenfue braces,it canbe assumed,for designpurposes,that torsionally bracedbeamsbuckle
in a single wave until fue brace stiffness is sufficient to force buckling betweenfue braces. The figure
also shows that a single torsional brace at midspanof a 2Q-ft span (unbracedlength = 10 ft) requires
about fue sameideal brace stiffness as three bracesspacedat 10 ft. In fue lateral brace casefue three
brace system requires 1.7 times fue ideal stiffness of fue single brace system, as shown in Fig. 11.

Tests have been conductedon torsionally bracedbeamswith various stiffener details which are
presentedelsewhere(Yura, 1992). The tests show good agreementwith fue Basp solutions.

Buckling Strength 01 Torsionally Braced Beams. Taylor and Ojalvo (1973) give fue following
exact equation for fue critical moment of a doubly syrnmetric beam under uniform moment with
continuoustorsional bracing
6 Topflg brace ~ M .~Q~
M = V M~
M ++ P' b El y
P' E 1
( 5) ., - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ cr
~vW16x26v *J
",0(\ ,.,
o\s\<?""g\"s
cr o b y 5 t-::.: l ~ ~""3\\ \e{\
.'
.,.'" l = 30'
. .. 4 ",""" = 283 in-k)
where Mo lS fue bucklrng capaclty of fue ~r .,." o
- 3" 20'
unbracedbeam and :B b = attachedtorsional ~ .".,.' (504 in-k)
brace stiffness (k-in/rad per in. length).
Equation (5), which assumesno crosss~cti~n 1 (161~~~k)
distortion, is shown by fue dot-dash Ime rn
Fig. 19. The salid lines are BASP resultsfor 00 10 20 30 40
a W16x26 sectionwith no stiffenersandspans ~EI 1M2
of 10ft, 20 ft, and 30 ft under uniform y o
moment with braces attached to fue
compressionflange. Cross-sectiondistortion Fig. 19 Approximate Buckling Formula
 ::~"tt;~"",~;:";~:t~j - 'c,

12 causesthe poor correlation betweenEqo (5) and the Diaphragms

J&~::J[U
Thro gh GOrders
I
BASP results. Milner (1977) showed that cross-
section distortion could be handled by using an
effective brace stiffness, .aor, which has been ~ ~ or Decks
Ib
expanded(Yura, 1992) to include the effect of ---5--'"

stiffeners and other factors as follows,

-.!- c -.!- + -..!.- + -.!- (6) -[~~~

~ ;¡-
JL
~=~'
"\ ~ r
e
t3T t3b t3aec t3g
6 E lb 2 E lb
where t3bis the stiffnessof the attachedbrace, t3aec is
~-
b S
~-b S
the cross-sectionweb stiffness and t3gis the girder . o ..
systemstiffness. The effective bracestiffness is less Flg. 20 Torslonal Bracmg StlffnesS
than the smallestof t3b,t3aec
or t3g.

The t3bof some cornmontorsional bracesystemsare given in Figs. 20 and 21. Systemscomprised
:, of diaphragms, slabs, and floor systemsfor through girders in Fig. 20 assumethat the connection
,;! betweenthe girder and the bracecan support a bracing momentMbr If partially restrainedconnections
are used, their flexibility should also be included in Eq. (5). Elastic truss analyseswere usedto derive
the stiffness of the crosstrame systemsshown in Fig. 21. If the diagonalsof a X-system are designed
for tension only, then horizontal members are required in the system. In the K-brace system a top
horizontal is not required.
~ ~A
TENSION SYSTEM I/..~~ /f/.If e- 6 +6 h . M =Fh
F ~~/ hb' b

~ ~ Ah ~b = MI e
b 2 2
F:
F Pb -
- 2C ES hb
53 .
Tenslon System-
2Fh S 2Fh ~A +_
A horizontalsare required
=...:..:p =...:..:p c h
S S

COMPRESSION
F
SYSTEM

and
F
1><1
~ ~b = ~ ES hb
L~
2 2
Tension - CompressionSystem
horizontalsnot required
F: F

K BRACE
F O
~ F
-~-7
22
~b = 2E5 h
K Brace System -
.::;=..s. + A diagonals designedfor
F: F Ac h tension and compression

At¡ = Brea of horizontal members Lc = length of diagonal members

Ac = area of diagonal members S = spacing of girders
E = modulus of elasticity ~ = height of the cross trame

Figo 21 StiffnessFormulasfor Cross Frames

 In crossframesand diaphragms the brace Beam Loadl 13
momentsMbr are reactedby vertical forces on the ..
main girders as shown in Fig. 22. These forces m' .",' m
increasesomemain girder momentsanddecreases
others.Theeffectis greaterfor thetwin girder M r
~
Brace Load 5 r
system B comparedto the interconnectedsystem 5
A. The vertical couple causes a differential
displacement in adjacent girders which reduces ~;f-,.//f",~;r fi:\
the torsional stiffness of the cross trame system. .J¿"""'~/I'~~~ ~
For abrace only at midspan in a twin girder
system the contribution of the inplane girder
t S S S I
""
~r
35
flexibility to the brace systemstiffness is
2 ~;r-~;r @
-- 12S EI;¡; (7) .l/"~~ -.J¿"I' ~
.Bg L3 t ~ t ~ ~r
where.lx is the stro~g axis moment of inertia of Fi . 22 BeamLoad from Braces
one glrder and L lS the span length. As the g
number of girders increase,the effect of girder stiffnesswill be lesssignificant. In multi-girder systems,
-
the factor 12 in Eq. 7 canbe conservativelychangedto 24 (ng 1)2/ngwhere n~ is the numberof girders.
For example, in a six-girder system, the factor becomes100 or more than elght times the twin girder
value of 12. Helwig (1993) has shown that for twin girders the strong axis stiffness factor .Bgis
significant and Eq. (7) can be used even when there is more than one brace along the span.

Cross-section distortion can be approximated by

considering the flexibility of the web, including ful1 depth
stiffeners if any, as follows: tiffener

- E [(N + 1.5h ) t w
3 t s b s3 ] (8) h
.B
leC
- 3.3-h 12
+ - 12 t
Torsional Brace
where fw = thickness of web, h = depthof web, t. = N
thickness of stiffener, b. = width of stiffener, and N = r
contactlength of the torsional braceas shown in Fig. 23. For I
continuousbracing use an effective net width of 1 in. instead h
of (N + 1.5h) in .B1eC and lib in place of.Bb to get liT, The L (N + 1.5 h)

dashedliDes in Fig. 19 basedon Eqs. (5) and (6) show good

agreementwith the BASP theoretical solutions. For the 10 Fig. 23 Effective Web Width
ft and 20 ft spans, BASP and Eq. (6) are almost identical.
Other caseswith discretebracesand different size stiffenersalso show good agreement.

In general, stiffeners or connectiondetails such as clip angles, can be usedto control distortion.
For decks and through girders, the stiffener must be attachedto the flange that is braced. Diaphragms
are usually W shapesor channelsectionsconnectedto the web of the stringer or girders through clip
angles, shear tabs or stiffeners. When full depth stiffeners or connectiondetails are used to control
distortion,the stiffener sizeto give the desiredstiffnesscanbe determinedfrom Eq. (8). For partial depth
stiffening illustrated in Fig. 24, the stiffness of the various sections of the web can be evaluated
separately,then combinedas follows:

3 3
( h )2 ( (N+1.5h¡)tw tsbs
.B
I
~
-3.3E
h¡ -+-
h. 12 12 ) ()9
I

;
 --

14 where h¡ = hc' h.. or ht and

hc
-Y- = ~ + ~ +~ (10) --.l
, .8sec .8c .8s {3,
I h ha
The portion of fue web within hb can be considered
infinite1y stiff. For rolled sections,if fue diaphragrn
connection extendsover at least one-half fue bearn ht ~
depth' then cross-sectiondistortion will not be signif- ht
icant becausethe webs are fairly stoCkycomparedto Fig. 24 Partially StiffenedWebs
built-up sections. The depth of fue diaphragm, h.,
can be less than one-half fue girder depth as long as it provides the necessarystiffness to reach fue
I required momento Cross trames without web stiffeners should have a depth h. of at least 3/4 of fue bearn
depth to minimize distortion. The location of a diaphragm or cross trame on the cross section is not very
l . important; it doesnot haveto be locatedcloseto the compressionflange. The stiffenersor connection
anglesdo not have to be welded to the flanges whendiaphragrnsare used. For cross trames, (3., should
. be taken as infinity; only ht and hc will affect distortion. If stiffeners are required for flange connected
torsional braceson rolled beams,they should extendat least 3/4 depth to be fully effective.

Equation (5) was developedfor doubly-syrnrnetricsections. The torsional bracing effect for
singly-syrnrnetricsectionscan be approximatedby replacing!y in Eqs. (5) with leff defined as follows:

1eff = 1yc + .: 1y, (11)

c

where lyc and ~ are the lateral moment of inertia of the compressionflange and tension flange
respectively, and c and t are the distances from fue neutral bending axis to fue centroid of fue
compressionand tension flanges respectively,as shownin Fig. 25(a). For a doubly syrninetric section
c = t and Eq. (11) reducesto !y. A comparisonbetweenBASP solutions and Eqs. (5) and (11) for three
different girders with torsional bracesis shown in Fig. 25(b). The curves for a W16x26 show very
good agreement. In the other two cases,one of the flanges of the W16x26 section was increasedto
10xl/2. In one casefue small flange is in tensionand in the other case,fue compressionflange is fue
smallest. In all casesEq. (11) is in good agreementwith the theoreticalbuckling load given by BASP.

Equation (5) showsthat the buckling load increaseswithout limit asfue continuoustorsional brace
stiffnessincreases.When enoughbracing is provided, yielding will control fue bearnstrengthso Mcr can
not exceedMy, fue yield or plastic strength of the section. It was found that Eq. (5) for continuous
bracing could be adaptedfor discretetorsional bracesby surnrningthe stiffnessof eachbracealong the
span and dividing by fue bearnlength to get an equivalentcontinuousbracestiffness. In this caseMcr

~b M
5000 ~6I@ eee~*' cr Flg.10x1/2
comp. flg. - 1..;5.5x1/4 stiffel}-,r ~
l.
c
-~
.E 4000
~
I

3000 BASP
40'

.l
x ~E
o 2000 ---
Y t ~
:"§ 1000
1
W16x26
. U
tenslon flg.
OO 2 4 6 8 10
(a) (b) Pb Brace Stiffness (k-in/rad/in. length)
Fig. 25 Singly SyrnrnetricGirders
 15
will be limited to M., fue moment corresponding to buckJing between fue brace points. By adjusting Eq.
(5) for top flange loading and other loading conditions, fue following generalformula canbe usedfor fue
buckJingstrengthof torsionally bracedbeams :

M = C2 M2 + C2
bb pT El ~ ~ M o, M (12)
cr bll o C 'y.r
T

where Cbu and Cbb are fue two 1imiting Cb factors corresponding to an unbraced beam (very weak braces)
and an effectively bracedbeam (buckJingbetweenfue braces);Cr is a top flange loading modification
factor; Cr = 1.2 for top flange loading and Cr = 1.0 for centroid 10ading;and 13T is fue equivalent
effective continuous torsional brace (in-k/radian/in. 1ength)from Eq.(6). The following two cases
illustrate fue accuracyof Eq. (12). 7

6 BASP~
For fue caseof a singletorsionalbrace - 4x1/4 stiffener

"
at midspan shown in Fig. 26, Cbu= 1.35 for .9. 5
a concentrated10adat fue midspanof an 4 ~ E 12
q ~
unbracedbeam(Galambos , 1988). Usually ~
useCb= 1.0for this = 3
designersconservatively nostiffener
case. For the beam assumedbraced at mid- ~2 Top Flange Load Cr= 1.2
span, Cbb= 1.75 for a straight 1ine moment "8 ~.~~~~. ~ -. -,h/, ~ = 1.35
diagram with zero moment at one end afilie 1 ~W12x14-24ft..1 Cbb=1.75
unbraced1ength. Thesetwo valuesof Cb are 00 100 200 300 400 500 600
used with any value of brace torsional . . .
stiffnessin Eq. (12). For accuracyat small Torslonal Brace Stlffness (k-ln/rad)
values of brace stiffness fue unbracedbuck-
1ingcapacity ChuMoshould algOconsidertop Fig. 26 Effect of Stiffener
flange 10ading effects. Equation (12) shows exce1lentagreementwith fue BASP theory. With no
stiffener, .Bacc from Eq. (8) is 114 in-k/radian, so fue effective brace stiffness ~ from Eq. (6) cannotbe
greater than 114 regard1essof fue brace stiffness magnitudeat midspan. Equations (6), (8) and (12)
predict fue buck1ingvery accurate1y for al1valuesof attachedbracing, evenat very 10wvaluesof bracing
stiffness. A 4 x 1/4 stiffener increased.Baccfrom 114 to 11000in-k/radian. This makesfue effective
brace stiffness very c10seto fue app1iedstiffness, .Bb' With a 4 x 1/4 stiffener, fue effective stiffnessis
138 in-k/radian if fue attachedbrace stiffness is 140 in-k/radian. The bracing equationscan be usedto
determine fue required stiffener size to reducefue effect of distortion to someto1erance1evel,say 5 %.

Figure 27 showsfue correlationbetweenfue approximatebuckJingstrength,Eq. (12) andfue exact

BASP solution for fue caseof a concentratedmidspan load at fue centroid with three equally spaced
braces along fue span. Stiffeners at fue three brace points prevent cross-sectiondistortion so PT =
3.Bb/288in.. Two horizontal cutoffs for Eq. (12) correspondingto fue theoretical moment at buckJing
between fue braces are shown. The K = 1.0 25
limit assumes that fue critical unbraced íi)' Eq 12
1ength,which is adjacentto fue midspanload, .9- 20 K = .88
is not restrained by fue more lightly loaded "U
::,

end spans. To account for fue effect of fue ~ 15

end span restraint, an effective length factor -.J K =1.0
K = 0.88 was calculatedusing fue procedure ~ 10
given in fue SSRC Guide (Galambos, 1988). ~ - -~.! ce~tr~ Load
Figure 27 shows that it is impractical to rely U 5 Cbb=1'~~~ñr--~
on side span end restraint in determining fue Cbu-1.35 ~W'2X1~- 24ft~
buckJingload betweenbraces. An infinitely 00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
stiff brace is required to reach a moment . .
corresponding to K = 0.88. If a K factorof Brace Stlffness per Brace (k-ln/rad)
I is usedin fue buckling strengthformula, fue
Fig. 27 Multiple Discrete Braces
16 comparisonbetweenEq. (12) and the BASP solution is good. Equation (12) should not be usedwith K
factors less than 1.0; the results will be unconservativeat momentsapproachingthe full bracing case.
Similar results were obtainedfor laterally bracedbeams(Yura, 1992).

Torsiona/ Brace Design. There are two basictorsional bracing systemsshown in Figs. 20 and 21:
bending membersrepresentedby diaphragms,decks or floor beams; and trussesfor the cross trames.
The two systems can be correlated by noting that Mbr = Fbr hb' where hb is the depth of the cross trame.
The term "braceforces" usedhereinafterrefers to both Mbr andFbr" Equation (12) gives the relationship
betweenbrace stiffness and Mcr for an ideally straight beam. For beamswith an initial twist, 80, it is
assumedthat the brace designrequirementsare affectedin a similar manneras that developedfor lateral
bracing of beamswith initial out-of-straightness. The requiredbracestiffness ~T' which must be at least
-.
twice the ideal stiffness to keep braceforces small, can be obtainedby rearrangingEq. (12)

'X7* = 2 (M2 - C2 M2 ) ( 13)

#.IT cr bu o 2:~
Cbb E Ieff

For discrete braces~ * = p;L/n. The braceforce Mbr = ~ * 80. An initial twist 80= 10 ( 0.0175
radians) is recornmended.For a 14-in deepsectionthis assumedinitial twist correspondsto a 0.25 in.
relative displacementbetweenthe top andbottom flanges. Equation(13) canbe conservativelysimplified
by neglecting the ChuMoterm which will be small comparedto Mcr at full bracing and by taking the
maximum ~, which is 1.2 for top flangeloading. The simplified stiffnessandbraceforce requirements
are given in fue following surnmary.

TORSIONAL BRACING DESIGN REQillREMENTS

.
Stlrrn~s: * =:BT
.8T * L In = 2.4LM¡ 2 I (nEleffCbb)
2 (14)

Strength: Mbr = Fbr hb = O.04LM21 I ( nEI effC2

bb ) (15)

where Mf = maximum beammoment

Icff= Iyc + (t Ic) ~; = 1 for doubly syrnmetricsections(seeFig. 25 )
Cbb = moment diagram modification factor for the full bracing condition
L = span length
n = number of bracesalong the span

The available effective stiffnessof the brace system~ is calculatedas follows:

~ =~ + ~ + ..!. + ~ +~ (16)
.BT .8c .8. .8t .8b .8g

h
3 3
.8c' .8s' = 3.3E ( - h )2 ( (N+1.5h¡)lw Isbs
I - h.
.B
12 + - 12 ) (17)
I h.I

ht where h¡ = hc, h.. or ht ; N = bearinglength ( seeFig. 23 )

.8b = stiffnessof attachedbrace (seeFigs. 20 and 21);
.8g = 24( ng- 1 )2 52 Elxl (L 3 ng) (18)
where n is the numberof interconnectedgirders (seeFig. 22)
g
 I I

The torsional brace stiffness requirement, Eq. (14), must be adjusted for the different design
specifi-cations as discussed earlier for the lateral brace requirements:
AISC-LRFD: Pr ~ Pro / <t> where <t>= 0.75 is suggested
AISC-ASD: Pr ~ 3 Pro , ~'d ~ 1.5x (Eqn. 15) w/ service moment
AASHTO-LFD: Pr ~ Pro no change

Torsional Brace Design Examples. In Example 3 a diaphragm torsional bracing system is

designed by fue AASHTO-LFD specification to stabilize fue five steel girders during construction as
described in Examples 1 and 2 for lateral bracing. The strength criterion, Eq. 15, is initially assumedto
control the size of the diaphragm. A C 1Ox15.3 is sufficient to brace the girders. Both yielding and
bucklingof fuediaphragrn
arechecked.Thestiffnessof theC1Ox15.3 section,195,500in-k/radian,is
much greater than required but the connection to fue web afilie girder and the in-plane girder flexibility
a1soaffect the stiffness. In this example, the in-plane girder stiffness is very large and its affect on tbe brace
system stiffness is only 2%. In most practical designs, except for twin girders, this effect can be ignored.
If a full depth connection stiffener is used, a 3/8 x 3-1/2 in. section is required. The weld design between
the channel and the stiffener, which is not shown, must transmit the bracing moment of293 in-k.

The 40-in. deep cross frarne design in Example 4 required a brace force of7.13 kips from Eq. (15).
The factored girder moment of 1211 k-ft. gives an approximate compression force in the girder of 1211 x
12/49 = 296 kips. Thus, the brace force is 2.5% of the equivalent girder force in this case. The framing
details provide sufficient stiffi1ess. The 3-in. unstiffened web at the top and bottom flanges was small
enough to keep P- well above the required value. For illustration purposes, a 30-in. deep cross frarne
attached near fue compression flange is also considered. In this case,the cross frame itself provides a large
stiffness, but fue 14-in. unstiffened web is too flexjble. Cross-sectiondistortion reducesfue systemstiffness
to 16,900 in.-k/radian, which is less than the required value. If this same cross frame was placed at the
girder midheight, fue two 7-in. unstiffened web zones top and bottom would be stiff enough to satisfy the
brace requirements. For a fixed depth of cross frarne, attachmentat the mid-<lepthprovides more effective
brace stiffness than attachment close to either flange.

Closing Remarks and Limitations

Two general structural systerns are available for bracing bearns, lateral systems and torsional
systems. Torsional bracing is less sensitive than lateral bracing to conditions such as top flange loading,
brace location, and number of braces, but more affected by cross-section distortion. The bracing
recommendations can be used in the inelastic buckling range up to ~ ifthe Mf fonn ofthe lateral brace
stiffness equation is used (Ales, 1993).

The recommendations do not address the bracing requirements for moment redistribution or
ductility in seismic designo The bracing fonnulations will be accurate for design situations in which the
buckling strength does not reir on effective lengths lessthan one. Lateral restraint provided by ligbtly
loaded sirle spansshould, in general, not be consideredbecausethe brace requirements would be much
larger than fue recornrnendationsherein. AIso, laboratoryobservationsin fue author's experience ( usually
unplanned failures of test setups ) show that brace forces can be very large when local flange or web
buckling occurs prior to lateral instability. After local buckling the cross section is unsymrnetric and
verticalloads develop very significant out of plane load components. The bracing recommendationsdo
not address such situations.

References
Akay, H.U., Johnson, C.P., and Will, K.M., 1977, "Lateral and Local Buckling ofBeams and Frames,"
Journal o/ Ihe Structural Division, ASCE, ST9, September,pp. 1821-1832.

Ales, J. M. and Yum, J. A., 1993, "Bracing Design for lnelastic Structures", Structural Stability Research
Council Conference-ls Your Structure Suitably Braced?, April 6-7, Milwaukee, WI..
r 18"1

~~:~1f~~~~~~: TORSIONAL BRACING - DESIGN EXAMPLE 3

Same as Example 1 except use the diaphragm
systemshown. In Ex. 1, tour lateral braceswere
requiredwhichgaveMr 1251k-ft, just 3%=
96 greaterthan the requiredmomo Since torsional
, Girder Properties braceswill imposesome additionalvertical forces
¡ . on the girdersas shownin Fig. 22, probablyfive
h =49.0 ,c = 30.85 ,t = 18.15 In bracesshouldbe used. However,for comparison

:
I
x
= .
17500 I = 32.0 , L~= 352 i~
yc -yt
with Examples1 & 2, a four-bracesystemwill be
=
designed. Mreq'd 1211k-ft (see Ex. 1)
!
Eq. (11): I eff= 32 + 3Q85
18,15 352 = 239 .In4
,
!
¡ Eq. (15) ~r = 12)-2
0.0.4.~~~~_~2!_(!~~~.~ =293 in-k A36 Steel:
4 (29000)239 (1.0) Req'd S x = 293/36 =~~ ~ 3

. TryC10x 15.39- 4 . 3 . . .4
; Ix = 67.4 in. Sx = 13.5 In. t f = 0.436 In , b = 2.60 In , J = 0.21 In
j" Checklateralb~Ckling
of the diaphragm T~ T
\ =
{ Iyc = (2.60) (0.436)/12 =0.639 in .!-' ~Cb 2.3

(0.21) ( 10 \2
;1
1
M
r
= 91 x 106(2.3) ~--
96 \JI .7720.639 \ -gs- )
+ /7t.,!E.1Q..
J (AASHTO 10-102c)

'1 = 837000Ib-in = 837 in-k> =

M y 13.5(36) = 486> 293 in-k; OK
~ Check stiftness: Eq. (14); P ,= 2.4(80x 12)(1211x 12) = 17550in-k/radian
f~ "'" =;'. T req d 4(29000) 239 (1.0) 2
~ ~ 1-(- bs
J¡ I The stiffnessof the diaphragmson the exteriorgirdersis 6EIbr ISo
~ < 110 Sincethere are diaphragmson bothsides of each interiorgirder,the
) "1 stiffness is 2 x 6EI brISo The averagestiffnessavailableto eachgirder
.. I -+. I is (2 x 6 + 3 x 12)/5 = 9.6 El br ISo
, .J¡19.5
:; Pb = 9.6 (29000) 67.4/96 = 195500in-k/radian
2 2
Girder: Eq. (18) P = 24 (5-1) 29000 (96) 17500 = 406000 in-k/radian
g 5 (80x12) 3

Distortion: From Fig 23 and Eq. (17) dete~ine the requiredstiffenersize t = 3/8 in .s
R = 3.3(29000) (~' 2( 1.5X19.5X.5 3
+ ~~ 3 ) (1)
Ps 19.5 19.5'} 12 12 .

From Eq (16)
.
1
17550
= 1
195500
+ 1
406000
+ -..?:-.- '~ s
~s' = 40500 in-k/radian (2)

Equating (1) and (2) gives b = 3.17 in, - Use 3/8 x 3-1/2 stiffener
s

'-
 19

TORSIONAL BRACING - DESIGN EXAMPLE 4

Same as Example 3, but use cross trames. Make all

member sizes the same. A K-frame system will be
considered using double angle members welded to
connection gusset plates. Member lengths are shown in
inches. Use tour crossframes. See Examples 1 and 3 for
section properties. Use A36 steel.
Assume brace strength criterion controls - Eq. (15)

0.04 (80 x 12) (1211 X 12)2

~r (40) = ,2 = 293 in-k; Fb = 7.31 kips
4 (29000) 239 (1.0) r

From Fig. 21 : Max force = diagonal force = 2Fbr Lc = 2(7.31) 62.5 = 9.52 kips - comp
S 96
The AASHTO Load Factor method does not give a strength formula for compression members
so the formulation in Allowable Stress Design will be used. Convert to ASO by dividing the
member force by the 1.3 load factor to get an equivalent service load force.
Diagonal Force (ASO) = 9.52/1.3 = 7.3 kips

Try 2L - 21/2 x 21/2 x 1/4 rx = .769 in. ,A = 2.38 in.2

t/ r = 62.5/.769 = 81.2 ; ~ = 16980 - .53 (81.2f = 13490 psi = 13.5 ksi

Pallow= 13.49 (2.38) = 32.1 kips > 7.3 kips OK

Check brace stiffness:

Eq. ( 14); ~ = 17550 in-k/radian - see Example 3
T req'd
Fig. 21 : ~ = 2(29000) (96)2 (40t (2.38) = 717000 in-k/radian
b 8 (62.5) 3 + (96) 3

Girder : ~ = 406000 in-k/radian - see Example 3

g
~c = ~t = 3.3 ~~OOO) (-* )2(.~~~_1~~)= 399000 in-k/rad

Eq. (16). .1-

~ - 1
717000 1
+ 406000 2.
+ 399000 ' ~T -- 113000 > 17550 .In-k/rad OK

Evaluate the cross trame shown below

R
ti b = 2(29000) (96)3 2(30) 2(2.38)
3 = 490000 in-k/radian
8 (56.6) + (96)

~t = 3.3 14.0
(29000) (~14.0 )(
2 1.5 (14.0) (.5)'3
12 ) -- 18300 In-
. k/ rad

1 t = "4'§~555'"
+ 4aiI5OD+ ~ ; ~T = 16900 < 17550 in-k/rad NG
T

Choo, K.M., 1987, , "Buck1ingPrograrnBASP for Use on a Microcomputer", Thesispresentedto The

University of Texas at Austin, May

Galambos,T. V., Ed., 1988,StructuralStability ResearchCouncil, GuidelO StabiliryDesign Crileriafor

Metal Structures,4th Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
20
Helwig, T.A., Yura, 1.A. and Frank K.H., 1993, "Bracing Forces in Diaphragmsand Cross Frames,"
SSRC Conference-IsYour Structure Suitably Braced?,April 6-7, Milwaukee, WI..

Kirby, P.A. andNethercot,D .A., 1979,Designfor StructuralStabiliry,Wiley.

Linder, l., and Schmidt, 1.S., 1982, "Biegedrillknicken van I-Tragem unter Berücksichtigung
wirk1ichkeitsnaher Lasteinleitung," Der Stahlbau, 51, H.9, S. 257-263.

Milner, H.R., 1977, "Design of Simple SupportedBeamsBraced Against Twisting on the Tension
Flange," Civil Engineering Transactions,lnstitute of Engineers,Australia, CE 20(1), pp. 37-42.

Medland, I.C., 1980, "Buck1ingoflnterbraced BearnSystems",EngineeringStructures,2, April, p 90-96

Nakamura, T. and Wakabayashi,M.(1981), 'Lateral Buckling of BeamsBraced by Purlins", lnelastic

lnstabiliry of Steel Structuresand Structural Elemenrs,U.S. lapan Seminar,Fujita- Galambos,ed,

Nakamura, T. (1988), "Strength and Deformability of H-Shaped Steel Beams and Lateral Bracing
Requirements",J. ConstructionalSteelResearch,9, p 217-228

Nethercot, D. A., (1989), "The Design of Bracing Systemsfor Plate Girder Bridges", Structural Eng /
Eal1hquakeEng., Vol. 6, No. 1, 59s-68s,Review,(Proc lSCE, No 404 / 1-11), April.

Plaut, R. S.,(1993), "Requirementsfor Lateral Bracing of Columns with Two Spans", 10umal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vo1119,No. 10, October,pp 2913-2931

Raju, S., Webb, S. and Yura, 1.,1992, "Bracing Effects of Bridge Decks", Proceedings,9th Annual
Intemational Bridge Conference,Pittsburgh, lune 15, 9 p.

Taylor, A.C., and Ojalvo, M., 1966, "Torsional RestraintofLateral Buckling," JournaJofthe Structural
Division, ASCE, S1'2, April, pp. 115-129.

Timoshenko, S., and Gere, 1.,1961, TheoryofElastic Stabiliry, New York: McGraw-Hill .

Tong, G.S., and Chen, S.H., 1988, "Buckling of Laterally and Torsionally Braced Beams," Journal
ConstructionSteelResearch, 11. p 41-55

Trahair, N.S., and Nethercot, D.A., 1982, "Bracing Requirementsin Thin-Walled Structures,"Chapter
3, Developmenrsin Thin-WalledStructures- Vol. 2, RhodesandWalker - Ed., Elsevier , pp. 93-129.

Wakabayashi,M. and Nakamura,T .,(1983),"Buckling ofLaterally BracedBearns",Eng. Struct, 5, April

Wang, Y. C. and Nethercot, D. A., 1989, "Ultimate StrengthAnalysis ofThree-DimensionalBraced1-

Beams", Proceedings,lnstitution ofCivil Engineers,London,Part2,87, March, p 87-112

Winter, G., 1960, "Lateral Bracing ofColumns andBearns," ASCETransactions,Vol. 125,pp. 809-825.

Yura, 1.A., and Phillips, B., 1992, "Bracing Requirementsfor Elastic SteelBeams,"ReportNo. 1239-1,
Center for TransportationResearch,University of Texasat Austin, May ,73 p.

Yura, l.A., Phillips, B., Raju, S. andWebb, S.,1992, "BracingofSteel Bearnsin Bridges," Report No.
1239-4F, Center for TransportationResearch,University ofTexas at Austin, October, 80 p.

Yura, 1. A., 1993,"Lean-OnBracingSystems",StructuralStability ResearchCouncil Conference-lsYour

Structure Suitably Braced?,April 6-7, Milwaukee, WI..