Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
(OP)
Ladies and gents,
I am in the process of designing a double web plate girder, the girder tapers towards the ends. At the center of my plate girder, where the flanges are the widest is where my questions applies.
I have been treating my double web plate girder as a box girder, using section F7 in AISC. At the center though, where my flange is the widest, the flange sticking outside of my "box" girder are non-compact. I had originally used equation F7-2 for Flange Local Buckling, using the entire section/plastic modulus of the shape. When my calculations were first checked, a more senior engineer said I should be using section F3, where I used EQ F3-1. This lowered my capacity significantly.
I checked my results with a Bentley structural analysis software, that has a double web plate girder section. When I run through it's printout, it uses Section F7 EQ F7-2 for the bending capacity. This jives with my original approach, however I noticed the capacity was significantly higher in the model output. Digging through the numbers, it is because on EQ F7-2, it uses my entire girder flange width as b in the b/tf term. I however had only used the flange width between my box girder as my b in the b/tf term.
My questions are, how would you approach solving this problem. If you agree with treating it as a box girder (even though the flanges outside the box are non-compact), which value would you use for b?
Thanks for any help. Attachment hopefully helps clear up any confusion.
I am in the process of designing a double web plate girder, the girder tapers towards the ends. At the center of my plate girder, where the flanges are the widest is where my questions applies.
I have been treating my double web plate girder as a box girder, using section F7 in AISC. At the center though, where my flange is the widest, the flange sticking outside of my "box" girder are non-compact. I had originally used equation F7-2 for Flange Local Buckling, using the entire section/plastic modulus of the shape. When my calculations were first checked, a more senior engineer said I should be using section F3, where I used EQ F3-1. This lowered my capacity significantly.
I checked my results with a Bentley structural analysis software, that has a double web plate girder section. When I run through it's printout, it uses Section F7 EQ F7-2 for the bending capacity. This jives with my original approach, however I noticed the capacity was significantly higher in the model output. Digging through the numbers, it is because on EQ F7-2, it uses my entire girder flange width as b in the b/tf term. I however had only used the flange width between my box girder as my b in the b/tf term.
My questions are, how would you approach solving this problem. If you agree with treating it as a box girder (even though the flanges outside the box are non-compact), which value would you use for b?
Thanks for any help. Attachment hopefully helps clear up any confusion.






RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
I would not think taking the entire flange width as b is appropriate.
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
The difference is significant enough that it is worth the investigation. Especially because I only fail at this section, every other section along the girder works with a maximum UC of 0.6. Just when it gets to the point that the flanges become non-compact do things blow up.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
Can you expand on this?
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
To make up the difference, couldn't I design stiffeners below the compression flange to prevent the flange local buckling?
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
Why does the width of the flanges vary/taper over the length of the girder? That is kinda strange and difficult to deal with, unless there is really a good reason for it. Ripping a long plate to provide that flg. taper wastes a lot of material and requires considerable labor and flg. edge clean-up, and potential for distortion. Why not make the middle third (in length) of the flgs. from a thicker plate or a plate of higher strength? We can’t see it from here, and your kiddy CAD sketch doesn’t help much. As is so often the case these days on E-Tips, there is so little meaningful engineering info. provided on your problem that it is tough to know how to comment. How about providing some real engineering details, loads and load conditions, span length, material dimensions and strengths ( along with the ASTM Mat’l. specs.), what is the girder going to be used for, etc. etc., you might generate some serious discussion with some detailed info. I don’t have the last few eds. of the AISC Manual, so I can’t comment on specific formulas unless you show them and the surrounding commentary.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
dhengr, my question (and kiddy) sketch was very precise. I asked for help in a very specific situation, that is, how would you analyze a double web girder with non compact flanges in bending?
I did not ask you to design a girder for me, if I had, I would have provided lengths, loads, purpose, etc. Take my word for it, that there has been a great deal of thought that has gone into this design, and there is a purpose for my tapered flange, and overall geometry. If you don't understand the question, refrain from commenting. Too often on eng-tips, there are comments that provide no value, you can add yours to the pot.
If I give out the exact specifics, no doubt a client engineer could stumble upon this which would open up a can I am trying to avoid. My senior engineer and I were just debating internally whether F3 or F7 apply, and you provided no opinion on the matter. Thanks anyway.
As for everyone else's comments, I will roll with F3 because that is the most conservative value, although I was just trying to understand the code better. I did not want to leave any strength on the table.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
I have analyzed this three ways.
The capacities are as such: 2 < 3 < 1
The fact that just using the compact portion of the flanges yields a higher capacity than using the whole shape and treating it as a built up I shape is what concerns me. This is either confirmation to me, that method one is the correct procedure because intuitively, a wider flange should add some capacity to the box portion not weaken the whole section. Or, it's a confirmation to me, that I should not be treating it as a box girder because my outer flanges are likely to buckle which will cause the compact section to knuckle too. I can intuitively argue it both ways.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
I have computed the critical buckling stress using Roarks and Blodgett as references (almost identical) and confirmed the critical buckling stress is greater than my yield stress confirming your approach in my eyes.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
I believe the cisc and I assume the aisc propose doing exactly as jiang has prescribed?
Perhaps you don't agree with it, but it is a directly codified method of shape analysis.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
then looked at the sketch and wondered why the flanges are "hanging out there" at all
for crane girders we only leave about 1-1/2" protruding beyond the web
Note Also, CMAA has guidelines for proportions that may give you some clues
and... there is a good bit of info on the calculation approaches -
para 3.5
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity
So here's what I've found. I read the sections and commentaries of AISC and CISC that I thought would contain relevant provisions. I didn't comb either manual front to back.
CISC. For slender (as opposed to non-compact) flanges, they give you two methods. One is to adjust your stress limit so that you don't reach the elastic buckling stress of the flanges. Per my comments above, that makes intuitive sense to me. Granted, that which appeals to my intuition does not represent the whole of structural engineering dogma.
The other method is to calculate an effective section modulus assuming that only the portions of flanges that would meet the b/t ratios are present. Note that, in the CISC manual, this method is used with Sx (My) rather than Zx (Mp). Nothing in the section is going plastic. I've attached what I believe to be the source document for this method. It's typed and it's long. I didn't spend much time on it but thought that others might be interested in picking up the mantle.
AISC. For slender flanges, they give you F3-2 which, like the one CISC method, is simply limiting your stresses to values which would not result in elastic buckling of the flanges. The don't explicitly provide an alternate method by which an effective, compact section can be calculated. Perhaps something is buried elsewhere in the manual or in another document such as the Stability Criteria of Metal Structures. Interestingly, F7-4 does give an effective section modulus method for tubes kept elastic.
I'm drifting away from OP's question a bit here, obviously, as his flanges are non-compact rather than slender.
I would also like to understand the code better. My impression is that both F3-1 and F7-2 are attempting to prevent any form of flange buckling by keeping the flange stresses below the critical elastic stress values via linear interpolation. As such, I propose this as a design method:
1) Calculate Mn using F3-1 and the properties of the entire section (lambda based on flange overhang). However, change the 0.7 to 1.0. My understanding is that the 0.7 accounts for residual compression stresses in the flange. You (hopefully) won't have those in your built up shape.
2) Calculate Mn using F7-2 and the properties of the entire section (b based on distance between webs).
3) Use the smaller of the values in #1 and #2.
This procedure should get you as liberal as possible while still preventing any of the flange elements from buckling locally. The switch from 0.7 to 1.0 should get you an appreciable bump.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Double Web Plate Girder Bending Capacity