Post on 03-Feb-2022
Lehigh UniversityLehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering
1960
Web buckling tests on welded plate girders. Part 4:tests on plate girders subjected to combinedbending and shear. WRC Bulletin, 64, (September1960), Reprint No. 165 (60-5)K. Basler
J. A. Mueller
B. Thurlimann
B. T. Yen
Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contactpreserve@lehigh.edu.
Recommended CitationBasler, K.; Mueller, J. A.; Thurlimann, B.; and Yen, B. T., "Web buckling tests on welded plate girders. Part 4: tests on plate girderssubjected to combined bending and shear. WRC Bulletin, 64, (September 1960), Reprint No. 165 (60-5)" (1960). Fritz LaboratoryReports. Paper 67.http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports/67
~ j '.
Welded Plate Girders, Repert No. 251-14
Submitted te theWelded Plate Girder Project Comm1ttee
for approval as a pub11cat10B
WEB BUCKLING T,~TS ON WELDEDPLAT-E 'GIRDERS
Part 4: Tests OE. Plate Gi'rders Sub,jected toCombined Bending and Shear
by
"Basler, K., Yen. Bo -. T., Mueller, Jo A., amd Thurl1maJiIl, Bo
Frit~ Em.gineering Lab0-rater,yLehigh University
Bethlehem, PennsylvaniaMay 1960
This is the ~ourth part of a report on plate girder
test,s conducted at Lehigh Universityo Reference must
be made to the first part, Report Noo 251~11, for the
scheme of publication, the properties of the girders,
the nomenclature, and the list o~ referenceso
-1-
4.1 Introduction
While the girders discussed in part 2 and part 3 were
sUbjected to pure bending and high shear respectively,
those in this test series were studied under the combined
action of bending and shear. It is the purpose or this
report to explain how the investigation was carried out
and what observational facts were obtained.
Each bending girder discussed in part 2 consisted of
a middle section, which was the test section proper, and
two end pieces which had stronger webs than the test
section. Since failure always ,occurred as intended in the
preselected teat section, it was possible to splice to
gether the undamaged end pieces and form new girders to
be tested to destruction. This was done with the end
pieces of girders GI, G2, G4, and G5 and the resulting
girders are termed 'El, E2, E4, and E5, respe?tively. 1£
these spliced specimens were tested in the setup sketched
in Fig. 1.3, bending failures would almost invariably result
because flange yielding would always precede exhaustion of
the shear strength of the relatively strong web. ThUS, in
order to achieve a more severe interaction between bending
and shear, these girders had to be modified.
-2-
The adaptation decided upon was to weld cover plates
to both flanges of the spliced portions. Using different
sizes and numbers of cover plates for the group of girders
having the same web thickness, girdersEl,E4, and E5,
the shear to normal stress ratio S = ~/a (Sec. 1,1) was
sUfficiently adjusted to render a variety of combinations
of bending and shear stresses. For E4, cover plates 15ft x
7/8" were added such that the girder would fail simul
taneously in bending and shear. Girder ~ was assigned
one more cover pla.te thanE4 to ensure shear .failures,
this additional plate being 18 n x 3/4". On the other hand,
girder E5 had no cover plates.
Having provided a sufficient range of the ratio of
shear stress to normal stress to investigate its influ
ence, the effect of the web slenderness ratio was the next
thing to be studied. Girders ~2, G8, and G9 were designed
for this purpose. Using the end pieces of girder G2 with
added cover plates of 16" x 1", girder E2 was formed with
a one haIr inch web. a8 and G9, two new girders, had the
same .span, de.pth, and fabrication deta.ils as theE-girders,
but had quite slender webs of t~ee~aixteenths and one
eighth of an i.noh, resulting in web slenderness ra tics of
about 254 and 382 respectively.
-3-
Thus, this third phase of the investigation consisted
of a total of six girders referred to as El,E2, E4, E5,
G8, and G9. For the cross sectional dimensions and con
stants, material properties, and the girders' reference
loads and deflections, the summary tables of Part 1 must
be consulted.
4.2 Test Setup
The girders of this series we~e tested in the 5,000,000
pound Baldwin Universal Testing Machine at Fritz Engineering
Laboratory. With the movable crosshead of the machines
guided by massive columns, the movement is strictly vertical
without horizontal' or torsional displacements. For this
reason, all girders were mounted on rollers at both supports 0
Although they had one degree of freedom whIle resting in the
test bed, the girders became stable as Boon as the load was
applied. This systeM is illustrated in Fig. 103.
In the design of the girders subjec·ted to bending or
shear, ~ predetermined test section could be designedo In
this series of girders subjected to combined bending and
shear, the test setup precludes any such section and
failure can occur anywhere. The entire girder is the test
section proper. If failure should occur under the point
of load application, it would be difficult to trace its
primary cause. While this is a disadvantage from the
-4-
rese,arch point of view, these tests simulate true field
conditions. The setup used, when inverted, reproduces the
conditions at an intermediate support of a continuous
girder where the ends 0f the test girder are at the points
of inflection.
Appearing in Fig. 4.1 is the test setup, where a
girder is seen positioned in the testing machine. Besides
the elevation, a plan view of the girder is provided which
shows the lateral brac~ng system. Incorporated in this
system were the supports, the loading point, and two
lateral bracing pipes. While the friction forces at the
loa.ding surface fixed the girder against any lateral
buckling at i ts 1Uids'pan,- the support po ints under load
eliminated lateral movements in their vicinity. The two
lateral braces were located at quarter poi~ts with their
far ends attached to a rigid bracing beam. The conmecting
pins at both ends of each bracing pipe were fitted snug in
the holes so that, unlike the setup ror the bending girders,
no later~l movement of girder was allowed before the braces
actedo
Of importance in the subsequent presentation of results
is the ori:entation of a girder. To this end, the 'Cartesian
coordinate system shown in Fig. 1.3 is needed. All draw
ings containing a girder1s or panel1s outline will be pre
sented such that the x-axis points to the right, that ~s,
the lateral braces are hidden behind the girder.
-5-
4.3 Test Results
In this section the tests conducted on the six
girders are explained and the results of all basic obser
va.tions .presented. Among the "bas 10" measurements made
throughout the investigation are the centerline de£lection,
the state of strain at a panel1s center, the extension of
a panel's diagonals, the strains in a transverse stiffener,
and the web deflection at the centers of certain panels.
Since the method of presentation is Bubstantially the
same for all specimens, the data will be thoroughly ex
plained for girder El only.
F0r a survey of properties of girder -El, Table I. 1
in part 1 of this report should be conBultedo 'There it is
shewn that the web depth to web thickness ratie was ~ = 131,
and that a total of four tests were run which pr~duced
failure in panels of aspect ratios a = 3.0, 1.5, 1.5, and
loa.
The load-deflection curve, Fig. 4.2, together with
the sketches shown in Fig. 4.3, completely describe the
testing.histery 0f girder El. From these figures it is
seen that the specimen was loaded up to load No. 7 at 540
kips in its first loading cycle. After reducing to zero,
this load was alternately reapplied and reduced to near
zero ten times without causing any additional deflections~
-6-
It is seen that when the applied load was increased above
load No.7, the highest load which could be statically
maintained, the ultimate load, was 555 kipso Upon un~
loading to load N0. 15, the first test was c'omplete. In
this test a clear shear failure occurred in the long panel
where a = 3.0, as is indicated by the right hand sketch in
the first row of Fig. 4.3. A photograph of the failed
panel is included as Fig. 4.4 where it can be seen that
permanent web distortion was located along the general
direction of the yield lines. However, this distortion
was small enough that the panel could be reinforced by
two pairs of transverse stiffeners fitted to the distorted
shape and welded to the web at its third points, as seen
in the third sketch of Fig. 4030 This reinforcing operation
1s always indicated by a welding symbol in the load-deflec
tion diagrams.
The second test, ~2, extended from load Noo 16 to
load No. 24- According to the definition adopted in Sec.
2·4, the ultimate load for this test was attained at load
Noo 22, where % = 580.kips. Occurring i~ the panel to
the right of the loading point, this failure was identified
as a shear failure, as the photograph of Fig. 4.5 reveals.
Fig. 406 is a photograph taken of the far side of this
~ailed panel. Evidentally, the width o~ the yielded strip
as appearing in these pictures must not be identified
-7-
with the effective width of a tension field, since they
only reveal surface conditions. As pointed out berore,
Fig. 3012, the stresses at the surface are due to both
plate membrane and bending stresses, whereas the tension
field is entirely a membrane actlono
After completion of the second test, the ~ailed
panel was reinforced by welding two single, half inch
thick stiffeners to the far side o~ the web, Fig. 4~3,
third sketch on the left. Upon loading again in test T3,
the recorded centerline deflections rollowed the pre~
dieted ones fairly well up until load No. 29. It is
interesting to observe that the load-deflection curve
exhibited a type of hysteresis loop. This was due to the
fact that before being reinforced, the panels acting in
a tension field manner underwent greater shear deformations
than those predicted by simple beam action. However, after
adding rigid and closely spaced transverse stiffeners, the
shear force in this panel was essentially carried by beam
action and the predicted deflections were followed more
closelyo
Following the load-deflection curve again, the load
was increased to 568 kips and then dropped back to lead
Noo 31, 542 kips, which was less than the Pu obtained from
T20 Since calculations indicated a load well in excess of
the ultimate load of T2, thi,s action was unexpectedo Upon
investigation, it was found to be due to failure or a
reinforcing stiffener at X = -10ge This stiffener, welded
with the one on the opposite side of the web as a rein
forcement after test Tl to form a. 8n x 1/4" plats,9 did not
act similar to the original stiffeners of exactly the same
sizeo The web distortion'remaining from the previous test
affected the stiffener, which acted as a post, and caused
the failure 0 The repair of this local failure was accom
plished by welding a strong compression diagonal in the
end panel, as seen from the fourth sketch on the left of
Figo 403. Then, the buckled stlffener~ relieved of its
post action, endured any ~urther- increases in the web
deflections throughout the following tests.
This diagonal reinforcement 9 added between load Noo
32 and load No. 33, is. again indicated in Figo 402 by a
welding symbol$ Continuing with T3, an ultimate load of
Pu = 634 kips was reached at load No. 39 and an unloading
curve furnished by loads Noo 40 and 410 Again~ failure
was in a shear pattern which occurred in the end panel
extending from X = +84 to X = +1590 The corresponding
sketch in Figo 403 shows the additional yield lines created
by this third test, while F1go 407 gives a photographic
verification of this failure 0
-9-
Having produced a shear failure in each panel of
the original girder, the testing could be regarded as
finished. However, to satisfy curiosity as to how strong
the newly formed square panels on the left side were, the
right end panel was reinforced and a fourth test perrormedo
Although subjected to great initial distortions, these
square panels were strong enough to allow an increase in
the ultimate load of 50 kips, with Pu = 684 kips, and held
through quite an amount of straining. Although no unload
ing had taken place due to this straining, the testing of
girder El was ended with load No. 530
In order to distinguish the tests conducted on panels
which failed in a previous ultimate load test from original
tests, the letter r, referring to retesting, is added to
their ultimate loads l~ted in Table 4.1. Since the rein
forcing stiffeners were cut to the shape or the distorted
web, the panel borders were not in a planeo Therefore,
the test results should not be used other than to show
that under unfavorable circumstances certain loads could
still be carriede
Attention 1s now focused to Flge 488, a diagram which
compares the actual state of stress in the web to that
predicted by beam theory. The comparison appears at the
very location on the girder where the strain rosette
-10-
measurements were taken~ The loads Nose 17, 18, 19, and
20 were selected as representative ones for this study.
The choice was influenced by the desire to have these
measurements made within the range of a previous loading
cycle (Seco 3.4), and preferably in the particular test
where failure occurred in the instrumented panel.
All principal stresses were determined in the same
manner described in Sec. 3.4, where the solid stress
vectors are the experimental results and the dotted ones
computed according to the beam theoryo Again, the com
parison between experimental and theoretical stresses shows
that, even in girders with relatively sturdy webs, a tension
field action occurs.
The above conclusion is also confirmed by strain
measurements recorded on the pair of intermediate stiffeners
bordering the failed panel. In Fig. 4.9 is a curve of
applied load versus sti~fener strain as observed throughout
the second test on this girder. The resulting strain,
plotted as abscissa, is the average of four SR-4 gages.
Since the sti£feners used thrOUghout the entire investiga
tion were the same, the same layout of gages was used as
for girders G6 and G7. For a proper interpretation of
this group of measurements, reference should be made to
Sec o 304.
-ll~
Another basic observation consistently made was the
measurement of the change in distance'between two points
at the ends o~ the panells diagonals 0 With gage marks
drilled in girder panels' corners, the changes in the
diagonals were obtained ,with gages which were similar to
Whittemore gage and specially adapted for different panel
lengths 0 All readings were made in the same way as de
scribed in Seco 3.50 As an example, Figo 4$10 is included
showing the movements obtained in Tl and T2, both observed
in the same panel shown in Fig. 4~3 where the gage points
for these measurements are also showno The distance be-
tween the points in the upper left and lower right was
shortened (negative in sign) since this is a "compression
diagonaltf~ The other diagonal was stretchedG Using a
common load ordinate, P, the shortening and extension orthe diagonals can be plotted on the same graph and Figo 4.10
resultso
Finally, in Figo 4.11 some web deflection readings as
evaluated and discussed in Sec. 203 are presented. As
before, the upper half of the figure gives the distorted
shapes of the cross sections for a limited number of lo:ads,- ,~
while the graphs at the bottom give complete load-deflection
curves for selected points in the web~ A cross section o~
particular interest is that where the strain rosettes were
mounted, at X = +46 1/20 From the cross sectional shape
-12-
and the graph for this cross section, it is clearly seen
that the first test had a pronounced effect on this panel
such that the "initial deflections" .for the second test,
which started with load No. 16, were more than one-half
an incho For the cross section at X = +121 ~/2, it can\
be seen that the web was still quite plane at load No. 33,
just prior to the test which caused failure in this pane,l.
With this rather complete explanation of the testing
history, the failure modes, and the content of the basic
grapps of girder El, it is possible to study the perform
ance of all the other girders without much further coMmen-
tary& Therefore, all pertinent graphs and photographs are
grouped together at the back of the report for the re-
maining girders.
In order to study anyone girder, the following pro-
cedure is suggested:
10 Referring to Table 1.1, obtain the ·properties of
the girder, the number of tests conducted, and the locations
of the failures.
20 Use the load-deflection curve to become familiar
with the girder's testing historYa The curves for girders
E2 through G9 are given in Figso 4~12, 4e 22, 4032, 4.40,
and 4050 respectively. Since the observations were re-
corded with an Engineer's level, all support movements
-13-
were readily eliminated using the principles explained in
Sec. 2.3.
3. Cons'ult the appropriate figure from ~ig. 4.13,
4023, 4.33, 4.41, to 4.51 to become in~ormed as to the
appearance of the girder before and after testing. In
addition, these figures mark the locations of the photo~
graphs presented in this report. If a frame appears in
dashed lines, the picture was 'taken from th~ far side of
the girder; if in solid lines, from the near sideo Further
more, the location of the strain rosettes, the strain gages
on the transverse stiffeners, the measured diagonals,.and
the cross sections at which web deflections were recorded
are all shown in self-explanatory symbols. All these posi
tions indicated are not the only places where recordings
were obtained; they are the ones at which the measurements
were taken from which graphs presented in this report were
.made. Likewise, the presence of a symbol indioating
measurements before a later test does not exclude observa
tions with this instrument at an earlier test, but rather
indicates to which test the particular graph pert~inso
40 For the basic test measurements, select the suitable
graphs from the followings for girders E2,_ 'E4, E5, G8, and
G9 respectively:
- Fig. 4.14, 4.24, 4.34, 4.42, and 4052 for the
state of stress in the web as measured by pairs
o~ strain rosettes.
-14-
axial strain in a transverse stiffener.
- Fig. 4.16, 4.26, 4.36, 4044, and 4.54 for the
extensions of the panel diagonals.
- Fig. 4.17, 4.27, 4.37, 4.45, and 4.55 for the
web deflections at two different cross sections
or .the girder.
50 Finally, refer to the photographs or t~e girder
for the failure modes of particular interest. These photo-
graphs are:
Girder F2: Figs. 4.18, 4019, 4020, 4.• 21
'F4'o 'Figs. 4028, 4·29, 4.30, 4031, .E5: Figs. 4.38 , 4039
G8: Figs. 4.46, 4.47, 4.48, 4.49G9: Figs. 4.56, 4~57 , 4·58, 4.59
To conclude this section, a summary of all the ultimate
loads is given in Table 4.1. Here also are listed the
yield, plastic, and critical· loads of each test. The
difference between the ultimate load Pu and the maximum
load Pmax lies in their def'ini tion. Wh,ereas Pu is a
static load, the maximum load is recorded during load
~~ppllca-t-iftiI;- tha; ~~e~__.de:fml"trj;o.ns '<'P-aing gi'v,&n- in· Sec-o ' 2 ~ L~,.
404 Discussion
With the test results given, certain features which
are likely to be otherwise overlooked are presented in
this sectiono
In the description of the test setup, concern was
expressed over the lack of a well defined test section
for each girder. It was feared that failure might take
place locally at the loading point where the combination
or moment and shear was most severe and where the stress
conditions were made obscure by the load applicatlono As
the test results show, this concern was unnecessary. At
the loading point, the girder elements under compression
were braced so that they could strain harden since ,the
compression flange plate was guided by the loading device
and the web was braced by the loading stiffene~so The
tension flange, being self stabilizing, did not require
any special attention.
Although no local failure was developed at the loading
point, the details at the ends of the test girders. proved
to be of more concern. Considering, for instance, the
test of girder E4, one would assume that failure occurred
somewhere near midspan, but the actual case was an almost
Budden failure of an end panel, Figo 4028.
-16-
The reason ror such a railure is that the tension field
action cannot build up to its full extent without a
neighboring panel, unless the end post has enough bending
rigidity to serve as an anchor for the tension fieldo The
end posts made from a 12WF50 section seemed to be sufficient
for a very long panel, a = 3, where the tension rield action
is less pronounced. However, for a shorter panel, a = 1.5,
the end post collapsed in the manner shown in Fig. 407. orcourse the web slenderness also influences the end failure.
For girder G9 having an extremely thin web, the shear re
sistance depended almost entirely on tension field action
and end failure occurred also for a stiffener spacing a = 3,
Fig. 4~57. When this happened again at the other g~rder
end, two steel plates were tightly clamped to the outstand
ing web as shown in Fig. 4.58. Thus, the shear strength
of G9-T2 could be increased 30% as born out by the corres~
.ponding .points in the load-deflection curve, whe.re., load
Noso 17 and 20A are the ultimate loads before and after the
reinforcement respectively. In order to distinguish between
true tests and premature failures due to insufficient end
detail, the latter are marked in Table 4$1 with SUbscript
"e" 0 A detailed study of this end .post failure will be
given in the theoretical report.
-17-
Disregarding the premature failure in the end panels,
it can be seen that for girders subjected to both shear
and bending, the shear strength was hardly affected by the
bending moment. Conversely, the bending strength was not
affected by the shear force in the case of Girder G5 which
failed in a panel with closer stiffener spacing,,~ ~ 0075,
rather than in one with a = 1.5. The solution.,ot the prob
lem of interaction between bending and shear is presented
in Ref. 7 and will be treated again in the forthcoming
theoretical report.
Briefly, the highlights revealed by the tests on this
series or girders can be summarized as follows:
Failure' of a properly proportioned girder is ~nlikely
to occur directly at the point of load application, although
the bending mom~nt is highest there o
The design:of girder ends requires speci~l attention
if the same shear strength is desired in an end panel as
within the girder.
The presence of bending moment little arfects shear
strength, that is, the interaction between bending and
shear is not a pronounced one o
**
*
-18-
In concluding, it should be recalled that the objec~
tive of the entire 'investigation was to study the problem
of web ,buckling. These tests, therefore, are or both
academic and practical value.
The academic value of this investigation is that it
demonstrates convincingly that the web buckling theory
is unable to predict the strength of plate girders with
slender webs. Also the postbuckling strength of girders
cannot be simply expressed on the basis of the critical
str~ss as is often expected, that 1s, the strengtb of
plate girders is not a function of the web slenderness
ratio aloneo Furthermore, these tests led to a new basis
for an ultim~te strength prediction.
The practical value is that, besides obtaining
solutions to some detailing problems, a new design- speci
fication can be drafted with which more econo~ical girders
can be builta For example, in view of the ex~st~U& speci~
fication in this country, the bending girder test3~-clearly
indicate that the domain of web slenderness ratiosa~ove
170, covered so far only by girders with longitudinal
stiffeners, can be opened to plate girders with only trans
verse stiffeners. The increase in shear strength, as
e~plained by the tension field action, permits either a
saving in web area or an increase of transverse stifrener
spacings $ The third se~~e8 of the teats, containing girders
-19-
with web slenderness ratios as low as one hundred, directly
suggests a liberation of the web slenderness limitations of
unstiffened plate girders.
Finally, concerning this report, it is hoped that it
will serve an additional purpose'in providing informationI'
on the behavior of b~11t up member~, such as plate girders,
which is not discussed in standard text books or speclfica~
tion manuals.
-20-
Table 4'.1
Summary of Reference and -Experimental Loads
Girder Test Theoretical "Experimental
Per Py Pp ·pu PI maXa
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Tl 332 826 920 555 576'El T2 402 826 920 580 598
T3 415 905 920 (634)e 656T4 506 826 920 (684) r 710
Tl 570 716 855 755 774T2 584 716 855 757 810
Tl 445 880 905 (595)e 616F4 T2 513 658 691 634 670
T3 .517 639 666 "645. 700
E5 Tl 314 248 367 3·50 359T2 322 358 386 360 364
Tl 41.5 280 368 170 180
G8 T2 56·4 410 434 (200)e 207T3 48.3 280 368 233. 241T4 57.3 280 368 (259)r 273
Tl 1209 264 35~ (96) e 101G9 T2 16.8 324 33 (150)e 155
T3 1505 264 354 158 162
5,000,000 lb. Testing Machine
)"31-1~
I"3
1-I Y2
JII
("4- 11411x~3~~-y-
)"1'4
31-1~~
II Il'4xq.
1'13'-11'2
271-6"
9"1911
Sym. AboutCl. ExceptFor Transverse Stiffeners
61-311
G4 3/~ WEB
117,1115x Va
1211x34
12"X34
15I1xv'~
6 1-3
CUT FROM
~
Typical also for Girders EI, -E2,E5,G8 a G9
I~
I
I
Fig. 4.1 Plate Girder E4 with Test Setup
P[k]
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
20
Vth
T3
Vth
., T4 ------
".........--",'-'\I !/----, ,'----,.." 0 0 ~ ...
,.., 0 50 51 ~ 53~I 0 49 52
48J
~cr
GIRDER EI
I I 054 I ~2 3 vet-Lin]
Fig. 4.2 Loa1d'-Defllecl'ion Curve. Girder EI
~III
-, I
AFTER TEST
rE I-TI
+159
I
BEFORE-'r -51
9 -PiI
rr i l '0... 1 ,P 1"I I . II )·.. x! ~t I I :II I. 10" 1 '0
I
X= -159
I
L F.4.5 a F.4.6..J
I
if II '0.. i, P II I i II I 1 ........
II I JO" ! Il.L "0
I
EI-T2
I ,; I I II h II
,; I ; n II I.+' I 1 /I III "" I II II
·1
J (I III 1 0 U
r
L- F. 4.7 -.J
I // I II
(I
~~~II / :~~: It
(I
/ III / I v~ I
II III / N II
l.L tql , U........,.....
T /,~
"I \ I
I (
TI / II IIII II
I // I I II h I
u~'lu ~
1//~i
II ! III
E I-T4
1I EI-T3I
I
iI
I
: :I IJ 1
Fig. 4.3 Girdler EI Before and After Tests
Fige 4.4 Shear Failure. E1-TI
Fige 4.5 Shear Failure. EI ~T2 1 Near Si'de
Fig. 4.6 Shear Failure. EI-T2. Far Si'de
Fig. 4.7 Typical End Panel Failure of Plate Girder (EI)
i ~ c.,o 20
~ II
III -k2()'\, ~
20II 11
/If 19
II II /1-II I I ' ()~ 19/'"II II (X=+16Y2) '.<.. (X =+79),I /""11 yt 11 y= +21 19, 20 Y=+2111 II , ~ 18/ 1811
+IOtIl 18'-<-, 19 I //
11 II11 II
~~~7/ 17II IIII
L.n
II II SR4 GagesII r--Ut.-II --- --- --- --t rJ---II
I +10 XIIII II El11 I
iII
I
IIX=+46Y2II II
II II y=oII IIII 11 Z=oII I IIII
III
-l'f=+16Y2) (X=+79)~l-II II
\II II
!LJL UL I Y= +21 Y= ... 21 I
!
I I r I I I I J I I 1 Po ne I ScaIeo 10 20 [in]
t----... Computed
I------l.... MeasuredI I I I r I , r I I I Stress Scaleo 5 10 [ksi]
Fig. 4.8 Principal Stresses at Panel Center, Girder EI
.~·tos.........V)
oo
ooN
oor<>
ooq-
ooL{)
rodI
oo<.0
\2 Lo~~
o~~
o ~~
-l!!!!!II~------lI---+---+--+----f----+--+-----+------f.--+----+------I--~ 0
o
T2
22210----0...............023
Lo
_-+__ 9~24_-+-1_--+-__0_16_-+--_+- _--+-__
P_______2~______ 21 [k]
230\ 0'\020
Girder E I \400
(X =t 16 ) d (X=+79 )
Neg.tiL batw. Y=+2 I an Y=- 21
Pos.l:l L batw. (X=tI6) and (X=t79)Y=-21 Y=+21
P[k]
-11------1'1--150-000-0
1-5---+---__9,8,1,8,9
~L[inJ -0.05 0 +0.05 L1L [in] -0.2 0 +0.2
Fig- 4.10 Displacements in the Direction of Panel Diagionals. Girder EI
w
w~o-II
~>-+IIX
w-~<;~>-+IIX
Ioo<.0N
Im ~
I I
dzo~o...J
om+
LO-;
tN
I I II ~, I I
~: r;; :~:....--::::..I=------__e-~-e_~
-(\J
w-~q+II
><
-Nw-::::::(\J
+II
X
v~ [in]
Girder E 2
32
--.E.Pcr
Vth
TIVth
400
700
500
P[k]800
600
300
I _ _ _ T2 -_----------.....---" , ..--, " .... -- ......,,, " .... ------
" I ,I " ' '~ \ / -,
I" ~' ~ ~ a 36 b' \190 ~o----a3233 34 35 P 37 380/..t-Py 2, ~ Y
018 031
I !0)17 030
~/ I~OO16k Pcr /29
1/15
/28
//14 (277/13 /26
200 +1112 /25100 +20 all 024
alii 12213 i I I I I 039
I ~,of '-v-
Fig. 4.12 Loa,d-Deflection Curv1e, Gir·der E2
BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
tD_X
~--- j-
~ ~" 4.18
" ~,~ iE2-TI"
i !- 4.19
Ttt
II
TIIII
E2-T2
I 4.20
Fig. 4.13 Girder E2 Before an1d After Tests
E2X= +46Y2
y=oZ= 0
~/ '3229 r ,7 '29
27/'27
32 29
2ef
x
Il!
IYti
-!-.II
II
I
t-----..... ComputedI I I I I I I I t I I Panel Scaleo 10 20 [in]
I I I I I I I I I I I Stress Scale )r Measuredo 5 IO[ksi]
Fig. 4.14 Principal Stresses at Panel Center, Girder E2
N
C\JC\J¢ 0 li">o ww.-a> II L-
+ >- \U (])-cII L-X ill
~ LI (])
C(])
~co bi
~7~C\I
... d (])V)I ...(])
>tOo ~ V)
~o/ ~CtoL-a l-
I to
0 0 0 m .=0 0 0 rt)
"it <D q (\J 0 c
~ f()'OO_6_0-0 6 0 b 6 0I .;000 L-
a.. ~ tf)(\J - 0 en co "" to U') "it ", +-l...-\ tOrt) tf') tf) (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J C\I V)
to.;<«
aLO+~
tilu::
P[k]
Girder E2T2
-0.1 0 +0.1
Displacements in the Direction of Panel Diagonals, Gird'er E2
I I
35 34 33 320-------------0--0--0
31b
3~29 0 600
(X=-+77V8) (X=+15~8)
Pos. ~L betw. y = +20 and Y=-203/S
(X=t771t4) (X=tI53/4)
Neg.l1L betw. Y=-211t2 and Y=+20'tS
tiL [in] - 0.2
Fig. 4.16
NW
~
NI
NNOw-Ui II
v>+IIX
C\i.
~f ~ t::!£ !!2 ~ ~ £::! :: Q~--~-._1__~--l__l __ 1__ !__• 0
a...~ 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0,..... to f{)
'itrf) _ 0 m a:> f"-- CD LO V f'()
~I-~-r:>.:....~--~--";--~--~--~~~-__-_-__- __-_-__-----r------J.O
o to:; doo(/) 0
en lO C\JI I I
o ~z
ore~N LO m
+ + +
Fig. 4.18 Gir,der E2 at Ultimate Loa'd
l-.....
VI(])
l-
NUJ
....(])
~
lDr£
" -. " 0'. +
0Q)
t/)
."~
toLL
'"'I-0
to+
(])£::)
0"0
~
C'ii:
Fig. 4.20 Appearance of Girder E2 After Testing (T2)
...-.-.NI--
I
N~
Q)
C'\f::10
u::Co
·VicQ)
~
0+10
.;00+Q)
C
Vt. [in]
Girder E4
Vth
T2 -f T3 -------
033
032
P[kJ
300
Rk P / n _---..... .".-- .....rp ..... __ - \ ". "~Pv ~--, " ,,""" b/'~,..... , .."--,,,....~R '\ /' 6' 40'
,.,,", '\, 0 0 ~Y if \10 ({ ~50 36 37 38 39 \
,_ ,f 27 28 2901 \160 V;026 34 ,
/ . ,l I
iff 24
411'Z
23
#/200+ il'/21
100 +20010 020
o1~8J ! 3Odj31 i I I I I 0'42 I ~~\ \ I 2 3
IOx540k'~ ~
400
700
500
600
Fig'. 4.22 Loa-d--Deflection Curve. Gird'er E4
BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
1\~~~ ,~~~ rrIj
'·~iliI
I 'l"u.J I
t--\4.28 --\\
E4.:r I \\
+46 ~2+84 +1I6/'2-84 X[in]
1 YI a....
~J,P It
~I i.I ~X
1\
/!- II
~ "0 1
I I I II II-159
[UIUIT] I[IT]-134-109 -59 -34
r --,
E4-T2
L 4.30 a 4.31 ---l
E4-T3
I+Z7
TIIII
4.29
,. ,~\
Fig. 4.23 Girder E4 Before an1d Aft,er Tests
r-,. ~.
15"'- ~flJfS CJO~ tt-l
~15
)- 15 II ! II~
~, 13 ~~ If II
'13 /~II 11
~ 13 II I II13 ~ ~ II II
~~II I 11/ II yt I,I' II,I
II~"I' 11I' II,I
L1
IIII
--- --~ II .~II XII I
II'
IE4II
II X=-46!t211Ii
!Y=o
II Z=o11II 11; I,
?
h II
t--lL LJL
I----~sa~ Measured
1---.... ComputedI I r I I I , I I I I Panel Scaleo 10 20 [in]
I I I I I I I I I I I S'tress Scaleo 5 10[k50
Fig. 4.25 Axial Strain in a Transvers,e Stiffener. Girder E4
vw
.:(J).....c:Q.)
()
v-va roowr-~~ \iJII
t: x0
(\J
dI
'-
~~ ~ dI
~1r~
~C\J 009
~ I I 0?='- ---.:;-~
~8 0
...... 0
Cl.6 0 '0 'l\t
0 0 0<.D V C\J
d+
P[k]
(X=-15) (X= -77)Neg.liLbetw. Y=+21 and Y=-211;4
(X= -15 3/4) and (X =-77 )y= - 20 Y=+20
Pos. aL batw.
L\L [in] -0.1 -0.05
I,
+0.05
Girder E4
TI
+0.1 +0.15
Fige 4.26 Displacements in the Direction of Panel Diagonals. Girder E4
vw9
C\JI
10I
c
(5 ll)
'; d"0u
(J) 0
enI
dzo<tg
o
Fig. 4.28 Premature Failure in End Panel. Girder E4 .
Fig. 4.29 Gird'er E4. After Test'ing
to' ... _
~ ~.. t .. .... . ...
Fig. 4.30 Failure of Girder E4 in Test T2. Near Side
Fig. 4.31 Failure of Girder E4 in Test 21 Far Si'd,e
II)
w
LOW
Q)
>...::s
()
BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
~I
-159
y
Xun]
E5-TI
E5-T2
L
,d Aft,er TestsE5 Before anGirderFig. 4.33
(\
E5X=-46 ~2
y= 0Z=o
I I f I I I I I I I I Panel Scolea 10 20 [in]
t--- - ~ Computed
1----.....;:),... MeasuredI I I I I I I I I I I Stress Scalea 5 10 [ksi]
Fig. 4.34 Principal Stresses at Panel Center. Gir·der E5
LC')w
a+
o
a.....
~o
\IIaI
U1(\JV<ii'wt-,?>-
II
x
N 0 0o 0f"t1 C\J
Lt)W
10(\1w~
(\I
Q ~ij~~====!=!-~=WI~I'P i-i-i-~I
~w
~...0.... toQ) d
0"0(,,)
z (f)
't:) 002
.~
'".....s:([)
EQ)U10c..'"o
LONOW..:::::.. II
C\J)+II
X
LONOW":::::-'II
w)-~III
X
C\II
LO
I
mI
om+
l{')C\.1W~
ill~
III
><
oa(\j
o
P[k]
+1.0 liLUn]
Girder E5
T2
+0.5~0.5-1.0
28o
29~27
2\\.:
\\23°100
~-+-----t----+-----+-30,21.30a
(X= -15) (X = - 77)Neg.l\L betw. Y 20 1 and I=+ /2 Y=-20 /2
(X= -15) (X=-77)Pos.dL betw. V=-201/2 and Y=+20
Fig. 4.37 Web Deflections. Gir,d,er E5
Fig. 4.38 Appearance of Girder E5 after Testing
Fig. 4.39 Detail of Failure, Gir,der E5, Test T2
BEFORE TESTy
G8-T2
G8-T3
G8-T4
Fig. 4.41 Id After Tests.Ga Before anGirder
E·IO
G8T3
X=+84Y=Q
~Pcr
P[k]
100
200
G8T2
X=+84y=o
O .2013'6-0~":'="':='-----+-1----+1----+---~~iiiiiJIl-3 I
o -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 E·IO -0.1 -0.2
Fig. 4.42 Principal Stresses at Panel Center. Girder G8
P[k]
100
200
o~·
25 ~e
24
It.I
iIi I !!
~~ ~ 25IIII
I IIIIIi II ::Q2S,(" Q~ 2 .;11II IIII Yt II.
24', ~ ~23II IIII II
"" I 27,/II
iII
II II 23 , ' /h II , 22 /II I I:
~¥22II
LIt 22 ~24 /."
II II/I IIII ---rr- .. -....,. --- ---II
I
II XtlII II G8II 11[I II
X=+46Y2IiII II
IIIII
I
II Y=QIIIIII Z=oII II
II IIII II
III I II
III
~LJL
I I I I I I I I I I I Panel Scalea 10 20[in]
r---- .... Computed
t-------i..... MeasuredJ I I I I J I I I I J Stress Scalea 5 10 [ksiJ
Fig. 4.43 Axial Strain in a Transv·erse Stiffener. Girder G8
Girder G8
T3
230\
10\220022
26o
~025\ 20
024
(X=+16) (X=+78)Pos.liL betw. andY=-21 Y=+21
(X=+16) (x =+-78)Neg.~L betw. Qnd
Y=+21 Y=-21
____+-- 021 I IO.;;;;.28~_---,,_
~L[in] -0.1 0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.3
Fig. 4.44 Displacements in the Direction of Panel Diagonals, Girder 68
co<J)
o
x
eDNO(!)-, II
(\j>-
'+II
X
eDNOC)-' IIc.D>-'d'+II
Ioo(\J
t;j{;;e
III
~\ . m~'"::,--.N oq------.
N rt>____.....N ~ ._
I NINo
ooC\J
ItoT
.....2 toQ) 0ou
(f) 0
CJ')I
dz
o«o..J
I I II
l~~
·-~--·r~=LO--O I0- - __ 0
.-t:
/~(T)
/-•
m+
LO'+
:::::::::..~:
I
Fig. 4.46 App.earance of Gir,der G8 at Load No. II. Far Side
Fig. 4.47 Appearance of Gir,der G8 at Load No. I I. Near Side
Fig. 4.48 Failure of Girder G8 in Test T3
Fig. 4.49 Girder Ga After T1esfing
r<io
.c
'>
.c;>
,.c
->
JooC\J
<l>>.....:::J
()
oLO~
X[in]
BEFORE TESTy ~.4.5r7E~=====:::::y:;:r=f=:rr:r=====n======tAFTER TEST
F.4.56 -,
G9-TI
Fig. 4.51 Girder G9 Before and After T,ests
G9-T3
G9-T2
G9X=+46V2
Y=Qz=o
1------3...... Mea5ured
1------- ComputedI I I I I I I I I I I Panel Scaleo 10 20Dn]
I I I tit I I I I I Stress Scaleo 5 10 [ksi]
Fig. 4.52 Principal Stresses at Panel Center, Girder G9
0"-
N\cD
mt\lqO rt)oL..
<.!)t-~~ \Ii Q)II -c>< "-
ill.q &:
2
0\ d (1)I c:
Q.)
tI=!-.+-
(1)0 en-\ rt") Q)d II)
I L-Q)
>-t:o----o 'It
~c:toL..
(\J I-0 toI
.5c:
~O\ ~ltD
C\JL-
a .....I
V')
to'x«
~o,0
"'0m
1""1 0 0 10a.~ 0L-J 0 .¢(\J q-
~u:
28l-{27026
P29 28 [k]
50~__-0:'-_--0\
\ 150
22:6\
\lOa
(X=+16) (X=t-78) \Pas. LiL betw. Y =-21 and Y=+21
(X=+16) (X=+:78) 250\Neg.t1Lbetw. Y=+21 and Y=-21
025 Girder G9T3
+0.6
-----I'1__01--_+--_-+-_-+--0.;;;.,2,;;;;.,3---I-I-----t--+---+-'I---+----t~-o~
~L [in] -0.4 -0.2 0 +0.2 +0.4
Fig. 4.54 Displacements in the Direction of Panel Diagonals. Girder G9
(nNO(!)_....... II
c.D>~'
+II
X
NI
L()
I
L.
.E U")
Q) dCu
(f) 0
enI
om+
~I..:.=.J
>- (\J to+ +
Fig. 4.56 Failure of Gird'er G9 in Test TI
"'IoQ)
oc:ros-IDCl>co..«
·C'u:
Fig. 4.59 Failure of Girder G9 in Test T3