ELSEVIER

PII:

S0263-8231

Thin-Walled Structures Vol. 29, Nos. 1-4, pp. 13 30, 1997

1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0263-8231/97 $17.00 + .00
(97)0001
2-8

Shear Buckling Resistance of Steel and Aluminium Plate

Girders
Torsten H6glund
Department of Structural Engineering,The Royal Institute of Technology,Stockholm,
Sweden

ABSTRACT
During the development of Eurocode 9 for aluminium alloy structures a
number of design methods for the shear buckling resistance of plate
girders were appraised, by comparison with experimental data. Among
studied methods the so-called rotated stress fieM method [H6"glund, T.,
Design of thin plate I girders in shear and bending with special reference
to web buckling. Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Building
Statics & Structural Engineering, Stockholm, 1972], with some
modifications, was found to give the best agreement with 366 tests on steel
plate girders as well as 93 tests on aluminium alloy plate girders in shear.
The method is simple to use and is applicable to unstiffened, transversally
and longitudinally stiffened and trapezoidally corrugated webs. This paper
presents the rotated stress field method and summarizes the result of the
comparisons, including the design methods in Eurocode 3, Part 1.1,
version April 1992, for steel plate girders. The rotated stress field method
is also adopted in Eurocode 3, Part 1.5: plated structures, draft July 1996.
1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION
The rotated stress field method is based on H6glund.l Originally it was
developed for girders with web stiffeners at the supports only, a structure
for which other tension field methods are very conservative.
In the design proposal I the allowable shear force was reduced for large
slenderness ratios hw/tw because of limited number of tests, at that time only
two for hw/tw > 210 for girders with no intermediate stiffeners. Since then a
number of tests have been made, showing that this reduction is not needed.
13

T. HSglund

14

In this paper is presented:

the rotated stress field method;
design formulae for girders with stiffeners at supports only;
influence of transversal and longitudinal web stiffeners;
influence of rigid flanges;
influence of bending moment;
comparison with other tension field methods and comparisons with
tests.
Tests on aluminium alloy plate girders were found in Refs 2-10 and tests
on steel plate girders in Refs 11-44.

WEB WITH STIFFENERS AT SUPPORTS ONLY

For webs in shear there is a substantial post-buckling strength provided
that, after buckling, tension membrane stresses, anchored in surrounding
flanges and transverse stiffeners, can develop. In a pure state of shear the
absolute value of the principal membrane stresses al and a2 are the same
as long as no buckling has occurred (z < zcr). After reaching the buckling
load (Vcr = z~rhwtw)the web plate will buckle and redistribution of stresses
starts. Increased load results in increased tensile stress al but only slightly,
or not at all, increased compressive stress a2.
For a very thin web, after buckling, a2 is much less than trl and can be
neglected. If the flanges are prevented from coming nearer each other
(Fig. 1) then
z = trl sin ~bcos q5 = 0.5al sin 2tk.

(1)

The direction of the tensile stresses is chosen to give z = m a x i m u m .

Putting al equal to the yield strength of the web, fyw, then the result
is

~l--t*-t~-t~t--t
V

V
o - 2 ~ o 1

(a)

Cry

(b)

Fig. 1. State of stress in a very thin web with transversely restrained edges (ideal tension
field).

Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders

,u_O.Sfyw_V~
--for

f.

fv

15

q~ = 450

(2)

where
_ fyw

fv -- x/~"

(3)

This theory, often called ideal tension f i e l d theory, is valid only if the
flanges are prevented from moving towards each other by an external
structure, for instance, an inner panel in a plate with rigid cross
beams and stringers.
In a long beam, with transverse stiffeners at the ends only, nothing but
the web prevents the flanges moving towards each other, this is why the
membrane stresses in the transverse direction are zero. Equilibrium for a
triangle according to Fig. 2(g) gives

0.1

--

17

(4)

tan ~b

02 = - ~ tan q$

(5)

where ~b constitutes the direction of the principal stress.

This state of stress has a stress component 0"h in the longitudinal direction

0"h

z (ta~ ~b

tan q~ )

(6)

-~- 0"1 q'- 0"2"

The total longitudinal force in the web is less than

)/"d
i"v

/;',',\~
.__._

(a)

(b~j/

,X

(C)

(d)

Z" ,.- -,-tl

li

(e) shear
stresses only

Gh

h
(h)

(
l

O-h

(f) shear and

membranestresses

(g) principal
stresses

Fig. 2. State o f stress in the web o f a b e a m with transverse stiffeners at the ends only
(rotated stress field).

16

T. H6glund
Nh = 0.hh+tw

(7)

because close to the flanges there is more or less a pure shear state of
stress.
This force has to be anchored at the ends of the beam by a transverse
short beam called rigid endpost, in order to fully develop the rotated stress
field (see Fig. 2(a)). This end post is supported by the flanges, which
results in compressive forces in the flanges at the ends of the beam.
The ultimate shear strength of the beam can be derived using the yon
Mises yield criterion
4

(8)

and assuming that the compressive stress remains equal to the shear
buckling stress after buckling, but acting in a smaller angle than 45
0"2 :

(9)

--'~cr"

Furthermore, the slenderness parameter 2w is introduced

,F

2w = g~cr where ~cr = k+ 12(1 - v2)

(10)

From eqns (3)(5), (8)(10) the ultimate strength % =~ can be derived as a

function of 2w
f~zu--4~V~
1 2 ~Fw

424

2X/32~1for 2w _> 1.00.

(11)

The large square-root in (11) is close to 1.00 if 2w>_2.5. Then

z.
1.32
-- ~
for 2w > 2.5

f+

2w

(12)

The inclination of the tension stress 0.1 defined by the angle ~b is decreased
when the ratio "Cu/Zc+is increased. That is why the theory is called the
rotated stress field theory.
In the diagram in Fig. 3 z,,/f~ is given as a function of the slenderness
parameter kw. The shear stress corresponding to the buckling load, 1/2w2,
is also given in the diagram, as well as a line corresponding to the ideal
tension field and some test results on plate girders with stiffeners at the
supports only.
The solid circles are tests on beams with rigid end posts. These tests
agree very well with the curve for the rotated stress field theory.
The unfilled circles correspond to beams with only one stiffener at the
girder end, non-rigid end post. Such end posts have only limited ability to
serve as anchors for the longitudinal membrane stresses, and hence the

Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders

1
Vu

~ o

/.~S'id.._ealten_..
siOnfield'L

0,8

~ ; stress field"

o,6

0,4
0,2

17

critical
stress

1 ~,~
"~w" ~

rigid end post

vl '

0 non-rigid end post

slenderness parameter

Aw

Fig. 3. Shear force resistance according to tension field theories and tests.

ultimate load is less than for beams with rigid end posts. But there is still a
substantial post buckling strength.
In drafts of Eurocode 3, Part 1.5 (plated structures) and Eurocode 9
(aluminium structures) design formulas for the reduction factor

z,,
pv --L7

(13)

are given. The value of Pv (denoted Xv in Eurocode 3, Part 1.5) is somewhat reduced compared to the rotated stress field theory to allow for
scatter in test results as a result of initial imperfections and plastic buckling.
The shear force capacity is

(14)

Vw = p~fywhwtw.

The shear buckling reduction factor Pv is given in Table 1 and in the

diagram in Fig. 4.
For small slenderness ratios, 2w < 0.48/7, strain hardening in shear can
take place, giving larger strength than corresponding to initial yielding,
r/= 1/v"3~0.58. Then
TABLE 1

Reduction Factor Pv for Shear Buckling

2.,
2w < 0.48/~/
0-48/r/_<2w < 0.95
0.95_<2w < 1.08
2w_>1-08

Rigid end post

Steel

Aluminium

r!
0.48/2w
0-48/2w
0.79/(0-7 + 2 ~ , )

r1
0.48/2w
1-32/(1.66 + 2.,)
1.32/(1-66 + 2w)

Non-rigid end post

~l
0.48/2w
0.48/2,,
0.48/2w

T. H6glund

18

r/

0,

/\

0,6

Rigid end post

0,5

........

-- - aluminium

Pv

~ ~ ' ~

o,3

0,2

Non rigid end post I

0,1 . . . .

"--

~,~

00

1.0
Fig.

2.0

3.0

4. R e d u c t i o n factor Pv for shear buckling.

~7= 0.70 for $235, $275 and $355

z/= 0.60 for $420 and $460
~7= 0.4 + 0.2(f,,w)/(fyw) for aluminium wherefuw is the ultimate strength
of the web material.
TRANSVERSELY S T I F F E N E D WEB
Transverse stiffeners welded to the web have two main effects on the behaviour and strength of a girder in shear: first, they prevent the web from outof-plane deflections, thus increasing the elastic buckling strength, and
second, they prevent the flanges from coming closer to each other.
If the bending rigidity of the flanges about an axis in the centre of the
flange is large, then the prevention of the flanges moving towards each
other can be large (see later in this paper).
The shear buckling coefficient is, if simple supports are assumed all
around the web panel of length a and width hw,
k~ = 5.34 + 4(hw/a) 2 when a/h~ >_ 1.00

(15a)

k~ = 4.00 + 5.34(hw/a) 2 when a/hw < 1.00.

(15b)

L O N G I T U D I N A L L Y S T I F F E N E D WEB
Longitudinal stiffeners also protect the web from out-of-plane deflections.
If they are rigid enough they divide the web panel between transverse

Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders

19

stiffeners into sub-panels which buckle individually. If not, web buckling

includes lateral deflection of the longitudinal stiffeners.
In design the method for unstiffened webs is used but the buckling
coefficient is increased.
In Crate and L o 45 the buckling coefficient ks is given as a function of
the stiffness parameter Yst = EI/hwD for one centric longitudinal stiffener in
a long web panel. The theoretical curve can be approximated by
(16)

k, = 5.34 + 1.36

(see Fig. 5). This value of ks cannot directly be used in design because the
post-buckling strength is much less in a stiffened web than in an unstiffened one. Therefore, the stiffness I of the stiffener is reduced with a factor
of I/3. Inserting the reduced value I = Ist/3 and D = Et3/(12(1
V2)) into
(16) and using v=0.3 gives
-

(17)

k, = 5.34 + 2.1 V h- zw.

In a web with closely spaced transverse stiffeners and a longitudinal stiffener

with relative stiffness Vst, ks can be approximated with
k~ = 5.34-t - - - 4+
(a/hw) 2

3.45),y 4
(a/hw) 2 "

(18)

Comparisons between formula (18) and values according to K16ppel and

Scheer46 show good agreement (see Table 2).
Again, after reducing the stiffness of the longitudinal stiffener with a
factor of 1/3 and after rearranging we have

40

kr
3O

E/
--

10

~l~hw

~!

I I 1/111
- - k r = 21. 4

I1[I

\ l" Crate& L (1948)III

//IIII
1

//I

20

Eq (16)

]]1

100

1000

,,: . . . . . .

10

!/

~t

10000

Fig. 5. Buckling coefficient k~ for a plate with one centric longitudinal stiffener.

T. HSglund

20

TABLE 2
Buckling Coefficient ks
~St

K16ppel and Scheer 46

eqn (18)

50

100

200

500

600

75
75

120
119

190
193

375
375

430
428

k~= 5 . 3 4 + 4 ( k ~ ) +9.1 ( ~ ) 2

(ist~3/4

(19)

v - wj

The largest ks according to eqn (17) and eqn (19) should be used, but Zcr
should not be larger than that of the sub-panel giving the smallest value of
~Ccr.

It is assumed that the increase in ~cr associated with a low value of the
aspect ratio, a/hw, causes an increase in the load-carrying capacity, Vw,
which corresponds to the increase in Zcr. Therefore, ks given by eqns (17)
and (19) is substituted in eqn (10).

INFLUENCE OF RIGID FLANGES

As mentioned, transverse stiffeners prevent the web from deflecting and
prevent the flanges from coming nearer to each other at the stiffeners.
In the stage of failure, four hinges, denoted E, H, G, and K, form in the
top and bottom flanges (see Fig. 6(b)). A tension stress field, EHGK,
develops in the web. This tension stress field differs from the tension field
described, for instance, by Rockey and Skaloud 16, in that it is assumed to
be developed between the flanges only. The other parts of the tension field
dealt with by Rockey and Skaloud 16 may be imagined to be comprised in
a

i~ bf

(a)

VwI

-'-n

(b)

Vf'

(c)

Fig. 6. Model of web in the post-buckling range. (a) Shear force carried by the web by
rotated stress field. (b) Shear force carried by truss action, the development of which is
dependent on the rigidity of the flanges. (c) Notations for the cross section.

Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders

21

the rotated stress model shown in Fig. 6(a). The shear force, Vf, which is
transmitted by the tension stress field is obtained from the equation of
equilibrium of the flange portion c. This equation gives

VU- 4Zffyf
c

(20)

The tensile stresses in the tension stress field produce a stiffening effect on the
web (this effect is favourable to the load-carrying capacity) at the same time
as the effective stress increases in the web (this effect is mostly unfavourable).
However, it is assumed that the shear resistance of the web, Vw, is not
changed by the formation of the tension field between flanges. Then the
shear resistance of the girder, Vu, is the sum of the shear resistance of the
web, Vw, and the shear resistance contributed by the flanges, VT,

Vu = Vw + Vf.

(21)

As has been shown by the test series carried out by Rockey and Skaloud 47
and by Skaloud 17 the distance, c, between the plastic hinges in the flanges
varies from 0.16 to 0.55 times the spacing, a, of the stiffeners, depending
on the rigidity of the flanges. The distance c is estimated by means of eqn
(22) for steel plate girders

1.6bft~fyf~
c=

0.25 -+ twh~fy------7)a.

(22)

For aluminium plate girders a somewhat different formula gives better

correlation with the test results. The coefficients 0.25 and 1.6 in eqn (22)
are replaced by 0.08 and 4.4 for aluminium.

E F F E C T OF B E N D I N G M O M E N T
If the girder is subjected to a shear force and at the same time to a bending
moment of small magnitude (M < My, where Mf = AFlfyf is the moment
capacity of the flanges, dis the distance between centroides of flanges), then it
is assumed that the stresses in the web which are caused by the bending
moment do not influence that portion, Vw, of the shear force which is resisted
by the web. On the other hand, these stresses influence that portion, Vf, of the
shear force which is resisted by the tension field between the flanges.

Vrea = V,, + Vf 1 -

when M < Mr.

(23)

If M > Mr, then the flanges cannot contribute to the shear capacity of the
girder, and the capacity of the web to carry shear forces is reduced. The

T. H6glund

22

V w + Vf

23)
/(24)
C
I
I

!
!
I

ID
!

Mpt

Mof
Fig. 7. Interaction diagram for a girder subjectedto a shear force and a bending moment.
interaction formula published by Basler48 is applied (see the curve portion BD in the interaction diagram, Fig. 7)

M=My+(Mp-My)

1-

(24)

O T H E R DESIGN METHODS
Many other design methods have been proposed for a plate girder in shear
(see e.g. the survey in Galambos49). Most of these theories start with the
elastic buckling load Vc,. and add a load corresponding to different types
of diagonal tension fields. Many of these theories give good results for
beams with small web panel aspect ratios, but conservative results when
the distance between the transverse stiffener is large, because the contribution from the tension field is small. To meet this disadvantage, the
tension field method in Eurocode 3, Part 1.1 (version April 1992) is
supplemented with a so-called simple post-critical method, which is actually very similar to the rotated stress field method (Vw) presented here.
As is shown in the comparisons with the tests the rotated stress field
method (including Vf) gives good agreement with tests. The method is also
much simpler to use.

COMPARISONS WITH TESTS

Comparisons are made for aluminium girders =-~ as well as steel
girders. 11--44

Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders

23

The tests cover

girders
girders
girders
girders

with
with
with
with

stiffeners at supports only; 9' 22,23, 32

transverse intermediate stiffeners; 2-1' 13-2~
longitudinal and transverse stiffeners; s' 6, l l, 12,31, 35-42
trapezoidally corrugated webs. 9' 24, 30,43,44

The total number of tests is 366, 93 in aluminium and 273 in steel. For
some of these types of girder the number of tests is few. For instance, there
are only three tests on aluminium girders with corrugated webs 9 and eight
tests on longitudinally stiffened webs of aluminium. 5' 6
Especially the few aluminium girders with trapezoidally corrugated webs
make the design method for aluminium girders uncertain. The method,
proposed in the very first draft of Eurocode 9 for aluminium, is therefore
much more conservative than the method used in this comparison.
A few of all tests in the reports are omitted in the diagrams and in the
statistical evaluation. These tests are those where, according to the
authors, failure was initiated by none of the modes mentioned in the
following. Some tests were omitted because of failure due to insufficient
lateral bracing of the flange or failure in a weld. Some of the tests 9 which
failed in an overall web buckling mode failed at a load substantially larger
than the theoretical ultimate load. The reason is probably initial web
deflections in a different pattern than the overall buckling pattern which
prevented long buckles forming. 9 Finally, some of the tests by Granholm 22
are omitted because of unclear support conditions.

F A I L U R E MODES
The resistance of plate girder webs depends on many parameters, for
instance depth-to-thickness ratio hw/tw and web stiffener arrangements. In
the test reports failure modes illustrated in Fig. 8 are observed.
This appraisal covers test beams with stiffened and unstiffened webs which
failed due to shear buckling (failure modes b, e, f, h, i, j, k and 1) and overall
web buckling caused by transverse forces and curvature-induced transverse
stresses in the web (failure mode c). Girders failed due to patch loading
(failure mode d or g) are, among others, appraised by Lagerqvist. 34

THEORIES
The tests are compared with two sets of design formulae
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures--Part 1.1. General rule and rules
for buildings. ENV 1993-1-1:1992 April 1992.

24

T. H6glund
~,

]~(e(~)] (g)

"~(k)

(f)

~, no stiffener

(j)

(m)

(i)

(h)''~'

(I)

(o)

(P)

(q)

Fig. 8. (a)-(n)Web bucklingmodesand (o)-(q) flangebucklingmodes.

Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures. Draft June 1996 with
slight modifications. In the diagrams it is called 'H6glund'. The same
method is also proposed in Eurocode 3, Part 1.5: Plated structures,
draft July 1996.
Reference is made to these documents and to the above presentation of
the 'H6glund' formulation.

COMPARISON WITH DRAFTS OF E U R O C O D E 9 A N D

E U R O C O D E 3, PART 1.5: PLATED STRUCTURES ( H O G L U N D )
In the lower diagram in Fig. 9 test results on girders with flat webs are
summarized.
A special buckling mode called overall web buckling has been found in
aluminium girders without intermediate stiffeners9 (see Fig. 8(c)). This
buckling mode, not reported for steel girders, is a transverse column-type
buckling mode with no post-buckling strength. Theoretically, 33 it has been
found that this buckling mode can occur in long girders without intermediate
stiffeners loaded with distributed load or closely spaced concentrated loads.
For none of the tests is Vexp/VR less than 0.98 and the scatter is small,
the coefficient of variation being 0.10.
In Fig. l0 test results on girders with trapezoidaUy corrugated webs are
summarized. In Fig. 10(a) the value on the x-axis is a sort of measure of the
overall slenderness of the web. Iz is the second moment of area for the
corrugated web per unit width. VR is the shear force resistance provided that
only local buckling of flat parts, width bc of the corrugations, was considered,
using the buckling reduction factor Pv according to Fig. 4, non-rigid end
post. If global buckling is the reason why Vexpis much less than VR, then tests
with larger bw/Iz 1/3 should have less shear force capacity. But there is no

Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders

25

Q
0

1.5

;e

~d~.J

1.0

t, ~ ~ o Oo . +

~0 ~ / x
Q

"

~.

+~

~
~,
~"

o Rockey/Ev. T,A
zx Hamoodi
T,A
o Burt 7019
T,A

~, Basler
Cooper
Benson
N,A " Carskaddan
Benson
O,A Rockey/S I1
Benson
Y,A m Skaloud
* HOglu/Frey
,, Seah
T,A * Okumura &
Brown 7019 T,A : Oral~olmFujii
& at
+ Evans/Lee T,A o Roekey/S I
,~ Evans/Lee 7 T,A

I
I Eurocode 3 I
Combined method

0.5

Number of tests
187
Average value m
1.394
Coeff. of variation s 0.191
m - 2s
0.863

I
1

06
1"5 /

I
2

I-

f
3
,,

1.0

/.,

o
O

~7

N u m b e r o f tests
Average value m
Coeff. o f v a r i a t i o n s
m - 2s
0

~1

A = aluminium
S = steel
C = corrugated web
Fig. 9. C o m p a r i s o n

-2

Xw

~ 0

<>

I H~glund I

0.5

J
7

t,

' IIWA

i
6

*+
.,<~f#~ ,,I ~1,

i ....
5

o-~

"_W,-'.; ,
,e,J.

I
4

T,S
T,S
T,S
T,S
T,S
N,S
T,S
T,sT'S
T,S

363
1.172
0.102
0.933

a__1
3
4

v
v
x
+

Rockey/Ev.
Hamoodi
Burt 7019
Hamoodi
Benson
Benson
Benson
Benson
Seah
Seah
Brown 7019
Evans/Lee
Evans/Lee 7

T,A
T,A
T,A
L,A
N,A
O,A
Y,A

C,A

T,A
L,A
T,A

T,A
T,A

Apiee/Komat L,S
PWRI + + L,S
t, Basler
T,S
* Cooper
T,S
m Carskaddan T,S
*, Rockey/S II T,S
m Skaloud
T,S
o H6glu/Frey N,S
* Okumura & T,S
t Fujii & al
T,S
~ Granholm T,S
o Roekey/S I T,S
Leiva & al C,S
i
j

Xw

O = overall web buckling

T = transverse stiffeners
L = longitudinal stiffeners
Y = shear yielding
N = stiffeners at support only

o f r e s u l t s f o r p l a t e g i r d e r s as f u n c t i o n o f w e b s l e n d e r n e s s ratio.
A l u m i n i u m a l l o y a n d steel p l a t e girders.

26

T. H6glund
1.5

a)
1.0

V~p
local buckling
not reduce
00

--.....

..

no

.:" 7." .,:.~ -" : am" ' I

I I I II

I~

t 2~I

30O

400

1.5

b)

s*

"

1.0 f

IIdOCualu
buckling)
eea)

00t

0.5

.0

Fc

1.5

c)

hc

10 -

ocal buckling)

tw

0.5
Number of tests
Average value m
Coeff. of variation s
m - 2s
1

63
1.1"/9
0.104
0.935
3

# Benson
L e i v a & al

C,A
C,S

h w (local buckling)

Fig. 10. Girders with trapezoidally corrugated webs; s,24-30,43,44 (a) not reduced, (b) and
(c) reduced local buckling resistance.

tendency in that direction. The reduced strength is more likely to be local

buckling including adjacent flat panels thus initiating global or zonal buckling. If the local buckling load is reduced with a factor of 0.72, then the result
is much more coherent (see Fig. 10(b) and (c)). The slenderness parameter 2w
for local buckling is in the transition slenderness region 0.57 < 2,:< 0.95
which means that there is no post-buckling strength for local buckling.
The influence of different parameters is good and the scatter is reasonably small also for girders with trapezoidal webs. The coefficient of
variation for Vexp/VR,red is O. 1 1.

27

Shear buckling resistance of steel and alurninium plate girders

TABLE 3

Statistical Results and yM*-valuesfor Tests on Steel Plate Girders 5~

Stiffeners

Reference

No. of tests Std dev. Safety factor,

7M*
Non-rigid end post
Stiffeners at support
23, 22,35
only
Transverse stiffeners
J3.16
Rigid end post
Stiffeners at support
23,35
only
Transverse stiffeners
ll, 13,16-21,35,39-41
Longitudinal stiffeners
ll, 12,31,35--42 42
Interaction between shear and bending moment
Transverse stiffeners
18, 21

0'063

0"88

26

0.073

0.99

0-060

1.04

52
67

0-084
0.030

1.01
1.08

0-01

1' 10

C O M P A R I S O N W I T H E U R O C O D E 3, P A R T 1.1
In the upper diagram o f Fig. 9, the tests are compared with Eurocode 3,
Part 1.1. The larger o f the resistance according to the simple post-critical
method and the tension field m e t h o d is used, in the figure called
'combined method'. In the tension field method, iteration is used to find
the optimum value o f the inclination o f the tension field. As longitudinally
stiffened webs and trapezoidally corrugated webs are not covered in
Eurocode 3, Part 1.1, tests on girders with such webs are omitted.
For a single test series the scatter is small, but the average values of
V~xp/VR for the different series is different, resulting in larger total scatter,
the coefficient o f variation being 0.19.
The simple post-critical method gives in itself conservative results if aspect
ratio web panel a/bw is small and the flanges are large. On the contrary the
tension field method is conservative for girders with large a/bw.
Details of the appraisal is given in H6glund. 5 The tests on steel girders
are statistically evaluated in a background document to Eurocode 3, 51
showing that a safety factor 7~t-- 1.1 can be used (see Table 3).

REFERENCES
l. H6glund, T., Design of thin plate I girders in shear and bending with special
reference to web buckling. Royal Institute of Technology, Department of
Building Statics & Structural Engineering, Stockholm, 1972.
2. Evans, H. R. and Hamoodi, M. J. The collapse of welded aluminium
plate girders--an experimental study. Thin-Walled Structures, 5 (1987)
247-275.

28

T. H6glund

3. Evans, H. R. and Burt, C., Ultimate load determination for welded aluminium plate girders. In Aluminium Structures: Advances, Design and
Construction (Edited by R. Narayanan), pp. 70-80. Elsevier Applied Science,
London, 1990.
4. Rockey, K. C. and Evans, H. R., An experimental study of the ultimate load
capacity of welded aluminium plate girders loaded in shear. Research Report,
University of Wales, College of Cardiff, 1970.
5. Hamoodi, M. J., The behaviour of reinforced aluminium web plates in a
shear loading. MSc thesis, University of Wales College of Cardiff, 1983.
6. Seah, M. H., The behaviour of welded aluminium alloy plate girders reinforced with carbon fibre reinforced plastic. MSc thesis, University of Wales,
College of Cardiff, 1984.
7. Burt, C. A., The ultimate strength of aluminium plate girders. Ph.D thesis,
University of Wales, College of Cardiff, 1987.
8. Brown, K. E. P., The post-buckling and collapse behaviour of aluminium
girders. Ph.D thesis, University of Wales, College of Cardiff, 1990.
9. Benson, P. G., Shear buckling and overall web buckling of welded aluminium
girders. Ph.D thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Steel Structures, Stockholm, 1992.
10. Evans, H. R. and Lee, A. Y. N., An appraisal, by comparison with experimental
data, of new design procedures for aluminium plate girders. Proceedings of the
Institute of Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings, February 1995.
11. D'Apice, M. A., Fielding, D. J. and Cooper, P. B., Static tests on longitudinally stiffened plate girders. Welding Research Council, New York,
Bulletin No. 117, October 1966.
12. Komatsu, S., Ultimate strength of stiffened plate girders subjected to shear.
In IABSE Colloquium, Vol. 11, pp. 49-65. IABSE, London, 1971.
13. Basler, K., Yen, B. T., Mueller, J. A. and Thiirlimann, B. Web buckling tests
on welded plate girders. Welding Research Council, New York, Bulletin No.
64, September 1960.
14. Cooper, P. B., Lew, H. S. and Yen, B. T. Welded constructural alloy steel
plate girders. ASCE Journal, 1 (1964).
15. Carskaddan, P. S., Shear buckling of unstiffened hybrid beams. ASCE Journal, 8 (1968) 1965-1992.
16. Rockey, K. and Skaloud, M., Influence of the flexural rigidity of flanges
upon the load-carrying capacity and failure mechanism in shear. Acta Technica CSA V, 1969, 3.
17. Skaloud, M., Ultimate load and failure mechanism of webs in shear. In
IABSE Colloquium, Vol. 11, pp. 115-130. IABSE, London, 1971.
18. Okumura, T. and Nishino, F., Failure tests of plate girders using large-sized
models. Structural Engineering Laboratory Report, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Tokyo, 1966.
19. Okumura, T., Fujii, T., Fukumoto, Y., Nishino, F. and Okumura, T. Failure
tests on plate girders. Structural Engineering Laboratory Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, 1967.
20. Nishino, F. and Okumura, T., Failure tests of plate girders using large-sized
models. IABSE Eight Congress, Final report, New York, 1968.
21. Fujii, T., Comparison between the theoretical shear strength of plate girders
and the experimental results. Contribution to the prepared discussion. In
IABSE Colloquium, Vol. 11, pp. 161-172. IABSE, London, 1971.

Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders

29

22. Granholm, C.-A., L/ittbalkar (Light girders). Teknisk Tidskrift, Stockholm

(in Swedish), 1960-63.
23. Hrglund, T., Livets verkningss~it och b~irfrrm~ga hos tunnv~iggig I-balk.
(Behaviour and strength of the web of thin plate I-girders.). Royal Institute
of Technology, Department of Building Statics & Structural Engineering
Report No. 93, Stockholm (in Swedish), 1971.
24. Leiva, L., Skjuvbuckling av plhtbalkar med trapetsprofilerat liv. Delrapport
1. (Shear buckling of trapezoidally corrugated girder webs. Report Part 2.).
Chalmers University of Technology, Division of Steel and Timber Structures,
Publication S 83:3, Grteborg (in Swedish), 1983.
25. Bergfelt, A. and Leiva-Aravena, L., Shear buckling of trapezoidally
corrugated girder webs. Report Part 2, Chalmers University of Technology, Division of Steel and Timber Structures, Publication S 84:2, Grteborg, 1984.
26. Bergfelt, A., Edlund, B. and Leiva, L., Trapezoidally corrugated girder webs.
Ing. et Architects, Suisses, No. 1-2, January 1985.
27. K~ihrnen, A., About the calculation procedure of steel I-beam with
corrugated webs. Lappeenranta University of Technology (in Finnish),
1983.
28. Report No. RAT 3846, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, 1983.
29. Sheer, J., Versuche an tr~igern mit Trapezblechstegen. Bericht Nr. 8127.
Techniche Univ. Braunschweig, Inst. fiir Stahlbau, December 1984.
30. Grenzschubtragf'~ihigkeit von I-Tr~igern mit trapezfrrmig profilierten Stegen.
Stahlbau, 57, 12 (1988) 377-380.
31. Report of load resistance tests on plate girders. Public Works Research
Institute, Technical Report No. 2533 (in Japanese), 1987.
32. Frey, F. and Anslijn, R., Dimensionnement des poutres a ame pleine sans
raidisseurs. CRIF, Construction Metallique, MT 114, Bruxelles, Novembre
1976.
33. Carlsson, G., Ber~ikning av boardbalk med metoden med finita element.
Department of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm (in Swedish), 1995.
34. Lagerqvist, O., Patch loading. Resistance of steel girders subjected to
concentrated forces. Ph.D. thesis, Lule~ University of Technology, Division
of Steel Structures, Lule~, Sweden, 1994.
35. Charlier, R. and Maquoi, R., Etude experimentale de la capacit6 portante en
cisaillement de poutres a ame pleine raidies longitudinalement par des
profiles a section fermr. CRIF, Bruxelles, MT 169, 1986.
36. Hasegawa, A., Nishino,F. and Okumura, T. Ultimate strength of longitudinally stiffened plate girders in shear. Proceedings of the Japanese Society
of Civil Engineers, (1975).
37. Schueller, W. and Ostapenko, A., Tests on transversally stiffened and on
longitudinally stiffened unsymmetrical plate girders. Welding Research
Council, New York, No. 156, 1970.
38. Rockey, K. C., Evans, H. R. and Porter, D. M., Test on longitudinally reinforced plate girder subjected to shear. Stability of Steel Structures, Lirge,
Preliminary Report, April 1977.
39. Evans, H. R. An approach by full-scale testing of new design procedures for
steel girders subjected to shear and bending. Proceedings of the Institute o.t"
Civil Engineers, 81 (1986).

30

T. HO'glund

40. Cooke, N., Moss, P. J., Walpole, W. R., Langdon, D. W. and Mervyn, H. H.
Strength and servicebility of steel girder webs. Journal ASCE, 109 (1983)
785-807.
41. Evans, H. R. and Tang, K. H. The influence of longitudinal web stiffeners
upon the collapse behaviour of plate girders. Journal of Construction Steel
Research, (1984).
42. Mele, M. and Puhali, R. Optimalisierung der Steifen bei dtinnwandigen
Blechtr~igern. Acier-Stahl-Steel, 3 (1980) 108-117.
43. Hamilton, R., Behavior of welded girders with corrugated webs. Ph.D. thesis,
Departmenet of Civil Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, 1993.
44. Elgaaly, M., Hamilton, R. and Seshadri, A. Shear strength of beams with
corrugated webs. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 4 (1996) 390-398.
45. Crate, H. and Lo, H., NACA Tech Note, No. 1589, June 1948.
46. K16ppel, E. K. and Scheer, I., Beulwerte ausgestreifler Rechteckplatten.
Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1960.
47. Rockey, K. and Skaloud, M., Influence of flange stiffeners upon the loadcarrying capacity of webs in shear. IABSE Final Report, Eighth Congress,
New York, 1968.
48. Basler, K. Strength of plate girders under combined bending and shear.
ASCE Journal, 7 (1961) 181-197.
49. Galambos, Th. V. (ed.), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons, 1988.
50. H6glund, T., Strength of steel and aluminium plate girders. Royal Institue of
Technology, Department of Structural Engineering, Technical Report No. 4,
Stockholm, 1995.
51. Sedlacek, G., Schneider, R. and H6glund, T., Evaluation of test results for
the design of shear buckling resistance for stiffened and unstiffened webs.
Background document to Eurocode 3 Document 11.5.1, Aachen, March
1996.