Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Numerical investigations on bending and shear buckling interaction of I- T

Girders with slender WEB
Bence Jáger, Balázs Kövesdi∗, László Dunai
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Hungary

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Steel I-girders with slender web are commonly used in the engineering practice. Previous research results proved
Bending and shear interaction that the current bending and shear interaction (M-V) check of the EN1993-1-5 does not always provide safe side
Slender web resistance. The current research work focuses on the analysis of the M-V interaction behavior of longitudinally
Longitudinally unstiffened web unstiffened and stiffened I-girders with slender web. Applicability interval of the current EN1993-1-5 based M-V
Longitudinally stiffened web
interaction resistance model is determined and based on the executed numerical investigation a refined M-V
Shear buckling
interaction equation is proposed to ensure safe and economic design. The results of the numerical parametric
Flange contribution
study also proved that the flange contribution in the shear buckling resistance does not match the current design
rules of the EN 1993-1-5. In a specific parameter range (girders with light flanges) the current design rule
underestimates the flange contribution to the shear buckling resistance leading to conservative resistances.
However, for I-girders with heavy flanges the current design method gives unsafe results. Therefore, the current
paper presents an improved formula to the flange contribution ensuring better approximation of the computed
resistances.

1. Introduction
The bending and shear buckling resistances are determined based
on the cross-section class and web sensitivity check against shear
buckling according to the Eurocode design rules (EN1993-1-1 [1], EN
1993-1-5 [2]). For girders having slender web panel sensitive for shear
buckling the EN1993-1-5 [2] provides an M-V interaction check irre-
spective to the cross-section class. This design method is based on the
modified Basler's [3] interaction model. Hendy and Presta [4] observed
that the M-V interaction resistance can be significantly underestimated
using the design method of the EN 1993-1-5 leading to conservative and
uneconomical results. Optional improvement can be the flange con-
tribution consideration in the shear buckling resistance. This conclusion
was made based on numerical simulation results investigating girders
with heavy flanges, which are commonly used in steel and composite
bridges.
Sinur and Beg performed a comprehensive experimental [5] and
numerical [6] research program on the M-V interaction behavior of I-
girders with longitudinally stiffened web. They observed that the
EN1993-1-5 based M-V interaction equation does not always lead to
safe side resistances. Therefore, a modified lower limit design interac-
tion equation was proposed by Sinur and Beg. This enhanced design
formula uses the elastic bending resistance instead of the plastic
moment capacity and the exponent of the shear term has been changed
from 2.0 to 1.0.
Previous investigations of Kövesdi et al. also proved that the
EN1993-1-5 based M-V interaction equation leads to unsafe results for
special girder geometries. However, their previous studies were fo-
cusing on the bending, shear buckling and transverse force (M-V-F)
interaction of longitudinally unstiffened [7] and stiffened [8] girders.
Braun also studied the M-V and V-F interaction behavior [9], however,
a detailed study on the M-V interaction plane was not made. Therefore,
the current research program is focusing on the M-V interaction plane
of the previous studies and executes a systematic numerical para-
metrical study to analyze the applicability of the previous design pro-
posals. Further research aim is to develop an improved M-V interaction
equation leading to safe and economic solution for the whole analyzed
parameter range. To achieve these research aims an advanced numer-
ical model is developed and verified based on the experimental results
found in the international literature. Based on the developed numerical
model the FEM based bending and shear buckling resistances of the
analyzed girders are determined and the structural behavior under the
combined loading situation is studied and evaluated. In the current
paper the validity interval of the current EN 1993-1-5 M-V interaction
model is investigated and an enhanced M-V interaction equation is
developed for longitudinally unstiffened and stiffened I-girders. The

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jager.bence@epito.bme.hu (B. Jáger), kovesdi.balazs@epito.bme.hu (B. Kövesdi), dunai.laszlo@epito.bme.hu (L. Dunai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106199
Received 29 December 2018; Received in revised form 14 May 2019; Accepted 14 May 2019
Available online 30 May 2019
0263-8231/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Fig. 1. Schematic overview of the studied girders and used notations.

proposed enhanced interaction formula considers the specialties of the 1993-1-5. According to this model the shear buckling resistance can be
flange and web contribution in the bending moment and shear buckling determined from the sum of the web (Vbw,Rd) and flange (Vbf,Rd) re-
behavior and provides the M-V interaction curve depending on the sistances according to Eq. (2).
actual flange and web size of the investigated girder. Therefore, the
η ⋅f y ⋅h w ⋅t w
proposed design method provides safe and economical results in the Vb, Rd = Vbw, Rd + Vbf , Rd ≤
whole analyzed parameter range. 3 ⋅γM1 (2)
Results of the numerical parametric study proved that shear buck- where Vbf,Rd should be reduced if the girder is subjected by accom-
ling resistance also shows large scatter of the numerical simulation panying bending moment; hw and tw are the web depth and thickness,
results. While the web contribution in the shear buckling resistance respectively, and γM1 is the partial safety factor for stability checks and
gives an appropriate approximation of the computed resistances, the η is modification factor equal to 1.2 for fy ≤ 460 and 1.0 otherwise. The
flange contribution term according to EN1993-1-5 has relatively large contribution of the web and the flange to the shear buckling resistance
errors. Therefore, the computed and the analytically calculated shear might be calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4).
buckling resistances are compared and an improved expression is de-
veloped to consider the correct position of the plastic hinges formed in χw ⋅f y ⋅h w⋅tw
Vbw, Rd =
the flanges. The improved M-V interaction curve and the enhanced 3 ⋅γM1 (3)
formulation of the flange contribution to the shear buckling resistance
2
leads to a significantly better approximation of the design of steel I- bf ⋅t f2⋅f y ⎛ M ⎞⎞
Vbf , Rd = ⎜1 − ⎛⎜ ⎟
⎟
girders with slender web. c⋅γM1
⎝ ⎝ Mf , Rd ⎠ ⎠ (4)
The notations used in this paper are shown in Fig. 1.

2. Background of Eurocode design rules
2.1. Design model for the bending resistance
The resistance model of the EN 1993-1-5 is used for the determi-
nation of the bending moment resistance of girders with longitudinally
unstiffened and stiffened web. According to the standard the design
bending moment resistance of girders having class 4 sections can be
determined by Eq. (1) based on the effective width method.
Wel, eff ⋅f y
Mc, Rd =
γM 0 (1)
where Wel,eff is the cross-sectional modulus considering the effective
area of the section, fy is the yield strength and γM0 is the partial safety
factor. In the cross-sectional modulus the local and the global buckling
behavior of the stiffened web is also taken into account considering
plate-like and column-like behavior as well.
2.2. Design model for the shear buckling resistance
The resistance model of the EN 1993-1-5 is used for the determi-
nation of the shear buckling resistance of girders with longitudinally
unstiffened and stiffened web. Höglund developed the “rotated stress
field method” which was originally developed for unstiffened webs and
it was later extended for panels with longitudinal stiffeners [10]. Hö-
glund's approach was accepted as the basis for design rules in the EN
⎛ 1.6⋅bf ⋅t f2⋅f yf ⎞
c = a⋅⎜0.25 +
tw⋅h w2 ⋅ff yw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where χw is the reduction factor for shear buckling; bf and tf are the
flange width and thickness; c is the distance between transverse stif-
fener and plastic hinge developed in the flange as given by Eqs. (11)
and (12); a is the distance between the transverse stiffeners; M is the
bending moment acting in the analyzed cross-section and Mf,Rd is the
bending moment resistance of the flanges alone. The reduction factor
should be based on the largest slenderness of all subpanels as separated
tension fields and the whole orthotropic panel considering the long-
itudinal stiffeners if any. The shear buckling coefficients regarding to
local subpanel buckling can be determined by the formula developed
for unstiffened plates. The standard, however, provides different shear
buckling coefficients (i) for panels having one or two longitudinal
stiffeners and (ii) for panels having more than two longitudinal stif-
feners. For plates with rigid transverse stiffeners and with more than
two longitudinal stiffeners the shear buckling coefficient can be ob-
tained by Eqs. (5) and (6).
4.0
k τ = 5.34 + + k τsl if α ≥ 1.0
α2 (5)
5.34
k τ = 4.0 + + k τsl ifα < 1.0
α2 (6)
where α is the aspect ratio of the web panel (a/hw); kτsl is the con-
tribution of the longitudinal stiffeners; Isl is the sum of the out-of-plane
gross cross-sectional inertia of the stiffeners including the

2
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

accompanying plate part (15·ԑ·tw) on both sides. The shear buckling anchored in the flanges by formulating four plastic hinges. These plastic
coefficient can be determined by Eqs. (7) and (8) by giving a minimum hinges give the flange contribution to the shear buckling resistance.
value. Using the assumption that the tension field does not influence the shear
3 3
resistance, the flange resistance can be simply added to the contribution
9 ⎛ Isl ⎞ 3.45 10.92⋅(Isl /3) ⎞ of the web [12]. The key parameter in the design model is the distance
k τsl = 4 ⎜ ⎟ ≈ 2 4 ⎜⎛ ⎟
α 2 ⎝ t w3 ⋅h w ⎠ α 3
⎝ t w⋅h w ⎠ (7) between the plastic hinges notated by c. Its value has been validated by
test results on a limited number of investigated specimens. Höglund's
Isl 10.92⋅(Isl /3) proposal according to Eq. (5) showed good approximation to the test
k τsl,min = 2.1⋅ 3 ≈ 1.36⋅ 3
t w3 ⋅h w t w3 ⋅h w (8) results. However, a comprehensive investigation is still missing from
the international literature.
Eqs. (7) and (8) were derived by Höglund [10]. The validation of In the recent years a large number of experimental and numerical
these equations are based on the elastic critical shear stress, theoreti- investigations studied the applicability and accuracy of this theory. All
cally derived by Crate and Lo [11] for infinitely long web panels with the investigations proved the correctness of the Höglund's theory,
one centrally placed longitudinal stiffener. The reason of the stiffness however for the distance between the plastic hinges different values are
reduction by 1/3 in the equations of the EN 1993-1-5 is explained by proposed by different researchers. Alinia et al. [15] studied the shear
the smaller post-buckling reserve of the longitudinally stiffened panels buckling failure mechanism of steel I-girders with unstiffened web in
than for the unstiffened panels. In order to associate the same reduction 2009. They proved, that the design method of the EN 1993-1-5 gives
function for both longitudinally stiffened and unstiffened web girders one of the best shear buckling resistance model available in the inter-
the standard prescribes the bending stiffness to be the one third of its national literature. The position of plastic hinges in different girders
actual value in the shear buckling coefficient since longitudinally stif- varied between 0.20 and 0.35 times the panel length measured from the
fened web girders have smaller post-critical behavior. The above de- end stiffeners. It was also observed, that its location depends on the
scribed design equation can be also used for panels with one or two end-post rigidity and the flange dimensions. Hassanein et al. in-
longitudinal stiffeners, if the panel aspect ratio (α) is larger than 3. vestigated the shear buckling behavior of steel girders having tubular
Otherwise the shear buckling coefficient regarding panels with one or flanges [16] in 2010. Based on the large number of numerical in-
two longitudinal stiffeners may be calculated by Eq. (9). vestigation an improved formulation has been developed for the c value
6.3 + 0.18⋅
Isl for tubular flange girders. Based on the numerical results its minimum
3 ⋅h
tw w Isl value has been changed from 0.25 to 0.4 times the panel length and its
k τ = 4.1 + + 2.2⋅ 3 ifα < 3.0
α2 t w3 ⋅h w (9) value depends on the flange and web sizes, as proposed by Höglund.
Large number of previous investigations [17–20] has been made on
Eq. (9) was originally proposed by Beg [12] for one or two long-
stainless steel I-girders. All the results proved the applicability of Hö-
itudinal stiffeners without having 1/3 of the Isl value in the expression,
glund's theory for different stainless steel members as well, however the
as given by Eq. (10).
value of the c distance has been changed. The main part of the previous
10.92 ⋅ Isl
6.3 + 0.05⋅ investigations proved that its value can be smaller as the minimum
3 ⋅h
tw w 10.92⋅Isl
k τ , Beg = 4.1 + + 1.44⋅ 3 value 0.25 times the panel length as proposed by Höglund.
α2 t w3 ⋅h w (10) Numerous previous investigations studied the shear buckling be-
The above presented shear buckling resistance model with one or havior of steel I-girders with slender webs at elevated temperature.
two longitudinal stiffeners was investigated by Pavlovčič et al., in 2007 However, the analysis at elevated temperature contains the results re-
using laboratory tests [13] and FE simulations [14]. The results were lated to the ambient temperature as reference. Reis et al. also observed
compared to the resistance model of the EN 1993-1-5 and it was con- the contradiction between the flange contribution according to the EN
cluded that the standard provides conservative results even if no re- 1993-1-5 and the numerical results [21,22]. They concluded that the
duction is applied in the out-of-plane bending stiffness of the long- difference between the computed and the calculated resistances de-
itudinal stiffeners. In addition, the flange contribution to the shear pends on the panel slenderness ratio and an improved equation is
buckling resistance (Eq. (4)) was studied and concluded that the stan- proposed to a better approximation of the flange contribution according
dard results in unsafe solutions for heavy flanges, however, due to re- to Eqs. (11) and (12).
serve in the shear buckling resistance model of the web (Eq. (3)) unsafe
results only appear if the flange-to-web cross-sectional area ratio ex- ⎛ 1.6⋅bf ⋅t f2⋅f yf ⎞
c = β⋅a⋅⎜0.25 +
ceeds 1.25. Note that no comprehensive parametric study has been tw⋅h w2 ⋅f yw ⎟ (11)
⎝ ⎠
executed to investigate the flange contribution and no improved design
method has been proposed to enhance the original design formula.
Fig. 2 shows the schematic overview of the shear buckling resistance β = −0,6⋅λ w + 2,8 ≥ 1,0 (12)
model applied by the EN 1993-1-5. The background and the origin of
this design model is described in Ref. [12] in a detailed manner. Fig. 2a
presents the web contribution and Fig. 2b the tension field formulation

Fig. 2. Schematic overview of EN 1993-1-5 based shear buckling resistance model [12].

3
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

2.3. Resistance models for bending and shear buckling interaction

Way [23] proposed the first elastic critical stress-based M-V inter-
action formula for longitudinally unstiffened plates in 1936. This for-
mula was improved by Gerard and Becker [24] in 1957 by dividing the
stiffened plate into unstiffened subpanels. Similar formula was pro-
posed by Rockey [25] in 1971 for steel I-girders. In 2009 Alinia and
Moosavi [26] numerically studied the interaction behavior of long-
itudinally stiffened web plates and concluded that under combined
loading the buckling capacity is sensitive to the location of the stiffener.
Basler proposed the first force-based formulation for M-V interaction
equation in 1961 [3]. The suggested equation is given in form of Eq.
(13).
2
M Mf , R ⎞ ⎛ V ⎞
+ ⎜⎛1 − ⎟⎜ ⎟ ≤ 1.0 if M < Mc , R
Mpl, R ⎝ Mpl, R ⎠ ⎝ Vbw, R ⎠ (13)

where Mf,R is the moment of resistance of the cross-section considering

the effective area of the flanges alone, Mpl,R is the plastic moment of
resistance of the cross-section irrespective of its cross-section class,
Vbw,R is the shear buckling resistance of the web panel alone, M and V
are the applied bending moment and shear force. The theoretical
background of the M-V interaction equation is based on the assumption
that the shear force is carried only by the web and it is independent
from the bending moment in the panel as long as the moment is less
than the bending capacity of flanges alone. In case of larger bending
moments, the moment should be also carried by the web, which reduces
the shear resistance of the girder. A slightly modified version of this
design proposal was implemented in the current EN 1993-1-5 in form of
Eq. (14) using an index equal to κ = 2. The same interaction equation
can be found in the Swedish code K18 [27] and in the EN1999-1-1 [28]
using index κ = 1.
κ
M Mf , R ⎞ ⎛ V
+ ⎜⎛1 − ⎟ ⎜2⋅ − 1⎞⎟ ≤ 1.0 if M < Mc, R
Mpl, R ⎝ Mpl, R ⎠ ⎝ Vbw, R ⎠ (14)
In the STN 73 1401 [29] Slovak and ČSN 73 1401 [30] Czech
standards the M-V interaction equation according to Eq. (15) is re-
commended using index κ = 2.
κ highest resistance from the previous proposals. Sinur [6] proved that
M Mf , R ⎞ ⎛ 2⋅V
+ ⎜⎛1 − ⎟⎜ − 1⎟⎞ ≤ 1.0 if 0.5⋅Vbw, R ≤ V < Vbw, R
Mel, eff , R ⎝ Mel, eff , R ⎠ ⎝ Vbw, R ⎠
(15)
where the notations are similar to Eq. (14) with the only difference that
Eq. (15) uses the design elastic bending moment resistance (Mel,eff,Rd),
instead of the plastic moment capacity (Mpl,Rd). Sinur and Beg [6] in-
vestigated the M-V interaction behavior of I-girders with longitudinally
stiffened web in 2010. According to their numerical results the proposal
of the EN 1993-1-5 was modified to Eq. (15), where the index is re-
commended to be κ = 1. This modified interaction equation was found
to be too conservative in case of typical girder geometries used in
bridges. Further interaction equations are proposed by Braun [9],
Shahabian and Roberts [31], Fujii et al. [32], Herzog [33], Lee et al.
[34], AASHTO [35], Chrisan and Dubina [36] and DASt Richtlinien 015
[37]. Detailed discussion of these interaction equations is presented in
Refs. [38,39].
Fig. 3 presents the comparison of different existing M-V interaction
curves. The horizontal and vertical axes represent the pure bending
moment and shear buckling utilization ratios, respectively. The black
vertical dashed lines demonstrate the flange bending moment re-
sistance, the elastic bending moment resistance of the effective cross-
section of the girder normalized to the plastic moment resistance (Mf,R/
Mpl,R, Mel,eff,R/Mpl,R). It can be observed that the proposal of the DASt
Richtlinie 015 [37] provides the most conservative design equation
(green continuous line) while the EN 1993-1-5 considers the M-V in-
teraction behavior in the most favorable way (blue dashed line).
Fig. 3. Comparison of the different interaction equations.
Furthermore the proposals of Basler [3], Braun [9], Swedish code K18
[27], STN 73 1401 [29], ČSN 73 1401 [30], Shahabian and Roberts
[31], Lee et al. [34] and AASHTO [35] predict the M-V interaction
behavior in a moderate way. The most significant difference between
the previous interaction curves is the consideration of the plastic or
elastic bending resistance as reference value. Moreover, Sinur and Beg
[6] gave a lower limit proposal of the aforementioned M-V interaction
curves (red continuous straight line).
3. Problem statement and research strategy
Numerous M-V interaction formula can be found in the interna-
tional literature. The current EN 1993-1-5 design method results in the
for longitudinally stiffened girders this design equation can lead to
unsafe results. Hendy and Presta [4] observed significantly conservative
results, which are in contradiction to the results of Sinur. Therefore, the
current research aim is to study the M-V interaction behavior of long-
itudinally stiffened and unstiffened girders and to characterize the in-
teraction behavior. Numerical parametric study is conducted for a large
number of different cross-section geometries. For each cross-section the
M-V interaction behavior is characterized by 10 numerical simulations
representing the M-V interaction curve. The results of the numerical
simulations are evaluated analyzing the M-V interaction curve and the
pure shear buckling resistance as well. Based on the current simulations
an improved M-V interaction equation is proposed to ensure safe and
economic solution for girders with slender webs and the flange con-
tribution in the shear buckling resistance is also improved.
4. FE model development
4.1. Geometrical model and applied analysis method
Numerical models to be applied are developed by ANSYS 15.0 [40].
GMNI analysis (geometrical and material nonlinear analysis using
equivalent geometric imperfections) is used in the determination of the
ultimate resistance. Full Newton-Raphson approach is applied in the
nonlinear analysis with 0.1% convergence tolerance of the residual
force based Euclidian norm.
Boundary and loading conditions used in the numerical model are

4
B. Jáger, et al.
Fig. 4. Boundary and loading conditions of the numerical model.
shown in Fig. 4. Similar models are used without stiffeners and with
open section stiffeners as well. The stiffener distribution within the web
depth was uniform in all the investigated cases. Rigid end-post layout is
applied for all analyzed girders. The right end of the girder is con-
strained against rotation around the longitudinal and transversal axes
and against vertical and longitudinal displacement. The left end of the
girder is loaded by bending moment applied on the flanges and shear
force. To avoid lateral torsional buckling the specimens are supported
in lateral direction. The accuracy of the model is proved by a mesh
sensitivity analysis before the parametric studies.
4.2. Applied material models
Linear elastic – hardening plastic material model using von Mises
yield criterion is applied. The material model behaves linearly elastic
up to the yield strength (fy) having a Young's modulus equal to
210000 MPa. The yield plateau is modelled up to 1% strains with a
small increase in the stresses to ensure numerical stability. By ex-
ceeding the yield plateau an isotropic hardening behavior is modelled
until it reaches the ultimate strength (fu). Thereafter the material is
assumed to behave perfectly plastic. Two different material model
parameters are used in the research program. One material model is
used to the model verification and one for the parametric study.
Measured material properties are used to model verification and char-
acteristic values are applied for the numerical parametric study. S355
steel grade is applied in the whole numerical parametric study.
4.3. Applied imperfections
Special attention is given to the applied imperfection shape and
magnitude in the current investigations. Two different buckling modes
are simulated, (i) shear buckling and (ii) web buckling due to com-
pression caused by the bending moment, which might need different
imperfection shapes. There are different alternatives to define the
equivalent geometric imperfection shapes and magnitudes, but the
application of the first eigenmode shape is mainly used by researchers.
It contains the relevant failure mode depending on the applied internal
forces, therefore ideal for investigation of different failure modes. The
eigenmode shape imperfection can handle the change of the failure
mode in the interaction domain depending on the ratio of the applied
bending moment and shear force. Fig. 5 shows three typical eigenmode
shapes for unstiffened girders.
In case of stiffened girders the model contains both local (sub-panel
buckling) and global (stiffener buckling) imperfections as well.
Therefore global stiffener buckling and stiffener rotational imperfection
shapes are also applied, having a sinus wave shape with an amplitude of
hw/200 and with a maximum rotation of 1/50 as given in the EN 1993-
5
Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199
1-5, Annex C [2]. This imperfection shape is integrated using the first
eigenmode shape, which is mainly local plate buckling of the sub-panels
or interactive shear buckling of the whole web. If the first eigenmode
shape was the global buckling of the whole panel, it was not applied in
the model. In other cases, both the local and global imperfections are
used. Fig. 6 presents three typical imperfection shapes: global stiffener
buckling, local bending type and local shear buckling type. As a safe
side solution both the global and the local imperfections shapes are
applied with their 100% scaled magnitude and there are no leading and
accompanying imperfections selected. This simplification results in safe
side resistances, however the differences are smaller than 2–3% in case
of the analyzed girder geometries. In addition, the directions of the
applied imperfections are also varied, and all the calculations are exe-
cuted using global imperfections having positive and negative magni-
tude. The minimum value of the two calculation results is considered as
the ultimate resistance of the analyzed girder.
4.4. Model validation
Since the M-V interaction behavior of unstiffened and stiffened web
girders having open and closed section stiffeners are investigated, the
model validation is executed for all the different cases. For the vali-
dation of the FE model with unstiffened web is performed by using the
test results of the COMBRI research project [41]. Fig. 7 presents the
layout of the tested girders; the material and geometric parameters can
be found in Ref. [41]. The numerical model using closed section stif-
feners is validated by the test results of Pavlovčič et al. [13] and with
open section stiffeners to the test results of Sinur and Beg [5]. In case of
both test programs the specimens are stiffened by one or two long-
itudinal stiffeners located in the web. The test layout and the geometry
of the test specimens used in the current validation process are shown
in Figs. 8 and 9; the material and geometric parameters can be found in
the corresponding papers.
In case of the stiffened girders the parametric studies are based on
the combination of the global and local imperfection shapes. Generally,
the first eigenmode shape is used to determine the ultimate load com-
bined with sinus wave global imperfections shapes representing the
global buckling of the stiffeners. Global imperfection magnitude is set
to hw/200; local imperfection is scaled to hw,i/200 (hw,i is the web
subpanels depth). Numerical models of eight test specimens are built
and the model validation is executed by the comparison of the test
results to the numerical simulations, which are summarized in Table 1.
Largest difference between the measured and computed resistances is
4.4% (specimen G4). The obtained average difference is 0.6% providing
results on the safe side.
5. Investigated parameter ranges
The parameter domain given below is investigated in the numerical
research program. It also defines the validity interval of the developed
new M-V interaction equation. 40 typical unstiffened and 121 long-
itudinally stiffened cross-section geometries are involved in the current
investigations having the following parameters:
• h 300–3000 mm,
w
• t 3–16 mm,
w
• b 200–550 mm,
f
• t 10–50 mm,
f
• h /t 50–200,
w w
• b /t 7.5–22.5,
f f
• α 1.5–2.0,
• A /A 0.22–6.11,
f w
• γ = I /I 23–8000 (closed section stiffeners) – γ according to EN
sl p
1993-1-5 Annex A,
• γ = I /I 11–2300 (flat open section stiffeners) – γ according to EN
sl p
1993-1-5 Annex A.
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Fig. 5. First eigenmode shapes for different loading situations.

Fig. 6. Applied imperfections for stiffened girders.

Closed section and open section stiffeners are also investigated,
since they have significantly different structural behavior due to their
different torsional stiffness. Six different stiffener geometries are used:
two closed section stiffeners and four open section (flat) stiffeners.
Number of stiffeners are also varied between 2 and 3. The investigated
girder geometries evaluated based on the bending resistance models are
presented in Fig. 10. Diagrams present the relevant Mf/Mpl, Mf/Mel,eff or
Mel,eff/Mpl ratios depending on the Af/Aw ratio. The bending moment
resistance ratios are calculated according to the design rules of the EN
1993-1-5. The flange over web cross-sectional area ratio (Af/Aw) is
given on the horizontal axis, while the different bending moment re-
sistance ratios are given on the vertical axis. The result proved that M-V
interaction behavior is significantly influenced by the Af/Aw, Mf/Mpl
and Mf/Mel ratios. Therefore, the analyzed parameter range is also given
using these ratios. Special focus is given to the applicability of the
current design methods in the completed research program, especially
in the parameter domain marked by red in Fig. 10. In addition, it can be
seen that the investigated Af/Aw ratio is greater for stiffened girders,
since thinner webs can be applied when stiffeners are placed on the
web.
6. Investigation of the M-V interaction behavior
6.1. Research strategy
More than 1650 numerical simulations are executed in the current
numerical research program. For each analyzed girder geometries 8+2
numerical simulations are completed having different M/V ratios,
producing the M-V interaction curve with high accuracy. The FEM
based resistances are compared and statistically evaluated by the in-
teraction formula of the EN 1993-1-5 and by other proposals taken from
international literature. The cross-section location where the M-V in-
teraction check is made has an important role in the evaluation process.
The EN 1993-1-5 prescribes a distance of hw/2 measured from the
transverse stiffener, however, there are no rules for longitudinally
stiffened girders. Johansson et al. [12] and Sinur and Beg [6] proposed
the location hw,i,max/2 for the interaction check to ensure safe side so-
lution. In the current study the EN 1993-1-5 proposal (hw/2) is applied
to provide safe side solutions by the validation of the M-V interaction
curve.

Fig. 7. Test girders of COMBRI project [41] used for validation – unstiffened web.

6
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Fig. 8. Test girder of Pavlovčič et al. [13] used for validation – closed stiffeners.

6.2. Longitudinally unstiffened web I-girders Table 1

Model validation based on the load carrying capacities.
Three typical failure modes and von-Mises stress distributions are Specimens Fexp [kN] Fnum [kN] ratio
presented in Fig. 11 using different M-V combinations representing and
demonstrating the analyzed structural behavior for dominant bending, SP600 [41] 846 835 0.987
shear buckling and for the M-V interaction behavior. The zones colored SP1200 [41] 1030 988 0.959
G1 [13] 1453 1485 1.022
by grey represent yielding. The numerical simulation results for all the G2 [13] 1569 1553 0.990
investigated unstiffened girders compared to the M-V interaction G3 [13] 1412 1467 1.038
equation of the EN 1993-1-5 are presented in Fig. 12. The horizontal G4 [13] 1591 1521 0.956
axis represents the FEM based bending moment resistances divided by SO [5] 1994 2050 1.028
UO [5] 2230 2175 0.975
the plastic bending moment resistance (Mnum/Mpl,R) independent on the
cross-section class (3 or 4). The vertical axis shows the FEM based shear
buckling resistance divided by the shear buckling resistance of the web
The numerical results also proved that there are no unsafe results
alone (Vnum/Vbw,R). The other horizontal axis shows the Mf,R/Mel,eff,R
having smaller Vnum/Vbw,R ratio than 0,5, and for smaller bending mo-
ratio. This ratio represents the dominancy of the flanges in the bending
ments than the moment resistance of the flanges alone (Mf,R). These
resistance, and it has clear impact on the M-V interaction behavior. The
boundaries are typical in the civil engineering praxis. Results of the
cut-off line of the design interaction model at Mel/eff,R/Mpl,R ratio is
numerical simulations also showed, that difference in the shear buck-
presented by the vertical surface, which should be also verified beside
ling resistance and the shear resistance of the web panel alone (Vbw,R) is
the M-V interaction check. The 3D diagrams show that for girders
the highest in the parameter range of the safe side solutions (Mf,R/
having smaller Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio than 0.92 the standard resistance
Mel,eff,R > 0.92). It indicates that in this parameter range the standard
model does not provide safe side solution. This parameter range is ty-
M-V interaction equation can lead to conservative design, especially for
pical for building structures having relatively small flanges. For larger
bridges having relatively large flanges.
Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratios than 0.92 all the calculation results are on the safe
Table 2 summarizes the statistical evaluation of the numerical
side. This parameter range is typical for bridges using heavy flanges.

Fig. 9. Test girders of Sinur and Beg [5] used for validation – open stiffeners.

7
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Fig. 10. Investigated parameter domain.

Fig. 11. Typical observed failure modes under combined loading.

Fig. 12. Numerical results compared to the M-V interaction model of EN1993-1-5.

8
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Table 2
Statistical evaluation of the numerical results.
EN1993-1-5 Basler AASHTO DASt Shahabian & Roberts Sinur & Beg Lee et al.

Average 1.070 1.080 1.106 1.363 1.125 1.090 1.100

SD 0.089 0.077 0.077 0.203 0.088 0.070 0.072
CoV 0.084 0.072 0.070 0.149 0.078 0.064 0.066
Min 0.850 0.956 0.959 1.033 0.968 1.000 0.974
Max 1.441 1.441 1.441 1.441 1.445 1.441 1.441

Fig. 13. Typical observed failure modes – out-of-plane deformations.

results compared to different existing M-V interaction equations. The
average difference of the EN1993-1-5 based M-V interaction equation is
obtained by 7% on the safe side with a standard deviation of 0.089. The
minimum difference is obtained by 15% on the unsafe side. Based on
the authors’ opinion this difference is unacceptable for standard design
resistance models. The most favorable M-V interaction formula pro-
viding the best fit in case of longitudinally unstiffened girders is found
the interaction proposal of Sinur and Beg [6]; the average difference is
obtained by 9% on the safe side with a coefficient of variation equal to
0.064.
6.3. Longitudinally stiffened web I-girders
The observed typical failure modes with two and three longitudinal
stiffeners are presented in Fig. 13 for demonstration of the analyzed
failure modes in the numerical research program. In case of geometries
with large stiffeners the bending type failure mode is the local buckling
of the upper web panel closest to the compressed flange (Fig. 13a); in
case of weaker stiffeners global buckling occurred with accompanying
stiffener buckling. The local shear sub-panel buckling (Fig. 13b) and
global shear buckling (Fig. 13c) are also separated by changing the
stiffness of the stiffener and the slenderness ratio of the local sub-panel.
Both failure modes are investigated in the program because both failure
modes are covered by the Eurocode based shear buckling resistance
model.
Fig. 14 shows the comparison of the computed and calculated re-
sistances for longitudinally stiffened girders similarly as presented in
Fig. 12. Similar conclusions can be observed as in case of unstiffened
girders. For specimens having smaller Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio than 0.88 the
EN1993-1-5 does not always provide safe side solution. For larger Mf,R/
Mel/eff,R ratio the predicted resistances by the EN 1993-1-5 are always
smaller than the numerically computed resistances. The differences
between the computed and calculated resistances are changing by the
Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio. The results of the statistical evaluation similarly as
for unstiffened girders are shown in Table 3, where N represents the
number of stiffeners. The average differences of the results are obtained
by 45.6%, 40.5% and 22.5% on the safe side for trapezoidal or open
section stiffeners, respectively. However, there is a significant amount
of calculation results locating inside of the interaction curve, providing
unsafe solutions. The compared values also prove that there is a large
scatter in the numerical simulation results. The scatter for stiffened
girders is significantly larger than for unstiffened girders, which can be

Fig. 14. Numerical results compared to the M-V interaction model of EN1993-1-5 (Isl/3).

9
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Table 3 coefficient calculation. If the stiffeners’ inertia is reduced to the 1/3 of

Statistical evaluation of the EN1993-1-5 proposal (Isl/3). its value, the numerical simulation results would be more on the safe
Trapezoidal stiffeners Open flat stiffeners Open flat stiffeners side. It means, that the inertia reduction seems not important neither
N=2 N=2 N=3 for open nor for closed section stiffeners. It can be also observed that
the numerical simulation results fit well to the actual structural beha-
Average 1.456 1.405 1.225
vior for larger bending moments than the flange moment resistance
SD 0.357 0.337 0.158
CoV 0.245 0.240 0.129
alone (M > Mf,R).
Min 0.981 0.957 0.957 Table 4 presents the results of the statistical evaluation of the nu-
Max 2.176 2.996 1.531 merical simulation results. The average difference between the nu-
merical results and the proposed interaction equation is equal to 7% for
unstiffened girders with a standard deviation of 0.075. In case of
explained by the much complex structural behavior and by the different longitudinally stiffened girders the average differences are slightly
failure modes depending on the stiffener stiffness. larger (between 1.15 and 1.33) even if the full stiffeners’ inertia (Isl) the
considered in the evaluation process. The concerning coefficient of
7. Design model development variations are obtained to 0.198, 0.187 and 0.080 with minimum dif-
ferences equal to 2.1%, 0.8% and 0.9% on the safe side. However, the
Enhanced M-V interaction equation is developed to ensure more proposed M-V interaction equation gives better solution than all the
economic design for the M-V interaction behavior providing safe side previous M-V interaction equation considering the actual girder geo-
solutions. The numerical parametric study showed that a slight increase metries in the M-V interaction calculation.
in the M-V interaction diagram is possible by changing the index κ from
1.0 (proposal of Sinur and Beg [6]) to an increased value. This change is 8. Influence of flanges to shear
in harmony with the latest research results of Crisan and Dubina [36].
They also proposed to increase the value of κ to 1.5 for girders having The numerical parametric study also called the attention that the
cross-section classes 1 and 2. The current investigation is related to largest scatter in the results can be observed in the shear buckling re-
cross-section class 3 and 4, but the tendencies of the results are similar. sistance. The difference comes from the consideration of the flange
An extended study is performed based on the computed M-V interaction contribution in the shear buckling resistance. Therefore, the numerical
curves to determine the appropriate value of κ. The best fit index is simulation results related to pure shear buckling are evaluated sepa-
determined for all the investigated cross-sections. The investigations rately and presented in the current section. The differences between the
prove that the required index depends on the Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio of the computed and calculated resistances are determined and presented in
analyzed cross-section. The determined values of the index κ are pre- Fig. 18 depending on the Af/Aw ratio of the analyzed girders. The
sented by black points in Fig. 15 and the lower bound curve proposed vertical axis of the diagram represents the ratio of the numerically
for design purposes is presented by red line. The proposed improved computed shear buckling resistance and the resistance provided by the
design M-V interaction curves are given by Eqs. (17) and (18) con- EN 1993-1-5 for the sum of the web and flange contribution. The
sidering the improved κ factor. The introduction of the κ factor is the comparison shows that the numerical calculations provide larger shear
improvement of the interaction curve, which considers the actual buckling resistances for girders with relatively small flange sizes, than
geometry if the analyzed girder and takes into consideration the effect provide by the standard design method. However, by increasing the
of the web and the flange in the interaction behavior. flange size the obtained ratios can be lower than 1.0, which gives un-
κ safe side resistances. The diagram shows a clear tendency between the
M Mf , R ⎞ ⎛ 2⋅V
+ ⎜⎛1 − ⎟⎜ − 1⎟⎞ ≤ 1.0 if 0.5⋅Vbw, R ≤ V < Vbw, R, shear buckling resistance prediction and the Af/Aw ratio of the analyzed
Mel, eff , R ⎝ Mel, eff , R ⎠ ⎝ Vbw, R ⎠ girder. Therefore, it is obvious that the difference comes mainly from
(17) the flange contribution in the shear buckling resistance.
M-V interaction diagrams are presented for two typical cases having
15
Mf , R significantly different Af/Aw ratio in Fig. 19. The results show that for
κ = ⎜⎛ + 0.2⎟⎞ +1 girders with small Af/Aw ratio the flange contribution (Vbf,Rd) is sig-
⎝ Mel , eff , R ⎠ (18)
nificantly underestimated, however, for larger Af/Aw ratio its value is
The numerical simulation results are compared to the proposed M-V overestimated.
interaction equation separately for longitudinally unstiffened and stif- The flange contribution is calculated based on four plastic hinges
fened girders in Figs. 16 and 17. The diagrams prove that all the si- formulated in the flange plates. The additional shear resistance is cal-
mulation results provide safe side solution. In case of the stiffened culated by dividing the plastic moment resistance of the flanges by the
girders the full stiffeners' inertia is considered in the shear buckling distance of the plastic hinges (c). The current calculation results proved
that two from the four plastic hinges develop only in the descending
branch of the load-displacement curve and at the ultimate load level
mainly two plastic hinges can be observed in the corner points of the
web panel. However, the numerical simulation results also proved that
the tension field effect has also influence on the shear buckling re-
sistance which is neglected in the current design method. The tension
field has to be anchored also by the flanges, therefore its value also
depends on the flange size. Typical failure modes and von-Mises stress
distributions are presented in Fig. 20 demonstrating the plastic hinge
development and the value of c for different girder geometries having
significantly different hw/tw and bf/tf ratios.
The results prove that increasing flange size increases the relevant c
value, which decreases the flange contribution in the shear buckling
resistance. The typical stress distributions also prove that the flange size
has no dominant effect on the developed tension bandwidth, however,
Fig. 15. Applicable index κ and proposed lower bound curve. small increase can be observed. It is also shown that at the ultimate load

10
B. Jáger, et al. Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199

Fig. 16. Comparison of the numerical results to Eqs. (17) and (18) for unstiffened girders.

Fig. 17. Comparison of numerical result to Eqs. (17) and (18) for stiffened girders using full Isl.

Table 4
Statistical evaluation of the proposed M-V interaction equation considering full
Isl.
unstiffened Trapezoidal Open flat Open flat
stiffeners N = 2 stiffeners N = 2 stiffeners N = 3

Average 1.073 1.329 1.298 1.148

SD 0.075 0.263 0.243 0.092
CoV 0.069 0.198 0.187 0.080
Min 0.988 1.021 1.008 1.009
Max 1.457 1.994 2.388 1.409

level plastic hinges are only formulated at the corner of the analyzed
panel and the internal plastic hinges are developed at the descending
branch. The value of c based on the current design proposal depends on
the flange and web sizes. Therefore, for all numerical simulation results Fig. 18. Comparison of the numerical and standard based shear buckling re-
the required c values are determined and evaluated. The contribution of sistances.
the flange is determined by the difference between the numerical shear
buckling resistance minus the web contribution based on the EN 1993- the bf ·tf 2/hw2·tw ratio. The blue dots show the required c/a values based
1-5 design proposal. The flange contribution and the relevant c values on the numerical simulation results. These values show that for small bf
are presented in Fig. 21 for all analyzed panel geometries depending on ·tf2/hw2·tw ratios the current EN 1993-1-5 recommendation (blue line)

11
B. Jáger, et al.
Fig. 19. Typical M-V interaction diagrams.
Fig. 20. Typical failure modes and stress distributions.
overestimate this value, providing safe side resistances. However, for
larger ratios the numerical simulation results require larger c/a values.
The best fit curve to the numerical calculations is presented by yellow
line and the upper bound curve resulting safe side solution for all the
analyzed girder geometries is presented by red line in Fig. 21. The
currently proposed equations for the c value based on the executed
numerical research program are given by Eqs. (19) and (20). The cur-
rent proposal is using the same design methodology as the current EN
1993-1-5, however changing the constants in the design equation pro-
vides more safe and economical solution for the flange contribution.
Best fit proposal:
⎛ 8⋅bf ⋅t f2⋅f yf ⎞
c = a⋅⎜0.05 +
tw⋅h w2 ⋅f yw ⎟ (19)
⎝ ⎠
upper bound proposal:
12
Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199
⎛ 8.5⋅bf ⋅t f2⋅f yf ⎞
c = a⋅⎜0.1 +
tw⋅h w2 ⋅f yw ⎟ (20)
⎝ ⎠
The numerical simulations proved that using the improved value of
c, and index κ in the M-V interaction equation the currently proposed
design method provides better solution for the interaction resistance
calculation than all the other previously developed methods found in
the international literature. Further studies are needed to give better
solution to the c value having smaller scatter than the current expres-
sion, which is the topic of ongoing research of the authors.
9. Conclusion
Based on the executed numerical research program the following
conclusions are drawn for the bending-shear interaction of long-
itudinally unstiffened and stiffened web girders. The numerical results
show that the Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio significantly influences the M-V
B. Jáger, et al.
Fig. 21. Required value of c based on the numerical results.
interaction behavior of steel I-girders with slender web. The current EN
1993-1-5 standard does not consider the effect of the Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio
in the M-V interaction resistance model. According to the numerical
results the EN 1993-1-5 based M-V interaction equation leads to unsafe
results for longitudinally stiffened web girders having smaller Mf,R/
Mel,eff,R ratio than 0.88; in the case of longitudinally unstiffened web
girders this limit value is obtained to 0.92. Based on the numerical
results an improved design interaction equation is developed and pro-
posed considering the influence of the Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio in the form of
Eqs. (17) and (18). Investigations proved that index κ depends on the
Mf,R/Mel/eff,R ratio. By changing the index κ from 1.0 to an increased
value an efficient solution for better approximation of the numerical
simulation results can be achieved.
In addition, the MEd < Mf,R range of bending-shear interaction
equation of EN 1993-1-5 is also investigated. The numerical simulation
results proved that the current EN 1993-1-5 based design method for
the flange contribution to the shear buckling resistance leads to con-
servative results for small Af/Aw ratio, while it significantly over-
estimates the resistance for heavy flanges. Therefore, an improved
equation is proposed for the calculation of the relevant c value in the
form of Eqs. (19) and (20) based on FEM based resistances and plastic
hinge formulations from numerical simulations. Using the calibrated c
value, the flange contribution to the shear buckling resistance may
provide safe and economical results.
Acknowledgement
The presented research program was partly supported by the first
author's ÚNKP-18-3-III. New National Excellence Program of the
Ministry of Human Capacities and by the second author's ÚNKP-18-4
New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities
and by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences; the financial supports are gratefully acknowl-
edged.
References
[1] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, (2005).
[2] EN 1993-1-5, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-5: Plated Structural
Elements, (2005).
[3] K. Basler, Strength of plate girders under combined bending and shear, J. Struct.
Div. ASCE 87 (7) (1961) 181–197.
[4] C.R. Hendy, F. Presta, Transverse web stiffeners and shear moment interaction for
steel plate girder bridges, Struct. Eng. 017 (November, 2008) 13–26.
[5] F. Sinur, D. Beg, Moment-shear interaction of stiffened plate girders – tests and
numerical model verification, J. Constr. Steel Res. 85 (2013) 116–129.
[6] F. Sinur, D. Beg, Moment-shear interaction of stiffened plate girders – numerical
13
Thin-Walled Structures 143 (2019) 106199
study and reliability analysis, J. Constr. Steel Res. 88 (2013) 231–243.
[7] B. Kövesdi, J. Alcaine, L. Dunai, E. Mirambell, B. Braun, U. Kuhlmann, Interaction
behavior of steel I-girders under bending, shear and transverse force, Part I: long-
itudinally unstiffened girders, J. Constr. Steel Res. 103 (2014) 327–343.
[8] B. Kövesdi, J. Alcaine, L. Dunai, E. Mirambell, B. Braun, U. Kuhlmann, Interaction
behavior of steel I-girders under bending, shear and transverse force, Part II:
longitudinally stiffened girders, J. Constr. Steel Res. 103 (2014) 344–353.
[9] B. Braun, Stability of Steel Plates under Combined Loading, PhD thesis No. 2010-
3Institute for Structural Design Universität Stuttgart, 2010.
[10] T. Höglund, Shear buckling resistance of steel and aluminium plate girders, Thin-
Walled Struct. 29 (1997) 13–30.
[11] H. Crate, H. Lo, Effect of Longitudinal Stiffeners on the Buckling Load of Long Flat
Plates under Shear, NACA Technical Note, No. 1589 (1948).
[12] B. Johansson, R. Maquoi, G. Sedlacek, C. Müller, D. Beg, Commentary and Worked
Examples to DIN-EN-1993-1-5 Plated Structural Elements, (2007).
[13] L. Pavlovčič, A. Detzel, U. Kuhlmann, D. Beg, Shear resistance of longitudinally
stiffened panels – Part 1: tests and numerical analysis of imperfections, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 63 (2007) 337–350.
[14] L. Pavlovčič, D. Beg, U. Kuhlmann, Shear resistance of longitudinally stiffened
panels – Part 2: numerical parametric study, J. Constr. Steel Res. 63 (2007)
351–364.
[15] M.M. Alinia, M. Shakiba, H.R. Habashi, Shear failure characteristics of steel plate
girders, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 1498–1506.
[16] M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob, Shear strength and behaviour of transversely stif-
fened tubular flange plate girders, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 2617–2630.
[17] I. Estrada, E. Real, E. Mirambell, General behaviour and effect of rigid and non-rigid
end post in stainless steel plate girders loaded in shear. Part II: extended numerical
study and design proposal, J. Constr. Steel Res. 63 (2007) 985–996.
[18] M.F. Hassanein, Imperfection analysis of austenitic stainless steel plate girders
failing by shear, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 704–713.
[19] N. Saliba, E. Real, L. Gardner, Shear design recommendations for stainless steel
plate girders, Eng. Struct. 59 (2014) 220–228.
[20] X.W. Chen, H.X. Yuan, X.X. Du, Y. Zhao, J. Ye, L. Yang, Shear buckling behaviour of
welded stainless steel plate girders with transverse stiffeners, Thin-Walled Struct.
122 (2018) 529–544.
[21] A. Reis, N. Lopes, P. Vila Real, Design of steel plate girders subjected to shear
buckling at ambient and elevated temperatures: contribution from the flanges, Eng.
Struct. 152 (2017) 437–451.
[22] A. Reis, N. Lopes, P. Vila Real, Contribution from the flanges to the shear buckling
resistance of steel plate girders at normal and elevated temperatures, Proc.
European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures EUROSTEEL 2017,
Copenhagen, Denmark, September 13-15, 2017.
[23] S. Way, Stability of rectangular plates under shear and bending forces, J. Appl.
Mech. 3 (4) (1936) A,131.
[24] G. Gerard, H. Becker, Handbook of structural stability, six parts, NACA Technical
Notes (1957/1958) 3781–3786 Nos.
[25] K.C. Rockey, An ultimate load method for the design of plate girders,
Proc.Colloquium on Design of Plate and Box Girders for Ultimate Strength IABSE
(1971) 253–268.
[26] M.M. Alinia, S.H. Moosavi, Stability of longitudinally stiffened web plates under
interactive shear and bending force, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 53–60.
[27] T. Höglund, “K18, Design of Steel Structures”, Chapter K18 and K19 from the
Building Handbook (In Swedish), SBI, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, 1994.
[28] EN 1999-1-1, Eurocode 9: Design of Aluminium Structures, Part 1-1: General
Structural Rules, (2007).
[29] STN 73 1401, Navrhovanie Oceľových Konštrukcií (Design of Steel Structures),
SÚTN, Bratislava, March, 2008.
[30] ČSN 73 1401, Navrhování Ocelových Konstrukcí (Design of Steel Structures), ČSNI,
Praha, March, 2008.
[31] F. Shahabian, T.M. Roberts, Behavior of plate girders subjected to combined
bending and shear loading, Sci. Iran. 15 (1) (2008) 16–20.
[32] T. Fujii, Y. Fukomoto, F. Nishino, T. Okamura, Research works on ultimate strength
of plate girders and Japanese provisions on plate girder design, Proc. Colloquium on
Design of Plate and Box Girders for Ultimate Strength IABSE (1971) 21–48.
[33] M. Herzog, Ultimate static strength of plate girders from tests, J. Struct. Div. ASCE
100 (5) (1974) 849–864.
[34] S. Lee, D. Lee, C. Yoo, Flexure and shear interaction in steel I-girders, J. Struct. Eng.
139 (11) (2013) 1882–1894.
[35] AASHTO, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2004.
[36] A. Crisan, D. Dubina, Bending-shear interaction in RBS short coupling beams, Proc.
European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures EUROSTEEL 2014, 2014
Napoles, Italy.
[37] DASt Richtlinien 015, Träger mit schlanken Stege, Stahlbau-Verlag, Köln, 1990.
[38] B. Jáger, B. Kövesdi, L. Dunai, I-girders with unstiffened slender webs subjected by
bending and shear interaction, J. Constr. Steel Res. 131 (2017) 176–188.
[39] B. Jáger, B. Kövesdi, L. Dunai, Bending and shear buckling interaction behaviour of
I-girders with longitudinally stiffened web, J. Constr. Steel Res. 145 (2018)
504–517.
[40] ANSYS® v15.0, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
[41] COMBRI, Competitive Steel and Composite Bridges by Improved Steel Plated
Structures, Final Report, RFCS Research Project RFS-CR-03018 (2007).