887

Behaviour of steel single angles subjected to

eccentric axial loads
Yi Liu and Linbo Hui
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21

Abstract: The response of steel single angles subjected to axial eccentric loading is investigated by means of numerical
modeling based on finite element techniques. Results show that in the case of eccentric compression causing major axis
bending, a critical eccentricity for each slenderness ratio investigated exists and below this eccentricity, any reduction in
the ultimate capacity due to eccentricity is marginal. The critical eccentricity increases with the slenderness ratio of the an-
gle. In contrast, for the case of eccentric compression causing minor axis bending, the reduction in ultimate capacity, as af-
fected by increasing eccentricity, is more pronounced and no similar critical eccentricity is identified. When compared
with values determined from the design equations suggested in the AISC specification 2005, results indicate that the AISC
equations, in general, give a satisfactory estimate of the ultimate capacity for angles subjected to axial compression and
minor axis bending. For the case of eccentric compression causing major axis bending, AISC equations are conservative
over a large range of parameters while they overestimate capacities in some other angles.
Key words: numerical modeling, single angle, eccentric compression, flexure, structural behavior.
Résumé : La réponse des cornières simples en acier soumises à une charge axiale excentrique est examinée au moyen
d’une modélisation numérique basée sur les éléments finis. Les résultats montrent que dans le cas d’une compression ex-
centrique engendrant une grande flexion axiale, une excentricité critique existe pour chaque rapport d’élancement examiné
et, sous cette excentricité, toute réduction de la capacité à la rupture engendrée par l’excentricité est minime. L’excentricité
critique augmente avec le rapport d’élancement de la cornière. Par contre, dans le cas d’une compression excentrique en-
For personal use only.

gendrant une petite flexion axiale, la réduction de la capacité à la rupture engendrée par l’augmentation de l’excentricité
est plus prononcée et aucune excentricité critique similaire n’est signalée. Lorsqu’on les compare aux valeurs déterminées
à partir des équations de conception suggérées par AISC Specification 2005, les résultats indiquent que les équations
AISC en général donnent une estimation satisfaisante de la capacité à la rupture pour les cornières soumises à une com-
pression axiale et à une petite flexion axiale. Dans le cas d’une compression excentrique engendrant une forte flexion
axiale, les équations AISC sont conservatrices pour une grande plage de paramètres alors qu’elles surestiment les capacités
dans certaines autres cornières.
Mots-clés : modélisation numérique, cornière simple, compression excentrique, flexion, comportement structural.

Introduction In building construction involving compression angles,

Single steel angles are used extensively in a variety of
structures such as steel joists and trusses and braced struc-
tures. In practical applications, single angles are usually ei-
ther welded or bolted to other structural members by one
leg. Eccentric compressive loading through this connection
detail leads to bi-axial bending. Due to the complexity asso-
ciated with combined axial and bending stresses coupled
with typical asymmetric characteristics of angles, research
into the response of these members has mainly been of an
experimental nature supplemented by numerical modeling.
Received 4 August 2009. Revision accepted 19 February 2010.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
3 June 2010.
Y. Liu1 and L. Hui. Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3J 1Z1,
Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 October 2010.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: yi.liu@dal.ca).
the capacity of eccentrically loaded single angles may be
evaluated based on the interaction between axial load and
bending by treating the angles as beam-columns. Experi-
mental research for single angles subjected to eccentric com-
pression with simple support conditions has been conducted
by various researchers (Wakabayashi and Nonaka 1965; Ish-
ida 1968; Mueller and Erzurumlu 1983; Adluri and Madu-
gula 1992; Sakla 2005). Numerical studies based on finite
element modeling were also used as an effective method to
incorporate various boundary conditions, residual stress ef-
fects, and geometric imperfections in studying both elastic
and inelastic behavior (Kitipornchai and Lee 1986; Adluri
et al. 1991; Earls and Galambos 1998; Earls and Keelor
2007). In practice, the design of single angles as beam-col-
umns is governed by the American Institute of Steel Con-
struction (AISC) Specification for structural steel buildings
(AISC 2005) in the United States, hereafter referred to as
AISC specification and the Canadian standard CAN/CSA
S16–01 Limit states design of steel structures (CSA 2001)
in Canada. The AISC specification (2005) suggests the inter-
action of flexure and axial compression applicable to spe-
cific locations on a cross section of a single angle shall be
limited according to

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37: 887–896 (2010) doi:10.1139/L10-028 Published by NRC Research Press
 888 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

 
Pr Pr 8 Mrx Mry Fig. 1. Typical finite element mesh.
½1a For  0:2; þ þ  1:0
fc P n fc Pn 9 fb Mnx fb Mny
 
½1b For
Pr
< 0:2;
Pr
þ
Mrx
þ
Mry
 1:0 y x
fc P n 2fc Pn fb Mnx fb Mny
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21

where Pr and Pn are the required compressive strength and

z
the nominal compressive strength, Mr and Mn are the re-
quired flexural strength and the nominal flexural strength,
fc and fb are resistance factors for compression and flexure,
and x and y refer to the major and minor principal axes
(AISC 2005).
Based on a comparison study of 71 test results, Adluri
and Madugula (1992) pointed out that these interaction
equations are highly conservative. Sakla (2005) evaluated
the efficacy of these equations for both equal- and unequal-
leg angles. Sakla concluded that AISC specification (AISC
2005) provides a better prediction of the ultimate capacity
of equal-leg single angles than it does for unequal-leg single
angles. It underestimates all unequal-leg test results and
overestimates capacities of some equal-leg angles. Earls
(2003) suggested that AISC specification (2005) for single
angle beam design is, in most cases, unnecessarily conserva-
tive while in some other situations capacities of single angle
beams are overestimated.
In Canada, while the interaction approach is recognized in Fig. 2. Residual stress distribution used in the model.
For personal use only.

the current standard CSA S16–01 (2001), the axial force and
moment interaction factors are different from the AISC spec-
ification (2005). Additionally, this standard does not include
explicit provisions for determining the nominal flexural
strength for mono-symmetric or asymmetric angles, but
rather, it directs readers to the Structural Stability Research
Council (SSRC) Guide for design methods (Galambos 1998).
In the research described herein, a numerical study using
finite element modeling was carried out to study the effects
of several influential parameters on the load-carrying ca-
pacity of single angles eccentrically loaded with respect to
either the major or minor principal axis. Being the most
commonly used in practice, equal-leg single angles were
considered in this study. Numerical simulation results were
then used to further examine the effectiveness of the interac-
tion equations as are presently applicable in design.
Finite element model
Finite element modeling (FEM) was carried out using the
commercial program ANSYS 10.0 (2006). Nonlinearities re-
lating to both geometric and material charactistics were con-
sidered. An iterative approach using the arc-length method
was used in the nonlinear load–displacement analysis and the
stress–strain relationship for steel was assumed to be elastic–
perfectly plastic. Angle specimens were discretized into a
mesh of elements using general-purpose 4-node Shell 181 el-
ements as specified in ANSYS. Considering the symmetry of
the member and loading, only half of the specimen was mod-
eled and simple support conditions were implemented. Figure
1 depicts a characteristic mesh for half an angle specimen
where the x and y axes intersect at the centroid of the cross
section and represent the major and minor principal axes, re-
spectively. A fictitious plate attached to the end of the angle
was used to enable the modeling of the eccentric point load
0.22Fy
-
0.24Fy + Tensile stress
+
0.24Fy - Compressive stress
-
0.25Fy - -
0.22Fy
0.25Fy
applied outside the legs of the angle. This plate was made as
a rigid region to avoid possible bending and consequent inter-
ference with the behavior of the angle elements. A similar
technique used for load application by Adluri et al. (1991) de-
livered satisfactory results in that study. To simulate the sim-
ple end conditions, the centroid of the cross section at the
support was restrained from lateral movement but allowed to
rotate freely in both x and y directions.
Shell 181 elements with a mesh size of 25 mm  6.0 mm
were meshed in the middle plane of the angle. The end plate
was meshed using 6.0 mm  6.0 mm elements in the middle
plane with the nodes on two adjacent edges contacting the
angle legs coinciding with those of the angle legs. A conver-
gence study performed for typical angles with various slen-
derness ratios confirmed the described mesh sizes to be
satisfactory and were therefore used in the modeling.
Initial imperfections were considered by assuming that the
initial geometry is in the form of a half sine wave applied
over the entire length of the specimen about its minor prin-
cipal axis. The sinusoidal shape function used in this study
is expressed as follows:
Published by NRC Research Press
 Liu and Hui
pz
½2 w ¼ wo sin
L controlled data acquisition system. Ultimate load was
where w is the initial imperfection along the angle length,
w0 is the amplitude of the imperfection at the mid-height of
the angle, and L is the length of the angle. Experimental
measurements (Adluri and Madugula 1996; Hui 2007)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21
for single angles with various cross sections showed that
L/1500 is a reasonable assumption for maximum amplitude
of the imperfection at the mid-height of angles. Unless
otherwise noted, w0 was therefore taken as L/1500.
Previous research (Usami and Fukumoto 1972; Temple
and Sakla 1998) revealed that the maximum tensile residual
stress level in steel angles did not generally exceed 25% of
the yield stress. While residual stresses had a marked influ-
ence on the capacity of concentrically loaded steel angle
columns, a marginal effect of about 5% or less on the ca-
pacity was observed for eccentrically loaded columns. In
this research, the residual stress distribution pattern as sug-
gested in ECCS (1985) was adopted and is shown in Fig. 2.
Applied in the longitudinal direction of the member, the
self-equilibrating residual stresses were first transformed
into a series of discrete uniform stresses. These residual
stresses were then specified by creating an initial stress field
applied to each element of the model during the first sub-
step of the first load step of the analysis.
For personal use only.
Verification of the finite element model
Concurrent with the numerical study presented in this pa-
per, an experimental program investigating the behavior and
capacity of single angles under eccentric compression was
also carried out. In the experimental program (Hui 2007), 28
L51  51  6.4 single angles were subjected to eccentric
compression causing either major or minor principal axis
bending with pinned end supports. Table 1 lists the details
of test specimens including slenderness parameter, l; yield
stress, Fy; and eccentricities ex and ey with respect to major
and minor axis, respectively. Eccentricities, ex and ey, are il-
lustrated in Fig. 3 together with other key notations used
throughout q this
ffiffiffiffiffiffipaper. The slenderness parameter l is calcu-
F
lated as KL
ry
y
p2 E, where ry is the radius of gyration with re-
spect to the minor principal axis and K was taken as 1.0. The
initial out-of-straightness along the length of each specimen
was measured and the maximum value was less than L/1500
with a mean of L/2100 and a coefficient of variation (COV)
of 8.7% for all specimens. A 500 kN Instron hydraulic uni-
versal testing machine (Fig. 4) was used to load specimens
in compression. As suggested in the SSRC guide (Galambos
1998), ball bearing supports were used to realize pinned ends
for each specimen. Each support consisted of two 13 mm
parallel plates separated by a stainless steel ball seated in
upper and lower sockets suitably milled into the plates.
Both vertical deformation and lateral displacements were
measured during each test. Vertical deformation of a speci-
men was measured with a built-in linear variable differential
transducer (LVDT), which measured the travel of the load-
ing head. Lateral displacements were measured using
LVDTs at the mid-height of each specimen and the mid-
width of each leg. During each test, loading was applied at
a constant rate of 6 kN/min up to failure while loads and
889
corresponding deflections were recorded using a computer-
deemed to have been reached when the specimen lost ability
to sustain increasing load while displaying a significant lat-
eral deflection.
The experimental ultimate load, Pexp, numerical results,
PFEM, and ratios of Pexp/PFEM for all specimens are included
in Table 1. The finite element model provided satisfactory
predictions for the ultimate load with an average ratio of
Pexp/PFEM of 1.05 and a COV of 4.7%. Typical comparisons
of analytical and experimental results are illustrated in
Fig. 5a for load versus mid-height deflection curves and in
Fig. 5b for failure modes. It shows that the analytical results
compared well with experimental responses. Similar obser-
vations were also made for other members (Hui 2007).
The efficacy of the numerical model was further evaluated
using 103 test results published by others including results of
36 concentrically loaded angles (Wakabayashi and Nonaka
1965; Adluri and Madugula 1996), 61 eccentrically loaded
angles (Wakabayashi and Nonaka 1965; Ishida 1968; Muel-
ler and Erzurumlu 1983), and six angles under flexure only
(Madugula et al. 1995). A summary comparison of analytical
and experimental ultimate loads is presented in Table 2 and
detailed graphical comparisons are available in Hui (2007).
In general, reasonably good agreement is obtained between
the numerical and experimental results for angles of various
configurations subjected to various loading conditions.
Parametric study
Included in the parameters investigated by computer anal-
ysis is the slenderness parameter l, applied eccentricity ex or
ey, initial imperfection w0, and angle leg width-to-thickness
ratio b/t. The effects of these parameters were studied for
angles eccentrically loaded with respect to either principal
axis. The test population included nine slenderness parame-
ters (l = 0.27, 0.53, 0.80, 1.06, 1.33, 1.60, 1.86, 2.13, and
2.39), six eccentricities (0, x0/4, x0/2, x0, 3x0/2, 2x0) where
x0 is the distance from the shear center to the centroid of
the cross section measured in the major-axis direction, seven
values of initial imperfection (w0 = L/3000, L/2500, L/2000,
L/1500, L/1000, L/500, and L/250), and five plate slender-
ness values of the angle legs (b/t = 5.3, 6.4, 8.0, 10.7, and
16.0). The dimensions of angle sections were taken as the
nominal values according to CSA S16–01 (2001). An elas-
tic-perfectly plastic material model was assumed for steel
with a yield stress of 350 MPa, an elastic modulus of 200
000 MPa, and a Poisson ratio of 0.3.
Angles eccentrically loaded with respect to
major principal axis
Effect of slenderness parameter, l, and eccentricity, ex
Normalized ultimate load versus eccentricity curves are
shown in Fig. 6 for a 51  51  6.4 angle with five repre-
sentative slenderness parameters. For angles with a low slen-
derness (l = 0.27), an increase in eccentricity resulted in an
immediate decrease in ultimate load. As the slenderness in-
creased, the curves showed two distinctive regions. For a
given slenderness, there existed a critical eccentricity below
which the change of the ultimate load with an increase in
Published by NRC Research Press
 890 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Table 1. Comparison of experimental and analytical results (Hui 2007).

No Specimen ID l ex (mm) ey (mm) Fy (MPa) Pexp (kN) PFEM (kN) Pexp /PFEM
1 E900–1 1.23 0.0 0.0 330 117.0 105.5 1.11
2 E900–2 1.23 4.2 0.0 330 110.9 105.1 1.06
3 E900–3 1.24 10.0 0.0 330 105.3 104.9 1.00
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21

4 E900–4 1.22 16.8 0.0 330 84.5 77.6 1.09

5 E900–5 1.22 29.4 0.0 330 59.0 56.1 1.05
6 E900–6 1.22 50.4 0.0 330 46.1 39.7 1.16
7 E900–7 1.25 0.0 8.4 348 65.6 59.5 1.11
8 E900–8 1.25 0.0 16.8 348 46.4 44.4 1.10
9 E900–9 1.25 0.0 29.4 348 34.4 31.9 1.05
10 E900–10 1.25 0.0 50.4 348 23.3 22.7 1.08
11 E1200–1a 1.62 4.2 0.0 330 68.1 66.5 1.03
12 E1200–1b 1.62 4.2 0.0 330 69.7 66.1 1.02
13 E1200–2 1.62 10.0 0.0 330 66.7 66.0 1.05
14 E1200–3a 1.65 16.8 0.0 348 66.4 65.3 1.01
15 E1200–3b 1.62 16.8 0.0 330 71.3 65.2 1.02
16 E1200–4 1.62 29.4 0.0 330 57.0 52.9 1.09
17 E1200–5 1.65 50.4 0.0 348 42.5 38.3 1.08
18 E1500–1a 2.06 0.0 0.0 348 45.3 43.8 1.11
19 E1500–1b 2.05 0.0 0.0 348 41.1 43.9 1.03
20 E1500–1c 2.06 0.0 0.0 348 42.8 43.8 0.94
21 E1500–2 2.05 8.4 0.0 348 42.9 42.9 0.98
22 E1500–3 2.05 16.8 0.0 348 41.3 41.1 1.00
23 E1500–4 2.05 29.4 0.0 348 40.1 40.9 1.01
24 E1500–5 2.05 50.4 0.0 348 37.0 36.0 0.98
For personal use only.

25 E1500–6 2.05 0.0 8.4 348 35.2 32.4 1.03

26 E1500–7 2.06 0.0 16.8 348 27.8 26.5 1.09
27 E1500–7 2.06 0.0 29.4 348 23.4 21.5 1.05
28 E1500–7 2.05 0.0 50.4 348 18.0 16.3 1.09
Avg. 1.05
C.O.V 4.7%

Fig. 3. Description of the cross section details of the angle.
y heel and the toe. A further increase in the eccentricity re-
ey
Loading point
Toe
ex
Heel O (C.G) x in re-orientation of the principal axes. To satisfy equilibrium
S.C
xo
eccentricity was marginal to almost unnoticeable. This indi-
cates that an eccentrically loaded angle can reach its concen-
tric compressive capacity as long as the applied eccentricity
was within the critical eccentricity. Defined as ex0, the crit-
ical eccentricity assumed an increasingly greater value with
increased slenderness. Figure 7 illustrates the numerical von
Mises stress distribution on the cross section at mid-height
of a specimen where the location of the maximum stress is
indicated in a circle. Figure 7 shows that when the applied
eccentricity is below ex0, the maximum stress occurred at
the heel of the angle. As the applied eccentricity approached
ex0, the maximum stress occurred simultaneously at both the
sulted in maximum stress occurring at the toe.
Numerical results showed that angles subjected to eccen-
tric compression resulting in major axis bending failed in
torsional–flexural buckling mode. This failure mode is be-
lieved to attribute to the phenomenon of critical eccentricity.
The flexural deflection and twist of the cross section
reached maximum at the mid-height of the angle and results
on the deformed shape, additional stresses due to the twist
of the cross section result at both the heel and toe of the
cross section. These additional stresses either add to or sub-
tract from the stresses caused by axial and flexural deforma-
tions at the heel and toe locations. The critical eccentricity is
that at which the combined stresses at both the heel and the
toe simultaneously reach a maximum value. The value of
this critical eccentricity is dependent on the magnitude of
flexural deflection and twist of the angle.
Effect of leg width-to-thickness ratio, b/t
Five cross sections, L51  51  3.2, L51  51  4.8,
L51  51  6.4, L51  51  7.9, and L51  51  9.5
with the leg width-to-thickness ratios, b/t, ranging from 5.3
to 16.0 were used in this study. The relationship of ultimate
load versus b/t ratios is shown in Fig. 8 for four representa-
tive l values with ex taken as x0/2. As the b/t ratio increased,

Published by NRC Research Press

 Liu and Hui
Fig. 4. Test set-up.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21
For personal use only.
the ultimate load capacity decreased for all investigated
slenderness parameters. An increase in b/t ratios from 5.3 to
16.0 resulted in the reductions in the ultimate load capacity
of 66.2%, 63.1%, 62.2%, and 62.2% for angles with l of
0.80, 1.33, 1.86, and 2.39, respectively. Furthermore, the
critical eccentricities as affected by slenderness were also
determined for these five b/t ratios. Expressed in terms of
the critical eccentricity ratio m0, defined as the ratio of crit-
ical eccentricity, ex0 and x0, results are listed in Table 3 and
m0 versus l curves are plotted for five b/t ratios in Fig. 9.
Figure 9 shows that for all b/t ratios, m0 and thus ex0 in-
creased with an increase in the slenderness parameter. How-
ever, for a given slenderness parameter, the variation of ex0
with b/t ratios was more complex. For l < 1.0, ex0 remained
almost constant for all b/t ratios. For l > 1.0, the variation
in ex0 for different b/t ratios became more pronounced and
an increase in the b/t ratio resulted in an increase in ex0 val-
ues. It suggests that when the failure of the angle shifted
from inelastic to elastic, the effect of the b/t ratio on the
critical eccentricity values increased. It has been established
that for angles failing in elastic flexural–torsional buckling,
the b/t ratio affected the flexural deflection and the twist of
the angle (Dabrowski 1961), which in turn would affect the
critical eccentricity values. As the angle became stocky in
the length direction, it seemed that the b/t ratio had a dimin-
ishing effect on the flexural deflection and twist and thus the
critical eccentricity values.
891
Fig. 5. Comparison of analytical and experimental results: (a) load
versus deformation response; (b) failure modes.
Effect of initial imperfection, w0
The ultimate load versus initial imperfection curves for a
51  51  6.4 angle with l = 1.07 and eccentricities vary-
ing from 0 to 2x0 are plotted in Fig. 10. In the case of con-
centric loading (ex = 0), the ultimate load showed a
consistent decrease as the initial imperfection increased and
the total decrease was 35.9% when the initial imperfection
varied from L/3000 to L/250. In the case of ex = x0/2, the
ultimate load of the angle was essentially the same as its
concentric axial capacity for the range of the initial imper-
fection values that were studied. The proximity of the two
curves for ex = 0 and x0/2 is attributed to the fact that the
critical eccentricity for angle 51  51  6.4 with l =
1.07 was determined to be 0.5x0 (Table 3), which was coin-
cident with the applied eccentricity. Therefore, the ultimate
load of the angle loaded at an eccentricity of 0.5x0 reached
its approximate concentric loading capacity. For ex = x0 and
2x0, the magnitude of the initial imperfection had no notice-
Published by NRC Research Press
 892 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Table 2. Comparison of experimental and analytical results for single equal-leg angles.

No. of Slenderness Avg. of

Source specs ratio Angle size Fy (MPa) Loading condition Pexp /PFEM COV (%)
Wakabayashi and 10 20–150 90907 303 Concentrically loaded 1.17 9.3
Nonaka (1965)
Adluri and Madugula 26 68–188 64649.5 335–411 Concentrically loaded
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21

(1996) 76764.8
767612.7
1021027.9
1271279.5
Wakabayashi and 40 20–150 90907 294–323 Eccentrically loaded 1.02 8.4
Nonaka (1965) causing major,
minor and bi-axial
bending
Ishida (1968) 7 20–100 75756 58.8–63.9 Eccentrically loaded 0.96 3.0
causing minor axis
bending
Mueller and Erzurumlu 14 60, 110, 75756 349–422 Eccentrically loaded 1.00 10.4
(1983) 192 causing bi-axial
bending
Madugula et al. (1995) 6 53.3, 100 75759 295–433 Pure bending about 0.98 1.7
757512 minor principal axis
35035035

Fig. 6. Normalized load versus eccentricity for various slenderness For pure moment capacities corresponding to P = 0,
For personal use only.

ratios (major axis bending).
able effect on the ultimate load, which was also noted by
Temple and Sakla (1998).
Evaluation of AISC specification 2005
The load–moment interaction (eq. [1]) as suggested in the
AISC specification (2005) was compared to the numerical
results for angles eccentrically loaded with respect toa major
principal axis. Figure 11 shows one such comparison for an-
gle 51  51  6.4 (b/t = 8.0) with various l values where
the load was normalized by the yield strength of the cross
section, Py, and the moment was normalized by the yield
moment, My. In comparing pure axial capacities (M = 0),
the analytical and AISC results agreed well with each other
except in the case of l = 0.80. Residual stresses and initial
imperfections tend to have a larger effect on angles with in-
termediate slendernesses. It is therefore believed that the
discrepancy noted above was due to the influence of the as-
sumed values for residual stress and initial imperfection
magnitudes that were used in the numerical model.
although both the analytical and AISC moment capacities
decreased with an increase in the slenderness ratio, the ana-
lytical values were consistently higher than the AISC results.
For most slenderness ratios, the analytical moment capaci-
ties were above 1.5My, the upper bound moment capacity
specified by the AISC specification (2005). This is in line
with findings reported by Earls (2003) for major axis bend-
ing. The AISC results, on the other hand, showed a continu-
ous decreasing moment capacity from 1.5My as the
slenderness ratio increases.
In comparing combined axial load and moment cases, a
significant deviation of analytical results from results using
AISC specification (2005) equations was evident where the
analytical results, in general, provided higher estimates of
capacity. Consistent with the critical eccentricity discussion,
the analytical load–moment interaction curves demonstrated
two distinctive regions where, in one region the axial load
remained almost constant as the moment increased, and in
the other region the axial load decreased as the moment in-
creased. The first region became increasingly larger as the
slenderness ratio increased. For l = 0.80, the AISC specifi-
cation (2005) underestimated the load capacity by an
amount as large as 15% when M < 0.8 My. For l = 1.33,
1.86, and 2.39, the underestimation by AISC specification
(2005) was evident over an increasingly wide moment
range. In the region of critical eccentricities, AISC values
can be as low as 70%, 64%, and 57% of the numerical re-
sults, respectively. On the other hand, there were instances
where the AISC specification (2005) overestimated the an-
gle compressive capacity. For example, in the region of
0.6My < M < 1.3 My for l = 0.27, the AISC overestimated
the capacity by a maximum amount of 8% whereas the
overestimation was as high as 20% in the region of M > 0.8
My for l = 0.80.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Liu and Hui 893

Fig. 7. Numerical von Mises stress distribution on the cross section.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21

(a) ex < exo (b) ex = exo (c) ex > exo

Fig. 8. Ultimate load versus b/t ratio for various slenderness ratios Fig. 9. Critical eccentricity ratio versus slenderness parameter for
(major axis bending). various b/t ratios.
200 4.0
3.5
160
Ultimate load (kN)

λ=0.80 3.0
120 mo =exo /xo b/t=16.0
2.5
1.33
b/t=10.7
80 1.86 2.0
2.39 b/t=8.0
1.5
For personal use only.

40 b/t=6.4
1.0
0 b/t=5.3
0.5
3 6 9 12 15 18
b/t 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Table 3. Critical eccentricity ratio for various cross sections. Slenderness parameter λ
Critical eccentricity ratio, m0 = ex0/x0
b/t l=0.27 l=0.80 l=1.07 l=1.33 l=1.86 l=2.40 Fig. 10. Effect of initial imperfection w0 on the angle ultimate load
5.3 0.01 0.18 0.42 0.58 1.25 2.45 (major axis bending).
6.4 0.01 0.19 0.44 0.61 1.34 2.79 160 ex=0
8.0 0.01 0.20 0.49 0.66 1.48 3.07
10.7 0.01 0.21 0.51 0.71 1.59 3.32 xo/2
Ultimate load (kN)

120
16.0 0.01 0.21 0.53 0.77 1.75 3.58
xo
80
Angles eccentrically loaded with respect to
2xo
minor principal axis 40
Effect of slenderness parameter l, and eccentricity ey
Minor principal axis bending occurs when the load eccen- 0
tricity is along the major principal axis. Depending on the 0 1/1000 1/500 3/1000 1/250
sense of the eccentricity either the toe or the heel of the an-
gle will be in compression. Numerical results showed that Initial imperfection at mid-height wo (xL)
the angle behavior and capacity remained approximately the
same for a given magnitude of eccentricity causing minor
axis bending regardless of its sense. Figure 12 illustrates the the critical eccentricity phenomenon as discussed in the
normalized ultimate load versus eccentricity curves for vari- case of major axis bending. Numerical results showed that
ous slenderness ratios for a 51  51  6.4 angle with the angles subjected to eccentric compression resulting in minor
toe in compression. Compared with a 51  51  6.4 angle axis bending failed in flexural buckling but without twisting
subjected to eccentric compression causing major axis bend- of the cross section. Failure was then controlled by compres-
ing (Fig. 6), the ultimate loads associated with the minor sive stress occurring either at the heel or toe of an angle de-
axis bending were lower for all investigated eccentricities pending on whether the applied moment causes the heel or
and the curves for minor axis bending did not demonstrate toe in compression.

Published by NRC Research Press

 894 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 11. Comparison of normalized load–moment interaction dia- Fig. 13. Effect of initial imperfection w0 on the angle ultimate load
gram of analytical and AISC specification (2005) results (major (minor axis bending).
axis bending). 160 ey =0

Ultimate load (kN)

120
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21

xo /4
80 xo /2
xo
40

0
0 1/2000 1/1000 3/2000 1/500

Initial imperfection at mid-height wo(xL)

Fig. 14. Comparison of normalized load–moment interaction dia-

gram of analytical and AISC specification (2005) results (minor
Fig. 12. Normalized load versus eccentricity for various slenderness axis bending): toe in compression.
ratios (minor axis bending): toes in compression. 1.0
1.0 FEM

Normalized load P/Py

0.8 λ=0.27 AISC specification 2005
Normalized load P/Py

0.8 0.6 0.80

λ=0.27
For personal use only.

0.6 0.4 1.33

0.80 1.86
0.4 0.2
2.39
1.33 0.0
0.2
1.86 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
2.39
0.0 Normalized moment M/M y

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

e y (× xo)
Effect of leg width-to-thickness ratio, b/t
The variation of ultimate loads as affected by the b/t ratios
between cases of the toe in compression and the heel in com-
pression was insignificant. The trend of the reduction in the
ultimate load capacity with an increase in b/t values was sim-
ilar to that exhibited in the major axis bending case (Fig. 8).
For example, as b/t increased from 5.3 to 16.0, the ultimate
load capacity decreased by 66.8%, 64.1%, 63.2%, and 63.2%
for angles with l of 0.80, 1.33, 1.86, and 2.39, respectively,
for the toe in compression. Similar percentage reductions are
also observed for the case of the heel in compression.
Effect of initial imperfection, w0
In the case of eccentric compression causing minor axis
bending, the direction of the initial imperfection was as-
sumed to increase the moment effect in cases of either toe
or heel compression. Results showed that the effects of ini-
tial imperfections on ultimate capacities varied little regard-
less of whether the toe or heel was in compression. Ultimate
load versus initial imperfection curves for various eccentric-
ities are shown in Fig. 13 for a 51  51  6.4 angle with
l = 1.06 and with the toe in compression. Initial imperfec-
tions showed a marked influence on the ultimate load only
for concentrically loaded specimens. For eccentrically
loaded specimens, the ultimate load remained practically
unchanged as the initial imperfection increased.
Evaluation of AISC specification (2005)
Load–moment interaction curves for combined axial load
and minor axis bending obtained from the AISC specifica-
tion (2005) and numerical model are compared for a 51 
51  6.4 angle in Fig. 14 for the case of the toe in compres-
sion. The comparison for the case of the heel in compression
is almost identical and thus is not presented. The interaction
curves in this case did not show a moment region where the
ultimate load remained almost constant, as in the case of
major axis bending. Rather, it showed that, the ultimate
load decreased when the moment and thus the applied ec-
centricity increased. While the load–moment interaction val-
ues obtained from AISC were generally lower than the
analytical values, the correlation between the two was rea-
sonably good especially for angles with l values greater
than 0.8. For angles with l = 0.27, AISC specification
(2005) was increasingly conservative as the moment became
larger. At the extreme case, when P = 0, the numerical

Published by NRC Research Press

 Liu and Hui
flexural capacity was shown to be a function of the slenderness
ratio where it decreased with increased slenderness whereas the
AISC specification (2005) limited the flexural strength for mi-
nor axis bending to 1.5 My without considering the slenderness
effect. This lower bound estimate in the flexural strength is be-
lieved to result in the conservatism for short angles in this case.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21
Conclusions
A parametric study was conducted to investigate the ef-
fects of several parameters on the load-carrying capacity of
equal-leg single angles eccentrically loaded resulting in ei-
ther the major or minor principal axis bending. Simple sup-
port conditions were assumed and angles were not restrained
to bend about any particular axis. The essential conclusions
listed below should be viewed in this context.
For eccentric compression resulting in major axis bend-
ing, the ultimate load of equal-leg single angles did not
show significant variation from the pure axial capacity as
long as the applied eccentricity was within the critical ec-
centricity. Values of the critical eccentricity increased with
increasing angle slenderness. For eccentric compression re-
sulting in minor axis bending, the effects of all the parame-
ters studied on angle ultimate capacities showed negligible
variations for cases of either the angle toe or heel in com-
pression. In contrast with the major axis bending, the critical
For personal use only.
eccentricity was not evident and the ultimate capacity con-
sistently decreased as the eccentricity increases from zero.
For eccentric compression resulting in either major or minor
axis bending, the effect of leg width-to-thickness ratios was
similar in that as the b/t ratio increased, the ultimate capacity
decreased for all investigated slenderness ratios. However, in
the case of major axis bending, it was found that an increase
in b/t ratios resulted in an increase in the critical eccentricity
especially in the region of l > 1.0. For l < 1.0, the critical ec-
centricity values remained practically unaffected by b/t ratios.
For eccentric compression resulting in major axis bending,
the initial imperfection had no significant effect on the ulti-
mate capacity of the angle provided that the applied eccentric-
ity was greater than the critical eccentricity. Otherwise, an
increase in the initial imperfection resulted in a decrease in
the ultimate capacity of the angle. However, in the case of mi-
nor axis bending, the initial imperfection had a negligible ef-
fect on the ultimate capacity of an eccentrically loaded angle.
Compared with the numerical results, AISC specification
(2005), in general, markedly underestimated the ultimate
load capacity of single angles under eccentric loading caus-
ing major axis bending. Results also identified a few instan-
ces where AISC overestimated ultimate capacities of angles
in the case of major axis bending. For eccentric loading
causing minor axis bending, AISC specification (2005)
showed a marked underestimation of compression capacities
for angles with a low-l value (l = 0.27) but it provided
lower bound and reasonably accurate predictions for angles
with relatively large slenderness.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to recognize the contribution of finan-
cial assistance by the Steel Structures Educational Founda-
tion (SSEF) as well as in kind assistance from Marid
Industries Ltd. for the donation of specimens.
895
References
Adluri, S.M.R., and Madugula, M.K.S. 1992. Eccentrically loaded
single angle struts. Engineering Journal, AISC, 29(2): 59–66.
Adluri, S.M.R., and Madugula, M.K.S. 1996. Flexural buckling of
steel angles: experimental investigation. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 122(3): 309–317. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1996)122:3(309).
Adluri, S.M.R., Madugula, M.K.S., and Monforton, G.R. 1991. Finite
element failure analysis of schifflerized angles. Computers &
Structures, 41(5): 1087–1093. doi:10.1016/0045-7949(91)90303-4.
AISC. 2005. Specification for structural steel buildings. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
ANSYS 10.0. 2006. Release 10.0 Documentation for ANSYS:
Guide to the ANSYS Documentation. ANSYS, Inc., and
ANSYS Europe, Ltd.
CAN/CSA S16–01. 2001. Limit states design of steel structures.
Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ont.
Dabrowski, R. 1961. Thin-walled members under biaxial eccentric
compression. Der Stahlbau. Wilhelm Ernst and Sohn, Germany.
Vol. 30. pp. 360–365.
Earls, C.J. 2003. Design of single angles bent about the major prin-
cipal axis. Engineering Journal, AISC, 40(3): 159–166.
Earls, C.J., and Galambos, T.V. 1998. Practical compactness and
bracing provisions for the design of single angle beams. Engi-
neering Journal, AISC, 35(1): 19–25.
Earls, C.J., and Keelor, D.C. 2007. Toward a simplified design of sin-
gle-angle beam-columns. Engineering Journal, AISC, 44(1): 55–63.
ECCS. 1985. Recommendations for angles in lattice towers. Tech-
nical Committee 8, Publication No. 39, European Convention
for Constructional Steelwork, Brussels, Belgium.
Galambos, T.V. 1998. Guide to stability design criteria formetal
structures. 5th ed. Structural Stability Research Council. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Hui, L.B. 2007. Beam-column behaviour of steel single angles.
MASc. thesis, Department of Civil and Resource Engineering,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
Ishida, A. 1968. Experimental study on column carrying capacity
of ‘SHY steel’ angles. Yawata Technical Report 265, Yawata
Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Kitipornchai, S., and Lee, H.W. 1986. Inelastic buckling of single
angle tee and double angle struts. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 6(1): 3–20. doi:10.1016/0143-974X(86)90018-0.
Madugula, M.K.S., Kojima, T., Kajita, Y., and Ohama, M. 1995.
Minor axis bending strength of angle beams. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Structural Stability and Design,
Sydney, Australia, pp. 73–78.
Mueller, W.H., and Erzurumlu, H. 1983. Behaviour and strength of
angles in compression: an experimental investigation. Research
Report of Civil-Structural Engineering, Division of Engineering
and Applied Science, Portland State University, Oregon, USA.
Sakla, S.S.S. 2005. Performance of the AISC LRFD specification
in predicting the capacity of eccentrically loaded single-angle
struts. Engineering Journal, AISC, 42(40): 239–246.
Temple, M.C., and Sakla, S.S.S. 1998. Single-angle compression
members welded by one leg to a gusset plate, II, a parametric
study and design equation. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineer-
ing, 25(3): 585–594. doi:10.1139/cjce-25-3-585.
Usami, T., and Fukumoto, Y. 1972. Compressive strength and de-
sign of bracing members with angle or tee sections. Proceedings
of Japanese Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 201. pp. 31–50.
Wakabayashi, M., and Nonaka, T. 1965. On the buckling strength
of angles in transmission towers. Bulletin of the Disaster Pre-
vention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan, 15(91),
Part 2, pp. 1–18.
Published by NRC Research Press
 896 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Symbol list Prrequired compressive strength

b/t angle leg width-to-thickness ratio
E modulus of elasticity of angle steel
Fy yield stress of steel
K effective length factor = 1.0
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Bangladesh Univ of Engineering & Technol - BUET (PERI) on 08/17/21
Py yield capacity of angle cross section
execcentricity with respect to major principal axis
ex0critical eccentricity with respect to the major princi-
pal axis
ey eccentricity with respect to minor principal axis
w initial imperfection along the length of angle

KL/ry slenderness ratio of angle

L length of angle w0 amplitude of the imperfection at the mid-height of
angle qffiffiffiffiffiffi
M applied moment Fy
Mn nominal flexural strength l slenderness parameter = KL ry p2 E
Mr required flexural strength fb resistance factors for flexure
My yield moment about the axis of bending fc resistance factors for compression
P applied compressive load x0 distance between shear centre and centroid of angle
Pexp experimental compressive capacity cross section
PFEM finite element results of compressive load capacity
Pn nominal compressive strength
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press