Unsymmetrical Plate Girders - Digital Scholarshipdigital.lib.lehigh.edu/fritz/pdf/328_6.pdfSTATIC...

Unsymmetrical Plate Girders

STATIC TESTSON UNSYMMETRICAL

PLATE GIRDERSMAIN TEST SERIES

byWolfgang Schueller

Alexis Ostapenko

" September 1968

Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 328.6

STATIC TESTS ON

UNSYMMETRICAL PLATE GIRDERS

MAIN TEST SERIES

by

Wolfgang Schueller

Alexis Ostapenko

This work was conducted as part of theproject Unsymmetrical Plate Girders, sponsoredby the American Iron and Steel Institute, thePennsylvania Department of Highways, and theWelding Research Council. The opinions,findings and c9nclusions expressed in thisreport are those of the authors, and notnecessarily those of the sponsors.

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryDepartment of Civil Engineering

Lehigh UniversityBethlehem, Pennsylvania

September 1968

Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 328.6

328 .. 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

1 . INTRODUcrION

2 . TEST PROGRAM

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Test Specimens

2.-2.1 Introduction

2.2.2 Girder Specimens

2.2.3 Material Properties

2.3 Reference Loads

2.4 Instrumentation

2.4.1 Vertical Deflections

2.4.2 Diagonal Panel Deformations

2.4.3 Lateral Web DeflectionS

2.4.4 Strain Measurements

2.~ Test Set-Up

3. TEST PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

3.1 Introduction

3.2 General Girder Behavior--Load vs. VerticalDeflection

3.3 Strain Distribution

3.4 Web Deflections

3.5 Diagonal Panel Deformations

3.6 Behavior of Individual Panels and Modesof Failure

3.6.1 Test UG4.3

3.6.2 Test UG4.4

3.6.3 Test UG4.1

3.6.4 Test UG4.6

3.6.5 Test UG4.2

3.6.6 Test UG4.5

-i

iii

1

3

3

4

4

5

7

8

8

8

9

9

10

11

12

12

13

14

15

15

16

16

18

19

21

22

24

328 ..6

TABLE OF CONTENTS (ContTd)

3.6 Behavior of Individual Panels and Modesof Failure

3.6.7 Test UG5.3

3.6.8 Test UG5.4

3.6.9 Test UG5.1

3.6.10 Test UG5.2

3.6.11 Test UG5.6

3.6.12 Test UGS.5

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5 . NOMENCLATURE

6. TABLES AND FIGUREp

7 . REFERENCES

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

-ii

24

25

26

27

27

28

29

31

33

98

99

328.6

ABSTRACT

-iii

Two unsymmetrical plate girders made of A36 steel were tested

under statically applied loading. Each girder had six panels and

the geometry and the panel arrangement of both girder specimens were

identical except that one specimen had a longitudin~l stiffener.

The centroidal axis was at approximately one-third of the girder

depth with one flange having twice the cross-sectional area of the

other flange. Both girders had a length of 37 ft. - 10 in. and a

web depth of 48 inches. For one half of the girder length a 1/8 in.

web plate was used, for the other half a 3/16 in. web plate. The

resulting web slenderness ratios were 269 and 414. The panel aspect

ratios were: 0.833, 1.15, 1.46 and 1.77.

Girder specimens, the test set-up, the testing procedure and

the results are desqribed and discussed.

The primary objectives of the tests were: verification of a

new theory developed for the determination of the ultimate load of

unsymmetrical plate girders (not described), and investigation of

the behavior of the girder components under an increasing load. The

layout and size of the girder elements were selected in such a way

as to define the moment-shear interaction curve in .the region of high

moment and high shear. Only the end panels of the girder were

subjected primarily to shear.

328.6 -iv

Correlation between the test results and the theory was with

in 5 percent. A comparison of the ultimate loads for the trans

versely and longitudinally stiffened panels of the two girders

(which were otherwise identical in geometry) shows that the intro

duction of a longitudinal stiffener into panels subjected to

combined action of high moment and high shear resulted in an

increase in strength of approximately 44 percent. For panels

subjected primarily to shear the increase of strength was 13

and 20 percent.

328.6 -1

1. INTRODUCTION

The design of steel plate girders was first based on the

theore'tical web buckling strength. However , it has been shown by

a research team at Lehigh University that there is no consistent

relationship between the web buckling strength and the ultimate

strength of a girder.(l-4) The current American specification for

transversely stiffened girders for buildings is based on these

findings. (9) Research has been also conducted on the contribution

of longitudinal stiffeners to the static load-carrying capacity of

plate girders.(6,7)

However, present design specifications do not take into consi

deration the behavior or strength of plate girders which are un

symmetrical with respect to the horizontal axis. In bridge con

struction, such an unsymmetrical condition is encountered in the

orthotropic deck or the composite deck systems. To consider these

cases as symmetrical, as is the common practice now, may 'be quite

unrealistic. For simple span beams, this approach would be too

conservative since the web plate will be primarily in tension and

its buckling strength as well as the ultimate strength will be

significantly increased. On the other hand, for continuous beams

at the points of intermediate supports, a greater portion of the

web will be under compression and it will be subjected to a

combined action of shear and bending. For this case the symmetrical

de~ign approach may become unconservative.

328.6 -2

In 1966 a new research project was started at Lehigh University

with the general objective of determining the behavior of unsym

metrical plate girders and of investigating their static ultimate

strength. The experimental phase of this research consisted of two

series of tests: the pilot tests and the main tests. The purpose

of the pilot tests was to give initial information on the behavior

of unsymmetrical girders for the development of a theoretical

approach. (8) The main tests are described in this report. Prepar-

ation for the tests, the testing itself, and a discussion of the

test results are presented. A detailed evaluation of the test data

and the results of the theoretical study will be reported separately

later.

328.6 -3

2 • TEST PROGRAM

2.1 Introduction

The primary objective of the main tests was to verify the

correctness of the newly developed theory for the ultimate

strength of unsymmetrical plate girders.

Two 37 ft.-lO in. long and 48 inch deep girders were tested in

this series. The A36 steel was used. One of the girders had longi

tudinal stiffeners in addltion to the transverse stiffeners. A

variety of panel sizes was chosen for the girders in order to check

the theory for different panel aspect ratios, a. AlSO, two web

slenderness ratios were selected--a high value of S = 414 and an

average value of ~ = 269. The centroidal axis was shifted by about

1/6 of the girder depth due to the unequal areas of the flanges.

Figure 1 shows on a moment-shear interaction curve the girder

test results which have been already obtained in other projects at

Lehigh University. The shear, normalized by the ultimate panel

shear, is plotted on the ordinate and the moment, divided by the

ultlmate panel moment, is given on the abscissa. In the portion

Ql to Q2 the interaction is such that the web will fail, from Q2 to

Q3 the flange will fail. As can be seen from the ~igure, the regions

of pure shear, pure moment, and high shear and low moment are covered

quite well.* Only the region of high moment and high shear has not

been adequately investigated. For this region previous investi-

*Since symmetrical girders are considered to be a special case ofunsymmetrical girders, experimental results found for symmetricalgirders were also included in this plot.

328.6 -4

gators have assumed some relatively arbitrary functions to define

the continuous shape of the interaction curve.(1-3) The purpose of

the main test series was to investigate this region.

2.2 Test Specimens

2.2.1 Introduction

The original intention was to have homogeneous girders with

the same yield stress of about 36 ksi in all components. However,

for the girders tested in the main test series, it was reasonable

to exp~ct that the yield stress of the component parts would be

different since the webs were very thin and the flanges relatively

thick.* This fact was found to be true for girders previously

tested at Fritz Engineering Laboratory. The actual strength of a

supposedly A36 ksi steel was in the range of 27 ksi to 48 ksi. It

can be seen in Table 1, for example, that a 12 in. x 1.378 in.

flange(5) had a yield stress of 27.2 ksi; whereas, a 50 in. x .195

in. web(6) had a yield stress of 48.6 ksi.

To control this undesirable effect, the material was not

ordered from the mill, but selected in the stock yard. A portable

Rockwell Hardness Tester** was used to match yield stresses. Still,

the 1/8 inch web turned out to have a higher yield stress of 55.5

ksi than the anticipated 36 ksi.

* Girders used in practice are in general bigger than the testspecimens. Hence, because of the larger sizes of the girdercomponents the yield stress of the different girder parts isprobably more uniform.

**Manufactured by Riehle, Model PHT-2.

328.6 -5

Because it was undesirable to fail more than one panel per

test, the girders were designed so that the failure loads were

markedly different for each panel. Since the yield stress of the

girder components was not known initially, a most probably combin

ation of the yield stresses in the flanges and the web was selected

and ~he design was then checked for other possible yield stress

combinations.

2.2.2 Girder Specimens

Of the two girders te~ted, ~ne girder had transverse stiffeners,

the other had transverse as well as longitudinal stiffeners (Fig. 2).

The sizes of the girder elements, which will be given below, are

nominal sizes. The actual sizes are discussed in Article 2.2.3.

Both girders had the same lengths and panel arrangements. The length

was 37 ft.-10 in. and th~ web height 48 in. (Fig. 3). The aspect

ratios, defined as the ratio of the panel length to the panel depth,

were a = 1.77, 1 ..46, 1.15 and 0.833. One half of each girder had a

1/8 in. thick web and the other half had a 3/16 in. web. The result

ing slenderness ratios were S = 414 and 269. The small flange was

10 in. x 3/4 in. and the large flange 13 in. x 1 3/8 in. The longi

tudinally stiffened girder had the intermediate stiffeners only on

one side of the web, on the other side of the web, ~mall 12 in. x 4

in. x 3/4 in. plates were placed against top and bottom flanges (at

the points where diagonal braces were used) to prevent local defor

mations. The bearing stiffeners (4 in. x 3/4 in.) at the load and

at the two end supports were on both sides of the web. The size of

the horizontal stiffener was 3'in. x 3/4 in. placed on both sides of

the web at 12~ in. from the top flange.

328.6 -6

The load was applied to both girders at mid-span as shown in

Fig. 9. The shear and moment diagrams corresponding to this load

are also shown in the figure. It can be seen that the outer panels

were acted upon by high shear and low moment, and that the central

panels were acted upon by high shear and high moment. The point of

failure for each panel was plotted on an average interaction curve

shown in Fig. 10. The location of the failure points on the inter

action curve defines quite well the portion of high moment and high

shear. Actually, every panel has its own interaction curve with

its failure point located on the curve. However, for reasons of

simplification, the panel failure loads in Fig. 10 were shown all

together on one curve.

On purpose, three panels were designed with the same aspect

ratio, ~ = 1.77. The two outer shear panels were planned to give

an indication of the influence of the web thickness on the capacity

of the panels through direct comparison of the results. Comparison

of the outer shear panel with the central panel would show the

influence of the flexural stresses on the shear capacity. Another

interesting comparison was to be obtained by having the two central

panels designed for essentially the same load: one panel with a

thick web and a wide transverse stiffener spacing, the other panel

with a thin web and a close transverse stiffener spacing.

The reason for selecting the same geometry for both girders was

not only an economical consideration but, more importantly, the test

results from both girders could be directly compared and the impor

tance of the longitudinal stiffener could be evaluated.

328.6 -7

2.2.3 Material Properties

The actual dimensions of the component plates of the test

specimens (Table 2) were obtained from measurements on coupon

plates cut from the various plates before fabrication. Figure 4

shows the typical location of these coupon plates with respect to

the girders. The location of the coupon plates was a function of the

importance of the strength in the respective area. Thus, for the

web as shear carrier, the coupon plates were cut from the end,and

for the flanges, the COupoTI.plates were cut closer to the center of

the girder. The points on the coupon plates where the width and

thickness were measured are shown in Fig. 5. These measurements

were averaged and tabulated in Table 2.

Tensile coupons were cut from each of the coupon plates as

shown in Fig. 6. For each web coupon plate, three tensile specimens

were cut parallel to the direction of rolling and two perpendicular.

Figure 7 shows the shape and dimensions of the tensile specimens.

For the flanges an 8-inch gage length was used and for the webs a

4-inch gage length. Although ASTM specifies a gage length of 2

inches for sheet metal, a gage length of 4 in. was used in order to

get more conformity between specimens from different parts of the

girders.

Results of the tensile tests are shown in Tables 3 and 4. In

each case they represent average value~ from the tested tensile

specimens. The typical stress-strain diagrams of the flange and

web material are shown in Fig. 8. Although the flange shows three

328.6 -8

distinct portions of elastic, plastic)and strain-hardening ranges,

the web shows no separate flat yield and strain hardening portions.

The static yield stress was found by the intersection of two

straight lines. One line is drawn parallel to the elastic part of

the stress strain curve; the other line connects the three kink

points, which were found by stopping the machine during a tensile

test and allowing the load to settle to a static value.

The percentile elongation, the percentile reduction in cross

sectional area, and the ultimate strength were obtained from the

tensile tests and are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The chemical compos

ition of the plates as listed in the mill test reports is also shown.

2.3 Reference Loads

The theoretically predicted shear force, Vth , was used as ref

erence load. It is based on the theory for unsymmetrical plate

girders, which is being developed by Chingmiin Chern. The ratio of

the experimentally obtained shear force and the theoretical shear force

indicates the accuracy of the newly developed theory. The loads and

the accuracy for each test are given in Table 4. It is seen that the

error is in most cases within 5 per cent.

2.4 Instrumentation

2.4.1 Vertical Deflection

The locations for the readings of the vertical deflection of the

girder were as indicated in Fig. 23. Ames dial gages with the finest

division of one thousandth of an inch were used. The gages were

placed in such a way as to measure the displacement of the test panel

328.6 -9

relative to the displacements of the neighboring panels. Thus,

deflection of the panels adjacent to the test panel had to be

recorded. The deflection at the center line of the girder (under

neath the load) was used as an indication of the overall behavior of

the girder under load.

The same approach as described above was used for the deflec

tion readings of the longitudinally stiffened girder.

2.4.2 Diagonal Panel Deformations

Diagonal deformations of every tested panel wer~ measured in an

arrangement shown in Figs. 23 and 24. In Fig. 25 the details of the

attachment are indicated. A dial gage was fastened to a 1/8 inch

thick and l~ inch wide plate bent in the shape shown and clamped to

the vertical stiffener. A wire was fastened to the extension arm of

the dial gage at one end and to another plate at the other end.

For the longitudinally stiffened girder, the diagonal defor

mations were also measured for every test panel. However, in this

case,the diagonal deformations of the lower subpanel were also

recorded as shown in Fig. 24.

2.4.3 Lateral Web Deflections

The stations at which lateral deflection readiDgs were taken are

shown in Fig. 44. Every panel has its own coordinate system. The

x-coordinates for the different stations are given in the table of

Fig. 44. An aluminum dial rig was used to measure the lateral

deflection of the web. It is shown in Fig. 45. The dial rig consists

of a channel which is held on the top flange by a magnet and on the

328.6 -10

bottom flange by a bar. Fastened to the channel are angles which

support the dial gages at their ends. The advantage of this

aluminum rig against the one used by previous girder projects lies

in the small weight and in the flexibility of usage. The locations

of the dials or y-stations for the different tests. are given in

Fig. 45.

After each set of test readings reference readings were taken

to check against accidental movement of the dia~ gages.

2.4.4 Strain Measurements

Electrical resistance strain gages were used to measure strains.

The gages used were SR-4, A-l-S6 linear and SR-4, AR-l-S-6 rosettes

made by BLH Electronics, Inc.

For a typical shear panel, as shown in Fig. 52, the gages were

placed at points in the area of the tension field pattern which

develops after the buckling of the web. Strain gages were also

placed on the flange at points where hinges were expected to form.

(The concept of hinge development in the frame formed by the top

~no bottom flanges, and the vertical stiffeners was used in the

theoretical phase to find the ultimate shear capacity of the panel).

Since the strain gage results will be used in later fatigue studies,

the gages were also placed at points where fatigue cracks were

expected to occur, that is, along the web boundaries in regions

where the tension field is anchored, as shown in Fig. 52. The

flange stresses were of interest also. Similar reasoning was

applied to the layout of the gages for the panels under shear and

moment.

328.6

No strain gages were used at points of stress concentration

caused by either load application or support reactions.

The location and kind of gages are given for all panels of

both girders in Figs. 53 to 56.

-11

Strain-measurements were recorded by a B & F 96 channel strain

recorder* with a keypunch.**

2.5 Test Set-Up

An overall plan view of the test set-up is shown in Fig. 11.

The girders were tested in a hydraulic universal testing machine with

a capacity of 5,000,000 Ibs.*** The loads were applied at the mid-

span of the girder. The test specimens were simply supported on

rollers at both ends (Fig. 12). The load was transferred from the

machine crosshead to the girder through a spherical bearing block

(Fig. 12). The compression flange was laterally supported at the

vertical stiffeners by means of 2~ inch diameter steel pipes.

The lateral bracing against the machine column is shown in Fig. 13.

The bracing was designed to permit a sufficient vertical deflection

of the girder by the rotation of the pipes at the girder and at the

cross beam. As an additional precaution~... t:he pipes were slightly

inclined so that they would not influence the deflection of the girder.

A cross beam was used to support the lateral braces, as- can be seen in

Fig. 14. The cross beam itself is supported by two heavy columns

which were laterally braced to the fl~or (Fig. 14).

* B & F Instruments, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.** IBM 526 PRINTING Summary Punch***Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.

328.6 -12

3. TEST PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter the behavior of the girder and of the different

girder elements during testing is described. The ~esults of the

twelve tests are presented in the form of the following values

plotted against the applied load: mid-span deflection, web deflec

tion, diagonal panel deformation, and strain distribution. The

ultimate load was considered reached when a continuous increase of

the diagonal panel deformation in the compression direction was

observed with essentially no increase of the applied load.

Initial readings and readings at every load increment were taken

for all the measurements described in Art. 2.4. Smaller load incre

ments were taken in the inelastic range. Readings were made only

after the deformations had stabilized.

The coordinate system used for the following discussion is shown

in the nomenclature. Every panel has its own coordinate system with

the y-axis (vertical axis) located at the center line of the left

vertical stiffener,as shown in Fig. 44, and the x-axis is positive

to the right. The z-axis is perpendicular to the plane of the web.

The side of the specimen in the positive z-direction will be called

the near side, while the other side will be called the far side.

The transversely stiffened girder was tested first. The

sequence of testing is shown in Fig. 15. In order to determine

the behavior of the girder with the small flange on top and thus

328.6 -13

with the larger portion of the web in compression, panels 3, 4

and 1 were tested, in that sequence. After turning the girder

around, that is, putting the large flange on top, the case of the

larger portion of the web in tension was investigated. Panels 6,

2 and 5 were tested. The te~ting sequence of the longttudinal1y

stiffened girder is shownjn Fig. 21.

3.2 General Girder Behavior--Load vs. Vertical Deflection

The testing history and the overall behavior of each test

specimen is depicted in the load-deflection diagram. Load P is

plotted as the ordinate and the mid-span deflection as the abscissa.

The first deflection reading was taken at load No.1 (p=Ok).

Then the load was gradually increased up to load No.2. This

procedure was repeated up to the point where inelastic behavior or a

substantial increase in deflection per unit load was observed. At

this point the girder was unloaded. A seoond cycle was then started

and continued until the dynamic ultimate load was reacheq. Readings

were taken only after the load and the centerline deflection had

stabilized. The waiting period for the stabilization near the

ultimate load took approximately twenty-five minutes.

Residual stresses due to welding and initial deformations were

the reason for using two cycles. Thu~ the first cycle:was intended

to partially relieve any initial effects.

328.6 -14

3.3 Strain Distribution

Linear strains were plotted to give an indication of the

behavior of the compression flange and of the longitudinal stif-

fener under load. The plot of the strain across the top flange

indicates the curvature and thus the lateral defleQtion cl the top

flange. For example, in test UG5.3 (Fig. 63), where panel failure

was initiated through lateral buckling of the flange, one clearly

notices that at the ultimate load (Load No. 14) buckling causes the

outer fibers to be in tension. However, the longitudinal stiffener

shown below does indicate lateral deflection but no buckling. at the

ultimate load.

Further, a plot of strain versus load, the strain gages being

located on opposite faces of the flange, gave an indication of the

vertical behavior of the flange. In test UG5.3, the strain was

equally distributed up to load No.3; thereafter, the strain distri-

bution was unequal because of vertical deflection of the flange.

Thus, the top surface was subjected to a larger compression strain

than the bottom surface. Figures 61 and 62 show that in test UG4.1

the premature failure of the panel in the first cycle was initiated

by vertical buckling of the top flange. Due to initial deformations

the initial strains on the top side of the flange are different from

those on the bottom side. Gage 71 on the bottom of the top flange

indicates that at load No.7 vertical buckling occurs and a

compression ·strain changes into a tension strain.

--lI

328.6 -15

The plots of the compression flange strains thus indicate

whether the vertical or lateral buckling of the flange occurred.

3.4 Web Deflections

For every test panel the x-station with the maximum lateral

deflections was plotted as shown in Figs. 46 to 51. The change of

web deformations due to an increase of loading for the respective

station is given. Furthermore, the variation of the lateral

deflection at the point of maximum deformation with the load is

plotted. One notices that in these plots the slope of the curve

decreases to a horizontal line at the ultimate load. The lateral

deflection at the ultimate load for larger panels was naturally

bigger than for smaller panels.

When comparing the lateral deformation pattern of the trans

versely stiffened girder with the one for the longitudinally stif

fened girder, it becomes obvious that the longitudinal stiffener

controls the deformations of the web. Due to its rigidity the

longitudinal stiffener . was able to force a nodal point in the

deflected shape of the web at its location.

3.5 Diagonal Panel Deformations

A good representation of the behavior of a test panel under load

is given by the load-vs-diagona1 panel shortening diagram. This

diagram also gives a good means of determining the ultimate load of

the panel. For test specimen UG4.3 (Fig. 31), for instance, the

ultimate load was reached at load No. 23. The horizontal curve

328.6 -16

starting at this point indicates that the rate of diagonal defor

mation is much higher than at the previous load points.

In the following discussions the diagonal shortening will

be used as an indication of the test panel behavior as well as

an indication of its ultimate capacity.

For the longitudinally stiffened girder the overall diagonal

panel deformations and the deformations of the lower subpanel were

measured and plotted. By comparing some of the plots, one notices

that the diagonal web deflections at the ultimate load are applroximately

equal when the panel failure is due to yielding of the lower sub-

panel (Fig. 39). However, when the panel failure is due to web

yielding of both subpanels, the overall diagonal panel deformations

are much greater than those of the lower subpanel (Fig. 40).

3.6 Behavior of Individual Panels, and Modes of Failure

Each test is described according to the sequence of testing.

Thus, the test numbers which were assigned according to the location

of the panel in the girder, may appear to be out of order. First,

the tests on the transversely stiffened girder UG4 are described

and then on the transversely and longitudinally stiffened girder

UG5. For a summary of the sequence of testing see Figs. 15 and 21 0

3.6.1 Test UG4.3

Test UG4.3 was the first test on girder UG4. Since the

computed moment capacity of panel 4 was approximately 10 percent

higher than the capacity of the test panel, the capacity of panel 4

328.6 -17

in bending had to be temporarily increased. A wooden diagonal

brace was put into the panel on each side to transfer some of the

compression force of the top flange into the bottom flange (Fig.

69). Also, the top flange was laterally supported at the center

of the panel. Thus, the lateral buckling capacity of the top

flange was increased.

The detail for the lateral bracing ·is shown in Fig. 16. An

angle was clamped and welded to the flange. The pipe bracing was

connected to the angle.

Development of the tension field was quite pronounced at load

No.8 (P=70k ). Yielding of the compression flange was first

observed at load No.9 (P=80k). The ultimate load was considered

kreached at load No. 23 (P=126.4). At this load, general yielding

of the compression flange throughout its thickness was observed,

and the rate of diagonal deformation was much higher than the rate

of loading,as can be seen from Fig. 31. Note that the load

deflection diagram (Fig. 26) was not completely flat, apparently

due to the moment gradient and strain hardening. At the ultimate

load the flange started deflecting vertically and horizontally over

the full width of the panel (Fig. 68).

The experimental ultimate load was 7 percent above the predicted

ultimate load.

328.6 -18

3.6.2 Test UG4.4

Before this test was conducted the moment capacity of the

already tested panel 3 was increased by welding a 2 in. x 8 in.

plate on the top flange. Since the moment capacity of panel 2

was only about 20 percent higher than of the panel .to be tested, a

provisional flange reinforcement was provided for it. The details

for the flange reinforcements are shown in Figs. 17 and 18. The

provisional flange plate was lying on four filler plates. Only

the end filler plate at panel 1 was welded to the flange and to the

plate reinforcement since at this point the compression force in

the flange had to be transferred to the plate. At the other end of

the provisional reinforcement plate, support was given by

bearing against the flange reinforcement of panel 3. The buckling

of the flange reinforcement of panel 2 was prevented by clamping it

at the filler plates to the top flange (Figs. 17 and 18).

The flange reinforcement was designed so that the panel capac-

ity was high enough to carry the failure load for the last panel to

be tested.

The shear capacity of panel 1 and the already tested panel 3 was

increased through tension diagonals applied at both sides of the web.

One inch diameter high strength steel bars with a yield stress of

156 ksi at 0.2 percent offset were used. The connection detail for

the tension diagonals is shown in Fig. 20.

328.6

The advantage of this method over welding a rectangular

steel bar diagonally to the web, as it was done in some previous

projects, lies in its flexible usage. This method is not depen

dent upon the size of the panel. The reinforcement can be used

for temporary panel strengthening, and it can be easily applied

and removed by student workers. Thus the dependence on the

-19

laboratory technicians was eliminated. Also the costs of fabri-

cation and application were reduced, since the same diagonals were

used for the testing of the longitudinally stiffened girder (UGS).

At load No.7 (P=llOk) yielding was first noticed in the

compression flange close to the point of load application. Complete

plastification of most of the top flange was reached at load No. 9

(P=139.Sk ). This load was considered the ultimate load because the

rate of diagonal deformation was much higher than the rate of load

ing (Fig. 32). Also, the local vertical buckling of the compression

flange started. This can be seen from the yield pattern of the web

in Fig. 67. The experimental ultimate load was 5 percent above

the predicted ultimate load.

3.6.3 Test UG4.1

Before this test was conducted, the moment capacities of panels

4 and 5 were increased as shown in Fig. 19. On the, top flange of

panel 5 a provisional reinforcement plate of 6 in. x ~ in. was

placed, the principle applied was the same as used for panel 2.

The flange reinforcement for panel 4 h'ad the same size as the one

for panel 3. The webs of panels 3, 4 and 5 were strengthened with

tension diagonals.

328.6

At load No.5 (P=llOk) the tension field was quite pro-

-20

nounced. Yielding in the tension field first appeared at load

No.6 (P=130k). At the same load, yielding started in the web of

the end post. The ultimate load was reached at load No.8

k(P=145.6). ,This value was considerably below the.theoretically

predicted value.

The failure was premature and 'it was considered to be due to the

yielding of the web of the end post. The end pos~ which can be

considered as a beam carrying the tension field, was not capable

of generating enough capacity for the development of the full

tension field. To strengthen the web of the end post a diagonal

steel bar was welded into the post thus creating arch action (Fig.

72). With this repair the girder was tested again. However, the

ultimate load obtained was only one kip higher than in the test

before.

This time, the failure was due to the vertical buckling of the

top flange. The flanges should be able to support the end post

carrying the tension field. Hence, the top flange acting as .a beam-

.column loaded with the vertical component of the tension field and

the compression force due to the end post column was not able to

resist this load and bent downwards. In order to test the panel

further, the top flange was reinforced with two 2 inu x 3 in. steel

bars which were clamped to the flange in order to increase its buck-

ling capacity and thus to induce failure due to tension field action.

The ultimate load was obtained at load No. 24 (P=163.2k ). Figure 73

shows the pronounced diagonal action of the tension field and its

328.6 -21

yielding along the field. The rate of diagonal shortening is quite

large as the horizontal portion of Fig. 33 between the load Nos.

23 and 24 indicates. The experimental ultimate load agreed exactly

with the predicted ultimate load ..

3.6.4. Test UG4.6

The girder was turned around so that the larger flange was in

compression and the larger portion of the web in tension.

Because panel 6 was to be tested (Fig. 15), diagonal tension

reinforcement was put. in panels 1 and 2. In addition, the

diagonals of panels 3 and 4 had to be relocated into the new

tension direction of the panels.

The girder tested in the first three tests with- the small flange

in compression was forced into a certain deformed shape. Now, with

the girder inverted, this deformation pattern had to be changed into

the opposite direction. The transformation of the initial web

deformations of panels 1, 3 and 4 into the opposite direction was

accompanied with sudden loud "bangs" of the webs. The process of

reshaping was finished at load No.5 (P=140k ). Yielding of the test

panels web in the direction of the tension field action was first

noticed at load No. S. The highest static load reached was at load

kNo. 10 (P=197.5). At this load the yielding of the web along its

tension field was quite pronounced (Fig. 74). It can be seen in

Fig. 35 that at this load the rate of ~iagonal shortening was much

higher than the rate of loading. The experimental ultimate load was

1 percent above the predicted load.

328.6 -22

3.6.5 Test UG4.2

Before this test was conducted, the provisional bottom flange

reinforcement in panel 2 was taken off, and the shear capacity

of panel 6 was increased by the placement of'tension diagonals.

The initial panel deformations underwent big changes 'as was

described in Art. 3.6.4. In order to give the web a chance to do

so, the tension diagonals were tightened only at the instant when

the panels showed development of a tension field action in the

new direction. If the bars had been tightened before testing, the

web panels would not have been able to develop much of the tension

field action; therefore, the tension diagonals would have had to

carry forces greater than their capacity.

At load No.3 with P=188k it was not possible to increase the

load because of the vertical buckling of the compression flange of

panel 1. This premature failure was due to the incapability of the

flange acting as a beam-column to carry the reaction of the end post

and to resist the vertical component of the tension field at the

same time. The buckling capacity of the flange was increased by

C-clamping a beam to the top flange.

Yielding in the test panel first appeared in the web in the

direction of the tension field action at load No.8. At load No. 12

a sudden weld crack developed at the bottom angle connection of the

diagonal reinforcement for panel l (Fig. 70). The diagonal rein- ,

forcement had rotated the bottom flange locally about the vertical

stiffener. This rotation caused cracking of the welds connecting the

328.6

plate (used for the provisional flange reinforcement) to the

bottom flange. By clamping the plate to the flange, the propa-

gation of the cracks was sufficiently arrested.

-23

The ultimate load of test panel 2 was reached at load No. 20

k(P=238.5). Yielding was observed in the web along its tension

diagonal and on the top of the compression flange. Als~ vertical

buckling of the flange seemed to start. The rate of diagonal

deformations was much" higher than the rate of loading. The experi-

mental ultimate load was 12 percent above the predicted value.

328.6 -24

3.6.6 Test UG4.5

Before panel 5 was tested, its provisional bottom flange

reinforcement was removed. Panels 1 and 2 had -to be reinforced

to increase their moment capacity. A plate was welded to the

bottom flange of panel 2 and beams were clamped to.the top flange

of panels 1 and 2. Reinforcement diagonals were provided for

panel 2.

Yielding first appeared in the web of the test panel at load

No.8 (P=220k ). The ultimate load was reached at load No. 14

(P=272k ). At this load the web showed the typical yield pattern

of· a plate under shear which had not buckled (Fig. 75). The

diagonal shortening was quite pronounced as is indicated by the

approximately horizontal portion of the curve in Fig. 36. The

experimental ultimate load was 4 percent above the predicted load.

This was the last test on the transversely stiffened girder.

3.6.7 Test UG5.3

Panels 1 and 4 of the longitudinally stiffened girder had to be

reinforced since their capacities were only about 10 percent higher

than that of panel 3. The shear carrying capacity of panel 1 was

increased by diagonal tension reinforcement,and the moment capacity

of panel 4 was increased by a wooden compression diagonal and by a

steel beam (lOWF54) clamped to the top flange.

At~load No. 3 (P~80k) yielding first appeared on the top of the

compression flange. At load No.5 (P=137k ) the flange yielded

throughout its thickness and over the full length of the panel.

328.6

However, this yielding did not affect the carrying capacity of

the panel. Yielding of the longitudinal stiffeners and yielding

-25

in the web of the smaller subpanel and along the tension diagonal

kof the larger subpanel appeared at load No. 11 (P=167). The

ultimate load was reached at load No. 14 (P=18Sk ). The failure

was due to lateral buckling of the compression flange (Fig. 79).

The web of the larger subpanel was yielded along its diagonal

tension field (Fig. 78). The ultimate load was 4 percent below

the predicted load.

Interesting was the deformation and yield pattern of the

smaller subpanelts web (Fig. 79). The web was deformed in a'

seemingly sinusoidal wave pattern inclined under approximately 45

degrees. Yielding appeared on the compression side (valleys) of

the waves.

3.6.8 Test UG5.4

Before this test was conducted a 8 in. x l~ in. plate was

welded on the top flange of panel 3 to increase the moment capacity

of that panel. Also, tension diagonals were added to help to

carry the shear. The lateral stability of the top flange of panel

2 was somewhat increased by clamping a wide-flange section to it.

Yielding of the top flange in panel 4 started at load ,No. 7

(P=179k ). Tension field yielding was first noticed at P=190k . The

ultimate load was reached at load No.8 (P=193.Sk ). The failure of

the panel seemed to be due to extensive yielding of the web of the

lower panel in the direction of the tension field action (Fig. 80).

328.6

Though. the compression flange was yielding, it did not become

-26

unstable and thus seemed not to initiate the failure of the panel.

The web of the smaller, upper subpanel was also yielding. Inter-

esting was the fact that two different modes of web yielding

appeared. One half of the panel showed the same yield pattern as

UGS.3, that means, tension field yielding at about 45 degrees.

However, the other half of the panel showed the yield pattern of

a plate before buckling (Fig. 80). At the ultimate load the rates

of both diagonal and vertical deformations were much higher than

the rate of loading (Figs. 39 and 37). The experimental ultimate

load was 8 percent below the predicted value.

3.6.9 Test UG5.1

Before this test was conducted the top flange of panel 4 was

reinforced by welding a 8 in. x l~ in. plate to the top surface

and providing diagonal reinforcement (Fig. 22).

At load No.6 (P=160k ) yielding first appeared in the web of

the larger subpanel in the direction of the tension field action.

At the same load yielding was noticed in the web of the smaller

8ubpanel. The ultimate dynamic load was reached at load No. 11

(P=200.Sk ). It was not possible to increase this load. Since

kthis load dropped to a static value of P=194.5 and load No. 10

kdropped only to P=195. 5 , ,load No. 10 was considered as the static

ultimate load. The failure of the panel was caused by yielding of

the upper panelTs web along an inclination of approximately 45

degrees, and plastification of the lower panelTs web in the diagonal

328.6 -27

tension field direction (Fig. 82). At the ultimate load the

diagonal panel deformations were quite pronounced (Fig. 82).

The predicted ultimate load agreed exactly with the experimental

load.

3.6.10 Test UG5.2

Before this test was conducted the shear capacity of panel

No.6 was increased by the addition of tension diagonals.

Yielding was first noticed at load No.9 (P=208.Sk ) on top of

the top flange; web yielding first appeared at load No. 11 (P=221.Sk).

The ultimate load of the panel was reached at load No. 14 (P=236k ).

The failure was du~ ,to plastification of the lower panel's web along

its tension field action. The web of the smaller upper panel showed

only one yield line inclined under 45 degrees and thus the upper

panel apparently did not reach its capacity (Fig. 83). From the

diagonal deformation plots it can be seen that at load No. 14 the

slope of the curve is about· horizontal. The experimental ultimate

load was 1 percent below the predicted ultimate load.

3.6.11 Test UG5.6

Before this test was conducted panel 2 was reinforced with

tension diagonals and on the top of the top flange a 8 in. x 3/4 in.

plate was welded (Fig. 22).

The highest static load reached was load No.8 (P=223.Sk ). The

failure of the panel was due to shear failure of the web. The web

of the lower (larger) panel was yielding along its diagonal tension

field and the web of the upper (smaller) panel was yielding in shear

328.6

without having developed a tension field (fig. 81).

One notices in Fig. 42 that at load No.8 the load-vs-

-28

diagonal deformation curve is about horizontal. For this test the

experimental maximum load was 12 percent below the predicted value.

3.6.12 Test UG5.5

At first it was intended to weld a 8 in. x 3/4 in. plate on

the top flange of panel 2. But in order to eliminate the welding,

the plate was clamped to the top flange by fitting it exactly

between the block holding the angle (for the tension diagonals) and

the flange reinforcing of panel 3. The shear capacity of panel 6

was increased by tension diagonals in panel 6.'

kAt load No.8 (P=233.5 ) the top flange of the test panel

started yielding. Yielding in the web of the lower panel first

appeared at load No. 9 (P~244k). The ultimate static load was

reached at load No. l2A (P~272.Sk). Due to plastic flow of portions•of the web it was not possible to increase the load further. The

lower web plate was yielding along the diagonal tension field, the

web of the upper panel was plastified along one tension field

inclined at approximately 45 degrees (Fig. 84). Diagonal defor-

mations were quite extensive at the ultimate load. The experimental

ultimate load was 7 percent below the predicted value.

328.6 -29

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The primary objective of the main test series was to obtain

information about the behavior of every panel of the girder up to

its ultimate capacity. The ultimate load capacities of every panel

are given in Table 5. The overall behavior of the test panels as

the load increased is shown in the load vs. diagonal deformation

plots, the web and flange behavior is represented by the lateral

web deflection and linear strain plots. The overall girder

behavior is expressed by· the mid-span deflection plots.

The average accuracy of the test results for the transversely

and longitudinally stiffened girder is 5 percent, with the largest

deviation being 12 percent. Thus, the newly developed theory seems

to predict the ultimate capacity of unsymmetrical plate girders

quite well.

Since the longitudinal. stiffeners control the web deflections,

two separate tension fields were developed in the subpanels. How

ever, tension fields did not run diagonally through the whole upper

subpanel as was assumed by other investigators;(7) they seem to be

parallel to each other and inclined at approxi~ately 45 degrees.

Comparing the results of the two girders one notices the

increase of strength due to the longitudinal stiffe~er. The increase

in strength of shear panels 1 and 6 i~ approximately 13 percent and

20 percent. The increase in strength of the two central panels, 3

and 4, (high moment and high shear) is approximately 44 percent.

328.6

However, the results of panels 2 and 5 of the two girders

cannot be compared because for the transversely stiffened girder

the large flange was on top)and for the longitudinally stiffened

girder the large flange was on the bottom.

-30

It is interesting to note that the increase in panel strength

derived from the introduction of a longitudinal stiffener is

considerably greater in the panels subjected to a combination of

high shear and high moment (44 percent) than in the panels under

shear alone (13 and 20 percent).

328.6 -31

5 . NOMENCLATURE

"z~y

Test

/- Panel _I ~ x

b

~_a------...--1

a panel length (in.)

b web depth (in.)

b l distance from bottom of top flange to center of

longitudinal stiffener (in.)

t web thickness (in.)

v deflection in y-direction (in.)

w peflection in z-direction (in.)

x,y,z cartesian coordinate axes

distance from neutral axis to junction of compression

flange and web (in.)

p load applied at midspan of girder (kips)

I

experimentally obtained ultimate load (kipsL

modulus of elasticity (29,600 ksi)

moment of inertia of girder section (in. 4)

Vex experimental ultimate shear (kips)

328.6

s

theoretical ultimate shear (kips)

aspect ratio, alb

web slenderness ratio, bit

strain, alE (in./in.)

longitudinal stiffener position bl/b

yield stress (ksi)

ultimate tensile stress (ksi)

-32

328.6 -33

6. TABLES AND FIGURES

328.6 -34

I.. ,

Test Flanges Webs

Number 12 Tlx3 /4 Tl 1 14 Tlx l}zTl 112 Tlxll/16 Tl 118 Tl xl Tl 50 Ttx3/16 tT 150 TlX~1l

See Reference 5

F8 27.2 29.5 31.4 43.6

F9 27.2 29.5 31.4 43.6

See Reference 6

LB1 37.6

LB2 37.0

LB3 36.0

LB4 34.9

LB5 35.3

LB6 33.1

LS1-T1 30.5 46.8

LS2-Tl 29.4 39.4

LS3-Tl 29.8 38.2

LS4-Tl 30.5 48.6

Table 1 Actual Yield Stress (ksi) Obtained inPrevious Girder Projects For A36 Steel

Panel Panel Larger Flange .Smaller Flange Web IGirder No. Length Thickn. Width Thickn. Width Thickn. Depth

(in4)(inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)

UG4 1 85.0 1,388 13.0 .756 10.0 .119 47.9 14339

2 55.0 1.388 13.0 .756 10.0 .119 47.9 14339

3 70.0 1.388 13.0 .756 10.0 .119 47.9 14339

4 85.0 1.388 13.0 .756 10.0 .182 47.9 15166

5 40.0 1.388 13.0 .756 10.0 .182 ·47.9 15166

6 85.0 1.388 13.0 .756 10.0 .182 47.9 15166

.UG5 1 85.0 1:388 13.0 .754 10.0 .119 47.9 15852

2 55.0 1.388 13.0 .754 10.0 .119 47.9 15852

3 70.0 1.388 13.0 .754 10.0 .119 47.9 15852

4 85.0 1.388 13.0 .754 10.0 .183 47.9 16519

5 40.0 1.388 13.0 .754 10.0 .183 4749 16519

6 85.0 1.388 13.0 .754 10.0 .183 47.9 16519

Table 2 Plate Dimensiorts

LNr'0co

m

Il.NV1

Tensile Tests Mill Report

UG-4cry CJu % E·long. %- Area Chemical Composition cry

Component (ksi) (ksi) Reduct. C Mn P S (ksi)

1 3/8 in. flange 34.1 65.5 31.5 52.2 .17 .54 .011 .025 39.7

1/8 in. web Hor. 55~5 72.1 23.9 50.9 .18 1.17 .010 .028 53.7(4.1.1, 4.1.2)

Panel 1 Vert. 69.2 78.9 18.8 39.7 .18 1.17 .010 .028 53.7-'

1/8 in. web Hor. 56.1 72.0 15.1 45.3 .18 1.17 .010 .028 53.7( 5.1)

Panels 2, 3 Vert. 62.1 75.1 21.8 42.4 .18 1.17 .010 .028 53.7

Hor. 36.5 61.3 29.7 57.3 .07 .42 .009 .0333/16 in. webPanels 4,5,6 Vert. 34.7 57.0 26.6 52.7 .07 .42 .009 .033

3/4 in. flange 34.1 67.1 34.9 58.2 .23 .93 .010 .021 42.9

Table 3 Material Properties UG~

VJrvco

m

ILNen

Tensile Tests Mill Report

UG-4 cry CYu % Elong. %Area Chemical Compsoition crReduct.

yComponent (ksi) (ksi) C Mn P S (ksi)

1 3/8 in. flange 32.1 6'4.9 32.4 54.3 .17 .54 .011 .025 39.7

1/8 in. web Har. 56.2 72.2 23.4 47.5 .18 1.17 .010 .028 53.7

( 5 6' 1. 1, 5. 1. 2 )Panel 1 Vert. 60.4 75.8 24.7 42.7 .18 1.17 .010 .. 028 53.7

1/8 in. web Hor. 59.3 75.8 23.3 45.3 .18 1.17 .010 .028 53.7

(5.1)Panels 2, 3 Vert. 55.3 72.6 22.6 45.6 .18 1.17 .010 .028 53.7

3/16 in. web HoI'. 36.2 60.6 31.6 55 .. 7 .07 .42 .009 .033

Panels 4,5,6 Vert. 34.5 58.0 28.4 50.8 .07 .42 .009 .033

3/4 in. flange 34.4 67.2 30.7 55.0 .23 .93 .010 .021 42.9

3/4 in. stiffener 34.4 64.3 31.2 54.3 .23 .93 ~ 010 .021 42.9

Table 4 Material Properties UGS

LNtvco(J)

ILN-....J

j

328.6

Specimen (1 B Y1 Ye V Vth Vex/Vthex(inches) (kip) (kip)

UG4.1 1. -/7 414 32.461 81.6 81.5 1.00

UG4.2 1.14 414 15.607 119.25 106.0 1.12

UG4.3 1.46 414 32.461 63.2 59.0 1.07

UG4.4 1.77 269 32.669 69.9 66.5 1.05

UG4.5 0.83 269 15.339 136.0 131.0 1.04

UG4.6 1.77 269 16.399 98.75 98.0 1,01

UG5.1 1.77 414 .263 29.804 97.75 98.0 1.00

UG5.2 1.14 414 .263 29 .804 118.0 119.0 0.99

UG5.3 1.46 414 .263 29 > 804 92.5 96.5 0.96

UG5.4 1.77 269 .263 29.354 96.75 105.0 0.92

UG5.5 0.83 269 .263 29.354 136.25 147.0 0.93

UG5.6 1.77 269 .263 29.354 111.75 126.0 0.88

Table 5 Test Results

-38

HIGH SHEAR3 Symm. (Basler)4 Symm. (Cooper)I Symm. (Cooper)

I Unsymm. (Dimitri)7 Symm. Long. (Cooper)

16 Tests

LNt'0(X).m

HIGH MOMENT

2 Un-s. (Dimitri)

PURE BEN DING

9 Symm. (Basler)2 Unsymm. (Dimitri)§. Symm. Long. (Cooper)16 Tests

Q3

1.0M/Mu

~Vu

o

PURE SHEAR

5 Symm. (Basler)

3 Uns. (Dimitri)8 Tests

Fig. 1 Summary of Past Girder TestsI

LNLD

11-

~8 II Web 3~611 Web

18'-11" ct 18'-11" II. • I • •

I ~- - I ~u- II l I

\ ""'" I(1/8 x1/4) v l~ I

I~ v (3/16 x 114)

Ia=J..46 ....

a =1.77 r a=1.55 I a =1.77 a =.833 a=L77I I,....." I 600 \!/ "-

(l/8 x5/16) v \I

~J/ v (3116 x 5/16)I

I 60°/1\I 8

i. 71-1 11 I::b 4 1-711 .I.T 51-lO ll .110"1. 7 1 _1 11 i 3'-4" : 7 1-1 11 .1.. ... .. .371-10"

GIRDER UG4

0"

LNtVcoOJ

1/8 x5/16)

II

IIIIIIIIII

B

!)8~600I 60°8

GIRDER UG5

Panel Layout As UG4

II

!3/16 x 5/16)

Fig. 2 Elevations of Test Girders UG4 and UG5 I~o

LNf'.)

enmlOll X 3/4

11 T. fl

--13/411

I0 L,--5 11 X 3/4 II V. S1:01 I

121/211 f

3 11X 3/4

11L. S1:

48 11 4811X !Ja ll

( 3/161I )W. fl

N~t+t-I 351/2

11 N.A.--

4 11X 3/4

11 S1: f!.:I n II'~ I I

11'1 I ..

13 11X J 3/8

11 B. fl.,3/8

11 ,3/8",- fSECTION A-A SECTION B-B

Fig. 3 Vertical Sections Through UG4 and UG5 I..p::.l--J

4 1 -0"

±7-d~1~! ~ Of Girder

LNr'0OJ

en

oI

-v

~811 Web 12.

'Is II Web ~

101 -11"

37'-1011

3/1611 Web fl

181-11 11

I'-~ l-

2'-0"

.T *B Flange Plates H~I I I I

1_ As Requ. -' _ Max. Length Available _1_ As Requ. -I21-0"ri

I--------~cg]

Long Stiffener ~ I

Fig. 4 Location of Coupon PlatesI~I'V

328.6 -43

=-~

I A B C 0 E I

-

2 ....---- ---- ~-----2~ ;,.C\I

-3' AI BI CI 01 E' :3

2" I. 11 11 •1. 11" .1. 11" .1. 11" .1 211t~=- r-.:=-

48"

!~6" WEB COUPON PLATE

Thickness At I A,AI, B, B',C, CI, 0, 01, E, El

Width At l 1-1,2-2,3-3

j:, I:, :[nI 101'z" 101'2" I -,dO... • I • .. 172-

24"

--.A C E

~=Q £:!

AI CI El

2" 1.. IO~211 IO~2"I I

~t

.::- ·1- __Iyzll

24"

I~

FLANGE COUPON PLATES

Typ.Thickness At: A,A"C,C'.E,EI

Width At l A,AI,C,C"E,E '

~: I:, I:· I:, :.~]~2" 1.1 14 1 .1 r .1. II" .1 2:

~e II WEB COUPON PLATE

=-.A C E j=Q ~

Al CI E'

I"~ =-t~

~1211

I!/e II FL ANGE COU PON PLATE

LONGIT. STIFFENER COUPON PLATE

Fig. 5 Typical Location of Measurement Pointson Coupon Plates

328.6 -44

Coupon JtUG 4.2UG 5.2

2 Coupon ft'sUG 4.7UG 5.7

Coupon JlUG 4.3

) ~UG5.3

lOll x 314" Top Flange I UG 4.3.1I-----------.......J UG 5.3.1

Coupon ItUG5.4UG4.4

r2 Coupon Jl1s

~~--::-II--=-'~--------.---~------.,~ UG 5.5P :3 x ~4u Long. Stiffn. ~ UG 5.6

Coupon It UG 4.1.2UG5.i.2

I/SII Web

Tensile Specimen

UG4.l.iUG5.1.1

r-~~~.....--Coupon Jt UG 4.1.0UG 5.1.0

Va II Web

UG 4.1UG5.1

Fig. 6 Location of Tension Coupons

328.6

•

R = 2 ~2"

I~211 •

-45

G=all.. -- 5 11

- -gil

- 5 11

- - =

- ±24 11

--TENSILE SPECIMEN FOR

FLANGES E LONG. STIFFENERS

III •

R =211--

•

G=4 11.. -- 4 11 5"

- - 4"~ - --

±1511

- -WEB TENSILE SPECIMEN

Fig. 7 Tensile Specimens

328.6 -46

3/41FLANGE TENSILE SPECIMEN

,007.005

Initiation of StrainHardening

.003.001

17.8

35.6

8.9

26.7STRESS

KSI

36.5

29.2

STRESSKSI 21.9

14.6

7.3

3/16" WEB TENSILE SPECIMEN

Fig. 8 Stress-Strain Curves for Tensile Specimens

328.6

p

, I

I~~ .,-,.

-47

I.. L..I

): i ______1):

SHEAR DIAGRAM

MOMENT DIAGRAM

Fig. 9 Loaded Girder

328.6 -48

UG 4.1 UG4.3 UG4.4

jL~:~:~~~~~~~~c::IJ]]~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:D 1

""'----......&.....---a. -.-.-_..A--_ M/ Muo 0.2 0.6 1.0

VERTICALLY STIFF. GIRDERSmall Flange in Compression

0.2

UG4.11.0 ...,.---.r\

V/Vu

0.6

UG 4.2 GU 4.5 UG 4.6

I~i

0.2

1.0..--.U__G4•6

V/Vu

0.6

100...-......&.....----10_...-..--...._..-....--._ M/Muo 0.2 0.6 1.0VERTICALLY STIFF. GIRDERLarge Flange in Compression

UG 5.1 UG5.2

1.0 UG5.6

V/Vu

0.6

UG5.4UG 5.1 UG5.3 UG5.5

j;:i:«i.:.:.:.:._.::.:.:..: :.:.:.:.:.: ~':'~'::':':I08::............-:-:.. :-:-:- :.:..:.: :.:.:-: :":"~: III •••••••••••••••....:.-.:...:.

UGS.2 UG5.4 UG5.6

0.2

-......------------ M/Muo 0.2 , 0.6 1.0

LONGITUDINALLY STIFF. GIRDER

Fig. 10 Location of Panel Failure Pointson Interaction Curve

LNI'Vco

01

LaterialBraces

Wlterial BeamSupport

Column of 5 MUlion lb.Machine

!!!!!iii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·L····,··'···',········'········,·····················...;...

K- Frame

Girder

End Support

N

~Fig. 11 Plan View of Test Set-Up

1~t.O

328.6 -50II!. 1811

X 23/4Bolted to MovableCross Head

Lg. Bear. ItItg. Bear. I!.

or(2'·011 LgJ

From) Stock Yard.

!.IOllx101lx211

(or Equival)der ( ~

nge)

TATION

"'-I'

II i 1

3 11 r I !...itSll l 1([1 LI

14" x 3!1 XII-S"14" X3"x'2LS'

3 11 1---l':--Sll<fl Round 8

/4"

IS3~1 BI4F 320(I4VF320

SECTION ALOAD APPLIC

Fig. 12 End Support

~ of Machine andGirder

I

6'-2"8 11

I"¢> Pins b.e.

Edge of Slots on5 Million lb. Machine

I~~~IIE!!:=::===========tiH----t--r <tof Beamand Pipe

Platform of TestingMachine

Fig. 13 Lateral Support of Pipe Brace at Machine

328.6 -5012. lallx 2 3/4Bolted to MovableCross Head

Lg. Bear. 12.lLg, Bear. f2.

ar(21"0" LgJ

From) Stock Yard.

I!.IOllxIO"x21l

(or Equlval)der (lJnge)

TATION

"'1'

II I I

3" r I !.....h611 L TI LI

1411 X 3'1 XI!..6"14" X3"x'2L61

3"1--- I 1'- 6"~ Round 814"

16 341

814F 320(I4YF320

-I ;;0 " ~SPherlcal.

l':"ri:;~ Brg. Block

(Fla

SECTION ALOAD APPLIC

Fig. 12 End Support

1"1Jl Pins b.e.

Edge of Slots on5 Million lb. Machine

<t of Machine andGirder

I

i 21tz""I ~

2~211¢ Pipe Lg,41-1"

3~2 x 5~2" X 3/all L

Wooden Shim

Itt~~18~=:==========~rtJ-t-+lr tof 8eamand Pipe

Platform of TestingMachine

Fig. 13 Lateral Support of Pipe Brace at Machine

SECTION AT SU PPORT

LNJ\.)

co

en

211

a~211 Lg.

4 1-011

11-6 11

Hydraulic JacksEach 100 kips

2Y2 11 x Pipe Lg.41-411

SI-2 Yall

aYF 64 Lg~ 151-0 11

3~1I X 5 Y211

X 3/SIi L

3 1-7!t2 11

IIL33~

Parts Have tobe ClampedTogether

6 1-a ll

Fig .... l4 End Support Bracing IU1\--I

328.6

Q) ® ® ® ® ®...... to- -.J_

GIRDER UG4

-52

TEST UG4.3 ~aterial Bracing

LWooden Diag.

TEST UG44 rPrOViSlonal (ReinfOrCing!. SlI X 2"-----.- Reif. !.S"xVa"

TEST UG4.1 Reinforcing Ie. SIIX 2" ProvisionalRelnf. It 6" x ~2"

TEST UG4.6

/'/'

......../'

,/

,//"

......../'

/'

TEST UG4.2

lTake Reinforcing off

TEST UG4.5

........ '".""

,//'

,/.",.'/

................

.................

................

"""-"

Take Reinforcing off

Fig. 15 Summary of Sequ~nce of Testing Girder UG4

328.6 -53

Clamp

SECTION

Note:Clamp Angle to Flange

ELEVATION•

Fig. 16 Bracing of Panel 4 at Centerof Panel (UG4. 3)

3'811 For all x ~81J I!.

4~2" Intermediate Clamp

1'411 For SIiX Y2 1J e.

3'8"

Fig. 17 Section nA ft of Figures 18 and 19

A

A

Clamp

4~211

3/all

all x 2 11 x 7 1-311 Lg.LNrvco

OJ

DETAIL "BII

all ~I II 4 1 7 11 Lx· '/8 x-g.

9" x 3 If X 5/S II

CD

IIAII

®

II BII

@ @

l4~2il ~ 2 Y2"

SECTION A-A OVERALL VIEW

all 71 IINote: Clamp X'8 plate to flange

at third point at plate.

Fig. 18 Flange Reinforcement of Panels 2 and 3(UG4.4) I

Ul~

3/8VJ(\.)

OJ

OJ

DETAIL II ell

B

B

Clamp

4~211

SECTION 8-8

all x 2 11 x 7 1-3 11 Lg.

6 11 'I. II 8 1 4 11 LX 1'2 X _. g.

9 11 X 3 11 X 5/8 II

II ell IIAII

o I@II ®

2~2~L 4~~ I ~ _II A~2"OVERALL VIEW

Note: Use 4 clamps for flangereinforcement

Fig. 19 Flange Reinforcement of Panels 4 and 5(UG4.l)

IVlen

L SIiX 6 11 X }e"

LNtoOJ

Ol

Shim

ELEVATION

III High StrengthSteel Bars

SECTION

Fj.g. 20 Connection Detail for Diagonal Braces IlJ1OJ

328.6

I

! ! I

CD I ® I @ ® 1®1 ®I I I I----011 a...- ,....;1-

GIRDER UG5

TEST UG5.3

-57

r"-, I

TEST UG5.4

LWooden

Tension Dieg.

i

I

I

TEST UG5.1 R . f . m ell x 11~211~ eln orclng rL. "

II I I II "

TEST UG5.2

TEST UG5.6II I I II

TEST UG5.5

t:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;

Fig. 21 Summary of Sequence of Testing Girder UG5

328.6 -58

CD ® @ @ ® ®

41~ II l4~~L 2~J 4lJ2 ::.1~ ~ --LOCATION OF FLANGE REINFORCEMENT

51 II'16

TYPICAL FLANGE REINFORCEMENT DETAIL

Fig. 22 Flange Reinforcement'for Girder UG5

328.6

TEST UG4.3

-59

V3.1 V3.2

TEST UG 4.4

V3.3 V3.4

V4.2

TEST UG4.1

V4.3 V4.4 V4.5

VI.-I VI.O Viol V 1.2 V 1.3

TEST UG 4.6

j-D-f WiV 6.3 V6.4 V6.5

TEST UG 4.2

J f1 !-D-lV2.1 V2.2 V2.3

TEST UG4.5

V5.3 V5.4 V5.5

Fig. 23 Dial Gage Instrumentation For GirdersUG4 and UG5

328.6 -60

Fig. 24 Instrumentation for Diagonp.l Panel ·Deformation (UG5)

'-C-Clamp

C-Clamp~---

TOP ELEVATIONC-Clamp

BOTTOM ELEVATION

Fig. 25 Conne'ct_ion Detail of Diagonal Instrumenta_tion

328.6

200

160

120

p(KIPS)

80

40

o 0.4 0.8 1.2

(INCHES)

1.6 2.0

-61

Fig. 26 Load-vs-Centerline Deflection (UG4.3)

200

PUlt =163.2k

160Pth =163k

11,"'-'\,..1 8/°7

,0

120 /65/

P 4/°(KIPS)

80 3/0

40 2/0

III0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

(INCHES)

Fig. 27 Load-vs-Centerline Deflection (UG4.l)

328.6

240

200

160

P(KIPS)

120

o

PUlt =238.Sk

0.4 0.8 1.2(INCHES)

1.6 2.0 2.4

-62

Fig. 28 Load-vs-Centerline Deflection (UG4 .. 2)

320

240

p(KIPS)

160

80

o

PUlt =272k

Pth

-=262k -

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6

(INCHES)

Fig. 29 ~Load-vs~Centerline Deflection (UG4.5)

r

LNtvcoen

o15

r- ..... -- '11:::::::~ill~2~D- - -ij I---I- -- _1_ -.4 ::::::::::::::::::::\ "-------'-.................. - t A

" . --- tSTU

/0--/9o 0

7

t:::". - -- -- ---. __

0 5o

40r //03/°2

120

160

p(KIPS)

80

o 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

(8/8y)'(~~y)

Fig. 30 Load-vs-Centerline Deflection (4.4) ImLN

1

-- -----------------------1

328.6 -64

200

0.4

25

0.3/

02627

Compression DiagonalDeflection

0.2

(INCHES)

24. __---------;°25_+--_ --::.::~r&_----==:=:o:....--

0 20

0.1

o/

160

o

p(KIPS)

80

Fig. 31 Load-vs-Diagonal Deformation (UG4.3)

200

160

120

p(KIPS)

o 0.04 0.08 0.12

(INCHES)


•

328.6 -65

200

0.90.7

Compression Diagonal Deflection 23 24- 0 - c -0r==:;;;;::=~--!t'4-

O~S0.3II0.1

160

120

o

·40

p(KIPS)

80

(INCHES)

Fig. 33 Load-vs-Diagonal Deformation (UG4~1)

240

200

160

p(KIPS)

120

80

Itl. =238.Sk--- 19


Tension DiagonalDeflection

o 0.1 0.2 0.3

(INCHES)

0.4 0.5


328.6 -66

0.40.2 0.3

(INCHES)

0.1o

\

enSion Diagonal DeflectionP =197.5k

200 ult _~~....--~~, _........:-----~Compression DiagonalI~ 10 ~OOU //'" .......... \ Deflection

!tf:9

,::/ /'0 1170

160 117 ~t6'l

120 JIS 16 0 12 0 0 16

P 4

UOO

(KIPS)

80 0

40 ~

Fig. 35 Load-vs-Diagonal Deformation (UG4.6)'

280

240

200

160

P(KIPS)

120

Tension O-iagonalDeflection·

o 0.02 0.04 0.06

(INCHES)

0.08 0.1


o o o o o

UG 5.5

k k~-= 294 _~_ [PUlt =272.5

"'-...., .....- .....,"'''' ~13

12A

014

015

LNI\.)

coOJ

SCALE I 1 I I -I 1 INCHESo 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

Fig. 37 Load-vs~Vertical Deflection eUGS)

Im......J

328.6 -68


115 0

r Tension Diagonal=18Sk , Deflection

Pult /--. 13 _-----."4/0 - '0 12----------=-==-8-- - ----...--

/0 1I~0

t /000 6 10160

120

200

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

(INCHES)

0.5 0.6


0.3


0.2o

120

iTenSion Diagonal Deflection

_ k Lower Subpanel200 ~It - 193.5 8 9-:c *=<* 0

o~I I ! 7

!i /6ll/O~

(KI~:~ !1/04

40 ff3

f.(INCHES)


328.6 -69

0.3

•

0.2

•

0.1

~enSion Diagonal Deflection

(Lower Subpanel)• La 0.,..-- o~-::--; 10

./0~/8

I //7iil

d6

/lBIJ- 0

4

/32

Pult =195.5k----

40

o

120

160

200

p(KIPS)

80

(INCHES)


0.36

CompressionDiagonalDeflection

0.30

--::..........i!ilrI~--1 -I-~

0.12 0.18' 0.24

(INCHES)

0.06

,/Q ...__0"",,,0 ~"""'12 13

/0 /0 IIo 0' 10

(/~9! 7

! /06 TensionDiagonal//05 Deflection

114

/32

80

o

40

200

160

P(KIPS)

120

Fig. 41 Load-vs-Diagonal Deformation (UGS.2)

328.6 -70

240Pult = 223.5k


0.3


0.240.12 0.18

(INCHES)

0.06o

0 8

11.7

200

160f

0/5

P(KIPS)

120

I80 [340 oe2

Fig. 42 Load-vs-Diagqnal Deformation (UG5.6)


Diagonal

0.9

/

0 Ir50 CompressionDeflection

fl71i ~----""[\~ii~~I

12A

0.6

12

(INCHES)0.3

2

o

60

120

180

2801-----

240

Fig. 43 Load-vs-Diagonal Deformation (UGS.5)

328.6 -71

STATIONS FOR PANEL 2

®x

3~611 Web

Stations In Other PanelsAre Analogous

..

r~--~-IIW_eb ~,+

x - coordinates for every panel in inchesPanel

x Xl X 2 x3 X 4 Xs x6

x 7 x8 X9 xIO·0

I 7 16 26 37 48 59 69 78

2 -3~ 2 7 15 23 32 40 48 52 3/8 56 3/8

-=:::t 3 7 17 29 41 53 63c.98

4 7 16 26 37 48 59 69 78

5 3 6 15 25 34 37 43

6 -3 3 7 16 26 37 48 59 69 78 82

1 3 7 16 26 37 48 59 69 78 88

2 3 7 15 23 32 40 48 52

Lfl 3 -3 3 7 17 29 41 53 63 67c.9;=J

4 3 7 16 26 37 48 59 69 78 88

5 3 6 15 25 34 37

6 -3 3 7 16 . 26 37 48 59 69 78 82

Fig. 44 Stations for Late·ral· Web Deflections

INrv

-- y= 0.0 - y=o.o I ~»>>>>>)1-- ~;~.o en1.75 -- 1.69 en

4.75 4.69 I I ( , n 4.75...

7.75 7.69 I I ( ). U 7.75

10.75 10.69

15.7515.75 I I ( ). U 15.69

k: M 22.75 k M 22~9 L II 22.75

b H 2~75

\ B 38.25

I R 43.25

b M 3435

I t, <: <: <: , , ,,<'t <:,«<, <<<:<:<<<i 4 7.9

38.69

\: H 43.19'

k II 31.19

1 , l~~"'-\."~~~"~~-- 48.0

L R 38.25

L II 31.25

It!: H 43.25

I ,,{ <: <: <:«,«s<{<,«<:,(,«(,(1 4 7.9

UG4.1, UG4.3, UG4.4 UG4.2,UG4.5,UG4.6 UG5

Fig. 45 Vertical Location:-: of Lateral WebDeflection Readings

J-....Jtv

INI\.)

coen/1

lilo Q)

/ 1/1 y= 15.75"

, IiII,l04

o 0 0

160

0.4 0.8 1.2 W(INC HE'S)

23/Pu1t

20t ·,0 25P I leo,ol7

II 0'

(KIPS) 80 '9' 13 UG 4.3

I x =2911

40 1?-!5 y = 15.75

200

160L 10 15 p.0-0---0---- ult

91

P 120t t7

(KIPS) 80 I: UG 4.4I;4" X =37 11

401-;3 y = 15.75 11

I I

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 W(INCHES)

UG 4.3x = 2911

UG 4.4x ~ 37"

Fig. 46 Web Deflections for UG4.3 and UG4.4I

.....jLN

200

IN1'0OJ

OJ

y=22.6S"

Load No. illo

UG 4.6

x =3711

y = 22.6811

0.4 0.8 1.2 W (INCHES)

160

200

24160 \- "l 914 1~r22PUlf

.p 120t /0---rr/f2"(KIPS) ~

80 3/ f. f UG 4.1°401- 2/ X =5911

° II~/ I ; II~ 18. Y = 31.25

0.4 0.8 1.2 W (INCHES)

II9----0 --F!ult,0

1860

scip I~Ot 41

(KIPS,) 3/80

2/

40"-

Lpad No.

y =31.25"

UG 4.1x ~ -59"

UG 4.6x =37

11

Fig~ 47 Web Deflections for UG4.1 and UG4.6 I......,J

-P:>

LNf'Vco.en

UG 5.4x =37"

Load No.

UG 5.4

x = 37 11

y = 34.75 11

UG 5.3

X =2911

y = 23.75" $"

I,

o 0.4 0.8 1.2 W (INCHES)

16.0

200

0.4 0.8 1.2 W(JNCHES)

8 9200~ 7/0~D

i rult.160t-°6JS

P 1201-/4·(KIPS) 80~3

I40 1j,-2 .

12 13 146 II O.....O-o-P0_0' ult

P 5/(KIPS) 120t 40

/

·80 3140·J

UG 5.3x = 29 11

100

'\"-o

y=23.7511

'Fig. 48 Web Deflections for U85.3 and U85.4 I......,JUl

lJ'1tvco01

0-°\~ ;0CD9

W(lNCHES)-0.4 -0.8

UG 5.6X = 37'1

200 ~ 8o.!2-~--PUlt7c1

160~ J

p 120~05(KIPS)

UG 5.1 l y=2"l75"80 .3X =59"

40 If y =34.75"I

o -0.4-0.8 W(INCHES)

240~ 9Load

t...___o-.-R2001-1 ult

06I

P160H5

.(KIPS) 120II

UG 5.6

.401-x =37

11

y =27.75 11

I

UG 5.10 0.4 0.8 W (INCHES)

x = 59 11

Fig. 49 Web Deflections for UGS.l and UGS.6 I-.......Jm

o -0.4-0.8 -1.2 W(INCHES)

14240~ 12cP......o,,-Pult

o 13

2001-8110

07

1601-/I ~5

P 120'(KIPS)

80h(a UG 5.2

I x =2311

40 1t2 Y=27.751•

I

Load No.

240~ 20LN

1~?--PUlt ~TI'\.)

en

A 200 80(f)

7&/11 160 51/0 1r P 120

3/0_ ~.. q (KIPS)80 UG 4.2

40r:/ x = 23" -1\\ '1=-27.7511

y= 31.19 11 U7i y = 31.1911

ift I , I

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 W(JNCHES)

UG 4.2x =23"

UG 5.2x =23 11

Fig. 50 Web Deflections for UG4.2 and UGS.2 I....j-.J

j

2801- 13 14""'-RIN

~,J\.J

12r ult enI .

2401-1o~9 OJ

'082001- 71

60

P . lOOt /(KIPS) 120 jO

0~2J UG 4.58. ..

x· = 25

y=38.69'1... 40~ y = 38.69 1

'

I ". , , ,

0 -0.4 -0.8 W (I-NCHES)

280~ 10 12_b3_p' ItY .u$/0

240~o

2001-/-0

P 160t15 , \(KIPS) 120 0 0

UG 5.5 V801!-3X = 25 11

~

40 tt- Y = 27.7511

I I

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 W(INCHES)lJG 4.5 UG 5.5X :; 2...5 : x = 25 11

IFig. 51 Web Deflections for UG4.5 and UG5.5 -......Jco

328.6

Fatigue Crack

TYPICAL SHEAR PANEL

Fatigue Crack

TYPICAL PANEL UNDER S 4M

Fig. 52 Location of Fatigue Cracks

-79

328.6 -80

CD ® @ @ ® ®

UG-4

-24.0

- y=O.O-2.0

-13.0-16.67

-31.33-35.0

-46.048.0

787470- - -~42-72 -76 -8~

1941271 0'1

38 40 10 8 52 54

-96 14 16 2471

61£18

~~

~ 44"- 467148

20L!.2256

5824

"-60 98-

26 28 62 64168 34 32

~30 L!S6 36~_ 82 _86 90_

-84 -86 -92

TYPICAL FOR PANELS 4 $ 2

See Table Below For Actual Gage Layout

PanelLinear Rosettes a b

Gages Used Used Inch Inch Note:

68-98 32-66 10 15 YaOdd numbers are

2 applied to gages on

468,74-80 2-30 10 30Ye

the opposite face.

86-88,94-98

Fig. 53 Strain Gage Location (UG4)

328.6 -81

- 24.0

y =0.0- 2.0

- 31.33

- 35.0

-13.0

-16.67

787470

-46.0-. 48.0

J 1.0_1. b 8:'1. b _1_0_1 ~II

- - --72 -76 80- 32,,:g ~12 164 ?I42 a lO 34 36

,,: 6652~54 -

6 50

16 14

"~ 18~94 '=f' 98

96

58~5660 28 26

6830~-

44 4662 22 20

1L48 1 24~90_82 86_ --84 - -92

TYPICAL FOR PANELS 1,3,5 ¢6



Gages Used Used Inch Inch Note:

I 62-80 2-36 10 30~8Odd numbers are

86-88 applied to gages on

5 62-92 20-486 11 5/8

the opposite face.94-98

662-76 2-12,20-30

10 30Ye82-92 44-48,94-98

3 62-76 2-12,20-30 10 22 5/886-88 44-60


328.6 -82

CD ® ® @ ® ®UG - 5

y=o.O

-25.25

-30.438

-35.625

-6.063

_12.125-12.875-14.875

726864

-46.0-48.0

2~ I..O~.. b _1_ b _1 ..0 ~ ~"TYPICAL FOR PANELS I, 2 _ :3

- ... .-- .- .-66 70 74

54

"8052 50

!! 84- -78~12 82- 86-36

I '?I8 10 56 34 32 ,~ ~~ 2

1'4 62-16 14

618~

2224

-60 20~

26 28 58 46 44 40 38

1£30 I 48~ 42~_88

-gO

See Table 'Below For Actual Gage Layout

Panel Linear Rosettes a bGages Used Used Inch Inc'h

I 56-58,60-90 2-24,36-42 10 30~8Note'

50-54 Odd numbers are

2 56 -58,64-902-18,32-42

10 15 ~8applied to gages on

26-30 the opposite face.

:3 56-58,62-70 2-30,44-48 10 22 5/876-82,88-90


328.6 -83

-y=o.o

- 25.25

- 30.438

- 35.625

_'2.'25=12.87514.875

-46.0-48.0

___ •••,. b ..,. b ~~a j ~IITYPICAL FOR PANELS 4, 5 $ 6

56 60 64- -- --- - -58 62 66

68 72 76t--- - - - ~

t-----

~30-70 -74 - ~

1522

7178

26 28 4 6

~~

", 12

14 16 1071~18

8

24 22

1£20 50-

3840 3234154 46 44

1£42 1£36 48~_80

-82



Gages Used Used Inch Inch

4 50-82 2-36 10 30'18 Note:Odd numbers are

5 52-82 2"18,26-306 11 5/8 applied to gages on

30-48 the opposite face.

6 50-82 2-36 10 30~8


Load Nos.

-Boao -4000

14

-3000 -2000STRAIN

9 7 5 3

-1000

LNf\.)

CD

Gage No. 73 (75) ~ en

Gage No. 74 (76)-.

o (JL in./in.)

Fig. 57 Strain Distribution Across Top Flange (UG4.4)

-p(KI PS)

50

150

100

o (p. in. lin.)-1000-3000 2000STRAIN

~\-4000

ItM:e===o-e...

\ 10 9~O~~~

~-16\\~d' 5oe~

~.4\3\

2°

-5000

Fig. 58 Load-vs-Strain of Strain Gages 73 and 75(UG4.4)

IOJ~

l.Ntvco(j)

Gage No. 74(76)

Gage No. 73 (75)

9 51317

o~"" 0\ i 00_ 0_ 0 0 0

2223Load No.

STRAIN -5000 -4000 3000 -2000 -1000 o (JL in./in.)

Fig. 59 Strain Distribution Across Top Flange(UG4.3)

Q "e oo-~~ 1\10~ - -e 23 22 18 ~o~......... _. ;>~

24 17 "'~~.\I, 15 0",

o. ;>~ 13 o~II ~o.9'\

7°\5°

\3°

100p

(KIPS)

50

-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000

STRAIN

-1000 o (JL in./in.)


IcoV1

LNr-vOJ

OJ

Fig. 61 Strain Distribution Across FlangeThickness (UG4.1)

150·

~~~9

2

·50

II

010

+1000 (fL in./in.)

8

p(KIPS)

0-

100

o

7,°6

\5~~4~\

\-1000-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000

STRAIN


IcoQ")

Load No.LN

6 5 3 I\.)

ro

Gage No. 67 (69) OJ

--------- -.............. '", I__ 14

--------Gage No. 68 (70). ,

STRAIN -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 (fL in./in.)

Fig. 63 Strain Distribution Across the Top Flange(UG5.3)

Load-vs-Strain of Strain Gages 68 and 70(UG5.3)

Strain Distribution Across the,L9ngitudinalStiffener (UG5.3)

Fig. 65

Gage No. 80 (82)

Gage No. 79 (81)

o (fL in./in.)

:36 5

-1000

12o

Load No.14

Fig. 64

STRAJN - 2000

100

150

13 0 A30-, 14 \1214 12~ II~

II' 6l6

0

I\ 50~&O~+o '\~ 0f!l. o~

e 0

4°~0 I P

3 \ (KIPS)

-150

2

0

\"

-2000 -1000

STRAIN

o (fL in./in.)

I0)

-.....J

328.6 -88

Fig. 66 Test Set-Up

Fig. 67 Flange Failure and Web Yielding (UG4.4)

328.6

Fig. 68 Yielding of Top Flange (UG4.3)

Fig. 69 Deformed State of Test Panel (UG4.3)

-89

328.6 -90

Fig. 70 Weld Failure (UG4.2)

Fig. 71 Web Panel Failure (UG4.2)

328.6 -9l

Fig. 72 Top Flange Failure and Reinforcingof Compression Flange (UG4.1)

Fig. 73 Web Deformations at Failure

328.6 -92

I Fig. 74 Web Failure (UG4.6)

Fig. 75 Web :railure (UG4.5)

328.6 -93

I

'Fig. 76 Test Set-Up After Last Test--LookingTowards West (UG4.5)

Fig. 77 Test Set-Up After Last Test--Looking,Towards East (UG4.S)

328.6 -94

Fig. 78 Panel Deformations (UG5.3)

Fig. 79 Yielding in ~Flange and Upper Web Panel(UG5.3)

328.6 -95

Fig. 80 Failure of Lower Web Panel (UG5.4)

Fig. 81 Failure of Upper and Lower Web Panel (UG5.6)

- - ---------------.

328.6 -96

Fig. 82 Web Failure (UG5.l)

Fig. 83 Web Failure (UG5.2)

328.6 -97

Fig. 84 Web Failure Due to YieldingAlong Tension Field (UG5.5)

Fig. 85 Last Test on Girder UG5 (UG5.5)

328.6 -98

7 . REFERENCES

'1. Basler, K., and Thlirlimann, B.STRENGTH OF PLATE GIRDERS IN BENDING, Proc. ASCEVol. 87, No. ST6-, August 1961

2. Basler, K.STRENGTH OF PLATE GIRDERS IN SHEAR, Proc., ASCEVol. 87, No. ST7, October 1961

3. Basler, K.STRENGTH OF PLATE GIRDERS UNDER COMBINED BENDING ANDSHEAR, Prac., ASCE, Vol." 87, No. ST7, October 1961

4. Basler, K., Yen, B. T., Mueller, J. A., and Thllrlimann, B.WEB BUCKLING TESTS ON WELDED PLATE GIRDERS, BulletinNo. 64, Welding Research Council, New York,September 1960

5. Yen, B. T., and Mueller, J. A.FATIGUE TESTS OF LARGE-SIZE WELDED PLATE GIRDERS,Bulletin No. 118, Welding Research Council, New York,November 1966

6. D'Apice, M. A., Fielding, D. J., and Cooper, P. B.STATIC TESTS ON LONGITUDINALLY STIFFENED PLATE GIRDERS,Bulletin No. 117, Welding Research Council, October 1966

7. Cooper, P. B.STRENGTH OF LONGITUDINALLY STIFFENED PLATE GIRDERS,Proceedings of ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST2, April 1967

8. Dimitri, J. R., and Ostapenko, A.PILOT TESTS ON THE ULTIMATE STATIC STRENGTH OFUNSYMMETRICAL PLATE GIRDERS, Fritz EngineeringLaboratory Report No. 328.5, June 1968

9. American Institute of Steel ConstructionSPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, ANDERECTION OF STR~CTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS,AISC, New York, 1963

328.6 -99

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared as part of a research project on

unsymmetrical plate girders conducted in the Department of Civil

Engineering, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University,

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Dr. David A. VanHorn is Chairman of the

Department and Dr. Lynn S. Beedle is Director of the Laboratory.

The sponsors of the research project are the American Iron and

Steel Institute, the Pennsylvania Department of Highways (the Bureau

of Public Roads) and the Welding Research Council. The interest and

financial support of the sponsors and the advice of the Task Group

on Unsymmetrical Plate Girders of the Welding Research Council

Committee on Plate Girders are gratefully appreciated.

The authors wish to thank the Fritz Engineering Laboratory staff

for their.cooperation and assistance in conducting the testing

program. Greatly appreciated is the help offered by Chingmiin Chern

in the preparation and actual testing of the girder specimens.

Appreciation is also expressed to Charles E. Anderson, Jr. for his

assistance during testing and preparation of the final report. The

assistance of Irving J. Oppenheim and Jorgen G. Ollgaard during the

testing period is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to

Miss Marilyn L. Courtright for typing this report, to John M. Gera

for preparing the drawings and to Richard N. Sopko for taking the

photographs.

Unsymmetrical Plate Girders - Digital Scholarshipdigital.lib.lehigh.edu/fritz/pdf/328_6.pdfSTATIC...

Documents

Transcript of Unsymmetrical Plate Girders - Digital Scholarshipdigital.lib.lehigh.edu/fritz/pdf/328_6.pdfSTATIC...