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

net/publication/258186891

A simplified method in the static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels

Article  in  The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design · February 2006

DOI: 10.1243/030932405X30948

CITATIONS READS

2 39

3 authors, including:

L.A. Louca Roger Hobbs

Imperial College London Imperial College London
87 PUBLICATIONS   692 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   1,536 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hybrid steel-to-composite joints View project

configuration of mooring chain resting on surfaces with single or anticlastic curvatures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roger Hobbs on 11 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 135

A simplified method in the static plastic analysis of

corrugated steel panels
Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK

The manuscript was received on 6 March 2005 and was accepted after revision for publication on 4 October 2005.

DOI: 10.1243/030932405X30948

Abstract: Using normality theory and a simplified beam model, a theoretical method is built
up to evaluate the relationship between the central deflection of a corrugated panel and
external uniformly distributed pressure load. The interaction between the bending moment
and the membrane force in the panel is included, as well as the influence of connections. This
theoretical model is calibrated against finite element analyses. The results show encouraging
agreement.

Keywords: corrugated panels, theoretical model, endplates, finite element analysis

1 INTRODUCTION distributed load. Results based on the proposed

After the Piper Alpha tragedy, the offshore industry
carried out a great deal of research work directed
towards understanding the characteristics of hydro-
carbon fires and explosions. Accordingly, the
behaviour of corrugated steel/stainless steel panels,
which are commonly used as blast wall components,
became one of the focal topics. Many experiments
have been carried out [1, 2] and some simplified
theoretical models [2–4] built up.
Among the various theoretical models, the beam
model, which models the whole corrugated panel by
considering a single corrugation, has been widely
applied in analysis. Incorporating such a model,
several theoretical analysis methods [5–7] have been
provided. Surprisingly, most of these methods are
complicated or restricted to some special corrugation
shapes. Therefore, in general, they are not suitable
for industrial application.
This paper reports an improved theoretical method
combining plastic analysis and the beam model.
More precisely, it targets the relationship between
the central deflection of the panel, which is the maxi-
mum deflection in every instance, and the external
* Corresponding author: Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
email: r.hobbs@imperial.ac.uk
method are given, accompanied by the results from
parallel finite element analyses (FEAs) that were
conducted to establish the validity of the method.
2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD
2.1 General assumptions
1. Plasticity is developed only in dimensionless
plastic hinges.
2. A rigid-plastic material model is used, the elastic
and the strain hardening effects are both neglected.
3. Shear effects and local buckling are outside the
scope of this theoretical method.
4. The cross-section of the corrugation remains
unchanged during the entire analysis.
5. Beam theory is applicable.
From these assumptions, general limitations can be
identified, as below:
1. For a given material model, results from this
method will be less stiff than if strain hardening
effects were included.
2. The method cannot be applied to cases exhibiting
severe shear effects or those in which the cross-
section distorts because of local buckling or
corrugation flattening.

JSA124 © IMechE 2006 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
136 Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs

2.2 Material models can be found. From the condition that, in pure
plastic bending, the area below the neutral axis
In general, the stress–strain material model is based
must equal that above the axis, the plastic neutral
on the properties of the carbon steel grade 420, as
axis position (x h ) can be found as
given by BS 4360 [8]. Both nominal and true plastic p p
variables are given in Table 1, in which the ‘true’
A B
1 (2c −a ) sin h t t
properties are used in FEA. x = − p p p ∏xh∏h− (1)
p 2 2h 2 2
In this paper, the rigid-plastic material model is p
used in the theoretical method, which means that
The cross-sectional area A is
the stress does not change with increasing strain p
after reaching the yield stress. On the other hand, in h −t
the parallel FEA, two elastic–plastic material models, A =(a +2c )t +2 p pt (2)
p p p p sin h p
one including strain hardening effects and the other p
not, are used in order to check whether applying while the plastic modulus Z can be obtained as
the rigid-plastic material model in the theoretical pp
analysis is appropriate. Z =2x c t h +a t (1−x )h
pp p p p p p p p p
(x h −t /2)2 [(1−x )h −t /2]2
+ p p p t + p p p t
3 STATIC ANALYSIS OF THE CORRUGATED sin h p sin h p
p p
PANEL (3)

A corrugated panel with built-in boundary conditions

around all four sides is studied here. As mentioned 3.2 Plastic analysis of the corrugated beam
above, this panel can be idealised by considering a It has become clear that the membrane force is
single corrugated beam. Therefore, the analysis is important in the plastic analysis of the beam
actually directed towards the behaviour of a beam corrugation [9, 10]. Therefore, the membrane force
consisting of a single corrugation, with fixed-ended effect is also considered here. Its most immediate
boundary conditions at the supports and symmetric effect is to displace the plastic neutral axis (Fig. 2).
boundary conditions along the two longitudinal Defining y as the distance between the equal area
edges. p
axis and the current neutral axis, the complete plastic
analysis of the corrugated beam can be divided into
3.1 Common parameters four cases. While only one case is illustrated here and
The cross-sectional configuration of the corrugated the complete results are listed below in section 3.4,
beam is shown in Fig. 1, where all the parameters further details of the other three cases can be found
in Appendix 2.
Table 1 Properties of carbon steel grade
420 Case 1: 0∏y <x h −t /2
p p p p
Grade 420 Nominal True It can easily be shown that the ratio of the axial force
Young’s modulus, E (GPa) 200 200 to the axial yield force is
Yield stress, f (MPa) 420 420
y
Ultimate strength, f (MPa)
t
510 612 y
Ultimate strain, e (%) 20 18 n = p (4)
u p e

Fig. 1 Configuration of the corrugated panel

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2 JSA124 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
 Static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels 137

Fig. 2 Simplified stress diagram for the corrugation

while the ratio of the reduced plastic moment to the leads to the following relationship between n and
p
plastic moment for zero axial force is d , the central deflection of the simplified corrugated
p
beam
m =1+ f n2 +gn (5)
p p p
where de qw /qN Z
d = p =2 p p =−2 pp (2 f n +g) (7)
p dh qw /qM A p
A sin h 2e2t p p p p
e= p p, f =− p
4t Z sin h
p pp p 3.3 Geometric analysis of the corrugated beam
[(a −2c )+2(1−2x )h /sin h ]et
g= p p p p p p In order to evaluate the relationship between the
Z
pp external distributed load and the central deflection
Turning to the plastic collapse mechanism for the of the corrugated beam, the deformed shape of
beam (Fig. 3), since there are two plastic rotations the beam needs to be considered (Fig. 3). From the
(one at A and one at C) corresponding to the plastic equilibrium condition, it is easy to find
bending moment (only half of the span is studied by

A B
16Z s A
considering the symmetry condition), applying the q= pp 0 m + p n d (8)
normality theory ([11] and Appendix 3) gives L2 p 2Z p p
p pp
qN de =qM 2dh (6)
p p p p 3.4 The governing equation for the corrugated
where [M , N ] is the loading vector and (h , e ) is
p p p p beam
the deformation vector corresponding to the loading
vector. Defining w=m − f n2 −gn −1, equation (6) Incorporating the results of sections 3.2 and 3.3
p p p above, the governing equation for the corrugated
beam throughout the entire analysis is

A B
16Z s A
q= pp 0 m + p n d
L2 p 2Z p p
p pp
Summarizing the results for all four cases (with the
derivations for cases 2 to 4 being presented in
Appendix 2), the relationship between m , n , and
p p
d is
p
t
For 0∏y ∏x h − p
p p p 2

4y t
n = p p
p A sin h
p p
m =1+ f n2 +gn
p p p
Z
d =−2 pp (2 f n +g)
Fig. 3 Deformed shape of the corrugated beam p A p
p

JSA124 © IMechE 2006 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
138 Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs

A B
t (1−2x )h t t been carried out using Abaqus/Standard [14]. As
For x h − p ∏y ∏ p p p+ x h − p
p p 2 p sin h c p p 2 mentioned previously, two series of finite element
p p analyses, with different material models, have been
y −j performed. In each of these series, three different
n = p
p i profiles are examined (Fig. 4). For each profile, three
cases (a single corrugated strip case which is marked
m =sn2 +un +v
p p p as ‘single’; a case with three contiguous corrugated
2 strips which is marked as ‘triple’; and a whole panel
d =− (2sn +u)
p A p case which is marked as ‘whole’) have been studied
p
so that the differences between the simplified

A B
(1−2x )h t t t
For p p p + x h − p ∏y ∏x h + p model and the whole panel can be found. Detailed
sin h c p p 2 p p p 2 information on the FEA models is provided in
p p
y −w Table 2.
n = p The simple elastic–plastic model without the strain
p i
hardening effect is applied in the first series, while
m =P n2 +P n +P strain hardening is included in the second series. The
p 1 p 2 p 3
purpose of using two material models, between which
2
d =− (2P n +P ) the only difference is the strain hardening effect, was
p A 1 p 2 to identify the effects of strain hardening, both within
p
t the finite element (FE) model and between FEA and
For x h + p ∏y the theoretical method.
p p 2 p
All of the finite element modelling used the
n =1 Abaqus/Standard four-node doubly curved general-
p
m =0 purpose shell element with reduced integration, S4R.
p The overall mesh size is 0.03 m, which is fine com-
where any new parameters are defined in the pared with the profile size so that the mesh sensitivity
detailed analysis in Appendix 2.
Table 2 Details of the three corrugated panels
3.5 The finite element analysis (FEA)
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3
Previous research has shown that similar problems
can be modelled by FEA, with sufficient accuracy Panel width, B (m) 4 3.64 6.4
p
[12, 13]. Therefore, in order to validate the newly Panel span, L (m) 4 4 4
p
Span/cross-section depth 20 100 5
developed theoretical method, extensive FEA has

Fig. 4 Cross-section geometrics for the three profiles

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2 JSA124 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
 Static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels
can be neglected. In view of the symmetry, it was
only necessary to model half the structure in all the
cases analysed. Therefore, each FE model has a fixed-
ended boundary condition at one end and symmetric
boundary conditions on the other three sides, except
in the whole panel case, which has one symmetric
boundary condition at mid-span and fixed-ended
boundary conditions along the other three sides.
Considering there would be a large strain in the FE
results, non-linear analysis was included in all the
FE models and the Riks method used.
3.6 Results and comparisons
Both theoretical and FEA results are given below. In
order to illustrate those results, comparisons are also
provided.
3.6.1 Results for profile 1
The relationships between the central deflection
and the external distributed load are plotted in
Fig. 5. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the curves for each
series of cases (single, triple, and whole panel) are
generally very close. However, comparing the FE
results between the two series, there is a significant
difference at larger deflections, where the results
including strain hardening are much stiffer than
those excluding it. However, explaining this difference
by a global strain hardening effect alone is an over-
simplification. Choosing the ‘single’ case and looking
into the detail in each result, it is found that the
plastic strain is less than 4 per cent in most of the
area, while large local plastic strains exist in a small
Fig. 5 Theoretical and FEA results for profile 1
JSA124 © IMechE 2006
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
139
area close to the built-in end. Shown in Fig. 6, the
local plastic strain in the first series model in that
area is extremely large so that the area is actually
necking and being torn open. This means that the
big difference between the two series is mainly due
to the very large local plastic strain occurring in the
area close to the built-in end, while the global strain
hardening has not developed elsewhere and is not
globally significant in this analysis. Further analyses
conducted on the same structures but with pin-
ended supports show that, if no large local plastic
strain (necking) exists at both ends, results of these
two series are very similar. This confirms that the
actual function of the strain hardening effect in this
analysis is to reduce the very large local plastic strain
and control necking at the supports. On the other
hand, in fact, the current theoretical model can
achieve an equivalent effect of those FE models with
strain hardening, since necking is prevented by the
classic plastic model which assumes dimensionless
plastic hinges.
Thus it is concluded that the FEA with strain
hardening is a more realistic model, producing
better results for use as a benchmark for the new
theoretical model. Because that model is based on
the cross-section, it does not involve any discussions
of localized strains, and it is accordingly not adversely
affected by, for example, the large hinge rotations at
the supports. (Of course, it is recognized that strain
hardening would increase the load at large deflections
and rotations, but not to the extent illustrated by the
differences between the two types of FEA.)
Turning, then, to the comparison between the
theoretical results and the FEA with strain hardening,
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2
140 Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs

Fig. 6 Plastic strain in the ‘single’ case for profile 1

it can be seen that these agree well with each other
except at low deflections, where the neglect of the
elastic effect in the theoretical model is obvious.
3.6.2 Results for profile 2
The results for the (much smaller) profile 2 have
similar characteristics to those for profile 1. Within
each series, the results are very close to each other,
while when a comparison is made between the
two series, a significant difference exists at larger
deflections. Again, following on from the discussion
above, the FEA results with strain hardening are more
realistic. The theoretical and FEA results also agree
with each other in this case, which proves that the
theoretical method is valid. Looking into more detail,
compared with Fig. 5 a significant difference can be
found at low deflections in Fig. 7, which indicates
that the elastic stiffness of profile 2 is much lower
than that of profile 1. This is reasonable since the
cross-section of profile 2 is much smaller than that
of profile 1, while the spans of both profiles are the
same, at 4 m. In Fig. 7, the structure appears to stiffen
up as it yields. This is due to the axial force effect
and is obvious even when the central deflection is
small.

Fig. 7 Theoretical and FEA results for profile 2

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2 JSA124 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
 Static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels 141

3.6.3 Results for profile 3 two cases, which can validly be simplified as one-
dimensional problems, this case is a two-dimensional,
As can be seen in Fig. 8, the agreement between
deep beam, problem.
the theoretical result and FEA is not as good as
In order to clarify the problem, it can be assumed
before, except at large deflections. This simply
that
means that the theoretical method is not really
suitable for this case. Examining the stress diagram s =k s (9)
from Abaqus (Fig. 9), it can be seen that s and s 11 s 22
11 22
are actually of the same order in the middle part of where k is the ratio between s and the longitudinal
s 11
the corrugated beam. Therefore, unlike the former stress s , and all other stresses are zero. Substituting
22

Fig. 8 Theoretical and FEA results for profile 3

Fig. 9 Stress distribution when profile 3 collapses: (a) s ; (b) s

11 22

JSA124 © IMechE 2006 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
142 Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs

these assumed conditions into the von Mises criterion 4 THE INFLUENCE OF CONNECTIONS

S (s −s )2+(s −s )2+(s −s )2 Due to the particular installation requirements in

s = 1 2 2 3 3 1 ∏s
mises 2 0
gives
max(s )= √k2 −k +1 s
22 s s 0 boundary condition, a complicated mechanism forms
Using virtual work theory, the collapse load is found
to be
8 nections normally yield earlier than the panel so that
q = [s +max(s )]Z
0 L2 0 22 pp
p flattening of the corrugation is delayed. In order to
Generalizing the FE results from Abaqus, when
profile 3 collapses, k can be calculated as 2.5, yield-
s
ing max(s )=192.7 MPa and q =0.91 N/mm2. This
22 0
corresponds well to the FEA results of Fig. 8.
In general, during the deflection, the cross-section
of profile 3 closes markedly and a two-dimensional
situation forms in the middle part of the model.
According to the assumptions, the theoretical method
cannot strictly be applied in this case. However,
the proposed method still can provide general
information, especially when the deflection is large.
It is easy to understand that s increases following
22
the increasing strain, e , in the longitudinal direction,
22
due to the increasing deflection. From equation (11),
if k is small enough, max(s ) is close to s . This
s 22 0
means that if the deflection is large enough, in fact,
the case can be simplified into a one-dimensional
problem in which the difference between the
theoretical and FEA results is small. This is proved
in Fig. 8. In conclusion, it can be simply assumed
that profile 3 is at the limit of the theoretical method
in view of its small span–depth ratio.
industrial applications, the corrugated panel may
have various connection details (Fig. 10), which
(10) affect the end fixity assumed so far in this paper. In
more detail, this change affects the system in three
ways. Firstly, the boundary conditions of the panel
are changed. Instead of the original fixed-ended
(11)
between the panel and connections. Secondly, since
the boundary conditions are softer, the stiffness of
the whole panel system is reduced. Thirdly, the con-
(12)
strain in the ends of the panel is reduced and any
evaluate the influence of connections, a detailed
analysis has been carried out as follows.
4.1 Simplified model of the connections
Two commonly used connections, straight rectangular
endplates and Z-shape endplates, are shown in Fig. 10.
According to the results from Abaqus and earlier
research [15], these two kinds of connections can
be simplified into different models, as shown in
Fig. 11. Because of theoretical analysis difficulties,
potentially five plastic hinges in the first case and
seven plastic hinges in the second case, currently
only the case with straight rectangular endplates has
been analysed.
4.2 Comparison of FEA results with/without
connections
FEA results for profile 1 and profile 2 are shown in
Fig. 12. From this figure, it is noted that, in each pro-
file, the later parts of the deflection–load curves have

Fig. 10 Connections: (a) straight endplates; (b) right angle endplates

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2 JSA124 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
 Static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels 143

Fig. 11 Simplified models of each kind of connection

very similar slopes (bold lines). As an idealization, it

can be assumed that they are, indeed, parallel.

4.3 Simplification
Parallel load–deflection curves imply the same stiff-
ness, which means that in fact the influence of the
connections is not important in the later part of the
load–deflection curve. From the above comparison
between the results with/without connections, a
simplification of the entire deflection process of the
case with connections can be made by assuming that
the entire deflection procedure can be idealized into
two stages. In the first stage, the effect of connections
is taken into account so that the deformation of con-
nections also leads to deflection, while in the second
stage, the influence of connections is neglected and
only the corrugated panel is considered.

4.4 Theoretical analysis of the first stage

4.4.1 The collapse load
The collapse load can be obtained easily by virtual
work, assuming three plastic hinges in the beam
model, one at the mid-span and the other two at the
supports. It can be expressed as

8(M +M )
q = 0e 0p (13)
0 L2
p
where M and M are the maximum plastic bending
0p 0e
moments of the corrugated beam and the endplate
respectively.

4.4.2 Geometric and equilibrium conditions

Since the size of the connections is small relative
to the simplified corrugated beam, the membrane
force effect in the connections is not important
where the whole system is concerned. Neglecting
Fig. 12 Results with/without rectangular straight end- the membrane force effect in the connections, the
plates geometric and equilibrium conditions during the

JSA124 © IMechE 2006 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
144 Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs

deflection are as shown in Fig. 13: Combining equations (14) to (17) gives
M +M =N h cos h+Rh sin h (14) q
0e 2 p e e M +M =N h cos h+ (L −2h sin h)h sin h
(M −M )+N [d −h (1−cos h)] 0e p p e 2 p e e
1 2 p p e

A B
q L 2 (18)
= p −h sin h (15)
2 2 e

A B
q L 2
N [d −h (1−cos h)]= p −h sin h (19)
p p e e
A B
L 2 2
R=q p −h sin h (16)
2 e
4.4.4 The relationship between d , h, and w
p
4.4.3 The relationship between M and M
1 2 Following the assumptions noted above, plastic
In order to solve the equations above, it is essential deformation only exists at the end A and the mid-
to find a relationship between M and M . As can be span C. From Fig. 14, the rotation of the endplate is h
1 2
seen from Fig. 13(c), a vertical reaction R acts at A, and the plastic rotational angle at C is w. Applying
which means that shear stress exists on the cross- the normality theory, since M is assumed to be equal
1
section at A, while it is clear that there is no shear to M , the plastic rotational angle at A should also
2
stress at the mid-span C due to the symmetric con- equal w. It follows that h equals 2w.
dition. Thus, strictly speaking, M is not the same In Fig. 13, it can be seen that
1
as M , and indeed it is easy but tedious to show that
2
A B
M is somewhat bigger than M . L
1 2 d =h (1−cos h)+ p −h sin h tan w (20)
However, in a simplified model, particularly in the p e 2 e
first stage when q is relatively small, the relationship
between M and M can still be assumed to be Substituting h=2w into equation (20) gives
1 2

AB
M =M =M (17) L h
p 1 2 d = p tan (21)
p 2 2

4.4.5 Summary of the first stage

Generally, the analysis in the first stage can be carried
out by the following steps:

1. Combine equations (18), (19), and (21) and utilize

the relationship between m and n , listed in
p p
equation (8), to achieve the expressions for q, d,
and n , which are functions of h.
p
2. Substitute a series of h values in order to find out
Fig. 13 Geometric and equilibrium conditions the values of (q, d, n ).
p

Fig. 14 Plastic deformation diagrams

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2 JSA124 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
 Static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels 145

3. According to the results for n , check whether the

p
chosen relationship between m and n is correct
p p
or not.
4. Obtain the maximum value of (q, d, n ) for the first
p
stage, according to the criteria illustrated below.

Criteria. The maximum q value at the end of the

first stage should be very close to the collapse load
in the case without connections. Since only the
corrugated beam will be considered in the second
stage, it is reasonable to assume that the collapse
load without connections is the guideline value for
the maximum q. Furthermore, using such a guideline
value fulfils the assumption above, which requires q
to be small enough.
4.5 Analysis in the second stage
In accordance with the simplification, in this stage
the theoretical curve should run parallel to the one
without connections that has been obtained in the
previous section. However, only after the correspond-
ing part in the non-connection result curve is deter-
mined can exact values (q, d, n ) in the second
p
stage be obtained. Precisely, the initial point of the
part parallel to the non-connection curve should
be determined. While there are several methods
(by the same external load q, by the same central
deflection d , etc.) to determine this point, the best
p
method in this case is using the dimensionless
membrane force, n , since at any deformation
p
instant there is a representative n . Assuming that
p
the initial n of the parallel part in the non-
p
connection curve equals the final one in the first
stage, the initial point of the parallel ‘connection’
curve can be found. Subsequently, all values (q, d, n )
p
in the second stage can be obtained according to the
parallel assumption.
4.6 The finite element analysis (FEA)
Two series of finite element analyses, with different
material models, have again been carried out. As
before, the elastic–plastic material model without
the strain hardening effect is applied in the first
series, while, in the second series, the elastic–plastic
material model considering the strain hardening effect
is used. In each series, only profile 1 and profile 2 are
analysed since profile 3 needs further assumptions
in the theoretical method. For each profile, three
cases (‘single’, ‘triple’, and ‘whole’ as before) have
been examined. Again, all FE models are analysed by
using the same approach illustrated in section 3.5,
with detailed information of endplates provided in
Fig. 15.
Fig. 15 Configuration of the connections
4.7 Results and comparisons
Both theoretical and FEA results are given here. In
order to illustrate these results, comparisons are also
provided.
4.7.1 Results for profile 1
As can be seen from Fig. 16, within each FEA series,
there is no significant difference between the results
so that any one of them could represent the whole
series. Comparing the different series, unlike the
situation without connections, strain hardening does
not affect the results. This adds some weight to the
explanation given before. It is known that introducing
connections leads to smaller strains in the panel
when a given load is applied. Thus extremely large
local plastic strains do not exist in the FEA models
with connections. As mentioned before, the actual
function of the strain hardening effect in this analysis
is to control the large local plastic strain; where there
is no such strain, as in the current FEA models, the
effect becomes negligible. Therefore, whether the
strain hardening effect is included or not, the results
are close to each other.
Turning to the comparison between the theoretical
and FEA results, in fact these results agree with each
other well (Fig. 16), except in the initial, elastic, stage.
Obviously, this is due the neglect of the elastic effect
in the newly developed theoretical method.
4.7.2 Results for profile 2
The results for this profile have similar properties
to those for profile 1, discussed above. The only
difference is that, for this profile, even introducing
connections cannot totally avoid the large local
plastic strain, especially in those cases that disregard
the strain hardening effect. Therefore, necking and
tearing of the panel occurs and differences still exist
in the later parts of the curves. Looking into this in

JSA124 © IMechE 2006 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
146 Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs
Fig. 16 Results for profile 1 with connections
Fig. 17 Results for profile 2 with connections
detail, it can be seen that the difference between the
‘bilinear’ curves and the ‘whole’ panel one excluding
the strain hardening effect is less than the other two.
This is because, with lateral supports, the ‘whole’
case is stiffer than the other two. Consequently, the
plastic strain of the ‘whole’ case is relatively smaller;
therefore the effect of necking and tearing in the
panel is smaller.
5 CONCLUSION
This paper has developed an improved approximate
method for the analysis of a corrugated panel. Con-
centrating on the relationship between the central
J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
deflection of the panel and the external distributed
load, both theoretical and finite element analyses are
applied to three different profiles, and comparisons
between the theoretical and FEA results are provided.
By doing this, it can be found that, in modelling the
corrugated panel without connections, the simplified
method works well compared to the more costly
finite element analysis. Even in an analysis including
connections, the enhanced simplified method can
also provide accurate enough results after making
some further assumptions and simplifications. The
main differences between this simplified method and
the FEA method are due to the different assumptions,
such as neglecting the shear effect and cross-sectional
distortion. To summarize, assuming the finite element
JSA124 © IMechE 2006
 Static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels 147

analysis is reliable, the simplified method can model
the corrugated panel with sufficient accuracy, as far
as the relationship between the central deflection
and the external distributed load is concerned. In
practice, the method can give fairly good results
for shallow and medium depth profiles (normally
depth <400 mm) depending on the cross-section
geometry, while, for deep profiles, further analysis
concerning the shear effect may be needed. In com-
parison with finite element analysis, the theoretical
model can provide acceptable results efficiently and
economically. On the other hand, due to those
assumptions and simplifications, it still has many
limitations, which would repay further research.
12 Louca, L. A., Boh, J. W., and Choo, Y. S. Design and
analysis of stainless steel profiled blast barriers.
J. Constructional Steel Res., 2004, 60, 1699–1723.
13 Louca, L. A., Boh, J. W., and Choo, Y. S. Response of
profiled barriers subject to hydrocarbon explosions.
In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers on
Structures and buildings, 2004, Vol. 157, pp. 319–331.
14 Abaqus user’s manual, Version 6.3, 2002 (ABAQUS,
Inc., Providence, Rhode Island).
15 Langdon, G. S. and Schleyer, G. K. Inelastic
deformation and failure of profiled stainless steel
blast wall panels, Part 1: analytical modelling con-
siderations. Int. J. Impact Engng, 2005, 41(4),
371–399.
APPENDIX 1

Notation
REFERENCES a ,b ,c ,h ,t ,h
p p p p p p
geometric configurations of a corrugated
1 Caldwell, J. B. The strength of corrugated plating panel
for ship’s bulkheads. Trans. Royal Instn of Naval
A cross-sectional area of the corrugated panel
Architects, 1955, 97, 495–522. p
e, f, g, i, j, k, r, s, u, v, w, j, Q, P , P , P
2 Paik, J. K., Thayambali, A. K., and Chun, M. S. 1 2 3
Theoretical and experimental study on the ultimate proceeding variables for simplifying the
strength of corrugated bulkheads. J. Ship Res., 1997, equations
41, 301–317. h height of the endplate
3 Rockey, K. C. and Evans, H. R. The behaviour of e
K ratio between the lateral and longitudinal
corrugated flooring systems. Thin walled steel s
stress
structures, their design and use in building. In
L span of the corrugated panel
Symposium at University College of Swansea p
m dimensionless bending moment=M /M
School of Engineering, 11–14th September 1967, p p 0p
pp. 236–257. M bending moment of the corrugated panel
p
4 Ji, H. D., Cui, W. C., and Zhang, S. K. Ultimate M yield bending moment of the endplate
0e
strength analysis of corrugated bulkheads consider- M yield bending moment of the corrugated
ing influence of shear force and adjoining structures. op
panel
J. Constructional Steel Res., 2001, 57, 525–545. M mid-span bending moment of the
5 Schleyer, G. K. and Hsu, S. S. A modelling scheme 1
corrugated panel
for predicting the response of elastic–plastic structure
M bending moment at supports of the
to pulse pressure loading. Int. J. Impact Engng, 2000, 2
24, 759–777. corrugated panel
6 Jones, N. Structural Impact, 1989 (Cambridge n dimensionless axial force=N /N
p p 0p
University Press, Cambridge). N axial force of the corrugated panel
p
7 Alves, M. and Jones, N. Impact failure of beams N yield axial force of the corrugated panel
using damage mechanics. J. Impact Engng, 2002, 27, 0p
q external distributed uniform load
837–861. q collapse external distributed uniform load
8 Specification for weldable structural steels, 1986 BS 0
4360 : 1986 (British Standards Institution, London).
R support reaction force of the corrugated
9 Konishi, H., Yao, T., Shigemi, T., Kitamura, O., and panel
Fujikubo, M. Design of corrugated bulkhead of x dimensionless ratio to determine the
p
bulk carrier against accidental flooding load. In neutral axis
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on y distance between the equal area and
Practical design of ships and mobile units (PRADS’ 98), p
neutral axes
The Hague, 1998, pp. 157–163. z distance to determine the upper limit of
10 Onat, E. T. and Prager, W. The influence of axial
the simplified stress due to an axial force
forces on the collapse load of frames. In Proceed-
Z plastic modulus of the corrugated panel
ings of the First Midwestern Conference on Solid pp
mechanics, University of Illinois, 1953, pp. 40–42.
11 Calladine, C. R. Plasticity for engineers, 1985, d central deflection of the corrugated panel
p
pp. 44–46 (Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester). h endplate rotation

JSA124 © IMechE 2006 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
148 Y H Liang, L A Louca, and R E Hobbs

GA B A B
s yield stress 1 t 2 t
0 v= c x h + p −2c j x h + p
w rotation of the corrugated panel with Z p p p 2 p p p 2
endplates pp
w yield surface expression +c j2+a t (1−x )h +a t j
p p p p p p p p

C A B
2t r
+ p (1−2x ) j+ h
sin h p 2 p
APPENDIX 2 p

A B
h −t
Detailed plastic analysis of the corrugated panel +(1−2x ) p p h
p 2 p

A B
t (1−2x )h t t
Case 2: x h − p ∏y < p p p+ x h − p
CA B A BD
k r
p p 2 p sin h c p p 2 −(kn +r) i+ n + j+
p p p 2 p 2
From Fig. 18, it can be shown that

DH
h −t
y −j −(kn +r) p p
n = p (22) p 2
p i
Again applying the normality theory, d in this stage
z=kn +r (23) p
p is then
where 2Z
d =− pp (2sn +u) (25)

C A BD
A 1 x h −t /2 t p A p
i= p , j=− p p p t − x h − p c p
4c c sin h p p p 2 p
p p p
A B
(1−2x )h t t t
p p p + x h − p ∏y <x h + p
C A BD
ic t c Case 3:
p p p p p
k= p sin h , r= j− x h − p p sin h sin h c 2 2
t p p p 2 t p p p
p p From Fig. 19, it can be shown that
Consequently, the dimensionless bending moment
m can be obtained as y −w
p n = p (26)
p i
m =sn2 +un +v (24)
p p p
where
where

CA B D
1 t t −2x h

G C A BDH c x h − p + p
1 2t k w= p pt
s= c i2− p k i+ c p p p 2 2 sin h p
Z p sin h 2 p p
pp p
z=jn +Q (27)

G A B
1 t p
u= −2c i x h + p +2c ij+a t i
Z p p p 2 p p p where
pp
2c i
C A B
2t k p
+ p (1−2x ) i+ h j=
sin h p 2 p a
p p

C A B D
2c w t 2(1−2x )h t
C A B A BD
r k 2c
− k j+ +r i+ Q= p − p x h − p + p p p
2 2 a a p p 2 a sin h
p p p p

A BDH
h −t It can then be shown that
−k p p
2 m =P n2 +P n +P (28)
p 1 p 2 p 3

Fig. 18 Simplified stress diagram in stage 2

J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2 JSA124 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016
 Static plastic analysis of corrugated steel panels 149

Fig. 19 Simplified stress diagram in stage 3

with

C A BD
1 j
P = c i2−a j i+
1 Z p p 2
pp

G A B A B
1 t j
P = −2c x h + p i+2c iw+a t i+
2 Z p p p 2 p p p 2
pp

C A B A BD
Q j
−a j w+ +Q i+
p 2 2
Fig. 20 Normality theory of the yield surface

p H
−a (1−x )h j
p p

CA B A B
1 t 2 t
P = c x h + p −2c x h + p w+c w2 APPENDIX 3
3 Z p p p 2 p p p 2 p
pp
The normality theory of the yield surface

A B
Q
+a t (1−x )h +a t w+
p p p p p p 2 Figure 20 shows the geometric interpretation of
the normality theory. Assuming that the axes of the

A B D
Q principal strain are coincident with the axes of
−a Q w+ −(1−x )h a Q
p 2 p p p the principal stress, it can be easily found that the
work done by the external agency is maximized if the
Using the normality theory then gives
loading vector (s ) corresponds to the point at which
ij
2Z the deflection increment (dep ) is normal to the yield
d =− pp (2P n +P ) (29) ij
p A 1 p 2 surface. It can also be expressed as a requirement
p that the direction of the deflection increment vector
t (dep ) should be normal to the loading increment
Case 4: x h + p <y ij
p p 2 p vector (ds ).
ij
From this theory, the general expression in the
In this stage, the membrane force reaches its maxi- analysis above can be written as
mum value, which means that n equals 1, while the
p
non-dimensional bending moment, m , equals 0. qN Sde=qM Sdh (30)
p

JSA124 © IMechE 2006 J. Strain Analysis Vol. 41 No. 2

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Imperial College London Library on March 11, 2016

View publication stats