A Historical and Technical Overview of the

Cb Coefficient in the AISC Specifications

SERGIO ZORUBA and BRIAN DEKKER

T his paper was written as a refresher for experienced en-

gineers as well as to document the technical basis for the
Cb coefficient (bending coefficient) for entry-level engineers
pacity, in other words, an increase in the allowable flexural
stress (ASD) and the nominal flexural strength (LRFD). This
allows the designer to select a lighter beam, or alternatively,
and designers. It also discusses the historical changes to it permits a larger service load if the initially selected mem-
the Cb coefficient from the 1989 Specification for Structural ber is used. Section F1.3 of the 1989 ASD Specification and
Steel Buildings—Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design Section F1.2 of the 1999 LRFD Specification address the Cb
(AISC, 1989), hereafter referred to as the 1989 ASD Specifi- coefficient, which is used directly in flexural expressions as
cation, through the 1999 Load and Resistance Factor Design a multiplier.
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2000), When a vertical load is applied to a beam, the top flange
and hereafter referred to as the 1999 LRFD Specification. In- experiences compression while the bottom flange experi-
corporated into this paper are answers to the most frequently ences tension. Lateral-torsional buckling occurs when the
asked questions concerning the use and interpretation of the compression flange buckles about its strong axis. Buckling
Cb expressions found in the AISC Specifications. will not occur about the weak axis of the compression flange
since it is braced by the web. The bottom flange will not
TECHNICAL BASIS buckle, as tension elements are not susceptible to buckling.
In composite design, the top flange is braced by the floor
The Cb coefficient is used in flexural expressions to account
system and lateral-torsional buckling is typically not an issue
for the variation of bending moment along the length of a
(except in rigid frame and continuous beam design). How-
member. End supported beams or braced segments, either
ever, in noncomposite design, the top flange may span long
due to their loading arrangement and/or support restraint
distances without lateral bracing. These unbraced spans are
condition, can have nonlinear bending moment diagrams.
subject to lateral-torsional buckling if they are longer than
The AISC flexural expressions in Chapter F of the 1989 ASD
Lp. Part 5 of the AISC 3rd Edition LRFD Manual of Steel
Specification and the 1999 LRFD Specification were devel-
Construction (AISC, 2001) gives values for Mn, the nominal
oped with the conservative assumption of a constant bending
flexural strength, for a multitude of beam sizes with various
moment along the member. The Cb coefficient was created
unbraced segments.
to account for departures from this assumption. It is impor-
The nominal flexural strength is conservative for beams
tant to note that Cb is only of consequence in cases where
with nonlinear moment diagrams (varying moment values
lateral-torsional buckling may become an issue, which typi-
along their length.) The Cb coefficient is used to more ac-
cally occurs for bending about the strong axis for unbraced
curately model the actual strength of the beams and can be
span lengths greater than Lc (ASD) and Lp (LRFD).
explained by an analogy to columns, considering the com-
Flexural members should always be designed based on
pression flange as a column under eccentric axial load. As
the applied maximum bending moment. Applying a Cb value
the bending moment increases, the axial force in the column
greater than unity results in an increase in the section ca-
increases. Unlike most columns though, the axial force in the
compression flange varies along the length due to the mo-
ment variation. Mn corresponds to Pcr, the critical buckling
load of a column. A column with no compressive axial load
at its top and an increasing axial compressive load that re-
sults in Pcr at the bottom would not buckle. Similarly, a beam
Sergio Zoruba is senior engineer at the American Institute of where the bending moment is equal to the nominal flexural
Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL. strength Mn at one point along the beam will not buckle. This
Brian Dekker is design engineer at James J. Mallett, P.E., results in an average bending moment along the length of the
P.A., Pensacola, FL. beam that is less than the nominal flexural strength, Mn. The

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2005 / 177

coefficient Cb increases the average permitted bending mo- M1/M2 = 0.33. The use of absolute values creates this near
ment to that of the nominal flexural strength, Mn. linearity in Equation 2.
Under certain circumstances and for some structural
USE OF Cb IN AISC SPECIFICATIONS steel shapes, the Cb coefficient is not significant because the
The upper bound for Cb is stipulated in the 1989 ASD Speci- member reaches its ultimate plastic bending capacity before
fication Section F1.3 as: it reaches its nominal flexural strength. The following must
always be checked:
2
M M 
Cb = 1.75 + 1.05 1 + 0.3  1  ≤ 2.3 (1) CbMn ≤ Mp (3)
M2  M2 
If Cb is already incorporated within the Mn expression, as
In this expression, M1 and M2 are the moments at the ends
is the case for most flexural expressions in the AISC LRFD
of the unbraced length (in other words, segment) and M1 is
Specification, then Mn must be less than or equal to Mp. The
always smaller than M2. The ratio of (M1/M2) can be posi-
lower bound for Cb is unity, which does not result in any in-
tive or negative, depending on the orientation of the moment
crease in the nominal flexural strength of the member. This
couples. Note that Equation 1 should only be used for load-
is the case where the end moments of the member are equal
ing arrangements and/or support restraint conditions that
(straight-line moment diagrams) or when the designer wants
result in straight-line moment diagrams. An upper bound of
to assume Cb = 1.0 for additional conservatism, even though
2.3 was established to limit the equation, as Cb values for
the moment diagram may be nonlinear.
straight-line moment diagrams are typically at or below this
It should be noted that there is nothing wrong with as-
value. When using Equation 1, if the internal moment any-
suming Cb = 1.0 since doing so simplifies the calculation
where along a beam exceeds the magnitude of its maximum
and also assumes the worst-case scenario for the bending
end moment, a Cb value of 1.0 should be used.
moment diagram. It is conservative, but as a result, can lead
The 1999 LRFD Specification Section F1.2a contains an
to less economical designs. In addition, because Equations
entirely different expression for Cb, as shown below:
1 and 2 are completely independent of design methodology,
12.5M max either expression can be used interchangeably in ASD and
Cb = (2) LRFD flexural calculations. However, Equation 1 is only ap-
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3 M C
plicable to straight-line moment diagrams while Equation 2
can be applied to any moment diagram.
It is important to realize that Mmax, MA, MB and MC are ab-
solute values (always positive) of the maximum, quarter-,
mid- and three-quarter point moments along an unbraced
segment, respectively.
One advantage of Equation 2 is that it accounts for the
maximum bending moment as well as the quarter-point in-
terval values along the moment diagram. Hence, this particu-
lar equation can be used with any moment diagram, regard-
less if it is straight-line or nonlinear. The second advantage is
that Equation 2 does not require an associated upper bound
since it naturally limits itself to an upper bound value of 2.27
for straight-line moment diagrams. Although there are an in-
finite number of possible nonlinear moment diagrams, the
upper bound of this expression for nonlinear moment dia-
grams, in most cases, does not significantly exceed the value
of 3.0. One example is the moment diagram for a fixed-fixed
end-supported beam with a uniformly distributed load, which
yields a Cb value of 2.38 from Equation 2.
The LRFD Specification Commentary Figure C-F1.3
(Figure 1) compares the ASD and LRFD Cb expressions for
straight-line moment diagrams. It can be seen from this fig-
ure that Equation 2 changes the trend and becomes nearly
straight from ±0.33 ≤ M1/M2 ≤ ±1.0. This sudden change in
trend occurs when either MA or MC is zero at the point
Fig. 1. Various Cb equations.

178 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2005

 CANTILEVERED BEAMS HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF Cb
If the internal moment anywhere along a beam exceeds the For more than fifty years, engineers have recognized that
magnitude of its maximum end moment, a Cb value of 1.0 beam end conditions can affect nominal flexural strength.
can be used according to Section F1.3 of the 1989 ASD In 1956, Mario Salvadori developed one of the first relation-
Specification. In Section F1.2a of the 1999 LRFD Specifica- ships between beam moment diagrams and nominal flexural
tion, the coefficient Cb is taken as 1.0 for cantilevers and strength. Salvadori discovered that the value of the coeffi-
overhangs where the free end is unbraced. Expressions for cient Cb also depends on the warping properties of individual
Cb when evaluated for a cantilevered beam can lead to a value sections as shown in Figure 2. For deeper beams with short
of approximately 2.0, depending on loading conditions, and spans, the value of Cb will be toward the top end of the area
one may be inclined to increase the moment capacity of the between the two curves which represents cases where warp-
member by an equal amount. This is not only unconserva- ing is significant. However, where warping is not a problem
tive, but incorrect. Analogous to a flagpole under axial com- (in other words, shallow beams with long spans), values for
pressive load where K = 2.0, the effective unbraced length is Cb will reside closer to the bottom curve.
twice the actual length. These two factors cancel each other Over the years, engineers have tried to derive mathemati-
since Cb would increase the moment capacity and K would cal equations to fit the curves developed by Salvadori. To
decrease it. A conservative approach for the nominal flexural be as accurate as possible without being unduly unconserva-
strength for a cantilever uses the actual length and a Cb co- tive, most of these equations have an associated upper bound
efficient of unity. For cases of restraint to the compression of 2.3 or 2.5. Various methods have been used to match the
and/or tension flanges at the free end of the cantilever, refer results of Salvadori’s work; some use inverse functions,
to the SSRC Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal some use quadratics, and others take less traditional forms.
Structures (Galambos, 1998). In 1979, Kirby and Nethercot (Kirby and Nethercot, 1979)
published an equation similar to Equation 2 that was self-
FRAME MEMBERS limiting, thus eliminating the need to define an upper bound
limit. This equation was the basis of Equation 2 and the first
The concept of Cb is also incorporated into the design of
to apply to nonlinear moment diagrams.
frames. Chapter C of the 1999 LRFD Specification dis-
cusses second-order analysis of frames. The required flex-
ural strength given by Equation C1-1 is Mu = B1Mnt + B2Mlt.
Mnt is the required flexural strength in the member assuming
no lateral translation of the frame while Mlt is the required
flexural strength resulting from the lateral translation alone.
The load on the beam or column is partly due to the ap-
plied load and partly due to the load from lateral transla-
tion. Although these maximums do not always occur at the
same point along the beam or column, Equation C1-1 is a
valid approximation of the actual load on the member. When
designing a frame, one needs to calculate the coefficient Cb
based on the combined moment diagram from both factors.
Once the required flexural strength and the actual flexural
strength of the beam or column are determined, one can use
the beam-column interaction equations from Chapter H of
Fig. 2. Effect of warping properties on Cb.
the 1999 LRFD Specification.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2005 / 179

 DESIGN EXAMPLES

Example 1: 12.5M max

Cb =
Determine Cb for each of the beam spans shown when lateral 2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
bracing is located at third-points. 12.5(1)
= = 1.0
Left segment value using Equation 1: 2.5(1) + 3(1) + 4(1) + 3(1)
In this example, the strength of the beam is limited by the
center segment where Cb is equal to unity. Note that either
Equation 1 or 2 can be used since the moment diagram con-
sists of three straight-line segments.

Example 2:
2 Determine the Cb value for the unbraced beam shown
M1 M 
Cb = 1.75 + 1.05 + 0.3  1  ≤ 2.3 below.
M2  M2 
Considering that the entire unbraced span contains a nonlin-
= 1.75 + 1.05(0) + 0.3(0) 2
ear moment diagram, use Equation 2:
= 1.75

Left segment value using Equation 2:

12.5M max
Cb =
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
12.5(1)
=
2.5(1) + 3(0.25) + 4(0.5) + 3(0.75)
12.5M max
12.5 Cb =
= = 1.67 2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
7.5
12.5(1)
= = 1.14
Center segment value using Equation 1: 2.5(1) + 3(0.75) + 4(1) + 3(0.75)

It is important to note that even though the unbraced case

in Example 2 has a larger Cb value than that in Example 1,
the braced case in Example 1 will still have a larger nominal
flexural capacity. The greater capacity for Example 1 results
from the fact that the unbraced length in Example 1 is only
one-third of the unbraced length of Example 2. The longer
unbraced length in Example 2 greatly increases the detri-
2
M1 M  mental effects of lateral-torsional buckling and therefore re-
Cb = 1.75 + 1.05 + 0.3  1  ≤ 2.3 duces the nominal flexural strength of the member. In other
M2  M2 
words, even though Cb1 < Cb2, the determination of nominal
= 1.75 + 1.05(−1) + 0.3(−1) 2 = 1.0 flexural strength for Examples 1 and 2 results in Cb1Mn1 >
Cb2Mn2 because Mn1 >> Mn2.
Center segment value using Equation 2:
Example 3:
Determine Cb for the unbraced beam span below.
The moment diagram is nonlinear, therefore use Equation 2

180 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2005

 Example 4:
This example shows a girder with floor beams framing into
it. The girder contains a cantilevered span, which supports a
floor beam at the end. Assuming the girder is braced at both
supports, there are two unbraced spans. The Cb coefficient
for the cantilevered span should be taken as 1.0. The Cb
coefficient for the main span is calculated using Equation 2:

12.5M max 12.5M max

Cb = Cb =
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3 M C 2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
12.5(1) 12.5(1)
= =
2.5(1) + 3(0.125) + 4(0.5) + 3(0.125) 2.5(1) + 3(0.83) + 4(1) + 3(0.5)
= 2.38 = 1.19

CONCLUSIONS AISC (2000), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specifica-

This paper discussed some fundamental, yet not well-un- tion for Structural Steel Buildings, December 27, 1999,
derstood aspects of the Cb coefficient. Engineers should be American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
aware of these concepts and limitations. It is often advanta- AISC (2001), Load and Resistance Factor Design Manual
geous to consider the Cb coefficient since it allows for more of Steel Construction, 3rd Edition, American Institute of
economical and efficient sizing of a flexural member. It is Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
particularly applicable to long unbraced spans in flexural Galambos, T.V. (1998), Guide to Stability Design Criteria
members that cannot reach their plastic moment strength, for Metal Structures, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
Mp. Another important fact is that Equations 1 and 2 may be New York, NY.
used with either LRFD or ASD design, as they are indepen- Gaylord, E.H., Gaylord, C.N., and Stallmeyer, J.E. (1992),
dent of design methodology. Equation 2 is applicable to all Design of Steel Structures, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill,
moment diagrams whereas Equation 1 is applicable only to New York, NY.
spans having straight-line moment diagrams. In LRFD, it is
always necessary to check that the calculated nominal flex- Kirby, P.A., and Nethercot, D.A. (1979), Design for Struc-
ural strength of the member, after applying Cb, is no greater tural Stability, Chapter 3, John Wiley & Sons, New
than the member’s plastic moment strength, Mp. The same York, NY.
general concept applies to ASD. Salvadori, M. (1956), “Lateral-Buckling of Eccentrically
Loaded I Columns,” Transactions of the ASCE, Vol.121,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pp. 1163-1178.
The authors wish to thank Donald Sherman and Charles Yura, J.A. (2001), “Fundamentals of Beam Bracing,” Engi-
Carter for their thoughts and input. Their contributions and neering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction,
comments led the authors to publish this paper. Inc., Vol. 38, No. 1, 1st Quarter, pp. 11-26.
Zuraski, P.D. (1992), “The Significance and Application
REFERENCES of Cb in Beam Design,” Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Vol. 29, No. 1, 1st
AISC (1989), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings-Al- Quarter, pp. 20-25.
lowable Stress Design and Plastic Design, June 1, 1989,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2005 / 181