Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

32

Structural Bracing

Brian Chen

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Irving, TX

Joseph Yura

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX

32.1 Introduction

32.1 Introduction

32-1

32.2 Types of Bracing

32-1

32.3 Background

32-2

Member Out-of-Straightness and Brace Stiffness Member Shortening Member Inelasticity Brace Connection Stiffness

32.4 Safety Factors

32-4

32.5 Column or Frame Bracing

32-4

Column Buckling and Design Philosophy Relative Systems Nodal Systems Continuous Systems Lean-On Systems Torsional Bracing

32.6 Beam Bracing

32-12

Inflection Points as Brace Points Lateral Bracing Torsional Bracing

32.7 Faulty Details

32-18

Nomenclature

32-21

References

32-22

Further Reading

32-22

This chapter presents an overview of aspects related to the design of structural bracing used in beams,

columns, and frame structures and is intended for practicing civil and structural engineers. Many of the design guidelines presented were incorporated into the 2002 Load and Resistance Factor Design Manual published by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). The intended focus is on simplicity and ease of implementation over exact formulations. The basis for the design formulations along with

a classification system for bracing systems is first presented. Design formulations are presented with illustrative numerical examples. Finally, common faulty bracing details are presented.

32.2 Types of Bracing

Bracing used in structural systems generally serve two primary functions. They resist secondary loads on

structures (e.g., wind bracing) and increase the strength of individual members by resisting deformation

in the weakest direction [1]. For the latter case, structural bracing forces higher modes of deformation by

providing resistance to lateral and/or rotational displacement. This is achieved through axial, shear, and/

or flexural deformations of the bracing member. Diaphragms, for instance, provide restraint through their shear stiffness while diagonal cross-bracing relies on axial stiffness. Bracing systems used to control instability fall into four general classifications: relative, nodal, con- tinuous, or lean-on. Common configurations of each type are shown in Figure 32.1. Relative bracing

0-8493-1569-7/05/$0.00+$1.50

#

2005 by CRC Press

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

32-1

32-2

FIGURE 32.1

Handbook of Structural Engineering

(a)

32 -2 FIGURE 32.1 Handbook of Structural Engineering ( a ) (b) Comp flange Brace Cross

(b)

Comp flange
Comp
flange
Handbook of Structural Engineering ( a ) (b) Comp flange Brace Cross frames Diaphragms (c) (d)

Brace

Cross

frames
frames

Diaphragms

( a ) (b) Comp flange Brace Cross frames Diaphragms (c) (d) Metal deck Girder A
(c) (d) Metal deck Girder A B Column Siding attached to columns A B Types
(c)
(d)
Metal
deck
Girder
A
B
Column
Siding attached
to columns
A
B
Types of bracing: (a) relative; (b) nodal; (c) continuous; and (d) lean-on.

systems, such as diagonal bracing or shear walls, prevent the relative lateral movement of adjacent stories or of adjacent points along the length of a member. Relative systems can be readily identied if a cut at any location along the length of a braced member passes through the brace member itself. Nodal systems control the movement only where they attach to the braced member and do not directly interact with adjacent brace points. Cross-frames or diaphragms between two adjacent beams are considered nodal braces. Continuous systems provide uninterrupted support along the entire length of a member, leaving no unbraced length. Shear walls and roof or oor deck are examples of continuous bracing systems. Lean-on systems rely on adjacent structural members to provide support. Lean-on bracing links together adjacent structural members such that buckling of one member requires all members in the system to buckle with the same lateral displacement.

32.3

Background

Structural bracing used to increase the strength of members must possess both sufcient strength and stiffness [2]. Simple bracing design rules such as designing a brace to resist 2% of the member compressive force address only the strength criterion. The stiffness of the brace along with the out- of-straightness of the member has a direct effect on the magnitude of the brace force [1]. Design recommendations based on perfectly straight members should not be used directly in design since extremely large brace forces and displacements may result [3].

32.3.1 Member Out-of-Straightness and Brace Stiffness

Winter [1,2] developed the concept of a dual strength and stiffness criterion for the design of bracing used to control instability. The required brace strength cannot be uniquely determined, but depends on both the magnitude of the brace stiffness and member initial out-of-straightness. The relationship between these parameters is illustrated for the relative column brace in Figure 32.2 and can be extended to other types of bracing systems. In order to reach the Euler buckling load, P e , the brace must possess a minimum stiffness known as the ideal stiffness, b i . Figure 32.3 shows the relationship between the brace stiffness and force. When the ideal stiffness is used ( b ¼ b i ), as the column load approaches P e the sway deections become very large. Unfortunately, this results in very large brace forces since P br ¼ bD. At twice the ideal stiffness (b ¼ 2 b i ), the brace force equals 0.4% of the column load when P ¼ P e . For practical designs, the

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing

P ∆ o L Initial out- of-straightness P
P
∆ o
L
Initial out-
of-straightness
P
FIGURE 32.2 Relative brace. (a) 3 i ∆= ∆ o 1 2 i 0.8 =
FIGURE 32.2
Relative brace.
(a)
3
i ∆= ∆
o
1
2 i
0.8
= i
∆ o
P
0.6
P br
P
L
0.4
∆ T = ∆+ ∆ o
0.2
P
0
0
4
8
12
16
20

FIGURE 32.3

T /o

Effect of initial out-of-plumbness.

A

P ∆ ∆ o ∆ P
P
o
P

32-3

(b)

P br

P

1 2 i 3 i = i ∆ o = 0.002 L 0.4% P 0
1
2 i
3 i
= i
∆ o = 0.002 L
0.4% P
0
0
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

P br (% of P )

deections and corresponding brace forces are kept small by using brace stiffnesses greater than the ideal stiffness. The plots developed in Figure 32.3 were based on an assumed initial out-of-straightness equal to 0.002L. Larger out-of-straightness values linearly increase the magnitude of the brace forces.

32.3.2 Member Shortening

Compression elements such as columns or the compression anges of beams shorten under externally applied compressive forces. For relative tension braces, shortening increases the brace force requirements by causing an apparent increase in the member out-of-straightness, as shown in Figure 32.4. As the member being braced shortens, slack is introduced into the bracing. Lateral movement at the brace points is necessary in order to return the tension brace to its original length prior to member shortening. The increases in brace force due to shortening can be accounted for by adding the out-of-straightness due to shortening to the initial out-of-straightness (see Example 32.1).

32.3.3 Member Inelasticity

The bracing requirements for relative braces are a function of the load on the member and the distance between adjacent brace points and not the elasticity or inelasticity of the member. For a nodal bracing system, there has been some debate about the effects of inelasticity on the bracing requirements. Research, however, has indicated that inelasticity of the main members does not affect the bracing requirements [3]. For continuous and lean-on bracing systems, the bracing requirements, which will be presented later, are based on the elastic and inelastic stiffnesses of the braced members. For these bracing systems, the inuence of inelasticity on the buckling solution can be reasonably approximated using the tangent modulus E T ¼ t E, where E is the elastic modulus and t is the inelastic stiffness reduction factor.

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

32-4

FIGURE 32.4

Handbook of Structural Engineering

32 -4 FIGURE 32.4 Handbook of Structural Engineering ∆ o s = sway due to shortening

os = sway due to shortening = sh tan

sh = shortening

Effect of member shortening for relative bracing.

In the AISC load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specication, when the axial stress is less than one third the yield stress, F y , the column is classied as elastic ( t ¼ 1.0). At greater stress levels, the stiffness reduction factor is given by

t ¼ 7 : 38

P

u

P

y

log

ðP u = P y Þ

0

:85

ð32 :1Þ

where P u is the required column strength and P y is the column squash load.

32.3.4 Brace Connection Stiffness

The connections details used to attach structural bracing members can be of great importance when designing or evaluating the overall performance of a bracing system. If the connections are exible, the stiffness of the overall bracing system can be signicantly less than the stiffness of the bracing member alone. The stiffness of a bracing system can be evaluated as springs in series using

1

b

sys

¼

1

br þ X

b

1

b

conn

ð32 :2Þ

The system stiffness, b sys , will always be less than the smaller of the brace member stiffness, b br , and any of the connection stiffnesses, b conn .

32.4 Safety Factors

The bracing design recommendations that will follow are based on ultimate strength. The loads on the members being braces are assumed to be factored. Since both strength and stiffness are essential requirements for adequate bracing, resistance factors for each are necessary. When using an LRFD approach, the required stiffness is divided by a resistance factor of f ¼ 0.75 to obtain a conservative requirement. The design brace force is based on factored loads and compared to the factored design strength of the brace and its connections.

32.5 Column or Frame Bracing

Column or frame bracing systems can be relative, nodal, continuous, or lean-on. The design recom- mendations for relative and nodal column bracing are based on an initial out-of-straightness D o ¼ 0.002L, where L is the column length and a brace stiffness equal to twice the ideal stiffness. The initial displacement, D o , is dened as the lateral offset between two adjacent brace points caused by sources other than brace elongations from gravity loads or compressive forces. For example, D o may be a displacement due to wind or other lateral forces, erection tolerances, or column shortening. If D o differs from 0.002L, the brace force, P br , will change in direct proportion to the actual D o . In frame

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing

32-5

systems where a story may contain n 0 columns, each having a random out-of-plumbness, an average value for D o can be used [4]

ð32 :3Þ

D o ¼ 0 :002L

p

ffiffiffiffiffi

n

0

32.5.1 Column Buckling and Design Philosophy

For no-sway columns, the effective length factor, K, will be less than 1.0. Most designs conservatively use K ¼ 1.0 and in most situations achieving K < 1.0 is not economical. For sway permitted columns, the effective length K 1.0. Bracing used to prevent sway can reduce the effective length to K ¼ 1.0 and achieve signicant economic savings. The bracing design criterion for columns is based on providing sufcient strength and stiffness to allow a sway column to achieve the Euler buckling load corresponding to K ¼ 1.0. For columns that possess nonzero end restraint, this does not correspond to the no-sway buckling load since for these cases K is theoretically less than unity. For exural buckling modes, brace points attached in-line with the centroid of the structural member are most effective. For torsional buckling modes, bracing must prevent twist of the cross-section to be effective.

32.5.2 Relative Systems

AISC LRFD brace requirements for relative column bracing are

b br ¼

2P u

fL b

ð32

:4Þ

:5Þ

where f ¼ 0.75, P u is the required compressive strength of the column, and L b is the required brace spacing. When the actual brace stiffness provided, b act , differs from the required value given in Equation 32.4, the brace strength requirement can be modied using

P br ¼ 0: 004P u

ð32

1

P br ¼ 0 :004 X P u 2 ð b br =b act Þ

ð32 :6Þ

EXAMPLE 32.1

Relative Column Brace Design

A typical tension-only X-brace must stabilize three bents. Each bent carries a total factored load of 600 kip (125 þ 300 þ 175). Assume the oor acts as a rigid diaphragm and all D o ¼ 0.002L and all columns are W14 53 (A g ¼ 15.6 in. 2 ).

125 k 300 k 175 k 12 18
125 k
300 k
175 k
12
18

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

32-6

Handbook of Structural Engineering

X P u ¼ ð3 bentsÞð125 þ 300 þ 175Þ ¼ 1800 kip

Bracing shear force:

Bracing shear stiffness:

P br ¼ 0 :004ð1800Þ ¼ 7 : 2 kip

b br ¼ 2ð1800Þ

0

:75ð12Þ ¼ 400 kip/ft

Design recommendations assume brace shear force and stiffness are perpendicular to column. Therefore, for an inclined threaded rod (A36 steel):

Strength:

Stiffness:

P br ¼ 7 :2 kip cos y

¼ 8 :64 kip ¼ 0 :9ð36ÞA g ðA g Þ req d ¼ 0 : 27 in : 2

A g E

ft cos 2 y ¼ 400 k/ft

21

:6

ðA g Þ req d ¼ 0 :43 in : 2 Controls

Use

3

4

in. dia. rod

A

g

¼ 0 :44 in:

Consider effects of shortening

2

300 k 12 18 21.6
300 k
12
18
21.6

D os ¼ sway due to shortening ¼ D sh tan y 300ð12 12Þ

D sh ¼

ð15 :6Þð29,000Þ ¼ 0 :095 in:

D os ¼ 0 :095

12

18

D os

L

¼

0 :063

ð12 12Þ

¼ 0 :063 in:

¼ 0 :00044

P br ¼ 8 :64 kip

0 :002 þ 0 :0004

:002

¼ 10 :5 kip

0

ðA g Þ req d ¼ 0 :32 in : 2 < 0 :43 in : 2 stiffness still controls

32.5.3 Nodal Systems

Figure 32.5 shows the relationship between brace stiffness and buckling load for a column with three equally spaced nodal braces. The exact solution taken from Timoshenko and Gere [5] illustrates the increase in buckling load and changes in mode shapes as the brace stiffness increases.

FIGURE 32.5

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

P cr 1.0 0.8 L P cr 0.6 P e Limit 0.4 full bracing 2
P cr
1.0
0.8
L
P cr
0.6
P e
Limit
0.4
full bracing
2 EI
0.2
P e =
L 2
3.41
0 01234
L / P e
Discrete bracing.

Structural Bracing

32-7

For nodal column bracing, the ideal brace stiffness is a function of the number of intermediate braces [1,2]. For a single brace at midheight b i ¼ 2P/L. For many closely spaced braces the ideal stiffness approaches b i ¼ 4P/L. Twice the ideal stiffness for the most severe case was adopted by the AISC LRFD for many braces. AISC LRFD brace requirements for nodal column bracing are 8P u

:7Þ

b br ¼

fL b

ð32

:8Þ

where f ¼ 0.75, P u is the required compressive strength of the column, and L b is the required brace spacing. For n equally spaced braces, the ideal stiffness can be approximated as

ð32 :9Þ

P br ¼ 0: 01P u

ð32

b i ¼ N i P u

L b

where N i 4 2/n. Using the recommended stiffness equal to twice the ideal stiffness and applying the resistance factor gives

ð32 :10Þ

fL b Equation 32.10 is based on equally spaced braces and is unconservative for unequal spacings. The required stiffness for unequal brace spacings can be obtained using Winters rigid bar model [6]. In this model, the column is represented using rigid links with cticious hinges at brace locations and the braces are represented using simple springs. Under the applied load, displacements are imposed at brace locations and equilibrium is enforced to obtain N i . This technique is illustrated in Example 32.2. For a single nodal brace at any location along the length of a column, with the longest segment dened as L and the shorter segment as aL, N i can be conservatively determined using

2P u

b br ¼ N i

1

N i ¼ 1 þ a

ð32 :11Þ

EXAMPLE 32.2

Nodal Column Brace — Unequal Spacing

1. Introduce hinge at B and displace arbitrary distance D .

2. Sum forces and moments to obtain reactions at A and C.

3. Cut and sum moments at B on AB to obtain P P 0.6 D
3. Cut and sum moments at B on AB to obtain
P
P
0.6
D
A
0.4
L
D
B
D
0.6
L
C
0.4
D
P
P

P

P D ¼

0

:6 bDð0 :4LÞ

b i ¼ 4 :16 P

L

N i ¼ 4 :16

Conservative approximation

N i ¼ 1 þ

1

0 :4 = 0 :6 ¼ 2 :5

The brace stiffness requirements for nodal bracing are inversely proportional to the unbraced length, L b . Closer-spaced braces require more stiffness because the derivations are based upon allowing the column to reach a load that corresponds to buckling of the most critical unbraced length

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

32-8

Handbook of Structural Engineering

with a K-factor equal to 1.0. In many instances, there are more potential brace points than necessary to support the member forces required. Using the actual unbraced length may result in excessively conservative stiffness requirements. Therefore, the maximum unbraced length that enables the col- umn to reach the required loading, L q , can be used. For example, say the column shown in Figure 32.5 is supported against weak-axis buckling at three locations giving an unbraced length of L. If a single brace at midheight giving an unbraced length of 1.5L would be sufcient to carry the load on the column, then the required stiffness for the three braces could be conservatively estimated using the permissible unbraced length of 1.5L in Equation 32.10 in place of the actual unbraced length of L (see Example 32.3).

EXAMPLE 32.3

Nodal Column Brace Design

Two 8 ft cross-members brace a 30 ft WT5 19.5 compression member. Buckling about x–x axis con- trols since brace exural stiffness is much lower than axial stiffness. F y = 36 ksi. Find the required brace strength and stiffness.

P u ¼ 120 k

N i ¼ 4 2

2ð200Þ

n ¼ 2,

b br ¼ 3

2 ¼ 3

0 :75ð10

12Þ ¼ 13 :33 k =in : ¼

I req d ¼

13: 33ð96Þ

3

48ð29,000Þ ¼ 8 :5 in : 4

P br ¼ 0 : 01ð200Þ ¼ 2 kip

M br ¼ 2ð96Þ

4

¼ 48 kip in :

D ¼ 48EI

F

ð8 12Þ 3

10 4 4 P br 10 4 4 D 10 Brace x x
10
4
4
P
br
10
4
4
D
10
Brace
x
x

32.5.4 Continuous Systems

Figure 32.6 shows the relationship between brace stiffness and buckling load for a continuously braced column. The exact solution can be approximated using the following equation [3]:

P cr ¼ P e þ 2L

p

q

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

bbP e

ð32 :12Þ

where P e is the Euler buckling load, L is the column length, and

length. The continuous brace formulation given in Equation 32.12 can also be applied for equally spaced discrete braces by determining an equivalent brace stiffness per unit length, bb, using

bb is the brace stiffness per unit

n

bb ¼ b L

ð32 :13Þ

where n is the number of braces within the column length, L. This method is accurate for two or more discrete braces and is illustrated in Example 32.4. Corrugated metal deck is a common type of continuous lateral bracing and acts like a shear diaphragm with the properties of a relative brace. The stiffness and strength properties of the metal

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing

FIGURE 32.6

FIGURE 32.7

P cr 20 2 EI P e = EQ. 12.5 L 2 L 15 n
P cr
20
2 EI
P e =
EQ. 12.5
L 2
L
15
n =3
= k / in. per in.
P
EQ. 12.4
10
P cr
n =2
5
n =1
0
0
200
400
600
800
L 2 /P e
Continuous bracing.
Metal deck
F
2 P u
=
F br =
L b
F = 0.004P u
F / b
G =
L
∆/ L b
∆/ L
b
2 P u
G req’d =
b
b

Continuous metal-deck bracing.

32-9

deck are generally dened in a per unit width basis (e.g., shear stiffness ¼ G 0 kip/rad per ft width). The bracing requirements for the shear diaphragm can be determined from the relative brace requirements presented in Section 32.5.2, as shown in Figure 32.7. Properties for corrugated deck can be obtained from the Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual [7]. The required shear dia- phragm stiffness per unit width is

0

req d ¼ 2P u

G

fb

ð32 :14Þ

Dividing the perpendicular brace force requirement by the diaphragm width gives the required shear strength per unit width, S u

S u ¼ 0 :004P u

ð32 :15Þ

b

It should be noted that the brace force requirements given in Equation 32.13 are in addition to other load demands placed on the diaphragm.

EXAMPLE 32.4

Nodal Column Braces as Effective Continuous Braces

Consider a column of length 3L b with two equally spaced nodal braces giving an unbraced length of L b . Estimate the critical load of an ideally-braced column by approximating the nodal braces as an equivalent continuous brace.

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

32-10

Handbook of Structural Engineering

Ideal nodal brace stiffness required to buckle between brace points

¼ 3

Equivalent continuous stiffness using Equation 32.13

N i 4

2

n

P

cr

L

¼ 3P cr

L

b

b i ¼ N i

b ¼

3P cr

L

b

2 braces

3L b

¼ 2P cr

2

L

b

Critical load using Equation 32.12

P cr ¼

P cr

þ 2ð3L b Þ

p

9

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

s

2P cr

2 P cr

L

2

b

P cr

9

¼ 1 :011P cr

P cr ¼ p 2 EI 2 L b L
P cr ¼ p 2 EI
2
L
b
L

L

b

L b

L

b

32.5.5 Lean-On Systems

Lean-on bracing systems provide a means for some members in a structural system to rely on other members for stability. One of the most commonly encountered examples of lean-on systems are frames with ‘‘leaning’’ pin-ended columns connected to columns with nonzero end restraint. For these systems, the P P concept [8] can be used to design the members. This concept states that a system remains stable so long as the sum of the applied loads, P P, is less than the sum of the buckling strength of each individual member, P P cr , and the load in any individual member is less than the load corresponding to buckling between braces (no sway) for that member. This concept is illustrated in Example 32.5.

EXAMPLE 32.5

Lean-On Column Brace

Is the W10 33 capable of bracing the W12 58?

A36 steel, factored loads shown, fully braced out of plane

W10 33 A g ¼ 9.71 in. 2

W12 58 A g ¼ 17.0

in. 2

No sway capacity From AISC Manual (KL y ¼ 8 ft)

I x ¼ 171 in. 4

I y ¼ 107

in.

W12 58: (f P n ¼ 482 k) > (P u ¼ 450 k) OK

50 k 450 k 8ft 8ft 8ft Sway mode B A 33W10 × 58W12 ×
50 k
450 k
8ft
8ft
8ft
Sway
mode
B
A
33W10
×
58W12
×

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Sway capacity Using P P concept

Column A (W12 58)

P u

450 1

F y A g

¼

ð36Þð17 :0Þ ¼ 0 : 735 >

3

\ inelastic

t ¼ 7 :38ð0 :735Þlog

0

:735

0

:85

¼ 0 :342

fP n ¼ 0 :85ð0 :342Þð0 :877Þ p 2 ð29,000Þð107Þ ¼ 94 k

ð288Þ 2

Column B (W10 33)

P u

50 1

¼

F y A g

f P n ¼

ð36Þð9 : 71Þ ¼ 0 :143 <

3

\ elastic t ¼ 1 :0

¼ 440 k

0 :85ð1 : 0Þð0 :877Þ p 2 ð29,000Þð171Þ

ð288Þ 2

Using P P concept

X fP n ¼ 94 þ 440 ¼ 534 k > X P u ¼ 50 þ 450 ¼ 500 k OK

Structural Bracing

32-11

32.5.6 Torsional Bracing

In order for a brace to effectively increase the load-carrying capacity of a member, it must restrain the movement of the lowest buckling mode. Depending on the cross-section, the lowest buckling mode of

a compression member may be exural (lateral), torsional, or a combined exuraltorsional. Bracing

against exural modes must prevent the lateral translation of the member cross-section. Bracing against

torsional modes must restrain the twist of the cross-section. Bracing details such as a rod framing into

a wide-ange column web (Figure 32.8) resist lateral buckling about the weak axis but do not prevent

twist and are ineffective torsional braces. For doubly symmetric sections such as wide-ange columns, weak-axis exural buckling controls for an unbraced member. Providing sufcient weak-axis lateral bracing, in some instances, will result in the section being controlled by the torsional buckling mode. If bracing is provided that prevents both translation and twist of a doubly symmetric cross-section, weak-axis buckling will always control. The torsional buckling load, P T , for a column restrained about an axis modied by t is given by the following (see Figure 32.9) [5]:

Axis of restraint along weak axis of column:

P T ¼ t P ey

ðd 2 = 4Þþ y þ GJ

2

br

br þ r

y

2

2

x

þ

2

y

r

Axis of restraint along strong axis of column:

P T ¼ t P ey

ðd 2 =4ÞþðI x =I y Þx þ GJ

2

br

br þ r

x

2

2

x

þ

2

y

r

ð32 :16Þ

ð32 :17Þ

where x br , y br are the coordinates of axis of restraint with respect to column centroid, d is the column depth, and P ey is the Euler load based on a column length between points of zero twist. To compensate for the assumption in the derivation of Equations 32.16 and 32.17 that the brace is innitely stiff, the maximum factored column load should be limited to 0.90P T [3].

factored column load should be limited to 0.90 P T [3]. FIGURE 32.8 Ineffective torsional column

FIGURE 32.8

Ineffective torsional column brace.

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

32-12

Handbook of Structural Engineering

(a) (b) Brace point (axis of restraint) x x y br d ∆
(a)
(b)
Brace point (axis of restraint)
x
x
y br
d

FIGURE 32.9

Buckling of a column about a restrained axis: (a) lateral brace at ange and (b) buckled shape.

(a) (b) Moment connection Stiffener at least half depth
(a)
(b)
Moment connection
Stiffener at least
half depth

FIGURE 32.10

Typical torsional brace details: (a) control twist with struts and (b) moment connection with stiffener.

If column loads greater than P T are required, torsional bracing must be provided. Two typical bracing schemes are shown in Figure 32.10. For continuous girts with moment connections, twisting restraint is provided. However, partial depth stiffeners should be used to control web distortion. The design requirements for torsional bracing are based on the nodal requirements presented in Section 32.5.3 and are obtained by introducing equal and opposite brace forces on each ange. The magnitude of these forces is based on the assumption that each ange carries one-half of the total column load. The resulting brace moment, M T ¼ 0.5P br d. Using the angle of twist y ¼ D/d as shown in Figure 32.9b, the stiffness requirement b T ¼ M T / y ¼ 0.5P br d 2 / D reduces to

b T ¼ 0 :5 b br d 2

where b br is the nodal brace stiffness requirement from Section 32.5.3.

ð32 :18Þ

32.6 Beam Bracing

Structural bracing for beams can be generally classied as either a lateral or a torsional system. Lateral beam bracing, like column bracing, can be relative, nodal, continuous, or lean-on while torsional systems can be nodal or continuous. Cross-frames or diaphragms connecting adjacent girders control twist of the cross-section and represent purely torsional systems. Similarly, joists attached to the compression ange of a simply supported beam control twist by preventing the lateral movement of the compression ange relative to the tension ange and represent a purely lateral system. Some bracing systems, such as a composite slab attached to the top anges of a beam using shear connectors, simultaneously provide both lateral and torsional restraints. Combined lateral and torsional systems have been shown to be more effective braces than either lateral or torsional systems alone for beams with uniform moment [9,10]. In order to be an effective brace, both lateral and torsional systems must prevent the relative dis- placement of the top and bottom of a beam (i.e., twist of the cross-section). Properly designed cross- frames interconnecting adjacent beams are considered brace points when evaluating the buckling strength of the beams. Even though the beams can move laterally, the cross frames are still effective braces because they prevent twist of the cross-section. Both tests and theory have conrmed this fact [11,12].

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing

32-13

32.6.1 Inflection Points as Brace Points

Inection points are sometimes mistakenly identied as brace points in restrained beams. This often occurs when the top ange of a beam is laterally braced by a slab or joists all along the span while the bottom ange remains unbraced. Even in these instances, the inection point cannot be consi- dered a brace point. The justication for this can be illustrated by comparing the two beams shown in Figure 32.11. Beam A has a moment on one end with an unbraced length L b ¼ L while Beam B has equal and opposite end moments resulting in an inection point at midspan and an unbraced length L b ¼ 2L. The buckling moment for Beam B is 68% of Beam A. If the inection point were a brace point, the critical moment for both beams would be identical. A plan view of the buckled shape of Beam B illustrates how the top and bottom anges move in opposite directions at midspan. Even an actual brace on one ange at the inection point does not provide effective bracing at midspan because twist is not restrained [12].

32.6.2 Lateral Bracing

The primary factors inuencing the effectiveness of lateral beam bracing are

Number or spacing of braces Vertical position of the braces on the cross-section Vertical position of the loads on the cross-section Moment gradient on the beam

Increasing the number of braces along the length of a beam can increase the load-carrying capacity by reducing the unbraced length. Like column bracing, however, the brace stiffness requirements increase with the number of braces. This is because the design recommendations assume the beam must reach a load corresponding to buckling between brace points. Similarly, if more brace points are provided than necessary to support the required loads, the maximum permissible unbraced length, L q , may be used in place of the actual unbraced length, L b . The vertical position of a lateral brace along the height of a beam signicantly affects the effective- ness of lateral bracing. Lateral bracing is most effective when positioned at the compression ange of

100 Brace Beam A L 68 L Beam B L 68 Moment diagrams Mid-depth Top
100
Brace
Beam A
L
68
L
Beam B
L
68
Moment diagrams
Mid-depth
Top flange
Bottom flange

FIGURE 32.11

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Plan of buckled shape of Beam B

Beam with inection point.

Ineffective

midspan brace

32-14

(a) P cr
(a)
P
cr
32 -14 (a) P cr flange Compression Handbook of Structural Engineering (b) P cr Compression flange

flange

Compression

Handbook of Structural Engineering

(b) P cr Compression flange
(b)
P
cr
Compression
flange

FIGURE 32.12 Lateral buckling of cantilever and simple beams: (a) max moment at max twist and (b) zero moment at max twist.

max moment at max twist and (b) zero moment at max twist. FIGURE 32.13 Effect of

FIGURE 32.13

Effect of load and brace positions.

a beam. In most congurations, this places the brace the furthest distance from the center of twist of the buckled cross-section as shown in Figure 32.12a. The exception to this rule is for cantilever beams (Figure 32.12b) where the position of the buckled cross-section reveals that a brace located at the tension ange is most benecial. When a beam is bent in reverse curvature, the compression and tension anges switch at the point of inection. Beams such as these, in which both the top and bottom anges encounter compression along the span, have more severe bracing requirements than beams where compression resides only in one ange [3]. In these situations, lateral bracing is required on both anges to prevent twist of the cross-section. The vertical position of transverse loads on beams has signicant inuence on the effectiveness of lateral bracing. Loads applied higher on the cross-section, such as at the top ange, have more pro- nounced destabilizing effects while loads applied lower on the cross-section tend to provide added stability when compared to centroidal loading. The effect of top-ange loading is even greater when lateral bracing is located near the centroid of the section. In these situations, the center of twist shifts to a position closer to mid-depth and the centroidal brace becomes almost totally ineffective as shown in Figure 32.13. Therefore, centroidal lateral beam braces are not recommended due to the effects of both cross-section distortion and load position. The load position effect described above is based on the assumption that the load remains vertical and passes through the original point of contact on the member as it buckles. For many structural systems,

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing

FIGURE 32.14

Structural Bracing FIGURE 32.14 Tipping effect and cross-section distortion. 32 -15 the load transferred to beams
Structural Bracing FIGURE 32.14 Tipping effect and cross-section distortion. 32 -15 the load transferred to beams
Structural Bracing FIGURE 32.14 Tipping effect and cross-section distortion. 32 -15 the load transferred to beams

Tipping effect and cross-section distortion.

32-15

the load transferred to beams is applied through secondary members or a oor slab. When loading is through a slab, for example, a restoring torque is created by a tipping effect during buckling as illustrated in Figure 32.14. This tipping effect has been shown to signicantly increase the lateral buckling capacity even if the slab is only resting (not positively attached) on the top ange [12]. Unfortunately, the benets of tipping are severly limited by distortion of the cross-section and are difcult to quantify. As a result, the benecial effects of tipping are generally neglected. The AISC LRFD lateral beam brace requirements were based on the following design recommenda- tions developed by Yura [3]:

The brace stiffness requirement for both relative and nodal beam bracings is b br ¼ 2N i ðC b P f ÞC t C d fL b

The brace strength requirement for relative bracing is

P br ¼ 0 :004 M u C t C d

h

oh

and for nodal bracing it is

where

P

br

¼ 0 :01 M u C t C d

h

oh

N i

P f

C t

C d

¼ 1.0 for relative bracing

¼ (4 2/n) for nodal bracing

n ¼ number of intermediate braces ¼ beam compressive ange force

¼

p 2 EI yc = L I yc ¼ out-of-plane moment of inertia of the compression ange ¼ top-ange loading factor

¼ 1.0 for centroidal loading

¼ 1 þ (1.2/n) for top-ange loading

¼ 1 þ (M S /M L ) 2 for reverse-curvature bending

¼ 1.0 for single-curvature bending

2

b

M S ¼ smallest moment causing compression in each ange

M L ¼ largest moment causing compression in each ange

C b

¼ nonuniform moment modication factor 12 :5M max

¼

2 :5M max þ 3M A þ 4M B þ 3M C

M max ¼ absolute value of maximum moment in unbraced segment

M A

M B

M C

¼ absolute value of moment at quarter point of unbraced segment

¼ absolute value of moment at midspan of unbraced segment

¼ absolute value of moment at three-quarter point of unbraced segment

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

ð32 :19Þ

ð32 :20Þ

ð32 :21Þ

32-16

Handbook of Structural Engineering

The brace force requirements were developed assuming an initial lateral displacement of the compression ange equal to 0.002L b and vary in direct proportion to the actual out-of-straightness. The term 2N i C t can be conservatively approximated as 10 for any number of nodal braces and 4 for any number of relative braces. The term C b P f can also be conservatively approximated as M u /h oh . Using the worst-case top-ange loading (C t ¼ 2.0) and the previous assumptions yields the AISC LRFD brace requirements for lateral beam bracing (Example 32.6):

AISC LRFD brace requirements for relative lateral beam bracing:

b br

4M u C d

¼

fL b h

oh

P br ¼ 0 :008 M u C d

h

oh

ð32

ð32

:22Þ

:23Þ

AISC LRFD brace requirements for nodal lateral beam bracing:

b br

¼ 10M u C d

fL b h oh

P br ¼ 0 :02 M u C d

h

oh

where

f ¼ 0.75

M u ¼ required exural strength h o ¼ distance between ange centroids C d ¼ 1 þ (M S /M L ) 2 for reverse-curvature bending ¼ 1.0 for single-curvature bending

L b ¼ distance between braces

EXAMPLE 32.6

Relative Lateral Beam Brace

ð32

ð32

:24Þ

:25Þ

Design the diagonals of the top ange horizontal truss to stabilize the ve simply-supported 90 ft girders. The factored moment at midspan M u ¼ 1200 k ft and F y ¼ 36 ksi for bracing.

Top flange 4 × 9 ft = 36 ft
Top flange
4 × 9 ft = 36 ft
y ¼ 36 ksi for bracing. Top flange 4 × 9 ft = 36 ft Stiffness

Stiffness

5 × 18 ft = 90 ft

Plan view

b br ¼ 4 :0ð1200 12Þð1 :0Þ 0 :75ð18 12Þð49Þ

ð2 :5 girdersÞ ¼ 18 :1 k = in:

AE

L

br

cos 2 y ¼

A

br

ð29,000Þ

1

9 12

p

ffiffiffi

5

p

ffiffiffi

5

2

¼ 18 : 1

A br ¼ 0 :75 in: 2

Controls

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Section view

1 × 10 1 2 × 48 1 × 16 h o = 49 in.
1 × 10
1 2 × 48
1 × 16
h o = 49 in.

Structural Bracing

Strength

P br ¼ 0 :008 ð1200 12Þð1 :0Þ

49

A br ¼

p

ffiffiffi

5

ð0 :9 36Þ ¼ 0: 41 in : 2

5

:88

ð2 :5 girdersÞ ¼ 5 :88 k

Use L2 2 1

4

32-17

ðA g ¼ 0 :944 in. 2 Þ

32.6.3 Torsional Bracing

The primary factors inuencing the effectiveness of lateral beam bracing have relatively little inuence on the design of torsional beam bracing. Unlike lateral beam bracing, the number of braces, brace location on the cross-section, and load position are relatively unimportant when sizing a torsional brace. Not only is a torsional brace equally effective if attached to the top or bottom ange, but beams in reverse curvature do not alter the torsional brace requirements. The effectiveness of a torsional brace, however, is greatly affected by distortion of the cross-section as illustrated in Figure 32.15. Although the torsional brace prevents twist at the top ange, distortion of the web permits a relative displacement between the two anges. A web stiffener located at the brace location is often used to control the distortion. AISC LRFD brace requirements for torsional beam bracing:

where

where

b Tb ¼

b T ð 1 ðb T =b sec

ÞÞ

M br ¼ 0 :024M u L

nC b L b

b sec ¼ 3 :3E

h

oh

3

w

1 :5h oh t

þ t s b

12

3

s

12

2

b T ¼ 2: 4LM fnEI y C

u

2

b

f

¼ 0.75

L

¼ span length

n

¼ number of nodal braced points within span

E

¼ modulus of elasticity

I y

¼ out-of-plane moment of inertia of beam

C b ¼ nonuniform moment modication factor

t w ¼ thickness of beam web

FIGURE 32.15

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Torsional brace Web
Torsional brace
Web

Cross-section distortion.

ð32

ð32

ð32

ð32

:26Þ

:27Þ

:28Þ

:29Þ

32-18

Handbook of Structural Engineering

Stiffener extends full height of brace t w 4 t w Attach when brace is
Stiffener extends full
height of brace
t
w
4
t w
Attach when brace is
attached to flange

FIGURE 32.16

Web stiffener details for torsional beam bracing.

¼ thickness of web stiffener(s) ¼ stiffener width for one-sided stiffeners, which is twice the individual stiffener width for pairs of stiffeners

b T represents the torsional stiffness of the brace member itself. For exible connections, Equation 32.2 should be used. b sec is the torsional stiffness associated with the beam web and any transverse web stiffeners that may be present (web distortional stiffness). The required torsional brace stiffness, b Tb , will be negative if b sec < b T , which indicates the brace will not be effective due to insufcient web distortional stiffness. The coefcient 2.4 in Equation 32.29 comes from using twice the ideal stiffness with a 20% increase to account for top-ange loading. The required strength, M br , assumes an initial twist of 1 (0.0175 rad). When web stiffeners are required, the AISC LRFD specication requires they extend the full depth of the brace as shown in Figure 32.16. When the brace is attached to the beam ange the stiffeners must also be attached to the ange. When the brace is not attached to the beam ange, the stiffener may be terminated at a distance equal to 4t w from the ange. The continuous torsional beam bracing requirements use the same formulations as the nodal bracing requirements. For continuous bracing, the term L/n in Equations 32.27 and 32.29 is taken equal to 1.0 and the unbraced length, L b , in Equation 32.27 is taken equal to L q , the maximum unbraced beam length necessary to carry the required factored loads. For singly symmetric cross-sections, an effective moment of inertia, I eff , is used in place of I y as given by

t s

b s

I eff ¼ I yc þ y t

y c

I yt

ð32 :30Þ

where I yc is the compression ange out-of-plane moment of inertia, I yt is the tension ange out-of-plane moment of inertia, y c is the distance from centroid to extreme compression ber, and y t is the distance from centroid to extreme tension ber. The torsional stiffness of typical beam-type braces is shown in Figure 32.17. Adjacent girders connected on the top anges with decking, for example, will buckle in the same direction and develop the reverse-curvature stiffness of the brace. The stiffnesses of typical truss-type diaphragm systems are shown in Figure 32.18 and are based on elastic truss analyses. For X-systems designed for tension only, the horizontal members in the truss are not required. For K-brace systems, only one horizontal member is necessary.

32.7 Faulty Details

Numerous structural failures have occurred because of the structural arrangement shown in Figure 32.19. The beam (or truss) is continuous over the top of the column. The critical components are: column in compression, compression in the bottom ange of the beam or chord of the truss, and no bottom ange bracing at point a and possibly point b. The sway at the top of the column shown in Sect BB can result in a K-factor much greater than 2.0. The bottom ange of the beam can possibly provide bracing to the

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing I b S M br 6 EI b 2 EI b T =
Structural Bracing
I b
S
M br
6 EI b
2 EI b
T =
T =
S
S

FIGURE 32.17

FIGURE 32.18

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Stiffness formulas for diaphragms. S P P Tension system h br P P –P 2
Stiffness formulas for diaphragms.
S
P
P
Tension
system
h
br
P
P
–P
2 Ph br
2 Ph br
S
S
+ 2 PL/S

Compression

system

–2PL/S S P P h br P P 2 Ph br 2 Ph br S
–2PL/S
S
P
P
h
br
P
P
2 Ph br
2 Ph br
S S
+2PL/S
–2PL/S S P P K -brace h br P P +P –P 2 Ph br
–2PL/S
S
P
P
K -brace
h
br
P
P
+P
–P
2 Ph br
2 Ph br
S
S
A d = Area of diagonal members
A h = Area of horizontal members
L d = Length of diagonal members
∆ b
+2PL/S

Stiffness formulas for cross-frames.

T =

2 2 ES 2 h b r 3 3 2 S L d + A
2
2
ES 2 h b
r
3
3
2
S
L d
+
A d
A h

T =

A d ES 2 h b

2

r

3

L d

T =

T =

2 2 ES 2 h b r 3 3 8 S L d + A
2
2
ES 2 h b
r
3
3
8
S
L d
+
A d
A h
∆+∆ b
M
=
S

32-19

32-20

Handbook of Structural Engineering

B V V Joist b b a B Compression flange Sect B–B P
B
V
V
Joist
b
b
a
B
Compression
flange
Sect B–B
P

FIGURE 32.19

Structural detail with probable instability.

P Siding a L G Girt L L C G L G In-plane Out-of-plane
P
Siding
a
L
G
Girt
L
L C
G
L
G
In-plane
Out-of-plane

FIGURE 32.20

Inadequate torsional bracing detail.

top of the column if there are braces at point b and consideration is given to the compression in the ange when evaluating its stiffness. In general, a brace, such as a bottom chord extension from the joist, should be used at point a. Beam web stiffeners at the column location will also be effective unless bottom ange lateral buckling is critical. Another common faulty bracing detail is shown in Figure 32.20. The girts that frame into the column ange prevent weak-axis translation at the braced ange. Since the girts are discontinuous, they will not prevent twist of the cross-section and will force the column to buckle about a restrained axis (see also Figure 32.9b). For this column, there are three possible buckling modes: strong-axis exural buckling (L b ¼ KL C ), weak-axis exural buckling (L b ¼ KL G ), and torsional buckling about a restrained axis (L b ¼ KL C , y br ¼ a assuming no twist at column ends).

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing

Nomenclature

A cross-sectional area of primary member

A br

A

d

A h

A g

C

b

cross-sectional area of brace member

area of diagonal member in cross-frame

area of horizontal member in cross-frame

gross cross-sectional area

bending coefcient dependent on moment gradient

reverse-curvature bending factor

top-ange loading factor

C d

C t

E modulus of elasticity

E T

F y

G

G

tangent modulus of elasticity

specied minimum yield stress

shear modulus of elasticity

diaphragm shear stiffness per unit width

moment of inertia effective moment of inertia for singly symmetric beam sections required moment of inertia moment of inertia about strong and weak axes, respectively out-of-plane moment of inertia of compression and tension anges, respectively

0

I

I eff

I reqd

I x , I y

I yc , I yt

J torsion constant for section

K column effective length factor

L member length

L b

required brace spacing or laterally unbraced length; length between points that are either braced against lateral displacement of the compres- sion ange or braced against twist of the cross-section

maximum unbraced length for required forces absolute value of moment at quarter point of unbraced beam segment absolute value of moment at midspan of unbraced beam segment absolute value of moment at three-quarter point of unbraced beam segment largest moment causing compression in each ange along beam length absolute value of max moment in unbraced beam segment

L q

M A

M B

M

C

M

L

M

max

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

32-21

M S smallest moment causing compression in each ange along beam length

M

T

M

u

N i

torsional brace moment

required bending strength brace stiffness coefcient for nodal braces

P br brace force

member buckling load Euler column buckling load

P ey Euler buckling load based on distance

P

cr

P

e

between points of zero twist beam compressive ange force torsional buckling load

P

f

P T

P u required compressive strength of

column column squash load

P y

S cross-frame or diaphragm length

S x strong-axis section modulus S u required diaphragm shear strength

 

per unit width

V

shear force

b

orthogonal distance between point of

b s

restraint and weak axis of member stiffener width for one-sided stiffeners

d

member depth

f b

bending stress

h br

deight of cross frame

h oh

torsional brace distance between ange centroids

n

rumber of braces within span

n 0 rumber of columns in a story r x , r y radius of gyration about strong and

weak axes, respectively t w thickness of beam web

t s

x br , y br

thickness of web stiffener coordinates of axis of restraint with respect to column centroid coordinates with respect to centroid of expreme compression and tension bers, respectively

continuous brace stiffness per unit length stiffness provided by brace member required lateral brace stiffness stiffness of brace connection web distortional stiffness including any transverse web stiffeners if present stiffness of brace system nodal torsional brace stiffness

y c , y t

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

act

br

conn

sec

sys

T

32-22

b Tb required nodal torsional brace stiffness including web distortion

D translational displacement

D o column initial out-of-straightness

D

column out-of-straightness due to shortening shortening or compression element

os

D sh

References

Handbook of Structural Engineering

D T

f resistance factor

y complementary angle between diagonal brace and axial member or twist of member cross-section

t inelastic stiffness reduction factor

total column sway deection

[1] Winter, G. (1958), ‘‘Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams,’’ Trans. ASCE, Vol. 125, Part 1, pp. 809825.

[2] Winter, G. (1960), ‘‘Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams,’’ Proc. ASCE, Vol. 84 (ST2), pp. 1561-

11561-22.

[3] Yura, J.A., Bracing, in Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 5th Edition, Galambos, T.V. Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1998; Chapter 12. [4] Chen, S. and Tong, G. (1994), ‘‘Design for Stability: Correct Use of Braces,’’ Steel Struct.,

J. Singapore Struct. Steel Soc., Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1523.

[5] Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. (1961), Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. [6] Yura, J.A. (1994), ‘‘Winters Bracing Model Revisited,’’ 50th Anniversary Proc., Struc. Stability Research Council, pp. 375382. [7] Luttrell, L.D. (1987), Diaphragm Design Manual, 2nd Edition, Steel Deck Institute, Fox River Grove, IL.

[8] Yura, J.A. (1971), ‘‘The Effective Length of Columns in Unbraced Frames,’’ Eng. J. Am. Inst. Steel Const., Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 3742. [9] Mutton, B.R. and Trahair, N.S. (1973), ‘‘Stiffness Requirements for Lateral Bracing,’’ ASCE

J. Struct. Div., Vol. 99, No. ST10, pp. 21672182.

[10] Tong, G. and Chen, S. (1988), ‘‘Buckling of Laterally and Torsionally Braced Beams,’’ J. Const. Steel Res., Vol. 11, pp. 4155. [11] Flint, A.R. (1951), ‘‘The Stability of Beams Loaded Through Secondary Members,’’ Civil Eng. Public Works Rev., Vol. 46, No. 5378 (see also pp. 259260). [12] Yura, J.A. (1993), ‘‘Fundamentals of Beam Bracing,’’ Proc. Struc. Stability Research Council Annual Technical Session, ‘‘Is Your Structure Suitably Braced?’’ Milwaukee, April, 20 pp.

Further Reading

Akay, H.U., Johnson, C.P. and Will, K.M. (1977), ‘‘Lateral and Local Buckling of Beams and Frames,’’ ASCE J. Struct. Div., Vol. 103, No. ST9, pp. 18211832. Ales, J.M. and Yura, J.A. (1993), ‘‘Bracing Design for Inelastic Structures,’’ Proc., SSRC Conf. ‘‘Is Your Structure Suitably Braced?,’’ Milwaukee, April, pp. 2937. American Institute of Steel Construction (1995), Manual of Steel Construction: Load & Resistance Factor Design, Vol. 1, 2nd Edition, Chicago. American Society of Civil Engineers (1971), ‘‘Commentary on Plastic Design in Steel,’’ ASCE Manual No. 41, 2nd Edition, New York. Essa, H.S. and Kennedy, D.J.L. (1995), ‘‘Design of Steel Beams in Cantilever-Suspended-Span Construction,’’ ASCE J. Struct. Div., Vol. 121, No. 11, pp. 16671673. Gil, H. (1966), ‘‘Bracing Requirements for Inelastic Steel Members,’’ PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, May, 156 pp. Helwig, T.A., Yura, J.A., and Frank, K.H. (1993), ‘‘Bracing Forces in Diaphragms and Cross Frames,’’ Proc., SSRC Conf., ‘‘Is Your Structure Suitably Braced?’’ Milwaukee, April, pp. 129140.

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Structural Bracing

32-23

Horne, M.R. and Ajmani, J.L. (1971), ‘‘Design of Columns Restrained by Side Rails,’’ Struct. Eng., Vol. 49, No. 8, pp. 329345. Horne, M.R. and Ajmani, J.L. (1972), ‘‘Failure of Columns Laterally Supported on One Flange,’’ Struct. Eng., Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 355366. Lutz, A.L. and Fisher, J. (1985), ‘‘A Unied Approach for Stability Bracing Requirements,’’ Eng. J., Am. Inst. Steel Constr., Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 163167. Medland, I.C. and Segedin, C.M. (1979), ‘‘Brace Forces in Interbraced Column Structures,’’ ASCE J. Struct. Div., Vol. 105, No. ST7, pp. 15431556. Milner, H.R. and Rao, S.N. (1978), ‘‘Strength and Stiffness of Moment Resisting Beam-Purlin Connections,’’ Civil Eng. Trans., Inst. of Engrg, Australia, CE 20(1), pp. 3742. Nakamura, T. (1988), ‘‘Strength and Deformability of H-Shaped Steel Beams and Lateral Bracing Requirements,’’ J. Const. Steel Res., Vol. 9, 217228. Plaut, R.H. (1993), ‘‘Requirements for Lateral Bracing of Columns with Two Spans,’’ ASCE J. Struct. Div., Vol. 119, No. 10, pp. 29132931. Pincus, G. (1964), ‘‘On the Lateral Support of Inelastic Columns,’’ Eng. J., AISC, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 113115. Salmon, C.S. and Johnson, J.E. (1996), Steel Structures Design and Behavior, 4th Edition, Harper and Row, New York. Taylor, A.C. and Ojalvo, M. (1966), ‘‘Torsional Restraint of Lateral Buckling,’’ ASCE J. Struct. Div., Vol. 92, No. ST2, pp. 115129. Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. (1961), Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Tong, G. and Chen, S. (1987), ‘‘Design Forces of Horizontal Inter-Column Braces,’’ J. Const. Steel Res., Vol. 7, pp. 363370. Tong, G. and Chen, S. (1989), ‘‘The Elastic Buckling of Interbraced Girders,’’ J. Const. Steel Res., Vol. 14, pp. 87105. Trahair, N.S. and Nethercot, D.A. (1984), ‘‘Bracing Requirements in Thin-Walled Structures,’’ Chapter 3, Developments in Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 2, J. Rhodes and A.C. Walker, Eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 93130. Wang, Y.C. and Nethercot, D.A. (1989), ‘‘Ultimate Strength Analysis of Three-Dimensional Braced I-Beams,’’ Proc. Inst. of Civil Engrg, Part 2, 87, March, London, pp. 87112. Winter, G. (1960), ‘‘Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams,’’ Trans. ASCE, Vol. 125, Part 1, pp. 809825. Yura, J.A. (1995), ‘‘Bracing for Stability-State-of-the-Art,’’ Proceedings, Structures Congress XIII, ASCE, Boston, April, pp. 88103. Yura, J.A. and Phillips, B.A. (1992), ‘‘Bracing Requirements for Elastic Steel Beams,’’ Research Report 1239-1, Center for Transportation Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, May, 73 pp. Yura, J.A., Phillips, B., Raju, S., and Webb, S. (1992), ‘‘Bracing of Steel Beams in Bridges,’’ Research Report 1239-4F, Center for Transportation Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, October, 80 pp. Zuk, W. (1956), ‘‘Lateral Bracing Forces on Beams and Columns,’’ ASCE J. Eng. Mech. Div., Vol. 82, No. EM3, pp. 1032-11032-11.

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press

Copyright 2005 by CRC Press