SHEAR BUCKLING RESISTANCE OF CANTILEVER GIRDERS WITH CORRUGATED WEB

Witold BASIŃSKI

Open Access

SHEAR BUCKLING RESISTANCE OF CANTILEVER GIRDERS WITH CORRUGATED WEB

Witold BASIŃSKI

| May 20, 2019

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment

Volume 12 (2019): Issue 1 (March 2019)

About this article

Cite

Published Online: May 20, 2019

Page range: 63 - 79

Received: Jul 19, 2018

Accepted: Jan 24, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/acee-2019-006

Keywords
Cantilever girders with corrugated web type SIN, Interactive shear buckling resistance, Design shear buckling resistance, Support stiffener, Finite element method

© 2019 Witold BASIŃSKI, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Cantilever SIN girders: a) static scheme, b) flat plates on the support in the SIN girder

Cantilever girders with corrugated web a) models M 1.12, M 2.12 b) models M 1.22, M 1.32, M 1.42, M 1.52, M 2.22, M 2.32, M 2.42, M 2.52; c) d) end stiffeners

a) Girder 2.32 on the test stand; b) steel frame FR

Location of strain gauges on the girder web M 2.52

Strain in the direction 60° relative to the axis of the web a) girder M 1.32; b) girder M 2.12

Diagram of global displacements y of tested girders

Load – displacements paths P(y) of girders a) M 1.12 (2×300×20); b) M 2. 12 (2×300×20 mm)

Load – displacements paths P(y) of girders a) M 1.52 (2×300×25 mm); b) M 2. 52 (2×300×25 mm)

Failure modes of cantilever SIN girders: a) M 1.12 (2×300×20 mm); b) M 2. 52 (2×300×25 mm)

Boundary conditions and load application to numerical model

Comparison of LDPs P(y): a) tests M 1.42; b) FEM 1250×2

Comparison of LDPs P(y): a) test M 2.52; b) FEM 1500×2

Comparison of failure modes: a) experimental girder M 1.12 (500×2: stiffener 2×300×20); b) numerical model 500×2 (stiffener: 2×300×20)

Failure modes of numerical models: a) 1000×2 (stiffener 2×300×25); b) 1000×2.5 (stiffener 2×300×25)

Comparison of failure modes: a) experimental girder M 1.52 (1500×2: stiffener 2×300×25); b) numerical model 1500×2 (stiffener: 2×300×25)

Normalized shear resistance in function of the slenderness

Current numerical program

h_w [mm]	t_w [mm]	Flange [mm]	Suport stiffener [mm]	w [mm]	L [mm]	Number of models
1	2	3	4	5	7	8
500	2; 2.6; 3	300×15	2×300×20	1500	6350	3
1000	2; 2.6; 3	300×15	2×300×25	1500	6350	3
1250	2; 2.6; 3	300×15	2×300×25	1500	6350	3
1500	2; 2.6; 3	300×15	2×300×25	1500	6350	3

Experimental results of girders

Girder	Web h_w x t_w [mm]	Flange [mm]	Suport stiffener	Failure modes	Limit load P_eB [kN]	First buckling load P_u,Rd [kN]	P_eB /P_u,Rd [%]
2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
M 1.12	500×2	300×15	2×300×20	L	184	147	0.80
M 2.12	500×2	300×15	2×300×25	L	181	151	0.82
M 1.22	1000×2	300×20	2×300×25	I	342	298	0.87
M 2.22	1000×2	300×15	2×300×25	L	343	296	0.86
M 1.32	1000×2.6	300×20	2×300×25	I	478	380	0.79
M 2.32	1000×2.6	300×15	2×300×25	I	492	390	0.79
M 2.42	1000×3	300×15	2×300×25	I	694	510	0.73
M 1.42	1250×2	300×15	2×300×25	I	348	304	0.87
M 1.52	1500×2	300×15	2×300×25	I	468	400	0.85
M 2.52	1500×2	300×15	2×300×25	I	459	399	0.87

Numerical results of girders

Girder h _w x t _w [mm]	Support Stiffener	Failure modes	Limit load P _u,Rd [kN]	First buckling load P _eB [kN]	P _eB /P _u,Rd [%]
1	2	3	4	5	6
500×2	2×300×20	L	154.1	149.1	0.97
500×2.5	2×300×20	L	192.2	186.8	0.97
500×3	2×300×20	L	231.3	224.6	0.97
1000×2	2×300×25	L	308.1	297.2	0.96
1000×2.5	2×300×25	I	384.3	371.3	0.97
1000×3	2×300×25	I	462.2	445.3	0.96
1250×2	2×300×25	I	384.6	360.1	0.94
1250×2.5	2×300×25	I	480.4	449.9	0.94
1250×3	2×300×25	I	576.5	539.5	0.94
1500×2	2×300×25	I	460.8	419.2	0.91
1500×2.5	2×300×25	I	575.6	531.9	0.92
1500×3	2×300×25	I	687.5	635.7	0.92

Material properties

Girder	${\bar{f}}_{y}$ [MPa]	${\bar{f}}_{u}$ [MPa]	Percentage total elongation at maximum force (F_m ) [%]	Percentage total elongation at fracture [%]	${\bar{f}}_{y}$ [MPa]	${\bar{f}}_{u}$ [MPa]	Percentage total elongation at maximum force (F_m ) [%]	Percentage total elongation at fracture [%]	E [GPa]
web					flange
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
M 1.12	334.7	430.6	16.1	22.1	297.5	443.1	23.9	30.3	196
M 2.12	337.9	429.1	15.7	20.8	311.2	476.7	24.5	30.8	188
M 1.22	339.4	435.4	15.9	22.2	287.2	448	24.1	31.4	200
M 2.22	336.3	427.3	14.9	22.5	323.5	461.4	23.1	29.6	234
M 1.32	312.5	453.9	13.8	20.2	264.2	460.9	22.6	28.0	199
M 2.32	324.6	451.5	13.6	19.2	293.9	442.1	25.1	32.3	241
M 2.42	445.9	544.1	10.7	14.6	301.5	439.8	21.3	27.7	205
M 1.42	267.2	360.9	13.4	19.9	302.8	440.4	22.9	30.8	199
M 1.52	299.1	380.5	16.8	23.3	312.5	445.6	24.1	30.0	200
M 2.52	281.0	375.5	17.2	24.6	306.7	449.3	21.9	28.6	203

Comparison investigations, FEM analysis with design [6, 1] and proposed resistances (17)

Girder h_w x t_w [mm]	τ_INV [MPa]	τ_FEM [MPa]	$\frac{τ_{I N V}}{τ_{Y}}$	$\frac{τ_{F E M}}{τ_{Y}}$	$\frac{τ_{n, S B}}{τ_{Y}}$	$\frac{τ_{n, E C}}{τ_{Y}}$	$\frac{τ_{n, B A}}{τ_{Y}}$	$\frac{τ_{n, B A}}{τ_{I N V}}$	$\frac{τ_{n, B A}}{τ_{F E M}}$
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
500×2	147.0	149.1	0.80	0.92	0.79	0.86	0.86	1.09	0.93
500×2.5		149.4		0.92	0.79	0.91	0.86		0.93
500×3		149.7		0.92	0.79	0.95	0.86		0.93
1000×2	149.0	148.6	0.78	0.92	0.79	0.83	0.86	1.10	0.94
1000×2.5	152.0	148.5	0.90	0.92	0.79	0.88	0.86	0.96	0.94
1000×3	170.0	148.4	0.75	0.91	0.79	0.93	0.86	1.26	0.94
1250×2	121.6	144.0	0.86	0.89	0.79	0.82	0.85	1.01	0.96
1250×2.5		144.0		0.89	0.79	0.88	0.85		0.96
1250×3		143.9		0.89	0.79	0.92	0.86		0.96
1500×2	133.0	139.7	0.88	0.86	0.79	0.82	0.84	0.96	0.98
1500×2.5		141.8		0.87	0.79	0.87	0.85		0.97
1500×3		141.3		0.87	0.79	0.92	0.85		0.97
AVG.			0.83	0.90	0.79	0.88	0.85	1.06	0.95

eISSN:: 1899-0142
Language:: English

Publication timeframe:: 4 times per year
Journal Subjects:: Architecture and Design, Architecture, Architects, Buildings

Journal RSS Feed

SHEAR BUCKLING RESISTANCE OF CANTILEVER GIRDERS WITH CORRUGATED WEB

Article Category: research-article

Published Online: May 20, 2019

Page range: 63 - 79

Received: Jul 19, 2018

Accepted: Jan 24, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/acee-2019-006

Keywords
Cantilever girders with corrugated web type SIN, Interactive shear buckling resistance, Design shear buckling resistance, Support stiffener, Finite element method

© 2019 Witold BASIŃSKI, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Current numerical program

Experimental results of girders

Numerical results of girders

Material properties

Comparison investigations, FEM analysis with design [6, 1] and proposed resistances (17)

SHEAR BUCKLING RESISTANCE OF CANTILEVER GIRDERS WITH CORRUGATED WEB

Article Category: research-article

Published Online: May 20, 2019

Page range: 63 - 79

Received: Jul 19, 2018

Accepted: Jan 24, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/acee-2019-006

KeywordsCantilever girders with corrugated web type SIN, Interactive shear buckling resistance, Design shear buckling resistance, Support stiffener, Finite element method

© 2019 Witold BASIŃSKI, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Current numerical program

Experimental results of girders

Numerical results of girders

Material properties

Comparison investigations, FEM analysis with design [6, 1] and proposed resistances (17)

Keywords
Cantilever girders with corrugated web type SIN, Interactive shear buckling resistance, Design shear buckling resistance, Support stiffener, Finite element method