See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257801424

Stiffness requirements for transverse stiffeners of rectangular CFT

compression panels

Article  in  International journal of steel structures · June 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s13296-013-2006-5

CITATIONS READS

0 389

3 authors, including:

Kyoung-Chan Lee Junsuk Kang

Korea Railroad Research Institute Seoul National University
34 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of Next-Generation Smart Railroad Bridge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Junsuk Kang on 15 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Steel Structures
June 2013, Vol 13, No 2, 1-10
DOI 10.1007/s13296-

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Stiffness requirements for transverse stiffeners of

rectangular CFT compression panels
Kyoung Chan Lee1, Junsuk Kang2, and Chai Hong Yoo3*
1
Senior Researcher, Korea Railroad Research Institute, Uiwang, 437-757, Korea,
formerly, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849-5337, USA
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Construction Management and Civil Engineering, Georgia Southern University,
Statesboro, GA 30460-8047, USA
3
Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5337, USA

Abstract

This paper presents a more rational calculation of the minimum stiffness required for transverse stiffeners of stiffened
concrete filled tube (CFT) compression panels. As longitudinal stiffeners are essentially compression members, transverse
stiffeners are required to control the effective length. Both the longitudinal stiffener and transverse stiffener subdivide the
compression panel in a grid pattern so the relatively thin plate can carry the induced compressive load in the most efficient
manner. However, the provisions for the required rigidity of transverse stiffeners in the literature are inconsistent in general and
in particular; do not exist in the case of the concrete filled compression panels. Here, the parameters that govern the behavior
of the transverse stiffeners are identified theoretically using the column buckling approximation. In order to calibrate and
quantify the analytical equations developed, incremental nonlinear analyses were performed on a large number of finite-element
models. The numerically collected data were then used to validate the equations developed.

Keywords: Buckling, CFT, Compression panel, Finite element analysis, Steel plates, Stiffener

1. Introduction strength of such a structural member is the local buckling

Frequently considered in recent years are concrete-
filled columns (fully or partially) for their superior energy
dissipation characteristics during an earthquake as shown
in Fig. 1. These columns will also improve the local
buckling strength of the thin skin two and a half times
over the stiffened columns without the concrete. The thin-
walled panel can only buckle (bulge) out from the concrete
core after it has hardened. The buckling mode shape of a
panel with multiple stiffeners resembles a waffle slab.
The effective boundary condition of each subpanel thus
developed is closer to clamped boundaries on all four
edges rather than simple boundaries, thereby rendering
the plate buckling coefficient equal to 10 instead 4 for a
four-edge simply supported panel (Lee and Yoo, 2012).
One of the limiting factors controlling the ultimate
Note.-Discussion open until November 1, 2013. This manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
October 19, 2012; approved on March 7, 2012.
© KSSC and Springer 2013
*Corresponding author
Tel: +; Fax: +
E-mail:
strength (plate behavior) of the relatively thin steel skin.
Intuitively, an internal stiffening system of longitudinal
and transverse stiffeners is envisioned to improve the
local buckling strength. As the longitudinal stiffeners are
essentially compression members, they need to be braced
by transverse stiffeners in order to control their effective
length. Both the longitudinal and transverse stiffeners
subdivide the compression panel in a grid pattern, allowing
the relatively thin plate to carry the induced compressive
load in the most efficient manner. As it is frequently the
case, the bridge-building industry proceeds to build fairly
large concrete filled rectangular (or occasionally trapezoidal)
tubes for bridge piers and cable-stayed bridge pylons
without the benefit of the established specification
provisions.
The impetus of this study is to analytically investigate
the effects of a number of parameters on the elastic and
inelastic strength of concrete filled stiffened compression
panels with regard to the local buckling strength of the
relatively thin skin. The overall design aspect of composite
bridge pylons is not addressed here at all. The concrete
may or may not be designed to partially carry the
compressive load of a concrete-filled pylon. In order to
ensure the effectiveness of the concrete core, it is
2 Kyoung Chan Lee et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(2), 000-000, 2013
assumed that the concrete is well confined throughout the
load history.
Unfortunately, in recent years some confusion has
arisen due to the different rules adopted in the AASHTO
specifications guiding the design of transverse flange
stiffeners (AASHTO 2002; AASHTO 2012). Articles
10.39.4.4.1 and 10.39.4.4.2 of the AASHTO (2002) and
Article 6.11.11.2 of AASHTO (2012) state that the
transverse stiffeners must be proportioned so that the
moment of inertia of each stiffener about an axis through
the centroid of the section and parallel to its bottom edge
is at least equal to
3 3f A
It = 0.10(n + 1) w ---s ----f
Ea
where w =width of the subpanel between longitudinal
stiffeners or distance from a web to the nearest longitudinal
stiffener; Af =area of the compression flange, including
longitudinal stiffeners; a =spacing of transverse stiffeners;
E =modulus of elasticity; fs =maximum longitudinal
bending stress in the flange of the panels on either side of
the transverse stiffeners; and n =number of longitudinal
stiffeners. As Af and fs are mutually interdependent, there
can be a large number of combinations of these two
parameters that satisfy Eq. (1). Hence, the proper choice
of the parameters is basically an iterative process in
which the designer’s intuition plays a big role.
Similarly, Article 9.2.1(5), Eurocode: EN 1993-1-5
(2006) specifies the minimum required stiffness of the
transverse stiffeners as below:
σ 4
It = -----m-⎛--b-⎞ ⎛1 + w0300
---------u⎞
E π ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ b ⎠
with
σcr, c NEd⎛ 1 1 ⎞
- -------- ----- + -----
σm = ---------
σcr, p b ⎝a1 a2⎠
2 should attain the local buckling strength of the subpanel
π Eemax
in which u = ----- ------------
-γ ≥ 1.0 ; emax is distance from the
fy 300b MI
extreme fiber of the stiffeners to the centroid of the
stiffener; γMI =partial factor; b is length of the transverse
stiffener; a1, a2 =spacing of transverse stiffeners; w0 =the
smallest of a1, a2, or b/300; Ned is the largest design
compressive force of the adjacent panels but not less than
the largest compressive stress times one half the effective
compressive area of the panel including stiffeners; scr,c =
2 the concrete, and the effective boundary condition of the
π EI
-------------s2 =the elastic critical column buckling stress; Asl1 =
Asl1a
the cross-sectional area of the stiffener and the adjacent
2
πE t 2
parts of the plate; σcr,p = -------------------⎛----⎞ the elastic critical
2 ⎝ ⎠
3( 1 – µ ) w
plate buckling stress. A complicated iterative process is
required to apply design Eq. (2) due to parameters like
NEd, Asl1, Is, and emax that are interdependent or directly
coupled with the It.
Article 6.11.11.2 of AASHTO (2012) stipulates that the
required minimum rigidity for the longitudinal stiffeners
should be
3
Is = ψwtf (4)
in which ψ =0.125 k3 for n=1 and ψ =0.120 k3 when n
(1)
equals 2 where k =buckling coefficient, which shall not
exceed 4. The original equations were proposed by
Mattock et al. (1967). The impracticality of the suggested
equations was well documented in references (Yoo et al.,
2001; Yoo, 2001; Choi and Yoo, 2005). Recognizing this
awkwardness, the latest AASHTO specifications (2012)
suggest that the number of longitudinal stiffeners should
preferably be limited to two as a stop-gap measure. A
thorough examination is clearly required in order to
clarify this issue of the minimum stiffness requirement
for flange stiffeners. Recently, Yoo et al. (2001)
numerically identified the minimum stiffness requirement
for the longitudinal flange stiffeners and proposed a new
equation that could replace the current design standard,
Eq. (4):
2 3
Is = 0.3α ntf w (5)
where α =a/w=aspect ratio of a subpanel of a stiffened
(2)
flange, recommended to be taken the next full number.
The term “subpanel” refers to a portion of a steel panel
bounded by adjacent longitudinal stiffeners spaced at w
and their adjacent transverse stiffeners spaced at a as
shown in Fig. 1.
(3)
When a stiffened flange (or compression panel) is
designed, it is clearly desirable that the flange strength
(Yoo et al., 2001). This logic is also extended to the
design of the concrete filled tube (CFT). Lee and Yoo
(2012) derived the minimum required rigidity of the
longitudinal stiffener to accomplish the above objective
as given by
2 3
Ic = 1.5α ntf w (6)
It is noted that the panel can only bulge (buckle) out of
square panel is fixed along all four edges. Hence, the
buckling mode shape of the compression panel resembles
a waffle slab as shown later in a series of figures.
 Stiffness Requirements for Transverse Stiffeners of Rectangular CFT Compression Panels 3

Figure 1. Concrete partial-filled tube and stiffened compression panel (n =3, ni =1, α =5).

The elastic buckling strength of a square subpanel

subjected to a uniformly distributed uniaxial compressive
force is determined by
2
kπ E ⎛ t ⎞ 2
Fcr = ---------------------- ----
12(1 – µ )⎝w⎠
2 the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the stiffener to the
where µ =Poisson’s ratio. The plate buckling coefficient k
in Eq. (7) varies from 4 for a square plate simply
supported on all four edges to 10.07 for a square plate
clamped on all four edges. Levy (1942) is credited to be
the first to come up with the latter value.
Bleich (1952) has shown that the required moment of
inertia of the longitudinal stiffener attached on compression
panels takes the form
3
wt
Ir = ----------------------γ
2 0
(8)
12(1 – µ )
where γ0 =a function of the aspect ratio, α, squared and
(7)
area of the panel. Since a longitudinal stiffener is
essentially a compression member, its flexural rigidity to
resist against buckling should have the length parameter
squared as a prominent variable as pointed out by Bleich
in Eq. (8). It should be noted here that Eq. (4) adopted by
AASHTO does not have the length parameter.
It is noted that the minimum required moment of inertia
of the longitudinal stiffener on the concrete-filled compression
panel by Eq. (6) is five times as great as that given by Eq.
4 Kyoung Chan Lee et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(2), 000-000, 2013
(5). The primary function of a longitudinal stiffener here
is to maintain nodal lines of buckling mode shapes and to
provide stiffnesses for the panels to behave with the boundary
conditions imposed. Hence, the required minimum stiffness
of the longitudinal stiffener to simulate fixed boundaries
given by Eq. (6) is expected to be greater than that given
by Eq. (5) for simply supported panels. The elastic
critical stress of a square plate fixed along all four edges
given by Eq. (7) is 2.5 times greater than that of a simply
supported plate. Structural tees are preferred for
longitudinal stiffeners because a tee provides a high ratio
of stiffness to cross-sectional area (C6.11.11.2, AASHTO
2012). Tees also provide a high resistance against torsion.
However, flat bars are envisioned to be used here as
longitudinal stiffeners in the CFT as they are embedded
into concrete. Therefore, torsional buckling and/or local
buckling of these flat bars are not likely to occur, and the
unit cost of flat bars is likely to be less than that of tees.
Transverse stiffeners used as bracing members for
longitudinal stiffeners should have sufficient bending stiffness
to effectively restrain the longitudinal stiffeners. This
requirement is equally applicable to both the modeling
concepts used to describe the behavior of the longitudinal
stiffeners, namely the “column behavior” approach adopted
in Eurocode (2006) and the “plate behavior” approach
adopted in AASHTO, as illustrated by Yoo et al. (2001).
As the aspect ratio of the subpanel is one of the most
influential parameters determining the minimum required
stiffness of the longitudinal stiffener, it should also be an
equally important parameter defining the required strength
and spacing of adjacent transverse flange stiffeners. However,
as mentioned earlier, there are no reliable design guides
available that rationally define the minimum stiffness
requirement and the spacing of transverse stiffeners,
particularly for the “plate behavior” approach adopted in
AASHTO. It is, therefore, the objective of the present
study to investigate the role of transverse stiffeners in the
load carrying mechanics of longitudinally and transversely
stiffened concrete-filled compression panels both analytically
and numerically. For this study, a series of nonlinear
incremental analyses was performed to establish the
minimum required rigidity for the transverse stiffeners.
The data collected from the large number of analyses
encompassing a wide spectrum of parameters were
reduced by a regression process to extract analytical
equations. The validity of the proposed equations was
then tested using the results of the parametric study for
the minimum stiffness requirement of transverse stiffeners.
Table 1. Values of the Factor β
ni 1 2 3 4
Number of Spans 2 3 4 5
β 2.000 3.000 3.412
2. Column Buckling Approximation
As the mechanics of force transfer between the
stiffeners and a compression panel that is stiffened both
longitudinally and transversely is extremely complex, two
concepts of modeling have emerged, namely the “column
behavior” and “plate behavior” approaches alluded to
earlier. The early design philosophy for stiffened bottom
flanges in compression of box-girder bridges that prevailed
in European countries was primarily based on “column
behavior,” in which the compression flange is believed to
behave essentially as a column. In both the “column
behavior” and “plate behavior” concepts, however, the
role of a transverse stiffener is assumed to be similar to
that of the lateral bracing of a laterally braced column
system.
The buckling load of a longitudinal stiffener, Pcr, of the
concrete-filled tube is
2
10.07π EA1⎛ tf ⎞ 2
Pcr = Fcr ⋅ Al = ---------------------------
- ----
2 ⎝ ⎠
(9)
12(1 – µ ) w
where Al is the cross-sectional area of the longitudinal
stiffener. Based on the equilibrium requirements from the
system of longitudinal stiffeners and the transverse
stiffener, Fig. 1, the required stiffness of the transverse
stiffener, kt, is expressed as (Timoshenko and Gere 1961;
Salmon and Johnson 1996; Yoo 2011)
βP
kt = ---------cr- (10)
a
where β is a coefficient that takes into account the effect
of the span number partitioned by the transverse
stiffeners. The β values corresponding to the number of
spans are given in Table 1, in which ni is the number of
transverse stiffeners. After substituting Eq. (9) into Eq.
(10), the required stiffness kt can be rearranged as
2
β 10.07π EA-l⎛ tf ⎞ 2
kt = ⎛---⎞ --------------------------
---- (11)
⎝α⎠ 2 ⎝ ⎠
12(1 – µ ) w
An isolated transverse stiffener is considered to behave
as a both-end simply supported beam of length b. If a
restraining force of Q is assumed at each interface
between the longitudinal stiffener and the transverse
stiffener, the maximum deflection of the transverse
stiffener at the interface is approximated to be (Choi et
5 6 8 10
6 7 9 11
3.623 3.731 3.802 3.876 3.922
 Stiffness Requirements for Transverse Stiffeners of Rectangular CFT Compression Panels 5

al., 2007) design parameters on the required moment of inertia, It.

Note that Eq. (17) includes a factor that describes the
3
Qb uncertainty due to any simplifying approximation, including
∆ = --------- (12)
γEIt the validity of the simply supported boundary condition
assumed for the transverse stiffener. This uncertainty is
where It is the moment of inertia of the transverse reflected by the coefficient, η. In order to calibrate and
stiffener. The value of γ can be shown to be 48, 32.4, 20, verify Eq. (17), a series of parametric studies was
16, 13, and 11.4 for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 equally spaced performed through numerical analyses. The correlation
longitudinal stiffeners, respectively, within b. It is noted coefficient from regression analysis for Eq. (17) was
that in the derivation of the β value (Timoshenko and found to be greater than 0.9 using the uncertainty factor,
Gere 1961; Salmon and Johnson 1996; Yoo and Lee 2011), η, to be equal to one.
only rigid body equilibrium is considered conservatively
ignoring the small strain energy stored into the bent 3. Numerical Analysis
compression members. Therefore, the boundary conditions
of the compression member do not play a role in the 3.1. Finite element modeling
equilibrium equation. Timoshenko and Gere (1961) and Typical walls of concrete filled tube panels in compression,
Yoo and Lee (2011) show the reasonable nature of such stiffened with longitudinal and transverse stiffeners, were
conservative modeling indicating only a small fraction of modeled using a commercial finite-element code, ABAQUS
additional load to be carried by the bracing members. (2008). The model was assumed to be subjected to a
Taking the required stiffness parameter, kt, for the uniform compressive stress. A concentrated load was
idealized system without considering initial imperfections, applied at each node on the loaded edges of the panel and
as there is already sufficient conservatism built into the stiffeners to simulate a uniform stress distribution. Although
model, the required stiffness for the transverse stiffener there are a variety of finite elements available in
can be expressed as ABAQUS, only the 4-node plate/shell element, S4, is
used to represent the panels and longitudinal stiffeners
Q γEI-t because of its simple yet numerically stable performance.
kt = ---- = -------- (13)
∆ b3 A previous series of analytical investigations on steel
plate buckling (Yoo et al., 2001; Lee and Yoo, 1999)
The required stiffness for the transverse stiffener to showed that a minimum of four square 4-node shell
restrain the out-of-plane deflection is determined from elements were sufficient to model a side of a box tube. In
Eqs. (11) and (13), as below: order to further improve the accuracy of the numerical
solution, each subpanel of the stiffened flange specimens
γEIt ⎛ β ⎞ 10.07π2EAl⎛ tf ⎞ 2 in the present study was divided into 20 square elements.
kt = --------
- ≥ --- --------------------------- ---- (14)
b ⎝α⎠ 12(1 – µ2) ⎝w⎠
3 For simplicity, transverse stiffeners were modeled by a
beam element, B21. A convergence analysis indicated
Therefore, the required minimum moment of inertia of that this mesh refinement yields the critical stress within
a transverse stiffener, It, is 0.5%.
2 3
π β-⎞ 10.07b Al ⎛ t f ⎞ 2
It ≥ ⎛-------
3.2. Elastic buckling
----------------------
- ---- (15)
⎝ γa ⎠ 2 ⎝ ⎠
12(1 – µ ) w The constitutive relationship of the steel is assumed to
be linearly elastic and perfectly plastic. The concrete core
Substituting a =αw and b =(n+1) w into Eq. (15) yields is modeled with a series of springs placed at each node
point capable of resisting only compression. The typical
2
⎧ 10.07A [ ( n + 1 )w ]
3
t 2 ⎫ 10.07π2β(n + 1)3(A t2 )
π β - ------------------------------------------ - ⎛----f ⎞ ⎬ = ---------------------------------------------------
l f stress-strain curve of the spring is shown in Fig. 2. This
-
It ≥ ------------- ⎨
l
γ(αw) ⎩ 2 ⎝ w ⎭ ⎠ 12(αγ)(1 – µ )
2 curve is adopted from BS EN 1992-1-1 (2004). The
12(1 – µ )
numerical values incorporated into the curve are as
(16)
follows: characteristic compressive cylinder strength at
In general, the cross-sectional area of longitudinal 28 days (fck) is 20 MPa (2.9 ksi); mean value of concrete
stiffeners ranges from 0.1 to 0.15 of the subpanel area, cylinder compressive strength, peak stress ( fcm =fck +MPa)
wtf . Conservatively substituting 0.2 wtf for Al, Eq. (16) is 28 MPa (4 ksi); secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
can be simplified to (Ecm) is 28,848 MPa (4,183 ksi); maximum linear stress
(0.4 fcm) is 11.2 MPa (1.6 ksi); corresponding strain (Ecm/
2 3 3
ηπ β(n + 1) wtf (0.4 fcm)) is 0.000388; compressive strain in the concrete
It ≥ ------------------------------------
2
- (17)
6αγ(1 – µ ) at the peak stress (εc1) is 0.002; and ultimate concrete
strain (εcu) is 0.003. The stress-strain relationship on the
Eq. (17) shows the effect of each of the influential compression side is
6 Kyoung Chan Lee et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(2), 000-000, 2013
Figure 2. Stress-strain curve of nonlinear spring representing
filled-in concrete (1 ksi=6.895 MPa).
2
σ k'η – η
-----c- = -------------------------
fcm 1 + (k' – 2)η
where σc =compressive stress in the concrete; εc =
compressive strain in the concrete; η =εc /εc1; and k' =
1.05Ecmεc1/fcm.
Since an eigenvalue routine cannot be applied to the
model in the elastic buckling range because of the
nonlinear nature of the constitutive relationship of the
concrete shown in Fig. 2, the elastic analysis had to be
carried out on the incremental nonlinear analysis technique.
As it will be shown later, there were significant
postbuckling strengths involved, particularly in the panels
with high slendernesses.
3.3. Incremental nonlinear analysis
In order to validate the reliability of Eq. (17) in the
inelastic buckling range, a series of incremental nonlinear
analyses was performed on the longitudinally and transversely
stiffened panel models. The initial geometric imperfections
applied to the incremental analyses were determined by
scaling the elastic buckling mode shapes using the
maximum tolerance criteria for the fabrication specified
in the current authorized specifications. The maximum
tolerance for the panel flatness deviation, ∆, due to
welding was therefore taken to be w/100 from Article 3.5
of the Bridge Welding Code (2010).
In a series of hypothetical models, some of the
parameters are fixed such that E =200 GPa (29,000 ksi),
Fy =345 MPa (50 ksi), w =2540 mm (100 in.), tf =31.8
mm (1.25 in.). Hence, the slenderness ratio, w/tf , is set to
be 80 and the initial imperfection is also set to be 25.4
mm (1 in.) (∆ =w/100). The thickness of the stiffeners is
also set equal to 31.8 mm (1.25 in.). The lengths of the
longitudinal stiffener, a, are 5,080 mm (200 in.), 7,620
mm (300 in.), and 12,700 mm (500 in.). The aspect ratios
taken are 2, 3, and 5 and the number of longitudinal
stiffeners, n, and the number of transverse stiffeners, ni,
run is 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Figure 3. Ultimate stress of stiffened CFT vs. slenderness
ratio (Fy =345 MPa, 1 ksi=6.895 MPa.
(18)
3.4. Critical stress in the inelastic zone
It has been shown (Yoo et al., 2001; Yoo, 2001; Choi
and Yoo, 2005; Choi et al., 2007) that a CRC (1960) type
parabolic formula represents the critical stress of the
compression subpanels better than that given in AASHTO
(2002; 2012) in the inelastic range, particularly with
initial imperfections. The parabolic equation is
2Frc 2
-(F – Frc)⎛w
Fcr = Fy – ---------- ----⎞ (19)
2 y ⎝ tf ⎠
Fy C c
If the intensity of the residual stress, Frc, is arbitrarily
taken to be 0.5Fy (similar to the current AASHTO
provision for compression members), Eq. (19) reduces to
1 w 2
Fcr = Fy 1 – --------2-⎛----⎞ (20)
⎝ ⎠
2Cc tf
where Cc is the slenderness ratio taken from Eq. (7) with
k =10 corresponding to Fcr =Fy/2, which is
2
5π E -
Cc = ------------------------ (21)
2
3(1 – µ )Fy
3.5. Nonlinear analysis results
Figure 3 shows the critical stress of the concrete filled
compression panels with all four sides clamped. As it can
be seen from the figure, the effect of initial imperfections
is most pronounced in the inelastic buckling zone with
slenderness ratios between 40 and 80. As it can be seen
from Fig. 3, the maximum reduction of the critical stress
observed is up to 18 percent due to an initial imperfection,
∆ =w/100, from that of the relatively straight panel with
∆ =w/10,000. It has been reported (Yoo et al., 2001; Yoo,
2001; Choi and Yoo, 2005) that the reduction of the
critical stress is up to 14 percent due to a similar initial
imperfection differential of stiffened panels with all four
 Stiffness Requirements for Transverse Stiffeners of Rectangular CFT Compression Panels 7

Table 2. Ultimate stresses of CFT compression panels

No. of stiffeners Moment of inertia of stiffener
α Fcr (MPa) by FEM Ratio (%) to Eq. (20)
Long. n Trans. ni Ic (×10 mm4) Eq. (6)
8
It (×108 mm4) Eq. (16)
1 1 4.878 0.175 2 222.3 93
1 1 10.975 0.154 3 224.5 94
1 1 30.486 0.129 5 225.1 94
1 2 4.878 0.262 2 221.2 92
1 2 10.975 0.229 3 217.3 91
1 2 30.486 0.194 5 224.5 94
1 3 4.878 0.300 2 220.1 92
1 3 10.975 0.262 3 220.1 92
1 3 30.486 0.221 5 225.6 94
2 1 6.898 0.989 2 223.9 93
2 1 15.521 0.864 3 226.7 95
2 1 43.113 0.729 5 230.0 96
2 2 6.898 1.484 2 223.9 93
2 2 15.521 1.296 3 221.7 93
2 2 43.113 1.093 5 228.4 95
2 3 6.898 1.682 2 223.4 93
2 3 15.521 1.469 3 225.6 94
2 3 43.113 1.239 5 230.0 96
3 1 8.448 4.037 2 226.7 95
3 1 52.803 2.997 5 233.3 97
3 2 8.448 6.035 2 226.2 94
3 2 52.803 4.579 5 231.7 97

sides simply supported.
Table 2 summarizes the selected analysis results with
panels having a slenderness ratio equal to 80. According
to Eq. (20), the critical stress is computed to be 239.2
MPa (34.7 ksi). Figure 4 shows the convergence trends of
selected models. As expected the strength of the models
that have lower stiffnesses do not attain the ultimate stress
predicted by Eq. (20). At the same time, they do not show
any further increase in strength beyond that expected
when the stiffnesses are increased. This exhibits the nature
of the transverse stiffener being a secondary bracing
member.
Figure 5 shows pictorially the waffle slab type buckled
shape of the concrete filled compression panel. When the
stiffness of the transverse stiffener is not sufficiently strong,
it fails to control the effective length of the longitudinal
stiffener. When this occurs, a part or the entire panel
buckles out from the concrete face at a substantially
lower load. Examination of Figs. 4 and 5 reveals that the
η factor should be increased at least to 1.5 in order to
ensure the buckling mode as assumed although the
ultimate stresses stabilize earlier as given in Table 2. It is
noted that there is a considerable scatter of data in Fig. 4
depending on the α values and the buckling modes shown
on the left-hand side column are quite slowly converging
to the mode shapes listed on the right-hand side column
of Fig. 5. The uncertainty factor of 1.5 is strictly
judgmental. Substituting η =1.5 and µ =0.3 in Eq. (17)
and taking only the full number conservatively in the
denominator yields
2 3 3
π β(n + 1) wt
It ≥ ---------------------------------f (22)
3αγ
Eq. (22) is identical to that derived by Choi et al.
(2007). Since the moment of inertia of the transverse
stiffener is proportional to the cube of the width of the
rectangular bar here, only 14.5% increase of the width of
the bar will provide a 50% increase of the stiffener. It is
recommended that flat rectangular bars be used for both
the longitudinal and transverse stiffeners as these members
are embedded into the concrete, there is no likelihood of
local buckling. A schematic diagram for this concept is
given in Fig. 1.
Figure 6 shows the stress contour of a system of two
longitudinal (n =2) and two transverse (ni =2) stiffeners.
The aspect ratio of the subpanel is three (α =3). Hence, a
total of nine buckling mode shapes was developed in the
longitudinal direction with clamped boundary conditions
on all four edges. The longitudinal compressive stress
intensity is used to generate the contour diagram. The
material properties and dimensions of the model shown in
Fig. 6 are: E =200 GPa (29,000 ksi); Fy =345 MPa (50
ksi); w =2,540 mm (100 in.); t =31.8 mm (1.25 in.); the
8 Kyoung Chan Lee et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(2), 000-000, 2013
Figure 4. Convergence trend.
initial imperfection, ∆ =w/100=25.4 mm (1 in.); and the
width of the longitudinal stiffener is 527.3 mm (20.76 in.)
to yield the minimum value required by Eq. (6). The
moment of inertia of the transverse stiffener is 2.593×10−4
m4 (622.8 in.4) for the beam element used in the model.
Hence, the slenderness ratio, w/t, becomes 80 (less than
Cc =102.4, Eq. (21) warranting inelastic buckling. The
two transverse stiffeners were removed for clarity. Faint
traces of the transverse stiffeners are visible to the one-
third points of the system.
3.6. Effects of residual stress
The effects of residual stress resulting from the welding
practice were examined thoroughly in two previous
studies (Lee and Yoo, 2012; Choi and Yoo, 2005). Even
when the maximum intensity of the tensile residual stress
was assumed equal to the yield stress of the base metal,
the effect of the residual stress was less than 5% for all
inelastic buckling ranges. It became only noticeable (up
to 15%) for the extremely thin panel with a width-to-
thickness ratio well over 100. As there exists a substantial
postbuckling strength for the thin panel subjected to
elastic buckling as shown in Fig. 3, however, this reduction
in the postbuckling strength is non-consequential. In
general, the postbuckling strength is not recognized in the
bridge design due to the potential adverse effect of
deflection induced fatigue.
4. Summary and Concluding Remarks
This study has examined the minimum required stiffness
of the transverse flange stiffeners on a rigorous theoretical
basis augmented by a series of numerical analyses. For
the design of longitudinally and transversely stiffened
compression flanges, AASHTO specifications currently
suggest either the use of Eq. (1) or simply utilizing the
same size as the longitudinal stiffeners, which appear to
lack any theoretical foundation. The present study has
shown that the AASHTO design provisions for transverse
stiffeners does not adequately estimate the minimum
required stiffness. In this study, which approximated the
behavior of the longitudinal stiffener to buckling of a
 Stiffness Requirements for Transverse Stiffeners of Rectangular CFT Compression Panels 9

Figure 5. Buckled shape at critical load.

Figure 6. Stress contours (1 ksi=6.895 MPa).

multiply braced column by transverse stiffeners, the design or regression equation for the minimum required rigidity.
parameters that govern the behavior of the transverse As a result, Eq. (22) is hereby proposed as offering a
stiffeners were identified theoretically. Extensive numerical simple and rational way to determine the minimum
studies were then conducted in order to extract a numerical stiffness required for transverse flange stiffeners.
 10 Kyoung Chan Lee et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 13(2), 000-000, 2013
The incremental nonlinear analysis results verified that
the proposed equations can be extended to the inelastic
buckling range. As demonstrated in a series of previous
studies, the critical stress in the inelastic range is better
computed using a CRC (1960) type parabolic formula,
Eq. (20). The current AASHTO provisions of the ultimate
stresses of the longitudinally and transversely stiffened
compression panel do not reflect the detrimental effect of
the initial imperfection that is permitted by the Bridge
Welding Code (2010). The current study showed that the
ultimate stress of the concrete filled compression panel
could be decreased as much as 18 percent of that of the
straight panel, particularly for the width-to-thickness ratio
of 40-80. With the successful demonstration of the
applicability of Eq. (22) for the elastic buckling, inelastic
transition, and yield zones, an optimal transverse stiffener
design process can be applied, and transversely stiffened
flanges can be designed with confidence.
References
Lee, K. C. and Yoo, C. H. (2012). “Longitudinal stiffeners in
concrete-filled tubes.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 138(6), pp. 753-758.
AASHTO (2002). Standard specifications for highway
bridges. 17th Ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO (2012). AASHTO-LRFD bridge design specifications.
6th Ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC.
BS EN 1993-1-5 (2006). Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures. British Standard Institute, London, UK.
Mattock, A. H. et al. (1967). Criteria for design of steel
concrete composite box girder highway
Bridges. Appendix B, Report of the Committee
(unpublished).
View publication stats
Yoo, C. H., Choi, B. H., and Ford, E. M. (2001). “Stiffness
requirements for longitudinally stiffened box-girder
flanges.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
127(6), pp. 705-711.
Yoo, C. H. (2001). “Design of longitudinal stiffeners on box
girder flanges.” International Journal of Steel Structures,
1(1), pp. 15-23.
Choi, B. H. and Yoo, C. H. (2005). “Strength of stiffened
flanges in horizontally curved box girders.” Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 131(2), pp. 167-176.
Levy, S. (1942). Bending of Rectangular Plates with Large
Deflections. NACA Technical Report No. 737,
Washington, DC.
Bleich, F. (1952). Buckling strength of metal structures.
McGraw-Hill, NY.
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory of elastic
stability. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, NY.
Salmon, C. G. and Johnson, E. J. (1996). Steel structures:
Design and behavior, 4th ed., HarperCollins, NY.
Yoo, C. H. and Lee, S. C. (2011). Stability of Structures:
Principles and Applications. Elsevier, Burlington, MA.
Choi, B. H., Kang, Y. J., and Yoo, C. H. (2007). “Stiffness
requirements for transverse stiffeners of compression
panels.” Engineering Structures, 29, pp. 2087-2096.
ABAQUS (2008). ABAQUS User’s manual, ABAQUS Inc.,
Pawtucket, RI.
Lee, S. C. and Yoo, C. H. (1999). “Strength of curved I-
girder web panels under pure shear.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 125(8), pp. 847-
853.
BS EN 1992-1-1 (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures, British Standard Institute, London, UK.
Bridge Welding Code (2010). ANSI/AASHTO/AWS D1.5-
2010. A joint publication of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials and the
American Welding Society, Washington, DC.
CRC (1960). Guide to design criteria for metal compression
members. 2nd Ed., Column Research Council, Wiley, NY.