FUNDAMENTALS OF BEAM BRACING © Revised 1198 Joseph A. Yura University of Texas at Austin Introduction ‘The purpose of this paper is to provide a fairly comprehensive view of the subject of beam stability bracing. Factors that affect bracing requirements will be discussed and design methods proposed which are illustrated by design examples. The design examples emphasize simplicity. Before going into specific topics related to beam bracing, some important concepts developed for column bracing by Winter (1960) will be presented because these concepts will be extended to beams later. For a perfectly straight column with a midheight brace stiffness B,, the relationship between P,, and B, is shown in Fig. 1 (Timoshenko, 1961). The column buckles between brace points at full or ideal bracing; in this case the ideal brace stiffness B, = 2 P/ Ly where P, = © EVL,?, Any brace with a stiffness up to the ideal value will significantly increase the column buckling load. Winter (1960) showed that effective braces require not only adequate gtiffness but also sufficient strength. The strength requirement is directly related to the magnitude of the initial out-of- straightness of the member to be braced. Fig. 1 Effect of Brace Stiffness For a column with an initial out-of- straightness (half sine curve) with a displacement A, at midheight and a midheight brace stiffness equal to the ideal value, the heavy solid line in Fig. 2(a) shows the relations! between Ay and P. For P= 0, ‘Aq= dy. When P increases and approaches the buckling load, 1 EVL,?, the total deflection Ay becomes very large. For example, when the applied load is within 5% of the buckling load, Ay~ 20A,, Ifa brace stiffness twice the value of the ideal stiffness is used, much smaller deflections occur. When the load just reaches the buckling load, the Ar= 24,. For By = 3B, and P=P,, Ay= 1.5A,. The brace force, Fy, » is equal to (47 - A, )By, and is directly related to the magnitude of the initial imperfection. If a member is fairly straight, the brace force will be small. Conversely, members with large initial out-of-straightness will require larger braces. If the brace stiffness is equal to the ideal value, then the brace force gets very large as the buckling load is approached because Ar gets very large as shown in Fig. 2(a). For example, oa Aeros tp aoe, % 4 8 12 16 20 % & * 4 Fy(ot P) (» AT/Bo (b) 7 Fig. 2 Braced Column with Initial Out-of-Straightnessat P = 0.95P,, and A,= Ly, / 500, the brace force is 7.6% of P, which is off the scale of the graph. ‘Theoretically the brace force will be infinity when the buckling load is reached if the ideal brace stiffness is used. ‘Thus, a brace system will not be satisfactory if the theoretical ideal stiffness is provided beause the brace forces get too large. If the brace stiffness is overdesigned, as represented by the B = 2f, and 38, curves in Fig. 2(b), then the brace forces will be more reason-able. For a brace stiffness twice the ideal value and a A,= Ly / 500, the brace force is only 0.8%P, at P= P, , not infinity as in the ideal brace stiffness case. For a brace stiffness ten times the ideal value, the brace force will reduce even furtier to 0.44%. ‘The brace force cannot be less than 0.4%P corres-ponding to A = 0 (an infinitely stiff brace) for ‘Ac= Ly/ 500. For design F,, = 1%P is recommended based on a brace stifthess of twice the ideal value and an initial out-of-straightness of Ly / 500 because the Winter model gives slightly unconservative results for the midspan brace problem ( Plaut, 1994 ). Published bracing requirements for beams usually only consider the effect of brace stifiness because perfectly straight beams are considered. Such solutions should not be used directly in design. Similarly, design rules based on strength considerations only, such as a 2% rule, can result in inadequate bracing systems. Both strength and stiffness of the brace system must be checked. Beam Bracing Systems LATERAL BRACING. Beam bracing is a much more com- eee fon henge. ghder-s plicated topic compared to column bracing. This is due mainly to the fact that most “@ = b column buckling involves primarily bending Cece ts anes lai whereas beam buckling involves both flexure oe and torsion. An effective beam brace resists pe = song fem twist of the cross section. In general bracing Gider Top Flange Framing may be divided into two main categories, PLAN VIEW lateral and torsional bracing as illustrated in f 3 Fig. 3. Lateral bracing restrains lateral dis- [Metal Deck Forms placement as its name implies. The cffective-ness of a lateral brace is related to the degree that twist of the cross section is TORSIONAL BRACING Through restrained. For a simply supported beam rien Siders subjected to uniform moment, the center of DWPhregmsy __ Cross. twist is located at a point outside the tension flange; the top flange moves laterally much oe - more than the bottom flange. Therefore, a lateral brace restricts twist best when it is PLAN VIEW, floor beam located at the top flange. Lateral bracing ae attached at the bottom flange of a simply supported beam is almost totally ineffective. ‘A torsional brace can be differentiated from - @ lateral brace in that twist of the cross © = a section is restrained directly, as in the case of SECTA-A twin beams with a cross frame or diaphragm ; between the members. The cross frame Fig. 3 Types of Beam Bracing location, while able to displace laterally, is still considered a brace point because twist is prevented. Some systems such as concrete slabs can act ‘both as lateral and torsional braces. Bracing that controls both lateral movement and twist is more effective than lateral or torsional braces acting alone (Tong and Chen, 1988; Yura, 1992). However, since bracing requirements are so minimal, it is more practical to develop separate design recommendations for these two types of systems. Lateral bracing can be divided into four categories: relative, discrete, continuous and lean-on. A relative brace system controls the relative lateral movement between two points along the span of the; — often. fg. restraint st is best a b relative Brace location se brace aA >» centroid brace top flange ay relatively ineffective ot girder b) top flange loading ‘center of twist — | brace 7A, <<~ brace location y) ‘comp. fig. can Table 1. Brace Coefficient In summary, a modified Winter's ideal bracing stiffness can defined as follows, = FOP, 8; 44% @ 7 For the W12x14 beams laterally braced at midspan shown in Fig. Fig. 13 Double Curvature 12, Ly = 144in., # = 2, Cy = 1.75, Cy = 1 + 1,2/1 = 2.2, and Py = 2 (29000) (2.32/2)/(144)? = 16.01 kips, B;” = 0.856 k/in. which is shown by the in Fig. 12. Equation (1) compares very favorably with the test results and with the the BASP results. For design the ideal stiffness given by Eq. (1) must be doubled for beams with initial out-of-straightness so brace forces can be maintained at reasonable levels as discussed earlier. ‘The brace force requirement for beams follows directly from the column Fy, = 0.01P for discrete braces given earlier. The column load P is replaced with the equivalent compressive beam flange force, either (Cy Pp of My/b, where My s the maximum beam moment and h is the distance between flange centroids. ‘The My/h estimate of the flange force is applicable for both the elastic and inelastic regions. For relative bracing the force requirement is one half the discrete value. The lateral brace design recommendations which follow are based on an initial out-of-straightness of adjacent brace points of 1/500. The combined or 2# My HC, Cp/Ly 4 Qin) or the coefficient in Table 1 for discrete bracing; = 1.0 for relative bracing] Cy PE Le! Ly? 5 oF = (M;/ h) where Mrs the maximum beam moment | 1 + (1.2m) for top flange loading; = 1.0 for other loading 1+ (Mg / My} for double curvature; = 1.0 for single curvature ‘number of braces Fie = 0.01 C, Cy My 1h FE = 0.008 Cy CyMy 7hvalues of # and Cary between 4.0 and 4.8 for all values of n so Eg. (2) can be conservatively simplified for all situations to B,” = 10 Mr/ bL, for single curvature and B," = 20 M,/ bL, for double curvature. ‘Some adjustments to the design requirements are necessary to account for the different design code methodologies, ie. allowable stress design, load factor design. etc.. In AASHTO-LFD and AISC-LRFD, Mis the factored moment; in Allowable Stress Design, M, is based on service loads. The C,P; form of Eq (2) can be used directly for all specifications because it is based on geometric properties of the eam, i.e., By> B,," where By, is the brace stiffness provided. The brace strength requirements, Eqs. (3) and (4), can also ‘be used directly since the design strengths or resistances given in each code are consistent with the appropriate factored or service loads. Only the Mr/h form of Eq. (2) which relies on the applied load level used in the structural analysis must be altered as follows: AISC-LRFD: BL= B,'/4 where $ = 0.75 is suggested AISC-ASD: BL22 a where 2 is a safety factor = (load factor = 1.5) /¢ AASHTO-LFD: B, 2B, no change ‘The discrete and relative lateral bracing requirements are illustrated in the following two design examples. Lateral Brace Design Examples. Two different lateral bracing systems are used to stabilize five composite steel plate girders during bridge construction; a discrete system in Example 1 and a relative bracing in Example 2, The AASHTO- Load Factor Design Specification is used. Each brace shown dashed in Example 1 controls the lateral movement of one point along the span, whereas the diagonals, in the top flange truss system shown in Example 2 control the relative lateral displacement of two adjacent points, Relative systems require 1/2 the brace force and from 1/2 to 1/4 of the stiffness for discrete systems, In both examples, a tension type structural system was used but the bracing formulas are also applicable to compression systems such as K-braces. In Example 1 the full bracing requirements for strength and stiffness given by Eqs. (2) and (3) are based on each brace stabilizing five girders. Since the moment diagram gives compression in one flange, C, for double curvature is not considered. ‘In both examples, stiffness controls the brace area, not the strength requirement. In Example | the stifiness criterion required a brace area 3.7 times greater than the strength formula, Even if the brace ‘was designed for 2% of the compression flange force (a commonly used bracing rule), the brace system would be inadequate, It is important to recognize that both stiffness and strength must be adequate for a satisfactory bracing system. Torsional Bracing of Beams 4) Tong & Chen Examples of torsional bracing systems — eee were shown in Fig. 3. Twist can be 3 prevented by attaching a deck to the top M, flange of a simply supported beam, by floor Wo, beams attached near the bottom tension flange" 2) of through girders or by diaphragms located near the centroid of the stringer. ‘Twist can 1 also be restrained by cross frames that prevent the relative movement of the top and bottom a flanges. ‘The effectiveness of torsional braces 0 7000-2000 ~~~3000~=~=«000 attached at different locations on the-cross TORSIONAL BRACE STIFFNESS (in-Wrad ) section will be presented. Fig. 14 Torsional Brace at Midspan Behavior. The BASP solution for a simply supported beam with a top flange torsional brace atached at midspan is shown in Fig. 14. The buckling strength - brace stiffness relationships are non-linear and quite different from the top flange Tateral bracing linear response given in Fig. 6 for the same beam and loading. For top flange lateral bracing a stiffener has no effect. A torsional brace can only increase the buckling capacity about fifty percent above the unbraced case if no stiffener is used. Local cross-section distortion at midspan reduces ihe brace effectiveness. Ifa web stiffener is used with the torsional brace attached to the compressionflange, then the buckling strength will increase until buckling occurs between the braces at 3.3 times the no-brace case. 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) developed a closed form solution for ideal torsional brace stiffness neglecting cross-section distortion that is given by the solid dot at 1450 in-k/radian in Fig. 14. The difference between the 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 load. If the ‘Tong ideal stiffness (1450 in-k/radian) is used with a 2.67 x 1/4 stiffener, the buckling load is reduced by 14%; no stiffener gives a 51% reduction. LATERAL BRACING - DESIGN EXAMPLE 1 ‘Span = 80ft.: 10 in. concrete slab 5 girders @ 8 ft spacing, A36 stee! Design a lateral bracing system to stabilize the girders during the deck pour. Use the extemal tension system shown. The form supports transmit some load to the bottom flange so assume centroid loading. Use Load Factor Design for the construction condition - LF. = 1.3 Loads: Steelgirder: A = 48.75 wt = 165 [bit + 10. Conc. stab: 6 x42. x 150 b= 1000 tt w= 1165 Ibm = 1.165 ket 2 1 Me dwt xr F165) O13 = 1211 M.= 36 (661)/12 = 1682k-R > 1211 kf 1.0 y ‘Try4 lateral braces @ 16-ft spacing cans, Check lateral buckling - center 16-ft is most critical (AASHTO 10-102c) 6 32.0 29, 2 M = 01x10 (1.07Ex7r V 0.772 a5 + 8. = ) = 15020000 Ib-in = 1251k-fl>1211k-R _4 braces required Brace Design: Use the full bracing formula - discrete system - See Eq2&3 PER = 24Bkips; # 4-2 35; 610; G = 10 ‘ f2 BEQANUOG-D) 5 9.04 Win, fores. girder = 45.2 kin. for girders = F/A 29000) A Brace stiffness = cok oE) _= z= A5.2Kin, > b= 5) 338 /< Ay, A= 26tut | <— CONTROLS Brace Strength: F,, = 0.01 (5) (1214 x 12/49.0) = 14.83k (A36 ste!) “Nive girders =14eaveg ALE = 14.83/c0s0 Ay 26 i10 LATERAL BRACING - DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 fig Brace stifness: i= + __2P CyG, 6 1 Cy CL Ly Same as Example 1 except the bracing system is a relative system - a top flange horizontal truss. Each truss stabilizes 2-1/2 girders. The unbraced length of the girger flange is 16 ft which was checked in Example 1. P, = 248kips Cp = 1.0 Gq = 10 = HELLO LD)» gashintor2 172 ghdors = 258 kin for €a. girder 2 Ap (28000). Gasiin; A, = 023910 <— (8x 12x-/5) Brace strength: Foy = 0.004 2172) -U2IEXI2) . 2.97 Kips 87 Ayfy = 29715 ; A, 2 = 0.184 in? Stitness controls the brace size; 9/16 © OK A = 0.24Bin* Figure 15 shows that torsional bracing on the tension flange (dashed line) is just as effective as compression flange bracing (solid line), even with no stiffener. If the beam has no stiffeners, splitting bracing equally between the two flanges gives a greater capacity than placing all the bracing on just one flange. ‘The dot-dash curve is the solution if web distortion is prevented by transverse stiffeners. The distortion does not have to be {gross to affect strength, as shown in Fig. 16 for a total torsional brace stiffness of 3000 in- k/radian. If the W16x26 section has transverse stiffeners, the buckled cross section at midspan has no distortion as shown by the heavy solid lines and M,,= 1582 in-k. If no stiffeners are used, the buckling load drops to 1133 in-k, a 28% decrease, yet there is only slight distortion as shown by the dashed shape. The overall angle of twist for the braced beam is much smaller than the twist in the unbraced case (dot-dash curve). The effect of load position on torsionally braced beams is not very significant, as shown in Fig. 17. ‘The differ- ence in load between the two curves for top flange and centroid loading for braced beams js almost equal to the difference in strength My ) 1000] : wet TOTAL TORSIONAL BRACE STIFFNESS (in-k/rad) Fig. 15 Effect of Torsional Brace Location ‘Total top fg brace 3000 mKradian = —F Ugo OPO IMer — 3 —4 W166 sttfened [ff Mer 1582 ink wry ee eee Wor 1133 ink Fig. 16 Effect of Cross Section Distortionfor the unbraced beams (zero brace stiffness). 5 o ‘The ideal brace stiffness for top flange loading is 18% greater than for centroid p, 4 loading. This behavior is different from that (ps), shown in Fig. 8 for lateral bracing where the top flange loading ideal brace is 2.5 times that for centroid loading. Figure 18 summarizes the behavior of atop fy a 40-ft span with three equal torsional braces $555 —sa00 35004050 B500 spaced 10-ft apart. ‘The beam was stiffened at each brace point t contol the distortion. TORSIONAL BRACE STIFFNESS (In-k/radian The response is non-linear and follows the pattern discussed earlier for a single brace. For brace stiffness less than 1400 in-k/radian, the stringer buckled into a single wave. Only in the stiffness range of 1400-1600 in- Wradian did mmulti-wave buckled shapes appear. The ideal brace stiffness at each location was slightly greater than 1600 in- Wradian. This behavior is very different from the multiple lateral bracing case for the same beam shown in Fig. 11. For multiple lateral bracing the beam buckled into two waves when the moment reached 600 in-k Ql and then into three waves at Me, = 1280 in- 04008004200 16002000 k. For torsional bracing, the single wave TORSIONAL STIFFNESS @ EACH BRACE (in-kirad) controlled up to M,, = 1520 in-k. Since the maximum moment of 1600 corresponds to Fig. 18 Multiple Torsional Braces buckling between the braces, it can be assumed, for design purposes, that torsionally braced beams buckle in a single wave until the brace stiffness is sufficient to force buckling between the braces. The figure also shows that a single torsional brace at midspan of a 20-ft span (unbraced length = 10 ft) requires about the same ideal brace stiffness as three braces spaced at 10 ft. In the lateral brace case the three brace system requires 1.7 times the ideal stiffness of the single brace system, as shown in Fig. 11. Fig. 17. Effect of Load Position ‘Tests have been conducted on torsionally braced beams with various stiffener details which are presented elsewhere (Yura, 1992). The tests show good agreement with the Basp solutions. Buckling Strength of Torsionally Braced Beams. Taylor and Ojalvo (1973) give the following exact equation for the critical moment of a doubly symmetric beam under uniform moment with continuous torsional bracing og, TOP Na. rece yy ea® where M, is the buckling capacity of the My | 283 nk) unbraced beam and Bi, = attached torsional > *} Tbs ink) brace stiffness (K-in/rad per in. length). Equation (5), which assumes no cross section 7 mere distortion, is shown by the dot-dash line in Fig. 19. The solid lines are BASP results for % 7 x rT a0 a W16x26 section with no stiffeners and spans Reyne of 10 ft, 20 ft, and 30 ft under uniform ‘moment ” with "braces aftached to the compression flange. Cross-section distortion Fig. 19 Approximate Buckling Formula12 causes the poor correlation between Eq. (5) and the Diaphragms Through Girders BASP results. Milner (1977) showed that cross- or Decks 7 section distortion could be handled by using an 1 effective brace stiffness, By, which has been = b expanded (Yura, 1992) to include the effect of oo el stiffeners and other factors as follows, a 6 or where By is the stiffness of the attached brace, Bye, is the cross-section web stifiness and B, is the girder system stiffness. The effective brace stiffness is less Fig. 20 Torsional Bracing Stiffness than the smallest of By, Byec OF B- ‘The B, of some common torsional brace systems are given in Figs. 20 and 21. Systems comprised of diaphragms, slabs, and floor systems for through girders in Fig. 20 assume that the connection between the girder and the brace can support a bracing moment M,,.. If partially restrained connections are used, their flexibility should also be included in Eq. (5). Elastic truss analyses were used to derive the stif ness of the cross frame systems shown in Fig. 21. If the diagonals of 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. sea TENSION SYSTEM o- Stan pm =2FR i Bo =

My = 13.5(36) = 486 > 293in-k, OK Check stiiness: Ea.(14); Bg sgn 2Aloox 12) 0281 x 12F | 17550 in-Wiradian 4(29000) 239 (1.0)? 7.3kips OK Check brace stiffness: wy EQ. (14): Br gag * 17550 In-Wradian - 800 Example 3 2 2: By = 2b 6 (40) (2.38) 747000 in-kiradian : . a @25) + (06P Girder: B, = 406000 in-kiradian - see Example 3 4] | 3 ap = 3:3(29000) (49 (15.6.0) (: a x pap, 22@e000 (9) (1869 = 309000 in-tirad . t. te , —L , -2— ¢ £, = 113000 > 17550 inrad Eq. (16): °, Fimo * mean * sooo + Pr” Uisee treeo ite’ ox Evaluate the cross frame shown below B _ 2(29000) . , = 2mm SMES ssoom instar 2 a USC40)(8)") 5 49900 interac ie og ; + B, = 16900 < 17550 intdrad ya Choo, K.M., 1987, , "Buckling Program BASP for Use on a Microcomputer", Thesis presented to The ‘University of Texas at Austin, May Galambos, T.V., Ed., 1988, Structural Stability Research Council, Guide to Stability Design Criteria for ‘Metal Structures, 4th Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 19Helwig, T.A., Yura, J.A. and Frank K.H., 1993, "Bracing Forces in Diaphragms and Cross Frames," SSRC Conference-Is Your Structure Suitably Braced?, April 6-7, Milwaukee, WI. Kirby, P.A. and Nethercot, D.A., 1979, Design for Structural Stabitiry, Wiley. Linder, J., and Schmidt, J.S., 1982, "Biegedrillknicken von I-Trigern unter Berticksichtigung wirklichkeitsnaher Lasteinleitung," Der Stahlbau, 51, H.9, S. 257-263. Milner, H.R., 1977, "Design of Simple Supported Beams Braced Against Twisting on the Tension Flange," Civil Engineering Transactions, Institute of Engineers, Australia, CE 20(1), pp. 37-42. Medland, I.C., 1980, "Buckling of Interbraced Beam Systems", Engineering Structures, 2, April, p 90-96 ‘Nakamura, T. and Wakabayashi, M.(1981), ‘Lateral Buckling of Beams Braced by Purlins*, Inelastic Instability of Steel Structures and Structural Elements, U.S. Japan Seminar, Fujita- Galambos, ed, Nakamura, T. (1988), "Strength and Deformability of H-Shaped Steel Beams and Lateral Bracing Requirements", J. Constructional Steel Research, 9, p 217-228 Nethercot, D. A., (1989), "The Design of Bracing Systems for Plate Girder Bridges", Structural Eng / Earthquake Eng., Vol. 6, No. 1, 59s-688,Review, ( Proc JSCE, No 404 / I-11), April. Plaut, R. S.,(1993), "Requirements for Lateral Bracing of Columns with Two Spans", Journal of ‘Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol119, No. 10, October, pp 2913-2931 Raju, S., Webb, S. and Yura, J.,1992, "Bracing Effects of Bridge Decks", Proceedings, 9th Annual International Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh, June 15, 9 p. Taylor, A.C., and Ojalvo, M., 1966, “Torsional Restraint of Lateral Buckling,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, ST2, April, pp. 115-129. Timoshenko, S., and Gere, J., 1961, Theory of Elastic Stability, New York: McGraw-Hill . Tong, G.S., and Chen, S.H., 1988, "Buckling of Laterally and Torsionally Braced Beams," Journal Construction Steel Research, 11. p 41-55 ‘Trahair, N.S., and Nethercot, D.A., 1982, “Bracing Requirements in Thin-Walled Structures,” Chapter 3, Developments in Thin-Walled Structures - Vol. 2, Rhodes and Walker - Ed., Elsevier , pp. 93-129. Wakabayashi, M, and Nakamura, T.,(1983), "Buckling of Laterally Braced Beams", Eng. Struct, 5, April Wang, Y. C. and Nethercot, D. A., 1989, "Ultimate Strength Analysis of Three-Dimensional Braced I- Beams", Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, London,Part 2, 87, March, p 87-112 Winter, G., 1960, "Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams,” ASCE Transactions, Vol. 125, pp. 809-825. Yura, J.A., and Phillips, B.,1992, "Bracing Requirements for Elastic Steel Beams," Report No. 1239-1, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, May ,73 p. ‘Yura, J.A., Phillips, B., Raju, S, and Webb, S.,1992, "Bracing of Steel Beams in Bridges,” Report No. 1239-4F, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, October, 80 p. ‘Yura, J. A., 1993, "Lean-On Bracing Systems”, Structural Stability Research Council Conference-Is Your ‘Structure Suitably Braced?, April 6-7, Milwaukee, WI...