Simplified Buckling-Strength Determination of Pultruded FRP

Structural Beams
Woraphot Prachasaree, Ph.D.1; Suchart Limkatanyu, Ph.D.2; Wichairat Kaewjuea, Ph.D.3;
and Hota V. S. GangaRao, Ph.D., F.ASCE4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: For many decades, both the lateral-torsional and local buckling strengths of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) structural members
have been studied extensively by numerous researchers and designers. Many complex prediction models and equations of the buckling
strength have been proposed. Typically, most design communities prefer simpler design procedures and equations. Simplified, albeit approxi-
mate, buckling-strength equations of pultruded FRP structural beams have been proposed with acceptable accuracy. Herein, the proposed
buckling-strength results were compared with those based on prestandard equations and available experimental data. The proposed simplified
prestandard lateral-torsional buckling equation provided higher strength results than the experimental data based on the upper-bound experi-
mental results by approximately 11%. Also, the proposed simplified lateral-torsional buckling-strength equation was reasonably acceptable
for the design purpose (within 18% difference) compared to the predicted strength provided by the prestandard equations. For local buckling
strength, the maximum percentage difference in local flange buckling strength was found to be less than 15%, whereas the proposed web local
buckling-strength equations provided excellent agreement with the predicted strength (i.e., less than 5% difference for all cross sections). The
proposed design equations are very useful in enabling improved design calculations of FRP structural members. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
SC.1943-5576.0000405. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP); Buckling; Strength; Lateral-torsional; Beam.

Introduction moment for a symmetric isotropic steel I-beam (Mottram 1992). An

One interesting buckling phenomenon in fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) structural members under flexure is the global (lateral-tor-
sional) buckling, and equally important is the local buckling. Both
global and local bucklings of FRP structural members have been stud-
ied extensively by numerous researchers and designers. FRP struc-
tural members with inadequate lateral bracing tend to deflect and lat-
erally buckle or move out of plane, resulting in twisting of cross
sections. This instability phenomenon is called global or lateral-
torsional buckling under flexure. The lateral-torsional buckling
behavior of FRP cross sections, such as wide flange (WF), I-section,
C-channel, L-angle, box section, and others, has been studied through
testing and complex numerical analysis, and many strength-
prediction models have been proposed. Lateral-torsional buckling
behavior of FRP open sections has been studied since the early 1990s.
The lateral-torsional buckling-strength equation of pultruded FRP
beams was developed based on the critical lateral-torsional buckling
1 torsional buckling strength depends on the position and region of dif-
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Prince of Songkla
Univ., Hat Yai, Songkhla 90112, Thailand (corresponding author). Email:
pworaphot@eng.psu.ac.th
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Prince of Songkla Univ., Hat
Yai, Songkhla 90112, Thailand. Email: suchart.l@psu.ac.th
3
Instructor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Prince of Songkla Univ., Hat
Yai, Songkhla 90112, Thailand. Email: kwichairat@eng.psu.ac.th
4
Maurie A. and JoAnn Wadsworth Distinguished Professor, Director-
Constructed Facilities Center, Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering
and Mineral Resources, West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, WV 26505.
Email: Hota.Gangarao@mail.wvu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 13, 2018; approved on
August 6, 2018; published online on December 19, 2018. Discussion pe-
riod open until May 19, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
experimental study on a combined failure of pultruded FRP I-beams
as lateral-torsional buckling and local buckling was performed by
Barbero and Raftoyiannis (1993). Load and resistance factor design
philosophy based on steel structures was introduced and applied to
the elastic pultruded FRP beam lateral-torsional problem (Razzaq
et al. 1996). Lateral-torsional buckling and distortional buckling pre-
diction using energy principles and nonlinear elastic plate theory was
proposed by Davalos and Qiao (1997). The flexural-torsional buck-
ling of pultruded FRP open-channel beams was experimentally stud-
ied and theoretically verified using energy theory (Shan and Qiao
2005). The analytical model using thin-walled beam theory for the
critical lateral-buckling strength was developed by Ascione et al.
(2011). The lateral-torsional buckling behavior of various FRP cross
sections and spans under multiple loading conditions was studied to
develop strength-prediction equations for use in a design code
(Nguyen et al. 2014). A modified lateral-torsional buckling-strength
equation based on the work by Nguyen et al. (2014) was proposed
and verified through experimental results (Estep 2014). The lateral-
ferent rigidities along the beam span. For example, buckling of FRP
structural members is common for those that have flexural rigidity
weakness about their transverse axis (the minor axis of bending, espe-
cially of flanges nearly independent of the web). The critical global
buckling strength or local buckling strength controls the design for
most modern pultruded open FRP structural profiles, and not their
material strength. The FRP structural members can be formed as sim-
ple and complex profiles [e.g., I-shape, L-shape (angle), C-channel,
T-shape, H-shape, or WF; round, square, plate, hallow square, or
round tube], and their capacity at service-load level is significantly
lower than the member material strength because of buckling or other
modes of failure.
For FRP open sections under bending, the half-flange portion is
subjected to uniform moment (compression) as presented in Fig. 1.

© ASCE 04018036-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Local flange buckling.
An unstiffened plate (half-flange portion) under edge compression
tends to buckle locally. Webs are stiffened with top and bottom
plates (flange portions). In general, the two different local failure
modes are (1) in-plane web buckling under horizontal in-plane
bending stress, and (2) vertical web-portion buckling under com-
pression loads. The local buckling modes depend on the flange
width-to-thickness slenderness ratio of the FRP cross section. The
local buckling behavior of FRP structural members has been widely
studied over the past several years. Analytical equations for local
buckling failures of FRP beams and columns under axial and shear
loading were developed using the Rayleigh-Ritz method (Barbero
and Raftoyiannis 1993). Local flange buckling loads of thin-walled
pultruded FRP columns were evaluated using experimental data
and the data-reduction technique as Southwell’s method (Tomblin
and Barbero 1994). The behavior of local compression flange buck-
ling for pultruded FRP beam was investigated through experimental
tests (Bank et al. 1996). An analytical expression of the local buck-
ling curve for the FRP flange portion was developed and compared
with the experimental results (Pecce and Cosenza 2000). The
explicit expressions of plate local buckling for FRP structural sec-
tions were proposed by Kollár (2003). Because most commercially
available FRP structural members fail under global or local buck-
ling before the FRP materials reach the material strength, the defini-
tion of a compact section as given in steel members is not applicable
to FRP members. For design purposes, the nominal strength
under local buckling is determined from the minimum local
buckling strength for flange and web portions. As given in the
prestandard of the American Composites Manufacturers
Association (ACMA) and ASCE (ACMA-ASCE 2010), the cur-
rent complex design equations of FRP structural members limit
the design use. Such limitation may cause slow growth and does
not lead to high-volume use of FRP structural components for
field use. To bridge this gap, it is necessary to establish simple
and practical design equations with acceptable accuracy.
Research Objective
The main objective of this study was to evaluate and modify ap-
proximate buckling-strength design equations based on the prestan-
dard design equations (ACMA-ASCE 2010). The buckling strength
obtained from the proposed simplified design equations was com-
pared with the results based on the prestandard equations (ACMA-
© ASCE 04018036-2
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036
ASCE 2010) and available experimental data (Bank et al. 1996;
Razzaq et al. 1996; Bendidi 1996; Estep 2014). The proposed
design equations are expected to be useful contributions to improve
design calculation of FRP structural members.
Simplified Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength
The lateral-torsional buckling strength based on the prestandard
(ACMA-ASCE 2010) is given as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C b p p 2 EL; f 2 Iz Cv
MnLTB ¼ EL;f Iz GLT J þ (1a)
Lb L2b
where MnLTB = nominal lateral-torsional buckling moment; J = tor-
sional rigidity; Iz = moment of inertia about the weak axis of the
cross section; Cv = warping constant; EL,f = longitudinal modulus
of the flange; GLT = shear modulus of the beam profiles; and Cb =
moment modification factor
12:5Mmax
Cb ¼  3:0 (1b)
2:5Mmax þ 3MA þ 4MB þ 3MC
where Cb = moment modification factor for unsupported spans
with both ends braced (Cb is permitted to be conservatively taken
as 1.0 for all cases; for cantilevers or overhangs where the free
end is unbraced, Cb = 1.0); Mmax = absolute value of maximum
moment in the unbraced segment; MA = absolute value of moment
at a quarter of the unbraced segment; MB = absolute value of
moment at the centerline of the unbraced segment; and MC =
absolute value of moment at the three-quarter point of the
unbraced segment.
Based on the previous experimental study (Estep 2014), the
transverse modulus (ET,f) of the flange is used to obtain a more-
accurate prediction. Thus, the modified nominal lateral-torsional
buckling strength based on the prestandard (ACMA-ASCE 2010)
is
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Cb p p 2 ET;f 2 Iz Cv
Mn ¼
LTB
ET;f Iz GLT J þ (1c)
Lb L2b
where ET,f = longitudinal modulus of the flange.
In the past, most pultruded FRP structural members produced
from different manufacturers provided a wide range of structural
properties due to limitations of available referenced specifications,
codes, and standards. Currently, the mentioned differences in struc-
tural properties of pultruded FRP structural members have been sig-
nificantly reduced and improved through the minimum standard
requirement of the characteristic structural properties. The mechani-
cal property ratio of commercial pultruded FRP structural members
was investigated and evaluated to obtain the appropriate ratio for
simplifying design equations. The material properties of commer-
cial pultruded FRP structural members were collected from the
available data sheets, design manuals, and technical catalogs of the
manufacturers (Strongwell Corporation 2010; Bedford Reinforced
Plastics 2012; Creative Pultrutions 2004; Fiberline 2003; Fibergrate
Composite Structures 2011; Euduro Composites 2010; TreadWell
Composites 2017; Engineered Composites 2016; Gracol Composites
2015; Exel Composites 2013; Strongate 2003). The technical data of
material properties were determined and presented in terms of the
elastic modulus ratio, as presented in Table 1.
It was found that the longitudinal elastic modulus (EL) was
approximately 2.7–3.4 times higher than the transverse elastic
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Table 1. Elastic moduli and ratios

Elastic modulus [GPa (106 psi)] Ratio

Brand Longitudinal EL Transverse ET In-plane shear GLT EL:ET EL:GLT ET:GLT
Strongwell (Strongwell Corporation 2010) 17.2 (2.5) 5.5 (0.8) 2.92 (0.425) 3.13 5.88 1.88
Bedford (Bedford Reinforced Plastics 2012) 17.2 (2.5) 5.5 (0.8) 3.1 (0.450) 3.13 5.56 1.78
Creative (Creative Pultrutions 2004) 28.2 (4.1) 9.6 (1.4) 3.4 (0.500) 2.97 8.29 2.82
Fiberline (Fiberline 2003) 22.7 (3.3) 8.2 (1.2) 4.6 (0.670) 2.70 4.93 1.78
Fibergrate (Fibergrate Composite Structures 2011) 17.2 (2.5) 5.5 (0.8) 3.1 (0.450) 3.13 5.55 1.77
Enduro FR-P (Euduro Composites 2010) 17.2 (2.5) 5.5 (0.8) — 3.13 — —
Enduro FR-V (Euduro Composites 2010) 20.6 (3.0) 6.9 (1.0) — 3.00 — —
TreadWell ArchitEX (TreadWell Composites 2017) 17.2 5.5 3.1 3.13 5.55 1.77
— — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Engineered Composites E23 (Engineered Composites 2016) 23 7 3.29

Engineered Composites E17 (Engineered Composites 2016) 17 5 — 3.40 — —
Gracol Composites Gracolite (Gracol Composites 2015) 20.7 6.9 2.9 3.00 7.14 2.38
Exel Composites UTILO E23 (Exel Composites 2013) 23 7 — 3.29 — —
Excel Composites UTILO E17 (Exel Composites 2013) 17 5 — 3.40 — —
Strongate Structural profiles (Strongate 2003) 17.2 5.5 3.1 3.13 5.56 1.78
Pre-Standard (ACMA-ASCE 2010) 20.6 (3.0) 5.5 (0.8) 2.72 (0.4) 3.75 7.57 2.02
EUROPEAN E23 BS EN 13706 (BSI 2002) 23 7 — 3.29 — —
EUROPEAN E17 BS EN 13706 (BSI 2002) 17 5 — 3.40 — —

Table 2. Shape and dimensions of pultruded FRP beams for lateral-torsional buckling evaluation

Shape and dimensions (mm)

Brand Wide flange
1 9 cross sections
76.2  76.2  6.35 to
304.8  304.8  12.7
2 9 cross sections
76.2  76.2  6.35 to
304.8  304.8  12.7
3 9 cross sections
76.2  76.2  6.35 to
304.8  304.8  12.7
4 6 cross sections
120  60  6 to
360  180  18
I-shape C-channel L-angle
11 cross sections 24 cross sections 18 cross sections
76.2  38.1  6.35  6.35 to 38.1  1  3/16  3/16 to 25.4  25.4  3.18 to
609.6  190.5  9.53  19.05 24  3  1/4  1/4 152.4  152.4  12.7
11 cross sections 24 cross sections 18 cross sections
76.2  38.1  6.35  6.35 to 38.1  25.4  4.76  4.76 to 25.4  25.4  3.18 to
609.6  190.5  9.53  19.05 609.6  76.2  6.35  6.35 152.4  152.4  12.7
9 cross sections 21 cross sections —
76.2  38.1  6.35  6.35 to 38.1  25.4  4.76 to —
304.8  152.4  12.7  12.7 609.6  101.6  11.1  11.1 —
7 cross sections 14 cross sections 14 cross sections
120  60  5  5 to 120  50  5  5 to 50  50  6 to
360  180  15  10 360  108  18 150  150  12

modulus (ET), whereas the ratio of longitudinal elastic modulus
(EL) to transverse elastic modulus (ET) of the prestandard (ACMA-
ASCE 2010) and European standard BS EN 13706 (BSI 2002) var-
ied from 3.29 to 3.75. The in-plane shear modulus (GLT) of FRP
structural members varied from 12 to 20% of the major (longitudi-
nal) elastic modulus (EL). To simplify Eqs. (1a)–(1c), the in-plane
shear modulus was rewritten in terms of the transverse elastic mod-
ulus. Also, the moment modification factor (Cb) was conservatively
taken as 1.0 for all cases. Based on a recent study (Estep 2014),
unbraced length (Lb) was replaced by effective laterally unbraced
length (Lb,eff) used as the original laterally unbraced length with a
correction factor for better prediction of the nominal lateral-
torsional buckling strength. A correction factor of 0.62 was used for
a section depth <152 mm, and 0.95 for a section depth ≥152 mm
(Estep 2014). Thus, the simplified lateral-torsional buckling-
strength result was rearranged as given in Eq. (2)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
p E T;f p hIz 2
MnLTB ¼ 2Iz J þ
2Lb;eff Lb;eff
where ET,f = transverse modulus of the flange; h = full depth of sec-
tion; J = torsional rigidity; Iz = moment of inertia about the weak
axis of the cross section; and Lb,eff = effective laterally unbraced
length.
To compare the strength obtained from the proposed equations
with the prestandard (ACMA-ASCE 2010), various cross sections
of pultruded FRP structural beams were considered. For further
evaluation, four well-known commercial brands were chosen in this
study and are presented in Table 2.
Laterally unbraced lengths for each cross section varied from
1,829 to 7,315 mm (6–24 ft). Percentage difference in lateral-
torsional buckling strength based on the prestandard (ACMA-
ASCE 2010) was evaluated and is presented in Fig. 2. All different
pultruded FRP structural cross sections have the same tendency to
increase percentage difference in the predicted lateral-torsional
buckling strength with increasing laterally unbraced length. It was
found that the proposed simplified design equation predicted
slightly higher lateral-torsional buckling strength than the results
from the prestandard equations for Brands 1, 2, and 4. The maxi-
mum difference in the predicted strength was found to be less than
(2)
6%. For Brand 3, the proposed simplified design equation provided
a lower predicted strength than the prestandard equation (ACMA-
ASCE 2010) by a maximum of 18%. It was observed that the per-
centage difference was closely related to the ratio of transverse to

© ASCE 04018036-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 3.5
Percent difference of lateral-torsional buckling strength
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.0

0.5

0.0
1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200 7600

Braced length - Lb (mm)

I 609.6x190.5x9.53x19.05
I 203.2x101.6x12.7x12.7
I 76.2x38.1x6.35x6.35
C 254x69.9x12.7x12.7
C 139.7x38.1x6.35x6.35
C 101.6x27x3.18x3.18
C 66.7x31.8x3.18x4.76
L 152.4x152.4x12.7
L 101.6x101.6x9.53
L 50.8x50.8x4.76
L 31.8x31.8x4.76
WF 254x254x9.53
WF 101.6x101.6x6.35
(a)
I 457.2x114.3x9.53x12.7
I 152.4x76.2x9.53x9.53
C 609.6.x76.2x6.35x6.35
C 203.2x55.6x9.53x9.53
C 139.7x38.1x4.76x4.76
C 88.9x38.1x4.76x4.76
C 50.8x22.2x6.35x6.35
L 152.4x152.4x9.53
L 101.6x101.6x6.35
L 50.8x50.8x3.18
L 31.8x31.8x3.18
WF 203.2x203.2x12.7
WF 76.2x76.2x6.35
I 304.8x152.4x12.7x12.7
I 152.4x76.2x6.35x6.35
C 457.2x55.6x4.76x9.53
C 203.2x2-55.6x6.35x6.35
C 127x34.9x6.35x6.35
C 76.2x38.1x6.35x6.35
C 50.8x14.3x3.18x3.18
L 152.4x152.4x6.35
L 76.2x76.2x9.53
L 38.1x38.1x6.35
L 25.4x25.4x3.18
WF 203.2x203.2x9.53
I 254x127x12.7x12.7
I 139.7x63.5x6.35x6.35
C 355.6x88.9x19.05x19.05
C 152.4x42.9x9.53x9.53
C 101.6x34.9x4.76x4.76
C 76.2x25.4x4.76x4.76
C 38.1x38.1x6.35x6.35
L 127x127x12.7
L 76.2x76.2x6.35
L 38.1x38.1x4.76
WF 304.8x304.8x12.7
WF 152.4x152.4x9.53
I 254x127x9.53x9.53
I 101.6x50.8x6.35x6.35
C 304.8x76.2x12.7x12.7
C 152.4x41.3x6.35x6.35
C 101.6x28.6x6.35x6.35
C 76.2x22.2x6.35x6.35
C 38.1x25.4x4.76x4.76
L 101.6x101.6x12.7
L 50.8x50.8x6.35
L 38.1x38.1x3.18
WF 254x254x12.7
WF 152.4x152.4x6.35

Fig. 2. Examples of percentage difference in global buckling strength (lateral-torsional buckling strength versus braced length): (a) Brand 1;
(b) Brand 2; (c) Brand 3; and (d) Brand 4.

in-plane shear modulus. The ratio of transverse to in-plane shear proposed strength equation yielded reasonable agreement with the
modulus ranged from 1.78 to 1.88 for Brands 1, 2, and 4 (compared experimental results for the upper-bound side.
with 2.02 for the prestandard assumption), whereas the modulus ra-
tio of Brand 3 was quite high (2.82). It is suggested that the simpli-
fied lateral-torsional buckling-strength equations can be used as an Simplified Local Buckling Strength
alternative for ratios of transverse to in-plane shear modulus of
approximately 1.7–2.3 with sufficient accuracy. The predicted tor- For design purposes, simplified local buckling strengths are pre-
sional buckling-strength results based on the proposed simplified sented in this section. Similar to the proposed simplified lateral-
equations were compared with previous experimental data (Bendidi torsional buckling-strength equation, the simplified and approximate
1996; Estep 2014). The critical buckling loads (Pcr) under flexural local buckling-strength equations were developed by neglecting cer-
beams with different laterally unbraced lengths were determined tain complex algebraic terms and presented with a correction factor
and are given in Table 3. The proposed simplified equation provided (Khb). The coefficients of restraint and spring stiffness were esti-
approximately 11% higher strength results than the experimental mated using the ratio of elastic modulus, as given in Table 1.
data based on the upper-bound experimental results (considering Limitations were as follows: (1) EL:ET = 2.7–3.4, (2) EL:GLT = 5–6,
only positive values in Table 3). It should be noted that the positive and (3) Poisson’s ratio ( LT) = 0.25–0.30. The proposed simplified
sign in percentage difference, as seen in Table 3, indicates that the local buckling strength of the pultruded FRP structural member was
predicted strength obtained from the proposed simplified equation as follows:
• wide flange, I-shaped, tee, back-to-back angle, C-singly sym-
was higher than the strength of experimental data (Bendidi 1996;
Estep 2014). Based on our study and available data, the predicted metric channel, square, and rectangular box section
strength over the experimental results was acceptable for design  
tf2 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
purposes, with the predicted strength being 15% higher than the local
flange: fcrf ¼ 2 EL; f ET; f þ GLT (3a)
experimental results. It was found that the predicted results of the bf Khb

© ASCE 04018036-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 6.5
Percent difference of lateral-torsional buckling strength
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200 7600

Braced length - Lb (mm)

L 152.4x152.4x9.53
L76.2x76.2x9.53
L31.8x31.8x3.18
WF 203x203x12.7
WF 76.2x76.2x6.35
I 254x127x9.53x9.53
I 139.7x63.5x6.35x6.35
C 304.8x76.28x12.7x12.7
C 152.4x41.3x6.53x3.63
C 88.9x30.2x3.18x4.76
(b)
L 101.6x101.6x12.7
L76.2x76.2x12.7
L25.4x25.4x3.18
WF 203x203x9.53
I 609.6x190.5x19.05x9.53
I 203.2x101.6x12.7x12.7
I 101.6x50.8x6.35x6.35
C 292.1x69.9x12.7x12.7
C 139.7x38.1x6.53x6.53
C 76.2x38.1x63.5x6.35
L101.6x101.6x9.53
L50.8x50.8x12.7
WF 304.8x304.8x12.7
WF 152.4x152.4x9.53
I 457.2x114.3x12.7x9.53
I 203.2x101.6x9.53x9.53
I 76.2x38.1x6.35x6.35
C 254x69.9x12.7x12.7
C 101.6x34.9x4.76x4.76
C 76.2x25.4x6.35x6.35
L152.4x152.4x12.7
L38.1x38.1x12.7
WF 254x254x12.7
WF 152.4x152.4x6.35
I 304.8x152.4x12.7x12.7
I 152.4x76.2x9.53x9.53
C 457.2x60.3x9.53x9.53
C 203.2x55.6x9.53x9.53
C 101.6x28.6x6.35x6.35
C 76.2x22.2x6.35x6.35
L76.2x76.2x12.7
L38.1x38.1x4.76
WF 254x254x9.53
WF 101.6x101.6x12.7
I 254x127x12.7x12.7
I 152.4x76.2x6.35x6.35
C 355.6x88.9x19.05x19.05
C 152.4x42.9x9.53x9.53
C 88.9x38.1x4.76x4.76
C 50.8x14.3x3.18x3.18

Fig. 2. (Continued.)

• wide flange, I-shaped, C-channel, square, and rectangular and tw = thickness of flange portion and web portion, respectively;
section and bf = width of flange portion. The correction factor (Kapr) is given
 2 in Table 5.
tw
local
web: fcrw ¼ Khb ET;w (3b) The pultruded FRP structural beams of four well-known com-
h mercial brands were chosen with different shapes and dimensions
where EL,f = longitudinal modulus of the flange; ET,f = trans- to evaluate the local buckling strength, as given in Table 6.
verse modulus of the flange; GLT = in-plane shear modulus; h = Percentage differences in local buckling strength between the pro-
full depth of section; tf = thickness of flange portion; and bf = posed equations and the prestandard (ACMA-ASCE 2010) were
width of flange portion. The correction factor (Khb) is given in determined for various shapes and cross sections. A comparison of
Table 4. flange local buckling strength for different structural shapes is pre-
The simplified local strength equations were proposed to over- sented in Fig. 3. For I-shape, wide flange, square, and rectangular
come computational barrier. In addition, the approximate local cross sections, the maximum percentage difference in local flange
buckling strength was presented in the general form with a correc- buckling strength was found to be less than 15%. For the C-channel
tion factor (Kapr) as cross section, the percentage difference significantly increased with
!2 height-to-width ratios (h:b) higher than 3.5, as presented in Fig. 4.
tf In addition, the proposed design equations provided excellent
flange: fcrf ¼ Kapr EL;f
local
(3c)
bf agreement (<5%) in the predicted strength of the web local buck-
ling for all shapes. The predicted local buckling strength based on
 2 the proposed equations was compared with the experimental data,
tw as given in Table 7. Based on experimental data (Bank et al. 1996),
web: local
fcrw ¼ Kapr ET;w (3d)
h the percentage difference in local buckling strength was found to be
12–25%, 11–20%, and 18–26% using the prestandard (ACMA-
where EL,f and ET,w = longitudinal modulus of the flange and trans- ASCE 2010), proposed simplified (Table 4), and approximation
verse modulus of the web, respectively; h = full depth of section; tf (Table 5) equations, respectively.

© ASCE 04018036-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 0.0
Percent difference of lateral-torsional buckling strength 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200 7600
-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-12.0

-14.0

-16.0

-18.0

-20.0

Braced length - Lb (mm)

WF 304.8x304.8x12.7
WF 152.4x152.4x9.53
I 254x127x12.7x12.7
I 152.4x76.2x6.35x6.35
C 457.2x63.5x6.35
C 203.2x55.6x9.53
C 101.6x28.7x6.35
C 76.2x22.2x6.35
(c)
WF 254x254x12.7 WF 254x254x9.53 WF 203.2x203.2x12.7 WF 203.2x203.2x9.53
WF 152.4x152.4x6.35 WF 101.6x101.6x6.35 WF 76.2x76.2x6.35 I 304.8x152.4x12.7x12.7
I 254x127x9.53x9.53 I 203.2x101.6x12.7x12.7 I 203.2x101.6x9.53x9.53 I 152.4x76.2x9.53x9.53
I 101.6x50.8x6.35x6.35 I 76.2x38.1x6.35x6.35 C 609.6x101.6x11.9 C 609.6x76.2x6.35
C 355.6x152.4x12.7 C 292.1x69.9x12.7 C 25.4x69.9x12.7 C 25.4x69.9x3.18
C 177.8x50.8x6.35 C 152.4x42.9x9.53 C 152.4x41.4x6.35 C 127x35.1x6.35
C 101.6x44.5x4.76 C 101.6x26.9x3.18 C 76.2x38.1x6.35 C 76.2x25.4x4.76
C 69.9x25.4x3.18 C 50.8x14.2x3.18 C 38.1x25.4x4.76

Fig. 2. (Continued.)

Design Example 5.1 determined as follows (it should be noted that Cb was permitted to
be conservatively taken as 1.0 for all cases):
A pultruded FRP WF beam (300  300  12.5 mm) spanned • absolute value of maximum moment in the unbraced segment
7,315 mm (24 ft) with simply supported boundaries. The uniformly (Mmax = WL2/8),
distributed load that the beam can carry if lateral supports were pro- • absolute value of moment at a quarter of the unbraced segment
vided at the ends and at the third points of the span, as shown in [MA = (5WL2/12) – (25WL2/288),
Fig. 5(a), was determined. • absolute value of moment at the centerline of the unbraced
The pultruded FRP WF beam properties (manufacturers) were as segment (MB = WL2/8), and
follows: self-weight = 204 N/m; area (A) = 11,300 mm2; web area • absolute value of moment at the three-quarter point of the
(Aw) = 3,550 mm2; sectional modulus about the strong axis (ST) = unbraced segment [MC = (5WL2/12) – (25WL2/288).
1,237(103) mm3; sectional modulus about the weak axis (SZ) = 393
(103) mm3; moment of inertia about the strong axis (IT) = 18,855(104) 12:5Mmax
Cb ¼
mm4; moment of inertia about the weak axis (IZ) = 5,994(104) mm4; 2:5Mmax þ 3MA þ 4MB þ 3MC
torsional rigidity (J) = 61(104) mm4; longitudinal tensile strength 12:5 ð1=8Þ
(Ft) = 206.8 MPa; shear strength (Fv) = 31 MPa; longitudinal modulus ¼
2:5 ð1=8Þ þ 3 ð95=288Þ þ 4 ð1=8Þ þ 3 ð95=288Þ
(EL) = 17,926 MPa; transverse modulus (ET) = 5,516 MPa; shear
modulus (GLT) = 2,930 MPa; Poisson’s ratio ( LT) = 0.33; web thick- ¼ 1:014  3:0
ness (tw) = 12.5 mm; and flange width (bf) = 300 mm.
The warping constant (Cv for wide flange or I-section) is
Solution with Prestandard Equations
Iz d 2 5;944 ð302 Þ
Lateral-Torsion Buckling Strength Cv ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:34ð106 Þ cm6
4 4
Using Eqs. (1a) and (1b).
As shown in Fig. 5(b), the moment modification factor (Cb) for For d ≥ 152 mm, then Lb,eff = 0.95Lb, and the lateral-torsional
lateral supports at the ends and at the third points of the span was buckling strength is determined from Eq. (1c) as

© ASCE 04018036-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 5.0
Percent difference of lateral-torsional buckling strength
4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200 7600

Braced length - Lb (mm)

WF 360x180x18 WF 300x150x15 WF 240x120x12 WF 200x100x10 WF 160x80x8 WF 120x60x6 I 360x180x15x10
I 300x150x12x8 I 240x120x10x7 I 200x100x8x5 I 160x80x8x5 I 120x60x5x5 C 360x108x18 C 300x90x15
C 240x72x12 C 240x72x8 C 200x60x10 C 160x48x8 C 140x40x5 C 120x50x6 C 360x106x15x10
C 300x90x12x8 C 240x72x10x7 C 200x60x8x5 C 160x48x8x5 C 120x50x5x5 L 150x150x12 L 150x150x10
L 150x150x8 L 150x100x12 L 150x100x10 L 150x100x8 L 100x100x12 L 100x100x10 L 100x100x8
L 80x80x8 L 75x75x8 L 75x75x6 L 50x50x8 L 50x50x6
(d)

Fig. 2. (Continued.)

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Cb p p 2 ET;f 2 Iz Cv
fnLTB ¼ ET;f Iz GLT J þ
ST Lb;eff L2b;eff

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  ffi
1:014p   p 2
ð5;516 Þ 2
5;994  10 4 ð
1:34  10 12 Þ
fnLTB ¼  ð5;516Þ 5;994  10 ð2;930Þð61  10 Þ þ4 4
1;237  103 ð0:95  2438Þ ð0:95  2438Þ2

fnLTB ¼ 79:2 MPa

For w = 0.7 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the lateral-torsional buckling strength is determined as

f λfnLTB ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ79:2 ¼ 44:4 MPa

   
Mu ¼ f λfnLTB ST ¼ ð44:4 MPaÞ 1;237ð103 Þ mm3 ¼ 54:9 kNm

Local Flange Buckling Strength

The local flange buckling strength is determined from Eqs. (5.2.3.1–1) to (5.2.3.1–3) in ACMA-ASCE (2010) as

© ASCE 04018036-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 Table 3. Comparison of lateral-torsional buckling load

Critical buckling load [Pcr (kN)]

Section (mm) Span (mm) Lb (mm) ACMA-ASCE Simplified Experiment Difference (%)
C-152.4  41.3  6.35 (Razzaq et al. 1996) 1,524 1,524 3.05 3.02 3.11 −2.89
1,829 1,829 1.94 1.92 1.93 −0.52
2,134 2,134 1.35 1.33 1.33 0
2,438 2,438 0.99 0.97 0.88 10.22
2,743 2,743 0.76 0.74 0.67 10.45
WF-152.4  152.4  9.53 (Estep 2014) 2,438 1,219 28.0 26.4 24.8 6.45
WF-203.2  203.2  9.53 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 45.9 42.3 39.1 8.18
WF-304.8  304.8  12.7 (Bendidi 1996) 4,572 4,572 68.6 71.8 67.5 (min) 6.38
−16.51
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

86.0 (max)
I-203.2  101.6  9.53 (Estep 2014) 1,828 914 30.0 29.6 26.8 10.45
I-254.0  127.0  12.7 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 24.7 24.2 23.3 3.85
C-101.6  28.6  4.76 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 1.02 1.07 1.03 3.88
C-139.7  38.1  6.35 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 1.55 1.60 1.91 −16.23
C-152.4  41.3  4.76 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 2.01 2.10 2.25 −6.67
C-203.2  57.2  9.53 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 6.06 6.59 8.31 −20.70
C-254  69.9  12.7 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 13.4 14.7 16.6 −11.38
C-355.6  88.9  19.1 (Estep 2014) 2,743 1,524 54.7 56.5 62.4 (min) −9.40
71.3 (max) −20.75
Note: C = channel cross section; WF = wide flange cross section; and I = I-shape cross section.

Table 4. Correction factor (Khb) for simplified compression local buckling strength

Section Portion Condition Khb

Singly and doubly symmetric I-shaped section Flange Wide flange section (bf = h) 1
I-shaped section (2bf = h) 0.718
Web — 33
Singly symmetric channel section Flange Tee and back-to-back angle (bf = 2h) 1.33
Square and rectangular box section Flange Square (bf = h) 2.55
Rectangular (2bf = h) 3.43
Web — 66
C-singly symmetric channel section Flange Ratio of (h:bf) from 1 to 3.8 1.216 þ (1.023 h:bf)
Web — 33
Note: C = channel cross section; and I = I-shape cross section.
0 0 !11
ET;w tw3 48 tf2 h2 EL;w GLT
kr ¼ @1  @ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi AA
6h 11:1 p 2 b2f tw2 EL;f 1:25 EL;w ET;w þ ET;w LT þ 2GLT
!!!
ð5;516Þ ð12:53 Þ 48 ð12:52 Þ ð3002 Þ ð17;926Þ ð2;930Þ
kr ¼ 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð6  300Þ 11:1 ðp 2 3002 Þ ð12:52 Þ ð17;926Þ 1:25 ð17;926Þ ð5;516Þ þ ð0:33  5;516Þ þ ð2  2;930Þ
kr ¼ 5;603 N=rad

  w λfcrf
local
¼ ð0:8  0:8Þ 37:7 ¼ 24:1 MPa
ET;f tf3 5;516  12:53
j ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:068  
6 bf kr ð6  300  5;603Þ Mu ¼ w λfcrf
local
ST ¼ ð24:1 MPaÞ 1; 237ð103 Þ mm3 ¼ 29:8 kNm
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
4tf2 7 EL;f ET;f Local Web Buckling Strength
local
fcrf ¼ 2 þ GLT
bf 12 1 þ 4:1 j The local web buckling strength is determined from Eq. (5.2.3.1–4)
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 in ACMA-ASCE (2010) as
ð 2Þ
4 12:5 @ 7 ð17;926Þ ð5;516Þ
¼ þ ð2;930ÞA 11:1 p 2 tw2  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
3002 12 1 þ ð4:1  1:068Þ local
fcrw ¼ 1:25 EL;w ET;w þ ETw LT þ 2GLT
12h 2

¼ 37:7 MPa 11:1 p 2 ð12:52 Þ  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

local
fcrw ¼ 1:25 ð17;926Þ ð5;516Þ
ð12  300 Þ 2
For w = 0.8 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the local flange buck- 
ling strength is determined as þ ð5;516  0:33Þ þ ð2  2;930Þ ¼ 316 MPa

© ASCE 04018036-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 Table 5. Correction factor (Kapr) for approximate local buckling strength

Section Portion Condition Kapr

Singly and doubly symmetric I-shaped section Flange Wide flange section (bf = h) 8/7
I-shaped section (2bf = h) 24/25
Web — 33
Singly symmetric channel section Flange Tee and back-to-back angle (bf = 2h) 200/147
Web 3
Square and rectangular box section Flange Square (bf = h) 25/66
Rectangular (2bf = h) 5/16
Web — 66
0 10 1
C-singly symmetric channel section Flange Ratio of (h/bf) from 1 to 3.8 1 1
B  C B   þ 2C
@ h A@ h A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4:49 þ 1:36 1:2 þ

bf bf
Web — 33
Note: C = channel cross section; and I = I-shape cross section.

Table 6. Shape and dimensions of pultruded FRP beams for local buckling evaluation

Shape and dimensions (mm)

Brand Wide flange I-shape C-channel Square tube Rectangular tube
1 10 cross sections 12 cross sections 19 cross sections 16 cross sections 5 cross sections
50.8  50.8  3.18 to 50.8  25.4  3.18  3.18 to 38.1  25.4  4.76  4.76 to 25.4  25.4 3.18 to 41.3  63.5  3.18 3.18 to
304.8  304.8  12.7 609.6  190.5  9.53  9.53 203.2  69.9  9.53  9.53 152.4  152.4  9.53 228.6 152.4  11.1  11.1
2 9 cross sections 11 cross sections 12 cross sections 21 cross sections 5 cross sections
76.2  76.2  6.35 to 76.2  38.1  6.35  6.35 to 50.8  14.29  3.18  3.18 to 25.4  25.4  3.18 to 38.1  19.05  3.18  3.18 to
304.8  304.8  12.7 304.8  152.4  12.7  12.7 254  69.9  12.7  12.7 152.4  152.4  9.53 228.6  152.4  7.94  7.94
3 9 cross sections 9 cross sections 18 cross sections 15 cross sections 3 cross sections
76.2  76.2  6.35 to 76.2  38.1  6.35  6.35 to 38.1  25.4  4.76  4.76 to 25.4  25.4  3.18 to 20.3  29.8  2.78  2.78 to
304.8  304.8  12.7 304.8  152.4  12.7  12.7 355.6  152.4  12.7  12.7 152.4  152.4  9.53 203.2  25.4  3.18  3.18
4 — 6 cross sections 8 cross sections 11 cross sections —
— 120  60  6  6 to 120  50  6  6 to 50  50  5 to —
— 360  180  18  18 360  108  18  18 240  240  12 —
Note: C = channel cross section; and I = I-shape cross section.

For w = 0.8 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the local web buck- For w = 0.7 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the web shear buck-
ling strength is ling strength is
 local   
f λ fcrw ¼ ð0:8  0:8Þ316 ¼ 202 MPa f λ fcrlocal ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ 51:3 ¼ 28:7 MPa
  local    
Mu ¼ f λ fcrw ST ¼ ð202 MPaÞ 1;237 103 Þmm3 ¼ 250 kN  m    
Vu ¼ w λ fcrlocal Aw ¼ ð28:7 MPaÞ 3; 550 mm2 ¼ 101:9 kN
Web Shear Buckling Strength
From Eqs. (5.3.3–2) and (5.3.3–3) in ACMA-ASCE (2010) Nominal Material Strength
The resistance of the pultruded FRP WF profiles was determined
2GLT þ ETw LT ¼ ð2  2;930Þ þ ð5;516  0:33Þ ¼ 7;680 MPa
using w = 0.65 for material rupture and time factor (l ) for
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1.2D þ 1.6 L = 0.8
EL;w ET;w ¼ ð17;926Þð5;516Þ ¼ 9;944 MPa
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi f λFt ¼ ð0:65  0:8Þ 206:8 ¼ 107:5 MPa and
2GLT þ ETw LT < EL;w ET;w
! f λFv ¼ ð0:65  0:8Þ 31 ¼ 16:12 MPa
2GLT þ ET;w LT
kLT ¼ 8:1 þ 5:0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
EL;w ET;w  
Mu ¼ ð f λFt ÞST ¼ ð107:5 MPaÞ 1; 237ð103 Þ mm3 ¼ 133 kNm
!
2 ð2;930Þ þ ð0:33  5;516Þ  
¼ 8:1 þ 5:0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 11:96 Vu ¼ ð f λFv ÞAw ¼ ð16:12 MPaÞ 3; 550 mm2 ¼ 57:2 kN
ð17;926Þð5;516Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! Summary of Nominal Strength
tw2 kLT 4
fcr ¼ EL;w ðET;w Þ3 The uniformly distributed load of the pultruded FRP beam was
3h2
determined from the minimum nominal strength of various failure
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! strengths as follows:
12:52  11:96 4
fcr ¼ ð17;926Þð5;516Þ3 ¼ 51:3 MPa • lateral-torsional strength: Mu = 54.9 kN/m; Wu = 54.9 
3 ð3002 Þ
(8/7.3152) = 8.21 kN/m;

© ASCE 04018036-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Percentage difference in local flange buckling strength versus depth: (a) I-section; (b) WF section; (c) square section; and (d) rectangular
section.

© ASCE 04018036-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. (Continued.)

• local flange buckling strength: Mu = 29.8 kN·m; Wu = 29.8 
(8/7.3152) = 4.46 kN/m;
• local web buckling strength: Mu = 250 kN·m;
• web shear buckling strength: Vu = 101.9 kN; Wu = 101.9 
(2/7.315) = 27.9 kN/m; and
• material strength: Mu = 133 kN·m; Wu = 133(8/7.3152) =
19.88 kN/m and Vu = 57.2 kN; Wu = 57.2(2/7.315) = 15.64 kN/m.
Thus, the factored uniformly distributed load on the pultruded
FRP WF beam (300  300  12.5 mm) is 4.46 kN/m for a simple
span of 7.315 m with lateral supports.

© ASCE 04018036-11 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Percentage difference in local flange buckling strength versus h:b ratio (C-Channel cross section).

Table 7. Comparison of local buckling load

Critical buckling load [Pcr (kN)] Percentage difference based on experiments

Simplified Approximate Experiments Simplified Approximate
Section ACMA-ASCE (Table 4) (Table 5) (Bank et al. 1996) ACMA-ASCE (Table 4) (Table 5)
V8A 71.9 71.5 65.9 80.4 11.8 11.1 18.0
V8B 71.9 71.5 65.9 89.3 24.1 19.9 26.2
V81 71.9 71.5 65.9 86.9 20.8 17.7 24.1
V82 71.9 71.5 65.9 87.1 21.2 17.9 24.3
V83 71.9 71.5 65.9 87.9 22.3 18.7 25.0
V84 71.9 71.5 65.9 80.6 12.0 11.2 18.2
P81 71.9 71.5 65.9 84.8 17.9 15.6 22.2
P82 71.9 71.5 65.9 89.5 24.5 20.1 26.4

Solution with Alternative Design Method with Simplified and Approximate Equations
Lateral-Torsion Buckling Strength
The simplified lateral-torsional buckling strength is determined from Eq. (2) as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
p E T;f p hIz 2
Mn ¼
LTB
2Iz J þ
2Lb;eff Lb;eff
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!2
u
p ð5;516Þ u t  p  300  5;994 ð104 Þ
Mn ¼
LTB
2  5; 994ð10 Þ  61ð10 Þ þ
4 4
¼ 96:6 kNm
2ð0:95  2;438Þ 0:95  2;438
f λMnLTB ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ96:6 ¼ 54:1 kNm

 
4 tf2 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Note that the difference between the prestandard (ACMA- local
fcrf ¼ 2 EL;f ET;f þ GLT
ASCE 2010) and simplified lateral-torsional buckling results was bf Khb
approximately 1.5%.  
4ð12:52 Þ 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ ð17;926Þ ð5;516Þ þ ð2;930Þ ¼ 37:1 MPa
3002 4
Local Flange Buckling Strength
From Eq. (3c), the correction factor (Khb) for the wide flange section For w = 0.8 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the local flange buck-
was taken to be 4 (Table 4) ling strength is determined as

© ASCE 04018036-12 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 Nominal Material Strength
The resistance of the pultruded FRP WF profiles was determined
using w = 0.65 for material rupture and time factor (l ) for 1.2D þ
1.6L = 0.8
f λFt ¼ ð0:65  0:8Þ 206:8 ¼ 107:5 MPa and
f λFv ¼ ð0:65  0:8Þ 31 ¼ 16:12 MPa
 
Mu ¼ ð f λFt ÞST ¼ ð107:5 MPaÞ 1; 237ð103 Þ mm3 ¼ 133 kNm
 
Vu ¼ ð f λFv ÞAw ¼ ð16:12 MPaÞ 3; 550 mm2 ¼ 57:2 kN
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Summary of Nominal Strength

The uniformly distributed load of the pultruded FRP beam was
determined from the minimum nominal strength of various failure
strengths as follows:
• lateral-torsional strength: Mu = 54.1 kN·m; Wu = 54.1 
(8/7.3152) = 8.09 kN/m;
• local flange buckling strength: Mu = 29.3 kN·m; Wu = 29.3 
(8/7.3152) = 4.38 kN/m;
• local web buckling strength: Mu = 25.0 kN·m;
• web shear buckling strength: Vu = 102.2 kN; Wu = 102.2 
(2/7.315) = 27.9 kN/m; and
• material strength: Mu = 133 kN·m; Wu = 133(8/7.3152) =
19.88 kN/m and Vu = 57.2 kN; Wu = 57.2  (2/7.315) = 15.64 kN/m.
Thus, the factored uniformly distributed load on the pultruded
FRP WF beam (300  300  12.5 mm) was 4.38 kN/m for a simple
span of 7.315 m with lateral supports.
Fig. 5. (a) Pultruded FRP WF beam (300  300  12.5 mm); and
(b) moments for Cb for Example 5.1.
Design Example 5.2

A simply supported pultruded FRP beam with a 4,877-mm (16-ft)

w λ fcrf
local
¼ ð0:8  0:8Þ 37:1 ¼ 23:7 MPa span carrying both dead and live loads of 875 N/m (60 lbs/ft) and
  
Mu ¼ w λfcrflocal
ST ¼ ð23:7 MPaÞ 1; 237 103 Þ mm3 ¼ 29:3 kNm 2,190 N/m (150 lbs/ft), respectively, was designed. The FRP beam
was braced with partial lateral supports at the midspan and at sup-
ports, as presented in Fig. 6(a).
Local Web Buckling Strength
The local web buckling strength is determined from Eq. (3b) and
Table 4 as Solution
 2  2 • Factored loads were determined as follows: total service load
tw 12:5
fcrw ¼ 33ET;w
local
¼ 33 ð5;516Þ ¼ 316 MPa (W) = (875 N/m) þ (2,190 N/m) = 3,065 N/m; and
h 300 • total factored load (Wu) = 1.2(875 N/m) þ1.6(2,190 N/m) =
 local 
f λ fcrw ¼ ð0:8  0:8Þ316 ¼ 202MPa 4,554 N/m.
  local    The FRP wide flange beam was tried using the serviceability
Mu ¼ f λ fcrw ST ¼ ð202 MPaÞ 1;237ð103 Þ mm3 ¼ 250 kNm limit (the deflection limit L/240) including shear deformation
effects. The shear rigidity [k(GLTA)] can be approximated with
(GLT)web Aweb.
Web Shear Buckling Strength
The pultruded FRP beam deflection was determined as follows
The local web buckling strength was determined from Eq. (4a) in
[longitudinal modulus (EL) = 17,926 MPa, transverse modulus (ET) =
the Appendix as
5,516 MPa, shear modulus (GLT) = 2,930 MPa, Poisson’s ratio
0
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! ( LT) = 0.33]:
4tw2 4 4  12:52 @ 4
fcr ¼ 2 EL;w ðET;w Þ ¼ 3
ð17;926Þð5;516Þ3 5WL4 WL2
h ð3002 Þ wmax ¼ þ
384ðEL IT Þ 8k ð GLT AÞ
¼ 51:4 MPa 5 ð3;065=1;000Þð4;877Þ4 ð3;065=1;000Þð4;877Þ2
¼ þ
384 ð17;926Þ IT 8 ð5;516Þ Aweb
For w = 0.7 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the web shear buck-
ling strength is determined as 1:26ð109 Þ 1;652 L
¼ þ 
  IT Aweb 240
f λ fcrlocal ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ 51:4 ¼ 28:8 MPa
  FRP WF section (254  254  12.5 mm) was selected with the
Vu ¼ w λfcrlocal Aw ¼ ð28:8 MPaÞ 3; 550 mm2 ¼ 102:2 kN following given properties: longitudinal modulus of flange (ELf) =

© ASCE 04018036-13 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 Prestandard Equations
Determine Global Buckling Strength
The FRP WF beam was partially supported laterally at the midspan
and at both ends of the span. As shown in Fig. 6(b), the moment
modification factor (Cb) for lateral supports at the ends and at the
third points of the span was determined as follows:
• maximum moment in the unbraced segment (Mmax) = WL2/8,
• moment at a quarter of the unbraced segment (MA) = 7WL2/128,
• moment at the centerline of the unbraced segment (MB) =
3WL2/32, and
• moment at the three-quarter point of the unbraced segment
(MC) = 15WL2/128.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12:5Mmax
Cb ¼
2:5Mmax þ 3MA þ 4MB þ 3MC

12:5 ð1=8Þ
¼
2:5 ð1=8Þ þ 3 ð7=128Þ þ 4 ð3=32Þ þ 3 ð15=128Þ

¼ 1:30  3:0

For d ≥ 152 mm, Lb,eff = 0.95Lb, and the lateral-torsional buck-

ling strength was determined from Eq. (1c). For w = 0.7 and l
(for 1.2D þ 1.6L) = 0.8, the lateral-torsional buckling strength is

Fig. 6. (a) Pultruded FRP beam with partial lateral supports; and f λfnLTB ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ47:7 ¼ 26:7 MPa
(b) moments for Cb for Example 5.2.
fbu ¼ 16:13 MPa < f λfnLTB ¼ 26:7 MPa

17,926 MPa, transverse modulus of flange (ETf) = 5,516 MPa, longi- The cross section of the FRP WF beam was sufficient to prevent
tudinal modulus of web (ELw) = 17,926 MPa, transverse modulus of global lateral-torsion buckling.
web (ETw) = 5,516 MPa, shear modulus (GLT) = 2,930 MPa,
Poisson’s ratio ( LT) = 0.33, longitudinal tensile strength (Ft) = Local Flange Buckling Strength
206.8 MPa, shear strength (Fv) = 31 MPa, flange thickness (tf) = The local flange buckling was determined from Eqs. (5.2.3.1–1)
12.5 mm, web thickness (tw) = 12.5 mm, flange width (bf) = 254 mm, to (5.2.3.1–3) in ACMA-ASCE (2010). For w = 0.8 and l (for
area (A) = 9,387 mm2, web area (Aw) = 2,903 mm2, sectional 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the local flange buckling strength is deter-
modulus about the strong axis (ST) = 8.39(105) mm3, moment of mined as
inertia about the strong axis (IT) = 106.6(106) mm4, moment of  local 
inertia about the weak axis (IZ) = 34.7(106) mm4, torsional rigid- f λ fcrf ¼ ð0:8  0:8Þ 54:3 ¼ 34:8 MPa
ity (J) = 5.02(105) mm4  local 
fbu ¼ 16:14 MPa < f λ fcrf ¼ 34:8 MPa
5WL4 WL2 1:26ð10 9Þ
1;652
wmax ¼ þ ¼ þ ¼ 12:39
384ðEL IT Þ 8k ð GLT AÞ 106:6ð10 Þ 2;903
6 Hence, the cross section of the FRP WF beam was sufficient to
  prevent compressive local flange buckling.
L
 ¼ 20:32
240 Local Web Buckling Strength
The local web buckling strength was determined from Eq. (5.2.3.1–
Note that the FRP WF beam satisfied the deflection limit. 4) in ACMA-ASCE (2010). For w = 0.8 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) =
The design bending moment and shear were 0.8, the local web buckling strength (294 MPa) was much higher
than the material tensile (or compressive) strength (207 MPa).
Wu L2 4;554 ð4:8772 Þ Thus, the cross section of the FRP WF beam provided enough buck-
Mu ¼ ¼ ¼ 13:54 kNm and
8 8 ling resistance to the web.
Wu L 4;554 ð4:877Þ Web Shear Buckling Strength
Vu ¼ ¼ ¼ 11:08 kN
2 2 The local web buckling strength was determined from Eqs. (5.3.3–
Induced flexural and average web shear stresses were 2) and (5.3.3–3) in ACMA-ASCE (2010). For w = 0.7 and l for
(1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the web shear buckling strength is
Mu 13:54ð106 Þ  
fbu ¼ ¼ ¼ 16:14 MPa and f λ fcrlocal ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ 73:8 ¼ 41:3 MPa
ST 8:39ð105 Þ
The web shear buckling strength (41.3 MPa) was higher than the
V 11:08ð103 Þ
fvu ¼ ¼ ¼ 3:82 MPa design shear strength (3.82 MPa). Thus, the cross section based on
Aweb 2;903 this design will not reach the web shear buckling value.

© ASCE 04018036-14 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 Nominal Material Strength
For w = 0.65 (for material rupture) and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8,
the resistance of the FRP WF section is
f λFt ¼ 107:6 MPa > fbu ¼ 16:14 MPa and
f λFv ¼ 16:13 MPa > fvu ¼ 3:82 MPa
Nominal Material Strength
For w =0.65 (for material rupture) and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8,
the resistance of the FRP WF section is
f λFt ¼ 107:6 MPa > fbu ¼ 16:14 MPa and
f λFv ¼ 16:13 MPa > fvu ¼ 3:82 MPa

It was found that the FRP WF beam satisfied the material
strength limit as well.
Alternative Design Method with Proposed
Simplified Equations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
It was found that the FRP WF beam satisfied the material
strength limit as well.
Note that the difference in lateral-torsional (fnLTB), local flange
local local
(fcrf ), local web (fcrw ), and web shear (fcr) buckling strength
between the prestandard (ACMA-ASCE 2010) and simplified
expression was less than 1%, as summarized in Table 8.

Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength

The simplified lateral-torsional buckling strength was determined Design Example 5.3
from Eq. (2). For w = 0.7 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the lateral-
torsional buckling strength is A pultruded FRP purlin for a simple span of 2,438 mm (8 ft) was
designed. A dead load of 146 N/m (10 lbs/ft) and live load of 438 N/m
f λfnLTB ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ47:4 ¼ 26:5 MPa
(30 lbs/ft) were assumed to be acting on the member. The pultruded
FRP beam was placed on a slope of 1:3, as seen in Fig. 7.
fbu ¼ 16:13 MPa < f λfnLTB ¼ 26:5 MPa
The pultruded beam properties were as follows: longitudinal
modulus of flange (ELf) = 17,926 MPa, transverse modulus of flange
Local Flange Buckling Strength (ETf) = 5,516 MPa, longitudinal modulus of web (ELw) =
From Eq. (3a), the correction factor (Khb) for the WF section was 17,926 MPa, transverse modulus of web (ETw) = 5,516 MPa, shear
taken to be 4 (Table 4). For w = 0.8 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, modulus (GLT) = 2,930 MPa, Poisson’s ratio ( LT) = 0.33, longitudi-
the local flange buckling strength is determined as nal tensile strength (Ft) = 206.8 MPa, and shear strength (Fv) =
 local 
f λ fcrf ¼ ð0:8  0:8Þ 54:2 ¼ 34:7 MPa 31 MPa.
 local 
fbu ¼ 16:14 MPa < f λ fcrf ¼ 34:7 MPa

Hence, the cross section of the FRP WF beam was sufficient to

prevent compressive local flange buckling.

Local Web Buckling Strength

The local web buckling strength was determined from Eq. (3b) and
Table 4.
For w = 0.8 and l (for 1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the local web buck-
ling strength (291 MPa) was much higher than the material tensile
(or compressive) strength (207 MPa). Thus, the cross section of the
FRP WF beam provided enough buckling resistance to the web.

Web Shear Buckling Strength

The local web buckling strength was determined from Eq. (4a) in
the Appendix. For w = 0.7 and l for (1.2D þ1.6L) = 0.8, the web
shear buckling strength is
 
f λ fcrlocal ¼ ð0:7  0:8Þ 74:1 ¼ 41:5 MPa
The web shear buckling strength (41.5 MPa) was higher than the
design shear strength (3.82 MPa). Thus, the cross section based on Fig. 7. Simply supported pultruded FRP I-beam under biaxial
this design will not reach the web shear buckling value. bending.

Table 8. Design strength summary for Example 5.2

Strength Prestandard (ACMA-ASCE2010 ) (MPa) Proposed simplified equations (MPa)

Lateral-torsional buckling (fnLTB) 26.7 26.5
Local flange buckling (fcrf
local
) 34.8 34.7
local
Local web buckling (fcrw ) 294 291
Web shear buckling (fcr) 41.3 41.5
Nominal material 107.6 for tension 107.6 for tension
16.13 for shear 16.13 for shear

© ASCE 04018036-15 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 Table 9. Design strength summary for Example 5.3

Strength Axis Prestandard (ACMA-ASCE2010) (MPa) Proposed simplified equations (MPa)

Induced flexural stresses (fbu) Strong 4.22
Weak 8.93
Induced web shear stresses (fvu) Strong 0.75
Weak 0.19
Lateral-torsional buckling (fnLTB) w = 0.7 and l = 0.8 Strong 6.58 6.41
Weak 42.9 41.8
Local flange buckling (fcrf
local
) w = 0.8 and l = 0.8 Strong 184.2 188.6
Weak 117.2 120.1
Web shear buckling (fcr) w = 0.7 and l = 0.8 Strong 64.6 64.8
Weak 1,033 1,036
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

local
Local web buckling (fcrw ) w = 0.8 and l = 0.8 — 459 455
Nominal material w = 0.65 and l = 0.8 — 107.6 (for tension) and 16.13 (for shear)

Solution
Factored loads were determined as follows:
• total service load (W) = (146 N/m) þ (438 N/m) = 584 N/m;
• bending at strong axis (T): W cos 18.4° = 584 cos 18.4° =
554 N/m;
• bending at weak axis (Z): W sin 18.4° = 584 sin 18.4° =
184 N/m;
• total factored load (Wu) = 1.2(146 N/m) þ 1.6(438 N/m) =
876 N/m;
• bending at strong axis (T): W u cos 18.4° = 876 cos 18.4° =
831 N/m; and
• bending at weak axis (Z): Wu sin 18.4° = 876 sin 18.4° =
277 N/m.
The design bending moment capacities of the pultruded FRP
beam were as follows:
• bending at strong axis (T): MuT = 514 N·m; and
• bending at weak axis (Z): MuZ = 171 N·m.
Trial section with deformation limit:
The trial I-shaped section was evaluated using the serviceability
limit [the deflection limit (L/240)] including the shear deformation
response. An I-shaped beam section (152.4  76.23  9.53 mm)
was selected [self-weight = 49.5 N/m, area (A) = 2,729 mm2, web
area (Aw) = 1,271 mm2, sectional modulus about the strong axis
(ST) = 1.218(105) mm3, sectional modulus about the weak axis
(SZ) = 1.87(104) mm3, moment of inertia about the strong axis (IT) =
9.28(106) mm4, moment of inertia about the weak axis (IZ) = 7.12
(105) mm4, torsional rigidity (J) = 8.24(104) mm4, web thickness
(tw) = 9.53 mm, and flange width (bf) = 76.2 mm]
5WL4 WL2 ð2;438Þ
wmax ¼ þ ¼ 1:651 mm  ¼ 10 mm
384ðEL IT Þ 8k ð GLT AÞ 240
The pultruded FRP beam satisfied the deflection limit.
The global and local buckling strength were determined as
follows:
• lateral-torsional buckling strength from Eq. (1c),
• local flange buckling strength from Eqs. (5.2.3.1-1) to
(5.2.3.1-3) in ACMA-ASCE (2010),
• local web buckling strength from Eq. (5.2.3.1-4) in ACMA-
ASCE (2010), and
• web shear buckling strength from Eqs. (5.3.3-2) and (5.3.3-3)
in ACMA-ASCE (2010).
Global and local buckling strength was determined using the
simplified design equations:
• lateral-torsional buckling strength from Eq. (2),
• local flange buckling strength from Eq. (3a) and Table 4,
• local web buckling strength from Eq. (3b) and Table 4, and
•
web shear buckling strength from Eq. (4a) in the Appendix.
The design strength results are summarized in Table 9.
Resistance of Pultruded FRP Member under
Biaxial Bending
The interaction of the FRP I-shaped beam was determined from Eq.
(6.2–1) in ACMA-ASCE (2010)
Pu MuT MuZ 514ð103 Þ 171ð103 Þ
þ þ ¼0þ þ
Pc McT McZ 6:58ð1:218ð105 ÞÞ 41:8 ð1:87ð104 ÞÞ
¼ 0:641 þ 0:219 ¼ 0:860  1:0
The design of the I-shaped beam (152.4  76.2  9.53 mm) was
adequate for strength and deflection limits under biaxial bending.
Conclusion
Simplified strength equations for the lateral-torsional buckling and
local buckling of various pultruded FRP structural beam cross sec-
tions were proposed and compared with the strength results based
on the ACMA-ASCE prestandard and available experimental data.
From available data of various commercial products, it was
observed that the characteristic mechanical property ratio of pul-
truded FRP structural members from different manufacturers
(Table 1) did not show a significant difference in ratio of structural
properties. The longitudinal elastic modulus (EL) was higher than
the transverse elastic modulus (ET) by 3.0 times (average value).
The in-plane shear modulus (GLT) of commercial FRP structural
members was approximately 16% of the longitudinal elastic modu-
lus. The proposed global and local buckling-strength design equa-
tions were simplified. For lateral-torsional buckling strength, the
proposed strength equation provided a maximum of 15% difference
in strength when compared with the experimental data. When com-
paring with the buckling strength based on the prestandard
(ACMA-ASCE 2010), the difference in the predicted lateral-
torsional buckling strength increased with increasing laterally
unbraced length. Based on our study, the proposed simplified
strength equation provided sufficiently accurate results for a ratio of
transverse to in-plane shear modulus of approximately 1.7–2.3.
Also, the proposed local buckling strength showed an average per-
centage difference from experimental data of approximately 15%.
For the C-channel cross section, the proposed local buckling-

© ASCE 04018036-16 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036

 strength equations had good agreement with the predicted strength
based on the prestandard (ACMA-ASCE 2010) for a height-to-
width ratio (h:b) less than 3.5. Comparison of results indicated that
the proposed buckling-strength equations provided acceptable and
reliable predictions for simple hand calculations. The proposed
design equations were useful and enabled efficient design predic-
tions of FRP structural members under buckling.
Appendix. Local Web Shear Buckling Strength
Simplified local web buckling due to shear is presented herein in
addition to the local buckling strength of the compression flange.
The simplified strength expression is recommended as an alterna-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tive method to help engineers and designers avoid complications
in hand calculations without loss of accuracy. The simplified local
shear buckling strength of a web under bending about the strong
axis for webs of a single- and double-symmetric I-shaped member,
C-channels, back-to-back channels, and square and rectangular
box sections is
Case I: 2GLT þ ET,W  LT ≤ (EL,W ET,W)1/2:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
4tw2 4
fcr ¼ 2 EL;w ðET;w Þ3 (4a)
h Euduro Composites.
Case II: 2GLT þ ET,W  LT > (EL,W ET,W)1/2:
0sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
4:7tw2 ET;w @ 2GLT
fcr ¼ þ LT A (4b)
h2 ET;w
where fcr = critical web shear buckling strength (stress); EL,w =
longitudinal modulus of the web; ET,w = transverse modulus of the
web; GLT = in-plane shear modulus; h = full depth of section; and
tw = thickness of web portion. The web shear buckling strength of
the elements perpendicular to the plane of bending of tees, back-
to-back angles, and members bent about the weak axis of the cross
section is determined based on rational engineering analysis.
Acknowledgments
This study was partially supported by Materials Engineering
Research Center, Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla
University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand. The authors also thank
the reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.
References
ACMA-ASCE (American Composites Manufacturers Association and
ASCE). 2010. Pre-standard for load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
of pultruded fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) structures. Arlington, VA:
ACMA.
Ascione, L., A. Giordano, and S. Spadea. 2011. “Lateral buckling of pul-
truded FRP beams.” Composites Part B 42 (4): 819–824. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.01.015.
Bank, L. C., T. R. Gentry, and M. Nadipelli. 1996. “Local buckling of pul-
truded FRP beam analysis and design.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 15 (3):
283–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/073168449601500304.
© ASCE 04018036-17
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04018036
Barbero, E. J., and I. G. Raftoyiannis. 1993. “Local buckling of FRP beams
and columns.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 5 (3): 339–355. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1993)5:3(339).
Bedford Reinforced Plastics. 2012. Design guide. Bedford, PA: Bedford
Reinforced Plastics.
Bendidi, R. 1996. “Modeling and testing of FRP structural shapes under
bending.” Master thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
West Virginia Univ.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 2002. Reinforced plastics specifications
for pultruded profiles: The European standard. BS EN 13706. London:
BSI.
Creative Pultrutions. 2004. The pultex pultrusion design manual of standard
and custom fiber reinforced structural profiles, 5, revision (2). Alum
Bank, PA: Creative Pultrutions.
Davalos, J. F., and P. Qiao. 1997. “Analytical and experimental study of lat-
eral and distortional of FRP wide flange beams.” J. Compos. Constr. 1 (4):
150–159. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1997)1:4(150).
Engineered Composites. 2016. GRP Structural Profiles. Saltney, Chester,
UK: Engineered Composites.
Estep, D. D. 2014. “Bending and shear behavior of pultruded glass fiber re-
inforced polymer composite beams with closed and open sections.”
Master thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, West
Virginia Univ.
Euduro Composites. 2010. Tuff span FRP structural shapes. Houston:
Exel Composites. 2013. Exel UTILO brochure. Whitehouse Runcorn,
Cheshire, UK: Excel Composites.
Fibergrate Composite Structures. 2011. Design guide, Dynaform FRP
structural shapes. Dallas: Fibergrate Composite Structures.
Fiberline. 2003. Design manual. Kolding, Denmark: Fiberline.
Gracol Composites. 2015. Gralolite pultruded profiles brochure.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Gracol Composites.
Kollár, L. P. 2003. “Local buckling of fiber reinforced plastic composite
structural members with open and closed cross sections.” J. Struct. Eng.
129 (11): 1503–1513. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)
129:11(1503).
Mottram, J. T. 1992. “Lateral-torsional buckling of a pultruded I-
beam.” Composites 23 (2): 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4361(92)
90108-7.
Nguyen, T. T., T. M. Chan, and J. T. Mottram. 2014. “Lateral-torsional
buckling resistance by testing for pultruded FRP beams under differ-
ent loading and displacement boundary conditions.” Compos. Part
B-Eng. 60: 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.12
.025.
Pecce, M., and E. Cosenza. 2000. “Local buckling curves for the design of
FRP profiles.” Thin Walled Struct. 37 (3): 207–222. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0263-8231(00)00023-9.
Razzaq, Z., R. Prabhakaran, and M. M. Sirjani. 1996. “Load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) approach for reinforced plastic channel beam
buckling.” Composites Part B 27 (3–4): 361–369. https://doi.org/10
.1016/1359-8368(95)00025-9.
Shan, L. Y., and P. Qiao. 2005. “Flexural–torsional buckling of fiber-
reinforced plastic composite open channel beams.” Compos. Struct.
68 (2): 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.03.015.
Strongate. 2003. Structural profile technical data. Jiangsu, China: Nantong
Strongworld FRP Products.
Strongwell Corporation. 2010. Design manual: EXTERN and other propri-
etary pultruded products. Bristol, VA: Strongwell Corporation.
Tomblin, J., and E. Barbero. 1994. “Local buckling experiments on FRP
columns.” Thin Walled Struct. 18 (2): 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016
/0263-8231(94)90012-4.
TreadWell Composites. 2017. Structural product guide. Adelaide, SA,
Australia: TreadWell Group.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.