Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and
design
M.F. Hassanein ⇑, O.F. Kharoob
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The current paper focuses on the shear strength of bridge girders with corrugated webs (BGCWs) using
Available online xxxx the realistic initial imperfection amplitudes. Firstly, the results of full-scale experimentally tested
BGCWs, available in literature, are used to check the validity of the available design shear strengths. Sec-
Keywords: ondly, they are checked using the same equations utilizing the interactive shear buckling strength for-
Bridge girders with corrugated webs mula, recently, proposed by the current authors to account for the realistic support condition at the
Real juncture juncture between the web and flanges which was found to be nearly fixed. However, the comparison
Simple juncture
indicated that the available design shear strengths in the literature are conservative and need to be
Fixed juncture
Finite element
improved. Hence, the ABAQUS software is used to construct a nonlinear finite element (FE) analysis,
Shear buckling mechanism including geometric and material nonlinearities, on full-scale BGCWs failing by shear. To ensure the accu-
Critical shear strength racy of the FE models, the models are verified using the available experimental results provided by other
Interactive buckling strength researchers. The available design shear strength formulae were in addition compared with the FE shear
strengths of the corrugated webs. However, among the strengths using the proposed interactive shear
buckling strength formula, the one adopting Sause and Braxtan (2011) [7] equation was found to be
the most suitable. It was as well found that stocky corrugated webs cannot practically reach the yield
shear strength. At the end, an illustrative example for the calculation of the shear strength of BGCWs
using the currently proposed formula is provided.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction local and global buckling modes was classified as an interactive

The use of corrugated webs has been considered for a long time
to increase the buckling strength and out-of-plane stiffness elimi-
nating the use of vertical stiffeners. It was firstly used in aircraft
structures with very thin web panels, then, extended for civil engi-
neering applications in buildings and bridges. It was, however,
found that the girders with corrugated webs are economic to use
and can improve the aesthetics of the structure [1].
Until the middle of 1990s, shear buckling mechanism in steel
corrugated webs was classified only as local and global buckling.
In the local buckling mode, the corrugated web acts as a series of
flat plate subpanels that mutually support each other along their
vertical edges and are supported by the flanges at their horizontal
edges. The global buckling mode involves multiple folds and the
buckled shape extends diagonally over the depth of the web. How-
ever, it was noticed for example by Hamilton [2] that the failure in
some specimens was initiated by local buckling of one of the corruga-
tion folds and then propagated to other folds. This mode of failure
was classified and dealt with in [1,2] as a local buckling mode. La-
ter on, this mode of failure which have the characteristics of both
⇑ Corresponding author. Mobile: +20 1228898494; fax: +20 403315860.
E-mail address: mostafa.fahmi@yahoo.com (M.F. Hassanein).
buckling mode supported by extensive experimental observations.
For a steel girder with corrugated web, it is assumed that the
web purely carries shear forces due to the accordion effect [1–7].
Corrugated web do not carry significant longitudinal stresses from
the primary flexure of the girders and, consequently, the bending
moment can reasonably be assumed to be carried totally by the
flanges. Recently, the Moon et al. [8] investigated the lateral–tor-
sional buckling (LTB) of I-girder with corrugated webs under uni-
form bending. The flexural strength of such girders was found to
be carried merely by the flanges. It is worth pointing out that, for
that reason, the shear strength can be determined without consid-
eration of moment–shear interaction. Accordingly, the shear stress
of the web can be assumed constant and can be calculated using
the following average shear stress:
V
s¼ ð1Þ
t w hw
On the other hand, the problem of shear buckling of bridge gird-
ers has been the focus of a significant amount of studies in recent
years. As a result, a significant amount of research has been carried
out to propose shear design formulae for bridge girders with corru-
gated webs (BGCWs) [3–7]. It was, however, found that the shear
strength formulae used in design are conservative compared to the

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015

Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
2 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

test data [7]. This was attributed to the very little data on: (1) the in [9]. An elastic bifurcation buckling analysis was carried out, using
actual initial imperfection of corrugated web folds or on other ABAQUS computer package [11], for corrugated webs with simple
imperfections in corrugation geometry, (2) the effect of bend ra- (S) and fixed (F) boundary conditions at their juncture with the
dius at the fold lines of corrugated webs, and (3) the effects of flanges. The corrugated webs considered had an average dimen-
residual stresses on shear strength. In addition, the current authors sions from the available bridges with corrugation webs. The prin-
noticed that, for practical design purposes, lower bound values for ciple aim was to firstly compare them with each other. Secondly,
the local (kL) and global (kG) buckling factors are generally used in the FE critical shear buckling strengths (scr,FE) of the corrugated
the available formulae. This means that the case of simply sup- webs with both boundary conditions were compared with the
ported edges with the flanges for the flat/inclined panels and the interactive shear buckling strength formulae (scr,I,n) found in the
entire corrugated webs, respectively, is considered. However, this literature. The work was after that extended to compare girder seg-
assumption was found by the current authors [9] to be conserva- ments of corrugated webs and flanges with the corrugated webs
tive, as it was concluded that the realistic support condition at with simple (S) and fixed (F) boundary conditions.
the juncture is nearly fixed for t f =t w P 3:0; a summary for paper Based on the numerical results, the relative critical shear stress
[9] is given later. Accordingly, from the authors’ viewpoint this of the corrugated webs of simple juncture to that of the corre-
might increase the margin of safety taken into consideration in the sponding fixed boundary condition had an average value of 0.96.
current shear buckling designs of BGCWs. Hence, the work done The comparison with the available interactive shear buckling
by the current authors in [9] is extended here to suggest a design strength formulae showed that the 1st-order interactive buckling
shear strength formula that better fits with the available experi- strength (scr,I,1), proposed by Yi et al. [4], is suitable for the case
mental results of full-scale BGCWs as well as currently generated of corrugated webs with simple juncture, while it is unconservative
finite element (FE) modeling results. for the case of fixed juncture corrugated webs. Hence, a new inter-
active shear buckling strength formula (scr,I,0.6) was proposed for
2. Effect of initial imperfection the case of fixed (F) juncture, as follows:
scr;L :scr;G
The amplitude and the shape of the initial web geometric imper- scr;I;0:6 ¼ 1
ð2Þ
0:6
fections were found to play a significant role in the shear strength ððscr;L Þ þ ðscr;G Þ0:6 Þ0:6
and behavior of steel girders with corrugated webs [1,3,10]. For in-
where scr,L is the elastic local shear buckling stress of the corrugated
stance, from the FE simulations performed by Elgaaly et al. [1] to
webs and scr,G is the global elastic buckling stress. scr,L and scr,G are
study the behavior of steel beams with corrugated webs under
to be calculated using Eqs. (3) and (4). In this proposed interactive
shear, it was found that the analytical results are higher than the
shear buckling strength formula, the upper bound values for the lo-
corresponding experimental ones. This discrepancy was attributed,
cal (kL) and global (kG) shear buckling coefficients are recom-
as concluded in [1], to the presence of unavoidable out-of-plane ini-
mended; 8.98 and 59.2, respectively.
tial imperfections in the test specimens. In addition, Moon et al.
 2
[10] measured the initial imperfection amplitude in the experimen- p2 E tw
tal tests conducted to investigate the shear behavior and strength of scr;L ¼ kL ð3Þ
12ð1  t2 Þ w
corrugated steel webs. They found that the maximum magnitude of
the initial imperfection is 17.9 mm. However, it was mentioned in where E is Young’s modulus of elasticity; t is Poisson’s ratio; w is
[10] that while the tests were carried out using large-scale speci- the maximum fold width (maximum of flat panel width b and in-
mens, the web thickness of the test specimen (4 mm) was relatively clined panel width c); and tw is the web thickness; see Fig. 1.
smaller than that which is used in actual bridges. They found that D0:25 D0:75
x y
this is one of the reasons for the large initial imperfection of the scr;G ¼ kG 2
ð4Þ
study, and the magnitude of the initial imperfections in actual t w hw
bridges may be smaller than that of their study. Accordingly, they where the transverse bending stiffness per unit length of the corru-
concluded that further study for the initial imperfections of real bridges gated web (Dx), the longitudinal bending stiffness per unit length of
with corrugated webs should be made for the rational application of the the corrugated web (Dy) and Iy are defined as:
their design proposed equation. Furthermore, the results of FE analy-
ses conducted by Driver et al. [3] suggested that the strength is q Et3w
Dx ¼  ð5Þ
overestimated despite the lower bound assumption of simply sup- s 12
ported edges at the web panel boundaries, at least in part, because
of the sensitivity of the shear behavior to the presence of initial EIy
Dy ¼ ð6Þ
imperfections in the web. In [3] two studies of the effect of web ini- q
tial geometric imperfections on shear strength were conducted.  2 3
From these studies, it was firstly found that, considering the size hr t w hr
Iy ¼ 2bt w þ ð7Þ
of the panels in the webs of available bridge girders, an imperfection 2 6 sin a
amplitude equalling to the corrugated web thickness (tw) is realistic.
Taking into account the web imperfection shape in their second s
study, it was concluded that the shear stress capacity generally in-
creases with the mode number and the first mode provides the most Sub-panel (fold)
critical condition. Accordingly, these two results concerning the c
tw
imperfection amplitude and shape are used in the theoretical part
of the current investigation. hr α

3. Real boundary condition at the juncture of the corrugated b d b d

web and flanges
One corrugation wave ( q )
The real behavior at the juncture between the corrugated web
and flanges of bridge girders was studied by the current authors Fig. 1. Corrugation configuration and geometric notation.

Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

The results as well indicated that when the flanges are rigid en- are given in Table 1. However, another nine bridge girders tested
ough (t f =t w P 3:0), the girder segments exhibit shear failure mech- by Gil et al. [16] were also used to check the validity of available
anisms. Whereas, if the corrugated web plates are relatively rigid design shear strengths. It should be mentioned that the details of
(tf/tw < 3.0), the strength of the girders becomes controlled by the these experiments can be found in [7] without reporting the details
deformation of flanges. Finally, it was found that the realistic support of the flanges of the bridges. However, they were checked herein
condition at the juncture is nearly fixed. As a result, the available expecting that t f =tw P 3:0, as discussed before in Section 4.
interactive shear buckling strength formulae cannot suitably used.
Alternatively, the proposed formula using (n = 0.6) as given herein in 5.2. Design strengths in the literature
Eq. (2) should be used.
5.2.1. Design shear buckling strength (sn,M) according to Moon et al.
[10]
4. Problem statement, goals and objectives
To calculate the shear buckling strength (sn,M) according to
Moon et al. [10], the shear buckling parameter of corrugated webs
It is well known that when the flanges of I-section girders are
(ks ) should firstly be calculated along with Eq. (8). The interactive
relatively rigid, the girders exhibit shear failure mechanisms; for
shear buckling coefficient (kI) is then to be calculated as defined
example refer to [12–15]. Therefore, in order to construct a FE pro-
in Eq. (9), which takes into consideration the lower bound values
gramme that fail by shear in the current modeling, high flange-to-
of the local (kL) and global (kG) buckling factors; 5.34 and 36, respec-
web thickness (tf/tw) ratios were used. These high tf/tw ratios are
tively. The shear strength of corrugated webs can then be deter-
consistent with the available test results of full-scale experiments
mined directly using Eq. (10) which adopts a buckling curve from
that were carried out in the literature [3,10] to assess the shear
the design manual for PC bridges with corrugated steel webs
strength criteria of BGCWs; the tf/tw ratio is equal to 7.5 and 8.33
[17]. It should be noted that to calculate the shear buckling
according to Moon et al. [10] and Driver et al. [3], respectively.
strengths according to Moon et al. [10] no need to calculate the lo-
Hence, it can be observed that high tf/tw ratios indeed provide a rea-
cal and global shear buckling strengths. This shear buckling
sonable real estimate of shear strength over the practical geometries
strength (scr,M) is based upon the 1st-order interactive buckling
of the bridges. Accordingly, the tf/tw ratio becomes generally greater
strength proposed by Yi et al. [4].
than 3.0, which is the limit found previously by the current authors
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
[9] providing a fixed boundary condition at the juncture between sy hw
the web and flanges of BGCWs. Consequently, the current paper fo-
ks ¼ 1:05 ð8Þ
kI E t w
cuses on the shear strength of BGCWs, as an extension to the work
conducted in [9], for the following main reasons: 30:54
kI ¼ 1:5 2
ð9Þ
5:34ðhr =t w Þ þ 5:72ðw=hw Þ
1. To add new results to the literature testing out the shear
strength and behavior of this kind of girders using the realistic 8
> 1:0 : ks 6 0:6
initial imperfection amplitudes as proposed by Driver et al. [3]. sn;M < 1  0:614ðks  0:6Þ : 0:6 < ks 6 pffiffiffi2
The ABAQUS software [11] was used to construct a nonlinear FE ¼ pffiffiffi ð10Þ
sy > :1
analysis, including geometric and material nonlinearities, on k2s
: 2 < ks
full-scale BGCWs.
2. To check the available design shear strength formulae with the
FE shear strengths of the corrugated webs, considering the 5.2.2. Design shear buckling strength (sn,D) according to Driver et al.
effect of both the real boundary condition at the juncture [3]
between the web and flanges and the realistic initial imperfec- Eq. (11) for the nominal shear strength (sn,D) according to Driver
tion amplitudes. et al. [3] was proposed for the use in the design of BGCWs. This
3. To examine the validity of using the interactive shear buckling equation considers the effects of both local and global buckling
strength formula (scr,I,0.6) proposed by the current author in [9] in a single interaction formula. Eq. (11) was suggested to be ap-
to predict the shear strength of BGCWs over the full range of plied over the full range of behavior, including cases where inelas-
behavior including yielding and inelastic domains as previously tic buckling and yielding controls.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
made by Driver et al. [3].
ðscr;L :scr;G Þ2
4. To check the applicability of stocky corrugated webs to reach sn;D ¼ ð11Þ
the yield shear strength (sn = sy), where only limited test data ðscr;L Þ2 þ ðscr;G Þ2
supports this assumption as noticed by Sause and Braxtan [7].

Table 1
5. Comparison between design shear strength formulae and
Profiles of available test for BGCWs [3,10,16].
available experimental full-scale tests
Girder b (mm) d (mm) tw (mm) hw (mm) a (°) se/sy
The normalized experimental shear strengths (se/sy) of the full- G7A [3] 300 200 6.3 1500 36.9 0.91
scale BGCWs conducted in [3,10,16] were compared to the avail- G8A [3] 300 200 6.27 1500 36.9 0.85
able design formulae according to [3,7,10]. A brief description for M12 [9] 250 220 4.0 2000 17.18 0.64
M13 [9] 220 180 4.0 2000 14.63 0.62
the these shear design formulae is provided in the following para- M14 [9] 220 180 4.0 2000 18.72 0.77
graphs, using the geometric notations provided in Fig. 1. L1 [15] 450 300 4.8 1500 33.7 0.72
L2 [15] 550 300 4.8 1500 32.2 0.60
L3 [15] 450 300 4.8 1500 9.4 0.51
5.1. Full-scale tests L4 [15] 550 300 4.8 1500 10.6 0.46
I1 [15] 320 100 4.8 2000 24 0.95
The results of five full-scale BGCWs having t f =tw P 3:0, which I2 [15] 350 100 3.8 2000 16 0.52
were tested experimentally by Moon et al. [10] and Driver et al. G1 [15] 200 180 4.8 2000 14.2 0.79
G2 [15] 160 50 3.8 2000 33.4 0.83
[3], are used herein to check the validity of available design shear
G3 [15] 160 100 3.8 2000 15.1 0.85
strengths according to [3,7,10]. The corrugation details of the tests

Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
4 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

The elastic local shear buckling stress is provided here in Eq. (3), 5.3. Comparison between available tests for BGCWs and design
while the global shear buckling stress as adopted from Abbas [18] strengths
is:
1:5
The se/sy ratios of the full-scale BGCWs tested experimentally
Et0:5
w b by Moon et al. [10], Driver et al. [3] and Gil et al. [16] are compared
scr;G ¼ kG Fða; bÞ 2
ð12Þ
12hw with design shear strengths sn,M, sn,D and sn,S, as can be seen in Ta-
ble 2. The same experimental ratios are compared with design
where kG is the global buckling coefficient. Elgaaly et al. [1] assume shear strengths sn,M, sn,D and sn,S using the proposed interactive
that the web is relatively long compared to hw and suggest that kG is shear buckling strength formula (scr,I,0.6) of [9]; sn,M,0.6, sn,D,0.6 and
to be taken as 31.6 and 59.2 assuming simple and fixed web-flange sn,S,0.6, respectively. The following modifications are made to the
boundary conditions, respectively. Easely [19], however, suggests previous shear design equations to calculate sn,M,0.6, sn,D,0.6 and
that kG varies between 36 and 68.4. The lower bound values for sn,S,0.6, respectively:
the local (kL) and global (kG) buckling factors according to Driver rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
et al. [3] are as well recommended; 5.34 and 31.6, respectively. sy
kI;0:6 ¼ ð18Þ
F(a, b) is a coefficient based on the web corrugation geometry as scr;I;0:6
follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !0:75 sn;D;0:6 ¼ scr;I;0:6 ð19Þ
3
ð1 þ bÞ sin a 3b þ 1
Fða; bÞ ¼ : 2 ð13Þ !1=3
b þ cos a b ðb þ 1Þ 1
sn;S;0:6 ¼ sy ð20Þ
ðkI;0:6 Þ6 þ 2
where b is the ratio of b to c; and a is the corrugation angle.
It should be noted that the values of scr,L and scr,G should not be It can be noticed from Table 2 that, among the available design
greater than 0.8sy. Otherwise, inelastic shear buckling strength shear strengths, the design strength proposed by Moon et al. [10]
according to Elgaaly et al. [1] should be used. and Driver et al. [3] may be considered as the most accurate. On
the opposite, the design strength proposed by Sause and Braxtan
5.2.3. Design shear buckling strength (sn,S) according to Sause and [7] is the most conservative. However, using the interactive shear
Braxtan [7] buckling strength formula (scr,I,0.6) as proposed by the current
Recently, Sause and Braxtan [7] proposed Eq. (14) for the design authors in [9] with the buckling curve of [17] is found to be the
shear buckling strength (sn,S). most suitable. This may be attributed to the adoption of the upper
!1=3 bound values for the local (kL) and global (kG) buckling factors; 8.98
1 and 59.2, respectively, because the realistic support condition at the
sn;S ¼ sy ð14Þ juncture was found to be nearly fixed for practical girders having
ðkI;3 Þ6 þ 2
tf =tw P 3:0. The comparison conducted herein, in addition, indi-
where kI;3 is the interactive slenderness parameter which can be cated that the interactive shear buckling strength formula (scr,I,0.6)
calculated from Eq. (15) with n = 3. The local (kL ) and global (kG ) proposed by the current author in [9] cannot be used to predict the
slenderness parameters can be determined from Eqs. (16) and shear strength of BGCWs over the full range of behavior including
(17). Note that the global (kG) buckling factor is calculated by Sause yielding and inelastic domains.
and Braxtan [7] in line with Easely [19]; kG varies between 36 and However, these conclusions should further be verified putting
68.4 for simple and fixed boundary conditions, respectively. The in mind that the three girders tested by Moon et al. [10] and some
global shear buckling stress is to be calculated using Eq. (12). of [16] do not satisfy the geometric condition of a P 30 as pro-
posed by Lindner and Huang [20]. In addition, the tested girders
 2n  2n !1=2n failed only (except tests L4 and I2), as noticed
1 1 pffiffiffi from the compari-
kI;n ¼ kL kG þ ð15Þ son, by inelastic shear buckling; 0:6 < ks 6 2 in accordance with
kL kG
the buckling curve of [17]. Also, adopting the interactive shear
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi buckling strength formula (scr,I,0.6) as proposed by the current
12ð1  t2 Þsy w authors in [9] with the buckling curve of [17] assumes that it is
kL ¼ ð16Þ
k L p2 E tw

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Table 2
u 2 Comparison between available tests for BGCWs [3,10,16] and design strengths.
u 12hw sy
kG ¼ t 1:5
ð17Þ Girder se/sy sn,M/ sn,D/ sn,S/ sn,M,0.6/ sn,D,0.6/ sn,S,0.6/
kG Fða; bÞEt0:5 w b sy sy sy sy sy sy
It is worth pointing out that this design strength (sn,S) was ver- G7A [3] 0.91 0.84 0.71 0.63 0.88 1.58 0.76
G8A [3] 0.85 0.83 0.71 0.63 0.88 1.57 0.76
ified in [7] using a final test results of 22 tests. However, it was no-
M12 [9] 0.64 0.59 0.71 0.63 0.60 0.64 0.56
ticed by the current authors that the web-depth (hw) of the girders M13 [9] 0.62 0.62 0.65 0.61 0.65 0.72 0.60
is ranging from 298 mm to 2000 mm with an average of 606 mm. M14 [9] 0.77 0.71 0.71 0.63 0.72 0.90 0.67
This relatively small scale of tests (especially the web thicknesses L1 [15] 0.72 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.78 1.08 0.71
(tw) that were as small as 0.64 mm) almost had an influence on L2 [15] 0.60 0.52 0.47 0.47 0.66 0.75 0.61
L3 [15] 0.51 0.58 0.63 0.59 0.63 0.69 0.59
these shear test results. Considerable differences in material L4 [15] 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.54 0.56 0.50
stress–strain behavior, and the geometric imperfections and resid- I1 [15] 0.95 0.63 0.71 0.63 0.68 0.79 0.63
ual stresses induced by fabricating the web and welding the web to I2 [15] 0.52 0.34 0.53 0.54 0.39 0.39 0.37
the flanges, should be expected between such thin sheet material G1 [15] 0.79 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.77 1.07 0.71
G2 [15] 0.83 0.57 0.60 0.59 0.67 0.78 0.62
and the plate material used in actual bridge girders [3]. Therefore,
G3 [15] 0.85 0.46 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.52
this group was not used in the current comparison with design
Ave 0.72 0.61 0.62 0.58 0.67 0.86 0.62
shear strength formulae because it cannot represent behavior of
COV 0.159 0.143 0.089 0.057 0.132 0.355 0.107
actual bridges.

Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
possible for stocky corrugated webs to reach the yield shear
strength (sn = sy). However, there is little test data that supports
this result as concluded by Sause and Braxtan [7]. Hence, girders
failing in the yielding domain should also be checked. Therefore,
FE models for full-scale BGCWs should be conducted to substitute
the lack of knowledge of these kind of girders and to check the cur-
rently proposed shear strength on various behavioral domains.
6. Numerical study
6.1. Numerical model
For the sake of assessing the aforementioned structural infor-
mation lack, a numerical database of simulations upon BGCWs
subjected to shear loading was developed. In line with similar pre-
vious investigations [12–15], the numerical program was con-
ducted herein on full-scale girders because the isolated web
panel simulation model does not accurately represent the behavior
of plate girder web plates as explained in [12]. This simulation ac-
counts for the effect of the real behavior at the juncture between
the web and flanges to take place. Twenty FE models were con-
structed here using the ABAQUS FE program (version 6.8) [11] on
BGCWs covering four parameters. The key parameters were chosen
herein based upon the survey along with back experience in the to-
pic of shear strength of plate girders. Therefore, it is expected that
the most relevant parameters that influence the shear response of
BGCWs are the following:
1. Corrugation depth-to-web thickness ratio (hr/tw); (14.58–
29.17).
2. Web flat panel width-to-depth ratio (b/hw); (0.135–0.20).
3. Aspect ratio of the web panel (a/hw); (2.0–3.0).
4. Web plate slenderness (hw/tw); (133–400).
Each girder is composed from two flat compact flanges and a
corrugated web. The width and thickness of the flat flanges are
chosen as 500 mm and 50 mm, respectively, ensuring that the
t f =t w P 3:0. A shear strength formula used in design, as found by
Sause and Braxtan [7], should be accurate, when b/c = 1.0 and
when a/hw is much larger than 1.0. Accordingly, the web-depth
of the girders was varied in the current study from 1600 mm to
2400 mm for the entire FE program ensuring that the aspect ratio
of the web panel (a/hw) is bigger than unity, which is consistent
with the conditions of practical BGCWs, where the distance
between vertical stiffeners is much greater than web depth (hw).
The shear span (a) is composed from four corrugation waves
(a = 8b + 8d = 4800 mm). The dimensions of corrugation were
assumed herein using the average value of flat plate width
(b = 325 mm) for the available bridges as used in [9]. The corru-
gated web was then assumed to have a (b/c) ratio of 1.0, as was
noted in [7] that this aspect ratio is the most critical. The corruga-
tion depth (hr) of 175 mm also considered the average value of the
available bridges. The longitudinal projection of the inclined panel
(d) was consequently found to be 274 mm. The web thickness (tw)
was then assumed to accord with the results of Easley [19] by
satisfying the required geometric stiffness of hr/tw > 10. As usual
in this kind of modeling to facilitate of the geometry, the flat and
inclined folds were assumed to intersect without a transition
region; for example refer to [3]. This means that the lines of inter-
section between the flat and inclined folds of the corrugation form
nodal lines.
The corrugated webs of the girders were stiffened transversely
by one central and two end sufficiently stiff stiffeners that provide
nodal lines of sinusoidal waves of buckled modes on the web [21].
The stiffeners were provided at the two end supports and applied
Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
5
load point of each girder to prevent the crippling of the web due
to the concentrated loads. The considered stiffeners were out-
standing plates welded to the flanges and the web and extended
to the edge of the flanges of the girder. The girders, as can be seen
in Fig. 2, were loaded as simply supported girders with non-rigid
end posts with edge distance of (e = b + d/2 = 462 mm).
In a nonlinear analysis, imperfections are usually introduced by
perturbations in the geometry. Initial geometrical imperfections
are to be added onto the ‘‘perfect’’ model to create out-of-plane
deformations of the plate elements. In ABAQUS [11], the geometric
imperfections can be defined by the linear superposition of buck-
ling eigenmodes. The coordinates of the eigenmodes obtained from
this analysis are by default stored in a file with extension .fil, and
they can subsequently be used as input for the IMPERFECTION
command in the actual simulation with different scaling factors
with respect to the thickness of the corrugated web. Herein, an ini-
tial geometrical imperfection with a value of (tw), following [3] as
summarized here in Section 2, was derived from elastic buckling
analysis and then introduced into the FE model in the nonlinear
load–displacement analysis. From this analysis, the ultimate loads,
failure modes and other outputs such as vertical deflections were
determined.
On the other hand, it is well known that the effect of cold-form-
ing process of the corrugations increases the yield strength of the
base material in a small region around the corner of the corruga-
tion [22]. As stated in [22], the corner effects due to cold-forming
do not seem to have any significant effect on the ultimate strength,
although in general they increase the load-carrying capacity.
Accordingly, this issue was not included in the present work which
means that the current examination of the corrugated webs is
slightly conservative.
The BGCWs are labeled by two numbers separated by (–) be-
tween them. The first number presents the web-depth (hw) followed
by the second number which represents thickness of the web (tw) in
millimeters. The details of the models are given in Table 3.
6.2. Load application and boundary conditions
The bridge girder models considered herein are subjected to
concentrated loads at their mid-spans, as can be seen in Fig. 2,
which ensure a constant shear force along them. The load was ap-
plied in increments using the modified RIKS method available in
the ABAQUS library. In the RIKS method, the load is applied propor-
tionally in several load steps. In each load step the equilibrium iter-
ation is performed and the equilibrium path is tracked in the load–
displacement space. This method is often used in static analysis
and shows to be a strong method for nonlinear analysis. The loads
were applied as static uniform loads at the loaded point using dis-
placement control. The non-linear geometry parameter (NLGEOM)
was included to deal with the large displacement analysis.
Simply supported boundary conditions were applied to end sec-
tions as previously made by the current authors in [15]. At each
end section, the twist rotation about x-axis of all nodes of the sec-
tion was restrained (/x = 0.0). The lateral displacement in z-axis of
all nodes on the y-axis (at z = 0.0) was restrained (uz = 0.0). The ver-
tical displacement of the center of the web was restrained
(uy = 0.0), while the longitudinal displacement in x-axis of a center
point at the lower flange was restrained (ux = 0.0). In order to pre-
vent flexural–torsional buckling (LTB) of the bridge girders. Lateral
displacements were restrained at the loaded mid-span points.
6.3. Finite element type and mesh
In line with similar previous investigations [1,4,9], S8R5 re-
duced integration thin shell elements were employed to discretize
the models in the current nonlinear analysis.
6 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
462mm
End support
Z X
Fig. 2. Boundary conditions and load application on typical bridge girder.
Table 3
Current numerical program.
hw (m) tw (mm) a/hw hw/tw b/hw
1.6–2.4 6–12 2.0–3.0 133–400 0.135–0.2
On the other hand, a convergence test in order to assess the
requirement of the mesh refinement of the finite element discret-
ization should be carried out especially for cases involving buck-
ling. Therefore, the girder 1600-8 was simulated four times. The
difference between these models is the number of elements used
across the width of each fold of the corrugation. As can be calcu-
lated from Table 4, the difference in the results from the model
with three and four element is 0.72%. Hence, typical to the work
done in [1], to minimize the computational effort without sacrific-
ing the accuracy of the results, three elements across each fold of
the corrugation were employed in the current analysis. Fig. 3
shows the shape of the current finite element mesh.
6.4. Material properties
The steel material has been modeled as a von Mises material
with isotropic hardening. The steel used is S355 according to EN
1993-1-1 [23], which has a yield and an ultimate strength of
355 MPa and 510 MPa, respectively. The steel grade S355 is now
the predominant grade for structures of hot rolled plates and H-sec-
tions. In order to obtain realistic models for the FE nonlinear anal-
ysis, plastic strains were included. The bilinear elastic–plastic
Table 4
Effect of mesh size, girder model 1600-8.
Number of elements per Failure load
fold kN
1 5022
2 4935
3 4845
4 4810
Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
9600mm
Load
462mm
Centre point
hw
End support
stress–strain curve with linear strain hardening used to simulate
the steel material is shown in Fig. 4. However, this material curve
hr/tw is recommended in Annex C.6 of [24], which gives guidance on the
14.58–29.17
use of FE-methods of plated structures. In the linear elastic part of
the curve, Young’s modulus E0 = 210 GPa and Poison’s ratio of 0.3
were used. In the hardening part of the curve, a Modulus of
2 GPa was used.
6.5. Verification of the FE models
The literature describing experimental work on the shear
behavior of corrugated web girders does not report detailed mea-
sured values for initial imperfections. However, the FE model is
verified herein through the simulation of specimen M12 which
was tested experimentally by Moon et al. [10]. This is because they
did not report the values of the initial imperfection for their other
girders M13 and M14. The geometric properties of girder M12 are
provided in Table 1. Only the maximum measured initial imperfec-
tion of 17.9 mm was included in the model. However, this initial
imperfection was found to concentrate near the compression
flange of the girder. In addition, the girder G7A tested by Driver
et al. [3] was simulated using the dimensions given also in Table 1.
The imperfection was found to be 4.06 mm in the fold just beside
the applied load (fold 9).
From the comparison shown in Figs. 5 and 6, it can be noticed
that the current modeling in almost reflects the real behavior of
the BGCWs. The sFE =se ratios for M12 and G7A are 1.03 and 0.99,
respectively. However, it is seen from Fig. 5 that the experimental
results follow the same trend but have somewhat lower strengths
than the FE results. This difference for the case of M12 is attributed
to the fact that the imperfection shape used in the finite element
study, from the first eigenvalue analysis as proposed in [3], is dif-
ferent from that of the real girder. Beside that the maximum mea-
sured initial imperfection concentrated near the compression
flange of the girder, it is noticed that the girder M12 exhibits initial
imperfection at the juncture of the corrugated web with the
flanges, which is not the case for the finite element imperfection
which is in the form of a sine wave without an imperfection at
 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 3. Finite element mesh of a typical bridge girder.

300
2GPa
Stress

250

E 0 = 210GPa 200
τ [MPa]

150

Strain 100
Exp

Fig. 4. Steel material adopted model: bilinear stress–strain curve. 50 FE

0
0 15 30 45 60 75
120
Mid-span deflection [mm]
100
Fig. 6. Shear stress versus mid-span deflection for specimen G7A [3].
80
τ [MPa]

60 (G) shear buckling, as can be seen in Table 5. A sample of the

40
20
0 ure. In addition, it can be seen that the initial stiffness of the girder
0 5 10 15
Mid-span deflection [mm]
Fig. 5. Shear stress versus mid-span deflection for specimen M12 [10].
the web-flange juncture. Also, the position of the maximum initial
imperfection of girder G7A differs from that of the FE correspond-
ing one. Hence, this could be considered as a verification for the
current BGCWs. However, the current modeling is typical to the
numerical modeling previously derived by the current authors in
[13–15].
7. Results and evaluation
The modeled full-scale BGCWs were loaded here to fail under
shear. Accordingly, the failure was due to buckling of the web.
The modes of failure were developed by interactive (I) or global
load-mid-span deflection for the girders of hw = 1600 mm can be
FE seen in Fig. 7. It can be observed that the failure is sudden and re-
Exp sults from buckling. The load-carrying capacity drops at the failure
load and the specimen exhibits some residual strength after fail-
20 25 decreases with the decrease of its corrugated web thickness.
The FE normalized shear strengths (sFE/sy) are compared here
with the previously mentioned design strength according to
[3,7,10], as can be seen in Table 5. It can be noticed that over the
yielding and inelastic domains, the design strengths according to
Driver et al. [3] and Sause and Braxtan [7] are conservative, while
the strength according to Moon et al. [10] is generally unconserva-
tive specially in the yielding zone. However, among the strengths
using the proposed interactive shear buckling strength formula
(scr,I,0.6) of [9], the one adopting Sause and Braxtan [7] equation
is the best, as given in Eq. (20). However, the current comparison
also pointed out that the interactive shear buckling strength for-
mula (scr,I,0.6) proposed by the current author in [9] cannot be used
to predict the shear strength of BGCWs over the full range of
behavior.
The interactive slenderness parameters kI;3 and kI;0:6 from Eqs.
(15) and (18), respectively, are provided in Table 6. It should be

Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
8 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Table 5
FE results and comparison with design [3,7,10] and proposed strengths.

Girder (hw  tw) Failure modes sFE sn;M sn;D sn;S sn;M;0:6 sn;D;0:6 sn;S;0:6 sn;S;0:6
sy sy sy sy sy sy sy sFE

1600-6 I 0.85 0.86 0.71 0.63 0.91 1.80 0.77 0.91

1600-8 I 0.92 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 2.86 0.79 0.85
1600-10 I 0.79 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 4.02 0.79 1.00
1600-12 G 0.85 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 5.27 0.79 0.93
1800-6 I 0.90 0.86 0.71 0.63 0.90 1.70 0.77 0.86
1800-8 I 0.91 0.97 0.71 0.63 0.99 2.66 0.79 0.87
1800-10 I 0.80 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 3.71 0.79 0.99
1800-12 G 1.01 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 4.81 0.79 0.78
2000-6 I 0.82 0.85 0.71 0.63 0.88 1.60 0.76 0.94
2000-8 I 0.93 0.96 0.71 0.63 0.98 2.48 0.79 0.84
2000-10 I 0.87 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 3.42 0.79 0.91
2000-12 G 0.83 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 4.40 0.79 0.96
2200-6 I 0.85 0.84 0.71 0.63 0.87 1.51 0.76 0.89
2200-8 I 0.87 0.95 0.71 0.63 0.96 2.32 0.78 0.90
2200-10 I 0.89 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 3.17 0.79 0.89
2200-12 G 0.67 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 4.04 0.79 1.19
2400-6 I 0.78 0.83 0.71 0.63 0.85 1.43 0.75 0.97
2400-8 I 0.79 0.94 0.71 0.63 0.95 2.17 0.78 0.99
2400-10 I 0.86 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 2.94 0.79 0.92
2400-12 G 0.72 1.00 0.71 0.63 1.00 3.72 0.79 1.09
Ave 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.63 0.97 3.00 0.78 0.93
COV 0.077 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.051 1.150 0.012 0.090

7000 noted that the interactive slenderness parameter kI;0:6 is lower than
kI;3 with an average value for kI;0:6 =kI;3 ratio of 0.54. As a result, the
6000 shear strengths of bridge girders using the real fixed juncture
5000 assumption according to [9] become higher than the corresponding
1600-12 values that use the practical design case of simple juncture. The
Load [kN]

4000 normalized shear strength (sn/sy) versus the interactive shear buck-
1600-10 ling parameter (k) is plotted for the FE models as can be seen in
3000
Fig. 8. Although Moon et al. [10] assumes that the shear strength
2000 1600-8 of stocky corrugated webs, (k 6 0:6), can possibly attain the shear
yield stress of the material, the FE results do not support this theo-
1000 1600-6 retical issue, at least in the range considered herein; 0:44 < k 6 0:6.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
8. Illustrative example
Mid-span deflection [mm]
Fig. 7. Load versus mid-span deflection for a sample of models.
An example is presented herein to explain the application of the
procedure proposed in Eq. (20) for the prediction of the shear
strength of BGCWs. The girder 2000-6 is considered here as this
Table 6 example. The details of the web are given in Fig. 9. The steel used
Comparison between interactive slenderness parameters kI;3 (Eq. (15)) and kI;0:6 (Eq. is S355 according to EN 1993-1-1 [23], which has a yield strength
(18)). of 355 MPa. The BGCW is assumed to have Young’s modulus
Girder (hw  tw) kI;3 kI;0:6 kI;0:6 E = 210,000 MPa and Poisson’s ratio t = 0.3. However, to calculate
kI;3

1600-6 1.12 0.75 0.66

1600-8 1.12 0.59 0.53
1600-10 1.12 0.50 0.44 τ n ,S / τ y τ n ,M / τ y τ n ,D / τ y
1600-12 1.12 0.44 0.39
1800-6 1.12 0.77 0.68 λ II,3 : Eq. 15 λI,0.6 : Eq. 18
1800-8 1.12 0.61 0.55 1.20
1800-10 1.12 0.52 0.46
1800-12 1.12 0.46 0.41 1.00
2000-6 1.12 0.79 0.70
2000-8 1.12 0.63 0.57
0.80
2000-10 1.12 0.54 0.48
2000-12 1.12 0.48 0.42 τ n 0.60
2200-6 1.12 0.81 0.72
2200-8 1.12 0.66 0.59
τy
0.40
2200-10 1.12 0.56 0.50
2200-12 1.12 0.50 0.44
2400-6 1.12 0.84 0.75
0.20
2400-8 1.12 0.68 0.61
2400-10 1.12 0.58 0.52
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
2400-12 1.12 0.52 0.46
Ave 0.54
λI
COV 0.112
Fig. 8. Normalized shear strength versus the interactive shear buckling parameter.

Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9

s = 1300mm 4. Finally, the design shear buckling strength (sn,S,0.6) is to be cal-

culated as:

!1=3 !1=3
1 1
sn;S;0:6 ¼ sy ¼ 205 
hr = 175mm t w = 6mm ðkI;0:6 Þ6 þ 2 ð0:79Þ6 þ 2
c = 325mm
¼ 157 MPa
α = 32.47
9. Summary and conclusions
b = 325mm b = 325mm
d = 275mm d = 275mm The current paper mainly concerned with the evaluation of
shear strength of bridge girders with corrugated webs (BGCWs)
q = 1200mm using the realistic initial imperfection amplitudes. The results of
full-scale experimentally tested BGCWs existing in the literature
Fig. 9. Corrugation configuration of girder 2000-6. were used to check the validity of the available design shear
strengths according to Driver et al. [3], Sause and Braxtan [7] and
the shear strength of the BGCW 2000-6, the following procedures Moon et al. [10]. They were then checked using the same equations
should be made: utilizing the interactive shear buckling strength formula (scr,I,0.6),
recently, recommended by the current authors [9] to account for
1. The elastic local and global shear buckling stresses of the corru- the realistic support condition at the juncture between the web and
gated webs (scr,L) are to be calculated according to Eqs. (3) and flanges which was found to be nearly fixed. However, the comparison
(4), respectively, as follows: indicated that the available design shear strengths in the literature
 2   are generally conservative because of several reported reasons and
p2 E tw p2  210; 000 6 2 hence they need to be improved.
scr;L ¼ kL ¼ 8:98 
12ð1  t 2Þ w 2
12ð1  0:3 Þ 325 The ABAQUS software was, therefore, used to construct a non-
¼ 581 MPa linear FE analysis, including geometric and material nonlinearities,
on full-scale BGCWs failing by shear. One scaling factor of 1.0tw,
where tw is the thickness of the corrugated web, was used for the
initial geometric imperfection input which was considered as the
D0:25
x D0:75
y realistic initial imperfection amplitude of this kind of girders pre-
scr;G ¼ kG 2 viously suggested by Driver et al. [3]. To ensure the accuracy of
t w hw
the FE models, the models were accurately verified using available
where experimental results provided by Moon et al. [10] and Driver et al.
[3]. The available design shear strength formulae were in addition
q Et3w 1200 210; 000  63
Dx ¼  ¼  ¼ 3; 489; 231 N mm compared with the FE shear strengths of the corrugated webs.
s 12 1300 12
It was found that the interactive shear buckling strength for-
 2 3 mula (scr,I,0.6) proposed by the current author in [9] cannot be used
hr t w hr
Iy ¼ 2btw þ to predict the shear strength of BGCWs over the full range of
2 6 sin a behavior. The results of the comparison indicated that, among
 2
175 6  1753 the strengths utilizing the proposed interactive shear buckling
¼ 2  325  6  þ
2 6 sinð0:567Þ strength formula of [9], the one adopting Sause and Braxtan [7] for-
mula was found to be the best, nevertheless, it is recommended to
¼ 39; 838; 653 mm4
be examined through future experimental tests. In addition, sup-
ported by the FE results, it was found that stocky corrugated webs
EIy 210; 000  39; 838; 653
Dy ¼ ¼ ¼ 6; 971; 764; 315 N mm cannot practically reach the yield shear strength (sn = sy) as pro-
q 1200
posed by Moon et al. [10]. Finally, an illustrative example for the
calculation of the shear strength of BGCWs using the currently pro-
D0:25
x D0:75
y posed formula (Eq. (20)) was provided.
scr;G ¼ kG 2
t w hw
3; 489; 2310:25  6; 971; 764; 3150:75 References
¼ 59:2 
6  20002
[1] Elgaaly M, Hamilton RW, Seshadri A. Shear strength of beams with corrugated
¼ 2572 MPa webs. J Struct Eng 1996;122(4):390–8.
[2] Hamilton RW. Behavior of welded girder with corrugated webs. Ph.D. thesis,
2. The interactive shear buckling strength formula as given in Eq. University of Maine; 1993.
(2) is: [3] Driver RG, Abbas HH, Sause R. Shear behavior of corrugated web bridge girders.
J Struct Eng ASCE 2006;132(2):195–203.
scr;L :scr;G 581  2572 [4] Yi J, Gil H, Youm K, Lee H. Interactive shear buckling behavior of trapezoidally
scr;I;0:6 ¼ 1
¼ 1 corrugated steel webs. Eng Struct 2008;30:1659–66.
0:6 0:6
ððscr;L Þ þ ðscr;G Þ Þ 0:6
ðð581Þ0:6 þ ð2572Þ0:6 Þ0:6 [5] El-Metwally AS. Prestressed composite girders with corrugated steel webs.
M.S. thesis. Calgary (AB): Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary;
¼ 328 MPa 1998.
[6] Sayed-Ahmed EY. Behavior of steel and (or) composite girders with corrugated
3. The interactive slenderness ratio is then to be calculated as: steel webs. Can J Civil Eng 2001:656–72.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi [7] Sause R, Braxtan TN. Shear strength of trapezoidal corrugated steel webs. J
sy 205 Constr Steel Res 2011;67:223–36.
kI;0:6 ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:79 [8] Moon J, Yi J-W, Choi BH, Lee H-E. Lateral–torsional buckling of I-girder with
scr;I;0:6 328 corrugated webs under uniform bending. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:21–30.

Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
10 M.F. Hassanein, O.F. Kharoob / Engineering Structures xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
[9] Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs:
(I) real boundary conditions at the juncture of the web and flanges. Eng Struct
2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.004.
[10] Moon J, Yi J, Choi BH, Lee H. Shear strength and design of trapezoidally
corrugated steel webs. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1198–205.
[11] ABAQUS Standard User’s Manual. The Abaqus Software is a product of Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA Dassault Systèmes, Version 6.8,
USA; 2008.
[12] Alinia MM, Shakiba M, Habashi HR. Shear failure characteristics of steel plate
girders. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:1498–506.
[13] Hassanein MF. Imperfection analysis of austenitic stainless steel plate girders
failing by shear. Eng Struct 2010;32:704–13.
[14] Hassanein MF. Finite element investigation of shear failure of lean duplex
stainless steel plate girders. Thin-Walled Struct 2011;49(8):964–73.
[15] Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Shear strength and behavior of transversely
stiffened tubular flange plate girders. Eng Struct 2010;32:2617–30.
[16] Gil H, Lee S, Lee J, Lee H. Shear buckling strength of trapezoidally corrugated steel
webs for bridges. Transport Res Rec: J Transport Res Board 2005:473–80 [CD 11-
S, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC].
Please cite this article in press as: Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Behavior of bridge girders with corrugated webs: (II) Shear strength and design. Eng Struct
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.015
[17] Research committee for hybrid structures with corrugated steel web. Design
manual for PC bridges with corrugated steel web; 1998.
[18] Abbas HH. Analysis and design of corrugated web I-girders for bridges
using high performance steel. Ph.D. dissertation. Bethlehem (PA):
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lehigh University;
2003.
[19] Easley JT. Buckling formulas for corrugated metal shear diaphragms. J Struct
Div SECF ST7 1975:1403–17.
[20] Lindner J, Huang B. Beulwerte für trapezförmig profilierte bleche unter
schubbeanspruchung. Stahlbau 1995;64(2):370–4.
[21] Lee SC, Davidson JS, Yoo CH. Shear buckling coefficients of plate girder web
panels. Comput Struct 1996;59:789–95.
[22] Luo R, Edlund B. Ultimate strength of girders with trapezoidally
corrugated webs under patch loading. Thin-Walled Struct 1996;24:
135–56.
[23] EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures – Part 1-1: general rules
and rules for buildings. CEN; 2004.
[24] EN 1993–1-5. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures – Part 1–5: plated
structural elements. CEN; 2007.