Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Reassesment of lateral torsional buckling in hot-holled I-beams T

a,⁎ b a
Alexandre Rossi , Carlos Humberto Martins , Renato Silva Nicoletti ,
Alex Sander Clemente de Souzaa
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil
b
Department of Civil Engineering, State University of Maringá, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Lateral torsional buckling (LTB) of I-beams is characterized by simultaneous lateral deflection and twist. In this
Lateral torsional buckling paper the influence of destabilizing and neutral effects of loadings and the possibility of the occurrence of web
Hot-holled I-beams distortion, which characterizes the lateral distortional buckling (LDB), is numerically investigated. Recent re-
Elastic stability analysis search has shown divergences between the standard procedures of the American Institute of Steel Construction,
Physical and geometrical nonlinear analyses
Australian Standards and Eurocode with LTB numerical results. In addition, some procedures have recently been
GBTul
proposed for correcting possible deviations between the results of numerical analysis and standard procedures.
ABAQUS
In order to investigate this situation, elastic stability and physical and geometrical nonlinear analyzes are per-
formed, using GBTul and ABAQUS softwares, respectively. The numerical model is calibrated considering ex-
perimental tests. The beams are simply supported, with fork supports at the ends, and subject to neutral and
destabilizing effects of loading. The beams are subject to uniform bending, mid-span concentrated load and
uniformly distributed loads. The parametric study is performed by varying the geometric cross section para-
meters. The results are compared with international standards and analytical procedures. It is concluded that the
influence of destabilizing and neutral effects of loadings is responsible for providing non-conservative results
when compared to the American Institute of Steel Construction procedure. The occurrence of LDB in hot-holled I
sections influences the lateral stability strength of I-beams, but it is not predominant. With the possibility of
using the elastic critical moment obtained by the elastic stability analysis, the conservative situation of EC3 is
verified. The Australian Standards procedure is in agreement with all the situations analyzed.

1. Introduction
Lateral torsional buckling (LTB) is one of the possible modes of
stability failure in laterally unsupported beams. In addition to the LTB
(Fig. 1a), I-beams may have local stability modes, web and flange local
buckling (Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c), or simultaneous lateral deflection, twist
and cross sectional change due to web distortion, which characterizes
the lateral distortional buckling (LDB) (Fig. 1d). The standard proce-
dures ANSI/AISC 360–16 [1], AS 4100:1998 (R2016) [2] present
classic solutions for LTB, taking into account some simplifications re-
garding the boundary conditions. For example, the ANSI/AISC 360-16
[1] procedure considers the loading position at the shear center, while
the procedure of AS 4100:1998 (R2016) [2] considers the loading po-
sition in the cross section and applies the effective length method. In
addition, both procedures consider the Vlasov first assumption [3],
disregarding possible distortions of the cross section. On the other hand,
the procedure provided by EC3 [4] does not present classic LTB solu-
tions, leaving the determination of the critical moment to the designer
criterion.
The specifications presented by ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] are sub-
stantiated, in large part, by a wide range of experimental results.
However, researchers like Kim [6], Greiner et al. [7] Subramanian and
White [8,9] and White and Jung [10] observed that, in many cases, the
results of numerical analyzes of I beams subjected to LTB, tend to show
lower values of the ultimate moment than those obtained by ANSI/AISC
360-16 [1] procedure. In addition, although the AISC procedures are
based on a collection of experimental data, the analytical models of this
standard do not represent some specific design situations [9]. Sub-
ramanian and White [9] observed that the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1]
procedure overestimates the LTB strength compared to more recent
experimental tests, particularly tests conducted in the inelastic region of
LTB. Kabir and Bhowmick [11] also observed non-conservative situa-
tions in the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure. Through numerical
analyzes developed using ABAQUS software [12], Kabir and Bhowmick
[11] analyzed the LTB strength of welded I-beams. The authors found
that the AISC especifications overestimate the LTB capacity of welded I-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alexandre-rossi@hotmail.com (A. Rossi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.041
Received 4 March 2020; Accepted 24 April 2020
2352-0124/ Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Structural Engineers.
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Nomenclature Mcr-GBT elastic critical moment obtained by GBTul

MRk resistant moment obtained by analytical procedures
bf flange thickness Ncr critical load
bfc compressed flange thickness Ptest experimental test ultimate load
Cb modifying factor for the non-uniform bending moment PFE finite element ultimate load
diagram rt effective radius of gyration for lateral torsional buckling
Cw warping constant rz minor-axis radius of gyration
d section depth tf flange thickness
E modulus of elasticity tfc compressed flange thickness
fy yield strength of steel tw web thickness
G shear modulus U displacement
hw web depth UR rotational displacement
Iz moment of inertia about the weak axis Wy,el elastic section modulus taken about the strong axis
J torsional constant Wz,el elastic section modulus taken about the weak axis
L unbraced length αLT imperfection factor
Lr limit effective unbraced length of theoretical elastic lateral δ geometric imperfection
torsional buckling resistance λf flange slenderness ratio
Lp limit effective unbraced length below of plateau resistance ¯LT reduced slenderness factor
Mcr,0 basic elastic critical moment λw web slenderness ratio
Mpl plastic moment

Fig.1. Buckling modes, adapted from [5].

beams by as much as 37%. For the estimation of the LTB strength, the
ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure uses the well-known equation for the
elastic critical buckling load for lateral–torsional buckling (Mcr) of a
beam loaded with a uniform bending moment was published by Ti-
moshenko and Gere [13] (Eq. (1)). The equation was analytically de-
rived for a simply supported beam with fork supports, i.e. the rotation
about the longitudinal axis and vertical and lateral deflections are re-
strained, while rotations about the strong and weak axes are free. In
addition, the beam ends are assumed free to warp, but no other dis-
tortion of the beam end is allowed.
2
Mcr ,0 = EIz GJ + ECw
L L2
For determining the ultimate moment, the lateral torsional buckling
(LTB) curves for I-section members in ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] consist of
three distinct regions: the plateau region, the inelastic LTB region, and
the elastic LTB region. Members in uniform bending with unbraced
lengths that are greater than Lr are designed for the theoretical elastic
LTB strength, where Lr is the limiting unbraced length at which geo-
metric imperfection and yielding effects start to influence the nominal
resistance. Members with unbraced lengths between Lp and Lr are de-
signed for the inelastic LTB resistance obtained by linearly interpolating
between the plateau and the elastic LTB anchor points. Verifying di-
vergences between the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure and numerical
results Subramanian and White [8] proposed adjustments in the North
American procedure for the estimation of the ultimate moment to LTB.
The authors proposed that the length Lp should be determined ac-
cording to Eqs. (2)–(4), in addition, a smaller maximum stress level for
the elastic LTB limit of Fyr = 0.5fy (reduced from a maximum of 0.7fy in
the current specifications) it has been established.
E
Lp = 0.63 rt
fy (2)
bfc
rt =
(
12 1 + 6 a w
1
) (3)
(1) h w tw
aw =
bfc t fc (4)
Regarding the EC3 [4], the currently procedure shows two proce-
dures for determining the resistance to LTB: the specific method and the
general method. It should be noted that according to [14], the specific
method provides overestimated resistance results, which makes the
adoption of this method a non-conservative situation. Therefore, for the
comparisons made in this study, the general method was adopted. Ac-
cording to EC3 [4], the same curves used for column buckling also is
used for the design of steel members against lateral torsional buckling
(LTB). Based on this fact, Taras and Greiner [15] present a new for-
mulation for the determination of the LTB strength. In this formulation,
the imperfection factor (αLT) is determined for each type of cross section
(Table 1).

525
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Table 1 The procedures presented by EC3 [4] and Taras and Greiner [15] do
Imperfection factors, according to [15]. not provide a formulation for determining the elastic critical moment to
Cross-section type Imperfection factor (αLT) LTB. However, in the previous version of EC3 (EN 1993-1-1:2002 [16]),
a formulation for determining the elastic critical moment was provided,
rolled d/bf ≤ 1.2
0.16·
Wy, el
0.49
which took into account the loading position in the cross section and
Wz , el
the effects of symmetry. To analyze the influence of destabilizing and
d/bf > 1.2
0.12·
Wy, el
0.34 neutral effects of loadings and the LDB, the critical moment used in this
Wz , el
paper will be obtained through the GBTul software. Therefore, the
welded – Wy, el
slenderness ratio ( ¯LT ) will be determined according to Eq. (7).
0.21· 0.64
Wz , el
Mpl
¯LT =
Mcr GBT (7)

In turn, the procedure adopted by Australian Standards, AS

4100:1998 (R2016) [2], considers important reduction factors that take
into account parameters such as the type of restriction, the loading
position and the cross-section geometry, according to the effective
length method. However, this procedure is also based on the Vlasov
first assumption. Despite such considerations, the procedure may pro-
vide non-conservative results in some cases where the occurrence of
LDB is evidenced [17,18]. Fig. 2 shows the comparison between the
LTB designs curves of the procedures presented in this paper.
Another phenomenon that leads to divergences between standard
procedures and experimental or numerical analysis results is the LDB
occurrence. In the inelastic region of the lateral buckling the LTB can
occur simultaneously with the web distortion, characterizing LDB
[17,19–26]. Hancock [27] verified via finite element methods that LDB
occurs mainly for intermediate lengths of beams with slender web. In
Zirakian and Showkati [25] experimental tests were presented for in-
vestigating LDB. The authors observed that the occurrence of LDB is
responsible for the reduction of the bending moment resistance com-
pared to AS 4100 and ANSI/AISC 360, which becomes an unsafe si-
tuation. Tohid and Sharifi [17] and Kalkan and Buyukkaragoz [18]
confirmed these divergences and proposed procedures for estimating
LDB resistance. Bradford developed LDB solutions for inelastic buckling
of I-beams [28], mono-symmetric I-beams with continuous elastic lat-
Fig.2. LTB design curves. eral restrains [29], beam columns [30], cantilevers [31], investigated
the effects of end conditions, rotational and translational restraints for
I-beams [32], and beams laterally restrained at one flange [33]. Thus
Bradford [34] proposed a method for estimating the LDB critical mo-
ment. Pi and Trahair [35] performed nonlinear analyses and concluded
that the effect of web distortion was significant in reducing the re-
sistance of these elements. Later, in Pi and Trahair [36] was proposed
an equation to obtain approximate value of the elastic critical moment
to the LDB. Rossi et al. [5] showed significant influence of the web
distortion in the LTB strength, the authors verified non-conservative
situations of the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure. However, the use of
numerical analysis to determine the critical elastic moment used to
estimate LTB strength by the EC3 [4] and Taras and Greiner procedure
[15] showed values in agreement with the numerical results.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the behavior of hot-
holled double symmetrical I-beams, in relation to LTB strength, ana-
lyzing possible divergences between standard procedures and numer-
ical results. GBTul [37] and ABAQUS [12] softwares were used to carry
out elastic stability and physical and geometrical nonlinear analyses,
Fig. 3. Discretized model with S4R elements. respectively. The numerical model elaborated in ABAQUS software is
calibrated considering experimental tests. The results of elastic stability
analysis obtained by GBTul software are used for the estimation of the
In the proposal of Taras and Greiner [15] the parameters LT and
¯z
ultimate moment by EC3 [4] and Taras and Greiner [15] procedures.
are calculated according to Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively.
The beams are considered simply supported, with fork supports at the
2
¯LT 2
ends. The beams are subjected to uniform bending moment, mid-span
= 0.5· 1 + ¯
LT ·( z 0.2)· + ¯LT
LT
¯z2 concentrated load and uniformly distributed loads. In the last two cases,
(5)
the neutral and destabilizing effect of loading is considered. The results
are compared with the international standards procedures and analy-
Af y
¯z = tical formulations, such as Taras and Greiner [15] and Subramanian
Ncr (6) and White [8] proposal.

526
A. Rossi, et al.
Fig. 4. Boundary conditions, adapted from [5].
Fig. 5. Residual stress model.
2. Numerical model
The numerical model showed in this paper is the same presented in
the previous paper, Rossi et al. [5], where the lateral stability of welded
I-sections was investigated by the authors. To carry out the numerical
analyses in this study ABAQUS [12] and GBTul [37] softwares were
used. With the first, it is possible to perform elastic stability analyses
and physical and geometrical nonlinear analyses. The GBTul software
provides critical loads of elastic stability analyses, signature curves, and
the participation of deformation modes, which makes it possible to il-
lustrate, clarify and quantify the occurrence of LDB. According to Be-
biano et al. [37], the GBTul is a software that performs elastic buckling
(bifurcation) and vibration analyses of prismatic thin-walled members.
It implements the latest formulations of Generalized Beam Theory
(GBT), a thin-walled bar theory that (i) accounts for local deformation
and (ii) provides an advantageous representation of the deformation
field, as a combination of structurally meaningful cross-section de-
formation modes. Taking advantage of the GBT modal features, the
program provides information and visualization of the member
527
Structures 26 (2020) 524–536
deformation modes. Moreover, it contains tools that make it possible to
select the deformation modes to include in the analysis, thus allowing
an in-depth insight into the mechanics of the problem being solved. It is
possible to analyse members (i) made of one or several isotropic or
orthotropic materials, and (ii) exhibiting various common support
conditions (e.g., simple supports, fixed supports or free ends). The
buckling analyses specifies any combination of arbitrary axial force,
bending moment and bimoment (longitudinal) diagrams.
Regarding the numerical model developed with the ABAQUS [12],
the discretization of the I-sections was made with shell elements. The
quadrilateral element S4R with four nodes and reduced integration was
used. The S4R element has six degrees of freedom per node-three ro-
tations and three translations. In order to evaluate the finite elements
dimension, sensitivity analyses were developed by Rossi et al. [5]
varying the element size by 30 mm, 20 mm, 10 mm and 5 mm. With the
analyses development the author suggested the use of lateral dimen-
sions elements with 10 mm (Fig. 3).
The load was applied in increments as static point load using the
Riks method available in the ABAQUS library. The Riks method is
generally used to predict unstable and nonlinear collapse of a structure.
A full Newton–Raphson procedure along with an arc length control
iterative was used in conjunction with an automatic incrimination
strategy to solve the nonlinear equations. The material was modelled by
a bilinear stress-strain relationship without hardening.
The general models’ characteristics to be studied are presented
below:
I. ASTM A572 grade 50 steel is adopted, whose yield strength is
345 MPa. The Young’s modulus is equal to 200 GPa, and the
Poisson coefficient used was 0.3.
II. The longitudinal displacement (z-direction) at the web height
center is restrained in only one support; the vertical displacement
(y axis) is restricted along the web height in both supports; the
lateral displacement (x-axis) and the torsional rotation (around
the z-axis) are restricted on both supports at the central point of
the web height and at the ends of the flanges (Fig. 4). This way, it
is possible to simulate the fork support according to the boundary
conditions in the assumptions of [13]. Some authors [5,11,17]
also applied these same boundary conditions.
III. Stiffeners are placed at the application of load point
IV. The residual stress model proposed by Galambos and Ketter [38]
(Fig. 5) was adopted.
V. The geometric imperfection value adopted was L/1000;
VI. Loads are applied at shear center and upper flange (Fig. 6);
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Fig. 6. Loading conditions.

Table 2 Table 4
Cross sections analysed. Validation Results.
Section d (mm) bf (mm) tf (mm) tw (mm) λf λw Test Experimental FE Ptest/PFE

W150x13 148 100 4.9 4.1 10.2 32.09 Ptest (kN) Failure PFE (kN) Failure
W150x18 153 102 7.1 5.8 7.18 23.97
W150x24 160 102 10.3 6.6 4.95 21.06 C5 507.84 LTB 495.00 LTB 1.03
W360x32.9 349 127 8.5 5.8 7.47 57.24 C8 243.61 LTB 237.90 LTB 1.02
W360x39 353 128 10.7 6.5 5.98 51.08 EI-100-266-1 184.17 LTB 187.80 LTB 0.98
W360x44.6 352 171 9.8 6.9 8.72 48.12 EI-100-266-3 262.92 LTB 260.10 LTB 1.01
W410x38.8 399 140 8.8 6.4 7.95 59.53 B1B-C2 41.83 LTB 41.74 LTB 1.00
W410x46.1 403 140 11.2 7 6.25 54.43 B2B-B1 73.76 FLB + LTB 75.85 FLB + LTB 0.97
W410x53 403 177 10.9 7.5 8.12 50.8 B2B-C2 46.61 LTB 47.88 LTB 0.97
B3B-B1 52.98 FLB + LTB 49.00 FLB + LTB 1.08
B4B-B2 67.80 FLB + LTB 67.20 FLB + LTB 1.01
B2 48.90 LDB 44.94 LDB 1.09
VII. The application of uniform bending was given by applying a
B5 24.94 LDB 24.50 LDB 1.02
binary of forces (Fig. 6a), as suggested by [5,14,39,40]; B7 95.80 LDB 87.60 LDB 1.09
VIII. Nine W series cross sections of hot-holled profiles are adopted to
develop the parametric study as presented in Table 2.
Kubo and Fukumoto [41], Bradford and Wee [42], Xiong et al. [43] and
3. Numerical VS experimental results Wang et al. [44] were used for comparison, as shown in Table 3.
Regarding the residual stress models, the distribution proposal by
The results of the numerical model were compared with the same Galambos and Ketter [38] was used to numerically simulate the ex-
experimental tests previously analyzed by the authors, Rossi et al. [5]. perimental tests on hot-holled sections and the ECCS [45] model for
The experimental tests of doubly symmetrical I-section beams tested by welded sections. With respect to geometric imperfection (initial

Table 3
Experimental I-beams tests.
Test Ref. d bf,c bf,t tf,c tf,t tw δ Lb Eflange Eweb fy,flange fy,web
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)

C5 [43] 451.97 179.15 179.95 10.47 10.49 8.79 L/2750 5000 204.74 202.49 541.0 525.0
C8 [43] 448.18 180.90 180.53 10.47 10.47 8.38 L/2700 8000 204.74 202.49 541.0 525.0
EI-100-266-1 [44] 262.98 100.26 101.29 7.50 7.50 5.64 L/5537 3400 201.20 170.90 418.0 330.9
EI-100-266-3 [44] 264.50 100.94 99.76 7.50 7.50 5.64 L/8821 2800 201.20 170.90 418.0 330.9
B1B-C2 [41] 249.40 125.60 125.60 4.28 4.28 3.01 L/3380 2850 211.00 211.00 331.8 305.3
B2B-B1 [41] 298.30 150.50 150.50 4.31 4.31 3.05 L/4070 2400 211.00 211.00 286.0 291.6
B2B-C2 [41] 298.60 150.50 150.50 4.22 4.22 2.92 L/3380 3350 211.00 211.00 287.8 302.3
B3B-B1 [41] 199.60 150.10 150.10 4.37 4.37 3.09 L/3380 2400 209.00 209.00 239.5 320.7
B4B-B2 [41] 250.40 150.40 150.40 4.40 4.40 3.14 L/3380 2400 215.00 215.00 264.9 295.6
B2 [42] 175.00 90.00 90.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 L/1000 2770 200.00 200.00 250.0 250.0
B5 [42] 175.00 90.00 90.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 L/1000 2770 200.00 200.00 250.0 250.0
B7 [42] 175.00 90.00 90.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 L/1000 1500 200.00 200.00 250.0 250.0

528
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Fig. 7. Comparison of Load vs. Displacement results: (a) C5 (b) C8 (c) EI-100-266-1 (d) EI-100-266-3, adapted from [5].

Fig. 8. Undeformed/deformed shape of physical and geometric nonlinear analysis.

curvature), the value provided by the authors for each beam tested was
attributed in the numeric models. In situations where the value was not
provided, the limit value allowed by technical standards for the pro-
duction of I profiles was adopted. This value was L/1000, in which L is
the effective length of the beam. The comparison between the results is
shown in in Table 4.
It is observed that the maximum difference between the numerical
and experimental results was 9%, while the minimum value was less
than 1%. The comparison between the vertical and lateral displacement
values of some beams was also performed to determine the accuracy of
the numerical model. As shown in Fig. 7, the displacement values
present agreement. Therefore, the numerical model has validity given
the conformity of the results. Thus, once the validity of the numerical
model has been confirmed, the parametric study will be developed with
the hot-holled cross sections showed in Table 4. The length of the
beams will be varied every meter, checking the occurrence of LTB, the
maximum length being 12 m.
4. Results and discussion
The lateral torsional buckling (LTB) in hot-holled I-beams is in-
vestigated. In order to ascertain divergences in standard procedures
such as ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1], AS 4100:1998 (R2016) [2] and EC3 [4],
pointed out by Kim [6], Greiner et al. [7] Subramanian and White [8,9]
and Taras and Greiner [15], elastic stability and physical and geome-
trical nonlinear analyzes are performed, using GBTul and ABAQUS
softwares, respectively. The beams are simply supported, with fork
supports at the ends, and subject to neutral and destabilizing effects of
loading. The beams are subject to uniform bending, mid-span con-
centrated load and uniformly distributed loads. The parametric study is

529
A. Rossi, et al.
Fig. 9. Deformation modes.
performed by varying the geometric cross section parameters.
The simultaneous occurrence of LTB with the web distortion, which
characterizes LDB, and the destabilizing effects of loading were in-
vestigated. The hot-holled I-sections analyzed have a web slenderness
ratio varying between 21 and 60 (21 < λw < 60). For these sections,
the influence of the web distortion on the LTB strength is less significant
than for welded sections, where the web slenderness ratio is higher, as
pointed out by [5]. However, among the hot-holled I-sections analyzed,
the section W410x38.8, which has the greatest web slenderness ratio,
presented a deformed shape characteristic of LDB mode, as shown in
Fig. 8. The deformed shape obtained by the ABAQUS software are
capable of providing only a qualitative assessment of the deformation
mode of I-beams. With the use of GBTul software it was possible to
quantify the influence of web distortion through the analysis of modal
influence. The deformation modes considered are shown in Fig. 9a.
In Fig. 9a, mode 1 represents the lateral displacement in the di-
rection of the weak axis, mode 2 is rotation per torsion, and modes 3 to
8 are local deformation modes. The simultaneous occurrence of de-
formation modes 1 and 2 characterize the LTB, however, when web
distortion modes (modes 3, 4 and 5) occur in conjunction with modes 1
and 2, the occurrence of LDB is observed. Fig. 9b–d show the results of
530
Structures 26 (2020) 524–536
the modal interaction together with the elastic critical moment ob-
tained by the GBTul software. In addition, for comparison, Fig. 9b-d
also shows the elastic critical moment values obtained using the
equation present in the previous version of EC3 (EN 1993-1-1:2002
[16]). It is observed in Fig. 9, mainly for sections W150x24 and
W360x39, that the deformation modes 1 and 2 are predominant in the
occurrence of lateral stability, characterizing only the LTB. With the
reduction of the slenderness parameter (L/rz), the occurrence of local
deformation modes intensifies, which characterizes the transition be-
tween LTB and local stability (Fig. 9b and c). In addition, greater
agreement is verified between the values of elastic critical moment
obtained by GBTul and by the previous version of EC3 (EN 1993-1-
1:2002 [16]) in situations where only the occurrence of LTB is verified
(modes 1 and 2). As local deformation modes intensify, the divergence
between the values of elastic critical moment is increased, up to the
point where there are only local deformation modes that are char-
acterized by a sudden reduction in the elastic critical moment. In
Fig. 9d, section W410x38.8, it is verified, for a greater range of the
slenderness parameter (L/rz), the simultaneous occurrence of de-
formation modes 1, 2 and 3, in this situation the LDB is verified, a fact
that justifies the greatest divergence between the values of elastic
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Fig. 10. Comparison between critical moment.

531
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Fig. 11. Comparison between ultimate moment.

532
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Fig. 12. Results for welded sections in compared to AISC 360-16 and AS 4100:1998 (R2016).

critical moment, as also pointed out by [34,36]. For the evaluation of EC3 (EN 1993-1-1:2002 [16]) and by the Australian standard AS
the existing analytical models, a comparison between the elastic critical 4100:1998 (R2016) [2] the results of elastic critical moment proved to
moment values obtained by the GBTul software with some standard be safer than those obtained by ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] (Fig. 10). Both
procedures and with the Bradford [34] and Pi and Trahair [36] pro- procedures take into account the position of the loading application, a
posals is presented in item 4.1. fact that reinforces the need to adapt the North American standard. The
results show that the procedure of the previous version of EC3 (EN
1993-1-1:2002 [16]) is close to the numerical results, presenting only a
4.1. Critical moment
small variation (non-conservative) in relation to the numerical models.
The procedure of AS 4100:1998 (R2016) [2] was shown to be con-
The results of comparations between the numerical values and
servative for the situations analyzed.
analytical procedures of elastic critical moment are presented in
As for the results obtained by the Bradford [34], the behavior was
Fig. 10a–e. The comparison between the numerical results with the
observed to be similar to ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1], given that this pro-
ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure shows two different situations. In the
cedure only performed a reduction in the reference critical moment
first situation, for uniformly distributed loads, mid-span concentrated
value, and this reference value was obtained using the ANSI/AISC 360-
loads (applied in the shear center) and for uniform bending, concordant
16 [1] procedure. The results of elastic critical moment obtained by the
results were obtained. For these loading conditions the ratio (Mcr/Mcr-
Bradford [34] proposals are on average 3% lower than those obtained
GBT) showed values of 1.01, 0.98 and 0.97 respectively, however, some
by ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1], as shown in Fig. 10. Finally, the Pi and
observations proved to be non-conservative due to the occurrence of
Trahair [36] proposal, developed for the analysis of LDB, was also
LDB and also local stability modes. In the second situation, for uni-
verified. This procedure was developed for the assessment of LDB only
formly distributed loads and mid-span concentrated loads applied at the
for the case of uniform bending, however, for other forms of request, it
upper flange, divergences were verified between the numerical results
considered the adoption of the Cb coefficient provided by ANSI/AISC
and the results of the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure. For these two
360-16 [1]. The results of the Pi and Trahair [36] proposal showed a
loading conditions, the ratio (Mcr/Mcr-GBT) presented values of 1.31 and
high number of non-conservative observations, as shown in Fig. 10. In
1.38 respectively. These results confirm the unsafe condition of the
order to evaluate the LTB strength, comparative studies between the
North American procedure as also pointed out by [11].
ultimate moment obtained by numerical analysis and standard
With regard to the procedures presented by the previous version of

533
A. Rossi, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 524–536

Fig. 13. Results for hot holled sections compared to EC3.

Table 5 distributed loads and mid-span concentrated load applied at the shear
Imperfection factor: comparation between Taras and Greiner [15] and EC3 [4]. center, a large number of observations showed agreement with the
Section Taras and Greiner [15] EC3 [4]
North American procedure. However, as observed by Subramanian and
White [8], in the region of inelastic behavior greater divergences are
W150x13 0.266 0.21 verified, proving the non-conservative situation of the ANSI/AISC 360-
W150x18 0.263 16 [1] procedure. Such facts can be attributed to the observation of the
W150x24 0.258
simultaneous occurrence of LTB with the web distortion (LDB). Ver-
W360x32.9 0.34 0.34 ifying this situation Subramanian and White [8] proposed correction in
W360x39 0.34 the inelastic region of the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure. The
W360x44.6 0.319 comparison with the procedure of these authors is also shown in
Fig. 11. As the Subramanian and White [8] proposal was suggested only
W410x38.8 0.34
W410x46.1 0.34 for a uniform bending for the other loading cases, the correction with
W410x53 0.339 the Cb factor was performed. In Fig. 11, mainly for the uniform bending
condition, a greater approximation of the numerical results is observed,
however, in the inelastic region, divergences are still observed. Fig. 12
procedures is presented in item 4.2. clearly shows the comparison of the numerical results with the nor-
malized curves of these procedures. For the conditions of uniformly
4.2. Ultimate moment distributed loads and mid-span concentrated load at the upper flange,
the procedures of the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] and the Subramanian and
For ultimate moment results, the application of loads presented in White [8] proposal, corrected with the Cb factor, proved to be non-
Fig. 6 were also considered, and the results are illustrated in Fig. 11. In conservative, according to Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. These results reinforce
this scenario, in the formulations of Taras and Greiner [15] and EC3 the Kabir and Bhowmick’s [11] statements who verified the unsafe si-
[4], the elastic critical moment was obtained by the numerical response tuation of ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] for the destabilizing effects of loading
of the elastic stability analysis of the GBTul software, as presented in in welded I-beams.
Eq. (7). Thus, it is possible to consider the possible effects of the web It was observed in the Fig. 11 and Fig. 13 that the EC3 [4] procedure
distortion on LTB and the destabilizing effects of loading. presents a conservative situation for all conditions analyzed. The hot-
Regarding the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure, it can be seen in holled I-sections studied in this paper fall into the design curves “a” and
Fig. 11 that for the conditions of uniform bending, uniformly “b” (Table 5), however, it can be seen in Fig. 13 that almost all

534
A. Rossi, et al.
observations are shown above of the design curve “a”. Therefore, in the
case of using numerical analysis for estimation of elastic critical mo-
ment at LTB, the use of buckling curve “a” can be used for estimation of
LTB strength, for all hot-holled I-sections analyzed in this paper.
Regarding the procedure proposed by Taras and Greiner [15], there
is a greater proximity to the numerical results when compared with the
procedure of EC3 [4]. This greater proximity can be justified because
the Taras and Greiner procedure presents different imperfection factors
(αLT) for each cross section, as shown in Table 1 and Table 5. However,
it can be seen in Fig. 11, that for a large number of observations, the
Taras a Greiner [15] procedure presented non-conservative results.
Finally, it should be noted that the results of the AS 4100:1998
(R2016) [2] procedure showed agreement with the numerical results,
as shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. This situation shows that the effective
length method, which considers the loading position in the cross sec-
tion, is accurate in estimating LTB strength for hot-holled I-sections.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the lateral torsional buckling (LTB) strength
in hot-holled I-beams. Numerical simulations considering the elastic
stability and physical and geometrical non-linear analyses were per-
formed, using GBTul and ABAQUS softwares, respectively. The beams
were simply supported, with fork supports at the ends, and subjected to
neutral and destabilizing effects of loading. In this way, it was con-
cluded:
• The simultaneous occurrence of LTB with the web distortion modes
is insignificant in hot-holled I-sections. Therefore, LDB has little
influence on the elastic critical moment and in the ultimate moment
in the lateral stability of hot-holled I-beams;
• The ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1] procedure provides non-conservative
results of the ultimate moment in the region of inelastic behavior of
LTB, and also, more intensely, for the situations of destabilizing
effects of loading. The procedure proposed by Subramanian and
White [8], corrects to some extent, the problem in the inelastic re-
gion when the I-beams are requested at a uniform bending, how-
ever, for other situations, other adjustments must be made in the
ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1];
•
The use of elastic critical moment values obtained by GBTul showed
conservative results for the estimation of LTB strength by the EC3
[4] procedure. The possibility of using higher resistance curves was
verified, since, although the analyzed sections fit the buckling curve
“a” and “b”, the numerical values are above the buckling curve “a”;
• The procedure proposed by Taras and Greiner [15] is more accurate
when compared to the EC3 [4] procedure. However, for a large
number of observations, the non-conservative situation of the Taras
and Greiner [15] procedure was found;
•
The procedure presented by AS 4100:1998 (R2016) [2], showed
good agreement with the numerical results. This situation show that
the effective length method is a good alternative for estimating the
LTB strength.
In general, it was verified that there are considerable divergences in
the analysis of LTB in hot-holled I-beams between the main normative
procedures in the world. It is concluded that despite distinct methods,
the procedures of AS 4100:1998 (R2016) [2] and EC3 [4] estimate the
LTB strength safely. On the other hand, the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [1]
procedure shows an unsafe condition in several situations, which de-
monstrates the need for adjustments in this procedure.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
535
Structures 26 (2020) 524–536
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was financed by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
References
[1] AISC, Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-16, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2016.
[2] Standards Association of Australia. AS 4100 steel structures. Sydney, Australia;
1998.
[3] Vlasov VZ. Thin walled elastic beams. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 2nd
ed. Jerusalem, Israel. Available from Office of Technical Services, US Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C.; 1961.
[4] Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures – Part 1.1: general rules and rules for
buildings, ENV 1993-1-1, CEN; 2004.
[5] Rossi A, Ferreira FPV, Martins CH, Mesacasa Júnior EC. Assessment of lateral dis-
tortional buckling resistance in welded I-beams. J Constr Steel Res
2020;166:105924https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105924.
[6] Kim YD. Behavior and design of metal building frames using general prismatic and
web tapered steel I-section members Doctoral Dissertation GA, Atlanta: School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology; 2010.
[7] Greiner R, Salzgeber G, Ofner R. New lateral torsional buckling curves κLT-
Numerical simulations and design formulae, ECCS TC8, Report 30, June 2000 (rev);
2001.
[8] Subramanian L, White DW. Reassessment of the lateral torsional buckling resistance
of I-section members: uniform-moment studies. J Struct Eng 2017;143:04016194.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001686.
[9] Subramanian L, White DW. Resolving the disconnects between lateral torsional
buckling experimental tests, test simulations and design strength equations. J Constr
Steel Res 2017;128:321–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.08.009.
[10] White DW, Jung SK. Effect of web distortion on the buckling strength of non-
composite discretely-braced steel I-section members. Eng Struct 2007;29:1872–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.09.020.
[11] Kabir MI, Bhowmick AK. Applicability of North American standards for lateral
torsional buckling of welded I-beams. J Constr Steel Res 2018;147:16–26. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.03.029.
[12] DASSAULT SYSTÈMES. ABAQUS v6.12; 2012.
[13] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.:
McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1961.
[14] Panedpojaman P, Sae-Long W, Chub-Uppakarn T. Cellular beam design for re-
sistance to inelastic lateral-torsional buckling. Thin-Walled Struct 2016;99:182–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.08.026.
[15] Taras A, Greiner R. New design curves for lateral-torsional buckling-proposal based
on a consistent derivation. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66:648–63. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcsr.2010.01.011.
[16] Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, ENV 1993-1-1, CEN; 2002.
[17] Tohidi S, Sharifi Y. Neural networks for inelastic distortional buckling capacity
assessment of steel I-beams. Thin-Walled Struct 2015;94:359–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tws.2015.04.023.
[18] Kalkan I, Buyukkaragoz A. A numerical and analytical study on distortional buck-
ling of doubly-symmetric steel I-beams. J Constr Steel Res 2012;70:289–97. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.06.006.
[19] Naderian HR, Ronagh HR, Azhari M. Elastic distortional buckling of doubly sym-
metric steel I-section beams with slender webs. Thin-Walled Struct
2014;84:289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2014.05.010.
[20] Samanta A, Kumar A. Distortional buckling in braced-cantilever I-beams. Thin-
Walled Struct 2008;46:637–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2007.12.004.
[21] Rasmussen KJR, Zhang X, Zhang H. Beam-element-based analysis of locally and/or
distortionally buckled members: theory. Thin-Walled Struct 2016;98:285–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.06.020.
[22] Vrcelj Z, Bradford MA. Elastic distortional buckling of continuously restrained I-
section beam-columns. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:223–30. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcsr.2005.07.014.
[23] Kumar A, Samanta A. Distortional buckling in monosymmetric I-beams: reverse-
curvature bending. Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44:721–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2006.08.003.
[24] Zirakian T. Elastic distortional buckling of doubly symmetric I-shaped flexural
members with slender webs. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46:466–75. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tws.2007.11.001.
[25] Zirakian T, Showkati H. Experiments on distortional buckling of I-beams. J Struct
Eng 2007;133:1009–17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2007)
133:7(1009).
[26] Hassan R, Mohareb M. Distortional lateral torsional buckling for simply supported
beams with web cleats. Can J Civ Eng 2015;42:1091–103. https://doi.org/10.1139/
cjce-2015-0084.
[27] Hancock GJ. Local, distortional, and lateral buckling of I-beams. J Struct Div
1978;104:1787–98.
[28] Bradford MA. Inelastic Distortional Buckling of I Beams. Comput Struct
1986;24:923–33. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2003.3.1.001.
A. Rossi, et al.
[29] Bradford MA. Buckling of elastically restrained beams with web distortions. Thin-
Walled Struct 1988;6:287–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-8231(88)90005-5.
[30] Bradford MA. Stability of monosymmetric beam-columns with thin webs. J Constr
Steel Res 1990;15:323–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(90)90053-J.
[31] Bradford MA. Buckling of doubly-symmetric cantilevers with slender webs. Eng
Struct 1992;14:327–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(92)90046-S.
[32] Bradford MA. Lateral-distortional buckling of steel I—section members. J Constr
Steel Res 1992;23:97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(92)90038-G.
[33] Bradford MA, Ronagh HR. Generalized elastic buckling of restrained I-beams by
FEM. J Struct Eng 1997;123:1631–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1997)123:12(1631).
[34] Bradford MA. Distortional buckling of monosymmetric I-beams. J Constr Steel Res
1985;5:123–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(85)90010-0.
[35] Pi Y-L, Trahair NS. Lateral-distortional buckling of hollow flange beams. J Struct
Eng 1997;123:695–702. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)
123:6(695).
[36] Pi Y-L, Trahair NS. Distortion and warping at beam supports. J Struct Eng
2000;126:1279–87. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)
126:11(1279).
[37] Bebiano R, Camotim D, Gonçalves R. G BTUL 2. 0 − a second-generation code for
the GBT-based buckling and vibration analysis of thin-walled members. Thin
536
Structures 26 (2020) 524–536
Walled Struct 2018;124:235–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.12.002.
[38] Galambos TV, Ketter RL. Columns under combined bending and thrust. J Eng Mech
Div 1959;85:1–30.
[39] El-Sawy KM, Sweedan AMI, Martini MI. Moment gradient factor of cellular steel
beams under inelastic flexure. J Constr Steel Res 2014;98:20–34. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.02.007.
[40] Sweedan AMI. Elastic lateral stability of I-shaped cellular steel beams. J Constr Steel
Res 2011;67:151–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.08.009.
[41] Kubo M, Fukumoto Y. Lateral-torsional buckling of thin-walled I-beams. J Struct
Eng 1988;114:841–55. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)
114:4(841).
[42] Bradford MA, Wee A. Analysis of buckling tests on beams on seat supports. J Constr
Steel Res 1994;28:227–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(94)90065-5.
[43] Xiong G, Kang SB, Yang B, Wang S, Bai J, Nie S, et al. Experimental and numerical
studies on lateral torsional buckling of welded Q460GJ structural steel beams. Eng
Struct 2016;126:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.050.
[44] Wang Y, Yang L, Gao B, Shi Y, Yuan H. Experimental study of lateral-torsional
buckling behavior of stainless steel welded I-section beams. Int J Steel Struct
2014;14:411–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-014-2019-8.
[45] ECCS, Ultimate limit state calculations of sway frames with rigid joints, 1984
(no. 33).