SCHIFFLERIZED A N G L E STRUTS

By Seshu Madhava Rao Adluri,1 Murty K. S. Madugula,2 Member, ASCE,

and Gerard R. Monforton,3 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Schifflerized angles (90° hot-rolled equal leg angles bent to 60°) are
employed as main leg members in triangular-base latticed communication struc-
tures. The strength of these angles is quite different from that of regular 90° angles.
Results of experimental investigation on schifflerized angles are presented. The
test results are compared with the loads computed according to ASCE Manual No.
52 and American Institute of Steel Construction load and resistance factor design
specifications. The ambiguity regarding the proper selection of the width to be used
in the calculation of width-thickness ratios is discussed, and recommendations are
made. The susceptibility of these angles of torsional-flexural buckling is highlighted,
and design recommendations are given. In addition, a table for design compressive
strength of these angles that can serve as a ready-to-use design aid is provided.

INTRODUCTION

General
Latticed communication towers with triangular bases have been in ex-
tensive use for several decades. The legs of these towers are situated at the
vertices of an equilateral triangle. The bracing members connecting these
legs are placed on the faces of the equilateral triangle. The main leg members
should accommodate the connections to the bracing members, whose planes
are at 60° to each other. To have smooth bracing connections, the included
angle between the leg plates of main members should also be 60°. Tradi-
tionally, this has been achieved by schifflerizing the legs of regular 90° angles.
Each leg is bent inwards by 15°, so that the angle between the leg and the
centerline of the section is 30° as shown in Fig. 1. The process involves
either rerolling or brake-pressing a 90° angle. The finished member is called
a schifflerized angle. These structural shapes are generally used in preference
to solid round bars wherever possible. This is the prevalent practice in the
United States, Canada, and Australia, among other countries. The schif-
flerization process for most practical applications is generally carried out on
regular angles as large as 200 x 200 x 25 mm, beyond which the solid
round bars are increasingly adopted. The schifflerization process, while
bending the legs inward by 15° each, cannot deform the heel (or root) portion
of the original regular angle because of its high rigidity. As a result, every
60° angle will have an unchanged 90° root portion of length ranging from
16 to 54 mm, depending upon the leg thickness. This process, when com-
pared with the regular 90° angles, increases the moment of inertia of the
cross section about the minor principal axis by 20%-50% and reduces the
maximum moment of inertia by approximately the same amount. The shear

•Res. Asst., Dept. of Civ. Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada N9B 3P4.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada.
3
Dean, Faculty of Engrg., Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 1992. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
September 15,1990. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
118, No. 7, July, 1992. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/92/0007-1920/$1.00 + $.15 per
page. Paper No. 471.

1920
 a = Length of Unbent Portion
b = Length of Schifflerized Portion
c = Fillet Radius
t = Thickness of Leg ^^

V,

shear centre S / ^ \ /

V \ v centriod

a\ "/v. r\.

u-u = Major Axis

v-y = Minor .Axis

FIG. 1. Typical Cross Section of Schifflerized Angle

center of the angle, upon schifflerizing, moves away from the point of
intersection of the centerlines of the leg plates (i.e., center of heel) and
frequently lies outside the section. [Important geometric properties of schif-
flerized angles, including the warping constant, are given in Adluri and
Madugula, (1991)]. Because of this, the schifflerized angle member is much
stronger in resisting flexural buckling and has a lower strength in resisting
torsional-flexural buckling than the corresponding 90° angle. Schifflerization
also introduces additional residual stresses into the section, which add to
the existing residual stresses due to the differential cooling of hot-rolled 90°
angles. Thus, the strength and behavior of these angles will be significantly
different from regular 90° angles.
However, it should be noted that schifflerized angles are not considered
by the latticed-communication-tower industry as cold-formed members in
the sense that they are not cold-formed from sheet, plate, or strip. The
reasons for this are: (1) Cold-working, although it considerably alters the
section properties, does not drastically change the section shape since the
legs are bent by just 15° each; and (2) the effect of additional residual stresses
introduced in the leg plates (which are thicker in general than cold-formed
sections) due to cold-working is not comparable to that due to cold-forming
a section from sheet steel (Adluri 1990).

Need for Investigation

Although schifflerized angles have been in use for a long time, there has
been little or no published information through formal study on the strength
and behavior of these angles until very recently. Various design procedures
that deal with schifflerized angles have thus far depended on knowledge
extrapolated from the published literature on regular 90° angles. Among
other things, the compressive strength of schifflerized angles depends on
the slenderness ratio and width-thickness ratio.
There is no unanimity about the width of the leg plate to be used in the
computation of width-thickness ratios for schifflerized angles. With refer-
1921
ence to Fig. 1, this value could be taken as dimension (b), (a + b), (a +
b - t), or (a + b - t — c). A lack of unanimity also exists in the case of
regular 90° angles. In general, such differences arise from calibrating the
particular design formulas using test data, or from practical convenience.
In the present case, there is a need to clearly define the width of the leg to
be used in the width-thickness ratio calculations for schifflerized angles from
the point of view of practical design. Such a definition requires a program
of practical investigation to be used in calibrating the design formulas.
Because of the substantial increase in the strength of these angles for
flexural buckling and a reduction of strength for torsional-flexural buckling
from that of 90° angles, they are susceptible to torsional-flexural buckling,
even at significantly high slenderness ratios. The latticed-communication-
tower design practice has tended to neglect the significance of torsional-
flexural buckling failure. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
specifications {Load 1986) are the first in North America to explicitly ac-
count for torsional-flexural buckling of singly symmetric sections. However,
these provisions are generally meant for structural steel work in buildings
and are not specially designed for application to angles in latticed towers.
On the other hand, ASCE Manual No. 52 ("Guide" 1988), whose provisions
are developed primarily for the design of angle members in latticed towers,
does not provide for this failure mode in a specific way. The present study
has been undertaken at the University of Windsor in Canada with the
intention of recommending a suitable design procedure for schifflerized
angles to be used by the designers of triangular-base towers. The experi-
mental investigation and finite element analysis undertaken was focused
toward finding the strength of schifflerized angles (Adluri 1990) with specific
emphasis on the width-thickness ratio and torsional-flexural buckling. The
present paper is the application of the results of the experimental study to
American design practice involving schifflerized angles. The discussion cen-
ters mainly on (and is limited to) the applicability of the provisions of both
the ASCE manual and the AlSC-specifications for the design of schifflerized
angles in latticed towers.

CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE

The ASCE manual ("Guide" 1988) is extensively used for the design of
hot-rolled angle members in latticed steel transmission towers. The formulas
given for ultimate capacity are based on Euler buckling in the elastic range
and on the basic strength curves of the Structural Stability Research Council
in the inelastic range, as can be seen from the following equations. (Since
the manual does not deal explicitly with hot-rolled Schifflerized angles, the
formulas for hot-rolled 90° angles are used here.)

ASCE Manual
The ultimate compressive stress Fcr of axially loaded compression mem-
bers shall be

F„ = Fy when KLIr s= Cc (1)

1922
 286,000
KLIr > Cr (2)
krr = — — when
KL
r
r i2E (3)
Cr = TT —~

The ratio wit, where w = flat width and t — thickness of leg, shall not
exceed 25. If wit exceeds (wlt)lim given by

80
= (4)

then the ultimate stress Fcr shall be computed with Fy replaced in (1) and
(3) with F'y given by
w
t w 144
F'y = 1.677 - 0.677 when
7 ^ V7\,

(5)
9,500 w 144
F'y when — > —F= (6)
t VK

where Fy = the yield stress in ksi. As already mentioned, these equations

do not account explicitly for torsional-flexural buckling mode. This is ac-
ceptable for regular 90° angles for most practical applications. For schif-
flerized angles, however, the strength is governed by the torsional-flexural
mode for a significant number of practical cases.

AISC Specification
The design strength of members whose elements have width-thickness
ratios less than 76/VF^ (where Fy is in ksi) is 0.85 AgF„, where Fcr for
flexural buckling is computed as follows
for\, 1.5, Fcr = (0.658x«) Fy (7)

0.877^
for \c > 1.5, Ft (8)
A2
where

Kl IF,
X, = (9)
rir
To calculate the design strength of members whose elements have width-
thickness ratios greater than 76/\f~F~y (where Fy is in ksi), Xc and Fy are mod-
ified as \c V<2 and FyQ, where Q is computed as
1923
 TABLE 1. Properties and Experimental Failure Loads of Test Specimens
Leg Yield
width a b c t r stress Ptest Mode of
Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) KLIr (MPa) (KN) failure3
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 0) (10) (11)
S5-5/16-1 125.4 25.0 100.4 13.0 7.9 30.0 55 333 422 T-F
S5-5/16-2 126.2 25.0 101.2 13.0 7.9 30.2 55 333 446 T-F
SS-5/16-3 125.4 25.0 100.4 13.0 7.9 30.0 55 333 440 T-F
S4-1/4-1 100.8 24.0 76.8 10.0 6.2 23.9 69 356 278 T-F
S4-1/4-2 100.8 24.0 76.8 10.0 6.2 23.9 69 356 286 T-F
S4-1/4-3 101.0 24.0 77.0 10.0 6.2 24.0 69 356 311 T-F
S3.5-5/16-1 90.1 25.0 65.1 10.0 8.0 21.0 79 369 350 F
S3.5-5/16-2 90.1 25.0 65.1 10.0 8.0 21.0 79 369 366 F
S3.5-5/16-3 90.1 25.0 65.1 10.0 8.0 21.0 79 369 350 F
S3-3/8-1 76.2 26.0 50.2 8.0 9.6 17.2 96 475 287 F
S3-3/8-2 77.4 26.0 51.4 8.0 9.6 17.5 94 475 287 F
S3-3/8-3 77.4 26.0 51.4 8.0 9.6 17.5 94 475 288 F
S3-3/8-4 76.9 26.0 50.9 8.0 9.6 17.4 95 475 278 F
S3-3/8-5 77.1 26.0 51.1 8.0 9.6 17.5 95 475 287 F
S3-3/8-6 77.4 26.0 51.4 8.0 9.6 17.5 94 475 289 F
S3-1/4-1 77.0 24.0 53.0 8.0 6.2 17.9 93 363 187 F
S3-1/4-2 77.0 24.0 53.0 8.0 6.2 17.9 93 363 217 F
S3-1/4-3 76.7 24.0 52.7 8.0 6.2 17.8 93 363 208 F
a
F = flexural buckling; and T-F = torsional-flexural buckling.

1 Bottom Plate 2 Bottom Knife-Edge

3 Centre Plate 4 Top Knife-Edge

5 Top Plate * All Dimensions in mm

FIG. 2. End Plate Assembly for Hinged-End Condition

2=1.0 w h e n ^ < ^ .(10)

w 76 w 155
Q = 1.340 - 0.00447 when —=• < — < —7= .(ii)
VK t VK
1924
 15,500 . w 155
(12)

For torsional-flexural buckling, Fcr is determined as follows

for keVQ ^ 1.5, Fcr = 2 ( 0 . 6 5 8 ^ ) ^ (13)

for \eVQ > 1.5, F„ = \^p) Fy (14)

where \e = VFy/Fe.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

A total of 18 specimens of five different sizes with 5 x 5 x 5/16, 4 x 4

x 1/4, 3.5 x 3.5 x 5/16, 3 x 3 x 3/8, 3 x 3 x 1/4 in. (127 x 127 x 7.9,
102 x 102 x 6.4, 89 x 89 x 7.9, 76 x 76 x 9.5, 76 x 76 x 6.4 mm)
nominal dimensions were included in the test program. The details of test
specimens are given in Table 1. (Each specimen is designated by the letter
S followed by the nominal leg width and thickness in in. and the serial
number of the specimen for that size.) The slenderness ratio of these spec-
imens varied between 50 and 100, which is a representative range of field
usage. All specimens had pinned end conditions at both ends.

Test Setup
The hinged end conditions at each end were created using an assembly
of three plates and two knife edges, as shown in Fig. 2. The middle plate
contained one groove each of 120° on the top and bottom surfaces at right
angles to each other. These grooves facilitated free rotation of knife edges
in two perpendicular directions. The top and bottom plates each contained
one 90° groove facing the groove in the middle plate. This groove held the
knife edge (made of a 30-mm square bar placed on edge) firmly. The top
assembly was attached to a bracket from a loading frame, and the bottom
assembly was placed on top of a loading cell, which itself rested on a hy-
draulic jack. The end plate assemblies were arranged in a perpendicular
fashion with respect to each other so that the effective length of the members
was the same in both directions, which was taken as the distance between
the free rotating edges of parallel knife edges in top and bottom plate
assemblies.
For every section size included in the test program, at least three speci-
mens were cut from the same stock. Both ends of each specimen were milled
perpendicular to the longitudinal centroidal axis of the member, so they
were perfectly parallel to each other. The test specimens were placed be-
tween end plate assemblies in such a way that the line of action of the load
and the longitudinal axis of the member coincided. Great care was taken
to ensure accurate alignment because an alignment eccentricity of as little
as 5% of the cross-sectional dimension can reduce the member capacity
significantly. Alignment based on calculated values of the centroid marked
on the bearing surface and alignment based on theodelite readings proved
unsatisfactory. Therefore, the final alignment in the present investigation
was achieved using electrical-resistance strain gages at the toes and heel of
top, midheight, and bottom sections of each specimen. These strain gages
1925
enabled the detection of any strains due to the bending of the member under
eccentric load. For a perfectly aligned straight specimen, strains in all the
strain gages should be the same. If they were different at loads in the range
of 5% to 20% of the expected failure load, the member was unloaded and
the adjustment fine-tuned to reduce eccentricity. The process was continued
till the best possible alignment was achieved.
A 900-kN hydraulic jack and a 900-kN universal flat load cell served as
the loading and load-measuring devices. The load was applied in steady
increments of approximately 5-10% of the expected failure load in the
initial stages and reduced further as the buckling load approached. The
expected failure load was estimated using a detailed finite element analysis,
taking into account the geometric and material nonlinearity and residual
stresses (Adluri et al. 1991).

Results of Experimental Investigation

The test failure loads obtained using the procedure described previously
are presented in Table 1. Of the five different nominal sizes included in the
test program, two sizes, viz., 127 x 127 x 7.9 mm and 102 X 102 x 6.4
mm, which had the largest width-thickness ratio, failed in the torsional-
flexural buckling mode, as predicted by the nonlinear finite element analysis.
In the investigation, the failure process was closely monitored by reducing
the load increments to low values. All six test specimens of this category
failed suddenly without appreciable warning.
Specimens of nominal size 76 X 76 x 6.4 mm have their width-thickness
ratios bordering on the local plate buckling limit. It is interesting to note
that all three specimens of this size failed, showing buckling deformations
about both major and minor axes. This could be due to the fact that flexural
and equivalent torsional-flexural buckling strengths for these specimens did
not differ appreciably from each other.
Specimens with nominal size of 89 X 89 x 7.9 mm and 76 x 76 x 9.5
mm have width-thickness ratios below the specified limit. All specimens of
these two sizes failed by flexural buckling about minor principal axis without
any noticeable twist or bending about major principal axis. The failure was
relatively slow and steady. Some of the test specimens after failure are
presented in Fig. 3, which shows torsional-flexural modes (first and second

FIG. 3. Failure Modes of Some of Test Specimens

1926
TABLE 2. Experimental Failure Loads and Loads as per ASCE Manual ("Guide"
1988)
Case la Case lla Case llla Case IVa
P
test Load Load Load Load
Specimen (kN) (kN) Ratio" (kN) Ratio" (kN) Ratio" (kN) Ratio"
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
S5-5/16-1 422 511 1.21 494 1.17 440 1.04 408 0.97
S5-5/16-2 446 515 1.16 498 1.12 444 1.00 411 0.92
S5-5/16-3 440 511 1.16 494 1.12 440 1.00 408 0.93
S4-1/4-1 278 315 1.13 289 1.04 256 0.92 236 0.85
S4-1/4-2 286 315 1.10 290 1.01 256 0.90 236 0.82
S4-1/4-3 311 317 1.02 291 0.94 258 0.83 237 0.76
S3.5-5/16-1 350 359 1.02 359 1.02 359 1.02 350 1.00
S3.5-5/16-2 366 359 0.98 359 0.98 359 0.98 351 0.96
S3.5-5/16-3 350 360 1.03 360 1.03 360 1.03 352 1.01
S3-3/8-1 287 293 1.02 293 1.02 293 1.02 293 1.02
S3-3/8-2 287 309 1.08 309 1.08 309 1.08 309 1.08
S3-3/8-3 288 309 1.07 309 1.07 309 1.07 309 1.07
S3-3/8-4 278 302 1.09 302 1.09 302 1.09 302 1.09
S3-3/8-5 287 305 1.06 305 1.06 305 1.06 305 1.06
S3-3/8-6 289 309 1.07 309 1.07 309 1.07 309 1.07
S3-1/4-1 187 202 1.08 202 1.08 198 1.06 186 0.99
S3-1/4-2 217 202 0.93 202 0.93 197 0.91 185 0.85
S3-1/4-3 208 200 0.96 200 0.96 196 0.94 184 0.88
"Case I = w = b;l\ = w = a + b - t - c;\\\ = w = a + b - t; and IV = iv =
a + b.
"Ratio = P-calculated/P-test.

from left) and a close-up (third from left) or torsional-flexural mode of

failure.

Comparison of Experimental Loads with Specifications

As mentioned earlier, the column capacity is influenced by the wit ratio.
For sections with wit ratio greater than a specified limit, the yield stress is
reduced by a factor. For 60° schifflerized angles, with reference to Fig. 1,
the value of w could be taken as one of the following: (b), (a + b - t -
c), (a + b - t), or (a + b). These different values of w are used in the
present discussion to predict member capacity.
Specimens with nominal size of 127 x 127 x 7.9 mm and 102 X 102 X
6.4 mm have different load capacities for each value of w. Specimens with
nominal size of 89 x 89 x 7.9 mm and 76 x 76 x 6.4 mm have wit ratios
that are less than ASCE-specified limit and more than the AlSC-specified
limit. For these specimens, the column capacity is affected by wit ratios for
some values of width w. Specimens with nominal size of 76 x 76 x 9.5
mm have wit ratios that are less than the specified limits. The column
capacities for these specimens are not affected by wit ratios.

ASCE Manual
The column strengths predicted by the ASCE manual ("Guide" 1988)
are given in Table 2. Although the manual specifies that the applicable
width for wit ratio is the width from the toe of the angle to the edge of the
1927
fillet for a 90° angle, the capacities for schlifflerized angles are calculated
using the four alternative widths mentioned earlier. The capacity calculated
using a width equal to the bent portion of the schifflerized leg is almost
always greater than the test result. The corresponding value calculated using
nominal leg width is lower. For flexural buckling, the predicted values are
as much as 9% greater than the test results. This happens mainly in the
case of the specimens with a nominal size of 76 x 76 x 9.5 mm. For this
size, the slenderness ratio slightly exceeds the lower limit set for a slender
column.
Table 2 shows that, for torsional-flexural failure of schifflerized angles,
the ASCE manual ("Guide''' 1988) predicts much greater capacities than
are obtained from experimental study for all specimens. This can be greatly
reduced or avoided by taking the applicable width as the nominal leg width
for computing wit ratios instead of that defined in the ASCE manual. Al-
ternatively, ASCE manual formulas can be used by considering torsional-
flexural buckling. The schifflerized angle members are susceptible to tor-
sional-flexural buckling, even at considerably high slenderness ratios. This
can be accounted for by considering the equivalent radius of gyration in
torsional-flexural buckling and the radius of gyration about minor axis in
flexural buckling. The strengths computed by including the effects of tor-
sional-flexural buckling are compared with the experimental loads in Table
3. The table shows that a width equal to the bent portion of the schifflerized

TABLE 3. Experimental Failure Loads and Loads as per ASCE Manual ("Guide"
1988)

P Case la Case lla Case Ill- Case I V

test Load Load Load Load
Specimen (k) (k) Ratio" (k) Ratio" (k) Ratio b (k) Ratio"
0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 0) (10)
S5-5/16-1 95 90 0.95 89 0.93 83 0.87 79 0.83
S5-5/16-2 100 91 0.91 89 0.89 83 0.83 79 0.79
S5-5/16-3 99 90 0.91 89 0.90 83 0.84 79 0.80
S4-1/4-1 62 56 0.90 54 0.87 51 0.82 49 0.78
S4-1/4-2 64 56 0.88 54 0.85 51 0.79 49 0.76
S4-1/4-3 70 57 0.81 55 0.78 51 0.73 49 0.70
S3.5-5/16-1 79 81 1.02 81 1.02 81 1.02 79 1.01
S3.5-5/16-2 82 81 0.98 81 0.98 81 0.98 80 0.97
S3.5-5/16-3 79 81 1.03 81 1.03 81 1.03 80 1.01
S3-3/8-1 65 66 1.02 66 1.02 66 1.02 66 1.02
S3-3/8-2 65 69 1.08 69 1.08 69 1.08 69 1.08
S3-3/8-3 65 69 1.07 69 1.07 69 1.07 69 1.07
S3-3/8-4 62 68 1.09 68 1.09 68 1.09 68 1.09
S3-3/8-5 65 68 1.06 68 1.06 68 1.06 68 1.06
S3-3/8-6 65 69 1.07 69 1.07 69 1.07 69 1.07
S3-1/4-1 42 45 1.08 45 1.08 45 1.07 44 1.05
S3-1/4-2 49 45 0.93 45 0.93 45 0.92 44 0.90
S3-1/4-3 47 45 0.96 45 0.96 45 0.96 44 0.93
"Case I = w = 6; II = w = a + b - t - c;III = w = a + b - t;\V = w = a +
b.
"Ratio = P-calculated/P-test.
Note: Radius of gyration is the minimum of flexural and torsional-flexural radii.

1928
 1.0

ASCE Manual Design Curve

A A A TesT Results-Current Prov.
+ + + Test Results-Alternative 1
0.4-1 * * * Test Results-Alternative 2
-r
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Slenderness Parameter -

FIG. 4. Test Results Compared with ASCE Manual Design Curve Using Alternative
Design Approaches

600

500

£ 400

300

O 200
ASCE ManuaLErpvisions
Flex.Buckl.radius(W=b)
-—>—• Tors.-Flex,included(W=b)
Tors.-Hex.included(W=a+b)
100- Flex.Buckl.radius(VV=a+b)
p a n Torsional Buckl.rad.(W=a+b)
AISCLRFD Provisions
Flat Width (W=a+b)
o4 i i i Flat"Width (W^b)
1
Effective Length (m)

FIG. 5. Comparison of Some Design Alternatives Applied to 150 x 150 x 8 mm

Schifflerized Angle

angle used in conjunction with the minimum of the radius of gyration in

flexure about the minor principal axis and the equivalent radius of gyration
in torsional-flexural buckling is more rational and gives acceptable results.
Some of the alternatives in Tables 2 and 3 are shown in Fig. 4, where
1929
 0S61-
4 * 4 * 4»- -fk 4 * 4 k 4*- Os O s Os OS OS O s O s O s O s CO 0 0 0 0 GO 0 0 OC 0 0
5.0

5.0
5.0
5.0

5.0
5.0
5.0

b b b b b b b b b G 'o '<zi 'a 'a '<z> <^

b b b b b b b
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x
(in.)
Size

O s O* CJs O s O s OS O s O s O 1 0 0 0 0 CO CO 0 0 0 0 CO
4 k 4k. 4 k 4 k 4>- - U 4 *
x 5.0
x 5.0

b b b b b b b b b '<^> '<z> <^ ' o '<z>'<=> <z>

x 5.0

x 5.0
x 5.0

x 5.0
x 5.0

b b b b b b b
o p o o o o o p p p p p pppppppp*-- p o p o p *- ~
to ui ui 4* ui bs ^-J 4 * U t O s ^-J CO U l U l ^ ' u i U l O s ^ - J O O © ui ui os ^ bo b ~
(2)

Ul Q tO Ui - O K - J W O O M s l U l s l O © Os t O U l - J Q t O
(in.)
ness

Ul M s j W Q JO Ul
0.375
0.313

00 O U i O U i U i U i O O O U i U i O U i O O Ul Ui O Ui O Ui
O W U O O O U i O
I
M K- K ) M W H - . - > . - * t O t O N l U l U> t O t O W W 4k. U i U i
Ui - ^ « f - N ) 0 0 h ^ U l U i © 4*. ^ 4 OOtOUiOOi-'UiQOUlOO tO - J O 00 4k H - 00 3 ro
Ui 4*. Ul O - J si U i - J O O SO O s O s O s 4 * f O 0 0 s O 0 0 U i - J O 0 0 O sO Os t O
_ ^ - _ |sj tO H - i — ^ - t O t O t O U l U l t O t O U l U l 4*. U i U i
Ui - 4 sO O N) Ul CO oo Ui sO U l - J O O t O U i O O O U l O O U l O O t O O s O - J 4*. •— - O ^ CO
u« £
o WU l UiCO 00 O 4 ^ U l U l t O s O O s O s U i t O O 4k t O Ui Ui t O 00
* i W tO « OS '-J O^
— >-" •— t O t O Nl t O tO U l 4k U i Ui
ui -j so o to Ui -O 00 © Ul U i s p U l -O O O t O U i O O O U l C O U i - J •— O s s O - J 4 k O - O
U l CO — 4 * O s U i •—' t O t O t O O - O U 1 4 k | - O s O - J O s O t O t O s O 4*. 3 •**•
W N O N J W — 00
H - — 1— t O t O ^ _ K - — t O K l t O U l U l t O t O t O U> 4 k U l U i
UI - O CO © I—> £ o> CO O t O U i s o t O O s C O t O U i - O O U l C O t O - J i—' U l s O O s U l O - O 3 oi
Ul - J t O O s s O * - t-O 0 0 * - i—> O O GO U l •—' •— S O — * U i OO Ov >D * 0 0 > «
!_. W H - K- S ) t O ^-.— — t o t o t o u i u i N> t O t O U l 4 k U i U i
4 * O s CO s£> O Ul Ui CO O t O 4*- CO >— U l CO'— 4*--JOtO-JtOOs •-- U i s o O s U l O Os
VD OO 4^. Ov « Ul Ul C ^ s J O O U i C O O OCOCOOstOGO-JO — U l O s 4 k - J O s t O --J 3 °*
^ M M M t O W U I W tO t O tO U l 4k 4 * Ui
4 k O s - O G O S O t O 4*. -o. o Kl J > -O O U l V J M ^ S H O W O S O * - —* U i s o O s U l s O O s 3 vi
- J U i —J 0 0 s O •— O 4k U l Os -O Os \OOsUiUlsO4ksOsO00 O U l — U l t O - J —*
CO t O
^ . H - w - r O t O t O W t o t O t O U l 4 k 4*. U i
* . U i O \ vJCO -J so H— U l O s s C t O -J.— 4*OssO>— Ui\OU> O U i 0 0 U l t O SO U l 3 co
-~J4a-tOsOUiOOCOOsU> 0 0 O 0 0 ^O - O t O —
107

U i 0 0 O ^O vO Os vO s o U i U i 4*. O
123 |

4 * U i U l Os -O so
<— i—> vO CO O N
«
U l 4k. 4 * U i O s - J CO
Ui IO * C O \ W 4k 4 *
N ' J J * . +>. U i OS - J
SO U i i—• O s t O
•— o
W W W W * . Ul Ui
4 * ^C 4 k s O 4 * t O s D
tO tO tO Ul Ul 4* Ui
•—> U i s O U l - O 4*. O
-J so « t O U t O O
U ) U i •— U l U l s o U l
- J 0 0 O H - U l Os 0 0
O CO i—> U l SO t O U l
Os - O s o O t O 4 k O s
Os \0 i— U l 4 * 4 k — '
Ui - J 0 0 sO O t O U l
SO © O 0 0 J>- - O
o
as CO - O ( O U i - O
4k U l U i o s - g > c o
W » - K , - [ O N ) t s J W
- J — Ul Os CO O 4* 00 — '
Os^-sCUivOJCOOstO-O
»_ — ^ ^ - ^ - t o t o t o
- O O U l O s - O s O U i O s s O
4 » - 0 0 U i O s O - O U 1 0 s 0 0
H. M W « M tO | 0 W
• O O W U i O S O O - ^ - O
t O * . C i - 0 0 U i 0 0 OO O
__.-_.,--_tototo
O s O t 0 4 » . U i - O O t O U i
> O O - t ' O 0 S t 0 M 0 0 U i
0 s s 0 ^ - t 0 4 ^ U i 0 0 O
O s U i 4 ^ s o U i - J U l - J
O s s C O •— t O 4 ^ O s 0 0
2301 204
tO t O tO U l 4k 4k Ui
O 4* 00 Ui tO 00 Ul
Ui - J 4 k Ul t O U l - 4 o ^
t O t O t O U l J>. 4*. U i
O 4 k 0 0 4 k i— O s t O
to ui © so Ui so i-* ct °
i— t O t O U l 4 * 4 k U l
vO U> - O 4*. O U i O
sO s O U i U l t O 4 k 4 k 4H ~^
i— t O t O U l U l 4 k 4 k
s O U l - O U l CO U ) CO
U i U l © - J 0 0 CO O s 3 f°
— t O t O U ) U l 4 k 4k.
s O U l O s t O --J t O O s
h - O f e J k W O O S ^ 03
c - t O t O U ) U l 4k, 4 k
0 0 t O U i 1— U i O 4 k

4 ^ _ * vC O s \ 0 •—' —' U l © U l Os sO — J > 4 k Os 4»- - J O O s >-* 4 k 3 *•

U l 4 k U i U i O s - J CO
CO U l *— - O s o SO" 0 0
U l U l J > U l Os - O - J
4 * ^O U i — — O - J
— tO tO tO Ul U l 4k
0 0 s C O ~ - t O J > O s - J 0 0 i - " 4 k \C U l CO t O
s 0—'U)4i.4i'4*- — -0 — - J s o U i CO O O 31*
Ul - O O O ^ O Q O t O J > U \
>~ to to to ui ui ui
-O •—' U l - J •"-• U l s o
O O O O s O O s — OS U i «— O s s O SO CO U l ^ 4 Oi
-o
Compressive Strength in Kips for Effective Length (ft)

U i O - J O C O O ^ C - t J W
~ to to to to ui ui
Os O t O O s \D U l Os
U i t O ' — O s O - O t O U i O O sO --> t O — s O U i 0 0 3 •*>!
i— h- 1 t O t O t O U l U>
4 k U i O s - J - O 0 0 © « — tO Q S C O O ^ - J H-l 4 k
- O U i U l ' - ' s O O s O t O U l U l CO --4 U l - 4 o o 3°°
,— _ L _ s i t O to ui
4 » - U i U i O s - J — J s O O 1 - * U i - J SO t O U i 0 0 >— To -*
t O O - J 4 * ' - ' - J O O " - ' U i 4 k »-» 4 k 4 k 4 k O 3 *o
M H M t J t J M M
4k U i -O O U l U l 0 0
U> s O 4 k 4 k O - J O ^ o
M M M M t O t O t O
U> 4 > U i 0 0 Q U l U i
1o ro
O 4k 00 Ui s o Ui 4 *
3 -*•
i— U> 4 > O s s O t-» U l "M ro
ODHSOOOIOM
3 w
M H H M H K M
o to ui ui - j so >— *ro M
00 O t O 4 k 4^. 4k. t O J> to
i O i-> t O 4 k O s - J s o 1o ro
\C O i— N . ' O 0 0 4 k 3 -^
oo i n CN ON NO i i i i i i I I I I I
N N N H H

ro O NO m ON I I I I I I I I I I I

o>noNTj-oo © r-- ••*- © c-- m i , , i i

<n - * m co r-i nMrirMrnr-. | j [ j |

NO ON cs m
NO i n • * Tt m f^ f*1 C"> (N <N —< CN .-< I-H .-<

in h O \ O H ON "*fr ON "1- OO
r- N O i n i n - ^ - • ^ - • < i - r ^ m < N (N fS (N •"-< --" i-"

o r-v r- r- m ( N | \ D ( J ( S ^ NO NO ON i n i—' NO
oo r-- NO i n ^ NO *n -*t " * tn

• * NO [~- ON O t~- ON ON ^ t 00 i-t

ON oo r~- NO TT
r- vo iri -^- Tt ( N Tf m f > r>) (N

mMONtoo m m •<£ ^ cn ON H r- o fO «n
o ON r- NO ^ OO r- NO i n •*t <N ^O t ^ f n N

ONNO "-H NO ON o o ON r- *<*• o ON - ^ so r- NO

O ON 00 NO TJ- ON oo NO i n •**- m NO V) TT C^i tN

*-> r- r j r- o * n r o i-t oo <n o NO ON ON ON r-

i-i ON 00 NO i n ON oo r— *n - t r n r- i r i TJ- m CN

© oo »n n © QooVir*-iooo O I T I M O M
o w t ^ - H v i o n r - ' - i i n w o r - - i vioo
o o o o o o o o o o o o ' o o o ' o
3.5

2.5
2.5
3.0
3.5

2.5
3.5
3.5

3.0
3.0

3.0
3.0

2.5
3.5

2.5
3.0

X
X

X
x

x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x

x
3.5

2.5
2.5
3.0

2.5
3.5
3.5

3.0
3.0

3.0
3.0

2.5

2.5
3.5

3.5

3.0

1931
TABLE 5. Comparison of Experimental Failure Loads and Loads Calculated Ac-
cording to AISC Specifications (Load 1986)
Case la Case lla Case III3 Case IV
P
test Load Load Load Load
Specimen (k) (k) Ratio" (k) Ratio" (k) Ratio" (k) Ratio"
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
S5-5/16-1 422 318 0.75 315 0.75 305 0.72 299 0.71
S5-5/16-2 446 320 0.72 317 0.71 307 0.69 301 0.68
S5-5/16-3 440 318 0.72 315 0.72 305 0.69 299 0.68
S4-1/4-1 278 200 0.72 196 0.70 190 0.68 187 0.67
S4-1/4-2 286 200 0.70 196 0.68 190 0.67 187 0.65
S4-1/4-3 311 201 0.64 197 0.63 191 0.61 187 0.60
S3.5-5/16-1 350 264 0.75 264 0.75 264 0.75 260 0.74
S3.5-5/16-2 366 265 0.72 265 0.72 265 0.72 260 0.71
S3.5-5/16-3 350 265 0.76 265 0.76 265 0.76 261 0.75
S3-3/8-1 287 219 0.76 219 0.76 219 0.76 219 0.76
S3-3/8-2 287 229 0.80 229 0.80 229 0.80 229 0.80
S3-3/8-3 288 229 0.80 229 0.80 229 0.80 229 0.80
S3-3/8-4 278 225 0.81 225 0.81 225 0.81 225 0.81
S3-3/8-5 287 227 0.79 227 0.79 227 0.79 227 0.79
S3-3/8-6 289 229 0.79 229 0.79 229 0.79 229 0.79
S3-1/4-1 187 147 0.78 147 0.78 145 0.78 143 0.77
S3-1/4-2 217 146 0.67 146 0.67 145 0.67 143 0.66
S3-4/4-3 208 145 0.70 145 0.70 144 0.69 142 0.68
"Case I = w - b; II = w = a + b — t - c; III = w = a + b — t; and IV = w =
a + b.
"Ratio = P-calculated/P-test.

slenderness parameter is taken as (&LVK)/(rnV£). For a test specimen

strength computed using any alternative to be acceptable, the corresponding
point should be above the design curve indicated. Considering the minimum
of the two radii of gyration, the strengths of schifflerized angles for different
sizes and lengths are listed in Table 4. The members to the left of the stepped
line in Table 4 are susceptible to torsional-flexural buckling.
This can be summarized into the following two alternative design rec-
ommendations for schifflerized angles. Both recommendations give reason-
ably good results for designing schifflerized angles using the provisions of
the ASCE manual. Alternative one is easy to apply compared with alter-
native two. However, alternative two is more rational and may not prove
to be difficult to apply if embedded into design software.

• Alternative One:

1. Compute the width-thickness ratio of the schifflerized angle using the

nominal leg width (a + b) instead of (a + b — t — c).
2. Use this ratio to compute the design compressive strength using (1)-
(6).

• Alternative Two:
1932
 AISC LRFD Design Curve
A A ATestResults(W=a+b)
,. * * * Test Results (W=b)

0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Slendemess Parameter — \ —-
m E

FIG. 6. Test Results Compared with AISC Specification Design Curve Using Al-
ternative Approaches

1. Use dimension (b) instead of (a + b - c - t) (Fig. 1) to compute the

width-thickness ratio.
2. Compute the flexural and the equivalent torsional-flexural radii of gy-
ration for the member.
3. Select the minimum of the two radii of gyration to compute the slen-
demess ratio of the member.
4. Using the width-thickness ratio (of step 1) and the slendemess ratio
(of step 3), compute the design compressive strength using (l)-(6).
The design strengths for a schifflerized angle measuring 150 x 150 x 8
mm are plotted in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the two alternatives proposed
are close to each other at all effective lengths. [Alternative two is similar
to the procedure in ASCE's "Guide" (1988) for cold-formed 60° angles.]

AISC Specification
Unlike the ASCE manual, AISC specification (Load 1986) specifically
accounts for torsional-flexural buckling. It uses the classical approach for
determining the elastic torsional-flexural buckling capacity. In both flexural
and torsional-flexural buckling modes, the local plate failure is taken into
account by a modification factor, which is a function of the wit ratio.
Column capacities computed using the four possible values of plate width
are listed in Table 5. All the values predicted in the table are less than the
corresponding test results. The computed results have less scatter than the
values of the ASCE manual. The level of accuracy is consistent between
members that failed in torsional-flexural and flexural modes. An exami-
nation of these values shows that the loads computed using a flat width
equal to the bent portion of the schifflerized angle leg are close to, yet less
than, the experimental failure loads. Therefore, the width (b) of Fig. 1 can
1933
 340-

290-

I:
190 :

•*—*—*• Finite Element Model I

u - -AISC LRFDSpec.1986
e n - ASCE Manual No. 52
140-
150 250 350 450 550
Yield Stress (MPa)

FIG. 7. Results of Finite Element Analysis for Various Yield Stresses for 1,650-
mm long, 75 x 75 x 10-mm Schifflerized Angle

be used for all width-thickness ratio computations with AISC formulas. The
strengths computed using this value can be 12% greater than the strength
due to existing flat width recommendations. The test results are plotted
against the design curve of the AISC specification {Load 1986) (without
resistance factor (j>) in Fig. 6.
These recommendations are based on steel with a guaranteed minimum
yield stress of 300 MPa. But it is reasonable to conclude that the results are
equally applicable to steel of other strengths as well. This conclusion is
verified by a detailed finite element analysis using eight-node shell elements.
The angle was divided into a mesh of rectangular elements. The optimum
mesh was chosen after studying the convergence properties in flexural and
torsional-flexural failure modes. The end plate assembly for hinged con-
nection was replaced by a single plate (which was also divided into a finite
element mesh) after studying its effect on the buckling load. The material
was taken to be elastic-perfectly plastic. The elements were defined with
an intial stress field equal to the hot-rolled residual stress pattern in the
plane of the plate. The residual stresses induced due to schifflerizing were
defined as an initial stress field through the thickness of the plate. Buckling
was defined as the load at which the member becomes geometrically unstable
in a specified (flexural or torsional-flexural) mode of failure (Adluri et al.
1991). The analysis was performed using the commercially available software
package ABAQUS with the help of certain user-supplied routines. The
analysis predicted strengths that are in reasonable agreement with the test
results, within a margin of 10%. Part of the results of the analysis is shown
in Fig. 7 for a sample specimen of 75 x 75 x 10 mm and a length of 1,650
mm. The finite element results are asymptotic to ASCE manual results and,
1934
for practical ranges, lie hetween the strengths predicted by the ASCE manual
and the AISC specification. Thus, the analysis using the finite element
model, which confirms the test results, attests to the applicability of the
results for practical yield strengths used for hot-rolled angles.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present investigation, the behavior of schifflerized hot-rolled angles

under concentric loading was studied. Special emphasis was placed on de-
termining the applicable width for computing the wit ratio used in estimating
the strength of axially loaded compression members. The compression tests
carried out on the schifflerized angles under concentric loads gave data for
members failing in flexural and torsional-flexural buckling modes.
The ASCE manual predicts flexural buckling loads that are close to test
results. But for torsional-flexural buckling, the manual overestimates the
failure loads of schifflerized angles. To avoid the problem, two alternative
design recommendations are proposed. The AISC specification predicts
loads that are in good agreement with test results for both flexural and
torsional-flexural buckling modes. There is less scatter between predicted
and experimental failure loads than in other specifications. It is proposed
that the width of the bent portion of schifflerized angle be used to compute
width-thickness ratios.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present work is part of a research project carried out with the financial
support of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Adluri, S. M. R. (1990). "Ultimate strength of schifflerized angles," M.A.Sc. thesis,

Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Adluri, S. M. R., Madugula, M. K. S., and Monforton, G. R. (1991). "Finite element
failure analysis of schifflerized angles." Comput. Struct., 41(5), 1087-1093.
Adluri, S. M. R., and Madugula, M. K. S. (1991). "Factored axial compressive
resistance of schifflerized angles." Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 18(6), 926-932.
Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. (1986).
American Inst, of Steel Constr. (AISC), Chicago, 111.
"Guide for design of steel transmission towers. (1988). Manuals and reports on
engineering practice No. 52, Second Ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Ag = gross area of cross section;

a = length of unbent portion of schifflerized angle leg;
b = length of bent portion of schifflerized angle leg;
c = fillet radius;
E = Young's modulus;
Fcr = ultimate compressive stress;
Fe = critical torsional-flexural elastic buckling stress;
Fy = yield stress of steel (ksi);
K = effective length factor;
1935
• L = length of column;
r = radius of gyration;
re = equivalent radius of gyration for torsional-flexural buckling;
t = thickness of leg of angle member;
w = flat width of angle member; and
X = column slendemess parameter.

1936