Web Buckling and Web Crippling in Steel Beams: Complete Design Guide

The all-in-one reference: full elastic plate buckling derivation, critical shear stress formulas, tension field action post-buckling theory, IS 800 Cl. 8.4 and 8.7 checks, AISC 360 web local yielding and crippling, Eurocode 3 EN 1993-1-5 resistance formulas, bearing and transverse stiffener design with worked example, load dispersion model, web slenderness limits, and interactive calculator.

Elastic Plate Theory IS 800 / AISC 360 / EC3 Tension Field Action Stiffener Design
By Bimal Ghimire • Published July 10, 2025 • Updated April 15, 2026 • 30 min read

Web Buckling vs Web Crippling: Definitions, Mechanisms, and Failure Modes

The web of a steel I-beam or plate girder is the thin vertical plate connecting the two flanges. Its primary function is to resist shear forces between the flanges, but it also contributes to bending resistance by maintaining the separation between tension and compression flanges. Because the web is intentionally slender (high depth-to-thickness ratio $h_w/t_w$) for structural efficiency, it is susceptible to two distinct categories of localised failure that must each be designed against independently:

  • Web buckling - out-of-plane instability of the web panel under in-plane compressive stresses arising from shear, bending, or combined loading. A stability (eigenvalue) problem governed by elastic plate buckling theory.
  • Web crippling (web bearing) - local crushing and yielding of the web directly under a concentrated transverse force (reaction at support or heavy point load). A strength problem governed by the yield strength of the web steel and the contact area.

The two phenomena are physically distinct and are checked by separate code clauses (IS 800 Cl. 8.4 for shear buckling; Cl. 8.7 for bearing/crippling; AISC 360 Sections J8 and J10), but they interact in practice and both may require stiffeners at the same location.

$h_w/t_w$
Key slenderness ratio governing web buckling susceptibility
67ε
IS 800 limit for no shear buckling check required (plastic/compact web)
τcr
Critical elastic shear stress for web buckling onset
kv = 5.34
Shear buckling coefficient for unstiffened web (pure shear)
FeatureWeb BucklingWeb Crippling (Bearing Failure)
Nature of failureOut-of-plane stability - web panel deflects laterally under in-plane compressive stressIn-plane strength - web material yields/crushes locally under concentrated transverse force
Primary stress causing failureDiagonal compressive stress from shear; or direct compression from bending in slender websDirect compressive bearing stress: $\sigma_{Ed} = F/(b_1 \cdot t_w)$ at web toe of fillet
Critical parameterWeb slenderness $h_w/t_w$; panel aspect ratio $a/h_w$; boundary conditionsBearing length $b_1$; web thickness $t_w$; fillet size $r$ or $s$; yield strength $f_y$
Governing code clauseIS 800 Cl. 8.4; AISC 360 G2; EC3 EN 1993-1-5 Cl. 5IS 800 Cl. 8.7.4; AISC 360 J10.3, J10.4; EC3 EN 1993-1-5 Cl. 6
Visible signWeb panel bowing or diagonal wrinkle pattern (tension field) visible at high shearLocalised indentation or dent in web directly under concentrated load; possible flange rotation
Post-failure behaviourMay have post-buckling reserve (tension field action); failure usually not sudden for ductile steelProgressive yielding spreads; can be sudden if web is very thin relative to load
Primary fixTransverse (intermediate) stiffeners to reduce panel aspect ratio; increase $t_w$Bearing stiffeners at load point; increase bearing length $b_1$; increase $t_w$
Comparison of web buckling diagonal wrinkle pattern versus web crippling localised crush at support in a steel plate girder
Fig. 1: Two distinct failure modes of steel beam webs. Left: Shear buckling - diagonal wrinkle pattern across the web panel due to in-plane compressive principal stress; failure is distributed and post-buckling reserve exists via tension field action. Right: Web crippling - localised crushing and yielding of the web directly at the bearing zone under a concentrated end reaction; failure is confined to the bearing length $b_1 + n_1$.
Steel I-Beam: Web Failure Mode Locations (Schematic) Shear buckling diagonal wrinkles hₗ/tₗ governs V hₗ tₗ Bearing plate (b₁) F (concentrated) Web crippling yielding / crush b₁ and tₗ govern 1:2.5 dispersion Web buckling under shear Web crippling under concentrated load

Elastic Plate Buckling Theory: Derivation of Critical Stress

The theoretical basis for all web buckling checks is the elastic stability of a thin rectangular plate under in-plane loading, first solved analytically by Bryan (1891) and extended by Timoshenko (1936). The web panel is idealised as a thin plate with width $h_w$ (clear depth), length $a$ (panel length between stiffeners), and thickness $t_w$, with boundary conditions determined by the flange and stiffener stiffness.

Governing Differential Equation for Elastic Plate Buckling (Bryan 1891)
$$D\left(\frac{\partial^4 w}{\partial x^4} + 2\frac{\partial^4 w}{\partial x^2 \partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^4 w}{\partial y^4}\right) = N_x\frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial x^2} + 2N_{xy}\frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial x \partial y} + N_y\frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial y^2}$$ $$D = \frac{E\,t_w^3}{12(1-\nu^2)} \quad \text{(plate flexural rigidity)}$$
$w$ = out-of-plane displacement. $D$ = plate flexural rigidity (N·mm). $E$ = 205,000 MPa (steel). $\nu$ = 0.3 (steel Poisson ratio). $N_x$, $N_y$, $N_{xy}$ = in-plane force resultants per unit length (N/mm). For a web in pure shear: $N_x = N_y = 0$; $N_{xy} = \tau\,t_w$.
General Critical Stress Solution: Plate Buckling Coefficient $k$
$$\sigma_{cr} = k \cdot \frac{\pi^2 E}{12(1-\nu^2)} \cdot \left(\frac{t_w}{b}\right)^2$$
$\sigma_{cr}$ = critical elastic buckling stress (MPa). $k$ = plate buckling coefficient (dimensionless). $b$ = plate dimension perpendicular to the compressive stress direction. For steel: $\pi^2 E / [12(1-\nu^2)] = 189{,}800$ MPa. Critical stress scales as $(t_w/h_w)^2$ - halving web thickness reduces critical buckling stress to one-quarter.
Shear Buckling Coefficient $k_v$ for Rectangular Web Panels
$$k_v = 5.34 + \frac{4.00}{(a/h_w)^2} \quad (a/h_w \geq 1)$$ $$k_v = 4.00 + \frac{5.34}{(a/h_w)^2} \quad (a/h_w < 1)$$ $$k_v = 5.34 \quad \text{(unstiffened web, } a/h_w \to \infty\text{)}$$
$a$ = distance between transverse stiffeners (mm). $h_w$ = clear depth of web (mm). For a square panel ($a/h_w = 1$): $k_v = 9.34$ - a 75% increase over the unstiffened case.
Elastic shear buckling mode shapes of a thin rectangular steel web panel showing diagonal half-wave buckle patterns for different aspect ratios a/hw
Fig. 2: Elastic shear buckling mode shapes for a simply-supported thin rectangular web panel at different panel aspect ratios $a/h_w$. The buckled deflection $w(x,y)$ takes the form of diagonal sinusoidal half-waves at approximately 45° to the panel edges. As the aspect ratio decreases (closer stiffener spacing), the buckling coefficient $k_v$ increases and the critical shear stress $\tau_{cr}$ rises substantially, demonstrating why intermediate stiffeners are effective.
Critical Elastic Shear Stress for Web Buckling
$$\tau_{cr} = k_v \cdot \frac{\pi^2 E}{12(1-\nu^2)} \cdot \left(\frac{t_w}{h_w}\right)^2 = k_v \cdot \frac{189{,}800\,t_w^2}{h_w^2} \;\text{MPa}$$
Substituting $E = 205{,}000$ MPa and $\nu = 0.3$. Example: unstiffened web $h_w/t_w = 100$, $k_v = 5.34$: $\tau_{cr} = 5.34 \times 189{,}800 / 100^2 = 101$ MPa. Since $f_y/\sqrt{3} = 144$ MPa for Fe 410, this web buckles before yielding in shear.
Web Slenderness Parameter $\bar\lambda_w$ and Shear Reduction Factor $\chi_w$
$$\bar\lambda_w = \frac{h_w/t_w}{86.4\,\varepsilon\,\sqrt{k_v}}, \quad \varepsilon = \sqrt{250/f_y}$$ $$\chi_w = \begin{cases} \eta / \sqrt{3} & \bar\lambda_w < 0.83/\eta\\ 0.83/(\sqrt{3}\,\bar\lambda_w) & 0.83/\eta \leq \bar\lambda_w < 1.08\\ 1.37/(\sqrt{3}(0.7+\bar\lambda_w)) & \bar\lambda_w \geq 1.08 \end{cases}$$
$\bar\lambda_w$ = non-dimensional web slenderness for shear. $\chi_w$ = shear reduction factor. $\eta = 1.20$ for steel $f_y \leq 460$ MPa (EC3); $\eta = 1.0$ (IS 800). Three regimes: (1) full plastic shear; (2) inelastic buckling; (3) elastic buckling governs for $\bar\lambda_w \geq 1.08$.

Shear Buckling: Critical Limits, Slenderness Classification, and Code h/t Limits

Shear buckling is the most common form of web buckling in plate girders and deep I-sections. Under shear loading, the web panel is in a state of pure shear, which is equivalent to equal principal tensile and compressive stresses at 45° to the web plane. When the compressive principal stress reaches the critical value, the web buckles diagonally.

CodeSlenderness Limit (no check needed)Intermediate limitRequires stiffeners or reduced resistance
IS 800:2007$h_w/t_w \leq 67\varepsilon$$67\varepsilon < h_w/t_w \leq 200\varepsilon$: shear buckling check required$h_w/t_w > 200\varepsilon$: transverse stiffeners mandatory
AISC 360-22$h/t_w \leq 2.24\sqrt{E/F_y}$ ($\approx 63.5$): $V_n = 0.6\,F_y\,A_w$$2.24\sqrt{E/F_y} < h/t_w \leq 1.10\sqrt{k_v E/F_y}$: $C_{v1}$ applies$h/t_w > 1.10\sqrt{k_v E/F_y}$: elastic buckling, $C_{v2}$ formula
Eurocode 3$h_w/t_w \leq 72\varepsilon/\eta$ ($\approx 60$)Compute $\bar\lambda_w$ and $\chi_w$$\bar\lambda_w > 1.08$: elastic buckling; post-buckling via tension field
IS 800:2007 Shear Capacity Formula (Cl. 8.4)
$$V_{dp} = \frac{f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w}{\sqrt{3}\,\gamma_{m0}} \quad (h_w/t_w \leq 67\varepsilon)$$ $$V_{db} = \chi_w \cdot \frac{f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w}{\sqrt{3}\,\gamma_{m0}} \quad \text{(with shear buckling)}$$ $$\phi_w = 0.5\bigl[1 + 0.2(\bar\lambda_w - 0.6) + \bar\lambda_w^2\bigr]$$ $$\chi_w = \frac{1}{\phi_w + \sqrt{\phi_w^2 - \bar\lambda_w^2}}$$
$V_{dp}$ = design plastic shear resistance (kN). $V_{db}$ = design shear resistance with buckling (kN). $\gamma_{m0} = 1.10$. $f_{yw}$ = web yield strength (MPa).

Physical interpretation: The shear buckling coefficient $k_v = 5.34$ for an unstiffened web corresponds to buckling into a single half-wave. Adding transverse stiffeners at spacing $a = h_w$ raises $k_v$ to 9.34 - a 75% increase in critical stress. Diminishing returns exist for very close stiffener spacing.

Tension Field Action: Post-Buckling Reserve Strength Theory

After a slender web panel buckles in shear, it does not immediately fail. The buckled web can still carry substantial additional load through a mechanism called tension field action first described by Wagner (1929) for thin-walled aircraft structures and extended to steel plate girders by Basler (1961). This diagonal tension band - anchored between the flanges and stiffeners - resists additional shear through a truss-like action.

  • Diagonal tension strips in the web carry tensile stress at angle $\theta$ to the horizontal.
  • Flanges act as the chords of the truss, developing bending moments.
  • Transverse stiffeners act as the vertical compression struts.
Basler Tension Field Action - Shear Resistance (Basler 1961)
$$V_{TF} = \frac{f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\frac{\tau_{cr}}{\tau_y} + \frac{1-\tau_{cr}/\tau_y}{1+\phi_t^2}\right)$$ $$\phi_t = \sqrt{1 + (a/h_w)^2}$$
$V_{TF}$ = total shear resistance including tension field (kN). $\tau_y = f_{yw}/\sqrt{3}$ = shear yield stress (MPa). The post-buckling-to-buckling capacity ratio for typical plate girders ($h_w/t_w \approx 200$, $a/h_w = 1$) is approximately 2 to 3.
Tension field action in a stiffened steel plate girder showing diagonal tension band, compression strut stiffeners, and plastic hinges in flanges
Fig. 3: Tension field action (Basler-Wagner diagonal tension model) in a stiffened plate girder web after elastic shear buckling. The buckled web panel can no longer resist compression diagonally, but the orthogonal diagonal tension band - anchored at the four corners of the panel by the flanges and transverse stiffeners - provides significant additional post-buckling shear resistance. The flanges develop plastic hinges (moments $M_p$) and the stiffeners carry axial compression $N_{st}$ from the tension field reaction.
Eurocode 3 EN 1993-1-5 Tension Field Shear Resistance (Cl. 5.3)
$$V_{bw,Rd} = \frac{\chi_w\,f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w}{\sqrt{3}\,\gamma_{M1}}$$ $$V_{bf,Rd} = \frac{0.25\,b_f\,t_f^2\,f_{yf}}{\gamma_{M1}} \cdot \frac{1}{(c/h_w)^2}$$ $$V_{b,Rd} = V_{bw,Rd} + V_{bf,Rd} \leq \frac{\eta\,f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w}{\sqrt{3}\,\gamma_{M1}}$$
$V_{bw,Rd}$ = web contribution (kN). $V_{bf,Rd}$ = flange contribution via plastic hinges (kN). $b_f$, $t_f$ = flange width and thickness (mm). $\gamma_{M1} = 1.10$. IS 800 does not include the flange contribution (conservative).
Tension Field Action in a Stiffened Web Panel (Schematic) V V Tension field Buckled panel Tension field Stiffener (compression strut) θ Post-buckling diagonal tension band anchored between flanges and stiffeners

IS 800 permits tension field action (Cl. 8.4.2.2) provided rigid end posts are present at girder ends. Without rigid end posts, only the buckling resistance $\chi_w\,f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w/\sqrt{3}$ may be used. Permitting tension field action reduces the number of intermediate stiffeners required - significant economy for long-span plate girders.

Web Crippling: Mechanisms, Bearing Stress Distribution, and Capacity Formulas

Web crippling occurs when a concentrated transverse force applied through the flange causes the web material directly below to yield in compression or undergo combined local bending and compression. It can occur at three locations:

  • At an end support - reaction force $R$ through bearing plate over length $b_1$
  • Under a point load - interior loading point, load spreads both ways
  • At column flanges bearing onto beam webs in moment connections
IS 800 Web Bearing Capacity (Cl. 8.7.4)
$$F_{cdw} = \frac{(b_1 + n_1)\,t_w\,f_{yw}}{\gamma_{m0}}$$ $$n_1 = 2.5\,(t_f + r) \quad \text{(end support or concentrated load)}$$ $$n_1 = 5\,(t_f + r) \quad \text{(interior point load, dispersion both sides)}$$
$F_{cdw}$ = design web bearing capacity (kN). $b_1$ = stiff bearing length (mm). $n_1$ = dispersion length at 1:2.5 through flange and root radius to web toe of fillet. $t_f$ = flange thickness (mm). $r$ = root radius. $t_w$ = web thickness (mm). $f_{yw}$ = web yield strength (MPa). $\gamma_{m0} = 1.10$.
Web crippling failure mechanism in a steel I-beam at end support showing localised yielding zone, von Mises stress contours, and plastic hinge formation at flange-web junction
Fig. 4: Web crippling (web bearing failure) mechanism at an end support. The concentrated bearing reaction $R$ is introduced over the stiff bearing length $b_1$ through the bearing plate. Compressive stress concentrates at the web toe of fillet and spreads through the flange-web junction via the 1:2.5 dispersion model. The contour map shows peak von Mises stress exceeding $f_y$ in the localised bearing zone, with plastic hinges forming in the web and at the flange-web junction when the bearing capacity is exhausted.
IS 800 Web Buckling Under Concentrated Load (Cl. 8.7.3)
$$F_{cdw,b} = \frac{(b_1 + n_2)\,t_w\,f_{cd}}{\gamma_{m0}}$$ $$n_2 = 2.5\,\left(\frac{h_w}{2}\right) \quad \text{(45° dispersion half depth to neutral axis)}$$ $$\bar\lambda_{strut} = \frac{h_w\sqrt{2.5}}{t_w \cdot \sqrt{E/f_{yw}}}$$
The web between load point and neutral axis is treated as a strut of effective length $0.7\,h_w$. $f_{cd}$ = design compressive strength from IS 800 Cl. 7.1.2 column buckling curves for the equivalent slenderness.
AISC 360 Web Local Yielding (J10.2) and Web Crippling (J10.3)
$$R_n^{WLY} = (2.5k + l_b)\,t_w\,F_y \quad \text{(end reaction)}$$ $$R_n^{WC} = 0.80\,t_w^2\!\left[1 + 3\!\left(\frac{l_b}{d}\right)\!\!\left(\frac{t_w}{t_f}\right)^{1.5}\right]\!\sqrt{\frac{E\,F_y\,t_f}{t_w}}$$
$k$ = distance outer flange face to web toe of fillet. $l_b$ = bearing length. $d$ = full member depth. $\phi = 0.75$ for web crippling. The $\sqrt{EF_y t_f/t_w}$ term reflects the buckling-like sensitivity to stiffness and strength simultaneously.

Concentrated Load Dispersion: 1:2.5 Model and Effective Bearing Length

The load dispersion model converts the localised contact force at the flange surface into a distributed bearing stress on the web at the toe of the fillet. The load spreads through the flange and root radius at a slope of 1 horizontal : 2.5 vertical, giving an effective bearing length at the web toe that is larger than the stiff bearing length $b_1$.

Load Dispersion Through Flange to Web (IS 800 / EC3 Model) End Reaction b₁ (stiff bearing) R (reaction) b₁ + n₁ t ⁵ + r 1:2.5 slope Interior Point Load F b₁ b₁ + 2n₁ n₁=2.5(t ⁵+r) each side Web toe of fillet is the critical cross-section for both web bearing and web buckling checks
Three-dimensional cutaway view of load dispersion through steel I-beam flange showing 1:2.5 dispersion angle from stiff bearing length to effective bearing length at web toe of fillet
Fig. 5: Three-dimensional view of the 1:2.5 load dispersion model for a steel I-beam at an end support. The bearing reaction is introduced over the stiff bearing length $b_1$ (bearing plate width). The compressive stress spreads through the flange thickness $t_f$ and root radius $r$ at a 1:2.5 slope (dispersion angle $\approx 21.8°$ from vertical) to give the effective bearing length $b_{eff} = b_1 + n_1 = b_1 + 2.5(t_f + r)$ at the critical web toe section. The web bearing capacity is $F_{cdw} = b_{eff} \times t_w \times f_y / \gamma_{m0}$.
Effective Bearing Length at Web Toe of Fillet
$$b_{eff} = b_1 + n_1 \quad \text{(end reaction)}$$ $$b_{eff} = b_1 + 2\,n_1 \quad \text{(interior point load)}$$ $$n_1 = 2.5\,(t_f + r) \quad \text{(rolled sections)}$$ $$n_1 = 2.5\,(t_f + s) \quad \text{(welded sections; } s = \text{weld size)}$$
The 1:2.5 ratio corresponds to a dispersion angle of $\arctan(1/2.5) = 21.8°$ from vertical. For built-up plate girders: $r = 0$ so $n_1 = 2.5\,t_f + 2.5\,s$. This means welded girders have shorter effective bearing lengths and are more susceptible to web crippling than equivalent rolled sections.

IS 800:2007 Design Checks: Clauses 8.4 and 8.7 Step by Step

#CheckIS 800 ClauseFormulaPass Criterion
1Web slenderness classificationCl. 8.4.1 / Table 2$h_w/t_w$ vs $67\varepsilon$, $200\varepsilon$If $\leq 67\varepsilon$: no buckling check
2Shear buckling checkCl. 8.4.2$V_{Ed} \leq V_{db} = \chi_w\,f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w/(\sqrt{3}\,\gamma_{m0})$$V_{Ed}/V_{db} \leq 1.0$
3High shear + bending interactionCl. 9.2.2$M_{dv} = M_{fd} + M_{wd}(1-(2V/V_d - 1)^2)$$M_{Ed} \leq M_{dv}$ when $V > 0.6\,V_d$
4Web bearing (crippling)Cl. 8.7.4$F_{Ed} \leq F_{cdw} = (b_1+n_1)\,t_w\,f_{yw}/\gamma_{m0}$$F_{Ed}/F_{cdw} \leq 1.0$; else provide bearing stiffener
5Web buckling under concentrated loadCl. 8.7.3$F_{Ed} \leq F_{cdw,b} = (b_1+n_2)\,t_w\,f_{cd}/\gamma_{m0}$$F_{Ed}/F_{cdw,b} \leq 1.0$
6Shear + bending combined (plate girder)Cl. 9.2.1$(V_{Ed}/V_{bd})^2 + (M_{Ed}-M_{fd})/M_{wd} \leq 1.0$Interaction check for plate girders

IS 800 slenderness limits ($\varepsilon = \sqrt{250/f_y}$): $h_w/t_w \leq 67\varepsilon$ - full plastic shear, no buckling check. $67\varepsilon$ to $200\varepsilon$ - shear buckling check required; tension field permitted. $> 200\varepsilon$ - transverse stiffeners mandatory. $> 400$ - both transverse and longitudinal stiffeners. For Fe 410 ($f_y = 250$ MPa): limits are 67, 200, and 400.

AISC 360-22 Web Limit States: Shear, Local Yielding, and Web Crippling

Limit StateSectionFormula$\phi$Notes
Shear yielding (compact web)G2.1$V_n = 0.6\,F_y\,A_w\,C_{v1}$; $C_{v1}=1.0$ for $h/t_w \leq 2.24\sqrt{E/F_y}$1.00$A_w = d\cdot t_w$
Shear buckling (slender web)G2.2$V_n = 0.6\,F_y\,A_w\,C_{v2}$; $C_{v2} = \frac{1.51\,k_v\,E}{(h/t_w)^2\,F_y}$0.90$k_v = 5.34 + 4/(a/h)^2$
Web local yielding (end)J10.2$R_n = (2.5k+l_b)\,t_w\,F_y$1.00$k$ = outer flange face to web toe
Web local yielding (interior)J10.2$R_n = (5k+l_b)\,t_w\,F_y$1.00Factor 5k vs 2.5k for interior
Web crippling (end reaction)J10.3$R_n=0.80t_w^2[1+3(l_b/d)(t_w/t_f)^{1.5}]\sqrt{EF_yt_f/t_w}$0.75Empirical; Roberts (1981) test data
Web sidesway bucklingJ10.4$R_n = C_r\,t_w^3\,t_f/h^2 \cdot [1+0.4(h\,t_w^3/(L_b\,t_f^3))^3]$0.85Governs when compression flange unbraced at load

Eurocode 3 EN 1993-1-5: Shear Resistance and Patch Loading

CheckEN 1993-1-5 ClauseFormula$\gamma_M$
Shear resistance (web)Cl. 5.2$V_{bw,Rd} = \chi_w\,f_{yw}\,h_w\,t_w/(\sqrt{3}\,\gamma_{M1})$1.10
Flange contributionCl. 5.4$V_{bf,Rd} = b_f\,t_f^2\,f_{yf}/(c\,\gamma_{M1})$1.10
Patch loading resistanceCl. 6.2$F_{Rd} = f_{yw}\,l_{eff}\,t_w/\gamma_{M1}$; $l_{eff} = \chi_F\,l_y$1.10
Yield resistance length $l_y$Cl. 6.4$l_y = s_s + 2t_f(1 + \sqrt{m_1 + m_2})$; $m_1 = f_{yf}b_f/(f_{yw}t_w)$
Patch loading reduction factorCl. 6.3$\chi_F = 0.5/\bar\lambda_F \leq 1.0$; $\bar\lambda_F = \sqrt{l_y\,t_w\,f_{yw}/F_{cr}}$
Buckling coefficient $k_F$Cl. 6.4$k_F = 6 + 2(h_w/a)^2$ (rigid end post)

EC3 key innovation: The $\chi_F$ reduction factor for patch loading explicitly captures the buckling component, paralleling the column buckling concept. Low $\bar\lambda_F$ (stocky web) means $\chi_F = 1.0$; high $\bar\lambda_F$ (slender web) means combined yielding plus buckling governs. Conceptually consistent with the $\chi_w$ shear buckling approach.

Stiffener Design: Bearing, Transverse (Intermediate), and Longitudinal Stiffeners

Stiffeners are flat plates or angles welded to the web to prevent web buckling or web crippling. Three types are used: bearing stiffeners (at concentrated loads and supports), transverse intermediate stiffeners (along the span to reduce shear buckling), and longitudinal stiffeners (for very slender webs in deep plate girders).

Stiffener Types on a Plate Girder Web (Schematic) Bearing stiffener Transverse stiffener (intermediate) → Long. stiffener a (panel spacing) F
Detailed cross-section and elevation views of bearing stiffener, transverse intermediate stiffener, and longitudinal stiffener in a steel plate girder with dimensions and weld details
Fig. 6: Stiffener types in a steel plate girder. Left: Bearing stiffener (double-plate) at end support - full depth, welded to both flanges, designed as a column strut with effective area $A_{eff} = 2b_s t_s + 20t_w^2$ and effective length $0.7h_w$; outstand must satisfy $b_s/t_s \leq 14\varepsilon$. Centre: Transverse intermediate stiffener - stops $4t_f$ short of tension flange (fatigue); must satisfy minimum rigidity $I_{st}/(t_w^3 h_w) \geq 1.5(h_w/a)^2 - 0.707$. Right: Longitudinal stiffener at $0.2h_w$ from compression flange for deep slender webs; minimum rigidity $I_{st,L}/(t_w^3 a) \geq 4$.

Bearing Stiffener Design (IS 800 Cl. 8.7.1 / AISC 360 J10.8)

Bearing Stiffener: Outstand Limit and Buckling Check
$$b_s/t_s \leq 14\varepsilon \quad \text{(local buckling of stiffener outstand)}$$ $$A_{eff} = 2\,b_s\,t_s + 20\,t_w^2 \quad \text{(IS 800 / EC3 effective strut area)}$$ $$l_{eff} = 0.7\,h_w, \quad r = \sqrt{I_{stiff}/A_{eff}}$$ $$\bar\lambda = \frac{l_{eff}}{r \cdot 93.9\,\varepsilon}, \quad F_{Ed} \leq P_{cd} = A_{eff} \cdot f_{cd}(\bar\lambda) / \gamma_{m0}$$
$b_s$ = outstand width of one stiffener plate (mm). $t_s$ = stiffener plate thickness (mm). $A_{eff}$ = effective cross-sectional area of the bearing stiffener strut. $l_{eff} = 0.7\,h_w$ = effective length (0.7 factor for partial end fixity). $f_{cd}(\bar\lambda)$ = design compressive strength from IS 800 Table 9c (curve c for welded stiffeners).

Transverse Intermediate Stiffener Design (IS 800 Cl. 8.7.2)

Minimum Stiffener Rigidity and Axial Force
$$\frac{I_{st}}{t_w^3\,h_w} \geq 1.5\,\left(\frac{h_w}{a}\right)^2 - 0.707$$ $$N_{st} = V_{Ed} - \chi_w\,V_{dp}$$
$I_{st}$ = second moment of area of transverse stiffener plus web strip about the web centreline (mm$^4$). $N_{st}$ = axial compressive force in stiffener from tension field reaction. Intermediate stiffeners stop $4t_f$ short of the tension flange to avoid fatigue notch at the weld toe.

Longitudinal Stiffener (IS 800 Cl. 8.7.13)

Longitudinal Stiffener Position and Minimum Rigidity
$$y_1 = 0.2\,h_w \quad \text{(optimum position from compression flange)}$$ $$\frac{I_{st,L}}{t_w^3\,a} \geq 4 \quad \text{(minimum rigidity, single longitudinal stiffener)}$$
Longitudinal stiffeners subdivide the compression zone, increasing the bending buckling coefficient $k_b$ from 23.9 (unstiffened plate) to approximately 39.6. Required for very deep plate girders ($h_w > 1500$ mm) where $h_w/t_w$ may reach 300 to 400.

IS 800 vs AISC 360 vs Eurocode 3: Side-by-Side Comparison

ParameterIS 800:2007AISC 360-22Eurocode 3 EN 1993-1-5
Shear capacity formula$V_{db} = \chi_w f_{yw} h_w t_w/(\sqrt{3}\gamma_{m0})$$V_n = 0.6 F_y A_w C_{v1}$ or $C_{v2}$$V_{b,Rd} = V_{bw,Rd} + V_{bf,Rd}$
No-buckling slenderness limit$h_w/t_w \leq 67\varepsilon$$h/t_w \leq 2.24\sqrt{E/F_y}$ ($\approx 63$)$h_w/t_w \leq 72\varepsilon/\eta$ ($\approx 60$)
Partial safety factor (shear)$\gamma_{m0} = 1.10$$\phi_v = 1.00$ (yield); $0.90$ (buckling)$\gamma_{M0} = 1.00$; $\gamma_{M1} = 1.10$ (instability)
Tension field actionPermitted with rigid end posts (Cl. 8.4.2.2)Implicitly via $C_{v2}$ for stiffened websExplicitly as $V_{bf,Rd}$ flange contribution (Cl. 5.4)
Web bearing (crippling) methodYield formula + separate strut buckling checkSingle empirical formula (Roberts 1981)Patch loading model with $\chi_F$ reduction factor
Dispersion ratio1:2.5 through flange + root radius$k$ = outer flange face to web toe$s_y$ via $m_1$, $m_2$ parameters (Cl. 6.4)
Bearing stiffener effective area$2b_s t_s + 20t_w^2$$2b_s t_s + 25t_w^2$$2b_s t_s + 15\varepsilon t_w^2$
Max $h_w/t_w$ (no long. stiffener)$200\varepsilon$No hard code limit (practical ~260)No hard limit; checks intensify
$\varepsilon$ reference strength$\varepsilon = \sqrt{250/f_y}$Uses $\sqrt{E/F_y}$ based limits$\varepsilon = \sqrt{235/f_y}$ (235 MPa reference)

Key difference in web crippling approach: IS 800 uses a transparent yield formula plus a separate strut buckling check. AISC uses a single empirical formula calibrated to test data. EC3 uses the most physically rigorous approach with the $\chi_F$ reduction factor. For normal rolled sections, all three codes give results within 10 to 15% of each other; differences are larger for very thin built-up webs where buckling governs over yielding.

Worked Examples: Web Check for ISMB 500 and Plate Girder

Example 1 - ISMB 500 rolled beam, IS 800:2007: Beam: ISMB 500 ($h = 500$ mm, $b_f = 180$ mm, $t_f = 17.2$ mm, $t_w = 10.2$ mm, $r = 17$ mm). Steel: IS 2062 Fe 410, $f_y = 250$ MPa. Applied end reaction $F_{Ed} = 350$ kN (bearing length $b_1 = 100$ mm). Check (a) shear buckling; (b) web bearing; (c) web buckling under concentrated load.

Example 1 - Step by Step (IS 800:2007)

1

Web slenderness check:
$h_w = 500 - 2\times17.2 = 465.6$ mm; $h_w/t_w = 465.6/10.2 = \mathbf{45.6}$
$\varepsilon = 1.0$; limit $67\varepsilon = 67$. Since $45.6 < 67$: No shear buckling check required
$V_{dp} = 250\times465.6\times10.2/(\sqrt{3}\times1.10) = 625{,}267\,\text{N} = \mathbf{625}$ kN

2

Web bearing capacity (Cl. 8.7.4):
$n_1 = 2.5(17.2 + 17) = 85.5$ mm; $b_{eff} = 100 + 85.5 = \mathbf{185.5}$ mm
$F_{cdw} = 185.5\times10.2\times250/1.10 = 429{,}295\,\text{N} = \mathbf{429.3}$ kN
$F_{Ed} = 350 < 429.3$ kN: Web bearing OK (ratio = 0.815)

3

Web buckling under concentrated load (Cl. 8.7.3):
$n_2 = 2.5\times(465.6/2) = 582$ mm; strut $\bar\lambda \approx 2.51$
$f_{cd} \approx 248$ MPa (curve c, nearly full yield for very stocky strut)
$F_{cdw,b} = (100+582)\times10.2\times248/1.10 = 1{,}574$ kN
$350 \ll 1{,}574$ kN: Web buckling under load OK

4

Summary: All checks pass. ISMB 500 with $h_w/t_w = 45.6$ is a compact rolled section well below 67. Stiffeners not required for this loading.

Example 2 - Welded plate girder, IS 800:2007: $h_w = 1200$ mm, $t_w = 10$ mm, $b_f = 400$ mm, $t_f = 25$ mm (welded, weld $s = 8$ mm). Fe 410, $f_y = 250$ MPa. Transverse stiffeners at $a = 1000$ mm. End reaction $F_{Ed} = 800$ kN. Bearing length $b_1 = 150$ mm.

Example 2 - Plate Girder Web Checks

1

Web slenderness: $h_w/t_w = 1200/10 = \mathbf{120}$. $67\varepsilon = 67$; $200\varepsilon = 200$.
$67 < 120 < 200$: Shear buckling check required; tension field action permitted

2

Shear buckling coefficient and critical stress:
$a/h_w = 1000/1200 = 0.833 < 1.0$: $k_v = 4.00 + 5.34/0.833^2 = \mathbf{11.70}$
$\tau_{cr} = 11.70\times189{,}800\times(10/1200)^2 = \mathbf{154.3}$ MPa; $\tau_y = 144.3$ MPa
$\bar\lambda_w = \sqrt{144.3/154.3} = \mathbf{0.967}$

3

Shear capacity: $\bar\lambda_w = 0.967$ (inelastic range): $\chi_w = 0.83/(\sqrt{3}\times0.967) = \mathbf{0.496}$
$V_{db} = 0.496\times250\times1200\times10/(\sqrt{3}\times1.10) = \mathbf{782}$ kN
$V_{Ed} = 800 > 782$ kN: Shear buckling marginal FAIL (ratio = 1.023). Options: reduce stiffener spacing; increase $t_w$ to 11 mm; invoke tension field action.

4

Web bearing capacity (Cl. 8.7.4):
$n_1 = 2.5(25 + 8) = 82.5$ mm; $b_{eff} = 150 + 82.5 = \mathbf{232.5}$ mm
$F_{cdw} = 232.5\times10\times250/1.10 = \mathbf{528}$ kN
$F_{Ed} = 800 > 528$ kN: Web bearing FAILS (ratio = 1.515). Bearing stiffener required.

5

Bearing stiffener design (Cl. 8.7.1):
Try: $b_s = 140$ mm, $t_s = 12$ mm (two plates).
Outstand: $b_s/t_s = 11.7 < 14\varepsilon = 14$: OK
$A_{eff} = 2\times140\times12 + 20\times10^2 = 5{,}360$ mm$^2$
$I_{stiff} = 24{,}047{,}000$ mm$^4$; $r = 67.0$ mm; $KL/r = 0.7\times1200/67 = 12.5$
$f_{cd} \approx 226$ MPa (Table 9c, curve c): $P_{cd} = 5{,}360\times226/1.10 = 1{,}101$ kN $> 800$ kN: Bearing stiffener OK

Web Buckling & Web Crippling Check Calculator (IS 800:2007)

Web Check Calculator - IS 800:2007

Enter beam and loading parameters to check shear buckling (Cl. 8.4), web bearing (Cl. 8.7.4), and web buckling under concentrated load (Cl. 8.7.3).

Section type
Web depth hₗ (mm)
Web thickness tₗ (mm)
Flange thickness t ⁵ (mm)
Root radius r / weld s (mm)
Stiffener spacing a (mm)
Yield strength fₘ (MPa)
Design shear Vₚᵈ (kN)
Concentrated load Fₚᵈ (kN)
Bearing length b₁ (mm)
Load position
γₘ₀ (partial safety factor)

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is web buckling and what causes it in steel beams?

Web buckling is an out-of-plane stability failure of the thin web plate of a steel I-beam or plate girder. It occurs when in-plane compressive stresses in the web reach the critical elastic buckling stress of the plate. The compressive stresses arise from two sources: shear forces (shear buckling - the dominant mode in most beams), where the pure shear state is equivalent to equal diagonal tension and compression at 45°, and the compression component can buckle the web diagonally; and bending (flexural/bending buckling of the web compression zone), relevant only in very deep slender webs where the web itself carries significant bending compression. Web buckling is governed by the web slenderness ratio h_w/t_w (clear web depth divided by web thickness) and the panel aspect ratio a/h_w (stiffener spacing divided by web depth). Higher h_w/t_w means lower critical buckling stress (which scales as (t_w/h_w)^2 from elastic plate theory), making thin webs highly susceptible. IS 800:2007 requires a shear buckling check when h_w/t_w exceeds 67*epsilon where epsilon = sqrt(250/f_y).

2. What is web crippling and how does it differ from web buckling?

Web crippling (also called web bearing failure or web crushing) is a localised strength failure of the web directly under a concentrated transverse force at a support or point load location. It involves the web material yielding in direct compression within the bearing length, sometimes combined with local instability of the web near the flange-web junction. The critical parameters are the stiff bearing length b_1 (the length over which the load contacts the flange), the web thickness t_w, and the web yield strength f_y. The difference from web buckling is fundamental: web buckling is a stability (eigenvalue) problem governed by the elastic plate buckling theory and the E*(t_w/h_w)^2 stiffness term; web crippling is primarily a strength problem governed by f_y*t_w*b_eff. Web buckling can involve a large panel of the web and gives a wrinkle or bulge pattern over the panel; web crippling is strictly localised to the bearing region and gives a visible dent or crush at the web toe of fillet. Both can occur simultaneously and both are checked at support and load points - IS 800 uses Cl. 8.4 for shear buckling and Cl. 8.7 for web bearing.

3. What is the h_w/t_w slenderness limit in IS 800 and what happens if it is exceeded?

IS 800:2007 classifies web slenderness as follows, where epsilon = sqrt(250/f_y): h_w/t_w <= 67*epsilon - compact or plastic web; no shear buckling check required; full plastic shear capacity V_dp = f_y*h_w*t_w/(sqrt(3)*gamma_m0) applies. 67*epsilon < h_w/t_w <= 200*epsilon - semi-compact to slender; shear buckling check required per Cl. 8.4.2; reduced capacity V_db = chi_w*f_y*h_w*t_w/(sqrt(3)*gamma_m0) where chi_w is the shear reduction factor based on the non-dimensional slenderness lambda_w; tension field action may be invoked to recover post-buckling capacity. h_w/t_w > 200*epsilon - transverse stiffeners mandatory at spacing a <= 1.5*h_w; with stiffeners the effective h/t is reduced for each panel. h_w/t_w > 400 - both transverse and longitudinal stiffeners are required. For IS 2062 Fe 410 steel (f_y = 250 MPa), epsilon = 1.0 and the limits are simply 67, 200, and 400. Most standard rolled I-sections (ISMB series) have h_w/t_w in the range 30 to 55, well below 67, so no buckling check is needed. Plate girders typically have h_w/t_w of 100 to 200, requiring full buckling checks.

4. What is tension field action and when can it be used?

Tension field action (also called diagonal tension field or post-buckling reserve) is the additional shear resistance that a web panel develops after elastic shear buckling has occurred. After the web buckles at tau_cr, it can no longer carry shear by membrane compression in the diagonal direction, but the orthogonal diagonal tension can still be mobilised. This diagonal tension band - anchored between the flanges and transverse stiffeners at the panel corners - acts like the diagonal tension members of a Pratt truss. The additional shear capacity from tension field action can be 2 to 3 times the elastic buckling load for very slender webs. IS 800:2007 Cl. 8.4.2.2 explicitly permits tension field action to be used in design, provided rigid end posts (full-depth stiffeners with flanged end plates at the girder ends) are provided to anchor the tension field. Without rigid end posts, only the elastic buckling capacity chi_w*V_dp is available. Permitting tension field action allows significantly more economical plate girder designs by reducing the required number of intermediate stiffeners or allowing thinner webs. Eurocode 3 includes the flange contribution V_bf,Rd as an additional term capturing the moment capacity of the flanges in resisting the horizontal component of the tension field force.

5. How do I calculate the effective bearing length for web crippling checks?

The effective bearing length b_eff at the web toe of fillet is computed by adding the stiff bearing length b_1 (the length of direct contact between the flange and the supporting/loaded element) to the dispersion length n_1 through the flange thickness and root radius. The IS 800 dispersion model uses a 1:2.5 slope (1 horizontal : 2.5 vertical): n_1 = 2.5*(t_f + r) for rolled sections, or n_1 = 2.5*(t_f + s) for welded sections where s is the fillet weld size. For end reactions (dispersion on one side only): b_eff = b_1 + n_1. For interior point loads (dispersion on both sides): b_eff = b_1 + 2*n_1. Example for ISMB 500 (t_f = 17.2 mm, r = 17 mm) with b_1 = 100 mm at end: n_1 = 2.5*(17.2+17) = 85.5 mm; b_eff = 100 + 85.5 = 185.5 mm. The web bearing capacity is then F_cdw = b_eff * t_w * f_y / gamma_m0. The physical basis of the 1:2.5 slope is that the stiff flange plate distributes the concentrated bearing force at a shallow angle through its depth, and the 1:2.5 ratio (21.8 degrees from vertical) is a conservative lower bound on the actual stress bulb angle.

6. When is a bearing stiffener required and how is it designed?

A bearing stiffener is required when the concentrated transverse force at a support or load point exceeds either the web bearing capacity F_cdw (IS 800 Cl. 8.7.4) or the web buckling capacity under the concentrated load F_cdw,b (IS 800 Cl. 8.7.3). In practice, bearing stiffeners are almost always required for plate girder supports and for column connections to beams carrying heavy loads. Design of a bearing stiffener per IS 800: (1) Determine the stiffener force = F_Ed - F_cdw (the force in excess of the unstiffened web capacity). (2) Proportion the stiffener plates: outstand b_s and thickness t_s must satisfy b_s/t_s <= 14*epsilon to prevent local buckling of the stiffener outstand itself. (3) Compute the effective strut cross-section: A_eff = 2*b_s*t_s + 20*t_w^2 (stiffener plates plus a 20t_w wide web strip acting as a column). (4) Compute the effective length of the strut: l_eff = 0.7*h_w (0.7 factor for partial end fixity from web and flanges). (5) Find the slenderness ratio KL/r of the effective strut and read the design compressive strength f_cd from IS 800 Table 9 (curve c for welded stiffeners). (6) Check P_cd = A_eff * f_cd / gamma_m0 >= F_Ed. The bearing stiffener should be welded to both flanges but must not be welded to the tension flange (weld the end of the stiffener to a cleat or leave a small gap) to avoid fatigue issues at the tension flange weld toe.

7. What is the plate buckling coefficient k_v and how does it depend on stiffener spacing?

The plate buckling coefficient k_v is a dimensionless factor that captures the effect of boundary conditions and aspect ratio on the critical shear buckling stress of a web panel. It enters the critical stress formula as tau_cr = k_v * pi^2 * E / [12*(1-nu^2)] * (t_w/h_w)^2. For a simply-supported rectangular plate under pure shear, k_v depends on the panel aspect ratio alpha_0 = a/h_w (stiffener spacing / web depth): for a/h_w >= 1: k_v = 5.34 + 4.00/(a/h_w)^2; for a/h_w < 1: k_v = 4.00 + 5.34/(a/h_w)^2. For an unstiffened web (a/h_w approaching infinity): k_v = 5.34 (minimum value). For a square panel (a/h_w = 1): k_v = 9.34 (75% higher critical stress). For a/h_w = 0.5: k_v = 4.00 + 5.34/0.25 = 25.4 (very high; closely stiffened). The practical implication: adding transverse stiffeners at spacing a = h_w converts k_v from 5.34 to 9.34, nearly doubling the critical shear buckling stress for the same web dimensions. However, reducing spacing further to a = 0.5*h_w gives k_v = 25.4 - a further 172% increase - but with twice as many stiffeners. Engineers balance the economy of fewer stiffeners (lower fabrication cost) against the higher web thickness needed (higher material cost).

8. What is the shear buckling coefficient chi_w and how is it related to lambda_w?

The shear reduction factor chi_w (0 < chi_w <= 1) represents the ratio of the actual shear resistance to the full plastic shear resistance, accounting for elastic or inelastic buckling of the web. It is a function of the non-dimensional web slenderness lambda_w = sqrt(tau_y/tau_cr) = h_w/(86.4*epsilon*sqrt(k_v)*t_w). Three regimes exist: (1) lambda_w <= 0.6 (stocky web): chi_w = 1.0; full shear yield governs; no buckling. (2) 0.6 < lambda_w < 1.08 (inelastic buckling): chi_w reduces from 1.0 to about 0.77; both yielding and buckling interact; the curve follows chi_w = 0.83/(sqrt(3)*lambda_w) per IS 800 simplified form. (3) lambda_w >= 1.08 (elastic buckling governs): chi_w = 1.37/(sqrt(3)*(0.7 + lambda_w)); further reduction as slenderness increases. The resulting design shear resistance is V_db = chi_w * f_y * h_w * t_w / (sqrt(3) * gamma_m0). For a plate girder with h_w/t_w = 150 (unstiffened, k_v = 5.34): lambda_w = 150/(86.4*1.0*sqrt(5.34)) = 150/199.6 = 0.75; chi_w = 0.83/(1.732*0.75) = 0.639; V_db = 0.639 * V_dp - the unstiffened web can only carry 64% of its plastic shear capacity.

9. How do AISC 360, IS 800, and Eurocode 3 differ in their web crippling checks?

The three codes use fundamentally different approaches, though giving similar results for standard cases. IS 800 uses a two-step approach: first a bearing (yield) check F_cdw = b_eff * t_w * f_y / gamma_m0 (direct bearing yield at the web toe), then separately a buckling check treating the web as a strut using column buckling curves. This is physically transparent but involves two separate calculations. AISC 360 uses a single empirical formula R_n = 0.80*t_w^2*[1+3*(l_b/d)*(t_w/t_f)^1.5]*sqrt(E*F_y*t_f/t_w) with phi = 0.75. This formula was calibrated against laboratory test data and implicitly combines yielding and buckling effects. It is convenient for calculation but less physically transparent. Eurocode 3 EN 1993-1-5 uses the most physically rigorous approach: the patch loading model with a non-dimensional slenderness lambda_F = sqrt(l_y*t_w*f_y/F_cr) and a reduction factor chi_F = 0.5/lambda_F (capped at 1.0), exactly analogous to the column buckling model but calibrated for patch loading. F_cr = 0.9*k_F*E*t_w^3/h_w captures the elastic buckling component. For standard rolled sections all three give results within 10 to 15% of each other. For thin welded plate girder webs the EC3 and IS 800 buckling checks become more critical and give more conservative results than the AISC empirical formula.

10. What is web sidesway buckling and when does it govern?

Web sidesway buckling (AISC 360 Section J10.4) is a lateral buckling mode that involves the compression flange rotating sideways relative to the tension flange at the point of a concentrated load, with the web deforming laterally in a sway mode rather than in the classical shear wrinkle pattern. It occurs when the compression flange is not restrained against rotation at the concentrated load point. The governing slenderness parameter is (h/t_w)/(L_b/b_f) where L_b is the distance between points of lateral restraint of the compression flange. Web sidesway buckling is relevant primarily for long-span beams with widely spaced bracing and concentrated mid-span loads - crane runway girders and transfer beams are typical cases. IS 800 and EC3 do not have a specific web sidesway buckling clause; designers using these codes typically address it through lateral restraint requirements at load points per IS 800 Cl. 8.3.1.

11. Why is web crippling more critical for welded plate girders than for rolled sections?

Web crippling capacity at a support or load point depends on the effective bearing length b_eff = b_1 + n_1, where n_1 = 2.5*(t_f + r) for rolled sections (with root radius r) or n_1 = 2.5*(t_f + s) for welded sections (with weld size s). For a rolled section like ISMB 500 with t_f = 17.2 mm and r = 17 mm: n_1 = 2.5*(17.2+17) = 85.5 mm - the root radius adds 42.5 mm to the dispersion length. For a welded plate girder with the same t_f = 17.2 mm but only an 8 mm fillet weld: n_1 = 2.5*(17.2+8) = 63.0 mm - about 26% less dispersion. The larger root radius of rolled sections thus provides substantially more bearing area at the web toe. Additionally, plate girder webs are intentionally thinner than equivalent rolled section webs, meaning both t_w and the dispersion area are smaller. The combination typically means welded plate girders always require bearing stiffeners at supports while rolled section beams may not, depending on the reaction magnitude.

12. What is the role of transverse stiffeners in plate girder design?

Transverse (intermediate) stiffeners serve two distinct functions: (1) Shear buckling control - by dividing the long web into shorter panels, they increase the panel aspect ratio h_w/a, which increases the shear buckling coefficient k_v = 5.34 + 4/(a/h_w)^2, raising the critical shear buckling stress. (2) Tension field action anchoring - in post-buckled panels, transverse stiffeners act as the compression struts in the diagonal tension truss mechanism, resisting the compressive reaction from the diagonal tension bands. Design requirements: minimum rigidity I_st/(t_w^3*h_w) >= 1.5*(h_w/a)^2 - 0.707 per IS 800 Cl. 8.7.2.4; axial force from tension field N_st = V_Ed - chi_w*V_dp must be carried; outstand limit b_s/t_s <= 14*epsilon to prevent local buckling; intermediate stiffeners must not be welded to the tension flange.

13. What are the absolute h_w/t_w limits in Indian practice and why?

IS 800:2007 sets the following absolute limits. For webs without any longitudinal stiffener: h_w/t_w <= 200*epsilon (for Fe 410: 200). For webs with a single longitudinal stiffener at 0.2*h_w from the compression flange: h_w/t_w <= 250*epsilon. For webs with two longitudinal stiffeners: h_w/t_w <= 400*epsilon. The physical basis: very thin webs with h_w/t_w > 200 are difficult to weld without distortion, have significant initial geometric imperfections from welding, are sensitive to minor out-of-plumb of stiffeners, and behave in a complex interaction between shear and bending buckling modes that is difficult to analyse reliably. In Indian bridge practice, plate girder webs with h_w/t_w of 150 to 180 are common, with longitudinal stiffeners provided for deeper girders.

14. How does the combination of high shear and high bending affect web design?

When a cross-section is simultaneously subjected to high shear and high bending, IS 800:2007 Cl. 9.2.2 specifies a moment-shear interaction for V_Ed > 0.6*V_d: the design moment capacity is reduced to M_dv = M_fd + M_wd*(1 - (2*V/V_d - 1)^2), where M_fd = moment capacity of flanges alone and M_wd = moment capacity contribution from web alone. For plate girders specifically (Cl. 9.2.1), the interaction check is: (V_Ed/V_bd)^2 + (M_Ed - M_fd)/M_wd <= 1.0. Physical basis: in the web, bending stress sigma and shear stress tau must satisfy the von Mises criterion sqrt(sigma^2 + 3*tau^2) <= f_y. High-shear zones (near supports) in simply-supported beams rarely coincide with high-bending zones (near mid-span), so interaction effects are usually small. However, in continuous beams and frames near interior supports both are high, making interaction checks critical.

15. What is the minimum web thickness recommended for steel beams in IS 800?

IS 800:2007 does not specify an absolute minimum web thickness directly, but practical minimums emerge from multiple requirements: Corrosion protection - IS 800 Cl. 15.9.2 recommends a corrosion allowance of 1 to 2 mm for exposed structures, suggesting a practical minimum of t_w >= 6 to 8 mm. Web buckling control - requiring h_w/t_w <= 200 sets t_w >= h_w/200 (for h_w = 1000 mm: t_w >= 5 mm; for h_w = 2000 mm: t_w >= 10 mm). Fabrication - webs thinner than 6 mm are prone to welding distortion. In practice for rolled sections: minimum t_w is 5.7 mm (ISJB 150, lightest standard section); for plate girders: 8 to 10 mm is practical minimum. Highway bridge plate girders per IRC 24 typically use t_w >= 10 mm.

16. What are the consequences of ignoring web buckling or crippling in design?

Ignoring web buckling or crippling checks can lead to serious consequences. Web buckling - first sign is visible diagonal wrinkling under service loads; as load increases the buckled panel loses stiffness; deflections increase disproportionately; eventually a fracture-line plastic hinge mechanism forms across the web with sudden or progressive loss of shear capacity. Web crippling - initial sign is a visible dent at the bearing point; the web begins to yield and crush; without redistribution, the beam loses vertical support at that point; settlement of the supported structure occurs; progressive collapse is possible. All major codes (IS 800, AISC 360, Eurocode 3, BS 5950) have mandatory checks for these limit states - non-compliance is not a conservative simplification but a genuine safety hazard.

17. What is patch loading and how is it treated in Eurocode 3?

Patch loading is the EC3 terminology for web crippling under a concentrated transverse force applied through the flange over a finite length. It is treated in EN 1993-1-5 Chapter 6 using a buckling-based reduction approach: F_Rd = f_yw * l_eff * t_w / gamma_M1 where l_eff = chi_F * l_y. The yield resistance length l_y = s_s + 2*t_f*(1 + sqrt(m_1 + m_2)) where m_1 = f_yf*b_f/(f_yw*t_w) and m_2 = 0.02*(h_w/t_f)^2 for lambda_F > 0.5. The reduction factor chi_F = 0.5/lambda_F (capped at 1.0). The EC3 patch loading model is the result of extensive research at Cardiff University (Roberts, Rockey) and Luleå University (Lagerqvist, Johansson) and is considered the most comprehensive model available for patch loading resistance.

18. How does flange thickness affect web crippling resistance?

Flange thickness affects web crippling resistance through multiple mechanisms. Direct dispersion: the IS 800 effective bearing length n_1 = 2.5*(t_f + r) increases linearly with flange thickness; a 10 mm increase in t_f adds 25 mm to n_1, adding approximately 56.8 kN to F_cdw for t_w = 10 mm and f_y = 250 MPa. AISC 360: the crippling formula includes sqrt(t_f) - thicker flanges give higher crippling resistance, reflecting the role of the flange in distributing load and providing rotational restraint at the web-flange junction. Eurocode 3: thicker flanges reduce the correction term m_2 = 0.02*(h_w/t_f)^2 and provide more rotational rigidity at the web-flange junction, effectively increasing the boundary condition stiffness for the web panel. In practical design, providing thicker flanges is one effective way to improve web crippling resistance without changing the web dimensions.

19. What is the difference between a bearing stiffener and a transverse stiffener?

Bearing stiffeners and transverse intermediate stiffeners both consist of flat plates welded to the web, but they serve different functions. Bearing stiffeners are provided at concentrated load points and end supports. Their primary function is to resist web crippling and web buckling under the concentrated force. They must be welded to both flanges to transfer the concentrated load directly. They are designed as columns under the full concentrated load, with effective strut section 2*b_s*t_s + 20*t_w^2 and effective length 0.7*h_w. Transverse intermediate stiffeners are provided along the span to divide the web into shorter panels and increase k_v. They carry axial compression from tension field action (N_st = V_Ed - chi_w*V_dp) but not direct external loads. They need only satisfy the minimum rigidity criterion and must not be welded to the tension flange. In a typical plate girder: bearing stiffeners are always required at end supports; intermediate stiffeners are added as needed to achieve adequate shear capacity, with spacing chosen to balance fabrication cost against material savings.

Key References

Bryan, G.H. (1891). On the stability of a plane plate under thrusts in its own plane, with applications to the buckling of the sides of a ship. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 22(1), 54 to 67.

Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M. (1961). Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Basler, K. (1961). Strength of plate girders in shear. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 87(ST7), 151 to 180.

Wagner, H. (1929). Flat sheet metal girders with very thin webs. Zeitschrift fur Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt, 20, 200 to 314 (translated as NACA TM 604 to 606, 1931).

Roberts, T.M. (1981). Slender plate girders subjected to edge loading. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 71(2), 805 to 819.

Rockey, K.C., Evans, H.R. and Porter, D.M. (1978). A design method for predicting the collapse behaviour of plate girders. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 65(1), 85 to 112.

BIS (2007). IS 800: General Construction in Steel - Code of Practice (3rd revision). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

AISC (2022). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 360-22). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.

CEN (2006). EN 1993-1-5: Eurocode 3 - Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels.

Lagerqvist, O. and Johansson, B. (1996). Resistance of I-girders to concentrated loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 39(2), 87 to 119.

Narayanan, R. (ed.) (1983). Plated Structures: Stability and Strength. Applied Science Publishers, London.

Salmon, C.G., Johnson, J.E. and Malhas, F.A. (2008). Steel Structures: Design and Behavior, 5th edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Explore More Steel Design & Structural Stability Resources

Lateral-torsional buckling, column design, connection design, and more in our full engineering library.

Visit Blog Try Our Tools