THE BEHAVIOUR

AND DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE

WEB STIFFENERS IN BRIDGE GIRDERS.

A thesis submitted for the degree of DOCPDROF PIRLOSOPHY

by

KASSEM. N. RAHAL

Department of Civil Engineering University Surrey of

SEPTEMBER 1989

ABSTRACT The objective of the work presented in this thesis is to investigate the behaviour of transverse stiffeners in transversely stiffened girder webs in-plane longitudinal to of shear and subjected various combinations is finite A fully nonlinear package used to examine element stresses. the effect of panel and stiffener geometrical parameters and initial imperfections on the behaviour of the stiffeners. Particular attention is paid to the way in which the various geometrical parameters affect the deflection and stress state of the stiffener and the peak capacity of the stiffened plate. Variation in material yield stress is also considered. The results of capacity varies concludes that As a result, a is proposed. the parametric study demonstrate the way in which panel with stiffener size for a full range of geometries and stiffener bending rigidity is the major design parameter. new design philosophy for the stiffener optimum rigidity

The basis of current design formulations for transverse stiffeners are compared with the results of the current numerical studies. A simple analytical model is then formulated which reproduces the numerical parametric results. The model produced is appropriate for design and is compatible with the clauses within the current British design rules. Examples are given of the use of the design procedure, and the resulting transverse stiffener rigidities are compared with those obtained from the finite element results and w ith existing design methods.

II

like to express my eternal gratitude to my supervisor I would firstly this Professor John E. Harding, without whose guidance and inspiration I been have three would years. thesis would not accomplished within be for Simons Professor N. E. like to this research to thank allowing also Surrey Civil Engineering Department the at of carried out within University.

A very special mention must be made of the Hariri Foundation, without have been I financial this support not possible. am project would whose UX her Miss Mona Knio for to their representative also grateful unfailing support. The assistance provided by Finite Element Analysis Ltd who developed the software package used for the current parametric studies is sincerely acknowledged. The patience shown by the personnel of the University of Surrey computer unit in dealing with vast quantities of computer printouts is highly appreciated. Particular thanks are due to my colleagues Mr Louca Louca and Mr Walid Hindi for the invaluable discussions throughout the course of this work. I am indebted to Mr Harry Wickens for his high standard of draughtmanship of the figures and to Miss Nicky Owen for her excellent typing of the manuscript. A mention must be made of my brother Hassan and my fiance Baria for their support and encouragement. Finally heartfelt gratitude is expressed to all my colleagues, too many to family help for Many to thanks their my and and also advice. mention, friends in and outside Britain for their patience, support and constant encouragement throughout the completion of this work.

To my parents, Nimer and Mounira Rahal

III

CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGENENTS CONTENTS NOTATION CHAPTER 1.1 1.2 I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE SURVEY

Ix 1 2 METHODS 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 9 9 10 10 11 13 15 15

IN1RODUMON REVIEW OF STABILITY PLATE ANALYSIS 1.2.1 Basis of review 1.2.2 Small deflection theory Direct integration 1.2.2.1 Energy methods 1.2.2.2 1.2.2.3 Finite differences 1.2.2.4 Finite element method 1.2.3 Large deflection theory

1.3

ULTIMATE CAPACITTES OF PLATES 1.3.1 Introduction 1.3.2 Strength of web panels in girders without longitudinal stiffeners 1.3.2.1 Panels subjected to uniform longitudinal compression 1.3.2.2 Panels subjected to linearly varying stresses 1.3.2.3 Tension field models for panels in shear 1.3.2.4 Panels under combined shear and bending 1.3.3 Strength of web panels in girders with longitudinal stiffeners

1.4

LITERATURE REVIEW OF TRANSVERSE WEB STIFFENER DESIGN 1.4.1 Early linear theoretical studies 1.4.2 Early experimental studies 1.4.3 Elastic second order analyses 1.4.4 Ultimate strength theoretical requirements 1.4.5 Code of practice requirements AIM OF THESIS SCOPEOF THESIS

17 17 18 19 20 23 25 26

1.5 1.6

IV

Page 1.7 RENCES Figures CHAPTER 2 THE FINITE ELEMENT VALIDATION PROGRAM AND ITS 44 45 45 46 46 46 47 50 51 PARAMETRIC TO SHEAR STUDY OF PLATES SUBJECTED 55 56 56 56 57 58 58 59 60 60 60 63 66 67 67 69 70 71 27 37

2.1 2.2 2.3

RaRODUCIION DESCREMON OF TBE FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE VALIDATION 2.3.1 Introduction 2.3.2 Analytical validation 2.3.3 Experimental validation RENCES Figures

2.3

CHAPTER 3

3.1 3.2

ElaRODUCnON PARAMETERSUNDER STUDY 3.2.1 Introduction 3.2.2 Boundary conditions and loading 3.2.3 Material Properties 3.2.4 Geometric Properties 3.2.5 Initial Imperfections RESULTSOF THE STUDY 3.3.1 Presentation 3.3.2 Effect of the boundary restraint 3.3.3 Effect of the initial out-of-plane displacement patterns 3.3.4 Effect of plate slenderness 3.3.5 Effect of aspect ratio 3.3.6 Effect of yield stress 3.3.7 Effect of the stiffener size parameter 3.3.8 Summary of the range of parameters DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

3.3

3.4

Page 3.5 RENCES Tables Figures CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND RICHMOND AND ROCKEY APPROACHES 73 74 89

127 128
128 128 128 130 133

4.1
4.2

E,;TRODUCrION
RICHMOND APPROACH 4.2.1 Introduction 4.2.2 Background of the approach 4.2.3 Design approach for transverse stiffeners 4.2.4 Verification of the stiffener design approach

4.3

COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS BASIC THEORY FOR PREDICTING THE ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY OF TRANSVERSELY STIFFENEDWEBS 4.4.1 Introduction 4.4.2 Shear capacity ROCKEY ULTIMATE APPROACHFOR THE DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STU+-ENERS 4.5.1 Introduction 4.5.2 Loads imposed upon a transverse stiffener 4.5.3 Analysis and design of stiffener 4.5.4 Verification of Rockey design approach with experimental results COMPARISONS OF ROCKEY'S APPROACH VVITHFINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS BS5400REQUIREMENTS FOR TIHEDESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STU+-ENERS CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES

134

4.4

136 136 136

4.5

141 141 141 143 145

4.6

147

4.7

148 151
152

4.8
4.9

vi

Page Tables Figures CHAPTER 5 STIFFENER DESIGN APPROACH FOR PLATES IN SHEAR 154 157

196 197

5.1 5.2

U-MODUMON DISTRMUTION OF LATERAL LOADS AT THE STTFFENER POSMON REPRESENTATIONOF LATERAL FORCESACTING ON TBE STIFFENER

197

5.3

199

5.4

DESIGN OPTIMUM RIGIDITY FOR TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS 201 5.4.1 Introduction 201 5.4.2 Design philosophy for the optimum rigidity 201 5.4.3 Effect of yield stress on the -optimum rigidity 202 DESIGN PROPOSALFOR TRANSVERSESTIFFENERSBASED ON A SIMPLE BEAM MODEL COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND SIMPLE BEAM MODEL DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSION RENCES Figures

5.5

205

5.6

208 209 210 211

5.7

CHAPTER 6

PROPOSAL FOR DIMENSIONING THE TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS IN STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO IN-PLANE STRESSES

260 261

6.1 6.2

RMODUCIION STIFFENEDPLATES SUBJECTEDTO COMBINED SHEAR AND IN-PLANE COMEPRESSION 6.2.1 Introduction 6.2.2 Boundary conditions and loading 6.2.3 Effect of initial imperfections on the stiffener behaviour.

261 261 262 263

Vil

Page 6.2.4 Stiffener design optimum rigidities for different plate geometries 6.2.5 Beam model design approach 6.2.6 Comparison between the design approach and the finite element analyses. 6.3 STH+TMD PLATES SUBJECTEDTO IN-PLANE BENDING STRESSES 6.3.1 Introduction 6.3.2 Boundary conditions and loading 6.3.3 Effect of initial imperfections on the stiffener behaviour. 6.3.4 Effect of stiffener rigidity parameter on the plate bending capacity. ultimate 6.3.5 Beam model design approach for transverse bending in-plane in to subjected plates stiffeners stresses 6.3.6 Comparison between the design approach and the F.E analysis. 6.3.7 Beam model design approach for stiffeners in stiffened plates loaded by a general combination of in-plane stresses DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSION REF RENCES Tables Figures CHAPTER 7 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION AND 323 324
324 324 325 326

265 266 268

269 269 270 270 272

272 275

276 278 279 280 283

6.4 6.5

7.1
7.2

WIRODUC110N
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 7.2.1 Process of design 7.2.2 Design proposal 7.2.3 Effect of direct axial forces on transverse stiffener design

7.3 7.4

COMPARISONS WITH BS5400 REQUIREMENTS CONCLUSIONS

327 329

viii

Page 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 7.5 7.6 The finite element package Stiffened plate subjected to shear Stiffened plates subjected to shear and compression Stiffened plates subjecetd to bending stresses Design of transverse stiffeners 329 329 331 331 332 333 334 335 341 345

RECOMAENDATIONS FOR FUTUREWORK RENCES Figures APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

ix

NOTATION

a b bf 0=

width of web panel depth of web panel width of the flange alb panel aspect ratio 3 E tw flexural D rigidity of web plate 2) 12(1 _V depth of the stiffener outstand D, E modulus of Elasticity (N/mM2) F max. lateral force acting on the stiffener (N) Ieff moment of inertia of the effective stiffener section about its centroid K critical buckling shear stress bending moment in the web M M fw 0.25 cry bf tf2/(b2 tw cyy) relative flange to web bending rigidity MP plastic moment of the girder bending moment in the stiffener MS P stiffener axial direct load Euler buckling load PE thickness of the flange tf Ts thickness of the stiffener tw V" w Y yS zS thickness of the web ultimate capacity of the web intensity of the stiffener lateral load stiffener maximum lateral displacement distance between the centroid of the effective section and the stiffener outstand edge effective stiffener section modulus shear strain early stiffener rigidity parameter finite element optimum stiffener rigidity stiffener rigidity aD parameter

70 Ys

shear yield strain 7Y 'Y'Y= Y/YY non-dimensional shear strain 6 unaxial compressive strain EY compressive yield strain

x
25 plate slenderness ratio 35 tw Poisson ratio V in-plane plate bending stress Cyb in-plane plate compressive stress ac CFe maximum bending stress at the extreme fibre of the stiffener outstand Cru plate ultimate compressive stress CFY yield stress CFYW web yield stress CF'C Gc/ay non-dimensional compressive stress average shear stress acting on the stiffened plate (N/mM2) elastic critical shear stress (N/mm2) 'r cr plate ultimate shear capacity 'r U Ty = ay / V6 shear yield stress (NI MM2) compressive coefficient bending coefficient b

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW.

2
1.1 INTRODUCTION

In steel and composite bridges, plate and box girders are used forces bending the exceed the shearing and moments when design An of the efficient available rolled sections. capacity of these girders requires the use of deep webs to separate the flanges in order to optimize the bending moment capacity of the girder cross section. To reduce the self-weight of the girder, the is be thickness such that may required web quite small, and often the elastic critical buckling shear stress obtained from a first order theoretical analysis is considerably less than the shear yield stress; shear stress usually being the dominant stress component in a web panel. It has been accepted for many years that the web panel has a in post-buckling strength significant reserve of excess of the buckling stress and early 'allowable stress' codes of elastic critical practice acknowledged this by allowing a low safety factor for the design of the web compared with other components(1.107). Consideration of first order elastic buckling theory indicates that in increases critical significant stress can be achieved by employing transverse stiffeners to divide the web into a number of smaller panels. If this theory is used as a basis for the design is normally of web panels, a theoretical minimum rigidity specified; defined (non-dimensionally in terms of the parameter EI ) such that the elastic buckling capacity of the stiffened web 7= aD is equal to that of an individual plate approximately panel Early supported along the line of the transverse stiffeners. 1-1.2) indicated that this theoretical minimum experimental work(l. inadequate rigidity was even at relatively low stress levels, and hence stiffener design was generally based on empirical formulae(l. 3). This is primarily because first order theory takes no account of the influence of initial imperfections. The introduction of limit state methods to the design of steel bridges has highlighted the importance of post-buckling behaviour in slender webs subjected to shear. For this reason, the design of in the new design has been modified transverse stiffeners (Part 3)(1.4), In British Standard BS5400 the the methods. current design of transverse stiffeners is based on the concept of a strut from The loading the the arises strut model. axial acting on destabilizing effects of in-plane and shear stresses, in addition to forces due to tension field action from the post buckled web. It is accepted that the above requirements are safe but it is now

3
considered that the approach is potentially conservative due to an destabilizing in the representation the approximation of components leading to an incorrect formulation for the growth of strut deflections. Rockey et al(I. 5) proposed a plastic design procedure based on stresses and forces evaluated at the ultimate load of the web The stiffener sizes calculated using this method are panels. sufficient to support the ultimate loads acting on them. All the tests used for the basis of the model were, however, on slender webs. His proposal is complicated to apply in design because of the number of parameters involved. Horne and Grayson(1-5) proposed an empirical stiffener rigidity formula based on a parametric finite element study. Although their formula is simple, it cannot provide an appropriate rigidity for any level of shear and in-plane stresses acting on the stiffened plate. In some cases it may be advantageous to reduce stiffener sizes in areas of low stress, even if panel slenderness values are kept constant, although in normal design the size would be kept constant. Their recommendations also came directly from complex finite element analyses. The interpretation of the finite element results was rather subjective and not based on a clearly defined optimisation requirement for the stiffener selection. 1.2 REVIEW of OF STABILITY review PLATE ANALYSIS METHODS

1.2.1 Basis

This section aims to provide an essentially historical background to the development The of methods for plate analysis. presentation is not exhaustive, but emphasis is placed on the more important works and methods of analysis. 1.2.2 Small deflection

theory

The small deflection plate theory, generally attributed to Kirchoff and Love is based on the following assumptions.
1 2) 3) The material of the plate is elastic, homogeneous and isotropic. The plate is initially flat. The thickness of the plate is small compared to its other dimensions.

4
4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) The deflections are small compared to the plate thickness. The slopes of the deflected middle surface are small compared to unity. Deformations due to transverse shear are neglected. The deflection of the plate is produced by displacement of its initial to plane. points of the middle surface normal The stresses normal to the middle surface are negligible. The strains in the middle surface produced by in-plane forces can usually be neglected in comparison with strains due to bending.

The small deflection (linear) bending equation for plates was first formulated by Lagrange in 1811(l. 7) but not published until after his death when it was found without derivation in his notes. Bernoulli(I -9) attempted Navier(1-8) also derived it in 1820. in bending include term the to the twisting unsuccessfully force bending in-plane The terms to the addition of equation. deflection form later to the small equation was classical equation, introduced by St. Venant(I-10) in 1883. The bending equation was solved by Navier(1-8) by expressing the lateral load and deflections in double sine series expansions; his solution was only applicable to plates with simply supported edge by Levy(I-11) by It also solved adding a particular was conditions. homogeneous Although the the to of solution equation. solution Levy's method is considered more general than Navier's solution, the former can be applied only for plates with simply supported loading function for all sections parallel to the opposite edges and the direction of the other two edges must have the same shape. The addition of the in-plane force terms to the bending equation allowed the stability of plates to be examined. Many researchers tackled this problem by using several methods, details of which into 12-1.18). be in be found The texts(I. classified methods can can the following categories. Integration

1.2.2.1 Direct

The evaluation of the critical load by integrating the differential is plate compressed of a uniaxially equation of equilibrium in by buckled the assuming a shape of a sinusodial mode achieved in function direction by the an unknown multiplied compression differential Substitution in the equation gives this of shape other. integration four in for function terms of the a solution unknown four down by determined be writing constants which can the boundary along the conditions equations representing

5
form in be matrix The a written equations can unloaded edges. determinant if the have the of solution a non-trivial and will from is the equation characteristic zero giving square matrix be found details Further deduced. is load buckling can which the in reference (1.15). It is important to mention that with increasing complexity in the loadings, boundary the conditions and geometrical configuration, load buckling determination the of the plate using of mathematical this method becomes progressively more difficult. 1.2.2.2 Energy Methods These methods have been used extensively to obtain solutions. They rely on the use of a good approximation to the deflected form of the plate. There are several variants to the method. In 1891, Bryan(1.6) derived the expression for the strain energy it buckling If in to the and analyse problem. a plate used stored the principle of conservation of. energy is employed on a plate by compression, equating the work done by under uniaxial in forces to the the plate with a strain energy stored external deflected surface of Navier's expression, the exact answer to the from is lowest load buckling mode. However, the obtained critical for complex geometries, a more complicated displacement function is deflection the of sum a number of curves assumed representing 17) in Rayleigh Minimization the method. as of the potential -RitzO leads homogenous the to system algebraic of set energy a of be deflected Since the solved. equations which must assumed be is the an there generally not shape exact mode, will always Galerkin be by following the can minimised error which 18). It is important to mention that the above procedure(I. deflected the on rely methods shape satisfying each of the Problems can arise for which deflection boundary conditions. functions can be produced which will easily satisfy some of the boundary conditions but cannot be derived to satisfy all the For these cases, the Lagrangian multiplier method can conditions. be used. The latter is explained in detail in reference (1.19). 1.2.2.3 Finite Differences The finite difference method for the solution of differential finite by the system a a with equations represents continuum by Boole in formulated It first and others of number nodes. was The representation the nineteenth of consists century.

6
for the unknown substituting a series of algebraic expressions, in place of the differential functions and their derivatives, is The deflection therefore written equations. plate equation small in terms of a series of linear finite difference equations. Setting the determinant to zero, gives an approximate value of the critical load. This method is more general than the previous methods because various boundary conditions can be easily handled as well A detailed study by Salvadori and as skew plates(l. 20-1.21). Baran(1.22) discusses errors involved in the method and gives the first and second order finite difference for approximations rectangular and oblique coordinates. The small deflection equation for orthotropic plates derived Huber(1.23) has been solved by the finite difference method. 1.2.2.4 Finite by

element method

The finite element method has proved to be the most versatile tool for solving the static and dynamic behaviour of continua. The method has relied on the advancement of computer power in the last two decades for efficient implementation. It extends the displacement for the solution matrix method introduced of into the analysis of structural continua. Since its gridworks introduction in 1955, an increasingly large number of papers and texts have been written on the applications of and improvements to the method(I. 27-1.28). The structural idealization in the case of plates is obtained by the original subdividing continuum into a number of plate elements of various geometrical shapes by intersecting straight or These elements are connected only at their nodal curved lines. lines in such a way that a close similarity between the displacement of the original and substitute structures is obtained. An idealization of this nature assures that if the elements decrease in size the displacement components in the substitute structure will converge to the actual values at the representative points. Mathematically, the finite element representation resembles the Rayleigh-Ritz method in which the displacements have been approximated by the sum of the functions, each multiplied by an These unknowns are determined from the unknown constant. While using the Rayleigh-Ritz minimum potential theorem. method, the assumed series expression describes the total displacement field of the entire plate. In the finite element displacement patterns for each element are method individual

7
from the The sum the obtained total plate of potential assumed. has individual a stationary value, elements, of potentials of the leads This to in condition the equilibrium. are node points when minimization of the total potential of the structural system, which, to the in turn, yields the displacement field corresponding for load the plate Consequently, the critical equilibrium condition. can be evaluated. 1.2.3 Large deflection

theory

The large deflection (non-linear) equations were developed by 29) in 1910, following Von-Karman(I. original work on the deflections by Kirchoff(l. 30) in 1876. Marguerre(I. 31) modified the equations to take account of initial geometric imperfections in The derivation can be found in standard texts(l. 12-1.14). 1938. Soper(I. 32) derived the large deflection equation for stiffened 33) YUSUff(I. included initial imperfections in his plates and fourth These equations. plate order non-linear orthotropic to solve and few exact solutions are equations are difficult Solutions are only available for simple boundary possible. conditions. As stretching of the mid-plate surface is allowed for in large deflection have to be theory, in-plane boundary conditions specified in addition to the out-of-plane conditions used in small Three common boundary conditions deflection theory. are considered: i) Unrestrained: the transverse stress is zero at all points along The edge will the edge and the edge is free to pull in. therefore not remain straight. Constrained: The integral of the stress along the edge is zero (the edge force) and the edge is free to move but remains straight. Restrained: The edge is kept straight and a continuous stress distribution results.
Way(I. lateral 34) solved the case of clamped rectangular plates loads using the Ritz method. The equations for a plate under lateral loading were solved by Levy for the 36) 35) Supported the case(I. using and clamped case(I. Fourier series. The method is not necessarily restricted to 37) Later it was used to solve the cases of plates(I. . under square simply double square simply

8
39) 38) long plates under combined supported(l. and clamped(I. Levy Based lateral loading the on compression. and uniaxial 40) Coan(I. of an unrestrained method, examined the behaviour initial incorporated He plate under uniaxial compression. 3 1) Marguerre's(I. imperfections into the analysis using formulation. Hu et alO. 41) used a very similar approach and important imperfections is that the most confirmed effect of Tamaki(1.42) around the critical stress level. used Galerkin's method to solve more generally the equations for imperfect plates boundary of simply with combinations supported and clamped conditions, Levy's and Coan's work being special case. Yamaki(1.43) confirmed the theoretical results with tests, good agreement being for a plate with found especially all four edges clamped. Galerkin's method was also used by Yoshiki et al(I. 44) in their for combined loadings. Supple(I. 45-1.46) used a Ritzanalysis Galerkin method of solution and investigated the changes in the buckling mode with respect to the prevailing boundary conditions, imperfections geometrical and applied lateral load.

A Ritz method was used by Falconer and Chapman(I.47) to examine the buckling of stiffened plates. They took an infinitely long plate under uniaxial loading and found the critical buckling wavelengths in terms of the orthotropic rigidities. Mansour, using his own formulation large deflection equations(l. 48), of the orthotropic applied the methods of Levy, Coan and Yamaki and presented design charts(I. 49) for wide and square plates under various load combinations. A useful approximate method for solving the large deflection equations is the perturbation approach(I-50). It consists of using truncated power series in terms of a loading parameter for the deflections and stresses. Walker(1-51) used it to analyse simply supported flat square plates under compression with either constrained or unrestrained boundaries and his results compared well with those of Levy and Coan. Later Dawson and Walker(1.52) initial imperfections added of the same shape as the buckling mode and found that only two terms of the power series were Design coefficients were presented for uniaxially and needed. biaxially compressed plates by Williams and Walker(I. 52). Finite differences have been used by many investigators. The earliest use of this method appears to be due to Kaiser(1.54) who solved the case of a simply supported plate under lateral loading with zero stresses on the boundaries. Wang(1.55) also solved the case of laterally loaded plate and solved the finite difference He extended the analysis equations by successive approximations.

9
56). Scholes loading(l. in-plane lateral to combined and and 57) used an energy method to solve the finite Bernstein(I. loading difference for plates under lateral and equations Also, the using an correlated results very well with experiments. energy solution method, Basu and Chapman(1.58) investigated the large deflection behaviour of laterally loaded stiffened plates 32). 59) Soper's formulation(I. Basu Aalami(I. using and extended Chapman's work to cover loading cases using Gaussian reduction to the bending and in-plane parts of the large solve iteratively deflection equations. Design curves were presented(I. 60-1.61). However, using this solution technique the post critical path cannot be followed due to numerical instability(I. 62). A technique The method which overcomes this problem is dynamic relaxation. was first proposed by Day(1.63) and further developed by Otter(I. 64). Its main advantage is in saving computer storage 65-1.66). space(I. The finite element method has been used to investigate the large deflection behaviour of plates and due to its flexibility is a very popular approach. This method forms the basis of the procedure The techniques of the method have been used in this thesis. improved over the years such that the build-up of errors found in is earlier works now eliminated(I. 67-1.68). Crisfield(I. 69) has reviewed the development of the finite element method with application to the analysis of plates and this will not be repeated here.

1.3

ULTIMATE

CAPACITIES

OF PLATES

1.3.1 Introduction The ultimate capacities of plates subjected to in-plane only be studied using large deflection analysis taking the effect of initial imperfections and the reduction due to yielding(l. 71). Due to the complexities involved, in this area has only been conducted in the last work Before this many simplifying assumptions have had and the results were limited to special cases of boundary conditions. loading can into account of stiffness most of the two decades. to be made loading and

In this section, methods for predicting the capacities of plates are in two categories according to the classification of beams reviewed in BS54000.4). The first corresponds to girders without longitudinal stiffeners in either web or flange and the second with The methods are mostly derived from ultimate such stiffeners.

10

state models or from results obtained either experimentally numerically (finite difference or finite element methods). 1.3.2 Strength of longitudinal in

or

web panels stiffeners.

girders

without

1.3.2.1 Panels subjected to uniform longitudinal

Von

compression

Karman(I. 72) examined the case of flat panels subjected to The stress distribution for such uniform longitudinal compression. a panel, transversely supported on four sides is shown in figure Only the parts of the plate close to the unloaded edges have I. I. Due to the reached the plastic state in the postcritical range. bowing effect in the central zone of the panel, the corresponding stresses are lower than those at the edges.

design For Von Karman(I. 72) suggested purposes, the by a representation of the non-uniform stress distribution The reference uniform distribution over a reduced plate width. stress is chosen to be equal to the edge stress in the real distribution at collapse, that is the yield stress cyy as shown in figure 1.2. According to his hypothesis, the critical stress of the panel (Ocr)e with an effective width be should be equal to cyy and therefore

, Cyr
Where ac,, is the critical stress of the panel with the actual width b. The strength of the panel is given by.
be. ay tw * ............................ Stussi et al(1.73), by testing in compression aluminiurn alloy panels flat showed that good correlation were nearly which existed between the theoretical values given by equation (1.2) and the experimental results. If XP V reference slenderness parameter then acr

. ............................................ 2, p

11

If the value of oc, is substituted in equation (1.3) it can be seen that be = 1-9 t, E ay which is independent of the plate width b.

Hence, all but the stockiest of plates subjected to pure 74), it is important to are seldom compression economic al(I. mention that the latter is not true because slender panels under compression have a buckling reserve which increases their peak capacities. Since the original work by Von Karman was impractical because it was based on plates of flat nature, many researchers have introduced various modifications for equation (1.3) to account for the influence of initial imperfections, residual stresses and postfor Some of the more especially critical reserve slender panels. important proposals are given below.

Winter(I.

1.76) 75

be

bpXp
(1.77 - 1.78)

0.22' 105

for A, p>0.6

(1.4)

Faulkner

0.26

bpp
. 79)

f or

0.55

...

(1.5)

Gerard(l

b, = b10.85

0.82
................................

(1.6)

1.3.2.2 Panels subjected to linearly

varying stresses

The effective width concept has also been used to predict the strength of panels subjected to combined compression and bending by generalising equation (1.3) proposed by Von Karman to have the following form. be bc I A, p

where be is the width of the compression zone and be is the corresponding effective width. In comparison with uniform compression, two problems arise for this more general case(1.74)

12

The definition of the bc value. The compression zone width will generally vary during the loading. For practical reasons, bc may be measured from the neutral axis of the full section (calculated according to the classical strength of materials). 2) bc. For The distribution the width of effective pure is clearly 0.5bc along each compression, the distribution longitudinal edge. For the more general case, the effective width adjacent to the edge of maximum compression will be less than 0.5bc. As an approximation, ECCS proposed the following rules ft r this distribution(I. 74) We is the part of the effective width adjacent to the edge with maximum compressive stress. Ve is the part of the effective width adjacent to the edge with the minimum compression or to the neutral axis, then, 1 We =be0.5 1 K2) -(I 10 For 0<Q<1.............. b "e = b, 10.5 10 0.6 be for Q<0 (1.8)

We = 0.4 be Ve

Where Q is the panel stress ratio given by

amin (a is taken negative amax for compression and positive for

tension). The longitudinal Ve over and Ve. stresses are assumed to be linearly distributed

To take into account the effect of imperfections which is generally accepted to be less severe for bending than for pure compression (ref. 1.80), equation (1.7) has been modified by using Winter's proposed equation (1.4) and is given by b, be A, pIApI 0.0 5 (3 + Q)

13 This concept can be used for both unstiffened stiffened plates.

It is

and transversely

important the strength of to mention that in BS54000.4), plates for this type of loading is based on an effective thickness first This concept was concept rather than an effective width. proposed by Cooper(1-81) for I beams with equal flanges. Based on from and theoretical sources, experimental various results Cooper's approach has been modified to cover the case of unequal flanges with the compression zone either larger or smaller than half the web depth(l. 82). The effective thickness concept adopted by BS5400 is given by.

twe tw

0.00625 1.425 = -

bcf tw

-a-v V355

(1.10)

Where twe = effective thickness of the web. 1.3.2.3 Tension field models for panels in shear The behaviour of transversely stiffened plates in shear is different to that under longitudinal stresses. The response of an isolated panel can be separated into two distinctly different phases.
1 Prior to buckling, the stress is essentially a combination of diagonal tensile and compressive components of equal magnitude. After buckling the critical of the panel is reached, the loading is resisted by the development diagonal of membrane tension fields.

2)

The high load carrying capacity of plate girders with slender webs due to tension field action in the post critical range has been discussed by Rode(1.83) as early as 1P16. His theory was never for design the of steel bridges because he adopted a tension used field width of 50tw as shown in figure 1.3 which had not been verified by tests.
Basler(I. 84) presented the first ultimate load method for the failure load of transversely stiffened plate girders. predicting Figure 1.4 shows his proposed collapse mechanism which is based Basler's method assumes that the flanges tests. on experimental of most plate girders are too flexible to provide an anchorage for the tension field and hence neglected any contribution of the flange strength to the ultimate strength of the girder. In 1961,

14

In

into Basler's 1968, Fujii(I-85) introduced new assumptions model by assuming that the tension band covers the whole panel depth the of the web. a membrane across with stress varying is assumed to occur when Moreover, a collapse mechanism internal flange hinges are developed at midlength of the panel as well as at the comers of the panel (see figure 1.5). However, Fujii did not take into consideration the influence of the flange rigidity upon the position of the internal hinges. 86) and proposed another version of model by assuming a collapse mechanism with no internal hinges. This collapse model is shown in figure 1.6. Chern Ostapenko(I. Fujii's flange

87-1.88) Skaloud(I. Rockey and carried out a comprehensive influence flexural the study on experimental of the flange inclination, the on width and position rigidities of the diagonal in in band As a result, they proposed an a shear. web plastic ultimate shear model which operates with a beam mechanism (see The tension field direction corresponds to the web figure 1.7). its diagonal, whereas width is controlled by the location of panel intermediate plastic hinges in the flanges.

In the last two decades, the basic models proposed by Basler and Rockey and Skaloud have been modified by a number of Japan. from Europe The analytical procedure and and researchers the accuracy of these proposed mechanism approaches have been in reference 1.74. Of all the ultimate and summarized reviewed load methods of analysis presented to date, the most general and accurate model is that by Rockey, Evans and Porter(I. 89-1.90). It is a modified version of the Rockey and Skaloud proposal by changing the six hinge panel mechanism criterion to a four hinge one which is enough to produce a panel mechanism. This model produces excellent correlation between theory and test results and by recommended many researchers(I-91) and adopted as a was 9.30.74). by A modified version ECCS committee reference method of this method has been adopted by BS54000.4) for girders longitudinal load This model is stiffeners. without ultimate described in detail in chapter four. It is important to mention that the tension field mechanism model is appropriate for web panels commonly used in longitudinally unstiffened plate and box girders because of their stocky nature. This is due to the fact that these type of sections allow a large degree of shear deformation moderately any without adverse effect on flange stability. During the drafting of BS5400 it

15
box felt longitudinally that stiffened was slender plate girders and girders needed a limit on web shear straining so that the stability of the flange would not be seriously impaired, and hence, another The criteria was needed to predict the strength of such webs. method adopted is presented in section 1.3.3. 1.3.2.4 Panels under combined shear and bending Many researchers tried to extend the basic tension field theories to cover coexisting bending moments and shear for plate and box 92), According Basler(l. for flexible flanges, the formula to girders. for the plastic interaction between bending and shear for I be assumed for the web moment, Mpw = Mp - Myf also profiles can Mp and Mpw are the plastic moments for the girder and web . and Myf is defined as the bending moment that respectively flanges in the ay produces without any contribution from the web. Eurocode 30.93) adopted this proposal by replacing Mp by the full the of section to give the following conservative moment yield formula.
M Myf :! + (My Myf) [1 _ (V/ VU)2 I ......... (1.11)

Where vu is the ultimate capacity of the web evaluated from the tension field theory. The interaction between shear and bending in the web is more pronounced when the flexural strength of the flanges is included. After an extensive study, Evans et al(I-90) established that a flange from failure mode occurs when the value to a a web change of applied moment is approximately equal to the plastic moment of resistance provided by the flange plates only, neglecting any 94) from As Evans(I. the web. a result, proposed an contribution interaction diagram between Vult/Vyw and M/Mp (Vyw is the force to produce yielding of web). shear In BS54000.4), the relationship is given as a linear interaction between sets of values of shear force and bending moment. This interaction diagram is explained in detail in reference(i. 82). 1.3.3 Strength stiffeners in longitudinal

of

web panels

girders

with

It was mentioned in sub-section 1.3.2.3 that tension field theories based on mechanism approaches are suitable for longitudinally These methods require a substantial unstiffened plate girders.

16
to fully mobilise the shear deformation BS5400(1.4) uses such an approach for the and plate girders; namely plate girders in box the girders stiffening web and stiffening in webs or flanges. mechanism strength. design of stocky box longitudinal without longitudinal without

The design rules for longitudinally stiffened plate and box girders in BS5400 are based on the numerical studies carried out by Harding et al(1.95) and by Harding and Hobbs(1.96) on the ultimate load behaviour of plates subject to in-plane direct and shear stresses. A finite difference solution of the large deflection plate in combination with a multi-layer approach to equations was used Their design the studies were principally aimed at of plasticity. box girder web panels, and loading types appropriate to girder Unloaded considered. were panel edges were either webs in the reflecting situation a box girder where a weak unrestrained flange provides little transverse in-plane restraint, or restrained forces Initial the around an internal reflecting panel. imperfections and residual stresses were also included. The main interaction the study was of product curves of ultimate stresses derived from sets of panel stress-strain responses. Figure 1.8, for interaction for shows example, curves unrestrained and panels under combinations restrained of shear and either One interesting compressive or uniform tensile displacement. feature is that as soon as tensile loading becomes of importance, the curves all merge since buckling becomes irrelevant. In order to include the effect of in-plane bending, the study also considered combinations of triangular direct stress and shear and bending and shear. Figure 1.9 for instance, shows shear moment interaction results for panels loaded under combined bending and in fully The Mu, the terms moments are expressed shear. of bending My, by linear the moment produced and moment plastic distribution with peak stress equal to the yield stress ay. Using the results of the study, an interaction formula originally 97) by Horne(I. suggested was adopted by Harding and Dowling(1.98) to apply the results of the elasto-plastic numerical analysis in the following form.
a, &ay( + Orb Sb Cry T+ 'r S. -r y I

17

ac is the value of the uniform

(for in

compressive stress acting on the

is is the taken CYb tension as negative). panel panels ac maximum value of the bending component of the stress and r is the coexistent shear stress. Sc, Sb, Ss are numerical multipliers of the yield stress used to provide the best fit to the analytical interaction curves. Figure 1.10 shows values of these functions for possible design use.

has been adopted by BS54000.4) This proposal and the Czechoslovak design code for steel bridges(I. 95) for predicting the strength of panels in longitudinally stiffened girders. 1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW OF TRANSVERSE WEB STIFFENER DESIGN linear theoretical studies

1.4.1 Early The small developed found that panel (a x Tcr K

deflection theory for the analysis of plate buckling was by Timoshenko(I. 96) and others many years ago. It was the elastic critical buckling stress, 'Tcr, of an unstiffened b) subjected to shear stress is given by.
7c 2E _ V2)' tw (b 2 )

12(l

...............

K is the critical buckling coefficient which depends on the panel dimensions and the type of edge support. For simply supported edges K is given as 5.34 + 4/
02 for 0>I

4.0 + 5.34/

02

for

0 do

where = a/b, the aspect ratio of the panel. The values of K given by equation (1.14) were an empirical fit to theoretical studies. The capacity of a given web panel is increased by reducing the Classical first aspect ratio and hence increasing the value of K. order analyses(I. 96) were used to determine the variation of K with change in the stiffener flexural rigidity y. It was found that if the stiffeners have a certain minimum flexural rigidity -f*, the

18 individual is that to of equal elastic stress of the stiffened panel subpanels. The determination of K and y* was generally based on a numerical Rockey(1.97) Cook provided and energy minimisation procedure. buckling to the of clamped and simply supported shear solutions It was infinitely long plates reinforced by transverse stiffeners. found that the required value of y* was considerably reduced longitudinal the edges of the plate were clamped rather when than simply supported. 1.4.2 Early

experimental

studies

Early experimental investigations were primarily concerned with the behaviour of web plates under load. Few researchers studied Based the influence of transverse stiffener size on web stability. Moore(1.3) tests girders, aluminium on on produced the empirical design formula given by equation (1.15) 14
o3

(1.15)

This equation was applicable for webs with partially clamped based on the stiffener size required to limit web and was edges deflections. plate and stiffener Sparkes(I-1) conducted a series of tests on plate girders and found that the theoretical value, y*, failed to divide the web into separate panels. This supported the conclusions of Scott and Weber(I-98). The reason was the perfectly flat nature of the stiffened plate first in in the occurs rarely order analyses which assumed All plates have some form of initial out-of-plane practice. displacements imperfections, therefore, will out-of-plane and develop at stress levels below the critical buckling stress. between Rockey(I-99) the relationships established empirical critical shear coefficient K and the stiffener rigidity 7, for plates These stiffened by concentric or eccentric transverse stiffeners. 220 different based tests the on relationships were on results of The test girders were made of plate-stiffener combinations. aluminium and bolted construction was used to limit test plate initial imperfections. The girder flange provided a rigidly clamped boundary condition to the web panel edges. As a result, Rockey

19
proposed expressions for the limiting y* given by. 27.75 7.5 stiffener rigidity parameter

Concentric stiffeners

21.5
2

****,
7.5 Eccentric stiffeners

The second moment of area I for eccentric stiffeners was calculated from an effective stiffener section which included a plate width of a/2 on each side of the stiffener. All the tests were conducted in the elastic range of the web panel. 1.4.3 Elastic

second

order

analyses.

In order to account for the influence of initial out-of-plane Skaloud et al(1-109) used large deflection elastic imperfections, theory to investigate the behaviour of a square plate with a single transverse stiffener loaded in shear. They found that the value of buckling first by order y* given analysis should be increased by a factor The m. value of y* was based on equation magnification (1.15) and a value of m=3 was recommended for transverse stiffeners.
* 2.7 (0 1511 02 802 803 )

7=m 7* ................................. where y was the required transverse stiffener rigidity. After an extensive nonlinear elastic study on web panels, Richmond(I-100) proposed a design approach for transverse and longitudinal stiffeners on girder webs. His proposal was based on the idea that shear and compressive stresses are. effectively interchargeable to evaluate their destabilizing effects on the The initial imperfection buckling mode of a stiffened stiffeners. plate was taken as a saw-edge with transverse stiffeners placed at According to his approach, the every change of direction. transverse stiffener is designed as a pin-ended column subjected to an effective compressive force which is a function of the shear

20 and direct in-plane stresses acting on the stiffened four. in is in detail chapter approach presented web. This

Bijlaard(I-101) introduced an approach for the design of transverse longitudinal for to only subjected panels stiffened stiffeners and in-plane longitudinal stresses. Shear stresses were not included. The stiffened plate initial imperfection mode was assumed to be dependant A deflection Richmond(I-100). that to of similar transverse load arising from the loading within the plane of the plate related to the geometric imperfections of the transverse The lateral load acting on a simply stiffeners was established. beam indestabilizing the the represented effects of supported This was identical to the lateral load plane web stresses. developed by Richmond (see chapter four) after replacing the shear by compressive stresses. The stability of the transverse in loaded this way was presented by means of a fourthstiffener An equation with non-constant coefficients. order differential alternative and easier solution was also introduced by repeatedly describing the behaviour by a series of fourth-order differential equations with constant coefficients. 1.4.4 Ultimate theoretical

strength

requirements

The emergence of tension field theories for describing the loaded in of web panels shear in the postcritical range response has led to the development of many stiffener design procedures. The assumed function of the transverse stiffener was to remain effective in limiting panel boundary out-of-plane displacements The ultimate strength until the panel capacity was reached. to tension field models, however, required these stiffeners withstand the vertical components of the diagonal stresses from the web at one end and transfer them to the other end. Section 1.3.2.3 indicated that the first ultimate strength model 84). by for developed Basler(I. It was plate appropriate girders was assumed that the girder flanges are unable to support the postbuckling tension field and consequently only a limited tension field could develop between the transverse web stiffeners. With this model, the transverse stiffeners had to satisfy two criteria. The first criterion 'was to ensure that they had sufficient rigidity The second to preserve the shape of the girder's cross-section. criterion was to ensure a minimum cross-sectional area to resist The axial the compressive components of the tension field. stiffener force Fs, was given by equation (1.19).

21
b tw ay 2

Lc-r Ty"

)1
2

(1
-

+ 02

It was found by partial differentiation of equation (1.19) that a 1.18 for force and an aspect ratio occurred maximum stiffener by force b/t. 187. This was given panel slenderness = Fs= 0.015 ayb2qeyw for the and was used to provide a minimum area requirement (1.20). The by axial stress transverse stiffeners as given equation be to assumed strut as a was a stiffener regarded capacity of be full its its capacity could to plastic yield stress, and equal These assumptions are likely to be compensated for developed. by recommending the maximum stiffener force to be applicable to all 0 and X values. Hence according to Basler, for any plate geometry, the stiffener by: given cross-section was A, : 0.0 150 b2
07YW V/CYW ays

Concentric stiffeners
,**** (1.20)

A., ; 0.0 362b2 ->

Where yield

6yw VIE yw arys

Eccentric stiffeners
the uniaxial panel

oys was the stiffener yield stress eyw length. b the stiffener strain and

As the eccentric stiffener was subjected to both an axial force and moment, the required area was greater than that for concentric be local The to that was also stiffener proportioned so stiffeners. buckling was avoided. The work by Basler and Thurlimann(I. 92-1.102) was extended by Cooper(l. 103) to include the influence of longitudinal web It was considered that the presence of such stiffeners stiffeners. forces transverse the to subject stiffeners at would concentrated An approximate method was used to determine their intersection. the magnitude of these forces for the case of a single longitudinal stiffener at b/5 below the compression flange. This resulted in a relationship between the elastic section moduli of the transverse (Zt and ZL respectively) stiffeners and longitudinal given by equation (1.21). Zt : ZL/O (1.21) ................ .............................

22

The maximum transverse force was calculated from equation (1.19) and the required stiffener size was determined from a classical Perry-type strut analysis. It is essential to mention that the appropriate were made regarding no recommendations (the width of associated web stiffener effective cross-section Cooper's in Basler's proposals. either or plate) Rockey et al(I-5) proposed an ultimate load transverse stiffener from developed design experimental an procedure 104-1.106). The method considered the stiffener as a programme(I. included an effective which a width of cross-section strut with web plate equal to 40 times the plate thickness. The axial force determined down distribution from the stiffener was consideration of the tension field forces which developed in the The the to stiffener. stiffener was also loaded adjacent panels web forces from by its the 'pull in' of the ends axial which resulted at tension field on the flanges. The axial forces were assumed to act in hence, the the the of web and plane at middle case of the bending a applied moment to the effective eccentric stiffener, An bending additional moment was also stiffener cross-section. induced by the presence of initial imperfections; the magnitude of by buckling Euler load amplification the which was enhanced factor. The destabilizing effect of the buckled web on the stiffener was considered by adopting a reduced effective stiffener second for in inertia use calculating the amplification factor. moment of This method is described and discussed in more detail in chapter four. Due to the complexity involved in evaluating the forces imposed by the tension field band on the transverse stiffener in the postbuckling stage, Horne and Grayson(I-6) conducted a fully nonlinear parametric finite element study on the behaviour of The effects of initial transverse stiffeners loaded in shear. imperfections Both and residual stresses were included. concentric and eccentric stiffeners were considered and the ultimate capacities of the stiffened webs were compared with those of corresponding fully supported panels. Their investigation led to an empirical formula based on rigidity requirements given by equation (1.22). 0.6 (2, - 60) 0>0.7 5 , Yso= ........ 0.8 (A * y, , = 50) 0.75 (1.22)

23 E 1. Where y, = -, the stiffener rigidity, and I andoare the plate aD slenderness and aspect ratio respectively. The rigidities given by the above equatic basis that further increases of rigidity caus in the ultimate capacity of the panel. The Is of the stiffeners was calculated without The values of Is for concentric stiffeners midplane of the plate whereas those for were taken about an axis at the surface ol side as the stiffener. 1.4.5 Code i were derived on the only a slight increase second moment of area n effective plate width. were taken about the he concentric stiffeners the plate on the same

of

practice

requirements

For the engineer, the design of transverse web stiffeners is In this section, the governed by appropriate codes of practice. design procedures adopted by the American and some European codes, which are basically taken from the methods described in the previous sub-sections, are described briefly. BS153 The plate strength was based on allowable stress levels derived from large deflection buckling analyses in which the maximum applied shear stress was limited to that which caused surface yielding at the most highly stressed part of the 107). Transverse stiffener design was based on the panel(l. requirement proposed by Moore(1.3) and empirical rigidity Instead given by equation (1.15), but with minor modification. of the numerator of 14 in this equation, BS153 used a value of 16.4. b) Czecholslovak design specifications. The limit state design philosophy for bridge girders in the code is described by Djubek and Skaloud(I. 108). The stiffener design was based on a refined version of the method proposed by Skaloud et al(I-109), and which has previously been presented as equations (1.17-1.18). The value of m. in equation (1.18) was replaced by the expression for k given by

24 b -1 ........ with 1 :5k :5 ks .. (1.23)

k=I+

(ks -

1)1 t, tr

The value of ks was taken as 3 for transverse stiffeners, while the value of r was dependent on the stress type. For shear (1.24) by equation stress, r was given

F21 0 90 .......... v ayw

.....

...........

.....

(1.24)

the value of k reflected the fact that pronounced post-critical behaviour was encountered only in the case of webs with high b/tw ratios, whereas for thicker webs the post-buckled important less If the or vanished completely. strength was loading, to the required stiffener combined web was subjected by in given a relationship shown y, was rigidity, simplified form by equation (1.25)
V(; y= 07C n cc a yw + Mb CFb (Yyw 2 + (0.6 Yq 'r ayw Mq

where yc, ym, 'fq were the stiffener the effect of individually applied shear respectively.

rigidity values required for bending and compression,

corresponding strength reduction coefficients M c, Mb, Mq in the code. given (Tc,Cyb,c applied stress in compression, bending and shear respectively. The effect of each group of terms in equation (1.25) was to scale the y values appropriate to each individual stress type by the ratio of the actual to allowable stress levels in it that recognition would be perhaps too conservative to add the y values required for each stress type. c) Proposed American specification. Wolchuk(I-110) described a proposed American specification for the design of steel box girder bridges(I-111). Transverse

25 both based design on a strength and a minimum was stiffener rigidity criteria. The strength criterion was based on a Perry type strut formula in which the effective stiffener length was taken as The applied axial load included a 0.7 of the actual length. force due to tension field action given by equation (1.19), but full design below levels for the to stress allow proportioned An effective width of web plate was tension field capacity. This to the width varied with the act stiffener. assumed with level of applied stress; from 9tw if the full tension field force less levels 18tw than the taken to were stress was when longitudinal Where stiffeners elastic critical shear stress. designed the transverse to were stiffeners present, were force lateral equivalent to 2% concentrated carry an additional of the longitudinal stiffener capacity. Such a lateral force was longitudinal location the of each stiffener. at applied The rigidity criterion was similar to that adopted by the Czechoslovak code. the value of limiting stiffener rigidity y*, design the graphically within proposed was specified rules. The presence of longitudinal stiffeners was accounted for by Transverse stiffeners were the use of the increased y* value. only required to meet the requirements of shear loading; combined loading was not considered. d) BS5400 requirements.

The design of transverse stiffeners is based on the concept of the strut model. The axial loading acting on the strut arises from the destablizing effects of in-plane shear and direct forces in due to tension field action from to addition stresses the post-buckled web. The design procedure is presented in a form in four. chapter comprehensive 1.5 AIM OF THESIS

Due to doubts about the current design rules for stiffeners in transversely stiffened webs subjected to shear and in-plane direct An elastostresses, the work reported in this thesis was initiated. large deflection finite plastic element program is used to investigate the different parameters that affect the behaviour of stiffeners up to the ultimate capacity of the panels.

26 The aim of this study is to use the results of the parametric study to produce a simple design model which is safe and economic and can represent accurately the physical behaviour of the stiffeners. Emphasis is given to formulating the design procedure in such a way that it can easily be incorporated in a design code of practice. 1.6 SCOPE OF THESIS

Chapter 2 describes briefly the finite element package (LUSAS) used in this study which accounts for both the effects of large deflections and material non-linearity. Comparisons are made with existing numerical and experimental results to check its validity. Chapter 3 that effect The effect describing publication presents a detailed study on the various parameters the behaviour of stiffeners in webs subjected to shear. A paper of varying yield stress is also considered. the work of the chapter has been accepted for in part 2 of the Proc. Inst. of Civ. Engrs.

Chapter 4 provides comparisons between the finite element Rockey Richmond the and approaches which form the results and basis of the design procedures adopted by BS5400. Chapter 5 introduces a stiffener design approach based on a for beam model stiffened plates subjected to shear. simple Comparisons are made between its results and those of the finite Another paper presenting the approach element analysis. introduced in this chapter has also been accepted for part 2 of the Proc. Inst. of Civ. Engrs. Chapter 6 represents the effects of the various parameters described in chapter 3 on transverse stiffeners for webs subjected to combined shear and direct in-plane. stresses. The design model introduced in chapter 5 is then generalized to take into account the effects of in-plane longitudinal stresses. Chapter 7 presents the design process to be followed in applying the design proposal. The effects of using the panel strength values given by BS5400 are demonstrated by comparisons made with the corresponding finite element values. It also contains the summary of the conclusions drawn from the parametric studies in addition to the suggestions for future work.

27

1.7

REFERENCES Sparkes, S. R., 1947, "The Behaviour of the Webs of Plate Girders", Welding Research, Vol. 10, No. 6.

1.2-

for Scott, M, and Weber, R. L., 1943, "Requirements Stiffeners Attached to Panels under Combined Auxiliary Compression and Shear", N. A. C.A. T. N. 921. Moore, R.L., 1942, "An Investigation on the Effectiveness of Stiffeners on Shear Resistance Plate Girder Webs", N. A. C.A. T.N. 862. 1982, Code of Practice British Standards Institution, Design of Steel Bridges, BS5400: Part 3, London, BSI. for

1.3-

1.4-

1.5-

Rockey, K. C., Valtinat, G. and Tang, K. H., 1981, "The Design loaded Stiffeners Webs in Shear an Transverse on of Proceedings Institution Approach", Ultimate of Civil Engineers, Part 2, pp. 1069-1099. Horne, MR, and Grayson, W. R., 1983, "Parametric Finite Element Study of Transverse Stiffeners for Webs in Shear", Instability and Collapse of Steel Structures, (edited by Morris, LJ), Granada Publishing, London, pp. 329-341. Todhunter, 1. and Pearson, K., "History of Theory Elasticity and Strength of Materials", Vol. 1, p. 147. Navier, L., 1823, Bull. Soc. Phil-Math, Paris. Bernoulli, J., 1789, "Essia Theorique sur les Vibrations de Plaques Elastiques Rectangulaires et Libres", Nova Acta, V5, St Petersburg, pp. 197-219. Clebsch., 1883, "Theorie de L'elasticite de Crops Solides Avec des Notes Entendues de St. VenanC, Dunod, Paris, pp. 687-706. Levy, M., 1899, "Sur L'equlibre Elastique d'une Plaque Rectangulaire", C.R. Acad, Sci V129, pp. 535-539. Szilard, R., 1974, "Theory and Analysis of Plates-Classical and Numerical Methods", Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey. of

1.6-

1.7-

1.81.9-

1.10-

1.11-

1.12-

28 1.13Bulson, P.S., 1970, "The Stability of Flat Plates", Windus, London. Chatto and

1.14-

Timoshenko, S.P, and Woinowsky-Krieger, S., 1961, "Theory Company, New McGraw-Hill Book Shells", Plates and of York. Allen, H. G, and Bulson, P.S., 1980, "Background to Buckling", McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Limited.

1.15-

1.16 - Bryan, G.H., 1981, "On the Stability of a Plane Plate under Thrust in its Own Plane with Application to Buckling of the Side of a Ship", Proc. London Math. Soc., V22. 1.17Ritz, W., 1908, "Uber eine neue Methode zur Losung der Methematischen Probleme Variations Gewisser Physik", J. Fur. Reine U. Angew. Math., V135, pp. 1-61. Galerkin, B. G., 1915, "Series - Solutions of some Cases of Vestnik. Equilibrium of Elastic Beams and Plates", Inshenerov., V1, pp. 879-908. (In Russian) Budiansky, B. G, and Hu, P. C., 1946, "The Lagrangian Multiplier Method of Finding Upper and Lower Limits to Critical Stresses of Clamped Plates", NACA Report No. 848. Solution for Skew Plates Using' Roberts, J.D., 1966, "A Dynamic Relaxation", M. Sc Thesis, University of London. Savage, J.E., 1968, "Finite Difference Solutions Plates", M. Sc Thesis, University of London. of Skew

1.18-

1.19-

1.20-

1.21-

1.22-

M. G, and Baran, M. L., 1951, "Numerical Salvadori, Computation of Buckling Loads by Finite Differences", Trans. ASCE, V116, pp 590-624. Huber, M. T., 1923, "Die Theorie der Kreuzweise Bewehrten Eisenbetonplatten Anwendungen Mehrere nedst auf Wichtige Bauteghnisch Aufgaben Ueber Rechteckige Bauingenieur, V4, pp. 354-392. Platten", Argyis, J. H., 1954, "Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis", Aircraft Eng., Vol 26, pp. 347-356,383-387.

1.23-

1.24-

29 1.25Argyis, J.H., 1955., "Energy Theorms and Structural Analysis", Aircraft Eng., vol 27, pp. 42-58,80-94,125-134, 145-158. Turner et al, 1956, "Stiffness and Deflection Analysis of Complex Structures", J. Aerospace Sci., vol. 23, pp-805-823. Zienkiewicz, O.C., 1977. "The Finite Element Method", Edition, McGraw-Hill. Holland, I., and Bell, K., Methods in Stress Analysis", Norway Press), Trondheim. Third

1.26-

1.27-

1.28-

(eds), 1969, "Finite Element Tapir (Technical University of

1.29-

its Probleme in T., 1910, "Festigke Von Karman, der Mathematischem Encyklopaedie Maschineubau", Wissensheften, VI, pp. 348-351. G. R., 1876, Worlesungen Kirchoff, Physik", VI, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig. uber Mathematische

1.30-

1.31-

Margeurre, K., 1938, "Zur Theorie der Gekruemmter Platte Proc. 5th Int. Congr. for Appl. Grosser Formaenderung", Mech., Cambridge. Soper, W. G., 1958, "Large Deflection of Stiffened Plates", J. Appl. Mech., V25, pp. 444-448. Yusuff, S., 1952, "Large Deflection Theory for Orthotropic Rectangular Plates Subjected to Edge Compression", J. App. Mech., V19, p. 446-450. Loaded Clamped Rectangular Way, S., 1938, "Uniformly Plates with Large Deflections", Proc. of the Fifth Int. Congr. Cambridge, Mech., Mass., Appl. pp. 123-128. of levy, S., 1942, "Bending of Rectangular Plates with Large Deflections", NACA T. N. 846. Levy, S., 1942, "Square Plate with Clamped Edges under Normal Pressure Producing Large Deflections", NACA T. N 847. Levy, S., and Greenman, S., 1942, "Bending with Large Deflection of a Clamped Rectangular Plate with Length Width Ratio of 1.5 under Normal Pressure", NACA T. N. 853.

1.32-

1.33-

1.34-

1.35-

1.36-

1.37-

30

1.38-

Levy, S., Goldenburg, D, and Zibritosky, G., 1944. "Simply Supported Long Rectangular Plates under Combined Axial Load and Normal Pressure", NACA T. N. 949. Woolley, R. M., Corrick, J.N, and Levy, S., 1946, "Clamped Long Rectangular Plate Under Combined Axial and Normal Pressure", NACA T.N. 1047. Coan, J.M., 1951, "Large Deflection Theory for Plates with Small Initial Curvature Loaded in Edge Compression", J. Appl. Mech., V18, No. 2, pp. 143-151.. Hu, P.C., Lundquist, E. E, and Batdrof, S.B., 1946, "Effect of Small Deviations from Flatness on Effective Width and Buckling of Plates in Compression", NACA T. N. 1124. Yamaki, N., 1959 - 1960, "Postbuckling Behaviour of Rectangular Plates with Small Initial Curvature Loaded in Edge Compression", J. Appl. -Mech., V26, No. 3, pp. 407-414. Continued in: V27, pp. 335-342. Yamaki, N., 1961, "Experiments on Post-Buckling Behaviour J. Appl. of Square Plates Loaded in Edge Compression", Mech., V28, pp. 238-244. Yoshiki, M., Yamamoto, Y, and Kondo, H., 1965, "Buckling of Plates Subjected to Edge Thrusts and Lateral Pressure", J.Soc. Nav. Arch., Japan, V118, BSRA Translation 3793. Supple, W. J., 1970, "Changes of Waveform of Plates in the Postbuckling Range", Int. J. Solids and Structures, V6, pp. 1243-1258. Supple, W. J., 1979, "Buckling of Plates under Axial Load and Lateral Pressure", Paper read at the Int. Conf. on Thinwalled Structures, 3rd-6th April, University of Strathclyde. Falconer, B. H., and Chapman, J. C., 1953, "Compressive Buckling of Stiffened Plates", The Engineer, V195, pp. 789791 and 822-825. Mansour, A. E., 1971, "On the Non-Linear Theory Orthotropic Plates", J.Ship Research, V15, pp. 266-277. of

1.39-

1.40-

1.41-

1.42-

1.43-

1.44-

1.45-

1.46-

1.47-

1.48-

31 1.49Mansour, A. E., 1976, "Charts for Buckling and Post-Buckling Analyses of Stiffened Plates under Combined Loading", Panel HS-3 of Hull Structure Committee, Technical and Research Bulletin No. 2-22, Published by SNAME. Thompson, J.M. T. and Walker, A. C., 1968, "A Non-Linear Perturbation Analysis of Discrete Structural Systems", Int. J. Solids and Structures, V4, pp. 757-767. Walker, A. C., 1969, "The Post-Buckling Behaviour of Simply Supported Steel Plates", Aero. Quart., V20, pp. 203-222. Dawson, R. G. and Walker, A. C., 1972, "Post-Buckling of Geometrically Imperfect Plates", J.Struct. Div., ASCE, V98, STI, pp. 75-94. Williams, D. G. and Walker, A. C., 1975, "Explicit Solutions for Deformed Plates Subject to the design of Initially Compression", Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, V59, pp.763787. R., 1936, "Rechnerische Kaiser, und Experimentelle der Durchbeigung Ermittlung Von und Spannungen Quadratishen Platten bei Freier Auflangerung an den Verteilter Last und Grossen Raendern, Gleichmaessig Ausbiegugun", Z. Fur A. M. M., Band 16, Heft 2. Wang, C.T., 1948, "Bending of Rectangular Plates with Large Deflections", NACA T. N. 1462. Wang, C. T., 1948, "Non-linear Large Deflection Boundary Value Problems of Rectangular Plates", NACA T. N. 1925. Scholes, A. and Bernstein, E.L., 1969, "Bending of Normally Loaded Simply Supported Rectangular Plates in Large J. Strain Analysis, V4, No. 3,1969, Deflection Range", pp. 190-198. Basu, A. K. and Chapman, J. C., 1966, "Large Deflection Behaviour of Transversely Loaded Rectangular Orthotropic Plates", Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., V35, pp.79-110. Aalami, B., 1967, "Non-linear Behaviour of Rectangular Orthotropic Plates under Transverse and In-plane Loads", Ph.D Thesis, University of London.

1.50-

1.51-

1.52-

1.53-

1.54-

1.55-

1.56-

1.57-

1.58-

1.59-

32 1.60Aalami, B. and Chapman, J. C., 1969, "Large Deflection Orthotropic Plates Rectangular behaviour under of Proc. Instn, Civ. Engrs., Transverse and In-Plane Loads", V42, pp. 347-382. Aalami, B. and Chapman, J. C., 1972, "Large Deflection Behaviour of ship Plate Panels under Normal Pressure and In-Plane Loading", Trans RINA, V114, pp 155-181.
D. G., 1971, "Some Examples Williams, of the Elastic Deformed Bridge Panels", Civ. Eng. Behaviour of Initially 1107-1112. Works Review, Public pp and

1.61-

1.62-

1.63-

Day, A. S., 1965, "An Introduction The Engineer, V219, pp. 218-221.

to Dynamic Relaxation",

1.64-

Otter, J.R. H., 1965, "Computations for Prestressed Concrete Relaxation", Reactor Pressure Vessels Using Dynamic Amsterdam, VI, No. 1, Nuclear Structural Engineering, 61-75. pp. Otter, J.R.H., Cassell, A. C. and Hobbs, R.E., 1966, "Dynamic Relaxation", Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., V35, pp. 633-656. Aalami, B., 1972, "Large Deflection of Elastic Plates under Patch Loading", J.Struct. Div., ASCE, V98, ST11, pp. 25672586. Brebbia, C. and Conner, J., 1969, "Geometrically Non Linear Finite Element Analysis", J.Eng. Mech.Div., ASCE, V95, EM2, pp. 463-483. Murray, D. W. and Wilson, E. L., 1969, "Finite Element Large Deflection Analysis of Plates", J.Eng. Mech. Div., V95, EIm, pp. 143-165. M. A., 1973, "Large Deflection Crisfield, Elasto-plastic Buckling Analysis of Plates Using Finite Elements", TRRL Report LR593. Dier, A. F., 1981, "Collapse of Metal Plates", University of London. Ph.D. Thesis,

1.65-

1.66-

1.67-

1.68-

1.69-

1.70-

1.71-

Dowling, P.J., Chatterjee, S., Frieze, P.A. and Moolani, F. M., 1973, "The Experimental of and Predicted Behaviour

33
Rectangular Stiffened Steel Box Girders", Proc. Int. Conf. on Steel Box Girder Bridges. I. C. E., London, pp. 77-94.

1.72-

Von Karman, Th., Sechler, E. E. and Donnell, L. H., 1932, "The Strength of Thin Plates in Compression", Trans. ASME, Appl. Mech., APM-54-5,53-57. M., Stussi, F., Kollbrunner, C. F. and Walt, 1951, "Versuchsbericht uber das. Ausbeulen der Auf Einseitigen, Verteilten Gleichmassig Druck Ungleeichmassig und Beanspruchten Platten aus Avional M, Hart Vergutet", Mitt. Inst. Baustatik ETH, H. 25, Zurich. Dubas, P. and Gehri, E. (eds), 1986, "Behaviour and Design of Steel Plated Structures", ECCS - Technical Committee 8Structural Stability, Technical Working Group 8.3 - plated structures, No 44, Switzerland. Winter, G., 1946, "Strength of Thin Flanges", Proc. ASEC, pp. 199-226. Steel Compression

1.73-

1.74-

1.75-

1.76-

Structures Winter, G., 1968, "Thin-walled Solutions and Test Results", Prelim. Publ., IABSE, New York, pp. 101-112.

Theoretical 8th Congress

1.77-

Faulkner, D., 1965, "Discussion of Paper by J.B. Caldwell Ultimate Longitudinal Strength", Trans. Royal Instn. Naval Arch., pp. 425-426. D., 1977, "Compression Faulkner, Tests on Welded Stiffened Plate Panels", Eccentrically Steel Plated Structures, (Ed. P.J. Dowling, J.E. Harding and P.A. Frieze), Crosby Lockwood Staples, London, pp. 581-617. Gerard, G., 1957, "Compressive Strength of Flat Stiffened Panels", NACA, TN No. 3785. Watanabe, E., Usami, T. and and Design of Steel Stiffened of Japanese Contributions", Struct. and Struct. Elements, Tokoyo, pp-396-417. Hasegawa, A., 1981, "Strength Plates -A Literature Review In Elastic Instability of Steel U. S. - Japan Joint Seminar,

1.78-

1.79-

1.80-

1.81-

Cooper, P.B., 1971, "The Ultimate Bending Moment of Plate Girders", IABSE Colloquium on Design of Plate and Box Girders for Ultimate Strength, London.

34

1.82-

Chatterjee, S., 1981, "Design of Webs and Stiffeners in Plate (Ed. C. Steel Bridges, K. The Design Girders", Box of and Rockey and H. R.Evans), Granada, London, pp. 189-214. Theorie "Beitrag 1916, H. H, Rode, zur Knickerscheinungen", Der Eisenbau, pp. 210-218. der

1.83-

1.84-

Basler, K., 1961, "Strength of Plate Girders in Shear", Journal of the Structural Division, Proc. ASCE, paper 2967, vol. 87, STA, pp. 151-180. Fujii, T., 1968, "On an Improved Theory for Dr Basler's Theory", Proc. 8th Congress, IABSE, N. Y., pp. 477-487. Chern, C. and Ostapenko, A., 1969, "Ultimate Strength of Plate Girders under Shear", Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report, Report No. 328.7. Rockey, K. C. and Skaloud, M., 1968, "Influence of Flange Stiffness upon the Load Carrying Capacity of Webs in Final Report, Proc. 8th Congress, IABSE, N. Y., Shear", pp. 429-439. Rockey, K. C., and Skaloud, M., 1972, "The Ultimate Behaviour of Plate Girders Loaded in Shear", Structural Engineer, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 29-48. Load The

1.85-

1.86-

1.87-

1.88-

1.89-

Porter, D. M., Rockey, K. C., and Evans, H. R., 1975, "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Loaded in Shear", The Structural Engineer, Vol. 53, No. 8, pp. 313-325. Evans, H. R., Porter, D. M. and Rockey, K. C., 1978, "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Subjected to Shear and Bending", IABSE, Proceeding p-18n8, pp. 1-20. Massonnet, C.H. and Maquoi, R., 1978, "Recent Progress in the Field of Structural Stability of Steel structures", IABSE, Surveys 5-5/78, pp. 1-40. Basler, K., 1961, "Strength of Plate Girders under Combined Bending and Shear", Proc. ASCE, Journal Struct. Div., ST 7, pp. 181-197.

1.90-

1.91-

1.92-

35 1.93"Common Unified Eurocode 3,1983, Commission Structures", Steel Communities Brussels, EUR 8849. Code of Practice for the European of

1.94-

Evans, H. R., 1983, "Longitudinally and Transversely Plated Structures - Stability and Reinforced Plate Girders", Strength (Ed. R. Narayanan), Applied Science Publ., London, pp. 1-37. Djubek, J. and Skaloud, M., "The Limit State of Flanges and Webs in Accordance with the New Edition of the Czechoslovak Design Code for Steel Bridges". Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J. M., 1961, "Theory of Elastic Stability", Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. Cook, I. T. and Rockey, K. C., 1962, "Shear Clamped and Simply Supported Infinitely Stiffeners", by Transverse Reinforced Quarterly, Vol. 13, Royal Aeronautical Society, Buckling of Long Plates Aeronautical pp 41-70.

1.95-

1.96-

1.97-

1.98-

Scott, M. and Weber, R. L., 1943, "Requirements for Stiffeners Attached to Panels under Combined Auxiliary Compression and Shear", N. A. C.A T. N 921. Rockey, K. C., 1956, "The Design of Intermediate Vertical Stiffeners on Web Plates Subjected to Shear", Aeronautical Quarterly, Vol-7, Royal Aeronautical Society, pp. 275-296.

1.99-

1.100- Richmond, B., 1972, "Report on Parametric Study on Web Report for Department of the Environment, Panels", Maunsell and Partners, Consulting Engineers, London. 1.101- Bijlaard, F. S.K., 1982, "The Design of Transverse and Longitudinal Stiffeners for Stiffened Plate Panels", IBBC TNO, Heron, vol. 27, NoA 1.102- Basler, K. and Thurlimann, B., 1961, "Strength of Plate Girders in Bending", Proc. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, ST6, pp. 153-181. 1.103- Cooper, P.B., 1967, "Strength of Longitudinally Stiffened Plate Girders", Proc. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, ST2, pp. 419-451.

36
1.104- Rockey, K. C. and Valtinat, G., 1977, "Vertical Stiffeners in Test Report DT/SC/l, Plate Girders with Slender Webs", University College, Cardiff. 1.105- Rockey, K. C., "The Behaviour of Single Sided Vertical Test Report Stiffeners on Webplates Loaded in Shear", DT/SC/4, University College, Cardiff. 1.106- Rockey, K-C and Valtinat, G., "Behaviour of Double Sided Primarily Loaded in Stiffeners Webplates Vertical on Shear", Test Report DT/SC/6, University College, Cardiff. 1.107- Kerensky, O.A., Flint, A. R. and Brown, W. C., 1956, "The Basis for Design of Beams and Plate Girders in the Revised British Standard 153", Proc. I. C.E., Part 3, Vol. 5. 1.108- Djubek, J. and Skaloud, M., 1977 "Post-buckled Behaviour in New Edition of Czechoslavek Design Web Plates the of Int. Conf. on Steel Plated Structures, Specifications", London (edited by Dowling, Harding and Frieze), Crosby Lockwood Staples. 1.109- Skaloud, M., Donea, J. and Massonnet, C. H, "Post-critical Behaviour of a Stiffened Square Plate Subjected to Uniform Shear", I. A. B. S.E. Publications, vol. 27, pp. 187-210. 1.110- Wolchuk, R., 1980, "Proposed Specifications for Steel Box Girder Bridges", Proc. J.Struct. Div., ASCE, ST12, vol. 106, pp. 2463-2477. 1.111- "Proposed Design Specifications for Steel Box Girders", Report No. FHWA-TS-80-205, Wolchuk and Mayrbaurl, Consulting Engineers for Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C.

37

CF

max

Cymi n

.0

Figure 1.1

DISTRIBUTIONIN THE POSTCRITICAL STRESS RANGE.

Figure

1.2

EFFECTIVE PLATE WIDTH b

e'

38

-0

Tb

Figure 1.3

RODE'SPARTIALTENSIONFIELD MODEL.

Figure 1.4

FIELD MODEL. BAKER'S TENSION

39

a/2

1.4 a/2

Figure 1.5

FUJIVS TENSIONFIELD MODEL.

Figure 1.6

TENSION FIELD MODEL. ANDOHERN OSTAPENKO

40

dd

ft
a

1u1(

Figure

1.7

ROCKEY AND SKALOUD TENSION FIELD MODELWITH THE CORRESPONDING

FAILUREMODEL.

41

top and bottom unrestrained 1.0

edges 0.5

Ay 0.5 .8 C/Cyield \YlYi ield .0 VIY 3u/Bx = const 'yy 0 u- const v- const .42.0 .2 0-Yc0 Ou/ax = const

2.0

6., .

- 1.0 .8 a-/(Yy tension

.6A

.2

.2

.4

11.0 .6 .8 compression crIcr

ield field

au/8x = const Ov/Ox=const

u- const v = const 9u /Ox= const
8v/8x 2 const cr-L=O-T=0

(7/ Cy tension y

compression Cr/a

xp A 0.54 1.09 2.18 3.27

b/1 (gy: 245 N/mm2) 30 60 120 iso 0.15 0.1 -0.6 0.3 -

WO/t 0.3 -0.9 -1.2 3.6

Figure 1.8

TYPICAL INTERACTION FORA PANELLOADED CURVES BY COMPRESSIVE, TENSILE ANDSHEAR DISPLACEMENTS.

42
T/ TY 1.0 0.8. 0.6-0.4-,-0.5 \tzj E/Eyield N, Y /)" yield 0 1.0

2.0

0.2 0 100M/Mu 1.0 M/My ON.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 iii1 0 0.4 0.8

top y

0.8 1.2

and bottom edges unrestrained 0.5 /1.0 E/Eyield 12.0\ . \\r/Yyield %

1.0 0.8 0.6-0.4-0.2-0Miii 0

0.2-

0.4

0.6

41 116-O-M/Mu 0.8 1.0

0.4

M/My 0.8 1.2

top and bottom edges restrained

xp x 1.09 2.18 3.27 b/i (a =245 N/mm2) y 60 120 180 -0.6 -----0.3 0.9 --3.6 /t WO 0.3 -1.2

Figure

1.9

INTERACTION CURVES FOR PLATES UNDER BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

AND SHEAR

43
SbSc

I bt

i. 0

restrained 0.8-unrestrained all aspect ratios 0.6--

0.4 1 restrained unrestrained -all

-, I"-

a
14

aspect ratios b t 200

5-5

50

100

150

ASS 1.0-0.8--

a< 0.5
restrained -<0.5 0.6--

0.4--

unrestrained

lb
0.2-Lt 0 Figure 1.10 Ub 50 100 150 200 fy, w' 35 5

VALUES OF Sc FOR PANELS IN COMPRESSION, Sb FOR PANELS IN INPLANE BENDINGAND Ss FOR PANELS IN SHEAR.

44

CHAPTER 2 THE FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM AND ITS VALIDATION.

45 2.1 INTRODUCTION

From the methods described in the previous chapter for plate analysis, the finite element technique has been chosen to solve the non-linear system of equations that govern the transversely stiffened plate behaviour under the various in-plane loading types. The effects of large out-of-plane deflections and material non-linearly have been included in the study. This chapter describes briefly the established non-linear finite LUSAS, in the various package, conducting element used Correlation studies have been undertaken parametric studies. with existing analytical solutions as well as available experimental results. 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE

The LUSAS package(2.1) used in the analyses was developed by It is a general purpose engineering Finite Element Analysis Ltd. incorporates facilities for linear and non-linear which system The analysis. system is based on the finite element stress displacement method and contains a comprehensive range of elements and solution procedures for the analysis of most types of The problems. system contains a wide range of both engineering linear and non-linear material models which cover most The support node conditions may be engineering materials. unrestrained, restrained with a prescribed displacement, spring or free. In the analyses, the plate and stiffener geometries were modelled by rectangular isoparametric semiloof shell elements with the mesh configuration shown in figure 2.1. Each element has a total of eight nodes. The corner nodes have three degrees of freedom which correspond to the displacements in three perpendicular directions whereas the mid-side nodes have five degrees of freedom; the two additional degrees of freedom relate to the loof rotations about the edge of the element at the loof points which 1143 located are at of the distance from the midside node to the The corresponding two corner nodes as shown in figure 2.2. element can accommodate generally curved shell geometries with varying thicknesses and anisotropic materials may be specified. The formulation takes account of both membrane and flexural deformations by thin plate theory, and as required shear deformations are excluded. For more details see reference 2.2.

46 The volume approach proposed by Crisfield(2.3) has been used to incorporate the non-linear effects of material plasticity into the finite element model. The stress state is monitored on a number of layers through the plate thickness. Plasticity of each layer is governed by the von Mises yield criterion and the associated Prandtl-Reuss flow rules. The non-linear solution strategies used in the package are based on various schemes of the Newton-Raphson technique. In order to stabilize these iterative techniques, line searches are added to the iteration strategies to modify the equations where the incremental displacements are updated. The convergence of the non-linear equations solution to an acceptable limit is specified by a nonlinear control section, the values of which are very much a matter of experience. For detailed explanation, it is advisable to refer to the LUSAS User ManUal(2.1). 2.3 FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE

VALIDATION

2.3.1 Introduction Before any numerical analyses could be carried out, it was first necessary to establish the validity of the package and data control as well as to demonstrate that the chosen mesh configuration shown in figure 2.1 would converge to solutions of acceptable accuracy. The eight noded semiloof element was used in all the cases examined. 2.3.2 Analytical

validation

A simply supported unstiffened plate of aspect ratio =1.5 and b/t,, = 180 subjected to shear loading has been analysed by Crisfield(2.3) Harding(2.4) In all cases, a and Grayson(2.5). multilayer 'volume approach' was used with Crisfield and Grayson adopting a finite element formulation and Harding adopting a finite difference dynamic relaxation approach. This plate was also analysed with the LUSAS package with the mesh refinement equivalent to figure 2.1. The results with all the data relating to the analysis are given in figure 2.3. The results of Crisfield and Harding are scaled from diagrams in each reference. Two of the cases from the detailed general study provided by Harding et al(2.6), which later formed the basis of the panel rules

47 within the bridge standard were also examined using the LUSAS formulation and are shown in figures (2.4-2.5). Figures (2.3-2.5) indicate that excellent correlation exists and that the average stress-strain responses from the different analyses are very similar. Another correlation study was carried out on a stiffened panel of and plate slenderness X= 240 presented by aspect ratio =0.5 The imperfection mode used corresponds to a Grayson(2.4). stiffener mode of an overall half sine curve combined with a panel half two sine waves in each unstiffened panel (denoted mode with by (P5)) and shown in figure 3.5(a). The results of the parametric in 3 chapter showed that this mode is critical for presented study displacement lateral for the aspect ratio considered in stiffener the example. The results of figure 2.6 again demonstrate excellent correlation. 2.3.3 Experimental

validation

Although the analytical validation presented in the previous subsection demonstrates the validity of the finite element felt it that further validation with experimental was package, results would indicate the appropriateness of boundary conditions and loading selection and provide full confidence in using the package for the current parametric studies. As far as plate girder webs are concerned, most recent work has been carried out at Cardiff(2.7-2.9). experimental However, these tests were generally on girders with very slender Rockey et al(2.7) tested eleven stiffened plate girders webs. designed to be identical except for the dimensions of the The aim of these experimental tests was to transverse stiffeners. check the ability of the stiffeners proportioned by their approach to sustain loads up to the failure of the girder. Figure 2.7 shows the layout of the plate girders tested with all the data relevant to Each girder was the two girders analysed (TGV4 and TGV7). loaded by a concentrated load at midspan thus producing a The panels were also constant shear force in all web panels. subjected to a varying coexistent bending moment. It will be seen later in chapter 3 that the stiffened panels considered in this study consisted of two panels with an intermediate stiffener to minimise the extensive computational time. For this reason, in modelling the plate girders, two panels

48 with the eccentric stiffener were taken in order to represent the The semiloof element and the mesh stiffened web of the girder. configuration presented in section 2.2 were used for the for Three different boundary the modelling. conditions longitudinal edges were investigated; restrained, unrestrained and an actual flange boundary which corresponded to the flange dimensions taken from the test. There was no records presented of the web initial imperfections in the tests and therefore initial imperfection mode (P3) which was identified to be critical for this The applied plate geometry was adopted (see section 3.3.3). loading was a combination of prescribed shear and bending
displacements with a strain proportion of Y/YY = FEIFY,

As mentioned above, the web panels and flange geometries for both girders were the same, whereas the material yield stress and the size of the stiffener SA were larger in girder TGV4 compared It was found experimentally that the shear with girder TGV7. capacities of girders TGV4 and TGV7 were 101.5 KN and 94 KN Moreover, it was observed that stiffener SA stayed respectively. in TGV4 straight girder effectively whereas it deflected substantially in girder TGV7 around failure. The peak capacities evaluated from the finite element analyses for the girders with the various boundary conditions are given below. Girder TGV4 Vu = 93.6 KN Vu = 117.4 KN Vu = 99.3 KN

Unrestrained Restrained Flange boundary

Unrestrained Flange boundary

Vu = Vu =

84.1 KN 89.60 KN

The values of the shear capacity deduced from the finite element analyses with the real flange boundaries therefore underestimate the experimental values by 2% for girder TGV4 and 4% for girder TGV7. These results must be considered very acceptable given the lack of data regarding the imperfections in the girders. The lateral displacements of stiffener SA from the analytical results The stiffener the experimental agreed with conclusions. deflections at peak load were 1.21mm for girder TGV4 and 4-74mm for girder TGV7.

49 It is also interesting to compare the shear force values obtained from the unrestrained boundaries which the underestimate for 10% TGV4 by for 7% girder and experimental values girder It will be seen later that unrestrained boundaries were TGV7. for the main parametric studies. adopted The comparisons with the two girder tests show that the finite deflection is both the stiffener when element package works well minimal and the panel boundaries are effectively rigid and when There therefore is strong the stiffener itself deflects significantly. supporting evidence that analytical studies can be used with confidence to predict the optimum stiffener requirement which occurs at the boundary between the above two regimes. No further Cardiff girders were analysed because their high slenderness values placed them outside the scope of the study in this thesis. presented

50

2.4 2.1-

REFERENCES Lusas User Manual, 1986, Finite Version 86.07, London. Element Analysis Ltd,

2.2-

Irons, B. M., 1976, "The Semiloof Shell Element", Finite Elements for Thin Shells and Curved Members, (Ed. by Ashwell and Gallagher), Pub. Wiley, London. Elasto-Plastic M. A., 1973, "Large -Deflection Crisfield, Analysis of Plates Using Finite Elements", Buckling Department of the Environment, TRRL Report LR593, Crowthorne, Berkshire. Harding, J.E., 1975, "Bolted Spliced Panels and Stress Redistribution in Box Girder Components up to Collapse", Ph.D. Thesis, University of London (Imperial College). Grayson, W. R., 1981, "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels", Ph.D Thesis, University of Manchester. Harding, J.E., Hobbs, R.E., Neal, B. G., and Slatford, J., 1976, "Parametric Study on Plates Under Combined Direct and Shear In-plane Loading", Steel Box Girders, CESLIC Report BG44, Imperial College, London. Rockey, K. C., Valtinat, G. and Tang, K. H., 1981. "The Design Stiffeners Shear Transverse in Webs Loaded of on - an Ultimate Load Approach", Proceeding Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,71, pp. 1069-99. Evans, H. R. and Tang, K. H., 1981, "A Report on Five Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Report No DT/SC/8, University College, Girder TRVY, Cardiff. Evans, H. R. and Tang, K. H., 1982, "A Report on Four Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Girder TRV4", Report No DT/SC/9, University College, Cardiff.

2.3-

2.4-

2-5-

2.6-

2.7-

2.8-

2.9-

51

Figure 2.1

STIFFENED PLATEMESH.

5 mi(Iside variables 3 cot-ner variables

Figure 2.2

FOR THE SEMILOOF SHELL DIAGRAM SHOWING THE NODEL VARIABLES ELEMENT.

52

T/T

y I.

1.

0.

0.

0.
V. 0 Nondimensional I. u shear strain 1.4 y' 1.4 1.6 I. B 2.0 Y/yy

Figure

2.3

COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS.

-r/T

-T
y i.;

wo/tw
, i

. 0.9
lr---771 I-

1.00.80.6[ 0.4 0.2 [ 0.0

U. U

b-1.0 180 245 N/M2 ined boundaries g results package 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2. B Y/Y

Nondimensional shear strain

Figure

2.4

COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS.

53

WO/tw . 0.9
T/T

6n

1.2 1.0 0.8 A-1 - 180 0.6 0.4

0.2

lz

245 N/mm2 nd bottom edges unrestrained ng results package

0.0

't

U.0 I. Ic I. b2.0 Nondimensional shear strain

2.4

2.8

Y/Y

Figure 2.5

COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS.

-r/-ry
0.8 0.7 aa

0.6

bfi 0.5

Ti

LI
0-0.5 )L - 240 oy - 355 N1mm2

0.4

Ys . 112 Initial imperfection mode (P5)

0.3 *
"o

LUSAS package results Grayson program

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2 ' y/y y

Nondimensional shear strain

Figure 2.6

COMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS.

54

Stiffener B

12V

StiffenerA A, r-*.

b,

a PanelB2

a Panel 131

aa Panel Al PanelA2
lbf I t Section AA when singlesided stiffener fitted

-T I
Section AA when doublesided stif fener fitted

= b/tw

a/b

1.0 =

b=

600 mm

300 =

bf = 200 mm tf= 10 mm 2 = 250 N/mm

cy = 220 yw TGV4 girder

N/mm2

yf

TGV7 girder

Ds = 40.30 Ts=5.0 0

mm

Ds=

12.40

mm mm

mm

Ts=5.75

420 N/mM2 = ys

2 N/mm 285 0 = ys

Figure 2.7

DETAILSOF EXPERIMENTAL-GIRDERS.

55

CHAPTER 3 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF PLATES SUBJECTED TO SHEAR.

56

3.1

INTRODUCTION

Although extensive theoretical and experimental work has been carried out on transversely stiffened plates subjected to shear and in-plane loadings, the optimisation of transverse stiffener geometries has not received a great deal of attention. For this reason, a series of parametric studies has been performed on 150 stiffened plate geometries subjected to shear loading using the finite element The objective of these package, LUSAS, described in chapter 2. parametric studies was to provide information from which to develop a simple design approach for transverse stiffeners on either plate or box girder webs. In this chapter, the results will be described and in detail be to assessed used later for the validation of the design approach developed in chapter 5. Because of the large number of cases examined, showing all the results in detail would be tedious. A selection of the results is shown in this chapter to illustrate the effect of the different parameters This selection is based around stiffener involved. geometries determined from the design philosophy explained in chapter 5. At the end of this chapter, a table of results is presented of all the cases analysed which confirm the conclusions drawn in the preceding The ultimate sections. shear capacity and the corresponding maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener are given for all the cases examined to provide a data bank for use by other researchers. 3.2 PARAMETERS UNDERSTUDY

3.2.1 Introduction An extensive study was undertaken on plates stiffened by a single transverse stiffener in order to minimise the use of computer time. In fact, for the case of stiffeners sustaining large deflections, this will not result in a lower bound to strength but was deemed adequate for stiffener deflections less than the order of the plate thickness. Likely interaction between adjacent stiffeners, basically still forming The geometric rigid panel boundaries, was considered minimal. boundary type of loading, variables, conditions and initial imperfection forms were varied such that they are typical of those In this section, the different used in bridge structural design. The comparisons and results parameters investigated are described. will be presented in section 3.3.

57

3.2.2 Boundary

conditions

and

loading

The plate loading has been achieved by means of prescribed boundary displacements rather than applied stress, because it was behaviour true the of considered that this more closely approximated (3.1) detailed Frieze in the a provided a girder. web plate a section of for boundary the plates subjected to suitable conditions study on loading. in some shear and cases compression The boundary conditions considered in this study are shown in figure 3.1. All plate edges were considered to be simply supported in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the web. This means that any by flanges the provided and the adjacent panels rotational restraint for The bottom the top conditions edges reflect and was neglected. These edges were the degree of transverse boundary restraint. figure in restrained either or as unrestrained as shown considered For the unrestrained edges, the unloaded boundaries were 3.1. develop to any transverse stresses, whereas for the unable kept the edges cases, were straight and hence transverse restrained forces could be developed. For both boundary conditions, the shear loading was applied as a tangential displacement (Y = Ss) along the boundaries, direction displacement along while normal u vertical both vertical boundaries was kept zero. The only difference between the restrained and unrestrained loading process is that, for the in bottom boundaries top the and case, restrained were specified terms of a linear variation of the applied shear displacement in order to maintain straight edges throughout the loading process, whereas in displacement the this of no specification was considered bottom The displacements top and case. u along unrestrained boundaries were also taken as zero to represent the axial stiffness of found The however, flange to the was elements. restrained condition, behaviour impose significant and constraint on the stiffener intermediate conditions were needed (actual flange modelling) in order to properly ascertain the effect of a realistically rigid girder flange.
Harding (3.2) considered the behaviour of panels subjected to shear , boundary in-plane the that conditions stresses and concluded and for in this the modelling adopted study were most appropriate practical web panels.

58 3.2.3 Material properties

Steel with a yield stress of 275 N/MM2 and an E value of 205000 but for the effect of N/mM2 the study of most was considered be discussed. The investigated has been and will varying yield stress ideally be no strain taken to with plastic elastic was material hardening.

3.2.4 Geometric

properties

In plate theory, plate panels are usually defined by their aspect ratio and panel slenderness X. The definition of these parameters differs In the present study, the definitions used by the between codes. British Standard BS5400(3.3) have been adopted Special consideration has been given to seliecting values of and X The values of that are typical of normal design practice. and X 0.5,1.0,1.5 2.0 60,120,180 are and and examined and 240 A plate slenderness of X= 60 is extreme for the design respectively. it but interesting limit case because no provides an of webs, is available for a plate under shear loading and postbuckling reserve the forces acting on the stiffener would be expected to differ from those for more slender panels. In addition to the two above parameters different sizes of stiffeners have been examined for every aspect ratio and plate slenderness to identify the stiffener size which satisfies the basic philosophy described later in chapter 5. Simple flat (rectangular) stiffeners have These been used in order to reduce the number of variables. been have proportioned with an outstand depth equal to stiffeners (3.3) in order to prevent their local ten times the outstand thickness buckling before the ultimate capacity of the stiffened plate has been reached. It is an accepted practice to express stiffener dimensions in terms of has been flexural This approach a non-dimensional y. rigidity inertia in If in the the this thesis. of the presenting adopted results face is the taken of the web, the stiffener alone about an axis at flexural rigidity is specified as y.. If an effective width of web is included in the stiffener section, the inertia is taken about an axis passing through the centroid of the effective stiffener area and the flexural rigidity is given the notation 'Yeff. The different parameters that define the geometry of the stiffened plate are shown clearly in figure 3.2.

59

3.2.5 Initial

Imperfections

The analyses were performed without including the effects of Harding et residual stresses on either the plate or the stiffener. al(3.4) found that the ultimate shear strength of panels under loading is insensitive to the presence of residual relatively combined It was felt that residual stresses are unlikely to have stresses. influence on stiffener design requirements to justify the sufficient incorporation in the analysis. their of complexities added Figures (3.3-3.5) show the different initial out-of-plane displacement Reference numbers are patterns considered for the plate panels. in later All to these patterns were specified in sections. referred Due to the presence of the stiffener, an terms of sine functions. additional half sine wave displacement over the whole stiffened panel has been superimposed on the plate panel imperfection to give the total imperfection for the stiffened plate. The imperfection magnitudes used in the study were based on the (3.3) in BS5400 tolerances specified and are given by equations (3.1) and (3.2).

Plate Tolerance
AP G 165 -ay -,, 355 initial displacement due to plate panels. (3.1)

where Ap = maximum

G=a G= 2b Stiffener
As G 750

a<b a> 2b tolerancc

... (3.2)

where As maximum initial displacement due to stiffener. G length of stiffener.

60
(3.2) has shown that the Harding It should be noted, however, that is insensitive loading to relatively shear capacity of plates subjected displacement. The initial the out-of-plane to the magnitude of lateral displacement the at the that maximum produced patterns basis design for been has the the study as chosen stiffener position relating to each 0 and X under consideration.

3.3

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

3.3.1 Presentation A considerable amount of data has been obtained from the finite Graphs, tables the parametric comprising study. analyses element been have used wherever possible, not only to convey and contours the results concisely, but also to allow easier comparison. The behaviour of transverse stiffeners in transversely stiffened loading is dependant to shear mainly on the plates subjected * imperfection, boundary restraints, the type of initial aspect ratio, To demonstrate plate slenderness, yield stress and stiffener size. this, the effects of each of the above parameters is considered in Comparisons and individually separate sections. and presented discussion concentrate mainly on the ultimate shear capacity of the lateral displacement the maximum stiffener at the plates and position. 3.3.2 Effect of boundary restraint

As mentioned in section 3.2.2, both restrained and unrestrained boundary conditions have been examined. While it is clear that the boundary is the weaker of the two conditions unrestrained in terms of sub-panel carrying capacity, there was a considered development for the that the of stiffener greater potential possibility tension field forces present in the restrained boundary case might While latter. deflections for in larger the the and stresses result initial thought was to use the more onerous of the two conditions for the design of the stiffener, it was also clearly important to see by how much the stiffener design would differ between the two boundary representations, to see how potentially conservative the resulting design formulation might be. The effects of these boundaries have been investigated on stiffened 0.5,1.0, 180 having 0= aspect ratios and plates plate slenderness of 1.5 and 2.0. This high panel slenderness X was chosen for this study

61
because the importance boundary is the restraints of most pronounced when lateral deflections are large. Figures 3.6 and 3.7 show clearly the influence of these boundary conditions on the behaviour of the stiffened plate in general and the transverse in In these curves, the abscissa represents the stiffener particular. maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener, whilst the ordinate is It can the average shear stress calculated at every load increment. be seen that for every combination of plate geometry, the stiffener initial imperfection and size mode have been kept unchanged in both restrained and unrestrained cases. For aspect ratio 0.5, mode (P5) has been considered, whereas for aspect ratios 0=1.0,1.5 and 2.0, mode (P3) has been chosen. The reason behind that will be described in detail in section 3.3.3, but it should be noted that these initial imperfection modes are critical as far as the design of the stiffener is Furthermore, concerned for the aspect ratios considered. the dimension of the stiffener y that was selected to demonstrate this from the design effect corresponds to the value determined philosophy. There was a major concern that while the restrained boundary condition is a valid limit condition, the mathematical formulation actually serves to establish an axial strain control on the stiffener which both limits its ability to carry axial loading and also its ability It provides maximum opportunity to deflect laterally. for the reactions from the panel tension field to be distributed along the The true situation is in fact very complex and requires a girder. flange of finite rigidity in order to establish the true forces acting between girder flange and web elements. While it would be possible by some kind of spring system, this would to model the flexibility involve complexities in interpretation. It was therefore decided that a few analyses should be carried out incorporating actual plate girder flanges so that the effect of the flange presence on stiffener stresses and deflections could be examined. Three flange sizes were chosen from a very slender to a moderately stocky member and are expressed in terms of rigidity of magnitudes parameter Mfw 0.000362,0.0029 Figure 3.8 shows that and 0.0232 respectively. increasing flange rigidity actually reduces the central deflection of the stiffener for a given level of web shear and also causes a modest increase in shear strength. It must be noted that the average shear stress is evaluated from the web stress distribution adjacent to the While stiffener and does not include shear carried by the flanges. the interaction between flange and web stresses is complex and varies along the girder, the graph gives a reasonably accurate It can therefore representation of the web and stiffener behaviour. be concluded that any additional deflections resulting from axial forces on the stiffener due to tension field action are more than

62 bending the in of stiffener by transverse the a reduction countered When interpreting the values of Mfw because of flange support. design in there be it would that practical remembered should shown direct the flange be level that reduce would stress of a normally field in both flange tension from terms of the effective restraint forces and transverse stiffener bending resistance. f the flanges is beneficial for stiffener deflection While the presence o. it is also important to examine the stress state of the stiffener to see lead field forces to earlier collapse tension may whether additional be indicated have figure 3.8 this to the already results of although unlikely. Figures (3.9-3.12) show the stress distribution at both the web interface and and also the outstand tip for the unrestrained is It for flanges the three examined. restrained conditions and interesting that with the stiff flange there is a net axial force clearly but is the that the the of stiffener relatively extremes effect at shown localised. The same effect is not evident in the other figures. Closer increase, does reveal an relative to the central outstand examination tension, in the compressive stresses at the centre of the stiffener In investigate Table 3.1 to the this, order web. shows near span junction and stiffener/web outstand span stresses at peak centre for all the cases examined. capacity shear field reaction does It is apparent from Table 3 that the tension .1 have a small effect in increasing the compressive stresses in the stiffener near the web and reducing the tensile stresses at the but due is latter to a that tip the a major part of effect stiffener lateral in deflection due to end restraint as noted stiffener reduction in the context of figure 3.8. The net outcome is a stiffener which flange lower deflections the rigidity stresses and as sustains increases. This leads to the conclusion that the unrestrained boundary condition is conservative for this condition and was taken for the majority of in in is While this this clearly conservative study. cases considered involve it instances, be difficult major and would some very complication to provide a stiffener design formulation that would allow in a suitable way for flange restraint. It is important to realise that the above conclusions may not apply if the sub-panel is significantly more slender. In this case the tension field effects would be expected to be more important and it is longer no that would the provide a possible unrestrained condition worst case for design.

63 It will be seen in chapter 5 that the design proposal formulated uses the panel strengths incorporated in the bridge standard which would if bounded by be to a the unrestrained panel normally consider flange. The imperfection modes mentioned in figures (3.6-3.12) are again These be for found the to presented. cases particular those critical in It detail be looked in the next sub-section. more at modes will in fact be the that stiffener sizes selected noted should also from design formulation derived design the to the sizes correspond in in 5 simplistic terms correspond to the chapter which presented have to of stiffener a negligible effect on the sub-panel minimum size rigid to limit out-of-plane capacity Le that will be sufficiently boundary movements to levels that will not significantly affect panel response. It is interesting to note at this stage that the distribution of stresses along the stiffener with the unrestrained boundary condition is form. bending There is that a of primarily no clear form for the case boundary. This has interesting implications on the restrained of tension field forces which will be discussed later.

3.3.3 Effect

of

initial

out-of-plane

displacement

patterns

The influence of the different initial imperfection modes presented in described 3.2.5 are and discussed in detail in this section. section The effect of the initial imperfection mode on plates with the same be first aspect ratio but with different will plate slenderness lateral Figures (3.13-3.19) the examined. show contours of displacement of a selection of stiffened plates at their ultimate first influence The figures demonstrate three the of capacity. imperfection mode (P5) on plates with 0=0.5 and X= 120,180 and 240. Figures (3.16-3.19) illustrate the effects of imperfection mode 240. both From (P3) on plates with 0 =1.5 and X= 60,120,180 and it displacement figures, be that the can shear seen applied sets of buckling Buckles in are essentially plate panel causes all cases. identical in form for plates having the same aspect ratio and initial imperfection mode, whereas their amplitudes increase with plate influence initial X. Thus form the the the of primary slenderness of imperfection mode can be reduced to the study of one plate slenderness for every aspect ratio.

64 a) Aspect ratio 0=0.5

For aspect ratio 0=0.5, the initial Out-of-plane displacement patterns that were considered are imperfection modes (P5) and (P6). The reason for concentrating on only these two modes is the high probability of their existence at this aspect ratio. This followed from a consideration of the effects of the initial imperfection modes on (3.5) Grayson 0=1.0. aspect ratio performed a parametric study on the effects of initial imperfection modes on stiffened plates subjected to shear and also found that the above modes are the most The effects of these modes will be demonstrated on appropriate. plate slenderness X =180. The stiffener size parameter ys = 193.80 is the size identified by the design philosophy presented in chapter 5 to be adequate for this stiffened plate geometry. Figure 3.20 shows the contour of the lateral displacements of the stiffened plate with imperfection mode (P6) at the plate ultimate shear capacity while figure 3.14 shows the contour of the same plate with imperfection mode (P5). The comparison between these two modes below concentrates on their effect on the transverse stiffener deformation. Firstly, for the stiffened plate with mode (P5), the buckles are form the The two buckles on the of the imperfection. consistent with leading diagonal are in sympathy and force the transverse stiffener to deflect in the direction of their displacements as shown in figure 3.14.
For the plate with mode (P6) figure 3.20, an initial negative dimple in the top right corner and a positive one in the bottom left exists These develop further as the web panels buckle. The panel corner. buckles therefore try to displace the transverse stiffener in opposing directions displacement is much and the resulting of the stiffener smaller in this case as shown in figure 3.20.

Figure 3.21 shows graphically the effects of modes (P5) and (P6) on The graphs represent the relation between the plate under study. lateral the shear stress r and the corresponding maximum displacement in the stiffener V and clearly show that the lateral displacement in the stiffener at any level of shear stress is much larger imperfection with mode (P5) compared with that of imperfection mode (P6). Reference to all the results clearly shows that the deformation of the is greatest for imperfection transverse stiffener mode (P5) for stiffened plates of aspect ratio 0=0.5 and X= 60,120,180 and 240.

65 Aspect ratio = 1.0 Special consideration has been given to choosing the initial imperfection modes that might exist in practice for plates with aspect (3-5) has Grayson's =1.0. ratio shown that parametric study imperfection modes (PI), (P2)and (P3) are appropriate for this aspect The ratio and these are shown in figures 3.3(a), 3.3(b) and 3.4(a). effects of these initial imperfection modes will be illustrated for a 120 and stiffener size stiffened web of plate slenderness X= 44.51. This particular stiffener was again chosen ys parameter = because it is the size determined from the design approach presented in chapter 5. Figures (3.22-3.24) represent the contours of the lateral displacements of the stiffened web at the plate ultimate shear The only difference between the plates is the initial capacity. imperfection mode (PI), (P2) and (P3) respectively. If these contours are compared two main points can be noted: The amplitude of the web buckles is a maximum in figure 3.24 with initial imperfection mode (P3)2The lateral displacements of the stiffener are also largest for (P3)imperfection This mode therefore appears to be the imperfection critical relevant mode for this aspect ratio.

The same conclusion can be drawn b r looking at figure 3.25 which shows the relationship between the average shear stress and the maximum lateral displacement in the stiffener for each imperfection form. At any level of shear stress, the lateral displacement V is largest in the stiffened plate having P3 as an initial imperfection mode. C) Aspect ratio 0=1.5 and 2.0.

Figures (3.26-3.29) show the contours of the lateral displacements of stiffened plates having aspect ratio =2.0 and panel slenderness X= 60,120,180 The stiffener dimensions chosen for these and 240. in plates are those identified by the design philosophy presented To demonstrate the effects of the initial imperfection chapter 5. If these patterns, mode (P3) has been selected for these plates. contours are compared to the contours of the stiffened plates of aspect ratios 0=1.5 shown in figures (3.16-3.19), it can be seen that the form of the buckles in both aspect ratios is identical for any plate The effect of the imperfection mode on both aspect slenderness. ratios is therefore studied by reference to the 0=1.5 case.

66 180 plate with initial The lateral displacement contour of the X= imperfection mode (Nat the plate ultimate shear capacity is shown in figure 3.30. Figure 3.31 compares the relationships between the average shear stress r and the maximum lateral displacement in the stiffener for the two different imperfection forms and confirms that (P3) is more critical for this aspect ratio as for 0=1.0.

3.3.4 Effect

of

plate

slenderness

Knowledge of the effects of imperfection forms and boundary conditions considerably simplifies the understanding of the effects of both panel slenderness and aspect ratio. In this section, the influence of the plate slenderness on the behaviour of the transverse stiffeners is investigated. Figures (3.323.35) demonstrate this effect on aspect ratios 0.5,1.0,1.5 and 2.0. In all figures the average shear stress r has been plotted against the stiffener maximum lateral displacement. Figure 3.32 shows a comparison between different slenderness values for an aspect ratio =0.5 and stiffener dimensions %= 90. Omm and T = 9.Omm. The plate slenderness values considered 60,120,180 X= and 240. The critical initial imperfection mode are (P5) was taken for this aspect ratio. Figures (3.33-3.35) show the same comparison for stiffened plates with aspect ratios =1.0,1.5 and 2.0 respectively. The stiffener size examined was again Ds =90-Omm and Ts= 9.Omm. As mentioned in the previous section, the initial imperfection mode (P3) is critical for From the four these aspect ratios and was adopted in this study. graphs, two main conclusions can be drawn. For each aspect ratio, the maximum lateral displacement of the increases stiffener with increase in plate slenderness at all levels of shear stress. The ultimate shear capacity of the stiffened plates of a particular aspect ratio decreases with increase of plate slenderness. This is of course expected and results from the fact that the amplitude The of the web buckles increases with plate slenderness. deflecting panels apply forces to the stiffener which will obviously affect its deflection and hence the capacity of the stiffened plate.

2-

67

3.3.5 Effect

of

aspect

ratio

Figures (3.36-3.39) show the effect of varying aspect ratio on the 60,120,180 for deflection and plate slenderness values stiffener For every plate slenderness the dimensions of the stiffener 240. has imperfection initial kept mode the critical constant, while were been taken in each case. Figure 3.36 shows the stiffener deflections for a panel slenderness of D. dimensions The 2.0. 60 with 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 are stiffener = and 90mm and Ts = 9.Omm. The graph shows a difference in behaviour for 0 values of 1.0,1.5 and 2.0 compared with that for 0=0.5. the For the assumed stiffener dimensions for the case of 0=0.5, boundary for is the two web panels as as a rigid acting not stiffener For having 3.40. is in figure this the a case, stiffener not shown buckling the on of the overall stiffened panel and effect controlling the initial panel buckling stiffness is much lower. Therefore, for 0= 0.5, the maximum lateral displacement in the stiffener is large because it represents the maximum lateral displacement of the interesting is It in that plate. spite of this, the ultimate stiffened is this plate stiffened still the highest, and the relatively capacity of flexible stiffener must still be contributing significantly to this. For the other plate slenderness X= 120,180 and 240, the graphs show a (3.37in figures variation with aspect ratio as shown more consistent For every plate slenderness, the lateral displacement of the 3.39). increase increases with of aspect ratio. stiffener It can generally be concluded that the ultimate shear capacity of the increase decreases the with range considered stiffened plates within for plates of equivalent panel slenderness. of aspect ratio

3.3.6 Effect

of yield

stress

(3.1) found that if the panel slenderness is defined by Frieze AbY tw FE Y Y the stresses expressed relative to yield stress, and

the strains relative to yield strain, the behaviour of plates with the Since is defined. the new approach same aspect ratio uniquely in for design prese nted chapter the transverse stiffeners, proposed of five is based on an empirical formula which is a function of X, established from the results of the finite element study with a material yield stress of ay = 275N/MM29 it was essential to check its

68
different X but for the yield stress with plates of same and validity ay* A number of cases were re-run with yield stress values of ay = 355 N/mM2 and with b/t revised so 240 N/MM2 and cyy b[ a-, the form now used widely for that the expression ;L tw 355 design, remained unaltered.

Figure 3.41 shows the relation between the non-dimensional stress 'C' for the strain -y' a plate of aspect ratio 0= shear non-dimensional and 180 for plates having yield stresses cyy = 1.0 and plate slenderness 240,275 and 355 N/mm 2X= The graphs show an excellent correlation demonstrating the previous conclusion that for a given value of -, -afor is average stress strain a unique curve produced V-2 tW 355 different yield stresses. There was a need, however, to investigate be the true for a flexibly supported panel and same would whether in particular how the lateral loading applied to the stiffener and deflection its and resulting bending stress varies with consequently the panel yield stress. In order to obtain the lateral force system applied by the panels to the stiffener, a simplified analytical model has been adopted in which the stiffener has been replaced by a non-deflecting nodal line. Clearly stiffener flexibility may well affect the distribution of force but this effect would not be expected to be the actual stiffener on large if the stiffener rigidity is sufficient to restrict stiffener deflection, as will be seen later in chapter five. With this model the (not force lateral the applied shear stress of variation with maximum necessarily at the mid-span of the stiffener) has been examined for the three yield stress values mentioned above, and results for a plate and 2.0 are slenderness of 180 and aspect ratios of 0.5,1.0,1.5 (3-42-3.45). in figures In all the figures it can be seen that shown the magnitude of the force increases with increasing yield stress for a given value of panel shear stress (relative to shear yield), and it can be shown that non-dimensionalising the force relative to the square root of yield stress does not produce a unique result. Figures (3.46-3.47) show the effect of variation of yield stress on the V lateral displacement maximum and the extreme of the stiffener fibre tensile stress at the stiffener outstand cy, for the plate of aspect It can also be deduced that at any stress level, the ratio 0=1.0. stiffener maximum lateral displacement and outstand stress increase with yield stress for plates of the same 0 and X values. This follows b[

69
increase in due from the the to the preceding paragraph naturally stiffener loading. Clearly if the stiffener loading and resulting Stress and deflection design the then optimum size the the vary with value of yield stress differences While be function the are the stress. yield a of will also identify important it is, however, the yield stress to not major function that controls the stiffener behaviour and design and this is It will be seen that it is possible to discussed in chapter five. for this effect, as was the non-dimensional parameter evaluate design for done buckling, that appropriate so an panel previously be formulated. can equation 3.3.7 Effect

of

stiffener

size parameter

Intermediate transverse stiffeners in web plates loaded in shear have to fulfil two main functions. The first of these is to increase the buckling resistance of the unstiffened web plates. The second is to continue to remain effective until the ultimate capacity of the is In have to reached. plate order an economic and safe stiffened stiffener size, two main points should therefore be looked at. The variation of the maximum out-of-plane displacement of the its size. with stiffener 2The effects of the stiffener parameter y., on the ultimate shear capacity of the stiffened plates.

Figures (3.48-3.51) show the effect of varying stiffener rigidity on the shear capacity of plates of slenderness 60,120,180 and 240 All imperfection analyses were respectively. performed using critical modes identified in section 3.3.3. The general pattern of behaviour was the same for all and X. Initially the shear capacity increased significantly with increase in ys. Above a certain value of 7, there was very little further increase in in degree There however, difference to which the was capacity. a this behaviour was evident. As can be seen for the stockier plate, the in is strength really rather slight and variation with stiffener rigidity this clearly reflects the low tendency of this panel to buckle and the small effect the stiffeners have on behaviour. For the more slender panels there is a much clearer definition of the size of stiffener that is needed to enable the limiting peak shear strength to be reached. It should be noted that the shear capacities, as the stiffener rigidity tends to zero, could not be expected to be correct because the single

70 limit. If down idealisation break the this toward stiffener would involving deflects model more stiffener an analytical significantly, than one stiffener would be required. lateral Figures (3.52-3.59) the the stiffener of variation show displacement with ys at any level of shear stress for plates of aspect X= 60,120,180 1.5 =1.0 and 240. and ratios and panel slenderness It can be seen that the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener increases when the dimensions of the stiffener are reduced. This increase is also significant for slender webs but small for stocky panels. In order to illustrate the function of the transverse stiffeners, it is of interest to examine the lateral displacement contours and also the effect of the stiffener size on the resulting stiffener displacement. Figures (3.60-3.62) show the lateral displacement contours drawn at 1.0 and X= 60 the plate ultimate shear capacity for the case of and initial imperfection mode (P3). Stiffener size parameters ys 0.72,2.276 The value ys = 2.276 and 5.50 were considered. corresponds to the value determined from the design philosophy Figures (3.63-3.66) show the contours for discussed in chapter 5. plates of aspect ratio =1.0, panel slenderness X= 180 and initial imperfection mode P3. The stiffener size parameters selected had 19.13,60.50,96.90,147.47 y. magnitudes = and 258.31. The value y. 147.47 corresponds to the value of the rigidity determined from = Figures (3.67-3.69) the design approach presented in chapter 5. 180. The stiffener show the contours for plates of 0=1.5 and X 23.64,98.46 98.46 is the value of ys rigidities were = and 172.2. ys the stiffener rigidity determined from the design approach for this particular plate geometry. It can be seen that for ys values less than the values determined from the design philosophy, the stiffener is not forming an approximately boundary. Moreover, it is not having a controlling influence on rigid the buckling mode of the overall stiffened plate. 3.3.8 Summary

of

the

range

of

parameters

It was felt to be useful to summarize in a concise tabular form the major findings of the parametric study. Tables (3.2-3.5) have been presented at the end of this chapter. Each table corresponds to a In particular aspect ratio of 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 and 2.0 respectively. every table a brief quantitative description of the varying plate In addition, the maximum shear capacity and geometries is given.

71 the corresponding maximum lateral displacement of the transverse stiffener are tabulated for every case. These results confirm, the conclusions drawn in the previous sections. 3.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The emphasis of this chapter is to observe the effect of the various geometrical parameters including the rigidity of the stiffeners on the behaviour and peak capacity of a transversely stiffened web loaded in shear. The parameters examined, in addition to stiffener rigidity, form, are the panel slenderness, panel aspect ratio, imperfection degree the and stress of boundary restraint. yield It has been concluded that the unrestrained boundary condition is behaviour far the as as critical most of the stiffener is concerned and that the important panel influence on the stiffener is lateral loading induced by panel buckling. For panels bounded by actual flange is there evidence of a significant tension field loading on members the stiffener but the effect of this, even for the more slender plates considered, is less than the beneficial effect resulting from lateral This indicates stiffener bending restraint provided by the flange. that bending rigidity rather that axial stiffness is the most important parameter for the design of the stiffener and this supports the
emphasis placed on stiffener rigidity

Confirmation of this is considered in greater depth in chapter 5 dealing more directly with stiffener design. The effect of panel slenderness is very much as would be expected, while the effect of aspect ratio shows the importance of selecting the It has been shown that a critical imperfection mode. appropriate different mode is appropriate for the =0.5 case compared with the The results also show that the shear other aspect ratios examined. capacity of stiffened plates decreases with increase in aspect ratio. One major conclusion of this parametric study is that the stiffener deflection increases with increasing yield stress and from this it can be inferred that the design requirement for the stiffener is a function of the yield stress of the material, but not that commonly accepted in panel design. As would be expected, the results show that the collapse strength of the stiffened plate is a function of the stiffener rigidity but the effect is very limited for stocky panels reflecting the restricted nature of their buckling prior to the attainment of panel peak load. The results

in the study

by Grayson

(3.5)

72 for the slender panels show a more marked variation and indicate that an optimum stiffener rigidity exists below which panel strength is sacrificed.

73

3.5 3.1-

REFERENCES Frieze, P. A., 1975, "Ultimate Load Behaviour of Steel Box Girders and Their Components", Ph.D Thesis, University of London (Imperial College). Spliced Panels and Stress J.E., 1975, "Bolted Harding, Redistribution in Box Girder Components up to Collapse", Ph.D College). (Imperial University London thesis, of

3.2-

1982, Code of Practice for Design 3.3 - British Standards Institution 3, London, BSI. Part Bridges, BS5400: Steel of 3.4Harding, J.E., Hobbs, R.E. and Neal, B. G., 1977, "Ultimate Load Behaviour of Plates under Combined Direct and Shear In-plane loadings", International Conference on Steel Plated Structures, (Ed. Dowling, PJ, Harding, J.E. and Frieze, P.A. ), Crosby Lockwood Staples. Grayson, W. R., 1981, "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels", Ph.D Thesis, University of Manchester.

3.5-

74

Table

3.1

Variation

in

Stiffener Rigidity

Stresses Eith

FlanLye

MfW

000362

00290

0232

a outstand

251

233

200

145

a stiffener/web 1

junction

-184 1--

-224 I I

-196 I

-177

All

stresses N/mM2

75

tz . CL WD C14 C14 C) 0 0 C14 t' Vi C a R Ci C) CD wl mt 't cq 00 (7 C m Iq 09 NR IR kn en N cq

co

rz
-Z

cc
co
cn

In

"t

C) 0 en 0 0
v -4

en 't
-4

%C
N
-4

't
-4

tr; t-: %6 r-: t--: 06 14 06 te) W) vi W) W) %n if) W)

6 6 r C C-i en It 19t in V)
-4 1-4 -4 -4 1-4

en en 7-4

00 r-

1411 cq N
00

P., 1. cc Cc

cl

kn in.

%0 g:L4

wl in
04 44

wl wl wl
04 04 In64 cl

Et4 C, %n CD C-4 cr, = I'D !! 00 CD IT C5 %6 06 Cj C'i en W) 00 -4

W zl-

C)

CDCDC CDCDCD 06 (D C) CDCD C; C5 C5 C; CD 1- 00 c7N

v" -4

CD CD c)

c)

CD

C)

5 C;

8 8 8 00 %D c; 06 0 0 Q C) CD C> C56 C; 00 %6 00 C F
C4

C)

C;

C) C) 0
1-4

C: l NO

C
%0

0
%0

0
14D

C)

%0

%0

0
10

C>

C)

C,4

CD

C14

C,4

Ui c,

Iq d

In Iri CS CD (D

C;

76

in
CLI

00 C
CD

CD Itt q Ili
C) CD

C14 tR Ci en

C14 Ili C14

CIS = 04
cc

E 'Z
;D

CD 0 Ili -i
III

in rl

C) 00 O Cli
tn

cn cn C14 It

-. 4

14,

c7%

%n in

en 06 C5 C14 (n IRt 't v"

It

cn

CIS Cc 6

m 04

fi cii

el oi

00

W) VI ttl

in

10

tt) %0 wl tn

in

W) %-D Co 1--9

a ;

00 IR -: 0 C14
1-4

%0

cq C14

cr? I cq
cn

-i C14
00

C)

C.

. CD r-

C) Q C) 00 00 cn tf cl;
-4

00

a,
-

C)N C14

C)
rA
v"

C)

Iq Wi N . cn

C)

09 C%

C CD

6 q q C;N t-: 00

C)

CD

C)

(:

C4 cn
C Co CD C: )

06

g C5 C; C; coC;
c 0 0 C) C>

ON

cs

CD

C)

C14 (14

CN

C-4

C*4

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

in Q

te) tt) tq Q CD Q

Wi CD

wl v! wl wl CD C5 CD C5 6

W) W) 6 C5

77

COD 0 91.

E Q

r-

CD \o

t-

C I-1

CD No

CD CD

0% -

wj -

o
E

E E clq
kn 00

-Z

cu

--

a C vi

0% O\ vi

r-

c9

CD

CD

00

00

oo
en
04 4 .4

-4

v-i en v-i m %6 en vi

4*
04

eg

E ---

V M

cu 9
.

4)
PC vli vl

lt N er;
P. 4
tn

2 2 2

12. 12. P. 91. Z. g2. p.

%n kn

vl

v-i

0 ,

CIS E--,
CD
CD c

1X2

%0

00

140 YD

c:,

10 r_ CD o
rA

ce = JD

CD c
CD

CD v
\O

CD le
rc>

CD g
CD

0= iz -0

%, 92

a 9

CDo a CD CD(Z) 0 CD c;
d c v vi %0 t, (>

CD

9 1 0 c> a't -4

00

-0 ZE
r

10

CD

CD

(D

CD

CD

CD

CD

78
& E

= 92. Gn

-Z

Z r. 0% ren CD CD t (1q CD O\ CY% Cq en (D %D 00 e4 le

0 N.
9.

-;
. (N 7E

cs c;

in

N v ci kn

CD rei vi

kn 00 ci vi

(D V)

(4 vi

CD CD 0 vi in in

CD rrrz kn vi

ce :D cu ZD ZD ZD Z) ZD ZD ZD Z)

1. CL) glj C%. '0

oci 0

en

(n

Z.

-4

12. 12. 12. 91, 924 04 im. 12. 42. lz

-4

0,

Ki. ' E-

vi

0
c

N t-

Co eA

In %0

CD V)

00 r-

\CD %D tIlt

r, 1 C=

(D c;

1. - UD

CD (D c;

CD CD %d

(D CD 6 C,

(D CZ a

CD CD ci

CD e:

CD l vi

CD -: c

CD -i r-

CD n t--

CD N oo

C: ) N CD

GA

g CD CD 0 c c> 9 c 9 c 0
C)

00
CD %0 CD \O

CD 0%

CD 9
l

0 CD CD CD 9 n n n
1-4

CD

gt

vl

--1

o r-

t-

oo

cli 2

CD 10

CD \o

(D \O

CD NO

CD 1-0

0 a

CD MD

-F-CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

79

0. W

u m

C14
1>0

00 1

Ci efi en

C*4C14kc 0 W) C) cn W) ro

V- in C; cq

%C C-1 00 Vi ll IIR
cn cn

Z C3 CA a ttri tn 'Rt 00 -. 4 r- o %0 kn C'i 4 4 6 6 en 00 vi 'i C; cf; .4 C) " eq cq (q cq N -4 '" en en

CIO
CL

"a

0.4

M 91.

cn In.

C'n Cl) en cf) 0. cn 0. A4 0., 124

cn 04

en eli
gi. 0 . 0 .4 IZ 4

rz

cq C?

C) q

tt"

m C4

C4

in

W) 00

C-4
cq

00
C-i

00 0

en C14

C: ) VI 06 (: ) 4 C.

wi

-, i

06

rz c = V) c. C) C) 0 0 (D CD 0 CD (D CD

6 06 (:

C5

tn

c) In c,
q

o r%,

00

E % 11 rA

C) C! (D q R (= R 0 R C> q 8 (= C, = M 8 vi - 0 Z 00 0 C CD 4
v

0 0 R CD R C 0 CD 5 (:: o o V-S .0 vi r- 00
CD Clq 0 04 CD N 0 cq

4D C14 C-4

CD Co C14 C14

CD C14

C;

C;

C;

C;

80

CL 92 Q k.

-; c Z.

41 ri 41 -

14--,

%0

(>

cy (i

in

c CD

en

en

cn

't
-4

vl

e -

": (D c4
c;

C>

C,1

VI

0, %

en 0,

E ei : m

C) \o 00 ci t "': rlf ,t
en

c4

rj

-: 0%

0 CD %0
CD

'l Z: V.% o
-4

CD CD Vi
-4 -4

I-: -! eg oo c> r--4 e

CD CD -,
CD

m 6 %,
CD

1-1% ci

en
s. CU c2.

CL)
V

po
0

C4
-4
914

-4
n. 4

(4 914

en 92.
(

M 914

en 914

en 04

m CL4

m 12.4

(n p4

en Z4

-4 A4

1-4 p4
C13

E-

cl; cli
(=) Z (D
(: >

Q c
-4

L-Z 06
Kt

bf%

C) c
(D

(Z c
\C)

CD

CD

CD CD

C) V-1

VI

CD

CD

-i

c; e

vi

EI ,

a a 8
9 9

c=; C: )

cs

a 8 CE<C: 8 D> CD: D

9 %CD

8 CD(D

vi
CD Glo C: ) 00 c> Co (D 00

V'l
CD

CZ
-911

CD

CD

CD e4

CD 00

CD 00

(D 00

C> 00

ch 00

- 4

-4

1-4

c c =i c c
-4 l l

81

rz

0 Cl.

E
w

M W Z cz

tj Cc

0 In = a cli C-i eq
V) C) cn

0 q: r

M en CD 00

C %D C 00

C14 C N-6 Cfi C-4 cs cn rz 14, cli en

r-

en

00

cl

1.

eq E

cc

E
Z

0 0 C, 0 v! OR I00 t: en fi cn
4 C'4 N C14

0 q 8

1"- `0 0 C*l 0 o q "1 00 'IR C m o C) C4 en 06 43 C

-4 -q -4

9 m PC r. -

m 1. Cu

---

:: )

;: )

:)

:)

:)

;: )

:)

:)

;: )

1--, 0
ef

ei
M V) en cn M (n M
W P PC CIO

E-

t- 00 CD
N cn tn r-

C5 \C; Cj C
en C14

m C\ VI
V., 'n C14

4 C,

r-

r-

c) 00 \0 tn C) CD

CD tf)

0 Q

Cl C)

CD C: )

C I

CD In

C) O

6 6 \.

t-: 06

6 C5 \.

t-.: C C; '.4

%C r-

10

rz w

C) Q In Vb q CR q %C en 00

C: ) C2 q tri q (0

.0
= 00 C> 00 CD 00 a 00 C'4

Sg 6
N C14 C*4 C'4

Q Q

C5 t-:
04 C'4

82
E E

E I cw m
cw *a cl F. &.
e4

Clq cli

-Z

tu a

cc

E E

<R-

Vi

=Q

Z U.

-e-

>,

E-

00 O 00

10 r_ Z
00

iz% m 10 Z

JD ,00 u

r-

-cj

jA

9z

00

10

10

83
r

.0 0

Z
=

4.6

E
;

s
vi

Q.
1. L.

1.

V *a

If! ": rc) cri C-4

C'4

en

kn

4 C, C) cn

C%
eq s
s

06 6

cu
cc

a C's

1.

Cf)

4 I'- kn C, -: 00 WQl-. 6
1" 4

0 wl

en C)

0 g o ""' g 000 t-: C5 C-q

t't

C6)

go 1. CL) Q M Cf) en

en

cn

m
CIS

iz. P. p.
C-4 cn

iz-. 12.

E-4
.0 00

v: tt C-4 tr)

cn

0 M

cq

": Ch

m Cr;

C)

C)

C)

CD C)

06

CD
6 06 c

W
%0

9 00 c, c, c,
10 \0 \0

g g C; C; C5 00
C-4 C-4 4 C, C-4 C,4 " CZ4 C'4

-0t --I

in -

tq

_;

-4

_;

v-;

-;

tn
-4 _4 -4

tn
.;

kn in
-4 -4
-I

84

m
91) 4

>0

C', In in q
C'4

cn r": c . eq C'i
C)

00

C-4 00

C14 cr! C9
C-4 C14

cc

cc v

-z

00 C'i 6% V-, tn
00 06 C'i

Q cc t
tei

06 06

tn "D
vi

4 C, C. t- in C4 r.:
00

cc

Cc
W co

CL

(D

C', 4.4

cn en m
0-4 124 AM

cn cn cn M
914 04 44 04

A4

A4

cn cn
04 A.,

Q P.m 4 cc

1-4

; en s "D 0 6
M Nr 04

C14

cn

; 06 C4 r00 -4

C14

0 06 0c; ON C*%

o o
qT qT

8 r- cn '"

c, C-i tr;

E-

06 C 6

(D

wl
V

kn

1-4

Cfi
1

C; 6
-

C5 6 C-Z

E c,
m C5 CD 9 r- 00

0 C) C) %n c) C) - M
00 00 CD (D 00 00

C)

8 8

%0t

VI

00

00

00

00

00

00

C14

85

06 m

cw u

V)

co

cc

cn In

01%C14 C C4 C 6

Ct

C ,Kt

eq cc CD 0

= 0

rA CO

4.4

ii -e-

9-4
6a

m 924 rn -XX

PC

124

0.4 CL4 C14

c1r) en

C14

t-t cn

In

Cli

C-4 (7, 'I-

C)
M

e: -0 ' 4 C,
.0= 0 0 -0 u r. =

00 ON

a C, CD= wi CK C; 00

C, q . 0
CD C14

:D Po 2
4-4 rA

4-

10

86

92.

%n 00

ON

%0

C*4

Co

9.

ci cc

1>14

C in C-i cli

r-

CD cli cn

C>

NO a, rC>

<31%= Q C

efi

C-i C'i

"
z

00

(n

1* 5?a 9 -

r-

00 cn in t-

9 9 1- 9 9 9 9

en "

IC73)

Cc

1-1 cc

tn e
0

cn 124

en en cn am C14 04

en cf) 0.4 91,

en M a4 12.4

en en 0.4 A4

M en en 04 A4 III

.M ce [--I

C)

q CD Iq CD 1-: Ot":

%0 Itt

"

8 00 - 10 C5 c4 C q:

00

CZ)

I O%no C'i C-i

Q 0 CD CD C q q q C=) C
CD t00 C7 C, 4

C C o 06

CD

C)

C5

9z

r. 00 cq
0 %c CD 0 %. CD c . 0 CD CZ4 C-4

9 00
CD 4 C, CD C4

CD

CD C) Q C14 C14 C4

Q C14

C -4

eq

cq

C -4

C-4

0 4

CD cl i

CD cl i

0 cl i

C) cl i

0 C-i

C> C-i

0 cli

0 C-i

87

PC
r. 0

:z
m

= w

9
I .00 ,

C) t-

en ON

en -4

5?

C) r-

N0

0 0

C) W)

t -4

%C IZ

q: t 00

rA -

6 cn

C14

cc

00
oo

00 op 0%

v! 09 00
1-4

gt

C14 C14 C kn 00 N6
C cz, a,

If)
W

(W

"a

0.

cn

en

Cf)

en

C14 C14 0. 0. P. J:. 0.,

en

en

gL,

A4 a4 12.4 12 .4

E-4

C) A Cf) ? C-4 q t": rl oc rlcs 00 0 CY) 06 Cfi 06 c4i zl00 . Cf) NT t- 0 C14 r0 C) CD 0 C) 0
0 0 CD CD

C) 00 en 0 rM 6 c, -: 01%
cn tn

C>

C: ) 0

CD

E-

r-: 06 C C5

C) 4n

c;

00

C5

c, 0 9 0 0 o 0 C) 9 o C5
00

d 8

C5

00

el

o 0 o c, 0 0 c) 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Cq

-9-

cq

C -i

C -i

C -4

i C-

C-4

C ,4

cq

cq

cq

C-A e4

C'i

88

CP

-a

-Z:

r .

C> C) C) C)

0 CYN 00 ON ON CD C: )

tl-

C)

C)

00

<
C4 I.

D : ) =) =)

In
= V 0

0.

91. ra.

P..,

Q P- Im ei

14

IC

C:)

>o

E-

. ID ,00 u = . -4
ce W

Z$ u r_

9z

C-C!

C-4

C14 CN

-0

-0-

C)

C)

CD

-4 C '4 C -4 C'i C II

89
ay

-I

6s

u= 0

constant s

u=O

-A U-uS -------

s_I

vi

Unrestrained

boundary

U, x

6v 6x = constant

u=0

--T
u= 0 v constant S

u=O 6s

Restrained boundary Figure 3.1 BOUNDARY FOR*THE SHEAR CONDITIONS CASE. AND LOADI14G

90

IF
i_I

ts x ds -o

r-'s -I
ds

a Section A-A
t

-Ttw t -s

ds xi vx t

xxds
I

tw

bef f '-232tw I=I x bff stiffener EI

ttw

Ix=Is=

tsds 3

-YS= EI s aD section

eff aD

Stiffener

Effective

section

Figure 3.2

STIFFENED PLATEGEOMETRY.

91

.400

1Zw...
11

--

--. -e.

00- --.

11

Imperfection

(Pl) mode Positive dimple

Negative dimple

--40or

W. -

-X

%44,

I-

11 ill I
I_ I--

\i /11

ii I

II _1/
----

**'

1-

--

-..

loe

(b) Figure

Imperfection 3.3

(P2) mode PLATE INITIAL PATTERNS. DISPLACEMENT

92

fit III HI
00,
(a) Imperfection mode (P3) Positive dimple

Negative
.0

dimple

\\ II leMI/

/-,\ I

lo-j
(b) Imperfection mode (P4) (continued). PATTERNS PLATEINITIAL DISPLACEMENT

Figure 3.4

93

11

0
11%%..
111 .0-

11111

-*% '00l
/11 *%. -.. o

11\

0.00,

0
mode (P5) Positive dimple Negative dimple

(a)

Imperfection

--

---i.

-...

It

It!
tI

Il
1 /

0-

--..

NI

0
(b) Figure 3.5 Imperfection (P6) mode

(continued). PLATEINITIAL DISPLACEMENT PATTERNS

94

-r

0%

140

120 JIL Cv

100
80 0.5 60 X180 Ys - 194.00 mode (P5) Ys - 147.70 mode (P3) boundary boundary 1 5.0

w 00 a 40

0 $1.0

Imperfection A180

Imperfection Restrained

20

Unrestrained

01 0.0

1.0

2.0 Stiffener lateral maximum

3.0

4.0

displacement (mm)

Figure 3.6

EFFECT OF BOUNDARY RESTRAINTS ON STIFFENER BEHAVIOUR.

100
80
14

9-C 61 A .-C 20

-1.5

X-

180

Ys - 98.50 mode (P3) ys - 74.00 mode (P3) boundary boundary

Imperfection 2.0 AA A180

Imperfection Restrained Unrestrained

0.0

1.0

2.0 Stiffener maximum lateral

3.0 displacement

4.0 (mm)

5.0

Figure 3.7

EFFECT OF BOUNDARY ON STIFFENER BEHAVIOUR. RESTRAINTS

95

140

120

2 S41

100

80 . 1.0 cu 60 *
40

A-

180

ys - 147.70 mode (P3)

Initial Restrained Flange Flange Flange

imperfection boundary

* *

boundary boundary boundary boundary

4. (mm)

Mfw , 0.0232 Mfw " 0.00290 Mfw " 0.000362 Mfw ,0

20

Unrestrained

0 L0.0

1.0

2.0 Stiffener

3.0 maximum lateral displacement

Figure

3.8

EFFECTOF FLANGERIGIDITY ON THE STIFFENER LATERAL

DEFORMATION.

96

A8 I Section A-A Section B-B Section A-A Section B-B

1.0 180 Ys 147.70

-200
AB

-100

00

100

200

-50

Unrestrained boundary

-50 0 a -CF Restrained boundary

50

50

Figure

3.9

IN THE STIFFENER OF STRESSES DISTRIBUTION AT THE PLATE SHEAR CAPACITY. ULTIMATE

AB Section A-A
++

Section 8-B

-1.0 X180

+ .4. 4. ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + +

Ys - 147.70 Flange boundary M, - 0.000362

II
AB

z1v 14U Compressive stress

Mu0

70

140 210 Tensile stress

Figure 3.10

DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL STRESSES FORA ON THE STIFFENER STIFFENED PLATEWITH A FLANGE BOUNDARY.

97

+ ++ ++ ++ ++ b ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 1++

- 1.0 - 180 - 147.70 ange boundary 0.00290 Fw

II AB

-210

140

70 stress

lu

Compressive

14U 210 Tensile stress

Figure 3.11

DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL STRESSES ON THE STIFFENER FORA STIFFENED PLATEWITH A FLANGE BOUNDARY.

Ir
++ ++ ++ +4 b

1. U

180

147.70 ige boundary - 0.0232

+ ++ ++ ++ ++ +4 ++

iI
AB

210 140 70 Compressive stress

-70

70

140

Tensile stress

Figure

3.12

FORA DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL STRESSES ON THE STIFFENER STIFFENED PLATEWITH A FLANGE BOUNDARY.

98

-I-

C+

0-0.5

X-

120

Ys .- 82.36

Imperfection

mode (P5)

Figure

3.13

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE SHEARCAPACITY.

0+ +

IS

cb- 0.5

x-

180

Ys - 193.80

Imperfectlon mode (P5)

Figure 3.14

CAPACITY LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

99
IIIII 1Ii111

7ir/r1/IT

II

-'

-0.5

X- 240

Ys - 371.76

Imperfection mode (P5)

Figure 3.15

AT THE PLATEULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT LATERAL SHEAR CAPACITY.

op

-1.5

X-

60

Ys - 2.43

Imperfection mode Q3)

Figure 3.16

CAPACITY. LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

100

Cl-

e0

15

1.5

X-

120

Ys - 29.67

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.17

LATERAL AT THE PLATEULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY.

1115. %lb +++

Llb
lb

0-1.5

X-

180

Ys - 98.46

Imperfection

mode Q3)

Figure 3.18

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR

101

ezC+"6 I,,. j ,"081.13 + , 4b lb +++0+ si-

0-1.5

240

Ys - 193.35

Imperfection

mode (P3)

Figure

3.19

LATERAL AT THE PLATEULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY.

7)

10

-0.5

180

Ys - 193.80

Imperfection mode (PQ

Figure 3.20

LATERAL CAPACITY. DISPLACEMENT SHEAR AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

102
T

I
c'J

.r

U. U

I. U Stiffener

Z. 0 maximum lateral

3.0 displacement (mm)

4.0

Figure

3.21

EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODES ON STIFFENER BEHAVIOUR.

C,

%I b

lb

ell

( - 1.0

X-

120

Ys - 44.51

Imperfection

mode (PI)

Figure 3.22

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY. SHEAR AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

103

lb -lb I

cs

lb

all cc + A +

55N
,-1.0 X120

ell

ys - 44.51

Imperfection

mode (P2)

Figure 3.23

CAPACITY. AT THE PLATEULTIMATESHEAR DISPLACEMENT LATERAL

Ib S -, " %, C+4

A5

(b - 1.0

120

'Ys - 44.51

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.24

CAPACITY. SHEAR LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

104

I 4) 0 I.. 4) 0) -c 0) 00 C 40) >

0.0

1.0 Stiffener

2.0 maximum lateral

3.0 disDIacement (mm)

4. U

Figure 3.25

BEHAVIOUR, ON STIFFENER MODES OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION EFFECT

105

______

____

0-2.0

A-

60

ys - 1.14

Imperfection

mode (P3)

Figure 3.26

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR

4
.. +C,
+

15 +r

CM
++..
. 10

-10
++

%I

$-2.0

X-

120

Ys - 22.25

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.27

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

106

. ..... ......

-15

2.0

X-

180

Ys - 73.80

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure

3.28

AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE SHEARCAPACITY. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

+ lb ++

+++++ + + + 70

-2.0

X-

240

ys - 145.01

Imperfection

mode (P3)

Figure 3.29

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY

107

Lo

15 +

++

-1.5

X-

180

Ys - 98.50

Imperfection mode (P4)

Figure 3.30

AT THE PLATEULTIMATESHEAR CAPACITY. DISPLACEMENT LATERAL

12(

101

00

0.0

1.0 Stiffener

2.0 maximum lateral

3.0 displacement (mm)

4.0

Figure 3.31

BEHAVIOUR. ON STIFFENER MODES OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION EFFECT

108

T 14C

12C

cli 01

oc

-cc

2(

.UI.

Z. U Stiffener

J. U maximum lateral

4. U displacement (mm)

b. U

b. 0

Figure 3.32

OF PLATESLENDERNESS. EFFECT

T1
140

120

100

80

m ,0
-: c

60 *X40 *X*X*X-

-1.0 60 120 180 240

Ds . 90.0mm Imperfection Imperfection Imperfection Imperfection Unrestrained

Ts - 9. Omm mode (P3) mode (P3) mode (P3) mode (P3) boundary

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

405.0 stiffener

6.0 lateral maximum

7.0

8.0

9.0

displacemeiit (mm)

Figure

3.33

EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS.

109

10

.0

U. 0

I. U

Z. U

J. U

q. U Stiffener

ti. u maximum lateral

0. u

I. u

U. U (mm)

9. U

displacement

Figure

3.34

EFFECTOF PLATE SLENDERNESS.

120

loc cm Z_8(

2(

o .01.0

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4.0

5.0

6.0 displacement

7.0 (mm)

8.0

9.0

maximum lateral

Figure 3.35

EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS.

110

c'J

1 IU,

I, C IC

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4.0 lateral maximum

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

displacement (mm)

Figure

3.36

EFFECTOF ASPECT RATIO.

1'

1;

v jE

to

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4.0 maximum lateral

5.0 displacement

6.0 (mm)

7.0

B. Uy

Figure 3.37

EFFECT OF ASPECT RATIO.

ill

IN

IN

.0

41

21

0.01.0

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4.0

5.0

6.0 displacement

7.0 (mm)

8.0

9.0

'Y

maximum lateral

Figure 3.38

OF ASPECT EFFECT RATIO.

120

loc
F rz

;:,

8c

6C

4C

2C

0. 0

1.0

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4.0

5.0

6.0 displacement

7.0 (mm)

8.0

9.0

maximum lateral

Figure

3.39

EFFECTOF ASPECT RATIO.

112
_7 ___I
-2 -"--_

I -_

1- 1+

+1

+/

+/

+, r

4.
---------

e-0.5

X- 60

Ys - 7.30

Imperfection mode (P5)

Figure 3.40

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATESHEAR CAPACITY.

-r/-r y 0.8

0.7 0.6
(a

L. 0.5 0 0.4 0.3

C 0

0.2

0.1

0.0 IL
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 y/yy Nondimensional shear strain y'

Figure 3.41

EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS ON THE ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF PLATES OF THE SAME( AND X ).

T/T

Y) .
0.8 0.7 0 0.6 0.5. 0 0.4 T;
E

113

7 00 1-, . wo

0.5 0.3 Initial

180 mode (P5)

0 0* 2ay-

Imperfection

240N/MM2 ay275N/MM2 355N/mm2 10 24 Fx 103

0.1 0.0 VI1 02468 lateral Maximum

ay-

10

12

14

16 (N)

18

20

22

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 3.42

OF YIELD STRESS EFFECT ON THE MAXIMUM LATERAL REACTION AT THE STIFFENER FORPLATES OF THE SAME( AND X ).

-r/T

0.8

0.7 0.6

0.5
0.4 /lo

ooooo

0.3
r

1.0 Initial

A-

180 mode (P3)

0 0.2,2

Imperfection ayay-

240N/mm 275N/mm2

0.1

Cy - 355 N/mM2

0.0 02 Maximum lateral 10 12 14 (N) 16 18 20 22 Fx 103

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 3.43

LATERAL REACTION EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS ON THE MAXIMUM OF THE SAME( AT THE STIFFENER FORPLATES AND X ).

114
T/-r

y O.E

0.

0. (
,

0.!
0.

0.

0.

0.01 02468 I Maximum lateral

10

lz

14 (N)

16

18

zo

Fx 101

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 3.44

EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS ON THE MAXIMUM REACTION LATERAL AT THE STIFFENER FORPLATESOF THE SAME( AND X ).

T/T

0.7 0.6

,,

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.0
02468 Maximum lateral 10 12 14 (N) reaction at the stiffener

16

18

20

Fx 103

Figure 3.45

LATERAL REACTION ON THE MAXIMUM OF YIELD STRESS EFFECT OF THE SAME( FORPLATES AT THE STIFFENER AND X ).

115
T/T y

0.8
0.7

0.6

0 0
0.51000

0.4
10X180 Ts 10.0mm (P3)

0.3

Ds Initial

100. Omm Imperfection cry Cy -

0.2

240N/mm

mode 2

275N/mm2 355N/mm2

0.1 ay 0.0 0.0 -

1.0

2.0 Stiffener

3.0 maximum lateral

4.0 displacement

5.0 (mm)

6.0

7.0

Figure 3.46

OF YIELD STRESS EFFECT ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE STIFFENER FORPLATES OF THE SAME( AND X ).

-r/-r y 0.8
0.7

0.6 6

0.5

0.4

1.0 r Q, 0.3 0 0.2 0.1 Ds - 100. Omm 00, Initial Imperfection

180 Ts - 10.0mm mode (P3)

ay - 240N/mm2 oy - 275N/mm2 ay355N/mm2

0.0 0 50 Extreme fiber 100 150 200 stress at the stiffener

250

300

350

Ce

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure

3.47

TENSILE STRESS EFFECTOF YIELD STRESSON THE EXTREME OF THE STIFFENER FOR PLATES OF THE SAME ( AND X ).

116

CL

O. U

I. U

U. u

Stiffener

s size parameter

Figure 3.48

VARIATION OF Tu WITH THE STIFFENER SIZE PARAMETER yS.

10

cu

4U

bU Stiffener

BU size parameter

lUU

hfu

14U

16U

y s

Figure

3.49

VARIATION OF -r WITH THE STIFFENER SIZE PARAMETER yS

117

14C

13C

cm E
12(

CL m

u lo(

8C

37.5

75

112.5 Stiffener

150

187.5

225

262.5

300 ys

size parameter

Figure 3.50

OF -ru WITH THE STIFFENER VARIATION SIZE PARAMETER ys-

11
1:

CL 0 u S-C

ER

Stiffener

size

parameter

Figure

3.51

VARIATION OF -r WITH THE STIFFENER SIZE PARAMETER yS u

118

1 I

-: c

V.

I. v

4. v

D. V

(). U

Stiffener

maximum lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 3.52

VARIATION OF THE OUT-OF-PLANE DISPLACEMENT WITHyS

c'J

E
w

C -c In U 00 C 0,

U. U

1. U

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4.0

5.0

6.0 displacement

7.0 (mm)

8.0

9.0

maximum lateral

Figure

3.53

VARIATION OF THE OUT-OF-PLANEDISPLACEMENT WITH yS

119
T

12C

loc
('4

8c

60
(1)

40

20

V.

.3. U Stiffener

q. u

. U

6.0 displacement

7.0 (mm)

8.0

9.0

maximum lateral

Figure 3.54

VARIATION OF THE OUT-OF-PLANE DISPLACEMENT WITH

ys.

1 I I

.0

Stiffener

lateral maximum

displacement (mm)

Figure 3.55

DISPLACEMENT VARIATION OF THE OUT-OF-PLANE WITH yS.

120

c'J

GO (LI

I. v

.1. V Stiffener

f. V maximum lateral

Z).u

b. U (mm)

7.0

8.0

displacement

Figure 3.56

OF THE OUT-OF-PLANE VARIATION DISPLACEMENT OF STIFFENER WITHy

12C

loc
8c

Z-

6C

4C

2c

a 0
Stiffener maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure

3.57

OF STIFFENER VARIATION OF THE OUT-OF-PLANEDISPLACEMENT

WITHy

121

I
c'J
E

w I-

IC C, -c 1 C, GO C I0, >

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4. U maximum lateral

b. U displacement

b. 0 (mm)

7.0

8. U

Figure 3.58

VARIATIONOF THE OUT-OF-PLANE DISPLACEMENT OF STIFFENER WITHy.

1: 11

'o 'o

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0 Stiffener

4.0

5.0

6.0 displacement

7.0 (mm)

8.0

10.0

maximum lateral

Figure 3.59
'S

OF STIFFENER DISPLACEMENT OF THE OUT-OF-PLANE VARIATION

WITH y

122

..... ......

++

0%

AA -a ho 11 hb

/'T'z,

19, e el

(o- 1.0

60

Ys - 0.72

Imperfection

mode (P3)

Figure 3.60

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE CAPACITY. SHEAR

+) rl

4-1.0

X- 60

Ys - 2.276

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.61

LATERAL AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY. DISPLACEMENT

123

cn

I-

,-1.0

X-

60

Ys - 5.50

Imperfection

mode (P3)

Figure 3.62

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

15
+

23
I

cb

( - 1.0

X-

180

Ys - 19.13

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.63

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT SHEAR CAPACITY. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

124

lb Cb

Ilj

II

Cl-

..
$-1.0 180 Y. - 96.90 Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure

3.64

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

++ (b

Co th

-c43 AID

cv Ao
+ Cb

-1.0

A-

180

Ys - 147.69

Imperfection

mode (P3)

Figure 3.65

LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE CAPACITY.

125

++ %lb
++

01-

lb

-C7 +

4t - 1.0

A-

180

Ys - 258.31

ImPerfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.66

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

+ (b

4b- 1.5

1-

180

Ys - 23.64

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.67

LATERAL SHEAR DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY. AT THE PLATEULTIMATE

126

+
+

lb

+ 'Iti ++ +

0 +

42

-1.5

X-

180

ys - 98.46

Imperfection

mode 03)

Figure 3.68

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

lb - 1.5

X-

ISO

Ys - 172.2

Imperfection mode (P3)

Figure 3.69

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

127

CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND RICHMOND AND ROCKEY APPROACHES.

128

4.1

INTRODUCTION

In chapter one,. a general literature review of the design of been has transverse stiffeners on girder presented. webs Different procedures have been introduced, each dependent on the design philosophy for the web panels. In the current British Standards BS5400 (Part 3)(4.1), the rules for the design of transverse stiffeners were based on theoretical by Richmond(4.2) studies carried out and on an parametric load approach proposed by Rockey(4.3). The two ultimate phenomena which govern the design of web stiffeners are 1) The destabilizing effects of shear and in-plane bending stresses 2) The tension field forces in web panels. Although the above approaches briefly in it chapter one, was felt that a separate were presented chapter should be dedicated to a more detailed examination of them. In the present chapter, the Richmond and Rockey approaches are In addition, comparisons are made between the introduced. results from their work and the finite element parametric study Section 4.7 presents the results presented in chapter three. BS5400(4.1) requirements for the design of transverse stiffeners. 4.2 RICHMOND APPROACH

4.2.1 Introduction Richmond(4-2) conducted an extensive non-linear elastic study on As a result, he proposed a design approach for web panels. In this transverse and longitudinal stiffeners on girder webs. section, the background of his study is presented. In addition, the design rule that he proposed is derived and discussed in detail. At the end of this section, his verificati on of the design approach it with numerical results is considered. comparing 4.2.2 Background the

of

approach

Kloppel and Scheer(4.4) provided solutions for the critical buckling Figure 4.1 shows the stress of orthogonally stiffened plates. buckling coefficient K plotted against aspect ratio 0 for various It was stiffener rigidities under shear'and in-plane compression.

129 assumed that beyond the K value of 36, which is the limit for local buckling in compression, the plate continues to carry load but does It is to the stiffener. not provide any additional stiffness 10 were important to mention that the set of values for y= calculated by orthotropic plate theory because the critical values for local compression buckling were exceeded and no Kloppel and Scheer values were available. The graphs presented in figure 4.1 show that the variation of critical shear buckling stress is similar in form to the variation of critical compressive buckling stress in It diverge by 20% they to some regions. should be although up 1) The that curves represent a wide range of appreciated geometry and stress 2) The compression curves are made up of the lowest values from several intersecting curves resulting in However, kinks in the general line one. each several pronounced followed. is This comparison the still more regular shear curves of formed the basis for an assumption relating to the correspondence in design the and shear rules that will be discussed of compression later in this section. A further piece of published evidence behind the development of the design rules related to an approach suggested in the Merrison (4.5) diaphragm for panels stiffened in one direction. This report based on a comparison between the Timoshenko approach was (4.6) for shear and results for pure compression for the values in figure 4.2. The formulae for the plate shown stiffened second moment of area in shear and stiffener minimum from derived the comparison and given in the compression Merrison report are respectively 0.0 384
aE
4b4 xaE tw
tw TO )

........... (4.2)

) aci ............

where 13 = minimum stiffener second moment of area in shear 11 = minimum stiffener second moment of area in compression TO = critical buckling shear stress in a panel of identical overall geometry without stiffeners
cycl = critical buckling compressive overall geometry without stiffeners. in a panel stress of identical

130
Sin ce 44=0.041 for 0.038, 13 11 the then except similar are and -

X difference between TO and u, j.

Due to the fact that numerical and results by Timoshenko(4.6) Wang(4.7) for stiffened plates loaded in shear were considered to Richmond(4.2) be in error (as mentioned in Bleich(4.8)), conducted in Cook Rockey further comparisons values presented and with the Royal Aeronautical Society Data SheetS(4.9). Figure 4.3 shows a for K from between buckling shear the coefficient comparison In these Rockey and the values for compression of Timoshenko. (b/a), (where is is defined by the y= g2 g rigidity stiffener graphs, be It can seen that the coefficient). a non-dimensional Rockey's higher than shear values over g give values compression 3.0 but for 0=1.5,2.0 the and and at a shear stress range, much of 0.8 intersect to the compression equal 'rcr, values approximately For higher levels of shear, the sizes of stiffeners the shear curves. by less the significantly than curve compression predicted -are For this reason, Richmond later those of the shear curve. factor increase X introduced to the stiffener a modification 0.8 for than greater cc,. stresses shear rigidities

From the above, Richmond made the basic assumption of his design rules that in studying the destablizing effects of shear in be the shear could replaced by an equivalent instiffened plates, plane compression. 4.2.3 Design for transverse

approach

stiffeners

Richmond's design approach for transverse stiffeners is based on the idea that shear stresses and compressive stresses are in interchangeable destabilizing their to order evaluate effectively in figure 4.4. In addition to the the stiffeners as shown on effects full the any and average compressive stress across shear stress be depth there of magnitude an additional cyc, web will also compressive stress equal to 1/7 of the maximum bending stress in figure 4.5. One seventh was chosen based on a Cyb as shown investigation further buckling to find the elastic critical compressive stress equivalent to an applied bending stress. Richmond assumed that in conservative terms, under an effective (a ), Ob buckling Compressive stress the +T+ pattern (Tc = eff 7

131 of a stiffened plate may be taken as a saw-edge with transverse stiffeners placed at every change of direction as shown in figure 4.5. Figure 4.6 shows the deformation of one of the transverse stiffeners due to the effective compressive stress acting in the plane of the stiffened plate. The initial imperfection of the of the load acting on stiffener and causing a deflection y=Y sin b XX. of the stiffener at any stress level is given by y sin b S. and Y are the maximum initial imperfection and deflection in The deflection was assumed to be the the stiffener respectively. result of the resolved component of the in-plane load, w/unit length, on the stiffener. The magnitude of the lateral load w/unit length, can be deduced as follows: Let ccbe the angle of inclination between the imaginary initial plane and the deflected one as shown in figure 4.6 2 (T, web

t,,. tan a ff .

2 Ceff
7r x9x

with

y =Ysin

bb

and 3y

3. = sin -, ir x sin . .........

then

w4 ab

Creff tw

.......

(4.4)

with a. ,ff w /unit length 4

+r+

1- b then 7
ab/7) (y +

(ac +r+ ab

5. ) t, sin

7rx ...

(4.5)

Therefore, the lateral load given by equation (4.5) is the intensity Xx load acting on stiffener and causing a deflection y=Y sin of the b at any point at a distance x from the end of the stiffener. Since equation (4.5) has two unknowns w and T, Richmond changed the lateral load to an effective compressive force acting at both ends of the stiffener. This derivation was as follows:

132 If M,, is the bending moment in the stiffener due to w, then 2........................... (4.6) M., =-E1, A2 y/ dx dMs dx
d2 MI; dx 2

El,

d3y/ d X3

............................

(4.7)

E 1,, A4y/d

X4 .........

..................

(4.8)

lsq is the moment of inertia But w=d2 M, /dX2 =+EI

of the stiffener d4y/dX4

section. (4.9)

.....................

Substituting

7r x y =If-sin in equation (4.9) b

w =EI'

7 sin 7r x .................. b4

.............

By equating equation (4.10) to equation (4.5), then

7r 4E17 b4bab sin 7r x4 aeff tw (y + 5. ) sin Xx

and assuming that at the critical load

Y
7r 4

3. hence

El

4eff

tw

b4a

..................................

Equation (4.11) can be rearranged for comparison with Euler's EI load Pff,,,,, critical b2 Pe ff (cr) 4b
X2a 6eff(Cf)

t.................................

(4.12)

where 177eff(cr)= critical effective compressive stress corresponding to the critical buckling load P, ff(c, ) in the transverse stiffener.

For (yeff(cr) "- Geff(cr)then 4b2

ir 2a (Teff tw --

4b2
7r 2a

(-r + orc

ab

) tw

.................

(4.13)

133 Therefore, the value of Peff given by equation (4.13) is the both load ends of the stiffener effective compressive acting at in-plane the the stresses in producing same effect as shear and the stiffened web. In order to find the bending moment was assumed that the magnification the same as that for a compression solving the equilibrium equation this
y_ Pe ff/ 1- Pff

in the stiffener due to P, it -ff, imperfection initial is the of (see by 4.21) ref and member gives,
.... .. (4.14)

Pe x 7r f f(,,) 8o sin ... / Peff(,, b )

But Ms(max)-Peff(So + 7) ............. From equations (4.14) and (4.15)

Ms(max) "

............

1Peff(, .r)

Pef f 450 ................ Pe Pe ff/ f f(, x)

(4.16)

where

2 EI 7r b2

It was noted in section 4.2.2 that as the critical load of the individual panel is approached the moment given by equation (4.16) should be increased by a factorX This is discussed in the next section. The assumption discussed later. forming the basis of this equivalence will be

4.2.4 Verification

of

the

stiffener

design

approach

In order to verify the design rules, Richmond investigated the behaviour numerically of a web system with vertical stiffeners, figure 4.7. The sizes of the stiffeners were estimated by a preliminary form of the design approach and then modified after the first solution from I= 31 inch4 to 20 inch4 as shown in figure 4.7. The web system was analysed under a constant shear stress by means of grillage computer program and then checked by using William's program. The top and bottom boundaries were Tangential displacements were applied on assumed unrestrained.

134 all edges and normal displacements on all vertical edges with the horizontal edges left free.
Figure 4.8 compares the transverse deflections of the vertical stiffeners for increasing levels (in a fixed ratio) of shear and axial loads on the vertical stiffener. The deflections according to the design proposal are greater than the computer values up to 80% of 2 is the 10.3 t/in This the critical shear

stress 'Ccr = critical stress . one determined from the computer output by a Southwell plot. Table 4.1 compares the bending moments which are very nearly A factor X was introduced to proportional to the deflections. modify the bending moments and deflections for shear stresses X 0.8 is given by equation (4.17), than greater Tcr, X=I.......................... 0.8 0.2 c Table 4.1 shows that for a shear stress r=0.87 cc the design proposal moment has been increased from 72 Lin to 113 t. in after X, it by multiplying compared with 123 Lin deduced from the computer solution. 4.3 COMPARISON OF RICHMOND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (4.17)

LATERAL

LOAD WITH

In the current British code BS5400 (Part 3)(4.1), when the stress acting on the stiffened plate is less than the critical buckling stress, the destabilizing effects of the buckled plate panels on the transverse stiffeners is based on the theoretical studies conducted by Richmond. As described in section 4.2.3, a pin ended column model is taken subjected to an effective force Peff. It will be seen in chapter five that the design approach proposed as a result of the current study is based on a laterally loaded beam model. For this reason, detailed comparisons will be presented here between the finite element results and Richmond's laterally loaded beam model. The column model which will be seen to be very conservative is discussed in the context of the steel bridge standard(4.1). The starting point for this study was therefore, to represent the stiffener by a simple beam model subjected to lateral load evaluated by Richmond before the axial load transformation given in equation (4.5). Hence, for a stiffened plate subjected to a shear stress r, the effect of this stress was

135
Supported Simply by beam lateral by loading a studied a distributed load of intensity w/unit length as shown in figure 4.9.

Since w is a function of Y, an iterative program was written based on a nonlinear study of beam columns by Christen sen(4.12), to evaluate the maximum moment and deflection in the stiffener model at any value of shear stress acting on the stiffened plate. It was assumed that the effective beam model section includes a width of plate equal to sixteen times the plate thickness on each side of the stiffener as considered in BS5400(4.1). Also, it was assumed for an initial trial that the ultimate moment carried by the stiffener section corresponds to surface yielding of the stiffener outstand. In order to check the reliability of this model, the results of the finite element study presented in chapter 3 were used as a basis for comparison. The results of the stiffened plates with unrestrained boundary conditions have been examined because Richmond his design verified approach numerically with unrestrained edges. For every plate geometry, the critical initial pattern identified in section 3.3.3 was adopted. In addition the , determined from stiffener rigidities the design philosophy presented in chapter five were used for every panel geometry. In simple approximate terms, the minimum stiffener size for each geometry the stiffened which allows panel to attain the unstiffened panel strength was taken. The comparison between the finite element analyses and Richmond lateral load model results is illustrated by two figures for every (0 and X) examined. The first figure corresponds to the relationship between the average shear stress r and the stiffener V. lateral displacement The second shows the maximum relationship between the average shear stress r and the extreme fibre stress acting at the stiffener outstand ae. Figures (4.10 4.41) show the comparison Of results fOT aspect ratios 0=0.5,1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 and plate slenderness X = 60,120,180 and 240 For all the figures, except those for X= 60, the respectively. following conclusions can be drawn. The Richmond lateral load analysis underestimates both stiffener deflections and stresses at any level of shear stress. This conclusion became worse at high panel slenderness. 2The yielding of the stiffener in the finite element analyses occurs at a point extremely close to the peak capacity of the

136
lateral load it in Richmond model stiffened panel, whereas, occurs at higher shear stress levels. Only for the stocky panel, X= 60, does the Richmond analysis for most aspect ratios at higher produce larger deflections load beam This lateral initial that the model stresses. means proposal is unconservative. From these comparisons, it was concluded that two. points must be looked at in detail. Does the lateral load distribution assumed by Richmond represent the actual load distribution on the stiffener? 2Is equation 4.5, the correct expression relating the intensity of the lateral load to the shear stress acting on the stiffened plate?

These questions are examined in detail in chapter five. 4.4 BASIC THEORY FOR PREDICTING THE ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY OF TRANSVERSELY STIFFENED WEBS

4.4.1 Introduction The introduction of limit state methods in the design of steel bridges has emphasized the importance of the postbuckling in slender webs subjected Many to shear. phenomenon researchers have tackled the problem of transversely stiffened webs subjected to shear in order to predict its ultimate capacity but the most successful one was the one developed at University College Cardiff by Rockey, Evans and Porter(4.15). This model was adopted by the British Bridge Standard. In this section the Cardiff model for predicting the ultimate shear capacity of webs subjected to shear is presented in the following section, this model is used to investigate the ultimate design approach proposed by Rockey et al(4.3) for the design of transverse stiffeners. 4.4.2 Shear Capacity

The ultimate stiffened shear capacity of transversely webs subjected to shear loading according to the Cardiff model passes through three stages as shown in figure 4.42.

137

a) b) C)

Shear up to the critical

stress (unbuckled behaviour).

Tension band action (Post-buckled behaviour). Frame mechanism response (collapse behaviour).

Unbuckled behaviour If a web plate is subjected to shear stress r and was initially flat, it will remain flat until the applied stress reaches the elastic buckling stress of the panel cc, Prior to buckling, a principal tensile stress of magnitude r will be set up at 45' to the flange and a principal compressive stress of equal magnitude will be developed at an inclination 135* as shown in figure 4.42 (a). The critical shear stress 'Tcr is given by
92E2
cr

(Lj )
2)

=K

120

_V

.......

(4.18)

K=

buckling shear coefficient determined from the following equations, 5.35 +4 (b/a)2 when a/b > 1.0 (4.19) when a/b < 1.0

K=5.35

(b/a)2 +4

the web panel boundaries are assumed to be simply supported. b) Post-buckled behaviou

When the critical shear stress is exceeded, it was found that the web plate is not able to support any additional compressive stresses and therefore a change in load carrying mechanism occurs with an inclined tensile membrane stress field developing which anchors against the top and bottom flanges and against the stiffeners on either side of the web as shown in figure 4.42(b). The magnitude of this tensile stress is at and is denoted by Ot. The total shear stress at this stage can be obtained by the post-buckling superimposing membrane stress upon that By resolving these corresponding to the critical shear stress. stresses in the direction along the perpendicular to the inclination Ot, the state of stress is given by.

138
ae

20 cc,, sin =, t+ cyt

..................

20t cos Tcr T=20t Tcr sin CT(e+ 90) =-

(4.20)

4.43. in figure the shown stresses where ae, re and cr(e+ 90)are

C)

Fr me mechanism resRonse (collapse sta

if the applied load is increased further, the tensile stress crt developed in the web increases until the value of crt given in The 4.21 the of the value c; reaches stress equation web yield yw. by is denoted cyy, and can membrane stress which produces yield be determined from the Von Mises - Hencky criterion. 3, (4.21) cy, C2() Cy2YW Cy2 Cy2 + cr(() 90) 90) = (0 + + 0+ ..................... If the values of (;(), cr(O+ 90) and re given in equation (4.20) are substituted in equation (4.21), the value of the membrane stress to produce yield is obtained in terms of the buckling stress rcr and the inclination Ot of the tension field. ayr, sin 0t+a 2w +T29 y cr (4 sin2 20t-3 ) ..... (4.22)

Equation (4.22) is often represented in a nondimensional. form as shown below, in which -ryw = ayw/ V13
a y

t
cyw

VF3 'r cr sin 20t+1-(

2 -ryw

rw -Tryc

sin

22

Ot

(4.23)

It was assumed that after yielding of the web, the final collapse of flanges in form hinges the as the girder web occurs when plastic is WXYZ figure 4.42(c). in Yielding the of the region shown develop, before although a mechanism can minimum requirement it can spread outside this region. The shear failure load may be obtained by applying a virtual sway displacement to the girder in its collapse state as shown in figure 4.42(c). Since the region WXYZ has yielded, it can be removed and for its action on the flanges and the adjacent web replaced in by inclined tensile membrane stresses as shown the material figure 4.44. It is obvious that the stresses acting on section WZ do in Also displacement. during the case of a the virtual no work

139
in flanges bottom identical the pure shear top and girder with hinge be ZY distances WX the to positions the will case, and identical. So, the work done by the stresses acting on the top flange is balanced by that done by the stresses acting on the bottom flange. Thus, it is only the membrane stresses acting on the face XY that do the work. Let F, where F,, = ay t, sin 0, (b cot Ot -a+ y t c) ................. (4.24) be the resultant of these stresses as shown in figure 4.44, y

During the imposed virtual displacement shown in figure 4.42(c), the face XY will undergo an upward movement of magnitude cThus, the external work done by the vertical component of the Fy force is given by Fxy sin Ot co (4.25) ........................................ Additional external work is done by the force V'ult (which is the postbuckling shear load that causes the mechanism to develop) and this is given by the expression VMUlt CO (4.26) ............................................ Therefore the total external work is
co -F sin ., y. 0 t. co

m IV ay CO ult t

20t (b cot sin

t-a+

c) ........

(4.27)

If the principal of virtual work is applied, then the external work is balanced by the internal work done at the four plastic hinges. Internal work done =4 Mpf. ......................... where Mpf, is the plastic moment capacity of the flange. Mpf bf. tf. 4
12

(4.28)

ayf ................................ work done,

(4.29) the post-

By equating the internal and external buckling shear capacity Vmult is given by

Vmult = ay

tC

sin

20t

[b

Cot 0t-a+

Cl +4MPf......

(4.30)

140

the total shear failure load v. is the summation of the critical V'uIt. load (Tcr bt) the capacity shear and post-buckling
Vya+ r, bt,, +a t,,. sin2 0t [b cot 0t.. cl +4 Mtf (4.31)

tC

At this stage of the analysis, the only unknowns in the above equation are c and Ot. The term c represents the. position of the plastic hinge in the flanges and may be obtained by considering the equilibrium of the flange, see figure 4.45. Since the internal plastic hinge will form at the position of maximum moment, where the shear in the flange is zero, there will not be a lateral reaction at point W. Thus, taking moments about X
2 Mpf = cy . tw. t2 c sin2 0t........................... (4.32)

this gives the hinge position as 2m sin 0t Substituting ...... ....... (4.33)

equation (4.33) into equation 4.31 and introducing non-dimensional flange strength parameter M*p, defined as: m*=2 pb Mpf tw ayw ......................... .......... (4.34)

The ultimate shear failure is obtained as Vs := rcr b tw +a y. tw. sin 20L (b cot 0ta) + t vpt 4bt, sin Ot ay.,, M* aY......................

(4.35)

(4.35) by dividing Equation may be non-dimensionalised throughout by the shear load required to produce yielding of the web (Vyv = -ry,,, b tv ).
Vs
vy w

'r cr + -/3- sin Tyw

219 t

(C

ot

ot

a) --I+ b ayw

141
C' Y

4 Vf3 sin

20tIF;

Or -Y-t-

......

...

....

..

(4.36)

is (4.23) in in If the value of (c; yt/c; ) substituted equation given y, find (4.36), the ultimate to the equation only unknown needed shear failure V,, is the inclination of the tension field Ot. Since Ot has be determined iterative directly, to be procedure cannot an in adopted which successive values of Ot are assumed and the The in load each case. corresponding ultimate shear evaluated the maximum, process is repeated until the value of Ot providing After is V. therefore the an established. and required value of EvanS(4.14) that the parametric extensive study, proposed maximum value of Vs is approximately produced at an inclination field Ot given by. tension of

ot =2

tan-' (b / a) ........................... 3

...

(4.37) .

4.5

ROCKEY ULTIMATE APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS.

4.5.1 Introduction As a consequence of the introduction of the limit state method for predicting the ultimate shear capacity of stiffened webs presented in section 4.4, Rockey conducted an extensive experimental and analytical parametric study to develop an improved method for In 1981, Rockey(4.3) proposed the design of transverse stiffeners. a plastic design procedure based on the stresses and forces In load this to the the panels. ultimate corresponding of web The in detail. is his proposal section, presented and explained Tang(4.17-4.19) by Evans and experimental verification carried out is also presented. 4.5.2 Loads imposed

upon

transverse

stiffener.

Figure 4.46 shows a typical situation in which an intermediate transverse stiffener is positioned between two web panels. As far as the design of the stiffener is concerned, the critical situation for the web panels is when each has developed an individual failure The 4.46(a). in figure positions of the shear mechanism as shown plastic hinges in the flanges and the inclination and magnitude of the membrane stresses in the web can be determined as described

142 in section 4.4. The tension field acting in the adjacent web panels intermediate loading flanges the to stiffener as to the and applies The forces acting on the stiffener are shown in the diagram. divided into two types. a) Forces transmitted through the flanges to the stiffener.

The loads imposed upon the transverse stiffener due to tension field stresses acting on the flanges are determined as follows: Let Ff, j be the resultant of the loads acting on the portion WiC the upper flange at an inclination 01 to the horizontal.
Let Ff, 2 be the resultant of the loads acting on the portion the bottom flange at an inclination 02 to the horizontal.

of

DY2 Of

The vertical components of these two forces are transmitted from the flanges to the stiffener at points C and D respectively. Thus Vc Ff.,. sin 01 20, W, C ay sin ............... t' I.
20,

(4.38)
is

where the negative downward.

VD Ff. 2-

sign means that the direction

DY2-

of the force

sin 192 =- (Ty . t, 2

sin

....................

(4.39)

b)

Forces imposed directly

upon the stiffener.

The loading imposed directly upon the stiffener by the web tension field can be divided into three zones. The top zone CG of the stiffener is subjected to a uniformly distributed tensile force from panel 1 only and the resultant of this force is designated by This resultant has a vertical Fs, la as shown in figure 4.46(b). is latter The HI. horizontal V, and a component component CW2G, by the the whereas, the wedge of resisted web material forms load on the stiffener of an axial vertical component magnitude ayt,, t. 1 Oa sin 0 1. cos (4.40)

.........................

load V2 bottom is DH to the an axial as a similarly subjected zone 2 in field the of magnitude tension of web panel result
V2 (T y

t. 2

t,, HD sin 192- COS 192 .........................

(4.41)

143

In the central zone GH of the stiffener, the force F,,,Ib exerted by Fs, by force by is I balanced the 2b exerted approximately panel Thus, 2 4.46(b). in figure this region remains panel as shown directly by field to the tension action applied virtually unloaded stiffener. In addition to the action of the membrane stress field, the difference by is length loaded its the over stiffener compl ete between the critical shear forces of the two adjacent panels; this force is of intensity (Tcr.1 - Tcr.2)-tw. The resulting forces exerted in figure by different the the stiffener actions are shown upon 4.47.

4.5.3 Analysis

and

design

of

stiffener

Having established the loads acting on the stiffener, the effects of After an experimental study these loads must be determined. by Mele and Puthali(4.21) and a similar one by conducted Rockey(4.3), it was shown that a portion of the web plate acts with the stiffener in resisting the axial loading despite the fact that the by is fully tension field action. web yielded
Rockey(4.3), proposed 40tw should thickness shown in figure 4.48. that a width of web of forty times be assumed to act with the stiffener its as

The axial loading is assumed to be applied to the stiffener crosssection at the centreline of the web plate. This is a conservative assumption, since it involves the greatest degree of eccentricity and thus causes the maximum possible bending effects for a given axial loading. The stiffener is, therefore, subjected to both an axial load P whose distribution along the stiffener is shown in figure 4.47 and bending moments. To define the moments, four contributions have to be considered. a) b) The moment due to the eccentricity equal area axis = P.R. of the load P from the initial

The moment resulting from the presence of imperfection 80 of the stiffener given by P-8o.

the

144 C) Since the stiffener is behaving as a strut, it is necessary to 1/(1PE is ), Euler factor the PIPF the where amplification use , its buckling load for the stiffener section considering 4.46 Le length figure in defined length GH the effective as over which the tension fields in the adjacent panels overlap. The last component, which is rather difficult to quantify, is that associated with the stiffness required of the stiffener to There buckled disturbing the the web. are resist action of two possible ways of representing this action.

d)

IThe model which was adopted by the British Standard BS 5400(Part3) represents the destabilizing effects of the web on the stiffener as an additional axial load of magnitude.
Pb '-

4d2
92a2.

tw Tcr

ts

(Effective area of stiffener) -

...

.....

(4.42)

2An alternative approach is to retain an inertia Icr given in (4.43) to resist the disturbing action of the web leaving equation the remaining moment of inertia of the stiffener to resist any strut ) where Ic, is given by. action (1-1c, I cr -: 4
7r

K, 2a2E

dD.......... .........................

(4.43)

where Kc = buckling coefficient of a simply supported plate and is given by K,c = 5.35 (2 + 1) - 0.52 0 ........................ d= depth of the web Flexural rigidity of the web plate (4.44)

I=

Moment of inertia of the effective stiffener section.

The effective Euler load of the stiffener is therefore Ple = X2 E (I Icr)/I e2, where I. is the length GH of the stiffener. The T shaped stiffener cross-section withstand the combined effects of A suitable expression was moments. define the combination of axial load P is designed as a strut to loads axial and bending proposed by Horne(4.22) to bending and moment M that

145 For by be a typical stiffener section such a member. sustained can form 4.48, the in figure takes the relationship as that shown
m mps ( (bs ts a)2 ay 1.0 FPS mps (4.45) ....................

full Mp, plastic moment capacity of the section where = Ps = full axial yield load of the section a= distance between the face of the web and the equal area axis. If the effects of the moments are introduced with an imperfection So = d/500 as suggested by Rockey, then equation (4.45) can be rewritten as:
P (X + d/500) =, 0_ or y t. (b. -a )2

mps (1 - P/ P. e)

mp

(ip78 f ........

(4.46)

It is worth mentioning that equation (4.46) applies only to for which the equal area axis passes through the effective sections being in than the web. stiffener rather For any other cross-section one has simply to verify that.
P (X + d/500) mps 0P/ ple)

Mn

.....................

..........

(4.47)

where M, is the reduced plastic moment taking a coexistent force P into account. 4.5.4 Verfication of Rockey experimental results. design

of the cross-section

approach

with

large two Tang and Evans(4.17-4.19) scale tests on performed 4.49 figures in and transversely stiffened plate girders shown The overall span in each case was 6.0m, the girder depth 4.50. The Imm. 0.8m only variable the and was web thickness was which parameters were the spacing of the transverse stiffeners in different half-span the as shown was of each girder on each figures. The girders were fabricated from mild steel.

146 The geometry of the girder's panels are shown non -dimensionally in table 4.2. It can be seen that all the panels are very slender having b/t > 800 to ensure the development of post buckling field for tension the the upon the studying effects of action transverse stiffeners. In each test, the behaviour of the transverse stiffener adjacent to The relevant stiffener in each the failure region was observed. (bS, its dimensions in is indicated figures 4.50 4.49 and case and The cross sectional area Ase,,p and ts) are listed in table 4.2. These values are expressed as rigidity ys,,, p are also included. ratios of the corresponding properties (Asopt and ysopt) of an None designed Rockey's to stiffener optimum proposal. according of the experimental stiffeners satisfied the BS5400 requirements and this is further indicated by the ratio 'Ysexp/YS5400% where YS5400 represents the required rigidity according to the BS5400 design rules. The results of these tests have been listed in table 4.3. Stiffener SAI with rigidity in be to Ysexp = Y, shown was adequate 50pt sustaining the tension field stresses at the girder ultimate For this reason the stresses and strains along this capacity. stiffener were examined during the girder loading process. Figure 4.52 shows the variation of the direct axial strains over the depth of stiffener SA1 in Test 1; the values are plotted at three vertical sections AA, BB and CC on the stiffener as defined in Considerable difference between the strains at the figure 4.51. three vertical sections are noted and this is further illustrated in figure 4.5, where the variation across the stiffener width of the axial strain is plotted at three typ ical horizontal sections of The three sections are taken at 1/4,1/2 and 3/4 web stiffen er SAL depth respectively. From the above diagrams, Evans and Tang noticed that the axial justifying is linear, thus the strain variation across stiffener width Rockey's Proposal of treating the stiffener as a beam column. The plotted values shown in figure 4.53, show that tensile strains were developed at the free edges of the stiffener in all cases, and also that the tension was small in comparison to the compression developed close to the web due to the tension field action.

147 4.6 COMPARISONS OF ROCKEY'S APPROACH WITH ELEMENT ANALYSIS FINITE

Most of the girders tested to verify the design approach proposed by Rockey for transverse stiffeners had very slender sub-panels design in the of which are outside the normal range encountered bridge structures. For this reason, it was felt essential to examine the direct axial stresses in the stiffeners of stiffened plates with practical panel geometries and compare these with the stress distributions given by Rockey's proposal. Figures (4.54-4.60) show the variation of the direct axial stresses over the depth of the stiffener for a selection of the stiffened plates examined in this study. The first four figures (4.54-4.57) 180 and aspect correspond to plates of panel slenderness X= ratios 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 and 2.0. Figure 4.56 has been shown before demonstrate difference between the to and restrained Figures (4.58-4.60) relate to unrestrained boundary conditions. an aspect ratio of 0=1.0 and plate slenderness X= 60,120 and 240. The stiffener rigidity y, in every case corresponds to the size by the design philosophy presented in of stiffener identified chapter five. The values of direct axial stresses in each figure are plotted at two vertical sections AA and BB at the peak shear The distribution of stresses for capacity of the stiffened plate. different levels of applied shear loading is illustrated in figures (4.61-4.67), where the variation of the axial stresses across the stiffener is plotted at the stiffener mid-depth. In figures (4.54-4.60), the stresses can be seen to be similar in form to the stresses relating to a simply supported beam and there is no evidence of significant tension field forces affecting This is also illustrated by the fact that the this distribution. tensile stresses at section B-B, close to the stiffener outstand edges, are always greater than the compressive stresses at section A-A close to the web. The same conclusion can be deduced from because the the variation of stresses in figures (4.61-4.67), bending axis is always close to the neutral axis of the effective stiffener cross section especially for lower panel slendernesses. It does break down be bending to that the admitted must model some degree for very stocky panels (figure 4.65) where stresses at the web face are lower than predicted but this is almost certainly because the effective width (32tw) is very conservative for the case of a very stocky web plate. It is also of interest to examine the bending stress at the same location in the stiffener for the analysis incorporating flange

148
boundaries. Figures (4.68-4.70) show that there is only a modest tension from resolved some of presence neutral axis shift resulting field loading in the case of the relatively rigid flange of Mfw 0.0232. From the above it can be said that Rockey's stiffener design design being for the of stiffeners on very suitable approach, while does for not plates, example of aircraft stiffened slender webs, design the to of the represent situation relating realistically transverse stiffeners of plate and box girder webs. ' 4.7 BS5400 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS

is BS5400(4.1) The design of transverse stiffeners to according It is based on the concept described in detail by Chatterjee(4.23). of a strut model and is a combination of the approaches proposed The by Richmond(4.2) and Rockey(4.3) with minor modifications. section of the stiffener includes sixteen times assumed effective the web thickness on each side as shown in figure 4.71.

The transverse stiffener loadings. a) b

is designed to resist the following

axial

Axial forces due to tension field action. Axial forces representing the destablizing influence of the web.

An additional axial force should be included if a cross girder or frame is directly positioned on the top of the transverse stiffener. a) Forces from the tension field. Tension field action should be assumed to occur in any web when the applied shear stresses exceed 80% of the elastic critical shear longitudinal If compressive stresses are present, the any stresses. limiting value of shear stress r,, after which tension field action develops is reduced from 0.8Tcr by the equation Tc..... 0.8 -rc, where c,., is as previously defined ........... ........... (4.48)

149

ir

2EL

(b
V2)

(Tcr =4 Thus

120

with

v=0.3

0.72 EK -rc =

..................

..

(4.49)

In order to find the axial forces on the vertical stiffener tension field action, it was assumed that the whole web is due to this action. By taking a vertical section through the shown in figure 4.72, the shear force carried by the mechanism can be obtained as (,r - cc) d t, = at d t, sin Ot cos Ot .......................... and the compressive force on the stiffener is given by Ptf = cyta tw sin2 Ot (, Ot tw tan a r rc) = ...... ........................

due to yielded web as tension

(4.50)

(4.51)

00 It was found that Ot will not exceed x/4 and thus, Ptf can be taken as the smaller of Ptf = (,r - rc) a t,, or Ptf = (c -rc b a ................................

(4.52)

.0 Forces due to the destablizing effects

Richmond(4.2) represented the destablizing effects of shear and longitudinal stresses by an effective compressive axial load applied at both ends of the stiffener and given in equation (4.13) as 4d2 (4.13) Peff eff ........................ ........... 2 where a, T+ ab arc + 7

-ff

150 In BS5400(Part 3), one sixth of the maximum bending stress has been taken as equivalent to a constant compressive stresses and by a, is denoted as CYR given _ff
CYR--(C + Oc + Cybmax/6)

....................................

(4.53)

Although P, ff is an equivalent load which represents the destabilizing influence of the web on the stiffener, the longitudinal stress OR does not cause any axial stress in the transverse stiffener. This has been overcome to some degree by the use of a modified Perry equation as follows
Pa + (Pa + Peff) 71 PEPE (Pa + PC ff) :5 py .............. .. (4.54)

where Pa = any applied axial load on the transverse stiffener.

PE Py Euler buckling load ultimate load = A. ay

z (where So is the initial imperfection of the stiffener) Z= the stiffener section modulus An alternative simpler equation conservative is given by.
a PC + Peff PD <,..................

71 = Perry's imperfection

parameter

=A8.

which

has been found

to be

. .............

.......

(4.55)

where zero.

P,, is the value Of Pa from equation (4.53)

taking Peff as

PD is the value of Peff from equation (4-53) taking Pa as zero. From equations (4.13) and (4.54), the final effective load Pwb on the stiffener due to the longitudinal stress can thus be taken as Pw bQd
tw

YR ......

...............................

(4.56)

where Q_4 92

Pc
PD

151 Pc and PD are functions of y which is in turn a function of So. In BS 5400 (Part3), the initial imperfection Bo is taken as 1/750 of the stiffener length. There still remains the question with the BS5400 approach as to if Peff it be the to as effect Of amplify would convenient whether Subsequent comparisons will this was a column axial load. by demonstrate that the resulting attained sections stiffener following the rules are potentially very conservative. 4.8 CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that the existing methods which form the basis of current design thinking do not truly represent the loads acting on transverse stiffeners due to the destabilizing effects of There panels. was also clear evidence that considering the web laterally loaded beam with unrestrained boundaries a stiffener as is a lower bound approach to design. With this approach there is no need to introduce the modest effects of tension field forces for the design of web stiffeners with panel slendernesses typical of those found in bridge structures.

152 4.9 4.1REFERENCES British Standards Institution, 1982, Code of practice Design of Steel Bridges, BS5400: Part 3, London, BSI. for

4.2-

Richmond, B., 1972, "Report on Parametric Study on Web Panels", Report for Department of the Environment, Maunsell and Partners, Consulting Engineers, London. Rockey, K. C., Valtinat, G, and Tang, K. H., 1581, "The Design of Transverse Stiffeners on Webs Loaded in Shear - an Ultimate Approach", Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, pp. 1069-1099. Kloppel, E. K. and Scheer, J., 1960, Beulwerte Augesteirfter Rechteckplain, vol. 1, Ernst, Berlin, West Germany. "Steel Box Girder Bridges", Conference Introductory Note by Merrison Committee. April 1972,

4.3-

4.4-

4.5-

4.6-

Timoshenko, S., 1915, "Stability of Rectangular Plate with Stiffeners", Engrs. Ways of Commun., vol. 89, pp. 23. Wang, T. K., 1947, "Buckling of Transverse Stiffened Plates under Shear", Jour. Applied Mechanics, vol. 14 pp. A- 269. Bleich, F., 1952, "Buckling Strength of Metal Structures", McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 416. Data sheets - Structures vol 2, Royal Aeronautical Society. Dowling, P.J., 1975, "Strength of Steel Box-Girder Bridges", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Part 2, ST9, pp. 1929-1946. Supported Journal of

4.7-

4.8-

4.94.10-

4.11 - Christensen, H. D., 1962, "Analysis of Simply Elastic Beam Columns with Large Deflections", the Aerospace Sciences, vol 29, pp. 1112-1121. 4-12-

Behaviour and Design of Steel Plated Structures, 1986, ECCS - Technical Committee. 8Structural Stability, Technical Working Group 8.3(edited by Dubas, P. and Gehri, E-0 Switzerland.

153
4.13Porter, D. M., Rockey, K. C. and Evans, H. R., 1975, "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Loaded in Shear", The Structural Engineer, vol. 53, pp. 313-325. Evans, H. R., Porter, D. M, and Rockey, K. C., 1978, "The Collapse Behaviour of Plate Girders Subjected to Shear and Bending", Proc. IABSE. Rockey, K. C., Evans, H. R, and Porter, D. M., 1978, "A Design Method for Predicting the Collapse BehAviour of Plate Girders", Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, pp 85112. Evans, H. R., 1983, "Longitudinally and Transversely Reinforced Plate Girders", Plated structures (edited by R. Narayanan), Applied Science Publishers Ltd, Essex, England. Tang, K. H., and Evans, H. R., 1984, "Transverse Stiffeners for Plate Girder Webs - an Experimental Study", Journal Construct. Steel Research 4, pp. 253-280. Evans, H. R. and Tang, K. H., 1981, "A report on Five Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Girder TRVY, Report No DT/SC/8, University College, Cardiff. Evans, H. R. and Tang, K. H., 1982, "A Report on Four Tests Carried out on a Large Scale Transversely Stiffened Plate Girder TRV4", Report NO. DT/SC, (University College, Cardiff. Allen, H. G. and Bulson, P.S., 1980, "Background to Buckling", McGraw-Hill, UK. Degli Mele, M. and Puthali, R., (1979) "Ottimizzazione irrigidimenti Relazione di Travi a Parete Piena Sottile", Finale, University of Rome, Report CFCAR/136. Horne, M. R., 1979, "Plastic Pregamon Press, Oxford. Theory of Structures",

4.14-

4.15-

4.16-

4.17-

4.18-

4.19-

4.20-

4.21-

4.22-

4.23-

Chatterjee, S., 1981 "Design of Webs and Stiffeners in Plate Design of Steel Bridges (edited by and Box Girders", Rockey, K., Evans, H. R. ), Granada Publishing, St. Albans.

154

Table

4.1 Bending

moments

in

stiffeners

of Web

System

(c)

Bending Shear stress Axial t/in2 in stiffener load t/in2

moments* tonf in

in

stiffener

Design method value

Computer value

7.18

36.2

51

44

7.18

90.0

64.5

60

8.98

45.0

72 xX=

113

123

155

CD le vi

00 V's cli Ilt

%0 CD

r4 --e 0 (D CD 0

c; c; c;
Q
0

c; c;

c;

J;
4) u0 Co 0 Z=uZ cr m

K x 92 w

rr uuu0 4) wZ 1C2 0m es tr

Ce ZmZU zr cr cr -0
v; U 4) U

zr cr' 0 Er Co 0u u 10 o lu
0

Co

, Co Co 02

.. -b Co Co CO

CD it MD 't

r-

nt t-

cz %0

2 92. ei t 0 a. o

rq Ch -

CZ

(D CD -

CD

CD %0 N CD r4
C'4 CD

en c (D tCD CD CD

vi

$W

Z)

ei

4.
.. %

qe E-4

c v-a vi (D 0%

C) CD CD CD

tr; c; cn N 't 4t

c:L P.4

u Z

"

<<< rn tn CArn v2

cq cn

4- -f-

(4 rn Gn v2

E2 Fi

4)

91.

%D %0 %0 vl vli

CD CD CD CD

914
jg

d c; c; dd
(n en MMM

d c5dd
CD CD CD CD

c4

-0

r- r- r- %IM %0

r4

CY%o

CY%

<== A4

-N

en -,

en

A. gW gjwC.im.

Utztzu

0.404 gl. Qw

156

cd

wm

cqs cis

Cr a" V 112 10 = 10 r_

C7 CY, "0 10

:3

cr cr
1010

cts Os 04 CIS w

cis ca
42 12
cn Ga W

4.4. 0 rA

kn It %D%o%oso%o C; C; (6 6

qt C;

Ao 00 %D o C; C;

t*- %000 04.%n

0 04
0

CD 0 (0 0 .4C; 1414

In C4

C1400

C14

ON %n C) 0

:Z 10 r_
cz "a as

;q

00 01% 00

r- Q C7 00 ON 00

00

00

=00

Co 4D

II

ci C5

I*

. W Q)

(140-0so

0 0

%n Cs 1.4 ci

10
u b.

CD

'-,

00 %0 0

t- t-

4 C; ci el; t- r- oo oo

v"

"

a.4 10 10

oo 01, t-

eZ >

C=) .4

cli el; V C_: co 00 00 cc C7%

%a en

V. W) it

tn %n t- r-

!2 UD

14)

:P.

0 vi (D C0
. -;

kn

r-

v c; eli -; (2% 0% Co 0000 tl: r1q ocn n c9(4 li en e4

e; %ei t-:

%r; %D IN clq

6 vi C, t- tJD

li ei NN
. gD

C14

A4

:<<
A.

C14 en eq eq cc 96 06.91-

Cid
R

Cj

MM Qu CL., P.,
Ici

cq

157

Full lines, -,

are for longitudinal

compression

Dotted lines, ---, are for shear stress

47C r=K 2Et2 'IT 12(l-p2 ) b2

40 36

stiffness . ; . 6 6

paramet'er 10

t K

30

ocb

20

10

1.5

2.0

2.5
0

3.0
ON.

3.5

4.0

Figure

4.1

COMPARISON COEFFICIENTS OF STIFFENED OF BUCKLING PANELS UNDER SHEAR ANDCOMPRESSION.

158

T
a&. ow amL. L.. cd. doL.

a=T

(Y =T

110

Figure 4.2

OF SHEAR ANDRESULTS VALUES FOR COMPARISON TIMOSHENKO BETWEEN PURECOMPRESSION.

159

Longitudinal No torsional

edges simply-supported stiffness, J=0

*I
T =KE cr panel buckling
**

L/Ib
aj

ia tal
(b/a)

81

Local panel buckling \--Local

under compression under shear

0.8 K

max/

Z\l .0
xx

lic `11

50
a/b IX:: 1.5 .-I 2, -' .,

XX n -I -' ., .01

:7

2.5 \ xx

1.5

-I
// . 4e Ole *Po '0 /-

:,

2.5

01 2
2.5

10
Compression values

// -0 5, 0 0.0

/-Shear

values

v. CU. 14 2 (y = 11 b/a)

U. fi

U.

1.0 11

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Figure 4.3

FORSTIFFENED COMPARISON COEFFICIENTS PANELS BETWEEN BUCKLING UNDER SHEAR ANDCOMPRESSION.

160

Cl

Figure 4.4

EQUIVALANCE BETWEEN SHEAR STRESSES ANDCOMPRESSION STRESSES.

%a
X

Jb

a, i

a_

aa1

&12 1

B c +0 b/7) Ac ('C+ac+ab/7)t

I_a/2

a/2 I

a/2

a/2

a/Z

a/2

a/2 I

a/2

Figure 4.5

DISTABLISING EFFECT OF LONGITUDINALSTRESS ON TRANSVERSE STIFFENER.

161

yy if-

sin(wx/.

b)

60 sin(wx/b)

(T+a

+a cb

/7)t

cc

Cc

(T+a c

+b/7)%

a/2

a/2

Figure 4.6

OF CALCULATION

LATERAL LOAD ACTING ON A THE RICHMOND

STIFFENER. TRANSVERSE

31 20 31 3120 31 Bin 17-t-t Bin Bin Bin

Lowestaxial load (tonf) applied to stiffener

tw - 3/8in

Ist trial I31in4 72in

2nd trial I4 20in

40in

40in

40in

Figure 4.7

ONLY. STIFFENERS WEBSYSTEMWITHTRANSVERSE

162

3.0

0 2.5 o 4.

-5 2.0

1.5

1.0

c
4v

0.5

0.0 L, 0.0

U. Z U. 4 0.6 Shear stress / critical

0.8 shear stress

1.0

Figure 4.8

OF THE TRANSVERSE DEFLECTION STIFFENER IN WEBSYSTEM.

6-6 t0

sin(7rx/b)

-Y

-yS

in(7rx/b)

DSTI 16t 16t I wIwI Wl

tTI

section of transverse stiffener

Effective

Figure 4.9

LATERAL LOAD. RICHMOND UNDER SIMPLEBEAM MODEL

163

T 160

140

cli E 12C
-A cu I14 loc

ient

analysis load

8c 'o 10 R 4C 2(

iteral i/b

)erfection

mode (P5)

tiffener

outstand

02345y lateral Maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 4.10

OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOADWITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

16C
14(

IN 101
ment ateral analysis load

00

61
41

perfection

mode (P5)

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

ae

Extreme stress at the stiffener

2) (N/mm outstand

Figure 4.11

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

164

T 280

240
ei E zoo

160

ent teral

analysis load

120 ,0 < 80 erfection 4C mode (PS)

01zj456 Maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 4.12

OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

28C

24C

20C

16(

ment analysis ateral load

12(

8(

perfection

mode (PS)

41

40

80

120

160

200

240 outstand

280 2) (N/mm

320

ae

-Extreme stress

at the stiffener

Figure 4.13

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

165

T 280

240

czE 200

160 ment analysis 120 ateral load

80 perfection
40

mode (P5)

j4b6y Maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 4.14

OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

T 280

240

200

160
ment analysis load

120
10

ateral

-r

80 perfection 40 0 mode (PS)

40

80

120

160

200

Extreme stress at the stiffener

280 240 )e outstand (N/mm2

320

Figure 4.15

COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

166

240

20C

cli E
16C ent 12C teral analysis load

ac erfection
4C

mode (P5)

U14

.545078y Maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 4.16

COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

24C

20(

M
ment analysis load

12(

lateral

iperfectlon

mode (P5)

40

0 0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

ae

Extreme stress at the stiffener

) outstand (N/mm2

Figure 4.17

COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

167

160 140

cli E 120
100

4. ,4 80

ment analysis ateral load

to

6c 4C 20 0 0 40
BU lzu lbu zuu z4u z1ju 320 a

iperfection

mode (P3)

Extreme stress at the stiffener

2) (N/m. outstand

Figure 4.18

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

160 140

C- 120
100 ement analysis 80 00 60 40 2c mperfection mode lateral load

Maximum

lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 4.19

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

168

300

25C

20C
ment analysis load

15C

ateral

loc perfection mode (P3)

sc

Maximum lateral

displacement (mm)

Figure 4.20

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

30(

25(

C-i E
20( ement analysis 15( lateral load

10( mperfection 50 0 mode (P3)

0 0

40

80

120

160

200

240 outstand

280 (N/. 2)

320

Extreme stress

at the stiffener

Figure 4.21

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

169

350

300

cli s

25C

20C 10

ment analysis ateral load

10(

nperfection 70

mode (P3)

5(

Maximum lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 4.22

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

350

30C

25C

20(

ment ateral

analysis load

15(

10(

iperfectlon 10

mode (P3)

51

40

80

120

160

200

240 outstand

Extreme stress at the stiffener

280 ) (N/m:

No

ae

Figure 4.23

ELEMENT FINITE LOAD WITH LATERAL COMPARISON OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

170

350

300 cli 25C

20c ll, 15c ,0

ment ateral

analysis load

'Ic loc
50

perfection 0

mode (P3)

0 0 40
du lzu IOU zuu z4u ztsu Jzu a

Extreme stress at the stiffener

2) outstand (N/mm

Figure

4.24

OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

35C

30(

Zb(

201

ent teral

analysis load

Co

It 101
51

erfection

mode (P3)

Maximum lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 4.25

COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

171

T 16(

14(
C\l

IN 10(
ment analysis load

8(

ateral

61 4( 21 iperfection mode (P3)

Maximum lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 4.26

COMPARISON OF RICHMOND' LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

T 16C

14C 12C loc ment ateral 'o 6( 4( 20 iperfection mode (P3) analysis load

0 0 40
80 120 160 200 240 outstand 280 (N/mm2) 320 Ge Extreme stress at the stiffener

Figure 4.27

COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

172

30(

251

20,
Tient analysis load

15

ateral

10 perfection 5 mode (P3)

Maximum lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 4.28

OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

30(

25(

20( nent iteral analysis load

10 perfection mode (P3)

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

Extreme stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure 4.29

COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

173

40( 35(

cli E 30(
w 41 IS.

251
ient analysis load

20,

teral ,

Go is -C

10
5

mrfection

mode (P3)

34bb Maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure

4.30

LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

400

350

30C 25C
ment analysis

20(
.0

ateral

load

loi 51

iperfection I

mode (P3)

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

Extreme stress at the stiffener

outstand

320 2) (Nlmm

360 Ge

Figure 4.31

ELEMENT FINITE LOAD WITH COMPARISON LATERAL OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

174

350

300 clI

250

200

ment ateral

analysis load

150 00

IC 100
50

perfection 5

mode (P3)

0 Maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 4.32

IATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

35C

30C

25C

20C

ment lateral

analysis load

15( 'o

"I, lo( 5c

nperfection 5

mode (P3)

40

80

120

160

200

240 outstand

280 (N/mm2)

320

Extreme stress

at the stiffener

Figure 4.33

COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

175

T 140

120

cll E 100
80 .j

ament analysis
10

60

ateral

load

40 nperfection 20 mode (P3)

0 Maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 4.34

COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

T 140

120

cli

100
80
Dment analysis load

60 10 40

ateral

perfection 20

mode (P3)

qu

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

qe

Extreme stress at the stiffener

) outstand (N/mm2

Figure 4.35

COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

176

30C

25C
E= rz

20C
4J

ment analysis 15C ateral load

bo 10(

perfection 5(

mode (P3)

Maximum lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 4.36

OF RICHMOND COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

300

250

E
200
nent analysis load

150 to > -C loc

iteral

3erfection

mode (P3)

sc

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

ae

Extreme stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm )

Figure 4.37

COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

177

400

350 300 C%j E 250

ent analysis load

20C 15C

teral

loc

erfection

mode M)

Sc

lateral Maximum

displacement (mm)

Figure 4.38

OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

400 35C
C%j

30C 25(
ient analysis load

20(

iteral

151

101
5

)erfection

mode (P3)

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

Extreme stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mim2)

Figure 4.39

COMPARISON LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT OF RICHMOND ANALYSIS.

178

ment ateral
.0

analysis load

perfection 0

mode (P3)

Maximum lateral

displacement

(mm)

Figure 4.40

OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS.

350

300

250

200

ment ateral

analysis load

15C

11 loc
5(

perfection 0

niode

(P3)

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

Ce

Extreme stress at the stiffener

) outstand (N/mm2

Figure 4.41

COMPARISON OF RICHMOND LATERAL LOAD WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

179
LU

Li

CM
>( 0. 'I.
-

-a-

2: CD Z: 74-"
vi LU vi (n
LLJ c2

--i

LA : 7vi
dx Cl2: CD
u

LU

V)

l
CL

CL

Ln

0 C. ) u 1*4 LL;

tko . ILL-

V)

>-

E75 -x
LLM LLJ
re uj, >< LLJ V) LAJ V) V) LLJ 2; 0 1-4 CD UJ

0
>

2
C) r. do

:: D

C)
<c = LLJ cc

LIJ

LL-

*0 41) :g= u

w LLJ

F-4

-d*

\\\\ a

10

Vo

0 CL

V) ui V) 0-

7E;
00
LL-

.0=

CM

to LL-

in
LLi

b--4 LLJ af F-V) --i iz u =

h
4-

ti. i

C: )

vi

C'n

1 -0

-I

LL.

180

A _ __ ____
M1/ 1

cC. 1
Panel 1

Cc,

W-3
- 1-11 Ar or A#,1, Panel 2

__

-'0" :Z

-T62

C1,2

Y2 a2

a1

(a)
Fco -Wl'\M V l V, cr, crl "Fs. rC2
W2

Fc. 2

Ft, Y, JMLI

Mt2V

Y2

(b)

Figure 4.46

AND STIFFENER STRESS WHEN AND FORCE ACTINGON FLANGES SYSTEM MEMBRANE STRESS COMPLETE FIELDS. TWO ADJACENT PANELS DEVELOP

181

v c v

G
( -r cr, T I-

cr, 2

)dt

22

D
IVd (a) Due to tension field

(b) Due to buckling

(c) Total

Figure 4.47

TOTALAXIAL FORCES IMPOSED UPON TRANSVERSE STIFFENER.

40t Jtw

b5

__j

-t

Figure 4.48

STIFFENER. OF TRANSVERSE SECTION EFFECTIVE

182

All

dimenstions welds

are in mmm throughout . v

2mm fillet

-800

5O it

SECTIONA-A

Figure 4.49

TRV3. GENERAL IDENTIFICATION ANDDIMENSIONS FORTEST GIRDER

All

dimensions

are

in mm

2mm fillet

welds

throughout

10
1.0

C3

-0

1 w
SECTION A-A

Figure 4.50

TRV4TEST GIRDER FOR DIMENSIONS AND GENERAL IDENTIFICATION

183

ABC

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

III Bc

Figure. 4.51

SA, IN TEST 1 OF ON STIFFENER POSITIONOF STRAINGAUGES

GIRDER TRVS.

184
LU I-

m
CL tj

LL.

tor) LLJ

CL 0-

14
0 0

0 5TE-

Ii
u

12

LLJ

FLLJ

FC:)

r-

c -c: V)
0--, %0
LU

2 L) LIJ V)

al-,

LU LLLL-

CO CC) LL-

C/) LLI

cl u
tin
+

CD

%0
LLJ

40
Lu V) ck LLJ LLJ

!i

D. ---

0 -C)-0---0---, tl --T= 0--, C)

C) tn -cc V) -i

LLJ

9-Pixelm-

z
"0 0 0 I0 I

12 3N Ic

C/) LLC) 1-4

6-4

LLJ C/) LU LLJ

6 ul 0' U-1 .0 r- E
--s-9
1 to

ce
C'i

09
0 bi I-

S3

LL-

185
face of web

edge of stiffener

stiffener width

-2
c -2000

C
11

l -1500
w

Valges of applied shear loading I (kN) at 1/4-dcpth

.>

-1000
500

+5 o shows measured value

c
0 tu

E qw

at mid-depth

8
-2
C
L

.1 0 L I)

E
>

ct

3/4-depth

9 U

Figure 4.53

ACROSS WIDTH OF STIFFENER SAI. VARIATIONOF AXIAL STRAINS

186
AB Section A-A Section B-B Section A-A Section B-B

3.80

II AB

-200 -cr

-100

00

100

200

Unrestrained boundary

300 a

-100 -C

0 100 -100 a --a Restrained boundary

100

Figure 4.54

OF STRESSES DISTRIBUTION IN THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE SHEAR CAPACITY. ULTIMATE

AB
Section A-A Section BSection A-A Section B-B

II AB

-200

-100

00

100

200 Restrained boundary

Unrestrained boundary

Figure

4.55

DISTRIBUTION OF STRESSESIN THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

187
AB II Section A-A Section B-B

Section A-A

Section B-B

5 0 8.50

II A

-ZUU -0

-luU

UU

lvv boundary

euu a

-lvv -0

Unrestrained

a -0 Restrained boundary

Figure 4.56

DISTRIBUTION OF STRESSESIN
ULTIMATE SHEARCAPACITY.

THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE

A8
Section A-A Section B-B Section A-A Section 8-B

II
AB

-200 -0

-100

00

100

200

300 a

Unrestrained boundary

-1 UU --a

luv -luu U luu a --a Restrained boundary

zuu a

Figure

4.57

DISTRIBUTION OF STRESSESIN ULTIMATE CAPACITY. SHEAR

THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATE

188
AB II

Section A-A

Section B-B-1.0

IIa AB

-DU

bu

lUU

zuu

JUU

Unrestrained boundary

Figure 4.58

OF STRESSES DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE STIFFENER AT THE PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

Section A-

Section B-

1.0 120 44.50

100 A8

50a

100 200 0 Unrestrained boundary

30U

Figure 4.59

DISTRIBUTION THE STIFFENER ALONG AT THE OF STRESSES PLATEULTIMATE CAPACITY. SHEAR

189

AB Section A-A
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Section B-B

10. 1.0

30

++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 300 AB 200 100 00 Unrestrained 100 boundary 200

Figure

4.60

DISTRIBUTION AT THE OF STRESSES ALONG THE STIFFENER PLATEULTIMATE SHEAR CAPACITY.

190

cn

r
co I

C4

co

0 w U
LLI (1r) V) LLJ ClLLJ

V)

s-4 2: V) I-A

LL. C)

LLJ LLI LL. U-A V) LLJ

C) 1-4

F-

wwlh)

sse. A-4s aAtssajdwo3

C, =-,. 0 cli cli m

.
(D

(, Iuw/N) ssa-A;s OLPual

LL-

ci
VN cm

cm
tn Co

C) w C-3 < LU a_

c9

V) too") LLJ Cl-I

LU m

C/)

LLC)

cl: Uj LLJ LL. LL-

C)
Ine

LU

to
cv F4 cli C, m

(ZWLU/N)SS8-41SBAISSaidWoo

(jww/N)

SSOJIS 011su8j.

SCLO . rLL-

191
VI V) C) cal
o

(4

CY%

LIJ V) V)
LLJ

clLLJ

V)

LL. ui LLJ LL-

V) LLJ

-do
Ln cn a Cj Zri cli 6 cn
:3 Cko . rLL-

(Ztuw/N) SSaJjS BAtssaidwoo

(im/N)

SSO-41S OLSUOI

cu S-

C/1) V) C)
(D W) c
Go

r
Ch

Ch

LLJ C/) V)
LLJ

CL. LLI

V)

-4 M: C/)

x : 4

LL. 0

LLJ LLJ

C-)

LL.

V) Od LLI

UD cli m aLSual

(2wul/N) SSOJIS BAISOidwoo

ssaJ'4s

tko

192
V) Ln

r4
V) LLI
V) V) LLJ

0LLJ

V)

V)
1-4 X 93C 1-4

LL.

C:: uj LLJ LL. LL. P-4 I-V) LLJ

F-

%. D UD 6i Fi C) cu tn C%j C m So LL-

(ZUU/N) SSDJ'4s DAISS8.1dwoo

(Ztuu'/N) SSOJIS BLPUBI

V)

V) C) ce L)

(..J U") I II I I-. U)

V) V)

LLJ

LLJ V) V) < 1-4 1-4

LLC)
C)

ce LLJ 2=
uj U-

V) LLJ

LO

UD

t%J

---.

U)

C I-

3fl

C C'J

IS) C.J

0 r)

Oa . ILL.

193
V) C:)
I4 U
" " "

ui V)
= LU 0::
LU ULL. 9--4

F..

c,J a "U
I-

t-.

"-

u
LO
U. i il:

v3

b--4 ><

LLJ cm

:Z<i

CD.

w U-

V) Lti

(n LU :>
LLJ

co
F4 (2 uJW/N) ssails aAissaiduioj Z\i A (2 ww/N) SSOJIS GLIsual
CLO . IU-

V) L/) C)
r

C Ln
T

co

0: m

m CD

cz

V)
LLJ

Ln V) LLI

U-1 M I

im

V) CC
X

LL.

CD
C)

LAJ UU-

V) f-4 LLJ

CY

cm

Pm;

;211:

Z: (ZM/N)

(ZtuLU/N) Ssg-Als DAssaidwo: )

SSOJIS BLIsual

SDO . ILL.

194
V) (A C> cr_l I)
G ko

ckl.: < LLJ V)

LLI
(n V) LLJ W LLJ C: ui LLLL. 1-4

V--4 Xm

0LLJ

<
U-

c -c:

0 LU LU LL. UF--q
F-4 V)

V)

<
V) LLJ :: LLJ

V) 1-4

ui

Lm

F-

-J

CD r-

cli
(z UU/N) SSa. A4S BAtssajdwoo

CD cm

4
W 00 Ir. LL.

(ZwLLIN) $SO-4s OLtsua. L

C/) En C)
C>
C5

w < LLJ

19 cm

C>

V)
LLJ tn V) LLJ Cd uj w LLJ LLLL-

1-4

LLJ I=

LLC)

X: M! LLJ LLLL. 1-4

IV) V) LLJ :: LLJ

U)

co

V)

LLJ

0) LO
W-64

4
d) S00 . r. LL.

(ZWW/N) SSaJjS DAissaidwoo

(jm1N)

sSO-Als OL; Sua. L

195

16tw T I-

16t

1: t
b

___j

Lts

Figure 4.71

EFFECTIVE SECTION OF TRANSVERSE STIFFENER ACCORDING TO BS 5400.

Figure

4.72

TO STIFFENER FORCES DUE TO TENSION FIELDS ACCORDING

BS 5400.

196

CHAPTER 5 STIFFENER DESIGN APPROACH FOR PLATES IN SHEAR.

197

5.1

INTRODUCTION

At this time no simple design procedure exists to evaluate an economic stiffener for stiffened plates loaded in shear. For this reason, the parametric study results, presented in chapter 3 have been used to provide the background for a, simple design model which is safe and economic and gives an accurate representation Section 5.2, presents of the physical behaviour of the stiffener. the distribution of lateral forces from the finite element modelling, at the stiffener position, for a variety of plate geometries. Due to the difference in form of these distributions with aspect ratio, an approximate unified distribution is suggested in section 5.3 to represent the distribution of forces on the stiffener for any aspect 5.4 describes Section the basis for choosing a safe optimum ratio. for the transverse stiffener for any stiffened plate of rigidity aspect ratio and panel slenderness X. Section 5.5, presents the design approach for the transverse stiffeners based on a simple beam model subjected to a sine distributed load. An empirical expression has been established to relate the shear stresses acting on the stiffened web to the lateral load intensity on the simple beam model. At the end of this chapter, the maximum stresses and lateral displacement of the stiffener outstand evaluated from the new beam approach are compared with those obtained from the finite element analysis at any level of shear stress. S. 2 DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL STIFFENER POSITION LOADS AT THE

In section 4.6, it was shown that the variation of axial stresses through the depth of the stiffener and along its length for stiffened plates with idealised unrestrained boundaries is similar in form to the stresses relating to a laterally loaded simply The zero stress axis is always close to the supported beam. neutral axis of the effective stiffener section. For this reason it was felt that the transverse stiffeners of stiffened plates subjected to shear loadings could be modelled as a simply supported beam subjected to a lateral distributed load. The simplified single stiffener plate model with unrestrained edges examined in the finite element study has been discussed in It is impossible with this model, some detail in chapter 3. however, to identify the magnitude and distribution of lateral load applied by the panel to the stiffener. In order to obtain this force ' distribution, a simplified analytical model has been used in which

198
line by has been nodal the stiffener a non-deflecting replaced lateral distribution the reactions to the and magnitude of allowing be determined at any level of shear stresses. This model suffers from the possible disadvantage that it ignores the effect of distribution but force flexibility and magnitude on the stiffener this effect would not be expected to be large if the stiffened plate has a stiffener rigidity which still essentially maintains the panel boundary and with which, even at the peak load of the stiffened be It limited deflects by will the amount. a very stiffener panel, if in later the optimum rigidity of the this that chapter shown displacement lateral is the of the used, maximum stiffener be less than the thickness of the web plate. always will stiffener Another important reason which demonstrates this point is shown (5-1-5.4). figures in The graphs show a comparison clearly between the average stress-strain curve of a plate with a nondeflecting nodal line and that with a stiffener of optimum rigidity for plates of panel slenderness X= 180 and aspect ratios =0.5, The graphs show an excellent 1.0,1.5 and 2.0 respectively. correlation between the two curves for any plate geometry. This demonstrates the fact that these two stiffened plates have similar behaviours in spite of the limited flexibility of the stiffener. Figures (5.5-5.8) show the distribution of lateral loads monitored levels different shear stress at on the nodal line of the stiffened plate model of aspect ratio 0=0.5 and plate slenderness X= 60, 120,180 The critical initial imperfection and 240 respectively. mode (P5) has been used. This distribution was expected for this aspect ratio because with an initial imperfection mode (P5), the buckles are towards the stiffener outstand in the centre region of the stiffener and away from the outstand at the edges as shown previously in the contours of figures (3.13-3.15). Figures (5.9-5.20) show the above distribution for aspect ratios = 1.0,1.5 and 2.0 and panel slenderness 60,120,180 240. The and critical initial imperfection mode (P3) has been used for these In most figures, it can be seen that for each aspect aspect ratios. ratio, there is a tendency for the form of the distribution of lateral forces to be similar for all slenderness values at any level of shear 2.0 are notable 1.5 and stress. The X= 180 case for exceptions to this. Figures (5.21-5.24) show the effect of plate slenderness on the magnitude of the maximum lateral force (not necessarily at the midspan of the stiffener) at the stiffener location for plates of Except for 0.5, the graphs 2.0. aspect ratio =0.5,1.0,1.5 and

199 lateral force increases level that the at any show of shear stress, be it but the seen that except clearly can panel slenderness, with for X value of 60, the lateral force magnitude is almost It is clear that the independent of X for a given aspect ratio. difference of the initial imperfection mode has some influence on the =0.5 case. If the distributions of lateral loads for different aspect ratios are irregular forms. it be have different they that can seen compared, This of course reflects the number and form of the web buckles which is influenced by panel shape. For design purposes, it is distribution to the simplify simpler model for every aspect ratio so that a unified distribution can be assumed to represent the forces at the stiffener for any plate geometry. The major consideration is whether too much loss of accuracy results but, it in be the next section that adjusting the force magnitude seen will can compensate for differences in force distribution. 5.3 REPRESENTATION STIFFENER OF LATERAL FORCES ACTING ON THE

The exact distribution of lateral forces on the transverse stiffeners due to web buckles is now clearly defined. Since the purpose of this study was to provide an accurate understanding of the behaviour of transverse stiffeners and to propose a simple design model suitable for formulation into "a code of practice, " it is essential to generalise the approach to the distribution of forces on the stiffeners for every aspect ratio. In other words, a well defined distribution should preferably be assumed which has an irregular finite element effect corresponding to that of the distribution. The results naturally lead to two different simplified lateral load functions, a sine function with two half waves corresponding to aspect ratios of 0=0.5 and 1.0 and the other with one half wave relating to aspect ratios of 0=1.5 and 2.0. This would lead to two different expressions relating the intensity of the lateral loads acting on the simple beam model to the shear stress acting on the stiffened plate. Having two discrete functions would complicate the design process in the transition region and it was and lead to difficulties therefore decided to explore the possibility of using one function for the entire range of aspect ratios. Both two wave and single wave alternatives were tried for the representation of the force distribution on the stiffener but the simple sine function shown in

200 figure 5.25 produced more than acceptable correlations. To examine its validity, comparisons have been made between the results obtained from the finite element analysis and the sine beam including model force combined supported with a simply Figures (5.26-5.29) show the effective width defined previously. force F acting on the relationship between the maximum lateral fthe stiffener and the maximum displacement at the stiffener position for stiffened plates of panel slenderness X= 180 and If these aspect ratios =0.5,1.0,1.5 and 2.0 respectively. comparisons are studied, it can be deduced that: The sine model is conservative for aspect ratio 0=0.5 which is expected because if a simply supported beam is subjected to the finite element lateral forces shown in figures (5.5-5.8) the deflections will be smaller than that of a beam under the sine distributed load for the same maximum lateral force F. It should be noted that the maximum force due to the sine model is the intensity of the distributed load beam model multiplied by the spacing of the eight noded element along the line of the stiffener direction. 2the above comparison is made it can be aspect ratio 0=1.0, correlation exists between the two difference in form between the sine finite element analysis. For If for stiffened plates of seen that an excellent curves in spite of the model and that of the

3-

aspect ratios 0=1.5 and 2.0, the deflection in the stiffener from the finite element results is bigger than that This of the sine model for any level of lateral force F. difference is largest for aspect ratio 0=2.0.

In this comparison it should be remembered that other more complex actions will be present in the real behaviour which cannot be accurately modelled by the simple sine loading functions. It can be concluded that it is possible to represent the destabilizing effects of the web on the transverse stiffener by a simple beam model subjected to a half sine wave lateral load, although with the load magnitude defined directly by the finite element results, the process will be conservative for 0=0.5 and It will be shown later that the results nonconservative for =2.0. for 0=2.0 can be improved by adjusting an empirical expression relating the intensity of the sine load with the level of shear

201 has results reasonable very The this produced of outcome stress. for any stiffened plate geometry. 5.4 DESIGN OPTIMUM STIFFENERS RIGIDITY FOR TRANSVERSE

5.4.1 Introduction
different introduced have decade, last several In the researchers definitions for the optimum rigidity of web stiffeners in order to in design. limit state methods cope with Skaloud(5-1) defined the optimum rigidity as the minimum value of y which ensures that the stiffener under the relative rigidity the to the of capacity rigid up ultimate remains consideration stiffened plate. (5.2) introduced the optimum rigidity Grayson as the minimum increase in the of rate stiffened plate capacity with value at which increase in ys becomes relatively small. Returning to figures (3.48-3.51) which show the variation of in stiffener shear plate capacity with variation maximum stiffened Skaloud in the the the and results context of rigidity and viewing Grayson criteria, it would be difficult to identify a unique rigidity from either criterion for any particular case. For this reason, a introduced is interpretation definition with a simpler physical new in this section to identify the ideal optimum rigidity for transverse the By definition design of this the rigidity adopting stiffeners. deduced been has for full range of stiffened plate a stiffeners Finally, the effect of yield stress on the optimum geometries. for stiffeners plates of the same aspect ratio and panel of rigidity is also presented. slenderness 5.4.2 Design for

philosophy

the

optimum

rigidity

In section (3.3.6), the effect of the stiffener rigidity parameter on the behaviour of the stiffened plate was presented. It was shown in figures (3.60-3.69) that when the dimensions of the stiffener in defined this chapter, the correspond to the optimum rigidity stiffener remains essentially rigid and restricts the transfer of web buckles from one panel to another.

202 To formulate a defined basis for the optimum rigidity, a stiffener failure criterion has to be adopted. The simplest possible, which will be shown to be conservative, corresponds to first yield of the extreme fibre stress in the stiffener. Figures (5.30-5.45) show the variation of ultimate shear stress 'Cu of the stiffened panel with the variation of the stiffener rigidity parameter ys for stiffened plates of aspect ratio 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 60,120,180 and 2.0 and panel slenderness X= and 240 In these figures, the variation of extreme fibre respectively. stress in the stiffener outstand CTewith the rigidity parameter y, at the peak shear capacity of the stiffened plate is also shown. These figures indicate that for low ys there is generally a significant increase in the plate ultimate capacity with increase in stiffener rigidity, whereas, the extreme fibre stress cr, in the stiffener remains constant and equal to the yield stress of the stiffener Beyond point A on the (ae, ys) curve, there is a rapid material. decrease in the value of (Te with increase of ys whilst, the increase of 'CUis negligible. Denoting the stiffener rigidity corresponding to point A as yo, it can therefore be concluded that if ys < yo first yield at the extreme fibre of the stiffener occurs before the plate ultimate shear capacity is reached. Whereas, if ys > yo, the plate reaches its ultimate shear capacity before the extreme fibre of the stiffener yields. Hence, with this simple failure criterion it is possible to define an optimum rigidity for any plate geometry. exactly It can be concluded that the stiffener optimum rigidity yo is defined as the value where the first yield of the stiffener occurs at the same load as the stiffened panel ultimate shear stress. This criterion of course needs relating to the simple laterally loaded beam model and this is considered in section 5.5. 5.4.3 Effect

of

yield

stress

on

the

optimum

rigidity

In section (3.3.7), it was concluded that even if shear stress was in term of the yield stress, the expressed non -dimensionally maximum lateral force acting on the stiffener and consequently the maximum displacement of the stiffener increase with increase in yield stress for plates having the same aspect ratio and panel slenderness X.

203

In the previous sub-section, the stiffener optimum rigidities for a full range of plate geometries have been obtained for plates with a In this section, the value of material yield stress of 275N/mm2. is checked for plates of aspect ratio =1.0 the optimum rigidity 180 but with yield stresses of 240 and and panel slenderness X= 355 N/mm2.

Figures (5.46-5.47) show the variation of ultimate shear stress ru fibre the extreme stress in the stiffener outstand Ge with the and ys for the plates under study. The yo which stiffener rigidity corresponds to the plate with the same and X but with a yield stress cry = 275N/mM2 has been shown before in figure 5.36.
The optimum therefore: stiffener rigidities for the various yield stresses are

For crY = 240 N/mM2 For aY = 275 N/mM2 For ay = 355 N/mM2

yo yo 70

150.10 147.70 179.59

The corresponding stiffener dimensions for the different stresses under consideration are given as follows:
For crY = 240 N/mM2 For (YY = 275 N/mM2 For ay = 355 N/mM2 It Ds Ds Ds 95. Omm 100. Omm I 15.Omm Ts = 9.5mm Ts = IO. Omm Ts = 11.50mm

yield

should be remembered that for a given X value, as (Ty varies, the plate thickness will vary and hence the y value will not only be a function of the change of stiffener size.

Therefore, it can be concluded that for plates of the same aspect V3 '6 Y ratio 0 and panel slenderness A=bY as the yield stress 5=5 t, increases, the optimum dimensions also increase, stiffener whereas, there is no consistency in the variation of the optimum It is worth mentioning here, that the proposal rigidity y.. introduced by Horne and Grayson(5.3) for finding the optimum rigidity y,,y was not a function of the yield stress ay. Since their formula was based on analytical results for stiffened plates with yield stress (Yy = 355N/mM2, their formula could be considered conservative for yield stresses less than this value.

204

it is clear therefore that the stiffener loading, resulting stress and deflection and the optimum stiffener dimensions vary with the for design Since the the of proposal new value of yield stress. transverse stiffeners is based on a beam model, the design requirements are not rigidities but stiffener dimensions which will obviously be affected by the variation of the above parameters identify it Hence, to the nonessential stress. with yield was dimensional parameter which controls the yield stress function. Since most of the study is concerned with plates with ay = 275 N/mM2' the non-dimensional parameter suggested is referred to this value of yield stress. By studying the results of the analyses, it has been deduced that for any level of non-dimensional shear stress c', and for any yield stress cry, the stiffener loading F(,, and the resulting stress (yc(CY) Y) 7((, deflection can be obtained from the corresponding and Y) graphs for the 275 N/mM2 cases by multiplying them by the nondimensional parameter cc given by (f5 3/2 (5.1) a ................ ............. then
( 7,3/2 y 275) ................ 3/2

7-5 (f5
6e 17e(27 5)

........

......

..

(b)

(5.2)

V(Co

(2(75)
=

3/2 V(2

7 5)

............

.........

(C)

where Fayp F275, are the maximum lateral forces acting on the stiffener for the ay and 275 N/mM2 cases respectively at the same shear stress r'.
Oe(cry)g 'OC(275) outstand for the I It . are ay the and extreme 275 cases fibre Stresses in at the the stiffener stress

respectively

same

Y(Cry), Y(275) are the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener for the ay and 275 cases respectively at the same shear stress r'.

205 To check the reliability of this non-dimensional parameter a, 180 X= and aspect ratios stiffened plates with a panel slenderness (5.48-5.51) Figures 2.0 =0.5,1.0,1.5 are considered. and between indicate the the non-dimensional shear relationships for F force lateral the above plate stress r' and the maximum (5.52N/MM2. Figures 240 geometries with a yield stress of ay = 5.55) correspond to plates of the same 0 and X but with a yield figures, 355 In N/mM2. two the curves are of each stress of (TY = drawn, one shows the finite element relationship for the actual from deduced the the the relation second shows yield stress and be 5.2(a). It N/mM2 275 seen can equation case using reference that excellent agreement exists in all the figures. Figures (5.56-5.57) check the validity of the non-dimensional lateral displacement for the the of of the evaluation a parameter for fibre in the the extreme stress and stiffener outstand stiffener 240 stress of a yield compared with that evaluated with a plate from the 275 case using equations 5.2 (b, c), for a plate of aspect ratio =1.0 and panel slenderness X =180. The dimensions of the 100. Omm Ds and Ts = 10.0mm correspond to = stiffener selected the optimum rigidity of the stiffener for the 275 N/mM2 case. Figures (5.58-5.59) demonstrate the validity of cc for the yield for 355 N/mM2 the plate having the same aspect ratio stress of It slenderness. can be concluded that an excellent and panel for the evaluation of deflections also exists and correlation for the stiffener any yield stress cry, of stresses in Therefore, the non-dimensional this parameter cc suggested for be finding the lateral forces and the resulting used section, can stress and defl ection in the stiffener for any stiffened plate of known X, if these and panel slenderness aspect ratio values are for the equivalent stiffened plate with a yield stress of 275 N/mm 2 It should be remembered that the variables should be level the same at obtained of shear stress r'. 5.5 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS BASED ON A SIMPLE BEAM MODEL

In order to achieve a full modelling of a stiffener, an expression is needed to relate the intensity of the lateral load acting on the simple beam to the shear stress acting on the stiffened plate.

206 In designed, the are practice, stiffeners FC--F, panel aspect ratio 0 and plate slenderness A=b are chosen twV3 5'5 to suit the positions of the cross girders in the bridge and also the Thus, , X and the shear strength requirements for the panels. length of the stiffener b will therefore be known before the stiffeners are designed and can be included in the expression relating the intensity of the lateral load with the shear stress r. before the transverse To understand how and whether the intensity of the beam model w is affected by the variation of the above parameters, the deflections and bending moment for a simply supported beam Xx subjected to a sine distributed load w=w..,, are first evaluated b and are given by,
MS Imax 2b2 Xb sin XX (a)

...
sin 4 7r XX (b) .

(53)

where wmax is the maximum

intensity

of the lateral load

Ms is the bending moment at any section located at a distance x from the support. deflection the corresponding at the same location. moment of inertia of the section about an axis passing through its centroid. The m4ximum stress Ge at this section due to M is given by.
ms

ae

b Wmax x Ir sin .......... b 7r2

(5.4)

From equations (5.3) and (5.4), it can be deduced that for a beam b a span and fixed section properties, the maximum intensity with of lateral load wmax is directly proportional to the resulting In other words, the lateral force, stresses stresses and deflection. and deflections will be a similar function of the governing parameters. It has been shown in chapter three, that the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener increases with increase of and X for The deflection stiffened plates with a particular stiffener rigidity.

207 load intensity lateral therefore, the the w of the beam and of model, should also increase with 0 and X. From the current finite element parametric study, an approximate empirical relation has been derived to relate w and r with other effective parameters given by,
W N/mm' Tay Ir X

ry where

52.0

75)3/2

sin .

....... b

(5.5)

intensity of the sine distributed load at any distance x WN/mm' = from the support. shear stress for stiffened plates with 'r/'CY = non-dimensional unrestrained boundary conditions
The term (Gy/275)3/2 which was introduced in the previous section has been included in the expression to take into account the effect of yield stress, because the parametric study used to form the above relation was based on stiffened plates with a yield stress of For consistency with BS5400 (Part 3), the above 275 N/mM2 . term has been changed to refer to the ay = 355 yield stress to produce the modified relation below,
' W NI mm

(
":

A b
35.5

3/2 (T5T5 ). ay

sin

Ir x
....... b

(5.7)

with
WmaxI

3b

A 35.5 y 355

)312

-rry

It should also be mentioned that as the expression is dimensional, it is important to use consistent dimensions throughout the analysis. If a and X are kept constant and b varied, the expression For any plate geometry still gives the same rigidity parameter y, (cy and X), this expression produces a constant stiffener rigidity irrespective of the value of b. To use the beam model to define an optimum rigidity, the failure criterion mentioned in the context of the finite element results, corresponding to the first yield of the extreme fibre of the stiffener will be adopted. It can be demonstrated that the entire relationship works most accurately for X= 180, but will overpredict the lateral force for X=

208 240 and is hence generally conservative. the other panel slendernesses. 5.6 COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE AND SIMPLE BEAM MODEL It is also reasonable for

ELEMENT

ANALYSIS

Comparisons have been made with the finite element results to in beam the the model and particular, the check validity of failure derived lateral load the expression and empirically It has been assumed that the effective beam model criterion. section includes a width of plate equal to sixteen times the plate thickness on each side of the stiffener as specified in BS5400 (Part 3). Figures (5.60-5.75) between the shear show the relationship stress r acting on the stiffened plate and the maximum lateral displacement 7 obtained from the finite element analysis and the The stiffened plates simple beam model using equation (5.7). used for this expression have an aspect ratio 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 and 2.0 and panel slenderness 60,120,180 and 240. The stiffener for every case corresponds to the optimum rigidity rigidity parameter from the finite element results defined in section 5.4. The yield stress used for these plates is ay = 275 N/mM2. Figures (5.76-5.91) demonstrate similar comparisons for the extreme fibre If these comparisons are stress ae in the stiffener outstand. following the carefully, studied conclusions can be drawn, For aspect ratio 0=0.5, the beam model is slightly nonconservative for low shear stress values. As far as design is the dimensions concerned, are usually of stiffeners determined for the ultimate shear capacity of the web panels and therefore, this will not affect the final stiffener dimensions. 2. For stocky panels with X= 60, irrespective of the panel aspect ratio, the beam model is significantly conservative. This is due to the fact that the amplitude of the buckles in such panels is small and therefore, the beam model is misrepresenting the behaviour of the stiffeners for these however be Final design will panel slendernesses. conservative if the beam model is used. The results show in general that stiffeners have little effect in this range.

209 3. For any other plate geometry, there is good and in many between the finite cases excellent element correlation results and the beam model. of the model when the yield 240 and 355). The stiffener Good optimum rigidities. finite element analysis.

Figures (5.92-5.95) check the validity stress of the material varies (cry = rigidities also correspond to the correlation exists compared with the
Figure

5.96 shows the comparison between the optimum rigidity from the finite obtained element analysis and the beam model. This comparison for stiffened shows that good agreement exists X =60,120,180. For stiffened panels of panel slenderness plates X= 240, the yo evaluated from of panel slenderness the beam is larger from than the value obtained model the finite element Although in rigidity for this difference analysis. seems significant it does not have some aspect ratios, a major effect on the dimensions of the stiffeners.

5.7

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A simple linear beam model has been proposed for the design of transverse stiffeners in girder webs subjected to shear loading. The model is loaded by a sinusodial distributed lateral load which is a function of the shear stress level applied to the stiffened web. A non-dimensional yield function has been identified to take into account the effect of the variation of yield stresses, and has been incorporated in the beam model expression. A simple design criterion of first stiffener outstand yield provides a method of All stages of the establishing an optimum stiffener rigidity. development of this design model have been validated against load non-linear finite ultimate element analyses and the comparisons have been shown to be generally excellent.

210

5.8

REFERENCES

5.1 - Skaloud, M., 1983 "Optimum Rigidity of Stiffeners of Webs Strength Stability Structures, Flanges", Plated and and Science Publishers, (edited by R Narayanan), Applied London. 5.2 - Grayson, W. R., 1981, "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels", Ph.D Thesis, University of Manchester. 5.3 - Horne, M. R. and Grayson, W. R., 1983 "Parametric Finite Element Study of Transverse Stiffeners for Webs in Shear", Instability and plastic collapse of steel structures, (edited by LJ Morris), Granada Publishing, London, pp. 329-341. 5.4 - British Standard Institution, 1982, Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges, BS 5400: Part 3, BSI.

211
TI 0.8

0.7

0. E

0. E

r_ .00.4

0.2

0.1

0.0 r_ 0.0

V. U

V. 0 1.u I. Z 1.4 Nondimensional shear strain y'

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2 yly

Figure

5.1

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE AVERAGE STRESS-STRAIN CURVE OF PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THATWITH AN OPTIMUM RIGIDITY STIFFENER PARAMETER.

T. O. E

0.

U, 0) 41

0.

LM

c) 0. '. -5 0.4

0. '

0. ( Nondimenslonal shear strain y' y/y y

Figure 5.2

COMPARISON STRESS-STRAIN CURVE OF BETWEEN THE AVERAGE PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THATWITH AN OPTIMUM RIGIDITY STIFFENER PARAMETER.

212
TI O. E

0..;

s
10

OJ
0.

10

0.: 0.;

zc

0.

0.0 L 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Nondimensional shear strain y'

2.2 y/y

Figure 5.3

THE AVERAGE OF BETWEEN STRESS-STRAIN CURVE COMPARISON RIGIDITY PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THAT WITH AN OPTIMUM PARAMETER. STIFFENER

,r9

0. i

0. 0.
.

0.

(L,

z=

0.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2 shear strain

1.4 y'

1.6

1.8

2.0

Nondimensional

Z. Z -Y/y,

Figure

5.4

CURVE OF STRESS-STRAIN COMPARISON BETWEEN THE AVERAGE RIGIDITY PLATEWITH A NODAL LINE AND THATWITH AN OPTIMUM STIFFENER PARAMETER.

213
-F x 103 is

10
2

10

-0.5 Initial

X-

60

imperfection mode (P5)

tn

10
15

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

20 Fx 102

Figure

5.5

FINITE

ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS. STIFFENER

_F x 103 12

2
a, 0
S.. 0 5C 50, C 0

0.5

A- 120 imperfection mode (P5)

a, a, '44V.

Initial 8

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

12

16 Fx 103

Figure 5.6

FINITE

ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCES AT THE

SHEAR LEVELS. STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT

214

x 103 12

10

$-0.5 Initial 8

X- 180 (P5) imperfection mode.

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

12

16 Fx 103

Figure 5.7

FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS. STIFFENER

-F x 103 12

2'
0 U 0

4Iw

oC
4b- 0.5 X- 240
imperfection mode (PS)

0) C 0) 44(I)

Initial

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

I: Fx 103

Figure 5.8

FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCES AT THE

SHEAR LEVELS. STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT

215

_F x 103 8

o g;

6-'='

0
-1.0 Initial 12 X- 60 imperfection mode (P3)

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

16 3 Fx 10

Figure 5.9

FINITE ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL AT THE FORCES STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.

x1

5;
a, U I0

C a, C Ia, C a, U4-

6-1.0 Initial

A- 120 Imperfection mode (P3)

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

xI

Figure 5.10

FINITE

ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

SHEAR STIFFENER LEVELS. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT

216

_F x 103

12 4-

S-

ll,

4-1.0
4-

), - 180
imperfection mode (P3)

Initial

vi

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

Fx

10

Figure 5.11

FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCES AT THE

STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.

x 10 8

a 0)

4, - 1.0 Initial

A- 240 imperfection mode (P3)

4-

V)

12

F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

16 Fx 103

Figure 5.12

FINITE

ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

STIFFENER SHEAR LEVELS. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT

217

x 103 4

2
U I. 0

0 1 0 0

-1.5 Initial

A- 60 imperfection mode 03)

0 C 0 49-

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

v)

if Fx 102

Figure 5.13

FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCES AT THE

POSITIONFORDIFFERENT STIFFENER SHEAR LEVELS.

_F x 103

$-1.5 Initial
Ile

X-

120

imperfection mode (P3)

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

if Fx 103

Figure 5.14

FINITE

ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

SHEAR STIFFENER LEVELS. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT

218

Jx

103

v 4-1.5 Initial 12 A180 imperfection mode (M)

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

16 Fx 103

Figure 5.15

FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCES AT THE

STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.

-F x1

2
U 0 -

V V I0) C U -

4D - 1.5
Initial

A- 240
Imperfection mode (P3)

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

xI

Figure 5.16

FINITE

ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

STIFFENER SHEAR LEVELS. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT

219

x1

5;
w 0 I. 0

I.

$-2.0
C

X- 60
imperfection mode (P3)

Initial

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

Figure 5.17

FINITE ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCES AT THE

STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.

-F x

5;

.0

-2.0 Initial

A- 120 imperfection mode (P3)

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

Fxl

Figure 5.18

FINITE

ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.

220

3Ak -F x 10

U 90

4P - 2.0 Initial

X- 180 imperfection mode (P3)

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

Fx

3 10

Figure 5.19

FINITE

ELEMENTDISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCES AT THE

SHEAR LEVELS. POSITIONFORDIFFERENT STIFFENER

x1

2
0 I0

0 L. 0 0

0-2.0 Initial

X- 240 imperfection mode (P3)

0 C 0

.4-,

( F) Force toward outstand (-F) Force away from outstand

1
x 11

Figure 5.20

FINITE

ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF

LATERAL FORCESAT THE

STIFFENER POSITIONFORDIFFERENT SHEAR LEVELS.

221

1.

0.

g-

0.

0.

t$

iu reaction

14

14 (N)

10

1 ts

zu

zz FX

10

Maximum lateral

at the stiffener

Figure 5.21

ON THE MAGNITUDE OF PLATESLENDERNESS EFFECT OF THE LATERAL POSITION. AT THE STIFFENER REACTION

TI

1.

0.

1-

5; 0.
M c

0.

0.

Maximum lateral

reaction at the stiffener

(N)

Figure 5.22

EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS OF THE LATERAL ON THE MAGNITUDE REACTION AT THE STIFFENER POSITION.

222

I. C

O.E
0

O. f

0.4

0.2

0.0L 0

ts

lu reaction

1z

14 (N)

16

18

20

Fx

3 10

Maximum lateral

at the stiffener

Figure 5.23

ON THE MAGNITUDE OF PLATESLENDERNESS EFFECT OF THE LATERAL POSITION. AT THE STIFFENER REACTION

1' 1.

0.

0 V
I-

0.

0.
rx Maximum lateral reaction at the stiffener (N) ju

Figure 5.24

EFFECT OF PLATESLENDERNESS OF THE LATERAL ON THE MAGNITUDE REACTION AT THE STIFFENER POSITION.

223

Figure 5.25

SIMPLYSUPPORTED BEAM SUBJECTED TO A SINE DISTRIBUTED LOAD.

224

Fx 103 16 14

12 0 60 10
u

8
4.

0 6

0.5 tial

Ximperfection

'180 mode (P5)

- 193.80 * 10 2 * Finite element analysis

Beam model

0 Figure 5.26

234567 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON MODEL.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

Fx 103 14

2
IL,

12

10

Ximperfection . 70

180 mode (P3)

rm

inite

element

analysis

eam model

12345 Stiffener maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.27

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM MODEL.

225

3 Fx 10 12 2 10

XImperfection 16 Inite 2

180 mode (P3)

element

analysis

eam model

v14j4b7 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.28

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON MODEL.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

3 Fx 10 12

00

u 49 ,Z

AImperfection 80

180 mode (P3)

inite

element

analysis

eam model

UIz34 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.29

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE MODEL.

RESULTSANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT

226

0,
Tu

cli I
XIA IA A, I4., V)

60 mode (P5) stress outstand capacity in

imperfection xtreme tensile

he stiffener Itimate shear

U3by09 Stiffener rigidity

lz parameter

15

Ys

Figure 5.30

SHEAR OF ULTIMATE VARIATION STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND WITH THE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY.

C',
V, d) L. 41 gn

AImperfection xtreme

120 mode (PS) stress outstand capacity in

tensile

he stiffener Itimate shear

60

120 Stiffener

180 rigidity

240 parameter

300

Ys

Figure 5.31

AND EXTREME VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE STRESS STRESS IN THE SHEAR STIFFENER RIGIDITY. OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

227

ce TU

c'J

X-

180 mode (PS) stress outstand capacity in

4 vi

qu S-

Imperfection xtreme tensile

he stiffener Itimate shear

60

120 Stiffener

180Yo rigidity

240 parameter

300

Ys

Figure 5.32

SHEAR OF ULTIMATE STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE VARIATION OUTSTAND WITH THE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY.

0e
T u

Cj E
), - 240 imperfection
41 tn

mode (P5) stress outstand capacity in

Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear

150

300 Stiffener

450 ya rigidity

600 parameter

750

Is

Figure 5.33

STRESS IN THE AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

228

Ce Tu

Xj -. ul

60 mode M) stress outstand capacity in

imperfection ctreme tensile

ie stiffener Itimate shear

0123 Stiffener

yo

45 parameter

rigidity

Figure 5.34

SHEAR OF ULTIMATE STRESS VARIATION AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND WITH THE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY.

Xw I1/)

120 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

imperfection xtreme tensile

he stiffener Itimate shear

15

30

45 y0 Stiffener

60 rigidity

75 parameter

90

YS

Figure 5.35

ANDEXTREME STRESS IN THE VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE STRESS SHEAR RIGIDITY. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

229

Ce Tu

cli
XC, I4.. U)

180 mode M) stress outstand capacity in

Imperfection xtreme tensile

he stiffener Itimate shear

bu

lzu

yo Stiffener

180 rigidity

240 parameter

300

Ys

Figure 5.36

VARIATION OF ULTIMATE SHEAR STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND STIFFENER WITHTHE STIFFENER RIGIDITY.

Tu

CC E
z
1

Ximperfection treme

240 mode M) stress outstand capacity in

tensile

e stiffener timate shear

Cvu

Yo jUU Stiffener

400 rigidity

500 parameter

600

Ys

Figure 5.37

VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE ANDEXTREME STRESS STRESS IN THE SHEAR STIFFENER RIGIDITY. OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

230

Cre TU

C%j E
I60 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

14

imperfection Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear

02Y03456 Stiffener rigidity parameter

Ys

Figure 5.38

SHEAR STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OF ULTIMATE VARIATION WITHTHE STIFFENER OUTSTAND RIGIDITY. STIFFENER

a e

CJ[

X0 0

120 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

w IU,

imperfection Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear

Stiffener

rigidity

parameter

Figure 5.39

THE IN STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

231

Ce Tu

CC E I-

Ximperfection

180 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

Ktreme tensile he stiffener Itimate shear

3U

bU

qu Stiffener

lzu rigidity

lbu parameter

180

Y,

Figure 5.40

SHEAR OF ULTIMATE VARIATION STRESS ANDEXTREME STRESS IN THE OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER STIFFENER RIGIDITY.

ae Tu

or E
Xa, I.
4., U. )

240 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

imperfection ctreme tensile

ie stiffener Itimate shear

75

150 ya Stiffener

225 rigidity

300 parameter

375

Ys

Figure 5.41

VARIATIONOF ULTIMATE AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE STRESS SHEAR STIFFENER RIGIDITY. OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

232

Xa a I-

60 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

Imperfection treme tensile

e stiffener timate thear

yo 23456 Stiffener rigidity parameter

YS

Figure 5.42

SHEAR STRESS STRESS IN THE AND EXTREME OF ULTIMATE VARIATION WITH THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND RIGIDITY. STIFFENER

ae T

tv E
120 tion mode M) stress outstand capacity in

tensile ffener e shear

05

10

15

20 yo 25 Stiffener rigidity

30 parameter

35

YS

Figure 5.43

THE IN STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATION SHEAR OF ULTIMATE RIGIDITY. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

233

ae

cli
180
U, I

w I.

lion

mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

tensile Ffener a shear

20

40

60 Stiffener

yo 80 rigidity

100 parameter

120

Ys

Figure 5.44

SHEAR STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS IN THE OF ULTIMATE VARIATION WITHTHE STIFFENER OUTSTAND RIGIDITY. STIFFENER

.ru

CC E
240
w I-

tion

mode (P3) stress outstand in

tensile ffener

e &hear capacity

60

120 Stiffener

ISO rigidity

240 parameter

300

YU

Figure 5.45

THE STRESS IN EXTREME AND VARIATION STRESS OF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

234

ae

pk ,-

TU 240 210

180

150 ev E
14U

A90 60

180

ay - 240 made (P3) stress outstand capacity in

perfection xtreme

tensile

he stiffener Itimate shear

30

OL 0

100

200 Stiffener

300 rigidity

400 parameter

YS

Figure 5.46

SHEAR STRESS OF ULTIMATE AND EXTREME VARIATION STRESS IN THE WITH THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND STIFFENER RIGIDITY.

Ge TU

c'J

In In U 1. I,,

X-

180

uy - 355 mode (P3) stress outstand capacity in

perfection xtreme

tensile

he stiffener Itimate shear

60

120

180 Stiffener

240 rigidity

300 parameter

360

Ys

Figure 5.47

IN THE STRESS AND EXTREME STRESS VARIATION OF ULTIMATE SHEAR RIGIDITY. STIFFENER OUTSTAND WITHTHE STIFFENER

235

TI

0.9 O.E 00

J-- M 0.4
0.

1-

180

n mode (P5) 0 N/MM2 0 N/mm2 eq. 5.2(a)

0.
i

0.0 L 0

40 Maximum lateral

ts

IV reaction

Iz at the stiffener

14 (N)

Ib Fx 103

Figure 5.48

OF THE NONDIM ENSIONAL VALIDITION YIELD PARAMETER THE FOR FORCE. LATERAL

O.E

0.3

ei
0M

0.4

X(L)

180

0...

i mode (P3) 2 ) N/MM ) N/mm2 eq. 5.2(a)

O.i

O-OL 0

2468 Maximum lateral

10

12 (N)

14

Fx 103

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 5.49

THE FOR YIELD PARAMETER VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL LATERAL FORCE.

236
.rI

0.8

0.7
0.6

0.5

0.4

X0.3

180

n mode (P3) 0 N/mm2

0.2 0.1

0 N/mm2 eq. 5.2(a)

O-OL 0

0 Maximum lateral

t$

lu

1z (N)

14

Fx 103

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 5.50

VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE FORCE. LATERAL

0.8

0.7

0.6
0.5

0.4 4 0.3 ,a St.

A-

180

n mode (P3) 0 N1mm2

0.2 0.1

0 N/mm2 eq. 5.2(a)

0.0 L 0

2468 Maximum lateral

10

12 (N)

14 Fx 103

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 5.51

VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE LATERAL FORCE.

237

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 19

.9

'0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 02 If u01U Maximum lateral Ila 14 (N) 10 Its zu zz Z4 Fx 103 reaction at the stiffener

Figure 5.52

VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE FORCE. LATERAL

0.8 0.7

0.6

'Z

0.4

0.2 0.1

0.0 E 0

2468 Maximum lateral

ID

12 (N)

14

16

18

20

22 Fx 103

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 5.53

VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE LATERAL FORCE.

238

0.8

0.7

s10

0.:

0. '

0.0 L 0

468 Maximum lateral reaction

ID

12 (N)

14

16

18

2D

Fx

3 10

at the stiffener

Figure 5.54

YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL FORCE. LATERAL

0.8 0.7

0. E

t-

M 0.2

X-

180

j!

0.:

n mode (P3) 2 5 M/mm 5 N/MM2 eq. 5.2(a)

0.:

0. '

0.0 L 0

2468 Maximum lateral

10

12 (N)

14

Fx 103

reaction at the stiffener

Figure 5.55

YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL LATERAL FORCE.

239

0 I. 0 IV 0 0 V C 0 V C V V C 0

X-

180

,n mode (P3) Ts - 10.00 N/mm2 ,0 N/mM2 eq 5.2(c) ,0

01234v Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.56

VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER FORTHE MAXIMUM LATERAL STIFFENER DISPLACEMENT.

O.E

0.

. 0

0. (

j2

0.:
0.:

0. '

0.0 L 0

50

100 Extreme fibre

150 stress at the stiffener

200 outstand

250 ') (N/.

300

350

oe

Figure 5.57

YIELD PARAMETER VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL FORTHE STIFFENER EXTREME FIBRE STRESS.

240

T1

0.

in
s-

0.

,;;

0.

0.

0 Stiffener

zj467 lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure

5.58

VALIDITION

OF THE NONDIMENSIONALYIELD

PARAMETER FOR THE

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT. STIFFENER MAXIMUM

O.E 0. ")

I-

a,
U.

U, a, a, U, -

I
0 V.

a,
.

0.: 0.4

0. ' 0.01 0

50

100 Extreme fibre

150 stress at the stiffener

200

250

300

350

outstand (N/mm')

a e

Figure 5.59

FORTHE VALIDITION OF THE NONDIMENSIONAL YIELD PARAMETER STIFFENER EXTREME FIBRE STRESS.

241

.r9j

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 _ 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Iz34 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

t analysis

Figure

5.60

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTSANDTHE BEAM

'rI
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1 0.0 234 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

analysis

Figure 5.61

RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON THE FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN APPROACH.

242

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

ysis

0.2 0.1 1 0.0 2345 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.62

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

0.9 0.8 0.7

Im
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1

ysis

0.0 K 0
Stiffener

234v maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.63

RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

243

1.0 0.9 0.8

0.7 0.6 0.5

t analysis
0.4 "a

0.3 0.2 0.1

0.0 L 0
Stiffener

234 maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.64

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

TI

,a

0234 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.65

COMPARISON RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM THE FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN APPROACH.

244

T' 0.

0.

tA

0
2

0.

0 Stiffener

zj47 lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.66

BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

TI

0.7

0.6

0.5 10
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0

Iz34 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.67

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT RESULTSANDTHE BEAM APPROACH.

245

'r

1.0 0.9 0.8

to

0.7 0.6

41

it 0.4 r 0 2-0.3 I

analysis

0.2 0.1 0.0 0 z347 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.68

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

'r

0.7

0.6

41

0. E

0.4

0.2

0.,

0.1

0.0 L 0
Stiffener

234v lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.69

COMPARISON THE FINITE BETWEEN APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

246

TI

0.7

O.f

.-M

0. i

0)

0.:

4
32

0.:

0. '

0.0 L 0
Stiffener

2347 lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure

5.70

BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON

ELEMENTRESULTS AND THE BEAM

APPROACH.

Ir

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0
Stiffener

234 lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure

5.71

RESULTSANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

247

0.9 0.8 0.7

0.5
0.4
0)

t analysis

:G0., c
0. 0.1

ME 0
Stiffener

234 maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.72

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

TI

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0. i

-5 'M
OJ

0. '

0.0 L 0

1234 Stiffener lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure 5.73

RESULTSANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT

APPROACH.

248

.rI

0.7

0.6

12

0.4

0.3 'U 0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0

Iz Stiffener

lateral maximum

.545 displacement (mm)

Figure

5.74

BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

.rI

0.7

0.6

0. E

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0
Stiffener

z34v maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 5.75

COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTSANDTHE BEAM THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

249

TI

1.0 0.9 W 0.8 0.7

.C 'A

0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1 0.0 60 120 ISO stress at-the 240 stiffener 300 outstand 360 (N/mm2) ae Extreme fiber

4!

t analysis

Figure 5.76

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

1.0

er
0.9

0.8

0.7

,m 0.2 0 0. 0.2 0.1 0.01 0

analysis

60

120

180

240

300

360

Ce

Extreme fiber

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure

5.77

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS AND THE BEAM

250

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 t 0

stiffener

analysis

60 Extreme fiber

120 stress at

180 the stiffener

240 outstand

300 (N/mm 2

Figure 5.78

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

0.9 0.8 0.7 14 0.6

0.5

stiffener

0.4
0.2

it I

analysis

0.2 0.1 0.0 0 60 300 120 180 240 2) Extreme fiber stress at the stiffener outstand (Nlmm Ce

Figure

5.79

RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

251

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 10

ffener

t analysis 0.4

cu

-5

0.3 0.2 0.1

0.0 L 0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Extreme fiber

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm)

cr e

Figure 5.80

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANDTHE BEAM ANALYSIS

0.8

'fener

0.7

O.E

0. E

,
ZC

0. -

0.1

0.0 0
60 Extreme fiber 120 stress 180 at the stiffener 240 outstand (N/mm2e 300 a

Figure

5.81

COMPARISON RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

252

ffener 0.7

0.6

a,
0.4 4!

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0

bu

lzu

idu

Z4U

Extreme fiber

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure 5.82

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

0.7
ffener

0.6

0.5
10

0.4 m

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 1 0

bu Extreme fiber

120 stress

180 at the stiffener

240 outstand 2 (N/mm

300

Figure

5.83

COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

253

.II
1.0 0.9 O.E ner

0
(1)

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.

0.1 1 0.0

analysis

60

120

180

240

300 outstand (N/

Extreme fiber

stress at the stiffener

a e

Figure

5.84

THE FINITE ELEMENT ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN RESULTS COMPARISON APPROACH.

.rI

0.7

tiffener

0.6

0.5 .0 0.4

0.3 ,a
0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0

60 Extreme fiber

120 stress

180 at the stiffener

240 outstand (NlmJ)

300

Figure 5.85

COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYSIS THE FINITE ELEMENT ANDTHE BEAM APPROACH.

254

.rI

f stiffener 0. (

sis (1) = 0. '

0.14

0. '

0.0 L 0

60 Extreme fiber

120

180

240 outstand (N/mm2

300

stress at the stiffener

a e

Figure 5.86

BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

TI

0.7

0. C

stiffener

&- 0.!

0.1
S

0.1

0.0 L 0

60 Extreme fiber

120

180

stress at the stiffener

240 2) (N/mm outstand

300

Ge

Figure 5.87

COMPARISON RESULTSANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

255

0.9 0.8 f stiffener 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2

0.1 it I analysis

0.0 L 0

60 Extreme fiber

120

180

240

300

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm

Figure 5.88

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

'r

0.7 Ffener 0.6

ee

0.1

0.9

0.0 L 0

60 Extreme fiber

120

180

240 outstand (N/mm)

300

stress at the stiffener

Figure

5.89

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE APPROACH.

ANDTHE BEAM ANALYSIS ELEMENT

256

.rI

0.7

0.6

iffener

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 1 0

60 Extreme fiber

120

ISO

240 outstand (N/mm2)

300

stress at the stiffener

Figure 5.90

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT RESULTS ANDTHE BEAM

tu

0.7

0.6 'fener
41 L4

0.5

0.4

0.3 r o =

0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0

ou Extreme fiber

i4u

luo

240 outstand (N/-)

300

ce

stress at the stiffener

Figure 5.91

COMPARISON BETWEEN THEFINITE ELEMENT ANDTHEBEAM RESULTS APPROACH.

257

. re

0.8 0.7

0.6 w
0.5

0.4

it *, 0.3 -5 0.2 0.1 I

analysis

0-01 0

IDU

443

Jvu

J10

4bu

Extreme fiber

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm )

ce

Figure 5.92

THE FINITE COMPARISON BETWEEN APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

1'

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5 0.4
ement analysis

0.3 'o 0.2

oach

10

"L 00 0
Figure 5.93

/mm2

4j457 Stiffener

lateral maximum

displacement (mm)

COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

258

T10.8 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
it analysis I

0.2 'D 0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0 Stiffener

2347 lateral maximum displacement (mm)

Figure

5.94

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

0.8

0.7 0.6

0.4 o. 3

t analysis

0.2 0.1

0.0 L 0

75

150

225

300

375

450

Extreme fiber

stress at the stiffener

outstand (Njmm2)

Figure 5.95

THE BEAM AND ANALYSIS ELEMENT COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE THE APPROACH.

259

Is

600

Finite

element

analysis

Beam model CF y= 275 60 120 180 240 N/mm 2

\
500

\ \ \ \ \ \

*X= *X= *X=

A, X=

C',

SCD
4-)

w P
CL

400

\ \

CLO

300
s-

200 X= 240

1001

18 0 12 0
ot

0.5
Panel aspect

1.0
ratio

1.5

2.0

Figure 5.96

COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH.

260

CHAPTER 6 PROPOSAL FOR DIMENSIONING THE TRANSVERSE STIFFENERS IN STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO INPLANE STRESSES.

261 6.1 INTRODUCTION

In chapter five, a transverse stiffener design approach was introduced for transversely stiffened plates loaded in shear. This approach was based on a simple beam model subjected to a sine distributed load and is a function of the geometric parameters affecting the stiffener behaviour as well as the magnitude of the Box and plate shear stresses acting in the plane of the web. girders are generally subjected to bending and compressive These stresses exert additional stresses in addition to shear. It was therefore essential to destablizing effects on the stiffener. modify the beam model equation (5.7) proposed in chapter five to allow for the effects of these stresses. The aim of this chapter is to introduce a proposal for dimensioning in stiffened the transverse stiffeners plates subjected to a combination of shear and direct in-plane stresses. Section 6.2 presents details of the behaviour of stiffened plates subjected to combined shear and in-plane compressive stresses. The effects of initial imperfections on the stiffener behaviour are investigated first to the appropriate establish model to investigate the other parameters. The beam model introduced in Comparisons are made the previous chapter is then modified. between the results of the modified beam approach and the finite Finally, the effects of variation of material element analyses. stress are checked. Section 6.3 presents details of the behaviour of stiffened plates bending to stresses. The effect of the stiffener rigidity subjected in-plane bending moment is investigated. the plate ultimate on The beam model is modified to represent the destabilizing effects of the buckles induced by in-plane bending stresses. Section 6.4 presents a unified beam model approach for the design of the transverse stiffeners based on an interaction between the models presented previously for the different stresses. 6.2 STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO COMBINED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION SHEAR

6.2.1 Introduction in transversely stiffened webs of plate and box girder bridges, when the concrete deck is continuously connected to the main

262 beams at the level of the compression flange, the code of practice BS5400 (Part 3)(6.1) specifies that part of the deck should act together with the steel girder to resist the applied external forces. The exsitence of the concrete deck will shift the position of the bending distribution to of give a non-symmetrical neutral axis induce, in in distribution This the addition will web plate. stresses to a symmetrical bending distribution, a uniform compressive bridge in hogging the girders. continuous moment regions of stress Longitudinal compressive stresses in webs could also be produced by the effects of temperature and shrinkage modified by creep in the concrete deck of composite box girder bridges. The code of be that these should considered at the effects practice states forces limit Braking could also cause state. serviceability in a transversely stiffened web. compressive stresses Due to the rarity of the existence of compressive stresses alone in transversely stiffened webs of plate and box girder bridges, the loaded by a on plates study was conducted parametric in-plane The shear and of compressive stresses. combination ive the coexistent compres,, of stresses was restricted in magnitude this study. 6.2.2 Boundary conditions and loading

The boundary conditions considered in this study are shown in The longitudinal figure 6.1. strain at the top and bottom boundaries was kept uniform throughout the loading process. Simply supported edges with zero out-of-plane bending moment for Unrestrained boundaries all stiffened panels. assumed were for consistency with the design approach only were investigated of the previous chapter. Plate loading was again achieved by means of prescribed Varying boundary displacement. of shear and proportions is K' displacement (y/yO K'e/co, where compressive uniform = varied) were used throughout the study to produce an ultimate 20% stress of about of the compressive yield stress. compressive limit 0.2(YY taken to the effects to equal was crcu as a practical in the previous section. mentioned

263 6.2.3 Effect of behaviour initial imperfections on the stiffener

Grayson(6.2) by The parametric on transversely study conducted initial imperfection has the that critical stiffened plates shown different for to to generally are shear plates subjected patterns follows This for those plates subjected to compressive stresses. is for buckling from fact the shear the that mode primarily When stiffened different to that for compression. plates are buckling the the to stresses, above a combination of subjected for in interact the that one critical mode such a way modes will stress type will be restrained from formation by the development is for behaviour type; this the the stress mode other of critical dependent stress proportions on the relative and the panel properties. geometric

To check the conclusions drawn by Grayson(6.2), a limited study was conducted on stiffened plates loaded by a combination of initial the different stresses with shear and compressive imperfection modes shown in figures (3.3-3.5). Two other initial investigated and are shown in figure 6.2. As plate patterns were for the shear case, an additional half sine wave displacement over the whole stiffened panel due to the presence of the stiffener has been superimposed on the plate panel -imperfections to give the total imperfection form for the stiffened plate. The magnitudes of the initial out-of-plane displacements for the different panel and stiffener geometries were taken to be the for loading the those shear as same presented in section 3.2.5. Residual stresses are not considered as part of this initial imperfection study because Harding(6.3) has shown that the effect is stresses small for plates subjected to combined shear of residual and in-plane compression.

Figures (6.3-6.6) provide graphical comparisons for the effect of initial imperfection pattern on the behaviour of the transverse Aspect 2.0 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 and plate ratios and stiffeners. X= figures, 180 In the stiffener slenderness were considered. all rigidity parameter ys corresponds to the stiffcner dimensions identified by the design philosophy for shear presented in section 5.4.2. In the graphs, the abscissa represents the extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand tip which can be tensile (+a) or compressive (-a) depending on the initial pattern considered. The ordinate was taken at the beginning of the study as the algebraic sum of the non-dimensional shear and compressive stress (T' + cF').

264 The latter was a first approximation based on the conclusion from Richmond(6.3) (section 4.2), that the destablizing effects of compression were equivalent to those induced by an equal level of shear stress. It will be seen later that a coefficient significantly different to one is in fact needed to incorporate compressive stresses into the beam equation (5.7). Nevertheless, for the study of the initial imperfection effect, this representation is sufficient for establishing effect of conclusions regarding the relative different imperfection modes. Figure 6.3 demonstrates the comparison between the effect of the initial imperfection modes (P5) and (P7) on the stiffener stresses of It is obvious that the initial mode a plate of aspect ratio 0=0.5. (PS) which was the critical mode for shear, is still critical for the combined shear and compressive stresses. This is due te the fact that the shear stress is dominant for this plate geometry as shown in the contour of figure 6.7. If a comparison is made between this contour which represents the lateral displacement of the stiffened plate at the ultimate combined stress and that of figure 3.14 which shows the lateral displacement of the same plate geometry loading, it be shear can under seen that the web buckles are very similar. Figures (6.4-6.6) show the effect of the initial imperfection patterns (PO, (P2), (PO and (P8) on plates of aspect ratios =1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 respectively. It should be noted that for 0=1.5 and 2.0, the applied shear and compressive displacement proportions are sometimes different from one initial imperfection to another in order to keep the stress ratio around 20%. It can be seen from these graphs, that initial imperfection pattern (PO is critical for Imperfection mode (P3) was critical for these these aspect ratios. aspect ratios when the plate was subjected to shear stress alone. For these aspect ratios, the extreme fibre stresses in the stiffener by (P7) are slightly larger for 0=1.0 produced and substantially larger for 0=1.5 and 2.0 than those produced by mode (P3) for an Figures (6.8-6.10) equivalent combined stress level. show contours of the lateral displacements of the stiffened plates at the These contours show that the ultimate combined stress level. buckles are affected by the presence of the compression. Comparison with the previous shear results shows that this is especially true for high aspect ratios due to the increase of the magnitude of the web lateral displacement. The remainder oi the study was therefore following modes under combined loading. conducted with the

265

For aspect ratio =0.5, with any plate slenderness, the initial (P5). imperfection mode used was

2)

For aspect ratios 0=1.0,1.5 mode used was (PO.

and 2.0, the initial imperfection

design optimum 6.2.4 Stiffener plate geometries.

rigidities

for

different

for the stiffener The design philosophy optimum rigidity for in 5.4.2 adopted stiffened plates section was also presented The optimum subjected to shear and in-plane compression. stiffener corresponds to a value of ys when first yield in the stiffener occurs at the maximum combined stress of the stiffened plate Le (Cr' + 'Omax. The reason for adopting this is the similarity between the (cu y, ) relations of the graphs provided by Grayson(6.2) for plates subjected to combined stress and those (5.30-5.45) for in figures stiffened plates loaded in shear. shown The purpose of this study essentially was to identify the optimum for the various plate geometries. There was no rigidities stiffener intention to study the effect of the stiffener rigidity parameter on the magnitude of the combined ultimate stress of the stiffened For every plate geometry, the dimensions of the stiffener plate. for shear alone were first checked under the combined loading if The they still satisfied the design philosophy. to see case dimensions were then modified if appropriate. To ensure the formation of a rigid boundary, when the stiffener found from the design philosophy is used, every plate rigidity geometry was again analysed with a nodal line at the stiffener 6.1 Table of the provides the optimum rigidities position. transverse stiffeners for the full range of panel geometries when It also the stiffened plates are subjected to combined stress. provides a comparison between the shear and compressive plate stresses at the peak of the response for a stiffened plate with a stiffener nodal line and those with the optimum stiffener for each case. It can clearly be seen that the stresses in both cases are almost the same, and hence, the optimum stiffener rigidities are providing a satisfactory boundary. It is interesting at this stage to compare the optimum rigidities for plates subjected to shear and compression with those for shear loading only. It can be deduced as shown in figure 6.11 that only

266 for for plates of aspect ratio 0=0.5 the combined rigidities are For for bigger than those all other shear. stress significantly aspect ratios, the stiffener sizes are the same to the order of in increments dimensional this adopted accuracy of the stiffener in This that no change reinforces the previous comment study. buckling mode occurs for low aspect ratios and the compression therefore has a destablizing influence similar to that of the shear larger for introduces hence stiffener. a a requirement and 6.2.5 Beam model design approach

It was demonstrated in the previous chapter that when a web loaded by is transverse shear, and stiffeners stiffened with plate the destablizing influence of the web on a transverse stiffener can be modelled by a simply supported beam subjected to a In this distributed load of intensity w given by equation (5.7). is beam the model modified to account for the destablizing section, a stress effects of the in-plane compression by introducing 5.7 by keeping to the other geometric equation and modification parameters unchanged.

If the ultimate shear capacities listed in tables (3.2-3.5) and 6.1 it be deduced that plate shear capacity when can are compared, the plate is subjected to the combined loading case is about 85% to 95% of the 'shear only' capacity for the full range of panel geometries. The presence of this restricted level of longitudinal stress in a web panel therefore results in a shear capacity 10-15%. Conversely, the conclusions drawn in the of reduction previous section showed that the stiffener optimum rigidities for both cases of loading are generally similar except for the slight difference for the 0=0.5 case. This means that the destabilizing effects of the compressive stresses counterbalance the reduction it in Following 10-15% Richmond(6.4) the applied shear. concept of (6.1) that thought equation could provide an appropriate was basis for including a coexistent compression stress.
WN/ m m'

bA 35.5

1/ 3

(i(T y 55)3/2

+ vr a']'

xx

sin

where
WMax+

; L1/3

(Tay

)3/2

35.5

55 by which

VC

#]3

.........

........

(6.2) compressive

is a coefficiqnt

the non-dimensional

267 stresses o'should be multiplied the reduction of the shear. At this stage, Nf was and most accurate w relate the extreme fil magnitude of r' and , value of xV for every follows. 1Evaluate to produce an equivalent effect to

aill unknown; it was found its finding value was y of e stresses for the optimum I for every plate geometry. (0, X) could panel geometry

that the easiest to analyse and stiffener to the Therefore, the be deduced as

the maximum non-dimensional and corresponding stress cy'for every (0, X).

shear stress 'C'max

2From the optimum stiffener rigidities listed in table 6.1, the dimensions of the stiffener are known and consequently the effective moment of inertia leff including 32tw is evaluated. 3Calculate the maximum bending moment carried by I'ff ay (where ys is the distance between the stiffener Mmax = Ys the centroid of the effective section and the outstand edge). Find the maximum load intensity carried by the stiffener 2
MSMaX 7

4Wm

ax`

b2

5-

Finally, the value of xV can be deduced for every and ?, by ' the the substituting values of 'Cmax,c; and wmax in equation (6.2).

The above steps were followed, and the values of xV for aspect ratios 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 and 2.0 and plate slendernesses X= 60,120, 180 and 240 are evaluated. These are listed in table 6.2. It can be seen that the values of V generally decrease as 0 increases and increase with panel slenderness. The variation was too substantial to make xV independent of 0 and X. A suitable expression was therefore found to relate V and and is given by equation (6.3). 0.12 (6.3)

............ 0

To check the accuracy of equation (6.3), the values of V evaluated by using the results of the finite element analysis are compared with those deduced from expression (6.3) as shown in figure 6.12.

268 Good correlations generally exist between the two values for the various aspect ratios although the V values calculated from equation (6.3) are conservative for =0.5 with high panel low for for slenderness. slenderness, and also, all aspect ratios In order to accept the model represented by equation (6.1), comparisons are required between the model predictions and the Those comparisons are results of the finite element analyses. presented in the next section. 6.2.6 Comparison between the finite element analyses design approach and the

Comparisons have been made with the finite element results to check the validity of the beam model when the stiffened plate is It has subjected to combined shear and in-plane compression. been assumed that the effective beam model section includes a width of web plate equal to sixteen times the plate thickness on each side as specified in BS5400(6.1). Figures (6.13-6.18) show the relationship between the effective combined stress (C + iVa') acting on the stiffened plate and the extreme fibre stress in the stiffener outstand obtained from the finite element analysis and the beam model using equation (6.2). The entire range of plate parameters adopted previously have been considered. The stiffener rigidity for every plate geometry corresponds to the optimum rigidity deduced in section 6.2.4 Le first yield occurs at (T' + G')max- It should be noted that the load increment which produced ('C' + a')max would also produce the maximum of (V + Vcy') because the value of r' was substantially larger than the value of a' which was always around 0.2 as shown in Table 6.1. The initial imperfection pattern used for every case is the one found from section 6.2.3. The yield stress used for these plates was ay = 275 N/mM2. The following conclusions can be drawn from the comparisons. For aspect ratio 0=0.5, and panel slenderness X= 60, the beam model is unconservative for low values of applied stress. However, at peak stress, the extreme fibre stresses from the two approaches are almost identical. 2) For aspect ratios =1.0,1.5 and 2.0 and panel slenderness 60, the beam model is significantly conservative. =

269 3) For all other plate geometries, there is excellent correlation between the finite element analyses and the beam model.

Since the coefficient V is a function of X which in turn is a function limited of ay, the validity with yield stress needed examination. ,A number of finite element runs were conducted on stiffened plates 180 X= 60 with =1.0 and and panel slenderness of aspect ratio The N/mM2. 355 240 N/mM2 and material yield stresses of ay = to the optimum dimensions corresponded of the stiffeners (6.29-6.32) Figures 275 N/mM2. for ay = rigidities established demonstrate the effect of yield stress on the comparison between be It finite beam can the element results. approach and the deduced that the comparisons for these plate geometries are for the to a yield stress corresponding ones similar approximately is for N/mM2 275 V that the and expression established of ay = satisfactory for any yield stress value. Finally figure 6.33 shows a comparison between the optimum from beam finite the the element obtained analyses and rigidities model. This comparison confirms that very good agreement exists for most cases. Significant differences do exist in certain cases high low in for aspect ratios and slenderness although notably these instances the beam model is conservative. 6.3 STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO IN-PLANE BENDING STRESSES

6.3.1 Introduction This section presents the results of an analytical parametric study the behaviour of transversely stiffened plates to investigate in-plane bending It concerntrates on displacements. to subjected the influence of the various geometrical parameters on the for in basis transverse the modifying stiffener providing a stresses The formulation design in the the previous section. presented involved, include dimensional the parameters parameters studied the initial imperfection form and the material yield stress. At the is beam this the the approach section, modified end of validity of finite by its the those of comparing examined predictions with element analyses.

270 6.3.2 Boundary conditions and loading

The loading process used for shear and in-plane compression was also adopted in applying the longitudinal bending displacements displaced kept (see The figure 6.34(a)). this edges were study of straight (Su/Sy = const) with maximum compressive and tensile displacements of magnitude 6b - Cb. a. The longitudinal strains kept bottom boundaries the top also constant along and were (Bu/Sx = const) throughout the loading. Simply supported edges with zero out-of-plane displacement were Unrestrained edge conditions were assumed for all boundaries. again adopted for top and bottom boundaries. Figure 6.34(b) shows the boundary conditions and loading for plates subjected to coexistant stiffened shear and in-plane bending. This is simply the combination of the conditions for each loading. 6.3.3 Effect of behaviour initial imperfections on the stiffener

It has been demonstrated in the previous parametric studies that the magnitude and nature of the stresses in the transverse stiffeners are mainly dependent on the form of the plate panel initial imperfections. It was also shown in section 3.3.3 and 6.2.3 that the critical initial imperfection mode for a stiffened plate geometry differs from one case of plate loading to another. It was essential before going any further in the study, to establish the initial imperfection form which produces the maximum tensile stress at the stiffener outstand for the various plate geometries throughout the loading process. Although, as will be seen later, some imperfection modes set up compressive stresses in the stiffener which are larger than the tensile stresses, these modes because the corresponding are not adopted stresses are inconsistent with the stresses developed in the stiffener for the other loading cases. In other words, the stresses due to bending will oppose those of shear and hence the resulting stiffener stresses will be minimum. Figures (6.35-6.36) demonstrate graphically the effects of some of the modes shown in figures (3.3-3.5) and figure 6.2 on the behaviour of the stiffeners when the stiffened plates are subjected to in-plane bending displacements. Panel aspect ratios 0=0.5,1.0 and 1.5 and plate slenderness X= 180 were considered. Plates of

271 because its 2.0 aspect ratio of similarity examined were not = 1.5 case deduced from the previous studies. The with the dimensions of the stiffener shown in each of these figures correspond to a section of Ds = 40.Omm and Ts = 4. Omm chosen as being representative from the previous studies to demonstrate the imperfection effects. In these graphs, the abscissa represents the extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand, while the ordinate represents the average non-dimensional moment (M/My) at the loading edges. To evaluate M from the FE results, the moment of the longitudinal reactions at the vertical -edges was taken about an MY axis passing through the centroid of the web section. corresponds to the moment produced by a linear bending distribution with a peak stress equal to uy, Figure 6.35 shows the comparison between the effects of four initial imperfection modes on the behaviour of the transverse stiffener for a stiffened plate of panel aspect ratio 0=0.5. Although the magnitude of the stiffener outstand stress at any level of applied moment produced by mode (PO. is less than the magnitude given by mode (P2), the former was chosen as the critical mode due to the tensile nature of its stresses which are therefore in sympathy with the stresses resulting from the critical modes of the other loading cases. Figure 6.36 demonstrates the same comparison for aspect ratio = 1.0. It can be deduced that the critical initial imperfection is mode (PO. The reason why this mode is critical in terms of the stiffener response can be seen from the contours shown in figures (6-376.41). These contours represent the lateral displacements of the stiffened plate with the various initial imperfection modes at the in-plane bending moment. The stiffener plate maximum deflections can be substantially larger for modes (PO and (P2) with the latter including compressive outstand stresses. Figure 6.42 shows the effects of varying the initial The critical mode on plates of aspect ratio =1.5. mode placing the outstand in tension for this plate mode (P8). The latter can also be assumed to be the for plates of aspect ratio 0=2.0. imperfections imperfection geometry is critical mode

The imperfection modes adopted for the remainder of the study of plates loaded in bending are summarized below.

272 For aspect ratios =0.5 1) and 1.0, with any panel slenderness, the initial imperfection was taken as (P7)2) For aspect ratio =1.5 imperfection mode (P8) was used. 6.3.4 Effect of stiffener bending ultimate and 2.0, the critical initial

rigidity parameter capacity.

on

the plate

in bending moment Figures (6.34-6.44) show the variation for increase in transverse plates stiffener rigidity capacity with X 2.0 =0.5,1.0,1.5 slenderness panel and and with aspect ratios bending 180. If the capacity corresponding to the stiffened = plate with the largest stiffener size used is compared to the indicate transverse the with no stiffener, capacity obtained results It that the increase in strength is only of the order of 3-5%. be however, that extrapolation to the zero remembered, should case is not valid because of the single stiffener model adopted. This was discussed in chapter five. It can still reasonably be concluded that transverse stiffeners in webs loaded by in-plane bending stresses have only a limited effect on the plate capacities. 6.3.5 Beam model in stiffeners stresses. design approach for transverse bending plates subjected to in-plane

The procedures used in establishing the stiffener beam model approach for plates subjected to combined shear and compression for also plates subjected to in-plane moments. Based used were design philosophy, the optimum stiffener on the previous for different identified first the rigidities plate geometries were by finite element analysis. Finite element results for plates with the optimum stiffener sizes were looked at in detail to find out the coefficients needed for modification of the original beam model in keeping 5.5 intention the the section of presented with X, b in terms and equation (5.7) unaltered. geometric The less significant role of the transverse stiffeners in increasing the stiffened plate capacity in this instance raised some doubts It was shown that about the optimum stiffener design philosophy. taking the optimum rigidity as the value corresponding to the first yield of stiffener outstand which occurs at the same load as the ultimate bending moment of the web plate produces potentially conservative stiffener sizes. However, as the majority of bridge

273 web panels are under coexistent shear and bending stresses and the critical case occurs when the stiffener outstand stresses are in it this was felt to be sympathy under combination of stresses, reasonable to apply the same approach. Based on this philosophy, the optimum rigidities for the various plate geometries are listed in table 6.3. The intial suggestion for the lateral load intensity representing the effects of the bending stresses on the beam model is given by equation (6.4). This was chosen as a starting point in order to be compatible with the previous loading types. w=0 b 11/3 35.5 (--! -Y 355
[ b ]3

sin ay6

xx......

(6.4)

V' is a coeficient by which the non-dimensional bending stress (Cyb/ay) should be multiplied to represent the destablizing effects of the bending stress deduced from the RE analyses. The nondimensional parameter 0 is implemented in the equation to take into account the effects of yield stress. In order to find P, a limited number of finite element runs were carried out on stiffened plates of aspect ratio =1.0 and panel slenderness X= 60 and 180 with yield stresses ay = 240 and 355 N/mm2. Figures (6.45-6.46) show the variation of extreme stiffener The outstand stress with yield stress throughout the loading. stiffener size used in each of these plate geometries corresponds to the optimum size for the yield stress ay = 275 N/mM2. The increase of stiffener outstand stress with yield stress is similar to the previous results and can be approximated by a multiplier (aY/355)3/2 as for the shear and compression cases. In the next is section the validity of this non-dimensional yield parameter investigated when the comparison between the finite element analysis and the beam model is made. Hence equation (6.4) can be written as ]3 [yr, )3/2 ay bb'11/3 9X Eb (6.5) NN/MM sin ......... 35.5 355 Cr Yb
The procedures used to find the compression coefficient v were also used to evaluate \v' by relating the extreme fibre stress in the optimum to the magnitude stiffener Of ((Fb/Oy) for every plate However, the value Of (Clb/Cyy) is equivalent to the value geometry. because the FE moments were taken about an axis of (M/My)

274 passing through the centroid of the web plate and were considered to produce a distribution of elastic nature with maximum compressive and tensile stresses at the top and bottom for Therefore, the the V' every (, X) could edges of panel. value of be deduced as follows. 1) The non-dimensional web bending from the FE results. evaluated capacities 19'bmax were

2) From the optimum rigidities listed in table 6.3, the effective the 32t, moment of inertia of the stiffener including were calculated. 3) The maximum bending moment carried by the stiffener Mmax --(TyIeff/Ys (where y. is the distance between the centroid, of the effective section and the stiffener outstand edge) was obtained. 4) The
MSmax

maximum 2
7C

load

intensity

carried

by

the

stiffener

(WM .=2.

) was derived.

5) Finally, the value of W' for every plate geometry could be deduced by substituting the values Of X, 0, cy'bmax,Wmax and b in equation (6.5). By following the above steps, the values all the plates considered. The Nf' values The values of iV' are generally insensitive value of iV' = 0.415 was found to relate geometries. of ir' were evaluated for are shown in figure 6.47. to variation in X and 0. A V' to the different panel

Therefore, it can be concluded that if a stiffened plate of panel aspect ratio and plate slenderness X is subjected to in-plane bending stresses, the destablizing effects of these stresses on the transverse stiffeners can also be modelled by a beam subjected to a sine distribution load of intensity w given by equation (6.5). In order to calibrate this approach, comparisons have been made between the beam model predictions and those of the finite element analyses. These are presented in the next section.

275 6.3.6 Comparison between F. E analysis. the design approach and the

Comparisons have been made between the results of the beam its finite to check analysis element model and those of the in-plane is to subjected appropriatness when the stiffened plate bending moments. between the nonFigures (6.48-6.63) the relationship show dimensional bending moment (M/My) acting on the plate and the from the fibre the obtained stiffener outstand stress at extreme finite element analysis and the design approach using equation The stiffened plates used for this comparison have aspect (6.5). 60,120, 7, 2.0 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 and and panel slenderness = ratios of 180 and 240. The size of the stiffener in every figure corresponds to the optimum rigidity deduced from the previous section. The is for the these crY = analysis of stress used plates material yield If these comparisons are examined, the following 275 N/mM2. be drawn. can conclusions For aspect ratio 0=0.5 1) and panel slenderness X= 60, the beam model is unconservative, in evaluating the stiffener outstand level of applied moment. This is due to the fact that any stress at the lateral forces relating to buckling do not accurately represent Similar conclusions were the behaviour of very stocky panels. drawn for this particular geometry subjected to shear and combined shear and compression. beam 60, X= For aspect ratios 0=1.0,1.5 2.0 2) the and and bending for low of values model results are unconservative stresses but the correlation improves substantially near collapse. If the ultimate bending capacity of each of these geometries is beam from dimensions the of the stiffener evaluated used, the dimensions be the to approximately will equal model finite from identified the corresponding to the optimum rigidity element analysis. For any other plate geometry, there is a good correlation 3) between the results. It is important to check the validity of the bending coefficient NP hence the comparisons were also stress yield changes, and when E F. between beam the the results when the made approach and 355 N/mM2. Figures 240 or to yield stress value changes ay = (6.64-6.67) demonstrate the comparisons for stiffened plates with

276 0=1.0 and X= 60 and 180. The comparisons are similar to those hence the the value and standard yield stress value with established for Nf' is valid after introducing the non-dimensional yield parameter ((:Yy/355)3/2 Finally, figure 6.68 shows a comparison between the optimum rigidities obtained from the finite element analyses and the beam model. This comparison shows that a reasonable agreement exists for all cases with slightly conservative values given by the beam approach for plates of panel slendernesses X= 180 and 240. 6.3.7 Beam model design approach for stiffeners in loaded by a general combination stiffened plates in-plane stresses.

of

It is intended in this section to provide a unified beam model approach to model the destabilizing effects of web panels subjected to any combination of in-pIane stresses based on the An models introduced earlier for individual stress situations. obvious method of determining the beam model maximum lateral is to use a simple addition procedure for load intensities individual stress intensities. Hence, if a beam is subjected to two lateral distributed loads of intensities
(WI Wlmax ---: Xxi,

sin

W2

bb

-': 'kmax

7r x

sin

then the total distributed load acting on the beam is given by

(Wr (WImax + W2max)

9x sin b

It is considered that summation of the intensities of each stress type is likely to provide a conservative estimate of the necessary combined stress stiffener rigidity for the following reasons. 1) The buckling mode of plates subjected to shear is different to that of plates subjected to either compressive or bending stress. Hence, under the combined stress state, the buckling modes will interact in such a way that the critical mode for a stress type will be from formation restrained to some degree by the development of the critical modes of the other stress types. This behaviour will depend on the relative stress proportions and the Consequently, it is likely that the way in which the -modes differ.

277 total stiffener rigidity rigidities. will be less than the sum of the individual

2) Under a combined stress state, the maximum magnitude of developed in be below the the type value stress each will reduced individual stress situation. Therefore, the destabilizing effect of each stress component will be reduced. If equations (6.2) and (6.5) are added, the total intensity is given by b wr =-(, b
'11/3 0

1 e + vf d,

( )3

ay

)3/2

(_,

)3 /2. y

+ (Y/db

)3

XX

35.5 (T55 07 a y

355
)3 + (Vr' db )3 1

355
7c x

sin

'11/3

3/2

35.5

1(, e + vf de

sin

(6.6)

where ,c' = c/,cy, non-dimensional shear stress a1c = ac/ay, non-dimensional compressive stress a'b = (yb/ay, non-dimensional maximum bending stress = 0.12 51 0, compression coefficent. 0.415, bending coefficient. = Equation (6.6) has been validated before for shear, bending and In order to examine its combined shear and compression. relevance for any other combination of stresses, a few finite element runs were conducted on plates subjected to combined The plate geometries considered had aspect shear and bending. ratios 0=0.5,1.0 and 2.0 and panel slenderness X= 180. The initial imperfection patterns identified for individual shear and bending stress situations were checked for every plate geometry, and the one producing maximum stiffener stresses was chosen to be critical for the combined case. The optimum stiffener rigidities satisfying the design philosophy were identified for the cases examined. Figure 6.69 shows a graphical comparison between the stiffener rigidity parameter deduced from the F. E results and that evaluated from the beam model approach using equation (6.6). It be seen that the rigidity values deduced from the approach can are either equal or larger than those of the finite element values. Agreement is generally good and it would in any case be unreasonable for a design approach to model the drop in ys predicted for the high aspect ratio.

278 It is of importance to check the beam model for a stiffened plate subjected to a combination of shear, bending and compression bearing in mind that the maximum compressive stress considered is about 20% of the yield stress. For this reason, one finite element run was carried out on a stiffened plate of 0=1.0 and X= 180 under the above combination of stresses. The value of the optimum stiffener rigidity deduced from the FE results was Y,, = 77.09, whereas that evaluated from the beam model was y, = 96.90.

6.4

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A simple linear beam model has been proposed for the design of transverse stiffeners in girder webs subjected to in-plane loading. The model is loaded by a sinusoidally, distributed load which is a function of the stresses applied to the stiffened web. A simple design criterion of first outstand yield provides a method of All stages of the establishing an optimum stiffener rigidity. development of this design model have been validated against load finite ultimate non-linear element analyses and the comparisons have been shown to be generally excellent.

The resulting design requirements are very simple to apply. It was also concluded by reference to figures (5.30-5.45) and tables 6.1 and 6.3 that the optimum stiffener rigidities needed for shear stress are always bigger than the rigidities needed for any other This point is relevant to the design combination of stresses. situation and will be discussed further in the next chapter.

279

6.5 6.1

REFERENCES British Standards Institution, 1982, Code of Practice of Steel Bridges, BS 5400: Part 3, BSI. Grayson, W. R., 1981, "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels", Ph.D Thesis, University of Manchester. Harding, J.E., 1975, "Bolted Spliced Panels and Stress Redistribution in Box Girder Components up to Collapse", Ph.D Thesis, University of London (Imperial College). Richmond, B., 1972, "Report on Parametric Study on Web Report for Department of the Environment, Panels", Maunsell and Partners, Consulting Engineers, London.

6.2

6.3

6.4

280

10 0

CIS
=
t 4)

CD o oo en cq 0
N N Cq

c ci C14 N N

q in oo en C) ON cq Itt
N N

C*q N

c t -, 'It
cq

tn rq in cn ON 00 'It 00 00
C14

a 2 '. 4-. 4
... rn 4) 1.4 4
rA

x
0 S

C;C;c; C;C;C;C;
V(2N

c;
ON
cn

c; C;
00 "-4

r. '"

cq
00

00

oo
00

c
o

cz,

r"d -

c-i
o

W)
C4)

tn
C4)

V)

tt)

Cq N

00 t-

00
't

qt

%D NO 't

r"t

vcn

cf)
cn

c')

qt

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 C; C; c; c; C; C;

C*) C*)

,
(A

4 4 ,
4COD -

cq

C
("I C; C;

C
cq C;

CN
T--t C;

(*-1
N C;

C,4

--4

C)
('q

tn
cq C;

--4

ch
'. 4 C;

c7N
-. 4 C;

00 C;

-.4

00
4 C;

cis

C;

C;

rA

4)
(U

'0
r) tn
ch

C\ -t
00

C) 0
00

W) cq
00

clq o
t-

in CD
o

00 r
ef) Cf)

00
, I,

'tt
IRt

rW)

en tf. )
Cj)

00 t.
Itt

'. 4
C4r)

cq
Clf)

Cf)
Cf)

6 C;

6 C;

6 C;

6 C;

-4 to

>1 -0 ,
(1)
1.4 a)

*rl

E
as

C, 4

0 t) C21\ C\ 0 a 0 C) 0 0 c c
C) 0 cf) Cq C rtt) 0 (2N o o -ct r%I) o cq --t -: t 00

r-

o c) C) C)
en C) wl c) c cn

c)

c 00
q: t cq C14 C\ t00 a\

C
m

tt
Nt

cc C .. w

r--4

in

cq

V-4

-4

cl

0
* Cd 1-4 12.4

C)

0
". 4

C
P"

0
'"

0
"-I

0
V-4

C)
V-4

C
r-4

0
V-4

1-4

r0
"

\0

4 C-4 cq C'I C,

00 00 00 00

't C14

't C14

qt N

"Id, N

cn

c) tri c) tt, 0 C'j C;

tn o in c) tq 0 C C

281

Mf values results 60 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.211 0.445 0.180 0

based on rinite

element

120 1.400 1.060 1.188 0.927

180 1.854 1.873 1.319 1.021

240 1.520 1.858 1.559 1.268

Table

6.2 values of the compression coefficient the various plate geometries

for

282

Finite element stiffener optimum rigidity

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

60 60 60 60 120 120 120 120 180 180 180 180 240 240 240 240

0.284 0.347 0.231 0.071 2.278 5.768 3.847 2.884 7.561 9.230 6.153 4.561 18.231 22.255 9.734 4.557

Table (6.3) F. E optimum for stiffener rigidities to in-plane displacements. bending plates subjected

283

to

01 -1

1111
4-)

1 1111 . 4-3

1i
V) V) LLJ

C)

LLI

V') 4-) V) a 0 u

cl U-1
4J V)

:3111x cu Co

0 L)
LLx CIO co cn C)

It

-i

C)

CD ce
4-) CD Co
:3

11 u11111111111 c

r-

tr;
LL.

284

cii

(a)

Imperfection

(P7) mode Positive dimple

(away from outstand) Negative dimple (towards outstand)

\\// I/ /--N

/- -\j \

(b)

Imperfection

(P8) mode

Figure 6.2

PATTERNS. PLATEINITIAL DISPLACEMENT

285

0.8
0.7 0.6 ,a 0.5
.0

(+0)

( -cy )
0-0.5 A180

0.4 0.3 * 0.2 0.1 *

Ys - 193.80 Initial Initial imperfection imperfection outstand outstand stress stress mode (PS). mode (P7). tensile compressive C/Co - 0.8Y/Yo c1co - 0.8y/yo

0.0v 0

50

100 Extreme fibre

150

200 2) (N/mm outstand

250

300

ce

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.3

EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODE ON THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND STRESSES.

+0, ) 0.8

0.7
(-0) (+0

0.6 0.5 E 0 u z d - 1.0 0.4 * 0.3 * * Ys - 147.70 Initial Initial Initial Initial (+a) 0.1 1 (-0) 0.0 50 Extreme fibre 100 ISO 200 2) (N/mm outstand 250 300 Ce imperfection Imperfection imperfection imperfection outstand outstand stress stress mode (P3). mode (P2), mode (P7). mode Q6), tensile compressive c/co - 1.0y/y 0 A180

c/Co - 1.0y/yo C/Co - J. Oy/y 0

0.2

C/Co - J. Oy/y 0

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.4

EFFECTOF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODE ON THE STIFFENER OUTSTAND STRESSES.

286

0.8

0.7

(+a)

/(+a)

(-a

0.6 (+0) 0.5 0-1.5 Y, . 98.46 0.3 0 Initial a Initial 0.2 V Initial A Initial 0.1 (+a) (-a) 50 100 Extreme fibre 150 imperfection imperfection imperfection imperfection outstand outstand 200 outstand (N/mm2) stress stress mode (P3), mode (P2). mode (P7), mode (P8), tensile compressive 250 300 oe c/co c/co C/c. e/co . 1.25y/y 0 A180

0.4

. 1.25y/y 0 1.00y/yo - 1.25y/yo

0.0g 0

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.5

EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION ON THE STIFFENER MODE OUTSTAND STRESSES.

(T'+C'

) 0.8

0.7 0.6

( -cr) /-

(+a

0.5 0-2.0 -2.0

0.4

*0

A-

180

Ys - 73.84 Yy. s. s 0.3 8 o. 2 0.1 Initial Initiall Initial I'lit ill Initial A Initial (+a) (-o) L 50 100 Extreme fibre 150 imperfection immppeerrffeecction mode (P3), mo Imperfection Impe imperfection Imperfection outstand outstand 200 outstand (N/mm2) stress stress mode W), mo mode (P7), mode (P8), tensile compressive 250 300 a )10 C/Co - 1.50y/y E/ro . 0.75Y/Yo 0

C/co - 0.75Y/Yo C/co 1.5oy/y 0

0.0 1 0

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.6

ON THE STIFFENER MODE EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION OUTSTAND STRESSES.

287

0.5

180

Ys

193.80

Imperfection mode (p5)

Figure 6.7

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATECOMBINED SHEAR AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSIVE STRESS.

r+

)Yell

:3

1
Co

$-

1.0

X- 180

ys " 147.69

Imperfection mode (p7)

Figure

6.8

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE COMBINED SHEARAND IN-PLANE COMPRESSIVE STRESS.

288

lei

4- 1.5

1-

180

Ys - 98.46

Imperfection mode (p7)

Figure 6.9

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATEULTIMATE COMBINED SHEAR AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSIVE STRESS.

sz *
tb cil 15

6*1

Na

-.

40

2.0

X- 180

Ys " 73.84

Imperfection mode Q7)

Figure

6.10

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT THE PLATE ULTIMATE COMBINED STRESS. SHEARAND IN-PLANE COMPRESSIVE

289

YS

600

500 n

40C

4--l a)

E-= (a S-

"' 30C CL
4-3 . r. a tko

20C

10(

0.0

0.5

1.0 Aspect ratio

1.5 a/b)

2.0

Figure 6.11

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE OPTIMUMRIGIDITIES STIFFENERS IN

COMPRESSION.

FORTRANSVERSE

SHEAR AND THOSE UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR AND

290

C\j

C;

LLJ

b-i LLLiLU

110

CO
to > uj

(o E r.

C:) C)

CL cx <

x 0 S-

C)

CD

C)

C\j

00

--r C\j
C:) cz

C:)

CL

C:) L) im
12 . 1- LO -00
M 141 c2. C:2 Lu F-: c

>< (Z ce c2-

Lu LO LU LLI Co C)

or"

4-"

LO

ti-

Cl%j

S;

00
LA-

; uapjjaoo

uossajdwoo

291
(-r/-r +4,0/0 y y

A ,.
I.

,u

analysis

:G r
mode (P5)

-fectlon ,y0

50

100

150

zuu

zbu

Juu

Jbu e

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure 6.13

BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS SHEAR FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED APPROACH TO COMBINED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

(-r/T y

+*O/a

y)

1.0

'L,

O. E

U.

lement roach
O. A

analysis

05 0.: ImperfectIon ). 40y/yo

0.0 110, 0

mode (P3)

50

100 stress

150

200

250 outstand

300 (N/mm2)

Extreme fibre

at the stiffener

Figure 6.14

AND BEAM RESULTS FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN COMPARISON SHEAR TO COMBINED SUBJECTED PLATES APPROACH FORSTIFFENED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

292
( T/-r v

Wc +,

Y)

O.S O.E

0
.

41

ysis

:G0.:
0.:

mode 0. '
0.01 0 1111 50 stress )o 100 150 200 outstand 250 (N/mm2) 300 e

Extreme fibre

at the stiffener

Figure 6.15

BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANDBEAM RESULTS FORSTIFFENED SHEAR APPROACH PLATESSUBJECTED TO COMBINED AND IN-PLANECOMPRESSION.

(T/T y

oa/a

y)

0.9 OJ

0. E

nalysis

:G0.:
Z--

0. ion mode (P7) 0. ' 0.0 If 0 00 200 outstand 250 2) (N/m. 300 a e

50

100

II1 150

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.16

AND BEAM RESULTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT TO COMBINED SHEAR APPROACH SUBJECTED FORSTIFFENED PLATES AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

293
(-r/-r +Ipa/c y) y

1.0

0.8
41 u 4-

0.6 element analysis pproach 0.4

5 !0 19.023

0 Z;
M

r cl 2-0.2

Imperfection 0.40Y/Yo

mode (PS)

0.0 1tI--.
0 so 100 stress 150 Extreme fibre at the stiffener

10 --. --1

200

250 outstand

300 (N/mm2) e

Figure 6.17

FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN ANDBEAM COMPARISON RESULTS SHEAR PLATESSUBJECTED FORSTIFFENED APPROACH TO COMBINED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

( -rPr oala y) y
0.8

0.7 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 (P3) 0.1

0.0 FII 0

50 stress

100

150 outstand

200 2 (N/mm

250

300

ae

Extreme fibre

at the stiffener

Figure 6.18

AND BEAM RESULTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT SHEAR TO COMBINED SUBJECTED APPROACH FORSTIFFENED PLATES AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

294
( -rPr..o a/a.. )
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.,
0.2 (P7) 0.1

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 2) outstand (N/m, 250 300 e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener

Figure

6.19

FINITE ELEMENTRESULTSAND BEAM BETWEEN COMPARISON SHEAR FOR STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED TO COMBINED APPROACH

AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

( -r/, r +Ipa/o y)
0.8 0.7

0.6

0.5 0.4

0.3

0.2 (P7) 0.1

0.0 F

so

100

ISO

200 )e outstand (N/mm2

250

300

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.20

AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED FORSTIFFENED SUBJECTED PLATES

ANDIN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

295
(T/T y +410/a y)

1.0

0.8

Q,

0.6 nt analysis h 0.4

0.2

fection y 0

mode (P5)

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mm2)

Figure 6.21

FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN COMPARISON RESULTS AND BEAM FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED AND IN-PLANECOMPRESSION.

(-r/%oc/c)

0.8

0.7
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 (P7) 0.1 0.0 111111 0

Alp50 100 150 200 2) outstand (N/mm 250 300 stress at the stiffener

Extreme fibre

Figure 6.22

AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH TO COMBINED SHEAR FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

296
( -r/-r +*a/c y) y
0.8

0.7 0.6

0.5 0.4

0.3

0.2 (P7) 0.1

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 outstand (N/mm2 250 300 cy e Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.23

FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN AND BEAM COMPARISON RESULTS FORSTIFFENED SHEAR APPROACH PLATESSUBJECTED TO COMBINED AND IN-PLANECOMPRESSION.

(-r/TvW/a V)

O. E

0. ( 21 u OJ

0. '

0.: (P7) 0. O. Of 0

IIII 50

100

150

200 outstand (N/mm2)

250

300 Cle

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure

6.24

COMPRISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENTRESULTSAND BEAM SHEAR TO COMBINED APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

297
( -r/-r +qscr/a y) y

1.0

O. E

O. f

it I 0.4
"0

analysis

0.,

'ection
0

mode (P5)

0.0

vILA.

50

100

150

200

250 outstand

300 (N/m.2)

350 e

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.25

FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN RESULTS ANDBEAM COMPARISON FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

(T/T y

+410/0

y)

0.8

0.7

0
0)

0. E
0.4

cu
0.2 (P7) 0.1

.11

0.01 0

50

100

11 150

40200 )e outstand (N/mm2 250 300 a

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure

6.26

COMPA. RISON BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENTRESULTSAND BEAM APPROACH TO COMBINED SHEAR FOR STIFFENED PLATES SUBJECTED

AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

298
(. [/. rv+"/c 0.1 V)

0.7

s- 0. Z

. w 0.

! (P7)

0.
0.01
0

I-

1.

50 Extreme fibre

100

150

200 )e outstand (N/mm2

250

300

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.27

FINITE ELEMENT BETWEEN RESULTS AND BEAM COMPARISON PLATESSUBJECTED SHEAR FORSTIFFENED TO COMBINED APPROACH AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

(T/T y

+410/cy

y)

0.7

1;
.'0.2

0.:

(P7)
0.

0. OF 0

III1 50 stress

10 100 ISO outstand 200 (Woub 250 300 Ce

Extreme fibre

at the stiffener

Figure 6.28

ANDBEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTS FINITE ELEMENT SHEAR APPROACH TO COMBINED FORSTIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED AND IN-PLANE COMPRESSION.

299
(T/T 1.0+

0.6

4, Z

0.6

0.4 r C,

0.2

0.0 L 0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

Extreme stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mtn2)

Figure 6.29

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISAND BEAM BETWEEN COMPARISON FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR ANDCOMPRESSIVE APPROACH ANDay= 240 N/mm2. DISPLACEMENT

( -r/-r +,Do/cr y)

1.0

'M
. 92

0.6

0.4 M

0.2

0.0 1 0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

360 e

Extreme stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure 6.30

COMPAISON BETWEEN ANALYSISANDBEAM FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR AND COMPRESSIVE DISPLACEMENT ANDCy = 355 N/MM2.

(-r/T y

oo/o

300
y)

0.8 0.7

0.6

.0 rz

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 L 0

40

BU

lzu

16U at the stiffener

200 outstand (NIW)

Z40

280 Ce

Extreme stress

Figure 6.31

BETWEEN FINITE ELEMENT COMPARISON ANALYSISAND BEAM FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINEDSHEAR ANDCOMPRESSIVE APPROACH AND DISPLACEMENT y= 2 355 N/mm

(T/T v

+o/a

y)

0.8 0.7

0
'a
.0

0.6

0.s
0 4 . 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.0 Extreme stress at the stiffener outstand (N/MM') e

Figure 6.32

COMPARISON ANDBEAM BETWEEN ANALYSIS FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR PLATES UNDER COMBINED ANDCOMPRESSIVE SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AND cf y= 2. 240 N/Mm

301

Ys

600

500

I I

Finite

element analysis

Beam approach

LLI

400

4-)

a) E-= to S(0

300

4-) M . r00 SS-

\\
200

44-3 V)

180
100

120 60 0.5 Aspect ratio

Figure 6.33

0L

0.0

1.0 ( = a/b)

1.5

2.0

COMPRISON BETWEEN THE OPTIMUM STIFFENER RIGIDITIES FROM FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISAND BEAM APPROACH.

- A

302

ay
dL,

., w

Ila

b
AL-

-a-

Du j-y const

u , Yconst

lqr-

IRKy09u

-w-

-W-

---

-"mw

---a-

6b

ax
==0

ba U, x

Figure 6.34a

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND LOADING FORBENDING.

cr

0uu

[is

bx /-lconst

6s lau

3u ay

baa; V=o
77

const t

v=const

57

au

= const

U, x

Figure 6.34b

BOUNDARY AND CONDITIONS SHEAR FORCOMBINED AND LOADING BENDING.

303

M/M y
1. (

0.1 4)

X-,

180

0. fection mode (P5) mode M) mode (PO mode M) tensile compressive

0.

fection fection fection d stress d stress

0. 0 50 Extreme 100 fibre 150 stress 200 at the 250 stiffener 300 350 outstand a e (N/mm2)

Figure 6.35

OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION MODE EFFECT ON THE STIFFENER STRESSES. OUTSTAND

1 .

M/M y

.n

'0 .0X945 . 1 imperfection imperfection ,I

m

180

0.

mode (PI) mode (P2) mode (P3) mode (P7) mode (P8) tensile compressive

().

A imperfection A imperfection kI imperfection outstand outstand stress stress

bu

lUU

lbu

zUU

250

300

Extreme

fibre

stress

at the

stiffener

e outstand

(N/mm2

Figure 6.36

ON THE STIFFENER MODE EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION OUTSTAND STRESSES.

304

-_2----t

4 *0 -L

.9 .3

/+/+

-I-

4-

++4

+++4.

++ .4.

4-

1.0

X- 180

Ys - 0.945

Imperfection mode (p2)

Figure

6.37

AT PEAKBENDING DISPLACEMENT LATERAL CAPACITY.

C+ +t --D+

(0 - 1.0

180

Ys - 0.945

Imperfection

mode (p3)

Figure 6.38

CAPACITY. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT PEAKBENDING

305

A0 ft

9-

8+

+ -t eb 44t ry

.h

..
-1.0 X- 180 Ys - 0.945 Imperfection mode (pl)

Figure

6.39

AT PEAK BENDING CAPACITY. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

4(b

+-+

+ -tr

+ -S

40- 1.0

X- 180

Ys w 0.945

Imperfection

mode (p7)

Figure 6.40

CAPACITY. LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT PEAKBENDING

306

CA

444

do
ID

-1.0

X- 180

ys - 0.945

Imperfection

mode (p8)

Figure 6.41

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AT PEAKBENDING CAPACITY.

M/M

*o1
Ob- 1.5 X - 180

w Ca
.C

0.8 -

-0)
0.6 0
a

0.630 Initial Initial imperfection imperfection imperfection imperfection imperfection outstand outstand stress stress mode (Pl) mode (P2) mode (P3) mode (PS) mode (P7) tensile compressive

0 0.4 0 ZE 0 0.2 [ -

A Initial v Initial Initial (+a) (-a)

0. OE 0

II1 50 Extreme

100 fibre

150 stress

200 at the

10 300 400 350 Ce (N/mm2) stiffener outstand

Figure 6.42

ONTHE STIFFENER MODE EFFECT OF INITIAL IMPERFECTION OUTSTAND STRESSES.

307

>1

M/M y 1.1

1.0 F=

0.9

0.8 06 (a) Stiffener 12 rig. iditY 18 parameter (Ys = EI /aD) s 24 Ys

M/M y
4-3

1.2

4-,

CL to 0
a, E
0 E

1.1

1.0 ,a r_

0.9 L 0 (b) Figure 6.43

6 Stiffener

12 rigidity

18 /aD) (ys EI = parameter s

24

Ys

EFFEdT OF STIFFENER RIGIDITY PARAMETER ON THE ULTIMATE BENDING CAPACITY OF THE WEBPLATE.

308
M/M
>1

1.2

CL

4-3 r_ cu E 0 E-E
r-

1.1

r_

1.0

cu M r_

0.9 048 (a) Stiffener rigidity 12 parameter (ys = EI /aD) s 16 Ys

4-)

M/M y >j
CL (0 L)

1.0

0.9
r-

(V

OA

0. 048 (b) Figure 6.44 Stiffener rigidity 12 (ys EIs/aD) = parameter 16 Y s

EFFECT OF STIFFENER RIGIDITY PARAMETER ON THE ULTIMATE BENDING CAPACITY OF THE WEBPLATE.

309

M/M y 1.

I.
12 40 cu 00

1, 41 '0

r=

0. 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 Extreme fibre stress at the stiffener outstand (N/mM2)

Figure 6.45

EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS.

M/M y 1.

i. -" al 29 4a,

0.

0)

E 0 E

0.

0. 0 40 ao Extreme fibre 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 stress at the stiffener 2 outstand (Nlmm

Figure 6.46

EFFECT OF YIELD STRESS.

310

V;
C) C\j C) C) 00 C= qtd*
V) LLJ w V) -4 V)

-6

c'J
LLJ M: LLI -i LLI LLJ

6-4 LLLO M: C) w LLim LLJ

1:

4-) to

ui

0
I-

4-3

CL

LLI

LLui C) u LO CD

C
LLJ co

rqdl

i
cl CD

C!
C)

L8 W
CLO . ILL.

C;
13ULPUag

( 4UBLOL1900

311
M/M y

1.
.0

..'

nalysis

, =
tion mode

0.0v 0 50 Extreme fibre

IIIII 100

)p 150 200 250 300 350 d outstand (N/mm2) e

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.48

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

M/M y I.

1.
12 a, )K 401. (LO

.. '

nent analysis

l' 0
10

%ch

T;

perfection

mode (P7)

0.0 yIII 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure 6.49

ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR DISPLACEMENTS. STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING

312
M/M y 1.2

1. 0

0.8

0. 6

0.4

z'

0.2

(P8)

0.0 yIIIII
0 so Extreme fibre stress 100 150 200 outstand 250 (N/mm2) 300 350 at the stiffener

Figure 6.50

THE FINITE COMPARISON BETWEEN

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

M/M y
I. 2

I. c
40

0E
J 4.

E: W

E 0 1

0 1 .

0.1

'a 0 :

0. ,
0.0 vII

(P8)

50

100

ISO

200

250

300

350

cl

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

)a outstand (N/mm2

Figure

6.51

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE APPROACH FOR DISPLACEMENTS. STIFFENED

ANALYSIS AND THE BEAM ELEMENT PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE. BENDING

313
M/M y

OJ

.00.2

(P7)

0.0 vII--I--.
0 so 100

II __ ---

150

200 outstand (N/mm2)

250

300 e

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.52

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

M/M y 1.2

0. E

analysis

ction

mode

I..,

0.01 0

11 50

100

150

200 outstand

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

250 2e (N/mm

300

Figure 6.53

COMPARISON ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

314
M/M y

39 40 m 00 0. E

.00.

0.4

8)

0.0 IF 0

50

III 100

150

200 )e outstand (N/mm2

250

300

350

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.54

BETWEEN THE FINITE COMPARISON

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

M/M

I. c

-0

41

0.:

ade (P8)

0.0v 0

III1 so stress

0100 150 outstand 200 (N/mm2) 250 300

Extreme fibre

at the stiffener

Figure 6.55

COMPAR; SONBETWEEN THE FINITE

ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

315
M/M y I. C

0.

OA element Droach
0

analysis

561
1

0., =-

imperfection

mode (P7)

0.0.1 0

11111 50 100

150

200

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

350 2) outstand (N

300

Figure 6.56

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

M/M y

.0

0 ,0 m ,v

0.6

analysis

10

0.4

rection

mode (P7)

J-1
0. DIIIIIIII 0 50 100 150 200 250 outstand Extreme fibre 300 2) (N/mm 350 )o stress at the stiffener

Figure 6,57

ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

316
M/M
1. c

analysis

'0 ,

rection

mode (PS)

0.01

11111

50

100

150

200

250

300

350 e

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm2)

Figure 6.58

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

M/M

y 0.8

. 92

0.7
0. E

.C

0..

.5 8) 1 0. '

0.0v 0

II. 50

100 150 200 300 350 400 C,

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

2) outstand (N/m.

Figure 6.59

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE

ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

317
M/M

1. (

-m 39 ,p
4OJ ,0

7)

0.01 0

111111 50 stress

10 100 150 outstand 200 2) (N/m, 250 300 350 a at the stiffener e

Extreme fibre

Figure 6.60

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING

DISPLACEMENTS.

M/M

1.0
. ii 0

0. E

0) E

7)

0.01 0

1 50

__

III 100

ISO

200 outstand (N/mm2)

250

300

350 e

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.61

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE

ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

318
M/M

I. c

OA .0

0. E

0.2

de (P8)

0.01 0

11tI 50 stress

100

150 outstand

200 (N/mm2)e

250

300

Extreme fibre

at the stiffener

Figure 6.62

THE FINITE BETWEEN COMPARISON APPROACH FOR DISPLACEMENTS.

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING

M/M

y 1.0

.0

0.6

.I

0. E
S

0.2
ode (PS) 0.0y 0 IIIt 100 )w150 200 outstand (N/mm2) 250 300 ae

so

Extreme fibre

stress at the stiffener

Figure 6.63

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE

ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT

APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATES UNDER IN-PLANE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS.

319
M/M y I.

.0

a, 0

4 0
0

zc

0. ou
ou Extreme fibre I :v stress IOU at the stiffener 4uU outstand Z4U (N/m, 2) Z8u 320 Ce

Figure 6.64

THE FINITE COMPARISON BETWEEN

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

SUBJECT FOR PLATES APPROACH TO BENDING DISPLACEMENTS WITH ay= 355 N/mm2.

M/M y

1.19
.0 4,

0. E

0. E Z

0.4

(P7)

J,-,

0.01 0

40

80

120 stress

160

200

240 outstand

280 (N/mmZ)

Extreme fibre

at the stiffener

Figure

6.65

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE

ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM ELEMENT

APPROACH FOR PLATESSUBJECT DISPLACEMENTS TO BENDING WITH ay= 240 N/mm2.

320
M/M y

1.2

j2

al

0. E

cu -0
41 c 0. E

FE

0.,

0.0t 0

40

80 Extreme fibre

120

160

200 outstand

stress at the stiffener

240 2) (N/mm

280

320

Figure

6.66

COMPARISON THE FINITE BETWEEN

ELEMENT ANALYSIS ANDTHE BEAM

APPROACH FOR PLATESSUBJECT TO BENDING DISPLACEMENTS WITH 2 cr = 355 N/mm y

M/M y I

.0

.5

41 . cu

oj

E 0 E

.20.

0.:

O-OL 0

40

80 Extreme fibre

120

160

200

240

280

stress at the stiffener

outstand (N/mm)

Figure

6.67

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINITE

ANALYSIS AND THE BEAM ELEMENT

APPROACH WITH FOR PLATES SUBJECTTO BENDINGDISPLACEMENTS cy y= 2a 240 N/mm

321

ys 32 Finite or element

28

Beamapproach

to 24

4)

20

(D E-=

CL

>1

16

-4k
4. 4-

12 X= 240 8 X= 180 4 X= 120 A= 60

b

oL
0.0

--I:

--

OM womm-ft"m ---l.

"',

0.5 Aspect ratio

1.0 ( = a/b)

1.5

2.0

Figure 6.68

COMPARISON BETWEEN EVALUATED THE STIFFENER RIGIDITY PARAMETER FROM THE FINITE ELEMENTANALYSIS AND THE BEAM APPROACH FOR STIFFENED PLATESSUBJECTED DISPLACEMENTS. TO BENDING

322

V) -4 V)

U. j X: uj -j LLJ LLI

LLJ L. ) < -i aV)

CD LLLtj > Im ui co M:

Id 0 -I-,

C) U: LL.

In = < Of < uj V)

a,

-c U
-0-

9: 3 uj =) -j

Ln cl

LLJ

F-

m Cie LLJ LLJ Fw < LLJ V) V)

< 0= LLJ LU

C)
CIJ7

F--4 =-1 1-4 CD 0-4 CLI

,LO

-0

Uj =
LLI
ULs-

LL. LL.
V) elf

V)

0 U-

4-)

LLJ P C) 0 M: ati<

C>

4J U W c). V) 41C

LLJ LLJ LLJ Cc 2-1 C) (4 1.2

LLJ co LLJ

Lc)

C;

C) u<

2-1

(M 1.0 CD 00 CD U:) CD xt 0 CM C) CD CD 00 C:) to CD le C) CM

00

(4

L8 0)
S:3 00 . ILL.

(012/S13=s

AlpSp

aaue4; S

323

CHAPTER 7 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION.

324

7.1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a full understanding of the transverse stiffener design proposal presented in chapter 6. Section 7.2 presents the general design requirements needed in the approach which include some recommendations to simplify the design process. It also introduces a loaded by for transverse stiffeners additionally design formulation Section 7.3 presents a comparison between the direct axial loads. stiffener sizes determined from the proposed design approach and those evaluated from the current code of practice BS5400(7.1) for various Comparisons between the peak also made geometries. are panel capacities determined from the finite element analyses and those Standards. Section by British 7.4 the summarizes the quoted in drawn from the this thesis, while section studies reported conclusions 7.5 introduces some recommendations for future research. 7.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS of design

7.2.1 Process

The results of the study presented in this thesis have established a intermediate design for the transverse stiffeners in webs of process subjected to in-plane shear and longitudinal stresses. By nature, any design process is iterative. The steps can be summarized as follows.
starting dimensions for panels and previous experience. requirements Establish by reference to the load

2)

Check the panel stresses by using an interaction buckling criterion, for example the formula provided by BS5400, clause 9.11.4.4. Evaluate the maximum shear and in-plane longitudinal stresses at the location of the stiffener whose dimensions are required. Use the stresses determined in step 3 to evaluate the lateral load dimension given in equation 6.6. Assume a stiffener section and calculate the effective inertia of the stiffener section which includes 32 times the web thickness. Using a simple beam analysis, evaluate the outstand bending stress at the level of applied lateral load specified in 4 above. The simple analytical expression given in section 6.2.5 should be used.

3)

4)

5)

6)

325 7) Check this stress against cyy. If less than cry, the stiffener size should be reduced and vice versa. Return to step 5.

It should be noted that steps 1 and 2 will establish whether the web thickness and panel aspect ratio are appropriate for the applied loading the stiffener size. steps relate to optimising and the remaining However, it is possible to vary the aspect ratio by considering a larger iterative loop to optimise fabrication cost as would be appropriate in normal design and a simple micro-computer program can easily be written for the entire process. It will be seen later in the next sub-section that there is no need to use the direct stresses acting on the web in the stiffener design and a design requirement is proposed in section 7.2.2. alternative simpler 7.2.2 Design

proposal

It was mentioned in chapter 6 that the stiffener sizes identified by the design philosophy for stiffened plates 'subjected to the panel ultimate generally either equal or larger than the sizes shear stress are identified for any other combination of in-plane stresses which the The sustain. validity of this approach using the proposed can panel Stiffened plates of model has been checked and is discussed below. 1.0 1.5 and and panel slendernesses X= 60,120,180, aspect ratios been have 240 considered with a material yield stress of Gy = 275 and N/mml Different ratios of bending to shear stress n were assumed to be acting in the plane of the web and for each stress ratio the lateral load 6.6 by equation was evaluated. Peak shear capacities and various given peak combined stresses of the unstiffened subpanels provided by the Kq, Kb curves and the corresponding interaction buckling expression given in BS5400 were evaluated. The partial safety factors ym and W3 from the expression. were excluded The (cyb,t) stress combinations considered were such that
(eb

+
Y

Kq

y.,

.............................

(7.1)

Equation (7.1) is the interaction buckling criterion provided by BS5400 for plates subjected to bending and shear. Where n= lub/T = 0, this means that the stiffened plate is under the effect of an ultimate shear stress of magnitude r, = Kq. Tyw.

326 Figures (7.1-7.2) show the variation of the peak lateral load intensity Wmax with the stress ratio n for the various panel geometries considered. It can be seen clearly that wmax is maximum when n is zero. As n increases, Le when the stiffened plate is subjected to coexistant bending decreases beam intensity load lateral the model the on peak and shear, for any panel slenderness. This decrease is significant for very stocky panels. It can be concluded from this that the stiffener sizes evaluated from the beam model for stiffened plates subjected to ru = Kq ry, are larger than (Cyb, for T) which the panel can Of the sizes evaluated any combinations An alternative simpler design proposal, similar to the one sustain. 3 be in therefore the steps used with previous section can presented following. by 4 the replaced and 3) Evaluate the ultimate shear capacities of the panels adjacent to the While these would not stiffener whose dimensions are required. in different, be be the two the mean of values could used normally design if for any reason the stiffener spacing varied along the girder. Use the design shear stress determined from the previous step to load distribution lateral the given in equation 6.6 with cyb '-: evaluate 0.

4)

7.2.3 Effect of design.

direct

axial

forces

on

transverse

stiffener

When an intermediate transverse stiffener is connected to either a cross lateral be frame, the to the stiffener cross will a subjected or girder distributed load given in equation 6.6, in addition to a direct external form in 6.6 is P. If force the magnitude equation written axial XX, bending the moment at any point of the stiffener sin w= wm.,, b is given by
Ms PE --

f18. + w.,,,,. EI/ P/ F 80+wm,,.

I

PE2

Xx............. sin b

(7.2)

msmax

El/PE2

601

P/ PE

................

(7.3)

327 where 50 = maximum stiffener initial displacement. out-of-plane

Wmax = maximum lateral load intensity given by equation 6.6.

PE

Wer's =

load =

ir

2EI

b2

For this case of loading, the design process will be the same as that presented in section 7.2.1 except for the magnitude of the stiffener's function bending is P of and Wmax. moment which a maximum The derivation of equation (7.2) is shown in detail in Appendix A. The first outstand yield requirement would still dictate the required stiffener size as before. 7.3 COMPARISON WITH BS5400 REQUIREMENTS

In order to use the beam model for stiffener design, the ultimate capacities of the web panels adjacent to the stiffener should be determined and substituted in equation (6.6) to evaluate the peak lateral load intensity needed for design. For this reason, it is of interest to compare the panel ultimate shear capacities produced by the current finite element analyses with the corresponding values given by BS5400 for a full range of bridge panel geometries. Figure 7.3 presents graphically the collapse shear strength of stiffened 2.0 X 0=0.5,1.0,1.5 ratios and aspect and of panel slendernesses plates 240 from 60,120,180 RE On the this graph, the and obtained results. = from the of capacities unstiffened subpanels evaluated ultimate in first BS5400 The quoted are method superimposed. methods (Tension field theory) is recommended for use in transversely stiffened (Buckling is for the second whereas recommended criterion) use girders in longitudinally stiffened girders by BS5400 (see chapter one). It can be seen clearly that the F.E values are higher than the BS5400 values except for the values evaluated by tension field theory for X= 60. Since the beam model approach has been established from the finite it results, element would obviously be most consistent if the FE values from figure 7.3 are used as the basis of the collapse shear strength, although caution should be exercised in the direct use of the finite However, while there is some reason to element results for design. believe that BS5400 is conservative in some cases for determining panel

328 lower BS5400 the the panel strength values would of of use capacities, design the overall course produce smaller stiffener requirements and be is therefore supposed. as great as might not penalty The requirements of BS5400 in relation to transverse stiffener design have previously been discussed in chapter 4. It is of course of interest beam from determined the those the to compare requirements with BS5400 (7.4-7.5) Figures the of without requirements show model. by factors the the optimum rigidities given compared with partial safety beam model using the finite element shear panel strengths. It can be for differences the more slender panels the that are substantial seen in In being BS5400 these areas. extremely conservative examined, with from to this to statement, a single result credibility add a required order the design proposal can be compared with recommendations by Horne in figure 7.6. is interesting It Rockey(7.3) Grayson(7.2) to and shown and is lower Rockey than the current analysis, the that requirement see bearing in mind that the Rockey figure is based on a tension field model. The latter, however, was calculated for a particular girder with a This flange. confirms that the unrestrained case provides a substantial lower bound bending action compared with the combined transverse bending and tension field force situation present in a girder with a thick flange. There have to. be doubts about relying on the flange restraint to the stiffener as this will be dependent on both the available flange thickness and the level of coexistent flange stress. The current method lower than current therefore provides a stiffener size substantially is be but to guaranteed which conservative regardless of the practice, difference flange. The the with the Horne and Grayson conditions of figure is a little surprising because their stiffener size is also based on F. E analyses, but their result comes from a subjective assessment of below which stiffened panel strength reduces rather rigidity minimum than the clearly defined first yield requirement of the beam model. It has already been pointed out that the latter will produce a suitable but for conservative result all situations. not unreasonably In Appendix B, a fully transversely stiffened plate girder has been designed according to BS5400 without partial safety factors. The girder has a span of 3600mm and was designed to carry a concentrated load at its midspan of magnitude P= 330 KN. The web panels were subjected to coexistent bending stress in addition to shear. The stiffener rigidities evaluated according to BS5400 and the beam model with combined loading were ys = 763.1 and 61.742 respectively. When a. uniform longitudinal compressive stress of magnitude ac = 0.2ay was assumed to be acting with the combination of stresses mentioned above, the stiffeners were redesigned and the rigidities according to BS5400 and This particular the beam model wer 5001.17 and 430.52 respectively.

329 demonstrates the conclusion example BS5400 the requirements. of conservatism 7.4 CONCLUSIONS finite element package has been presented in deflection elasto-plastic account was taken of The effect of material drawn above about the

7.4.1 The

The finite element package used in the analysis idered large formulation The 2. the cons chapter behaviour of the stiffened plate components and displacements. initial out-of-plane of the effects included. also nonlinearity was

The following conclusions can be drawn in relation to the use of the finite element package for the nonlinear analysis of transversely stiffened plates. 1 The finite element technique provides a very flexible analytical deflection large for the elasto-plastic analyses of transversely tool stiffened plates. has been between agreement obtained the present finite good very Comparisons and existing package solutions. with element have been also results very encouraging (see chapter experimental Loading the stiffened plate by specifying boundary displacements for found the analysis of stiffened webs of plate appropriate was The box greatest advantage of this approach was that girders. and behaviour be the ultimate of stiffened could plate the post followed.

2)

7.4.2 Stiffened

plates

subjected

to

shear

The behaviour of transverse stiffeners in transversely stiffened plates found boundary be dependent to the to was shear on mainly subjected initial imperfection type of pattern, aspect ratio, plate restraint, following The yield material stress size. and stiffener slenderness, drawn be in these to the can parameters. relation of effects conclusions As far as the stiffener is concerned, the stresses and lateral boundaries displacements were maximum when the longitudinal flange compared real were unrestrained with restrained or with Consequently, the stiffener size requirement for a boundaries.

330 for is the plate maximum stiffened geometry particular it found In that the stiffened plate case. addition, was unrestrained boundary. for the unrestrained peak capacity was minimum 2) The behaviour of the transverse stiffener is dependent on the panel Different critical initial initial out-of-plane displacement pattern. imperfection modes were found for different panel aspect ratios. It was found displacement slenderness, decrease with that for of the whereas increase lateral the maximum every panel aspect ratio, stiffener increases with increase in plate the ultimate capacity of stiffened plates of X.

3)

4)

It was found that for every panel slenderness, the maximum lateral displacement of the stiffener increases with increase of aspect ratio for a given stiffener size. It was found that for any non-dimensional shear stress, the magnitude of the lateral force acting on the stiffener, the maximum lateral displacement and the stresses of the stiffener increase with A non-dimensional parameter was the increase of yield stress. for to this change. account established The effect of varying the stiffener bending rigidity ys on the stiffened plate shear capacity was found to be similar for all plate Initially, the shear capacity increased considered. geometries increase of ys. Above a certain value there was with significantly increase further in little ru. very A new definition has been of the stiffener optimum rigidity The value found to be appropriate, was the value at introduced. which the yielding of the stiffener occurs at the same time as the its plate reached stiffened ultimate capacity. It was found that for unrestrained boundaries, the stresses along the length of the stiffener were almost identical to the stresses induced in a simple beam loaded laterally. There was no significant evidence of stresses produced by axial forces due to panel tension field action. A design approach based on a simple beam model under a sinusodially varying lateral load has been proposed for the design An expression relating the magnitude of of transverse stiffeners. the shear stress -acting on the stiffened plate to the intensity of the lateral load acting on the stiffener, has been established. The

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

331
IN

parameters affecting geometric included in the expression.

the

stiffener

behaviour

were

10) Comparisons of the results obtained from the simple beam model have been validated with those of the finite element analysis. 7.4.3 Stiffened

plates

subjected

to

shear

and

compression

When a stiffened plate is subjected to compression in addition to shear, the following conclusions can be drawn in relation to the behaviour of transversely stiffened web panels. The behaviour of the transverse stiffeners was dependent on the panel initial imperfection pattern . It was found that the critical patterns for combined stress were generally different to those found for shear. 2) The behaviour of transverse stiffeners was also found to be dependant on the magnitude of the yield stress. The nondimensional yield parameter established for shear was also found to be valid for this stress combination. The beam model approach proposed for stiffener design in plates subjected to shear was modified to take into account the effect of in-plane compression. The results obtained from the beam model were -validated with the FE results. bending

3)

4)

7.4.4 Stiffened
Lll

plates

subjected

to

stresses.

A parametric study has been conducted on stiffened plates subjected to bending displacements and as a result, the following conclusions can be drawn in relation to the behaviour of transversely stiffened web panels. The behaviour of transverse stiffeners is dependent on the panel imperfection initial initial imperfection The critical pattern. patterns for the geometries considered were found to be different to those for shear and combined shear and compression. 2) It was found that the effect of the stiffener rigidity parameter ys on the bending cap4city of stiffened plates was not substantial for the various geometries considered.

332 3) The effect of yield stress on the stiffener behaviour was accounted for by introducing the non-dimensional yield parameter established for the other loading cases. A beam model approach was proposed for the design of stiffeners similar to that for shear. The results obtained from finite element results. the approach were validated with the

4)

5)

7.4.5 Design

of

transverse

stiffeners

The proposals introduced for shear, combined shear and compression for bending transverse to a proposal obtain unified were combined and in design stiffened plates subjected to a general combination stiffener following be in The drawn in-plane conclusions can stresses. relation of to the proposed stiffener design procedure. The main objective of the theoretical research described in this thesis was to develop a design procedure for transverse web It was required that the design procedure should be stiffeners. inclusion for in It is suitable and a code of practice. simple has been fulfilled. the that objective considered 2) The effect of external direct forces on transverse stiffeners (for from cross girder connections) can also be incorporated in example the proposal. It has been shown that the proposed stiffener design approach may be in conjunction with existing used girder ultimate readily design The methods. evaluation of the stiffener strength dimensions will be adequate regardless of the extent to which the girder flanges are relied upon to increase the shear capacity of the web panels. Comparative studies with the finite element results have confirmed that the proposed design procedure is likely to provide a good for the optimum rigidity for the stiffeners. estimate Comparative studies with current showed practice proposed design procedure is simpler in application economic for slender panels. that the and very

3)

4)

5)

333
I)

7.5

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE WORK a useful extension to the results

The following studies would provide presented in this thesis.

The transverse stiffener design approach proposed is based on In order to be adopted as a design numerical analyses results. method, transversely stiffened plate girders with different panel ideally be loaded 'experimentally up to failure should geometries with the transverse stiffeners designed according to the beam model approach. The ability of the stiffener to sustain the stresses up to predicted failure would be checked. 2) The beam model proposed for transverse stiffeners is likely to be affected by the existence of longitudinal stiffeners in longitudinally stiffened webs. It is suggested that a lateral concentrated load at the longitudinal stiffener location which is a function of the axial force acting on it, could be added to the load considered in the current formulation. A similar parametric study would be needed to investigate the behaviour of the longitudinal stiffeners and provide the basis for the concentrated transverse loads.

3)

334

7.6

REFERENCES

7.1 - British Standard Institution, 1982, Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges, BS5400: Part 3, London, BSI. 7.2- Grayson, W. R., "Behaviour and Design of Stiffened Web Panels", Ph.D Thesis, University of Manchester. 7.3- Rockey, K. C., Valtinat, and Tang, K. H., 1981, "The Design of Transverse Stiffeners on Webs Loaded in Shear - an Ultimate Load Approach", proceeding Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,71, pp. 1069-99.

335

w
60

E E

50
"V 0

E E

.0

40
4. r4-) V) -C

30 0
4-) . IV) r_ CL) a

20
X

10

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

TI

Stress ratio Figure 7.1

(71=a

b/r)

COMPARISON BETWEEN LOADS THE LATERAL ON THE BEAM FORVARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF SHEAR STRESS. AND BENDING

336

w
90

80 CIQ
: 22 %-o

o-%

70 0 E
E

_im 60

50

4c

j)
EE

3C

x m

2:

2C

1c

0.0

0.4

0.8
(T)

1.2

Ti

Stress ratio Figure 7.2

=' a b/T)

COMPARISON BETWEEN LOADS ON THE BEAM FORVARIOUS THE LATERAL COMBINATIONS STRESS. OF SHEAR AND BENDING

337

Finite

element

analysis

BS 5400 (tension

field

theory)

BS 5400 (bucking criterion) Unrestrained

T/T y 1.0

boundaries

m = 0.0 fw

0.9

0.8

0.7
IA (A (1) S-

0.6

0.5
(CS C 0

0.4 -0 0.3
At,

0.2

0.1

O-OL 0.0
Figure 7.3

0.5

1.0 Aspect ratio

1.5

2.0

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MAGNITUDES SHEAR OF THE ULTIMATE CAPACITY DEDUCED FROM ANALYSIS ANDTHE THE FINITE ELEMENT BS 5400.

338

YS
100

90

80

70
Scu 4-)
w

60

CL

5C

4C cu
(4-

V)

3C

2C

1(

0.0

0.5

1.0 Aspect ratio

1.5

2.0

Figure 7.4

COMPARISON ANDBS 5400. BETWEEN THE BEAM MODEL

339

YS

600(

500(

400C
4-) a) E

CL

300C

W 44. r. 4-3 tn

200C

100C

0 0.0 0.5 1.0 Aspect ratio Figure 7.5 COMPARISON ANDBS 5400. MODEL BETWEEN THE BEAM 1.5 2.0

340

Tu /T

0.9 0.8
(A vi
tn

Estimate YS Rockey ref. (3)

Horne & Grayson

Rahal & Harding Beammodel

Ys

5700

BS 5400 op

0.7

1- 0.6
0.5 4-2 oti
0.4

=1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Initial

X= 240 imperfection (P3) mode

0.0 1 0

100

200 Stiffener

300 rigidity

400

500

600

YS

parameter

(ys = EI /aD) s

Figure

7.6

COMPARISONOF FORMULATIONS.

RESULTS WITH

AVAILABLE STIFFENER DESIGN

341

APPENDIX

Interaction of lateral load and Direct Forces on the Effective Stiffener Section.

rr.

p
d

but

O thP- lafrraL

load

vv,

fhe

moment at

an

ol O'Xstance x
if M=

fom

A is given
7T' in &h 5 S" 772

b ,Y

'y

poW

w, dx. dx

Ze the be

indkLL jmpcrdioa which is given

Ssin )7x

of

the Sfifftme. -- at any &5jmce

maytima"

b
7hen the mornenY due io 6 Y--

oaf. of- plame

d,placconenf

P Arw

at an

;s

ve',

py
wh6rt

j, 7 61 w 5 Tr 2

rrx

Mle

il"Pe-lf14c-iOn * deflediO0

uolde-l-load)

Bai
M= (dx, _EI
2

dY.

(3>

342

flikate

ETs -

(2)

and

(-3)

EI -

(23 -)Z

dY

W'bl %sinff x rr Z

and hence
L-9 +P3(L. Ei ITZ e wbz EZ t7'%, ) Si. 7rx

Zei Of

the

soluiion

ol

Mis

difleem;

aZ

e-7ta"0,7 6e

M e- 70 MM -

As
d-Y

in

ffx 6
Irk

dx
YA C/ 12 dxl

C05 -zLrf

66
;r

"...---....
77X

(6)

Su6sM"Ie
L A rr sil v6 (A Fo b6

Efs.

(5) and

(6) 4-7 e-cl. (4)

I

AP

r lc-.
SM

it? -5

W6-

Irx 5in

6
171 wb' . + OEZ 62

77

77Y. .7

-i ir

343

UsinS pe .

the rr'sCI 6-r-

definilion

of

the

Column 6ule-tep-ms

load cq-(7) can

fO t-eplace as

/-be IrY6'

6e W. *-iffen

W -FA

PC
EZ

Sj4bsiiu. fa

value

ol

A fiven
me

6y

(a) 9F. -e beam

i/7

q. (5') W1*11 jive e,

dellec iion

Ple valete */

ioiml

) sin P/Pii and

j/7

at-c derived
fbe poini

iwilce and
ol

then su6slY-

eq- (3) af any

expt-ession of

Mee 6eno/1'r?JF deduced

moo7entr

The beaon can 6e

ws : as eollo
M= El 110
.16 WEX/pe

"IY.

P/P
wEz1pj

4-

IT

ffX SO

sin

P/ Pr

344

Pen ce
"V"ZIPE2

16

P//>, io

sin

'7"

00)

7e

M a,%;, nun, bendi 'Illy moment

is

a/

x= 612

Opy 01

hence

P5

W46-rln

WIA (for

9.

iaken

as

the

approp. -l'aie

Volerance.

vatue 'the

eicamp/e

Allence

oleeance 1--om Sssqoo), /o. *, Me

maximum value plait) ol a

momenl ond

can be eva/ixa/eof w( usiny

OLPPe4r, "14/e

an e#edive

w; cOh ol web

345

APPENDIX

11

Simple Calculation of a Girder Using BS5400 and Current Proposal.

I
V

io suslain a I/ is regairedto ofasisn a plate gi. -of&Concentraieol o-tal load

midspan
NlnO k-4-4

77e.malefiai .
PL

jMld

Aude Pz is JJOKM ma gn; ot ol ,

SA-ess is = 275 N/,wwj. 4s,

330(5600) .7

2970oo

297

<A/-, n

p VMOLX 2

KIV-

Irom A6e. defcrv; is spaclo, 79 ol or Cros5re4 Aames., 60 i/7 ih; $ &X4MPle- 174&J; ll 6C t2JcSamcO'aS 42=600m,", For panel
suiectcol

in des pracl; cal 4?

Me spacin5 o A-ainverse, s.4iRlmrx

ciesir
o

the. criLical

Panel

;s

PA3

wbt; zb is

a, 5beaein

,y
*Ve, 7

Itwce- ol

V= 165 Arm and o- bejzjAy

-women/

-sf

247S

mm.

346

$cAppoje ,

the

c/epM

q/

Me. panel

6= 6oo,.. "

and

by

assurn; n3 a
WC6 can be

P/, a/c slend&ness A= 1-vo, f*e- ;4b,e-*n-esscV Me

dval"&d " /0//O&js F11 600 180 = iw

V3
2 -65 mm

Amume me. pange

and a Mickness tj--

d; mensions A* h4ve. wio(M

bez
,

250mro

43S5400

APPROACH

a) Shleoer resistance of ithe. 6carn.

7-he, shear is giver;
vb =I em

resistance9.9-2.2

Vo 0/ Ct Web pane-1 ande. - sheouas

;,7 -clause

where
Panel
*3 t MC

hci3lyi
conside. -tev

ol

Ihc la,. yest .'s jw... o

hole
;? mis

&jje4j, 7
Cue

whic, 4

'T. , Z'e

&kcm at-e.
11W? iV1;7y

aerp
0/

in Y%; j 6z ample- Wdb -*hPOe2ne-1 WAVC17 iS M

Shda--

Aincbizo ,

ol
A.

ye the. 41an

oaramcfer

j6

and

6'v bA o 117A,
6y,, d.,

347

where bl, 116mye elled; ve w; dm

and d,, DVM e= 5'0 fisk Ve .Y q/ web clear 125 mm
T-61mm 11, which Is 0'46 lesse. - */
6, g12

behvetn 11anyd

Plaids -

b112 =2
/0 tK.y5.

Hence

113-61 mm

dwe z6=
MI. (113.6 J

6oovy."
.=

wilh

S'Yf -,

275

Wow'

2 (6oo)"(2-93)

Sesjrlo-y :F.

ror

0.005385

o-64

Hence, ,
Ce.: 2.93 (600)(0-64)( 27S ) iy, ,

KIV. 178.6Y =

end;,,

g7

reSi5

taO7CC

For 0sis&nce ser, oYon

;5

fi-aiuve-rsey ol
I'ake,?

Aft,

be. the girder, 7d4? re5iiffened . , beam which is nol ol compa, c

Y'heYesset' 0/

a5

etc

or

Ext. 'Sn

clause

348

whe. -e, Zx, and mm zxj areto the clas4k mootal; ol the sec'h*0,7

i-esped eg,hTme. 1'&? 5iO4 #VIC SCC , 6c the

the

the

a"d "'0 e-xbeme eomol-45510-17 Xhe ecSp"WJl&j1, bgtSCA-J On

*/, m" 17-rg

nom; nzl

C&mp-essive- sloess clev-ived yje,1,1 sl. *,e

a mait-p;
A AP eva/t*zreoo-deo,
Ae
Al iwe jw

AbeMe- yi-deo- xec-42>n moW4-&le4$

6 we., Mickness
q-4-2-5

toe
a3

61pa, "ld
f'P"OW-<

be,

M W; 2CCordigwde 171-1

twe

1.425' 68< Yeew

0.00625 Er; <

Yc v i. 11 228

where

Yc.:

the depA Me of

ol

web

neural clasiic The 6eam io Me

measwvot axis ol

ils Irom plane /;7 the yross sccAon

I*eWeb compt-ess-i'vecetfc 0/

300 min
ewe = 2.52

go

mm

349

Z.xj

couid

be. consideted

a-v

11hr- rmlasA-,

sechloo

Pnodulas

Z,

Nhcreo-s

Zxc

sbaval 6c

//7 olcAarmineco'

etcCordal7ce. W; i*'4 rhe ellecivd

a dvmp&"; ee-

9.1-3 llat? the ol

SlA. &SS *4

sccAon
tyie/d

laAcol 6ee, rbp(,aaf

Allosas ets -

wi-M

ewol"azeal

Acc try 71a dy7o' 4)7, V e: the, sech-c,.. 7

K, =.J;o

Ot? d
0,7cla4t. 5 0/

2.52 (60CO)l 12

1 250(10)3 12

510598666.6
Z=

mon4f 1647o92.473

Ix
( dw/2 + ti)

m#"b

Ac, -,e7ort! Mt =Z Syl = (1647062.47)(275) = 4-52.9S

KA1. m

feni 6endl Coe%is c) I's and shezuWe6s WiYb b7termediafe- Iransvdrsc 4ombined shear (Cl"Je v 4<5 awel bond; Z shoald 9.9-3) vt I Sii1je), erS 4Ad j"6jectecl sahrl Me ,y /o

(2)

M0

350

(3)

> Mm

then

-L fib
V
Vb

,(/-

V t4't Y 2VA
Mb
)( 12 M V, r' -wie

-Ir-

(4)

V>Vq

then

Vb

m1he're
V vo matimum is the

for, in fhe. panel ce sheatShewcapace-y f the pane. 1 .4de, o-

$heap deAMined is Me valae9.9-2.2

be, , odiny mameni wimia */7e len ym

aPP601y is

hd maz; mu."

IP/

the Pailel

1,14?: )-dl :M., P)

C/I ii be. Wslance 6elwem Me cenlroids I lanj le-r itivo

Ar-om a6om.
V'=
16, T KN .9
kAf-s7

247.5'

T/ z- / 7cf. 43 kov ,6

Mb = 457- 95'

14**Id -VAe 76 p
V, Vb c: and hena. = j33-97 KAt 'OhM ftkO ---I' 'C" =0-48 C,

(2.93)(60o)(0-48X275/ry) 7C=

351

7o //; 7d

1lfR

I, z(250)(10)(275)(610)

F M, dl, be i e,: z. z
Z4 19-,5 Ktv.m

conoliiion
condi4ion

(/)
(2)

As sa4is)ei-ed siiceis sa4isf4itel 5-Iccl

V<Vj>
H . tlb <

si7ee-

M<Me

and
VA x Vb 1 111 lllq

V-Vq
) -1

the

on6e cbeck

meededis.

1d5 178.6

i33-9712(247-5) )( I 3 SF. 78-16 /

z 0.323 -po. 250

96 8 Ir- I .

eansversc Design s4iffeners of

7he. V-ransverse/040, shjftoert ellreas , arhowd bet o';cs6mcd 71-6 Idsls/

a)

axiaL h ' w,

orce-

/v cAte.

1,1&ld 1cn5; oo aw, n , ;,7 acccorclan-ce-

9- 13.3.2

axiaL

rapre4,enAy -1ha cpleslablijj,?? l*

1.11aencroe
9.13.3.3

Me we6 )Mw; a) A-viat

Pece- 4Vae Ao Aensico 11-clae acl*on

3.6 E It ( 6) 22 I 1+ --6wj(-W-H)

(3-6)(205000)

3 5.2 0

--rf

'6e- av&Ve-

Shed-4-S&css in Met wieb panel ;5 ypedLiep-

352

1, f17, tenxion -eloe aciio* an c-,,,,

occu. In Ae web panel, and as j be C4&: / wj// S" 6y 1&'LqA* -7 e*A-e. jf1vt.

sl7ouvo,

6e re5d., ly,

a554, m r-oi

lo

Me. j,

hu*svcrj,

ArCe-

oVer

h4s

is h; Ci rh e veur

0r

tw
Fj. (03.85-

(600)(2.9. Y)
35-20)(2-93)(600) Fj,, adyng o)e the
0/

= 103-12 ArAl
i

32 tw

-+

this aken

)COrce as

is /0

he
C-9

;n the vvcb. 11mew.

t5

miolplanogX Mop7enj

M4L5ft;

1lAdd,

+ Avw Aprewe te"Signi 4h j:S

Z. 7 ecs; sl' asiumed oevletylhe 11-tiot 744p and 1%e4 . fhe S-lille4c. a Olee-deAV peo xemA. n /S lio-sl 4rce4,7c V 6cnaliV Che4kcal moowo4l,

k5ame-

5A#e-mer .
mmi

ol

01 4 8.11

6 72 00 7.25

Ae

q14.71 mmt = r2-4S mm i:

27. S4 mm

353

CbecAt on Sh-C5Se. S

Fit iF

Ptr

tW12)

/03- 12- lo" ? 14 71

103-12 (27-S# 1-465-)(30-S) 67goo7.2S

248.418 77-y 7s x 7.5" Ae. = 937-2/ T441ol-37 mmy

< 275-

Sell=

5'0.285 Men
103-12 x103 te7.2-/ 103.12 x103 (24-7/5'+ SIVIVIOI. 37 =260.03 < 273' Iv/. wo

Axioa or&lo elleaiveils 6 orde,sAillence

y omppesmil;
bucklin T seclion axis

ciasla&i j my eellect,

ce. ", -ojdaj (Clawe

Abe. Abd 6 plaic we. ol , /0 6e. Cal---,, chouid ass"mcof Y Ao; comp-o-essive ieore-f,a

z:; =
to

A'zLks

600 mn
600 mm

itv= 2.93mm
, 4ts

is a constant

oleoenvlir on the

parame&.

354

,0/

&he s-Iiheen&-

f., sco

,y

/7, P-se y
wheve
14

rse.
600 2 S-4 q ; 275 S5 -

2 o. 7/

0.OS-

whet-d

Z:74,? ,s Z? aal.

fo

whichev&-

15 Aess.

sl L,

matimam vala c o/ '*e

6e,) ov*m ,7 alone

in

be we-6 cruc ya I 9AI

Aft"

Z-. z7, e= =s5, - 20

247S /6470'?

/V/Mn,
150.26 Allmmt (Preiiotts mesuLfs)

6, it 10 Z. 47

3S. 20*1,50,2

60.2

42

lvlmm'.

Fw; r
Ckeek
Z7

tI S, -. a

tw Ars 6-g =

(2-93)(0-OS)(90-24)= 6oo
.
Me
Y/

5.295'ksv

0/0 WC6 p/a7leaddsWOt7 '71c' _y;

SAAe-5scs
elcvo*ttj l 4::,

ShlAmAof7

cAack

w/7, 'c-A-

A,"

6 con eone-

e4", 'a ,,&y ,a

lAo- "c. 6A, &ZL

check

355

t z,,, sh,,
(64

6,e

as

lollows

6, e =V

Ile -t

953, iv

whe.*-&
6-e07 , Pveb he ma*; mi&m in fA. . djs Zbe- eh4c-4-, ve. ;n YKt. ipcehb, 7 i, *c1,4c3(ew

PI4V4f-

due- Ap all
64 med-n =0j, &POqcd, 7%; S nAl

Avi

en>li me, 42AW

sl-.,. es5

(?Ar4--

jj

Ae-

le-s5e-- ol

o-77

an-cl

2y/b

(CIA"5e-

1h, jr

dAje_

k=c,. 77.
(SS-2 0) r-

ce

62 Z

[0 -77

4'V)]

+3

= /30.72

'. 7S' vlmq <2

Backll: z

V6 o/ ev4-,
5A

xew-on
6*ho&&iql

Abe. ellecAjlc
Allow, -4j P--

/7c>, r4e4r-, *7

A
710n SdC,

zx (SYS
malxilnum 716-AaL
Fz Fli J. 5' 2q KAi /0 = -k 49.41
se-&hbP7= 837.21 mn'

=/03.12

ef)&4-Mlesl#? nw

356

et,

7 ,

the

slelmI? ess-

2 0.7

23d.

'Y

anal he , CL

(5e, =2
Afzs . Me

64
Me e.

Ilvlnw
m4wo", " nome, 7-1 a6ocd 54CAOAI Abe dle-71f-oi61 cP/

SAIII&O"ef-

IM' 2 2
2x lvwe-s elas4;

108.41(24-715.4-IV65) = 2638-173AW-o"in
'moclujas #kcAkce,

sec6o,

ol

Me

It# jt = _

SVIV101.37 2, f 7/5't . 2.173

19681-72

min

Mxs

As, 6,e, -

zz

108-41 x 1CP (837. Z/)(26t/)

s

2 838.173

XtO

1?6 8A 72 )(2 7S)

=
Hence, HleIrom Me

0.4q05
above-

* 0.5'24
Cherks, il

= /-0/ --, /-0

CAn 6C Seer; I:s app. -&,PwmZ@-

s4il#enc., - serzil; or?

V4..-;ou-c

7S*x7. Sm, "

motne4-lr

6j ,

Me

B55,9,00

357

RANAL

AND

14ARbllv&

APPROACH
1

WN1

35-5

3r51

b= 600 n#i
jr-rCy q3.85275, (r3)

Xz 180
= 0.61.

4, = 0/6 = J.

cortlopondr 51At. cs syev, a

Ylo ^e. /*&

malue

b-aluverra g1wen 6y

SAj

Me. bewd-*? j momeli ,

I'm
Ise x/o, 120-21 Prcrt*octs resc&Lfs)

1647092-47 12o. z1 275

6y,

o. 4376.

A/ca cz
c'13

0)

2,576 ilyi -.i)

31z IIID.

61)

(0

7 43 415 o.

/S. /J"7 MAno; bL 7r % 15'.15'7(600) ?rZ

se-c-hon
6 BI/ 6.

40 X4
hmm

358

Men ce
rlsg46, YS w

6-, e

re

//

WAX I-C

;5

Ahe

loysi'le

sA, 4ir

4L/

;,1/7e slilleace

0"",

td

6'e =

(33-S6) S6-662 8, V. cp,? .

6811S. the

Slo

278 =

lWam" --

275'.

dompai"nq

sAh4nc, Ao ;/

- av;tiewsio4s Mase.

cva-1&4%ZLof acco. --w, V yeo

cu. --t-rnn p---opo-sa-lBSS'qoo -ejaitrmewls ,

evt1aaZLaf

Ck4

6c

1 cVec1"-cu;. Yh4Y

app.. ocLck

e9"2
oc ,ooS'(Ioo
7'4,e

y 7,0 4 74

ct-o4s

se-clybrL&4

aoeA.

ne xs

fa 7e-

compo-es5ifd

s-b-css

a/

o. 2 dy'
7%e KIC-6

was

a s5umed
fO the.

&6e

acAh !j,

it? the plane-

ol

h7 CtO'OWiOI7

COMbil7e. C/ SI?C*.P- 9217d 6dnQej*, Ty Sftsses-

717, e

Aners are 14t-an5veriesh:

Y'Ucp

redesi ne-d accer-cliftjr to

Abe.

060ve, j) .
1/

/Ollows. /yes As appi-O&C. t-etyzc)remen1 -y r0-2c2 7s) = 55 Nlmn, &

SS5'yoo

6: =0-26,

**

tiaL
2. gE(

omevv -jLw 6)

ol"e14-15

74o

tewsi64

Az/al

sinct-

6e-

14.1y

Ah e, o

'Ca,=o

359

F
IK x
Fo, -c. e

iw a
tvptc5e-*7 dC5&611, ht ,7e, 64 CYA

ASSceMe,

SeChb, 7 12 0x 12.0

,4=

1714-71 ~1
257 g.
2

-rel

x=

es

SC 13.

=:: p

1<5 = dl-C/

whev--e -C, Q= VC,

6'b = /, To. 26 At/mm'

6c-.= 6S' All."m I

lleflCA.

80-044

V/nw'

Fivi

(600)(2.113)(0.01)(ir0.044) we. 6

1-407 =

Km.

360

5/ ,

ptl

(f

* iv, /2)

(, W*

16 4.91 /7/4-7/

x /0

/ 6,9. ?,f x /0 3 2599838.8

(S1-C76)(S3-1'V1)

= 270-41-V/664' < 275.

6)

ol

web

pletie
[11,0.77(ISO. y ZOW

6 r
= /70-70 < 275' IvIam"

c)

A34cck/byz
z1 5-4o, &, ld

ol
be-

e#ec4iye.
seLA

S7174&Aar

'reC4-4"

f; 17CA

eompw-ed

74D

Ocd-, j

RabaL 2)
Wz 3,1'-5

and

Hardi? 5
1(

4pp**-oo-ch.
6-C j6 5; n lrx

(75-S-)

O./Z
kv, wo, x = 53. qI

1.60
NIM,,-

oS/13.
lf3C6'27.

IVICM -

V66

AlmA

7,, -V jec-kiol?
alke Me A'1&dA--, l': same

65. v 6 .5
b, 7 also 6c 26 0- SS-Z conelmde-of < .2 75-.

e-oald

UNWERSITY U6W UF SWIM;