Engineering Structures, Vol. I9, No. 5, pp.

372 377, 1997

<?) 1997 Elsc,,icr Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
PII: S0141-0296(96)00097-1 0141 0296/97 $17.00 + 0,00
ELSEVIER

Torsion, bending and buckling of

steel beams
N. S. Trahair and Y.-L. Pi
Centre fi)r Advanced Structural Engineering, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Very few steel design standards give rules for designing against
torsion. It appears that torsion is largely ignored because it is
thought to occur rarely, and when it does, to be unimportant. In
addition, difficulties in predicting torsional effects tend to discour-
age designers from considering torsion at all. However, the grow-
ing use of three-dimensional computer analysis programs has
alerted many designers to the presence of secondary torsion
actions in the structures they design, and has led them to question
their significance and to seek advice on how to design for them.
In addition, there are some circumstances where designers wish
to transfer primary loads by torsion, either alone, or in combination
with bending actions, but are prevented from doing so by difficult-
ies in predicting torsional behaviour and a lack of information on
how to design for torsion. This paper summarizes a series of inves-
tigations into the behaviour, analysis and design of members sub-
jected to combined torsion and bending. © 1997 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: bending, buckling, steel, torsion

1. Introduction torsion member. Additional difficulties arise fl)r sections

Torsion in a thin-walled open section member is resisted
by a combination of the resistance to uniform torsion
developed by shear stresses which vary almost linearly
across the thickness of the section wall, and the resistance
to warping torsion developed by equal and opposite flange
bending and shear actions (Figure 1). While an elastic
theory for combining these two torsion actions is well
developed, manual solutions are sufficiently difficult to dis-
courage its use in routine design. Further, the apparently
significant combinations of the shear stresses of uniform
torsion with the normal and shear stresses of warping tor-
sion lead to further difficulties, not only in the combinations
of these different stresses which cause failure, but also in
the determination of the most heavily stressed point in the
bf
±1 1 are evaluated separately for uniform and warping torsion,
b % cc ~'
*, ~- ~.~" I =-
(a) Uniform torsion (b) Warping torsion
Figure 1 Elastic t o r s i o n shear stresses
that are so thin-walled that the possibility of local buckling
must be considered. These problems are compounded when
torsion acts in combination with bending.
This paper summarizes a series of investigations into the
behaviour, analysis, and design of members subjected to
combined torsion and bending. The first study ~ considered
the effects of material and geometric nonlinearities on the
strengths of l-section members in torsion. It showed that
linear first yield analyses significantly underestimate the
real strengths because they ignore the favourable effects of
strain-hardening, inelastic behaviour including torque redis-
tribution, and the longitudinal Wagner stresses that develop
at large rotations. The second study developed a simple
rigid-plastic theory for predicting torsional collapse which
is closely related to that used for the flexural collapse of
beams 2. In this theory, the fully plastic collapse capacities
and then added together. The use of this simple method of
plastic analysis of torsion collapse allows the development
xwa ~'" of a viable method of plastic design for which the analysis
is much simpler than elastic analysis, and for which the
I ~
design capacities are more realistic, more economical, and
more simply obtained than first yield capacities. In the third
study, proposals were developed for the plastic collapse
design of members subject to torsion 3. Corresponding
methods were also developed for first hinge design (without

372
Torsion o f steel beams: N. S. Trahair a n d Y.-L. Pi 373

plastic redistribution), first yield design, and local buckling

design, which mirror the corresponding methods for design-
ing steel beams against bending. The final study analysed
the nonlinear behaviour of braced and unbraced I-beams
under combined torsion and bending, and developed inter-
action equations for the combined effects of bending,
x7 z
y Y Y
flexural-torsional buckling, and torsion 3'4.
(a) Warping strains Co) Wagner strains (c) Uniform torsion strains
-m#" ~-(x2+ yb¢"2 ~q*"
2. Analysis of torsion
Figure2 Strain variations around cross-section
2. I. Linear elastic analysis
The methods of linear elastic torsion analysis are well since yielding usually takes place well before the ultimate
established 5 ". The engineering method consists of two torsion capacity is reached. This method generally gives
parts: a cross-section analysis which relates the stresses to very conservative strength predictions.
the stress resultants; and a linear member analysis which
relates the twist rotations and stress resultants to the applied 2.2. Nonlinear inelastic analysis
torsional loading. The nonlinear inelastic torsion behaviour of steel I-beams
Cross-section analysis under uniform torsion 6 allows the has been analysed ~ using the nonlinear normal strain-
uniform torsion shear stresses % (Figure la) and the uni- twist relationship
form torque stress resultant
I
M,, = GJdO/dz ( 1) e,, = w' - o90" + :2 (x2 + f ) 0 " 2 (7)

to be related to the twist per unit length dO/dz, in which G and a mitre model ]~ of the uniform torsion shear strain dis-
is the shear modulus of elasticity, J is the torsion section
tribution. In equation (7), w' is the axial strain, -o90" is the
constant, 0 is the angle of twist rotation and z is the distance
warping strain, and ½(x2+y2)0": is the nonlinear Wagner
along the member. The maximum uniform shear stress ~',,m
strain arising from the change in length of a longitudinal
can be used to define the uniform torsion elastic section
element through the point (x, y) as it becomes helical due
modulus
to the twist rotations 0. The cross-section distributions of
the warping, Wagner and uniform torsion strains are shown
Z,, =M,,/r .... (2)
in Figure 2. These strains are associated with the linear
stress resultants of the bimoment B, the Wagner stress
Cross-section analysis under warping torsion 5,7 9 allows the resultant
warping torsion normal stresses f,. and the bimoment

B = El, zFO/dz: (3) W = fA (x2 + Y2)°-edA (8)

to be related to d20/d~ 2 in which E is Young's modulus of

elasticity and 1,. is the section warping constant, and the
warping torsion shear stresses -c, (Figure lb) and the warp-
ing torque
Mw = El, ff~O/dz 3
to d30/dz 3. The maximum warping normal stressfw,, can be
used to define the warping torsion elastic section modulus
Z~, = B,I/:,,,,,
and the uniform torque M,. The inelastic behaviour was
modelled ~ using trilinear stress-strain curves, a combined
stress yield criterion, a flow rule and a hardening rule.
The finite element computer program developed from
(4) these models was used to analyse the test behaviour of two
simply supported I-beams ~2. The results for one of these
are shown ifi Figure 3, and indicate very close agreement
between theory and experiment. Also shown in Figure 3 is
the point at which yield first occurs, up to which the behav-
(5) iour is sensibly linear. Beyond this point progressive yield-

25
Member analysis allows the twist rotations 0 and the stress
resultants M,, B and M,. to be determined from the torque
distribution M= by solving 20 I o.SL_!_ 0.SL_]
Z L = ! ~ _ _ _.._....
= _ _:_._._._
M_ = GJdO/dz - El,.d30/dz 3 (6) 15
=o ............... -.."..-.-------..--.'..7.-.7--.--.-.:
o ...°, - ...........
subject to the boundary conditions. This can be done manu-
ally 9 or by using computer programs such as TW BEAM ~°.
.[ . First yield
The linear elastic method of torsion analysis is most logi- <
cally used tor serviceability design, for which most if not 5
all of the member remains elastic, so that the linear elastic - -- Plasdc coUapse predic~on
o Test results by Fro'well and G a l a m b o s 12
analysis closely predicts the twist rotations. These and any I I I I I
related deflections can then be assessed by comparing them 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 i.O 1.2
Cena'al twist rotation ~(radian)
with what are considered to be limiting values. Linear elas-
tic torsion analysis is less logically used for strength design, Figure 3 Comparison of analysis and test results
374 Torsion o f steel beams: N. S. Trahair and Y.-L. Pi

ing lowers the stiffness initially, but at higher twist
rotations the member stiffens, and substantially higher tor-
ques can be resisted than are predicted by first yield. The
variations of the end stress resultants M, and W are shown
in Figure 4. It can be seen that while the uniform torque
M, reaches a maximum value and then decreases, the
Wagner stress resultant W, which is initially quite small,
continues to increase, even after substantial yielding has
occurred. It is the Wagner stress resultant which is respon-
sible for the stiffening effect at high twist rotations shown
in Figure 3. Final failure of the beams tested was reported
as being by tensile fracture at the flange tips, which is con-
sistent with the higher Wagner strains which occur at these
locations, as shown in Figure 2b.
2.3. Plastic collapse analysis
Although methods of analysing plastic collapse in flexural
structures are well established 9,13:4, it is only recently that
a simple but sufficiently accurate method has been
developed ',2 for the analysis of the plastic collapse of mem-
bers subject to torsion. This method also consists of two
parts: cross-section analyses to determine the fully plastic
uniform torque Mupand the fully plastic bimoment BI,; and
independent member analyses of the collapse mechanisms
for uniform and warping torsion.
The sand heap analogy 9 can be used to analyse a thin-
walled open section to determine the uniform torsion plas-
tic torque
Mup "~ %~bt2/2
in which %, (=f)~/3) is the shear yield stress,f~, is the tensile
yield stress, and b and t are the width and thickness of each
rectangular element of the cross-section, respectively. The
uniform torsion plastic section modulus is defined by
respectively, and h is the distance between the flange cen-
troids. The bimoment plastic section modulus is defined by
s,, = & J L (~2)
The flange plastic moment is
Mo, = B,,/h : f,.b~t//4 (13)
It has not been possible to develop a completely satisfying
theory for the plastic collapse of torsion members because
the separate plastic collapse modes for uniform and warp-
ing torsion cannot be simply but rigorously combined.
Instead, a simple approximate theory has been developed 2,
according to which the plastic collapse load factor A,:, can
be obtained from
A,p = A,e + A.p (14)
in which A,p and A,.p are the independent plastic load fac-
tors for uniform torsion collapse and warping torsion col-
lapse. While this simple extension is not rigorous, compari-
sons with numerical and experimental data (References 1
and 12 and Figure 3) for members under a wide range of
support and loading conditions have shown that it is con-
servative, principally because it neglects the strengthening
effects of the Wagner stresses that develop at large
rotations ~, and also because of strain-hardening.
In uniform torsion, plastic collapse occurs when the uni-
form plastic torque Mup is reached at the supports
(9) (Figure 5). In warping torsion, plastic collapse occurs when
Prevention of warping
ineffective in uniform

S,, = M,p/'c,, (10) z

A member in warping torsion collapses plastically when
sufficient plastic hinges develop in the flanges to form
mechanisms. The fully plastic bimoment Bp at which flange
hinges form in a doubly symmetric I-section is given by ° (a) Torsion member and loading

B,, = fyb~th/4 (l l)
Uniform torsion
in which b: and t: are the flange width and thickness, plastic shear hinge

8 Bottom f l a n g c ~
- - . - End Wagner stress resultant W
7 End uniform torque Me
--4[
~ o First yield ~pfl~
7~ ' ~ 6 • Formation of cenmfl plastic warping hinge. ~ - "
~ • First strain hardening ~"

Co) Uniform torque collapse mechanism

- ~ 0.SL I 0.5L I
,

0 ~'¢ .G~'°1 I I I I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
End twist ~' (radlan/m)
(c) Uniform torque distribution
Figure 4 Effect of large twist rotations on Wagner stress result-
ant and uniform torque Figure 5 Uniform torsion plastic collapse
Torsion o f steel beams: N. S. Trahair and Y.-L. Pi 375

each flange becomes a collapse mechanism as a result of lapse analysis does not predict the twist rotations. Because
the formation of plastic bending hinges and the existence of this, serviceability design should be carried out using
of any frictionless bending hinges at points where warping elastic analysis.
is unrestrained (Figure 6). The warping torsion plastic col-
lapse load factor can be determined from a consideration
of the warping plastic torques 3. Strength design for torsion

M,~v=Vt/,h (15) 3.1. Section classification

in which the flange shear V#, at the plastic hinge is given by
V/l, = dMt/dz (16)
The method of plastic collapse analysis provides the most
logical method for strength design when the member is not
so thin-walled that its cross-section strength is reduced by
local buckling. Such member cross-sections are usually
described as 'plastic' or 'compact', and width-thickness
limits for such members in bending or shear are specified
in design codes '~. Members which do not satisfy these limits
should be analysed elastically. The method of plastic col-
End warping
~
I//////
End free to warp
T
prevented
Torsion member cross-sections need to be classified accord-
ing to the extent by which local buckling effects may
reduce their cross-section capacities, in much the same way
that cross-sections are classified in bending design 9. In Ref-
erence 3, suggestions were made for the classification of
torsion member sections which are extensions of the classi-
fication of beam cross-sections given in design codes 9 for
hot-rolled l-sections. Warping torsion normal stress distri-
butions in torsion members are similar to bending stress
distributions, and so it was suggested that the bending
width-thickness limits 9 should also be used for warping tor-
sion in open sections. Thus the bending classification of I-
section flanges as (plastic or) compact, noncompact, or
slender according to whether the flanges can maintain full
plasticity, or collapse prematurely due to local buckling
may also be used for the torsion section classification.

3.2. Plastic design

In plastic design, the strength of the member is assumed
to be reached when a fully plastic collapse mechanism is
developed. Plastic design should be limited to those mem-
bers which have sufficient ductility and rotation capacity to
allow the plastic collapse mechanism to develop fully. It is
I_
I--
L _1
--I
suggested that these members should be limited to compact
hot-formed I-sections with significant yield stress plateaux
and with strain-hardening capabilities. Plastic design can
be carried out by determining the plastic collapse load fac-
(a) Torsion member and loading tors A,p (see equation (14)) under the strength load combi-
nations, and ensuring that these satisfy

1 < +A,~, (17)

__ Warpingtorsion in which ~b is the capacity factor. It is suggested that for

Bottom ~ plastic hinge torsion design, this be given by
flange - ~
= 0.9 (18)

3.3 First hinge design

In first hinge design, the strength of the member is assumed
to be reached when the most heavily strained cross-section
becomes fully plastic. This assumption ignores any further
(b) Warping torque collapse mechanism strength which might be developed as plasticity develops
after the first hinge forms. First hinge design should be
limited to those beams which have sufficient ductility to
allow the first plastic hinge to develop. It is suggested that
first hinge design should be used for compact beams which
do not completely satisfy all of the requirements for plastic
bending design. First hinge design can be carried out by
making linear elastic analyses of the member under the
strength load combinations and determining the maximum
r% values of the design uniform torque M*, and the design
bimoment B*. The design is then satisfactory if

(c) Top flange moment distribution M*, --< doM,~ (19)

Figure 6 Warping torsion plastic collapse B* --< ~b B, (20)
376 Torsion o f steel beams: N. S. Trahair and Y.-L. Pi

in which the uniform torsion section capacity is taken as
M,, = M,/, = ~-,S,, (21)
and the bimoment section capacity is taken as
B, = B~, = f, Sh (22)
3.4. First yield design
In first yield design, the strength of the member is assumed
to be reached when the most heavily strained cross-section
first yields (ignoring any residual stresses and local stress
concentrations at re-entrant corners). First yield design is
appropriate for members whose width-thickness ratios are
at the limit between slender and noncompact sections. First
yield design can be carded out by making linear elastic
analyses of the member under the strength load combi-
nation and determining the maximum values of the design
uniform torque M*, and the design bimoment B*. The
design is then satisfactory if equations (19) and (20) are
satisfied with the section capacities now taken as
M,, = M,, = r,Z,, (23)
B, = By =f,Z,, (24)
When significant uniform torques and bimoments occur at
the same location, then the design will be satisfactory when
/14;; + B, -- (25)
For noncompact sections whose width-thickness ratios lie
between the yield and plastic limits, linear interpolation
may be used between first yield design and first hinge
design.
3.5. Local buckling design
In local buckling design, the reduction in the cross-section
strength below the yield strength by local buckling is
accounted for approximately. Local buckling design should
be used for members with slender sections. Local buckling
design can be carried out by making linear elastic analyses
of the member under the strength load combinations and
determining the maximum values of the uniform torque
M*, and the bimoment B*. The design of an open section
member can be considered to be satisfactory when
B* d~2 (26)
or secondary, depending on whether the torsion action is
required to transfer load (primary torsion), or whether it
arises as a secondary action. Secondary torques may arise
as a result of twist rotations compatible with the joint
rotations of primary frames 5, and are predicted by three-
dimensional analysis programs. They are not unlike the sec-
ondary bending moments which occur in rigid-jointed
trusses, but which are usually ignored (a procedure justified
by many years of satisfactory experience based on the long-
standing practice of analysing a rigid-jointed truss as if pin-
jointed). Secondary torques are usually small when there
are alternative load paths of high stiffness, and may often
be ignored.
Primary torsion actions may be classified as being
restrained, free, or destabilizing. For restrained torsion, the
member applying the torsion action also applies a
restraining action to the member resisting the torsion. In
this case, the structure is redundant, and compatibility
between the members must be satisfied in the analysis if
the magnitudes of the torques and other actions are to be
determined correctly. Free torsion occurs when the member
applying the torsion action does not restrain the twisting of
the torsion member, but does prevent its lateral deflection.
Destabilizing torsion may occur when the member applying
the torsion action does not restrain either the twisting or
the lateral deflection of the torsion member. In this case,
lateral buckling actions ~6 caused by the in-plane loading of
the torsion member amplify the torsion and out-of-plane
bending actions.
The inelastic nonlinear bending and torsion of fully
braced, centrally braced, and unbraced l-beams with central
concentrated loads has been analysed 4, and interaction
equations developed for predicting their strengths. It was
found that while circular interaction equations are appropri-
ate for short length braced beams, these provide unsafe pre-
dictions for beams subject to destabilizing torsion, where
lateral buckling effects became important. On the other
hand, destabilizing interactions between lateral buckling
and torsion tend to be masked by the favourable effects of
the secondary axial stresses that develop at large rotations
due to the Wagner effect, and linear interaction equations
based on plastic analyses provide satisfactory strength pre-
dictions, as shown in Figure 7. Proposals based on these
findings are made below for the analysis and design of
members subject to combined torsion and bending.
1.4
Modlfi©d slenderness Accurate ~'L approximation

"~
~, 1.2

1.0
~'L = ~ ' ~ - ~ / M y x )
! 0.5
1.0
1.41
....
.......
--" --
which allows for postlocal buckling resistance. Usually, "- ,,, o
M*, and B* will not be maximum at the same location, o~ 0.8
and so only one term of the left-hand side of this equation
0.6
will be significant. ~.~...,~ ~-.. ~. o

o~ 0.4 b-,,, ~ ;~".. ""., o

f.,
"--.,,.......0 -..,, ...~,° o0 %
4. Combined torsion and bending 0.2
. ~:~
i i i i .-:.b.,~-- i
4.1. Behaviour 0.2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Dimensionless torque Pe/2Mt
Pure torsion occurs very rarely in steel structures. Most
commonly, torsion occurs in combination with bending Figure 7 Interaction between lateral buckling and torsion for
actions. The torsion actions may be classified as primary unbraced beams
Torsion of steel beams: N. S. Trahair and Y.-L. Pi
4.2 Design
Member cross-sections should be classified as slender, non-
compact or compact. Plastic or elastic cross-section analy-
ses may be used to determine the fully plastic section
capacities M,,, M,~,, B~, and M#, or the first yield section
capacities M,,., M,> and B>.
The inelastic nonlinear method of member analysis used
in Reference 4 is unsuitable for design. However, separate
plastic collapse analyses may be used to determine the plas-
tic collapse load factors A0, for in-plane bending and A,~,for
torsion. Alternatively, linear elastic member analyses
should be used to determine the in-plane distributions of
moment M*, and shear V*,., and the torsional distributions
of torque M* and bimoment B*. There is no need to
amplify any of these actions or to decrease any of the load
factors because of the finding4 that linear interaction equa-
tions are satisfactory, even for unbraced beams, as shown
in Figure 7.
Members analysed plastically should satisfy the circular
interaction equation
I/A~, + I/A~, <
-- Oz (27)
Members analysed elastically should satisfy the linear inter-
action equation
M*~ M*
+M,,,
in which M*, and M*. are the maximum bending moment
and torsion actions in the member, ~bMbx is the design
moment capacity which includes an appropriate allowance
for beam lateral buckling, and &M, is the design torsion
capacity for the member when loaded in torsion alone. This
design torsion capacity is equal to the value of M*. at which
the appropriate design criterion of Section 3 is just satisfied.
5. Conclusions
Very few standards give rules for designing steel structures
against torsion, and those that do only supply limited
advice, usually concerning elastic design. This paper sum-
marizes a series of investigations into the behaviour, analy-
sis, and design of members subjected to combined torsion
and bending. Steel torsion members may be designed for
local buckling, first yield, first 'hinge', or plastic collapse.
Local buckling, first yield and first 'hinge' design require
the use of an elastic analysis of the member for nonuniform
torsion in which the total torque at a cross-section has uni-
form and warping torque components.
Local buckling design is based on the local buckling or
postbuckling strength of the most heavily stressed section.
First yield design is based on local yielding in the most
heavily stressed section under the combination of uniform
torsion shear stresses and warping torsion normal stresses.
377
First 'hinge' design is based on full plasticity of the most
heavily stressed cross-section under either uniform torsion
or bimoment.
For plastic design, two analyses of the plastic collapse
of the member are made. In the first, the torsion loads are
considered to be resisted by uniform torsion alone, and the
plastic collapse toad factor is determined by using the sand
heap analogy. In the second, only warping torsion is con-
sidered, and the plastic collapse mechanisms of the flanges
are analysed as in the plastic analysis of beam bending. The
approximation for the fully plastic collapse load factor is
determined by adding the independent collapse factors for
uniform and warping torsion. The use of plastic design for
compact members will greatly simplify both analysis and
design, and will lead to more economic structures.
Torsion often occurs in conjunction with bending
actions. Combined bending and torsion may be designed
against using simple interaction equations.
Acknowledgment
This work has been supported by research grants made
available by the Australian Research Committee and the
Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering.
References
1 Pi, Y. L. and Trahair, N. S. 'Inelastic torsion of steel l-section beams',
J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1995, 121 (4), 609-620
2 Pi, Y. L. and Trahair, N. S. 'Plastic collapse analysis o1" torsion', ./.
Struct. Engng, ASCE 1995, 121 (10), 1389-1395
3 Pi, Y. L. and Trahair, N. S. 'Steel member design for combined tor-
sion and bending', Aust. Civ. Engng Trans. 1994, CE36 (4), 325-33(I
4 Pi, Y. L. and Trahair, N. S. 'Inelastic bending and torsion of steel l-
beams', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1994, 120 (12), 3397-3417
5 Timoshenko, S. P. "Theory of bending, torsion, and buckling of thin-
walled members of open cross-section', Collected papers ~]'Stephen
P Timoshenko McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953
6 Timoshenko, S. P. and Goodier, J. N. Theoo' (~f elasticity (3rd edn)
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970
7 Vlasov, V. Z. Thin-walled beams (2nd edn) Israel Program for Scien-
tific Translations, Jerusalem, 1961
8 Zbirohowski-Koscia, K. Thin-walled beams Crosby Lockwood, Lon-
don, 1967
9 Trahair, N. S. and Bradford, M. A. The behaviour and design of steel
structures (revised 2nd edn) Chapman & Hall, London, 1991
10 Baigent, A. H. and Hancock, G. J. 'Structural analysis of assemblages
of thin-walled members', Engng Struct. 1982, 4 (3), 207-216
11 Billinghurst, A., Williams, J. R. L., Chen, G. and Trahair, N. S.
"Inelastic uniform torsion of steel members', Comput. Struct. 1992,
42 (6), 887-894
12 Farwell, Jr., C. R. and Galambos, T. V. 'Nonuniform torsion of steel
beams in inelastic range', J. Struct. Div. ASCE 1969, 95 (STI2),
2813-2829
13 Home, M. R. Plastic theory ~['structures (2nd edn) Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1979
14 Neal, B. G. The plastic methods ~[ structural analysis (3rd edn)
Chapman & Hall, London, 1977
15 Trahair, N. S. and Bridge, R. Q. 'Members subject to combined
actions', Commentary on the AS4100-I990. SAA Steel Structures
Code, Standards Australia, Sydney, 1990, Chap. 8
16 Trahair, N. S. Flexural-torsional buckling of structures E & FN Spon,
London, 1993