This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
AND DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE
WEB STIFFENERS IN BRIDGE GIRDERS.
A thesis submitted for the degree of DOCPDROF PIRLOSOPHY
by
KASSEM. N. RAHAL
Department of Civil Engineering University Surrey of
SEPTEMBER 1989
I
ABSTRACT The objective of the work presented in this thesis is to investigate the behaviour of transverse stiffeners in transversely stiffened girder webs inplane longitudinal to of shear and subjected various combinations is finite A fully nonlinear package used to examine element stresses. the effect of panel and stiffener geometrical parameters and initial imperfections on the behaviour of the stiffeners. Particular attention is paid to the way in which the various geometrical parameters affect the deflection and stress state of the stiffener and the peak capacity of the stiffened plate. Variation in material yield stress is also considered. The results of capacity varies concludes that As a result, a is proposed. the parametric study demonstrate the way in which panel with stiffener size for a full range of geometries and stiffener bending rigidity is the major design parameter. new design philosophy for the stiffener optimum rigidity
The basis of current design formulations for transverse stiffeners are compared with the results of the current numerical studies. A simple analytical model is then formulated which reproduces the numerical parametric results. The model produced is appropriate for design and is compatible with the clauses within the current British design rules. Examples are given of the use of the design procedure, and the resulting transverse stiffener rigidities are compared with those obtained from the finite element results and w ith existing design methods.
II
like to express my eternal gratitude to my supervisor I would firstly this Professor John E. Harding, without whose guidance and inspiration I been have three would years. thesis would not accomplished within be for Simons Professor N. E. like to this research to thank allowing also Surrey Civil Engineering Department the at of carried out within University.
A very special mention must be made of the Hariri Foundation, without have been I financial this support not possible. am project would whose UX her Miss Mona Knio for to their representative also grateful unfailing support. The assistance provided by Finite Element Analysis Ltd who developed the software package used for the current parametric studies is sincerely acknowledged. The patience shown by the personnel of the University of Surrey computer unit in dealing with vast quantities of computer printouts is highly appreciated. Particular thanks are due to my colleagues Mr Louca Louca and Mr Walid Hindi for the invaluable discussions throughout the course of this work. I am indebted to Mr Harry Wickens for his high standard of draughtmanship of the figures and to Miss Nicky Owen for her excellent typing of the manuscript. A mention must be made of my brother Hassan and my fiance Baria for their support and encouragement. Finally heartfelt gratitude is expressed to all my colleagues, too many to family help for Many to thanks their my and and also advice. mention, friends in and outside Britain for their patience, support and constant encouragement throughout the completion of this work.
To my parents, Nimer and Mounira Rahal
III
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGENENTS CONTENTS NOTATION CHAPTER 1.1 1.2 I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE SURVEY
Ix 1 2 METHODS 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 9 9 10 10 11 13 15 15
IN1RODUMON REVIEW OF STABILITY PLATE ANALYSIS 1.2.1 Basis of review 1.2.2 Small deflection theory Direct integration 1.2.2.1 Energy methods 1.2.2.2 1.2.2.3 Finite differences 1.2.2.4 Finite element method 1.2.3 Large deflection theory
1.3
ULTIMATE CAPACITTES OF PLATES 1.3.1 Introduction 1.3.2 Strength of web panels in girders without longitudinal stiffeners 1.3.2.1 Panels subjected to uniform longitudinal compression 1.3.2.2 Panels subjected to linearly varying stresses 1.3.2.3 Tension field models for panels in shear 1.3.2.4 Panels under combined shear and bending 1.3.3 Strength of web panels in girders with longitudinal stiffeners
1.4
LITERATURE REVIEW OF TRANSVERSE WEB STIFFENER DESIGN 1.4.1 Early linear theoretical studies 1.4.2 Early experimental studies 1.4.3 Elastic second order analyses 1.4.4 Ultimate strength theoretical requirements 1.4.5 Code of practice requirements AIM OF THESIS SCOPEOF THESIS
17 17 18 19 20 23 25 26
1.5 1.6
IV
Page 1.7 RENCES Figures CHAPTER 2 THE FINITE ELEMENT VALIDATION PROGRAM AND ITS 44 45 45 46 46 46 47 50 51 PARAMETRIC TO SHEAR STUDY OF PLATES SUBJECTED 55 56 56 56 57 58 58 59 60 60 60 63 66 67 67 69 70 71 27 37
2.1 2.2 2.3
RaRODUCIION DESCREMON OF TBE FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE VALIDATION 2.3.1 Introduction 2.3.2 Analytical validation 2.3.3 Experimental validation RENCES Figures
2.3
CHAPTER 3
3.1 3.2
ElaRODUCnON PARAMETERSUNDER STUDY 3.2.1 Introduction 3.2.2 Boundary conditions and loading 3.2.3 Material Properties 3.2.4 Geometric Properties 3.2.5 Initial Imperfections RESULTSOF THE STUDY 3.3.1 Presentation 3.3.2 Effect of the boundary restraint 3.3.3 Effect of the initial outofplane displacement patterns 3.3.4 Effect of plate slenderness 3.3.5 Effect of aspect ratio 3.3.6 Effect of yield stress 3.3.7 Effect of the stiffener size parameter 3.3.8 Summary of the range of parameters DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION
3.3
3.4
V
Page 3.5 RENCES Tables Figures CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND RICHMOND AND ROCKEY APPROACHES 73 74 89
127 128
128 128 128 130 133
4.1
4.2
E,;TRODUCrION
RICHMOND APPROACH 4.2.1 Introduction 4.2.2 Background of the approach 4.2.3 Design approach for transverse stiffeners 4.2.4 Verification of the stiffener design approach
4.3
COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS BASIC THEORY FOR PREDICTING THE ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY OF TRANSVERSELY STIFFENEDWEBS 4.4.1 Introduction 4.4.2 Shear capacity ROCKEY ULTIMATE APPROACHFOR THE DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STU+ENERS 4.5.1 Introduction 4.5.2 Loads imposed upon a transverse stiffener 4.5.3 Analysis and design of stiffener 4.5.4 Verification of Rockey design approach with experimental results COMPARISONS OF ROCKEY'S APPROACH VVITHFINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS BS5400REQUIREMENTS FOR TIHEDESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STU+ENERS CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
134
4.4
136 136 136
4.5
141 141 141 143 145
4.6
147
4.7
148 151
152
4.8
4.9
2.2.1 6.3 Effect of initial imperfections on the stiffener behaviour.1 Introduction 6.2 RMODUCIION STIFFENEDPLATES SUBJECTEDTO COMBINED SHEAR AND INPLANE COMEPRESSION 6. 261 261 262 263 .2 Design philosophy for the optimum rigidity 201 5.3 Effect of yield stress on the optimum rigidity 202 DESIGN PROPOSALFOR TRANSVERSESTIFFENERSBASED ON A SIMPLE BEAM MODEL COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND SIMPLE BEAM MODEL DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSION RENCES Figures 5.1 Introduction 201 5.5 205 5.2 Boundary conditions and loading 6.6 208 209 210 211 5.7 CHAPTER 6 PROPOSAL FOR DIMENSIONING THE TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS IN STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO INPLANE STRESSES 260 261 6.3 199 5.2 UMODUMON DISTRMUTION OF LATERAL LOADS AT THE STTFFENER POSMON REPRESENTATIONOF LATERAL FORCESACTING ON TBE STIFFENER 197 5.4.4 DESIGN OPTIMUM RIGIDITY FOR TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS 201 5.4.2.4.1 5.vi Page Tables Figures CHAPTER 5 STIFFENER DESIGN APPROACH FOR PLATES IN SHEAR 154 157 196 197 5.
6.3.E analysis.Vil Page 6.6 Comparison between the design approach and the finite element analyses.2 Design proposal 7.1 Process of design 7. 6.3. 6.4 Stiffener design optimum rigidities for different plate geometries 6.7 Beam model design approach for stiffeners in stiffened plates loaded by a general combination of inplane stresses DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSION REF RENCES Tables Figures CHAPTER 7 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION AND 323 324 324 324 325 326 265 266 268 269 269 270 270 272 272 275 276 278 279 280 283 6.5 Beam model design approach for transverse bending inplane in to subjected plates stiffeners stresses 6.3 Effect of initial imperfections on the stiffener behaviour.3.3 7.3.4 Effect of stiffener rigidity parameter on the plate bending capacity.5 7.1 7.3 STH+TMD PLATES SUBJECTEDTO INPLANE BENDING STRESSES 6.6 Comparison between the design approach and the F.3.1 Introduction 6.3.2.3 Effect of direct axial forces on transverse stiffener design 7.3.4 COMPARISONS WITH BS5400 REQUIREMENTS CONCLUSIONS 327 329 .2.2.2.4 6.2.5 Beam model design approach 6.2 WIRODUC110N DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 7.2.2 Boundary conditions and loading 6. ultimate 6.
4.4.5 7.5 7.4.2 7.4 7.4.6 The finite element package Stiffened plate subjected to shear Stiffened plates subjected to shear and compression Stiffened plates subjecetd to bending stresses Design of transverse stiffeners 329 329 331 331 332 333 334 335 341 345 RECOMAENDATIONS FOR FUTUREWORK RENCES Figures APPENDIX A APPENDIX B .4.3 7.1 7.viii Page 7.
25 cry bf tf2/(b2 tw cyy) relative flange to web bending rigidity MP plastic moment of the girder bending moment in the stiffener MS P stiffener axial direct load Euler buckling load PE thickness of the flange tf Ts thickness of the stiffener tw V" w Y yS zS thickness of the web ultimate capacity of the web intensity of the stiffener lateral load stiffener maximum lateral displacement distance between the centroid of the effective section and the stiffener outstand edge effective stiffener section modulus shear strain early stiffener rigidity parameter finite element optimum stiffener rigidity stiffener rigidity aD parameter 70 Ys shear yield strain 7Y 'Y'Y= Y/YY nondimensional shear strain 6 unaxial compressive strain EY compressive yield strain . lateral force acting on the stiffener (N) Ieff moment of inertia of the effective stiffener section about its centroid K critical buckling shear stress bending moment in the web M M fw 0. E modulus of Elasticity (N/mM2) F max.ix NOTATION a b bf 0= width of web panel depth of web panel width of the flange alb panel aspect ratio 3 E tw flexural D rigidity of web plate 2) 12(1 _V depth of the stiffener outstand D.
x 25 plate slenderness ratio 35 tw Poisson ratio V inplane plate bending stress Cyb inplane plate compressive stress ac CFe maximum bending stress at the extreme fibre of the stiffener outstand Cru plate ultimate compressive stress CFY yield stress CFYW web yield stress CF'C Gc/ay nondimensional compressive stress average shear stress acting on the stiffened plate (N/mM2) elastic critical shear stress (N/mm2) 'r cr plate ultimate shear capacity 'r U Ty = ay / V6 shear yield stress (NI MM2) compressive coefficient bending coefficient b .
.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW.
defined (nondimensionally in terms of the parameter EI ) such that the elastic buckling capacity of the stiffened web 7= aD is equal to that of an individual plate approximately panel Early supported along the line of the transverse stiffeners. a theoretical minimum rigidity specified. In British Standard BS5400 the the methods. and often the elastic critical buckling shear stress obtained from a first order theoretical analysis is considerably less than the shear yield stress.107). the design of in the new design has been modified transverse stiffeners (Part 3)(1. To reduce the selfweight of the girder. 3). If this theory is used as a basis for the design is normally of web panels. Consideration of first order elastic buckling theory indicates that in increases critical significant stress can be achieved by employing transverse stiffeners to divide the web into a number of smaller panels.1 INTRODUCTION In steel and composite bridges.2 1. the is be thickness such that may required web quite small. For this reason. The introduction of limit state methods to the design of steel bridges has highlighted the importance of postbuckling behaviour in slender webs subjected to shear. It is accepted that the above requirements are safe but it is now . inadequate rigidity was even at relatively low stress levels. in addition to forces due to tension field action from the post buckled web. This is primarily because first order theory takes no account of the influence of initial imperfections. and hence stiffener design was generally based on empirical formulae(l. plate and box girders are used forces bending the exceed the shearing and moments when design An of the efficient available rolled sections. current design of transverse stiffeners is based on the concept of a strut from The loading the the arises strut model. axial acting on destabilizing effects of inplane and shear stresses.4). capacity of these girders requires the use of deep webs to separate the flanges in order to optimize the bending moment capacity of the girder cross section. shear stress usually being the dominant stress component in a web panel. It has been accepted for many years that the web panel has a in postbuckling strength significant reserve of excess of the buckling stress and early 'allowable stress' codes of elastic critical practice acknowledged this by allowing a low safety factor for the design of the web compared with other components(1. 11.2) indicated that this theoretical minimum experimental work(l.
even if panel slenderness values are kept constant.3 considered that the approach is potentially conservative due to an destabilizing in the representation the approximation of components leading to an incorrect formulation for the growth of strut deflections. The interpretation of the finite element results was rather subjective and not based on a clearly defined optimisation requirement for the stiffener selection. 1. . but emphasis is placed on the more important works and methods of analysis.1 Basis This section aims to provide an essentially historical background to the development The of methods for plate analysis. 1.2. All the tests used for the basis of the model were. homogeneous and isotropic. on slender webs. sufficient to support the ultimate loads acting on them. His proposal is complicated to apply in design because of the number of parameters involved. Although their formula is simple. Their recommendations also came directly from complex finite element analyses.2 Small deflection theory The small deflection plate theory. although in normal design the size would be kept constant. 1 2) 3) The material of the plate is elastic. Horne and Grayson(15) proposed an empirical stiffener rigidity formula based on a parametric finite element study. Rockey et al(I. 5) proposed a plastic design procedure based on stresses and forces evaluated at the ultimate load of the web The stiffener sizes calculated using this method are panels. it cannot provide an appropriate rigidity for any level of shear and inplane stresses acting on the stiffened plate.2. generally attributed to Kirchoff and Love is based on the following assumptions. In some cases it may be advantageous to reduce stiffener sizes in areas of low stress. The thickness of the plate is small compared to its other dimensions. however.2 REVIEW of OF STABILITY review PLATE ANALYSIS METHODS 1. The plate is initially flat. presentation is not exhaustive.
solution Levy's method is considered more general than Navier's solution. introduced by St. The bending equation was solved by Navier(18) by expressing the lateral load and deflections in double sine series expansions. integration four in for function terms of the a solution unknown four down by determined be writing constants which can the boundary along the conditions equations representing . Deformations due to transverse shear are neglected. be in be found The texts(I. deflection form later to the small equation was classical equation.1 Direct The evaluation of the critical load by integrating the differential is plate compressed of a uniaxially equation of equilibrium in by buckled the assuming a shape of a sinusodial mode achieved in function direction by the an unknown multiplied compression differential Substitution in the equation gives this of shape other. classified methods can can the following categories. homogeneous Although the the to of solution equation. Venant(I10) in 1883. The slopes of the deflected middle surface are small compared to unity. his solution was only applicable to plates with simply supported edge by Levy(I11) by It also solved adding a particular was conditions. Integration 1. in bending include term the to the twisting unsuccessfully force bending inplane The terms to the addition of equation. details of which into 121. points of the middle surface normal The stresses normal to the middle surface are negligible. Many researchers tackled this problem by using several methods. The deflection of the plate is produced by displacement of its initial to plane. The addition of the inplane force terms to the bending equation allowed the stability of plates to be examined. Bernoulli(I 9) attempted Navier(18) also derived it in 1820.2. the former can be applied only for plates with simply supported loading function for all sections parallel to the opposite edges and the direction of the other two edges must have the same shape.18). The strains in the middle surface produced by inplane forces can usually be neglected in comparison with strains due to bending. 7) but not published until after his death when it was found without derivation in his notes. The small deflection (linear) bending equation for plates was first formulated by Lagrange in 1811(l.2.4 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) The deflections are small compared to the plate thickness.
the exact answer to the from is lowest load buckling mode. as of the potential RitzO leads homogenous the to system algebraic of set energy a of be deflected Since the solved. determinant if the have the of solution a nontrivial and will from is the equation characteristic zero giving square matrix be found details Further deduced.2. Bryan(1. a more complicated displacement function is deflection the of sum a number of curves assumed representing 17) in Rayleigh Minimization the method. a plate used stored the principle of conservation of.5 form in be matrix The a written equations can unloaded edges. In 1891.19).2 Energy Methods These methods have been used extensively to obtain solutions. It is important to mention that the above procedure(I. equations which must assumed be is the an there generally not shape exact mode. The latter is explained in detail in reference (1.3 Finite Differences The finite difference method for the solution of differential finite by the system a a with equations represents continuum by Boole in formulated It first and others of number nodes. deflected the on rely methods shape satisfying each of the Problems can arise for which deflection boundary conditions.6) derived the expression for the strain energy it buckling If in to the and analyse problem. equating the work done by under uniaxial in forces to the the plate with a strain energy stored external deflected surface of Navier's expression. will always Galerkin be by following the can minimised error which 18). functions can be produced which will easily satisfy some of the boundary conditions but cannot be derived to satisfy all the For these cases.2.15). 1. boundary the conditions and geometrical configuration. be used.2. is load buckling can which the in reference (1. They rely on the use of a good approximation to the deflected form of the plate. . was The representation the nineteenth of consists century. It is important to mention that with increasing complexity in the loadings. load buckling determination the of the plate using of mathematical this method becomes progressively more difficult. 1. There are several variants to the method. However. the Lagrangian multiplier method can conditions. the obtained critical for complex geometries.2. energy is employed on a plate by compression.
28). is The deflection therefore written equations. This method is more general than the previous methods because various boundary conditions can be easily handled as well A detailed study by Salvadori and as skew plates(l. In the finite element displacement patterns for each element are method individual . in place of the differential functions and their derivatives.21). the finite element representation resembles the RayleighRitz method in which the displacements have been approximated by the sum of the functions. an increasingly large number of papers and texts have been written on the applications of and improvements to the method(I. The method has relied on the advancement of computer power in the last two decades for efficient implementation. the assumed series expression describes the total displacement field of the entire plate. 201. method.22) discusses errors involved in the method and gives the first and second order finite difference for approximations rectangular and oblique coordinates. While using the RayleighRitz minimum potential theorem. It extends the displacement for the solution matrix method introduced of into the analysis of structural continua. An idealization of this nature assures that if the elements decrease in size the displacement components in the substitute structure will converge to the actual values at the representative points.23) has been solved by the finite difference method. Mathematically. lines in such a way that a close similarity between the displacement of the original and substitute structures is obtained. plate equation small in terms of a series of linear finite difference equations.2. The structural idealization in the case of plates is obtained by the original subdividing continuum into a number of plate elements of various geometrical shapes by intersecting straight or These elements are connected only at their nodal curved lines. 271.6 for the unknown substituting a series of algebraic expressions.4 Finite by element method The finite element method has proved to be the most versatile tool for solving the static and dynamic behaviour of continua. Baran(1. The small deflection equation for orthotropic plates derived Huber(1. 1. Since its gridworks introduction in 1955. gives an approximate value of the critical load.2. Setting the determinant to zero. each multiplied by an These unknowns are determined from the unknown constant.
using and clamped case(I. Soper(I. Constrained: The integral of the stress along the edge is zero (the edge force) and the edge is free to move but remains straight. 31) modified the equations to take account of initial geometric imperfections in The derivation can be found in standard texts(l. the critical equilibrium condition.14). original work on the deflections by Kirchoff(l.2. can be evaluated. of potentials of the leads This to in condition the equilibrium. conditions. 1938. included initial imperfections in his plates and fourth These equations. 121. The equations for a plate under lateral loading were solved by Levy for the 36) 35) Supported the case(I.3 Large deflection theory The large deflection (nonlinear) equations were developed by 29) in 1910. has individual a stationary value. Fourier series. Way(I. As stretching of the midplate surface is allowed for in large deflection have to be theory. . therefore not remain straight. following VonKarman(I. yields the displacement field corresponding for load the plate Consequently. to the in turn. 32) derived the large deflection equation for stiffened 33) YUSUff(I. The method is not necessarily restricted to 37) Later it was used to solve the cases of plates(I. 1. 30) in 1876. are node points when minimization of the total potential of the structural system. Marguerre(I. inplane boundary conditions specified in addition to the outofplane conditions used in small Three common boundary conditions deflection theory. plate order nonlinear orthotropic to solve and few exact solutions are equations are difficult Solutions are only available for simple boundary possible. under square simply double square simply . Restrained: The edge is kept straight and a continuous stress distribution results. which. are considered: i) Unrestrained: the transverse stress is zero at all points along The edge will the edge and the edge is free to pull in.7 from the The sum the obtained total plate of potential assumed. lateral 34) solved the case of clamped rectangular plates loads using the Ritz method. elements.
Wang(1. 44) in their for combined loadings. of the orthotropic applied the methods of Levy. Mansour.55) also solved the case of laterally loaded plate and solved the finite difference He extended the analysis equations by successive approximations. biaxially compressed plates by Williams and Walker(I. examined the behaviour initial incorporated He plate under uniaxial compression.43) confirmed the theoretical results with tests. imperfections geometrical and applied lateral load. 3 1) Marguerre's(I. 52). Walker(151) used it to analyse simply supported flat square plates under compression with either constrained or unrestrained boundaries and his results compared well with those of Levy and Coan. 451. Galerkin's method was also used by Yoshiki et al(I. A useful approximate method for solving the large deflection equations is the perturbation approach(I50). It consists of using truncated power series in terms of a loading parameter for the deflections and stresses. Levy Based lateral loading the on compression. and uniaxial 40) Coan(I.54) who solved the case of a simply supported plate under lateral loading with zero stresses on the boundaries. used Galerkin's method to solve more generally the equations for imperfect plates boundary of simply with combinations supported and clamped conditions. Coan and Yamaki and presented design charts(I.52) initial imperfections added of the same shape as the buckling mode and found that only two terms of the power series were Design coefficients were presented for uniaxially and needed.8 39) 38) long plates under combined supported(l. They took an infinitely long plate under uniaxial loading and found the critical buckling wavelengths in terms of the orthotropic rigidities. Yamaki(1. 49) for wide and square plates under various load combinations. .42) around the critical stress level. The earliest use of this method appears to be due to Kaiser(1. Finite differences have been used by many investigators. good agreement being for a plate with found especially all four edges clamped. 41) used a very similar approach and important imperfections is that the most confirmed effect of Tamaki(1. using his own formulation large deflection equations(l.47) to examine the buckling of stiffened plates. Supple(I. Levy's and Coan's work being special case. A Ritz method was used by Falconer and Chapman(I. Hu et alO. 48).46) used a Ritzanalysis Galerkin method of solution and investigated the changes in the buckling mode with respect to the prevailing boundary conditions. Later Dawson and Walker(1. and clamped(I. of an unrestrained method. imperfections into the analysis using formulation.
the using an correlated results very well with experiments.63) and further developed by Otter(I. inplane lateral to combined and and 57) used an energy method to solve the finite Bernstein(I. . space(I. Basu Aalami(I. energy solution method. loading can into account of stiffness most of the two decades. was first proposed by Day(1. Crisfield(I.58) investigated the large deflection behaviour of laterally loaded stiffened plates 32).1 Introduction The ultimate capacities of plates subjected to inplane only be studied using large deflection analysis taking the effect of initial imperfections and the reduction due to yielding(l.66).3 ULTIMATE CAPACITIES OF PLATES 1. 64). 62).68). methods for predicting the capacities of plates are in two categories according to the classification of beams reviewed in BS54000. Due to the complexities involved. using this solution technique the post critical path cannot be followed due to numerical instability(I. Design curves were presented(I. However. improved over the years such that the buildup of errors found in is earlier works now eliminated(I. 71). The first corresponds to girders without longitudinal stiffeners in either web or flange and the second with The methods are mostly derived from ultimate such stiffeners. Basu and Chapman(1. The finite element method has been used to investigate the large deflection behaviour of plates and due to its flexibility is a very popular approach. 1. 69) has reviewed the development of the finite element method with application to the analysis of plates and this will not be repeated here. Scholes loading(l. to be made loading and In this section. using and extended Chapman's work to cover loading cases using Gaussian reduction to the bending and inplane parts of the large solve iteratively deflection equations.3. in this area has only been conducted in the last work Before this many simplifying assumptions have had and the results were limited to special cases of boundary conditions. 671.4).61). 601. This method forms the basis of the procedure The techniques of the method have been used in this thesis. 59) Soper's formulation(I. loading difference for plates under lateral and equations Also.9 56). Its main advantage is in saving computer storage 651. A technique The method which overcomes this problem is dynamic relaxation.
.. a panel..10 state models or from results obtained either experimentally numerically (finite difference or finite element methods)....... transversely supported on four sides is shown in figure Only the parts of the plate close to the unloaded edges have I.2 Strength of longitudinal in or web panels stiffeners.. 1. is the critical stress of the panel with the actual width b.. Cyr Where ac..2. 72) examined the case of flat panels subjected to The stress distribution for such uniform longitudinal compression... 2.1 Panels subjected to uniform longitudinal Von compression Karman(I........ Due to the reached the plastic state in the postcritical range.. Stussi et al(1...... design For Von Karman(I.... the critical stress of the panel (Ocr)e with an effective width be should be equal to cyy and therefore ýý..3.. According to his hypothesis...... stress is chosen to be equal to the edge stress in the real distribution at collapse. be.. girders without 1.3. by testing in compression aluminiurn alloy panels flat showed that good correlation were nearly which existed between the theoretical values given by equation (1....... ay tw * . that is the yield stress cyy as shown in figure 1..... the corresponding stresses are lower than those at the edges.....73).2) and the experimental results. the by a representation of the nonuniform stress distribution The reference uniform distribution over a reduced plate width. 72) suggested purposes. bowing effect in the central zone of the panel...2.... p . The strength of the panel is given by. I.... ........ If XP V reference slenderness parameter then acr .....
..82 ...78) 0.2 Panels subjected to linearly varying stresses The effective width concept has also been used to predict the strength of panels subjected to combined compression and bending by generalising equation (1.77 . two problems arise for this more general case(1. Since the original work by Von Karman was impractical because it was based on plates of flat nature. (1.74) ..76) 75 be bpXp (1..4) Faulkner 0.3) to account for the influence of initial imperfections.. = b10..85 0..22' 105 for A.3.. Winter(I..... important proposals are given below...55 .6) 1..1.. 79) f or p 0..3) proposed by Von Karman to have the following form. residual stresses and postfor Some of the more especially critical reserve slender panels. all but the stockiest of plates subjected to pure 74).5) Gerard(l b.2... (1. many researchers have introduced various modifications for equation (1. E ay which is independent of the plate width b.. p where be is the width of the compression zone and be is the corresponding effective width. it is important to are seldom compression economic al(I.... 1. be bc I A. mention that the latter is not true because slender panels under compression have a buckling reserve which increases their peak capacities.6 7 (1... p>0. In comparison with uniform compression....11 If the value of oc. Hence...26 bpp . is substituted in equation (1.3) it can be seen that be = 19 t..
For The distribution the width of effective pure is clearly 0.7) has been modified by using Winter's proposed equation (1.5 1 K2) (I 10 For 0<Q<1. For the more general case. Ve is the part of the effective width adjacent to the edge with the minimum compression or to the neutral axis.80)..5 10 0.. 1...... be A.5bc along each compression.0 5 (3 + Q) ..6 be for Q<0 (1.. pIApI 0.. The longitudinal Ve over and Ve..12 The definition of the bc value.4 be Ve Where Q is the panel stress ratio given by amin (a is taken negative amax for compression and positive for tension). the effective width adjacent to the edge of maximum compression will be less than 0. 10. The compression zone width will generally vary during the loading. the distribution longitudinal edge.4) and is given by b.8) We = 0. 74) We is the part of the effective width adjacent to the edge with maximum compressive stress. For practical reasons.. b "e = b. then.. ECCS proposed the following rules ft r this distribution(I.5bc. equation (1. As an approximation. 2) bc. bc may be measured from the neutral axis of the full section (calculated according to the classical strength of materials). stresses are assumed to be linearly distributed To take into account the effect of imperfections which is generally accepted to be less severe for bending than for pure compression (ref. 1 We =be0.
1.3 which had not been verified by tests. the loading is resisted by the development diagonal of membrane tension fields.83) as early as 1P16. Basler(I. .10) Where twe = effective thickness of the web. predicting Figure 1. 82). the stress is essentially a combination of diagonal tensile and compressive components of equal magnitude. on experimental of most plate girders are too flexible to provide an anchorage for the tension field and hence neglected any contribution of the flange strength to the ultimate strength of the girder. 1 Prior to buckling.3 Tension field models for panels in shear The behaviour of transversely stiffened plates in shear is different to that under longitudinal stresses.13 This concept can be used for both unstiffened stiffened plates. It is and transversely important the strength of to mention that in BS54000. In 1961. 84) presented the first ultimate load method for the failure load of transversely stiffened plate girders. The effective thickness concept adopted by BS5400 is given by. twe tw 0. 2) The high load carrying capacity of plate girders with slender webs due to tension field action in the post critical range has been discussed by Rode(1.425 =  bcf tw av V355 (1.00625 1. Based on from and theoretical sources. His theory was never for design the of steel bridges because he adopted a tension used field width of 50tw as shown in figure 1. The response of an isolated panel can be separated into two distinctly different phases.2.3. proposed by Cooper(181) for I beams with equal flanges. experimental various results Cooper's approach has been modified to cover the case of unequal flanges with the compression zone either larger or smaller than half the web depth(l.4). plates for this type of loading is based on an effective thickness first This concept was concept rather than an effective width. After buckling the critical of the panel is reached.4 shows his proposed collapse mechanism which is based Basler's method assumes that the flanges tests.
This model produces excellent correlation between theory and test results and by recommended many researchers(I91) and adopted as a was 9. 86) and proposed another version of model by assuming a collapse mechanism with no internal hinges. It is a modified version of the Rockey and Skaloud proposal by changing the six hinge panel mechanism criterion to a four hinge one which is enough to produce a panel mechanism.30. web plastic ultimate shear model which operates with a beam mechanism (see The tension field direction corresponds to the web figure 1. This collapse model is shown in figure 1.4) for girders longitudinal load This model is stiffeners. a membrane across with stress varying is assumed to occur when Moreover. they proposed an a shear. In the last two decades. from Europe The analytical procedure and and researchers the accuracy of these proposed mechanism approaches have been in reference 1. During the drafting of BS5400 it . the basic models proposed by Basler and Rockey and Skaloud have been modified by a number of Japan. Chern Ostapenko(I. Rockey and carried out a comprehensive influence flexural the study on experimental of the flange inclination. Fujii's flange 871. This is due to the fact that these type of sections allow a large degree of shear deformation moderately any without adverse effect on flange stability.74). However. Evans and Porter(I.88) Skaloud(I. by A modified version ECCS committee reference method of this method has been adopted by BS54000.5). Of all the ultimate and summarized reviewed load methods of analysis presented to date.7).6. Fujii(I85) introduced new assumptions model by assuming that the tension band covers the whole panel depth the of the web. the most general and accurate model is that by Rockey. its diagonal. a collapse mechanism internal flange hinges are developed at midlength of the panel as well as at the comers of the panel (see figure 1. the on width and position rigidities of the diagonal in in band As a result.90). whereas width is controlled by the location of panel intermediate plastic hinges in the flanges. It is important to mention that the tension field mechanism model is appropriate for web panels commonly used in longitudinally unstiffened plate and box girders because of their stocky nature. Fujii did not take into consideration the influence of the flange rigidity upon the position of the internal hinges.74. without ultimate described in detail in chapter four. 891.14 In into Basler's 1968.
...93) adopted this proposal by replacing Mp by the full the of section to give the following conservative moment yield formula.3 that tension field theories based on mechanism approaches are suitable for longitudinally These methods require a substantial unstiffened plate girders.3 Strength stiffeners in longitudinal of web panels girders with It was mentioned in subsection 1. (1.. for flexible flanges. M Myf ý :! + (My Myf) [1 _ (V/ VU)2 I . According Basler(l.3.3. for the plastic interaction between bending and shear for I be assumed for the web moment. shear In BS54000. and Myf is defined as the bending moment that respectively flanges in the ay produces without any contribution from the web. The interaction between shear and bending in the web is more pronounced when the flexural strength of the flanges is included. Eurocode 30. 1.2.. another The criteria was needed to predict the strength of such webs.. method adopted is presented in section 1. neglecting any 94) from As Evans(I. Mpw = Mp . After an extensive study. a result. .4 Panels under combined shear and bending Many researchers tried to extend the basic tension field theories to cover coexisting bending moments and shear for plate and box 92). proposed an contribution interaction diagram between Vult/Vyw and M/Mp (Vyw is the force to produce yielding of web). the formula to girders. the relationship is given as a linear interaction between sets of values of shear force and bending moment. 1..11) Where vu is the ultimate capacity of the web evaluated from the tension field theory.Myf also profiles can Mp and Mpw are the plastic moments for the girder and web . and hence.3.3. the web.3. This interaction diagram is explained in detail in reference(i. 82)..4).2.15 box felt longitudinally that stiffened was slender plate girders and girders needed a limit on web shear straining so that the stability of the flange would not be seriously impaired. Evans et al(I90) established that a flange from failure mode occurs when the value to a a web change of applied moment is approximately equal to the plastic moment of resistance provided by the flange plates only.
were panel edges were either webs in the reflecting situation a box girder where a weak unrestrained flange provides little transverse inplane restraint.98) to apply the results of the elastoplastic numerical analysis in the following form. the curves all merge since buckling becomes irrelevant.9 for instance. mechanism strength. of bending My. a. Figure 1. imperfections and residual stresses were also included. an interaction formula originally 97) by Horne(I. or restrained forces Initial the around an internal reflecting panel. shows shear moment interaction results for panels loaded under combined bending and in fully The Mu. box girder web panels. for interaction for shows example. and loading types appropriate to girder Unloaded considered. In order to include the effect of inplane bending. namely plate girders in box the girders stiffening web and stiffening in webs or flanges. suggested was adopted by Harding and Dowling(1. design of stocky box longitudinal without longitudinal without The design rules for longitudinally stiffened plate and box girders in BS5400 are based on the numerical studies carried out by Harding et al(1. Figure 1. Using the results of the study.4) uses such an approach for the and plate girders. the study also considered combinations of triangular direct stress and shear and bending and shear.96) on the ultimate load behaviour of plates subject to inplane direct and shear stresses. feature is that as soon as tensile loading becomes of importance. The main interaction the study was of product curves of ultimate stresses derived from sets of panel stressstrain responses. by linear the moment produced and moment plastic distribution with peak stress equal to the yield stress ay. r y I . &ay( + Orb Sb Cry T+ 'r S.95) and by Harding and Hobbs(1. curves unrestrained and panels under combinations restrained of shear and either One interesting compressive or uniform tensile displacement.8.16 to fully mobilise the shear deformation BS5400(1. A finite difference solution of the large deflection plate in combination with a multilayer approach to equations was used Their design the studies were principally aimed at of plasticity. the terms moments are expressed shear.
. the aspect ratio of the panel.. panel panels ac maximum value of the bending component of the stress and r is the coexistent shear stress. Sb. It was found that if the stiffeners have a certain minimum flexural rigidity f*. 'Tcr..0 + 5. K is the critical buckling coefficient which depends on the panel dimensions and the type of edge support.. The values of K given by equation (1..34 + 4/ 02 for 0>I 4. Ss are numerical multipliers of the yield stress used to provide the best fit to the analytical interaction curves.. It was the elastic critical buckling stress.1 Early The small developed found that panel (a x Tcr K deflection theory for the analysis of plate buckling was by Timoshenko(I.10 shows values of these functions for possible design use. 96) and others many years ago.. order analyses(I. 96) were used to determine the variation of K with change in the stiffener flexural rigidity y..4) This proposal and the Czechoslovak design code for steel bridges(I.14) were an empirical fit to theoretical studies.17 ac is the value of the uniform (for in compressive stress acting on the is is the taken CYb tension as negative).. 95) for predicting the strength of panels in longitudinally stiffened girders. For simply supported edges K is given as 5.4 LITERATURE REVIEW OF TRANSVERSE WEB STIFFENER DESIGN linear theoretical studies 1.. has been adopted by BS54000. Figure 1.4.... of an unstiffened b) subjected to shear stress is given by. The capacity of a given web panel is increased by reducing the Classical first aspect ratio and hence increasing the value of K..34/ 02 for 0 do where ý= a/b. 1. 7c 2E _ V2)' tw (b 2 ) 12(l . Sc. the .
The reason was the perfectly flat nature of the stiffened plate first in in the occurs rarely order analyses which assumed All plates have some form of initial outofplane practice. The determination of K and y* was generally based on a numerical Rockey(1.3) tests girders. for plates These stiffened by concentric or eccentric transverse stiffeners. This supported the conclusions of Scott and Weber(I98). buckling to the of clamped and simply supported shear solutions It was infinitely long plates reinforced by transverse stiffeners. between Rockey(I99) the relationships established empirical critical shear coefficient K and the stiffener rigidity 7. y*.15) 14 o3 (1. Rockey . plate and stiffener Sparkes(I1) conducted a series of tests on plate girders and found that the theoretical value.18 individual is that to of equal elastic stress of the stiffened panel subpanels. displacements imperfections.4. 1.2 Early experimental studies Early experimental investigations were primarily concerned with the behaviour of web plates under load. aluminium on on produced the empirical design formula given by equation (1. Moore(1. Few researchers studied Based the influence of transverse stiffener size on web stability. found that the required value of y* was considerably reduced longitudinal the edges of the plate were clamped rather when than simply supported.97) Cook provided and energy minimisation procedure. 220 different based tests the on relationships were on results of The test girders were made of platestiffener combinations.15) This equation was applicable for webs with partially clamped based on the stiffener size required to limit web and was edges deflections. will outofplane and develop at stress levels below the critical buckling stress. aluminium and bolted construction was used to limit test plate initial imperfections. As a result. The girder flange provided a rigidly clamped boundary condition to the web panel edges. therefore. failed to divide the web into separate panels.
3 Elastic second order analyses......5 stiffener rigidity parameter Concentric stiffeners 21. the every change of direction. All the tests were conducted in the elastic range of the web panel. theory to investigate the behaviour of a square plate with a single transverse stiffener loaded in shear...75 7.... After an extensive nonlinear elastic study on web panels. 1. effectively interchargeable to evaluate their destabilizing effects on the The initial imperfection buckling mode of a stiffened stiffeners.......5 2 ****.. His proposal was based on the idea that shear and compressive stresses are. * 2....... Richmond(I100) proposed a design approach for transverse and longitudinal stiffeners on girder webs.15) and a value of m=3 was recommended for transverse stiffeners..7 (0 1511 02 802 803 ) 7=m 7* . value of y* was based on equation magnification (1. transverse stiffener is designed as a pinended column subjected to an effective compressive force which is a function of the shear . plate was taken as a sawedge with transverse stiffeners placed at According to his approach... 27..19 proposed expressions for the limiting y* given by..5 Eccentric stiffeners The second moment of area I for eccentric stiffeners was calculated from an effective stiffener section which included a plate width of a/2 on each side of the stiffener. In order to account for the influence of initial outofplane Skaloud et al(1109) used large deflection elastic imperfections.... where y was the required transverse stiffener rigidity. They found that the value of buckling first by order y* given analysis should be increased by a factor The m.4. 7..
4. required these stiffeners withstand the vertical components of the diagonal stresses from the web at one end and transfer them to the other end. The stiffened plate initial imperfection mode was assumed to be dependant A deflection Richmond(I100). in is in detail chapter approach presented web. The first criterion 'was to ensure that they had sufficient rigidity The second to preserve the shape of the girder's crosssection. to tension field models. was given by equation (1. however. This Bijlaard(I101) introduced an approach for the design of transverse longitudinal for to only subjected panels stiffened stiffeners and inplane longitudinal stresses. developed by Richmond (see chapter four) after replacing the shear by compressive stresses.19). stiffener force Fs.2. that to of similar transverse load arising from the loading within the plane of the plate related to the geometric imperfections of the transverse The lateral load acting on a simply stiffeners was established. With this model. Section 1. Shear stresses were not included. by for developed Basler(I.3. .3 indicated that the first ultimate strength model 84). The stability of the transverse in loaded this way was presented by means of a fourthstiffener An equation with nonconstant coefficients. beam indestabilizing the the represented effects of supported This was identical to the lateral load plane web stresses. 1. criterion was to ensure a minimum crosssectional area to resist The axial the compressive components of the tension field.20 and direct inplane stresses acting on the stiffened four.4 Ultimate theoretical strength requirements The emergence of tension field theories for describing the loaded in of web panels shear in the postcritical range response has led to the development of many stiffener design procedures. It was plate appropriate girders was assumed that the girder flanges are unable to support the postbuckling tension field and consequently only a limited tension field could develop between the transverse web stiffeners. The assumed function of the transverse stiffener was to remain effective in limiting panel boundary outofplane displacements The ultimate strength until the panel capacity was reached. the transverse stiffeners had to satisfy two criteria. order differential alternative and easier solution was also introduced by repeatedly describing the behaviour by a series of fourthorder differential equations with constant coefficients.
.015 ayb2qeyw for the and was used to provide a minimum area requirement (1. The by axial stress transverse stiffeners as given equation be to assumed strut as a was a stiffener regarded capacity of be full its its capacity could to plastic yield stress. the magnitude of these forces for the case of a single longitudinal stiffener at b/5 below the compression flange.. the stiffener by: given crosssection was A..... the required area was greater than that for concentric be local The to that was also stiffener proportioned so stiffeners.102) was extended by Cooper(l. forces transverse the to subject stiffeners at would concentrated An approximate method was used to determine their intersection. This was given panel slenderness = Fs= 0....... 103) to include the influence of longitudinal web It was considered that the presence of such stiffeners stiffeners. by recommending the maximum stiffener force to be applicable to all 0 and X values. b the stiffener strain and As the eccentric stiffener was subjected to both an axial force and moment... . 187. buckling was avoided. This resulted in a relationship between the elastic section moduli of the transverse (Zt and ZL respectively) stiffeners and longitudinal given by equation (1....... 921.. ... 0. Hence according to Basler...21 b tw ay 2 Lcr Ty" )1 2 (1  + 02 It was found by partial differentiation of equation (1..0 362b2 > Where yield 6yw VIE yw arys Eccentric stiffeners the uniaxial panel oys was the stiffener yield stress eyw length..20). and equal These assumptions are likely to be compensated for developed.... .**** (1...18 for force and an aspect ratio occurred maximum stiffener by force b/t..21).21) ...19) that a 1...0 150 b2 07YW V/CYW ays Concentric stiffeners .20) A.... The work by Basler and Thurlimann(I.. for any plate geometry.. Zt ý: ZL/O (1. ý: 0...
= 50) 0. 0.22 The maximum transverse force was calculated from equation (1. induced by the presence of initial imperfections. An bending additional moment was also stiffener crosssection.. The axial forces were assumed to act in hence..19) and the required stiffener size was determined from a classical Perrytype strut analysis. the the the of web and plane at middle case of the bending a applied moment to the effective eccentric stiffener. .75 (1.. It is essential to mention that the appropriate were made regarding no recommendations (the width of associated web stiffener effective crosssection Cooper's in Basler's proposals.22) .22). The method considered the stiffener as a programme(I. . The axial force determined down distribution from the stiffener was consideration of the tension field forces which developed in the The the to stiffener.. stiffener was also loaded adjacent panels web forces from by its the 'pull in' of the ends axial which resulted at tension field on the flanges...6 (2. Due to the complexity involved in evaluating the forces imposed by the tension field band on the transverse stiffener in the postbuckling stage. imperfections Both and residual stresses were included.60) 0>0.7 5 . Yso= . the magnitude of by buckling Euler load amplification the which was enhanced factor. moment of This method is described and discussed in more detail in chapter four. The destabilizing effect of the buckled web on the stiffener was considered by adopting a reduced effective stiffener second for in inertia use calculating the amplification factor. included an effective which a width of crosssection strut with web plate equal to 40 times the plate thickness.8 (A * y.106). concentric and eccentric stiffeners were considered and the ultimate capacities of the stiffened webs were compared with those of corresponding fully supported panels. Their investigation led to an empirical formula based on rigidity requirements given by equation (1. 0.. either or plate) Rockey et al(I5) proposed an ultimate load transverse stiffener from developed design experimental an procedure 1041. Horne and Grayson(I6) conducted a fully nonlinear parametric finite element study on the behaviour of The effects of initial transverse stiffeners loaded in shear.
4. the stiffener rigidity. b) Czecholslovak design specifications.171.18). 1.5 Code i were derived on the only a slight increase second moment of area n effective plate width. of the numerator of 14 in this equation. The rigidities given by the above equatic basis that further increases of rigidity caus in the ultimate capacity of the panel. are described briefly. requirement proposed by Moore(1. The limit state design philosophy for bridge girders in the code is described by Djubek and Skaloud(I. = .3) and empirical rigidity Instead given by equation (1. The Is of the stiffeners was calculated without The values of Is for concentric stiffeners midplane of the plate whereas those for were taken about an axis at the surface ol side as the stiffener.4. 108). the design of transverse web stiffeners is In this section.15). The value of m.18) was replaced by the expression for k given by . Where y. and I andoare the plate aD slenderness and aspect ratio respectively. design procedures adopted by the American and some European codes. but with minor modification. and which has previously been presented as equations (1. Transverse stiffener design was based on the panel(l. were taken about the he concentric stiffeners the plate on the same of practice requirements For the engineer. BS153 used a value of 16. BS153 The plate strength was based on allowable stress levels derived from large deflection buckling analyses in which the maximum applied shear stress was limited to that which caused surface yielding at the most highly stressed part of the 107). which are basically taken from the methods described in the previous subsections. The stiffener design was based on a refined version of the method proposed by Skaloud et al(I109).23 E 1. in equation (1. the governed by appropriate codes of practice.
. with 1 :5k :5 ks . corresponding strength reduction coefficients M c...24) by equation stress. v ayw ..... r was given F21 0 90 . given (Tc.. y= 07C n cc a yw + Mb CFb (Yyw 2 + (0. .24 b 1 . Mb. bending and shear respectively. 'fq were the stiffener the effect of individually applied shear respectively.. .24) the value of k reflected the fact that pronounced postcritical behaviour was encountered only in the case of webs with high b/tw ratios.. (1. (1.. Wolchuk(I110) described a proposed American specification for the design of steel box girder bridges(I111). Mq in the code... while the value of r was dependent on the stress type.25) was to scale the y values appropriate to each individual stress type by the ratio of the actual to allowable stress levels in it that recognition would be perhaps too conservative to add the y values required for each stress type..25) V(.. For shear (1.c applied stress in compression. to the required stiffener combined web was subjected by in given a relationship shown y. simplified form by equation (1.... was rigidity. strength was loading...... Transverse .. rigidity values required for bending and compression.23) k=I+ (ks  1)1 t.... tr The value of ks was taken as 3 for transverse stiffeners... c) Proposed American specification... The effect of each group of terms in equation (1.. whereas for thicker webs the postbuckled important less If the or vanished completely..Cyb.. ym..6 Yq 'r ayw Mq where yc.
chapter comprehensive 1. from 9tw if the full tension field force less levels 18tw than the taken to were stress was when longitudinal Where stiffeners elastic critical shear stress. The axial loading acting on the strut arises from the destablizing effects of inplane shear and direct forces in due to tension field action from to addition stresses the postbuckled web. This to the width varied with the act stiffener. assumed with level of applied stress. were force lateral equivalent to 2% concentrated carry an additional of the longitudinal stiffener capacity. The presence of longitudinal stiffeners was accounted for by Transverse stiffeners were the use of the increased y* value. the value of limiting stiffener rigidity y*. . the work reported in this thesis was initiated. Such a lateral force was longitudinal location the of each stiffener. designed the transverse to were stiffeners present. combined loading was not considered. at applied The rigidity criterion was similar to that adopted by the Czechoslovak code. The design procedure is presented in a form in four. The design of transverse stiffeners is based on the concept of the strut model.25 both based design on a strength and a minimum was stiffener rigidity criteria. force due to tension field action given by equation (1. The strength criterion was based on a Perry type strut formula in which the effective stiffener length was taken as The applied axial load included a 0.19). d) BS5400 requirements. design the graphically within proposed was specified rules. only required to meet the requirements of shear loading.5 AIM OF THESIS Due to doubts about the current design rules for stiffeners in transversely stiffened webs subjected to shear and inplane direct An elastostresses. large deflection finite plastic element program is used to investigate the different parameters that affect the behaviour of stiffeners up to the ultimate capacity of the panels. but full design below levels for the to stress allow proportioned An effective width of web plate was tension field capacity.7 of the actual length.
Comparisons are made with existing numerical and experimental results to check its validity. Chapter 3 that effect The effect describing publication presents a detailed study on the various parameters the behaviour of stiffeners in webs subjected to shear. A paper of varying yield stress is also considered. Inst. stresses. of Civ. simple Comparisons are made between its results and those of the finite Another paper presenting the approach element analysis. the work of the chapter has been accepted for in part 2 of the Proc. 1. Chapter 4 provides comparisons between the finite element Rockey Richmond the and approaches which form the results and basis of the design procedures adopted by BS5400. Chapter 7 presents the design process to be followed in applying the design proposal. The effects of using the panel strength values given by BS5400 are demonstrated by comparisons made with the corresponding finite element values. Emphasis is given to formulating the design procedure in such a way that it can easily be incorporated in a design code of practice. . of Civ. Engrs.6 SCOPE OF THESIS Chapter 2 describes briefly the finite element package (LUSAS) used in this study which accounts for both the effects of large deflections and material nonlinearity. introduced in this chapter has also been accepted for part 2 of the Proc. Chapter 5 introduces a stiffener design approach based on a for beam model stiffened plates subjected to shear. Chapter 6 represents the effects of the various parameters described in chapter 3 on transverse stiffeners for webs subjected to combined shear and direct inplane. Inst. Engrs.26 The aim of this study is to use the results of the parametric study to produce a simple design model which is safe and economic and can represent accurately the physical behaviour of the stiffeners. The design model introduced in chapter 5 is then generalized to take into account the effects of inplane longitudinal stresses. It also contains the summary of the conclusions drawn from the parametric studies in addition to the suggestions for future work.
921. Soc. 1789. 1883. pp.A.5 Rockey. N. Instability and Collapse of Steel Structures. 1823. C. MR. M. M.A. BSI. Todhunter. "The Design loaded Stiffeners Webs in Shear an Transverse on of Proceedings Institution Approach". "Theorie de L'elasticite de Crops Solides Avec des Notes Entendues de St. S. J. 687706.. Design of Steel Bridges. Acad.. 535539. "History of Theory Elasticity and Strength of Materials". C. p. 6. and Grayson. 1899. London. K. Vol. Moore. BS5400: Part 3. Levy. and Tang. L..27 1.. "Theory and Analysis of PlatesClassical and Numerical Methods". 147. PrenticeHall. Code of Practice British Standards Institution.11 1. G.9 1.N. K. A.7 1. St Petersburg. Clebsch. Navier. 1. "Sur L'equlibre Elastique d'une Plaque Rectangulaire".10 1. "An Investigation on the Effectiveness of Stiffeners on Shear Resistance Plate Girder Webs". R. C. 1. W. Part 2. for 1. Paris. and Pearson. Granada Publishing. 10691099..81. Nova Acta. of 1. and Weber. Dunod. Bernoulli. Inc. R. "Parametric Finite Element Study of Transverse Stiffeners for Webs in Shear". 1974. R. Paris. "The Behaviour of the Webs of Plate Girders".6 1.. R. 1947. H. "Essia Theorique sur les Vibrations de Plaques Elastiques Rectangulaires et Libres". 1943.2 for Scott.. London. 197219. pp. Horne. Welding Research. pp. T. VenanC.. New Jersey. 1942. pp. 1. 329341.. V5. (edited by Morris.3 1. R. Bull. Vol.. Valtinat. Sci V129... 1981. Szilard. pp. N. C. 10. PhilMath. LJ)..R.12 . 1982. No. A. L. Ultimate of Civil Engineers.L. "Requirements Stiffeners Attached to Panels under Combined Auxiliary Compression and Shear". 862.4 1.7 REFERENCES Sparkes. 1983. T. K. N.
New McGrawHill Book Shells". V22. Equilibrium of Elastic Beams and Plates". J. G. ASCE. pp. M. V1. "Theory Company. P. 1970. (In Russian) Budiansky. Math. P.14 Timoshenko.24 . 1908. Sc Thesis. H. V135. 1. 1980.. Angew. pp..383387.Bryan. Plates and of York. 1961. 1. G. L. University of London. Computation of Buckling Loads by Finite Differences". Proc. 1968.. J.. M. V116. 347356.20 1. G. "Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis". Aircraft Eng. 354392. pp. 1946. pp. McGrawHill Book Company (UK) Limited. "Numerical Salvadori.. 1. of Skew 1.. and Bulson. B. Platten".. S. "Series . NACA Report No.. 1954. G. 1915. Allen. Inshenerov. "Uber eine neue Methode zur Losung der Methematischen Probleme Variations Gewisser Physik". 1981.15 1.D. 848. "A Dynamic Relaxation".18 1. "Background to Buckling". J.. J. Galerkin.19 1. Reine U. C. H. Vol 26..13Bulson. Argyis.Solutions of some Cases of Vestnik. "Die Theorie der Kreuzweise Bewehrten Eisenbetonplatten Anwendungen Mehrere nedst auf Wichtige Bauteghnisch Aufgaben Ueber Rechteckige Bauingenieur. Solution for Skew Plates Using' Roberts.17Ritz. M. "On the Stability of a Plane Plate under Thrust in its Own Plane with Application to Buckling of the Side of a Ship". Sc Thesis..23 1. M. 879908. "The Lagrangian Multiplier Method of Finding Upper and Lower Limits to Critical Stresses of Clamped Plates". V4. 1951. P.S. 1966. pp 590624.22 M. T. G..21 1.28 1.. University of London.E. 161. Chatto and 1.. Savage. "The Stability of Flat Plates". and Hu.H. "Finite Difference Solutions Plates". W.P. Huber. Trans. Windus. Soc. 1923.S. London Math. Fur. B. and Baran. and WoinowskyKrieger.. London.. S.16 .
McGrawHill.. "Bending with Large Deflection of a Clamped Rectangular Plate with Length Width Ratio of 1. "Large Deflection Theory for Orthotropic Rectangular Plates Subjected to Edge Compression". pp805823. G. W. Levy. NACA T.. 1. I. G.5 under Normal Pressure". 1942. "Uniformly Plates with Large Deflections".. Levy. Loaded Clamped Rectangular Way. pp. Aerospace Sci.36 1. S.125134. of the Fifth Int. 1876. 1938.31 Margeurre. pp. S... S.. Grosser Formaenderung".. and Greenman. Edition. Physik".30 1. 348351. Cambridge.25Argyis. 4258.29 its Probleme in T. App..32 1. Turner et al. "Zur Theorie der Gekruemmter Platte Proc.. vol. K..33 1. 853. Mech. G.. 1969. and Bell. p. 1942. N. Zienkiewicz.C.. Mass. der Mathematischem Encyklopaedie Maschineubau". 846. S. B. J. "Large Deflection of Stiffened Plates".29 1.27 1.37 . 1910. 1938. "Bending of Rectangular Plates with Large Deflections". Wissensheften. Worlesungen Kirchoff. O..8094. Cambridge. J. NACA T. Aircraft Eng. Congr. 1955. Norway Press). "Square Plate with Clamped Edges under Normal Pressure Producing Large Deflections". Methods in Stress Analysis". 1952. pp.. 1977. "The Finite Element Method". 446450. 1956. 123128.26 1. V19.. 444448. uber Mathematische 1. Teubner.. R. J. Appl. Appl.. Mech. Holland. 1958. VI. 145158.. J. N 847. "Energy Theorms and Structural Analysis". 23.H. Yusuff.. Mech. Proc. pp. "Festigke Von Karman.. S. "Finite Element Tapir (Technical University of 1. for Appl. V25. Third 1. K.34 1. 1942..28 (eds). Soper. N.35 1. VI. NACA T. Trondheim. S. of levy. 5th Int. vol 27. "Stiffness and Deflection Analysis of Complex Structures".. Congr. Mech. Leipzig.
J.N. 1124. Appl. NACA T. "Postbuckling Behaviour of Rectangular Plates with Small Initial Curvature Loaded in Edge Compression". V28. 1953. Yamaki.. E.. A.46 1. BSRA Translation 3793. D. E.39 1. W. University of Strathclyde. "Effect of Small Deviations from Flatness on Effective Width and Buckling of Plates in Compression".40 1. Lundquist. H.. pp.. Supple. J. V15. "Clamped Long Rectangular Plate Under Combined Axial and Normal Pressure". "Buckling of Plates under Axial Load and Lateral Pressure". J. N. No. and Zibritosky. J. on Thinwalled Structures.. 1959 . and Chapman. Yamamoto.38 Levy. R. pp. J. Yoshiki. W. Hu. 12431258. 1946.. of Square Plates Loaded in Edge Compression". C. S. B. No. Int. "Changes of Waveform of Plates in the Postbuckling Range". N. 1946.. Appl.43 1. 1979. P. pp. V26. Falconer.N. of 1.C. NACA T. Yamaki... 3rd6th April.41 1. and Levy.42 1. pp. N. Conf. "On the NonLinear Theory Orthotropic Plates". Solids and Structures.Ship Research. J. 1971.48 . 1951. Japan. "Large Deflection Theory for Plates with Small Initial Curvature Loaded in Edge Compression".B. pp.. pp.1960.M. Appl. V6. M. pp. 407414. 266277. 2. Goldenburg. H. G.30 1. Mech. 1965. 1970.Soc. 3. Woolley. Nav. Arch.45 1.. N. "Simply Supported Long Rectangular Plates under Combined Axial Load and Normal Pressure".. S. 238244. 1944..44 1. Continued in: V27.. 949.. J. NACA T. J. and Kondo.. Supple. 335342. 143151. E.. V118.. 789791 and 822825. "Buckling of Plates Subjected to Edge Thrusts and Lateral Pressure".. J. Coan. V18. Y. Corrick. 1047. J. The Engineer.. M.47 1. Mech. 1961.. Mech. Paper read at the Int. and Batdrof. V195. "Experiments on PostBuckling Behaviour J. "Compressive Buckling of Stiffened Plates". S. Mansour.
1969. 1976.31 1.. A. 3. 1975. Published by SNAME.. C. V4.51 1. 1966. E. 1925.. Fur A. Ph. Scholes. C.56 1. Panel HS3 of Hull Structure Committee. 1969. ASCE. V59. V98.59 .57 1. pp. "Bending of Normally Loaded Simply Supported Rectangular Plates in Large J. Deflection Range". "Large Deflection Behaviour of Transversely Loaded Rectangular Orthotropic Plates". "Bending of Rectangular Plates with Large Deflections".79110. Part 2. Instn. 1462. No. Strain Analysis. "Explicit Solutions for Deformed Plates Subject to the design of Initially Compression". Z. K.53 1. "A NonLinear Perturbation Analysis of Discrete Structural Systems". V4.763787. Civ.54 1... pp. Engrs. J. V20. und Experimentelle der Durchbeigung Ermittlung Von und Spannungen Quadratishen Platten bei Freier Auflangerung an den Verteilter Last und Grossen Raendern. 1936.. and Chapman. 222. 203222. Proc. C.55 1. "Nonlinear Behaviour of Rectangular Orthotropic Plates under Transverse and Inplane Loads". D. Instn. M. Engrs. "Charts for Buckling and PostBuckling Analyses of Stiffened Plates under Combined Loading". University of London. N. 1972. Williams. 1948.L. Wang. 1948. pp. C.50 1. Heft 2.. Technical and Research Bulletin No. 190198. R. Dawson... A.Struct. R.. A. C. Basu. A. and Bernstein. C. 1968. and Walker. 1. "Nonlinear Large Deflection Boundary Value Problems of Rectangular Plates".49Mansour. 757767. Band 16.58 1. Div. and Walker. pp.. "The PostBuckling Behaviour of Simply Supported Steel Plates". Wang.T. Walker. V35.. J. STI. Thompson. Quart. T. Aalami. J. Int. C. Solids and Structures. 1967.M. Proc. E. and Walker. G.52 1. "Rechnerische Kaiser. Civ. Aero. A.. pp. G. A. M. "PostBuckling of Geometrically Imperfect Plates".. A.. pp.D Thesis. Gleichmaessig Ausbiegugun". 7594. NACA T.. B. T. N. NACA T. J.1969.
"Geometrically Non Linear Finite Element Analysis". Trans RINA. Proc. 1981. 1973. and Chapman. "Dynamic Relaxation". Mech.32 1.64 Otter. J. 1. A.71 Dowling. 25672586. J. D.. "Computations for Prestressed Concrete Relaxation". 347382. ASCE. J.. "Large Deflection of Elastic Plates under Patch Loading". EM2... pp.E. 1965. pp. pp. B.. pp. Murray. "Large Deflection Behaviour of ship Plate Panels under Normal Pressure and InPlane Loading". Instn. "Large Deflection Orthotropic Plates Rectangular behaviour under of Proc.. H. "Collapse of Metal Plates". Mech.. ASCE. Engrs. Frieze. Aalami. Thesis. 1972.68 1. V95. Otter.67 1. J. 1973.60Aalami. P. C. C. 1966. Div. pp 155181. 463483.63 Day. M. pp. University of London. and Conner. 143165. A. 1965. J. B. Dier.H. Transverse and InPlane Loads". "Large Deflection Crisfield. A.J. E. 1969. "An Introduction The Engineer. Public pp and 1. D. V219. J.. VI. Brebbia.. F. Works Review. Elastoplastic Buckling Analysis of Plates Using Finite Elements". 1972. V95.. Chatterjee. 218221. 1.. and Chapman. V114. V98. No.65 1. A.. M. 1971.Div. 633656. Ph. F.. V35. and Moolani.. G. C. P. Engrs.R. and Hobbs. and Wilson. Aalami.61 1. 1969. 1. Civ. Reactor Pressure Vessels Using Dynamic Amsterdam. "The Experimental of and Predicted Behaviour . J. to Dynamic Relaxation". "Finite Element Large Deflection Analysis of Plates". Civ.Eng.Eng. pp. pp. B.. W. V42. 1969. S.. EIm. Div. "Some Examples Williams.R. 6175. Instn. Cassell.62 1. L. Behaviour of Initially 11071112. J. C.. Civ. Eng. Nuclear Structural Engineering. S.Struct. R.D.66 1.70 1.A.. of the Elastic Deformed Bridge Panels". TRRL Report LR593.. ST11..69 1.
B. Steel Compression 1. Int. Royal Instn.5357.E. pp396417. T. ..81 Cooper. Appl.. 1946. P.77 Faulkner. S. pp. "Strength of Thin Flanges". and Walt. Dubas. pp. Ausbeulen der Auf Einseitigen. I. Hart Vergutet". Crosby Lockwood Staples. G.. Proc. APM545. . Kollbrunner. 581617. 1951. F. 1. Dowling.J. Publ.A.B. Usami. Winter.. D. Theoretical 8th Congress 1.78 1. "The Strength of Thin Plates in Compression". Prelim.80 1. Technical Working Group 8. Conf. "Behaviour and Design of Steel Plated Structures". "Discussion of Paper by J. pp. ASEC. "Thinwalled Solutions and Test Results". 1971. 1977. Trans.. "Compressive Strength of Flat Stiffened Panels". E.72 Von Karman. Verteilten Gleichmassig Druck Ungleeichmassig und Beanspruchten Platten aus Avional M.. 25. Tests on Welded Stiffened Plate Panels". 101112. 1981. "The Ultimate Bending Moment of Plate Girders".. ECCS .33 Rectangular Stiffened Steel Box Girders". Baustatik ETH.79 1. "Versuchsbericht uber das. E. "Strength Plates A Literature Review In Elastic Instability of Steel U. C. P. pp. NACA. G.. Mech. E. Inst.plated structures. E. P. H. D. New York.. M.. (Ed.. (eds). Hasegawa..76 Structures Winter. 1968. and Struct. Caldwell Ultimate Longitudinal Strength". 1957. Watanabe.. 1986. Th. Gerard. Harding and P. on Steel Box Girder Bridges. L. G. Struct. F.. TN No. and Donnell. 3785. ASME. Elements. H.75 1. Proc. IABSE. pp. A. and and Design of Steel Stiffened of Japanese Contributions". IABSE Colloquium on Design of Plate and Box Girders for Ultimate Strength. Stussi. Tokoyo. E. Trans.3 . No 44. Switzerland. Sechler. Naval Arch. 7794. "Compression Faulkner. 199226. London. Zurich.Technical Committee 8Structural Stability. J.. London.73 1. 1932.Japan Joint Seminar. London..74 1. 425426. Mitt. Eccentrically Steel Plated Structures. 1. C. and Gehri. 1965. Frieze).
C. pp. "Design of Webs and Stiffeners in Plate (Ed. C. Proc. IABSE. Theorie "Beitrag 1916. and Ostapenko. pp. M. "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Loaded in Shear". London. 1. Shear". M. Vol. and Evans. N. Proc. and Skaloud. 8. pp. pp. 151180. C. Basler. Report No. Journal of the Structural Division. 1969. STA. M. Rockey.85 1.. H. 2948. No..83 1.. "Recent Progress in the Field of Structural Stability of Steel structures".. pp.. H. 1. The Design Girders". "The Ultimate Behaviour of Plate Girders Loaded in Shear".86 1.7. Fujii. Proc. Rode. K. T. 53. C. 50. 1975. 1972. Proceeding p18n8.90 1. H. K. K. "Influence of Flange Stiffness upon the Load Carrying Capacity of Webs in Final Report. Journal Struct.. Load The 1. K. ST 7. Y. 8th Congress. Steel Bridges.. der 1. C. 181197. K.88 1. 1961.82 Chatterjee. and Maquoi. pp. Granada. Chern. ASCE.34 1. R. and Rockey. C. 1968. pp. R. 1961. 429439.. D.87 1. 210218.Evans). Rockey. M.89 Porter. Massonnet. IABSE.. and Skaloud. 1981.H.92 . The Structural Engineer. Structural Engineer. IABSE. IABSE. 1978. Evans. 8th Congress. Div. C. 1978. 120.. S. ASCE. K.. 477487. 87. D. No. 1968. "Strength of Plate Girders under Combined Bending and Shear".. paper 2967. Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report. Y. zur Knickerscheinungen". 189214. K. pp. 328. pp. H. "On an Improved Theory for Dr Basler's Theory". Surveys 55/78. Porter. N. Box of and Rockey and H. R. 313325. vol.. pp.91 1.84 Basler.. A. Vol. 140. Der Eisenbau.. Proc.. R.. "Ultimate Strength of Plate Girders under Shear". Rockey. "Strength of Plate Girders in Shear". "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Subjected to Shear and Bending".
98 Scott. pp. London. 1961. K. 13. 1967. London.P.A T. M. Narayanan).35 1.. Second Edition. pp.. pp. 1982. "Longitudinally and Transversely Plated Structures . Buckling of Long Plates Aeronautical pp 4170. .101.102. Proc. J.Bijlaard. S. I.B. and Thurlimann.95 1. P. M. Consulting Engineers. N. "Strength of Plate Girders in Bending". Applied Science Publ. 1943.100.Richmond. ST2.94 Evans. and Skaloud. Rockey..97 1. J. EUR 8849.Basler. 1983. Div. K.. and Weber. Vol. McGrawHill Book Co. Royal Aeronautical Society. 1. 1962. "Theory of Elastic Stability". M. IBBC TNO.. L. 27. 419451. "The Design of Intermediate Vertical Stiffeners on Web Plates Subjected to Shear".. T.103.. vol. 1972.96 1. Proc. B. and Rockey. 137.. N 921. K.K. Div.99 1. Cook. F. and Gere. "The Design of Transverse and Longitudinal Stiffeners for Stiffened Plate Panels". Djubek.1983. 1. H.. Steel Communities Brussels. "Requirements for Stiffeners Attached to Panels under Combined Auxiliary Compression and Shear". ASCE. NoA 1. ST6. R. by Transverse Reinforced Quarterly. ASCE. Struct. Maunsell and Partners. Vol7. 1. "Report on Parametric Study on Web Report for Department of the Environment. Struct. 1956. "Strength of Longitudinally Stiffened Plate Girders". C. B. 275296. "The Limit State of Flanges and Webs in Accordance with the New Edition of the Czechoslovak Design Code for Steel Bridges".93"Common Unified Eurocode 3... 153181. J. Code of Practice for the European of 1. Timoshenko.. Aeronautical Quarterly. C. R. C. 1. Commission Structures". Panels".. Heron. J. R. pp.. 1961.Stability and Reinforced Plate Girders". New York. "Shear Clamped and Simply Supported Infinitely Stiffeners". Royal Aeronautical Society. A. S. Strength (Ed.Cooper.
Conf. 1. A. R.. pp. Part 3. "Behaviour of Double Sided Primarily Loaded in Stiffeners Webplates Vertical on Shear". Washington. . 1977 "Postbuckled Behaviour in New Edition of Czechoslavek Design Web Plates the of Int. 1980. M.110. J.106. C. pp. O. 5. University College.Rockey. Vol.105. C. on Steel Plated Structures. Consulting Engineers for Federal Highway Administration.36 1. I. C. "Vertical Stiffeners in Test Report DT/SC/l. 187210. Proc.108. 1977. J. Cardiff. "The Behaviour of Single Sided Vertical Test Report Stiffeners on Webplates Loaded in Shear". Publications. Cardiff.E.Kerensky. M. vol. 106.. Report No. G. Test Report DT/SC/6..A. I. C. vol. 1956. ST12. "Postcritical Behaviour of a Stiffened Square Plate Subjected to Uniform Shear".. J. R. "The Basis for Design of Beams and Plate Girders in the Revised British Standard 153". and Skaloud. 1. 1. Crosby Lockwood Staples..Struct.. Plate Girders with Slender Webs". 1. G. DT/SC/4. and Valtinat.111.Wolchuk.. Specifications". S. K. Cardiff. and Brown.104. University College. London (edited by Dowling. 1. ASCE.. Proc. Donea. C.E. Harding and Frieze).Skaloud. H. Div. 24632477. "Proposed Specifications for Steel Box Girder Bridges". University College. W. D.Djubek. FHWATS80205."Proposed Design Specifications for Steel Box Girders".Rockey.107. A.109... 1.Rockey. and Massonnet. 1. 27. KC and Valtinat. C. Wolchuk and Mayrbaurl. B. K. Flint.
37 CF max Cymi n .0 Figure 1.2 EFFECTIVE PLATE WIDTH b e' .1 DISTRIBUTIONIN THE POSTCRITICAL STRESS RANGE. a y b Figure 1.
Figure 1. BAKER'S TENSION .3 RODE'SPARTIALTENSIONFIELD MODEL.38 0 T Tb Figure 1.4 FIELD MODEL.
39 a/2 1. Figure 1.4 a/2 Figure 1.6 TENSION FIELD MODEL. ANDOHERN OSTAPENKO .5 FUJIVS TENSIONFIELD MODEL.
40 dd T ft a b 1u1( a Figure 1.7 ROCKEY AND SKALOUD TENSION FIELD MODELWITH THE CORRESPONDING FAILUREMODEL. .
TENSILE ANDSHEAR DISPLACEMENTS.6 .6 0.6 a Figure 1.0 .const .2 .2 .const ýv = const 9u /Ox= const 8v/8x 2 const crL=OT=0 (7/ Cy tension y compression Cr/a xp A 0.0 edges 0.0 VIY 3u/Bx = const 'yy ý0 u.8 compression crIcr ield field au/8x = const Ov/Ox=const u.8 a/(Yy tension .5 .3 0.8 C/Cyield \YlYi ield .27 b/1 (gyý: 245 N/mm2) 30 60 120 iso 0.41 top and bottom unrestrained 1.5 Ay 0.42.3  WO/t 0.9 1.. .18 3. .const v.0 6.09 2.8 TYPICAL INTERACTION FORA PANELLOADED CURVES BY COMPRESSIVE.2 0Yc0 Ou/ax = const 2. .4 11.6A .2 3.0 .1 0.0 .15 0.54 1.1.
60.2 Figure 1.6 /t WO 0.2 top and bottom edges restrained xp x 1.2 and bottom edges unrestrained 0.8. \\r/Yyield % 1.60.20Miii 0 0.8 top y 0. Y /)" yield 0 1.2 0 100M/Mu 1.8 1.3 0.6 iii1 0 0. AND SHEAR .09 2.0 M/My ON.0 0.18 3.0.4 0.6 0.5 /1. 0.0 E/Eyield 12.0ý 2.40.9 3.5 \tzj E/Eyield N.9 INTERACTION CURVES FOR PLATES UNDER BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.0 0 0.0\ . 0 0.0 0.2 0.6 41 116ýOM/Mu 0.4.4 0.8 1.4 M/My 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.27 b/i (a =245 N/mm2) y 60 120 180 0.8 1.42 T/ TY 1.8 0.0 0.
2Lt 0 Figure 1.00. 0 restrained 0.5 0. .43 SbýýSc I bt i.10 Ub 50 100 150 200 fy.5 restrained ý<0. Sb FOR PANELS IN INPLANE BENDINGAND Ss FOR PANELS IN SHEAR.6 0. I" a 14 aspect ratios b t 200 55 0 50 100 150 ASS 1.6 0.8 Aý a< 0.8unrestrained all aspect ratios 0.4 1 restrained unrestrained all .4 unrestrained lb 0. w' 35 5 VALUES OF Sc FOR PANELS IN COMPRESSION.
.44 CHAPTER 2 THE FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM AND ITS VALIDATION.
The effects of large outofplane deflections and material nonlinearly have been included in the study. The corner nodes have three degrees of freedom which correspond to the displacements in three perpendicular directions whereas the midside nodes have five degrees of freedom.45 2.1) used in the analyses was developed by It is a general purpose engineering Finite Element Analysis Ltd.2. unrestrained. conducting element used Correlation studies have been undertaken parametric studies.1. the finite element technique has been chosen to solve the nonlinear system of equations that govern the transversely stiffened plate behaviour under the various inplane loading types. the two additional degrees of freedom relate to the loof rotations about the edge of the element at the loof points which 1143 located are at of the distance from the midside node to the The corresponding two corner nodes as shown in figure 2. the plate and stiffener geometries were modelled by rectangular isoparametric semiloof shell elements with the mesh configuration shown in figure 2. incorporates facilities for linear and nonlinear which system The analysis. spring or free.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE The LUSAS package(2. This chapter describes briefly the established nonlinear finite LUSAS.2. in the various package.1 INTRODUCTION From the methods described in the previous chapter for plate analysis. . The formulation takes account of both membrane and flexural deformations by thin plate theory. system is based on the finite element stress displacement method and contains a comprehensive range of elements and solution procedures for the analysis of most types of The problems. For more details see reference 2. In the analyses. system contains a wide range of both engineering linear and nonlinear material models which cover most The support node conditions may be engineering materials. 2. Each element has a total of eight nodes. with existing analytical solutions as well as available experimental results. restrained with a prescribed displacement. and as required shear deformations are excluded. element can accommodate generally curved shell geometries with varying thicknesses and anisotropic materials may be specified.
The results of Crisfield and Harding are scaled from diagrams in each reference. In order to stabilize these iterative techniques. a and Grayson(2.3) has been used to incorporate the nonlinear effects of material plasticity into the finite element model.46 The volume approach proposed by Crisfield(2.1). 2. it was first necessary to establish the validity of the package and data control as well as to demonstrate that the chosen mesh configuration shown in figure 2.3. The results with all the data relating to the analysis are given in figure 2. 2. Plasticity of each layer is governed by the von Mises yield criterion and the associated PrandtlReuss flow rules.3) Harding(2.6). it is advisable to refer to the LUSAS User ManUal(2.5 and b/t. This plate was also analysed with the LUSAS package with the mesh refinement equivalent to figure 2.1 Introduction Before any numerical analyses could be carried out.1.2 Analytical validation A simply supported unstiffened plate of aspect ratio ý=1. multilayer 'volume approach' was used with Crisfield and Grayson adopting a finite element formulation and Harding adopting a finite difference dynamic relaxation approach. which later formed the basis of the panel rules .3 FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE VALIDATION 2. = 180 subjected to shear loading has been analysed by Crisfield(2.5). the values of which are very much a matter of experience. line searches are added to the iteration strategies to modify the equations where the incremental displacements are updated. For detailed explanation. The stress state is monitored on a number of layers through the plate thickness. The eight noded semiloof element was used in all the cases examined.. The nonlinear solution strategies used in the package are based on various schemes of the NewtonRaphson technique.4) In all cases. Two of the cases from the detailed general study provided by Harding et al(2. The convergence of the nonlinear equations solution to an acceptable limit is specified by a nonlinear control section.3.3.1 would converge to solutions of acceptable accuracy.
As far as plate girder webs are concerned. The results of the parametric in 3 chapter showed that this mode is critical for presented study displacement lateral for the aspect ratio considered in stiffener the example. Another correlation study was carried out on a stiffened panel of and plate slenderness X= 240 presented by aspect ratio ý=0. loaded by a concentrated load at midspan thus producing a The panels were also constant shear force in all web panels. Figures (2.9). 2. For this reason. Figure 2.72.7 shows the layout of the plate girders tested with all the data relevant to Each girder was the two girders analysed (TGV4 and TGV7). results would indicate the appropriateness of boundary conditions and loading selection and provide full confidence in using the package for the current parametric studies. these tests were generally on girders with very slender Rockey et al(2.32. two panels . in modelling the plate girders.5).7) tested eleven stiffened plate girders webs. check the ability of the stiffeners proportioned by their approach to sustain loads up to the failure of the girder. It will be seen later in chapter 3 that the stiffened panels considered in this study consisted of two panels with an intermediate stiffener to minimise the extensive computational time.47 within the bridge standard were also examined using the LUSAS formulation and are shown in figures (2.4).5 The imperfection mode used corresponds to a Grayson(2. stiffener mode of an overall half sine curve combined with a panel half two sine waves in each unstiffened panel (denoted mode with by (P5)) and shown in figure 3.5) indicate that excellent correlation exists and that the average stressstrain responses from the different analyses are very similar. experimental However. designed to be identical except for the dimensions of the The aim of these experimental tests was to transverse stiffeners. subjected to a varying coexistent bending moment.5(a). most recent work has been carried out at Cardiff(2.42.3.3 Experimental validation Although the analytical validation presented in the previous subsection demonstrates the validity of the finite element felt it that further validation with experimental was package.6 again demonstrate excellent correlation. The results of figure 2.
4 KN Vu = 99. in TGV4 straight girder effectively whereas it deflected substantially in girder TGV7 around failure.3 KN Unrestrained Restrained Flange boundary Unrestrained Flange boundary Vu = Vu = 84.48 with the eccentric stiffener were taken in order to represent the The semiloof element and the mesh stiffened web of the girder.6 KN Vu = 117. loading was a combination of prescribed shear and bending displacements with a strain proportion of Y/YY = FEIFY.1 KN 89. There was no records presented of the web initial imperfections in the tests and therefore initial imperfection mode (P3) which was identified to be critical for this The applied plate geometry was adopted (see section 3. configuration presented in section 2.2 were used for the for Three different boundary the modelling.60 KN The values of the shear capacity deduced from the finite element analyses with the real flange boundaries therefore underestimate the experimental values by 2% for girder TGV4 and 4% for girder TGV7. As mentioned above.3. . it was observed that stiffener SA stayed respectively. The lateral displacements of stiffener SA from the analytical results The stiffener the experimental agreed with conclusions. capacities of girders TGV4 and TGV7 were 101. conditions longitudinal edges were investigated. the web panels and flange geometries for both girders were the same. Girder TGV4 Vu = 93.21mm for girder TGV4 and 474mm for girder TGV7.3). deflections at peak load were 1.5 KN and 94 KN Moreover. unrestrained and an actual flange boundary which corresponded to the flange dimensions taken from the test. The peak capacities evaluated from the finite element analyses for the girders with the various boundary conditions are given below. restrained. These results must be considered very acceptable given the lack of data regarding the imperfections in the girders. whereas the material yield stress and the size of the stiffener SA were larger in girder TGV4 compared It was found experimentally that the shear with girder TGV7.
supporting evidence that analytical studies can be used with confidence to predict the optimum stiffener requirement which occurs at the boundary between the above two regimes. No further Cardiff girders were analysed because their high slenderness values placed them outside the scope of the study in this thesis. presented . for the main parametric studies.49 It is also interesting to compare the shear force values obtained from the unrestrained boundaries which the underestimate for 10% TGV4 by for 7% girder and experimental values girder It will be seen later that unrestrained boundaries were TGV7. adopted The comparisons with the two girder tests show that the finite deflection is both the stiffener when element package works well minimal and the panel boundaries are effectively rigid and when There therefore is strong the stiffener itself deflects significantly.
"Bolted Spliced Panels and Stress Redistribution in Box Girder Components up to Collapse". H.1 REFERENCES Lusas User Manual. 2.E. Analysis of Plates Using Finite Elements"... C. B. pp. J. Thesis.50 2. Harding. Part 2. Crowthorne. (Ed. R. W. Evans. J. Steel Box Girders.7 2.. R. G. H.4 25 2. University of London (Imperial College). Imperial College.. Buckling Department of the Environment...8 2.D. "Large Deflection Crisfield. 1975. London. and Tang. 1982. G. 1976. 1981. Harding. "A Report on Five Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Report No DT/SC/8. University College.2 Irons. J. Wiley. Rockey. R. K.E. K. University of Manchester. Cardiff. Valtinat. Girder TRVY. K. Hobbs. TRRL Report LR593.. 1976.07. Cardiff. K. Proceeding Institution of Civil Engineers. A.E. "Parametric Study on Plates Under Combined Direct and Shear Inplane Loading". M. "The Design Stiffeners Shear Transverse in Webs Loaded of on . Evans. London.3 2. and Tang.. "A Report on Four Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Girder TRV4".71. "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels". Finite Version 86. H. Pub. B.D Thesis. Berkshire. London. H. 1986. "The Semiloof Shell Element". 1973.an Ultimate Load Approach". 2. CESLIC Report BG44.. Neal. 106999. Element Analysis Ltd. Finite Elements for Thin Shells and Curved Members..6 2. H. R. by Ashwell and Gallagher). and Tang. Ph. University College. 1981. 1981. Report No DT/SC/9.9 .4 2. Grayson. ElastoPlastic M.. and Slatford. Ph..
5 mi(Iside variables 3 cotner variables Figure 2.1 STIFFENED PLATEMESH.51 Figure 2. .2 FOR THE SEMILOOF SHELL DIAGRAM SHOWING THE NODEL VARIABLES ELEMENT.
4 1.6 I. wo/tw .4 0.3 COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS.0 Y/yy Figure 2. B 2. . 1.4 y' 1.2 1. iý . w a 0.0 180 245 N/M2 ined boundaries g results package 0. B Y/Y Nondimensional shear strain Figure 2.2 [ 0.4 0.0 U.9 lr771 I 1.80.00. 0. .4 COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS..0 2. u shear strain 1. 0. 0 Nondimensional I. r/T T y i.6 2.4 2. V.6[ 0. U b1. 0.8 1.52 T/T y I.
6 0.2 lz 245 N/mm2 nd bottom edges unrestrained ng results package 0.5 )L .0 I.53 WO/tw .6 COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS.8 1.9 T/T 6n 1.4 0.0 0.4 2.2 * 0.0 Nondimensional shear strain 2.0 0.8 A1 .4 Ys . r/ry 0.0 't U.8 0.1 0.7 aa i 0.0 2.0 1.2 1.3 * "o LUSAS package results Grayson program 0 0.5 Ti LI 00.2 1.2 0.6 bfi 0. 0.0 0.6 1.2 ' y/y y Nondimensional shear strain Figure 2.180 0.8 Y/Y y Figure 2.8 2.355 N1mm2 0. Ic I. b2.4 1.6 0.5 COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS. .240 oy . 112 Initial imperfection mode (P5) 0.4 0.
75 420 N/mM2 = ys 2 N/mm 285 0 = ys Figure 2. b.0 = b= 600 mm 300 = bf = 200 mm tf= 10 mm 2 = 250 N/mm cy = 220 yw TGV4 girder N/mm2 a yf TGV7 girder Ds = 40. . a PanelB2 a Panel 131 aa Panel Al PanelA2 lbf I t Section AA when singlesided stiffener fitted T I Section AA when doublesided stif fener fitted ý= b/tw a/b 1.7 DETAILSOF EXPERIMENTALGIRDERS.54 Stiffener B 12V StiffenerA A. r*.30 Ts=5.40 mm mm mm Ts=5.0 0 mm Ds= 12.
.55 CHAPTER 3 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF PLATES SUBJECTED TO SHEAR.
this will not result in a lower bound to strength but was deemed adequate for stiffener deflections less than the order of the plate thickness. conditions and initial imperfection forms were varied such that they are typical of those In this section. 3. Likely interaction between adjacent stiffeners. parametric studies was to provide information from which to develop a simple design approach for transverse stiffeners on either plate or box girder webs.3.56 3.1 INTRODUCTION Although extensive theoretical and experimental work has been carried out on transversely stiffened plates subjected to shear and inplane loadings. The comparisons and results parameters investigated are described. basically still forming The geometric rigid panel boundaries. variables. a table of results is presented of all the cases analysed which confirm the conclusions drawn in the preceding The ultimate sections. the different used in bridge structural design. LUSAS. In fact. for the case of stiffeners sustaining large deflections. Because of the large number of cases examined. In this chapter. A selection of the results is shown in this chapter to illustrate the effect of the different parameters This selection is based around stiffener involved. shear capacity and the corresponding maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener are given for all the cases examined to provide a data bank for use by other researchers. boundary type of loading. described in chapter 2. the optimisation of transverse stiffener geometries has not received a great deal of attention. showing all the results in detail would be tedious.2. will be presented in section 3. a series of parametric studies has been performed on 150 stiffened plate geometries subjected to shear loading using the finite element The objective of these package. geometries determined from the design philosophy explained in chapter 5. For this reason.2 PARAMETERS UNDERSTUDY 3. .1 Introduction An extensive study was undertaken on plates stiffened by a single transverse stiffener in order to minimise the use of computer time. was considered minimal. the results will be described and in detail be to assessed used later for the validation of the design approach developed in chapter 5. At the end of this chapter.
for the in bottom boundaries top the and case. Harding (3. whereas for the unable kept the edges cases. figure in restrained either or as unrestrained as shown considered For the unrestrained edges.57 3. The only difference between the restrained and unrestrained loading process is that. whereas in displacement the this of no specification was considered bottom The displacements top and case. behaviour impose significant and constraint on the stiffener intermediate conditions were needed (actual flange modelling) in order to properly ascertain the effect of a realistically rigid girder flange. the unloaded boundaries were 3. flange to the was elements.2.1. For both boundary conditions. develop to any transverse stresses. u along unrestrained boundaries were also taken as zero to represent the axial stiffness of found The however.1) detailed Frieze in the a provided a girder. All plate edges were considered to be simply supported in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the web. restrained condition.2 Boundary conditions and loading The plate loading has been achieved by means of prescribed boundary displacements rather than applied stress. the shear loading was applied as a tangential displacement (Y = Ss) along the boundaries. direction displacement along while normal u vertical both vertical boundaries was kept zero. restrained were specified terms of a linear variation of the applied shear displacement in order to maintain straight edges throughout the loading process. These edges were the degree of transverse boundary restraint. web plate a section of for boundary the plates subjected to suitable conditions study on loading. boundary inplane the that conditions stresses and concluded and for in this the modelling adopted study were most appropriate practical web panels. This means that any by flanges the provided and the adjacent panels rotational restraint for The bottom the top conditions edges reflect and was neglected. were straight and hence transverse restrained forces could be developed. because it was behaviour true the of considered that this more closely approximated (3. . in some shear and cases compression The boundary conditions considered in this study are shown in figure 3.2) considered the behaviour of panels subjected to shear .1.
The definition of these parameters differs In the present study.1.2. the stiffener alone about an axis at flexural rigidity is specified as y. and X 0.. If an effective width of web is included in the stiffener section.2. Simple flat (rectangular) stiffeners have These been used in order to reduce the number of variables. the definitions used by the between codes. plate panels are usually defined by their aspect ratio ý and panel slenderness X.58 3. In addition to the two above parameters different sizes of stiffeners have been examined for every aspect ratio and plate slenderness to identify the stiffener size which satisfies the basic philosophy described later in chapter 5.4 Geometric properties In plate theory. The different parameters that define the geometry of the stiffened plate are shown clearly in figure 3. 3.3 Material properties Steel with a yield stress of 275 N/MM2 and an E value of 205000 but for the effect of N/mM2 the study of most was considered be discussed.5 2.3) have been adopted Special consideration has been given to seliecting values of and X The values of that are typical of normal design practice. the inertia is taken about an axis passing through the centroid of the effective stiffener area and the flexural rigidity is given the notation 'Yeff. it but interesting limit case because no provides an of webs. rigidity inertia in If in the the this thesis. The investigated has been and will varying yield stress ideally be no strain taken to with plastic elastic was material hardening. It is an accepted practice to express stiffener dimensions in terms of has been flexural This approach a nondimensional y.3) in order to prevent their local ten times the outstand thickness buckling before the ultimate capacity of the stiffened plate has been reached. been have proportioned with an outstand depth equal to stiffeners (3.120. .0 60. of the presenting adopted results face is the taken of the web.1.2. British Standard BS5400(3.5. is available for a plate under shear loading and postbuckling reserve the forces acting on the stiffener would be expected to differ from those for more slender panels.180 are and and examined and 240 A plate slenderness of X= 60 is extreme for the design respectively.0.
5 Initial Imperfections The analyses were performed without including the effects of Harding et residual stresses on either the plate or the stiffener.2).2) where As maximum initial displacement due to stiffener.. influence on stiffener design requirements to justify the sufficient incorporation in the analysis. in later All to these patterns were specified in sections.1) where Ap = maximum G=a G= 2b Stiffener As G 750 a<b a> 2b tolerancc .5) show the different initial outofplane displacement Reference numbers are patterns considered for the plate panels. 355 initial displacement due to plate panels.59 3. an terms of sine functions. The imperfection magnitudes used in the study were based on the (3.33. al(3.1) and (3. their of complexities added Figures (3.4) found that the ultimate shear strength of panels under loading is insensitive to the presence of residual relatively combined It was felt that residual stresses are unlikely to have stresses.. .2. G length of stiffener.3) in BS5400 tolerances specified and are given by equations (3. Plate Tolerance AP G 165 ay .. additional half sine wave displacement over the whole stiffened panel has been superimposed on the plate panel imperfection to give the total imperfection for the stiffened plate. (3. (3. referred Due to the presence of the stiffener.
1. While it is clear that the boundary is the weaker of the two conditions unrestrained in terms of subpanel carrying capacity. The behaviour of transverse stiffeners in transversely stiffened loading is dependant to shear mainly on the plates subjected * imperfection.2) has shown that the Harding It should be noted.1 Presentation A considerable amount of data has been obtained from the finite Graphs. and presented discussion concentrate mainly on the ultimate shear capacity of the lateral displacement the maximum stiffener at the plates and position. To demonstrate plate slenderness.3. 3. deflections for in larger the the and stresses result initial thought was to use the more onerous of the two conditions for the design of the stiffener.2 Effect of boundary restraint As mentioned in section 3.3 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 3. This high panel slenderness X was chosen for this study .5 and 2. tables the parametric comprising study. The initial the outofplane to the magnitude of lateral displacement the at the that maximum produced patterns basis design for been has the the study as chosen stiffener position relating to each 0 and X under consideration. not only to convey and contours the results concisely. 180 having 0= aspect ratios and plates plate slenderness of 1. that is insensitive loading to relatively shear capacity of plates subjected displacement. The effects of these boundaries have been investigated on stiffened 0. 3.2. but also to allow easier comparison. the type of initial aspect ratio.3. analyses element been have used wherever possible. it was also clearly important to see by how much the stiffener design would differ between the two boundary representations.60 (3.5. the effects of each of the above parameters is considered in Comparisons and individually separate sections. yield stress and stiffener size.2.0. boundary restraints. there was a considered development for the that the of stiffener greater potential possibility tension field forces present in the restrained boundary case might While latter. both restrained and unrestrained boundary conditions have been examined. this.0. to see how potentially conservative the resulting design formulation might be. however.
increasing flange rigidity actually reduces the central deflection of the stiffener for a given level of web shear and also causes a modest increase in shear strength.7 show clearly the influence of these boundary conditions on the behaviour of the stiffened plate in general and the transverse in In these curves.3. mode (P5) has been considered. concerned for the aspect ratios considered.1. whilst the ordinate is It can the average shear stress calculated at every load increment.000362.8 shows that and 0. maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener. The reason behind that will be described in detail in section 3. the dimension of the stiffener yý that was selected to demonstrate this from the design effect corresponds to the value determined philosophy.6 and 3. It was therefore decided that a few analyses should be carried out incorporating actual plate girder flanges so that the effect of the flange presence on stiffener stresses and deflections could be examined. the abscissa represents the stiffener particular. flange of finite rigidity in order to establish the true forces acting between girder flange and web elements.0. There was a major concern that while the restrained boundary condition is a valid limit condition.0029 Figure 3. For aspect ratio 0. Three flange sizes were chosen from a very slender to a moderately stocky member and are expressed in terms of rigidity of magnitudes parameter Mfw 0. be seen that for every combination of plate geometry.5 and 2. mode (P3) has been chosen.3. whereas for aspect ratios 0=1. It must be noted that the average shear stress is evaluated from the web stress distribution adjacent to the While stiffener and does not include shear carried by the flanges.61 because the importance boundary is the restraints of most pronounced when lateral deflections are large. this would to model the flexibility involve complexities in interpretation.0232 respectively. the graph gives a reasonably accurate It can therefore representation of the web and stiffener behaviour. the stiffener initial imperfection and size mode have been kept unchanged in both restrained and unrestrained cases. be concluded that any additional deflections resulting from axial forces on the stiffener due to tension field action are more than .5. but it should be noted that these initial imperfection modes are critical as far as the design of the stiffener is Furthermore.0. Figures 3. While it would be possible by some kind of spring system.0. for the reactions from the panel tension field to be distributed along the The true situation is in fact very complex and requires a girder. the mathematical formulation actually serves to establish an axial strain control on the stiffener which both limits its ability to carry axial loading and also its ability It provides maximum opportunity to deflect laterally. the interaction between flange and web stresses is complex and varies along the girder.
design in there be it would that practical remembered should shown direct the flange be level that reduce would stress of a normally field in both flange tension from terms of the effective restraint forces and transverse stiffener bending resistance. be difficult major and would some very complication to provide a stiffener design formulation that would allow in a suitable way for flange restraint.8. The same effect is not evident in the other figures. In this case the tension field effects would be expected to be more important and it is longer no that would the provide a possible unrestrained condition worst case for design.12) show the stress distribution at both the web interface and and also the outstand tip for the unrestrained is It for flanges the three examined. in the compressive stresses at the centre of the stiffener In investigate Table 3. It is important to realise that the above conclusions may not apply if the subpanel is significantly more slender.93. Closer increase.1 to the this.1 have a small effect in increasing the compressive stresses in the stiffener near the web and reducing the tensile stresses at the but due is latter to a that tip the a major part of effect stiffener lateral in deflection due to end restraint as noted stiffener reduction in the context of figure 3. restrained conditions and interesting that with the stiff flange there is a net axial force clearly but is the that the the of stiffener relatively extremes effect at shown localised. order web. . f the flanges is beneficial for stiffener deflection While the presence o. cases considered involve it instances. shows near span junction and stiffener/web outstand span stresses at peak centre for all the cases examined.8 this to the already results of although unlikely. The net outcome is a stiffener which flange lower deflections the rigidity stresses and as sustains increases. it is also important to examine the stress state of the stiffener to see lead field forces to earlier collapse tension may whether additional be indicated have figure 3.62 bending the in of stiffener by transverse the a reduction countered When interpreting the values of Mfw because of flange support. does reveal an relative to the central outstand examination tension. capacity shear field reaction does It is apparent from Table 3 that the tension . This leads to the conclusion that the unrestrained boundary condition is conservative for this condition and was taken for the majority of in in is While this this clearly conservative study. Figures (3.
63 It will be seen in chapter 5 that the design proposal formulated uses the panel strengths incorporated in the bridge standard which would if bounded by be to a the unrestrained panel normally consider flange.120.5 and X= 60. both From (P3) on plates with 0 =1.63.180 and it displacement figures.12) are again These be for found the to presented.5 are and discussed in detail in this section. 3.180 and 240.19) the examined. .163. identical in form for plates having the same aspect ratio and initial imperfection mode.5 and X= 120.3 Effect of initial outofplane displacement patterns The influence of the different initial imperfection modes presented in described 3. whereas their amplitudes increase with plate influence initial X. be that the can shear seen applied sets of buckling Buckles in are essentially plate panel causes all cases. section The effect of the initial imperfection mode on plates with the same be first aspect ratio but with different will plate slenderness lateral Figures (3. imperfection mode (P5) on plates with 0=0. cases particular those critical in It detail be looked in the next subsection. The imperfection modes mentioned in figures (3.133. show contours of displacement of a selection of stiffened plates at their ultimate first influence The figures demonstrate three the of capacity.3. bending There is that a of primarily no clear form for the case boundary. It is interesting to note at this stage that the distribution of stresses along the stiffener with the unrestrained boundary condition is form.19) illustrate the effects of imperfection mode 240.2. Figures (3. This has interesting implications on the restrained of tension field forces which will be discussed later. Thus form the the the of primary slenderness of imperfection mode can be reduced to the study of one plate slenderness for every aspect ratio. more at modes will in fact be the that stiffener sizes selected noted should also from design formulation derived design the to the sizes correspond in in 5 simplistic terms correspond to the chapter which presented have to of stiffener a negligible effect on the subpanel minimum size rigid to limit outofplane capacity Le that will be sufficiently boundary movements to levels that will not significantly affect panel response.
The reason for concentrating on only these two modes is the high probability of their existence at this aspect ratio. Firstly. the initial Outofplane displacement patterns that were considered are imperfection modes (P5) and (P6). The comparison between these two modes below concentrates on their effect on the transverse stiffener deformation. Figure 3. Reference to all the results clearly shows that the deformation of the is greatest for imperfection transverse stiffener mode (P5) for stiffened plates of aspect ratio 0=0. for the stiffened plate with mode (P5).5 For aspect ratio 0=0.20. buckles therefore try to displace the transverse stiffener in opposing directions displacement is much and the resulting of the stiffener smaller in this case as shown in figure 3. This followed from a consideration of the effects of the initial imperfection modes on (3. Figure 3.120. plate slenderness X =180.5 and X= 60. the buckles are form the The two buckles on the of the imperfection.20 shows the contour of the lateral displacements of the stiffened plate with imperfection mode (P6) at the plate ultimate shear capacity while figure 3.5. lateral the shear stress r and the corresponding maximum displacement in the stiffener ýV and clearly show that the lateral displacement in the stiffener at any level of shear stress is much larger imperfection with mode (P5) compared with that of imperfection mode (P6).64 a) Aspect ratio 0=0. For the plate with mode (P6) figure 3. aspect ratio performed a parametric study on the effects of initial imperfection modes on stiffened plates subjected to shear and also found that the above modes are the most The effects of these modes will be demonstrated on appropriate.21 shows graphically the effects of modes (P5) and (P6) on The graphs represent the relation between the plate under study.14.0.80 is the size identified by the design philosophy presented in chapter 5 to be adequate for this stiffened plate geometry.20. an initial negative dimple in the top right corner and a positive one in the bottom left exists These develop further as the web panels buckle.180 and 240. The stiffener size parameter ys = 193.5) Grayson 0=1. consistent with leading diagonal are in sympathy and force the transverse stiffener to deflect in the direction of their displacements as shown in figure 3. . The panel corner.14 shows the contour of the same plate with imperfection mode (P5).
imperfection mode (PI).24) represent the contours of the lateral displacements of the stiffened web at the plate ultimate shear The only difference between the plates is the initial capacity.0.5 case. Figures (3.3(a).0 Special consideration has been given to choosing the initial imperfection modes that might exist in practice for plates with aspect (35) has Grayson's ý=1. in plates are those identified by the design philosophy presented To demonstrate the effects of the initial imperfection chapter 5. The same conclusion can be drawn b r looking at figure 3. (P2)and (P3) are appropriate for this aspect The ratio and these are shown in figures 3.223.3(b) and 3. At any level of shear stress. This particular stiffener was again chosen ys parameter = because it is the size determined from the design approach presented in chapter 5. the lateral displacement V is largest in the stiffened plate having P3 as an initial imperfection mode.120.29) show the contours of the lateral displacements of stiffened plates having aspect ratio ý=2.19). mode (P3) has been selected for these plates.65 Aspect ratio ý= 1.5 shown in figures (3.24 with initial imperfection mode (P3)2The lateral displacements of the stiffener are also largest for (P3)imperfection This mode therefore appears to be the imperfection critical relevant mode for this aspect ratio. effects of these initial imperfection modes will be illustrated for a 120 and stiffener size stiffened web of plate slenderness X= 44. it can be seen that the form of the buckles in both aspect ratios is identical for any plate The effect of the imperfection mode on both aspect slenderness.180 The stiffener dimensions chosen for these and 240.4(a). ratio shown that parametric study imperfection modes (PI).25 which shows the relationship between the average shear stress and the maximum lateral displacement in the stiffener for each imperfection form. 3.0.163.51. If these patterns. C) Aspect ratio 0=1. (P2) and (P3) respectively.0 and panel slenderness X= 60.263. ratios is therefore studied by reference to the 0=1. contours are compared to the contours of the stiffened plates of aspect ratios 0=1. Figures (3.5 and 2. If these contours are compared two main points can be noted: The amplitude of the web buckles is a maximum in figure 3. .
66 180 plate with initial The lateral displacement contour of the X= imperfection mode (Nat the plate ultimate shear capacity is shown in figure 3. the influence of the plate slenderness on the behaviour of the transverse stiffeners is investigated. Figure 3.5.1. The ultimate shear capacity of the stiffened plates of a particular aspect ratio decreases with increase of plate slenderness. This is of course expected and results from the fact that the amplitude The of the web buckles increases with plate slenderness. In this section.0. graphs.120. deflecting panels apply forces to the stiffener which will obviously affect its deflection and hence the capacity of the stiffened plate.3.0.32 shows a comparison between different slenderness values for an aspect ratio ý=0.Omm.1.5 and stiffener dimensions %= 90.5 and 2. For each aspect ratio.180 X= and 240.0. In all figures the average shear stress r has been plotted against the stiffener maximum lateral displacement. Figures (3.333.35) demonstrate this effect on aspect ratios 0. Figure 3.5 and 2. The stiffener size examined was again Ds =90Omm and Ts= 9. the maximum lateral displacement of the increases stiffener with increase in plate slenderness at all levels of shear stress.Omm.0 respectively. Omm and Tý = 9. 3. Figures (3.31 compares the relationships between the average shear stress r and the maximum lateral displacement in the stiffener for the two different imperfection forms and confirms that (P3) is more critical for this aspect ratio as for 0=1. As mentioned in the previous section.4 Effect of plate slenderness Knowledge of the effects of imperfection forms and boundary conditions considerably simplifies the understanding of the effects of both panel slenderness and aspect ratio.30. 2 . the initial imperfection mode (P3) is critical for From the four these aspect ratios and was adopted in this study.35) show the same comparison for stiffened plates with aspect ratios ý=1.323. two main conclusions can be drawn.0.1. The critical initial imperfection mode are (P5) was taken for this aspect ratio. The plate slenderness values considered 60.
The graph shows a difference in behaviour for 0 values of 1. of aspect ratio 3.39) show the effect of varying aspect ratio on the 60.0. proposed of five is based on an empirical formula which is a function of X. stiffener It can generally be concluded that the ultimate shear capacity of the increase decreases the with range considered stiffened plates within for plates of equivalent panel slenderness.5. for 0= 0. the For the assumed stiffener dimensions for the case of 0=0.1.40. the new approach same aspect ratio uniquely in for design prese nted chapter the transverse stiffeners.180 for deflection and plate slenderness values stiffener For every plate slenderness the dimensions of the stiffener 240.36 shows the stiffener deflections for a panel slenderness of D.1.1) found that if the panel slenderness is defined by Frieze AbY tw FE ýýY Y the stresses expressed relative to yield stress. increase increases with of aspect ratio. established from the results of the finite element study with a material yield stress of ay = 275N/MM29 it was essential to check its . dimensions The 2.180 and 240.5. is in figure this the a case. the behaviour of plates with the Since is defined. has imperfection initial kept mode the critical constant. For the other plate slenderness X= 120. stiffener not shown buckling the on of the overall stiffened panel and effect controlling the initial panel buckling stiffness is much lower. the maximum lateral displacement in the stiffener is large because it represents the maximum lateral displacement of the interesting is It in that plate.6 Effect of yield stress (3.5 are stiffener = and 90mm and Ts = 9. Therefore.5. and the relatively capacity of flexible stiffener must still be contributing significantly to this. 60 with 0=0. the graphs show a (3. while were been taken in each case.0. the lateral displacement of the 3. and the strains relative to yield strain.0 compared with that for 0=0.5 Effect of aspect ratio Figures (3.39).5 and 2.37in figures variation with aspect ratio as shown more consistent For every plate slenderness.Omm. the ultimate stiffened is this plate stiffened still the highest.363.5.3. boundary for is the two web panels as as a rigid acting not stiffener For having 3.3.0. spite of this. Figure 3.120.1.67 3.
afor is average stress strain a unique curve produced V2 tW 355 different yield stresses.0 and plate slenderness 240. as will be seen later in chapter five. the form now used widely for that the expression .41 shows the relation between the nondimensional stress 'C' for the strain y' a plate of aspect ratio 0= shear nondimensional and 180 for plates having yield stresses cyy = 1. and it can be shown that nondimensionalising the force relative to the square root of yield stress does not produce a unique result. however. a simplified analytical model has been adopted in which the stiffener has been replaced by a nondeflecting nodal line. in figures In all the figures it can be seen that shown the magnitude of the force increases with increasing yield stress for a given value of panel shear stress (relative to shear yield). This follows b[ . remained unaltered.68 different X but for ý the yield stress with plates of same and validity ay* A number of cases were rerun with yield stress values of ay = 355 N/mM2 and with b/t revised so 240 N/MM2 and cyy b[ a. Clearly stiffener flexibility may well affect the distribution of force but this effect would not be expected to be the actual stiffener on large if the stiffener rigidity is sufficient to restrict stiffener deflection.463. and results for a plate and 2. In order to obtain the lateral force system applied by the panels to the stiffener.1. Figures (3. the ratio 0=1.5 (3423.0. With this model the (not force lateral the applied shear stress of variation with maximum necessarily at the midspan of the stiffener) has been examined for the three yield stress values mentioned above. for the plate of aspect It can also be deduced that at any stress level. to investigate be the true for a flexibly supported panel and same would whether in particular how the lateral loading applied to the stiffener and deflection its and resulting bending stress varies with consequently the panel yield stress. stiffener maximum lateral displacement and outstand stress increase with yield stress for plates of the same 0 and X values.0 are slenderness of 180 and aspect ratios of 0.47) show the effect of variation of yield stress on the V lateral displacement maximum and the extreme of the stiffener fibre tensile stress at the stiffener outstand cy.0.45).5. Figure 3.1.275 and 355 N/mm 2X= The graphs show an excellent correlation demonstrating the previous conclusion that for a given value of .L tw 355 design. There was a need.
on the ultimate shear capacity of the stiffened plates. that appropriate so an panel previously be formulated. Above a certain value of 7. For the more slender panels there is a much clearer definition of the size of stiffener that is needed to enable the limiting peak shear strength to be reached. with stiffener 2The effects of the stiffener parameter y. As can be seen for the stockier plate.7 Effect of stiffener size parameter Intermediate transverse stiffeners in web plates loaded in shear have to fulfil two main functions.3.3. Figures (3. plate order an economic and safe stiffened stiffener size.120. the in is strength really rather slight and variation with stiffener rigidity this clearly reflects the low tendency of this panel to buckle and the small effect the stiffeners have on behaviour.180 and 240 All imperfection analyses were respectively. for this effect. yield a of will also identify important it is. Initially the shear capacity increased significantly with increase in ys. It should be noted that the shear capacities. however. performed using critical modes identified in section 3. could not be expected to be correct because the single . The variation of the maximum outofplane displacement of the its size. there was very little further increase in in degree There however. the yield stress to not major function that controls the stiffener behaviour and design and this is It will be seen that it is possible to discussed in chapter five. The general pattern of behaviour was the same for all ý and X. difference to which the was capacity.69 increase in due from the the to the preceding paragraph naturally stiffener loading. as the stiffener rigidity tends to zero. two main points should therefore be looked at. Clearly if the stiffener loading and resulting Stress and deflection design the then optimum size the the vary with value of yield stress differences While be function the are the stress. The first of these is to increase the buckling resistance of the unstiffened web plates. as was the nondimensional parameter evaluate design for done buckling. The second is to continue to remain effective until the ultimate capacity of the is In have to reached. can equation 3.483. a this behaviour was evident..51) show the effect of varying stiffener rigidity on the shear capacity of plates of slenderness 60.3.
66) show the contours for discussed in chapter 5.47 corresponds to the value of the rigidity determined from = Figures (3. every table a brief quantitative description of the varying plate In addition. 147. the maximum shear capacity and geometries is given.673. The stiffener show the contours for plates of 0=1.523.96. lateral Figures (3. panel slenderness X= 180 and initial imperfection mode P3. plates of aspect ratio ý=1. the stiffener is not forming an approximately boundary. magnitudes = and 258.0 and X= 60 the plate ultimate shear capacity for the case of and initial imperfection mode (P3).5 and 2.5 ý=1.47 y. Stiffener size parameters ys 0.13. Tables (3.8 Summary of the range of parameters It was felt to be useful to summarize in a concise tabular form the major findings of the parametric study.5 and X 23.1.50 were considered. In order to illustrate the function of the transverse stiffeners.5) have been presented at the end of this chapter. This increase is also significant for slender webs but small for stocky panels.98. and ratios and panel slenderness It can be seen that the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener increases when the dimensions of the stiffener are reduced.2.46 98.60.0 and 240. it is of interest to examine the lateral displacement contours and also the effect of the stiffener size on the resulting stiffener displacement. If down idealisation break the this toward stiffener would involving deflects model more stiffener an analytical significantly.50.64. than one stiffener would be required.23.46 is the value of ys rigidities were = and 172.1.147.70 limit. 180.603. ys the stiffener rigidity determined from the design approach for this particular plate geometry. Figures (3.2.90.72.59) the the stiffener of variation show displacement with ys at any level of shear stress for plates of aspect X= 60. Moreover. It can be seen that for ys values less than the values determined from the design philosophy.180 1. The stiffener size parameters selected had 19. it is not having a controlling influence on rigid the buckling mode of the overall stiffened plate.62) show the lateral displacement contours drawn at 1.276 The value ys = 2.633.0.3. 3.0 respectively.0.5. .120.31. The value y.276 and 5.69) the design approach presented in chapter 5. Each table corresponds to a In particular aspect ratio of 0=0. corresponds to the value determined from the design philosophy Figures (3.
71 the corresponding maximum lateral displacement of the transverse stiffener are tabulated for every case. but not that commonly accepted in panel design. are the panel slenderness. the conclusions drawn in the previous sections. The results in the study by Grayson (3. The effect of panel slenderness is very much as would be expected.5) . capacity of stiffened plates decreases with increase in aspect ratio. that bending rigidity rather that axial stiffness is the most important parameter for the design of the stiffener and this supports the emphasis placed on stiffener rigidity Confirmation of this is considered in greater depth in chapter 5 dealing more directly with stiffener design. in addition to stiffener rigidity.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The emphasis of this chapter is to observe the effect of the various geometrical parameters including the rigidity of the stiffeners on the behaviour and peak capacity of a transversely stiffened web loaded in shear. The parameters examined. These results confirm. the results show that the collapse strength of the stiffened plate is a function of the stiffener rigidity but the effect is very limited for stocky panels reflecting the restricted nature of their buckling prior to the attainment of panel peak load. is less than the beneficial effect resulting from lateral This indicates stiffener bending restraint provided by the flange. even for the more slender plates considered. while the effect of aspect ratio shows the importance of selecting the It has been shown that a critical imperfection mode. For panels bounded by actual flange is there evidence of a significant tension field loading on members the stiffener but the effect of this. form. One major conclusion of this parametric study is that the stiffener deflection increases with increasing yield stress and from this it can be inferred that the design requirement for the stiffener is a function of the yield stress of the material. imperfection degree the and stress of boundary restraint. appropriate different mode is appropriate for the ý=0. yield It has been concluded that the unrestrained boundary condition is behaviour far the as as critical most of the stiffener is concerned and that the important panel influence on the stiffener is lateral loading induced by panel buckling.5 case compared with the The results also show that the shear other aspect ratios examined. panel aspect ratio. 3. As would be expected.
.72 for the slender panels show a more marked variation and indicate that an optimum stiffener rigidity exists below which panel strength is sacrificed.
BS5400: Steel of 3.73 3. "Bolted Harding. 1975. (Imperial University London thesis. R.2 1982.5 I .D Thesis.A. R.E.E. Dowling. and Neal. of 3. BSI. 1977. W.3 .D College). Code of Practice for Design 3. Ph. Hobbs. University of Manchester. B.E. 1981. London. ). (Ed. Ph..E.. Grayson.British Standards Institution 3. "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels".. J.. University of London (Imperial College). P. Harding. Ph. 3. Spliced Panels and Stress J. G. PJ. J. 1975.4Harding. Redistribution in Box Girder Components up to Collapse". "Ultimate Load Behaviour of Steel Box Girders and Their Components". and Frieze. A.D Thesis. Part Bridges.5 3. "Ultimate Load Behaviour of Plates under Combined Direct and Shear Inplane loadings".. International Conference on Steel Plated Structures. Crosby Lockwood Staples. P.1 REFERENCES Frieze.
74 Table 3. 00290 .1 Variation in Stiffener Rigidity Stresses Eith FlanLye MfW 0 . 0232 a outstand 251 233 200 145 a stiffener/web 1 junction 184 1 224 I I 196 I 177 All stresses N/mM2 . 000362 .
4 CD C14 0 N 0 C.. Iq d In Iri CS CD (D C. %0 g:L4 wl in 04 44 wl wl wl 04 04 In64 cl Et4 C. CD 1. ý C) C) 0 14 C: l NO C %0 0 %0 0 14D C) %0 %0 Cý 0 10 ýo C> C) C. . C5 C5 C.00 c7N v" 4 CD CD c) c) CD C) 5 C. = I'D !ý! 00 CD IT C5 %6 06 Cj C'i en W) 00 4 W zl C) CDCDC CDCDCD 06 (D C) CDCD C.4 0 Ui c. t: %6 r: t: 06 14 06 te) W) vi W) W) %n if) W) 6 6 rý Cý Ci en It 19t in V) 4 14 4 4 14 en en 74 00 r tý 1411 cq N 00 P. 06 0ý 0ý Q C) CD C> C56 C.75 tz . 1. 00 %6 00 Cý F Cý4 C) C. 8 8 8 00 %D c. %n CD C4 cr. cc Cc cl kn in. CL WD C14 C14 C) 0 0 C14 t'ý Vi Cý aý R Ci C) CD wl mt 't cq 00 (7ý Cý m Iq 09 NR IR kn en N cq co u rz Z cc co cn In "t C) 0 en 0 0 vý 4 en 't 4 Q %C N 4 't 4 tr.
76 in CLI M 00 Cý CD CD Itt q Ili C) CD C14 tR Ci en C14 Ili C14 CIS = 04 cc E 'Z . 4 I 00 a. CD r C) Q C) 00 00 cn tfý cl.ý 00 IR : 0 C14 14 %0 cq C14 cr? I cq cn i C14 00 q C) C.N t: 00 C) 0 CD C) ý (: ý6 C4 cn Cý Co CD C: ) 06 g C5 C. cý 0 0 C) C> ON cs CD C) C14 (14 CN C4 C*4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 in Q te) tt) tq Q CD Q Wi CD wl v! wl wl CD C5 CD C5 6 W) W) 6 C5 . c7% M %n in en 06 C5 C14 (n IRt 't v" It cn CIS Cc 6 m 04 fi cii el oi 00 W) VI ttl in 10 tt) %0 wl tn in W) %D Co 19 a . coC. C. cn C) 8 09 C% Cý CD 6 q q C.D CD 0 Ili i III in rlý C) 00 Oý Cli tn cn cn C14 It 0 . .  C)N C14 C) rA v" C) 0 Iq Wi N . 4 14.
CIS E.77 COD 0 91. 4 tn 2 2 2 12. g2. P. 92 E a 9 CDo a CD CD(Z) 0 CD c. 12. CD CD cý 1X2 m m %0 00 140 YD c:. (> CD Q 9 1 0 c> a't 4 00 0 ZE r 10 CD CD (D CD CD CD 0 CD . P. %n kn vl vi 0 ý. 91. 10 r_ CD oý rA ce = JD CD cý CD CD vý \O CD leý rc> CD g CD oý 0= iz 0 %. 4) PC vli vl ltý N er. E Q E r CD \o t d C I1 CD No CD CD 0% ý wj  oý E E E clq kn 00 Z cu  aý C vi 0% O\ vi r c9 CD CD 00 N cý 00 oo en 04 4 .4 4 0 vi en vi m %6 en vi 4* 04 eg E  V M cu 9 ß. Z. d cý vý vi %0 t. p.
. Gn Z Z r.78 &« E = 92. 1. CL) glj C%. 91. 9. 12. Ki. 4 12. ý UD CD (D c. in N v ci kn CD rei vi kn 00 ci vi (D V) (4 vi CD CD 0 vi in in CD rrrz kn vi ce :D cu ZD ZD ZD Z) ZD ZD ZD Z) 1. 12. 0% ren CD CD t (1q CD O\ CY% Cq en (D %D 00 e4 le 0 N. (D CZ aý CD CD ci CD ý e: CD lý vi CD : ýc CD i r CD n t CD N oo C: ) N CD GA g CD CD 0 cý c> 9 cý 9 cý 0 C) 00 CD %0 CD \O CD 0% CD 9 lý lý 0 CD CD CD 9 n n n ý 14 CD gt e vl 1 ýo r t oo cli 2 CD 10 CD \o (D \O CD NO CD 10 0 ýa CD MD FCD CD CD CD c CD CD 1 1 1 . 1 C= (D c. lz 4 0. (N 7E d cs c. 42. '0 oci 0 en M M (n M M Z. CD CD %d (D CD 6 C. ' E vi 0 cý N t Co eA In %0 CD V) 00 r 4 \CD %D tIlt r. 924 04 im. 12. ß.
4 r.79 0. cn 0. C'n Cl) en cf) 0. 00 E % 11 rA 0 ýj C) C! (D q R (= R 0 R C> q 8 (= C. C. Cý Cý C. C) C) 0 0 (D CD 0 CD (D ý CD M ý6 06 (: C5 tn c) In c. cf.. 0 . cn In.4 IZ 4 rz M cq C? C) q tt"ý m C4 C4 in W) 00 C4 cq 00 Ci tý 00 0 en C14 C: ) VI 06 (: )ý 4 C. 0 .0 vi r. A4 0. i 06 rz cý = V) c.in C. 124 cn 04 en eli gi. . W . q o r%. wi .00 CD Clq 0 04 CD N 0 cq 4D C14 C4 CD Co C14 C14 CD C14 C. = M 8 vi ý 0 Z 00 0 Cý CD 4 vý  0 0 R CD R Cý 0 CD 5 (:: o o VS .4 C) ý " eq cq (q cq N 4 '" en en CIO CL "a 0 0. u m C14 1>0 00 1 Ci efi en C*4C14kc 0 W) C) cn W) rýo V. C.4 M 91.ýo %0 kn C'i 4 4 6 ý6 en 00 vi 'i C. cq %C C1 00 Vi llý IIR cn cn Z C3 CA a ttri tn 'Rt 00 . Cý Cý .
E ei ý: m E C) \o 00 ci t "': rlf . CU c2. cli (=) Z (D (: > Q cý 4 LZ 06 Kt bf% C) cý (D (Z cý \C) CD CD CD CD C) V1 s VI CD aý CD d i c. %0 (> cyý (i in cý CD en en cn 't 4 ý e vl e  ": (D c4 c.4 (n p4 en Z4 4 A4 14 p4 C13 E cl.80 v CL 92 Q k. c Z.% ýo 4 CD CD Vi 4 4 I: ! eg oo c> r4 e CD CD . CD 11% ci en s. .1 VI 0. C> C. ( M 914 en 914 en 04 m CL4 m 12.t en c4 rj : 0% 0 CD %0 CD ý 'lý Z: V. e vi EI . CD m 6 %. CL) V po 0 C4 4 914 4 n. % en 0. C: ) cs a 8 CE<C: 8 D> CD: D 9 %CD 8 CD(D vi CD Glo C: ) 00 c> Co (D 00 V'l CD CZ 911 CD CD CD e4 CD 00 CD 00 (D 00 C> 00 ch 00 lý . a a 8 9 9 c=.4 lý 4 14 lý cý cý =i cý cý 4 lý lý . 4 (4 914 en 92. 41 ri 41  14.
: ) ýD ýD 1. eq E cc E Z 0 0 C. t: 06 6 C5 \.: ) ý:) ý:) .: Cý C.81 rz 0 Cl.4 %C r 10 rz w C) Q In Vb q CR q %C en 00 C: ) Cý2 q tri q (0 .  m 1. «0 efý ei M V) en cn M (n M W Pý PC CIO E t.: ) ý:) ý:) ý:) . Cj Cý en C14 m C\ VI V. Cu  :: ) ýD ý) ýD . r r Cý c) 00 \0 tn C) CD CD tf) 0 Q Cl C) CD C: ) Cý I CD In C) Oý w 6 ý6 \. cli en 8 r en 00 cl 1. '.. t.0 = 00 C> 00 CD 00 a 00 C'4 Sýg 6 N C14 C*4 C'4 Q Q C5ýý t: 04 C'4 N .00 CD N cn tn r C5 \C. 0 v! OR I00 tý: en fi cn 4 C'4 N C14 M 0 q 8 1". E w 0 M W Z cz tj Cc 0 In = aý cli Ci eq V) C) cn 0 q: r M en CD 00 Cý %D Cý 00 C14 Cý N6 Cfi C4 cs cn rz 14.`0 0 C*l 0 o q "1 00 'IR Cý m o C) C4 en 06 43ý Cý 4 q 4 ý 9 m PC r. 'n C14 4 C.
00 u r cj jA 9z 00 10 10 ý .82 E E E I cw m cw *a cl F. &. : E 00 Oý 00 10 r_ Z 00 iz% m 10 Z JD . e4 Clq cli äE Z tu a cc E E <R Vi =Q Z U. e >.
P.0 0 Z = E M 4. C5 00 C4 C4 4 C. c.. 10 \0 \0 g g C. E4 . C4 cn iz.6 E .0 00 v: tt C4 tr) cn 0ý M cq ": Ch m Cr. kn in 4 4 I . tn 4 _4 4 tn .4 " CZ4 C'4 0t I in  tq ý _. : 00 WQl. 1. C) C) C) CD C) 06 d CD ý6 06 cý W %0 9 00 c. C4 C. c. Cf) 4 I'. ý4 4 _. 1. p. v. 6 1" 4 Oý 0 wl en C) 0ý g ýo ""' g 000 t: C5 Cq t't 0 C6) go 1. 12.kn C. L. CL) Q M Cf) en en cn M M M M m CIS iz. C) cn C% eq s s 06 ý6 cu cc a C's 1. s vi Q. . C.83 r . V *a I If! ": rc) cri C4 ý C'4 en kn 4 C.
W E 06 Cý 6 (D ý wl Vý kn 14 Cfi 1ý C. tn 00 06 C'i Qý cc tý tei 1ý 06 06 tn "D vi 4 C. eq C'i C) 00 C4 00 I C14 cr! C9 C4 C14 cc = cc v z 00 C'i 6% V. 6 ý C5 ý6 CZ E c. m C5 CD 9 r..cn '" c.m 4 cc 14 w ý .4 cn en m 04 124 AM cn cn cn M 914 04 44 04 A4 A4 cn cn 04 A. C. Q P. ON C*% ýo ýo qT qT 8 r. Ci tr.00 0 C) C) %n c) C) . In in q C'4 cn r": cý .: 00 cc Cc W co CL V (D C'. t.ý en s "D 0 6 M Nr 04 C14 cn .ý 06 C4 r00 4 C14 0 06 0c.in C4 r.M 00 00 CD (D 00 00 C) 8 8 %0tý VI 00 00 00 00 00 00 C14 . 4.84 w m 91) 4 0 1 >0 C'.
00 C.4 ii e 94 6a m 924 rn XX PC = V C 124 0.Kt eq cc CD 0 = 0 rA CO 4. . q .4 CL4 C14 c1r) en C14 tt cn In Cli C4 (7.0= 0 0 0 u r.85 06 m cw u V) M co cc cn In 01%C14 Cý C4 Cý 6  Ct Q C . CD= wi CK C. 0 CD C14 :D Po 2ý 44 rA 4 10 . = 00 ON % a C. 'I C) M 0 e: 0 ' 4 C.
CD c ý. ci cc 1>14 Cý in Ci cli r CD cli cn C> NO a. w 4 %n 00 ON %0 C*4 Co 9.4 en en 0. CD C4 CD CD C) Q C14 C14 C4 Q C14 C 4 eq cq C 4 C4 C 0 4 CD cl i CD cl i 0 cl i C) cl i 0 Ci C> Ci 0 cli 0 Ci .10 C5 c4 Cý q: 00  CZ) ýq I O%no C'i Ci Q 0 CD CD Cý q q q C=) Cý CD t00 C7ý C. q r q 00 cn in t 9 9 1. 0 CD CZ4 C4 9 00 CD 4 C.9 9 9 9 en " IC73) Cc 11 cc tn eý 0 cn 124 en en cn am C14 04 en cf) 0. en M a4 12. 00 cq 0 %c CD 0 %.M ce [I C) q CD Iq CD 1: Oýt": %0 Itt " rý 8 00 .4 A4 M en en 04 A4 III .86 92. 4 Cý Cý ýo 06 CD C) C5 9z r.4 91. rC> <31%= Q C efi Ci C'i " z 00 (n 1* 5ýý?a 9  .
0 9 0 0 o 0 C) 9 o C5 00 d 8 C5 00 elý o 0 o c. a. If) W (W "a 0. 0 :z m s = w 9 I . 0 0 c) 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Cq 9 cq C i C i C 4 i C C4 C .87 PC r. 0. 2 m m en en gL..0 C14 r0 C) CD 0 C) 0 0 0 CD CD C) 00 en 0 rM ý6 c. V E 0 C cn M M M en Cf) M en E C14 C14 0. ý Cf) NT t. C) t en ON en 4 5? C) r N0 0 0 C) W) tý 4 %C IZ q: t 00 rA  U 6 cn C14 u cc 00 oo 00 op 0% v! 09 00 14 gt C14 C14 Cý kn 00 N6 Cý cz.4 12 . J:.00 . : 01% cn tn C> C: ) 0 CD E r: 06 Cý C5 . A4 a4 12.4 E4 C) A Cf) ý? C4 q t": rlý oc rlcs ý 00 0 CY) 06 Cfi 06 c4i zl00 . P. 0.4 cq cq cq CA e4 C'i . C) 4n c. 00 C5 c.
>o E . 91. ra. a C> C) C) C) 0ý CYN 00 ON ON CD C: ) tl C) C) 00 < C4 I. ýD ý: ) =) =) In = V 0 0. 4 ce W m Z$ u r_ 9z CC! C4 C14 CN = 0 = 0 C) C) CD 4 C '4 C 4 C'i C II I .00 u = . ID .88 CP c a Z: r .. P.. Q P« Im ei ý14 M IC 8 C:) .
1 BOUNDARY FOR*THE SHEAR CONDITIONS CASE. x 6v 6x = constant u=0 T u= 0 v constant S 6 u=O 6s Restrained boundary Figure 3.89 ay I 6s u= 0 v constant s u=O A UuS  s_I  vi Unrestrained boundary U. AND LOADI14G .
2 STIFFENED PLATEGEOMETRY.90 b IF i_I a a ts x ds ýo r's I ds a Section AA t Ttw t ýs s L ds xi vx t xxds I tw bef f '232tw I=I x bff stiffener EI ttw Ix=Is= tsds 3 3 YS= EI s aD section eff aD Stiffener Effective section Figure 3. .
.400 1Zw.91 . DISPLACEMENT .. ý 11 Imperfection (Pl) mode Positive dimple Negative dimple 40or W. 1 00..  ýX %44. loe (b) Figure Imperfection 3.3 (P2) mode PLATE INITIAL PATTERNS. I / 11 ill I I_ I \i /11 ii I II _1/  / **' 1 ý ý  .. e. 11  .
(a) Imperfection mode (P3) Positive dimple Negative .\ ýI loj (b) Imperfection mode (P4) (continued).4 .92 fit III HI 00.0 dimple \\ II leMI/ /. PATTERNS PLATEINITIAL DISPLACEMENT Figure 3.
0 mode (P5) Positive dimple Negative dimple (a) Imperfection  ( i. .....00. PLATEINITIAL DISPLACEMENT PATTERNS .93 11 0 11%%.. o 1 11\ 0. . It It! tI Il 1 / 0 . 111 . NI 0 (b) Figure 3.0 111ý11 *% '00lý /11 *%.5 Imperfection (P6) mode 0 (continued).
0 Figure 3.0 displacement 4.98.70 mode (P3) boundary boundary 1 5. RESTRAINTS .50 mode (P3) ys .194.0 2.0 y displacement (mm) Figure 3.147.0 Stiffener lateral maximum 3.0 Imperfection A180 Imperfection Restrained 20 Unrestrained 01 0.0 1.0 w 00 a 40 i 0 $1.00 mode (P5) Ys .6 EFFECT OF BOUNDARY RESTRAINTS ON STIFFENER BEHAVIOUR.5 60 X180 Ys .94 r 0% 140 120 JIL Cv E 100 80 0.0 2.00 mode (P3) boundary boundary Imperfection 2.0 Stiffener maximum lateral 3.0 1.74. T 100 80 14 9C 61 A .7 EFFECT OF BOUNDARY ON STIFFENER BEHAVIOUR.C 20 ý1.0 (mm) 5.0 AA A180 Imperfection Restrained Unrestrained 0.0 4.5 X 180 Ys .
000362 Mfw .0 20 Unrestrained 0 L0.0232 Mfw " 0.8 EFFECTOF FLANGERIGIDITY ON THE STIFFENER LATERAL DEFORMATION. 1.70 mode (P3) Initial Restrained Flange Flange Flange imperfection boundary * * boundary boundary boundary boundary 4.0 cu 60 * 40 A 180 ys .0 Stiffener 3. (mm) Mfw . .0 maximum lateral displacement 7 Figure 3. 0.95 T 140 120 2 S41 100 L 80 ý .0 1.147.0 2.00290 Mfw " 0.
0 X180 ý+ .0.147.70 Flange boundary M. . . ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + Ys .0 180 Ys 147.4.70 200 AB 100 00 100 200 50 Unrestrained boundary 50 0 a CF Restrained boundary 0 50 50 Figure 3. ULTIMATE AB Section AA ++ Section 8B ý1.10 DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL STRESSES FORA ON THE STIFFENER STIFFENED PLATEWITH A FLANGE BOUNDARY.9 IN THE STIFFENER OF STRESSES DISTRIBUTION AT THE PLATE SHEAR CAPACITY.96 A8 I Section AA Section BB Section AA Section BB 1.000362 b II AB z1v 14U Compressive stress Mu0 70 140 210 Tensile stress Figure 3. 4.
70 ange boundary 0. Ir ++ ++ ++ +4 b 1.180 . .147.11 DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL STRESSES ON THE STIFFENER FORA STIFFENED PLATEWITH A FLANGE BOUNDARY.97 + ++ ++ ++ ++ b ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 1++ r .0232 + ++ ++ ++ ++ +4 ++ iI AB 210 140 70 Compressive stress 0 70 0 70 140 Tensile stress Figure 3.12 FORA DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL STRESSES ON THE STIFFENER STIFFENED PLATEWITH A FLANGE BOUNDARY.70 ige boundary .0 . U + 180 147.1.00290 Fw + II AB 210 140 70 stress 0 lu Compressive 14U 210 Tensile stress Figure 3.0.
193.82.80 Imperfectlon mode (P5) Figure 3.5 X 120 Ys .98 + I C+ 00.13 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE SHEARCAPACITY. 0+ + IS + cb.14 CAPACITY LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE .36 Imperfection mode (P5) Figure 3..0.5 x 180 Ys .
371.76 Imperfection mode (P5) Figure 3.2.240 Ys .16 CAPACITY. op ý1.5 X 60 Ys .15 AT THE PLATEULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT LATERAL SHEAR CAPACITY.43 Imperfection mode Q3) Figure 3.99 IIIII 1Ii111 7ir/r1/IT  II ' ý0.5 X. LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE .
98.46 Imperfection mode Q3) Figure 3.67 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.17 LATERAL AT THE PLATEULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY.100 Cl e0 15 1. + + 1115.29. %lb +++ + Llb lb 01.5 X 120 Ys .18 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR .5 X 180 Ys .
19 LATERAL AT THE PLATEULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY.. j ..13 + .5 180 Ys .193.5 240 Ys .193.20 LATERAL CAPACITY."081. DISPLACEMENT SHEAR AT THE PLATEULTIMATE . 7) 10 ý0. 4b lb +++0+ si 01.101 ezC+"6 I.80 Imperfection mode (PQ Figure 3.35 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.
0 X 120 Ys . U Stiffener Z.0 7 Figure 3.22 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY. SHEAR AT THE PLATEULTIMATE . %I ýb lb ell (ý .51 Imperfection mode (PI) Figure 3.102 T 1 I c'J .1.44. C.21 EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODES ON STIFFENER BEHAVIOUR.r U. U I. 0 maximum lateral 3.0 displacement (mm) 4.
SHEAR LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE .44.44. C+ý4 A5 (b .51 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3. AT THE PLATEULTIMATESHEAR DISPLACEMENT LATERAL Ib S .103 lb lb I cs lb + all cc + A + 55N .ý1.23 CAPACITY.0 120 'Ys .24 CAPACITY.1. " %.51 Imperfection mode (P2) Figure 3.0 X120 ell ys .
104 E I 4) 0 I.0 maximum lateral 3.25 BEHAVIOUR.0 Stiffener 2.0 1.0 disDIacement (mm) 4. U 1 Figure 3. 4) 0) c 0) 00 C 40) > 0.. ON STIFFENER MODES OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION EFFECT .
1.105 ______ I ____ 02.14 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3. + 15 +r CM ++.22..25 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR 4 .0 X 120 Ys ..0 A 60 ys . +C. . 10 10 ++ %I $2.26 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY.27 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY AT THE PLATEULTIMATE .
.0 X 240 ys . .28 AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE SHEARCAPACITY....106 ..145. 15 + 2.80 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3....73. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT + lb ++ +++++ + + + 70 ý2. ..29 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY .0 X 180 Ys .01 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.
0 Stiffener 2.0 1.50 Imperfection mode (P4) Figure 3.107 Lo 15 + ++ ý1.31 BEHAVIOUR.30 AT THE PLATEULTIMATESHEAR CAPACITY.0 displacement (mm) 4. ON STIFFENER MODES OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION EFFECT .0 maximum lateral 3.0 y Figure 3.98. DISPLACEMENT LATERAL T 12( 101 00 2 0.5 X 180 Ys .
0 60 120 180 240 Ds .0 2. EFFECT T1 140 120 100 80 m .0 stiffener 6.UI.0mm Imperfection Imperfection Imperfection Imperfection Unrestrained Ts . . U b. U maximum lateral 4.0 displacemeiit (mm) Figure 3. 90.108 T 14C 12C cli 01 oc cc 2( . 0 Figure 3. Omm mode (P3) mode (P3) mode (P3) mode (P3) boundary 0.9. U displacement (mm) b. U Stiffener J.0 405.0 : c 60 *X40 *X*X*X ý1.0 3.0 9. U Z.33 EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS.0 1.0 lateral maximum 7.0 8.32 OF PLATESLENDERNESS.
u I.109 I I 10 .0 (mm) 8. u U.0 9.0 Stiffener 4. U Stiffener ti. U Z.0 3.0 2. U q. .0 U. u maximum lateral 0. U (mm) 9.34 EFFECTOF PLATE SLENDERNESS.0 5. U y displacement Figure 3.0 displacement 7.0 maximum lateral Figure 3.35 EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS.01. T 120 loc cm Z_8( 2( oý . U J. 0 I.0 6.
0 maximum lateral 5.110 c'J 1 IU.36 EFFECTOF ASPECT RATIO.0 7.0 Stiffener 4.0 2.0 8.0 3. C IC 0. .0 1.0 (mm) 7.0 displacement 6.0 Stiffener 4. Uy Figure 3.0 B.0 1.0 6.37 EFFECT OF ASPECT RATIO.0 lateral maximum 5.0 2. v jE to 0.0 y displacement (mm) Figure 3.0 3. 1' 1. I.
0 6.ý:.0 (mm) 8.0 9. 8c 6C 4C 2C 0.0 displacement 7.0 5.0 41 21 0.0 y maximum lateral Figure 3. 0 1.0 2.0 Stiffener 4.0 5.0 3. .0 2.0 displacement 7.0 3.0 (mm) 8.0 9.38 OF ASPECT EFFECT RATIO.0 Stiffener 4.0 'Y maximum lateral Figure 3. T 120 loc F rz .01.ill T IN IN .0 6.39 EFFECTOF ASPECT RATIO.
1 0.4 0.4 1.6 (a L. r/r y 0.40 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATESHEAR CAPACITY.  + e0.7 0. r 4.5 X.6 1.7.8 2. 0.2 0.2 1.112 _7 ___I 2 "_ I _ 1.0 y/yy Nondimensional shear strain y' Figure 3.41 EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS ON THE ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF PLATES OF THE SAME(ý AND X ).8 1.2 0.5 0 0.0 IL 0.6 0.8 0.60 Ys .30 Imperfection mode (P5) Figure 3.0 0.4 0.3 C 0 0. .1+ +1 + +/ +/ + +.0 1.
43 LATERAL REACTION EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS ON THE MAXIMUM OF THE SAME(ý AT THE STIFFENER FORPLATES AND X ).3 r 1. r/T y 0. .0 VI1 02468 lateral Maximum ay 10 12 14 16 (N) 18 20 22 reaction at the stiffener Figure 3. E 113 7 00 1.4 T.5.4 /lo ooooo 0.5 0.42 OF YIELD STRESS EFFECT ON THE MAXIMUM LATERAL REACTION AT THE STIFFENER FORPLATES OF THE SAME(ý AND X ). wo 0.8 0.0 Initial A 180 mode (P3) 0 0.1 0.6 0. 0 0.355 N/mM2 0.5 0.2 Imperfection ayay 240N/mm 275N/mm2 0. 0.3 Initial A 180 mode (P5) 0 0* 2ay Imperfection 240N/MM2 ay275N/MM2 355N/mm2 10 24 Fx 103 0.7 0.7 0 0.0 02 Maximum lateral 10 12 14 (N) 16 18 20 22 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener Figure 3.T/T Y) .2.1 Cy . .8 0.6 0.
7 0.2 0. 0. . 0.4 0..6 . 0. 0.114 T/r y O. ý . T/T 0.1 0.01 02468 I Maximum lateral 10 lz 14 (N) 16 18 zo Fx 101 reaction at the stiffener Figure 3.! 0.E 0.45 LATERAL REACTION ON THE MAXIMUM OF YIELD STRESS EFFECT OF THE SAME(ý FORPLATES AT THE STIFFENER AND X ).44 EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS ON THE MAXIMUM REACTION LATERAL AT THE STIFFENER FORPLATESOF THE SAME(ý AND X ). 0. 0. ( ý .0 02468 Maximum lateral 10 12 14 (N) reaction at the stiffener 16 18 20 Fx 103 Figure 3.2 0.
8 0.0 0 50 Extreme fiber 100 150 200 stress at the stiffener 250 300 350 Ce outstand (N/mm2) Figure 3.4 10X180 Ts 10.115 T/T yý 0.6 0 0 0.1 ay 0. 0.240N/mm2 oy .7 0.0 (mm) 6.0 7.6ý 6 0.0 displacement 5.2 0.2 240N/mm mode 2 275N/mm2 355N/mm2 0.100.51000 0.1 Ds .0mm (P3) 0.3 Ds Initial 100.46 OF YIELD STRESS EFFECT ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE STIFFENER FORPLATES OF THE SAME(ý AND X ).5 0.0 r Q. .3 0 0.8 0.0 2.0 Stiffener 3.0 Figure 3. Initial Imperfection 180 Ts .4 1.10.0 maximum lateral 4. Omm 00.275N/mm2 ay355N/mm2 0.0  1. r/r yý 0.47 TENSILE STRESS EFFECTOF YIELD STRESSON THE EXTREME OF THE STIFFENER FOR PLATES OF THE SAME (ý AND X ).7 0.0 0. Omm Imperfection cry Cy  0.0mm mode (P3) ay .
48 VARIATION OF Tu WITH THE STIFFENER SIZE PARAMETER yS. U I. u Stiffener s size parameter Figure 3.49 VARIATION OF r WITH THE STIFFENER SIZE PARAMETER yS . U U.116 CL E O. 10 cu 4U bU Stiffener BU size parameter lUU hfu 14U 16U y s Figure 3.
5 Stiffener 150 187.50 OF ru WITH THE STIFFENER VARIATION SIZE PARAMETER ys 11 1: CL 0 u SC ER Stiffener size parameter Figure 3.51 VARIATION OF r WITH THE STIFFENER SIZE PARAMETER yS u .5 225 262.5 300 ys size parameter Figure 3.5 75 112.117 14C 13C cm E 12( CL m u lo( 8C 0 37.
0 Stiffener 4. ý I. v 4.53 VARIATION OF THE OUTOFPLANEDISPLACEMENT WITH yS .0 5. U 2.0 displacement 7. U y Stiffener maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 3.0 6. V (). v D.52 VARIATION OF THE OUTOFPLANE DISPLACEMENT WITHyS c'J E w C c In U 00 C 0.0 9.0 y maximum lateral Figure 3.0 (mm) 8.0 3. U 1. U.118 T 1 I : c V.
0 9.0 (mm) 8.54 VARIATION OF THE OUTOFPLANE DISPLACEMENT WITH ys. .0 displacement 7.0 maximum lateral Figure 3. .55 DISPLACEMENT VARIATION OF THE OUTOFPLANE WITH yS.3. U 6.119 T 12C loc ('4 8c 60 (1) 40 20 V. 1 I I .0 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 3. U Stiffener q. u ý.
56 OF THE OUTOFPLANE VARIATION DISPLACEMENT OF STIFFENER WITHy 12C loc 8c Z 6C 4C 2c a 0 Stiffener maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 3.0 displacement Figure 3.57 OF STIFFENER VARIATION OF THE OUTOFPLANEDISPLACEMENT WITHy .u b.120 c'J GO (LI I.1. V Stiffener f. U (mm) 7.0 8. V maximum lateral Z). v .
U y Figure 3.0 6.0 10. U displacement b.0 y maximum lateral Figure 3.0 Stiffener 4.0 1.0 1.0 displacement 7.0 5.0 (mm) 8. 0 (mm) 7.59 'S OF STIFFENER DISPLACEMENT OF THE OUTOFPLANE VARIATION WITH y . > 0. U maximum lateral b.0 3. GO C I0.121 T I I c'J E w I IC C.58 VARIATIONOF THE OUTOFPLANE DISPLACEMENT OF STIFFENER WITHy. c 1 C.0 3.0 2.0 Stiffener 4.0 2. T 1: 11 'o 'o 0.0 8.
DISPLACEMENT .72 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.. SHEAR + +) rl 41....0 60 Ys ... ++ 1 0% A AA a ho 11 hb /'T'z..276 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.1.. 19.0. eý el (o. .2.122 .60 Ys ..61 LATERAL AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.60 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE CAPACITY.0 X.
63 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE . 15 + 23 I cb + + (ý .0 X 180 Ys .50 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.19.123 cn I + .ý1.13 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.0 X 60 Ys .62 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.5.1.
++ (b Co th c43 AID cýv Ao + Cb ý1..147.96.64 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.0 A 180 Ys .90 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.69 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3. $1.124 lb Cb ýIlj II Cl + 0 .65 LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE CAPACITY. .0 180 Y. .
67 LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY.66 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.1. + (b + 4b.258.1. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE .0 A 180 Ys .23.31 ImPerfection mode (P3) Figure 3.125 ++ %lb ++ + 01 lb C7 + 4t .5 1 180 Ys .64 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.
.1. lb .126 + + lb + 'Iti ++ + 0 + 42 ý1.2 Imperfection mode (P3) Figure 3.46 Imperfection mode 03) Figure 3.69 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.172.5 X 180 ys .68 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.98.5 X ISO Ys .
127 CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND RICHMOND AND ROCKEY APPROACHES. .
. was felt that a separate were presented chapter should be dedicated to a more detailed examination of them.2 Background the of approach Kloppel and Scheer(4. At the end of this section.2 RICHMOND APPROACH 4. he proposed a design approach for web panels. a general literature review of the design of been has transverse stiffeners on girder presented.7 presents the results presented in chapter three.1). comparing 4. In addition.128 4. section. In this transverse and longitudinal stiffeners on girder webs.1) requirements for the design of transverse stiffeners. webs Different procedures have been introduced. buckling coefficient K plotted against aspect ratio 0 for various It was stiffener rigidities under shear'and inplane compression. 4. the design rule that he proposed is derived and discussed in detail.3). the Richmond and Rockey approaches are In addition. each dependent on the design philosophy for the web panels.1 shows the stress of orthogonally stiffened plates. his verificati on of the design approach it with numerical results is considered. In the present chapter.2) studies carried out and on an parametric load approach proposed by Rockey(4.2. The two ultimate phenomena which govern the design of web stiffeners are 1) The destabilizing effects of shear and inplane bending stresses 2) The tension field forces in web panels. results from their work and the finite element parametric study Section 4.2. Although the above approaches briefly in it chapter one. comparisons are made between the introduced. the rules for the design of transverse stiffeners were based on theoretical by Richmond(4. In the current British Standards BS5400 (Part 3)(4. BS5400(4.1 INTRODUCTION In chapter one. .4) provided solutions for the critical buckling Figure 4.1 Introduction Richmond(42) conducted an extensive nonlinear elastic study on As a result. the background of his study is presented.
1 show that the variation of critical shear buckling stress is similar in form to the variation of critical compressive buckling stress in It diverge by 20% they to some regions..2..2) ) aci ..6) for shear and results for pure compression for the values in figure 4.. The graphs presented in figure 4. should be although up 1) The that curves represent a wide range of appreciated geometry and stress 2) The compression curves are made up of the lowest values from several intersecting curves resulting in However. which is the limit for local buckling in compression... A further piece of published evidence behind the development of the design rules related to an approach suggested in the Merrison (4.. where 13 = minimum stiffener second moment of area in shear 11 = minimum stiffener second moment of area in compression TO = critical buckling shear stress in a panel of identical overall geometry without stiffeners cycl = critical buckling compressive overall geometry without stiffeners. (4..0 384 aE 4b4 xaE tw tw TO ) . the plate continues to carry load but does It is to the stiffener... each several pronounced followed.. This report based on a comparison between the Timoshenko approach was (4. not provide any additional stiffness 10 were important to mention that the set of values for y= calculated by orthotropic plate theory because the critical values for local compression buckling were exceeded and no Kloppel and Scheer values were available. is This comparison the still more regular shear curves of formed the basis for an assumption relating to the correspondence in design the and shear rules that will be discussed of compression later in this section... in a panel stress of identical .5) diaphragm for panels stiffened in one direction....129 assumed that beyond the K value of 36.... kinks in the general line one... The formulae for the plate shown stiffened second moment of area in shear and stiffener minimum from derived the comparison and given in the compression Merrison report are respectively 0.
5. Figure 4.2) be in error (as mentioned in Bleich(4. the sizes of stiffeners the shear curves.7) for stiffened plates loaded in shear were considered to Richmond(4. by less the significantly than curve compression predicted are For this reason.038. values approximately For higher levels of shear. Richmond later those of the shear curve.8 for than greater cc. stresses shear rigidities From the above. Richmond made the basic assumption of his design rules that in studying the destablizing effects of shear in be the shear could replaced by an equivalent instiffened plates.3 shows a for K from between buckling shear the coefficient comparison In these Rockey and the values for compression of Timoshenko. In addition to the the stiffeners as shown on effects full the any and average compressive stress across shear stress be depth there of magnitude an additional cyc. factor increase X introduced to the stiffener a modification 0.2. Due to the fact that numerical and results by Timoshenko(4. a nondimensional Rockey's higher than shear values over g give values compression 3. Richmond assumed that in conservative terms. plane compression.6) Wang(4.4.0 the and and at a shear stress range. One seventh was chosen based on a Cyb as shown investigation further buckling to find the elastic critical compressive stress equivalent to an applied bending stress. j. be It can seen that the coefficient). under an effective (a ). 13 11 the then except similar are and  X difference between TO and u. much of 0. (b/a). (where is is defined by the y= g2 g rigidity stiffener graphs.3 Design for transverse approach stiffeners Richmond's design approach for transverse stiffeners is based on the idea that shear stresses and compressive stresses are in interchangeable destabilizing their to order evaluate effectively in figure 4.9). web will also compressive stress equal to 1/7 of the maximum bending stress in figure 4. conducted in Cook Rockey further comparisons values presented and with the Royal Aeronautical Society Data SheetS(4.8 intersect to the compression equal 'rcr. Ob buckling Compressive stress the +T+ pattern (Tc = eff 7 .0 but for 0=1.2.130 Sin ce 44=0. 4..8)).5.041 for 0.
5) is the intensity Xx load acting on stiffener and causing a deflection y=Y sin of the b at any point at a distance x from the end of the stiffener. Since equation (4..b then 7 ab/7) (y + (ac +r+ ab 5.131 of a stiffened plate may be taken as a sawedge with transverse stiffeners placed at every change of direction as shown in figure 4.6 shows the deformation of one of the transverse stiffeners due to the effective compressive stress acting in the plane of the stiffened plate. sin 7rx . The initial imperfection of the of the load acting on stiffener and causing a deflection y=Y sin b XX.. ) t... on the stiffener.. Richmond changed the lateral load to an effective compressive force acting at both ends of the stiffener. (4. tan a ýff .. 2 Ceff 7r x9x with y =Ysin  bb and 3y 3.. and Y are the maximum initial imperfection and deflection in The deflection was assumed to be the the stiffener respectively. w/unit length.... This derivation was as follows: .5. The magnitude of the lateral load w/unit length.5) has two unknowns w and T... (4. = sin ...6 2 (T... web t.5) Therefore. Figure 4. .. . of the stiffener at any stress level is given by y sin b S.ff w /unit length 4 +r+ 1. ir x sin . the lateral load given by equation (4. result of the resolved component of the inplane load..4) with a. can be deduced as follows: Let ccbe the angle of inclination between the imaginary initial plane and the deflected one as shown in figure 4. then w4 ab Creff tw .
.. b4 ....... (4.7) E 1................. .......... /dX2 =+EI of the stiffener d4y/dX4 section...... critical b2 Pe ff (cr) 4b X2a 6eff(Cf) t............8) lsq is the moment of inertia But w=d2 M... (4..... (4..... (4............11) can be rearranged for comparison with Euler's EI load Pff...... hence El 4eff tw b4a ..............6) M..9) b w =EI' 7 sin 7r x .... ) sin Xx and assuming that at the critical load Y 7r 4 3..........10) to equation (4.Geff(cr)then 4b2 ir 2a (Teff tw ý 4b2 7r 2a (r + orc + ab ) tw .5).. For (yeff(cr) "......... ) in the transverse stiffener.. ff(c.......12) where 177eff(cr)= critical effective compressive stress corresponding to the critical buckling load P......13) . Substituting 7r x y =Iýfsin in equation (4................. Equation (4.........132 If M.. A2 y/ dx dMs dx d2 MI............................... By equating equation (4. dx 2 El.... (4.... ..... d3y/ d X3 ... (4...... A4y/d X4 .. is the bending moment in the stiffener due to w. =E1........... then 7r 4E17 b4bab sin 7r x4 aeff tw (y + 5.9) ..... then 2.......
...15) Ms(max) " ........21) ref and member gives.16) where 2 EI 7r b2 It was noted in section 4.. (4..... From equations (4..4 Verification of the stiffener design approach In order to verify the design rules..Pff in the stiffener due to P.7..... figure 4.. b ) But Ms(max)ýPeff(So + 7) .r) Pef f 450 ...16) should be increased by a factorX This is discussed in the next section.2. / Peff(. the value of Peff given by equation (4. it ff. Pe Pe ff/ f f(....133 Therefore.. The sizes of the stiffeners were estimated by a preliminary form of the design approach and then modified after the first solution from I= 31 inch4 to 20 inch4 as shown in figure 4.13) is the both load ends of the stiffener effective compressive acting at inplane the the stresses in producing same effect as shear and the stiffened web.7.. .....2 that as the critical load of the individual panel is approached the moment given by equation (4.14) Pe x 7r f f(. The assumption discussed later. .2... forming the basis of this equivalence will be 4.. imperfection initial is the of (see by 4.. .... Richmond investigated the behaviour numerically of a web system with vertical stiffeners.... The web system was analysed under a constant shear stress by means of grillage computer program and then checked by using William's program.14) and (4.. In order to find the bending moment was assumed that the magnification the same as that for a compression solving the equilibrium equation this y_ Pe ff/ 1. x) (4. 1Peff(. The top and bottom boundaries were Tangential displacements were applied on assumed unrestrained. ..) 8o sin ..
in after X.8 compares the transverse deflections of the vertical stiffeners for increasing levels (in a fixed ratio) of shear and axial loads on the vertical stiffener.1).2....8 0... the destabilizing effects of the buckled plate panels on the transverse stiffeners is based on the theoretical studies conducted by Richmond... It will be seen in chapter five that the design approach proposed as a result of the current study is based on a laterally loaded beam model. than greater Tcr.. for a stiffened plate subjected to a shear stress r. The starting point for this study was therefore...1 compares the bending moments which are very nearly A factor X was introduced to proportional to the deflections... Hence. 4.3 COMPARISON OF RICHMOND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (4..17) LATERAL LOAD WITH In the current British code BS5400 (Part 3)(4. the effect of this stress was ..134 all edges and normal displacements on all vertical edges with the horizontal edges left free. X=I.5).. one determined from the computer output by a Southwell plot..1 shows that for a shear stress r=0.. to represent the stiffener by a simple beam model subjected to lateral load evaluated by Richmond before the axial load transformation given in equation (4. For this reason. Table 4. it by multiplying compared with 123 Lin deduced from the computer solution. Figure 4.17)... detailed comparisons will be presented here between the finite element results and Richmond's laterally loaded beam model..2 c Table 4.8 is given by equation (4... The column model which will be seen to be very conservative is discussed in the context of the steel bridge standard(4.1). modify the bending moments and deflections for shear stresses X 0..3 t/in This the critical shear stress 'Ccr = critical stress . As described in section 4.87 cc the design proposal moment has been increased from 72 Lin to 113 t.. a pin ended column model is taken subjected to an effective force Peff. The deflections according to the design proposal are greater than the computer values up to 80% of 2 is the 10. when the stress acting on the stiffened plate is less than the critical buckling stress. 0.3..
3. lateral displacement The second shows the maximum relationship between the average shear stress r and the extreme fibre stress acting at the stiffener outstand ae.41) show the comparison Of results fOT aspect ratios 0=0. The Richmond lateral load analysis underestimates both stiffener deflections and stresses at any level of shear stress.1.5 and 2. The comparison between the finite element analyses and Richmond lateral load model results is illustrated by two figures for every (0 and X) examined. In simple approximate terms. 1. the critical initial pattern identified in section 3. Figures (4. The first figure corresponds to the relationship between the average shear stress r and the stiffener V.1). an iterative program was written based on a nonlinear study of beam columns by Christen sen(4.5. except those for X= 60. 2The yielding of the stiffener in the finite element analyses occurs at a point extremely close to the peak capacity of the . This conclusion became worse at high panel slenderness. determined from stiffener rigidities the design philosophy presented in chapter five were used for every panel geometry.12). Also.9.3 was adopted. following conclusions can be drawn. The results of the stiffened plates with unrestrained boundary conditions have been examined because Richmond his design verified approach numerically with unrestrained edges. In order to check the reliability of this model. it was assumed for an initial trial that the ultimate moment carried by the stiffener section corresponds to surface yielding of the stiffener outstand.135 Supported Simply by beam lateral by loading a studied a distributed load of intensity w/unit length as shown in figure 4. In addition the . the results of the finite element study presented in chapter 3 were used as a basis for comparison. It was assumed that the effective beam model section includes a width of plate equal to sixteen times the plate thickness on each side of the stiffener as considered in BS5400(4. the respectively. For every plate geometry.180 and 240 For all the figures. the minimum stiffener size for each geometry the stiffened which allows panel to attain the unstiffened panel strength was taken.120.0 and plate slenderness X = 60. to evaluate the maximum moment and deflection in the stiffener model at any value of shear stress acting on the stiffened plate.0.10 4. Since w is a function of Y.
136 lateral load it in Richmond model stiffened panel. whereas. This model was adopted by the British Bridge Standard. X= 60. it was concluded that two.15).1 Introduction The introduction of limit state methods in the design of steel bridges has emphasized the importance of the postbuckling in slender webs subjected Many to shear.42. phenomenon researchers have tackled the problem of transversely stiffened webs subjected to shear in order to predict its ultimate capacity but the most successful one was the one developed at University College Cardiff by Rockey. does the Richmond analysis for most aspect ratios at higher produce larger deflections load beam This lateral initial that the model stresses. From these comparisons.3) for the design of transverse stiffeners. Only for the stocky panel. means proposal is unconservative.5.4. points must be looked at in detail. In this section the Cardiff model for predicting the ultimate shear capacity of webs subjected to shear is presented in the following section. 4.4 BASIC THEORY FOR PREDICTING THE ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY OF TRANSVERSELY STIFFENED WEBS 4. 4. . occurs at higher shear stress levels.4. this model is used to investigate the ultimate design approach proposed by Rockey et al(4.2 Shear Capacity The ultimate stiffened shear capacity of transversely webs subjected to shear loading according to the Cardiff model passes through three stages as shown in figure 4. Does the lateral load distribution assumed by Richmond represent the actual load distribution on the stiffener? 2Is equation 4. the correct expression relating the intensity of the lateral load to the shear stress acting on the stiffened plate? These questions are examined in detail in chapter five. Evans and Porter(4.
. Unbuckled behaviour If a web plate is subjected to shear stress r and was initially flat.. (4. it will remain flat until the applied stress reaches the elastic buckling stress of the panel cc.137 a) b) C) Shear up to the critical stress (unbuckled behaviour). Frame mechanism response (collapse behaviour). it was found that the web plate is not able to support any additional compressive stresses and therefore a change in load carrying mechanism occurs with an inclined tensile membrane stress field developing which anchors against the top and bottom flanges and against the stiffeners on either side of the web as shown in figure 4.18) K= buckling shear coefficient determined from the following equations. The total shear stress at this stage can be obtained by the postbuckling superimposing membrane stress upon that By resolving these corresponding to the critical shear stress.35 +4 (b/a)2 when a/b > 1. The magnitude of this tensile stress is at and is denoted by Ot. b) Postbuckled behaviou When the critical shear stress is exceeded.0 K=5.. Prior to buckling... Tension band action (Postbuckled behaviour). the state of stress is given by.35 (b/a)2 +4 the web panel boundaries are assumed to be simply supported.19) when a/b < 1. 5.42 (a). a principal tensile stress of magnitude r will be set up at 45' to the flange and a principal compressive stress of equal magnitude will be developed at an inclination 135* as shown in figure 4.0 (4.. The critical shear stress 'Tcr is given by 92E2 cr (Lj ) 2) =K 120 _V .42(b).. stresses in the direction along the perpendicular to the inclination Ot.
the value of the membrane stress to produce yield is obtained in terms of the buckling stress rcr and the inclination Ot of the tension field.. If the values of (....().23) It was assumed that after yielding of the web..22) is often represented in a nondimensional. sin =. it can be removed and for its action on the flanges and the adjacent web replaced in by inclined tensile membrane stresses as shown the material figure 4.. in Yielding the of the region shown develop..22) Equation (4..42(c)....Hencky criterion. and can membrane stress which produces yield be determined from the Von Mises . by is denoted cyy.. the final collapse of flanges in form hinges the as the girder web occurs when plastic is WXYZ figure 4.20) are substituted in equation (4. (4.21).. re and cr(e+ 90)are C) Fr me mechanism resRonse (collapse sta if the applied load is increased further...138 ae 20 cc..44... t+ cyt .. 20t cos Tcr T=20t Tcr sin CT(e+ 90) = (4.. Since the region WXYZ has yielded. in which ryw = ayw/ V13 a y t cyw VF3 'r cr sin 20t+1( 2 ryw rw Tryc 4 sin 22 Ot (4.. (4..... The shear failure load may be obtained by applying a virtual sway displacement to the girder in its collapse state as shown in figure 4. It is obvious that the stresses acting on section WZ do in Also displacement..42(c)... the tensile stress crt developed in the web increases until the value of crt given in The 4....21) cy..... cr(O+ 90) and re given in equation (4... in figure the shown stresses where ae.43.. reaches stress equation web yield yw.. form as shown below. sin 0t+a 2w +T29 y cr (4 sin2 20t3 ) . before although a mechanism can minimum requirement it can spread outside this region.21 the of the value c.. 3. C2() Cy2YW Cy2 Cy2 + cr(() 90) 90) = (0 + + 0+ . during the case of a the virtual no work . ayr...20) 4.
.139 in flanges bottom identical the pure shear top and girder with hinge be ZY distances WX the to positions the will case....... = ay t........ 0 t... (4. (4........ the face XY will undergo an upward movement of magnitude cýThus........... Internal work done =4 Mpf.... co m IV ay CO ult t 20t (b cot sin ta+ c) ..24) be the resultant of these stresses as shown in figure 4.. is the plastic moment capacity of the flange..25) ...............42(c)..... y During the imposed virtual displacement shown in figure 4.30) ..... 4 12 (4.. Mpf bf........29) the post By equating the internal and external buckling shear capacity Vmult is given by Vmult = ay tC sin 20t [b Cot 0ta+ Cl +4MPf....................... y..... sin 0. Let F......... Thus...... where F.. it is only the membrane stresses acting on the face XY that do the work....... Therefore the total external work is co F sin .28) ayf ...... and identical.. Additional external work is done by the force V'ult (which is the postbuckling shear load that causes the mechanism to develop) and this is given by the expression VMUlt CO (4.. ý .. tf... So.27) If the principal of virtual work is applied. the work done by the stresses acting on the top flange is balanced by that done by the stresses acting on the bottom flange.... (4.... (b cot Ot a+ y t c) . then the external work is balanced by the internal work done at the four plastic hinges.................. the external work done by the vertical component of the Fy force is given by Fxy sin Ot co (4.. work done.... (4... where Mpf....44..26) ..........
..... sin Ot ay...... tw... .. (4... (4....31) tC At this stage of the analysis..... defined as: m*=2 pb Mpf tw ayw ..45. where the shear in the flange is zero.34) a The ultimate shear failure is obtained as Vs := rcr b tw +a y..........31 and introducing nondimensional flange strength parameter M*p. load (Tcr bt) the capacity shear and postbuckling Vya+ r.... (4..33) into equation 4.......35) (4.. taking moments about X 2 Mpf = cy ....... cl +4 Mtf (4..... there will not be a lateral reaction at point W...... Thus....32) this gives the hinge position as 2m sin 0t Substituting . The term c represents the.. sin 20L (b cot 0ta) + t vpt 4bt.. the only unknowns in the above equation are c and Ot.. position of the plastic hinge in the flanges and may be obtained by considering the equilibrium of the flange..35) by dividing Equation may be nondimensionalised throughout by the shear load required to produce yielding of the web (Vyv = ry...140 the total shear failure load v....sin Tyw 219 t (C ot ot a) I+ b ayw . Since the internal plastic hinge will form at the position of maximum moment. +a t. (4..... bt.. Vs vy w y 'r cr + /3... ...... M* aY.... see figure 4.....33) equation (4... sin2 0t [b cot 0t. tw. t2 c sin2 0t. is the summation of the critical V'uIt...... b tv )....
. is the inclination of the tension field Ot..23) in in If the value of (c.. .. a plastic design procedure based on the stresses and forces In load this to the the panels.2 Loads imposed upon a transverse stiffener..5 ROCKEY ULTIMATE APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS. 4. in figure positions of the shear mechanism as shown plastic hinges in the flanges and the inclination and magnitude of the membrane stresses in the web can be determined as described ....... Rockey(4. 4...46(a). ) substituted equation given y. presented and explained Tang(4...5. yt/c.......37) . proposed maximum value of Vs is approximately produced at an inclination field Ot given by.. (4. process is repeated until the value of Ot providing After is V... and required value of EvanS(4. 3 ... Figure 4. (4... find (4. Rockey conducted an extensive experimental and analytical parametric study to develop an improved method for In 1981.174. the critical situation for the web panels is when each has developed an individual failure The 4.. is his proposal section. Or Yt .. . ultimate corresponding of web The in detail..46 shows a typical situation in which an intermediate transverse stiffener is positioned between two web panels.3) proposed the design of transverse stiffeners. ..141 C' Y 4 Vf3 sin 20tIF. the ultimate to the equation only unknown needed shear failure V. to be procedure cannot an in adopted which successive values of Ot are assumed and the The in load each case. Since Ot has be determined iterative directly.4..19) by Evans and experimental verification carried out is also presented. corresponding ultimate shear evaluated the maximum.. therefore the an established.. tension of ot =2 tan' (b / a) ... As far as the design of the stiffener is concerned..36) is (4.36)..1 Introduction As a consequence of the introduction of the limit state method for predicting the ultimate shear capacity of stiffened webs presented in section 4.5. 4..14) that the parametric extensive study.
load V2 bottom is DH to the an axial as a similarly subjected zone 2 in field the of magnitude tension of web panel result V2 (T y t.. la as shown in figure 4.46(b)..... HD sin 192....4.. t. The loading imposed directly upon the stiffener by the web tension field can be divided into three zones.. t' I.. by the the whereas.. VD Ff... j be the resultant of the loads acting on the portion WiC the upper flange at an inclination 01 to the horizontal.. is latter The HI.39) b) Forces imposed directly upon the stiffener.. a) Forces transmitted through the flanges to the stiffener.... Thus Vc Ff.. and a component component CW2G.... (4.. the wedge of resisted web material forms load on the stiffener of an axial vertical component magnitude ayt. 1 Oa sin 0 1..... 2 t. 2 sign means that the direction DY2 of the force sin 192 =.COS 192 .. 20.... horizontal V....(Ty ... t..... Let Ff. The loads imposed upon the transverse stiffener due to tension field stresses acting on the flanges are determined as follows: Let Ff.. W. of DY2 Of The vertical components of these two forces are transmitted from the flanges to the stiffener at points C and D respectively... 2 sin .....38) is where the negative downward...... divided into two types. (4.........41) ......142 in section 4. cos (4.40) .. The top zone CG of the stiffener is subjected to a uniformly distributed tensile force from panel 1 only and the resultant of this force is designated by This resultant has a vertical Fs...... 2 be the resultant of the loads acting on the portion the bottom flange at an inclination 02 to the horizontal.. The tension field acting in the adjacent web panels intermediate loading flanges the to stiffener as to the and applies The forces acting on the stiffener are shown in the diagram... C ay sin .... (4.. sin 01 20.......
of the load P from the initial The moment resulting from the presence of imperfection 80 of the stiffener given by P8o. in figure this region remains panel as shown directly by field to the tension action applied virtually unloaded stiffener. web yielded Rockey(4.3). The stiffener is.. the .1 .47 and bending moments.Tcr. since it involves the greatest degree of eccentricity and thus causes the maximum possible bending effects for a given axial loading. 2 4. 4.R. that a width of web of forty times be assumed to act with the stiffener its as The axial loading is assumed to be applied to the stiffener crosssection at the centreline of the web plate. subjected to both an axial load P whose distribution along the stiffener is shown in figure 4. the difference by is length loaded its the over stiffener compl ete between the critical shear forces of the two adjacent panels. This is a conservative assumption. In addition to the action of the membrane stress field..3 Analysis and design of stiffener Having established the loads acting on the stiffener.Ib exerted by Fs.48.47. by force by is I balanced the 2b exerted approximately panel Thus. therefore. the effects of After an experimental study these loads must be determined. a) b) The moment due to the eccentricity equal area axis = P.143 In the central zone GH of the stiffener. the force F. this force is of intensity (Tcr. by Mele and Puthali(4.2)tw.21) and a similar one by conducted Rockey(4.5.3).46(b). The resulting forces exerted in figure by different the the stiffener actions are shown upon 4. proposed 40tw should thickness shown in figure 4. To define the moments. it was shown that a portion of the web plate acts with the stiffener in resisting the axial loading despite the fact that the by is fully tension field action. four contributions have to be considered.
52 0 ......... action (11c.44) I= Moment of inertia of the effective stiffener section... d) IThe model which was adopted by the British Standard BS 5400(Part3) represents the destabilizing effects of the web on the stiffener as an additional axial load of magnitude.46 Le length figure in defined length GH the effective as over which the tension fields in the adjacent panels overlap. 2a2E dD.35 (ý2 + 1) ........ are resist action of two possible ways of representing this action.. Pb ý' 4d2 92a2. is the length GH of the stiffener......... its buckling load for the stiffener section considering 4.0.. which is rather difficult to quantify. The T shaped stiffener crosssection withstand the combined effects of A suitable expression was moments.22) to bending and moment M that .43) to resist the disturbing action of the web leaving equation the remaining moment of inertia of the stiffener to resist any strut ) where Ic. The last component.. (4..........c = 5.144 C) Since the stiffener is behaving as a strut.. ......... it is necessary to 1/(1PE is ).. The effective Euler load of the stiffener is therefore Ple = X2 E (I Icr)/I e2. tw Tcr ts (Effective area of stiffener)  .. where I.43) where Kc = buckling coefficient of a simply supported plate and is given by K.... I cr : 4 7r K...... d= depth of the web Flexural rigidity of the web plate (4. is given by.42) 2An alternative approach is to retain an inertia Icr given in (4.. . (4.. Euler factor the PIPF the where amplification use ... is that associated with the stiffness required of the stiffener to There buckled disturbing the the web. define the combination of axial load P is designed as a strut to loads axial and bending proposed by Horne(4...
46) It is worth mentioning that equation (4.. is the reduced plastic moment taking a coexistent force P into account. ..... e) mp (ip78 f . then equation (4.. plastic moment capacity of the section where = Ps = full axial yield load of the section a= distance between the face of the web and the equal area axis...0 FPS mps (4.. 4............. sustained can form 4. If the effects of the moments are introduced with an imperfection So = d/500 as suggested by Rockey..145 For by be a typical stiffener section such a member... (b. full Mp..8m only variable the and was web thickness was which parameters were the spacing of the transverse stiffeners in different halfspan the as shown was of each girder on each figures.....47) where Mý..P/ P..0m... The girders were fabricated from mild steel.4 Verfication of Rockey experimental results. (4.... design of the crosssection approach with large two Tang and Evans(4.19) scale tests on performed 4...46) applies only to for which the equal area axis passes through the effective sections being in than the web.5..49 figures in and transversely stiffened plate girders shown The overall span in each case was 6.45) .. P (X + d/500) mps 0P/ ple) Mn .45) can be rewritten as: P (X + d/500) =. stiffener rather For any other crosssection one has simply to verify that.... (4.174.50.. .... The Imm. the in figure takes the relationship as that shown m mps ( (bs ts a)2 ay 1...48. 0.. the girder depth 4.. a )2 mps (1 . 0_ or y t.....
the values are plotted at three vertical sections AA. where the variation across the stiffener width of the axial strain is plotted at three typ ical horizontal sections of The three sections are taken at 1/4. according of the experimental stiffeners satisfied the BS5400 requirements and this is further indicated by the ratio 'Ysexp/YS5400% where YS5400 represents the required rigidity according to the BS5400 design rules.5. BB and CC on the stiffener as defined in Considerable difference between the strains at the figure 4. Figure 4. p are also included.50 4. These values are expressed as rigidity ys. (bS. The plotted values shown in figure 4.1/2 and 3/4 web stiffen er SAL depth respectively.53.52 shows the variation of the direct axial strains over the depth of stiffener SA1 in Test 1. The results of these tests have been listed in table 4. Evans and Tang noticed that the axial justifying is linear. In each test. .... From the above diagrams. shown was adequate 50pt sustaining the tension field stresses at the girder ultimate For this reason the stresses and strains along this capacity. thus the strain variation across stiffener width Rockey's Proposal of treating the stiffener as a beam column.146 The geometry of the girder's panels are shown non dimensionally in table 4. its dimensions in is indicated figures 4. three vertical sections are noted and this is further illustrated in figure 4.2. the behaviour of the transverse stiffener adjacent to The relevant stiffener in each the failure region was observed. ratios of the corresponding properties (Asopt and ysopt) of an None designed Rockey's to stiffener optimum proposal. It can be seen that all the panels are very slender having b/t > 800 to ensure the development of post buckling field for tension the the upon the studying effects of action transverse stiffeners. show that tensile strains were developed at the free edges of the stiffener in all cases.2. stiffener were examined during the girder loading process.p and ts) are listed in table 4.49 and case and The cross sectional area Ase.51. Stiffener SAI with rigidity in be to Ysexp = Y.3. and also that the tension was small in comparison to the compression developed close to the web due to the tension field action.
57) 180 and aspect correspond to plates of panel slenderness X= ratios 0=0. bending axis is always close to the neutral axis of the effective stiffener cross section especially for lower panel slendernesses.1.56 has been shown before demonstrate difference between the to and restrained Figures (4. where the variation of the axial stresses across the stiffener is plotted at the stiffener middepth. In figures (4.544.147 4.1. The stiffener rigidity y. The values of direct axial stresses in each figure are plotted at two vertical sections AA and BB at the peak shear The distribution of stresses for capacity of the stiffened plate. it was felt essential to examine the direct axial stresses in the stiffeners of stiffened plates with practical panel geometries and compare these with the stress distributions given by Rockey's proposal. in every case corresponds to the size by the design philosophy presented in of stiffener identified chapter five.65) where stresses at the web face are lower than predicted but this is almost certainly because the effective width (32tw) is very conservative for the case of a very stocky web plate.0. are always greater than the compressive stresses at section AA close to the web.0 and plate slenderness X= 60. It does break down be bending to that the admitted must model some degree for very stocky panels (figure 4. For this reason.614.614. It is also of interest to examine the bending stress at the same location in the stiffener for the analysis incorporating flange .584.6 COMPARISONS OF ROCKEY'S APPROACH WITH ELEMENT ANALYSIS FINITE Most of the girders tested to verify the design approach proposed by Rockey for transverse stiffeners had very slender subpanels design in the of which are outside the normal range encountered bridge structures. The same conclusion can be deduced from because the the variation of stresses in figures (4.60) show the variation of the direct axial stresses over the depth of the stiffener for a selection of the stiffened plates examined in this study.120 and 240.544.67). an aspect ratio of 0=1.60).60) relate to unrestrained boundary conditions.5.5 and 2.0. Figures (4. different levels of applied shear loading is illustrated in figures (4. The first four figures (4. Figure 4.67).544. tensile stresses at section BB. close to the stiffener outstand edges. the stresses can be seen to be similar in form to the stresses relating to a simply supported beam and there is no evidence of significant tension field forces affecting This is also illustrated by the fact that the this distribution.
. The transverse stiffener loadings.. Axial forces representing the destablizing influence of the web..2) and Rockey(4... while does for not plates.148 boundaries.23).684....0232.1) The design of transverse stiffeners to according It is based on the concept described in detail by Chatterjee(4. Tension field action should be assumed to occur in any web when the applied shear stresses exceed 80% of the elastic critical shear longitudinal If compressive stresses are present. ' 4..70) show that there is only a modest tension from resolved some of presence neutral axis shift resulting field loading in the case of the relatively rigid flange of Mfw 0.48) ....3) with minor modifications.7 BS5400 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS is BS5400(4. (4... example of aircraft stiffened slender webs. of a strut model and is a combination of the approaches proposed The by Richmond(4. where c... An additional axial force should be included if a cross girder or frame is directly positioned on the top of the transverse stiffener. From the above it can be said that Rockey's stiffener design design being for the of stiffeners on very suitable approach.. a) b is designed to resist the following axial Axial forces due to tension field action. Figures (4. design the to of the represent situation relating realistically transverse stiffeners of plate and box girder webs.71. section of the stiffener includes sixteen times assumed effective the web thickness on each side as shown in figure 4. the any stresses. after which tension field action develops is reduced from 0... ý0...8Tcr by the equation Tc. ....... is as previously defined .8 rc. limiting value of shear stress r. a) Forces from the tension field.
.......13) Peff eff ......0 Forces due to the destablizing effects Richmond(4..... . or Ptf = (c rc b a .. ....... Ot tw tan a r rc) = ........ Ptf can be taken as the smaller of Ptf = (.72 EK rc = . due to yielded web as tension (4... (4......2) represented the destablizing effects of shear and longitudinal stresses by an effective compressive axial load applied at both ends of the stiffener and given in equation (4.49) In order to find the axial forces on the vertical stiffener tension field action............... sin Ot cos Ot ..72.rc) a t. .........r ...................149 ir 2EL (b V2) (Tcr =4 Thus 120 with v=0.. T+ ab arc + 7 ff .....13) as 4d2 (4....50) (4... the shear force carried by the mechanism can be obtained as (.....52) .....3  0.... = at d t............. By taking a vertical section through the shown in figure 4............ it was assumed that the whole web is due to this action.cc) d t. 2 where a. and the compressive force on the stiffener is given by Ptf = cyta tw sin2 Ot (. (4............r ....51) 00 It was found that Ot will not exceed x/4 and thus.
. P........ ff is an equivalent load which represents the destabilizing influence of the web on the stiffener..... ay z (where So is the initial imperfection of the stiffener) Z= the stiffener section modulus An alternative simpler equation conservative is given by...... ... the final effective load Pwb on the stiffener due to the longitudinal stress can thus be taken as Pw bQd tw a ýYR ... one sixth of the maximum bending stress has been taken as equivalent to a constant compressive stresses and by a..... ýa PC + Peff PD <.... ........ (4.............. is denoted as CYR given _ff CYRý(C + Oc + Cybmax/6) .53) taking Peff as PD is the value of Peff from equation (453) taking Pa as zero.... is the value Of Pa from equation (4.......150 In BS5400(Part 3)....... From equations (4.54) where Pa = any applied axial load on the transverse stiffener.....55) where zero... ..........13) and (4..54)... (4..............53) Although P. which has been found to be .... This has been overcome to some degree by the use of a modified Perry equation as follows Pa + (Pa + Peff) 71 PEPE (Pa + PC ff) :5 py ..... 71 = Perry's imperfection parameter =A8.... ......... PE Py Euler buckling load ultimate load = A.56) where Q_4 92 Pc PD . (4.. (4...... the longitudinal stress OR does not cause any axial stress in the transverse stiffener....
There still remains the question with the BS5400 approach as to if Peff it be the to as effect Of amplify would convenient whether Subsequent comparisons will this was a column axial load. With this approach there is no need to introduce the modest effects of tension field forces for the design of web stiffeners with panel slendernesses typical of those found in bridge structures. the initial imperfection Bo is taken as 1/750 of the stiffener length. was also clear evidence that considering the web laterally loaded beam with unrestrained boundaries a stiffener as is a lower bound approach to design. In BS 5400 (Part3). 4.151 Pc and PD are functions of y which is in turn a function of So.8 CONCLUSIONS It can be concluded that the existing methods which form the basis of current design thinking do not truly represent the loads acting on transverse stiffeners due to the destabilizing effects of There panels. by demonstrate that the resulting attained sections stiffener following the rules are potentially very conservative. .
J. and Gehri.. . Report for Department of the Environment. P.Structures vol 2. C.. Dowling. Maunsell and Partners. ASCE.94. "Buckling Strength of Metal Structures". 1972. pp. D. West Germany. E. pp. K. 1982.an Ultimate Approach". E0 Switzerland. Conference Introductory Note by Merrison Committee. BSI.4 4. pp.5 4. and Tang. Code of practice Design of Steel Bridges. A.. Kloppel. P. 1952.9 4.269. for 4. 1581. 4.10 4. London. Ways of Commun. 89. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers.. "Buckling of Transverse Stiffened Plates under Shear".11 . 1. BS5400: Part 3. ECCS . the Aerospace Sciences. New York. S. 412 Behaviour and Design of Steel Plated Structures. 11121121. Engrs. London. K. "Report on Parametric Study on Web Panels".. Technical Working Group 8.152 4. pp 416.. 19291946. 10691099.Christensen. Journal of the Structural Division. pp. Royal Aeronautical Society. 8Structural Stability. Jour. Part 2. vol. 1960.8 4. 1947.. 1975. McGrawHill. K. 1962. "Steel Box Girder Bridges". H.3 4. Ernst. "Analysis of Simply Elastic Beam Columns with Large Deflections".1REFERENCES British Standards Institution. H. F. G. and Scheer. 1915. vol. Bleich. vol. 1986. Data sheets .Technical Committee.2 Richmond. Rockey. Applied Mechanics. vol 29. K. Beulwerte Augesteirfter Rechteckplain. Berlin.7 4. "Strength of Steel BoxGirder Bridges"..6 Timoshenko. 14 pp. Part 2. T. April 1972.3(edited by Dubas. "The Design of Transverse Stiffeners on Webs Loaded in Shear . Supported Journal of 4. Valtinat.. "Stability of Rectangular Plate with Stiffeners". B. Consulting Engineers. J. ST9.. 23. Wang.
H. D... 1981 "Design of Webs and Stiffeners in Plate Design of Steel Bridges (edited by and Box Girders". Tang. "Background to Buckling". P. Rockey. 1980. D. R. "Longitudinally and Transversely Reinforced Plate Girders". England. Report CFCAR/136.. R. "Transverse Stiffeners for Plate Girder Webs . ). and Tang. The Structural Engineer.15 4. H. and Evans. Rockey. pp. C. . Report No DT/SC/8. Evans. R. Proc.. K. Evans. and Rockey. Plated structures (edited by R. UK. Rockey. 53. and Tang. M. K. R. and Bulson.18 4. Evans. pp.21 4. M..16 4. M. K. Evans. Steel Research 4. Proc. pp 85112.17 4. H.S. C. Porter.14 4. "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Subjected to Shear and Bending". D. (University College. R. Cardiff. DT/SC.. K. K. Applied Science Publishers Ltd. Horne. H. R. K. H. Oxford. 1978. H. Degli Mele. H.. and Evans. Evans. R. 1984.. H. "A Report on Four Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Girder TRV4". Albans. Evans. Narayanan). Theory of Structures". M.an Experimental Study".22 4. K.19 4. (1979) "Ottimizzazione irrigidimenti Relazione di Travi a Parete Piena Sottile". and Puthali. St. Journal Construct... C. G. Allen. McGrawHill. IABSE. 253280. Report NO. "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Loaded in Shear". Institution of Civil Engineers. H. 1983. M.. H.23 Chatterjee. 1975. 1978.20 4.13Porter. S.. "A Design Method for Predicting the Collapse BehAviour of Plate Girders". 313325.. University of Rome. Granada Publishing. R. 4. Finale.. Essex. and Porter. Part 2. H. "Plastic Pregamon Press. R. Cardiff.. 1981. H. R. vol.. University College.153 4. 1982. 1979. "A report on Five Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Girder TRVY.
0 72 xX= 113 123 .2 51 44 7.0 64.18 90.1 Bending moments in stiffeners of Web System (c) Bending Shear stress Axial t/in2 in stiffener load t/in2 moments* tonf in in stiffener Design method value Computer value 7.18 36.98 45.5 60 8.154 Table 4.
c.4 u Z " <<< rn tn CArn v2 cq cn ýN 4.r. Qw E . gýW gjwCä. Co Co 02 . o rq Ch  CZ (D CD  CD CD %0 N CD r4 C'4 CD en ýc (D tCD CD CD vi $W Z) ei M 4. 0 r.404 gl. % qe E4 cý va vi (D 0% C) CD CD CD tr. 4) u0 Co 0 Z=uZ cr m u 2 K x 92 w « rr uuu0 4) ýwýZ 1C2 0m es tr Ce ZmZU zr cr cr 0 v. Q 0 c. b Co Co CO CD it MD 't r nt t cz %0 ý2 92. Utztzu 0.im. cn N 't 4t c:Lý P. ý .. c. c. N lý ým en A. c. c.r. J. c. dd (n en MMM d c5dd CD CD CD CD c4 0 . %D %0 %0 vlä vli CD CD CD CD m 914 jg d c. ei t 0 a.155 CD le vi 00 V's cli Ilt %0 CD r4 e 0 (D CD 0 c..f (4 rn Gn v2 E2 Fi 4) 91.%IM %0 r4 CY%oý CY% «<== A4 N en . U 4) U zr cr' 0 Er Co 0u u 10 «o lu 0 Co .
kn 0 0 r vý c.oo oo v" " a. 0 vi (D C0 . ci el.4C.qý 00 01% 00 r. t eZ >  C=) . (2% 0% Co 0000 tl: r1q oýcn n c9(4 li en e4 e. "0 10 :3 cr cr 1010 cts Os 04 CIS w cis ca 42 12 cn Ga W 4. . W) it tn %n t.4. gD N C14 A4 :ý<< A.4 10 10 4 oo 01. %ei t: %r.4 1 cli el.r !2 UD 14) :P. 0 t*. %D IN clq 6 vi C. C. C. (6 6 qt C.tJD li ei NN .%000 04. 0 rA 0 kn It %D%o%oso%o C. t..156 m cd wm cqs cis Cr a" V 112 10 = 10 r_ C7 CY. 00 %0 0 t. CD '.Q C7ý 00 ON 00 00 00 =00 Co 4D II ci C5 I* . Ici 0 cq .91 Cid R 1ý Cýj MM Qu CL. t. eli . 1414 In C4 C1400 C14 ON %n C) 0 :Z 10 r_ cz "a as .4 ci 10 u b.%n 0 04 0 CD 0ý (0 0 . P.r..ý W Q) (1400so 0 0 %n Cs 1.t 4 C. C14 en eq eq cc 96 06. Ao 00 %D ýo C. Vý Cý_: co 00 00 cc C7% %a en V.
0 Figure 4. . .5 2. 3. are for shear stress 47C r=K 2Et2 'IT 12(lp2 ) b2 40 36 stiffness . . ýý.0 2. are for longitudinal compression Dotted lines.5 4. 6 6 paramet'er 10 v t K 30 a ocb 20 10 1.0 ON. .1 COMPARISON COEFFICIENTS OF STIFFENED OF BUCKLING PANELS UNDER SHEAR ANDCOMPRESSION.5 0 3.157 Full lines.
158 T a&. owý ýamL.2 OF SHEAR ANDRESULTS VALUES FOR COMPARISON TIMOSHENKO BETWEEN PURECOMPRESSION. T T b a=T (Y =T b 110 Figure 4. . doL. ýcýd. ýL..
3 FORSTIFFENED COMPARISON COEFFICIENTS PANELS BETWEEN BUCKLING UNDER SHEAR ANDCOMPRESSION. .8 K max/ Z\l .. 2.0 Figure 4.01 :7 2.2 1.0 /Shear values v.5 I // ..5 \ xx 3 1. ' .5 10 Compression values // 0ý 5.0 xx \ lic `11ý 6 50 a/b IX:: 1.5 .159 Longitudinal No torsional edges simplysupported stiffness. ö 1.5 5 01 2 2. fi U. J=0 *I T =KE cr panel buckling **ý L/Ib aj ia tal (b/a) 9 81 Local panel buckling \Local under compression under shear 7 0. 0 0.0 11 1.I 2.4 1. 14 2 (y = 11 b/a) U.8 2. .6 1. 4e Ole *Po '0ý / ý:. CU. XX n I ' .
%a X Jb a. i a_ aa1 &12 1 B c +0 b/7) Ac ('C+ac+ab/7)t I_a/2 I a/2 I a/2 a/2 a/Z a/2 a/2 I a/2 Figure 4.160 T Cl T T T Figure 4. .4 EQUIVALANCE BETWEEN SHEAR STRESSES ANDCOMPRESSION STRESSES.5 DISTABLISING EFFECT OF LONGITUDINALSTRESS ON TRANSVERSE STIFFENER.
STIFFENERS WEBSYSTEMWITHTRANSVERSE .6 OF CALCULATION LATERAL LOAD ACTING ON A THE RICHMOND STIFFENER.7 ONLY. b) 60 sin(wx/b) (T+a +a cb /7)t cc Cc (T+a c +ýb/7)% a/2 a/2 Figure 4. TRANSVERSE 31 20 31 3120 31 Bin 17tt Bin Bin Bin Lowestaxial load (tonf) applied to stiffener tw .3/8in Ist trial I31in4 72in 2nd trial I4 20in 40in 40in 40in Figure 4.161 yy if sin(wx/.
0 Figure 4.0 1. RICHMOND UNDER SIMPLEBEAM MODEL .0 0 2. Z U. 66 t0 sin(7rx/b) Y yS  in(7rx/b) DSTI 16t 16t I wIwI Wýl tTI section of transverse stiffener Effective w Figure 4. 5 2.0 U.5 o 4.0 c 4v 0.8 OF THE TRANSVERSE DEFLECTION STIFFENER IN WEBSYSTEM. 0. 4 0.9 LATERAL LOAD.5 1.162 3.5 0.0 L.6 Shear stress / critical 0.8 shear stress 1.
163 T 160 140 cli E 12C A cu I14 loc ient analysis load 8c 'o 10 R 4C 2( iteral i/b )erfection mode (P5) tiffener outstand 02345y lateral Maximum displacement (mm) Figure 4. T 16C 14( IN 101 ment ateral analysis load 00 61 41 perfection mode (P5) 2 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 ae Extreme stress at the stiffener 2) (N/mm outstand Figure 4.11 LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS. .10 OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOADWITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.
164 T 280 240 ei E zoo 160 ent teral analysis load 120 .12 OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.0 < 80 erfection 4C mode (PS) 01zj456 Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4. .13 LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS. 28C 24C 20C 16( ment analysis ateral load 12( 8( perfection mode (PS) 41 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 outstand 280 2) (N/mm 320 ae Extreme stress at the stiffener Figure 4.
.14 OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.165 T 280 240 czE 200 160 ment analysis 120 ateral load 80 perfection 40 mode (P5) 0 j4b6y Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4. T 280 240 200 160 ment analysis load 120 10 ateral r 80 perfection 40 0 mode (PS) 0 40 80 120 160 200 Extreme stress at the stiffener 280 240 )e outstand (N/mm2 320 a Figure 4.15 COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.
T 24C 20( M ment analysis load 12( lateral iperfectlon mode (P5) 40 W 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 ae Extreme stress at the stiffener ) outstand (N/mm2 Figure 4.17 COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.545078y Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4.16 COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS. .166 240 20C cli E 16C ent 12C teral analysis load ac erfection 4C mode (P5) U14 .
. I 160 140 Cý.19 LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.4 80 ment analysis ateral load to 6c 4C 20 0 0 40 BU lzu lbu zuu z4u z1ju 320 a iperfection mode (P3) Extreme stress at the stiffener 2) (N/m. outstand e Figure 4.167 T 160 140 cli E 120 100 4.18 LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.120 100 ement analysis 80 00 60 40 2c mperfection mode lateral load Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4. .
20 LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS. ¶ 30( 25( Ci E 20( ement analysis 15( lateral load 10( mperfection 50 0 mode (P3) 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 outstand 280 (N/. 2) 320 e Extreme stress at the stiffener Figure 4. .168 T 300 25C 20C ment analysis load 15C ateral loc perfection mode (P3) sc Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4.21 LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.
23 ELEMENT FINITE LOAD WITH LATERAL COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS. .22 LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS. t 350 30C 25C 20( ment ateral analysis load 15( 10( iperfectlon 10 mode (P3) 51 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 outstand Extreme stress at the stiffener 280 ý) (N/m: No ae Figure 4.169 T 350 300 cli s 25C 20C 10 ment analysis ateral load 10( nperfection 70 mode (P3) 5( Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4.
35C 30( Zb( 201 ent teral analysis load Co It 101 51 erfection mode (P3) Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4.25 COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.170 350 300 cli 25C 20c ll. 15c . .24 OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.0 ment ateral analysis load 'Ic loc 50 perfection 0 mode (P3) 0 0 40 du lzu IOU zuu z4u ztsu Jzu a Extreme stress at the stiffener 2) outstand (N/mm e Figure 4.
171
T 16(
14(
C\l
IN 10(
ment analysis load
8(
ateral
61 4( 21 iperfection mode (P3)
Maximum lateral
displacement
(mm)
Figure 4.26
COMPARISON OF RICHMOND' LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.
T 16C
14C 12C loc ment ateral 'o 6( 4( 20 iperfection mode (P3) analysis load
0 0 40
80 120 160 200 240 outstand 280 (N/mm2) 320 Ge Extreme stress at the stiffener
Figure 4.27
COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.
172
T
30(
251
20,
Tient analysis load
15
ateral
10 perfection 5 mode (P3)
Maximum lateral
displacement
(mm)
Figure 4.28
OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.
T
30(
25(
20( nent iteral analysis load
10 perfection mode (P3)
5
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
e
Extreme stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mm2)
Figure 4.29
COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.
173
T
40( 35(
cli E 30(
w 41 IS.
251
ient analysis load
20,
teral ,
Go is C
10
5
mrfection
mode (P3)
0
34bb Maximum lateral displacement (mm)
Figure
4.30
LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.
T
400
350
30C 25C
ment analysis
20(
.0
ateral
load
loi 51
iperfection I
mode (P3)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
Extreme stress at the stiffener
outstand
320 2) (Nlmm
360 Ge
Figure 4.31
ELEMENT FINITE LOAD WITH COMPARISON LATERAL OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.
174
350
300 clýI
E
250
200
ment ateral
analysis load
150 00
IC 100
50
perfection 5
mode (P3)
0 Maximum lateral displacement (mm)
Figure 4.32
IATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.
35C
30C
25C
20C
ment lateral
analysis load
15( 'o
"I, lo( 5c
nperfection ý5
mode (P3)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240 outstand
280 (N/mm2)
320
e
Extreme stress
at the stiffener
Figure 4.33
COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.
175
T 140
120
clýl E 100
80 .j
ament analysis
10
60
ateral
load
40 nperfection 20 mode (P3)
0 Maximum lateral displacement (mm)
Figure 4.34
COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.
T 140
120
cli
100
80
Dment analysis load
60 10 40
ateral
perfection 20
mode (P3)
U
qu
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
qe
Extreme stress at the stiffener
) outstand (N/mm2
Figure 4.35
COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.
176
T
30C
25C
E= rz
20C
4J
ment analysis 15C ateral load
bo 10(
perfection 5(
mode (P3)
Maximum lateral
displacement
(mm)
Figure 4.36
OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.
300

250
E
200
nent analysis load
150 to > C loc
iteral
3erfection
mode (P3)
sc
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
ae
Extreme stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mm )
Figure 4.37
COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.
177
T
400
350 300 C%j E 250
ent analysis load
20C 15C
teral
loc
erfection
mode M)
Sc
lateral Maximum
displacement (mm)
Figure 4.38
OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.
T
400 35C
C%j
30C 25(
ient analysis load
20(
iteral
151
101
5
)erfection
mode (P3)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
e
Extreme stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mim2)
Figure 4.39
COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.
40 OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.178 ment ateral .41 COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.0 analysis load perfection 0 mode (P3) Maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 4. T 350 300 250 200 ment ateral analysis load 15C 11 loc 5( perfection 0 niode (P3) 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 Ce Extreme stress at the stiffener ) outstand (N/mm2 Figure 4. .
.  a 2: CD Z: 74" vi LU vi (n LLJ c2 i LA» : 7vi dx Cl2: CD u LU 3 V) ýl CL CL Ln 0 C. >< LLJ V) LAJ V) V) LLJ 2.0= CM to LL in LLi b4 LLJ af FV) i iz u = h 4 ti. 0 14 CD UJ 0 > w 2 C) r.179 LU Li CM >( 0. ) u 1*4 LL. tko . 'I. i C: ) vi C'n 1 0 I LL. ILL V) > E75 x LLM LLJ re uj. do :: D C) <c = LLJ cc LIJ LL *0 41) :g= u w LLJ 0 F4 d*  \\\\ý a 10 Vo 0 CL V) ui V) 0 7E. 00 LL .
1 Panel 1 Cc. TWO ADJACENT PANELS DEVELOP .46 AND STIFFENER STRESS WHEN AND FORCE ACTINGON FLANGES SYSTEM MEMBRANE STRESS COMPLETE FIELDS.111ý Ar or A#.2 Y2 a2 F a1 (a) Fco Wl'\M V l V.180 A _ __ ____ M1/ 1 cC. Y. JMLI Mt2V Y2 ýU (b) Figure 4.1. cr. rC2 W2 Fc. 2 Ft. crl "Fs. 2 W3 . Panel 2 2  _ __ '0" :Z T62 P Q C1.
181 v c v G ( r cr. 40t Jtw b5 __j ýt Figure 4. T I cr. 2 )dt 22 D IVd (a) Due to tension field (b) Due to buckling (c) Total Figure 4. OF TRANSVERSE SECTION EFFECTIVE .48 STIFFENER.47 TOTALAXIAL FORCES IMPOSED UPON TRANSVERSE STIFFENER.
50 TRV4TEST GIRDER FOR DIMENSIONS AND GENERAL IDENTIFICATION .49 TRV3. GENERAL IDENTIFICATION ANDDIMENSIONS FORTEST GIRDER All dimensions are in mm 2mm fillet welds throughout 10 1.182 All dimenstions welds are in mmm throughout . ýv 2mm fillet 800 ý5O it SECTIONAA Figure 4.0 C3 0 1 w SECTION AA Figure 4.
183 ABC 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 III Bc Figure. . IN TEST 1 OF ON STIFFENER POSITIONOF STRAINGAUGES GIRDER TRVS.51 SA. 4.
M 0 tor) LLJ CL 0 z 14 0 0 0 5TEý Ii u 12 LLJ FLLJ 0 FC:) a r c c: V) 0. %0 LU 2 L) LIJ V) al.E s9 1 to ce C'i 09 0 bi I 0 0 0 S3 LL . LU LLLL CO CC) LL C/) LLI cl u tin + CD %0 LLJ 40 Lu V) cký LLJ LLJ !i D.0 rý. ý 0 C)00ý.184 LU I m CL tj LL. C)  C) tn cc V) i LLJ 9Pixelm z "0 0 0 I0 I 12 3N Ic C/) LLC) 14 64 LLJ C/) LU LLJ 6 ul 0' U1 . tl T= 0.
185 face of web edge of stiffener stiffener width 2 c 2000 C 11 lý 1500 w Valges of applied shear loading I (kN) at 1/4dcpth .> 1000 500 +5 o shows measured value c 0 tu E qw at middepth 8 2 C L a .1 0 L I) E > ct 3/4depth 9 U + Figure 4. VARIATIONOF AXIAL STRAINS .53 ACROSS WIDTH OF STIFFENER SAI.
54 OF STRESSES DISTRIBUTION IN THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE SHEAR CAPACITY.80 II AB 200 cr 100 00 100 200 Unrestrained boundary 300 a 100 C 0 0 100 100 a a Restrained boundary 100 a Figure 4. ULTIMATE AB Section AA Section BSection AA Section BB II AB 200 100 00 100 200 Restrained boundary Unrestrained boundary Figure 4.186 AB Section AA Section BB Section AA Section BB 3.55 DISTRIBUTION OF STRESSESIN THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY. .
THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE A8 Section AA Section BB Section AA Section 8B 0 II AB 200 0 100 00 100 200 300 a Unrestrained boundary 1 UU a U luv luu U luu a a Restrained boundary zuu a Figure 4. SHEAR THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE .50 II A ZUU 0 luU UU lvv boundary euu a lvv 0 v Unrestrained a 0 Restrained boundary a Figure 4.57 DISTRIBUTION OF STRESSESIN ULTIMATE CAPACITY.56 DISTRIBUTION OF STRESSESIN ULTIMATE SHEARCAPACITY.187 AB II Section AA Section BB Section AA Section BB 5 0 8.
58 OF STRESSES DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.59 DISTRIBUTION THE STIFFENER ALONG AT THE OF STRESSES PLATEULTIMATE CAPACITY. I Section A Section B 1.188 AB II Section AA Section BBý1.50 b 100 A8 0 50a 100 200 0 Unrestrained boundary 30U Figure 4. SHEAR .0 120 44.0 b IIa AB DU U bu U lUU zuu JUU Unrestrained boundary a Figure 4.
60 DISTRIBUTION AT THE OF STRESSES ALONG THE STIFFENER PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.0 30 b ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 300 AB 200 100 00 Unrestrained 100 boundary 200 a Figure 4. 1.189 AB Section AA ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Section BB 10. .
Iuw/N) ssaA. m (ZWLU/N)SS841SBAISSaidWoo (jww/N) SSOJIS 011su8j. SCLO . rLL . UýA V) LLJ C) 14 F wwlh) sse.. (D (. 0 cli cli m . C) LLJ LLI LL. LL C) Ine LU to cv F4 cli C. =. A4s aAtssajdwo3 C.s OLPual LL ci VN cm cm tn Co Z C) w C3 < LU a_ c9 ý2 V) too") LLJ ClI LU m C/) LLC) cl: ý Uj LLJ LL.190 cn r co I C4 co 0 w U LLI (1r) V) LLJ ClLLJ V) s4 2: V) IA LL.
0 LLJ LLJ C) LL. rLL (Ztuw/N) SSaJjS BAtssaidwoo (im/N) SSO41S OLýSUOI cu S C/1) V) C) (D W) cý Go ýr Ch Ch LLJ C/) V) LLJ CL. LLI V) ý4 M: C/) x ý: 4 LL.191 VI V) C) cal ýo (4 CY% LIJ V) V) LLJ clLLJ V) LL. V) Od LLI UD cli m aLýSual m (2wul/N) SSOJIS BAISOidwoo ssaJ'4s tko . ui LLJ LL V) LLJ do Ln cn a Cýj Zri cli 6 cn :3 Cko .
192 V) Ln r4 V) LLI V) V) LLJ 0LLJ V) V) 14 X 93C 14 LL. LL. . ILL. D UD 6i Fi C) cu tn C%j Cý m So LL (ZUU/N) SSDJ'4s DAISS8. C:: uj LLJ LL. U) C I 3fl C C'J IS) C. P4 IV) LLJ F %..J U") I II I I. U) V) V) LLJ LLJ V) V) < 14 14 LLC) C) ce LLJ 2= uj U V) LLJ LO UD t%J .1dwoo (Ztuu'/N) SSOJIS BLPUBI V) V) C) ce L) (.J 0 r) Oa .
ILL. " u LO U. . CD C) LAJ UU V) f4 LLJ CY cm Pm. IU V) L/) C) rý Cý Ln T co 0: m m CD cz V) LLJ Ln V) LLI U1 M I im V) CC X LL. 94 F. c. w U V) Lti (n LU :> LLJ co F4 (2 uJW/N) ssails aAissaiduioj Z\i A (2 ww/N) SSOJIS GLIsual CLO . . i il: U I I v3 b4 >< LLJ cm :Z<i CD.211ý: f Z: (ZM/N) ýu m (ZtuLU/N) SsgAls DAýssaidwo: ) SSOJIS BLIsual SDO .J a "U I t.193 V) C:) I4 U " " " ui V) = LU 0:: LU ULL..
14 IV) V) LLJ :: LLJ U) co V) LLJ 0) LO W64 4 d) S00 . Sua. A4S BAtssajdwoo CD cm 4 W 00 Ir. L . 14 V4 Xm 0LLJ < U c c: I 0 LU LU LL. r. UFq F4 V) V) < V) LLJ :: LLJ V) 14 ui Lm F J CD r cli (z UU/N) SSa. LL. LL. (ZwLLIN) $SO4s OLtsua.194 V) (A C> cr_l I) G ko ckl. (ZWW/N) SSaJjS DAissaidwoo (jm1N) sSOAls OL.: < LLJ V) LLI (n V) LLJ W LLJ C: ý ui LLLL. L C/) En C) C> C5 w < LLJ 19 cm C> V) LLJ tn V) LLJ Cd uj w LLJ LLLL 14 LLJ I= LLC) X: M! LLJ LLLL.
. d Figure 4.71 EFFECTIVE SECTION OF TRANSVERSE STIFFENER ACCORDING TO BS 5400.72 TO STIFFENER FORCES DUE TO TENSION FIELDS ACCORDING BS 5400.195 16tw T I 16t w 1: t b ___j Lts Figure 4.
196 CHAPTER 5 STIFFENER DESIGN APPROACH FOR PLATES IN SHEAR. .
2 DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL STIFFENER POSITION LOADS AT THE In section 4. the maximum stresses and lateral displacement of the stiffener outstand evaluated from the new beam approach are compared with those obtained from the finite element analysis at any level of shear stress. S.6. some detail in chapter 3. The simplified single stiffener plate model with unrestrained edges examined in the finite element study has been discussed in It is impossible with this model. a simplified analytical model has been used in which . Section 5.197 5. At the end of this chapter. simple design model which is safe and economic and gives an accurate representation Section 5. the distribution of lateral forces from the finite element modelling. however. presents of the physical behaviour of the stiffener. For this reason it was felt that the transverse stiffeners of stiffened plates subjected to shear loadings could be modelled as a simply supported beam subjected to a lateral distributed load. at the stiffener position. for a variety of plate geometries. In order to obtain this force ' distribution. An empirical expression has been established to relate the shear stresses acting on the stiffened web to the lateral load intensity on the simple beam model. neutral axis of the effective stiffener section.1 INTRODUCTION At this time no simple design procedure exists to evaluate an economic stiffener for stiffened plates loaded in shear. Due to the difference in form of these distributions with aspect ratio. it was shown that the variation of axial stresses through the depth of the stiffener and along its length for stiffened plates with idealised unrestrained boundaries is similar in form to the stresses relating to a laterally loaded simply The zero stress axis is always close to the supported beam. an approximate unified distribution is suggested in section 5.4 describes Section the basis for choosing a safe optimum ratio. to identify the magnitude and distribution of lateral load applied by the panel to the stiffener.5.3 to represent the distribution of forces on the stiffener for any aspect 5. For this reason. presented in chapter 3 have been used to provide the background for a. for the transverse stiffener for any stiffened plate of rigidity aspect ratio ý and panel slenderness X.2. presents the design approach for the transverse stiffeners based on a simple beam model subjected to a sine distributed load. the parametric study results.
maximum stiffener be less than the thickness of the web plate. ratio.55. even at the peak load of the stiffened be It limited deflects by will the amount.1.15). the buckles are towards the stiffener outstand in the centre region of the stiffener and away from the outstand at the edges as shown previously in the contours of figures (3.0. 120.5 and 2.5.0 and panel slenderness 60. it can be seen that for each aspect aspect ratios.5 and 2.4). The graphs show an excellent 1. Figures (5.215. if in later the optimum rigidity of the this that chapter shown displacement lateral is the of the used.20) show the above distribution for aspect ratios ý= 1. aspect ratio ý=0.95. Figures (5.24) show the effect of plate slenderness on the magnitude of the maximum lateral force (not necessarily at the midspan of the stiffener) at the stiffener location for plates of Except for 0.5. correlation between the two curves for any plate geometry. This distribution was expected for this aspect ratio because with an initial imperfection mode (P5). This demonstrates the fact that these two stiffened plates have similar behaviours in spite of the limited flexibility of the stiffener.1.180 240. a very stiffener panel.5 and plate slenderness X= 60. The X= 180 case for exceptions to this.180 The critical initial imperfection and 240 respectively. always will stiffener Another important reason which demonstrates this point is shown (515.0. figures in The graphs show a comparison clearly between the average stressstrain curve of a plate with a nondeflecting nodal line and that with a stiffener of optimum rigidity for plates of panel slenderness X= 180 and aspect ratios ý=0.0.0. The and critical initial imperfection mode (P3) has been used for these In most figures.0 are notable 1.1.120. This model suffers from the possible disadvantage that it ignores the effect of distribution but force flexibility and magnitude on the stiffener this effect would not be expected to be large if the stiffened plate has a stiffener rigidity which still essentially maintains the panel boundary and with which.0 respectively.1.198 line by has been nodal the stiffener a nondeflecting replaced lateral distribution the reactions to the and magnitude of allowing be determined at any level of shear stresses.5 and stress.5. there is a tendency for the form of the distribution of lateral forces to be similar for all slenderness values at any level of shear 2.5 and . the graphs 2.133.8) show the distribution of lateral loads monitored levels different shear stress at on the nodal line of the stiffened plate model of aspect ratio 0=0. mode (P5) has been used. Figures (5.
Both two wave and single wave alternatives were tried for the representation of the force distribution on the stiffener but the simple sine function shown in . be it but the seen that except clearly can panel slenderness. Since the purpose of this study was to provide an accurate understanding of the behaviour of transverse stiffeners and to propose a simple design model suitable for formulation into "a code of practice. If the distributions of lateral loads for different aspect ratios are irregular forms.3 REPRESENTATION STIFFENER OF LATERAL FORCES ACTING ON THE The exact distribution of lateral forces on the transverse stiffeners due to web buckles is now clearly defined.5 and 2. The major consideration is whether too much loss of accuracy results but. with for X value of 60. This of course reflects the number and form of the web buckles which is influenced by panel shape. a well defined distribution should preferably be assumed which has an irregular finite element effect corresponding to that of the distribution. In other words. 5. The results naturally lead to two different simplified lateral load functions.5 case. difference of the initial imperfection mode has some influence on the ý=0. For design purposes.199 lateral force increases level that the at any show of shear stress.0 and the other with one half wave relating to aspect ratios of 0=1. a sine function with two half waves corresponding to aspect ratios of 0=0. the lateral force magnitude is almost It is clear that the independent of X for a given aspect ratio. " it is essential to generalise the approach to the distribution of forces on the stiffeners for every aspect ratio. it in be the next section that adjusting the force magnitude seen will can compensate for differences in force distribution. it be have different they that can seen compared. This would lead to two different expressions relating the intensity of the lateral loads acting on the simple beam model to the shear stress acting on the stiffened plate. Having two discrete functions would complicate the design process in the transition region and it was and lead to difficulties therefore decided to explore the possibility of using one function for the entire range of aspect ratios.0. it is distribution to the simplify simpler model for every aspect ratio so that a unified distribution can be assumed to represent the forces at the stiffener for any plate geometry.5 and 1.
0.25 produced more than acceptable correlations.1. To examine its validity. correlation exists between the two difference in form between the sine finite element analysis. the deflection in the stiffener from the finite element results is bigger than that This of the sine model for any level of lateral force F.0.0. difference is largest for aspect ratio 0=2.0.29) show the effective width defined previously.5 and 2. It should be noted that the maximum force due to the sine model is the intensity of the distributed load beam model multiplied by the spacing of the eight noded element along the line of the stiffener direction. It can be concluded that it is possible to represent the destabilizing effects of the web on the transverse stiffener by a simple beam model subjected to a half sine wave lateral load. comparisons have been made between the results obtained from the finite element analysis and the sine beam including model force combined supported with a simply Figures (5.200 figure 5. it can be deduced that: The sine model is conservative for aspect ratio 0=0.265. For If for stiffened plates of seen that an excellent curves in spite of the model and that of the 3 aspect ratios 0=1.0.5 which is expected because if a simply supported beam is subjected to the finite element lateral forces shown in figures (5. In this comparison it should be remembered that other more complex actions will be present in the real behaviour which cannot be accurately modelled by the simple sine loading functions.5 and It will be shown later that the results nonconservative for ý=2.5 and 2.0 can be improved by adjusting an empirical expression relating the intensity of the sine load with the level of shear .5. the process will be conservative for 0=0. comparisons are studied.8) the deflections will be smaller than that of a beam under the sine distributed load for the same maximum lateral force F.1. force F acting on the relationship between the maximum lateral ýfthe stiffener and the maximum displacement at the stiffener position for stiffened plates of panel slenderness X= 180 and If these aspect ratios ý=0. for 0=2. 2the above comparison is made it can be aspect ratio 0=1.55. although with the load magnitude defined directly by the finite element results.0 respectively.
last several In the researchers definitions for the optimum rigidity of web stiffeners in order to in design.4. slenderness 5. a introduced is interpretation definition with a simpler physical new in this section to identify the ideal optimum rigidity for transverse the By definition design of this the rigidity adopting stiffeners. It was shown in figures (3. 5. Returning to figures (3.69) that when the dimensions of the stiffener in defined this chapter. (5. it would be difficult to identify a unique rigidity from either criterion for any particular case.4 DESIGN OPTIMUM STIFFENERS RIGIDITY FOR TRANSVERSE 5. For this reason. limit state methods cope with Skaloud(51) defined the optimum rigidity as the minimum value of y which ensures that the stiffener under the relative rigidity the to the of capacity rigid up ultimate remains consideration stiffened plate.201 has results reasonable very The this produced of outcome stress.4.483.603. the correspond to the optimum rigidity stiffener remains essentially rigid and restricts the transfer of web buckles from one panel to another. .6).2 Design for philosophy the optimum rigidity In section (3.1 Introduction different introduced have decade.2) introduced the optimum rigidity Grayson as the minimum increase in the of rate stiffened plate capacity with value at which increase in ys becomes relatively small. deduced been has for full range of stiffened plate a stiffeners Finally. for any stiffened plate geometry. the effect of yield stress on the optimum geometries.3. the effect of the stiffener rigidity parameter on the behaviour of the stiffened plate was presented.51) which show the variation of in stiffener shear plate capacity with variation maximum stiffened Skaloud in the the the and results context of rigidity and viewing Grayson criteria. for stiffeners plates of the same aspect ratio and panel of rigidity is also presented.
202 To formulate a defined basis for the optimum rigidity. ys) curve. Hence.0.1.0 and panel slenderness X= and 240 In these figures. These figures indicate that for low ys there is generally a significant increase in the plate ultimate capacity with increase in stiffener rigidity. 5.4.305.7). if ys > yo. corresponds to first yield of the extreme fibre stress in the stiffener. The simplest possible. . a stiffener failure criterion has to be adopted. whereas.5. it was concluded that even if shear stress was in term of the yield stress.3 Effect of yield stress on the optimum rigidity In section (3. the increase of 'CUis negligible.5. exactly It can be concluded that the stiffener optimum rigidity yo is defined as the value where the first yield of the stiffener occurs at the same load as the stiffened panel ultimate shear stress.45) show the variation of ultimate shear stress 'Cu of the stiffened panel with the variation of the stiffener rigidity parameter ys for stiffened plates of aspect ratio 0=0. which will be shown to be conservative. at the peak shear capacity of the stiffened plate is also shown.3. with this simple failure criterion it is possible to define an optimum rigidity for any plate geometry.120. Figures (5. the expressed non dimensionally maximum lateral force acting on the stiffener and consequently the maximum displacement of the stiffener increase with increase in yield stress for plates having the same aspect ratio ý and panel slenderness X. decrease in the value of (Te with increase of ys whilst. Denoting the stiffener rigidity corresponding to point A as yo.5 60.180 and 2.1. stress in the stiffener outstand CTewith the rigidity parameter y. Whereas. in the stiffener remains constant and equal to the yield stress of the stiffener Beyond point A on the (ae. the extreme fibre stress cr. the variation of extreme fibre respectively. This criterion of course needs relating to the simple laterally loaded beam model and this is considered in section 5. there is a rapid material. it can therefore be concluded that if ys < yo first yield at the extreme fibre of the stiffener occurs before the plate ultimate shear capacity is reached. the plate reaches its ultimate shear capacity before the extreme fibre of the stiffener yields.
47) show the variation of ultimate shear stress ru fibre the extreme stress in the stiffener outstand Ge with the and ys for the plates under study. Omm 100. introduced by Horne and Grayson(5. Therefore.0 the optimum rigidity 180 but with yield stresses of 240 and and panel slenderness X= 355 N/mm2.70 179.. The optimum therefore: stiffener rigidities for the various yield stresses are For crY = 240 N/mM2 For aY = 275 N/mM2 For ay = 355 N/mM2 yo yo 70 150.203 In the previous subsection.50mm yield should be remembered that for a given X value.5mm Ts = IO. Since their formula was based on analytical results for stiffened plates with yield stress (Yy = 355N/mM2. it can be concluded that for plates of the same aspect V3 '6 Y ratio 0 and panel slenderness A=bY as the yield stress 5=5 t.3) for finding the optimum rigidity y. stiffener whereas.59 The corresponding stiffener dimensions for the different stresses under consideration are given as follows: For crY = 240 N/mM2 For (YY = 275 N/mM2 For ay = 355 N/mM2 It Ds Ds Ds 95. that the proposal rigidity y. is checked for plates of aspect ratio ý=1. The yo which stiffener rigidity corresponds to the plate with the same ý and X but with a yield stress cry = 275N/mM2 has been shown before in figure 5.36. the value of material yield stress of 275N/mm2. the plate thickness will vary and hence the y value will not only be a function of the change of stiffener size.10 147.465.Omm Ts = 9. Omm Ts = 11.. the optimum dimensions also increase. their formula could be considered conservative for yield stresses less than this value. as (Ty varies. . there is no consistency in the variation of the optimum It is worth mentioning here. Figures (5. Omm I 15. increases. the stiffener optimum rigidities for a full range of plate geometries have been obtained for plates with a In this section.y was not a function of the yield stress ay.
. transverse stiffeners is based on a beam model. Since most of the study is concerned with plates with ay = 275 N/mM2' the nondimensional parameter suggested is referred to this value of yield stress.. with yield was dimensional parameter which controls the yield stress function.......3/2 y ý275) ... then ( 7..... ... and for any yield stress cry. .......... resulting stress and deflection and the optimum stiffener dimensions vary with the for design Since the the of proposal new value of yield stress. are ay the and extreme 275 cases fibre Stresses in at the the stiffener stress respectively same Y(Cry).. to the nonessential stress. and the resulting stress (yc(CY) Y) 7((.. the design requirements are not rigidities but stiffener dimensions which will obviously be affected by the variation of the above parameters identify it Hence..... 3/2 75 (f5 6e 17e(27 5) . ..... it has been deduced that for any level of nondimensional shear stress c'. (C) where Fayp F275...........2) V(Co (2(75) = 3/2 V(2 7 5) ... By studying the results of the analyses... (b) (5........... the stiffener loading F(.. . . Y(275) are the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener for the ay and 275 cases respectively at the same shear stress r'...204 it is clear therefore that the stiffener loading...... deflection can be obtained from the corresponding and Y) graphs for the 275 N/mM2 cases by multiplying them by the nondimensional parameter cc given by (f5 3/2 (5.1) a ... are the maximum lateral forces acting on the stiffener for the ay and 275 N/mM2 cases respectively at the same shear stress r'.. Oe(cry)g 'OC(275) outstand for the I It ......
Figures (5.52N/MM2.55) correspond to plates of the same 0 and X but with a yield figures. the nondimensional this parameter cc suggested for be finding the lateral forces and the resulting used section. can be concluded that an excellent and panel for the evaluation of deflections also exists and correlation for the stiffener any yield stress cry. Omm Ds and Ts = 10.2(a). one shows the finite element relationship for the actual from deduced the the the relation second shows yield stress and be 5.0 ý=0.5. The dimensions of the 100. 180 X= and aspect ratios stiffened plates with a panel slenderness (5.59) demonstrate the validity of cc for the yield for 355 N/mM2 the plate having the same aspect ratio stress of It slenderness.1. Figures (5. if ý these and panel slenderness aspect ratio values are for the equivalent stiffened plate with a yield stress of 275 N/mm 2 It should be remembered that the variables should be level the same at obtained of shear stress r'. c). an expression is needed to relate the intensity of the lateral load acting on the simple beam to the shear stress acting on the stiffened plate.485. and between indicate the the nondimensional shear relationships for F force lateral the above plate stress r' and the maximum (5. Figures 240 geometries with a yield stress of ay = 5. It N/mM2 275 seen can equation case using reference that excellent agreement exists in all the figures. for a plate of aspect ratio ý =1.1.57) check the validity of the nondimensional lateral displacement for the the of of the evaluation a parameter for fibre in the the extreme stress and stiffener outstand stiffener 240 stress of a yield compared with that evaluated with a plate from the 275 case using equations 5.565. 355 In N/mM2.5 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS BASED ON A SIMPLE BEAM MODEL In order to achieve a full modelling of a stiffener.0.5 are considered.0 and panel slenderness X =180.585. of stresses in Therefore.2 (b. can stress and defl ection in the stiffener for any stiffened plate of known X. .0mm correspond to = stiffener selected the optimum rigidity of the stiffener for the 275 N/mM2 case.51) Figures 2. 5.205 To check the reliability of this nondimensional parameter a. two the curves are of each stress of (TY = drawn.
..206 In designed. moment of inertia of the section about an axis passing through its centroid..4). are first evaluated b and are given by... it can be deduced that for a beam b a span and fixed section properties. ý. sin 4 7r XX (b) ... deflection the corresponding at the same location. before the transverse To understand how and whether the intensity of the beam model w is affected by the variation of the above parameters. the maximum intensity with of lateral load wmax is directly proportional to the resulting In other words. that the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener increases with increase of ý and X for The deflection stiffened plates with a particular stiffener rigidity. stiffeners FCF.. the are practice. and deflections will be a similar function of the governing parameters. The m4ximum stress Ge at this section due to M is given by. It has been shown in chapter three.3) and (5. length of the stiffener b will therefore be known before the stiffeners are designed and can be included in the expression relating the intensity of the lateral load with the shear stress r.. .. the deflections and bending moment for a simply supported beam Xx subjected to a sine distributed load w=w. (53) where wmax is the maximum intensity of the lateral load Ms is the bending moment at any section located at a distance x from the support..4) From equations (5. ms ae b Wmax x Ir sin . MS Imax 2b2 Xb sin XX (a) .. panel aspect ratio 0 and plate slenderness A=b are chosen twV3 5'5 to suit the positions of the cross girders in the bridge and also the Thus. the lateral force. stresses stresses and deflection.. b 7r2 2 (5.. X and the shear strength requirements for the panels.
.5 y 355 )312 rry It should also be mentioned that as the expression is dimensional.5 3/2 (T5T5 )...0 75)3/2 sin .. the the w of the beam and of model. but will overpredict the lateral force for X= . W N/mm' Tay Ir X ry where 52. term has been changed to refer to the ay = 355 yield stress to produce the modified relation below. It can be demonstrated that the entire relationship works most accurately for X= 180. . b (5.. the expression For any plate geometry still gives the same rigidity parameter y. because the parametric study used to form the above relation was based on stiffened plates with a yield stress of For consistency with BS5400 (Part 3).. (cy and X). this expression produces a constant stiffener rigidity irrespective of the value of b.. ay sin Ir x . To use the beam model to define an optimum rigidity. corresponding to the first yield of the extreme fibre of the stiffener will be adopted. the failure criterion mentioned in the context of the finite element results.. If a and X are kept constant and b varied. ' W NI mm ( ": 3 ýA b 35. b (5. shear stress for stiffened plates with 'r/'CY = nondimensional unrestrained boundary conditions The term (Gy/275)3/2 which was introduced in the previous section has been included in the expression to take into account the effect of yield stress. an approximate empirical relation has been derived to relate w and r with other effective parameters given by.. the above 275 N/mM2 .5) intensity of the sine distributed load at any distance x WN/mm' = from the support. it is important to use consistent dimensions throughout the analysis.. From the current finite element parametric study..7) with WmaxI 3b ýA 35..207 load intensity lateral therefore. should also increase with 0 and X.
this will not affect the final stiffener dimensions.0 and panel slenderness 60. the beam model is slightly nonconservative for low shear stress values. the beam model is misrepresenting the behaviour of the stiffeners for these however be Final design will panel slendernesses. studied conclusions can be drawn.75) between the shear show the relationship stress r acting on the stiffened plate and the maximum lateral displacement 7 obtained from the finite element analysis and the The stiffened plates simple beam model using equation (5.0. The stiffener for every case corresponds to the optimum rigidity rigidity parameter from the finite element results defined in section 5.1. are usually of stiffeners determined for the ultimate shear capacity of the web panels and therefore.6 COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE AND SIMPLE BEAM MODEL It is also reasonable for ELEMENT ANALYSIS Comparisons have been made with the finite element results to in beam the the model and particular. section includes a width of plate equal to sixteen times the plate thickness on each side of the stiffener as specified in BS5400 (Part 3). used for this expression have an aspect ratio 0=0.7).91) demonstrate similar comparisons for the extreme fibre If these comparisons are stress ae in the stiffener outstand.4.120. For stocky panels with X= 60. Figures (5. conservative if the beam model is used. the beam model is significantly conservative.5. the check validity of failure derived lateral load the expression and empirically It has been assumed that the effective beam model criterion.5 and 2. the other panel slendernesses. For aspect ratio 0=0. As far as design is the dimensions concerned.605. irrespective of the panel aspect ratio.765. following the carefully. Figures (5. The results show in general that stiffeners have little effect in this range.1. . This is due to the fact that the amplitude of the buckles in such panels is small and therefore.180 and 240.208 240 and is hence generally conservative. 5.5. The yield stress used for these plates is ay = 275 N/mM2. 2.
The stiffener Good optimum rigidities. . For any other plate geometry. of the model when the yield 240 and 355).96 shows the comparison between the optimum rigidity from the finite obtained element analysis and the beam model. a major effect on the dimensions of the stiffeners.120. development of this design model have been validated against load nonlinear finite ultimate element analyses and the comparisons have been shown to be generally excellent. the yo evaluated from of panel slenderness the beam is larger from than the value obtained model the finite element Although in rigidity for this difference analysis. Figures (5. seems significant it does not have some aspect ratios. This comparison for stiffened shows that good agreement exists X =60.925. For stiffened panels of panel slenderness plates X= 240.209 3. finite element analysis.95) check the validity stress of the material varies (cry = rigidities also correspond to the correlation exists compared with the Figure 5. A nondimensional yield function has been identified to take into account the effect of the variation of yield stresses. A simple design criterion of first stiffener outstand yield provides a method of All stages of the establishing an optimum stiffener rigidity.7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION A simple linear beam model has been proposed for the design of transverse stiffeners in girder webs subjected to shear loading. 5.180. and has been incorporated in the beam model expression. The model is loaded by a sinusodial distributed lateral load which is a function of the shear stress level applied to the stiffened web. there is good and in many between the finite cases excellent element correlation results and the beam model.
4 . University of Manchester.Horne. Flanges". 1983 "Parametric Finite Element Study of Transverse Stiffeners for Webs in Shear". Instability and plastic collapse of steel structures. 1981. (edited by R Narayanan). 1982.. (edited by LJ Morris). Granada Publishing. 5.3 . M. 5.D Thesis. 5. Ph. BS 5400: Part 3. Applied London. and Grayson. W. 1983 "Optimum Rigidity of Stiffeners of Webs Strength Stability Structures.. R. Plated and and Science Publishers.1 .8 REFERENCES 5. W. M. R. Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges. BSI. "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels".Grayson.Skaloud.. London. R. 329341.2 . . pp.British Standard Institution.210 5.
E 0.2 0. 0 1. U V.6 1. LM c) 0. E L 0. 0) 41 0. ( Nondimenslonal shear strain y' y/y y Figure 5.2 yly y Figure 5.211 TI 0. U.0 r_ 0. '. E r_ .u I.00. Z 1.4 0. ' 0.4 Nondimensional shear strain y' 1.0 V.1 0.1 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE AVERAGE STRESSSTRAIN CURVE OF PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THATWITH AN OPTIMUM RIGIDITY STIFFENER PARAMETER.7 0. O.8 2.0 2.2 COMPARISON STRESSSTRAIN CURVE OF BETWEEN THE AVERAGE PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THATWITH AN OPTIMUM RIGIDITY STIFFENER PARAMETER. . 5 0.8 0. T.4 0.
STIFFENER . s» 10 OJ 0..6 0. 0. (L. 10 ý .0 L 0. z= 0.0 1.2 shear strain 1. .  0.4 0. Z Y/yý.2 1.2 0.. Figure 5.0 0.0 Nondimensional Z. 0.8 2. 0.r9 0..: 0.4 y' 1.3 THE AVERAGE OF BETWEEN STRESSSTRAIN CURVE COMPARISON RIGIDITY PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THAT WITH AN OPTIMUM PARAMETER.2 y/y y Figure 5. .2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.4 1.8 1. i 0.4 CURVE OF STRESSSTRAIN COMPARISON BETWEEN THE AVERAGE RIGIDITY PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THATWITH AN OPTIMUM STIFFENER PARAMETER. E 0.8 1. 0.0 Nondimensional shear strain y' 2. .212 TI O.4 0.6 1.6 1.8 2. zc 0.
0 5C 50. a. '44V. STIFFENER _F x 103 12 8 2 a.5 Initial X 60 imperfection mode (P5) tn Z 10 15 ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand 20 Fx 102 Figure 5.5 A.120 imperfection mode (P5) a..5 FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCESAT THE POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS. STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT .6 FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCES AT THE SHEAR LEVELS. C 0 ý. Initial 8 ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand 12 16 Fx 103 Figure 5. 0.213 F x 103 is 10 2 10 ý0. 0 S.
( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand 12 16 Fx 103 Figure 5.0.240 imperfection mode (PS) 0) C 0) 44(I) Initial ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand I: Fx 103 Figure 5.214 x 103 12 8 2 a 10 $0.5 X.5 Initial 8 X.7 FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCESAT THE POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS. STIFFENER F x 103 12 2' 0 U 0 2 4Iw oC 4b. STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT .180 (P5) imperfection mode.8 FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCES AT THE SHEAR LEVELS.
10 FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCESAT THE SHEAR STIFFENER LEVELS.120 Imperfection mode (P3) ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand xI Figure 5.0 Initial 12 X. U I0 C a. C Ia. 6'=' 0 ý1. U4 61. C a.9 FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL AT THE FORCES STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.0 Initial A. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT . a.60 imperfection mode (P3) ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand 16 3 Fx 10 Figure 5. x1 5.215 _F x 103 8 4 o g.
216 _F x 103 12 4 S ll. 41. . x 10ý 8 4 a 0) 4.0 Initial A. .11 FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCES AT THE STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.240 imperfection mode (P3) 4 V) 12 F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand 16 Fx 103 Figure 5. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT .1.12 FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCESAT THE STIFFENER SHEAR LEVELS.180 imperfection mode (P3) Initial vi ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand Fx 10 3 Figure 5.0 4 ).
14 FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCESAT THE SHEAR STIFFENER LEVELS.13 FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL FORCES AT THE POSITIONFORDIFFERENT STIFFENER SHEAR LEVELS. _F x 103 4 $1.5 Initial A.217 x 103 4 2 U I. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT . 0 0 1 0 0 ý1.5 Initial Ile X 120 imperfection mode (P3) ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand if Fx 103 Figure 5.60 imperfection mode 03) 0 C 0 49 ( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand v) if Fx 102 Figure 5.
218
Jx
103
4
v 41.5 Initial 12 A180 imperfection mode (M)
( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand
16 Fx 103
Figure 5.15
FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF
LATERAL FORCES AT THE
STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.
F x1
2
U 0 ¼
V V I0) C U ¼¼
4D  1.5
Initial
A 240
Imperfection mode (P3)
( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand
xI
Figure 5.16
FINITE
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF
LATERAL FORCESAT THE
STIFFENER SHEAR LEVELS. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT
219
x1
5;
w 0 I. 0
I.
$2.0
C
X 60
imperfection mode (P3)
Initial
( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand
Figure 5.17
FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF
LATERAL FORCES AT THE
STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.
F x
5;
.0
ý2.0 Initial
A 120 imperfection mode (P3)
( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand
Fxl
Figure 5.18
FINITE
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF
LATERAL FORCESAT THE
STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.
220
3Ak F x 10
U 90
4P  2.0 Initial
X 180 imperfection mode (P3)
( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand
Fx
3 10
Figure 5.19
FINITE
ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF
LATERAL FORCES AT THE
SHEAR LEVELS. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT STIFFENER
x1
2
0 I0
0 L. 0 0
02.0 Initial
X 240 imperfection mode (P3)
0 C 0
.4,
( F) Force toward outstand (F) Force away from outstand
1
x 11
Figure 5.20
FINITE
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF
LATERAL FORCESAT THE
STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.
221
1.
0.
g
0.
0.
0
b
t$
iu reaction
14
14 (N)
10
1 ts
zu
zz FX
10
3
Maximum lateral
at the stiffener
Figure 5.21
ON THE MAGNITUDE OF PLATESLENDERNESS EFFECT OF THE LATERAL POSITION. AT THE STIFFENER REACTION
TI
1.
0.
1
5; 0.
M c
0.
0.
Maximum lateral
reaction at the stiffener
(N)
Figure 5.22
EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS OF THE LATERAL ON THE MAGNITUDE REACTION AT THE STIFFENER POSITION.
222
I. C
O.E
0
O. f
0.4
0.2
0.0L 0
0
ts
lu reaction
1z
14 (N)
16
18
20
Fx
3 10
Maximum lateral
at the stiffener
Figure 5.23
ON THE MAGNITUDE OF PLATESLENDERNESS EFFECT OF THE LATERAL POSITION. AT THE STIFFENER REACTION
1' 1.
0.
0 V
I
,
0.
0.
rx Maximum lateral reaction at the stiffener (N) ju
Figure 5.24
EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS OF THE LATERAL ON THE MAGNITUDE REACTION AT THE STIFFENER POSITION.
223
Figure 5.25
SIMPLYSUPPORTED BEAM SUBJECTED TO A SINE DISTRIBUTED LOAD.
224
Fx 103 16 14
12 0 60 10
u
8
4.
0 6
0.5 tial
Ximperfection
'180 mode (P5)
 193.80 * 10 2 * Finite element analysis
Beam model
0 Figure 5.26
234567 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON MODEL.
ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM
Fx 103 14
2
IL,
12
10
0
Ximperfection . 70
180 mode (P3)
rm
inite
element
analysis
eam model
12345 Stiffener maximum lateral displacement (mm)
Figure 5.27
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM MODEL.
RESULTSANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT .225 3 Fx 10 12 2 10 8 XImperfection 16 Inite 2 180 mode (P3) element analysis eam model v14j4b7 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.29 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE MODEL.28 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON MODEL.Z AImperfection 80 180 mode (P3) E inite element analysis eam model UIz34 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5. ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM 3 Fx 10 12 00 u 49 .
OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER ..226 0. V. I4. Cý'. 41 gn AImperfection xtreme 120 mode (PS) stress outstand capacity in tensile he stiffener Itimate shear 0 60 Y 120 Stiffener 180 rigidity 240 parameter 300 Ys Figure 5. Tu cli I XIA IA A. d) L. V) 60 mode (P5) stress outstand capacity in imperfection xtreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear U3by09 Stiffener rigidity lz parameter 15 Ys Figure 5.30 SHEAR OF ULTIMATE VARIATION STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND WITH THE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY.31 AND EXTREME VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE STRESS STRESS IN THE SHEAR STIFFENER RIGIDITY.
32 SHEAR OF ULTIMATE STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE VARIATION OUTSTAND WITH THE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY.227 ce TU c'J X 180 mode (PS) stress outstand capacity in 4ý vi qu S Imperfection xtreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear 0 60 120 Stiffener 180Yo rigidity 240 parameter 300 Ys Figure 5. 0e T u Cýj E ).33 STRESS IN THE AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. . STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .240 imperfection 41 tn mode (P5) stress outstand capacity in Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear 0 150 300 Stiffener 450 ya rigidity 600 parameter 750 Is Figure 5.
34 SHEAR OF ULTIMATE STRESS VARIATION AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND WITH THE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY. T Xw I1/) 120 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in imperfection xtreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear 0 15 30 45 y0 Stiffener 60 rigidity 75 parameter 90 YS Figure 5. ul 60 mode M) stress outstand capacity in imperfection ctreme tensile ie stiffener Itimate shear 0123 Stiffener yo 45 parameter rigidity Figure 5. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .35 ANDEXTREME STRESS IN THE VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE STRESS SHEAR RIGIDITY.228 Ce Tu Xj .
U) 180 mode M) stress outstand capacity in Imperfection xtreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear U bu lzu yo Stiffener 180 rigidity 240 parameter 300 Ys Figure 5.. I4.229 Ce Tu cli XC.37 VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE ANDEXTREME STRESS STRESS IN THE SHEAR STIFFENER RIGIDITY. OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .36 VARIATION OF ULTIMATE SHEAR STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND STIFFENER WITHTHE STIFFENER RIGIDITY. Tu CC E z 1 Ximperfection treme 240 mode M) stress outstand capacity in tensile e stiffener timate shear Cvu Yo jUU Stiffener 400 rigidity 500 parameter 600 Ys Figure 5.
imperfection Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear Stiffener rigidity parameter Figure 5. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .230 Cre TU C%j E I60 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in 14 imperfection Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear 02Y03456 Stiffener rigidity parameter Ys Figure 5.39 THE IN STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. STIFFENER a e CJ[ X0 0 120 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in w IU.38 SHEAR STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OF ULTIMATE VARIATION WITHTHE STIFFENER OUTSTAND RIGIDITY.
. ) 240 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in imperfection ctreme tensile ie stiffener Itimate shear 0 75 150 ya Stiffener 225 rigidity 300 parameter 375 Ys Figure 5. I.41 VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE STRESS SHEAR STIFFENER RIGIDITY.231 Ce Tu CC E I Ximperfection 180 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear U 3U bU qu Stiffener y lzu rigidity lbu parameter 180 Y. OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .40 SHEAR OF ULTIMATE VARIATION STRESS ANDEXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY. 4. Figure 5. ae Tu or E Xa. U.
STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .43 THE IN STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATION SHEAR OF ULTIMATE RIGIDITY. STIFFENER ae T tv E 120 tion mode M) stress outstand capacity in tensile ffener e shear 05 10 15 20 yo 25 Stiffener rigidity 30 parameter 35 YS Figure 5.42 SHEAR STRESS STRESS IN THE AND EXTREME OF ULTIMATE VARIATION WITH THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND RIGIDITY.232 Xa a I 60 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in Imperfection treme tensile e stiffener timate thear 0 yo 23456 Stiffener rigidity parameter YS Figure 5.
lion mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in tensile Ffener a shear 0 20 40 60 Stiffener yo 80 rigidity 100 parameter 120 Ys Figure 5.ru CC E 240 w I tion mode (P3) stress outstand in tensile ffener e &hear capacity 0 60 120 Stiffener ISO rigidity 240 parameter 300 YU Figure 5.44 SHEAR STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OF ULTIMATE VARIATION WITHTHE STIFFENER OUTSTAND RIGIDITY. I w I.45 THE STRESS IN EXTREME AND VARIATION STRESS OF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. STIFFENER .233 ae cli 180 U. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .
46 SHEAR STRESS OF ULTIMATE AND EXTREME VARIATION STRESS IN THE WITH THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND STIFFENER RIGIDITY.234 ae pk . TU 240 210 180 150 ev E 14U A90 60 180 ay . X 180 uy .. Ge TU c'J In In U 1.47 IN THE STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATION OF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. I. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER .355 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in perfection xtreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear 0 60 120 180 Stiffener 240 rigidity 300 parameter 360 Ys Figure 5.240 made (P3) stress outstand capacity in perfection xtreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear 30 OL 0 100 200 Stiffener 300 rigidity 400 parameter YS Figure 5.
4 0.2(a) 0. LATERAL O.9 O. ý 1 180 n mode (P5) 0 N/MM2 0 N/mm2 eq.48 OF THE NONDIM ENSIONAL VALIDITION YIELD PARAMETER THE FOR FORCE.E 0. 5.3 ei 0M 0.0 L 0 40 Maximum lateral ts IV reaction Iz at the stiffener 14 (N) Ib Fx 103 Figure 5. . i 0. i mode (P3) 2 ) N/MM ) N/mm2 eq.4 X(L) 180 0. 5.2(a) O..235 TI 0.49 THE FOR YIELD PARAMETER VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL LATERAL FORCE..M 0.i OOL 0 2468 Maximum lateral 10 12 (N) 14 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener Figure 5.E 00 J.
5 0.7 0.236 . LATERAL 0.4 X0.2(a) OOL 0 0 Maximum lateral t$ lu 1z (N) 14 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener Figure 5.1 0 N/mm2 eq.51 VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE LATERAL FORCE.0 L 0 2468 Maximum lateral 10 12 (N) 14 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener Figure 5.1 0 N/mm2 eq.7 0 0.3 180 n mode (P3) 0 N/mm2 0.2(a) 0.rI 0.6 0. .8 0.2 0. 5. A 180 n mode (P3) 0 N1mm2 0.a St.5 0.3 .4 4ý 0.50 VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE FORCE.8 0.2 0.6 0. 5.
0 E 0 2468 Maximum lateral ID 12 (N) 14 16 18 20 22 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener Figure 5.4 0.3 0.2 0.53 VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE LATERAL FORCE.8 0.6 19 . LATERAL 0.0 02 If u01U Maximum lateral Ila 14 (N) 10 Its zu zz Z4 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener Figure 5.1 0.237 0.2 0. .9 0.1 0.9 '0.6 'Z 0.52 VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE FORCE.7 0 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.
: n mode (P3) 2 5 M/mm 5 N/MM2 eq. ' 0. 5.8 0.0 L 0 2468 Maximum lateral 10 12 (N) 14 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener Figure 5. ' 0.8 0.: 0. E t M 0.: 0.238 0.2(a) 0. LATERAL 0.2 .54 YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL FORCE.55 YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL LATERAL FORCE.0 L 0 468 Maximum lateral reaction ID 12 (N) 14 16 18 2D Fx 3 10 at the stiffener Figure 5.7 0. X 180 j! 0. .7 m s10 0.
.0 N/mM2 eq 5.239 T 0 I. 0 0.E 0.0 L 0 50 100 Extreme fibre 150 stress at the stiffener 200 outstand 250 ') (N/.57 YIELD PARAMETER VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL FORTHE STIFFENER EXTREME FIBRE STRESS. j2 0.n mode (P3) Ts .: 0.10.56 VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE MAXIMUM LATERAL STIFFENER DISPLACEMENT.00 N/mm2 . 300 350 oe Figure 5. 0 IV 0 0 V C 0 V C V V C 0 X 180 . ( . ' 0. O.0 01234v Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.2(c) .: 0. .
STIFFENER MAXIMUM O. in s 0. 0 Stiffener zj467 lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5. ...240 T1 0. U. 0. U. a. ") I a. 0. ' 0. a. a.58 VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONALYIELD PARAMETER FOR THE LATERAL DISPLACEMENT.E 0. . U.01 0 50 100 Extreme fibre 150 stress at the stiffener 200 250 300 350 outstand (N/mm') a e Figure 5.: 0.59 FORTHE VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER STIFFENER EXTREME FIBRE STRESS.  I 0 V. 0. .4 0 0.
.61 RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON THE FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN APPROACH.8 0.3 0.1 1 0.r9jý 1.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.60 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.0 Iz34 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) t analysis Figure 5.4 0.241 . ELEMENT RESULTSANDTHE BEAM 'rI 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.7 ß_ 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.0 234 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) t analysis Figure 5.
62 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.6 0.7 Im 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.1 ysis 0.5 0.8 0.242 1.8 0. .7 0.0 2345 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.0 0.4 0.3 0.63 RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH. ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM 0.0 K 0 Stiffener 234v maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 5.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 ysis 0.6 0.1 1 0.
64 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.1 0.7 0. ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM TI 0 .4 "a 0.a 0234 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.8 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.65 COMPARISON RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM THE FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN APPROACH.243 1.0 L 0 Stiffener 234 maximum lateral displacement (mm) Figure 5.3 0.5 t analysis 0.6 0. .
4 0. 0 2ýý 0.66 BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON APPROACH.1 0.2 0.67 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT RESULTSANDTHE BEAM APPROACH.6 0.7 0.5 10 0.3 = 0. ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM TI 0. tA . . 0.244 T' 0. 0 Stiffener zj47 lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.0 L 0 Iz34 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.
.6 41 it 0.0 L 0 Stiffener 234v lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 41 0.8 to 0.1 0.69 COMPARISON THE FINITE BETWEEN APPROACH. ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM .1 0.2 = 0.0 0. E 0.2 0.3 I analysis 0. ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM 'r I 0.68 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH. 0.4 r 0 20.245 'r I 1.0 0 z347 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5.9 0.
246
TI
0.7
O.f
.M
0. i
0)
0.:
4
32
0.:
0. '
0.0 L 0
Stiffener
2347 lateral maximum displacement (mm)
Figure
5.70
BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON
ELEMENTRESULTS AND THE BEAM
APPROACH.
Ir
I
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 L 0
Stiffener
234 lateral maximum displacement (mm)
Figure
5.71
RESULTSANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.
247
0.9 0.8 0.7
0.5
0.4
0)
t analysis
:G0., c
0. 0.1
ME 0
Stiffener
234 maximum lateral displacement (mm)
Figure 5.72
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM
TI
0.7
0.6
,
0.5
0.4
w
0. i
5 'M
OJ
0. '
0.0 L 0
1234 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)
Figure 5.73
RESULTSANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT
APPROACH.
248
.rI
0.7
0.6
12
0.4
0.3 'U 0.2
0.1
0.0 L 0
Iz Stiffener
lateral maximum
.545 displacement (mm)
Figure
5.74
BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM
.rI
0.7
0.6
.
0. E
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 L 0
Stiffener
z34v maximum lateral displacement (mm)
Figure 5.75
COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTSANDTHE BEAM THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.
249
TI
1.0 0.9 W 0.8 0.7
.C 'A
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1 0.0 60 120 ISO stress atthe 240 stiffener 300 outstand 360 (N/mm2) ae Extreme fiber
4!
t analysis
Figure 5.76
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM
1.0
er
0.9
0.8
0.7
,m 0.2 0 0. ý 0.2 0.1 0.01 0
t
analysis
60
120
180
240
300
360
Ce
Extreme fiber
stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mm2)
Figure
5.77
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE APPROACH.
ELEMENT RESULTS AND THE BEAM
250
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 t 0
stiffener
t
analysis
60 Extreme fiber
120 stress at
180 the stiffener
240 outstand
300 (N/mm 2
Figure 5.78
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM
0.9 0.8 0.7 14 0.6
0.5
stiffener
0.4
0.2
it I
analysis
0.2 0.1 0.0 0 60 300 120 180 240 2) Extreme fiber stress at the stiffener outstand (Nlmm Ce
Figure
5.79
RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.
251
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 10
ffener
t analysis 0.4
cu
5
0.3 0.2 0.1
0.0 L 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
Extreme fiber
stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mmý)
cr e
Figure 5.80
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT ANDTHE BEAM ANALYSIS
0.8
'fener
0.7
O.E
0. E
,
ZC
0. ý
0.1
0.0 0
60 Extreme fiber 120 stress 180 at the stiffener 240 outstand (N/mm2e 300 a
Figure
5.81
COMPARISON RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.
252
¶1
ffener 0.7
0.6
a,
0.4 4!
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 L 0
bu
lzu
idu
Z4U
Extreme fiber
stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mm2)
e
Figure 5.82
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM
0.7
ffener
0.6
0.5
10
0.4 m
0.3
=
0.2
0.1
0.0 1 0
bu Extreme fiber
120 stress
180 at the stiffener
240 outstand 2 (N/mm
300
Figure
5.83
COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.
253
.II
1.0 0.9 O.E ner
0
(1)
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.
0.1 1 0.0
t
analysis
60
120
180
240
300 outstand (N/
Extreme fiber
stress at the stiffener
a e
Figure
5.84
THE FINITE ELEMENT ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN RESULTS COMPARISON APPROACH.
.rI
0.7
tiffener
0.6
0.5 .0 0.4
0.3 ,a
0.2
0.1
0.0 L 0
60 Extreme fiber
120 stress
180 at the stiffener
240 outstand (NlmJ)
300
a
e
Figure 5.85
COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYSIS THE FINITE ELEMENT ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH.
254
.rI
f stiffener 0. (
sis (1) = 0. '
0.14
0. '
0.0 L 0
60 Extreme fiber
120
180
240 outstand (N/mm2
300
stress at the stiffener
a e
Figure 5.86
BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM
TI
0.7
0. C
stiffener
& 0.!
0.1
S
0.1
0.0 L 0
60 Extreme fiber
120
180
stress at the stiffener
240 2) (N/mm outstand
300
Ge
Figure 5.87
COMPARISON RESULTSANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.
255
0.9 0.8 f stiffener 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
0.1 it I analysis
0.0 L 0
60 Extreme fiber
120
180
240
300
stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mm
a
a
Figure 5.88
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM
'r
I
0.7 Ffener 0.6
ee
0.1
=
0.9
0.0 L 0
60 Extreme fiber
120
180
240 outstand (N/mm)
300
stress at the stiffener
Figure
5.89
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE APPROACH.
ANDTHE BEAM ANALYSIS ELEMENT
256
.rI
0.7
0.6
iffener
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 1 0
60 Extreme fiber
120
ISO
240 outstand (N/mm2)
300
a
stress at the stiffener
e
Figure 5.90
THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.
ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM
tu
0.7
0.6 'fener
41 L4
0.5
0.4
0.3 r o =
0.2
0.1
0.0 L 0
ou Extreme fiber
i4u
luo
240 outstand (N/)
300
ce
stress at the stiffener
Figure 5.91
COMPARISON BETWEEN THEFINITE ELEMENT ANDTHEBEAM RESULTS APPROACH.
257
. re
0.8 0.7
0.6 w
0.5
0.4
it *, 0.3 5 0.2 0.1 I
analysis
2
001 0
I
IDU
443
Jvu
J10
4bu
Extreme fiber
stress at the stiffener
outstand (N/mm )
ce
Figure 5.92
THE FINITE COMPARISON BETWEEN APPROACH.
ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM
1'
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 0.4
ement analysis
0.3 'o 0.2
oach
10
"L 00 0
Figure 5.93
/mm2
4j457 Stiffener
lateral maximum
displacement (mm)
COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.
0 L 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 a Extreme fiber stress at the stiffener outstand (Njmm2) e Figure 5.95 THE BEAM AND ANALYSIS ELEMENT COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE THE APPROACH.8 0.1 0.258 T10.6 0.6 o 0. 3 t analysis 0.4 o.7 0.2 'D 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 it analysis I 0.0 L 0 Stiffener 2347 lateral maximum displacement (mm) Figure 5. .1 0.8 0. ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM 0.94 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.2 0.
5 2.259 Is 600 Finite element analysis Beam model CF y= 275 60 120 180 240 N/mm 2 \ 500 \ \ \ \ \ \ *X= *X= *X= A.0 ratio 1.96 COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.5 Panel aspect 1. SCD 4) w P CL 400 \ \ CLO 300 s 200 X= 240 1001 18 0 12 0 ot 0.0 Figure 5. . X= C'.
260 CHAPTER 6 PROPOSAL FOR DIMENSIONING THE TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS IN STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO INPLANE STRESSES. .
the effects of variation of material element analyses. The aim of this chapter is to introduce a proposal for dimensioning in stiffened the transverse stiffeners plates subjected to a combination of shear and direct inplane stresses. between the results of the modified beam approach and the finite Finally. when the concrete deck is continuously connected to the main . Section 6. Section 6.1 Introduction in transversely stiffened webs of plate and box girder bridges. the plate ultimate on The beam model is modified to represent the destabilizing effects of the buckles induced by inplane bending stresses. The beam model introduced in Comparisons are made the previous chapter is then modified. girders are generally subjected to bending and compressive These stresses exert additional stresses in addition to shear.261 6.3 presents details of the behaviour of stiffened plates bending to stresses. The effects of initial imperfections on the stiffener behaviour are investigated first to the appropriate establish model to investigate the other parameters. The effect of the stiffener rigidity subjected inplane bending moment is investigated. modify the beam model equation (5.7) proposed in chapter five to allow for the effects of these stresses. stress are checked. a transverse stiffener design approach was introduced for transversely stiffened plates loaded in shear. It was therefore essential to destablizing effects on the stiffener. Section 6. 6.2 presents details of the behaviour of stiffened plates subjected to combined shear and inplane compressive stresses.2.4 presents a unified beam model approach for the design of the transverse stiffeners based on an interaction between the models presented previously for the different stresses.2 STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO COMBINED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION SHEAR 6.1 INTRODUCTION In chapter five. This approach was based on a simple beam model subjected to a sine distributed load and is a function of the geometric parameters affecting the stiffener behaviour as well as the magnitude of the Box and plate shear stresses acting in the plane of the web.
combination ive the coexistent compres. The code of be that these should considered at the effects practice states forces limit Braking could also cause state. a uniform compressive bridge in hogging the girders. strain at the top and bottom boundaries was kept uniform throughout the loading process. compressive stresses Due to the rarity of the existence of compressive stresses alone in transversely stiffened webs of plate and box girder bridges.2 Boundary conditions and loading The boundary conditions considered in this study are shown in The longitudinal figure 6. of stresses was restricted in magnitude this study. Simply supported edges with zero outofplane bending moment for Unrestrained boundaries all stiffened panels. the code of practice BS5400 (Part 3)(6. Plate loading was again achieved by means of prescribed Varying boundary displacement. stresses to a symmetrical bending distribution.1) specifies that part of the deck should act together with the steel girder to resist the applied external forces. serviceability in a transversely stiffened web..2. where compressive uniform = varied) were used throughout the study to produce an ultimate 20% stress of about of the compressive yield stress. 6. mentioned .262 beams at the level of the compression flange.2(YY taken to the effects to equal was crcu as a practical in the previous section. The exsitence of the concrete deck will shift the position of the bending distribution to of give a nonsymmetrical neutral axis induce. continuous moment regions of stress Longitudinal compressive stresses in webs could also be produced by the effects of temperature and shrinkage modified by creep in the concrete deck of composite box girder bridges. of shear and proportions is K' displacement (y/yO K'e/co.1. the loaded by a on plates study was conducted parametric inplane The shear and of compressive stresses. compressive limit 0. assumed were for consistency with the design approach only were investigated of the previous chapter. in in distribution This the addition will web plate.
.5 and plate ratios and stiffeners. the abscissa represents the extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand tip which can be tensile (+a) or compressive (a) depending on the initial pattern considered. Figures (6. X= figures.2). above a combination of subjected for in interact the that one critical mode such a way modes will stress type will be restrained from formation by the development is for behaviour type. geometric To check the conclusions drawn by Grayson(6.4. As plate patterns were for the shear case.0. Two other initial investigated and are shown in figure 6. Residual stresses are not considered as part of this initial imperfection study because Harding(6.2) by The parametric on transversely study conducted initial imperfection has the that critical stiffened plates shown different for to to generally are shear plates subjected patterns follows This for those plates subjected to compressive stresses.3) has shown that the effect is stresses small for plates subjected to combined shear of residual and inplane compression.5. The ordinate was taken at the beginning of the study as the algebraic sum of the nondimensional shear and compressive stress (T' + cF').263 6. is for buckling from fact the shear the that mode primarily When stiffened different to that for compression.2.0 0=0. an additional half sine wave displacement over the whole stiffened panel due to the presence of the stiffener has been superimposed on the plate panel imperfections to give the total imperfection form for the stiffened plate. this the the stress mode other of critical dependent stress proportions on the relative and the panel properties.5).2. all rigidity parameter ys corresponds to the stiffcner dimensions identified by the design philosophy for shear presented in section 5.2. a limited study was conducted on stiffened plates loaded by a combination of initial the different stresses with shear and compressive imperfection modes shown in figures (3.6) provide graphical comparisons for the effect of initial imperfection pattern on the behaviour of the transverse Aspect 2.36.2.3 Effect of behaviour initial imperfections on the stiffener Grayson(6.1. 180 In the stiffener slenderness were considered.33. In the graphs.5. The magnitudes of the initial outofplane displacements for the different panel and stiffener geometries were taken to be the for loading the those shear as same presented in section 3. plates are buckling the the to stresses.1.
Nevertheless. For these aspect ratios.5 and 2. that the destablizing effects of compression were equivalent to those induced by an equal level of shear stress.0 than those produced by mode (P3) for an Figures (6. that initial imperfection pattern (PO is critical for Imperfection mode (P3) was critical for these these aspect ratios.46. (P2).14 which shows the lateral displacement of the same plate geometry loading.0 produced and substantially larger for 0=1. (PS) which was the critical mode for shear.86.7. is still critical for the combined shear and compressive stresses.6) show the effect of the initial imperfection patterns (PO.0. this representation is sufficient for establishing effect of conclusions regarding the relative different imperfection modes. buckles are affected by the presence of the compression.0. for the study of the initial imperfection effect. The remainder oi the study was therefore following modes under combined loading.10) equivalent combined stress level. it be shear can under seen that the web buckles are very similar. It should be noted that for 0=1.3) (section 4. conducted with the . 1.3 demonstrates the comparison between the effect of the initial imperfection modes (P5) and (P7) on the stiffener stresses of It is obvious that the initial mode a plate of aspect ratio 0=0.264 The latter was a first approximation based on the conclusion from Richmond(6.5. the applied shear and compressive displacement proportions are sometimes different from one initial imperfection to another in order to keep the stress ratio around 20%. (PO and (P8) on plates of aspect ratios ý=1. If a comparison is made between this contour which represents the lateral displacement of the stiffened plate at the ultimate combined stress and that of figure 3. aspect ratios when the plate was subjected to shear stress alone. Comparison with the previous shear results shows that this is especially true for high aspect ratios due to the increase of the magnitude of the web lateral displacement.5 and 2. This is due te the fact that the shear stress is dominant for this plate geometry as shown in the contour of figure 6.7). It can be seen from these graphs. the extreme fibre stresses in the stiffener by (P7) are slightly larger for 0=1. show contours of the lateral displacements of the stiffened plates at the These contours show that the ultimate combined stress level. Figures (6. It will be seen later that a coefficient significantly different to one is in fact needed to incorporate compressive stresses into the beam equation (5.5 and 2.0 respectively. Figure 6.2).
It can be deduced as shown in figure 6.2) for plates subjected to combined stress and those (5. To ensure the formation of a rigid boundary. the initial imperfection design optimum 6.305.4.1 Table of the provides the optimum rigidities position.1. when the stiffener found from the design philosophy is used. stiffener corresponds to a value of ys when first yield in the stiffener occurs at the maximum combined stress of the stiffened plate Le (Cr' + 'Omax.265 For aspect ratio ý=0. and 2.0.11 that only .2 adopted stiffened plates section was also presented The optimum subjected to shear and inplane compression. to see case dimensions were then modified if appropriate. rigidities for different for the stiffener The design philosophy optimum rigidity for in 5.0. shown The purpose of this study essentially was to identify the optimum for the various plate geometries. and hence. the dimensions of the stiffener plate.4 Stiffener plate geometries. transverse stiffeners for the full range of panel geometries when It also the stiffened plates are subjected to combined stress. the optimum stiffener rigidities are providing a satisfactory boundary. The reason for adopting this is the similarity between the (cu y. It can clearly be seen that the stresses in both cases are almost the same.45) for in figures stiffened plates loaded in shear. It is interesting at this stage to compare the optimum rigidities for plates subjected to shear and compression with those for shear loading only. with any plate slenderness. ) relations of the graphs provided by Grayson(6. imperfection mode used was 2) For aspect ratios 0=1. provides a comparison between the shear and compressive plate stresses at the peak of the response for a stiffened plate with a stiffener nodal line and those with the optimum stiffener for each case. There was no rigidities stiffener intention to study the effect of the stiffener rigidity parameter on the magnitude of the combined ultimate stress of the stiffened For every plate geometry. every plate rigidity geometry was again analysed with a nodal line at the stiffener 6. the initial (P5).2.5 mode used was (PO.5. for shear alone were first checked under the combined loading if The they still satisfied the design philosophy.
2. This means that the destabilizing effects of the compressive stresses counterbalance the reduction it in Following 1015% Richmond(6. L1/3 (Tay )3/2 35. a a requirement and 6.5) and 6. concept of (6.23.5 Beam model design approach It was demonstrated in the previous chapter that when a web loaded by is transverse shear.. .5 case.7 by keeping to the other geometric equation and modification parameters unchanged..1) that thought equation could provide an appropriate was basis for including a coexistent compression stress... and stiffeners stiffened with plate the destablizing influence of the web on a transverse stiffener can be modelled by a simply supported beam subjected to a In this distributed load of intensity w given by equation (5.5 the combined rigidities are For for bigger than those all other shear..... If the ultimate shear capacities listed in tables (3.5 55 by which VC #]3 . The presence of this restricted level of longitudinal stress in a web panel therefore results in a shear capacity 1015%. WN/ m m' bA 35. the conclusions drawn in the of reduction previous section showed that the stiffener optimum rigidities for both cases of loading are generally similar except for the slight difference for the 0=0. (6. the stiffener sizes are the same to the order of in increments dimensional this adopted accuracy of the stiffener in This that no change reinforces the previous comment study. the plate is subjected to the combined loading case is about 85% to 95% of the 'shear only' capacity for the full range of panel geometries. buckling mode occurs for low aspect ratios and the compression therefore has a destablizing influence similar to that of the shear larger for introduces hence stiffener..4) the applied shear. a stress effects of the inplane compression by introducing 5. is beam the model modified to account for the destablizing section.5 1/ 3 (i(T y 55)3/2 + vr a']' xx sin b where WMax+ b ....266 for for plates of aspect ratio 0=0... stress significantly aspect ratios. Conversely..1 it be deduced that plate shear capacity when can are compared.2) compressive V is a coefficiqnt the nondimensional .7).
. The above steps were followed.1. value of xV for every follows. 180 and 240 are evaluated. X).5 and 2. 3Calculate the maximum bending moment carried by I'ff ay (where ys is the distance between the stiffener Mýmax = Ys the centroid of the effective section and the outstand edge).. the values of V evaluated by using the results of the finite element analysis are compared with those deduced from expression (6. At this stage.12. .. the dimensions of the stiffener are known and consequently the effective moment of inertia leff including 32tw is evaluated.. Nf was and most accurate w relate the extreme fil magnitude of r' and . 1Evaluate to produce an equivalent effect to aill unknown.1. A suitable expression was therefore found to relate V and and is given by equation (6. It can be seen that the values of V generally decrease as 0 increases and increase with panel slenderness. 0 To check the accuracy of equation (6.1.0... 0.267 stresses o'should be multiplied the reduction of the shear...c. and wmax in equation (6.3) as shown in figure 6. shear stress 'C'max 2From the optimum stiffener rigidities listed in table 6...12 (6.2.2). The variation was too substantial to make xV independent of 0 and X. by ' the the substituting values of 'Cmax.120.0 and plate slendernesses X= 60.3). and the values of xV for aspect ratios 0=0.3). the value of xV can be deduced for every ý and ?. X) could panel geometry that the easiest to analyse and stiffener to the Therefore. These are listed in table 6.. Find the maximum load intensity carried by the stiffener 2 MSMaX 7ý 4Wm ax` b2 5 Finally.3) . it was found its finding value was y of ýe stresses for the optimum I for every plate geometry. (0. the be deduced as the maximum nondimensional and corresponding stress cy'for every (0.5.
18) show the relationship between the effective combined stress (C + iVa') acting on the stiffened plate and the extreme fibre stress in the stiffener outstand obtained from the finite element analysis and the beam model using equation (6.0 and panel slenderness 60. However. the beam model is unconservative for low values of applied stress. 2) For aspect ratios ý=1.2). the beam model is significantly conservative.1).268 Good correlations generally exist between the two values for the various aspect ratios although the V values calculated from equation (6. comparisons are required between the model predictions and the Those comparisons are results of the finite element analyses. 6. For aspect ratio 0=0. been assumed that the effective beam model section includes a width of web plate equal to sixteen times the plate thickness on each side as specified in BS5400(6.2.1.3.1. The initial imperfection pattern used for every case is the one found from section 6.5 and 2.4 Le first yield occurs at (T' + G')max. Figures (6. at peak stress. presented in the next section.2.136. all aspect ratios In order to accept the model represented by equation (6.5 with high panel low for for slenderness.5.1).2 as shown in Table 6. slenderness. = . and also.2. The stiffener rigidity for every plate geometry corresponds to the optimum rigidity deduced in section 6.3) are conservative for ý=0. the extreme fibre stresses from the two approaches are almost identical.It should be noted that the load increment which produced ('C' + a')max would also produce the maximum of (V + Vcy') because the value of r' was substantially larger than the value of a' which was always around 0. The entire range of plate parameters adopted previously have been considered.6 Comparison between the finite element analyses design approach and the Comparisons have been made with the finite element results to check the validity of the beam model when the stiffened plate is It has subjected to combined shear and inplane compression. and panel slenderness X= 60. The following conclusions can be drawn from the comparisons. The yield stress used for these plates was ay = 275 N/mM2.0.
Finally figure 6. there is excellent correlation between the finite element analyses and the beam model.296.32) Figures 275 N/mM2. approach and the deduced that the comparisons for these plate geometries are for the to a yield stress corresponding ones similar approximately is for N/mM2 275 V that the and expression established of ay = satisfactory for any yield stress value.269 3) For all other plate geometries. the validity with yield stress needed examination. This comparison confirms that very good agreement exists for most cases.A number of finite element runs were conducted on stiffened plates 180 X= 60 with ý=1.33 shows a comparison between the optimum from beam finite the the element obtained analyses and rigidities model. 355 240 N/mM2 and material yield stresses of ay = to the optimum dimensions corresponded of the stiffeners (6. for ay = rigidities established demonstrate the effect of yield stress on the comparison between be It finite beam can the element results.3 STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO INPLANE BENDING STRESSES 6. presented involved. At the is beam this the the approach section. include dimensional the parameters parameters studied the initial imperfection form and the material yield stress. Since the coefficient V is a function of X which in turn is a function limited of ay. Significant differences do exist in certain cases high low in for aspect ratios and slenderness although notably these instances the beam model is conservative.1 Introduction This section presents the results of an analytical parametric study the behaviour of transversely stiffened plates to investigate inplane bending It concerntrates on displacements. 6. .0 and and panel slenderness of aspect ratio The N/mM2.3. . to subjected the influence of the various geometrical parameters on the for in basis transverse the modifying stiffener providing a stresses The formulation design in the the previous section. modified end of validity of finite by its the those of comparing examined predictions with element analyses.
0 and 1. Figures (6. Plates of . In other words. to establish the initial imperfection form which produces the maximum tensile stress at the stiffener outstand for the various plate geometries throughout the loading process.36) demonstrate graphically the effects of some of the modes shown in figures (3. some imperfection modes set up compressive stresses in the stiffener which are larger than the tensile stresses. this edges were study of straight (Su/Sy = const) with maximum compressive and tensile displacements of magnitude 6b ý. a.5) and figure 6. Panel aspect ratios 0=0. Although. as will be seen later.3 Effect of behaviour initial imperfections on the stiffener It has been demonstrated in the previous parametric studies that the magnitude and nature of the stresses in the transverse stiffeners are mainly dependent on the form of the plate panel initial imperfections.5 and plate slenderness X= 180 were considered. It was also shown in section 3.1.33. again adopted for top and bottom boundaries. the stresses due to bending will oppose those of shear and hence the resulting stiffener stresses will be minimum. This is simply the combination of the conditions for each loading. 6.34(a)).2.2 Boundary conditions and loading The loading process used for shear and inplane compression was also adopted in applying the longitudinal bending displacements displaced kept (see The figure 6.2 on the behaviour of the stiffeners when the stiffened plates are subjected to inplane bending displacements.3.5. Figure 6.3.356.270 6.3 and 6. It was essential before going any further in the study. these modes because the corresponding are not adopted stresses are inconsistent with the stresses developed in the stiffener for the other loading cases. Simply supported edges with zero outofplane displacement were Unrestrained edge conditions were assumed for all boundaries.3 that the critical initial imperfection mode for a stiffened plate geometry differs from one case of plate loading to another.Cb.34(b) shows the boundary conditions and loading for plates subjected to coexistant stiffened shear and inplane bending.3. The longitudinal strains kept bottom boundaries the top also constant along and were (Bu/Sx = const) throughout the loading.
Figure 6. while the ordinate represents the average nondimensional moment (M/My) at the loading edges. The with the ý dimensions of the stiffener shown in each of these figures correspond to a section of Ds = 40.42 shows the effects of varying the initial The critical mode on plates of aspect ratio ý=1.0 aspect ratio of similarity examined were not = 1. corresponds to the moment produced by a linear bending distribution with a peak stress equal to uy. Although the magnitude of the stiffener outstand stress at any level of applied moment produced by mode (PO.5.5 case deduced from the previous studies. The latter can also be assumed to be the for plates of aspect ratio 0=2. the abscissa represents the extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand. It can be deduced that the critical initial imperfection is mode (PO. Omm chosen as being representative from the previous studies to demonstrate the imperfection effects. To evaluate M from the FE results.36 demonstrates the same comparison for aspect ratio ý= 1. the former was chosen as the critical mode due to the tensile nature of its stresses which are therefore in sympathy with the stresses resulting from the critical modes of the other loading cases. These contours represent the lateral displacements of the stiffened plate with the various initial imperfection modes at the inplane bending moment.35 shows the comparison between the effects of four initial imperfection modes on the behaviour of the transverse stiffener for a stiffened plate of panel aspect ratio 0=0. the moment of the longitudinal reactions at the vertical edges was taken about an MY axis passing through the centroid of the web section. In these graphs.41). mode placing the outstand in tension for this plate mode (P8).271 because its 2.0. The stiffener plate maximum deflections can be substantially larger for modes (PO and (P2) with the latter including compressive outstand stresses.5.0. imperfections imperfection geometry is critical mode The imperfection modes adopted for the remainder of the study of plates loaded in bending are summarized below. is less than the magnitude given by mode (P2). Figure 6. Figure 6. . The reason why this mode is critical in terms of the stiffener response can be seen from the contours shown in figures (6376.Omm and Ts = 4.
5 imperfection mode (P8) was used. If the capacity corresponding to the stiffened = plate with the largest stiffener size used is compared to the indicate transverse the with no stiffener. should case is not valid because of the single stiffener model adopted. the critical initial rigidity parameter capacity.1.272 For aspect ratios ý=0.5 Beam model in stiffeners stresses.5 slenderness panel and and with aspect ratios bending 180. geometric The less significant role of the transverse stiffeners in increasing the stiffened plate capacity in this instance raised some doubts It was shown that about the optimum stiffener design philosophy. However.346. capacity obtained results It that the increase in strength is only of the order of 35%. design approach for transverse bending plates subjected to inplane The procedures used in establishing the stiffener beam model approach for plates subjected to combined shear and compression for also plates subjected to inplane moments.7) unaltered. as the majority of bridge . the initial imperfection was taken as (P7)2) For aspect ratio ý=1.0.3.0. with any panel slenderness. It can still reasonably be concluded that transverse stiffeners in webs loaded by inplane bending stresses have only a limited effect on the plate capacities. Finite element results for plates with the optimum stiffener sizes were looked at in detail to find out the coefficients needed for modification of the original beam model in keeping 5. Based used were design philosophy. the optimum stiffener on the previous for different identified first the rigidities plate geometries were by finite element analysis.3.5 intention the the section of presented with X. This was discussed in chapter five. on the plate in bending moment Figures (6. b in ý terms and equation (5.0.4 Effect of stiffener bending ultimate and 2.44) show the variation for increase in transverse plates stiffener rigidity capacity with X 2.5 1) and 1.1. 6. 6. be however.5. that extrapolation to the zero remembered.0 ý=0. taking the optimum rigidity as the value corresponding to the first yield of stiffener outstand which occurs at the same load as the ultimate bending moment of the web plate produces potentially conservative stiffener sizes.
.. (6.. Hence equation (6.5 (ý! Y 355 [ ýýb ]3 sin ay6 xx.46) show the variation of extreme stiffener The outstand stress with yield stress throughout the loading.456.273 web panels are under coexistent shear and bending stresses and the critical case occurs when the stiffener outstand stresses are in it this was felt to be sympathy under combination of stresses.. This was chosen as a starting point in order to be compatible with the previous loading types... The increase of stiffener outstand stress with yield stress is similar to the previous results and can be approximated by a multiplier (aY/355)3/2 as for the shear and compression cases. In order to find P. 35. reasonable to apply the same approach. )3/2 ay bb'11/3 9X ýEb (6.4).... the value Of (Clb/Cyy) is equivalent to the value geometry. stiffener size used in each of these plate geometries corresponds to the optimum size for the yield stress ay = 275 N/mM2. Figures (6.0 and panel slenderness X= 60 and 180 with yield stresses ay = 240 and 355 N/mm2.4) V' is a coeficient by which the nondimensional bending stress (Cyb/ay) should be multiplied to represent the destablizing effects of the bending stress deduced from the RE analyses. In the next is section the validity of this nondimensional yield parameter investigated when the comparison between the finite element analysis and the beam model is made. a limited number of finite element runs were carried out on stiffened plates of aspect ratio ý=1..5 355 Cr Yb The procedures used to find the compression coefficient v were also used to evaluate \v' by relating the extreme fibre stress in the optimum to the magnitude stiffener Of ((Fb/Oy) for every plate However.. w=0 b 11/3 35.. the optimum rigidities for the various plate geometries are listed in table 6. Based on this philosophy.4) can be written as ]3 [yr.5) NN/MM sin .. The intial suggestion for the lateral load intensity representing the effects of the bending stresses on the beam model is given by equation (6. The nondimensional parameter 0 is implemented in the equation to take into account the effects of yield stress. because the FE moments were taken about an axis of (M/My) .3.
of the effective section and the stiffener outstand edge) was obtained. moment of inertia of the stiffener including were calculated. the the V' every (ý. it can be concluded that if a stiffened plate of panel aspect ratio ý and plate slenderness X is subjected to inplane bending stresses. comparisons have been made between the beam model predictions and those of the finite element analyses. evaluated capacities 19'bmax were 2) From the optimum rigidities listed in table 6. 0. The Nf' values The values of iV' are generally insensitive value of iV' = 0. the values all the plates considered.5). 1) The nondimensional web bending from the FE results. the destablizing effects of these stresses on the transverse stiffeners can also be modelled by a beam subjected to a sine distribution load of intensity w given by equation (6. These are presented in the next section. . of ir' were evaluated for are shown in figure 6. value of be deduced as follows. In order to calibrate this approach.47.3.415 was found to relate geometries. 4) The MSmax maximum 2 7C load intensity carried by the stiffener (WM . A V' to the different panel Therefore. is the distance between the centroid.Wmax and b in equation (6. to variation in X and 0. 5) Finally.274 passing through the centroid of the web plate and were considered to produce a distribution of elastic nature with maximum compressive and tensile stresses at the top and bottom for Therefore. 3) The maximum bending moment carried by the stiffener Mmax ý(TyIeff/Ys (where y.5).=2. X) could edges of panel. By following the above steps. cy'bmax. the effective the 32t. ) was derived. the value of W' for every plate geometry could be deduced by substituting the values Of X.
6 Comparison between F.0. the dimensions be the to approximately will equal model finite from identified the corresponding to the optimum rigidity element analysis. 7.0. and when E F. It is important to check the validity of the bending coefficient NP hence the comparisons were also stress yield changes.63) the relationship show dimensional bending moment (M/My) acting on the plate and the from the fibre the obtained stiffener outstand stress at extreme finite element analysis and the design approach using equation The stiffened plates used for this comparison have aspect (6. The size of the stiffener in every figure corresponds to the optimum rigidity deduced from the previous section. beam 60. This is due to the fact that any stress at the lateral forces relating to buckling do not accurately represent Similar conclusions were the behaviour of very stocky panels. the design approach and the Comparisons have been made between the results of the beam its finite to check analysis element model and those of the inplane is to subjected appropriatness when the stiffened plate bending moments.5 1) and panel slenderness X= 60.486. between the nonFigures (6.1.5 2. If the ultimate bending capacity of each of these geometries is beam from dimensions the of the stiffener evaluated used. For any other plate geometry.5 and and panel slenderness = ratios of 180 and 240. The is for the these crY = analysis of stress used plates material yield If these comparisons are examined. E analysis.3. the following 275 N/mM2. can conclusions For aspect ratio 0=0.0 0=0. be drawn.1.120.1. the beam model is unconservative.646.67) demonstrate the comparisons for stiffened plates with .0 2) the and and bending for low of values model results are unconservative stresses but the correlation improves substantially near collapse. 60. there is a good correlation 3) between the results. Figures 240 or to yield stress value changes ay = (6.275 6. between beam the the results when the made approach and 355 N/mM2. in evaluating the stiffener outstand level of applied moment. 2. drawn for this particular geometry subjected to shear and combined shear and compression.5. X= For aspect ratios 0=1.5).
This comparison shows that a reasonable agreement exists for all cases with slightly conservative values given by the beam approach for plates of panel slendernesses X= 180 and 240. the buckling modes will interact in such a way that the critical mode for a stress type will be from formation restrained to some degree by the development of the critical modes of the other stress types.0 and X= 60 and 180. Hence. sin W2 bb ': 'kmax 7r x sin then the total distributed load acting on the beam is given by (Wr ýý (WImax + W2max) 9x sin b It is considered that summation of the intensities of each stress type is likely to provide a conservative estimate of the necessary combined stress stiffener rigidity for the following reasons. obvious method of determining the beam model maximum lateral is to use a simple addition procedure for load intensities individual stress intensities. The comparisons are similar to those hence the the value and standard yield stress value with established for Nf' is valid after introducing the nondimensional yield parameter ((:Yy/355)3/2 Finally. Hence. under the combined stress state. of It is intended in this section to provide a unified beam model approach to model the destabilizing effects of web panels subjected to any combination of inpIane stresses based on the An models introduced earlier for individual stress situations.276 0=1.7 Beam model design approach for stiffeners in loaded by a general combination stiffened plates inplane stresses.68 shows a comparison between the optimum rigidities obtained from the finite element analyses and the beam model. This behaviour will depend on the relative stress proportions and the Consequently. . it is likely that the way in which the modes differ. 6. if a beam is subjected to two lateral distributed loads of intensities (WI Wlmax : Xxi. figure 6.3. 1) The buckling mode of plates subjected to shear is different to that of plates subjected to either compressive or bending stress.
277 total stiffener rigidity rigidities. The initial imperfection patterns identified for individual shear and bending stress situations were checked for every plate geometry.c' = c/. bending coefficient. 0. It be seen that the rigidity values deduced from the approach can are either equal or larger than those of the finite element values. compression coefficent.415.5) are added. e + vf de sin (6.12 ý51 0. the maximum magnitude of developed in be below the the type value stress each will reduced individual stress situation. = Equation (6. E results and that evaluated from the beam model approach using equation (6.6) has been validated before for shear. ratios 0=0. will be less than the sum of the individual 2) Under a combined stress state.2) and (6. nondimensional maximum bending stress = 0. ( )3 ay )3/2 (_ý. nondimensional compressive stress a'b = (yb/ay. .5.cy. nondimensional shear stress a1c = ac/ay.6).1. the destabilizing effect of each stress component will be reduced. The optimum stiffener rigidities satisfying the design philosophy were identified for the cases examined.69 shows a graphical comparison between the stiffener rigidity parameter deduced from the F. the total intensity is given by b wr =(. y + (Y/db )3 XX 35. and the one producing maximum stiffener stresses was chosen to be critical for the combined case. If equations (6. Agreement is generally good and it would in any case be unreasonable for a design approach to model the drop in ys predicted for the high aspect ratio. b '11/3 0 1 e + vf d.6) b where . Figure 6.5 1(. )3 /2. a few finite element runs were conducted on plates subjected to combined The plate geometries considered had aspect shear and bending. Therefore. bending and In order to examine its combined shear and compression.5 (T55 07 a y 355 )3 + (Vr' db )3 1 355 7c x sin b '11/3 3/2 35. relevance for any other combination of stresses.0 and 2.0 and panel slenderness X= 180.
90.3 that the optimum stiffener rigidities needed for shear stress are always bigger than the rigidities needed for any other This point is relevant to the design combination of stresses. bending and compression bearing in mind that the maximum compressive stress considered is about 20% of the yield stress.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION A simple linear beam model has been proposed for the design of transverse stiffeners in girder webs subjected to inplane loading. The model is loaded by a sinusoidally. The value of the optimum stiffener rigidity deduced from the FE results was Y.. = 77. A simple design criterion of first outstand yield provides a method of All stages of the establishing an optimum stiffener rigidity. development of this design model have been validated against load finite ultimate nonlinear element analyses and the comparisons have been shown to be generally excellent. . one finite element run was carried out on a stiffened plate of 0=1. It was also concluded by reference to figures (5. whereas that evaluated from the beam model was y.0 and X= 180 under the above combination of stresses.1 and 6.45) and tables 6. = 96. For this reason.305. situation and will be discussed further in the next chapter. distributed load which is a function of the stresses applied to the stiffened web.09. 6. The resulting design requirements are very simple to apply.278 It is of importance to check the beam model for a stiffened plate subjected to a combination of shear.
R. University of London (Imperial College). Harding. B.D Thesis. Ph. London. Richmond.1 REFERENCES British Standards Institution..E. Panels". Code of Practice of Steel Bridges.279 6..5 6. 1981. Grayson. BS 5400: Part 3. 1975. W.2 6.. Maunsell and Partners. 1972. University of Manchester. Ph.D Thesis.3 6. Consulting Engineers. "Bolted Spliced Panels and Stress Redistribution in Box Girder Components up to Collapse". "Report on Parametric Study on Web Report for Department of the Environment. "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels". J. BSI.4 . 1982. 6.
6 6 C. I. r"d  ci ýo W) C4) tn C4) V) tt) Cq N . (A 4 4 . 4 C4r) cq Clf) Cf) Cf) 6 C. 0 C*) C*) . V(2N c. CN Tt C.280 10 0 CIS = tý 4) a CD o oo en cq 0 N N Cq c ci C14 N N q in oo en C) ON cq Itt N N C*q N c t . C. 4.C. w N r4 in cq V4 4 cl 0 *ý Cd 14 12.C. '" ý cq 00 00 oo 00 c c ýo cz. ) Cj) 00 tý.4 00 4 C.. 00 C. N 4 ch '. 6 6 6 6 C. 6 6 6 4 to >1 0 ý.. 0 tn o in c) tq 0 Cý Cý . 4 C. ON cn c. rn 4) 1. 0 C'j C. 4 0 t) C21\ C\ 0 a 0 C) 0 0 c c C) 0 cf) Cq C rtt) 0 (2N ýo ýo ct r%I) ýo cq t : t 00 r o c) C) C) en C) wl c) c cn c) rý Cý cý 00 q: t cq C14 C\ t00 a\ Cý m ttý Nt cc C .C. 4COD  E cq  Cý ("I C. C. 'It cq tn rýq in cn ON 00 'It 00 00 C14 a 2 '. 'tt IRt rW) en tf. C. N cn 0 c) tri c) tt.4 C C C) 0 ". c.. 00 "4 r. N (*1 N C. C. C.c. C.4 4 C) ('q tn cq C. c. 4 C. c7N .4 4ý rA x 0 S C. 4 . 00 00 00 00 't C14 't C14 qt N "Id. 6 6 C. C.4 a) *rl E as C. 00 t 00 't qt 0 %D NO 't r"t vcn cf) cn c') qt 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 C. C. Itt '. 4 C P" 0 '" 0 "I 0 V4 C) V4 C r4 0 V4 0 C C 0 14 r0 ý" ýo ýo \0 ýo 4 C4 cq C'I C.C. . (1) 1. C cq C. M rA 4) (U '0 r) tn ch C\ t 00 C) 0 00 W) cq 00 clq ýo t in CD ýo 00 rý ef) Cf) 00 . cis C.
319 1.268 Table 6.854 1.873 1.180 0 based on rinite element 120 1.400 1.281 Mf values results 60 0.927 180 1.0 1.188 0.5 1.211 0.2 values of the compression coefficient the various plate geometries for .445 0.520 1.858 1.060 1.0 1.021 240 1.559 1.5 2.
847 2. E optimum for stiffener rigidities to inplane displacements.284 0.557 Table (6.5 1.282 Finite element stiffener optimum rigidity 0.0 60 60 60 60 120 120 120 120 180 180 180 180 240 240 240 240 0.0 1.0 1.5 2.153 4.231 0.0 0.230 6.347 0.0 0.0 1.561 18.3) F.0 0.884 7.561 9.5 2.278 5.231 22. bending plates subjected .5 1.5 2.0 1.071 2.5 2.768 3.734 4.5 1.5 1.255 9.
. 43 1i V) V) LLJ C) LLI V') 4) V) a 0 u cl U1 4J V) :3111x cu Co 0 L) LLx CIO co cn C) It i C) CD ce 4) CD Co :3 11 u11111111111 ýc r tr. LL.283 to 01 1 1111 4) 1 1111 .
\j \ (b) Imperfection (P8) mode Figure 6. PLATEINITIAL DISPLACEMENT .284 cii (a) Imperfection (P7) mode Positive dimple (away from outstand) Negative dimple (towards outstand) \\// I/ /N /.2 PATTERNS.
J.193.0 (+0) ( cy ) 00.1.4 0.0 50 Extreme fibre 100 ISO 200 2) (N/mm outstand 250 300 Ce imperfection Imperfection imperfection imperfection outstand outstand stress stress mode (P3).80 Initial Initial imperfection imperfection outstand outstand stress stress mode (PS). mode (P7).1 1 (0) 0.0y/y 0 A180 c/Co .3 * 0.1.a 0.7 0.285 0.0.3 * * Ys . +0.147.5 A180 0. Oy/y 0 0.0 0. tensile compressive c/co .3 EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODE ON THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND STRESSES.8y/yo 0.8Y/Yo c1co .70 Initial Initial Initial Initial (+a) 0.0v 0 50 100 Extreme fibre 150 200 2) (N/mm outstand 250 300 ce stress at the stiffener Figure 6. .J. mode (P7).4 EFFECTOF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODE ON THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND STRESSES.0. mode (P2). Oy/y 0 stress at the stiffener Figure 6.8 0.8 0. mode Q6).5 .1 * Ys . tensile compressive C/Co .0y/yo C/Co .5 E 0 u ýz dý .6 .7 (0) (+0 0.6 0.2 * C/Co .1.4 * 0. ) 0.2 0.
2 V Initial A Initial 0.75Y/Yo 0 C/co .00y/yo .50y/y E/ro . s.25y/yo 0.0g 0 stress at the stiffener Figure 6. mode (P8).73. tensile compressive 250 300 a )10 C/Co . e/co .25y/y 0 A180 0. mo mode (P7).0 ý2. .3 8 o.1. tensile compressive 250 300 oe c/co c/co C/c.84 Yy.75Y/Yo C/co 1. 98. .4 *0 A 180 Ys .5 EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION ON THE STIFFENER MODE OUTSTAND STRESSES. 1. (T'+C' ) 0. s 0.8 0.7 (+a) /(+a) (a 0. 0. mode (P7).8 0.0 1 0 stress at the stiffener Figure 6. mo Imperfection Impe imperfection Imperfection outstand outstand 200 outstand (N/mm2) stress stress mode W).1.5oy/y 0 0.5 Y. mode (P2).46 0.0.7 0.1 (+a) (a) 50 100 Extreme fibre 150 imperfection imperfection imperfection imperfection outstand outstand 200 outstand (N/mm2) stress stress mode (P3). mode (P8).286 0.6 ON THE STIFFENER MODE EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION OUTSTAND STRESSES.25y/y 0 ý 1.0 0.1 Initial Initiall Initial I'lit ill Initial A Initial (+a) (o) L 50 100 Extreme fibre 150 imperfection immppeerrffeecction mode (P3).6 ( cr) / (+a 0.4 .5 02.6 (+0) 0.5 01. 2 0.3 0 Initial a Initial 0. 1.
69 Imperfection mode (p7) Figure 6. r+ )Yell .8 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE COMBINED SHEARAND INPLANE COMPRESSIVE STRESS.5 180 Ys 193. .80 Imperfection mode (p5) Figure 6.7 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATECOMBINED SHEAR AND INPLANE COMPRESSIVE STRESS.287 0.0 X.180 ys " 147. oý :3 1 Co + + $ 1.
84 Imperfection mode Q7) Figure 6.98. sz * tb cil 15 6*1 Na .46 Imperfection mode (p7) Figure 6.0 X. 40 2.10 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE COMBINED STRESS.180 Ys " 73.1.288 lei 4ý.9 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE COMBINED SHEAR AND INPLANE COMPRESSIVE STRESS.5 1 180 Ys . SHEARAND INPLANE COMPRESSIVE .
r. FORTRANSVERSE SHEAR AND THOSE UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR AND .0 Aspect ratio 1.0 Figure 6.5 1.0 0.5 a/b) 2. a tko 20C 10( 0.11 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE OPTIMUMRIGIDITIES STIFFENERS IN COMPRESSION.289 YS 600 500 n 40C 4l a) E= (a S "' 30C CL 43 .
290 C\j C. LLJ bi LLLiLU 110 CO to > uj (o E r. uapýjjaoo uoýssajdwoo . C:) C) CL cx < x 0 S C) CD C) C\j 00 r C\j C:) cz C:) CL C:) L) im ý 12 . 00 LA . C:2 Lu F«: c >< (Z ce c2 C Lu LO LU LLI Co C) or" 4" LO ti Cl%j Sý. 1ý LO 00 M 141 c2.
A analysis 05 0.14 AND BEAM RESULTS FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN COMPARISON SHEAR TO COMBINED SUBJECTED PLATES APPROACH FORSTIFFENED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.0 'L. 0 mode (P3) 50 100 stress 150 200 250 outstand 300 (N/mm2) Extreme fibre at the stiffener Figure 6. .u t analysis :G r mode (P5) fectlon . 40y/yo 0.0 110..291 (r/r +4. .0/0 y y A .: ImperfectIon ). t lement roach O.y0 0 50 100 150 zuu zbu Juu Jbu e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mm2) Figure 6. (r/T y +*O/a y) 1. O. I.13 BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS SHEAR FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED APPROACH TO COMBINED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION. E U.
ion mode (P7) 0.E 0 .9 OJ 0.S O. Y) O.0 If 0 00 200 outstand 250 2) (N/m.292 ( T/r v Wc +.: Z 0. .: 0. ' 0.: mode 0.15 BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANDBEAM RESULTS FORSTIFFENED SHEAR APPROACH PLATESSUBJECTED TO COMBINED AND INPLANECOMPRESSION. E nalysis :G0.16 AND BEAM RESULTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT TO COMBINED SHEAR APPROACH SUBJECTED FORSTIFFENED PLATES AND INPLANE COMPRESSION. 41 ysis :G0. (T/T y oa/a y) 0. 300 a e 50 100 II1 150 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6. ' 0.01 0 1111 50 stress )o 100 150 200 outstand 250 (N/mm2) 300 e Extreme fibre at the stiffener Figure 6.
( rPr oala y) y 0.293 (r/r +Ipa/c y) y 1. 1 200 250 outstand 300 (N/mm2) e Figure 6.4 0.17 FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN ANDBEAM COMPARISON RESULTS SHEAR PLATESSUBJECTED FORSTIFFENED APPROACH TO COMBINED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.40Y/Yo mode (PS) 0.5 0.2 Imperfection 0.4 5 !0 19.7 0.023 0 Z. .6 0.0 FII 0 50 stress 100 150 outstand 200 2 (N/mm 250 300 ae Extreme fibre at the stiffener Figure 6.18 AND BEAM RESULTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT SHEAR TO COMBINED SUBJECTED APPROACH FORSTIFFENED PLATES AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.6 element analysis pproach 0.2 (P3) 0. M r cl 20.0 0.8 41 u 4 0. 0 so 100 stress 150 Extreme fibre at the stiffener 10 .3 0.0 1tI.8 0.1 0.
0 F 0 so 100 ISO 200 )e outstand (N/mm2 250 300 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6. ( r/.1 0.5 0.4 0. r +Ipa/o y) 0. 0.19 FINITE ELEMENTRESULTSAND BEAM BETWEEN COMPARISON SHEAR FOR STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO COMBINED APPROACH AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.3 0. .1 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 2) outstand (N/m.2 (P7) 0.8 0.7 0..294 ( rPr.2 (P7) 0. 250 300 e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6..8 0.o a/a.7 0. ) 0.20 AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED FORSTIFFENED SUBJECTED PLATES ANDINPLANE COMPRESSION.5 0..4 w 0.6 0.6 0.
0 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 Q.0 111111 0 Alp50 100 150 200 2) outstand (N/mm 250 300 stress at the stiffener Extreme fibre Figure 6.1 0.5 0. 0. (r/%oc/cý) 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mm2) a Figure 6. .22 AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO COMBINED SHEAR FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.2 (P7) 0.4 0.295 (T/T y +410/a y) 1.6 0.8 0.21 FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN COMPARISON RESULTS AND BEAM FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED AND INPLANECOMPRESSION.2 fection y 0 mode (P5) 0.6 nt analysis h 0.
1 0.296 ( r/r +*a/c y) y 0.5 0. E 0.8 0. ( 21 u OJ . (r/TvW/a V) O. .0 0 50 100 150 200 outstand (N/mm2 250 300 cy e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6.23 FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS FORSTIFFENED SHEAR APPROACH PLATESSUBJECTED TO COMBINED AND INPLANECOMPRESSION.7 0.3 0.2 (P7) 0. ' 0.4 0. 0. O. Of 0 IIII 50 100 150 200 outstand (N/mm2) 250 300 Cle Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6.6 0.: (P7) 0.24 COMPýRISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENTRESULTSAND BEAM SHEAR TO COMBINED APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.
4 "0 analysis 0.0 O.1 .26 COMPA.2 (P7) 0.297 ( r/r +qscr/a y) y 1.0 vILA.. 'ection 0 mode (P5) 0.4 0 cu 0. (T/T y +410/0 y) 0.2) 350 e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6.25 FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN RESULTS ANDBEAM COMPARISON FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.8 0. E 0. RISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENTRESULTSAND BEAM APPROACH TO COMBINED SHEAR FOR STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION. L 0 50 100 150 200 250 outstand 300 (N/m.11 0.01 0 50 100 11 150 40200 )e outstand (N/mm2 250 300 a Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6. E O.7 0 0) 0. . f it I 0.
. OF 0 III1 50 stress 10 100 ISO outstand 200 (Woub 250 300 Ce Extreme fibre at the stiffener Figure 6.7 s. 0.28 ANDBEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTS FINITE ELEMENT SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED AND INPLANE COMPRESSION. L 50 Extreme fibre 100 150 200 )e outstand (N/mm2 250 300 stress at the stiffener Figure 6.27 FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN RESULTS AND BEAM COMPARISON PLATESSUBJECTED SHEAR FORSTIFFENED TO COMBINED APPROACH AND INPLANE COMPRESSION.0. 0.: (P7) 0. w 0. . rv+"/c 0.'0.01 0 I 1.1 V) 0.7 1. (T/T y +410/cy y) a 0.298 (.2 M 0. ý Z u . [/. ! (P7) 0.
4 r C. .0+ 0. Z 0.30 COMPAýISON BETWEEN ANALYSISANDBEAM FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR AND COMPRESSIVE DISPLACEMENT ANDCy = 355 N/MM2. 92 0.4 M 0.0 L 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 a Extreme stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mtn2) e Figure 6.2 0.299 (T/T 1.Do/cr y) 1.6 4. DISPLACEMENT ( r/r +. 0.2 0.0 'M .29 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISAND BEAM BETWEEN COMPARISON FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR ANDCOMPRESSIVE APPROACH ANDay= 240 N/mm2.6 0.6 E 0.0 1 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 e Extreme stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mm2) Figure 6.
3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.(r/T y oo/o 300 y) 0.7 0 'a .31 BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSISAND BEAM FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR ANDCOMPRESSIVE APPROACH AND DISPLACEMENT y= 2 355 N/mm (T/T v +o/a y) 0. 0.0 L 0 40 BU lzu 16U at the stiffener 200 outstand (NIW) Z40 280 Ce Extreme stress Figure 6. 240 N/Mm .3 0.s 0 4 .4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.32 COMPARISON ANDBEAM BETWEEN ANALYSIS FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINED ANDCOMPRESSIVE SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AND cf y= 2.7 0.0 rz 0.0 Extreme stress at the stiffener outstand (N/MM') e Figure 6.6 .
5 2.301 Ys 600 500 I I Finite element analysis Beam approach LLI 400 4) a) E= to S(0 300 4) M . .33 0L 0. r00 SS \\ 200 443 V) 180 100 120 60 0.0 COMPýRISON BETWEEN THE OPTIMUM STIFFENER RIGIDITIES FROM FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISAND BEAM APPROACH.ýA .5 Aspect ratio Figure 6.0 1.0 (ý = a/b) 1.
. . x Figure 6. cr 0uu [is t bx /ýlconst 6s lau 3u ay baa.34a BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND LOADING FORBENDING.. Yconst lqr IRKy09u w W «» "mw a 6b ax =ü=0 ba U. x Figure 6.302 ay dL. w Ila b AL a Du jy const u . V=o 77 const t v=const A 57 au = const U.34b BOUNDARY AND CONDITIONS SHEAR FORCOMBINED AND LOADING BENDING.
1 imperfection imperfection .n '0 . 0 50 Extreme 100 fibre 150 stress 200 at the 250 stiffener 300 350 outstand a e (N/mm2) Figure 6. A imperfection A imperfection kI imperfection outstand outstand stress stress U bu lUU lbu zUU 250 300 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener e outstand a (N/mm2 Figure 6.303 M/M y 1. 180 0.1 4) X.I m 180 .35 OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODE EFFECT ON THE STIFFENER STRESSES. fection fection fection d stress d stress 0. ( 0. 0.0X945 . . fection mode (P5) mode M) mode (PO mode M) tensile compressive  0. OUTSTAND 1ý .36 ON THE STIFFENER MODE EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION OUTSTAND STRESSES. M/M y . mode (PI) mode (P2) mode (P3) mode (P7) mode (P8) tensile compressive ().
C+ +t D+ + (0 .38 CAPACITY.945 Imperfection mode (p2) Figure 6.945 Imperfection mode (p3) Figure 6.37 AT PEAKBENDING DISPLACEMENT LATERAL CAPACITY. 4 ý. ++ .1.4.0. 1. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT PEAKBENDING .304 I _2t 4 *0 L .0 180 Ys .9 .3 /+/+ I + 4 ++4 +++4.180 Ys .0 X.0.
945 Imperfection mode (p7) Figure 6.180 Ys .0 X.40 CAPACITY.0.h .39 AT PEAK BENDING CAPACITY.. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT PEAKBENDING . ý1.1.0 X.945 Imperfection mode (pl) Figure 6.305 A0 ft 9 a 8+ ý+ ý ýýt eb 44t ry .180 Ys w 0. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT 4(b ++ + trý + S 40.
42 ONTHE STIFFENER MODE EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION OUTSTAND STRESSES.180 ys .945 Imperfection mode (p8) Figure 6.180 0 w Ca . *o1 Ob.630 Initial Initial imperfection imperfection imperfection imperfection imperfection outstand outstand stress stress mode (Pl) mode (P2) mode (P3) mode (PS) mode (P7) tensile compressive E 0 0. .0.C 0. OE 0 II1 50 Extreme 100 fibre 150 stress 200 at the 10 300 400 350 Ce (N/mm2) stiffener outstand Figure 6.8  0) 0.5 X .41 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT PEAKBENDING CAPACITY.1. M/M .6 0 a 0.306 CA 444 do ID ý1.2 [  A Initial v Initial Initial (+a) (a) 0.4 0 ZE 0 0.0 X.
iditY 18 parameter (Ys = EI /aD) s 24 Ys M/M y 43 1.1 1. E 0 E 1.9 L 0 (b) Figure 6.0 .0 F= 0.307 >1 M/M y 1. CL to 0 a.a r_ 0.1 1.2 4.43 6 Stiffener 12 rigidity 18 /aD) (ys EI = parameter s 24 Ys EFFEdT OF STIFFENER RIGIDITY PARAMETER ON THE ULTIMATE BENDING CAPACITY OF THE WEBPLATE.9 0.8 06 (a) Stiffener 12 rig. .
1 r_ 1.44 Stiffener rigidity 12 (ys EIs/aD) = parameter 16 Y s EFFECT OF STIFFENER RIGIDITY PARAMETER ON THE ULTIMATE BENDING CAPACITY OF THE WEBPLATE.9 048 (a) Stiffener rigidity 12 parameter (ys = EI /aD) s 16 Ys 4) M/M y >j CL (0 L) 1.308 M/M >1 1.9 r (V OA 0. 048 (b) Figure 6. .0 cu M r_ 0.0 0.2 CL 43 r_ cu E 0 EE r 1.
" al 29 4a. 0 40 ao Extreme fibre 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 stress at the stiffener 2 outstand (Nlmm Figure 6. M/M y 1. 0) E 0 E 0 A 0. . I. 41 '0 r=  = 0.45 EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS. 0.46 EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS. 0. 12 40 cu 00 1. 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mM2) Figure 6.309 M/M y 1. i.
C. C) C\j C) C) 00 C=ý qtd* V) LLJ w V) ý4 V) 6ý c'J LLJ M: LLI i LLI LLJ 64 LLLO M: C) w LLim LLJ 1: 0 4) to ui 0 I 43 CL LLI LLui C) u LO CD Cý LLJ co rqdl i cl CD C! C) L8 W CLO . 13ULPUag . ILL.310 V. (ý 4UBLOLý1900 .
12 a..0v 0 50 Extreme fibre IIIII 100 )p 150 200 250 300 350 d outstand (N/mm2) e stress at the stiffener Figure 6.49 ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR DISPLACEMENTS. (LO . ' nent analysis l' 0 10 %ch T. 1. )K 401. = perfection mode (P7) 0.. .48 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. = tion mode 0. M/M y I.0 yIII 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 a Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mm2) e Figure 6. STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING .' nalysis .0 .311 M/M y 1.
312 M/M y 1.2 (P8) 0.51 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE APPROACH FOR DISPLACEMENTS. 0 0. 0. 2 I.0 yIIIII 0 so Extreme fibre stress 100 150 200 outstand 250 (N/mm2) 300 350 at the stiffener Figure 6.2 1. 6 0.1 i 'a 0 : 0. BENDING . M/M y I.0 vII (P8) 0 50 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 cl Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener )a outstand (N/mm2 Figure 6.4 1 z' 0.50 THE FINITE COMPARISON BETWEEN ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. 0. E: W E 0 1 0 1 .8 0. c 40 0E J 4. . STIFFENED ANALYSIS AND THE BEAM ELEMENT PLATES UNDER INPLANE.
2 (P7) 0. E analysis M ction mode I.2 0. 0 so 100 II __  150 200 outstand (N/mm2) 250 300 e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6.313 M/M y OJ . 0.0 vIII.53 COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. ..52 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS..01 0 11 50 100 150 200 outstand Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener 250 2e (N/mm 300 Figure 6. M/M y 1.00.
4 M 8) 0. M/M I.54 BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.00. c 0 41 5 . E 0.0 IF 0 50 III 100 150 200 )e outstand (N/mm2 250 300 350 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6.55 COMPAR.: ade (P8) 0. E .0v 0 III1 so stress 0100 150 outstand 200 (N/mm2) 250 300 Extreme fibre at the stiffener Figure 6.314 M/M y 39 40 m 00 0. 0. SONBETWEEN THE FINITE ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. .
1 0 11111 50 100 150 200 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener 350 2) outstand (N 300 Figure 6. E t m OA element Droach 0 analysis 561 1 0.6 analysis 10 0.57 ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. = imperfection mode (P7) 0.0. C 0.0 0 . . DIIIIIIII 0 50 100 150 200 250 outstand Extreme fibre 300 2) (N/mm 350 )o stress at the stiffener Figure 6.v a 0..315 M/M y I.56 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. M/M y .0 m .4 rection mode (P7) J1 0.
E M .01 11111 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mm2) Figure 6. 92 0.59 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. c analysis '0 .  0.8 .316 M/M 1. . rection mode (PS) 0.C . M/M y 0.7 0. e Figure 6.5 8) 1 0.. . ' 0.58 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. 50 100 150 200 300 350 400 C.0v 0 II. Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener 2) outstand (N/m.
( 1 m 39 .60 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. E 0) E 7) 0. ii 0 0.p 4OJ .01 0 1 50 __ III 100 ISO 200 outstand (N/mm2) 250 300 350 e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6.0 .61 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. 250 300 350 a at the stiffener e Extreme fibre Figure 6.01 0 111111 50 stress 10 100 150 outstand 200 2) (N/m. .317 M/M 1. M/M 1.0 7) 0.
6 .01 0 11tI 50 stress 100 150 outstand 200 (N/mm2)e 250 300 a Extreme fibre at the stiffener Figure 6. ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING M/M y 1.62 THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH FOR DISPLACEMENTS.2 de (P8) 0.0 0.0 .0 0. E S 0.I 0.63 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER INPLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS. .318 M/M I.2 ode (PS) 0. E 0.0y 0 IIIt 100 )w150 200 outstand (N/mm2) 250 300 ae so Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener Figure 6. c OA .
. .65 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT APPROACH FOR PLATESSUBJECT DISPLACEMENTS TO BENDING WITH ay= 240 N/mm2.64 THE FINITE COMPARISON BETWEEN ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM SUBJECT FOR PLATES APPROACH TO BENDING DISPLACEMENTS WITH ay= 355 N/mm2.319 M/M y I.4 (P7) J. 0.19 . E Z 0. 2) Z8u 320 Ce Figure 6. E 0. ou ou Extreme fibre I :v stress IOU at the stiffener 4uU outstand Z4U (N/m. 0 4 0 0 zc 0.0 4. M/M y 1.01 0 40 80 120 stress 160 200 240 outstand 280 (N/mmZ) a Extreme fibre at the stiffener Figure 6.0 a. 0. .
0t 0 40 80 Extreme fibre 120 160 200 outstand stress at the stiffener 240 2) (N/mm 280 320 Figure 6.20.2 j2 al 0. E FE = 0.320 M/M y 1. cu oj E 0 E .: OOL 0 40 80 Extreme fibre 120 160 200 240 280 stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mm) Figure 6.0 . 0.5 41 ..67 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ANALYSIS AND THE BEAM ELEMENT APPROACH WITH FOR PLATES SUBJECTTO BENDINGDISPLACEMENTS cy y= 2a 240 N/mm .66 COMPARISON THE FINITE BETWEEN ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH FOR PLATESSUBJECT TO BENDING DISPLACEMENTS WITH 2 cr = 355 N/mm y M/M y I .  Z 0. E cu 0 41 c 0.
5 2. "'. TO BENDING .68 COMPARISON BETWEEN EVALUATED THE STIFFENER RIGIDITY PARAMETER FROM THE FINITE ELEMENTANALYSIS AND THE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED DISPLACEMENTS.321 ys 32 Finite or element 28 Beamapproach to 24 4) 20 (D E= CL >1 16 4k 4.5 Aspect ratio 1.0 (ý = a/b) 1.0 I: ý OM wommft"m l.0 Figure 6. 4 12 X= 240 8 X= 180 4 X= 120 A= 60 b oL 0. 0.
c U 0 9: 3 uj =) j Ln clý LLJ F m Cie LLJ LLJ Fw < LLJ V) V) < 0= LLJ LU C) CIJ7 F4 =1 14 CD 04 CLI . . j X: uj j LLJ LLI LLJ L.0 CD 00 CD U:) CD xt 0 CM C) CD CD 00 C:) to CD le C) CM 00 (4 L8 0) S:3 00 . (012/S13=s AlpýSp aaue4ýý. ) < i aV) CD LLLtj > Im ui co M: Id 0 I. S . LL.LO 0 W Uj = LLI ULs LL. In = < Of < uj V) a. C) u< 21 (M 1.322 V) ý4 V) U. V) elf 0 V) 0 U 4) LLJ P C) 0 M: ati< C> 4J U W c). C) U: LL.2 LLJ co LLJ Lc) C. V) 41C LLJ LLJ LLJ Cc 21 C) (4 1. ILL.
323 CHAPTER 7 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION. .
The simple analytical expression given in section 6. By nature.1) for various Comparisons between the peak also made geometries. 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a full understanding of the transverse stiffener design proposal presented in chapter 6.11. Section by British 7. Using a simple beam analysis. The steps can be summarized as follows.2. for example the formula provided by BS5400.1 Process The results of the study presented in this thesis have established a intermediate design for the transverse stiffeners in webs of process subjected to inplane shear and longitudinal stresses.5 introduces some recommendations for future research.4 the summarizes the quoted in drawn from the this thesis. Section 7. Use the stresses determined in step 3 to evaluate the lateral load dimension given in equation 6. stiffener sizes determined from the proposed design approach and those evaluated from the current code of practice BS5400(7.2.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS of design 7. requirements Establish by reference to the load 2) Check the panel stresses by using an interaction buckling criterion. starting dimensions for panels and previous experience. evaluate the outstand bending stress at the level of applied lateral load specified in 4 above.4. Evaluate the maximum shear and inplane longitudinal stresses at the location of the stiffener whose dimensions are required. are panel capacities determined from the finite element analyses and those Standards.2 presents the general design requirements needed in the approach which include some recommendations to simplify the design process. Assume a stiffener section and calculate the effective inertia of the stiffener section which includes 32 times the web thickness.3 presents a comparison between the direct axial loads.4. 3) 4) 5) 6) . any design process is iterative. clause 9. while section studies reported conclusions 7.324 7. It also introduces a loaded by for transverse stiffeners additionally design formulation Section 7.5 should be used.6.
It should be noted that steps 1 and 2 will establish whether the web thickness and panel aspect ratio are appropriate for the applied loading the stiffener size..2. this means that the stiffened plate is under the effect of an ultimate shear stress of magnitude r. Kb curves and the corresponding interaction buckling expression given in BS5400 were evaluated.120.180....6 by equation was evaluated.. Where n= lub/T = 0. The partial safety factors ym and W3 from the expression.. it is possible to vary the aspect ratio by considering a larger iterative loop to optimise fabrication cost as would be appropriate in normal design and a simple microcomputer program can easily be written for the entire process..... (7. alternative simpler 7. If less than cry. Return to step 5.1) Equation (7.. .2.1) is the interaction buckling criterion provided by BS5400 for plates subjected to bending and shear... aspect ratios been have 240 considered with a material yield stress of Gy = 275 and N/mml Different ratios of bending to shear stress n were assumed to be acting in the plane of the web and for each stress ratio the lateral load 6.5 and and panel slendernesses X= 60..2 Design proposal It was mentioned in chapter 6 that the stiffener sizes identified by the design philosophy for stiffened plates 'subjected to the panel ultimate generally either equal or larger than the sizes shear stress are identified for any other combination of inplane stresses which the The sustain. Tyw.......... were excluded The (cyb. steps relate to optimising and the remaining However..0 1.325 7) Check this stress against cyy. Peak shear capacities and various given peak combined stresses of the unstiffened subpanels provided by the Kq. = Kq. the stiffener size should be reduced and vice versa. validity of this approach using the proposed can panel Stiffened plates of model has been checked and is discussed below.2.... . 1... It will be seen later in the next subsection that there is no need to use the direct stresses acting on the web in the stiffener design and a design requirement is proposed in section 7.t) stress combinations considered were such that (eb + Y Kq y.
2) show the variation of the peak lateral load intensity Wmax with the stress ratio n for the various panel geometries considered...6 is P...3 Effect of design.... be be the two the mean of values could used normally design if for any reason the stiffener spacing varied along the girder..6 with cyb ': evaluate 0. 3 be in therefore the steps used with previous section can presented following.. are larger than (Cyb....326 Figures (7.. It can be seen clearly that wmax is maximum when n is zero. Use the design shear stress determined from the previous step to load distribution lateral the given in equation 6. similar to the one sustain..... + w. bending the moment at any point of the stiffener sin w= wm. sin b (7. It can be concluded from this that the stiffener sizes evaluated from the beam model for stiffened plates subjected to ru = Kq ry. This decrease is significant for very stocky panels. I PE2 Xx. Le when the stiffened plate is subjected to coexistant bending decreases beam intensity load lateral the model the on peak and shear.3) .. in different...... If force the magnitude equation written axial XX.. As n increases.. for T) which the panel can Of the sizes evaluated any combinations An alternative simpler design proposal.... in addition to a direct external form in 6. for any panel slenderness..17. b is given by Ms PE ý f18. the to the stiffener cross will a subjected or girder distributed load given in equation 6.2.. direct axial forces on transverse stiffener When an intermediate transverse stiffener is connected to either a cross lateral be frame..... (7.6. 4) 7.. EI/ P/ Fý 80+wm..2) msmax 0 El/PE2 601 P/ PE . by 4 the replaced and 3) Evaluate the ultimate shear capacities of the panels adjacent to the While these would not stiffener whose dimensions are required.
180 RE On the this graph. the and obtained results.1.5. the design process will be the same as that presented in section 7.6) to evaluate the peak lateral load intensity needed for design. it is of interest to compare the panel ultimate shear capacities produced by the current finite element analyses with the corresponding values given by BS5400 for a full range of bridge panel geometries. outofplane Wmax = maximum lateral load intensity given by equation 6.2) is shown in detail in Appendix A. the ultimate capacities of the web panels adjacent to the stiffener should be determined and substituted in equation (6.0. element would obviously be most consistent if the FE values from figure 7.E values are higher than the BS5400 values except for the values evaluated by tension field theory for X= 60.120. while there is some reason to element results for design.327 where 50 = maximum stiffener initial displacement.1 except for the magnitude of the stiffener's function bending is P of and Wmax. methods (Tension field theory) is recommended for use in transversely stiffened (Buckling is for the second whereas recommended criterion) use girders in longitudinally stiffened girders by BS5400 (see chapter one).2. moment which a maximum The derivation of equation (7. Since the beam model approach has been established from the finite it results.5 ratios and aspect and of panel slendernesses plates 240 from 60.0 X 0=0. = from the of capacities unstiffened subpanels evaluated ultimate in first BS5400 The quoted are method superimposed. It can be seen clearly that the F. The first outstand yield requirement would still dictate the required stiffener size as before. 7.3 are used as the basis of the collapse shear strength.1. PE Wer's = load = ir 2EI b2 For this case of loading. Figure 7.6.3 COMPARISON WITH BS5400 REQUIREMENTS In order to use the beam model for stiffener design. although caution should be exercised in the direct use of the finite However. For this reason. believe that BS5400 is conservative in some cases for determining panel .3 presents graphically the collapse shear strength of stiffened 2.
5) Figures the of without requirements show model.328 lower BS5400 the the panel strength values would of of use capacities. however. . a single result credibility add a required order the design proposal can be compared with recommendations by Horne in figure 7. as great as might not penalty The requirements of BS5400 in relation to transverse stiffener design have previously been discussed in chapter 4. When a. the that requirement see bearing in mind that the Rockey figure is based on a tension field model. It can be for differences the more slender panels the that are substantial seen in In being BS5400 these areas. The current method lower than current therefore provides a stiffener size substantially is be but to guaranteed which conservative regardless of the practice. is interesting It Rockey(7.2) to and shown and is lower Rockey than the current analysis. not unreasonably In Appendix B.52 respectively. difference flange. The latter.3) Grayson(7. uniform longitudinal compressive stress of magnitude ac = 0. by factors the the optimum rigidities given compared with partial safety beam model using the finite element shear panel strengths. but their result comes from a subjective assessment of below which stiffened panel strength reduces rather rigidity minimum than the clearly defined first yield requirement of the beam model. extremely conservative examined. The the with the Horne and Grayson conditions of figure is a little surprising because their stiffener size is also based on F.17 and 430.6.1 and 61. be doubts about relying on the flange restraint to the stiffener as this will be dependent on both the available flange thickness and the level of coexistent flange stress.47. It is of course of interest beam from determined the those the to compare requirements with BS5400 (7. design the overall course produce smaller stiffener requirements and be is therefore supposed. It has already been pointed out that the latter will produce a suitable but for conservative result all situations. with from to this to statement. There have to. a fully transversely stiffened plate girder has been designed according to BS5400 without partial safety factors. was calculated for a particular girder with a This flange. confirms that the unrestrained case provides a substantial lower bound bending action compared with the combined transverse bending and tension field force situation present in a girder with a thick flange. E analyses. The stiffener rigidities evaluated according to BS5400 and the beam model with combined loading were ys = 763.2ay was assumed to be acting with the combination of stresses mentioned above.742 respectively. The web panels were subjected to coexistent bending stress in addition to shear. The girder has a span of 3600mm and was designed to carry a concentrated load at its midspan of magnitude P= 330 KN. the stiffeners were redesigned and the rigidities according to BS5400 and This particular the beam model werý 5001.
of conservatism 7. . and behaviour be the ultimate of stiffened could plate the post followed. 1 The finite element technique provides a very flexible analytical deflection large for the elastoplastic analyses of transversely tool stiffened plates. has been between agreement obtained the present finite good very Comparisons and existing package solutions. and stiffener slenderness. 2) 7. also nonlinearity was The following conclusions can be drawn in relation to the use of the finite element package for the nonlinear analysis of transversely stiffened plates. following The yield material stress size.1 The The finite element package used in the analysis idered large formulation The 2. plate restraint. drawn be in these to the can parameters.4 CONCLUSIONS finite element package has been presented in deflection elastoplastic account was taken of The effect of material drawn above about the 7. relation of effects conclusions As far as the stiffener is concerned. aspect ratio.2 Stiffened plates subjected to shear The behaviour of transverse stiffeners in transversely stiffened plates found boundary be dependent to the to was shear on mainly subjected initial imperfection type of pattern.4. the stiffener size requirement for a boundaries. initial outofplane of the effects included.4. the cons chapter behaviour of the stiffened plate components and displacements.329 demonstrates the conclusion example BS5400 the requirements. with element have been also results very encouraging (see chapter experimental Loading the stiffened plate by specifying boundary displacements for found the analysis of stiffened webs of plate appropriate was The box greatest advantage of this approach was that girders. the stresses and lateral boundaries displacements were maximum when the longitudinal flange compared real were unrestrained with restrained or with Consequently.
There was no significant evidence of stresses produced by axial forces due to panel tension field action. It was found that for any nondimensional shear stress. was unrestrained boundary. It was found displacement slenderness. the stresses along the length of the stiffener were almost identical to the stresses induced in a simple beam loaded laterally. Above a certain value there was with significantly increase further in little ru. stiffener increases with increase in plate the ultimate capacity of stiffened plates of X. The 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) .330 for is the plate maximum stiffened geometry particular it found In that the stiffened plate case. 3) 4) It was found that for every panel slenderness. the shear capacity increased considered. the shear stress acting on the stiffened plate to the intensity of the lateral load acting on the stiffener. the maximum lateral displacement and the stresses of the stiffener increase with A nondimensional parameter was the increase of yield stress. the magnitude of the lateral force acting on the stiffener. decrease with that for of the whereas increase lateral the maximum every panel aspect ratio. A design approach based on a simple beam model under a sinusodially varying lateral load has been proposed for the design An expression relating the magnitude of of transverse stiffeners. for to this change. imperfection modes were found for different panel aspect ratios. very A new definition has been of the stiffener optimum rigidity The value found to be appropriate. It was found that for unrestrained boundaries. the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener increases with increase of aspect ratio for a given stiffener size. was the value at introduced. geometries increase of ys. which the yielding of the stiffener occurs at the same time as the its plate reached stiffened ultimate capacity. has been established. account established The effect of varying the stiffener bending rigidity ys on the stiffened plate shear capacity was found to be similar for all plate Initially. addition. for the unrestrained peak capacity was minimum 2) The behaviour of the transverse stiffener is dependent on the panel Different critical initial initial outofplane displacement pattern.
the following conclusions can be drawn in relation to the behaviour of transversely stiffened web panels. It was found that the critical patterns for combined stress were generally different to those found for shear. The beam model approach proposed for stiffener design in plates subjected to shear was modified to take into account the effect of inplane compression. 2) The behaviour of transverse stiffeners was also found to be dependant on the magnitude of the yield stress. patterns for the geometries considered were found to be different to those for shear and combined shear and compression.3 Stiffened plates subjected to shear and compression When a stiffened plate is subjected to compression in addition to shear. The results obtained from the beam model were validated with the FE results. . 2) It was found that the effect of the stiffener rigidity parameter ys on the bending cap4city of stiffened plates was not substantial for the various geometries considered.4. A parametric study has been conducted on stiffened plates subjected to bending displacements and as a result. bending 3) 4) 7. the following conclusions can be drawn in relation to the behaviour of transversely stiffened web panels. the stiffener behaviour were 10) Comparisons of the results obtained from the simple beam model have been validated with those of the finite element analysis.331 IN parameters affecting geometric included in the expression. The behaviour of transverse stiffeners is dependent on the panel imperfection initial initial imperfection The critical pattern. The behaviour of the transverse stiffeners was dependent on the panel initial imperfection pattern . 7. The nondimensional yield parameter established for shear was also found to be valid for this stress combination.4.4 Stiffened Llýl plates subjected to stresses.
combined shear and compression for bending transverse to a proposal obtain unified were combined and in design stiffened plates subjected to a general combination stiffener following be in The drawn inplane conclusions can stresses.4. relation of to the proposed stiffener design procedure. simple has been fulfilled. A beam model approach was proposed for the design of stiffeners similar to that for shear. evaluation of the stiffener strength dimensions will be adequate regardless of the extent to which the girder flanges are relied upon to increase the shear capacity of the web panels. The results obtained from finite element results. the approach were validated with the 4) 5) 7. the that objective considered 2) The effect of external direct forces on transverse stiffeners (for from cross girder connections) can also be incorporated in example the proposal. It has been shown that the proposed stiffener design approach may be in conjunction with existing used girder ultimate readily design The methods.332 3) The effect of yield stress on the stiffener behaviour was accounted for by introducing the nondimensional yield parameter established for the other loading cases. Comparative studies with the finite element results have confirmed that the proposed design procedure is likely to provide a good for the optimum rigidity for the stiffeners. estimate Comparative studies with current showed practice proposed design procedure is simpler in application economic for slender panels.5 Design of transverse stiffeners The proposals introduced for shear. The main objective of the theoretical research described in this thesis was to develop a design procedure for transverse web It was required that the design procedure should be stiffeners. inclusion for in It is suitable and a code of practice. that the and very 3) 4) 5) .
could be added to the load considered in the current formulation.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK a useful extension to the results The following studies would provide presented in this thesis. 3) . transversely stiffened plate girders with different panel ideally be loaded 'experimentally up to failure should geometries with the transverse stiffeners designed according to the beam model approach. method. The transverse stiffener design approach proposed is based on In order to be adopted as a design numerical analyses results. 2) The beam model proposed for transverse stiffeners is likely to be affected by the existence of longitudinal stiffeners in longitudinally stiffened webs.333 I) 7. A similar parametric study would be needed to investigate the behaviour of the longitudinal stiffeners and provide the basis for the concentrated transverse loads. The ability of the stiffener to sustain the stresses up to predicted failure would be checked. It is suggested that a lateral concentrated load at the longitudinal stiffener location which is a function of the axial force acting on it.
.. 1981. 7.71. pp.an Ultimate Load Approach".3.Rockey. 106999. . "The Design of Transverse Stiffeners on Webs Loaded in Shear . C.6 REFERENCES 7. London.D Thesis. H. BS5400: Part 3. Valtinat. Part 2.334 7. R. University of Manchester. and Tang. 1982. 7.2. proceeding Institution of Civil Engineers. BSI. K.British Standard Institution. K.1 . Ph..Grayson. W. Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges. "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels".
1 (71=a b/r) COMPARISON BETWEEN LOADS THE LATERAL ON THE BEAM FORVARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF SHEAR STRESS. AND BENDING .4 0.2 TI Stress ratio Figure 7. IV) r_ CL) a 20 X 10 0.335 w 60 E E 50 "V 0 E E . r4) V) C 30 0 4) .8 1.0 0.0 40 4.
4 0.8 (T) 1.336 w 90 80 CIQ : 22 %o o% 70 0 E E _im 60 50 4c j) EE 3C x m 2: 2C 1c 0.2 =' a b/T) COMPARISON BETWEEN LOADS ON THE BEAM FORVARIOUS THE LATERAL COMBINATIONS STRESS. OF SHEAR AND BENDING .2 Ti Stress ratio Figure 7.0 0.
2 0.1 OOL 0.8 0.5 2.9 0.6 0.0 fw 0.4 0 0.7 IA (A (1) S 0.5 1.0 boundaries m = 0. .5 (CS C 0 0.0 Figure 7.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MAGNITUDES SHEAR OF THE ULTIMATE CAPACITY DEDUCED FROM ANALYSIS ANDTHE THE FINITE ELEMENT BS 5400.3 At.3 0. 0.337 Finite element analysis BS 5400 (tension field theory) BS 5400 (bucking criterion) Unrestrained T/T y 1.0 Aspect ratio 1.
5 2. BETWEEN THE BEAM MODEL .5 1.0 Figure 7.0 Aspect ratio 1.338 YS 100 90 80 70 Scu 4) w 60 CL 5C 4C cu (4 V) 3C 2C 1( 0.4 COMPARISON ANDBS 5400.0 0.
0 Aspect ratio Figure 7.5 2.0 .0 0. MODEL BETWEEN THE BEAM 1. r.339 YS 600( 500( 400C 4) a) E CL 300C W 44. 43 tn 200C 100C 0 0.5 COMPARISON ANDBS 5400.5 1.
5 42 oti 0.6 0.0 1 0 100 200 Stiffener 300 rigidity 400 500 600 YS parameter (ys = EI /aD) s Figure 7.6 COMPARISONOF FORMULATIONS.0.4 ý=1. RESULTS WITH AVAILABLE STIFFENER DESIGN . (3) Horne & Grayson Rahal & Harding Beammodel Ys 5700 BS 5400 op 0.9 0.7 1.1 Initial X= 240 imperfection (P3) mode 0.8 (A vi tn Estimate YS Rockey ref.3 0.0 0.340 Tu /T 0.2 0.
s ve'.plame d. fhe moment at an ol O'Xstance x if M= fýom A is given 7T' in &hý 5 S" 772 b . . p d p but ýO thP. of.ýplacconenf P Arw at an . rr. dx = Zeý the be indkLL jmpcrýdioa which is given Ssin )7x of the Sfifftme.Y 'y poW w. (3> . _EI 2 dýY. py wh6rt j.lafrraL load vv. 7 61 w 5 Tr 2 rrx Mle il"Pelf14cýiOn * deflediO0 uoldelload) Bai M= (dx.341 APPENDIX A Interaction of lateral load and Direct Forces on the Effective Stiffener Section. .at any &5jmce maytima" b 7hen the mornenY due io 6 ýY oaf. dx.
aZ e7t£aý"0..7 i ir .. + OEZ 62 77 77Y. 7rx Zei Of the soluiion ol Mis difleemý.70 MM  As dY in ffx 6 Irk dx YA C/ 12 dxl C05 zLrf 66 .. SM it? 5 W6 Irx 5in 6 171 wb' . (4) I T AP r lc.. ) Si. (5) and (6) 47 ecl. 77X (6) Su6sM"Ie L A rr sil v6 (A Fo b6 Efs..7 6e M e. .. Ei ITZ e wbz EZ t7'%.r ".342 flikate ETs  (2) and (3) EI  (2ý3 )Z dY W'bl %sinff x rr Z and hence ýL9 +P3(L.
fa value ol A fiven me 6y (a) 9F. P/P wEz1pj 4 IT ffX SO + sin P/ Pr b .343 UsinS pe . the rr'sCI 6r definilion of the Column 6uletepms load cq(7) can fO teplace as /be IrY6' 6e W. *iffen W FA P PC EZ Sj4bsiiýu.16 WEX/pe "IY. (5') W1*11 jive e. dellec iion Ple valete */ ioiml ) sin P/Pii and j/7 j atc derived fbe poini iwilce and ol then su6slY eq. e beam i/7 q.(3) af any exptession of Mee 6eno/1'r?JF deduced moo7entr The beaon can 6e ws : as ýeollo M= El 110 .
io sin '7" 00) 7e M a. cOh ol web . vatue 'the eicamp/e Allence ýoleeance 1om Sssqoo).. "14/e an e#edive w. nun. iaken as the approp. *. /o. l'aie Volerance. bendi 'Illy moment is a/ x= 612 Opy 01 hence P5 W46rln WIA (for 9.%.344 Pen ce "V"ZIPE2 16 P//>. Me maximum value plait) ol a momenl ond can be eva/ixa/eof w( usiny OLPPe4r.
For panel suiýectcol in des pracl.wwj. 7ý9 ol or Cros5re4 Aames. 7 Itwce.345 APPENDIX 11 Simple Calculation of a Girder Using BS5400 and Current Proposal.. . cal 4? Me spacin5 oý Aainverse. SAess is ý= 275 N/. 60 i/7 ih.ol V= 165 Arm and o. 5beaein .4iRlýmrx ciesir ýo the. n p VMOLX 2 KIV A Irom A6e. I V io suslain a I/ is regairedto ofasisn a plate gi.174&J. is spaclo. 4s. criLical Panel . 330(5600) . of&Concentraieol ýotal load midspan NlnO k44 77ýe. zb is a. PL jMld Aude Pz iýs JJOKM ma gn.bejzjAy women/ sf 247S mm.y *Ve. defcrv.7 2970oo z 297 <A/. ot ol .s PA3 wbt.". ll 6C t2JcSamcO'aS 42=600m. $ &X4MPle.malefiai . s.
4 'T.e*nesscV Me dval"&d " /0//O&js F11 600 180 = iw V3 2 65 mm  Amume me... 6carn.? mis &jje4j. ol A.. j 6z ample.4b. vb =I em resistance9.7 clause where Panel *3 tý MC hci3lyi conside.Wdb *hPOe2ne1 WAVC17 iS M Shda Aincbizo . the c/epM q/ Me. a/c slend&ness A= 1vo.. 250mro 43S5400 APPROACH a) Shleoer resistance of ithe. Z'e &kcm ate.92..346 $cAppoje .7y aerp 0/ in Y%. 7he. n3 a WC6 can be P/. yest . panel 6= 6oo. 6y. f*e.. 41an oaramcfer M j6 and 6'v bA o 117A. ye the. . o hole . tev ol Ihc la. 7 Cue whic.'s jw.. wio(M bez .sheouas .2 Vo 0/ Ct Web pane1 ande. . . d. pange and a Mickness tj d. shear is giver. 11W? iV1. mensions A* h4ve. " and by assurn...
beam which is nol ol compa." ..: 2. the girder. ror M 0. 178.005385 o64 Hence. 'Sn clause .347 where bl. g7 reSi5 taO7CC For 0sis&nce ser. Ce.6Y = end.Y q/ web clear 125 mm T61mm 11. . oYon . g12 behvetn 11anyd Plaids  b112 =2 /0 tK.6 J 6oovy.y5. .= wilh S'Yf . 7d4ý? re5iiffened . 275 Wow' 2 (6oo)"(293) Sesjrloy :F. 116mye elled. KIV.*/ 6. dm and d. DVM e= 5'0 fisk Ve . . cý Y'heYesset' 0/ a5 etc or Ext. which Is 0'46 lesse.5 fiaiuversey ol I'ake.. .93 (600)(064)( 27S ) iy. ve w. a be. = Hence 11361 mm dwe z6= MI. (113..? Aft.
e. bgtSCAJ On */. 6ýc the the the a"d "'0 exbeme eomol4551017 Xhe ecSp"WJl&j1..hTme. < Yc v i. nzl C&mpessive. "ld f'P"OW< be.52 go mm .: the depA Me of ol web neuýral clasiic The 6eam io Me measwvot axis ol ils Irom plane /.sloess clevived yje. M W.7 iesped eg. A AP eva/t*zreoodeo.348 whe.yiýdeo. *. and mm zxj areto the clas4k mootal. m" 17rg nom. Zx.425' 68< Yeew 0. ol the sec'h*0. 2CCordigwdýýe 1711 6 twe 1. 1'&? 5iO4 #VIC SCC . Mickness q425 toe a3 61pa.00625 Er. 11 228 where Yc.e a maitp.1.7 the yross sccAýon I*eWeb comptessi'veceýtfc 0/ 300 min ewe = 2. Ae Al iwe jw AbeMe.1 sl.xec42>n moW4&le4$ 6 we.
7cla4t. Nhcreos Zxc sbaval 6c //7 olcAarmineco' etcCordal7ce.. m feni 6endlý Coe%is c) I's and shezuWe6s WiYb b7termediafe. W. . &SS *4 sccAon tyie/d laAcol 6ee. V e: the. rbp(.6 Z= mon4f 1647o92.52 (60CO)l 12 1 250(10)3 12 510598666.e7ort! Mtý =Z Syl = (1647062.xj couid be.93) vt I Sii1je).Iransvdrsc 4ombined shear (Cl"Je v 4<5 awel bond.aaf Allosas ets  wiM ewol"azeal Acc try 71a dy7o' 4)7.rmlasA. =.o Ot? d 0. erS 4Ad j"6jectecl sahýrl Me .47)(275) = 452. Zý shoald 9. 7 K. i*'4 rhe ellecýivd a dvmp&".J.473 Ix ( dw/2 + ti) m#"b Ac. 5 0/ 2. sechloo Pnodulas Z.13 llat? the ol SlA.y /o (2) M0 . consideted av 11hr.. sechc.9S KA1. ee 9.349 Z.
5' y T/ z.14?: )ýdl :ýM.350 (3) > Mm then ±L fib V Vb . P) C/I ii ýbe.92.6 Mb = 457.2 be. 43 kov .. = j3397 KAt 'OhM ftkýO I' 'Cý" =048 C. ýo $heap deAýMined is Me valae9. odiny mameni wimia */7e len ym q aPP601y is ýhd maz.(/ V t4't Y 2VA Mb )( 12 M V. Vb c: and hena. in fhe.95' 14**Id VAe 76 p V. (2./ 7cf. panel ce sheatShewcapaceýy öf the pane. mu. V'= 16." IP/ the Pailel 1. r' wie Ir j (4) V>Vq then Vb m1he're V vo matimum is the for. . Wslance 6elwem Me cenlroids I lanj ler itivo Arom a6om.4de. 1 «.93)(60o)(048X275/ry) 7C= q . T KN .9 kAfs7 247.
4Vae Ao Aensico 11clae acýl*on 3.7 acccorclance 9. shjftoert ellreas . n . be i e.13. 1 1d5 178.351 7o //.11aencroe 9. a) Aviat ýPece. dl.5 ypedLiep .6 E It ( 6) 22 I 1+ ý6wj(WH) (36)(205000) 3 5.av&Ve Shed4Sý&css in Met wieb panel .1&ld 1cn5..13.2 0 rf ý'6e.6 i3397ý12(2475) )( ýI 3 SF. 7d 1lfR I.3.m conoliiion condi4ion (/) (2) As sa4is)eied siiceis sa4isf4itel 5ýIccl V<Vj> H . z Z4 19.2 axiaL rapre4. oo awýý. z(250)(10)(275)(610) F M.I . 7816 / z 0.enAýy 1ha cpleslablijj.5 Ktv.3.cs6mcd 716 ýIdsls/ a) axiaL ýh ' w. 1. . tlb < siý7ee M<Me and VA x Vb 1 111 lllq VýVq ) 1 the on6e cbeck meededis. Vransverse/040.3 Me we6 )Mw.?ý? l* 1. ýeansversc Design s4iffeners of 7he. arhowd bet o'.: z. ýorce /v cAte. 250 = 96 8 Ir.323 po.
m roi lo a Me. In Ae web panel. 11mew. hu*svcrj.. adyng o)e the 0/ = = 10312 ArAl i 32 tw + this ýaken )COrce as is /0 he C9 . a OleedeAV peo xemAý. ly. Y) 3520)(293)(600) Fj.11 6 72 00 7.7c V 6cnaliV Che4kcal moowo4l. fhe Slille4c. sl7ouvo. S4 mm . t5 miolplanogX Mop7enj M4L5ft.n the vvcb. mmi ol 01 4 8. j. sl' asiumed oevletylhe 11tiot 744p and 1%e4 .. f17. tenxion eloe aciio* an c. Ci rh e veur 0r tw Fj.9. a554.. jf1vt. n /S liosl 4rce4. 1lAdd.352 1.85 (ý600)(2.. + Avw Aprewe te"Signi 4h j:S Z. k5ame a 5Aý#emer .71 mmt = r24S mm i: 27. and as j be C4&: / wj// S" 6ýy 1&'LqA* 7 e*Ae. (03. 6e re5d..  ArCe oVer h4s is h. 7 ecs. occu.25 Ae q14.
353 CbecAt on ShC5Se.12 x103 (247/5'+ SIVIVIOI. = to A'zLks 600 mn 600 mm itv= 2.285 Men 10312 x103 te7. chouid ass"mcof Y Ao. Cal. 37 =260.03 < 273' Iv/. "ý.lo" ? 14 71 + 10312 (27S# 1465)(30S) 67goo7.418 77y 7s x 7. ce. compoessive ieoref. /0 6e. ojdaj (Clawe Abe. Abd 6 plaic we. = 9372/ T441ol37 mmy < 275 Sell= 5'0.93mm ..12. ol . bucklin T seclion axis ciasla&i j my eellect.2S 248. S Fit iF Ptr tW12) /03.2/ 103. . 4ts is a constant oleoenvliýr on the parame&.5" Ae.sAillence y omppesmil. woý * Axioa ýor&lo elleaiveils 6 orde.a z:.
."c. . e= =s5.) ov*m . 'cA A. 7/ 0. &ZL check .. 47 3S. 150." 6 coýn eone e4". fo whichev& 15 Aess. 600 2 S4 q . 'a . sco .ýs Z? aal. z7.0/ &he sIiheen& f.a .26 Allmmt (Preiiotts mesuLfs) 6. . 20*1.&ýy . ShlAmAof7 cAack w/7. matimam vala c o/ '*e 6e. Me Y/ 5. 6A. a tw Ars 6g = (293)(0OS)(9024)= 6oo .7 alone in be we6 cruc ya I 9AI Aft" Z.295'ksv 0/0 WC6 p/a7leaddsWOt7 '71c' _y. Fw.2 4 60. it 10 Z.? . r Ckeek Z7 tI ýS.2 42 lvlmm'. lAo. SAAe5scs elcvo*ttj l 4::.50. sl L.y /7.OS whetd Z:74.354 . 275 S5  V 2 o.20 247S /6470'? /V/Mn. Pse y wheve 14 rse.
ý. jr dAje_ k=c. *7 A ý710n SdC. e =V Ile t 953.n YKt. ellecAjlc Allow.Ap all 64 medn =0j.*& 6e07 . (64 6.. 4j P /7c>.21 mn' = «t =/03.355 t z. es5 7 (?Ar4 jj Ae les5e. iv whe..ol o77 ancl 2y/b (CIA"5e 1h. sh.12 ef)&4Mleslý#? nw .. *c1.. 7%. ve.41 se&hbP7= 837.e as lollows  6. Pveb Ähe ma*. 5' 2q KAi /0 = k 49.eh4c4. djs Zbe. r4e4r. 77. miý&m in fA..4c3(ew PI4V4f due. ipcehb. zx (SYS malxilnum 716AaL Fz Fli J. &PýOqcd. 7S' vlmq <2 Backllý: z ýV6 o/ ev§4. (SS2 0) r ce 62 Z ý[0 77 4'V)] +3 = /30. S nAl Avýi «en>li me.72 '. 5A ýý Sýý xewýon 6*ho&&iql Abe.. . 42AW sl. 7 i.
c sec6o.serzil. 7 ý. 2. or? V4. il = /0/ .4IV65) = 2638173AWo"in 'moclujas #kcAkce.356 et. 'Y anal he .ý Me 64 Me e. Ilvlnw m4wo".173 1968172 min 3 p Mxs As.. CL (5ýe. HleIrom Me 0. =2 Afzs .e.4q05» above * 0. Me B55. I:s app. . f 7/5't . " motne4lr 6j . 6. Z/)(26t/) s 2 838.PwmZ@ s4il#enc.9.00 . &.41(24715. /0 CAn 6C Seer. the slelmýýI? ess 2 0.173 XtO 3 1?6 8A 72 )(2 7S) = Hence.. " nome.ouc 7S*x7. 108.37 2..7 23d. 71 a6ocd 54CAOAI Abe dle71foi61 cP/ SAIII&O"ef IM' 2 2 2x lvwesý elas4.5'24 Cherks. Sm. 7 ol Me It# jt = _ SVIV101.  zz 6ý 10841 x 1CP (837.
cortlopondr 51At. z o. I'm Ise x/o. aý Ylo ^e. 40 X4 hmm . 61) 3 (0 7 43 415 o. A/ca cz c»'13 0) 2. /J"7 MAno. cs syýýev. 12021 Prcrt*octs resc&Lfs) 164709247 12o. 4.15'7(600) ?rZ sechon 6 BI/ 6. (r3) Xz 180 = 0. z1 275 6y.357 RANAL AND 14ARbllv& APPROACH 1 WN1 j 355» 3r51 b= 600 n#i jrrCy q3.61.576 ilyi . bL 7r % 15'.i) 31z IIID. = /S. bewd*ý? j momeli . 4376. /*& malue baluverra g1wen 6y SAj Me. = 0/6 = J.85275.
/ .e y 7. tetyzc)remen1 y r02c2 7s) = 55 Nlmn. td 6'e = (33S6) S6662 8. w. ýV yeo cu. ** tiaL 2. e re // WAX IC . trnný poposalBSS'qoo ýejaitrmewls . V. o 'Ca. it? the plane ol h7 CtO'OWiOI7 COMbil7e.0 4 74ý cto4s seclybrL&4 aoeA.? . the Slo 278 = lWam"  275'.9217d 6dnQej*. ne xýs fa ý7e a compoes5ifd sbcss a/ o. 6811S.tiewsio4s Mase.1y Ah e.ooS'(Ioo 7'4. ocLck e9£"2 oc .. YS w 6. e ýAners are 14tan5veriesh: Y'ýUcp redesi ned accercliftjr to Abe.av. j) . 1/ /Ollows. C/ SI?C*.P. cp. &6e acAýh !j. cva1&4%ZLof acco. evt1aaZLaf Ck4 6c 1 cVec1"cu. Ty Sýftsses 717. gE( ýomevv jLw 6) ol"e1415 74o tewsi64 Az/al sinct 6e 14. 060ve. 2 dy' 7%e KIC6 was a s5umed fO the.358 Men ce rlsg46. dompai"nq sAh4nc.5 Ahe loysi'le sA. Yh4Y app.=o . 4ir 4L/ . /yes As appiO&C..1/7e slilleace 0"". & SS5'yoo 6ý: =026. Ao ..
26 At/mm' 6c. 64 CYýA ASSceMe. . 2 rel x= es Z SC 13. 80044 V/nw' Fivi z (600)(2.4= 171471 ~1 257 g.359 F IK x Fo. c.7e. 6'b = /. =:: p 1<5 = dlC/ wheve C. 6 1407 = Km. e iw a tvptc5e*ýý7 dC5&611. To. Q= VC.044) we.0 ."m I lleflCA. 7 12 0x 12. a SeChb.113)(0.01)(ir0.= 6S' All. ýht .
qI 1.2 75.0.9. y ZOW 6ý r = /7070 < 275' IvIam" c) A34cck/byz z1 54o. oS/13..91 /7/47/ x /0 / 6. /2) (. ptl (f * iv.360 5/ . n lrx (75S) O. 6C j6 5. . l': same 65. lf3C6'27. wo.5 ýb.60 NIM». V jeckiol? alke Me A'1&dA. ?./Z kv. x = 53. seLA Sý7174&Aar 'reC44"  f.SSZ conelmdeof < .f x /0 3 2599838. &. 7 also 6c 26 0. 17CAý S eompwed 74D Ocd.8 (S1C76)(S31'V1) = 27041V/664' < 275. eoald UNWERSITY U6W UF SWIM.. W* 16 4.77(ISO. ld ol be e#ec4iye. 6) ol web pletie [11. IVICM  V66 AlmA 7.1'5 and Hardiý? 5 1( 4pp**ooch. j  RabaL 2) Wz 3. v 6 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.