See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303968771

Behavior Analysis of Stiffened Slender Plate Girders

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 190

4 authors, including:

Shady Gomaa
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
5 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shady Gomaa on 15 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

Behavior Analysis of Stiffened Slender Plate Girders

Ishac ISHAC Ossama EL HOSSEINY Ehab MATAR

Professor Professor Assistant Professor
Zagazig University Zagazig University Zagazig University
Cairo, Egypt Cairo, Egypt Zagazig , Egypt
iiishac46@yahoo.com dr.ossama@bect.net Ehab_bmatar@yahoo.com

Shady MANDOUR
Demonstrator
Zagazig University
Zagazig, Egypt
Shady_mandour@yahoo.com

Summary
Non linear finite elements analysis has been conducted on three-dimensional models representing
steel plate girders with and without horizontal stiffeners to study the behaviour of three plate girder
web panel slender sections. To achieve this, a finite element model that simulates the geometric and
material nonlinear nature of the problem has been developed. A verification with previously
published experimental data has been presented. The effect of horizontal stiffener existence in web
panel and the increase of its aspect ratio are presented in this study. The numerical results of a
parametric analysis for slender beams having variable dimensions show the significant effect of
horizontal stiffeners on their failure load.
Keywords: slender beams; local buckling; shear strength; lateral torsional buckling.

1. Introduction
Slender steel plate girders are used in a variety of structural engineering applications, owing to their
high strength , to weight ratios and post buckling reserves of strength. The web panels of plate
girders may be subjected to shearing forces as in end panels, bending moments as in central panels
and a combination of such loads as in panels over intermediate supports. During the past four
decades, numerous tests have been conducted on slender plate girders to provide a better
understanding of the modes of failure and the influence of geometric and material parameters on
their ultimate resistance. Cherry [1] presented experimental and analytical study for beams in
uniform bending whose compression flanges had buckled locally. Salem et al.[2] presented an
empirical equation that determines the ultimate bending moments of beams formed of slender I-
sections directly using the full section properties. It takes into consideration the different modes of
failure whether local, local-overall or overall buckling. In parallel, several researchers presented
analytical and experimental investigations for the strength of plate girders in shear. Basler [3]
derived an equation to determine the ultimate shear capacity of plate girders considering the tension
field action that occurred after shear buckling of the web. Rockey and Skaloud [4] conducted
experiments on different girder models showing the effect of the flange stiffness on the ultimate
shear capacity. Porter et al.[5] postulated a collapse mechanism that allows for the presence of
plastic hinges in the flanges. Lee and Yoo[6] showed that the post shear buckling strength of web
panels is slightly affected by the stiffness of the flanges. Basler [7] drew an interaction diagram
between bending and shear strength of plate girder. It was assumed that the shear strength of the
section will not be affected by the presence of the applied moments unless they are higher than
those carried by the flanges only, providing that the flanges are proportioned and laterally stiffened
so that the yield stress can be reached. Shahabian and Roberts [8] outlined an approximate
 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

procedure for determining the elastic buckling loads of plates subjected to combinations of in-plane
patch loading, compression, bending and shear. They used theoretical method in obtaining
interaction formulas for different combinations of loading. Roberts and Shahabian [9] conducted
experiments on series of I-section girders to determine the ultimate resistance of slender web panels
subjected to combinations of bending, shear, and patch loading. Hancock [10] presented a design
method for computing the distortional buckling strength of the compression flange of C- and Z-
sections under bending. F.Shahabian and Roberts [11] conducted a series of tests on 12 short span
slender steel plate girders to investigate the ultimate resistance of the web panels to shear loading,
patch loading and combined shear-and-patch loading. They derived an interaction formula for this
combined loading. Lee and Yoo [12] tested 10 scaled plate girder models to investigate the shear
behaviour of web panels up to failure and concluded that the flange is not needed for development
of the post buckling. El Aghoury and Hanna [13] presented the interaction behaviour of slender I-
sections subjected to combined bending and shear forces. Fatimah Denan et al. [14] concluded that
steel beam with trapezoidal corrugated web section have higher resistance to lateral torsional
buckling compared to that of section with flat web.

2. Numerical study
A finite elements model using a non-linear finite elements program ANSYS 12.0[15] was
developed for simulating a simply supported steel slender plate girders. A model validation through
comparison with previous experimental published results is presented to enhance model accuracy.
The elements used were shell 181 that is available in ANSYS elements library that gives more
accuracy in buckling problems. The mesh density is chosen so that the elements aspect ratio is
nearly equal to one. The beams boundary condition at supports were simulated to represent hinged
and roller supports. Another element solid 45 was used to simulate the solid part at the supports and
the under point of loading. Two cases were considered for material non-linearity, the perfect linear
elastic and the multi linear elastic - plastic. The steel elastic modulus was taken 1.9x105 MPa and
Poisson's ration was assumed 0.3 .The stress strain plateau is shown in Fig.(1). In all plastic cases,
the von-Mises yield criterion is used with the associated flow rule. When strain hardening is
present, kinematics hardening is considered.
2.1 Comparison of results of the finite elements model analysis for a two bay beam with
those experimentally tested by F.Shahabian and T.M.Roberts[11]:
An experimental work was conducted to a two bays beam with vertical stiffener as shown in Fig (2)
and with dimensions as shown in Table (1). The results of finite elements analysis using the
developed model yields close failure loads to experimental work by 4.4 % for P.G1 and 7.5 % for
P.G2 as shown in Table (2) and curves shown in Figs. (3) and (4).

600

500
stress(MPa)

400

300

200

100
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
strain

Fig (1) : Stress strain relation for used steel Fig (2): Experimental model by Shahabian et.al.
 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

Table 1: Dimensions of experimental work by Shahabian et.al.

Specimen bf(mm) dw(mm) tw(mm) tf(mm) a(mm)
P.G1 200 600 4.1 12.5 600
P.G2 300 900 3.1 10.2 900
Table 2: Comparison of finite element models with experimental work.
Specimen bf/2tf dw/tw a/dw Vexp(KN) VF.E(KN) Vexp/ VF.E
P.G1 8.0 146.1 1.0 373 390 0.956
P.G2 14.7 290.3 1.0 271 252 1.075

450 300
400
250
350

Load(KN)
300 200
Load(KN)

250
150
200 F.E model F.E model
150 exp. 100 exp.
100
50
50
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
central def.(mm) central def(mm)

Fig (3) : Load deflection curve at mid span of P.G1 Fig (4) Load deflection curve at mid span of P.G2
2.2 Comparison of results the finite element model for a beam with those experimentally
tested by Sung C.Lee and Chai H.Yoo[12]:
An experimental work was conducted to a beam with vertical stiffener as shown in Fig (5) and with
dimensions as shown in Table (3). The results of finite elements analysis using the developed model
are close to experimental work by 5.1 % for G1 and 7.7 % for G2as shown in Table (4) and curves
(Figs. 6,7,8).
Table 3: Dimensions of experimental work by Sung
et.al.
Specimen bf(mm) dw(mm) tw(mm) tf(mm) a(mm)
G1 130 400 4.0 15 400
G2 200 600 4.0 10 600
Fig (5): Experimental model by Sung et.al.
Table4: Comparison of finite element model with experimental work.
Specimen bf/2tf dw/tw a/dw Vexp(KN) VF.E(KN) Vexp/ VF.E
G1 4.33 100 1.0 282.43 297.6 0.949
G2 10.00 150 1.0 332.45 308.7 1.077
350
350
300
300
250
250
Load(KN)
Load(KN)

200 200

150 150
F.E model 100
100 F.E model
exp
50 50 exp.

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8
lateral def(mm)
def(mm)

Fig (6): Load deflection curve at mid span of G1 Fig (7): Load lateral deflection curve of compression
flange at mid span of G1
 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

350
300
250

Load(KN)
200
150
100 F.E model
50 exp

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
lateral def(mm)

Fig (8): Load lateral deflection curve of compression flange at mid span of G2.
2.3 Parametric study and results
The presented parametric study handles the effect of the outstand flange width to thickness ratio
bf/2tf (range 10-20), the web depth to thickness ratio dw/tw (range 150-300), the web shear panels
aspect ratio a/dw (range 1-3) under the effect of two points loads acting on simply supported
slender steel built up I-section. The parameters and their range of variation are listed in table 5. This
study is carried out for two cases: case 1 (no horizontal stiffener) and case 2 (horizontal stiffener at
dw/5 ) as shown in Fig (9). Figure 10 shows web local buckling happened in a beam with bf/2tf =20
,dw/tw = 300 and a/dw=1. Dimensions of the beams are given in Table 5. Results of finite elements
analysis are shown in Figs (11-24). Figures 11 to 20 show relation between failure load and web
depth to thickness ratio (dw/tw) in the two cases (no horizontal stiffener and with horizontal
stiffener) with change of outstand flange width to thickness ratio (bf/2tf ). Figures 21and 23 show
relation between failure load and deflection at mid span of the studied beams in the two cases (no
horizontal stiffener and with horizontal stiffener) for dw/tw = 300 , bf/2tf = (10,20) and a/dw = (1,2).
Figures 22 and 24 show relation between failure load and lateral deflection of compression flange at
mid span of the studied beams in the two cases (no horizontal stiffener and with horizontal stiffener)
for dw/tw = 300, bf/2tf = (10, 20) and a/dw = (1, 2).

Fig (9): Studied beam.

Fig (10): example of shear buckling in web panel
associated with lateral torsional buckling in flange

Table 5: Dimensions of studied beams.

dw(mm) tw(mm) bf(mm) tf(mm)
600 2 100,125,150,175,200 5
600 2.5 100,125,150,175,200 5
600 3 100,125,150,175,200 5
600 4 100,125,150,175,200 5

It is to be noted that range of dw/tw =(150 – 300) , bf/2tf = (10 – 20) , tf/tw = (1.25 - 2.5).
 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

160
160
140 140

120 120

100 100

Load(KN)
Load(KN)

80 a/dw =1
80
a/dw =1 a/dw = 2
60 a/dw = 2 60 a/dw = 3

a/dw = 3
40 40

20
20
0
0
150 200 250 300 350
150 200 250 300 350
dw/tw
dw/tw

Fig (11): relation between failure load and web Fig (12): relation between failure load and web
depth to thickness ratios (no horizontal stiffener, depth to thickness ratios (with horizontal stiffener,
bf/2tf =10). bf/2tf =10).

180 250
160

140 200

120
Load(KN)
150
Load(KN)

100
a/dw =1
80 100 a/dw =1
a/dw = 2
a/dw = 2
60 a/dw = 3
a/dw = 3

40 50

20
0
0 150 200 250 300 350
150 200 250 300 350 dw/tw
dw/tw

Fig (13): relation between failure load and web Fig (14): relation between failure load and web
depth to thickness ratios (no horizontal stiffener, depth to thickness ratios (with horizontal stiffener,
bf/2tf =12.5). bf/2tf =12.5).

300

400
250 a/dw =1
a/dw = 2 350
a/dw =1
a/dw = 3 300 a/dw = 2
200
a/dw = 3
Load(KN)

250
Load(KN)

150
200

100 150

100
50 50

0
0
150 200 250 300 350
150 200 250 300 350
dw/tw
dw/tw

Fig (15): relation between failure load and web Fig (16): relation between failure load and web
depth to thickness ratios (no horizontal stiffener, depth to thickness ratios (with horizontal stiffener,
bf/2tf =15). bf/2tf =15).
 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

350 450

400
300 a/dw =1
a/dw =1 350 a/dw = 2
250 a/dw = 2 a/dw = 3
300
a/dw = 3

Load(KN)
Load(KN)

200 250

150 200

150
100
100
50
50

0 0
150 200 250 300 350 150 200 250 300 350
dw/tw dw/tw

Fig (17): relation between failure load and web Fig (18): relation between failure load and web
depth to thickness ratios (no horizontal stiffener, depth to thickness ratios (with horizontal stiffener,
bf/2tf =17.5). bf/2tf =17.5).

450
350
400
300 a/dw =1
350
a/dw =1 a/dw = 2
250 a/dw = 2 300 a/dw = 3
Load(KN)

a/dw = 3
250
Load(KN)

200
200
150
150

100 100

50
50
0
0 150 200 250 300 350
150 200 250 300 350 dw/tw
dw/tw

Fig (19): relation between failure load and web Fig (20): relation between failure load and web
depth to thickness ratios (no horizontal stiffener, depth to thickness ratios (with horizontal stiffener,
bf/2tf =20). bf/2tf =20).

200 200
180 180
160 160
140 140
Load(KN)

Load(KN)

120 120
100 100
80 80
60 PL300,10,1(no) PL300,10,1(no)
60 PL300,20,1(no)
PL300,20,1(no)
40 PL300,10,1(with) 40 PL300,10,1(with)
20 PL300,20,1(with) 20 PL300,20,1(with)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 5 10 15
def(mm) Lateral def.(mm)

Fig (21): relation between failure load and Fig (22): relation between failure load and lateral
deflection for dw/tw=300, bf/2tf=(10,20) and a/dw=1 deflection for dw/tw=300, bf/2tf = (10,20) and a/dw=1
with and without horizontal stiffener. with and without horizontal stiffener.
 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

160 160

140 140
PL300,10,2(no)
120 120 PL300,20,2(no)
PL300,10,2(with)
100

Load(KN)
100
PL300,20,2(with)
Load(KN)

80
80

60
60
PL300,10,2(no) 40
40
PL300,20,2(no)
PL300,10,2(with) 20
20
PL300,20,2(with)
0
0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 5 10 15 20
Lateral def.(mm)
def(mm)

Fig (23): relation between failure load and Fig (24): relation between failure load and lateral
deflection for dw/tw=300, bf/2tf=(10,20) and a/dw=2 deflection for dw/tw=300, bf/2tf=(10,20) a/dw=2 with
with and without horizontal stiffener. and without horizontal stiffener.

3. Conclusions

The followings conclusions can be drawn out from this study:

1- For square web panels a/dw =1, the increase of web depth to thickness ratio for web panel is
accompanied with a faster decrease in the failure load specially with large values of (bf/2tf).
2- For rectangular web panels a/dw >1, the failure load is approximately constant with varying ratio
of dw/tw due to shear buckling in web.
3- Using web horizontal stiffener leads to increase failure load.
4- Increasing web panel aspects ratio (a/dw) leads to decrease failure load.
6- For rectangular web panels a/dw >1, The failure mode is mainly due to shear buckling in web.
7- For larger values of bf/2tf, the failure mode is due to shear buckling in web while for smaller
values of bf/2tf, the failure mode is due to lateral torsional buckling in flange.
8 - Increasing web panel aspects ratio (a/dw) leads to increase vertical deflection.
9 - Using web horizontal stiffener leads to decrease in vertical deflection.
10 - Increasing outstand flange width to thickness ratio (bf/2tf) leads to decreasing lateral deflection
of the flange in the two cases (no horizontal stiffener and with horizontal stiffener).
11- Increasing web panel aspects ratio (a/dw) leads to increasing lateral deflection in the two cases
(no horizontal stiffener and with horizontal stiffener).

4. References
[1] CHERRY, S., “The stability of beams with buckled compression flanges”, Struct. Eng.,
Vol. 38 , No.9, 1960 ,pp. 277-85.
[2] SALEM , A.H., El AGHOURY, M., EL DIB, F.F. and HANNA, M.T. “Strength of slender
I- section beams”, 4th European conference on steel and composite structures, Eurosteel
2005, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
[3] BASLER, K., “Strength of plate girders in shear”, J. Struct Div, ASCE, Vol. 87, No. 7,1961
,PP.151-180.
[4] ROCKEY, K.C. and SkALOUD, M. “The Ultimate load behaviour of plate girders loaded in
shear”, The Struct Eng., Vol.50, No.1,1972, PP.29-47.
[5] PORTER, D.M., ROCKEY, K.C. and EVANS, H.R., “The collapse behaviour of plate
girders loaded in shear”, The Struct. Eng., Vol. 53, No.8,1975, pp.313-325.
 Global Thinking In Structural Engineering: Recent Achievements
IABSE CONFERENCE, SHARM EL SHEIKH 2012

[6] LEE, S. C. and YOO, C. H., “Strength of plate girder web panels under pure shear”, J.
Struct. Eng ASCE, Vol.124,No.2,1998,pp.184-194.
[7] BASLER, K., “Strength of plate girders in combined bending and shear”, J. Strucrt. Div,
ASCE, Vol.87,No.7,1961,pp.181-197.
[8] SHAHABIAN, F. and ROBERTS, T.M., “Buckling of slender web plates subjected to
combinations of in plane loading”, J. Constr. Steel Res.,1999, Vol.51,pp.1-19.
[9] ROBERTS, T.M. and SHAHABIAN, F., “Ultimate resistance of slender web panels to
combined bending shear and patch loading”, J. Constr. Steel Res. Vol.57,2001,pp.779-790.
[10] G. J. HANCOCK “ Design for Distortional Buckling of Flexural Members” ,Thin-Walled
Structures,vol.27,1997, pp.3-12.
[11] F.SHAHABIAN and ROBERTS , “Combined shear and patch loading of plate girders” , J.
Struct. Eng ASCE, Vol.126,No.3,2000,pp.316-321.
[12] SUNG .C.LEE and CHAI .H .YOO , “Experimental study on ultimate shear strength of web
panels” , J. Struct. Eng ASCE, Vol.125,No.8,1999,pp.838-846.
[13] M.El AGHOURY and M.T.HANNA “Shear-bending interaction strength of locally buckled
I- sections” , Steel and and composite str. Vol.8No.2,2008,pp.145-158.
[14] FATIMAH DENAN, MOHD HANIM OSMAN and SARIFFUDDIN SAAD, “the study of
lateral torsional buckling behaviour of beam with trapezoid web steel section by
experimental and finite element analysis , Ijrras ,Vol.2,No.3,2010, pp.232-240 .
[15] (ANSYS Inc., “ANSYS, Release 10.0 documentation“, http://www.ansys.com.)
symbols
a: distance between vertical stiffener.
dw: depth of web.
tw: thickness of web.
tf: thickness of flange.
bf: width of flange.
bf/2tf: outstand flange width to thickness ratio.
dw/tw: web depth to thickness ratio.
a/dw: web panel aspect ratio.
Vexp: experimental failure load.
VF.E: finite element failure load.
F.E model : finite element model.
exp: experimental work.

View publication stats