ICCBT2008

Effect of Web and Flange Thickness of Profiled Web Girder using LUSAS
M. H. Abu Hassan*, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA H. M. A. Al-Mattarneh, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA A. Ibrahim, Universiti Teknologi MARA, MALAYSIA H. Abdul Hamid, Universiti Teknologi MARA, MALAYSIA B. S. Mohammed, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT The behaviour of steel girders with profiled web under shear load has been simulated using the finite element method. Three different buckling modes, namely local, zonal and global were, observed and discussed. The typical failure mode of a girder with profiled web is that it is initially in the local buckling mode occurring either at the top, middle or bottom of one flat rib upon reaching a peak load. Beyond the peak load, the ripple propagates into adjacent folds transforming the local to zonal or the ripple extends across a number of ribs forming a global buckling mode in a diagonal direction of the tension field action beyond the peak load (post-buckling load) and gradually buckled due to crippling of the web and subsequently buckled till the flanges yielded vertically into the web. In the process of buckling, the load displacement relationship of the girder switched to a sudden and steep descending branch. The buckling can reduce the post-buckling shear capacity up to 60% of the ultimate shear capacity. Keywords: Profiled Web, buckling, plate Girder, Finite Element

*Correspondence Authr: Md. Hadli Abu Hassan, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia. E-mail: hadli@live.com.my

ICCBT 2008 - C - (45) – pp515-528

zonal or global buckling mode. Normal (gantry) girders are made up of built-up sections. From time to time. Recent research by Abdul Hamid et al. He assumed that flanges in practical plate girders do not possess sufficient flexural rigidity to resist the diagonal tension field. INTRODUCTION For many structures all of the beams may be selected from among the standard range of rolled sections. the first attempt to establish a method to predict the ultimate load of girder of civil engineering proportions was made by Basler [7]. Certain industrial buildings have girders called gantry girders that carry rails for large-capacity overhead cranes.C . According to Elgally et al. Nowadays it is a common practice to fabricate such sections simply by welding together three plates to form the top and bottom flanges.6% less than the equivalent conventionally stiffened flat web. modified these theories to achieve a better correlation between theory and tested results [8. called plate girders.Effect of Web and Flange Thickness of Profiled Web Girder using LUSAS 1. causing them to behave as sub-panels. This finding agreed with Khalid et al. They also established that the collapse mode of plate girder involved the development of plastic hinges in tension and compression flanges from after development of yield zone and finally web panel fails in sway mechanism. The diagonal tension field does not develop near the web-flange juncture and the web collapses after development of yield zone. In 1970s Rockey et al. [4-6] on intermittent rectangular profiled web girders showed that. The web buckled in typical shear mode and developed large strain of inclined tension. and the web. In general. [10]. which involves several folds but only occurs over a part of the girder depth 516 ICCBT 2008 .(45) – pp515-528 . It was also noted that if the depth and the width of the ribs are increased further. a new generation of optimised steel girders is developed. They assumed that the flanges were able to anchor the diagonal tension field. the tension field action would develop in the ribs instead. 9]. The use of profiled web girder also leads to a structural system of high strength-to-weight ratio. Chan et al. developments of tension field and collapse behaviour of profiled web girder are similar to conventional flat web girder but the mode of buckling are different. [2] and Khalid [3] who had reported that a profiled web weighed 10. buckling modes are categorized as either local or global but Lou and Edlund [11] were categorised as local. However. They are: a. BUCKLING BEHAVIOUR OF PROFILED WEB GIRDER In the early 1960s. The different of this two model as shown in Figure 1. anchoring the tension field zone. innovated girder systems would require less material and result in a lighter structure when compared to a conventional girder system having webs reinforced with vertical/horizontal stiffeners. the ribs are able to act as stiffeners. Zonal buckling: an intermediate type of shear buckling (between local buckling and global buckling). 2. Figure 2 illustrates the three different buckling modes described by Lou and Edlund [11] occuring in a corrugated web. Reviewing the previous research the use of profiled webs is a possible way of achieving adequate out-of-plane stiffness out of webs without using stiffeners. Global buckling: shear buckling involves several folds and may give rise to yield lines crossing these folds c. [1]. Local buckling: shear buckling occurs in the plane part of the folds and is restricted to this region only b.

(45) – pp515-528 517 . Collapse Behaviour by Basler Figure 1(d). al. Unbuckled Behaviour of Shear Web Panel τ − τ cr Figure 1(b). H. Abu Hassan et.C .M. Post-buckled Behaviour of Shear Web Panel Vu Plastic hinge W θi X Vu Yield Zone Vu Vu σ y t Vu Z Y φ Vu Figure 1(c). Collapse Behaviour by Rockey et al (Cardiff Model) Figure 1: Failure Mechanism of Shear Web Panel (a): Local Buckling (b): Zonal Buckling (c): Global Buckling Figure 2. Buckling Modes of Corrugated Web by Lou and Edlund [8] ICCBT 2008 . τ τ − τ cr τ τ 45° τ 135° τ d τ − τ cr σt σt θi τ − τ cr τ a Figure 1(a).

(45) – pp515-528 .5 522 65 522 50 125 3.0 12.0 Flange Width (mm) Yield Stress Flange Web S550t0.0 9.0 S550t2. In this paper. Applied Load.0 S550-Fe 1.0 6.5 (a): Experimental setup (b): Dimensions of profile steel sheets of PEVA 45 Figure 3. Figures 3 show the dimensions of the typical girder tested and the profiled steel sheet used.0 9.0 Note: *Same in the experimental 125 302 405 All models were created in a 3D surface element where the entire plate components such as flanges.8-Fe 0. Dimensions and Properties of Profiled Web Girder Model Name Web Thickness (mm) Flange Thickness 9.5 d = 550 45 123. The load was applied on to the line feature along the width of the top flange to ensure that the load was transferred through the bearing stiffeners and to avoid the top flange from locally buckled into the web due to the concentrated patch load.2-Fe 1.0-Fe 2.0 S550T3-Fe 1.0 S550T12-Fe 1. thus simulating the experimental setting-up as shown in Figure 3. 518 ICCBT 2008 . An isotropic stress potential with von Mises yield condition was adopted for the material attribute.2 S550t2. web and stiffeners were modelled with quadrilateral thin shell elements (QSL8) of different density and distribution.0 9.0T20-Fe 2.0 3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF PROFILED WEB GIRDER Finite element models were developed for the specimens tested and nonlinear analysis was performed using LUSAS a finite element software to simulate the combined geometric and materials non-linear response of the girders.0 20. P 83.C .0 S550t1.8 *S550-Fe 1.Effect of Web and Flange Thickness of Profiled Web Girder using LUSAS 3.2° 45 22. all the dimensions are kept constant except web and flanges thickness and the others dimensions are tabulating in Table 1. Dimensions of Test Girder and Profiled Steel Sheet in mm Table 1.0 9.0 9.0 S550t2.0-Fe 2.0 S550T6-Fe 1. The material response was assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic and non-linear geometry of the girder used Total Lagrangian approach.

the arc-length method may converge on alternative and unstable equilibrium paths. the specimens were not fully rested on the supports. Global Axis Y X Z a. comparison of their ultimate shear loads was ICCBT 2008 . but would always fail when a snap-back situation was encountered. Notably in the presence of strain-softening. the snap-back phenomena generally occurred on numbers subject to shear loading. was not included in the finite element analysis.M. where it was able to efficiently handle snap-through situations. To ensure the girder did not buckle prematurely due to unstable of geometry deformation and/or lateral torsional buckling. and applied to both web panels with the same magnitude and direction with a maximum initial imperfection of 0. Experimental Setup b. The effect of the first slope of the load deflection curve could be due to the initial setting of experimental the setup. However. 4. Finite Element Model Figure 3. The sign of the current stiffness parameter was good at coping with bifurcation points.(45) – pp515-528 519 . Initial imperfection was modelled only using half sine wave for web panels which was not exactly like the experimental specimens. The elastic buckling (first slope) part of each curve shows that the entire finite element results were so stiff compared to the experimental results. a half-sine wave geometric imperfection was assumed. H. the arc-length control using Crisfiled arc-length procedure used in advanced non-linear incremental parameters solution did not refer to the current stiffness.C . Another reason effecting the first slope of the load deflection curve was because initial imperfection of the flanges (warping) due to welding.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Validation of Finite Element Analysis against Experimental Results Figure 4 shows comparison of load deflection curves of analytical and experimental results for different test specimens. Abu Hassan et. According to Lou and Edlund [11]. However. al. Loading. Lou and Edlund also used Crisfield arc-length procedure in ABAQUS. commercial finite element software. 4. the flanges were pinned in global X-direction as shown in Figure 3. Simulating Experimental Setup using Finite Element Since initial imperfection was not measured.1% of web depth.

(45) – pp515-528 . Non-linear finite element study done by Lou and Edlund [11] also indicated this snap back situation as shown in Figure 5.50 122. Load Deflection Curves for S550 Series Table 2.Effect of Web and Flange Thickness of Profiled Web Girder using LUSAS satisfactory.C .00 119.10 124. 140 120 120 100 100 Shear.5 Figure 4. Beyond the peak load for each load deflection curve there existed a snap back situation.29 0.03 0. Table 2 shows the comparison of ultimate shear loads using finite element analysis against experimental results. V (kN) 80 60 40 S550-Fe 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Deflection (mm) S550-2 (Exp) S550-1 (Exp) S550-3 (Exp) 2 2.98 520 ICCBT 2008 .94 1. Comparison of Ultimate Shear Loads of Finite Element against Experimental Results VU (exp) Experiment Vu (exp) Vu (FE) VU (FE) S550-1 S550-2 S550-3 130.

When the models with web thickness 0.2 mm t = 2.0 mm and 1. Load Deflection Curves for Different Web Thickness ICCBT 2008 . Shear. al. Load-deflection Curves for Corrugated Web Girder Investigated by R.2 mm had the same failure mode as shown in Figure 7(b) and (c).(45) – pp515-528 521 .0 mm 9 10 Deflection (mm) Figure 6. V (kN) 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t = 0.0 mm were compared to the model with web thickness 1.C .0 mm t = 1. All of the models buckled in zonal buckling mode as shown in Figure 7.0 mm the ultimate shear capacity reduced by 24% or increased by 21% and 106% respectively. H. Models with web thickness 1.M. Abu Hassan et. No peak and dale occurred in the load deflection response as could be seen from Figure 6.8 mm t = 1.2 mm and 2. Each curve shows that the load reduced suddenly after reaching the peak which was about 50% of the ultimate capacity.2 Influence of Web Thickness Figure 6 show plots of load deflection respond obtained using the non-linear analysis.8 mm. 1. Figure 5. Table 3 shows the results for different web thickness. Lou and Edlund [11] under Shear with Different Corrugation Depths 4.

76 1.48 0.88 140.06 (a): Web Thickness 0.29 148.2 2.13 252.2-Fe S550t2.15 58.54 0.0 92.90 68.0 mm) S550t0.(45) – pp515-528 .0-Fe 0.24 50.Effect of Web and Flange Thickness of Profiled Web Girder using LUSAS Table 3.8-Fe S550-Fe S550t1.0 mm Figure 7. Model Thickness Capacity.8 1.36 0.56 0. Buckling Modes Obtained at the End of the Analysis for Model with Different Web Thickness 522 ICCBT 2008 .46 0.0 1.C .2 mm (d): Web Thickness 2. t =1.0 mm Vu Vb (mm) Vu Vu (kN) (kN) V u (t = 1.8 mm (b): Web Depth 550 mm (c): Web Thickness 1.21 2. Results of Non-Linear Analysis for Different Web Thickness Comparison of PostUltimate Ultimate Shear Buckling Web Shear Vb Capacity with Capacity.41 122.

Compared to the thinnest flanges (T =3.0-Fe (g): S550t2. Abu Hassan et. In both figures the flanges did not have great influence in term of strength.0 mm could lead to a more abrupt reduction in the post-buckling shear capacity.0 mm). the use flanges thickness of T = 3. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the load deflection curves with different flange thickness for constant web thickness 1.0 mm and 2.3 Influence of Flange Thickness All the models showed the flanges were buckle into the web as shown in Figure 8.M.0 mm respectively. the influence on ultimate shear strength was insignificant. al. Figure 8. 4. H. the ultimate shear strength increased only about 4% for web thickness 1. the top flange was buckled sharply into the web and it looked like patch loading behaviour.0 mm. (a) shows the flange was buckled into the web such as concentrated patch loading. For the flanges thickness 3.0T20-Fe Figure 8: Buckling Modes Obtained at the End of the Analysis for Model with Different Flange Thickness ICCBT 2008 . Table 4.0 mm. (a): S550T3-Fe (b): S550T6-Fe (c): S550-Fe (e): S550T12-Fe (f): S550t2. For web thickness 2.0 mm).(45) – pp515-528 523 . show the reduction of post-buckling shear capacity up to 86% of ultimate shear capacity for model S550T3-Fe (where the flanges thickness is 3. the ultimate shear strength only increased about 2%.0 mm. That also showed that the tensile force was developing in the small region flat part of corrugation fold. This is because the flanges were very thin to anchor the tensile force from the web.C . However. The results in Table 4 show that when the slenderness of the flange element changed from slender to plastic.

T with Web Thickness 2. V (kN) 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T = 20 mm T = 9 mm 9 10 Deflection (mm) Figure 10: Load Deflection Curves for Different Flange Thickness.0 mm 524 ICCBT 2008 .C .Effect of Web and Flange Thickness of Profiled Web Girder using LUSAS Shear.0 mm Shear. T with Web Thickness 1. V (kN) 140 120 100 80 T = 3 mm 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Deflection (mm) T = 9 mm T = 6 mm T = 12 mm Figure 9: Load Deflection Curves for Different Flange Thickness.(45) – pp515-528 .

H. local buckling mode only occurred after the load reached peak and transformed to zonal or global buckling mode.04 17. Table 4: Results of Non-Linear Analysis for Different Flange Thickness Model Name Web Thickne ss (mm) Ultimate Shear Capacity. Figure 11 shows the unsymmetrical deformed mesh of the profiled web specimens using finite element analysis.0T20-Fe 1.14 0.79 252. it subsequently buckled till the flanges yielded vertically into the web.0 mm Vu Vu Vu (T = 3.04 1.0 mm) 1.3 Buckling Behaviour of Profiled Web Girder All of the tested specimens did not buckle in a symmetrical manner.0 1. Then. ICCBT 2008 .24 256.0 mm) Vu (T = 9.0 2.00 54.44 0. al.(45) – pp515-528 525 .50 0.79 123. Vu (kN) PostBuckling Capacity.0 1.0 117.0 1.36 - 0.04 1. Only one side panel buckled and pulled the flanges due to tension field action globally in a web panel or zonally in a few web sub-panels.07 122.M. where the web started to buckle in one flat part of the fold or in a few folds and then developed large deformation crossing fold lines over a part of panel width.0-Fe S550t2.04 1. Vb (kN) Vb Vu Comparison Comparison of Ultimate of Ultimate Shear Shear Capacity Capacity for for t =1.25 140.00 74. This kind of deformation behaviour was clearly observed with finite element analysis.29 122.02 S550T3-Fe S550T6-Fe S550-Fe S550T12-Fe S550t2. The load deflection behaviour changed to what was referred to as a sudden and steep descending branch after reaching peak. However.0 mm t =2.56 - 4. The finite element study also found the same buckling phenomena. That confirmed the load sudden and steep descending branch due to local buckling of flat part of corrugation fold. Abu Hassan et.C .61 0.97 61.0 2.

(45) – pp515-528 . Specimen S550-1 after testing b. zonal or global. the following conclusions could be made of present investigation: • Buckling modes of profiled web girder were categorized in three different buckling modes i. This behaviour occurred because the contribution of stress field in web was small and restricted only in these corrugation folds. the buckling phenomenon started locally in flat part of web sub-panel (local buckling) and propagated to another flat part of web sub-panel which then transformed to zonal or global buckling mode. From observation. Specimen S550-2 after testing c. 526 ICCBT 2008 .C . Local buckling mode occurs at the first stage of buckling generally after the load reaching the peak. Local flange buckling occurred depending on the web buckling modes. CONCLUSIONS From the results obtained. Zonal or global buckling mode occurred at failure load terminated (final failure).Effect of Web and Flange Thickness of Profiled Web Girder using LUSAS a. Specimen S550-3 after testing a. Experimental and FE buckling behaviour of profiled web girder 5. local.e. FE model S550-FE at load terminated Figure 11.

No. M. 1996. B. A. and Seshadri. H. Johore Bahru.H. No. C. Khalid. C. H. December 2003. R. B. S. M. [4].. C. Journal of Structural Division.. August 2003. Universiti Malaya. Valtinat. Y... Increasing the flange thickness did not influence the ultimate shear capacity but the use of thinner flanges would reduce the post-buckling capacity. L. H. The buckling could reduce the post-buckling shear capacity in average about 30% to 50% of the ultimate shear capacity. Vol. 4. Journal of Construction Steel Research. [8]. Proceeding 7th International Conference on Steel and Space Structures.. pp 1391 – 1406. REFERENCES [1]. and Edlund.. Part 2. 1981 [10]. 390 – 398. 150. Elgaaly. A. Abdul Hamid..M. Abu Hassan et. “Plate girder under shear load”. 20. A. Inst. K.. Himilton. pp. Evan. 267 – 274. Part 2. A. Civil Engrs. Chan. Proc.85 – 112.. Rockey. pp 177 – 186. 2002. 2003. K. Lou. Journal of Structural Engineering. Ibrahim. 1996. Khalid.. Malaysia. D. [5]. Khalid. Kuala Lumpur. 2004. Sahari. “Buckling of singly and doublywebbed corrugated web girders under shear loading”. and Abu Hassan. Technical Post Graduate Symposium..1069 – 1099. A.. 1961. A.. and Hamouda. Rockey. Abdul Hamid. 627 – 629. [3]. 58. pp 151 – 180. Singapore. M. A. R. ICCBT 2008 . no matter what kind of buckling modes it had to abrupt reduction of the post-buckling shear capacity. K. H. Ibrahim. Ibrahim.. Civil Engrs.. [7]. “Bending strength of corrugated web beams”. 451 – 466. M. 1. “Bending behaviour of corrugated web beam”. “Shear capacity of plate girders with trapezoidal corrugated webs”. Vol. S. R. Malaysia. pp.(45) – pp515-528 527 . and Tang. “Shear strength of beam with corrugated webs”. pp 19 – 44. Basler. [11]. ASCE.. 7. Vol. Y. Vol. B. H. “A design method for predicting the collapse behaviour of plate girders”. pp. “Finite element analysis of corrugated web beams under bending”. K. and Abu Hassan. pp. pp. and Hamouda. and Abu Hassan. “The design of transverse stiffeners on webs loaded in shear – an ultimate load approach”. Thin-Walled Structures. A. “Strength of Plate Girder in Shear”. al. M.. Proceeding of the 5th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering Conference. ASEAN Journal on Science Technology for Development. 87 No.. Issue 2. 26. Journal of Materials Processing Technology.H. pp. M. H. A. C.. Sahari. Chan. • • Three buckling modes had been found in this investigation but after initially buckled. 242 – 254.. Proc. W. L. Vol. Vol. Y.H. B. Inst. B. Abdul Hamid. October 2002.C . pp. [6].. G. and Porter. [2]. 1978 [9].. M. “Intermediately stiffened webbed welded plate girder”. 122.