Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

A study into optimization of stiffeners in plates

subjected to shear loading
M.M. Alinia*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology
(Tehran Polytechnic), Hafez Ave., Tehran 15875-4413, Iran
Received 11 August 2003; received in revised form 14 October 2004; accepted 15 October 2004
Available online 9 December 2004

Abstract
A great deal of attention has been focused on plates subjected to shear loading over the past
decades. One main fact in design of such elements, which fall in the category of thin-walled
structures, is their buckling behavior. Plate girders and recently shear walls are being widely used by
structural engineers, as well as ship and aircraft designers. The role of stiffeners is proved to be vital
in design of such structures to minimize their weight and cost.
In this work, by using ANSYS finite element method of analysis, some 1200 plates are analyzed in
order to study the role of stiffeners and to come up with some limits for an optimized design
procedure. This eigenvalue method of analysis is first validated with the theoretical calculations and
known cases for a wide range of typical panel geometries.
The results show that the number of panels produced by intermediate transverse stiffeners should
not be less than the value of plate’s aspect ratio. In other words, the transverse stiffeners should
divide the length of the plate to portions equal or less than its width.
It is also shown that the optimum geometric properties of the stiffeners correspond to the point
when the buckling shape of a plate changes from the overall mode to local mode. Furthermore, all
stiffened plates, with a similar aspect ratio and number of stiffeners, have a specific value of EIs/aD,
for which the critical shear stress is optimal. In addition, some expressions to predict these properties
are presented.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Plate buckling; Shear loading; Stiffener; Optimization

* Tel.: C98 21 641 8008.

E-mail address: m.alinia@aut.ac.ir.

0263-8231/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2004.10.008
846 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

Nomenclature
a length of plate
b width of rectangular plate
D flexural rigidity of isotropic plate (ZEt3/12(1Kn2))
E Young’s modulus
h height of a rectangular stiffener
Is moment of inertia of a stiffener
ks shear buckling coefficient
Nxy shear load (per unit length)
(Nxy)cr critical shear load (per unit length)
t thickness of plate
ts thickness of rectangular stiffener
f aspect ratio of plate
y Poisson’s ratio
(txy)cr critical shear stress
tp critical shear stress of unstiffened plate
tps critical shear stress of stiffened plate
u elastic deflection of plate

1. Introduction

1.1. Shear buckling of plates

The differential equation for local buckling of a rectangular plate subjected to pure
shear loading is presented by Timoshenko [1] as:
v2 u
DV4 u K 2Nxy Z0 (1)
vx vy
The equation for elastic critical buckling load of a flat unstiffened plate is given in the
form [2]:
p2 D
ðNxy Þcr Z ks (2)
b2
where ks is the shear buckling coefficient and is a function of the plate aspect ratio and the
plate loading [3]. Its value is equal to 5.34 for simply supported, and 8.98 for clamped
edges [4]. Stein and Neff [5] carried out some numerical analysis for simply supported
plates and produced the diagram shown in Fig. 1. Similarly, Budiansky and Connor [6]
produced some results for clamped plates. However, everyone agreed on the following
equation for calculating the critical shear stress [4]:
ks p2 E  t 2
ðtxy Þcr Z (3)
12ð1 K n2 Þ b
 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860 847

Fig. 1. Values of shear buckling coefficient for unstiffened flat plates.

For simply supported plates: ks Z 5:34C f42 fi1

For clamped plates: ks Z 8:98C 5:6
f2
fi1

1.2. Critical shear stress of stiffened plates

The shear buckling analysis of long, simply supported, rectangular plates, having
transverse stiffeners, was first carried out by Stein and Fralich [7]. Later Cook and Rocky
[8] extended their research works. The terminology and results of their work are shown in
Fig. 2a and b. They presented same results for plates having a longitudinal stiffener as
shown in Fig. 3.
In recent works, Hughes et al. [9], developed some improved expressions for elastic
local plate buckling and overall panel buckling of uniaxially compressed T-stiffened
panels. They used them to derive an expression for the rigidity ratio of stiffeners that
uniquely identifies ‘cross over’ panels, for which, local and overall buckling stresses are
the same.
Byklum et al. [10] provided a tool for buckling assessment of stiffened panels by
deriving a computational model for global buckling and post buckling analysis of stiffened
panels, subjected to biaxial in-plane compression or tension, shear and lateral pressure.
They also derived the equilibrium equations by the use of principle of stationary potential
energy.
Loughlan [11], presented a basic strip formulation for complex buckling modes of
composite material plates subjected to in-plane load combinations, and used it to illustrate
the effects of changes in stiffener geometry on buckling performance of plates.
Rhodes [12], made a somewhat brief and superficial study of plate elements and
members subjected to local buckling, and mentioned a few interesting problems. He
concluded that although there has been a great deal of work carried out on plate buckling
and post buckling behavior, there is still a substantial amount to be learnt.
848 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

Fig. 2. (a) Transverse stiffeners in long plates. (b) Values of shear buckling coefficient for plates with transverse
stiffeners.

2. Method of study

2.1. Numerical modeling and analysis of stiffened plates

The linear analysis of the Finite Element program, ANSYS 5.4 is used for prediction of
shear buckling stresses of stiffened plates. Eigenvalue buckling method of analysis is the
basic concept in this package. APDL programming language is incorporated into ANSYS
5.4 for modeling purposes. SHELL 63 elements are used for modeling and analysis of
plates and stiffeners. These ‘four nodes’ linear elastic elements have the capability to
simulate both membrane and flexural behavior. Furthermore, these elements have six
degrees of freedom along and about their axes. The stiffened plates are divided into
sufficient number of elements to allow for free development of buckling modes and
displacements. Some trial runs are also carried out to study the convergence of the
results.
 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860 849

Fig. 3. Values of shear buckling coefficient for plates with a longitudinal stiffener.

All four edges of plates are considered to be simply supported and are defined
accordingly in the modeling procedure. Uniformly distributed shear loads are applied
along the middle plane of all edge nodes, while the end nodes are given half the amount of
the middle ones.
Fig. 4, shows a typical (here a T-shape) stiffened model of a rectangular plate used in
the present study.
The material is assumed to be mild steel: (EZ2.1!106 kg/cm2 and nZ0.3).
In order to verify the accuracy of the method of analysis, a series of pre-selected cases
are modeled and analyzed using ANSYS 5.4. The results are compared to theoretical and
known values, as shown in Table 1. This table shows excellent correlation of results.
More than 1200 models of stiffened plates are then carefully selected and analyzed and
great amounts of data are produced to obtain the optimal parameters required for this
research. These data are then used to generate tens of tables and diagrams.

Fig. 4. Typical T shape stiffening of a rectangular plate.

850 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

Table 1
Geometric properties of some selected models, and comparison of results between theoretical and the numerical
methods

Plate dimensions (cm) f Critical shear stress (kg/cm2)

a b t Theoretical Numerical Percentage
analysis analysis difference
1 100 100 0.5 1 443.66 440.51 K0.709
2 100 100 1 1 1774.63 1762.00 K0.712
3 200 200 1 1 443.66 441.95 K0.386
4 200 200 2.5 1 2772.86 2762.00 K0.392
5 300 300 1 1 197.18 196.25 K0.472
6 300 300 3 1 1774.63 1766.00 K0.486
7 200 100 0.8 2 771.35 793.34 2.851
8 200 100 1.2 2 1735.53 1785.00 2.850
9 300 150 1 2 535.66 551.62 2.980
10 300 150 2 2 2142.63 2206.00 2.957
11 400 200 1 2 301.31 309.38 2.677
12 400 200 2 2 1205.23 1237.00 2.636
13 300 100 0.8 3 703.86 708.00 0.588
14 300 100 1.2 3 1583.69 1593.00 0.588
15 450 150 1 3 488.79 490.94 0.440
16 450 150 2 3 1955.18 1964.00 0.451
17 600 200 1 3 274.95 276.56 0.588
18 600 200 2.5 3 1718.42 1729.00 0.616
19 1000 100 0.6 10 368.29 365.78 K0.680
20 1000 100 1.5 10 2301.80 2286.00 K0.686
21 2000 200 1 10 255.76 255.21 K0.214
22 2000 200 3 10 2301.80 2297.00 K0.209

2.2. The effect of stiffeners on shear buckling stress

The main aim of stiffeners is to increase the buckling capacity of plates without
increasing the plate thickness. This increase in capacity can be achieved in two ways:

1 Using flexible stiffeners, with low flexural rigidity:In this case the stiffeners do buckle
and deform together with the plate as a unit, otherwise known as the overall buckling
mode. Here, the buckling stress increases; the amount of which depends on the rigidity
of the stiffeners. However the buckling mode of plate does not change in comparison to
the unstiffened plate. Fig. 5, shows this argument for a typical buckling shape of a
rectangular plate having a flexible stiffener.
2 Using rigid stiffeners, with high flexural and low torsional rigidity:In this case the
stiffeners do not buckle nor deform together with the plate, but by undergoing a large
amount of twist, actually divide the width of the plate into sub-panels, and finally
change the buckling mode, otherwise known as the local buckling mode. Here, the
increase in the buckling stress is due to the reduced width of panels. Fig. 6, is a clear
example of rigid stiffeners and a typical buckling shape of a rectangular plate having a
rigid stiffener.
 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860 851

Fig. 5. Typical buckling shape of a rectangular plate having a flexible stiffener.

2.3. Aim of this work

Fig. 7 shows a typical buckling shape of a rectangular plate having a semi-rigid stiffener.
In this case, which can be classified as the transient stage, both modes occur together and
interact very closely. This is the case where one expects to gain a maximum increase in the
critical shear stress, while minimizing the number of stiffeners and the overall weight of
plate. The main aim of this work is to find a relationship to predict this case.

3. Discussion of results

Table 2 shows the optimum stiffness ratios of plate stiffeners for different aspects ratios
and number of stiffeners. The values shown here are extracted from Tables and plotted
diagrams mentioned earlier.

Fig. 6. Typical buckling shape of a rectangular plate having a rigid stiffener.

852 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

Fig. 7. Typical buckling shape of a rectangular plate having a semi-rigid stiffener.

Table 3 shows the optimum percentage of increase in critical shear stress of stiffened
plates in comparison to the unstiffened ones, for different values of plate’s aspect ratios
and number of transverse stiffeners.
These results are discussed in three sections:
First, the dimensions of the stiffeners are considered in terms of their flexural rigidity;
then, the effect of number of stiffeners is studied, and finally, the effect of type or geometry
of stiffeners is discussed.

3.1. Singularly stiffened plates

By studying the results obtained from analysis of rectangular plates, and considering a
single rectangular type of transverse stiffener, the effect of stiffener dimensions
upon critical shear stress was evaluated. Examples of which are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
Table 2
Optimum stiffness ratios of stiffeners and plates for different aspect ratios and number of stiffeners

1 stiffener 2 stiffeners 3 stiffeners

f EIs/aD f EIs/aD f EIs/aD
0.50 0.577 0.33 0.510 0.17 0.073
0.67 1.622 0.50 2.165 0.25 0.606
0.80 2.768 0.67 6.103 0.50 8.370
1.00 5.279 1.00 20.411 1.00 59.670
1.25 2.768 1.50 6.103 2.00 8.370
1.50 1.622 2.00 2.165 4.00 0.606
2.00 0.577 3.00 0.510 6.00 0.073
 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860 853

Table 3
Optimum percentage of increase in critical shear stress for different values of aspect ratios and number of
stiffeners

f Percentage of increase in shear stress

1 stiffener 2 stiffeners 3 stiffeners
1.0 90 356 984
1.5 56 164 421
2.0 31 93 227
3.0 0.3 38 92
4.0 16 46
5.0 5 26
10.0 1.3

Fig. 8, shows the effect of stiffener’s height on the buckling stress, and Fig. 9 shows its
effect on the increase in the ratio of critical shear stress to the weight of plate and stiffener.
It can be seen from the two diagrams that the increase in shear buckling stress is very
slow at the beginning, but changes suddenly at some point where the buckling mode
changes, and then again the increase is slow. The main point here is to find the instance
where the effect of increase of stiffener’s height is considerable; in other words, the
instance when the buckling mode changes. Typical diagrams showing buckling mode
shapes were previously presented in Figs. 5–7. The intermediate stage, shown in Fig. 7, is
the initial point of interest in this work.
By plotting such diagrams for various plates and dimensions and different number of
stiffeners, it was concluded that the optimum numerical ratio of EIs/aD for plates with the
same aspect ratios is nearly constant. Tables 4 and 5 are two typical examples for this case.
Table 4 shows that the amount of increase in critical shear stress for different plate
geometries, which have one rectangular stiffener and an aspect ratio of 2, is about 30.4%.

Fig. 8. Effect of stiffener’s height on critical shear stress with one transverse stiffener.
854 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

Fig. 9. Effect of stiffener’s height on the ratio of critical shear stress to the weight.

Similarly, Table 5 shows a 90.7% increase in plates with aspect ratio of 1. Using these
results, the diagram of the variation of the unit-less ratio EIs/aD, against different aspect
ratios, is plotted in Fig. 10.
The best formula which can be fitted into this curve is expressed by Eq. (4):
 K1
EIs
Z 0:19 C 0:7303f2 ln f K 0:7303f ln f2 (4)
aD

Table 4
The optimum amount of increase in critical shear stresses for typical plates having one stiffener and an aspect
ratio of 2

a b t f ts h EIs/aD tps/tp
1 100 50 0.3 2 0.13 1.32 0.579 1.299
2 100 50 0.3 2 0.25 1.05 0.561 1.282
3 100 50 0.5 2 0.25 2.15 0.604 1.303
4 200 100 0.5 2 0.25 2.70 0.621 1.295
5 100 50 0.3 2 0.5 0.83 0.526 1.302
6 100 50 0.5 2 0.5 1.70 0.569 1.290
7 200 100 0.5 2 0.5 2.15 0.604 1.305
8 200 100 1 2 0.5 4.35 0.627 1.291
9 100 50 0.3 2 0.75 0.72 0.496 1.305
10 100 50 0.5 2 1 1.35 0.535 1.310
11 200 100 0.5 2 1 1.70 0.569 1.302
12 200 100 1 2 1 3.50 0.624 1.309
13 100 50 0.5 2 1.5 1.20 0.542 1.303
14 200 100 0.5 2 1.5 1.50 0.567 1.331
15 200 100 1 2 1.5 3.05 0.599 1.311
16 200 100 1 2 2 2.80 0.603 1.327
Ave. 1.304

All dimensions are in cm.

 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860 855

Table 5
The optimum amount of increase in critical shear stress for typical plates having one stiffener and an aspect ratio
of 1

a b t f ts h EIs/aD tps/tp
1 100 100 0.5 1 0.5 3.45 5.352 1.905
2 150 150 0.5 1 0.5 3.95 5.432 1.859
3 200 200 0.5 1 0.5 4.35 5.490 1.882
4 300 300 0.5 1 0.5 5.00 5.623 1.895
5 100 100 1 1 1 5.50 5.267 1.855
6 150 150 1 1 1 6.30 5.373 1.872
7 200 200 1 1 1 6.90 5.352 1.839
8 300 300 1 1 1 7.90 5.432 1.864
9 100 100 0.5 1 1.5 2.40 5.142 1.916
10 150 150 0.5 1 1.5 2.75 5.267 1.962
11 200 200 0.5 1 1.5 3.05 5.465 1.974
12 300 300 0.5 1 1.5 3.45 5.352 1.963
13 100 100 1 1 2 4.35 5.016 1.899
14 150 150 1 1 2 5.00 5.201 1.932
15 200 200 1 1 2 5.50 5.267 1.905
16 300 300 1 1 2 6.25 5.241 1.890
17 100 100 1 1 3 3.80 4.884 1.922
18 150 150 1 1 3 4.35 5.016 1.897
19 200 200 1 1 3 4.80 5.142 1.927
20 300 300 1 1 3 5.50 5.267 1.890
Ave. 1.907

All dimensions are in cm.

Fig. 10. Optimal values of rigidity ratios for plates having a single transverse stiffener.
856 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

Fig. 11. Values of increase in critical shear stress for plates having a single transverse stiffener.

Fig. 11 shows the ratio in increase of critical shear stress in singularly stiffened plates
compared to the unstiffened ones.
As mentioned, the optimal dimensions of stiffeners for plates of similar aspect ratio are
constant. By considering the amount of these stresses, it can also be concluded that the
ratio of critical shear stress of stiffened plates to the unstiffened ones is constant, by other
means, for a constant value of plate aspect ratio; the amount of increase in critical shear
stress is constant. As shown in Fig. 11 and Table 3, the amount of this increase reduces
with the increase of f. For plates having aspect ratios greater than 2 and having a single
transverse stiffener, this increase is less than 30%, and hence, one can simply conclude that
the number of stiffeners must increase.
The amount of this increase can be calculated from the following equation:
   
tps 1 1
Z K0:9331 2 C 2:5912 C 0:2433 (5)
tp f f

3.2. Effect of number of stiffeners

Fig. 12, shows the effect of stiffener’s height on shear buckling stress of rectangular
plates having two transverse stiffeners and aspect ratio of one. In this particular case, the
dimensions of plate are 150!150!0.7 cm.
As in previous case, the value of EIs =aD for a constant value of f is constant. The
optimal values for plates with two stiffeners are shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 14 shows the ratio of increase in critical shear stress against the aspect ratio in
plates having two transverse stiffeners. The amounts of this increase are also shown in
Table 3. It can be seen that this increase is very small for plates having aspect ratios greater
 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860 857

Fig. 12. Effect of stiffeners’ height on critical shear stress with two transverse stiffeners.

than 3; therefore, more stiffeners are needed to obtain sufficient increase. The following
equation can be used for plates having two stiffeners:
   
tps 1 1
Z 2:9473 2 C 0:8459 C 0:7662 (6)
tp f f

Same analyses were carried out for plates having three stiffeners and same
conclusions were obtained as shown in Table 3 and Figs. 15 and 16. The corresponding

Fig. 13. Optimal values of rigidity ratios for plates with two transverse stiffeners.
858 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

Fig. 14. Values of increase in critical shear stress for plates having two transverse stiffeners.

equation is:

   
tps 1 1
Z 10:552 2 K 0:6914 C 0:9767 (7)
tp f f

Also, it is interesting to note that when the number of stiffeners and the plate’s aspect
ratios are the same, an increase of about 90% is achieved in all cases.

Fig. 15. Optimal values of rigidity ratios for plates having one, two and three stiffeners.
 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860 859

Fig. 16. The optimum increase in critical shear stress for different values of aspect ratios and number of stiffeners.

3.3. Effect of type stiffeners

As mentioned before, the best types of stiffeners must have enough flexural and
negligible torsional rigidity. T type stiffeners agree with these conditions. For a constant
amount of cross-sectional area (or unit mass), the T stiffeners have a higher value of
second moment of area in comparison with the rectangular ones. In addition, they have
more resistance against beam-column buckling. Same analyses as rectangular stiffeners
were carried out for T and L type stiffeners, and very similar results were obtained. Thus,
their results will not be presented or discussed independently. Mathematical method of
conditional maximizing and minimizing was used to obtain the optimal geometrical
dimensions of T stiffeners.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Number of stiffeners

By stiffening a flat rectangular plate, its critical shear stress increases. The amount of
this increase depends on the aspect ratio and the type and number of stiffeners. The results
presented in Fig. 16 show that by raising the aspect ratio of a plate, the amount of increase
in critical shear stress lessens, and gradually becomes negligible. Hence, it is important to
match the number of stiffeners with the aspect ratio of plates. In other words, the number
of panels produced by intermediate stiffeners should not be less than the value of plate’s
aspect ratio, or, it can be concluded that the transverse stiffeners should divide the length
of the plate to portions equal or less than the plate’s width.
860 M.M. Alinia / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 845–860

4.2. Geometrical properties

All plates which have a similar aspect ratio and number of transverse stiffeners, have an
optimal value of the flexural stiffness ratio EIs/aD, for which, the critical shear stress is at
its highest possible value. This corresponds to the point where the buckling shape changes
from overall to local mode. Diagrams shown in Figs. 10, 13, or 15 and Eqs. 5–7 are
presented for prediction of the optimum geometrical properties of stiffeners.

References

[1] Timoshenko S. Theory of elastic stability. New York: McGraw Hill; 1936.
[2] Bryan GH. On the stability of a plane plate under thrusts in its own plane with applications on the buckling
of the sides of a ship. Proc Lond Maths Soc 1891.
[3] Bruhn EF. Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures. 1st ed.: Tri-State Offset Company; 1973.
[4] Allen HG, Bulson PS. Background to buckling. New York: McGraw Hill; 1980.
[5] Stein M, Neff. NACA Technical note No 1222; 1947.
[6] Budiansky B, Connor RW. NACA Technical note No 1559; 1948.
[7] Stein M, Fralich RW. NACA Technical note No 1851; April 1949.
[8] Cook IT, Rocky KC. Aeronaut Quart 1962;13(1):41.
[9] Hughes OF, Ghosh B, Chen Y. Improved prediction of simultaneous local and overall buckling of stiffened
panels. Thin-Walled Struct 2004;42.
[10] Byklum E, Steen E, Amdahl J. A semi-analytical model for global buckling and post buckling analysis of
stiffened panels. Thin-Walled Struct 2004;42.
[11] Loughlan J. The buckling performance of composite stiffened panel structures subjected to combined in-
plane compression and shear load. Compos Struct 1994;29(2).
[12] Rhodes J. Some observations on the post buckling behavior of thin plates and thin-walled members. Thin-
Walled Struct 2003;41(2–3).