American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering

2017; 2(5): 37-56

http://www.aascit.org/journal/ajcee

A Closer Examination of Design

Approaches for Eccentrically
Loaded WT Shapes in Compression
Yuwen Li
Gannett Fleming Inc., Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, United States

Email address
[email protected]

Citation
Yuwen Li. A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in
Compression. American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Keywords Vol. 2, No. 5, 2017, pp. 37-56.
WT Shapes, Abstract
Eccentrically Loaded, Design strengths of Structural Tees (WT-shapes, Tees) in axial compression are provided
Eccentric Loading, in Table 4-5 of the 14th edition of AISC Manual of Steel Construction (the Manual) [1],
Compression, with an assumption that the compression force is applied at the center of gravity (c.g.) of
Design Tables the cross section. However, in engineering practice, Tees are rarely loaded at the section’s
c.g.; rather, they are eccentrically loaded at the ends through the gusset plates that welded
or bolted to their flanges. Therefore, these Tees are subject to the axial compressive force
and the bending moment induced by the eccentric end connections. Although the design
Received: July 25, 2017 strengths of eccentrically loaded WT-shapes are not provided in the Manual, they can be
Accepted: August 14, 2017 calculated based on AISC Specifications for Structural Steel Constructions (the
Published: September 20, 2017 Specifications) [2], albeit the design process is tedious and time consuming. However, if
the Specifications are indiscriminately followed (called Approach 1 in this paper), the
calculated strengths are too conservative. This paper discusses an alternate approach
(Approach 2) allowed for by Commentary H2 of the Specifications, and the calculated
strengths based on Approach 2 are larger and more reasonable than those based on
Approach 1. Extensive Finite Element Nonlinear Analyses have been employed to
validate the proposed approach. Finally, design tables for eccentrically loaded WT-shapes
are provided to help engineers quickly determine the proper size of a WT-shape for their
project.

1. Introduction
WT-shapes are commonly used in the bracing system to resist large axial loads and/or to
satisfy the KL/r requirement for large unbraced lengths. When used as braces, Tees are
often connected to a gusset plate through their flanges which create an eccentric
connection due to an offset between the neutral axis of the Tee and the gusset plate.
Although braces are treated as truss members in the structural analysis, the induced
bending moment on a Tee due to the eccentric connection must be considered in the
member design. This additional bending moment is neither considered by design tables in
the 14th edition of AISC Manual of Steel Construction [1], nor by Design Examples,
Version 14 [3].
Gordon [4] presented Tables for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression,
based on the 13th edition of AISC Manual of Steel Construction (AISC 2005), but it is the
author’s opinion that while the available strengths from Gordon’s tables are conservative
(called Approach 1 in this paper), more capacity is available if a different design approach
is used. This paper discusses an alternative approach (Approach 2) permitted by the
Specifications [2] that yields larger and much needed capacities.
38 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression

2. Observation connected to a 5/8-in. thick gusset plate (Figure 1). The

available axial compressive strength of the Tee member is
Although the predominant load in Tee bracing and based on Design Approach 1 (see Example in later section);
cross-frame members is the axial load, the effect of bending the available axial compressive strength of single angle
moments must be accounted for in the member design. Two member is from Table 4-12 of the Manual [1], or can be easily
components contribute to the moment in a Tee used as a brace: computed based on Section E5 of the Specifications [2], as
one is the moment due to the selfweight; the other is the discussed by Li [10]. The results are presented in Table 1.
moment due to an eccentric end connection. The moment due
to selfweight can be neglected for bracing members with short
lengths; however this moment should be considered in the
design of long, slender bracing members. The effect of
selfweight is not discussed in this paper.
To demonstrate the conservativeness of Approach 1,
consider two 10 ft. long grade 36 steel brace members: one
uses WT6×17.5 with flange connected to a 5/8-in. thick gusset
plate; another uses a single angle L6×6×7/16 with one leg Figure 1. Tee & Single Angle Braces.

Table 1. Comparison of the Available Compressive Strength of WT6x17.5& L6x6x7/16.

Section Wt. (lb/ft) Connected element Outstanding Element φcPn (kips) Reference
WT6x17.5 17.5 6.56x0.52 5.48x0.30 48.8 Example
76.2 Sec. E5 of the Specifications
L6x6x7/16 17.3 6.00x0.44 5.56x0.44
62.4 Table 4-12 of the Manual

In terms of member weight, element size and thickness, the

3. Behavior of WT Shapes
single angle L6×6×7/16 is very close to WT6×17.5. Intuitively
WT6×17.5 should have a larger axial capacity than the single In applications such as bracings and cross-frames, the Tee
angle L6×6×7/16 since it is a singly symmetric section and the can be connected to a gusset plate through either the flange or
bending is in the plane of symmetry. However, the axial capacity the stem. Connection through the stem (Figure 3) is rarely used
of the Tee based on Design Approach 1 is only about 64% of that for the practical reasons. In order to connect a gusset plate to the
of the single angle; therefore, the available strengths of stem, half of the flange must be coped to accept the gusset plate,
eccentrically loaded Tees deserve a closer examination. which adds to the fabrication cost. However, a gusset attached
To further illustrate the significance of the low capacities to the stem minimizes the eccentricity from the neutral axis of
based on Design Approach 1, both the Tee and single angle are the Tee; Tees connected in this manner can be designed as
investigated for a range of unbraced length from 4 ft. to 19 ft., concentrically loaded members if the selfweight induced
and the results are shown in Figure 2. moment is negligible in design, and Table 4-7 of the Manual [1]
can be used to obtain its available axial compressive capacities.

Figure 3. End Connection Types of WT-Members.

Tees are singly symmetric sections about the centerline of

the stem. A connection through the flange (Figure 3) is a
commonly used engineering practice due to the simplicity of
the connection; however, this type of connection creates an
eccentricity from the neutral axis of the Tee from the applied
load. The effect of connection eccentricity is a function of
connection and member stiffness, if the connection is through
a thin gusset plate, the moment due to connection eccentricity
cannot be resisted by the thin plate at the connection; the
moment must be resisted by the member [2] (Figure 4). This
Figure 2. Axial Capacities of Tee and Single Angle. moment will reduce the axial capacity of the member.
 American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 39

available capacity of the Tee should be determined by

considering the interaction of combined forces according to
Chapter H of the Specifications [2].
Although Tees are singly symmetric sections, no single
WT-shape satisfies the 0.1 ≤ Iyc/Iy ≤ 0.9 requirement of Section
H1.1 of the Specifications [2]. Therefore, Section H2 should
be used to evaluate the capacity of a Tee under combined
Figure 4. Connection Moment.
forces, and Equation H2-1 can be rewritten as:

A pure bending moment in the plane of symmetry of a Tee f ra f rbx f rby

+ + ≤ 1.0 at tee flange, and (3)
produces bending stress in the tip of the stem that is much Fca Fcbx Fcby
greater than the stress in the flange, therefore, the flexural
strength of the Tee is controlled by the stress in the stem. f ra f rbx
However, for a Tee in compression that is eccentrically loaded − ≤ 1.0 at tee stem (4)
Fca Fcbx
from its the flange, the magnitude of the induced bending
moment is directly proportional to the applied axial load.
where, fra = required axial stress
While the induced moment produces a large tensile stress in
Fca = available axial stress
the tip of stem, the uniformly distributed compressive stress
frbx, frby = required flexural stress at P.O.C.
due to the applied axial load reduces the tensile stress in the Fcbx, Fcby = available flexural stress at P.O.C.
stem and increases the compressive stress in the flange caused
by the bending moment (Figure 5). fra, frbx and frby at the P.O.C. (point of consideration) can be
easily obtained using proper section properties and applied
forces; Fca can be calculated based on Sections E3 or E4, and
Fcby can be calculated based on Section F6 of the
Specifications [2]. However, the computation of Fcbx needs a
closer examination since the flexural stresses in the flange and
in the stem due to the bending about the x-axis involves two
distinguished section modulus: Sx and Sxc.
As discussed in Commentary H2 of the Specifications [2],
Figure 5. Stresses in WT-Sections. there are two approaches for using Equation H2-1:
(a) “Strictly using Equation H2-1 for the interaction of the
Compared to the flexural strength of a Tee member in pure critical moment about each principal axis, there is only one
bending, the flexural strength of the Tee is increased due to the flexural stress ratio term for every critical location since the
presence of axial force. Consider a zero length WT6×17.5 moment and stress ratios are the same..... The yielding
member (Ag = 5.17 in2, Ix = 16.0 in4, Sx = 3.23 in3, d = 6.25 in, moment should be based on the smallest section modulus
and y = 1.30 in.), the pure bending yield capacity My = Fy(Sx) = about the axis being considered.” For a Tee connected through
(36 ksi)(3.23 in3) = 116.28 kip-in. When the moment is created the flange that is in compression, additional compressive
through an eccentrically loaded axial compressive force, the stress is introduced in flange due to the eccentricity, the
maximum compressive force and the corresponding moment compression in the flange will always control the design since
can be found by solving equations (1) and (2); and the results the yield moment is based on the smallest section modulus
are Pr = 108.77 kips, e = 1.694 in, and My = Pre = 184.25 kip-in, about x-axis. Therefore, the stress ratio need only be checked
which is greater than 116.28 kip-in. In other words, when for compression at the flange, this approach is called Design
disregarding local and lateral torsional buckling, or when they Approach 1 in this article.
are not in control, the presence of axial compressive force will (b) “For certain load combinations, where the critical
increase the flexural capacity when the stem is in tension. stress can transition from tension at one point on the cross
section to compression at another, it may be advantageous to
Pr Pr e P Pe
+ y = r + r 1.3 = 36 at tee flange, and (1) consider two interaction relationships depending on the
Ag Ix 5.17 16 magnitude of each component.” For a Tee connected through
the flange that is in compression, the introduction of tensile
Pr Pr e P Pe stress due to eccentricity will reduce the compressive stress in
− = r − r = −36 at teestem (2) stem, it could benefit from consideration of more than one
Ag S x 5.17 3.23
interaction relationship occurs, and the yield moments could
be based on section modulus of flange and tip of stem
4. Design Approaches individually. Therefore, the stress ratio need be checked for
both stem and flange, although for eccentrically load Tee, the
For a Tee with gusset plate connected to its flange, or when moment induced by eccentricity is small, stress ratio at flange
the selfweight moment is too significant to be neglected, the will most likely controls the design, this approach is called
40 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression

Design Approach 2 in this article. Sxc, section modulus of the flange Sxc = Iy / y

4.1. Available Flexural Stresses Fcbx - Design The nominal flexural strength of the Tee, Mnx, under the
Approach 1 limit state of lateral torsional buckling should be calculated
according to Equation 9-4 of the Specifications [2].
According to Section E9 of the Specifications [2], for Tees The nominal flexural strength of the Tee member, Mnx,
loaded in the plane of symmetry, the nominal flexural strength under the limit state of flange local buckling in flexural
Mnx shall be the lowest value obtained according to the limit compression should be determined according to Section F9.3
states of yielding, lateral torsional buckling, and flange local of the Specifications [2], based on the slenderness of the
buckling, and the available flexural stress Fcbx can be flange. The limit state of flange local buckling does not apply
calculated as follows: for Fy = 36 ksi, since all 273 WT-shapes that included in the
ϕb M nx AISC Shapes Database V14.0 have compact flanges. There
Fcbx _ stem = (5) are only 10 WT-shapes that have non-compact flanges in
Sx
flexural compression for Fy = 50 ksi, they are listed in Table 2.
ϕb M nx These WT-shapes are excluded from this paper. Therefore, the
Fcbx _ flange = (6)
S xc limit state of flange local buckling is not a concern of the
discussion.
where, Sx, section modulus of the stem, Sx = Iy /(d-y)
Table 2. WT with non-compact Flanges (Fy = 50 ksi) (λrf = 24.1 < λ < λpf = 9.15).

Section λ = bf / 2tf Section λ = bf / 2tf Section λ = bf / 2tf

WT3x4.5 10.1 WT4x15.5 9.19 WT7x49.5 9.34
WT3x6 9.16 WT5x6 9.43 WT10.5x24 9.47
WT3x7.5 11.5 WT6x32.5 9.92
WT4x5 9.61 WT7x45 10.2

The nominal flexural strength of the Tee member, Mnx,

under the limit state of yielding can be calculated as: ϕb M nx ϕb (1.6 Fy S x ) ϕb (1.6 Fy )
Fcbx _ flange = = =
S xc S xc S xc
Sx
M nx = M p = Fy Z x ≤ 1.6 M yx (7)
ϕb (1.6 Fy ) ϕb (1.6 Fy ) (10)
= =
where, Zx – plastic section modulus (d − y ) / y 2.23 ~ 5.43
Myx = FySx = ϕb (0.29 ~ 0.72) Fy
After examining all 273 WT-shapes, it is concluded that the
4.2. Available Flexural Stresses Fcbx - Design
section modulus ratio Zx /Sx is in the range of 1.75 (WT6x13)
Approach 2
to 2.23 (WT7x275), and the nominal yield strength of a Tee is
thus controlled by 1.6FySx. Therefore the available flexural The very low available flexural stress in the flange (Fcbx =
stress in stem, Fcbx_stem and the available flexural stress in φb(0.29~0.72)Fy) under the limit state of yielding as described
flange, Fcbx_flange, are: in the Design Approach 1 is due to the lack of distinction
between the compression flange yielding and tension stem
ϕb M nx ϕb min( Fy Z x ,1.6 Fy S x )
Fcbx _ stem = = yielding in Section F9 of the Specifications [2]. For a Tee
Sx Sx (8) loaded in the plane of symmetry under pure bending, the limit
= ϕb (1.6 Fy ) state of yielding is always controlled by the stress in the stem,
so the distinction between the compression flange yielding
ϕb min( Fy Z x ,1.6Fy S x ) and tension stem yielding is not necessary. However, as
ϕb M nx
Fcbx _ flange = = (9) described earlier, for a Tee in compression that is eccentrically
S xc S xc loaded from its flange, although the moment due to the
ϕb (1.6Fy S x ) connection eccentricity produces a large tensile stress in the
= tip of stem, the uniformly distributed compressive stress due
S xc
to the applied axial load reduces the tensile stress in the stem.
It is also concluded from AISC Shapes Database v14.0 that Therefore, the available flexural stress in the flange and in the
the ratio of elastic section modulus of the flange to the elastic stem should be investigated separately, and the distinction of
section modulus of the stem Sxc /Sx = (d-y)/y is in the range of compression flange yielding from tension stem yielding
2.23 (WT7x365) to 5.43 (WT7x45), and thus becomes necessary.
Eccentrically loaded Tees can be treated as a special case of a
singly symmetric I-shaped section with the width of tension
flange equaling the stem thickness, bent about their major axis
 American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 41

(Figure 6). The singly symmetric I-Shaped members bent about used by Approach 2 is incorporated in the Microsoft Excel
their major axis are covered in Sections F4 and F5 of the spreadsheet to generate the design tables.
Specifications [2] depending upon the compactness of the web.
However as stated in Section F4, I-shaped members that are
applicable to Section F4 may be designed conservatively using
Section F5, therefore Section F5 will be used in this paper to aid
the evaluation of the available critical stresses in the flange.

Figure 7. WT Design Example.

KL = 120 in. Fy = 36 ksi E = 29,000 ksi

Ag = 5.17 in.2 d = 6.25 in. tw = 0.300 in.
bf = 6.56 in. tf = 0.520 in. y = 1.30 in.
Ix =16.0 in.4 Sx = 3.23 in.3 rx = 1.76 in.
Iy =12.2 in.4 Sy = 3.73 in.3 ry = 1.54 in.
Figure 6. Singly Symmetric I-shaped Section.
Zx = 5.71 in.3 Zy = 5.73 in.3 J = 0.369 in.4
For singly symmetric I-shaped members under pure flexure H = 0.835 ro = 2.56 in. t1 = 0.625 in.
bent about their major axis, the nominal flexural strength, Mnx, KL/r ≤ 200 φc = 0.90 Ω = 1.67
shall be the lowest value obtained according to the limit states 5.1. Check Required Radius of Gyration, rmin
of compression flange yielding, lateral-torsion buckling,
compression local buckling, and tension flange yielding. Required radius of gyration rmin = KL/200 = 1.0(120) / 200 =
The available critical stress in the stem according to the 0.60 in. < min(rx, ry) = 1.54 in., ok
limit state of tension stem is the same as Approach 1,
5.2. Check for Slender Element
Fcbx _ stem = ϕb (1.6 Fy ) (11) For uniform compression in flange – Since the flanges of all
Tees are either compact or non-compact elements, there is no
The available critical stress in the flange according to the need to check the flange for slender element. For uniform
limit state of compression flange can be obtained based on compression in stem (Case 8, Table B4.1a, Section B4, the
Equation F5-1 of the Specifications [2], Specifications [2]),

M nx = R pg Fy S xc (12) d 6.25 E 29, 000

= = 20.8 < λ r = 0.75 = 0.75 = 21.3
t w 0.30 Fy 36
where, Rpg, the bending strength reduction factor is
determined as follows: ∴ Stem satisfies limiting width-thickness ratios for
non-compact elements, and Sections E3 and E4 of the
aw h E 
R pg = 1 −  c − 5.7  ≤ 1.0 Specifications [2] should be used to compute the available
(13)
1, 200 + 300aw  tw Fy  axial compressive stresses.
 
5.3. Determine the Available Axial Stress, Fca
where, hc, twice the distance from the centroid to the inside
face of compression flange less the fillet. 5.3.1. The Critical Compressive Stress, Fcr,
Based on the Limit State of Flexural
aw = hctw / bf tf
Buckling (Section E3 of the
After examining all 273 WT-shapes, it is concluded that Rpg Specifications [2])
= 1.0 for all WT-shapes. Therefore, the available critical stress
Flexural buckling about the x-x axis:
in the flange is defined as:
KL 1.0(120)
ϕb M nx ϕb R pg Fy S xc = = 68.18
Fcbx _ flange = = = ϕb Fy (14) rx 1.76
S xc S xc
π2 E π 2 (29, 000)
Fex = 2
= = 61.57 ksi
5. Design Example  KL  68.182
 
 rx 
The following example (Figure 7) demonstrates the
procedure that is used by the two approaches, the procedure Since Fy / Fex = 36/61.57 = 0.585 ≤ 2.25, Equation E3-2 of
42 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression

the Specifications [2] applies, M nx = min[ Fy Z x ,1.6 M yx = 1.6 Fy S x ]

= min[36(5.71),1.6(36)(3.23)]
 Fy   36 
Fcrx 
= 0.658 Fex  F = 0.658 61.57  (36) = 28.18 ksi = min[205.56,186.05] = 186.05 kip-in.
  y  
  
The available flexural stress, Fcbx_stem, Fcbx_flange
Flexural buckling about the y-y axis: ϕb M nx 0.9(186.05)
Fcbx _ stem = = = 51.84 ksi
KL 1.0(120) Sx 3.23
= = 77.92
ry 1.54
ϕb M nx 0.9(186.05)
Fcbx _ flange = = = 13.60 ksi
π2 E π 2 (29, 000) S xc 12.31
Fey = 2
= = 47.14 ksi
 KL  77.92
  Approach 2:
 ry 
 
The available flexural stress, Fcbx_stem based on the limit
 Fy   36  state of yielding in stem that in tension,
Fcry 
= 0.658
Fey  F = 0.658 47.14  36 = 26.15ksi
  y   Fcbx _ stem = ϕb 1.6 Fy = 0.9(1.6)(36) = 51.84 ksi
  

5.3.2. The Critical Compressive Stress, Fcr, The available flexural stress, Fcbx_flange based on the limit
Based on the Limit States of Torsional state of yielding in flange that in compression
and Flexural-Torsional Buckling
Fcbx _ flange = ϕb Fy = 0.9(36.00) = 32.40 ksi
(Section E4 of the Specifications [2])

GJ 11, 200(0.369) 5.4.2. The Nominal Flexural Strength, Mnx

Fcrz = = = 121.98ksi Based on the Limit State of
Ag r02 5.17(2.56) 2
Lateral-Torsional Buckling (Section
F9.2 of the Specifications [2])
From Equation E4-2 of the Specifications [2],
Assuming stem in tension,
 
 Fcry + Fcrz   4 Fcry Fcrz H 
Fcr =   1 − 1 −  Iy
( )
2 d 6.25 12.2
 2 H  Fcry + Fcrz  B = 2.3( ) = 2.3( ) = 0.69
 Lb J 120 0.369
 26.15 + 121.98   
4(26.15)(121.98)(0.835) 
=  1− 1− π EI y GJ
 2(0.835)   ( 26.15 + 121.98)2  M nx = M cr = [B + 1 + B2 ]
Lb
= 25.08 ksi
π 29, 000(12.2)(11, 200)(0.369)
= × [0.69 + 1 + 0.692 ]
5.3.3. The Available Axial Compressive 120
Stress, Fca = 1905.03 kip-in.

The controlling critical compressive stress, Fcr The available flexural stresses, Fcbx_stem and Fcbx_flange
Fcr = min(Fcrx, Fcry, Fcr) = 25.08 ksi ϕb M nx 0.9(1905.03)
Fcbx _ stem = = = 530.8 ksi, not control;
The available axial compressive stress, Fra Sx 3.23
ϕb M nx 0.9(1905.03)
Fca = φc Fcr = 0.9(25.08) = 22.57 ksi Fcbx _ stem = = = 138.2 ksi, not control
S xc 12.31
5.4. The available Flexural Stress, Fcbx_stem,
Fcbx_flange 5.4.3. The Nominal Flexural Strength, Mnx
Based on the Limit State of Flange
5.4.1. The Nominal Flexural Strength, Mnx Local Buckling (Section F9.3 of the
Based on the Limit State of Yielding for Specifications [2])
Stem in Tension (Section F9.1 of the
Specifications [2]) Check the compactness of flange for flexure,

Approach 1:
bf 6.56 E 29, 000
= = 6.3 < λ r = 1.0 = 1.0 = 28.4
2t f 2(0.52) Fy 36
 American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 43

bf 6.56 E π 2 0.8τ b EI x π 2 (0.8)τ b (29, 000)(16.0)

= = 6.3 < λ p = 0.38 Pelx = =
2t f 2(0.52) Fy ( Kl L ) 2 (1.0(120))2
= 254.42τ b
29,000
= 0.38 = 10.8
36 Cm 1.0
B1x = =
1 − α Pr / Pelx 1 − 1.0( Pr ) / 254.42τ b
∴ Flange is compact, and the limit state of flange local
254.42τ b
buckling does not apply. =
254.42τ b − Pr
5.4.4. The Controlling Available Flexural
Stresses, Fcbx_stem and Fcbx_flange The required flexural moment due to axial load and
eccentricity of connection, Mrx
Approach 1:
M rx = (1.6125) B1x Pr
Fcbx _ stem = 51.84 ksi 254.42τ b
= (1.6125Pr )( ) kip-in.
254.42τ b − Pr
Fcbx _ flange = 13.60 ksi
5.7. Interaction of Flexure and Compression
Approach 2:
Actual axial stress, fa
Fcbx _ stem = 51.84 ksi
Pr P
fa = = r ksi
Fcbx _ flange = 32.40 ksi Ag 5.17

5.5. The Available Flexural Stress, Fcby Actual flexural stress fbx, due to Mrx

Since there is no flexural moment about axis y-y, in this 254.42τ b

(1.6125 Pr )( )
example, calculation of Fcby is not required (Section F6 of the M 254.42τ b − Pr
f bx − flange = rx =
Specifications [2]) S xc 12.31

5.6. The Required Flexural Moment Due to 254.42τ b

(1.6125 Pr )( )
Axial Load and Eccentricity of M 254.42τ b − Pr
Connection, Mrx fbx − stem = rx =
Sx 3.23
M rx = B1x M ecc = B1x Pr ( y + t1 / 2)
Interaction at tip of the stem,
= B1x Pr (1.3 + 0.625 / 2)
= (1.6125) B1x Pr kip-in. f ra f rbx _ stem f f rbx _ stem
− = ra − ≤ 1.0
where, B1 – 2nd-Order effect based on Appendix Equation
Fca Fcbx _ stem 22.57 51.84
A-8-3 of the Specifications [2],
Solve above equation, Pr = 944.42 kips, not control.
Cm Interaction at edge of the flange – Approach 1
B1 = >= 1.0
1 − α Pr / Pel
f ra f rbx _ flange f f rbx _ flange
+ = ra + ≤ 1.0
where, α = 1.0 (LRFD); 1.6 (ASD) Fca Fcbx _ flange 22.57 13.60
Cm = 1.0 (conservative)
Solve above equation, Pr = 48.78 kips
π 2 0.8τ b EI Interaction at edge of the flange – Approach 2
Pel =
( Kl L)2
f ra f rbx _ flange f ra f rbx _ flange
π 2 0.8τ b EI + = + ≤ 1.0
Pel = Fca Fcbx _ flange 22.57 32.40
( Kl L)2
Solve above equation, Pr = 70.56 kips
τ b = 1.0 if α Pr / ( Fy Ag ) ≤ 0.5
5.8. Compressive Strength
4α Pr
τb = if α Pr / ( Fy Ag ) > 0.5 The Design Compressive Strength (LRFD), φcPn
Fy Ag − α Pr
44 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression

Approach 1: larger the unbraced length, the greater the difference in

capacities. This is further evidence that Approach 1 results in
φcPn = Pr = 48.78 kips inefficient designs. The same conclusion was drawn by
Approach 2: Galambos [7] that “the ASIC-type approach can be quite
conservative, especially for tee-shapes”. The “AISC-type
φcPn = Pr = 70.56 kips approach” by Galambos is identified as Approach 1 in this
paper.
The Allowable Compressive Strength (ASD), Pn /Ω Tito [9] performed tests on two eccentrically loaded
Approach 1: WT5x11 braces with the compressive force applied through ½”
gusset plates, the WT shapes were cut from a Gr. 50 W10x22
Pn /Ω = (Pr/φc)/ Ω = (48.78/0.9) / 1.67 = 32.45 kips and 15 ft in length. Both tests showed the stem tip reached
tension yielding stress at 27.4 kips and the flange reached
Approach 2: compression yielding after large deflections of the braces and
Pn /Ω = (Pr/φc)/ Ω = (70.56/0.9) / 1.67 = 46.95 kips sustaining the maximum load of 29.3 kips. With a resistance
factor φc = 0.90 the axial compression strength is 26.37 kips,
which is very close to the available strength of 27.8 kips from
6. Discussions the design tables presented at the end of this paper. It should
6.1. Design Approaches be noted that the tested WT shapes have an initial 5/8” camber,
which exceeds the allowed mill straightness tolerance of 3/8”
As illustrated in the design example above, for an per Table 1-54 of the Manual [1].
eccentrically loaded WT6x17.5 in compression with an
unbraced length of 10 ft. and an eccentricity of 1.6125”, the
axial capacity of 70.56 kips based on Approach 2 is much
higher than the capacity of 48.78 kips based on Approach 1.

Figure 9. WT-shape Interaction Curve: Axial Force vs. Moment.

Figure 9 displays the normalized axial capacity vs. flexural

Figure 8. Axial Capacity Comparison of WT-shape and Angle of the Similar
Weight. capacity interaction diagram of the same member, where φcPn
= φcFcrAg = (0.9)(25.08)(5.17) = 116.69 kips, and φbMnx =
This can be further observed from Figure 8 which shows φb(1.6)FySx = (0.90)(1.6)(36)(3.23) = 167.45 kip-in. The
that with unbraced lengths between 6 ft. and 24 ft., the interaction diagram based on Approach 1 is in linear variation
capacities of WT6x17.5 determined by Approach 1 are much when the second order effect is not considered, shows that the
less than the capacities determined by Approach 2. The stress ratio in the flange controls the design for entire curve;
capacities of WT6x17.5 determined by Approach 1 are even on the other hand, with Approach 2, the stress ratio in the
less than the capacities of the single angle L6x6x7/16 for flange controls the design when Pr/φcPn > 0.4; the controlling
unbraced lengths less than 13 ft., on the other hand, the stress ratio transitions to stem controls when Pr/φcPn < 0.4.
capacities of the WT6x17.5 determined by Approach 2 are The interaction curves shown in Figure 9 are very much like
larger than the capacities of the single angle L6x6x7/16, the the interaction curves presented by Galambos [7].
 American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 45

The benefit of Approach 2 can be further visualized with

interaction diagram of axial compressive stress vs. flexural
compressive stress in flange as shown in Figure 10. With
Approach 1 where stress ratio in flange controls the design,
the flexural compressive stress in flange is limited to 13.40 ksi;
however, with Approach 2 when the stress ratio in the flange
controls the design, the flexural compressive stress in the
flange in the trend reaches 0.9Fy, until the controlling stress
ratio transitions from flange controls to stem controls.
Figure 10 is similar as Figure C-H2.2 shown in Commentary
H2 of the Specifications [2] except that Figure C-H2.2 is for a
WT when the stem in flexural compression is combined with
axial tension, or an eccentrically loaded WT in tension.

Figure 11. Available Flexural Stresses in Flanges.

7. Finite Element Analyses

As discussed previously, Approach 2 yields a greater and
much needed capacity of an eccentrically loaded WT-shape.
The member’s resistances derived from design Approach 2
were validated through nonlinear Finite Element (FE) analysis
using LUSAS Bridge software [6], which considers buckling
behavior, second-order effects, geometrically nonlinear (initial
imperfection), and material nonlinearity (yielding) of the
member. Initial imperfection can be considered the same as the
mill straightness tolerance for camber or sweep. According to
Table 1-54 for W-shapes or H-shapes, and Table 1-56 for
,
Figure 10. WT-shape Axial Compressive Stress vs. Flexural Compressive WT-shapes of the Manual [1], that is , the
Stress in Flange. results of the FE analyses are discussed below.

6.2. Available Flexural Stresses in Flanges 7.1. Finite Element Analysis of Centrically
Loaded Members
As discussed in the Design Considerations, the nominal
flexural strength Mnx shall be the lowest value obtained according AISC [1] provides axial capacities for centrically loaded
to the limit states of yielding, lateral torsional buckling, and W-shapes and WT-shapes in compression. In order to test the
flange local buckling, and the available flexural stress in flange FE modeling techniques and serve as a benchmark to analyze
Fcbx_flange can be calculated based on Equation (5). eccentrically loaded WT-sections, FE analyses were first
Excluding ten (10) WT-shapes, flange local buckling is not performed to analyze centrically loaded doubly symmetric
applicable to WT-shapes. The available stresses in the flange I-shape W14x82 and centrically loaded singly symmetric
based on the remaining two limit states – yielding and lateral WT6x17.5. Two element types were utilized in these analyses:
torsional buckling are presented in Figure 11. It can be concluded three Dimensional Semiloof Cross Section Beam (BXL4) and
that for WT6x17.5 with Grade 36 steel and unbraced lengths as quadrilateral Thick Shell (QTS8), elements used in the study
shown, the yielding, rather than lateral torsional buckling, are sufficiently refined and not to be discussed in this paper [5].
controls the available stresses in the flanges. Therefore, in order Figure 12 shows axial capacities of W14x82 obtained from FE
to design a Tee member more efficiently, it is critical to analysis and from Table 4-1 of the Manual [1]; Figure 13 shows
distinguish the section modulus for the flange and stem when axial capacities of WT6x17.5 obtained from FE analysis and
determining the yielding strength of the Tee under combined from Table 4-7 of the Manual [1]. Both Figure 12 and Figure
axial compression and flexural compression on the flanges. 13 indicate that finite element analysis using both beam element
46 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression

and shell element yields very similar capacities for both 7.2. Finite Element Analysis of Eccentrically
methods for doubly symmetric I-shape and singly symmetric Loaded Tees
WT-shape. It can also be concluded that finite element analysis
can very accurately predict the axial capacity of both I-shapes Since finite element nonlinear analysis using either beam
and WT-shapes with large unbraced length, and that when the element or shell element yields similar capacities of
unbraced length is small, the axial capacities obtained from centrically loaded Tees, shell element (QTS8) was used to
Table 4-1 and Table 4-7 of the Manual [1] are conservative; the investigate eccentrically loaded WT - shapes, flange elements
conservativeness is greater with WT-shapes than with I-shapes. are taken at mid-thickness of the flange. The following
discussion is for: WT6x17.5 with unbraced length of 10 feet,
Gr. 36 steel, eccentrically loaded with an eccentricity of
1.6125”, and the initial imperfection is 0.125”.

Figure 14. Axial Load at 1.6125” from NA of Tee.

Eccentricity: To apply the axial load at 1.6125” from the

neutral axis (NA) of WT6x17.5, solid elements (HX20) are
incorporated to both ends of the member in the model as
shown in Figure 14. A concentrated load is applied in the
vertical (Z-axis) at a node of the solid element, while outside
Figure 12. Axial Capacities of W14x89.
edges of solid elements are simply supported in both the X-
and Y- axes.
Buckling Modes: Figure 15 presents the first three buckling
modes with eigenvalues of 312.11 kips, 461.64 kips, and
1155.98 kips respectively. The first mode is usually of interest
and the initial imperfection of 0.125” is started with the
deformed mesh from buckling mode 1.

Figure 13. Axial Capacities of WT6x17.5.

Figure 15. Buckling Modes of Eccentrically Loaded Tee.
 American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 47

Nominal Axial Capacity, Stress Distributions and Load vs. 40% of stem reach yield stress of 36 ksi (Fy), while the
Displacement Curve: The nominal axial capacity based on compressive stresses in flange are slightly lower than Fy.
nonlinear finite analysis is Pr = 87.23 kips, therefore, the Figure 17 shows the stress distribution before and after the
factored available strength φc Pr = 0.90*87.23 = 78.51 kips, load reaches the maximum load of Pr, the maximum tensile
which is slightly larger than 70.56 kips from the calculation stress in the stem reaches Fy when the load is at 0.80Pr, while
based on Approach 2. the compressive stresses in the flange is only 24 ksi. With the
Stress distribution along the stem (local y-y axis) at increase of applied load, more area of the stem is yielded, and
mid-height of the tee member is shown in Figure 16 and 17. stress in flange is increased, the compressive stress in flange
Figure 16 shows the stress distribution at the maximum load eventually reaches the Fy.
of Pr = 87.23 kips. The averaged nodal tensile stresses within

Figure 16. Stress Distribution at Pr = 87.23 kips.

Figure 17. Stress Distribution before and after 1.0Pr.

48 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression

Load vs. mid-height displacement curve is shown in Figure 18. Linear variation is observed when the applied load is less than
0.80Pr, and the stresses in the WT6x17.5 are less than Fy (also see Figure 17). The load vs. displacement curve indicates
continual strength gain when more area of the stem reaches Fy. A 1.0-inch displacement is noted when WT6x17.5 reaches its
ultimate strength.

Figure 18. Load Factor of Pr vs. Displacement.

7.3. Axial Capacity Comparison Between WT-shapes based on Approach 2 are consistently larger than
Approach 2 and Nonlinear Finite Element those based on Approach 1, they are still less than the results
Analysis from this finite element analysis and are therefore
conservative. The conservativeness of the axial capacity of
eccentrically loaded WT-shapes based on Approach 2 is in
line with the axial capacity of centrically loaded WT-shapes
per Table 4-7 of the Manual [1], as shown in Figure 13.

8. Conclusions
This paper proposed an alternate approach (Approach 2)
allowed for by Section Comm. H2. of the Specifications [2] to
design the eccentrically loaded WT-shapes in Compression,
and the calculated strengths based on Approach 2 are larger
and more reasonable than those based on Section H2 of the
Specifications [2] (Approach 1). Extensive Finite Element
Nonlinear analyses have been employed to validate the
proposed approach. Design tables to facilitate implementation
of the procedure of Approach 2 have also been developed.
Only a few experimental tests on eccentrically loaded
WT-shapes in compression are available. The capacities of
two 15 ft long WT15x11 braces tested by Tito [9] agree very
well with the calculated capacities based on the proposed
approach; the percent difference between the experimental
Figure 19. Axial Capacities of WT6x17.5. factored average capacity and the factored capacity predicted
by Approach 2 is 94.85%.
The results of the finite element analysis and calculated The results from finite element analyses and experimental
axial capacity of WT6x17.5 based on both approaches tests clearly indicate that the proposed approach is quite
discussed in the paper are presented in Figure 19. As indicated accurate in predicting the ultimate capacity of eccentrically
previously, while the axial capacities of eccentrically loaded loaded WT-shapes in compression.
 American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 49

Appendix – Design Tables following considerations:

1 Fy = 36 ksi and 50 ksi
The step-by-step design of an eccentrically loaded 2 The maximum Tee is WT8x50, and the minimum Tee is
WT-shape has been demonstrated in the Design Example. WT5x9.5
Although the procedure is straight forward, the process is 3 Stem of the Tees orientated horizontally
tedious and time consuming. To help structural engineers 4 Eccentricity e = t1 / 2 + y, where t1 = gusset plate
quickly determine the proper size of a WT-shape, design thickness, t1 is taken the same as flange thickness, but
tables for axial compressive strength of eccentrically loaded rounded up to the multiple of 1/8”
WT-shapes are prepared and attached to the paper, with the
50 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression
American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 51
52 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression
American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 53
54 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression
American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2017; 2(5): 37-56 55
56 Yuwen Li: A Closer Examination of Design Approaches for Eccentrically Loaded WT Shapes in Compression

References [6] LUSAS Bridge Software, Version 15.2 (2016), FEA Ltd,
Kingston-Upon-Thames, UK.
[1] AISC (2010), Manual of Steel Construction, 14th Edition,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, [7] Galambos, T. V. (2001), “Strength of Singly Symmetric
Illinois. I-Shaped Beam-Columns,” AISC Engineering Journal, 2nd
Quarter, 2001, pp. 65-77.
[2] AISC (2010a), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
June 2010, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., [8] Ellifritt, D. S., et al. (1992), “Flexural Strength of WT Sections,”
Chicago, Illinois. AISC Engineering Journal, 2nd Quarter, 1992, pp. 67-74.

[3] AISC (2011), Design Examples, Version 14, 2011, American [9] Tito, J. A. (2013), “Eccentric Compression Test of WT Shape
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. Steel Braces,” 11th LACCEI Latin American and Caribbean
Conference for Engineering and Technology, 2013, Cancun,
[4] Gordon, M. E. (2010), “Tables for Eccentrically-Loaded WT Mexico.
Shapes in Compression,” AISC Engineering Journal, 2nd
Quarter, 2010, pp. 91-100. [10] Li, Y. W. (2012), “Axial Capacities of Eccentrically Loaded
Equal-Leg Single Angles: Comparisons of Various Design
[5] Rhodes, S. and Cakebread, T. (2013), “Understanding Methods,” AISC Engineering Journal, 4th Quarter, 2012, pp.
Buckling Behavior and Using FE in Design of Steel Bridges,” 131-167.
International Bridge Conference, Pittsburg, 2013.