Stiffener

Stiffener is an effective way to reduce wafer warpage after carrier removal and
assembly-induced package warpage.

From: Modeling, Analysis, Design, and Tests for Electronics Packaging beyond
Moore, 2020

Related terms:

Girder, Beams and Girders, Flanges, Stringers, Stiffened Plate

View all Topics

Scantling of Ship's Hulls by Rules

Yong Bai, Wei-Liang Jin, in Marine Structural Design (Second Edition), 2016

Stiffeners
The minimum required stiffener size is specified by the section modulus of the
stiffener as a function of stiffener spacing, stiffener span, design pressure, and
allowable stress (Figure 8.9).

Figure 8.9. Stiffener.

From the beam theory, the required section modulus of a stiffener is

(8.12)

Considering a stiffener with fixed ends, the maximum bending moment is

(8.13)
A stiffener is supposed to carry lateral pressure, which acts on the plate attached to
the stiffener, with a loading breadth equal to the stiffener spacing. Therefore, the
distributed load on the stiffener, q (in N/mm), can be calculated from the equation

(8.14)

where s is the stiffener spacing and p is the design pressure in N/mm2.

By inserting Eqns (8.13) and (8.14) into Eqn (8.12), the following is obtained.

(8.15)

The classification rules contain this kind of equation for the design of beams under
lateral pressure.

> Read full chapter

Minimization of bowing distortion

in welded stiffeners using differential
heating*
M.V. Deo, in Minimization of Welding Distortion and Buckling, 2011

6.5.3 Case 3: welding with side heating (140 °C) and tack welds
The stiffener welded with tack welds and side heating shows bowing and angular
distortion in the stiffener and bending of the web plate. The amount of bowing
distortion is at a maximum (5.2 ) at the stiffener midspan. As a result of heating, the
web plate tends to expand. However, the tack welding does not allow this expansion.
As a result, the web plate has bending distortion as well. Figure 6.11 shows the web
plate bent out of plane near one end of the stiffener. The web plate is bent on the end
of stiffener which was welded last. Table 6.3 lists the amount of bowing distortion
in this case.
6.11. Bending of the stiffener web plate in case 3 after welding with differential
heating (140 °C) of tack-welded specimen.

> Read full chapter

General Design
Dennis R. Moss, Michael Basic, in Pressure Vessel Design Manual (Fourth Edition),
2013

Lateral Buckling of Stiffening Rings per CC2286

Lateral buckling is dependent on stiffener geometry. The requirements for stiffener
geometry per CC2286 are as follows;
Figure 2-3. (A), (B), (C). Stiffener Geometry Per CC2286

Case 1: Flat bar stiffener, flange of a tee stiffener, or outstanding leg of an angle
stiffener;
Case 2: Web of tee stiffener or leg of angle stiffener attached to the shell;

> Read full chapter

Floating Offshore Platform Design

John Halkyard, in Handbook of Offshore Engineering, 2005

General
Stiffeners are employed to resist lateral loading of the plate and are usually made
from the rolled shapes integrally welded to the plate. Such stiffeners are distinct
from the other stiffeners used to prevent plate buckling. Typically, stiffeners run
continuously through the supporting frames. Otherwise they are referred to as
“intercostal” and require special connections at each end at each frame.

A summary of stiffener bending is given in fig. 7.95, the upper part showing context
in the stiffened panel, between frames and uniform loading. The lower part of the
figure shows the typical bending patterns and bending stresses in the stiffener/plate
combination.
Figure 7.95. Summary of stiffener bending

Figure 7.96 shows some of the typical stiffeners sections used. The US Unequal
angles sections are the prevalently available rolled shape in the US, but do not offer
a sufficiently wide selection, particularly in the larger shapes. The T-section, while a
particularly efficient shape material wise, is problematic and expensive in relation
to connections and frame penetrations and prevalent only in naval construction or
where special builders tooling is used. International hull construction uses both
the profile section (Europe primarily) and the JIS ship angle. Both are manufactured
primarily for ship construction, particularly efficient, and have distinct advantages,
especially large size. The latter are distinctive in that the tall leg is thin, with the short
leg thick, making an excellent flange.
Figure 7.96. Alternative stiffener sections

Tables 7.12, 7.13 and 7.14 respectively give dimensions and section properties of the
US unequal angles, profiles, and JIS ship angles. The latter two include combined
stiffener/plate properties as attached to a 20 in. wide, 1/2 in. plate. Figure 7.97
illustrates the notational conventions for the US unequal angle. The others are
similar.

Table 7.12. US Standard Unequal Leg Angles – with 1/2 in. plate at 20 in. width
attached

Stiffener Section Properties w/20 × 1/2 Plate

Size ds As ys ls 1st NA lxx SMp SMs
morn
5 ×3 ×1/45 1.94 1.66 5.10 4.0 0.33 26.04 31.2 5.6
5 ×3 ×5/165 2.40 1.68 6.30 5.5 0.44 30.97 32.9 6.8
5 ×3 ×3/85 2.86 1.70 7.40 6.9 0.54 35.43 34.1 7.9
6 ×4 ×5/166 3.03 1.92 11.40 9.9 0.76 55.00 43.8 10.5
6 ×4 ×3/86 3.61 1.94 13.50 12.2 0.89 62.77 45.1 12.3
6 ×4 ×7/166 4.18 1.96 15.50 14.4 1.01 69.75 46.1 14.0
6 ×4 ×1/26 4.75 1.99 17.20 16.5 1.12 75.64 46.6 15.5
7 ×4 ×3/87 3.98 2.37 20.60 15.9 1.14 88.40 53.9 15.1
7 ×4 ×7/167 4.62 2.39 23.70 18.8 1.29 98.34 55.1 17.2
7 ×4 ×1/27 5.25 2.42 26.70 21.5 1.41 107.01 55.9 19.2
7 ×4 ×9/167 5.87 2.44 29.60 24.3 1.53 115.18 56.8 21.1
7 ×4 ×5/87 6.48 2.46 32.40 26.9 1.63 122.62 57.5 22.8
8 ×4 ×1/28 5.75 2.86 38.50 27.1 1.72 144.56 65.2 23.0
8 ×4 ×9/168 6.43 2.88 42.80 30.4 1.85 155.66 66.2 25.3
8 ×4 ×5/88 7.11 2.91 46.90 33.7 1.97 165.40 67.0 27.4
8 ×4 ×3/48 8.44 2.95 54.90 40.1 2.18 183.47 68.6 31.5
8 ×4 ×1 8 11.00 3.05 69.60 52.0 2.47 211.24 71.0 38.2

Table 7.13. Profile sections (HP)–with 1/2 in. plate at 20 in. width attached

Profile Size; Area Prof-NA Prof-Inert US Units Combined

millimeters Sect w/1/2 in.
Plate @ 20 in.
width Attached
Depththickness
b+ b Wx, cm
ex,2 lx, ds, As, ys, Is, 1st NA lxx SMp SMs Ax
t cm cm- in. in. in. in. Morr
4 4
160 7 29.0 22.0 14.6 9.66 373 6.3 2.26 2.50 8.96 6.1 0.50 39.2839.4 6.8 12.3
160 8 30.0 22.0 16.2 9.49 411 6.3 2.51 2.56 9.87 6.9 0.55 41.7739.8 7.3 12.5
160 9 31.0 22.0 17.8 9.36 448 6.3 2.76 2.61 10.767.7 0.60 44.2540.2 7.8 12.8
180 8 33.0 25.0 18.9 10.90609 7.1 2.93 2.80 14.6310.1 0.78 61.3648.0 9.7 12.9
180 9 34.0 25.0 20.7 10.70663 7.1 3.21 2.87 15.9311.0 0.83 64.3048.2 10.3 13.2
180 10 35.0 25.0 22.5 10.60717 7.1 3.49 2.91 17.2312.1 0.89 67.8248.7 11.0 13.5
180 11 36.0 25.0 24.3 10.50770 7.1 3.77 2.95 18.5013.1 0.95 71.0849.0 11.6 13.8
200 9 37.0 28.0 23.5 12.10941 7.9 3.64 3.11 22.6114.9 1.09 89.7356.5 13.2 13.6
200 10 38.0 28.0 25.6 11.9010207.9 3.97 3.19 24.5116.1 1.15 93.6956.7 13.9 14.0
200 11 39.0 28.0 27.6 11.8010907.9 4.28 3.23 26.1917.4 1.22 98.0057.1 14.7 14.3
200 12 40.0 28.0 29.6 11.7011647.9 4.59 3.27 27.9718.6 1.28 102.14
57.5 15.5 14.6
220 10 41.0 31.0 29.0 13.4014008.7 4.50 3.39 33.6421.2 1.46 128.32
65.4 17.8 14.5
220 11 42.0 31.0 31.2 13.2015008.7 4.84 3.46 36.0422.6 1.53 132.75
65.5 18.6 14.8
220 12 43.0 31.0 33.4 13.0015908.7 5.18 3.54 38.2024.0 1.58 136.50
65.6 19.3 15.2
240 10 44.0 34.0 32.4 14.7018659.4 5.02 3.66 44.8126.6 1.77 166.66
73.5 21.7 15.0
240 11 45.0 34.0 34.9 14.6020009.4 5.41 3.70 48.0528.6 1.86 174.35
74.0 23.0 15.4
240 12 46.0 34.0 37.3 14.4021309.4 5.78 3.78 51.1730.3 1.92 179.53
74.2 23.8 15.8
260 11 48.0 37.0 38.7 16.00260610.2 6.00 3.94 62.6135.3 2.21 223.43
82.6 27.8 16.0
260 12 49.0 37.0 41.3 15.80277010.2 6.40 4.02 66.5537.3 2.28 229.96
82.9 28.9 16.4
260 13 50.0 37.0 43.9 15.60294010.2 6.80 4.09 70.6339.3 2.34 236.06
83.2 29.9 16.8
280 11 51.0 40.0 42.6 17.40333411.0 6.60 4.17 80.1042.7 2.57 280.60
91.3 33.2 16.6
280 12 52.0 40.0 45.5 17.20355011.0 7.05 4.25 85.2945.3 2.65 289.20
91.7 34.6 17.1
280 13 53.0 40.0 48.3 17.00376011.0 7.49 4.33 90.3347.6 2.72 296.71
92.1 35.7 17.5
300 11 54.0 43.0 45.7 18.90419411.8 7.08 4.37 100.76
50.2 2.94 346.02
100.639.0 17.1
300 12 55.0 43.0 49.7 18.70446111.8 7.70 4.45 107.18
54.2 3.06 359.32
100.941.1 17.7
300 13 56.0 43.0 52.8 18.50472011.8 8.18 4.53 113.40
57.1 3.14 368.83
101.342.5 18.2
300 14 57.0 43.0 55.8 18.30498011.8 8.65 4.61 119.64
59.8 3.21 377.38
101.843.9 18.6
320 12 58.0 46.0 54.2 20.10552812.6 8.40 4.69 132.81
64.0 3.48 437.06
109.947.9 18.4
320 13 59.0 46.0 57.4 19.90585212.6 8.90 4.76 140.59
67.2 3.56 448.33
110.549.6 18.9
320 14 60.0 46.0 60.7 19.70617012.6 9.41 4.84 148.23
70.5 3.63 458.94
111.151.2 19.4
320 15 61.0 46.0 63.9 19.50648012.6 9.90 4.92 155.68
73.5 3.69 468.38
111.752.6 19.9
340 12 61.0 49.0 58.8 21.50676113.4 9.11 4.92 162.43
74.6 3.91 524.55
119.155.3 19.1
340 13 62.0 49.0 62.2 21.30715613.4 9.64 5.00 171.92
78.3 3.99 538.00
119.857.3 19.6
340 14 63.0 49.0 65.5 21.10753913.4 10.155.08 181.13
81.8 4.06 550.01
120.659.0 20.2
340 15 64.0 49.0 68.9 20.90791913.4 10.685.16 190.25
85.4 4.13 561.48
121.360.7 20.7

Table 7.14. JIS (Japanese Industrial Standard) Ship Angles–(leg and flange unequal)

Section Dimen- Thick- Area Prof-NA Prof-Inert US Units @Com-

sions, ness, mm bined
mm Section
w/1/2 in.
Plate 20
in. width
Attached
mil- DepthFlange
LongShort
leg Wx,
legcm
ex,2 lx, ds, As, ys, Is, 1st NA lxx SMp SMs Ax
limeters cm cm- in. in. in. in. Morr
4 4
Angles, Constant Thickness
200×90×8/14
200 90.0 8 14 27.8013.9811207.87 4.31 2.37 26.9120.7 1.27 131.88
74.5 20.0 16.3
200×90×9/14
200 90.0 9 14 29.6613.6412107.87 4.60 2.50 29.0721.7 1.31 134.06
74.2 20.4 16.6
250×90×9/14
250 90.0 9 14 34.3116.5422409.84 5.32 3.33 53.8231.6 1.83 222.30
95.6 27.7 17.3
250×90×9/15
250 90.0 9 15 35.1216.6422709.84 5.44 3.29 54.5432.7 1.87 227.76
96.0 28.6 17.4
250×90×10/15
250 90.0 10 15 37.4716.3924409.84 5.81 3.39 58.6234.5 1.94 234.45
96.2 29.7 17.8
250×90×11/16
250 90.0 11 16 40.6116.2626409.84 6.29 3.44 63.4337.3 2.04 246.10
96.9 31.5 18.3
250×90×12/16
250 90.0 12 16 42.9516.0127909.84 6.66 3.54 67.0339.0 2.09 250.91
96.9 32.4 18.7
300×90×10/16
300 90.0 10 16 43.3819.40410011.816.72 4.17 98.5048.4 2.58 366.62
118.939.7 18.7
300×90×11/16
300 90.0 11 16 46.2219.00447011.817.16 4.33 107.39
50.6 2.64 375.46
119.640.9 19.2
300×90×12/17
300 90.0 12 17 49.8418.90459011.817.73 4.37 110.28
54.5 2.76 388.27
119.042.9 19.7
300×90×13/17
300 90.0 13 17 52.6718.70494011.818.16 4.45 118.68
57.1 2.83 400.21
120.144.6 20.2
350×100×11/17
350 100.011 17 54.4 22.30703013.8 8.43 5.00 168.90
71.0 3.48 572.71
144.055.6 20.4
350×100×12/17
350 100.012 17 57.7 22.00744013.8 8.95 5.12 178.75
74.5 3.56 585.85
144.457.3 20.9
400×100×11.5/18
400 100.011.5 16 61.1 24.701030015.7 9.47 6.02 247.46
89.1 4.15 774.02
166.566.7 21.5
400×100×12/18
400 100.012 18 64.8 24.901090015.7510.045.94 261.87
95.4 4.33 814.32
168.671.3 22.0
400×100×13/18
400 100.013 18 68.6 24.601150015.7 10.636.06 276.29
100.04.42 832.71
169.373.5 22.6

Figure 7.97. Notation for stiffener properties (US Unequal Leg Angles)

Before proceeding, a few comments on shear-lag and the effective breadth of the
plating should be made. As a flange attached to the stiffener, the bending stress in
the plate is not laterally uniform (maximum at the stiffener) and can be considered
as not fully effective. Figure 7.98 illustrates bending stress distribution in the plate,
a schematic of an equivalent uniformly stressed plate (effective breadth, 2be), and
provides notational reference.
Figure 7.98. Effective breadth of plating with stiffeners

Figure 7.99 is a plot of the effectiveness of the plate ( = be/b) as a function of the
ratio of the effective span (cL) to the breadth of the panel (b = s/2). Pending a more
complete discussion of shear-lag, c = 0.577 for mid-span locations and c = 0.423 at
the stiffener ends. What is important is that in most instances l > 4 s and most of
the plate is effective.

Figure 7.99. Effectiveness ratio, , of attached plating for stiffeners (Mid-span and
Ends)

Finally, it should be noted that, even if the effective breadth is small, the neutral
axis of the combined section is very close to the plate. This makes section modulus
at the flange relatively insensitive to the accuracy of the effective plate area. The
upper part of fig. 7.100 shows the neutral axis as a function of effective breadth for a
typical case. The lower plot shows the resulting section modulus, SMf as a function
of effectiveness, from 0.4 to 1.0. SMf is no less than 80% of its maximum value.
The point is that it is of relatively little consequence for stiffener design that shear
lag is ignored and the properties of the combined section are calculated on the basis
of the full width of the plating, s. For marginal cases, this should be re-examined,
however.

Figure 7.100. Stiffener neutral axes and section modulus variation with effective
breadth of plate

For design, the classification rule-based stiffener sizing criteria are given as formulae
for the section modulus of the stiffener and plate combination, SMf without consid-
eration of shear lag effects. The formulae are essentially based upon beam flexure
as outlined above. The dnv formulation uses a specific allowable stress and the ABS
formulation does not and is empirical. These are for minimum scantlings only. The
shell plating stiffeners tend to be larger in areas of high global stress both to increase
section (in lieu of thicker plating) and to improve stiffener buckling resistance.

ABS Criteria
As noted with plating, the ABS rules give two general cases. For the most general
case (Tanks), stiffener scantlings are given in Paragraph 9.5 (Stiffeners and Beams).
For the special cases governed by watertight integrity, in Paragraph 7.5 (Stiffeners
and Beams), the same expression is given, but the coefficient values are different.
The required, minimum section modulus is given as follows (metric, US units):

(7.63)

where [metric (US)] f= 7.8 (0.0041), s= stiffener spacing (m, ft), l= effective stiffener
span (m, ft), h = the specified design head (discussed earlier) taken at stiffener mid
span (m, ft). The constant c is specifically discussed below. The factor Q is material
constant adapted from the Ship Rules and is not given in the MODU Rules. It is also
discussed below.

The section modulus, SM, taken to the stiffener flange, is computed on the basis of
an integral section, taking both the stiffener and the full width (s) of the attached
plating. However, the rules note that, for short panels (l/s < 4), a lesser effective
breadth of the plate, se should be determined according to shear lag theory (at
l/s<4, se/s< 0.80). Because the stiffener-plate combination typically produces a quite
unbalanced section, accurate effective plate area has minimal effect on the section
modulus. Typically the stiffener flange is 3-times or more distant from the neutral
axis as is the plate, making bending stress in the plate of little consequence. Even
at l/s = 3, the effective breadth is still 0.65 and using the full plate width would still
be of little serious consequence. In any case, the combination of global in-plane
stresses from that of local bending is still required to be checked when the former
is high. Often, in such cases, there is sufficient global compression that buckling
will govern. When the buckling controls, the plate effectiveness is also reduced.

The factor c represents stiffener end fixity and the stress pattern of the specific
application. Although the Ship Rules have a number of specific cases represented,
the MODU Rules give prismarily two sets of factors:

•Tank boundaries and shell (9.5) : c = 1.00, both ends fixed or continuousc
= 0.90, terminated with clip or bracket

•Waterlight subdivision (7.5) : c = 0.60, no end attachmentsc = 0.56,

ends attached to clips or brackets

In the most general situation, shell plating, and tank boundaries (3-2-2/9.5), stif-
feners run continuously through the frames and are considered to function as a
series of fixed-fixed beams (c = 1.0). However, where this pattern ends (at a deck,
flat or bulkhead), the stiffener is terminated by a bracket or clip and is considered to
have less bending moment (c = 0.9). In the case of internal, watertight subdivision
(3-2-2/7.5), the factors reflect that strength being a damage issue, i.e. internal
flooding.

Further to the above, non-watertight flats and decks are addressed in Subsection 3,
Paragraph 7.3 (Upper Structure), where c = 0.6, clear of tanks, and c = 1.0 in way of
tanks. The latter is simply a reiteration of tank boundary requirements. Otherwise,
c = 0.6 is taken in association with a non-tank loading, h specific to the flat or deck.

The rules also give a number of comments regarding the determination of effec-
tive span, l. Unless effective brackets or clips are used, the effective span is the
centre-to-centre distance between supports. However, the effective span may be
reduced according to the effectiveness of the brackets meeting criteria specified in
the Rules. With brackets meeting requirements of table 3/5.2 (ABS MODU Rules,
2001), the effective span may be reduced by 75% of the bracket length.

Of the various specific application in the Ship Rules that uniquely give a value for c,
the one for bottom plating of a longitudinally stiffened ship gives c = 1.30. Where
otherwise 1.0, this factor empirically recognises that bottom stiffeners are part of
the overall hull section modulus and will sustain considerable global axial stress
over and above that of local bending. A non-documented, but very useful practice,
for preliminary design for offshore structures is to use a value of c from 1 to 1.3
for shell stiffeners of primary hull elements where they are known to have a high
global strength role. This is the case for parts of pontoons and columns. These have
a global loading pattern quite similar to that found in ship hulls: hydrostatic load
of stiffeners, participating in longitudinal strength. Using a higher value of c will
anticipate the added stiffener section area needed to sustain global hull bending
stress and buckling and improve the prospects that sizes chosen in preliminary
design will indeed be adequate.

The Ship Rules employ a multiplier “Q” to reflect the benefits of high tensile steels.
This can be used for offshore structures as well but has not been widely incorporated
in to the MODU Rules. Taken as unity for mild steel, various values are specified for
high tensile steels. Taking HT36 grade steels (Fy = 51 ksi), for example, Q = 0.72.
High tensile steels are prevalently used for the more highly loaded portions of the
hull.

As a rule of thumb, for hull plating, where mild steel thickness would exceed 5/8 in.,
high tensile steel should be used. If buckling controls, the threshold might better
be 3/4 in. In any case, for thickness in excess of 3/4 in., high tensile steels should
be used. The minor additional cost of the higher grade steel is more than offset
by reduced welding of thinner sections, not to mention larger, fewer modules for
a given lift limit. Conversely, high tensile steels should generally not be used for
thickness less than 1/2 in. as much as buckling will control and little benefit of the
higher yield strength will be achieved.

With regard to the ABS Rules and considerations of corrosion protection, Paragraph
3-2-2/1.4, Scantlings and Corrosion Control indicates that rule based scantlings
include a corrosion allowance in as much as it addresses reduction of scantlings.
It indicates that scantlings may be reduced should suitable corrosion protection be
provided. Conversely, this paragraph also indicates, that, should corrosion protec-
tion not be provided, stress-based calculation should consider the net section with a
suitable reduction. This would apply only to the stiffener's role in global strength.

dnv Criteria
As per the plating thickness criteria, the dnv stiffener design criteria is given in the
dnv MODU Rules Part 3, Chapter 1, Subsection 6, Plating and Stiffening. This criteria
is much more specific that the one given by the ABS. In Paragraphs B 200 (Stiffeners),
in the dnv notation, the following section modulus rule is given:

(7.64)

Like the plate thickness rule given previously, the dnv stiffener rule is essentially
the same form as that given by ABS, again with some differences. The terms, l and
s have the same meaning, if not units, and p is the pressure in kN/m2. The m in
the denominator is simply the denominator of the applicable beam equation. dnv
provides table B2 in Section 7, Girders and Girder Systems which is simply a complete
set of bending coefficients, m taken in the form: M = hsl2/m. For the fixed-fixed
case, m = 12 for the beam end and 24 for mid span, the same as used above under
the discussion of Loading and Stress. Again, as was done for plates, p is the allowable
stress. ks = 1 unless both ends of the stiffeners are pinned end boundary conditions
(in which case it is 0.9).

The additional term, Zk is added modulus allowing for corrosion. However, if an

effective corrosion protection system is provided, Zk may be taken as zero. The
provisions for Zk are in Paragraph B206. Being somewhat in detail, they have not
been presented here. Generally speaking, 2 mm is added to all surface of the
stiffener.

Simplifying, as was done with plating, the following can be written for the stiffener
ends:

(7.65)

Continuing to simplify, and converting from the metric, p (kN/m2) is expressed as

head, h in feet by the relation: h = 0.3413p. To take the l2s term into ft2-in. units,
divide by (3.28083 × 12). Then, using the basic mild steel allowable stress for gravity
load (20.36 ksi) the following results:

(7.66)

This is essentially the same form as ABS, except that the ABS coefficient is 0.0041.
While the dnv coefficient is 20% less, it does not have the corrosion allowance that
is implicit in the ABS rule.

What is more notably different in the dnv Rules is the use of allowable stresses in
the formulation. For stiffeners, these are as follows (N/mm2):

Loading Condition
Gravity Only Combined Loading
Non-Primary Structure: 145 f1 190 f1
Primary Structure: 145 f1 – af 190 f1 – ( af + ac)

Watertight Subdivision: 240 f1 – ( af + ae)

The “non-primary structure” category actually expresses local loading criteria alone,
without global stress adjustments. f1 is the material factor, which, for mild steel, is
1. As with allowable stress for plating, the global stress is deducted from the local
allowable for combined stress criteria. The definition of these deductions is as
follows:

af : Global axial stress from gravity loading only;

ae : Global axial stress from environmental loading
only;

For preliminary design, it is suggested that af = 50 f1 and ae = 80 f1.

To make the comparison more direct, the above is converted to ksi for mild steel (Fy
= 34 ksi) as follows:

Loading Condition
Gravity Only Combined Loading
Non-Primary Structure: 21.0 27.6
Primary Structure: 21.0 – af 27.6 – ( af + ac)

Watertight Subdivision: Fy –( af + ac)

The mild steel equivalent values, for preliminary design, global stress are ae = 7.2
ksi and ae = 8.2 ksi.

One might say, rather than equivalent, the dnv stiffener rule is consistent with the
ABS rule. Once the corrosion addition is factored in, it is found to be reasonably
close. While the dnv rules are much more detailed with the allowable stress formu-
lation, the same is accomplished in the ABS rules with the general requirement for
combined stresses not exceeding the allowable stress. In the end they are the same
except for the corrosion allowance.

Another important factor in the stiffener design appears in the dnv Classification
Notes 31.4 (Column Stabilised Units), Paragraph 6.4.2: Columns; Shell Plating and Stif-
feners. Therein is a discussion of curved plating that recognises that, a longitudinally
stiffened shell, with sufficient curvature, will share the stiffener load in the form
of circumferential stress in the shell. There is given a curvature reduction factor as
follows (dnv notation; consistent units):

(7.67)
where r = Radius of shell mid surface, I = Inertia of the stiffener and plate combina-
tion, L = Distance between frames (same as l), t = Shell thickness (same as tp), and s
= Stiffener Spacing. The quantity c is a factor reflecting the boundary conditions of
the stiffener as a beam. For fixed ends, c = 384; for pinned ends c = 384/5.

For large column diameters (> 60 ft), this factor does not provide much benefit
(<5% stiffener load born by the shell). However, for smaller columns, reduction of
the stiffener load by recognition of the shells participation is worth considering.
For columns and pontoons with radiused corners, along with plating reductions
previously discussed, one stiffener can be eliminated at each corner.

Shear Strength
While the shear strength of rolled shape stiffeners are rarely a problem, and are
not explicitly addressed in the rules, there can be difficulty at their connections,
particularly to frames. This is particularly the case where the stiffener are highly
loaded and high strength steels are used for plating and stiffeners and the frames are
of mild steel. Normally there is a double-fillet weld connection between the stiffener
and the frame web. This may at first seem to be a welding problem, but is actually a
problem in the frame web size in that the depth of the stiffener times the thickness of
the frame web cannot provide the shear strength required. This is a stiffener problem
in that it may be the basis choosing deeper or ever over size stiffeners. Thicker frame
webs are not always an attractive solution and over size stiffeners can benefit global
strength. Also, there are standard details to address this problem (clips and collars),
but these are costly.

> Read full chapter

Fatigue strength of welded compo-

nents, design improvements
Dieter Radaj Dr-Ing habil, in Design and Analysis of Fatigue Resistant Welded
Structures, 1990

5.1.5 Stiffeners on I section griders

Stiffeners in the form of transverse ribs on I section girders, Fig.82, are necessary to
maintain the cross sectional contour, especially in the presence of high local loading,
such as when concentrated transverse forces are acting. It should be remembered
with regard to fatigue strength when designing structures, that the transverse welds
(a) or the end of the short longitudinal welds (c, d) represents a marked notch, so
that in (railway) bridge construction the stiffener occasionally only butts against the
transverse tension flange without a welded joint (with or without a base plate) (b).
On the other hand, allowing the stiffener to come to an end above the tension flange
does not produce sufficient sectional stiffening and is prone to failure when the
flanges are subjected to eccentric transverse forces.

82. Stiffener of I section girder, design variants, reduction factors, , partially after
Neumann3 and Stüssi and Dubas.10

Cutting out the inner corners, which is frequently performed (triangle or quarter
circle cutouts, Fig.83), comes from the era of rolled sectional girders made of
unkilled steel, in which the segregation zones in the transition area from web to
flange had to remain uninfluenced by welding because of their tendency to crack.
Later the inner corners were cut out on similar web- to-flange welded girders
made of segregation-free structural steel to avoid defects caused by bad fitting
and welding as well as unfavourable residual stresses at the inner corner with the
weld crossing. The relatively high notch stresses of the transverse weld on the side
of the web subjected to transverse force bending of the girder are also avoided.
Therefore the fatigue strength of girders with stiffeners with cut out inner corners
is substantially improved (in contradiction to the fatigue test results in Ref.77).
Transverse corrugations in the web (e) (in Fig.82) instead of transverse ribs also
perform relatively well. A short longitudinal weld (c, d) instead of a transverse weld
can also produce an advantage with regard to fatigue strength. The T section, which
is resistant to buckling, is preferred as a stiffener in the presence of large transverse
forces.

83. Stiffener with and without cutout at inner corner.

The reduction factors given in Fig.82 are also applicable to the transverse wall of box
girders.

Crane runway girders have not only to be transversely stiffened, the upper chord
must also be designed to be torsionally rigid (f ). Otherwise the transverse forces on
the girder and the transverse bending moments in the flanges which occur with the
high number of cycles of the individual crane wheels, cause early crack initiation.

> Read full chapter

Design Examples of Steel and

Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges
Ehab Ellobody, in Finite Element Analysis and Design of Steel and Steel-Concrete
Composite Bridges, 2014

4.2.7.2 Intermediate Stiffeners

Intermediate stiffeners (see Figure 4.23) can be designed by choosing its dimensions
such that
Figure 4.23. Intermediate stability web stiffeners.

and

> Read full chapter

Ultimate Strength of Cylindrical Shells

Yong Bai, Wei-Liang Jin, in Marine Structural Design (Second Edition), 2016

Local Stiffener Tripping

When the torsional stiffness of stiffeners is low, and the shell skin D/t ratio is
relatively high, stiffeners can experience torsional instability at stresses lower than
those required for local or orthotropic buckling. When the stiffener buckles, it loses
a large portion of its effectiveness in maintaining the initial shape of the shell. This
reduction in lateral support will eventually lead to overall shell failure. Much of the
load carried by the stiffener will then be shifted to the shell skin. Restrictions on the
geometry of the stiffeners are applied in design codes in order to avoid this failure
mode. The restrictions on the geometry of the stiffeners are similar to those used
for stiffened plates. The out-of-straightness of stiffeners can result in a reduction
of the load-carrying capacity as an effect of initial deflection on column buckling.
Therefore, fabrication tolerance is applied to stiffeners.

> Read full chapter

Notch stress approach for assessment

of fatigue strength of seam welded
joints
Dieter Radaj Dr-Ing habil, in Design and Analysis of Fatigue Resistant Welded
Structures, 1990

Web stiffener on I girder of a bridge

Transverse web stiffeners on I girders are required to maintain the cross sectional
contour even under high loading, especially when introducing transverse forces (see
section 5.1.5). The transverse weld connecting the stiffener with the tensile flange
of the girder is at risk of fatigue failure because of the high notch stresses at its toe
and root. In the following, results of notch stress analysis are summarised for the
transverse stiffener with and without a cutout at the inner corner.248 The investiga-
tion was carried out for a slender welded girder common in bridge construction,
Fig.189, which was subjected to pure bending and transverse bending respectively.
A double fillet weld was compared with a double bevel butt weld with root gap. The
tension plate with single sided stiffener was included in the investigation.

189. Welded I girder with transverse web stiffener.

The following conclusions were drawn from the finite element results for the global
structure, Fig.190 and 191, which are the basis of the subsequent notch stress
analysis. The changes in the direction of principal stresses in the tensile flange
caused by the stiffener are negligibly small. The stiffener presses into the flange
from above, with pure bending load to a lesser degree and transverse bending load
to a geater degree. Thereby the structural stresses on the inside of the tensile flange
are decreased and those on the outside increased. This seems to be advantageous
because of the superimposed notch effect on the inside whereas there is no notch
effect on the outside. The result for the tension plate with unloaded stiffener there-
fore is on the safe side. With transverse bending, there is an uneven distribution of
the tensile stresses in the flange over the flange width, increased stresses at the web,
decreased stresses at the flange edge. Cutting out the inner corner of the stiffener is
favourable in the case of transverse bending because the superimposed notch effect
is avoided in the area of the cutout where the structural stresses are increased.
190. Finite element mesh and deformation of stiffened girder subjected to transverse
bending.

191. Structural stress distribution in area of weld joint between transverse stiffener
and tensile flange; subsequent notch stress analysis at points marked by triangles.

The results of the subsequent notch stress analysis, Fig.192, were converted via
equation (67) and (13) into fatigue strength reduction factors, P, for pulsating
tensile load taking the maximum tensile notch stresses from the weld toe (for t)
and the weld root (for r) into account, Table 21. The reduction factor, f, designates
the structural stress increase on the outside of the flange without any notch. All the
reduction factors refer to the maximum nominal bending stress of the girder, i.e.
the fatigue strength of the girder without stiffener.
192. Boundary stresses for contour model of stiffener-to-flange joint with fillet
weld for I girder subjected to transverse bending, tensile forces in flange and
compressive forces in stiffener, stiffener with cutout, notch position near cutout; K
factors indexed: t, toe; r, root; f, flange; u, upper; l, lower; m, median.

Table 21. Fatigue strength reduction factors, P, (lower limit, evaluation of tensile

notch stresses only) for I girder with transverse stiffener; design and load variants;
results from calculation

Reduction factors
Component Stiffening Type of Loading f 1 r
weld
I girder None None Pure bend- 1.02 – –
ing
I girder Transverse Fillet weld Pure bend- 0.95 0.55 0.64
stiffener ing
without
cutout
I girder Transverse Fillet weld Transverse 0.74 0.71 0.57
stiffener bending
without
cutout
I girder Transverse Fillet weld Transverse 0.73 1.08 0.75
stiffener bending
with cutout
I girder Transverse Double bev- Transverse 0.68 0.96 1.21
stiffener el butt weld bending
with cutout
Tension plate Transverse Fillet weld Tension 1.00 0.51 0.71
stiffener
Tension plate Transverse Double bev- Tension 1.00 0.52 0.78
stiffener el butt weld

The following general conclusions can be drawn for design and dimensioning from
the lowest (tensile) reduction factor in each case of Table 21. The transverse stiffener
is associated with a reduction = 0.55-0.73 for pulsating load (compared with =
0.25-0.75 for alternating load248). The high values can only be put into effect in the
case of pure bending if measures are taken to improve the weld toe e.g. by grinding
or dressing (in this case even > 0.73 seems possible for pure bending) or if the
transverse forces are relatively high (with crack initiation on the outside of the flange).
Deep penetration welding or double bevel butt welds are recommended to prevent
crack initiation at the weld root in the case of transverse bending. Cutting out the
inner stiffener comers improves the notch conditions considerably in the case of
high transverse forces. Cutting out is also recommended because of the excessive
gap and the limited accessibility at the inner corner. The tension plate with transverse
stiffener can only be correlated to pure bending loading of the girder.

The above reduction factors correspond with comparable minimum values in the
German standard for crane design, DIN 15 018,152 see Ref.248. In the IIW design
recommendation,141 the range of stress Δ = 80 N/mm2 with N = 2 × 106 (number
of load cycles endured) is assigned to the transverse stiffener on girders as well as
on tensile plates; the failure probability is Pf = 0.023, the reduction due to residual
stresses has been taken into account. On the other hand, with the reduction factor
P = 0.55 obtained by the investigation described above, after conversion from

Pf = 0.10 to Pf = 0.023, and after adjustment for residual stresses, the range of stress
corresponds quite well to the IIW design recommendation, see Petershagen.229

> Read full chapter

Polymer Matrix Composites: Applica-

tions
Donald W. Radford, in Comprehensive Composite Materials II, 2018

3.14.4.1.2 Top shell

Fig. 17 shows the top shell of the multi-shell monocoque design, which completes
the structure of the cockpit rim stiffener, includes the structural sidepod and head
restraint structure, and provides the contour for the nonstructural suspension box
cover. This shell, except for the suspension box cover, is permanently bonded in place
during monocoque assembly. In the regions shaded in red, the bonded sides and
top generate a highly reinforced hollow beam stiffener around the cockpit opening
as described in previous sections.
Fig. 17. Top shell.

The top shell consists of two layers of plain weave for the suspension box cover and
for the areas that are in direct contact with the monocoque (shaded in black). The
top is bonded to the top surface of the assembled pair of side shells.

3.14.4.1.2.1 Top cockpit rim stiffener

The rim stiffener recovers strength and torsional rigidity lost due to the hole that is
cutout for the driver. The rim stiffener, shaded in red, consists of 11 layers around
the cockpit opening. The 0–90 and ±45 are plain weave and the 0 is unidirectional.

3.14.4.1.2.2 Top sidepods

In areas where the top does not bond to the side shells of the monocoque, honey-
comb core is added to increase the flexural stiffness. The top shell consists of four
layers of plain weave surrounding a 6 mm (¼ ) thick Nomex core in the region
shaded in blue in Fig. 17. This region defines the top portion of the structural
sidepod.

> Read full chapter

Manufacturing and quality

Zeaid Hasan, in Tooling for Composite Aerospace Structures, 2020

9 Stiffening techniques used in composite structures

As discussed earlier, composite parts utilize many different types of stiffening fea-
tures to aid in the structural integrity of the part. Here we will introduce some of the
types and pros and cons of each.
9.1 Hat-stiffened part family
These are stiffeners that are used for manufacturing wings, fuselage, or any other
structure that requires stability and added stiffness. These types of stiffeners are used
for double curvature surfaces with gentle curvature (e.g., skins). An example is shown
in Fig. 5.63.

Figure 5.63. Hat stringer example.

The tooling approach can be done by either an OML mold with rubber mandrels
or using a hollow bladder as an IML approach. Both approaches are schematically
represented in Fig. 5.64.

Figure 5.64. Tooling approaches used for hat stringers (A) OML and (B) IML.

A summary of some of the advantages and disadvantages of this stiffening approach

as it relates to different disciplines is shown in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5. Advantages and disadvantages of hat stiffened structures.

Discipline Advantage Disadvantage

Design •Structurally efficient •Requires sealing hats be-
design•Minimal fuel loss tween fuel tanks•Adds
when used in wet bays complexity to the design
Stress
 •Point design testing is •Lack of analysis methods
typically used to substan- for this stiffener•Difficulty-
tiate the design. in analyzing the hat ter-
mination
Tooling •OML tooling approach •Higher cost•Spring back
easy to design and use and warpage concerns due
to complicated tooling
Materials and process •Most composite prepreg •Wrinkling and bow wave
systems compatible with concerns during the man-
this stiffening approach ufacturing process impact-
ing allowables
Manufacturing •Relatively easy to manu- •Complexity in position-
facture ing on other structures
(e.g., wing skin)•Extra time
needed to machine some
details
Quality assurance •The contour with this stif- •Complex inspections re-
fening feature can be rela- quired
tively easy to control
Nondestructive inspection •All solid laminate con- •Difficulty in inspecting
struction makes it easier the tow filler area
to inspect

9.2 Foam-stiffened part family

This type of stiffening features is used in many applications where weight is of big
concern or if the part is too complex to use conventional tooling for. Note that the
foam in these types of applications are “fly away” which means that it remains in the
part and does not get removed. The foam also acts as a tool where the layers of a
composite are laid up on top of the foam to create the derided shape as shown in
some examples in Fig. 5.65.
Figure 5.65. Foam stiffened structural parts.

Rohacell HERO foam [47] is an example of a typical type of foam used in such
applications. Specific examples where these are used are external doors and hatch
openings. Depending on the foam type, they can swell in areas of high moisture so
its recommended to examine the application to ensure that no adverse impact to
moisture is possible.

One of the challenges in this case can be the compaction of the plies in areas where
the foam parts terminate, as we need to ensure that the layers are draped smoothly
in those areas. FiberSim can be used to determine the best lamination approach and
splicing including the design. An example of the results that FiberSim can provide
is shown in Fig. 5.66. This is the results from a flat panel with several hat shape
stiffeners. As shown, there is no large indication with the splices used that any
manufacturing issues might be encountered.

Figure 5.66. FiberSim results showing no distortion generated from the different
splice designs considered.

A summary of some of the advantages and disadvantages for each discipline is

shown in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6. Advantages and disadvantages of foam stiffened structures.

Discipline Advantage Disadvantage
Design •Relatively light weight•- •Foam offers small non-
Flexible geometry around structural mass penalty
cutouts and curvatures
Stress •Closed hat shape helps •Every configuration will
soften peel at termination require different termina-
tion thus added testing-
•The long-term structural
impact of the foam unclear
Tooling •Simplicity in tooling ap- •Impact of foam on
proach spring-back and warpage
unclear
Materials and process •Most composite prepreg •Fluid compatibility con-
systems compatible with cerns with the foam•Film
this stiffening approach adhesive may be required
to be used with the foam
Manufacturing •Relatively easy to manu- •Machining of the foam
facture adds time and cost•Re-
quire definition of accept-
able damage tolerances for
foam
Quality assurance •No changes in quality •Complex inspections re-
plans compared to other quired specifically as it re-
structures lates to foam termination
areas
Nondestructive inspection •Relatively easy to inspect •New standards required
around most of the struc- depending on the final de-
ture sign and material selection

9.3 Bolted stiffeners

When using composites, it is recommended to minimize the use of bolts as much as
possible given the adverse impact they have on structural integrity, weight, repair,
and so on. But in certain circumstances they are inevitable which is why we still
introduce them in this case as an option. The only unique aspect is that we will build
the stiffener independently and then as a secondary operation fastener are used to
bolt them to the remaining on the structure as shown in Fig. 5.67.
Figure 5.67. Bolted structure [48].

A summary of some of the advantages and disadvantages for each discipline is

shown in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7. Advantages and disadvantages of bolted stiffened structures.

Discipline Advantage Disadvantage

Design •Design flexibility•Stiffene- •Higher weight penalty
rs can be tailored inde- due to added fasteners•-
pendent of the remaining Complexity in engineering
structure drawing definition
Stress •No special analysis de- •Added time needed to an-
finition required•Mini- alyze bolted structures
mal testing needed to de-
fine special construction
Tooling •Limited issues with ther- •May require additional
mal compensation given tooling to support the bolt-
the secondary assembly ing assembly process
Materials and process •Additional material sys- •Compatibility of fasteners
tems can be used to build with the remaining of the
different parts (e.g., com- structure
pression molding for stif-
feners)
Manufacturing •Simplified manufactur- •Added cost and time for
ing approach•Easier to re- fastener inventory•Wet in-
pair stiffeners individually stall of fasteners required
Quality assurance •No changes in quality •Longer inspection re-
plans compared to other quired due to added parts
structures and assembly steps
Nondestructive inspection •Relatively easy to inspect •Specialty equipment may
around most of the struc- be required to inspect cer-
ture tain areas
9.4 Integrated parts family
This is one of the biggest advantages of using composites which is the ability to build
parts integrally unitized without the need for fasteners. This minimizes the assembly
time, weight, number of parts and overall cost. The main difficulty here is the
tooling as it can be very hard at times to create a simple tool approach to support
this type of structure. An example of an integrated unitized part is shown in Fig.
5.68. A summary of some of the advantages and disadvantages for each discipline
is shown in Table 5.8.

Figure 5.68. Unitized composite structures [49].

Table 5.8. Advantages and disadvantages of unitized structures.

Discipline Advantage Disadvantage

Design •Lighter weight•Reduced •Complexity in defining
part count•Reduced draw- design details that are also
ing count manufacturing friendly
Stress •Minimize the amount of •Additional testing needed
the analysis done due to to inform analysis proce-
reduced part count dures for unique designs
Tooling •Eliminates the costly as- •Complexity in tooling de-
sembly tooling sign
Materials and Process •Minimize cure time •Lamination and pro-
ducibility aspects more
challenging
Manufacturing •Minimize assembly time- •Complexity in manufac-
•Eliminates part count turing procedures
translating in reduced cost
Quality assurance •Complicated areas to in-
spect and buy off

Nondestructive inspection
•Reduced time needed for
inspection and procedure
definition
•Relatively easy to inspect •Specialty equipment may
around most of the struc- be required to inspect cer-
ture tain areas

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.