Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Shear behavior of stiffened single perforated lean duplex stainless steel

(LDSS) rectangular hollow beams
Sonu J.K. ⁎, Konjengbam Darunkumar Singh
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India

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

Article history: This paper presents the study on shear behavior of stiffened single perforated LDSS rectangular hollow beam,
Received 6 July 2020 considering various orientations / patterns viz., inclined (IS), vertical (VS), horizontal (HS) and ring (RS); and ef-
Received in revised form 21 September 2020 fect of various cross-sections i.e. flat, angular and semi-circular (considering same material consumption). Based
Accepted 22 September 2020
on the study, it has been found that in general, inclined stiffener (with flat cross-section) is relatively most effec-
Available online 14 October 2020
tive in enhancing the shear capacity of perforated beams. For the inclined stiffeners, it is observed that the rate of
Keywords:
increase in shear capacity (Vu/Vy) increases (in a non linear trend) with increasing stiffener length for higher stiff-
Rectangular LDSS tubular beam ener thicknesses. In the case of vertical and horizontal stiffeners, there appears to have no/little significant im-
Stiffeners provement in shear capacity for both the variation in length, width and thickness. For the ring stiffeners, it is
Web perforation found that, shear capacity increases with increase in both breadth and thickness of the stiffeners. Comparison
Shear behavior made between angular and semi-circular sections (keeping the same cross sectional area) showed that both
Lean duplex stainless steel beam the sections predicted similar behavior of shear capacity.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction vicinity of perforation, e.g. doubling plate [12,13]; ring [12–15];

In the steel construction industry, under constrained floor
height (e.g. in shallow floor height) scenario, web cut outs
(openings / perforations) may become necessary in beams for
a variety of requirements, such as building services ducts for
plumbing, air conditioning, electrical and instrumental cables,
ventilations, process pipes, inspection, repair etc. Other possible
reasons, for providing such perforations could be for improve-
ment of strength-weight ratio without affecting the structural
performance, for reduction of the stress concentration in beam-
column joint (e.g. [1–3]), for aesthetic reasons (e.g. castellated
beams, cellular beams) and for economising material (e.g. [4]).
Some examples [37] of circular perforation in steel girders are
given in Fig. 1. However, it is of general understanding that such
perforation in beam can result in stress redistribution, thereby ad-
versely affecting the structural performance (e.g. load carrying ca-
pacity, stiffness, deformation capacity), depending upon factors
such as geometrical properties (e.g. shape, size) and locations of
perforations and geometric dimensions of beam [2,5–11]. When
such reduction in structural performances (say e.g. beam shear ca-
pacity) occur, one of the effective methods widely adopted to en-
hance the reduced structural capacity is providing stiffeners in the
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sonujk23@gmail.com (J.K. Sonu).
vertical and horizontal, inclined [16] stiffeners. It may be men-
tioned that such studies have been mainly reported for open car-
bon steel sections (e.g. plates, I – sections). Fig. 2 (a & b) shows
examples of stiffened (vertical, horizontal) perforations in steel
plate girders. Further, it may be worthwhile to mention that to
the best of authors' knowledge, studies on the shear capacity of
stiffened perforated stainless steel (e.g. Lean Duplex Stainless
Steel, LDSS) tubular beams, have not been available in the litera-
ture. The objective of this paper is then to assess the shear behav-
ior of stiffened single circular perforated LDSS (LDX 2101 / EN
1.4162 / UNS 32101) rectangular hollow beam / (or box girders),
using FE analysis approach considering various orientations / pat-
terns such as diagonal / inclined, vertical, horizontal, and ring; and
cross-sections i.e. flat, angular and semi-circular. LDSS is a stainless
steel type containing low nickel (~1.5%) content resulting in eco-
nomical alternative as compared to traditional stainless steel types
(e.g. Ferritic, Martensitic, Austenetnic). LDSS has the additional ad-
vantages in comparison to other stainless steel types are improved
strength, high temperature properties [17], acceptable weldability
[18] and fracture toughness properties [19].
Hence, in this investigation, the effect of variation in stiffener di-
mensions (or slenderness) e.g. width (bs), thickness (ts) and length
(ls) for the abovementioned stiffener patterns are investigated. The
results of the FE analyses are presented in the form of variations in
shear capacity (Vu/Vy) with respect to normalised parameters like

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106377
0143-974X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh
Fig. 1. Circular and rectangular perforations in steel beams (Lawson and Hicks, [37]).
ls/do, bs/hw (for various values of ts/tw), mid-span deformation (δ),
deformation shapes etc.
2. Numerical (FE) modeling
2.1. General
The FE modeling approach (for material modeling, boundary condi-
tions, imperfection, seeding, meshing etc.) followed in this study is sim-
ilar to modeling of LDSS hollow steel beam by Theofanous & Gardner
[19], LDSS steel girders by Saliba & Gardner [20], rectangular hollow
beams by Sonu & Singh [9,21]. The additional feature considered here
is the incorporation of FE models for the various types of stiffeners men-
tioned above. Geometry and FE mesh used for the stiffeners are pre-
sented in the following subsections.
2.2. Geometry and boundary conditions
Fig. 3 shows the schematic representation for a typical geometry,
FE mesh and boundary conditions considered. The various fixed
cross-sectional parameters were h w = 600 mm, a = 600 mm,
w f = 200 mm, t f = 10 mm, t w = 2 mm, such that a/h w = 1.0
and t f /t w = 5. A centrally located perforation with diameter,
do = 300 mm (do/hw = 0.5) was chosen as the benchmark perfo-
rated beam upon which the effect of stiffener is studied. The max-
imum reduction in shear capacity observed is in centrally located
perforated beams for larger size (26% for d o /h w = 0.5) as
Fig. 2. (a) Horizontal stiffeners (b) Horizontal and vertical stiffeners for rectangular opening in webs of steel girder (Lawson and Hicks, [37]).
2
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377
compared to the unperforated case (see Fig. 9a), whilst it was
lesser for smaller perforation sizes (do/hw < 0.5) [9]. Meanwhile,
there is not very much deviation in shear capacity for the case of
smaller perforation size (d o /h w = 0.1) along all locations (hori-
zontal, vertical and diagonal). Although the reduction in shear ca-
pacity is maximum for centrally located perforation (i.e. x/hw = y/
hw = 0.5; [9]), recommending that central location is the critical
one for large size perforations. Four types of stiffener patterns
viz., straight inclined perpendicular to tension band (IS), straight
vertical (VS), straight horizontal (HS) and ring (RS) were consid-
ered (see Fig. 4); two parallel stiffeners of equal length located
at opposite sides of perforation for straight stiffeners (IS, VS and
HS). Stiffener with flat (or rectangular) cross-sections (FC) were
considered for all the stiffener patterns i.e. IS, VS, HS and RS, ini-
tially; whereas angular (AC; 90o between equal legs) and semicir-
cular (SC) cross-sections were considered for the inclined
orientation (IS), to assess cross-sectional shape effect (see Fig. 5).
The values of length (ls), breadth (bs) and thickness (ts) of the
stiffeners adopted in the FE analyses ranged from 300 to 515 mm
(or ls/do = 1.00–1.75, where do = diameter of opening, Do =
do + 2 × 10 mm, Do is diameter of ring stiffener), 24–72 mm (or
bs/hw = 0.04–0.12) and 2–14 mm (or ts/tw = 1–7). A clearance of
10 mm (s/tw = 5, where s is the distance between edge of opening to stiff-
ener edge) is provided between single stiffener welded edge and opening
edge, and total of (2 × 10 mm) 20 mm for both the stiffeners in addition to
perforation size (or perforation diameter, do). The clearance is given to
avoid the excess closeness of stiffener to perforation edge so that welding
can be done at ease (e.g. Hagen [38] assumed, s/tw = ~ 0.6–1.2
i.e., 10–20 mm; Cheng & Zhao [22] have taken the s/tw = 0.5).
The inclined stiffeners (IS) were provided perpendicular to the diag-
onal of the perforated web (resulting in perpendicular to the tension
band, as seen in Fig. 4(a); in the case of a/hw = 1), it is at 45o to the lon-
gitudinal axis of the beam. In order to compare the effectiveness of three
stiffener cross sectional shapes (FC, AC and SC) in the inclined mode, the
material consumption (or cross-sectional area) was kept same. To real-
ise this, the legs of the AC section are made equal to half of the FC
breadth (i.e. bs/2); and the circumference of the SC section was taken
to be equal to bs (the diameter of the SC section, Ds was taken as the var-
iable; Ds = 15–46 mm in this study). Further, the maximum length of
stiffener (ls) was chosen so that the outer dimensions of the stiffeners
were limited to the inner edge of the flanges.
The cross-sectional geometry of the beam is rectangular in shape as
shown in Fig. 3 (a) where hw, tw, wf, tf and a are height of web, web thick-
ness, flange width, flange thickness and shear span respectively. It may
be noted that the dimensions of hw and wf are the internal and outer di-
mensions respectively of the beam. Constraining kinematically of the
nodes at the mid-span section (i.e. at the section where the external dis-
placement is applied) and end supports have been artificially done to
avoid local (and in-plane) buckling of cross-sections due to the exter-
nally applied displacement and support reactions, and thus ensuring
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377

Fig. 3. (a) Geometry (b) stiffener (c) Mesh (d) Loading and support condition.

Fig. 4. Patterns of straight stiffeners (a-c), non straight stiffener (d).

Fig. 5. Cross-section of stiffeners (a) Flat (F), (b) angular stiffener (A), (c) semi-circular stiffener (S).

rigid post conditions at the mid-span and end supports [19,23] available applied through RP2 to transfer uniformly to the flanges and webs of
in Abaqus [24]. Application of load and support conditions are applied the coupled cross-section. In order to get constant shear along the
through the reference points (RP1, RP2 and RP3) which are coupled at span of the beam (shear span is half the beam length, i.e. a = L/2),
nodes of midspan and ends as shown in Fig. 3 (c). Displacement is beam is simply supported (Fig. 3 d) at both the ends (one end is hinge

3
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377

Table 1 Table 2
LDSS material properties [19]. LDSS Beam dimensions [19] for FE validation.

SHS 60 × 60 × 3 – B2 specimen Specimen L (mm) B (mm) D (mm) t (mm) ri (mm) w0 (mm)

a) Tension flat material properties 100 × 100 × 4 - B1 1100 103 102.3 3.92 3.8 0.071
Eo (MPa) σ0.2 (MPa) σ1.0 (MPa) σu (MPa) Compound R-O coefficients 100 × 100 × 4 - B2 1100 102 102.5 3.83 3.9 0.071
n n0.2, 0.1′ 80 × 80 × 4 - B1 1100 80 79.5 3.76 3.5 0.08
209,797 755 819 839 6.0 4.3 80 × 80 × 4 - B2 1100 80 79.6 3.74 4.3 0.08
60 × 60 × 3 - B1 1100 60 60 3.15 2.3 0.062
b) Compression flat material properties 60 × 60 × 3 - B2 1100 60 60 3.1 2.8 0.062
206,430 711 845 – 5.0 2.7 80 × 40 × 4 - B1 1100 39 80 3.78 3.6 0.058
c) Tensile corner material properties 80 × 80 × 4 - B2 1100 39.5 80 3.84 3.9 0.058
212,400 885 1024 1026 6.3 4.0
L = Length, B = Width, H = Depth, t = thickness, ri = internal corner radius, w0 = local
geometric imperfection.

and other is roller supported) and point displacement is applied stati-

The total number of elements in stiffeners ranges in 100–500, de-
cally at the mid-span of the beam using displacement control.
pending on its geometric dimension.

2.4. Local geometric imperfection

2.3. Finite element mesh
The reduced integration four noded general purpose curved shell el-
ement (S4R) with six degrees of freedom per node (three displacements
and three rotational degrees of freedoms per node) as recommended for
similar studies conducted in thin walled structures [20,25–27] are
adopted in this study to discretize the models, as shown in Fig. 3(c). As-
pect ratios of element are kept at ~1.0 for the entire FE specimens. Based
on mesh convergence study (through linear elastic eigen-value buckling
analyses), typical global mesh size of ~18–25 mm has been arrived at for
optimum acceptable result.
The FE meshed model of perforated beam with inclined stiffeners
(IS) with flat cross section (FC) is shown in Fig. 3 (c). FE mesh
modeling pattern of beam is same as modeling approach of perfo-
rated beam [9,21] except for stiffeners. Similar S4R elements are
used for stiffeners (with aspect ratio ~ 1), since the geometric size
of stiffener is lesser than main beam dimensions, the adopted mesh
size for stiffener was finer than the beam are used. A minimum of
10 S4R elements along the width of the stiffener were adopted to
catch the interaction between perforated web and stiffener edge,
based on mesh convergence study. Stiffeners were meshed separately
and tied to beam using the ‘Tie’ option in Abaqus [24]. This method
makes the meshing of beam and stiffener separately without much
concern on compatibility of node locations at connection junction.
Geometric imperfections (local or global) are undulations on actual
structure, resulted during manufacturing, transportation, handling etc.,
and can influence the structural behavior adversely. Thus, it should be in-
corporated in FE model to mimic actual imperfect structures. In this
study, only local imperfections are employed in FE analysis by consider-
ing lowest eigen mode from eigen value buckling analysis as employed in
LDSS hollow sections (e.g. [19,23]) and LDSS I-section girders (e.g. [20]).
The imperfection amplitude model proposed by Dawson and Walker
[28] which is modified by Gardner and Ashraf [32]; see Eq. (1) for stain-
less steel structural members, is applied to lowest eigen mode to make
the imperfection in actual structure for further non-linear analysis.
 
σ 0:2
ωo =t ¼ 0:023 ð1Þ
σ cr
where σcr is the elastic critical buckling stress determined from the
buckling analysis and t is the thickness.
2.5. Material modeling
The material properties of LDSS material for present study is
taken from experimental study conducted by Theofanous & Gardner
[19] as given in Table 1. As per EN 10088-4 [30], LDSS (Grade EN

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of stress-strain curve of LDSS material Grade EN 1.4162 [32].

4
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh
Table 3
LDSS plate girders dimensions [20] for FE validation.
Plategirder L (mm) a (mm) e (mm)
I - 600 × 200 × 12 × 4–1 1360 600 80
I - 600 × 200 × 12 × 8–1 1360 600 80
L = length of specimen, a = length of web panel, e = distance between the stiffeners at support, b = overall flange width, hw = depth of web, tf = thickness of flange, tw = thickness of
web, bs = (b – tw)/2 is the width of stiffener, ts = thickness of stiffener.
1.4162) has the yield stress (minimum 0.2% proof stress, i.e., σ0.2)
is 530 MPa and ultimate tensile stress is ranging from 700 to
900 MPa. A modified two stage Dawson and Walker [31] model
proposed by Gardner & Ashraf [32] for stainless steel has been
used for the non-linear material property in FE analysis. Modeling
of stainless steel is carried out in two stages, first is for range of
σ ≤ σ 0.2 (σ 0.2 is the 0.2% proof stress) and second is beyond the
range of ε t0.2 (total strains at σ 0.2 ). The first stage is modeled
using Ramberg & Osgood [33] model showed good matching in a
comparison to results from experiments as per suggestions from
literature [32]. Second range exceeding εt0.2 (total strains at σ0.2)
is modeled using RO model shows higher values in a comparison
to experiment, hence a modified version is suggested by Gardner
& Ashraf [32]. Schematic diagram of stress-strain values of LDSS
of grade EN 1.4162 used for FE modeling are shown in Fig. 6.
Piece wise two stage stress-strain values are inserted in Abaqus
[24] after conversion of engineering stress-strain to true plastic
pl
stress (σtrue ) - strain (εpl
true) (see Eqs. (2) & (3)).
σ true ¼ σ norm ð1 þ εnorm Þ
σ true
εpl
true ¼ ln ð1 þ ε norm Þ−
E0
where σnorm and εnorm are engineering stress and strain respectively.
Further modified RIKS method [34] available in Abaqus has been
employed for the non linear analysis to obtain the structural behaviors
such as shear capacity and mid-span displacement of beam.
3. Validation of finite element model
Ahead of starting the parametric study, the FE modeling procedures
is validated to known trustworthy experimental results to prove the
modeling approach is precise to do further confidence in modeling. To
do so, the present modeling approach is validated against a representa-
tive experimental results reported by Theofanous & Gardner [19] and
Saliba & Gardner [20] in LDSS square hollow beams and LDSS plate
girders respectively. These types of cross-section has been considered
due to similarities in materials, cross-sectional geometries, way of appli-
cation of loading (three point loading), and structural behavior of spec-
imens. Material and geometrical properties of validated samples are
shown in Tables 1, 2 & 3. The effect of residual stress distribution is
not accounted for present models, because the material property of ex-
perimental sample intrinsically has the residual stress [19,20]. Further
for the square hollow sections, corner properties are extended to
twice the thickness of plate for considering the strength enhancement
due to cold forming [19,29,35] as suggested by Theofanous & Gardner
[19]. Figs. 7 & 8 show the comparison of results from experimental
and FE model. It is observed that present modeling approach is able to
capture the structural behavior viz., Mu, Vu (ultimate moment capacity,
shear capacity) in addition to matched overall pattern of the curve. This
makes the confidence to employ validated modeling approach to pre-
dict the structural behavior of LDSS rectangular hollow section. As it is
mentioned that square and I-sections are selected for validation of pres-
ent work due to unavailable experimental samples of LDSS rectangular
hollow sections under shear loading. Same approach of comparison is
followed in literature [36] to model the shear behavior of LDSS plate
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377
hw (mm) b (mm) tf (mm) tw (mm) ts (mm) bs (mm)
598.8 200.1 12.4 4.1 20.9 98
600.3 200.1 12.5 8.2 20.6 96
girders in absence of experimental samples. Hence in the present
study, this well established finite element modeling procedure and
widely accepted in the literature for thin-walled structures is adopted
for further parametric study.
4. Parametric study
The key parameters taken for the study are stiffener cross-sectional
shapes (FC, AC and SC) and dimensions (ls, bs, ts) as mentioned in
Section 2.2. The results are presented in the form of shear capacity
(Vu/Vy) vs midspan deformation (δ) and deformed shapes super im-
posed to von-Mises stresses.
5. Results and discussion
First, the effect of various stiffeners i.e., IS, VS, HS and RS on the shear
behavior viz., shear capacity and deformed shapes are presented in
terms of variation in stiffener lengths (ls), breadth (bs) and stiffener
thickness (ts). This is followed by a comparison of the effect of cross-
ð2Þ sectional shapes viz., FC, AC and SC on the shear capacity keeping the
same material cross-sectional area and length (Section 5.5). Stiffener di-
mensions and shear capacity of beams are given in Tables 4–6.
ð3Þ
5.1. Inclined stiffener (IS)
5.1.1. Effect of stiffener length (ls)
Variation of shear capacity (V/Vy) with midspan displacement (δ)
(along with von – Mises stress contoured deformed shapes) for bw =
24 mm (or bw/hw = 0.04) are shown in Figs. 9 (a & b) and 10 (a & b)
for thin (ts = 2 mm or ts/tw = 1) and thick (ts = 14 mm or ts/tw = 7)
stiffeners respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 9a, there is no signifi-
cant change in both the shear capacity (Vu/Vy or VRF/Vy) or the shape
of the V/Vy vs δ profile, for the thin stiffeners considered. An increase
of 2% in V/Vy with increase of ls is increased by 75% (ls/do = 1.75)
from short length (ls/do = 1.00). In a comparison of stiffener length
(ls/do = 1.75) to unstiffened beam in an increase of V/Vy is about
~1.5–3.6%. Fig. 9b is von-Mises contour plot at Vu, VRF and post VRF
shear values of unperforated (S1, S2, S3), unstiffened perforated
(P1, P2 and P3), and stiffened beams (inset L1, L2 and L3 for ls/do = 1;
inset H1, H2 and H3 for ls/do = 1.75).
The effect of stiffener length through von-Misses stress distribution
is shown in Fig. 9b. It can be observed that the stress distribution
along tension band is relaxed and scattered around the stiffener (L1,
L2, L3 & H1, H2, H3). It may be due to restricted buckling provided stiff-
eners for perforations along the compression buckling of web. The wavy
(inward and outward) buckle in perforated edge of unstiffened beam
along compression (see inset fig. P1 in Fig. 9b) is turned in to outward
local buckling by stiffener, at Vu. The outward local buckling of web (re-
stricted wavy buckling) owing to increased stiffness of web by stiffeners
(thinner, ts/tw = 1). Very similar failure modes are observed at post ul-
timate (δRF) load for all stiffener lengths; the stress distribution, location
of hinge formation at compression flange and value of deformation also
agrees with the value of first turning point at post ultimate (δRF) is same
for all the dimensions of stiffeners as seen in Fig. 9a.
Further, the effect of length in stocky (t s /t w = 7) stiffener is
studied (Fig. 10). It is observed that the shear capacity increased
(V u /V y is ~2.8, 6 and 21%) with increase (l s /d o = 1.25, 1.5 and
5
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377

Fig. 7. (a–h): Comparison of results of FE to experimental [19] of LDSS square hollow beams.

6
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh
Fig. 8. (a & b): Comparison of results of FE to experimental [20] of LDSS steel plate girders.
1.75 in comparison to capacity of ls/do = 1.0) in stiffener length.
And also the shear capacity increased by 9% for l s /d o = 1.00 in
comparison to unstiffened perforated beam (d o /h w = 0.5). The
beam with longest stiffener (ls/do = 1.75) attained the shear ca-
pacity of unperforated beam (do/hw = 0.0). In like manner, the de-
formation δRF of longest stiffener (ls/do = 1.75) is 26% lower than
beam with shortest stiffener (ls/do = 1.00), i.e., early dropping of
post ultimate curve occurring for highest stiffener. Fig. 10b
shows the von-Mises contour of deformed beams. It can be seen
that highly stressed region along tension band is relaxed and dis-
tributed around the stiffener. It may be due to prevented buckling
along the compression diagonal by highest thickness (ts/tw = 7).
In addition, highly stressed Von-Mises stress in the vicinity of
perforation is scattered over a large area for thicker stiffeners com-
pared to thinner one, at Vu (see inset figures L1 and H1 in Fig. 10b).
The buckling of perforation edge is restricted by thick stiffener (ts/
t w = 7) (see L1 and H1 in Fig. 10b). And also, the formation of
hinge is shifted from perforated edge to unperforated shear span
for thick longest stiffener (ts/tw = 7, ls/do = 1.75, see inset H1 and
H2 figures in Fig. 10b) which is different compared to shorter stiff-
eners (ls/do = 1.00, inset L1 and L2 in Fig. 10b). It might be caused
by restricted web buckling by high stiffness (ts/tw = 7) of stiffeners
(see L1 and H1 in Fig. 10b) and also a significant increase in shear
capacity (even tension band is absent for long thickest stiffener)
achieved by thicker stiffeners. The effect of stiffener length (l s /
d o = 1.00–1.75) for the stiffener thickness t s /t w = 1–7 (or t s =
2–14 mm) is shown in Fig. 11a (i). It can be observed that rate of in-
crease in shear capacity increased for higher stiffener thickness e.g.
t s /t w ≥ 3, moreover it is very effective in longer stiffeners (e.g. l s /
d o = 1.75). Stiffened beam attained the shear capacity of
unperforated/solid capacity in longest (l s/do = 1.75) and thickest
(ts/tw = 7) stiffener.
5.1.2. Effect of stiffener breadth (bs)
Fig. 11 (aii) shows the effect of stiffener width (bs/hw = 0.04–0.10
for bs ranging from 24 to 60 mm) in short (ls/do = 1.00) and long (ls/
do = 1.75) stiffener for stiffener thickness ts/tw = 5 & 7 & ts/tw = 1–7
respectively. In case of ls/do = 1.00, shear capacity increased by 8.8%
with 150% increase in stiffener width in comparison to unstiffened
beam. Further, short stiffeners are not able to attain the shear capacity
of unperforated beam (solid horizontal line in Fig. 11(aii)). And also,
there is no difference in shear capacity by increasing the stiffener
thickness from ts/tw = 5 to 7. It is also seen that the von-Mises stress
distribution in the stiffened perforated web is not noticeably changed
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377
for the change in bs (see P & Q in Fig. 11 (aiii)). Subsequently, the ef-
fect of width is studied in longest stiffener (ls/do = 1.75). It can be
seen that the shear capacity increased with increase of stiffener
width (bs/hw = 0.04–0.10) and attained the shear capacity of
unperforated beam at bs/hw = 0.08, 0.06, 0.10 for the stiffener thick-
ness ts/tw = 3, 5 & 7 respectively as shown in Fig. 11 (aii), while on
the contrary ts/tw = 1 could not achieve the shear capacity (~19% as
compared to perforated case) of unperforated beam do/hw = 0.0. The
von-Mises contour plots of thick (R & S in Fig. 11aiii) stiffener for longer
stiffeners shows that the sufficient improvement in shear capacity with
occurrence of plastic hinge formation at the compression flange is
shifted towards the unperforated span, with stress relaxation in the stiff-
ened webs. It shows that changing of cross-section (bw/hw) dimensions
is more effective to enhance the shear capacity in long stiffener in thicker
sections (ts/tw > 7) compared to short stiffener.
5.2. Vertical stiffener (VS)
5.2.1. Effect of stiffener length (ls)
The effect of vertical stiffener lengths on the shear capacity in terms
of Vu/Vy vs ls/do for ts/tw = 1–7 (bs/hw = 0.04) is shown in Fig. 11 (bi). It
can be seen that there appears to have no significant effect (~ 4% in Vu/Vy
can be observed when ls/do is increased to 1.75) on Vu/Vy due to the
presence of either thin or thick vertical stiffeners. Observing the von-
Mises stress contour plots at Vu/Vy, the stress distribution remains
similar to that of unstiffened beam (see P in Fig. 11b (iii)) for long
thick (ls/do = 1.75, ts/tw = 7). The local buckling of the perforation
edge along the diagonal tension band appears to remain unaffected
by the presence of vertical stiffeners, and most of the highly stressed
region is now confined within the region bounded by the vertical stiff-
eners (see P in Fig. 11b (iii)).
5.2.2. Effect of stiffener breadth (bs)
The effect of vertical stiffener width (bs) in terms of Vu/Vy vs bs/hw, in
short (ls/do = 1.00) and long (ls/do = 1.75) for thickness ts/tw = 5 & 7 &
ts/tw = 3–7 respectively are presented in Fig. 11 (bii). It can be observed
that there is little improvement (~7) in the shear capacity of the perfo-
rated beam, even after the bs is increased from 24 to 60 mm (or bs/hw =
0.04–0.10), for long thick (ls/do = 1.75, ts/tw = 7) stiffeners, whereas no
increase in shear capacity for short (ls/do = 1.00) by increase in width
for ts/tw = 5 and ts/tw = 7. The local buckling near the perforation
edge appears to remain unaffected by the presence of long (thick) stiff-
eners. The distribution of the highly stressed region along the diagonal
tension band remains more or less unaltered (see P in Fig. 11b iv).
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377

Table 4
Shear capacity of inclined (I), vertical (V) and horizontal (H) stiffeners.

Parameter of stiffener Stiffener dimensions Length x Breadth x Thickness (ls x bs x ts) in mm ls/dO ts/tw bw/hw Shear capacity (Vu, stif) (kN

Stiffener types

I V H

ength 300 × 24 × 2 1.00 1 0.04 522 525 516

375 × 24 × 2 1.25 1 0.04 533 525 521
450 × 24 × 2 1.50 1 0.04 535 525 528
525 × 24 × 2 1.75 1 0.04 538 531 527
300 × 24 × 6 1.00 3 0.04 553 526 526
375 × 24 × 6 1.25 3 0.04 560 531 531
450 × 24 × 6 1.50 3 0.04 585 539 539
525 × 24 × 6 1.75 3 0.04 624 545 545
300 × 24 × 10 1.00 5 0.04 555 536 536
375 × 24 × 10 1.25 5 0.04 582 537 537
450 × 24 × 10 1.50 5 0.04 609 545 545
525 × 24 × 10 1.75 5 0.04 655 550 550
300 × 24 × 14 1.00 7 0.04 557 534 534
375 × 24 × 14 1.25 7 0.04 608 541 541
450 × 24 × 14 1.50 7 0.04 627 551 551
525 × 24 × 14 1.75 7 0.04 680 555 555
Breadth 300 × 24 × 2 1.00 1 0.04 539 514 516
300 × 36 × 2 1.00 1 0.06 548 514 528
300 × 48 × 2 1.00 1 0.08 548 514 528
300 × 60 × 2 1.00 1 0.10 548 514 529
300 × 24 × 6 1.00 3 0.04 553 514 526
300 × 36 × 6 1.00 3 0.06 554 514 535
300 × 48 × 6 1.00 3 0.08 554 514 535
300 × 60 × 6 1.00 3 0.10 554 514 535
300 × 24 × 10 1.00 5 0.04 555 514 536
300 × 36 × 10 1.00 5 0.06 556 514 536
300 × 48 × 10 1.00 5 0.08 556 514 537
300 × 60 × 10 1.00 5 0.10 556 514 542
300 × 24 × 2 1.00 7 0.04 557 514 534
300 × 36 × 2 1.00 7 0.06 559 514 548
300 × 48 × 2 1.00 7 0.08 559 514 552
300 × 60 × 2 1.00 7 0.10 559 514 552
525 × 24 × 2 1.75 1 0.04 538 531 527
525 × 36 × 2 1.75 1 0.06 582 531 538
525 × 48 × 2 1.75 1 0.08 604 532 539
525 × 60 × 2 1.75 1 0.10 610 532 540
525 × 24 × 6 1.75 3 0.04 624 526 545
525 × 36 × 6 1.75 3 0.06 651 535 549
525 × 48 × 6 1.75 3 0.08 679 551
525 × 60 × 6 1.75 3 0.10 679 540 551
525 × 24 × 10 1.75 5 0.04 655 537 550
525 × 24 × 10 1.75 5 0.06 679 535 553
525 × 24 × 10 1.75 5 0.08 679 538 556
525 × 24 × 10 1.75 5 0.10 679 537 557
525 × 24 × 14 1.75 7 0.04 679 554 555
525 × 24 × 14 1.75 7 0.06 679 548 559
525 × 24 × 14 1.75 7 0.08 679 549 559
525 × 24 × 14 1.75 7 0.10 679 550 565

Clearly, no improvement in Vu/Vy can be seen for the range of bw, ls and ts
Table 5 considered, suggesting that vertical stiffeners do not have any
Shear capacity of ring (R) stiffeners. measureable effect on the shear capacity of the perforated beam.
Parameter of Stiffener dimensions Breadth x ts/tw bw/hw Shear capacity Again, this may be related to the inability of the vertical stiffeners to ar-
stiffener Thickness (bs x ts) in mm (Vu, stif) kN rest local buckling around the perforation edge.
Stiffener type
Table 6
R Shear capacity of flat (F), angular (A) and semi-circular (S) stiffeners.
Breadth 24 × 2 1 0.04 525
Parameter of Stiffener dimensions ls/do ts/tw bw/hw Vu, stif (kN)
36 × 2 1 0.06 527
stiffener Length x Breadth x
48 × 2 1 0.08 528 Stiffener types
Thickness (ls x bs x ts) in mm
60 × 2 1 0.10 529
F A S
24 × 6 3 0.04 538
36 × 6 3 0.06 543 Breadth 453 × 24 × 2 1.51 1 0.04 558 524 526
48 × 6 3 0.08 547 453 × 36 × 2 1.51 1 0.06 571 560 554
60 × 6 3 0.10 550 453 × 48 × 2 1.51 1 0.08 584 583 590
24 × 10 5 0.04 549 453 × 60 × 2 1.51 1 0.10 595 598 606
24 × 10 5 0.06 558 453 × 24 × 10 1.51 5 0.04 607 565 575
24 × 10 5 0.08 566 453 × 36 × 10 1.51 5 0.06 655 616 602
24 × 10 5 0.10 571 453 × 48 × 10 1.51 5 0.08 681 657 638
24 × 14 7 0.04 561 453 × 60 × 10 1.51 5 0.10 680 681 680
24 × 14 7 0.06 579
24 × 14 7 0.08 585 (Geometric properties of stiffeners are expressed in normalised form, i.e., length in ls/dO,
24 × 14 7 0.10 594 thickness in ts/tw, breadth in bw/hw, where ls is length, ts is thickness, bw is width of stiff-
eners, do is size of perforation, tw is web thickness, hw is height of web).
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377

Fig. 9. (a) Variation of V/Vy vs δ (ls/ do = 1.00–1.75, bs/hw = 0.04, ts/tw = 1) for inclined stiffeners, (b) von-Mises stress contour for do/hw = 0.0 (S1, S2, S3), do/hw = 0.5 (P1, P2, P3) (x/hw =
0.5, y/hw = 0.5; a/hw = 1.0, tf/tw = 5), with inclined flat stiffeners ls/do = 1.00 (L1, L2 & L3) & 1.75 (H1, H2 & H3) and thickness of ts/tw = 1.0.

5.3. Horizontal stiffener (HS)
5.3.1. Effect of stiffener length (ls)
The length effect (ls) for horizontal stiffeners are presented in Fig. 11c
(i), in the form of Vu/Vy vs ls/do, (ls/do = 1.00–1.75; bs/hw = 0.04) for ts/
tw = 1–7. From Fig. 11c (i), it can be seen that, there is no significant
improvement in Vu/Vy for the case with thin stiffeners, whereas an en-
hancement of ~5% could be obtained with thick stiffeners. However
there is little variation in Vu/Vy for the range of stiffener length consid-
ered i.e. ls/do = 1.00–1.75. From Fig. 11c (iii), it can be seen that the thin
horizontal stiffeners (see P in Fig. 11c (iii)) are not able to arrest the
local buckling occurring in the vicinity of the perforation, even after
ls/do is increased up to 1.75. Whereas for thick horizontal stiffeners, it
appears that some resistance has been offered to the local buckling
around the perforation, especially for the case of ls/do = 1.75, ts/tw =
7 (see Q in Fig. 11c (iii)). For the range of ls/do = 1.00–1.75, it is seen

9
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh
Fig. 10. (a) Variation of V/Vy vs δ (ls/do = 1.00–1.75, bs/hw = 0.04, ts/tw = 7) for inclined flat stiffeners, (b) von-Mises stress contour for length effect (ls/do = 1.00 (L1 & L2) & ls/do = 1.75 (H1
& H2)) of inclined flat stiffener (bs/hw = 0.04, ts/tw = 7.0).
that there is no significant variation in Vu/Vy for the range of ts/tw con-
sidered. Thus, there appears to have little beneficial effect of horizontal
stiffeners for the range of ts and ls considered.
5.3.2. Effect of stiffener breadth (bs)
Fig. 11 (cii) shows the effect of breadth (bs) in horizontal stiffeners
for short (ls/do = 1.00) and long (ls/do = 1.75) for thickness ts/tw = 5
& 7 and ts/tw = 3–7 respectively. It can be seen that in case of short stiff-
ener length, there is no significant increase in Vu/Vy for the case of thin
stiffeners (Fig. 11c (ii)), however, an increase of ~7% in average could
be obtained for the case of thick stiffeners, with little variation in Vu/Vy
for bw/hw = 0.04–1.0. From Fig. 11c (iii) (inset P), it can be seen that
at Vu, it appears that increase in bs, did not significantly improve the
buckling resistance of the perforated web, with the stress distribution
more or less unchanged.
For the case of long stiffeners, not much improvement of Vu/Vy is
seen with both thin and thick stiffeners with increasing bs/hw
(Fig. 11c (ii)), with no substantial variation in Vu/Vy when bs/hw is var-
ied from 0.04–0.10. The increase in Vu/Vy is in the range 5.5–8% for the
thick stiffeners. It is seen that no substantial resistance being offered by
the long horizontal stiffeners in preventing local web buckling in the vi-
cinity of the perforation, although the resistance appears to have im-
proved for the thick stiffeners (Q in Fig. 11c (iv)). Again, the effect of
bs/hw on Vu/Vy, appears to be minimal, for the variation in ts/tw from 3
10
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377
to 7 (the plot appears nearly horizontal in Fig. 11c (ii)). Thus, again, it
appears horizontal stiffeners are also not very effective in enhancing
Vu/Vy for the perforated beams.
5.4. Ring stiffener (RS)
5.4.1. Effect of stiffener breadth (bs)
Fig. 12 shows the effect of stiffener breadth (bs) in terms of Vu/Vy
with bs/hw for ts/tw = 1–7 and by von-Mises contour plots. It can be
seen from Fig. 12a that, Vu/Vy increases with increasing bs/hw and ts/tw.
The rate of increase in Vu/Vy (with respect to the unstiffened beam) ap-
pears to be slightly higher for larger values of bs/hw. This may be related
to the increase in cross-sectional stiffness due to increase in cross-
sectional area of the stiffeners. For the thin stiffeners, the increase in
Vu/Vy, when bs/hw is increased from 0.04–0.10 is ~2% in an average,
whereas for thick stiffener, the increase is in the range ~ 9–15%, for
the same increase in bs/hw. This may be because, the thin stiffeners are
apparently not able to resist substantially, the local web buckling
around the perforation (P in Fig. 12b). However, with the thick stiffener,
an enhanced resistance to web buckling is visible (see Q in Fig. 12b). In
Fig. 12b, it can be seen that at Vu, the circular shape of the ring is not
distorted, especially for bs/hw = 0.10, an indication that web buckling
is resisted.
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh
Fig. 11. Effect of (a) inclined stiffener parallel to tension band (b) vertical stiffener (c) horizontal stiffener in terms of (i) variation of Vu/Vy with ls/do (bs/hw = 0.04) (ii) variation of Vu/Vy
with bs/hw (ls/do = 1.00 & ls/do = 1.75) (iii) von-Mises stress contour for corresponding points at graph.
5.5. Comparison of flat (FC), angular (AC) and semi-cricular (SC) inclined
stiffeners
In the previous discussion on effect of inclined, vertical and horizon-
tal stiffeners (see Sections 5.1–5.3), it is observed that inclined stiffeners
(IS) have been observed to be effective in regaining the strength of
unperforated beam. Hence, for the subsequent studies, inclined pattern
is chosen to investigate the effect of cross-sectional shapes by keeping
same cross-sectional area and length with that of flat cross-section of di-
mensions (ls/do = 1.50 and ts/tw = 1 and 5), for comparison.
5.5.1. Flat (FC) vs angular (AC) cross sections
Typical dimensions for the comparison between angular and flat
sections are: ls/do = 1.50 and ts/tw = 1 and 5, for all the cross-sections
considered (see Fig. 5a–c). Fig. 13 shows the comparison of angular
and flat inclined stiffeners is shown in Fig. 13a in the form of variation
of Vu/Vy vs bs/hw, for both thin (ts/tw = 1) and thick sections (ts/tw = 5).
It can be seen from Fig. 13a that Vu/Vy is found to increase with increasing
bs/hw; an increase of 200% in bs/hw (from bs/hw = 0.04), resulted an in-
crease in Vu/Vy of ~17% and ~ 32% from the unstiffened shear capacity,
for the thin (ts/tw = 1) and thick (ts/tw = 5) stiffener section respectively.
Furthermore, the angular stiffeners predicted lesser Vu/Vy for bs/
hw ≤ 0.08 and 0.10 for thin and thick sections, beyond which both
the sections resulted in similar shear capacity values. This may be be-
cause, for the same value of bs/hw, the stiffness of the angular section
may be relatively less in comparison to that of the comparable flat
section, as the each legs of the angular section would of (bs/2)/hw
and further, they are oriented at an angle of 45o with respect to
the web surface. Typical von-Mises contour plots are also shown for
11
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377
bs/hw = 0.04 and 0.12 at Vu in Fig. 13 corresponding to thin (see P
& Q Fig. 13c) and thick (see R & S Fig. 13c) stiffeners respectively.
At Vu, it can be seen that for thin sections (P in Fig. 13c), thick section
(R in Fig. 13c) for bs/hw = 0.04 and thin sections (Q in Fig. 13c) for
bs/hw = 0.12, the angular stiffeners are not able to resist the local
web buckling in the vicinity of the perforations; the stiffeners are
also seen to buckle which at later post-Vu stage. However, for the
wider breadth i.e. bs/hw = 0.12, thick section appears to have pro-
vided sufficient stiffness to prevent local buckling around the perfora-
tions (S in Fig. 13c). In the post-Vu, such enhancement of Vu, resulted
in shifting of the plastic hinge formation of the compression flange
towards the unperforated span side.
5.5.2. Flat (FC) vs semi-circular (SC) cross sections
The comparison between flat and semicircular stiffeners are shown
in Fig. 13b, as a plot of Vu/Vy vs bs/hw, for ts/tw = 1 and 5 (ls/do = 1.50).
Again, similar to the case for angular cross-section (mentioned in the
previous section), the semicircular circumferential length has been
fixed at bs, with ls/do = 1.5, so that it has the same material cross-
sectional area as that of flat section with breadth, bs. For thin stiffeners,
it can be seen from Fig. 13b that Vu/Vy increases with increasing bs/hw;
the increase being ~19% with bs/hw = 0.12, when compared to the
unstiffened case. For the thick stiffeners, semicircular section showed
lower values of Vu/Vy for bs/hw ≤ 0.10, and for bs/hw > 0.10, both semicir-
cular and flat section is able to provide the unperforated strength. On
the other hand, for the thin sections, semicircular sections showed a
slightly higher value of Vu/Vy as compared to that of flat sections, for
bs/hw > 0.08. This may be related to the enhanced stiffness associated
with the semicircular section as compared to flat sections, for higher
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh
Fig. 11 (continued).
values of bs/hw (e.g. 0.08). Similar to the case of flat and angular section
as discussed above, both thin stiffener for widths (e.g. bs/hw = 0.04 &
0.12) and thick section with lower width (e.g bs/hw = 0.04), the semicir-
cular stiffener appears not to be effective in resisting the web buckling
rather, local buckling can be observed around the mid-length of the
semicircular stiffener (along with the web) (see P, Q and R in
Fig. 13d). Again, for thicker sections (ts/tw = 5) and higher width
(bw/hw = 0.12), it can be seen that at Vu, the semicircular stiffener is
able to resist the local web buckling, and allows for better stress dis-
tribution in both the web and stiffeners (see S in Fig. 13d).
Comparison of angular and semi-circular section for both thick
and thin stiffeners is presented in Fig. 14. It can be observed that
the variation of V u /V y with b s /h w due to angular and semi-
12
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377
circular (keeping the same material consumption), for both thick
and thin sections are very similar. Vu/Vy is found to increase with
increasing bs/hw till ~0.1 and plateaus for bs/hw > 0.10, indicating
that for the stiffeners dimensions analyses, both the stiffeners be-
haved similarly. Hence both may be used with equal efficiency for
enhancing the shear capacity of perforated beam, although a
thicker section with longer bs/hw is desirable.
6. Conclusions
FE studies on shear behavior of stiffened single perforated LDSS
rectangular hollow beam have been investigated considering various
stiffener parameters viz., stiffener orientations / patterns such as
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377

Fig. 12. (a) Variation of Vu/Vy with bs/hw of ring stiffeners (b) von-Mises stress contour for corresponding points at graph.

Fig. 13. Variation of Vu/Vy vs bs/hw of (a) angular (b) semicircular stiffeners (c & d) von-Mises stress contour for corresponding points at graph.

inclined / diagonal, vertical, horizontal and ring; and stiffener cross-
sections viz., flat, angular and semi-circular. More specifically, the ef-
fect of variation in cross-sectional dimensions (or slenderness) e.g.
width (bs), thickness (ts) and length (ls) of the stiffeners for the
abovementioned stiffener patterns and cross sections have been in-
vestigated. Based on the present study, the following key conclusions
are drawn:
1) For the inclined stiffeners, it is observed that the rate of increase in
shear capacity (Vu/Vy) increases (in a non linear trend) with
increasing stiffener length for higher stiffener thicknesses. It is also
seen that it is possible to achieve the strength of unperforated
beam, with larger stiffener length and thickness.
2) In the case of vertical and horizontal stiffeners, there appears to have
no/little significant improvement in shear capacity for both the var-
iation in length, width and thickness.
3) For the ring stiffeners, it is found that, shear capacity increases with
increase in both breadth and thickness of the stiffeners (i.e. when the
cross section gets stockier).The rate of increase in shear capacity

13
J.K. Sonu and K.D. Singh
Fig. 14. Variation of Vu/Vy vs bs/hw for the comparison of angular and semicircular stiffeners (made of same material quantity).
(with respect to the unstiffened beam) appears to be slightly higher
for stockier cross sections.
4) Comparison made between angular and semi-circular sections
(keeping the same cross sectional area) showed that both the sec-
tions predicted similar behavior of shear capacity: shear capacity is
found to increase with increasing stiffener width for smaller values
of stiffener width and a plateauing effect is seen for larger stiffener
widths.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
[1] N.C. Hagen, P.K. Larsen, A. Alberg, Shear capacity of steel plate girders with large
web openings, part 1: modeling and simulations, J. Construct. Steel 65 (1) (2009)
142–150.
[2] R. Feng, B. Young, Experimental investigation of aluminium alloy stub columns with
circular openings, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (11) (2015), 04015031.
[3] N.D. Lagaros, L.D. Psarras, M. Papadrakakis, G. Panagiotou, Optimum design of steel
structures with web opening, Eng. Struct. 30 (9) (2008) 2528–2537.
[4] C. Pellegrino, E. Maiorana, C. Modena, Linear and non-linear behaviour of steel plates
with circular and rectangular holes under shear loading, Thin-Walled Struct. 47
(6–7) (2009) 607–616.
[5] D.J. Ridley-Ellis, Rectangular Hollow sections with circular web openings-
Fundemental behavior in torsion, bending and shear, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Nottingham, 2000.
[6] T.C. Liu, K.F. Chung, Steel beams with large web openings of various shapes and
sizes; finite element investigation, J. Constr. Steel Res. 59 (9) (2003) 1159–1176.
[7] N.C. Hagen, P.K. Larsen, Shear capacity of steel plate girders with large web open-
ings, part 2: design guidelines, J. Construct. Steel 65 (1) (2009) 151–158.
[8] M.F. Hassanein, Shear strength of tubular flange plate girders with square web
openings, Eng. Struct. 58 (2014) 92–104.
[9] J.K. Sonu, K.D. Singh, Shear behavior of single perforated lean duplex stainless steel
(LDSS) rectangular hollow beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 119 (2017) 851–867.
[10] Y. Huang, B. Young, Experimental and numerical investigation of cold-formed lean
duplex stainless steel flexural members, Thin-Walled Struct. 73 (2013) 216–228.
[11] L. Wang, B. Young, Beam tests of cold-formed steel built-up sections with web per-
forations, J. Constr. Steel Res. 115 (2015) 18–33.
[12] P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, Suitable stiffening systems for LiteSteel beams with
web openings subjected to shear, J. Constr. Steel Res. 80 (2013) 412–428.
[13] J.H. Kim, J.H. Jeon, J.S. Park, H.D. Seo, H.J. Ahn, J.M. Lee, Effect of reinforcement on
buckling and ultimate strength of perforated plates, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 92 (2015)
194–205.
[14] M.J. Hamoodi, M.S.A. Gabar, Behavior of steel plate girders with web openings
loaded in shear, Eng. Tech. J. 31 (15) (2013) 2982–2995.
[15] R. Narayanan, N.G.V. Der-Avanessian, Elastic buckling of perforated plates under
shear, Thin-Walled Struct. 2 (1984) 51–73.
14
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106377
[16] B. Cheng, C. Li, Buckling behavior of strengthened perforated plates under shear
loading, Steel Compos. Struct. 13 (4) (2012) 367–382.
[17] L. Gardner, N. Saari, F. Wang, Comparative experimental study of hot-rolled and
cold-formed rectangular hollow sections, Thin-Walled Struct. 48 (7) (2010)
495–507.
[18] J.O. Nilsson, G. Chai, U. Kivisäkk, Recent development of stainless steels, Proceedings
of the sixth European Stainless Steel Conference 2008, pp. 585–590.
[19] M. Theofanous, L. Gardner, Experimental and numerical studies of lean duplex stain-
less steel beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (6) (2010) 816–825.
[20] N. Saliba, L. Gardner, Experimental study of the shear response of lean duplex stain-
less steel plate girders, Eng. Struct. 46 (2013) 375–391.
[21] J.K. Sonu, K.D. Singh, Shear characteristics of lean duplex stainless steel (LDSS) rect-
angular hollow beams, Structures 10 (2017) 13–29.
[22] B. Cheng, J. Zhao, Strengthening of perforated plates under uniaxial compression:
buckling analysis, Thin-Walled Struct. 48 (2010) 905–914.
[23] M. Theofanous, T.M. Chan, L. Gardner, Flexural behaviour of stainless steel oval hol-
low sections, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 776–787.
[24] Abaqus, Hibbit, Karlsson, & Sorensen, Inc. Abaqus/Standard user’s manual volumes
1-III and ABAQUS CAE manual. version 6.9-EF1, Pawtucket, USA, 2009.
[25] M.M. Alinia, M. Shakiba, H.R. Habashi, Shear failure characteristics of steel plate
girders, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 1498–1506.
[26] M.L. Patton, K.D. Singh, Numerical modeling of lean duplex stainless steel hollow
columns of square, L-, T-, and +−shaped cross sections under pure axial compres-
sion, Thin-Walled Struct. 53 (2012) 1–8.
[27] L. Wang, B. Young, Design of Cold-formed Steel Built-up Sections with web perfora-
tions subjected to bending, Thin-Walled Struct. 120 (2017) 458–469.
[28] R.G. Dawson, A.C. Walker, Post-buckling of geometrically imperfect plates, J. Struct.
Div. ASCE 98 (1972) 75–94.
[29] L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Numerical modeling of stainless steel structural
components-a consistent approach, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (10) (2004) 1586–1601.
[30] EN 10088-4, Stainless Steels - Part 4: Technical Delivery Conditions for Sheet/Plate
and Strip of Corrosion Resisting Steels for General Purposes, 2009 (CEN.).
[31] R.G. Dawson, A.C. Walker, Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters,
USA, Washington DC, 1973.
[32] L. Gardner, M. Ashraf, Structural design for non-linear metallic materials, Eng. Struct.
28 (6) (2006) 926–934.
[33] W. Ramberg, W.R. Osgood, Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters,
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington DC, USA, 1943 technical
Note No. 902.
[34] E. Riks, An incremental approach to the solution of snapping problems, Int. J. Solids
Struct. 15 (1979) 529–551.
[35] M. Ashraf, L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Compression strength of stainless steel cross-
sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (1–2) (2006) 105–115.
[36] M.F. Hassanein, Finite element investigation of shear failure of lean duplex stainless
steel plate girders, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (8) (2011) 964–973.
[37] R.M. Lawson, S.J. Hicks, Design of composite beams with large web openings. , SCI,
Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire. SL5 7QN UK, 1998, 335.
[38] N.C. Hagen, On the shear capacity of steel plate girders with large openings. , Depart-
ment of Structural Engineering. Faculty of Engineering Science. Norwegian Univer-
sity of science and technology, 2005.