Rev.

A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

Paper 2
Behavior and Design of Aluminum Flexural Members
with Tapered Thickness
Yongwook Kim and Teoman Pekz

Abstract
Structural shapes with tapered thickness flanges are common in aluminum
construction. The behavior of a component element with tapered thickness has been
investigated by several researchers. However, it has not been fully incorporated in the
specifications approaches. Instead, the thickness variation is averaged so that the tapered
thickness plate is treated as the uniform one.
In this study, stiffness matrices appropriate for such tapered thickness plates are
derived in the framework of an available finite strip analysis program. Using the
program, parametric studies are conducted to find a plate buckling coefficient depending
on the thickness variation ratio. The obtained plate buckling coefficient is introduced into
the current specification approach for aluminum structures to compute a more precise
limit state stress.
Parametric studies for a great variety of tapered I-shaped sections validate the
approach compared to non-linear inelastic finite element analyses. Physical tests further
support the developed approach.
The allowable stress design equations are suggested for the application to the AA
Specification based on the developed limit state stress equations. The framework for
uniform thickness sections is maintained in the proposed approaches for tapered
thickness sections.

Paper 2 - 1

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

Introduction
Sections with tapered plate thickness are one of typical sections made of steel or
aluminum. However, the design equations for the behavior of such tapered plate elements
have not been fully developed in the specification approaches. In the both the Manual of
Steel Construction by American Institute of Steel Construction (1998) and the Aluminum
Association Specification for Aluminum Structures (2000a, abbreviated to the AA
Specification), it is implicit to treat a tapered component element as a uniform one with
average thickness.
The buckling behavior of a plate element with tapered thickness has been studied
mainly for aircraft designs by several researchers such as Pines et al. (1947), Wittrick et
al. (1962), and Chehil et al. (1973). These researchers have studied the buckling of a plate
with a thickness variation in the same direction as loading. Since a plate element as a
component of a structural member is tapered in the direction perpendicular to loading as
shown in Figure 1, these studies are not appropriate for this type of problems.

Figure 1. Possible idealization of a tapered element separated from an I-shaped section

Later, other researchers such as Kobayashi et al. (1990), Mizusawa et al. (1993)
and Ohga et al. (1995) have studied behaviors of plate elements tapered in the direction
perpendicular to loading, which is similar to the problem of Figure 1. However, the
studies were focused on demonstrating the developed approaches without further
applications to structural design codes.
In this study, stiffness matrices are derived for a plate element with tapered
thickness based on the finite strip method. The derived stiffness matrix is incorporated in
the CUFSM program developed by Schafer (1997) to compute the elastic buckling stress
of arbitrary shapes consisting of component elements with and without tapered thickness
such as the one in Figure 1. In addition, the program is also used to compute the plate
buckling coefficient of individual tapered plate elements with idealized boundary
conditions. The determined plate buckling coefficients are incorporated in the AA
Specification so that the limit state stress of tapered plate elements are obtained precisely
instead of treating such elements as the ones with uniform average thickness.
The developed approaches are used to compute the moment capacities of the

Paper 2 - 2

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

doubly symmetric I-shaped sections with tapered thickness. The moment capacities
obtained from the approaches are compared to those from the finite element analyses.
The flexural tests are also conducted to validate both the approaches and the finite
element analyses.

Stiffness Matrix for a Tapered Finite Strip Element

CUFSM program computes the elastic buckling load factor and corresponding
mode shapes using the finite strip method. Since CUSFM is based on the uniform plate
theory, a thickness variation cannot be considered directly. In this study, stiffness
matrices for tapered finite strip elements are derived.
The shape function used in CUFSM is based on Cheung (1976), which is the
multiplication of a width-direction shape function X(x) and a longitudinal-direction shape
function Y(y).
N(x,y) = X(x)Y(y)
(1)
For the plane stress part of the stiffness matrix, the width-direction shape function X(x) is
linear, which is the same as the one for a truss element. For the plate bending part of the
matrix, the width-direction shape function X(x) is cubic, which is the same as the one for
a beam element. On the other hand, the longitudinal-direction shape function Y(y) is a
sine function, since the boundary condition at the loaded edges of the program is limited
to the simply supported case. The width-direction shape functions are only modified,
since the thickness varies only in that direction. The idea for the exact shape functions for
tapered truss and beam elements is based on McGuire et al (2000).
t1

t2

dx

Figure 2. A tapered truss or beam element with unit width or a cross section of a tapered
plate element

a
y
v1
u1

1
w1

v2
u2

w2
z
Figure 3. Degrees of freedom for a finite strip

For an axially loaded linearly tapered truss element shown in Figure 2, the
Paper 2 - 3

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

equilibrium of an infinitesimal segment in the x-direction yields the following

displacement field:
T
(2)
u ( x) = N t ( x) u1 u2
(3)
N t ( x) = 1 f1 ( x) f1 ( x) = the shape function for a tapered truss element

ln 1 +

x
b

) and = t

t1
t1
ln (1 + )
Using Equation (3), the shape function for the plane stress is expressed in the form of
Equation (1) within the displacement field:
T
T
(4)
u ( x, y ) v( x, y ) = [ N1 ( x, y ) ] u1 v1 u2 v2

where f1 ( x)

(1 f1 ( x) ) Ym ( y )

0
f1 ( x)Ym ( y )
0

(5)
[ N1 ( x, y )] =
Ym ( y )
Ym ( y )
0
1

f
(
x
)
0
f
(
x
)
(
)
1
1

km
km
where Ym(y) = sin(kmy), km = m /a, m = number of half-waviness, and a = longitudinal
length of the strip element (y-direction in Figure 3). The degrees of freedom in Equation
(4) are defined in Figure 3.
The strain field is derived from the displacement field:
T

u v u v
T
(6)
x y xy = x y y + x = [ B1 ( x, y ) ] u1 v1 u2 v2

0
f1( x)Ym ( y )
0
f1( x)Ym ( y )

Ym( y )
Ym( y )
f1 ( x)
(7)
0
0
(1 f1 ( x) )
[ B1 ( x, y)] =

km
km

Y ( y)
Y ( y)
f1 ( x)Ym ( y ) f1( x) m
f1( x) m
(1 f1 ( x) ) Ym ( y )

km
km

The initial stiffness matrix of plane stress part is derived from the minimum
potential energy:
T

b a

[kplane-stress] = t ( x)[ B1 ]T [ E p ][ B1 ]dydx

(8)

0 0

E1 x E2 0
Ey
x
Ex

, E2 =
, and t ( x ) = t1 1 +
where [Ep] = x E2 E2
0 , E1 =
b
1 x y
1 x y

0
0
G
For a linearly tapered beam element shown in Figure 2, the force equilibrium of
an infinitesimal segment in the vertical direction (z) and the moment equilibrium with
respect to the axis perpendicular the cross section (y) yield the following displacement
field:
T
w( x) = N b ( x) w1 1 w2 2
(9)

where N b ( x) = the shape function for a tapered beam element

Paper 2 - 4

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003
T

f (b) f (b)
f 2 ( x) + ( 2 + ) ln 2 2

f 2 ( x) f 2 ( x)

b ( ln(1 + ) ) x + ( C + ) x b ln f ( x)
2

b
b
1 f 2 ( x)
(10)
N b ( x) =

C
f 2 (b)

f 2 ( x) + ( 2 + ) ln f 2 ( x) +

f 2 ( x)

bf 2 (b) ( C + ln(1 + ) ) x 2

+ bf 2 (b) ln f 2 ( x)
2
b
b
f 2 ( x)

x
where C = 2 + ( 2 + ) ln (1 + ) , and f 2 ( x) = 1 +
b
Using Equation (10), the shape function for plate bending is expressed in the form of
Equation (1) within the displacement field for a finite strip element:
T
w( x, y ) = N 2 ( x, y ) w1 1 w2 2
(11)

(12)
N 2 ( x, y ) = N b ( x) Ym ( y )
The degrees of freedom in Equation (11) are defined in Figure 3.
Using the displacement field in Equation (11), the strain field is computed:
x

2w
xy = 2
x
T

2w
2
y

2w
2
= [ B2 ( x, y )] u1 v1 u2
xy

v2

(13)

where

[ B2 ( x, y )] = [ Nb( x)]Ym ( y )

[ N b ( x)]km2 Ym ( y ) 2[ N b ( x)]Ym ( y )

The initial stiffness matrix of plate bending part is derived from the same
minimum potential energy;
b a

[kplate-bending] = [ B2 ]T [ Eb ][ B2 ]dydx

(14)

0 0

t 3 ( x)
Ep
12
The complete initial stiffness matrix is the combination of Equations (8) and (14):
k plane stress zeros ( 4 4 )

[ ke ] =
(15)
zeros ( 4 4 ) k plate bending

Derivation of geometric stiffness matrix refers to Schafer (1997). The thickness

variation is incorporated in the geometric stiffness matrix. For a linearly varying applied
stress,
a b
x
T

k g = f1 ( f1 f 2 ) t ( x) [G ] [G ] dxdy
(16)
b
0 0

where [Eb] =

u ( x, y )
where [G ]{d } =
y

v( x, y )
y

w( x, y )
, f1 and f2 = stresses at the nodes of an
y

Paper 2 - 5

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

element, {d}= u1 v1 u2 v2 w1 1 w2 2T, u(x,y) v(x,y)T= Equation (4), and w(x,y) =

Equation (11).
After the initial stiffness matrix of Equation (15) is computed for each element,
each stiffness matrix is transformed into a global coordinate system. The transformed
stiffness matrices from all elements are assembled according to global degrees of
freedom. The same procedure is repeated for the geometric stiffness matrix of Equation
(16). By solving an eigen-value problem of Equation (17), elastic buckling load factors
() and corresponding mode shapes {} are obtained for a given geometry:
K e + K g {} = {0}
(17)
where Ke = the assembled initial stiffness matrix in a global coordinate system, Kg = the
assembled geometric stiffness matrix in a global coordinate system.
Due to a singularity manner of the shape functions in Equations (5) and (10) as
the thickness variation ratio () approaches to zero, the stiffness matrices for a plate with
tapered thickness are used only when thickness variation ratio is larger than or equal to
4%. For smaller thickness variation ratio than 4%, stiffness matrices for a plate with
uniform thickness are used after the thickness is averaged.

Plate Buckling Coefficient for a Tapered Plate Element and

Application to the AA Specification
In the AA Specification (2000a), compressive limit state stress equations for a
component element refer to yielding, inelastic buckling, and elastic buckling ranges as
shown in Figure 4.

Fig. 4. Limit state stress for a component element in the AA Specification

The limit state stress equations in this figure are expressed in terms of the equivalent
slenderness ratio (p) as defined in Equation (18), originating from Equation (19).
3.266 b
b
p =
(18)
= for = 1/3
t
kp t
Fcr = k p

2E
2E

2
p2
12(1 2 ) ( b / t )

(19)

By idealizing junctions between component elements as simply-supported boundaries,

each component element is considered as an individual plate element. Thus, the
equivalent slenderness ratio of each component element depends on the plate buckling
Paper 2 - 6

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

coefficient kp.
However, for a plate element with tapered thickness, the equivalent slenderness is
not provided in the current AA Specification. Sections with tapered thickness are shown
in Table 1. The shaded flange area in Table 1 is considered as an individual plate element
under uniform compression with idealized boundary conditions.
Table 1. Possible idealization of sections with tapered elements

Flexural member idealized

tapered element under uniform
compression is shaded

idealized boundary
condition (IBC)

IBC designation

SSSS

SSFS

SSSF

Since the thickness varies at the loaded edges, the distributed force per unit length
shown in this table, which is the multiplication of the stress by the thickness, is not
uniform. Using the CUFSM program for a plate with tapered thickness, a plate buckling
coefficient is computed for each idealized boundary condition and geometry in Table 1
corresponding to a given thickness variation ratio (). The thickness variation ratio is the
additional variable for a plate with tapered thickness:
= ( t2 t1 ) t1
(20)
where t1 = the smallest thickness, and t2 = the largest thickness (Figure 2).
The plate buckling coefficient is computed based on the smallest thickness (t1) as defined
in Equation (21).
2
12(1 2 ) ( b / t1 ) Fcr
1
k p ( ) =
(21)
2E
The plate in the analysis is discretized into eight equally spaced elements. The
computed plate buckling coefficients are plotted in Figure 5 in terms of the thickness
variation ratio (). In this figure, CUFSM-tap denotes the version of the CUFSM program
modified for the tapered element based on the theory developed in this study. The results
are compared to the ones from Mizusawa (1993). Since the available data from Mizusawa
(1993) are limited to the case that the width (b) is the same as the length (a), plate
buckling coefficients are compared in such case. However, since the plate buckling
coefficient keeps decreasing as the length-to-width ratio increases in SSFS and SSSF
boundary conditions, the results for a large length-to-width ratio of 200 are also given.
The plate buckling coefficient obtained from CUFSM using this aspect ratio for a plate
with uniform thickness is 0.405. This number is rather smaller than the widely used ones
in other specification approaches; 0.425 or 0.43. However, 0.405 is more consistent with
the current AA Specification, since the equivalent slenderness of a uniform thickness
Paper 2 - 7

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

plate buckling coefficient (kp)

plate with SSFS (or SSSF) boundary condition is 5.13(b/t) according to Aluminum
Company of America (1960), from which the basis of the AA Specification is obtained.
15

[SSSS]

CUFSM-tap (a=b)
Mizusawa (a=b)
10

curve-fit
k 1p = 0.739 2 + 4 + 4

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

plate buckling coefficient (kp)

(a)
5

[SSFS]

CUFSM-tap (a=b)
Mizusawa (a=b)
CUFSM-tap (a=200b)

4
3
2

curve-fit
k 1p = 0.335 2 + 0.480 + 0.405

1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

plate buckling coefficient (kp)

(b)
8

[SSSF]

CUFSM-tap (a=b)
Mizusawa (a=b)
CUFSM-tap (a=200b)

6
4

curve-fit
k 1p = 0.146 2 + 0.317 + 0.405

2
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

(c)
Figure 5. Plate buckling coefficient of plates with tapered thickness for boundary condition
(a) SSSS (b) SSFS (c) SSSF. Width-to-thickness ratio = 1000 in Mizusawa (1993).

As the thickness variation ratio increases the plate buckling coefficient also
increases monotonically as seen in Figure 5. For this reason, quadratic equations are used
for curve-fitting the relationship between the plate buckling coefficient and the thickness
variation ratio. The average of errors between the computed and curve-fitted data is less
than 0.1% with standard deviation less than 0.5% in all cases.
The curve-fitted plate buckling coefficients in Figure 5 are based on the minimum
Paper 2 - 8

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

thickness (t1) as shown in Equation (21). However, it would be more useful for practical
design purposes, if the plate buckling coefficients are expressed in terms of the average
thickness. This is because the current AA Specification is based on the average thickness.
The relationship between the plate buckling coefficients based on the minimum and
average thickness is obtained as follows:
k p = k 1p

( + 2 )

(22)

resulting from
Fcr =

k p 2 E

12 1 2 ( b tavg )

k 1p 2 E

12 1 2 ( b t1 )

and

tavg

t1

t1 + t2 1 + t2 t1 + 2
=
=
.
2t1
2
2

It would be interesting to compare the plate buckling coefficient of a uniform

thickness plate with the one of a tapered thickness plate using Equation (22) as shown in
Figure 6.
4.6

SSSS tapered thickness

4.4

kp

kp =

4.2

4 ( 0.739 2 + 4 + 4 )

( + 2 )

uniform thickness (AA)

kp = 4.00

4
3.8
3.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

(a)
0.8

SSFS tapered thickness

0.7

kp =

4 ( 0.335 2 + 0.480 + 0.405 )

( + 2 )

0.6

kp

uniform thickness (AA)

kp = 0.405

0.5
0.4

SSSF tapered thickness

0.3
0.2

kp =
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

4 ( 0.146 2 + 0.317 + 0.405 )

( + 2 )
1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

(b)
Figure 6. Plate buckling coefficient comparisons between tapered and uniform thickness
plates for (a) SSSS (b) SSFS and SSSF boundary conditions based on average thickness

Paper 2 - 9

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

The rigorous plate buckling coefficient keeps increasing as the thickness variation
ratio () increases in SSFS boundary condition case, which implies that the current AA
Specification is conservative for this case. However, in other cases, the current AA
Specification is not conservative.
The equivalent slenderness ratios of tapered plate elements are obtained from
introducing the rigorous plate buckling coefficients into Equation (18) as shown in Table
2. The rigorous equivalent slenderness ratios are linear-approximated in this table for
practical design purposes. The errors due to linear approximations of the rigorous
equivalent slenderness ratios are maintained within 2%.
It is noted that the range of the thickness variation ratio () is limited, since the
curve-fitted equations are based on that range. The thickness variation ratios of all
standard I-shaped sections with tapered thickness in the Aluminum Design Manual
(2000b) fall into this range.
Table 2. Linear approximation of the equivalent slenderness ratio (p) for component
elements with linearly tapered thickness under uniform compression (0 < 2.0)

rigorous expression ( p )

types of
member
[SSSS]

1.633 ( + 2 )

0.739 2 + 4 ( + 1) tavg

[SSFS]

linear approx. ( pL )

b
tavg

(1.63 + 0.03 )

1.633 ( + 2 )

1.633 ( + 2 )

0.335 2 + 0.480 + 0.405 tavg

[SSSF]

0.146 2 + 0.317 + 0.405 tavg

b
tavg

( 5.1 0.6 )
b
5.2
tavg

AA Spec. ( pAA )
b
1.6
tavg

b
5.1
tavg

b
5.1
tavg

The limit state stress for a linearly tapered flange element is determined from
introducing the equivalent slenderness ratios in Table 2 into the equations in Table 3. In
Table 4, the shape factors under the limit states of the yield and ultimate stresses are
provided.
Table 3. Limit state stress equations for a tapered flange element

limit state stress

approaches

b
tavg

S1

AA
Specification

FpAA = Fcy

proposed linear
approximation

FpL = Fcy

Note: AA = pAA

( b t ) and
avg

limit
S1

limit state stress

S1 <

B Fcy

D
AA

limit state stress

S2 <

k1 B
AA D

FpAA =

FpL = B D pL

k1 B
LD

FpL =

LD
= pL

tavg

S2

limit
S2

FpAA = B D pAA

B Fcy
L

(b t )
avg

Paper 2 - 10

b
tavg

k2 BE

pAA

k2 BE

pL

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003
Table 4. Shape factor

limit state

flange

web

yield stress

= y = 1.0

= y = 1.3

= u =

ultimate stress

Fu
Fy

= u = 1.25

a
Ftu
+ 0.2
Fcy

Note a. Kim and Pekz (2003).

=1
6061-T6 (extrusion)
yield limit state

FpL

Fp / Fcy

0.8
0.6

[SSFS]

0.4

FpAA

0.2
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

b tavg
(a)
15

[SSFS]

error (%)

10

error

FpL

=1
6061-T6 (extrusion)
yield limit state

[SSSF]

0
-5

FpL FpAA

[SSSS]

10

15

b tavg
(b)

20

25

30

35

Figure 7. (a) The proposed and current limit state stresses for linearly tapered elements
under uniform compression and (b) error between the limit state stresses

For a given material (extruded 6061-T6) and geometry ( = 1), limit state stresses
from both approaches in Table 3 are plotted in Figure 7a for SSFS boundary condition: It
is confirmed that the current AA Specification is conservative for the SSFS boundary
condition. The errors between the both approaches are plotted in Figure 7b for all three
boundary condition cases. The current AA Specification is unconservative for the SSSS
and SSSF boundary conditions, with which the errors between the both approaches are
not as significant as SSFS boundary condition.

The moment capacity evaluation approaches

There are two moment capacity evaluation approaches in the AA Specification:
the Minimum Moment Capacity Approach (abbreviated to MMCA) and the Weighted

Paper 2 - 11

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

Average Stress Approach (abbreviated to WASA). The MMCA determine the minimum
moment capacity amongst those obtained by multiplying the limit state stress of each
component element by the elastic section modulus of an entire cross section. On the other
hand, the WASA takes the average of limit state stresses of component elements based on
the contributory area of each element. The averaged stress is multiplied by the section
modulus to compute the moment capacity.
However, as shown by Kim and Pekz (2003), the weighted average stress
equation is an approximatly linearized bending stress mesured at the mid-thickness of the
flange. Thus, the correction in Table 5 was recommended. The similar correction is
employed for sections with tapered thickness with slightly modified definition of hc,
which is the depth of a section measured between the centroids of compression and
tension flanges.
Table 5. Correction in the WASA
current WASA (WASA)

Mu =

Ff Af + Fw 16 Aw
Af + Aw
1
6

proposed WASA (WASA2)

Mu =

Ff Af + Fw 16 Aw h

Af + 16 Aw hc

where Ff = limit state stress for the flange, Fw = limit state stress for the web, Af
= entire compression side flange area, Aw = entire web area, S = section modulus
= I /(h/2), and h = entire depth of a section. See Figure 8 for further details.

As an alternative to the proposed WASA, the Total Moment Capacity Approach

(abbreviated to TMCA) was also introduced in the study. In the TMCA, the limit state
stress from each component element is multiplied by the contributory section modulus to
compute the contributory moment capacity. Afterwards, all moment capacities from
component elements are added to obtain a member moment capacity. For example, the
moment capacity of an I-shaped section shown in Figure 8 can be expressed as Equation
(23) based on the TMCA.
M u = Ff Af hc + 16 Fw Aw ho
(23)
The modified WASA and TMCA are expected to be more accurate than MMCA.
w
Ff Af
t2 t1
Af
Fw

Aw

ho

hc h

2
ho
3

ho
2

Ff Af

Af

Fw

Fig. 8. Contributions made by component elements to a moment capacity of an - section

Parametric Study of I-Shaped Sections with Tapered Thickness

The moment capacities are computed for all the 36 standard I-shaped sections
with tapered thickness listed in the Aluminum Design Manual (2000b), abbreviated to

Paper 2 - 12

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

ADM, using the approaches developed for tapered thickness element. Afterwards, the
same sections are analyzed using the finite element method. These sections are noted as
Series 1 of the parametric study. Since the slenderness factors = Fy Fcr of all

Series 1 sections are in stocky range ( < 0.673) based on the American Iron and Steel
Institute Specification for the Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (1996), additional
series sections are created through reducing the thickness of the standard sections by
60%. These sections are noted as Series 2.
The finite element program, ABAQUS developed by Hibbitt, Karlsson and
Sorensen, Inc. is used for the analyses. The boundary conditions are determined as shown
in Figure 9. To avoid singularity of the stiffness matrix, one longitudinal degree of
freedom is restrained at the span center. Equal and opposite moments are applied at
member ends, at which rigid beam elements are attached to maintain the stability of
analyses during bending. Each member length is set to more than or equal to four times
the member depth so that the complication at member ends disappear at the member
middle. Simultaneously, the length of is set to multiple (3 to 8) times the critical local
buckling length, which induces minimum buckling load.
Twenty noded quadratic hexahedral solid elements with reduced integration are
used to fully take account of tapered thickness. The parametric study sections are
extrusions of 6061-T6 with minimum material properties in the ADM (2000b). Since the
moment capacity variation resulting from the ultimate strain variation is not significant as
shown in Kim and Pekz (2003), the ultimate strain is set to 8%, which is the same as the
minimum percent elongation in the Aluminum Standards and Data (2000c).

Fig. 9. Model geometry of an I-shaped section for a parametric study

For material model, isotropic hardening is used, since this study deals with
monotonic loading. Due to uncertainty after reaching the ultimate stress, it is assumed
that the whole member reaches the failure when the von-Mises stress at a single point of a
member reaches the ultimate stress. This occurs when the member is too compact to
buckle. On the other hand, the failure of the member can also be initiated by buckling
when the member is less compact. In this case, the peak load of the member is obtained
before any point of the member reaches the ultimate stress. In this study, these two
possibilities of failure are considered simultaneously to find an ultimate load factor.

Paper 2 - 13

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

Prior to the non-linear analyses, elastic eigen-value analyses are conducted to

generate initial geometric imperfections. The maximum amplitude of imperfections is
determined based on the industrial production limitation provided by the Aluminum
Standards and Data (2000c).
Series 1

1.8

Series 2

MFEM / Mapproaches

1.6
1.4
1.2
1

72 tapered
I - sections

0.8

MFEM / Mapproaches

0.6
0.4

mean c.o.v

MFEM / MAA-Y-MMCA-UNI
MFEM / MAA-Y-MMCA-TAP

0.6

0.8

(a)

1.35

0.092

1.266 0.073

1.2

1.4

1.6

= Fy Fcr

MFEM / Mapproaches

1.1
1

0.9
0.8
0.7

[Series 1]
36 AA standard
tapered I-sections
0.25

0.3

MFEM / Mapproaches
MFEM / MAA-U-WASA2-UNI
MFEM / MAA-U-WASA2-TAP

0.35

0.4

0.45

(b)

0.5

mean c.o.v
1.024 0.021
1.019 0.018
0.55

0.6

= Fy Fcr

MFEM / Mapproaches

1.4
1.2
1

[Series 2]
36 tapered I-sections
0.8 with 60% thickness
reduction
0.6
0.7

0.8

0.9

MFEM / Mapproaches
MFEM / MAA-U-WASA2-UNI
MFEM / MAA-U-WASA2-TAP
1.1

1.2

(c)

1.3

mean c.o.v
1.197 0.046
1.101 0.053
1.4

1.5

1.6

= Fy Fcr

Fig. 10. Influence of employing the plate buckling coefficient for a tapered thickness plate
(a) Figure 7 of Paper 2 (Rev. O) (b) Series 1 (Rev. A) (c) Series 2 (Rev. A)

As a first step, the influence of considering the rigorous plate buckling coefficient

Paper 2 - 14

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

for a tapered thickness plate in the AA Specification is investigated as shown in Figure

10. The approach abbreviations used in Figure 10 are denoted as follows: For example,
MAA-U-WASA2-UNI is the moment capacity evaluated by the AA Specification based on the
limit state of the Ultimate stress using the modified Weighted Average Stress Approach.
Limit state stress of this approach is computed based on the Uniform thickness ( FpAA in
Table 3), while the other approach in this figure is based on the Tapered thickness ( FpL in
Table 3) developed in this study. The horizontal axis is the slenderness factor
( = Fy Fcr ). In the vertical axis, the moment capacities obtained from the finite
element analyses are normalized by those based on the approaches specified in the figure.

1.2
1
[Series 1]
36 AA standard
tapered I-sections

0.8

M FEM / M approaches
M FEM / M A A -Y -MMCA -UNI

FEM

/M

approaches

1.4

mean c.o.v
1.27 0.039

M FEM / M A A -Y -WA SA -UNI

M FEM / M A A -U-WA SA 2-TA P
M FEM / M A A -U-TMCA -TA P

0.6
0.4
0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

1.211 0.032
1.026 0.02
1.018 0.019
0.55

0.6

= Fy Fcr

(a)
1.8

FEM

/M

approaches

1.6
1.4
1.2
1

[Series 2]
0.8 36 tapered I-sections with
60% reduced thickness
0.6

M FEM / M approaches
M FEM / M A A -Y -MMCA -UNI

M FEM / M A A -Y -WA SA -UNI

M FEM / M A A -U-WA SA 2-TA P
M FEM / M A A -U-TMCA -TA P

0.4
0.2
0.7

0.8

0.9

mean c.o.v
1.43 0.088

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.257 0.041
1.102 0.052
1.099 0.055
1.4

1.5

1.6

= Fy Fcr

(b)
Fig. 11. Comparison between current and proposed approaches (a) Series 1 (b) Series 2

Paper 2 - 15

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

As seen in Figure 10, the approach considering tapered thickness plate buckling
coefficient improves significantly the member capacity for rather slender range sections
(Series 2 sections). This is because most Series 2 sections fall into the inelastic or post
buckling range, in which the limit state stress is considerably affected by the equivalent
slenderness ratio. In Figure 11, the currently available two approaches in the AA
Specification (the first two approaches) are compared to the proposed two approaches
(the last two approaches). The similar rule to the last figure is applied to denote the
abbreviations. As seen in Figure 11, a significant improvement is made in the proposed
approaches for a wide range of slenderness. In addition, virtually no difference is
observed between two proposed approaches. The moment capacities obtained from all
four approaches and the finite element analyses normalized by the yield moment
capacities are listed in Table 10 at the Appendix.

Experiments and FEM Simulation

Flexural tests for three AA standard I-shaped sections with tapered thickness (I3x1.96) are conducted to further support the approaches developed in this study. The
dimensions of the section are shown in Table 10 in the Appendix.

Fig. 12. Schematic test setup side view: All dimensions are in millimeters and not to scale

Before the tests are conducted, the test setup is simulated using the finite element
method. All modeling issues are similar to those for the Series 1 and 2 parametric studies
except for the followings: First, the applied load is not pure bending but two-point
bending as shown in Figure 12. Second, the lateral supports spacing is determined from
an additional parametric study to find an optimum spacing, which is practically large
enough for an experimental setup as well as small enough to simulate the continuous
lateral support spacing. The determined spacing is also employed in the physical tests.
Third, spreader plates are added, which are connected to the specimen using bi-linear
spring elements. The bi-linear spring element is to simulate the actual contacting
behavior transferring not tension but compression at the interface between the spreader
plate and the specimen. This is reasonable, because no moment connection is used in the
actual tests. Fourth, the median of six tensile coupon test results obtained from one of the
specimens is introduced into the finite element analyses instead of using the minimum in
the ADM (2000b) as compared in Table 6.
Far from uniform flange cases of Kim and Pekz (2003), nearly no ripple is
formed during tests. Thus, the beam does not seem to be sensitive to such local
deformations. The first beam is not successful due to lack of stiffness at the lateral
supports; large lateral S-shaped deformations occur. For this reason, the first beam
reaches the peak too early as seen in Figure 13. After the test setup is reinforced against

Paper 2 - 16

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

lateral movements, there are no such problems in the remaining two flexural tests.
However, the last two tests are discontinued at a vertical displacement approximately
between 150mm and 170mm at the span center due to the limitation of the test setup. Up
to this stage, load factor-displacement graphs keep increasing as observed in Figure 13.
Table 6. Comparison of material properties of 6061-T6

description

Fty (MPa)1

Ftu (MPa)

E (MPa)

median of tests

281.18

297.37

0.068

69458

average of tests

281.87

299.03

0.070

69679

6061-T6 average2

275.60

310.05

N.A.

68900

6061-T6 minimum2

241.15

261.82

N.A.

69589

Note 1. Obtained based on the 2% offset method

2. The ADM (2000b)
1.4
1.2

LF = Mu /My

1
0.8
0.6

DESCRIPTION MAX-LF DISP-XL

TEST 1
1.123
50.56
TEST 2
1.173
168.5
TEST 3
1.174
147.2
FEM
1.197
167.4
DISP-XL = Displacement at max LF

0.4
0.2
0

20

40
60
80
100
120
140
SCVD (Span Center Vertical Displacement, mm)

160

180

Fig. 13. Load factor-displacement result comparison for -3x1.96

The load factor-displacement curves obtained from the last two physical tests are
closely simulated by the finite element analysis. In the analysis, before the Von-Mises
stress at a single point reaches the ultimate stress failure criteria, there was no stability
problem. For this reason, the load factor keeps increasing and the peak load factor is
determined at the time reaching the ultimate stress failure criteria.
The maximum load factors from the last two physical tests are averaged and
compared to the current AA approaches (MMCA and WASA) and those developed in
this study (WASA2 and TMCA) in Table 7. The proposed approaches are much closer to
the test results than the current ones. Thus, in addition to the parametric study, the test
results further validate the proposed approaches in this study. The moment ratios in Table
7 are slightly smaller than the ones in Figure 11 for the same section, which should be
due to mainly discontinuity of tests resulting from the limitation of the test setup. The
Paper 2 - 17

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

moment capacities based on the available approaches in the table are recalculated, since
the material properties used for computations are not from the minimum ones in the
ADM (2000b) but from tensile coupon tests.
Table 7. Comparison of test results to the available approaches

current approaches

proposed approaches

M TESTS

M TESTS

M TESTS

M TESTS

M Y-MMCA-UNI

M Y-WASA-UNI

M U-WASA2-TAP

M U-TMCA-TAP

1.174

1.141

0.967

0.964

Application to the AA Specification

The allowable stress equations based on the limit states of the yield and ultimate
stresses are summarized for tapered thickness elements in Table 8. The final allowable
stress equations for tapered thickness elements should be determined by either Procedure
I or II as shown in Table 9. The equations given in these tables are consistent with those
proposed in Kim and Pekz (2003) for uniform thickness elements.
Table 8. Proposed limit state stress expressions for linearly tapered component elements
under uniform compression (0 < 2.0)

BC

allowable
stress
b
tavg

Fay =

SSSS
Fau =

Fay =

SSFS
Fau =

Fay =

SSSF
Fau =

limit
S1

S1

y Fcy

B y Fcy

ny

(1.63 + 0.03 ) D

u Fcy

B ny u Fcy

nu

(1.63 + 0.03 ) D

y Fcy

B y Fcy

ny

( 5.1 0.6 ) D

u Fcy

B ny u Fcy

nu

( 5.1 0.6 ) D

y Fcy

B y Fcy

ny

5.2 D

u Fcy

B n u Fcy

nu

5.2 D

ny

allowable stress
S1 <

b
tavg

limit
S2

S2

allowable stress
S2 <

b
tavg

Fay = Fau =

Fay = Fau =
k1 B
k2 BE
1
b 1.63 + 0.03 D
)
B D (1.63 + 0.03 )
(
n y (1.63 + 0.03 ) b tavg
n y
tavg
Fay = Fau =

k1 B
( 5.1 0.6 ) D

1
b
B D ( 5.1 0.6 )

n y
tavg

Fay = Fau =

1
ny

b
B 5.2 D
t
avg

k1 B
5.2 D

Fay = Fau =
k2 BE
n y ( 5.1 0.6 ) b tavg

Fay = Fau =

Note. See Table 4 for the shape factors (y, u)

Table 9. allowable stress for compression component element
Procedure I
Procedure II

Fa = min ( Fay , Fau )

(24)

Fa = Fay + 0.25 ( Fau Fay ) min (1.25Fay , Fau )

Paper 2 - 18

(25)

k2 BE
5.2 b tavg

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

Conclusions
Initial and geometric stiffness matrices for a plate with tapered thickness are
derived for the finite strip analysis program, CUFSM. Using the CUFSM program with
the derived stiffness matrices, parametric studies are conducted to find a relationship
between the plate buckling coefficient (kp) and thickness variation ratio ().
Using the obtained relationship, equivalent slenderness equations are proposed for
the limit state stress computation of component elements with tapered thickness, while
the frame of the AA Specification (2000a) is maintained.
Developed equivalent slenderness equations are employed to compute the
moment capacities of I-shaped sections with tapered thickness for a parametric study.
The modified AA Specification considering the plastic-ultimate capacity as well as the
previously developed precise moment capacity evaluation approaches, such as the
modified WASA and the TMCA, are also used to compute the moment capacities of the
parametric study sections.
It is found that the proposed approaches work much better for a wide range of
slenderness than the current specification approaches, compared to the finite element
analyses. Experimental study for the same type of sections additionally supports the
proposed approaches.
The proposed approaches could also be used to develop more slender sections
with tapered thickness than the current standard ones mostly falling into the stocky range.
The allowable stress equations are summarized for the application to the AA
Specification (2000a).

Acknowledgements
This study is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Aluminum
Association. Their sponsorship is gratefully acknowledged.

References
The Aluminum Association (2000a). The Specification for Aluminum Structures.
The Aluminum Association (2000b). The Aluminum Design Manual.
The Aluminum Association (2000c). Aluminum Standards and Data.
Aluminum Company of America (1960). Alcoa Structural Handbook, A Design Manual
for Aluminum.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1998). Manual of Steel Construction. Vol.1.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1996). Specification for the Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members.
Chehil, D.S. and Dua, S.S. (1973). Bucking of rectangular plates with general variation
in thickness. Journal of Applied Mechanics Transaction, ASME, 40(3), 745-751
Cheung, Y.K., (1976). Finite strip method in structural analysis. Pergamon Press, New
York
Kim, Y. and Pekz, T. (2003) Laterally supported aluminum flexural members with
symmetric cross sections Under Preparation For Publication Paper 1 for AA
EDTF meeting Jan. 21. 2003 Pittsburgh.
Kobayashi, H., Sonoda, K. , (1990) "Buckling of rectangular plates with tapered
thickness." Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(5), 1278-1289
Paper 2 - 19

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

McGuire, W., Gallagher, R.H., Ziemian, R.D. (2000) Matrix Structural Analsis. 2nd Ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York
Mizusawa, T., (1993), Buckling of rectangular Mindlin plates with tapered thickness by
the spline strip method. International J. of Solids Structures 30(12), 1663-1677
Ohga, M., Shigematsu, T., Kawaguchi, K., (1995) Buckling analysis of thin-walled
members with variable thickness. J. of Struct. Engineering, ASCE, 121(6), 919-924
Pines, S., and Gerard, G. (1947). Instability analysis and design of an efficiently tapered
plate under compressive loading. J. of the Aeronautical Sciences, 14(10), 594-599
Schafer, B.W. (1997), Cold-Formed Steel Behavior and Design: Analytical and
Numerical Modeling of Elements and Members with Longitudinal Stiffeners. PhD.
Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Wittrick, W.H., and Ellen, C.H. (1962). Buckling of tapered rectangular plates in
compression. The Aeronautics Quarterly, 13(4), 308-326

Appendix
Table 10. Dimensions and moment capacities (a) Series 1 (b) Series 2
(a)
Designation

Depth Width Flange thk Web thk Slope

(tw)
(t2-t1)/b0
(h)
(w)
(tf)

M Y-MMCA-UNI
My

M Y-WASA-UNI
My

M U-WASA2-TAP
My

M U-TMCA-TAP
My

M FEM
My

Fy
Fcr

WF2x1.43

50.8

50.8

5.893

4.775

1/11.4

1.000

1.027

1.280

1.281

1.286

0.293

WF2.5x1.80
WF4x4.76
WF5x6.49
WF6x7.85
WF6x8.30
WF6x9.18
WF8x11.2
WF8x11.8
WF8x13.0
I3x1.96
I3x2.25
I3x2.59
I4x2.64
I4x3.28
I5x3.43
I5x4.23
I5x5.10
I6x4.30
I6x5.10
I6x5.96
I7x5.27
I7x6.05
I7x6.92
I8x6.35
I8x7.96
I8x8.81
I9x7.51
I10x8.76
I10x10.4
I10x12.1
I12x11.0
I12x12.1
I12x14.1
I12x15.6
I12x17.3

63.5
101.6
127.0
152.4
152.4
152.4
203.2
203.2
203.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
101.6
101.6
127.0
127.0
127.0
152.4
152.4
152.4
177.8
177.8
177.8
203.2
203.2
203.2
228.6
254.0
254.0
254.0
304.8
304.8
304.8
304.8
304.8

50.8
101.6
127.0
150.6
152.4
155.7
201.7
203.2
206.5
59.2
61.2
63.8
67.6
71.1
76.2
79.8
83.3
84.6
112.8
90.7
93.0
95.5
98.0
101.6
105.9
108.2
110.0
118.4
121.9
125.5
127.0
129.0
133.4
136.1
139.2

6.274
9.398
10.541
11.455
11.455
11.455
11.633
11.633
11.633
6.528
6.528
6.528
7.341
7.341
8.204
8.204
8.204
9.017
9.017
9.017
9.881
9.881
9.881
10.693
10.693
10.693
11.506
12.370
12.370
12.370
13.665
13.665
16.586
16.586
16.586

6.350
7.950
7.950
6.350
7.950
11.125
7.950
9.525
12.700
4.318
6.375
8.865
4.826
8.280
5.334
8.814
12.548
5.842
8.712
11.811
6.350
8.763
11.430
6.858
11.201
13.513
7.366
7.874
11.354
15.088
8.890
10.871
11.684
14.351
17.450

1/7.00
1/11.3
1/13.6
1/15.6
1/15.6
1/15.6
1/18.9
1/18.9
1/18.9
1/18.9
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00
1/6.00

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.922
0.922
0.922
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

1.040
1.029
1.027
1.021
1.026
1.034
0.956
0.961
0.972
1.029
1.039
1.050
1.034
1.052
1.038
1.055
1.070
1.041
1.044
1.068
1.044
1.055
1.066
1.045
1.065
1.073
1.047
1.048
1.063
1.076
1.055
1.063
1.055
1.064
1.072

1.282
1.249
1.203
1.153
1.162
1.178
1.063
1.073
1.091
1.245
1.265
1.284
1.235
1.266
1.231
1.261
1.287
1.229
1.237
1.276
1.227
1.248
1.267
1.227
1.260
1.275
1.226
1.225
1.251
1.274
1.225
1.245
1.244
1.259
1.274

1.291
1.253
1.206
1.155
1.164
1.183
1.065
1.075
1.095
1.250
1.273
1.297
1.242
1.279
1.238
1.274
1.306
1.236
1.247
1.292
1.236
1.259
1.282
1.235
1.274
1.291
1.235
1.234
1.264
1.290
1.235
1.257
1.255
1.272
1.290

1.323
1.249
1.217
1.176
1.184
1.208
1.121
1.131
1.143
1.268
1.303
1.333
1.271
1.322
1.250
1.314
1.344
1.243
1.250
1.331
1.235
1.289
1.332
1.235
1.326
1.328
1.211
1.228
1.293
1.328
1.217
1.236
1.243
1.301
1.349

0.259
0.364
0.422
0.496
0.478
0.446
0.629
0.606
0.567
0.315
0.297
0.284
0.325
0.298
0.333
0.305
0.290
0.339
0.386
0.299
0.344
0.325
0.306
0.351
0.316
0.305
0.356
0.360
0.332
0.309
0.364
0.345
0.306
0.291
0.275

Paper 2 - 20

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003
(b)

Designation

Depth Width Flange thk Web thk Slope

(tw)
(t2-t1)/b0
(h)
(w)
(tf)

M Y-MMCA-UNI
My

M Y-WASA-UNI
My

M U-WASA2-TAP
My

M U-TMCA-TAP
My

M FEM
=
My

Fy
Fcr

60%thin_WF2x1.43 50.8

50.8

2.357

1.910

1/28.50

0.827

0.878

0.977

0.978

1.066

0.761

60%thin_WF2.5x1.8
60%thin_WF4x4.76
60%thin_WF5x6.49
60%thin_WF6x7.85
60%thin_WF6x8.30
60%thin_WF6x9.18
60%thin_WF8x11.2
60%thin_WF8x11.8
60%thin_WF8x13.0
60%thin_I3x1.96
60%thin_I3x2.25
60%thin_I3x2.59
60%thin_I4x2.64
60%thin_I4x3.28
60%thin_I5x3.43
60%thin_I5x4.23
60%thin_I5x5.10
60%thin_I6x4.30
60%thin_I6x5.10
60%thin_I6x5.96
60%thin_I7x5.27
60%thin_I7x6.05
60%thin_I7x6.92
60%thin_I8x6.35
60%thin_I8x7.96
60%thin_I8x8.81
60%thin_I9x7.51
60%thin_I10x8.76
60%thin_I10x10.4
60%thin_I10x12.1
60%thin_I12x11.0
60%thin_I12x12.1
60%thin_I12x14.1
60%thin_I12x15.6
60%thin_I12x17.3

50.8
101.6
127.0
150.6
152.4
155.7
201.7
203.2
206.5
59.2
61.2
63.8
67.6
71.1
76.2
79.8
83.3
84.6
112.8
90.7
93.0
95.5
98.0
101.6
105.9
108.2
110.0
118.4
121.9
125.5
127.0
129.0
133.4
136.1
139.2

2.510
3.759
4.216
4.582
4.582
4.582
4.653
4.653
4.653
2.611
2.611
2.611
2.936
2.936
3.282
3.282
3.282
3.607
3.607
3.607
3.952
3.952
3.952
4.277
4.277
4.277
4.602
4.948
4.948
4.948
5.466
5.466
6.634
6.634
6.634

2.540
3.180
3.180
2.540
3.180
4.450
3.180
3.810
5.080
1.727
2.550
3.546
1.930
3.312
2.134
3.526
5.019
2.337
3.485
4.724
2.540
3.505
4.572
2.743
4.481
5.405
2.946
3.150
4.542
6.035
3.556
4.348
4.674
5.740
6.980

1/17.50
1/28.25
1/34.00
1/39.00
1/39.00
1/39.00
1/47.25
1/47.25
1/47.25
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00
1/15.00

0.865
0.655
0.584
0.531
0.527
0.520
0.402
0.400
0.396
0.780
0.764
0.744
0.767
0.743
0.760
0.739
0.719
0.752
0.566
0.720
0.750
0.737
0.725
0.742
0.723
0.714
0.738
0.737
0.723
0.711
0.760
0.752
0.862
0.856
0.850

0.934
0.728
0.658
0.584
0.601
0.619
0.474
0.499
0.526
0.838
0.846
0.852
0.836
0.852
0.823
0.854
0.870
0.810
0.688
0.866
0.801
0.851
0.865
0.788
0.860
0.871
0.778
0.772
0.840
0.873
0.783
0.822
0.915
0.952
0.968

1.049
0.831
0.734
0.635
0.657
0.697
0.513
0.538
0.584
0.965
1.007
1.029
0.950
1.022
0.937
1.011
1.060
0.924
0.875
1.043
0.914
0.967
1.017
0.903
0.992
1.031
0.893
0.886
0.956
1.018
0.882
0.922
0.975
1.013
1.052

1.053
0.831
0.733
0.635
0.656
0.696
0.512
0.537
0.582
0.967
1.009
1.033
0.953
1.026
0.940
1.015
1.066
0.928
0.877
1.048
0.918
0.971
1.022
0.907
0.997
1.036
0.898
0.890
0.960
1.023
0.887
0.927
0.980
1.019
1.058

1.122
0.958
0.869
0.765
0.788
0.842
0.636
0.665
0.699
1.036
1.070
1.086
1.025
1.075
1.018
1.068
1.104
1.004
0.941
1.088
0.987
1.038
1.075
0.988
1.059
1.088
0.975
0.965
1.032
1.080
0.963
1.007
1.063
1.102
1.140

0.666
0.937
1.083
1.269
1.225
1.142
1.601
1.542
1.441
0.807
0.759
0.721
0.830
0.756
0.848
0.773
0.730
0.865
0.975
0.754
0.878
0.825
0.774
0.895
0.801
0.768
0.910
0.921
0.843
0.780
0.935
0.881
0.786
0.743
0.700

63.5
101.6
127.0
152.4
152.4
152.4
203.2
203.2
203.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
101.6
101.6
127.0
127.0
127.0
152.4
152.4
152.4
177.8
177.8
177.8
203.2
203.2
203.2
228.6
254.0
254.0
254.0
304.8
304.8
304.8
304.8
304.8

Note. All dimensions are in millimeters.

Nomenclature
f = the ultimate shape factor for flange
u = the ultimate shape factor
w = the ultimate shape factor for web
y = the yield shape factor
= the thickness variation ratio = (t2-t1)/t1
u = strain at the ultimate stress = the ultimate strain
= constant for equivalent slenderness ratio depending on the plate buckling coefficient
= slenderness factor = (Fy/Fcr)0.5
p = equivalent slenderness ratio

pAA = equivalent slenderness ratio based on the AA Specification using uniform average

thickness
pL = equivalent slenderness ratio based on the rigorous tapered plate buckling coefficient
and linearly approximated for practical design purposes.
= Poissons ratio
Af = entire compression or tension side flange area
Paper 2 - 21

Rev. A (Progress Report 15)

5/6/2003

Aw = entire web area

a = length of a plate element
B = buckling formula constant intersecting vertical axis for zero width-to-thickness ratio
b = width of a plate element or a flange element
D = buckling formula constant for slope of the inelastic buckling range
E = Youngs modulus
F = limit state stress for the flange or web
Fa = the (final) allowable stress
Fau = the allowable stress based on the ultimate limit state
Fay = the allowable stress based on the yield limit state
Fcr = minimum buckling stress
Ff = limit state stress for the flange
Fp = limit state stress of a component plate element
FpAA = limit state stress of a component plate element based on the AA Specification
using uniform average thickness
FpL = limit state stress of a component plate element based on the rigorous tapered plate
buckling coefficient. The equivalent slenderness ratio based on the plate buckling
coefficient is linearly approximated for practical design purposes.
Ftu = tensile ultimate stress
Fty = tensile yield stress
Fu = the ultimate stress
Fw = limit state stress for the web
Fy = the yield stress
h = depth of the web element or the entire depth of an I-shaped section
hc = depth of an I-shaped section between centroids of flanges
ho = depth of the purely unsupported portion of web
I = total moment of inertia
k1 = a coefficient to determine slenderness limit S2
k2 = a coefficient to determine limit state stress when width-to-thickness is larger than S2
kp = plate buckling coefficient based on the average or uniform thickness
k 1p = plate buckling coefficient based on the minimum thickness
LF = load factor = Mu/My or Pu/Py
Mu = total moment capacity or moment capacity from FEM or test
n = an exponent used for Ramberg-Osgood equation
nu = factor of safety on ultimate stress
ny = factor of safety on yield
S = section modulus
S1 = width-to-thickness distinguishing yielding and inelastic buckling range
S2 = width-to-thickness distinguishing inelastic and elastic buckling range
t = thickness of a plate element
tavg = average thickness of a plate with linearly tapering thickness
tf = uniform flange thickness
t1 = smallest flange thickness of a plate with tapered thickness
t2 = largest flange thickness of a plate with tapered thickness
tw = web thickness
w = width of an entire flange of an I-shaped section
Paper 2 - 22