Flexure and Shear Interaction in Steel I-Girders

Sung C. Lee, M.ASCE1; Doo S. Lee2; and Chai H. Yoo, F.ASCE3

Abstract: AASHTO LRFD and AISC specications have adopted Baslers interaction equation, which was formulated for noncompact
sections without considering shear buckling. AASHTO LRFD specications, however, have completely neglected the interaction effect of
bending on shear strength since the 3rd edition in 2004. AISC LRFD specications followed suit with the 2005 edition. This study was aimed at
investigating interaction behaviors in noncomposite I-girders and developing new interaction equations without considering shear buckling.
Also, a simple and universally applicable methodology was proposed for web panels whose failures were associated with shear buckling. The
interaction should not be ignored when web failures are governed by yielding because of combined bending and shear. Otherwise, the shear
capacity of the web panel could be grossly overestimated, thereby compromising the safety of the girder. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943541X.0000746. 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Flanges; Buckling; Steel; Girders; Flexural strength.
Author keywords: Compact section; Flange restraint; Moment-shear interaction; Shear buckling; Shear yield strength; Steel I-girder.

Introduction
The interaction equation derived by Basler (1961) has long been
used in AASHTO LRFD specications until it was rst completely
discarded in the 3rd edition (AASHTO 2004). The commentary of
the AASHTO LRFD specications (2004) state: White et al. (2004)
shows that the equations of these specications sufciently capture
the resistance of a reasonably comprehensive body of experimental
test results without the need to consider moment-shear interaction.
AISC LRFD specications (2005) followed suit. White et al. (2008)
drew the same conclusion investigating the results of previous
experimental tests of plate girders, including hybrid girders.
Most of the previous experimental tests, however, primarily put
focus on evaluating the ultimate shear strength, including postbuckling strength. Therefore, the test-girder specimens were designed
such that the web panels developed the postbuckling strength after
shear buckling. Because the Baslers interaction was derived without considering shear buckling, it may overestimate the interaction
effect when web failures are associated with shear buckling. However, the neglect of the interaction can lead to signicantly unsafe
designs when web panels fail as a result of yielding under combined
bending and shear, as in Baslers model. Eurocode No. 3 [European
Committee for Standardization (CEN) 2006] still requires the checking of the bending and shear interaction for the design of steel plate
girders, regardless of section types.
Basically, there can be three approaches to reect the bendingshear interaction for plate girder designs: (1) reducing the shear

Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dongguk

Univ., Seoul 100-715, Korea. E-mail: sclee@dongguk.edu
2
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Dongguk Univ., Seoul 100-715, Korea. E-mail: lds1970@dongguk.edu
3
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Auburn Univ., Auburn,
AL 36849-5337 (corresponding author). E-mail: chyoo@auburn.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 12, 2012; approved on
September 25, 2012; published online on October 15, 2013. Discussion
period open until April 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 11, November 1, 2013. ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2013/11-18821894/$25.00.

strength, keeping the bending strength intact; (2) reducing the bending moment instead of adjusting the shear strength; and (3) adjusting
both the bending strength and shear strength simultaneously. Traditionally, AASHTO and AISC specications preferred the rst approach. In CEN (2003), the second approach is used. CEN (2006)
leaves the choice to designers. The last approach is not desirable for
practical designs because of enormous complexity. From an economic point of view, the rst approach is preferable to the second
one. Furthermore, adjusting the shear strength is much easier than
adjusting the bending strength. A smaller spacing of the intermediate
transverse stiffeners gives higher shear strength, whereas adjusting
the bending strength requires a change of the whole cross section.
In this study, the interaction equations specied in design codes
were revisited to examine their validity and applicability. Also, a
rigorous theoretical investigation was carried out based on a more
realistic distribution of bending and shear stresses to develop new
interaction equations. The contribution of the anges to the shear
strength was neglected, sections were assumed doubly symmetric,
and hybrid girders were not considered. For a systematic approach,
I-girder sections were divided into compact sections and noncompact sections. Then, both the compact and noncompact sections were
again categorized into two types according to whether shear buckling took place before or after shear yielding under pure shear.

Interaction Equations Specied in Design Codes

Basler (1961) developed an interaction equation assuming a simple
stress distribution shown in Fig. 1 for bending moments greater than
the ange moment Mf , which is the maximum bending moment
that can be carried by the anges. In accordance with the design
concept (allowable stress design), the yield moment My was considered the nominal bending strength under pure bending and the
local buckling of the web because of shear was also disregarded. The
Baslers interaction equation is
"
 2 #
1
V
1 ar 1 2
4
V
p
M

if M . Mf
(1)
1
My
1 ar
6

1882 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

Eq. (6) dictates that the shear strength at Mp is 0:6Vp , which is the
same as that at My . This is contradictory to the original Baslers
model. This means that Eq. (4) is not applicable to compact sections.
Using the simple stress diagrams shown in Fig. 1, as in Baslers
model, the following equation can be obtained for compact sections
where local shear buckling of the web does not take place prior to
shear yielding:

 2
M 1 2 Mf
V 1
Mp
Vp
Mp

Fig. 1. Stress distribution assumed in Baslers interaction model

where ar 5 ratio of the web area to the ange area (Aw =Af ), and
Vp 5 plastic shear strength. The ange moment Mf can be written as
Mf

My
a
1 r
6

(2)

Assuming ar 5 2:0, which is considered the upper limit in the

practical girder proportions, Eq. (1) becomes


V
Vp

2

3:0 2 2:666 M
My

(3)

Eq. (3) gives V=Vp 5 0:577, or approximately 0.6, when M=My

5 1:0. For ar 5 2:0, the ange moment Mf becomes 0:75My , which
means that the shear strength is Vp unless M exceeds 0:75My . Using
these two conditions, Eq. (3) can be linearized for simplicity as
follows:
V 2:2 2 1:6 M
Vp
My

(4)

Eq. (4) became the basis for AASHTO and AISC specications. It
is valid when an applied bending moment M is in between Mf and
My . The shear strength becomes 0:6Vp when the bending moment
is equal to My . Eq. (4) has some inherent limitations. First of all, it
cannot correctly assess the interaction effect in web panels when
nominal shear strength under pure shear is less than the plastic shear
strength because of shear buckling. Also, it should not be directly
applied to compact sections whose nominal bending strength is the
plastic moment Mp . However, the application of Baslers interaction
equation was extended to compact sections in AASHTO LRFD and
AISC specications with little adjustments. Omitting the resistance
factors, the interaction equation in AASHTO (1998) turns into the
original form of Eq. (4)
V
M
2:2 2 1:6
#1
Vn
Mn

(5)

The only difference is that Vp and My were replaced with Vn and Mn ,

respectively. For compact sections without shear buckling, Eq. (5)
becomes
V 2:2 2 1:6 M # 1
Vp
Mp

(6)

if M . Mf

(7)

CEN (2003) uses an empirically modied version of Eq. (7) based on

experimental test results: the web panels are able to carry a considerable shear even when sections reach the plastic moment. Omitting
the partial safety factor, the interaction given in CEN (2003) can be
rewritten as


2
M 1 2 Mf
2V 2 1 1
Mp
Vp
Mp

if V . 0:5Vp

(8)

The shear strength at the plastic moment Mp becomes 0:5Vp . It has

long been acknowledged that the shear strength at Mp is possibly the
result of strain hardening. Eq. (8) is to be used only for cross sections
in Classes 1 and 2, which are equivalent to compact sections. Because there were no theories available for describing the interaction
behavior of slender webs accommodating local shear buckling, CEN
(2006) modied Eq. (8) by simply replacing Vp with Vbw.R to cover
the whole classes (1, 2, 3, and 4) of cross sections as


2
Mf
M
2V
12
21 1
Mp
Vbw. R
Mp

if V . 0:5Vbw.R

(9)

Cross sections of Classes 3 and 4 are equivalent to noncompact

sections and slender sections, respectively. Vbw.R is the shear strength
of the web panel under pure shear. However, it has yet to be rigorously proven whether Eq. (9) is applicable to web panels whose
failures are associated with shear buckling.

Compact Sections with No Shear Buckling

Theoretical Investigation
As per AASHTO LRFD specications, compact sections should
meet the following web slenderness requirement:
2Dcp
# 3:76
tw

r
E
Fy

(10)

where Dcp 5 depth of the web in compression at the plastic moment;

tw 5 thickness of the web; E 5 modulus of elasticity; and Fy 5 yield
stress. For shear designs, web panels are divided into two types
according to whether shear buckling takes place before or after shear
yielding. AASHTO specications again divide the shear buckling
zone into an inelastic buckling zone and an elastic buckling zone, as
shown in Figs. 24. Compact sections having web panels falling into
the yield zone are investigated rst.
When a web element is subjected to bending stress sx and shear
stress txy , the von Mises yield criterion is written as
s2x 3t 2xy Fy2

(11)

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1883

As per von Mises yield criterion, there is no room left for shear in
the web element once the bending stress reaches the yield stress Fy .
The web will have zero shear capacity at the plastic moment Mp . The
investigation is divided into two stages according to whether the
bending moment is less than the yield moment My or not. Instead of
using the simplied stress distribution shown in Fig. 1, more realistic
distributions were used.

Fig. 2. AASHTO shear strength curve for Fy 5 345 MPa and

do =D 5 0:5

Stage 1: M M y
With the absence of shear, the bending stress in the I-girder web is
proportional to the distance from the neutral axis of the cross section
when M , My . It has long been assumed by many structural engineers, including Basler (1961), that the shear capacity of the web is
little affected by bending as long as the moment does not exceed the
ange moment Mf . In other words, bending stress redistribution may
take place when the shear coexists; therefore, the bending stress may
not be evaluated by the elementary bending-stress formula any
longer. As the shear and bending moment increase, the bending
moment that has been once carried by the web may be gradually
transferred to the anges until the ange stress reaches the yield
stress or the bending moment reaches the ange moment Mf , thereby
giving the web the full shear capacity. The ratio of the ange moment
to the plastic moment is written as
Mf
1
Mp 1 ar
4

Fig. 3. AASHTO shear strength curve for Fy 5 345 MPa and

do =D 5 1:0

Fig. 4. AASHTO shear strength curve for Fy 5 345 MPa and

do =D 5 2:0

(12)

Although the assumption was proven true by many experimental

tests, little data were reported regarding the actual stress redistribution process. A simply supported compact I-girder shown in Fig. 5
was investigated by a nonlinear nite-element analysis using
shell elements (ADINA). The plate girder has the following material and geometric properties: D 5 1 m, D=tw 5 60, ar 5 1:11,
do =D 5 1:0, and Fy 5 345 MPa. The investigated web panel in
the shadow falls into the shear yield zone. The failure load was
P 5 6,904 kN. At failure, the bending moment at the right edge of the
web panel was 0:52Mp , which is less than the ange moment
Mf 5 0:78Mp , and the shear was 3,452 kN. Fig. 6 shows the stresses
in the anges and the web near the right edge of the web panel. As the
load approaches the failure load, the bending stresses sx in the web
becomes negligibly small, except near thepanges.
The shear stress

t xy reached the shear yield stress ty 5 Fy = 3 5 199:2 MPa almost

throughout the entire area of the web at failure. The effective stress
seff is the square root of the left side of Eq. (11). The von Mises yield
criterion dictates that yielding takes place when seff reaches Fy . The
shear strength of the girder is slightly greater than the plastic shear
strength Vp (3,335 kN) of the web, which is because of the ange
contribution. The failure moment was less than the ange moment
Mf ; therefore, the anges were able to take part in resisting the shear.
This result clearly conrms the fact that the effect of the bending

Fig. 5. Simply supported I-girder subjected to loading at the midspan

1884 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

Fig. 7. Stresses in the web panel by nite-element analysis when

Mf , M # My

Fig. 6. Stresses in web panel: (a) P 5 6,636 kN; (b) P 5 6,904 kN

Fig. 8. Assumed shear and bending stresses for Mf , M # My

moment on the shear strength can be neglected if the bending

moment is less than or equal to Mf .
When the bending moment is greater than Mf , the additional
moment must be carried by the web, thereby reducing the shear
strength. To correctly evaluate the web shear strength in such a case,
the correct bending stress distribution should be known. Fig. 7
shows bending and shear stresses at failure of a compact plate girder
with the following material and geometric properties: D 5 2 m,
D=tw 5 80, ar 5 1:33, and Fy 5 345 MPa. The ange moment Mf
is 0:75Mp , and the yield moment My is 0:91Mp . At failure, the bending moment is M 5 0:88Mp . The actual stress distribution is quite
different from that shown in Fig. 1. From the bending stress distribution shown in Fig. 7, it may be assumed that the web bending
stress is simply linear, as shown in Fig. 8, where Sr is the ratio of
the maximum bending stress in the web to the yield stress. Then,
the bending moment Mw carried by the web can be obtained as

Mw

Sr Fy tw D2
Sa
Sa
Fy Af D r r Mf r r
6
6
6

(13)

Because Mw 5 M 2 Mf , the bending stress ratio Sr can be written as



6 M
Sr
21
ar Mf

(14)

where Sr becomes 1.0 when M 5 My . For the design of compact

sections, Eq. (14) needs to be expressed in terms of the ratio of the
bending moment to the plastic moment as



ar M
6
1
21
(15)
Sr
ar
4 Mp
According to the von Mises criterion, the shear stress at a given
bending moment can reach the value
s

2
q F
S
y
y
r
(16)
t xy p1 Fy2 2 s2x p 1 2
D=2
3
3
where y 5 distance from the neutral axis. Integration of Eq. (16) over
the web area gives the reduced shear strength V of the web. Table 1
shows the results of the numerical integration. From a regression
analysis, V=Vp was represented as a cubic function of Sr as follows:

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1885

Table 1. Shear Strength in Compact Sections for M # My

Sr
V=Vp

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.998

0.993

0.984

0.972

0.956

0.935

0.909

0.877

0.836

0.777



Aw Fy D
a
Fy Af D 1 r
4
4

(22)

M p Af Fy D

When the bending moment M is in between the yield moment My

and the plastic moment Mp , it can be calculated as
M Af Fy D



 t yF
w e y 4ye
D
D
2 ye t w F y
ye
2
2
2
3

(23)

Letting l 5 2ye =D and simplifying Eq. (23) gives






a
1
l2
l2
Af Fy D 1 r 1 2
M Af Fy D Aw Fy 1 2
4
3
4
3
(24)

Fig. 9. Assumed shear and bending stresses for My , M # Mp

V 20:176S3 2 0:004S2 2 0:043S 1:0

r
r
r
Vp

(17)

Once Sr is calculated from Eq. (15) for a given moment, the reduced
shear strength can be readily determined from Eq. (17).
Stage 2: M y < M M p
Because the applied bending moment exceeds the yield moment My ,
the web will begin to partially yield, as shown in Fig. 9. Following
the von Mises yield criterion, the shear stress in the elastic range can
reach a value expressed by
s
 2
q F
y
y
1
(18)
t xy p Fy2 2 s2x p 1 2
ye
3
3
where ye 5 half of the web depth in the elastic range. Then, the
reduced shear strength V can be obtained by integrating Eq. (18) as
tw Fy
V p
3

ye
2ye

s
 2
y
12
dy
ye

V
1

Vp D

2ye

s
 2
y
12
dy
ye

Numerical integration of Eq. (20) gives

 
V 0:7768 2ye
Vp
D

(20)

(25)

The bending moment M becomes the yield moment when l is equal

to 1.0. The ratio of the yield moment to the plastic moment is
ar
My 1 6

Mp 1 ar
4
Solving Eq. (25) for l yields
s



a
l 3 2 12 1 r M 2 1
ar
4 Mp

(26)

(27)

Eq. (27) is valid only when the bending moment M is greater than or
equal to My . l becomes 0 when M reaches Mp . Once l is calculated
for a given moment from Eq. (27), the shear strength can be determined from Eq. (21) as
V
0:7768l 0:78l
Vp

(19)

or
ye

Then, the moment ratio can be written as



ar
l2
12
1
4
3
M

ar
Mp
1
4

(28)

Fig. 10 comparatively shows the reduced shear strengths obtained

from the two equations derived in the current study and Eq. (7),
which is the basis of CEN (2006). Eq. (7) overestimates the interaction effect because of the simplied stress distribution shown in
Fig. 1. The difference becomes greater as the area ratio ar increases.
Numerical Investigation

(21)

For design purposes, ye needs to be expressed in terms of the moment

ratio M=Mp and the area ratio ar 5 Aw =Af . The plastic moment is
given by

A set of two new design equations was analytically developed in

accordance with realistic stress distributions; however, it gives zero
shear strength at the plastic moment, as in the case of Eq. (7). As
previously mentioned, it is true that practical I-girders are able to
carry a considerable shear at the plastic moment.
To shed light on true interaction behavior under loadings of high
moment and low shear, the simply supported I-girder shown in Fig. 5

1886 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

Table 2. Shear Strength of Compact Web Panels Falling into the Shear
Yield Zone
Model
Span length (m)
M=Mp
V=Vp

2
0.52
1.04

3
0.74
0.98

4
0.90
0.89

5
0.99
0.79

6
1.00
0.66

7
1.03
0.59

Fig. 10. Comparison of interaction equations [Eqs. (17) and (28)

versus Eq. (7)]: (a) ar 5 1:0; (b) ar 5 2:0

was investigated through nonlinear nite-element analysis varying

the span length. The stress-strain relationship was rst assumed
bilinear, neglecting strain hardening. The results are given in
Table 2. Models 5 and 6 carried shear strengths over 50% of Vp at Mp ,
without recourse to the strain hardening. Fig. 11 shows stress distributions near the right edge of the web panel of Models 3 and 6 at
failure. Considerable vertical normal stresses sy developed in Model 6.
The intensity of the vertical normal stress decreased as the loading
condition approached low moment and high shear. In the presence
of sy , the von Mises yield criterion is written as
s2x s2y 2 sx sy 3t 2xy Fy2

(29)

Even when the bending stress sx reaches the yield stress, considerable shear stresses can develop because of the presence of sy . In
the element located at 0:3D, above the neutral axis of Model 6,
the stresses were the following: effective stress seff 5 344 MPa;

Fig. 11. Vertical normal stresses in web panels: (a) Model 3; (b)
Model 6

sx 5 2354:52 MPa; sy 5 293:13 MPa; and shear stress t xy

5 75:27 MPa. The shear stress amounts to 37.78% of the plastic
shear stress (t y 5 199:2 MPa).
To examine the strain-hardening effect on the shear strength
under combined bending and shear, a multilinear stress-strain relationship shown in Fig. 12 was used to represent a typical stressstrain relationship of mild steel: yield stress Fy 5 345 MPa; ultimate
stress Fu 5 480 MPa; strain at strain hardening sh 5 0:01725
510 y ; and ultimate strain ult 5 0:17. In the program ADINA, the

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1887

plastic multilinear material model is based on the following: the von

Mises yield condition, an associated ow rule using the von Mises
yield function, and an isotropic multilinear hardening rule. To testify
the applicability of the solution routines (ADINA), a uniaxial tensile
test was performed using the stress-strain model shown in Fig. 12.
The stresses and strains obtained from the nonlinear analysis were
exactly matched with the input stress-strain model. This conrms the
validity of the plastic multilinear material model.
The strain hardening did increase both shear and bending
strengths, as given in Table 3. However, the additional increments in the shear strength are much smaller when compared with
those obtained without considering the strain hardening: 4.6% for
D=tw 5 60 and 4.3% for D=tw 5 70. Fig. 13 shows plots of load
versus midspan displacement. Therefore, it appears that the major
source of the shear strength at Mp is not the strain hardening but
the vertical normal stresses. When the bending stress sx reaches the
yield stress in a web element, it will instantly lose the stiffness in the
horizontal direction accompanied by a considerable plastic strain,
as long as the top and bottom edges are free to move vertically.
However, if the vertical displacements are restrained externally, the
vertical normal stresses sy will necessarily develop. The vertical
normal stresses are possibly the result of the vertical restraint by the
top and bottom anges. To investigate the mechanism that leads
to the vertical normal stresses, the girder with D=tw 5 60 was investigated by varying the elastic modulus of the anges. The smaller
the elastic modulus, the lesser the degree of the vertical restraint by
the anges. Fig. 14 shows the vertical normal stresses at failures: the
vertical normal stresses become smaller as the elastic modulus of
the anges decreases. The vertical normal stresses are dependent
on the vertical restraint by the anges.
One may suspect that the effect of strain hardening exhibited
in the nite-element analysis is unexpectedly small. The strain

Fig. 13. Load versus midspan deection (D=tw 5 60)

Fig. 12. Multilinear stress-strain relationship for Fy 5 345 MPa

Table 3. Effect of Strain Hardening on Shear Strength

60

D=tw
Stress-strain relationship
Vp (kN)
V (kN)
V=Vp
Mp (kN m)
M (kN m)
M=Mp

Bilinear

Multilinear

3,318
2,038
0.614
6,610
6,821
6,892
1.032
1.043

1,949
0.587

70
Bilinear

Multilinear

2,848
1,742
0.612
5,674
5,845
6,097
1.03
1.075

1,670
0.586

Fig. 14. Effect of ange restraint on vertical normal stresses:

(a) E 5 25 GPa; (b) E 5 50 GPa

1888 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

hardening has, however, never been directly reected in assessing

the bending or shear strength of steel girders in design codes because
of large deformations accompanied in the strain-hardening range.
The actual effect of strain hardening may be somewhat greater than
that from the nite-element analysis. Even if this is the case, it is
neither appropriate nor consistent to consider the strain-hardening
effect only for the evaluation of the shear strength under combined moment and shear.
Design Equations
The numerical results obtained using the bilinear stress-strain model
are comparatively shown in Fig. 15. Eq. (17), which is for the
bending moments in between Mf and My , correlates well with the
numerical results. However, Eq. (28), which is for the bending
moments in between My and Mp , considerably underestimates the
shear strength because of the neglect of the effect of the vertical
normal stresses. The value of the shear strength V 5 0:5Vp at Mp
specied in CEN (2006) appears quite reasonable considering the
results of the nite-element analyses. Setting V 5 0:5Vp at Mp ,
a simple new equation can be obtained as follows:
V 0:5 0:28 l
Vp

(30)

Eq. (30) satises two boundary conditions: (1) V=Vp 5 0:78 at

l 5 1, which corresponds to My ; and (2) V=Vp 5 0:5 at l 5 0, which
corresponds to Mp . Eq. (30) almost coincides with the interaction
equation of CEN (2006). Both Eq. (30) and the CEN (2006) equation
give lower shear strengths when compared with the results of the
nonlinear nite-element analysis. In the nite-element analysis,
initial out-of-plane deformations of the web panels were not considered. The initial deformations allowed in AASHTO/American
Welding Society (2010) tend to decrease the shear strength up to
20%, especially for thicker web panels (Lee and Yoo 1998). The
differences between the nite-element analysis and Eq. (30) may be
left for a margin of safety because the initial deformations may also
magnify the effects of bending and shear interaction.
Comparison of Design Equations and
Experimental Results
Experimental data of 146 tested steel I-girders from 18 studies were
collected and examined. Most of these tested steel I-girders were
such that the web panel fell into the elastic shear buckling zone. This
may be because the understanding of the postbuckling behavior and
corresponding reserve shear strength of thin web panels was the
main concern of the previous experimental investigations. Table 4
summarizes mechanical and geometric properties of 14 I-girders
having web panels in the shear yield zone. All of the girders in
Table 4 are hybrid, although it might not be intentional that the yield
strengths of the web and the anges are not the same. Some of them
even have the ange yield strength lower than the web yield strength.
Test results are summarized in Table 5. Among the data shown in
Table 5, the data from Lyse and Godfrey (1968) cannot be used for
comparison because the data correspond to low-moment and highshear loadings. The tested girders (Lyse and Godfrey 1968) had
unusually small ratios of web to ange area and exhibited shear
strengths much higher than the web plastic shear strength, Vp . Given
that the failure moments were even much less than the ange
moments Mf , the anges might have contributed to the shear strength
through the frame action.
Fig. 16 compares the other test results of tests with the interaction
curves obtained from Eqs. (17) and (30) using different area ratios.
Because the proposed equations were derived for homogeneous

Fig. 15. Comparison of reduced shear strengths: numerical results

versus interaction equations: (a) D=tw 5 60; (b) D=tw 5 70

girders, it may not be appropriate to directly compare them with the

experimental results. Nevertheless, good correlations, in general,
can be found, except E4-T3 from Basler et al. (1960) and G2 from
Nishino and Okumura (1968). The limited data may not be enough to
verify the validity of the present interaction equations. Further
experimental investigation is necessary.

Compact Sections with Shear Buckling

In Figs. 3 and 4, some compact web panels fall into the shear
buckling zone. There have been no theoretical studies reported that
investigate the interaction behavior of compact sections having web
panels in the shear buckling zone. For this reason, CEN (2006)

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1889

Table 4. Geometrical and Material Properties of Tested I-Girders with Web Panels in Shear Yield Zone
Reference
Basler et al. (1960)
Okumura et al. (1967)
Nishino and Okumura (1968)
Fujii (1971)
Lyse and Godfrey (1935)

Specimen

do
(mm)

D
(mm)

tw
(mm)

Fyw
(MPa)

bf
(mm)

tf
(mm)

Fyf
(MPa)

do =D

D=tw

E4-T3
G1
G2
G1
G2
S-1
WB-1
WB-2
WB-3
WB-6
WB-7
WB-8
WB-9
WB10

635
1,148
1,148
1,461
1,461
579
939
939
1,042
1,093
978
978
851
851

1,270
440
440
543
543
160
356
356
407
446
390
398
318
318

9.96
8.00
8.00
9.10
9.10
3.20
6.30
6.48
6.93
6.38
6.43
6.65
6.35
6.40

276
440
440
380
380
342
299
330
342
228
232
205
209
209

356
160
200
301
220
100
254
254
256
255
256
256
255
254

41.66
30.00
30.00
22.40
22.40
10.40
39.37
39.62
38.10
38.35
38.10
38.35
38.10
38.35

228
420
420
440
440
277
228
228
228
228
228
228
228
228

0.50
2.61
2.61
2.69
2.69
3.62
2.64
2.64
2.56
2.45
2.51
2.46
2.68
2.68

127.51
55.00
55.00
59.67
59.67
50.00
56.45
54.90
58.72
69.96
60.63
59.73
50.00
49.60

Table 5. Experimental Results of I-Girders with Web Panels in Shear Yield Zone
Reference
Basler et al. (1960)
Okumura et al. (1967)
Nishino and Okumura (1968)
Fujii (1971)
Lyse and Godfrey (1935)

Specimen

Vex
(kN)

Mex
(kN m)

Vp
(kN)

Mp
(kN m)

Mf
(kN m)

Vex
Vp

Mex
Mp

ar

E4-T3
G1
G2
G1
G2
S-1
WB-1
WB-2
WB-3
WB-6
WB-7
WB-8
WB-9
WB10

1,432
820
840
1,105
1,040
92
485
569
618
427
423
445
409
418

4,548
942
1,206
1,614
1,519
53
455
535
644
468
414
435
348
356

2,016
894
894
1,084
1,084
101
386
438
557
375
336
313
243
245

5,544
1,118
1,355
1,932
1,481
56
958
973
1,085
1,148
1,005
1,027
820
823

4,435
948
1,184
1,677
1,226
49
899
905
986
1,076
948
973
786
790

0.71
0.92
0.94
1.02
0.96
0.91
1.26
1.30
1.11
1.14
1.26
1.42
1.68
1.71

0.82
0.84
0.89
0.84
1.03
0.94
0.48
0.55
0.59
0.41
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.43

0.85
0.73
0.59
0.73
1.00
0.49
0.22
0.23
0.29
0.29
0.26
0.27
0.21
0.21

transformed Eq. (8), which was originally developed for compact

webs without shear buckling, into Eq. (9) for broad use with just
minor adjustments. However, the applicability of Eq. (9) to web
panels in the shear buckling zone has yet to be rigorously examined.
Here, Eq. (9) will be applied to a compact I-girder. The girder
has the following geometric and material properties: D=tw 5 90;
ar 5 1. 11; and Fy 5 345 MPa. For do =D 5 2:0, the web panel falls
into the elastic buckling zone according to AASHTO specications,
as can be seen from Fig. 4. Its shear strength Vn under pure shear is
0:804Vp , and Vn is equivalent to Vbw.R in CEN (2006). Although the
values of Vn and Vbw.R are not the same because of the difference in
the associated postbuckling theories, there should be no problem in
using Vn instead of Vbw.R , as long as Eq. (9) is theoretically valid.
Assuming the bending moment M is 0:9Mp , Eq. (9) gives the
nominal shear strength equal to 0:84Vn 5 0:675Vp for do =D 5 2:0.
When do =D 5 0:5, the web panel falls into the shear yield zone, as
seen in Fig. 2, but Eq. (9) still gives the same reduction factor 0.84 at
the same bending moment. The web panel with do =D 5 0:5 will,
therefore, fail by yielding because of combined bending and shear
when M 5 0:9Mp and V 5 0:84Vp . Because an applied shear does
not exceed 0:84Vp for the given bending moment M 5 0:9Mp ,
yielding will never take place. The shear strength Vn 5 0:804Vp of

the web panel with do =D 5 2:0 under pure shear is less than 0:84Vp .
Although the shear force reaches 0:804Vp , yielding under combined
bending and shear will never take place. This implies that shear
failure governs the design for do =D 5 2:0; therefore, there is no need
to consider the interaction. The reduction factor 0.84, which was
originally intended to consider yielding under combined bending
and shear, is meaningless for the web with do =D 5 2:0. Therefore,
the shear strength Vn 5 0:804Vp under pure shear should be taken as
the nominal shear strength.
The direct application of Eq. (9) to web panels falling into the
shear buckling zone gives meaningless results. Unlike the case of
compact sections without shear buckling, developing a generally
applicable interaction equation is virtually not feasible when failures
are associated with local buckling. This is not only because the
methods to assess the shear strength Vn under pure shear, including
postbuckling strength, differ from theory to theory and from code to
code but also because of the complexities involved. Proposed herein
is a simple and universally applicable methodology to determine the
nominal shear strength. As previously demonstrated, the shear
strength Vn determined under a pure shear condition can be taken as
the nominal shear strength if it is less than the reduced shear strength
V determined without considering local shear buckling. There is no

1890 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

Fig. 16. Comparison of interaction effects for web panels in shear yield zone: present study versus test: (a) E4-T3 (Basler et al. 1960): ar 5 0:85;
(b) G1 (Okumura et al. 1967): ar 5 0:73; (c) G2 (Okumura et al. 1967): ar 5 0:59; (d) G1 (Nishino and Okumura 1968): ar 5 0:73; (e) G2 (Nishino
and Okumura 1968): ar 5 1:0; (f) S-1 (Fujii 1971): ar 5 0:49

need to consider the interaction if web panels fail by shear. When Vn

is greater than the reduced shear strength V determined without
considering local shear buckling, yielding because of combined
bending and shear takes place rst prior to shear failure; therefore,
the reduced shear strength V should be taken as the nominal shear
strength. Under the plastic moment, yielding because of combined
bending and shear takes place when the shear reaches 0:5Vp . If the
shear strength under pure shear is less than or equal to 0:5Vp , there is
no need to consider the interaction for compact sections, regardless
of bending moments. Otherwise, the interaction needs to be checked.

Noncompact Sections
In AASHTO (2010), the exural resistance of noncompact sections
is usually given in terms of the ange stresses, except in a special
case. If an additional requirement for the web slenderness specied
in the appendix of AASHTO (2010) is satised, then the exural
resistance can be represented by a bending moment that exceeds the
yield moment. This case is not considered herein. When load
shedding is not considered and the section is not a hybrid section, the
ange yield stresses are the maximum possible exural resistance.
To assess the interaction effect for such noncompact sections, the
exural resistance needs to be expressed in terms of the bending
moment rather than the ange stress. In the presence of shear, the
ange stress cannot be correctly determined from the basic bending
stress formula because of the stress redistribution described

previously. The interaction effect on the shear strength needs be

expressed as a function of the bending moment.
In Figs. 24, noncompact sections can fall into any zone among
the three zones. For noncompact sections having web panels falling
into the yield zone, the reduced shear strength can be determined
following the procedure suggested for compact sections without
shear buckling that are subjected to bending moments M # My . For
design purposes, Eq. (15) needs to be expressed in terms of the ratio
of the applied bending moment to the yield moment rather than
the plastic moment as



a
(31)
Sr 6 1 r M 2 1
ar
6 My
Eq. (31) is valid only when M is greater than Mf
M . Mf 1
My My 1 ar
6

(32)

If M does not exceed Mf , there is no need to consider the interaction.

Once Sr is calculated from Eq. (31) for an applied moment M, the
reduced shear strength can be determined from Eq. (17). Fig. 17
comparatively shows the reduced shear strengths obtained from
Eqs. (4) and (17) for ar 5 2:0. Baslers model considerably underestimates shear strength because of the simple stress distribution
shown in Fig. 1. If noncompact web panels fall into the inelastic

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1891

Fig. 17. Comparison of interaction equations for noncompact sections

(ar 5 2:0): Eq. (17) versus Eq. (4)

buckling zone or the elastic buckling zone, the nominal shear

strength can be determined using the same methodology suggested
for compact sections with shear buckling.

Discussions of Previous Studies on Interaction

Discussed herein are key studies that led to removal of the shear
and moment interaction provisions from the AASHTO and AISC
specications. White et al. (2004) investigated the moment-shear
interaction effects on shear strength using existing experimental test
data and concluded that there was no need to consider the interaction
in designs. To give credence to the removal, White et al. (2008)
statistically analyzed a large number of experimental test data that
were investigated in White et al. (2004) and also examined the results
of hybrid girder tests (Rush 2001; Zentz 2002; Azizinamini et al.
2007). White et al. (2008) concluded that the interaction can be
ignored when the shear strength under pure is determined from (1)
the original model developed by Basler (1961) or the true Basler
model based on the simplied expression for the shear buckling
coefcient proposed by Vincent (1969), or (2) the more rened
Cardiff shear-strength model (Porter et al. 1975; White et al. 2008)
based on the shear buckling coefcient equations from Lee et al.
(1996).
Lee et al. (1996) proposed a couple of shear buckling coefcient
equations for a realistic evaluation of the shear buckling strength of
the web panel considering the ange restraint, and the validity of the
equations has been acknowledged among many researchers. The
shear buckling coefcient proposed by Vincent (1969) considerably
underestimates the shear buckling strength compared with the
equations from Lee et al. (1996). The shear buckling strength itself
has nothing to do with postbuckling theories. It appears to be more
rational to use either one of the two shear buckling coefcients
consistently regardless of the shear-strength models.
The interaction effects may seem to be negligibly small when
considering the overall mean values given in Tables 1 and 2 of White
et al. (2008). Unfortunately, the interaction data summarized in the
tables and interaction plots (White et al. 2008) are so widely
scattered that it may not be appropriate to conclude that the interaction can be completely neglected. However, Figs. 3 and 5 of
White et al. (2008) exhibit reductions of the shear strength in
high-moment and high-shear tests to some extent that cannot be

safely neglected, although the interaction effects may not be as

severe as predicted by the Baslers interaction equation that had long
been adopted in AASHTO and AISC specications. This may be
because yielding under combined bending and shear took place prior
to shear failure, as explained in this study.
White et al. (2008) states that the astute reader may question
whether the lack of signicant moment-shear strength interaction in
the tests considered in this study relates to the use of highly slender
web plates in many of the experimental investigations, thus reducing
the extent of yielding at the strength limit state. Therefore, Fig. 11 is
shown to illustrate the results for the I-girder tests with web slenderness values such that the shear strengths are governed either by
inelastic shear buckling and subsequent tension eld action or by the
plastic shear resistance Vp in the Basler (kVincent ) model. Fig. 11 in
White et al. (2008) shows experimental results of 16 tests, but it is not
clearly stated which data correspond to web panels in the shear yield
zone and which experimental studies the data were collected from.
Nevertheless, 11 results corresponding to high-moment tests clearly
exhibit the interaction effects. White et al. (2008) also state that four
of the tests in the high-moment high-shear region in Fig. 11 have
cover plates only on the tension ange such that the cross section is
singly symmetric. Among the test results shown in Fig. 11, the four
are those that exhibited the most severe interactions. White et al.
(2008) might have not considered the four results when drawing the
conclusion that the cross section is singly symmetric. Even for
a highly unsymmetrical section, if the bending moment reaches the
plastic moment, the interaction behavior of the web panel falling into
the shear yield zone should not be different from that of a doubly
symmetric section.
Azizinamini et al. (2007) carried out an experimental investigation and also examined other studies of hybrid steel I-girders
(Rush 2001; Zentz 2002). In their conclusion, Azizinamini et al.
(2007) state that another objective was to investigate the shear and
moment interaction provisions contained within the current specications. All of the specimens tested were capable of exceeding the
predicted load determined as though no interaction existed. This is
not to suggest that shear and moment interaction does not exist
entirely, as previous studied have found evidence of such interaction
(Basler 1961). However, due to the ndings in these experiments and
other investigations, the shear and moment interaction provisions
have been removed from the AASHTO (2004) specication.
Unfortunately, all the tested girders investigated in Azizinamini et al.
(2007) have thin web panels that fall into the elastic shear buckling
zone. This is because the main concern was investigating the
contribution of tension eld action to the shear strength in hybrid
girders. Nevertheless, the results corresponding to high moment
show the interaction effects that cannot be safely neglected.

Conclusions and Recommendations

A thorough investigation was carried out to develop a comprehensive method to assess the effect of bending moments on the
shear strength of steel I-girders. The proposed equations for web
panels in the shear yield zone were compared with existing experimental data. The ndings and recommendations are enumerated as follows:
1. Baslers model considerably underestimates the shear strength
because of the assumed simple stress distribution. The Baslers
interaction equation cannot be directly applied to compact
sections.
2. Even when compact sections reach the plastic moment, the
web panels are able to carry a considerable shear, mainly because of the vertical normal stresses. Although strain hardening

1892 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.

contributes to the shear strength at the plastic moment, its

effect is negligibly small when compared with the effect of the
vertical normal stresses.
New interaction equations were proposed for doubly symmetric bare-steel sections in which failures are not associated with
local shear buckling.
Direct applications of the interaction equations developed for
web panels in the shear yield zone render meaningless results
for web panels in the shear buckling zone.
For web panels in the shear buckling zone, the smaller one
between the shear strength under pure shear and the reduced
shear strength determined without considering shear buckling
could be taken as the nominal shear strength.
The current editions of the AASHTO and AISC specications
completely ignore the interaction effect. However, ignoring
the interaction could lead to unsafe designs not only for web
panels in the shear yield zone but also for web panels in the
shear buckling zone.
Further experimental study and verication are recommended
to verify the interaction equations proposed for web panels in
the shear yield zone.
The method suggested for web panels in the shear buckling
zone needs to be carefully examined using experimental
results.
The mechanism that leads to the vertical normal stresses in
steel I-girders needs to be comprehensively investigated.
In hybrid girders having a higher ange yield stress than a web
yield stress, the interaction may be more severe than one
predicted by the proposed equations. Further research on
hybrid girders is recommended.

Acknowledgments
Support for this research project from the National Research Foundation of Korea, Grant No. NRF2012R1A2A2A01003990, is
gratefully acknowledged. Do Hyeong Kim, Ph.D. Student of Dongguk University, is acknowledged for his assistance in collecting and
analyzing experimental test data.

Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Af 5 ange area;
Aw 5 web area;
ar 5 ratio of the web area to the ange area;
D 5 web depth;
Dcp 5 depth of the web in compression at the plastic
moment;
do 5 transverse stiffener spacing;
E 5 modulus of elasticity;
Fy 5 yield stress;
Fyf 5 ange yield stress;
Fyw 5 web yield stress;
M 5 applied bending moment;
Mex 5 bending strength observed in the test;
Mf 5 bending moment that can be resisted by the anges
only;
Mp 5 plastic moment;
Mw 5 bending moment resisted by the web;
My 5 yield moment;
Sr 5 ratio of the maximum web bending stress to the yield
stress;

tf 5 thickness of the ange;

tw 5 thickness of the web;
V 5 reduced shear strength determined considering the
interaction;
Vbw.R 5 shear strength of the web panel under pure shear;
Vex 5 shear strength observed in the test;
Vn 5 shear strength determined without considering the
interaction;
Vp 5 plastic shear strength of the web;
y 5 distance from the neutral axis;
ye 5 half of the web depth in the elastic range;
sh 5 strain at strain hardening;
ult 5 strain at ultimate stress;
y 5 yield strain;
l 5 ratio of 2ye to the web depth;
seff 5 effective stress;
sx 5 bending stress in the web;
sy 5 vertical normal stress in the web;
t xy 5 shear stress in the web; and
t y 5 shear yield stress.

References
AASHTO. (2004). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications, 3rd Ed.,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2010). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications, 5th Ed.,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO/American Welding Society. (2010). Bridge welding code.
D1.5M/D1.5:2010, Washington, DC.
ADINA 8.1 [Computer software]. Watertown, MA, ADINA R&D.
AISC. (2005). Specication for structural steel buildings, steel construction
manual, 13th Ed., Chicago.
Azizinamini, A., Hash, J. B., Yakel, A. J., and Farimani, R. (2007). Shear
capacity of hybrid plate girders. J. Bridge Eng., 12(5), 535543.
Basler, K. (1961). Strength of plate girders under combined bending and
shear. J. Struct. Div., 87(7), 181197.
Basler, K., Mueller, J. A., Thurlimann, B., and Yen, B. T. (1960). Web
buckling tests on welded plate girders. Welding Research Council
Bulletin No. 64, Welding Research Council, New York.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2003). Design of steel
structuresPart 1-1: General rules and rules for building. Eurocode 3,
Brussels, Belgium.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2006). Design of
steel structuresPart 1-5: Plated structural elements. Eurocode 3,
Brussels, Belgium.
Fujii, T. (1971). A comparison between theoretical values and experimental
results for ultimate shear strength of plate girders. IABSE Colloquium,
Int. Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), Zurich,
Switzerland.
Lee, S. C., Davidson, S. J., and Yoo, C. H. (1996). Shear buckling
coefcients of plate girder web panels. Comp. Struct., 59(5),
789795.
Lee, S. C., and Yoo, C. H. (1998). Strength of plate girders web panels
under pure shear. J. Struct. Eng., 124(2), 184194.
Lyse, I., and Godfrey, H. J. (1935). Investigation of web buckling in steel
beams. Trans. ASCE, 100(1), 675695.
Nishino, F., and Okumura, T. (1968). Failure tests of plate girders using
large-sized models. IABSE 8th Congress, Final Rep., Int. Association
for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland.
Okumura, T., et al. (1967). Failure tests on plate girders. Structural
Engineering Laboratory Rep., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Tokyo, Tokyo.
Porter, D. M., Rockey, K. C., and Evance, H. R. (1975). The ultimate load
behavior of plate girders loaded in shear. J. Struct. Div., 53(8),
313325.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1893

Rush, C. B. (2001). Experimental tension eld action behavior in HPS

plate girders. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Missouri-Columbus, Columbia,
MO.
Vincent, G. S. (1969). Tentative criteria for load factor design of steel
highway bridges. AISI Bulletin No. 15, American Iron and Steel Institute, New York, 165.
White, D. W., Barker, M., and Azizinamini, A. (2004). Shear strength and
moment-shear interaction in transversely-stiffened steel I-girders. Structural

Engineering, Mechanics and Material Rep. No. 27, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
White, D. W., Barker, M. G., and Azizinamini, A. (2008). Shear strength
and moment-shear interaction in transversely-stiffened steel I-girders.
J. Struct. Eng., 134(9), 14371449.
Zentz, A. (2002). Experimental moment-shear interaction and TFA behavior in hybrid plate girders. M.S. thesis, Univ. of MissouriColumbus, Columbia, MO.

1894 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

Copyright of Journal of Structural Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil

Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.