Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Steel Structures 9 (2009) 115-122

www.ijoss.org

Stiffness Requirement for Flat-Bar Longitudinal Stiffener of Box-Girder Compression Flanges


Do Dai Thang *, Min-Se Koo , Asif Hameed , and Young-Do Jeong
1, 2 1 1

Ph.D. student, Department of Civil Engineering, Inha University, 253 Younghuyn-dong, Namgu, Incheon, 402-751, Korea 2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Inha University, 253 Younghuyn-dong, Namgu, Incheon, 402-751, Korea

Abstract
In this paper, the moment of inertia requirement of flat-bar longitudinal stiffener of bottom flange in steel box girder is investigated through finite element modeling. The required minimum stiffness for longitudinal stiffeners of box girder flange is given in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification and is modified by Yoo. However, this requirement is adopted for T-shape stiffeners. Here, the effect of important parameters on the minimum required moment of inertia of flat-bar stiffener is numerically investigated by examining the anti-symmetric mode of buckling. This study presents the results that are based on 3D finite-element analysis of four hundred hypothetical compression flange models stiffened by varying numbers of flatbar longitudinal stiffeners with realistic dimensions such as the height of stiffener, the thickness of the compression flange, the number of longitudinal stiffeners and the aspect ratio of plate panel. A new proposed equation for required minimum stiffness of the flat-bar longitudinal stiffeners is derived from nonlinear regression analyses. Beside that the study has taken into account the effect of boundary conditions and the effect of inelastic transition on the critical buckling stress of compression flange. Through the evaluation of a design example, the validity and reliability of the new proposed equation is demonstrated.

Keywords: bend-buckling, steel box girder, compression flange, flat-bar longitudinal stiffeners, stiffness requirement
1. Introduction

Steel box girders have a proven high structural efficiency because of their large bending and torsional stiffness as well as rapid erection and therefore are used in a wide variety of structural applications. For bottom flange, the buckling behavior due to compression strength during fabrication and erection can be a problem. Many researches in the field have been done in Europe (UK, Germany, etc.), Japan, etc. after a series of tragic collapses of the four big box girder bridges that occurred during the erection of Fourth Danube Bridge in Austria in 1969, Milford Haven Bridge in Wales in 1970, West Gate Bridge in Australia in 1970 and Koblenz Bridge in Germany in 1971. Highly theoretical and extremely complex analytical research results on compression flanges stiffened by one or two stiffeners were presented by Bleich (1952) and Timoshenko and Gere (1961). The required minimum stiffness for longitudinal stiffeners 0 is stipulated in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2008) by:
I

= 3 (1) where, =0.125 3 for a value of =1 and =0.07 3 4 for >1, where n is number of longitudinal stiffeners and is buckling coefficient, which shall not exceed 4; is thickness of the flange and is width of the flange between longitudinal stiffeners or distance from web to the nearest longitudinal stiffener. The equation gives a reasonable required value for 0, when n is less than or equal to 2. Nevertheless, it requires unreasonably large values for 0 when the number of longitudinal stiffeners becomes large. In view of a recent study by Yoo (2001), nonlinear regression analysis yielded for the limiting value of the moment of inertia I0 that is required to ensure an anti-symmetric mode shape with the coefficient of correlation over 0.95 is:
I0 wtf k n k n n k t w I I R

I0 = 0.3

3 nwtf
a

(2)

Note.-Discussion open until November 1, 2009. This manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on October 10, 2008; approved on April 29, 2009 *Corresponding author Tel:+82-32-873-5332; Fax: +82-32-863-2515 E-mail: dodaithang2003@yahoo.com

where, = / is aspect ratio, is the plate length. However, there appears to be an opportunity to improve this equation for other types of stiffeners. In general, a Tshape plate has higher moment of inertia than a rectangular bar for exactly the same area. Nevertheless in practice, the flat-bar plate is used as the longitudinal stiffeners in steel box girder bridge due to its convenience in the fabrication, the welding construction and the maintenance. Moreover, T-shape plat is normally steel
a w

116

Do Dai Thang et al.

profiles while flat-bar is just plate, thus the selection of the stiffener satisfying the stiffness requirement in the case of flat-bar is easier. Now, the flat-bar stiffeners are used remarkable in steel box girder bridge in Korea and others countries (Alinia 2005, Kulicki 2005, and Mancecorea website, 2007). In this study, the moment of inertia requirement of flat-bar longitudinal stiffener of compression bottom flange is investigated through elastic buckling analysis by using finite element modeling. Afterward, the nonlinear regression analysis from the FEM results is carried out to find out the required equation. The effect of continuous boundary conditions and inelastic transition are also investigated.

2. The Required Moment of Inertia for Anti-symmetric Buckling Mode Shape


The longitudinal compression-flange stiffeners on box flanges shall be equally spaced across the flange width and their specified minimum yield strength shall not be less than the specified minimum yield strength of the box flange to which they are attached (AASHTO Article 6.11.11.2). A typical bottom compression flange with flat-bar longitudinal stiffeners placed at a spacing of w is shown in Fig. 1. The stiffened bottom flange panel between two adjacent transverse stiffeners (the bottom chord of an internal cross frame acts as transverse stiffener) is assumed to be subjected to a uniform compressive stress. The theoretical elastic buckling stress for a rectangular plate under uniform compression is expressed as

2 tf 2 k E -(3) Fcr = ----12 (1 ) w where, E is the modulus of elasticity, is Poissons ratio; t is the thickness of plate (bottom flange) and k is elastic plate buckling coefficient depending on the edge support conditions and the ratio of length to width of the plate. The theoretical minimum value of k is 4.00 for a square plate panel simply supported along the two edge parallel to the line of force and 6.97 for a square plate panel clamped along the two parallel to the line of force (Salmon and Johnson, 1996). Although the degree of fixity provided by the web on the bottom flange varies depending upon the web stiffness, it is generally accepted that the boundary condition along these two edges of a box-girder bottom flange connected to either vertical or inclined webs is closer to a simply supported edge, i.e. the theoretical minimum value of k is 4 (Yoo, 2001). Because of the symmetry of the stiffened plate system, the displacement of the buckled system will be one of the following two types: symmetric configuration with deflected stiffener and anti-symmetric configuration where the axis of stiffener remains straight. The buckling mode shapes of compression flange are shown in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c). The buckling in the latter case has a nodal line coinciding with the axis of the stiffeners and each strip of the plate behaves as separate plate of length a = w and width w with simply supported at all four edges. No bending moment is carried over from one strip of the plate to the other strip because the deflection surface has a line of inflection at the nodal line. In this case the buckling load
f

Figure 1.

Cross section in negative moment area (from Clinton

et al

., 1986).

Buckling mode shapes of compression flange in the case =3, =2. (a) Loading and boundary condition, (b) Symmetric buckling mode shape, (c) Anti-symmetric buckling mode shape.
Figure 2. n

Stiffness Requirement for Flat-Bar Longitudinal Stiffener of Box-Girder Compression Flanges

117

Figure 3.

Various modes of buckling. In the upper three cases I < I0 while in the lower case I I0 for the case when the longitudinal stiffeners are strong enough to support the plate.

of the stiffened plate system reaches its maximum value. For values I below I , the symmetric displacement form wherein the stiffener deflects with the plate will occur. At the value I , both the configurations are equally possible. The anti-symmetric displacement form will occur when the moment of inertia of the stiffeners I is larger than a minimum required value I . It is important to note that the critical stress Fcr for anti-symmetric buckling does not depend on I value. Any increase of I higher than the value I does not increase the buckling strength of stiffened plate, the critical stress is given by Eq. (3) (Bleich, 1952). Figure 3 shows the mode of buckling of three stiffeners subdividing the plate into four equal panels. When I of stiffener is increased, the number of half-waves of mode buckling will gradually change from 1 (symmetric mode shape) to 4 (anti-symmetric mode shape), that is equal to number of stiffener plus 1. Moreover, the critical buckling load changes rapidly in the upper three cases and converge to the critical buckling load in the fourth case.
0 0 0 0

the displacement values at the points along the edge of the longitudinal stiffeners and at equal spacing of w in the transverse direction. The critical load value by eigenvalue buckling analysis is obtained at the second mode of buckling because in the first mode it gives dummy value, nearly zero and can be ignore. Note that the eigenvalue does not change much for a greater value of I as long as it produces an anti-symmetric mode.
0

4. Result and Regression Analysis


The FEM results indicate that for n =1, the minimum required stiffness is remarkably lower with other cases (for n =2 to 5). This is not a surprise and is because of the inner strips effect to the critical buckling load. So, the regression equation formula in the case of n =1 is different than for the case n =2 to 5. The results also indicate that I and wt have linear relationship and can be expressed by the following equation: I = wt (4) where, is tangent of variation and can be determined by regression analysis. As the longitudinal stiffener is essentially a compression member, the required moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the effective length. Thus the regression formula of must be proportional to the square of the aspect ratio. For the case n =1, the variation of I and wt is shown in Fig. 4 and the value depends only on the aspect ratio as shown in Fig. 5. The formula of polynomial second order trendline is likely =0.10 +0.57 and Eq. (4) can be simplified as: I =(0.10 +0.57)wt (5) The correlation coefficient from the regression analysis for Eq. (5) is found to be 0.99. For a value of n =2 to 5, the variation of moment of inertia I with wt is shown in Figs. 6(a) to 6(e). The formula of linear trendline with zero intercept value is likely Eq. (4), and depends not only on aspect ratio but also on the number of stiffeners n. Relationship between tangent values with the aspect ratio is polynomial second order trendline as shown in Fig. 6(f). An interpolation of value can be express as = (n +21) /60+0.12, substituting into Eq. (4) yields:
3 0 3 0 3 0 2 2 3 0 3 0 2

3. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis


The stiffened plate under uniform compression along two edges and simply supported along the two edges parallel to the load was modeled and analyzed by using the commercial finite element code ANSYS as shown in Fig. 2(a). A total of four hundred plate models are investigated. SHELL63 elements (Elastic Shell) are used for modeling both flange plate and flat-bar longitudinal stiffeners. The stiffened plate used is simply supported along the two edges parallel to the line of force. The models used realistic dimensions such as the thickness of the compression flange t is varied from 0.75 to 1.50 in. (19.1 to 38.1 mm), the numbers of longitudinal stiffeners n are varied from 1 to 5, and the aspect ratio of the plate panel is varied from 1 to 5. The required of moment of inertia of the longitudinal stiffeners I is obtained by using the unit value of stiffener thickness and seeking the threshold height of the stiffeners. That is, for the cross section of stiffeners in each model, a unit value 1.00 in. (25.4 mm) is fixed for the thickness, while the value of height is varied from small reasonable value to the stop value for the loop with increasing step of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm). For the first anti-symmetric mode shape, the condition of existing do-loop is nearly zero resulting in
f 0

118

Do Dai Thang et al.

Figure 4.

Variation of moment of inertia in the case n=1.


I0

I0

and

wt

value

Linear trendline of tangent of the relationship between inertia I and wt .


Figure 5.
3 0

n + 21 2 ------------ + 0.12 wt3 =

60

(6)

Some typical results of FEM analysis have been shown

in Table 1. The ratio of I0 obtained in the case flat-bar stiffener of proposed equations (5) and (6) and in the case T-shaped stiffener of Eq. (2) is from 0.67 to 1.83. It

(a)-(e) Variation of moment of inertia I and wt value for the case n =2 to 5: (a) =1; (b) =2; (c) =3; (d) =4; (e) =5. (f) Tangent (relationship between inertia I and wt ) for the case n =2 and n =5. Note: the unit of I and wt are in. (1 in.=25.4 mm).
Figure 6.
3 0 3 0 3 4 0

Stiffness Requirement for Flat-Bar Longitudinal Stiffener of Box-Girder Compression Flanges


T able 1.

119

Yoo Eq. (2) 1 1 1 80 24 2 1 1 80 96 5 1 1 80 600 1 2 1 80 34 3 2 1 80 305 4 2 1 80 543 1 3 1 80 42 2 3 1 80 166 4 3 1 80 665 1 4 1 80 48 3 4 1 80 432 5 4 1 80 1200 1 5 1 80 54 2 5 1 80 215 4 5 1 80 859 Note: 1 in.= 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MN/m

tf (in.)

w (in.)

Moment of inertia of longitudinal stiffener I (in. ) Proposed Ratio %I FEM Eqs. (5) & (6) IFEM/IYoo FEM/Proposed 42 44 1.83 4.17 130 128 1.33 -1.54 432 428 0.71 -0.09 39 40 1.16 2.61 304 305 1.00 0.19 520 529 0.96 1.66 39 42 0.94 5.73 141 147 0.85 4.47 562 550 0.84 -2.06 44 43 0.92 -2.99 333 329 0.77 -1.38 895 881 0.75 -1.57 47 44 0.87 -5.88 152 158 0.71 3.60 576 593 0.67 2.88
4

Fcr (ksi) Theory FEM Eq. (3) 16.4 16.45 16.4 16.50 16.4 16.74 16.4 16.45 16.4 16.75 16.4 17.19 16.4 16.57 16.4 16.77 16.4 17.34 16.4 16.46 16.4 16.98 16.4 17.52 16.4 16.47 16.4 16.83 16.4 17.47

decreases when and n increase. The differences of I obtained from Eqs. (5) and (6) and from FEM result is about 6%, so the proposed equations are acceptable. While the value of critical stress by FEM result nearly with the same value from theory in Eq. (3). This value depends on w and t but it does not depend on and n. That is F not depend on I and if I greater than I , the F is increased but with negligible value. Note that, the moment of inertia I of each stiffener is about an axis parallel to the flange taken from the base of the stiffener and therefore it equals to I =t h /3.
0 f cr s cr s 3 s s s

5. V alidation
5.1. Check out odd aspect ratio

Finite element analysis and nonlinear regression equation are executed for the case of even aspect ratio . To estimate with the odd aspect ratio, a number of the models with odd aspect ratio are checked and the result is listed in Table 2. The minimum required stiffness value I of Eq. (6) and FEM analysis result are nearly the same and also the critical buckling force nearly equal to the critical elastic force. Note that the mode shape number of buckling panels in longitudinal direction is always equal with even aspect ratio, but for odd aspect ratio case, it is 3 for from 3.0 to 3.4 and 4 for from 3.5 to 4.0.
0

boundary condition and the realistic boundary condition, a selected number of plate models with a continuous boundary are analyzed. The compressive force in the negative moment region of the box-girder bottom flange is computed from the interior pier to the inflection points on both sides. At the interior pier, solid diaphragm is normally used, while at the other end of the compression flange panel, a transverse stiffener is likely to be placed. Different from the hypothesis plate model, in this model, the translation degree of freedom in the out-of-plane direction was not restrained along the load points. The load was applied at the point of the interior pier and the point of contraflexure. Result in Table 3 indicates that, the critical stresses with continuous boundaries are higher than the theoretical critical stresses computed from Eq.
Check odd aspect ratio in the case n=2; tf=1.0 in.; w=100 in.; Ftheory =10.48 ksi cr I (in. ) No. mode shape of FFEM cr =a/w buckling panel Eq. (6) FEM (ksi) 3.0 385.9 397.0 10.788 3 3.1 419.9 431.7 10.778 3 3.2 443.7 455.9 10.881 3 3.3 468.3 481.0 10.916 3 3.4 493.8 493.8 11.041 3 3.5 520.3 520.3 10.985 4 3.6 547.7 547.7 10.965 4 3.7 590.5 576.0 10.928 4 3.8 620.3 620.3 10.893 4 3.9 651.0 635.5 10.873 4 4.0 682.8 685.0 10.898 4 Note: 1 in.=25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MN/m
T able 2.
4 2

The proposed equation depends on hypothesis of simple supported boundary condition with the value of buckling coefficient of 4. In negative moment area, the bottom compression flange is continuous on the both sides of the plate model as shown in Fig. 7. To evaluate the possible differences between the simply supported

5.2. Effect of boundary condition

120

Do Dai Thang et al.

Buckling mode shape of compression flange with continuous boundary in the case =3; n =2.
Figure 7. Figure 8.

Critical stress for inelastic buckling behavior.

(3). The reason is that the plate cannot rotate freely with respect to an axis perpendicular to the line of force in this model as opposed to the simply supported plate panels. Several cases of width-to-thickness ratios are selected to verify the consistency of the proposed equation (5) and (6). The critical stresses in the elastic buckling range and in the inelastic buckling range are determined from the incremental nonlinear analysis considering both the material and the geometric nonlinearity. The material nonlinear analysis is based on a bilinear stress-strain curve (linearly elastic and perfectly plastic) and the Von Mises yield criterion. In the inelastic buckling range, the initial imperfection condition is modeled by giving w/100 as stipulated by Bridge Welding Code (2008) and the element SHELL43 (4-Node Plastic Large Strain Shell) is used to consider the plastic capability and out-of-plane displacement. However, in the inelastic buckling range, the inelastic transition curve of AASHTO appears to be
Table 3.
cr

5.3. Effect of inelastic transition

rather unconservative in that it correlates rather well with the analysis results for straight plate panels (Yoo, 2001). The parabolic curve represented the inelastic transition of the behavior of compression elements including the effects of residual stress and an initial imperfection is derived for the centrally loaded columns of the Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC) (Galambos, 1998) in Fig. 8. The result of buckling is listed in Table 4 and the variation of critical stress cr with respect to ratio f is shown in Fig. 8. From the result, the required moment of inertia for flat-bar longitudinal stiffener is valid for both elastic and inelastic buckling range.
F w/t

6. A Design Example
In order to verify the proposed equation in this study, an example design problem is solved. The problem is selected from Clinton . (1986) and was redesigned longitudinal T-shaped stiffeners by Yoo (2001). Figure 9
et al
4

(in.)

tf

3 1 1.25 5 2 1.50 2 3 1.00 3 4 0.75 2 5 1.00 Note: 1 in.=25.4mm; 1 ksi = 6.895MN/m


Table 4.

Critical stress F with continuous boundary condition I (in. ) w Proposed Theory (in.) FEM Eqs. (5) & (6) Eq. (3) 120 611.7 606.8 11.37 80 2749.5 2747 36.86 100 184.0 158.2 10.48 60 104.0 104.8 16.38 60 118.4 104.8 29.12

Fcr

(ksi) Diff. (%) 4.22 5.91 7.38 8.65 10.97

FEM 11.85 39.17 11.32 17.93 32.71

Critical stress F with consideration of bilinear stress-strain and initial imperfection I (in. ) F (ksi) t w n w/t Proposed Theory (in.) (in.) SSRC Eqs. (5) & (6) FEM Eq. (3) 3 3 1.25 75 60.0 580.1 578.2 29.12 27.97 4 4 1.00 50 50.0 357.3 360.0 41.94 34.82 3 2 0.70 25 35.7 32.7 32.1 50.00 42.77 1 5 1.20 35 29.2 33.5 31.9 50.00 45.25 2 4 1.00 15 15.0 28.6 30.2 50.00 48.86 Note: 1 in.=25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MN/m
cr 4 cr f f 2

FEM 30.82 36.39 45.45 46.63 49.79

Stiffness Requirement for Flat-Bar Longitudinal Stiffener of Box-Girder Compression Flanges

121

Flat-bar longitudinal stiffener design for compression bottom flange.


Figure 9.

Summary the design example Choice stiffener Transverse I0 stiffener spacing Eq. (6) ts hs Is (in.4) (in.) (in.) (in.4) (ft) 10 2.5 253 1.00 9.3 268 1.00 14.0 915 20 5 895 1.25 13.0 915 Note: 1 in.=25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MN/m2
T able 5.

Eq. (3) (ksi) 71.1 71.1 71.1

Fcr

requirement was adopted for T-shape stiffeners. This study has investigated the minimum required stiffness of flat-bar longitudinal stiffener for the bottom flange of steel box girder. The regression equation Eq. (5) for the case n equal 1 and Eq. (6) for the case n from 2 to 5 have been formulated based on the result of analysis of the anti-symmetric mode of buckling stress in elastic buckling. In addition, the study has taken into account the effect of boundary conditions and effect of inelastic transition on the critical buckling stress of compression flange. Through the evaluation of a design example, the validity and reliability of the proposed new equation is demonstrated.
References

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, (2008). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Alinia, M. M. (2005). A study into optimization of stiffeners in plates subjected to shear loading. ThinWalled Structures, 43(5), pp. 845-860. ANSYS (2004). ANSYS Release 9.0 Documentation. SAS IP, Inc. Bleich, F. (1952). Buckling strength of metal structures, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., USA. Bridge Welding Code (2008). AASHTO/AWS D1.5-2008, A Joint Publication of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc. Washington, D.C. and American Welding Society, Miami, F.L., USA. Carlsen, C. A. (1980). A parametric study of collapse of stiffened plates in compression. The Structural Engineer, 58B(2), pp. 33-40. Clinton, H., Joehnk, G., and Petzold, E., (1986). Design examples or steel box girders. Rep. No. FHWA-TS-86209, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Galambos, T. V. (1998). Structural stability research council guide to stability design criteria for metal structuresFifth edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Grondin, G. Y., Chen, Q., Elwi, A. E., and Cheng, J. J. R. (1998). Stiffened steel plates under compression and bending. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 45(2), pp. 125-148. Grondin, G. Y., Elwi, A. E., and Cheng, J. J. R. (1999). Buckling of stiffened steel plates-a parametric study. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 50(2), pp. 151175. Faulkner, D. A. (1975). Review of effective plating for use in the analysis of stiffened plating in bending and compression. Journal of Ship Research, 9(1), pp. 1-17. Kulicki J. M., Wassef W. G., Smith C., and Johns K. (2005). AASHTO-LRFD design example horizontally curved steel box girder bridge. Project No. NCHRP 12-52, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Pennsylvania, USA. Mancecorea website (2007). The method of improving stiffness at the inner support in the steel box girder. viewed: July 10, 2007, On-line version at http:// mansecorea.com/english/00-manse2.html.
Specifications, Customary, U.S. Units, Fourth edition, 2008 Interim Revisions. Washington DC.

shows the longitudinal stiffener arrangement for the suggested procedure from this study. The total numbers of longitudinal stiffeners are the same, i.e. four but there is a change from T-shape to flat-bar longitudinal stiffener. In this example, the height of required stiffener is calculated and checked about local stability of flat-bar stiffener. The design example has been summarized in Table 5. If the transverse stiffener spacing is assumed by 10ft (3,048 mm) at the maximum negative moment region, which gives =10/4=2.5. For n =2, w =48 in. (1,220 mm), and t =1.25 in. (31.8 mm), I0 is calculated from Eq. (6) to be 253 in.4 (105.3 106mm4). With the thickness t =1 in. (25.4 mm), the required height of stiffener is hs = 3 3Is ts =9.12 in. (231.6 mm). Selected height of stiffener h is 9.3 in.=236.2 mm (I=268 in.4 =111.55 106mm4) and the local stability of stiffener is to be checked. In Table 5, the elastic buckling stress of bottom flange plate (71.1 ksi= 490.2 MN/m2). If the transverse stiffener spacing is assumed by 20ft (6,096 mm) at the maximum negative moment region, which gives =20/4=5. For same values of n, w, and t , 4 6 4 I0 is computed 895 in. (372.5 10 mm ). If with the thickness t =1.00 in. (25.4 mm), the required stiffener height is 13.91 in. (353.3 mm). The stiffener height is chosen 14.0 in=355.6 mm (I =915 in4 =380.85 106mm4). For thickness t =1.25 in. (31.75 mm), required h =13 in. (330.2 mm).
f
s

7. Conclusion

In the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (1994), the required minimum stiffness for longitudinal stiffeners of box girder flange is given, but the equation requires unreasonably the large values for I0 when the number of longitudinal stiffeners becomes large. And after that it was modified by Yoo (2001). However, this

122

Do Dai Thang et al.

Mittelstedt, C. (2008). Explicit analysis and design equations for buckling loads and minimum stiffener requirements of orthotropic and isotropic plates under compressive load braced by longitudinal stiffeners. Thin-Walled Structures, 46(12), pp. 1409-1429. Salmon, C. G. and Johnson, J. E. (1996). Steel structuresNY. Sharp, M. L. (1966). Longitudinal stiffeners for compression members. ASCE J. Struct. Div., 92(ST5), pp. 187-212. Sheikh, I. A., Grondin, G. Y., and Elwi, A. E. (2002). Stiffened steel plates under uniaxial compression.
Design and behavior-Emphasizing load and resistance factor design-Fourth edition, HarperCollins, New York,

1061-1080. Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory of elastic stability-Second edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., USA. Yoo, C. H. (2001). Design of longitudinal stiffeners on box girder flanges. International Journal of Steel Structures, 1(1), pp. 15-23. Yoo, C. H., Choi, B. H., and Ford, E. M. (2001). Stiffness Requirements for Longitudinally Stiffened Box-girder Flanges. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(6), pp. 706-711.

Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58(5-8), pp.