metals

Article
Web Bend-Buckling of Steel Plate Girders Reinforced by Two
Longitudinal Stiffeners with Various Cross-Section Shapes
Yongli Peng 1 , Zhengyi Kong 2 , Ba Huu Dinh 3 , Huu-Hue Nguyen 4 , Truong-Son Cao 4 ,
George Papazafeiropoulos 5, * and Quang-Viet Vu 6, *

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Ma’anshan University, Ma’anshan 243100, China

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243032, China
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Chonnam National University, Yongbong-ro 77, Buk-gu,
Gwangju 61186, Korea
4 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Thuyloi University, 175 Tay Son, Dong Da, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
5 Department of Structural Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou,
15780 Athens, Greece
6 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vietnam Maritime University, 484 Lach Tray Street, Le Chan District,
Hai Phong 180000, Vietnam
* Correspondence: [email protected] (G.P.); [email protected] (Q.-V.V.);
Tel.: +30-6983507762 (G.P.); +84-974-282222 (Q.-V.V.)

Abstract: This work performs an investigation into the optimal position of two longitudinal stiffeners
with different cross-section shapes such as open section (L-shaped and T-shaped) and closed section
(rectangular and triangular shapes) shapes of stiffened plate girders under bending loading through
an optimization procedure using a gradient-based interior point (IP) optimization algorithm. The stiff-
ener optimum locations are found by maximizing the bend-buckling coefficient, kb , generated from
eigenvalue buckling analyses in Abaqus. The optimization procedure efficiently combines the finite
element method and the IP optimization algorithm and is implemented using the Abaqus2Matlab
toolbox which allows for the transfer of data between Matlab and Abaqus and vice versa. It is
found that the proposed methodology can lead to the optimum design of the steel plate girder for
all stiffener cross-section types with an acceptable accuracy and a reduced computational effort.
Citation: Peng, Y.; Kong, Z.; Dinh, Based on the optimization results, the optimum positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with various
B.H.; Nguyen, H.-H.; Cao, T.-S.; cross-section shapes are presented for the first time. It is reported that the optimum locations of two
Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Vu, Q.-V. Web longitudinal stiffeners with open cross-section shapes (T- and L-shaped) are similar to that of flat
Bend-Buckling of Steel Plate Girders cross-section, while the optimum positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with closed cross-section
Reinforced by Two Longitudinal
types (rectangular and triangular sections) are slightly different. One of the main findings of this
Stiffeners with Various Cross-Section
study is that the bend-buckling coefficient of the stiffened girder having stiffeners with triangular
Shapes. Metals 2023, 13, 323. https://
cross-section shape is highest while that with flat cross-section shape is lowest among all considered
doi.org/10.3390/met13020323
stiffener types and this latter case has minimum requirement regarding the web thickness.
Academic Editor: Xin Chen

Keywords: Abaqus2Matlab; longitudinal stiffeners; optimization procedure; steel plate girders; web
Received: 11 January 2023
Revised: 31 January 2023
bend-buckling
Accepted: 2 February 2023
Published: 5 February 2023

1. Introduction
Longitudinal stiffeners have been extensively used to improve the buckling strength of
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
steel plates or steel plate girders subject to different loading conditions such as compression,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
patch loading, combined bending and shear, pure bending, etc. As a result of the significant
This article is an open access article
increase in strength that stiffeners offer when placed at steel plates or steel plate girders,
distributed under the terms and
research related to members of this type has been widely conducted. Regarding steel
conditions of the Creative Commons
plates reinforced by one or more longitudinal stiffeners under compression, Haffar et al. [1]
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
proposed two new mathematical models for buckling resistance prediction of a steel plate
4.0/).

Metals 2023, 13, 323. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13020323 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2023, 13, 323 2 of 18

with a closed longitudinal stiffener. Both proposed methods gave similar results, lead-
ing to load resistance values of satisfactory precision. Kovesdi et al. [2] investigated the
buckling resistance of longitudinally stiffened plates subjected to compression using the
shell finite element (FE) method. The author suggested an alternative design procedure to
improve the economy of the practical design. Regarding plate girders under patch loading,
Loaiza et al. [3] investigated buckling and post buckling behavior of longitudinally stiff-
ened I-girders using an FE simulation. Various hypotheses regarding the effect of vertical
and out-of-plane displacements of the web panel on the determination of the critical buck-
ling load of the stiffened plate girder were taken into consideration. The analysis results
showed that a full restriction of the vertical and out-of-plane displacements at the stiffener
location led to improved patch load resistance at the ultimate load level. Demari et al. [4]
performed a numerical study of slender I-girders strengthened with one longitudinal stiff-
ener under patch loading. They reported that the optimum stiffener location for patch
loading resistance is closer to the loaded flange when compared to girders under pure
bending. Recently, based on an experimental database, Truong et al. [5] proposed an effi-
cient machine learning method, namely the XGBoost algorithm, for predicting the patch
load resistance of longitudinally stiffened plate girders. The efficiency and accuracy of the
proposed method were demonstrated by comparing its performance with other machine
learning methods as well as design equations from the existing standards. Regarding
stiffened girders under combined bending and shear, by analyzing various FE models,
Truong et al. [6] investigated the influence of multiple longitudinal stiffeners on the ultimate
strength of plate girders. It was reported in this research that the variation in the ultimate
strength of the girder was almost constant against the various dimensionless geometric
parameters. Chen and Yuan [7] conducted a comprehensive experimental and numerical
investigation into the local buckling behavior of longitudinally stiffened stainless steel
plate girders subjected to combined bending and shear loading. It was observed that the
existing M–V interaction curves recommended in EN 1993-1-4 for determining the bending
and shear endpoints provide safe-sided estimations with a good level of consistency and
accuracy for such structures.
Regarding the case of stiffened girders subjected to pure bending loads, in recent
decades, longitudinal stiffeners have been widely utilized in girder webs to enhance the
bending strength of the stiffened girder with slender sections. It has been reported that
longitudinal stiffeners with various cross-section types, consisting of open cross-sections
(flat, T, and L sections) and closed sections (rectangular, triangular, and trapezoidal sections)
have been used for this purpose. Research related to the bending response of plate girders
strengthened by longitudinal stiffeners has been extensively conducted all over the world,
especially for flat stiffeners. Regarding the optimization problem of a single longitudinal
stiffener with a flat cross-section, many researchers have proposed that the optimum
position of a single longitudinal stiffener is placed at 0.2D from the girder compression
flange (D is the depth of girder web), assuming the longitudinal edges of the girder web are
simply supported [8–11]. Recently, through the finite element method, several researchers
have found that the optimum location of a single stiffener for the stiffened girder under
bending loading is at about 0.42Dc from the compression flange (Dc is the depth of girder
web in compression), regardless of any asymmetric cross-section [12–15]. By investigating
the elastic bend-buckling response of symmetric and asymmetric I-section girders with a
single longitudinal stiffener using FE modeling, Cho and Shin [16] suggested the optimum
stiffener position to be 0.425Dc from the compression flange. These optimal values are
slightly different with those mentioned in AASHTO LRFD [17], in which the optimum
stiffener position is at 0.4Dc . On the other hand, research related to the optimization
problems of multiple longitudinal stiffeners are still limited in the literature. Based on
theoretical solutions, Rockey and Cook [18,19] proposed an optimum placement of multiple
longitudinal stiffeners with flat cross-section plate girders. It was reported in these studies
that the boundary conditions of longitudinal edges of the girder web were presumed
to be either simply supported or clamped, whilst its vertical edges were assumed to be
Metals 2023, 13, 323 3 of 18

simply supported. By using numerical simulations, Kim et al. [20] proposed the optimum
placement of two stiffeners with a flat cross-section girder under bending. An empirical
formula to calculate the buckling coefficient of the stiffened girder under bending was
recommended as well. Kim et al. [15] conducted a comprehensive work related to the
optimum location of a single and two longitudinal stiffener(s) of a stiffened girder subjected
to pure bending. Finally, the optimum stiffener locations and the minimum flexural rigidity
for both the single and two stiffener(s) were suggested and presented a good comparison
with the previous works. All the research mentioned above adequately provided the
optimum position of a stiffener with a flat shape.
Furthermore, research related to the optimal stiffener position considering various stiff-
ener cross-section types is still limited. Through finite element analysis, Maiorana et al. [21]
investigated the buckling behavior of stiffened plate subjected to bending loading. Based
on analysis results, the authors suggested the optimum position for all considered cross-
section types of the stiffeners (flat, T, L, rectangular, triangular, and trapezoidal sections)
to be at 0.2D. However, the presence of flanges of the girder affecting the bend-buckling
response and optimal stiffener placement was not taken into consideration. Recently,
George et al. [22] suggested the optimal location of a single stiffener with open and closed
cross-section types for stiffened girders subjected to bending loading. The presence of girder
flanges was taken into consideration. However, the optimum location of two longitudinal
stiffeners with various cross-section shapes has not been considered elsewhere.
Although the issue of the optimum stiffener position on steel plate girders has been
addressed as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, consideration of multiple stiffeners
has been limited only to flat stiffener shapes, whereas the studies that have investigated
the effect of the stiffener shape on the buckling response of the girder have not taken into
account the case of two or more stiffeners. This work tries to bridge this research gap,
i.e., explore the case of multiple stiffeners with various cross-section shapes and their effect
on the buckling load capacity and design efficiency of the steel plate girder. In this study,
the optimal positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with open and closed section types
along the web height of the stiffened girder subjected to bending loading are investigated
by maximizing the critical buckling load of the latter. We develop various optimum
designs depending on the cross-section type. The efficiency of the latter among the various
aforementioned optimum designs is explored in terms of the maximum buckling coefficient
and the minimum web thickness of the stiffened girder. The gradient-based interior point
(IP) optimization algorithm, coupled with an appropriate FE model, is used for calculating
the aforementioned optimum designs. The proposed numerical procedure proves to have
low requirements in terms of implementation and computational effort, given that the
Abaqus2Matlab [23] toolbox which automatically combines Abaqus [24] and Matlab [25]
in a loop is employed. Based on the analysis results, the optimum stiffener locations and
minimum web thickness for various stiffener types are suggested.

2. Existing Design Standards

2.1. AASHTO LRFD Standards
The AASHTO LRFD standards [17] for optimum stiffener position and the bend-
buckling coefficient of a stiffened girder web were based on the research reported by
Frank and Helwig [26], in which the boundary conditions of the longitudinal edges of the
girder web were assumed to be simply supported at flanges, and its vertical edges were
presumed to be simply supported by vertical stiffeners as well. The critical buckling load
recommended by the AASHTO LRFD standards is presented in the following equation:

0.9kE
Fcrw =  2 (1)
D
tw

where k is the bend-buckling coefficient, E represents the steel elastic modulus, D is the
web depth, and tw is the web thickness.
Metals 2023, 13, 323 4 of 18

In the AASHTO LRFD standards, the bend-buckling coefficient was recommended

as follows:
i f Ddsc < 0.4
 11.64
 Dc − d s
( D )
k= (2)
 5.17 2 i f Ddsc ≥ 0.4
( dDs )
where Dc and ds are the web depth in compression in the elastic range and the distance
of the stiffener from the compression flange, respectively. The optimum position of a
single flat stiffener is at 0.4Dc from the compression flange, regardless of the asymmetry of
the girder section. It is noted that in the AASHTO LRFD standards, Equation (2) can be
conservatively utilized for girder webs with multiple longitudinal stiffeners. No specific
equations were provided for girder webs with two or more stiffeners.

2.2. Eurocode 3 Standard

In the Eurocode 3 standard [27], the bending strength of the stiffened girder can be
calculated by taking into consideration the combination of the effective widths of the
stiffened girder web and the compression flange. In this standard, the buckling coefficients
are also determined based on similar assumptions as the AASHTO LRFD standards. The
bend-buckling coefficients were defined as a function of ψ = σ/σc , in which σ is the
maximum stress at other web edges and σc represents the maximum compressive stress.
The bend-buckling coefficient is given as follows:

8.2

 (1.05+ψ)
f or 0<ψ<1
k= 7.81 − 6.29ψ + 9.78ψ 2 f or −1 < ψ < 1 (3)
 2
5.98(1 − ψ) f or −3 < ψ < −1


The optimum position of a single stiffener is consistent with that recommended by

the AASHTO LRFD standards (at 0.4Dc from the compression flange). However, the
design philosophy for bend-buckling resistance mentioned in the Eurocode 3 standard is
intrinsically different from that considered in the AASHTO LRFD standards.

3. Methodology
3.1. Elastic Buckling Analysis
In this work, a linear elastic buckling analysis is implemented for the evaluation of the
critical load, Fcr , of the longitudinally stiffened plate girders with open (T and L sections)
and closed (rectangular and triangular sections) cross-sections of the stiffeners subject to
bending. The lowest positive value of λ, which is the buckling eigenvalue, called λcr , can
be obtained by solving Equation (1) as follows:

(K + λKG )u = 0 (4)

where K presents the model stiffness matrix, KG is the geometric stiffness matrix, λ stands
for the multiplier of the reference load pattern F, and u is the buckling mode shape.
The buckling load is computed by Equation (5) as follows:

Fcr = λcr F (5)

On the other hand, based on the classical buckling theory of plates under pure com-
pression, the critical buckling load of a plate girder under bending loading can be computed
as follows:
π 2 Et3w
Fcr = k b (6)
12(1 − ν2 ) D
where E represents the elastic modulus, tw stands for the thickness of girder web, ν repre-
sents the Poisson’s ratio, and D is the depth of girder web.
Based on Equations (5) and (6), the buckling coefficient, kb , can be determined.
Metals 2023, 13, 323 5 of 18

3.2. Problem Statement for Optimization of Longitudinally Stiffened Plate Girders

It is known that the optimum stiffener location can be obtained when the critical
buckling load of a stiffened plate girder is maximized. Hence, the optimal stiffener position
is determined by maximizing the bend-buckling coefficient, kb . The optimization problem
can be presented in the following form:
Find:
x = [ds1 , ds2 ] (7)
so that
12 1 − ν2 D


kb (x) = Fcr ( x ) (8)
π 2 Et3w
is maximized, subject to:
0.1D ≤ ds1 ≤ 0.5D (9)
0.1D ≤ ds2 ≤ 0.5D (10)
ds2 − ds1 ≥ 18tw (11)
with the following values assigned to parameters:

bS,1 = bS,2 = 0.08D (12)

bS,1 b
= S,2 = 8 (13)
tS,1 tS,2
In Equations (9) and (10), the limits are selected based on structural constraints, i.e., the
stiffener location cannot exceed the half-depth of the web and it must be at least 10% of
the height depth apart from the compression flange. In the latter case, for lower distances
from the web, it is generally preferable to increase the stiffness of the plate girder through
increasing the cross-section of the compression flange rather than placing a stiffener, which
will require additional material and workmanship while additionally not contributing much
to the increase in the girder plate stiffness. Moreover, Equation (11) takes into account
the fact that each stiffener cross-section integrates with part of the web section to which it
is attached, equal to 9tw , as designated in AASHTO LRFD standard part 6.10.11.3.3 [17].
Equations (12) and (13) specify the dimensions of the stiffeners in relation to the web depth.
The dimensions of the stiffener cross-section remain constant during the optimization
procedure and are selected so that the stiffeners are assumed to form a nodal line at the
stiffener–plate junction to provide the highest buckling coefficient. To ensure the condition
of nodal line formation, the out of plane displacements along the nodal line are restrained.
The out of plane displacements do not exceed the following nonzero positive tolerances:

r ≤ rtol (14)

where rtol represents the tolerance and the normalized parameter, r, is provided by the
relation:  

max wS 
r= (15)
max(|ww |)
In Equation (15), ws represents the out-of-plane displacement of the stiffener and ww
stands for the out-of-plane displacement of the girder web.
Metals 2023, 13, 323 6 of 18

3.3. Optimization Procedure

In order to provide the solution of the optimization problem presented in
Equations (4)–(7), an interior point algorithm (IPA), adopted in some references [28–30],
was utilized. The optimization procedure is conducted in Abaqus [24] and Matlab [25]
through Abaqus2Matlab toolbox [23,31] that integrates these software within the optimiza-
tion loop. Detailed steps are presented as follows:
1. Establish a Matlab function so that an Abaqus input file (*inp) is automatically created
when it runs inside Matlab;
2. Define input variables (longitudinal stiffener positions) in the Matlab function above;
3. Define the objective function mentioned in Section 3.2 for the optimization problem;
4. Build a main Matlab function consisting of the starting point value for the solution,
lower and upper bound values of the stiffener position, and an optimization algorithm
(using the fmincon function available in Matlab). The starting point is an initial guess
and can be any arbitrary selection which satisfies the lower and upper bounds as well
as any other constraints that may apply;
5. Compute the objective function defined in step 3;
6. Perform the optimization procedure;
7. Check the stopping criterion. This criterion is a maximization of kb . If the criterion
is satisfied, the optimization procedure will complete. Otherwise, it will go to the
next step;
8. Change the design variable value to create a new Abaqus input file;
9. Run the analysis in Abaqus again;
10. Repeat steps 6–9 until convergence is attained, satisfying the specific tolerance;
11. The optimization result obtained is the final solution.
The optimization procedure for finding the optimal position of two longitudinal
stiffeners is described in Figure 1. The optimization problem is essentially convex, without
any local optima. For the case of more than one stiffener, this has been suggested by
simplified analytical methods published in the literature (see, e.g., [19]). It is assumed
that there are no large deviations in the optimization space considered in this study from
the optimization space of such simplified approaches, since their results can approximate
the actual result very well. On the other hand, it has been shown in many studies (see,
e.g., [32,33]) that the variation in the buckling coefficient of a plate girder with a single
stiffener with varying stiffener locations does not yield local optima, and the optimum
position of the single stiffener is unique. Therefore, from the aforementioned points it can
be deduced that the optimum configuration in the case of two stiffeners is unique and
independent of the starting guess of the solution.
 Metals
Metals 2023, 13,13,
2023, 323x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 7ofof
18 18

Establish an input file in Matlab

which can automatically generates
an Abaqus input file (*inp)

Define input design variables

(stiffener positions d s1 and d s2 )

Define the objective function kb

for the optimization problem

Pre-processes

Build the main code including

initial guess, lower and upper
bound, optimization algorithm

Assign an initial value for

design variables
Run analysis for the first time

Compute the objective function

Perform optimization procedure

using nonlinear programming Run the Abaqus analysis
solver with the IPA Abaqus2Matlab

Meet the NO Main loop

stopping Create new Abaqus input file
criterion

YES

Get optimum results

Finish

Figure
Figure 1. 1.
TheThe optimization
optimization procedure
procedure flowchart
flowchart [10,11].
[10,11].
Metals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
Metals 2023, 13, 323 8 of 18

4.4.Finite
FiniteElement
ElementModeling
Modeling
The
The bend-bucklingbehavior
bend-buckling behaviorof ofaa stiffened
stiffened plate
plate girder
girder presented
presented in in Figure
Figure 22 waswas
computed based on finite element (FE) analysis of the structure
computed based on finite element (FE) analysis of the structure using ABAQUS commercialusing ABAQUS commer-
cial software
software [24].
[24]. In In this
this work,FE
work, FEmodels
modelsofofthe the girder
girder with
with two
two longitudinal
longitudinal stiffeners
stiffeners
with
with open (T-shaped and L-shaped) and closed (triangular and rectangular)cross-sections
open (T-shaped and L-shaped) and closed (triangular and rectangular) cross-sections
are
are based
based on on the
the FEFE model
model mentioned
mentioned in in [14,15,22,34].
[14,15,22,34]. For For instance,
instance, allall descriptions
descriptions of of
geometric
geometricdimensions
dimensionsofof thethe
girder (except
girder (except the the
dimensions
dimensions of longitudinal
of longitudinalstiffeners), ma-
stiffeners),
terial properties,
material properties, and andFE modeling
FE modeling procedure
procedure are consistent
are consistentwithwiththose of model
those of model 2 re-2
ported in [14,15]. Particularly, the web depth was selected as 3.0
reported in [14,15]. Particularly, the web depth was selected as 3.0 m, while the web m, while the web thick-
ness was 9.0
thickness mm.
was 9.0Themm. flange
The width
flange and
widthflange
andthickness were 600
flange thickness mm600
were andmm 54 mm,
and respec-
54 mm,
tively. The length-to-depth
respectively. The length-to-depth ratio (panel
ratioaspect
(panelratio)
aspectofratio)
the girder
of thewas chosen
girder was to be 1.0.toAll
chosen be
materials were considered
1.0. All materials to be in the
were considered elastic
to be in therange with
elastic an elastic
range with an modulus of 210 GPa
elastic modulus of
and a Poisson’s
210 GPa ratio of 0.3.
and a Poisson’s ratioThe vertical
of 0.3. edges ofedges
The vertical the girder
of the web
girder were
webassumed
were assumedto be
simply supported.
to be simply All elements
supported. were simulated
All elements using 4-node
were simulated shell elements
using 4-node S4R with
shell elements a
S4R
mesh
with size
a meshof 40size
mmof[14,15].
40 mmFigures
[14,15].3 Figures
and 4 display
3 andthe loadingthe
4 display andloading
boundary andconditions
boundary
for all stiffener
conditions cross-section
for all types. Basedtypes.
stiffener cross-section on these
Based FEonmodels
these developed
FE models and the proce-
developed and
dure mentioned
the procedure in Sectionin3.3,
mentioned the optimum
Section stiffener position
3.3, the optimum of two longitudinal
stiffener position stiffen-
of two longitudinal
ers with open
stiffeners withandopen closed cross-sections
and closed will bewill
cross-sections investigated in Sections
be investigated 5 and56and
in Sections of this
6 of
study. It is It
this study. noted that,that,
is noted although
although thethe
loadloaddistribution,
distribution, which
which is isspecified
specifiedininthetheAbaqus
Abaqus
model,
model,follows
followsthethelinear
linearshape
shapewhich
whichappears
appearsin inFigure
Figure3, 3,in
inFigure
Figure4,4,duedueto tothe
thenotation
notation
followed in Abaqus/CAE interface, the length of the force vectors appears as fixed for
followed in Abaqus/CAE interface, the length of the force vectors appears as fixed for
visualization purposes.
visualization purposes.

bfc bfc

t fc t fc t fc t fc
bs bs
ds1
ts ts ts t s ds1
bt bt
bs ds2 bs ds2
ts ts ts ts
bt bt
D D D D

X X

t ft t ft t ft t ft
a bft a bft

(a) (b)
bfc bfc

t fc t fc t fc t fc
bs bs
ts ds1
ts t s ds1
bt bt t
bs ds2 bs ds2
ts ts
ts
bt bt t
D D D D

X X

t ft t ft t ft t ft
a bft a bft

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 2. Geometricdimensions
2. Geometric dimensionsofof stiffened
stiffened plate
plate girders
girders withwith various
various stiffener
stiffener cross-section
cross-section shapes.
shapes. (a) T-shaped; (b) L-shaped; (c) Rectangular-shaped; (d) Triangular-shaped.
(a) T-shaped; (b) L-shaped; (c) Rectangular-shaped; (d) Triangular-shaped.
Metals 2023, 13,
Metals 2023, 13, x323
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 9of
of 18
18

N
A Q
M B
P Edge Ux Uy Uz θx θy θz
E G
AB & CD - - - - - -
F H
E G AC & BD - - R - - -

F H MN & PQ - - R R R -
1 y 2
EF & GH - - R R R -

x Point 1 R R - - - -

z Point 2 - R - - - -
N - Free R Restrained
C Q
M D
P
(a)
N
A Q
M B
P Edge Ux Uy Uz θx θy θz
E G
AB & CD - - - - - -
F H
E G AC & BD - - R - - -

MN & PQ - - R R R -
F H
1 y 2
EF & GH - - R R R -

Point 1 R R - - - -
x
Point 2 - R - - - -
z
N - Free R Restrained
C Q
M D
P
(b)
N
A Q
M B
P Edge Ux Uy Uz θx θy θz
E G
AB & CD - - - - - -
F H
E G AC & BD - - R - - -

F H MN & PQ - - R R R -
1 y 2
EF & GH - - R R R -

x Point 1 R R - - - -

Point 2 - R - - - -
z
N - Free R Restrained
C Q
M D
P
(c)

Figure 3. Cont.
 Metals 2023,
Metals 13, 323
2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of 18
of 18

Metals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

N
A Q
N
M B
Q
A
B
P Edge Ux Uy Uz θx θy θz
M E G
P Edge xU Uy - Uz - θx - θy - θz -
E G
AB & CD -
F H
E G AB & CD - - - - - -
AC & BD - - R - - -
F H
E G AC & BD - - R - - -
F H MN & PQ - - R R R -
F 1 y H 2 MN & PQ - - R R R -
1 2 EF & GH - - R R R -
y
EF & GH - - R R R -
Point 1 R R - - - -
x
Point 1 R R - - - -
x R
Point 2 - - - - -
z Point 2 - R - - - -
N z - Free R Restrained
N C Q
Q - Free R Restrained
C M D
M D P
P
(d)
(d)
Figure 3. 3. Loading andandboundary conditions for various plate girder configurations: (a) (a)
T section, (b)
FigureFigure
3. LoadingLoading
and boundary conditionsconditions
boundary for variousfor
plate girderplate
various configurations:
girder (a) T section, (b)
configurations: T section,
L section, (c) triangular section, (d) rectangular section.
L section,
(b) L(c)section,
triangular
(c) section, (d) section,
triangular rectangular section.
(d) rectangular section.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
FigureFigure
4. Loading and boundary
4. Loading (c)conditions
and boundary for various
conditions forplate girder
various configurations
plate (d)Abaqus:in
in
girder configurations (a)Abaqus:
T (a) T
section, (b) L section, (c) triangular section, (d) rectangular section.
Figure 4. Loading and boundary conditions for various plate girder configurations in Abaqus: (a) T
section, (b) L section, (c) triangular section, (d) rectangular section.
section, (b) L section, (c) triangular section, (d) rectangular section.
Metals 2023, 13, 323 11 of 18
Metals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

5. Optimum Location of 2 Stiffeners with Open Cross-Section Types

5. Optimum Location of 2 Stiffeners with Open Cross-Section Types
In this section, the optimization procedure presented in Section 3.3 is employed
In this section, the optimization procedure presented in Section 3.3 is employed for
for finding the optimal positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with open cross-section
finding the optimal positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with open cross-section types
types (T and L sections) along the web depth of the stiffened girder subjected to pure
(T and Lloading.
bending sections) along the web depth of the stiffened girder subjected to pure bending
loading.
The optimum placement of two stiffeners having flat, T-shaped and L-shaped cross-
sections Theisoptimum
presented placement
in Table of two
1, in stiffeners
which havingfor
the results flat,the
T-shaped
flat shape andwere
L-shaped
taken cross-
from
sections is presented in Table 1, in which the results for
Kim et al. [15] for comparison. The aspect ratio of the panel (ϕ = a/D) was fixed the flat shape were takenasfrom
1.0
Kim et al. [15] for comparison. The aspect ratio of the panel (φ
and the slenderness ratio of girder web (D/tw ) was fixed as 333 for all stiffener cross- = a/D) was fixed as 1.0 and
the slenderness
section types. From ratioTable
of girder
1, it canwebbe(D/t w) was fixed as 333 for all stiffener cross-section
observed that the optimal positions of longitudinal
types. From Table 1, it can be observed
stiffeners 1 and 2 for both T-shaped and L-shaped that the optimal positions of longitudinal
cross-sections are at around stiffeners
0.25Dc
1 and 2 for both T-shaped and L-shaped cross-sections are at around 0.25D c and 0.55 Dc,
and 0.55 Dc , respectively. It is apparent that the optimum values are similar with those
respectively.
obtained It isflat
for the apparent
stiffener that the optimum
cross-section typevalues
reportedare similar
by Kimwith et al.those
[15]. obtained
In addition,for
itthe
canflat
bestiffener
observedcross-section
that the bucklingtype reported
coefficient,by kKim et al. [15]. In addition, it can be ob-
b , of the stiffener with a T-shaped cross-
served isthat
section the buckling
slightly higher than coefficient,
that of thekb,stiffener
of the stiffener with a T-shaped
with an L-shaped cross-section
cross-section. However, is
slightly higher than that of the stiffener with an L-shaped
both stiffeners with T-shaped and L-shaped cross-sections yield much higher buckling cross-section. However, both
stiffeners with
coefficients T-shaped
compared withand theL-shaped cross-sections
flat cross-section. yieldusing
Therefore, muchstiffeners
higher buckling coeffi-
with T-shaped
cients compared with the flat cross-section. Therefore, using stiffeners
or L-shaped cross-sections significantly enhances the bend-buckling strength of the stiffened with T-shaped or
L-shaped
plate girdercross-sections significantly
compared to stiffeners withenhances the bend-buckling
a flat cross-section. Figure 5strength
shows the of convergence
the stiffened
plate girder
history compared
for stiffeners withtoopen
stiffeners with a shapes,
cross-section flat cross-section.
while Figure Figure 5 shows
6 shows the modethe conver-
shapes
gence
of history with
the girders for stiffeners
stiffenerswith open cross-section
of T-shaped and L-shaped shapes, while Figure
cross-section 6 shows
types obtainedthe mode
from
shapes
the of the girders
optimization with stiffeners of T-shaped and L-shaped cross-section types ob-
procedure.
tained from the optimization procedure.
Table 1. Optimal values for two longitudinal stiffeners for both cross-section types.
Table 1. Optimal values for two longitudinal stiffeners for both cross-section types.
Stiffener Type ϕ ds1 /Dc ds2 /Dc kb Note
Stiffener Type φ ds1/Dc ds2/Dc kb Note
Flat-shaped 1.0 0.244 0.566 437.02 [15]
Flat-shaped 1.0 0.244 0.566 437.02 [15]
T-shaped 1.0 0.25 0.55 501.62 Present study
T-shaped 1.0 0.25 0.55 501.62 Present study
L-shaped 1.0 0.25 0.55 500.25 Present study
L-shaped 1.0 0.25 0.55 500.25 Present study

600

500
Buckling coefficient, Kb

400

300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Number of structural analyses

L-shaped T-shaped

Figure5.
Figure 5. Convergence
Convergence history
historyfor
forstiffeners
stiffenerswith
withopen
opencross-section
cross-sectionshapes.
shapes.
Metals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
Metals 2023, 13, 323 12 of 18

φ = 0.6 φ = 0.6

φ = 1.0 φ = 1.0

φ = 1.6 φ = 1.6

Figure 6. Cont.
Metals 2023,13,
Metals2023, 13,x 323
FOR PEER REVIEW 13 13
of of1818

φ = 2.0 φ = 2.0
Figure
Figure6.6.Buckling
Bucklingmode
modeshapes
shapesofofthe
thestiffened
stiffenedgirder
girderwith
withT-shaped
T-shapedand
andL-shaped
L-shapedstiffeners.
stiffeners.

Table
Table22discloses
disclosesthetheeffect
effectofofthe
thepanel
panelaspect
aspectratio
ratioononthe
theoptimal
optimalstiffener
stiffenerlocations
locations
with
with the aspect ratios of 0.6, 1.0, 1.6, and 2.0. It can be seen that there is only aasmall
the aspect ratios of 0.6, 1.0, 1.6, and 2.0. It can be seen that there is only smalleffect
effectof
ofthe
thepanel
panelaspect
aspect ratio
ratio ononthethe optimal
optimal stiffener
stiffener locations
locations forfor
bothboth stiffener
stiffener types.
types. It was
It was also
also observed
observed thatthat the buckling
the buckling coefficients
coefficients of theofstiffeners
the stiffeners corresponding
corresponding to ϕ =to0.6φand
= 0.6ϕ and
= 1.0
φwere
= 1.0 almost
were almost identical,
identical, whilewhile the buckling
the buckling coefficients
coefficients of theofstiffeners
the stiffeners correspond-to
corresponding
ing φ =and
ϕ =to1.6 1.6ϕand φ =were
= 2.0 2.0 were
almost almost identical
identical as well.as The
well.reason
The reason is because
is because the flexural
the flexural rigidify
rigidify
used forused for the stiffeners
the stiffeners with ϕ =with φ =2.0
1.6 and 1.6isand 2.0 than
higher is higher than
that for thethat for thewith
stiffeners stiffeners
ϕ = 0.6
and φ1.0.
with = 0.6 and 1.0.

Table
Table2.2.Effect
Effectofofpanel
panelaspect
aspectratio
ratioon
onthe
theoptimum
optimumstiffener
stiffenerlocations.
locations.

φ ϕ Stiffener
StiffenerType
Type ds1d/D
s1/D
c c ds2
ds2 /D
/D c c kkbb
T-shaped
T-shaped 0.25
0.25 0.55
0.55 501.48
501.48
0.60.6
L-shaped
L-shaped 0.25
0.25 0.55
0.55 500.1
500.1
T-shaped
T-shaped 0.25
0.25 0.55
0.55 501.62
501.62
1.01.0
L-shaped
L-shaped 0.25
0.25 0.55
0.55 500.25
500.25
T-shaped
T-shaped 0.24
0.24 0.53
0.53 582.76
582.76
1.61.6
L-shaped
L-shaped 0.24
0.24 0.53
0.53 578.59
578.59
T-shaped
T-shaped 0.24
0.24 0.53
0.53 582.96
582.96
2.02.0
L-shaped
L-shaped 0.24
0.24 0.53
0.53 579.32
579.32

6.6.Optimum
OptimumLocation
LocationofofTwo TwoStiffeners
StiffenerswithwithClosed
ClosedCross-Section
Cross-SectionTypes Types
This
Thissection
sectionexamines
examinesthe theoptimum
optimumplacements
placementsofoftwo twolongitudinal
longitudinalstiffeners
stiffenerswith
with
closed cross-section types consisting of triangular and rectangular shapes for a stiffened
closed cross-section types consisting of triangular and rectangular shapes for a stiffened
girder
girdersubjected
subjectedtotobending
bendingby byperforming
performingthe theprocedure
procedurepresented
presentedin inSection
Section3.3.3.3.
The optimal positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with rectangular and triangular
The optimal positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with rectangular and triangular
cross-section
cross-sectiontypes
typesareareindicated
indicatedininTable
Table33for fordifferent
differentaspect
aspectratios.
ratios.ItItisisseen
seenfrom
fromthis
this
table that the optimal stiffener positions for these cross-section types are similar regardless
table that the optimal stiffener positions for these cross-section types are similar regardless
ofofthe
theaspect
aspectratio.
ratio.The
Theoptimum
optimumplacements
placementsofofstiffeners
stiffeners11and
and22are
areatataround
around0.23D0.23Dc cand
and
0.55D from the compression flange of the girder, respectively. These
0.55Dc from the compression flange of the girder, respectively. These optimum values are
c optimum values are
slightly different from the optimum locations of stiffeners with open
slightly different from the optimum locations of stiffeners with open cross-section types. cross-section types.
Therefore,ititcan
Therefore, canbebeconcluded
concludedthat thatthe
theoptimum
optimumpositions
positionsofoftwo
twolongitudinal
longitudinalstiffeners
stiffeners
with open and closed cross-section configurations are quite similar. In addition, ititcan
with open and closed cross-section configurations are quite similar. In addition, canbebe
observedfrom
observed fromTable
Table33that
thatthe
thebend-buckling
bend-bucklingcoefficients
coefficientsofofthe
thestiffeners
stiffenerswithwithtriangular
triangular
shape are about 5% higher than those with rectangular shape. The convergence histories
shape are about 5% higher than those with rectangular shape. The convergence histories
obtained from the optimization procedure for stiffeners with triangular and rectangular
obtained from the optimization procedure for stiffeners with triangular and rectangular
cross-section shapes are presented in Figure 7, while the mode shapes of these stiffeners
cross-section shapes are presented in Figure 7, while the mode shapes of these stiffeners
 Metals 2023, 13, 323 14 of 18
MetalsMetals 2023,
2023, 13, 13, xPEER
x FOR FOR PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 14 of 14
18 of 18

are illustrated in Figure 8. It is noted that the mode shapes obtained from these stiffener
are illustrated
are illustrated in Figure
in Figure 8. noted
8. It is It is noted thatmode
that the the mode shapes
shapes obtained
obtained fromfrom
thesethese stiffener
stiffener
types are similar.
types are similar.
types are similar.
Table 3.3.Optimum results for the
thelongitudinal stiffeners with
withclosed cross-section types.
TableTable Optimum
3. Optimum results
results forlongitudinal
for the longitudinal stiffeners
stiffeners closed
with closed cross-section
cross-section types.types.

φ φϕ Stiffener Types
Stiffener Types
Stiffener Types /Ddc s1c /Dc
d /D
ds1s1 s2 ds2c/Dc
d /D
ds2/D c kb b kb
k
Triangular
Triangular
Triangular 0.23 0.23
0.23 0.550.55
0.55 1109.33
1109.33
1109.33
0.6 0.6
0.6
Rectangular
Rectangular 0.23 0.23
0.23
0.54 0.54
0.54 1049.47
1049.47
Rectangular 1049.47
Triangular
Triangular
Triangular 0.230.23
0.23 0.550.55
0.55 1112.28
1112.28
1112.28
1.0 1.0
1.0
Rectangular 0.23 0.54 1050.66
Rectangular
Rectangular 0.23 0.23 0.54 0.54 1050.66
1050.66

1200 1200

1000 1000
Buckling coefficient, Kb
Buckling coefficient, Kb

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 0 50 50 100 100 150 150 200 200 250 250
Number
Number of structural
of structural analyses
analyses

Rectangular
Rectangular Triangular
Triangular

Figure
Figure 7.7. Convergence
Convergence
7. Convergence
Figure history
history forstiffeners
stiffeners
for stiffeners
history for withclosed
withwith closed
closed cross-section
cross-section shapes.
shapes.
cross-section shapes.

φ = 0.6
φ = 0.6 φ = 0.6
φ = 0.6

Figure 8. Cont.
MetalsMetals
Metals 13,
2023, 2023,
x FOR
2023, xPEER
13,323
13, REVIEW
FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 15
18
15 of 18
of 18

φ = 1.0
φ = 1.0 φ = 1.0
φ = 1.0
Figure 8. Bend-buckling
Figure
Figure 8. modemode
8. Bend-buckling
Bend-buckling shapes
mode of a stiffened
shapes
shapes girdergirder
of aa stiffened
of stiffened with with
girder triangular and rectangular
with triangular
triangular stiffener
and rectangular
and rectangular stiffener
stiffener
cross-sections.
cross-sections.
cross-sections.

7. Comparison
7. of the
7. Comparison
Comparison ofEfficiency
of the of Longitudinal
the Efficiency
Efficiency Stiffener
ofLongitudinal
of Longitudinal Types
Stiffener
Stiffener Types
Types
This This
section compares
This section
section comparesthe efficiency
compares of two
the efficiency
the efficiency oflongitudinal
of two longitudinal
two longitudinalstiffeners with with
stiffeners
stiffeners various
with cross-cross-
various
various cross-
section shapes
section
section in terms
shapes
shapes inintermsof buckling
terms ofofbucklingcoefficient
buckling and
coefficient
coefficient andminimum
and minimum
minimum web thickness
webweb ofofthe
thickness
thickness ofstiff-
the the stiff-
stiffened
enedgirder.
girder.
ened Regarding
girder.
Regarding thethe
Regarding buckling
the buckling
buckling coefficient, Figure
coefficient,
coefficient, Figure 9 presents
9Figure
presents a comparison
9 presents
a comparison of theofbuckling
a comparison theof the
buckling coefficient for two longitudinal stiffeners with flat, T, L, rectangular,
buckling coefficient for two longitudinal stiffeners with flat, T, L, rectangular, and cross-
coefficient for two longitudinal stiffeners with flat, T, L, rectangular, and and trian-
triangular trian-
gulargular
cross-section
section shapes withshapes
cross-section with with
shapes
respect respect
to to aspect
respect
a panel a panel aspect
to a panel
ratio ratio
ofaspect
1. of 1.
ratio
It can beIt
ofcan
1. Itbe
observedcanobserved
be observed
that that that
the buckling
the buckling coefficients
the buckling
coefficients stiffeners of stiffeners
of coefficients with closedwith
of stiffeners closed
with
section section
closed
shapes shapes
section
are are significantly
shapes
significantly are thanhigher
significantly
higher thosehigher
with
thanopen
thosethose
than with with
openopen
cross-section cross-section
shapes. shapes.
cross-section Inthe
shapes.
In particular, particular,
In the
particular,
triangular triangular
the provides
shape shape
triangular provides
shape
the highest the the
provides
buckling
highest buckling
highest
coefficient, coefficient,
buckling
while the flatwhile
coefficient,
shape the
while flat
gives theshape
theflat gives
shape
lowest the lowest
gives
buckling buckling
thecoefficient.
lowest coefficient.
buckling coefficient.

1200 1200

1000 1000
Buckling coefficient, kb

Buckling coefficient, kb

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
T-shaped L-shaped
T-shaped Rectangular
L-shaped Triangular
Rectangular TriangularFlat Flat
Cross-section type type
Cross-section

Figure 9. Comparison
Figure
Figure of buckling
9.9.Comparison
Comparison coefficient
ofofbuckling
buckling for two
coefficient
coefficient forforlongitudinal
two
two stiffeners
longitudinal
longitudinal with
stiffeners
stiffeners various
with
with cross-sec-
various
various cross-sec-
cross-section
tion shapes
tion (φ
shapes= 1.0).
(φ
shapes (ϕ = 1.0). = 1.0).

Regarding the minimum

Regarding the minimumweb web
thickness of theofstiffened
thickness girder,
the stiffened the limit
girder, of theofslen-
the limit the slen-
derness ratio ratio
derness of stiffened webswebs
of stiffened should satisfy
should the requirements
satisfy mentioned
the requirements in AASHTO
mentioned in AASHTO
LRFDLRFD
[17] as follows:
[17] as follows:
Metals 2023, 13, 323 16 of 18

Regarding the minimum web thickness of the stiffened girder, the limit of the slen-
derness ratio of stiffened webs should satisfy the requirements mentioned in AASHTO
LRFD [17] as follows: s
D Ek b
≤ 0.95 (16)
tw Fy
where
kb represents the bend-buckling coefficient of the stiffened girder;
Fy stands for the steel yield strength;
Fy is assumed to be 315 MPa;
E is elastic modulus, where E = 210 GPa.
From Equation (13), the minimum thickness of the stiffened web is computed as follows:

D
tw ≥ q (17)
0.95 Ek
Fy
b

From Equation (17), a comparison of the minimum thicknesses of the girder web
computed for various stiffener shapes is given in Table 4. It is observed in Table 4 that
the flat stiffener needs the highest minimum web thickness, while the triangular stiffener
requires the lowest minimum web thickness among all stiffener types considered. It is
noteworthy that the required web thickness of the girder web reinforced by two stiffeners
with closed cross-section shapes is significantly reduced compared to those reinforced
by two stiffeners with open cross-section shapes. In particular, when the web girder is
reinforced by two stiffeners with a triangular section shape, the required web thickness
decreases by at least 37.26% compared with the case in which the web is reinforced by two
stiffeners with a flat cross-section shape.

Table 4. Comparison of minimum stiffened web thickness.

Stiffener Type D (mm) kb tmin (mm)

Flat-shaped 3000 437.02 5.85
T-shaped 3000 501.62 5.46
L-shaped 3000 500.25 5.47
Triangular 3000 1112.28 3.67
Rectangular 3000 1050.66 3.77

8. Conclusions
In this work, the optimum positions of two longitudinal stiffeners with different
cross-section shapes placed at the web of stiffened girders under bending are examined
through an optimization procedure performed by coupling Abaqus and Matlab through
the Abaqus2Matlab toolbox. Based on the optimization results, the optimum locations
of two longitudinal stiffeners with open and closed cross-section types are obtained. An
advantage of the proposed methodology is that it simulates the structural optimization
problem with a robust numerical procedure which combines FEA and optimization, and it
proves to be able to yield meaningful results for all structural configuration cases with an
acceptable accuracy and a reduced computational effort. Some conclusions can be drawn
as follows:
- The optimum positions of the stiffeners with open cross-section shapes (T- and L-
shaped) are around 0.25Dc and 0.55Dc, which are similar to the optimum location of
the flat stiffener.
- The optimum positions of the stiffeners with closed cross-section shapes (triangular
and rectangular shapes) are around 0.23Dc and 0.54Dc, which are slightly different to
the stiffeners with open cross-sections.
Metals 2023, 13, 323 17 of 18

- The bend-buckling coefficient of the stiffened girder with stiffeners with a triangular
cross-section shape is highest, while that with a flat cross-section shape is lowest in all
considered stiffener types.
- The required web thickness of the girder web reinforced by two stiffeners with closed
section shapes is remarkably reduced compared with those reinforced by two stiffeners
with open cross-section shapes.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the effect of the stiffener location
and shape on the buckling load and configuration of steel plate girders reinforced by two
longitudinal stiffeners due to bending loading. Maximizing the buckling coefficient leads to
the optimum design, since this maximizes the load capacity in each structural configuration
of the steel plate girder. The optimization procedure that is implemented in this study has
led to the discovery of optimum configurations which maximize the buckling load capacity.
Therefore, the optimum locations of the two stiffeners proposed in this study should be
taken into account for maximizing the safety of the structure, as should other constraints in
construction. A major observation is that stiffeners with triangular cross-sections lead to
the highest buckling coefficient compared with other cross-section shapes. Apart from this,
it is proven in this study that a suitable selection of stiffener cross-section type and location
can lead to a substantial construction cost reduction compared to the usual state of practice
designs, since the web thickness can be reduced by as much as 37.26%.
Future work could address issues such as investigating the effect on the buckling load
capacity of the plate girder of various loading types (shear loading, patch loading, biaxial
bending, etc.), structural constraints (e.g., presence of bolts at the web or flanges), stiffener
orientations (vertical or oblique), and cutouts (circular or rectangular) at the web body.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.P.; methodology, Z.K.; software, G.P.; validation, Z.K.;
formal analysis, Y.P.; investigation, Q.-V.V.; resources, B.H.D.; data curation, T.-S.C.; writing—original
draft preparation, G.P.; writing—review and editing, H.-H.N.; visualization, B.H.D.; supervision,
Q.-V.V.; project administration, Q.-V.V.; funding acquisition, Q.-V.V. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology
Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 107.01-2019.322.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be available upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Haffar, M.Z.; Kövesdi, B.; Adany, S. Buckling of compressed plates with closed-section longitudinal stiffeners: Two new
mathematical models for resistance prediction. Structures 2021, 33, 3526–3539. [CrossRef]
2. Kovesdi, B.; Haffar, M.; Adany, S. Buckling resistance of longitudinally stiffened plates: Eurocode-based design for col-umn-like
and interactive behavior of plates with closed-section stiffeners. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 159, 107266. [CrossRef]
3. Loaiza, N.; Graciano, C.; Casanova, E. Web slenderness for longitudinally stiffened I-girders subjected to patch loading. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2019, 162, 105737. [CrossRef]
4. Demari, F.E.; Mezzomo, G.P.; Pravia, Z.M.C. Numerical study of slender I-girders with one longitudinal stiffener under patch
loading. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 167, 105964. [CrossRef]
5. Truong, V.-H.; Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Vu, Q.-V.; Pham, V.-T.; Kong, Z. Predicting the patch load resistance of stiffened plate
girders using machine learning algorithms. Ocean Eng. 2021, 240, 109886. [CrossRef]
6. Truong, V.-H.; Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Pham, V.-T.; Vu, Q.-V. Effect of multiple longitudinal stiffeners on ultimate strength of steel
plate girders. Structures 2019, 22, 366–382. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, Z.; Yuan, H. Local buckling behaviour of longitudinally stiffened stainless steel plate girders under combined bending and
shear. Thin-Walled Struct. 2023, 184, 110541. [CrossRef]
8. Azhari, M.; Bradford, M. Local buckling of I-section beams with longitudinal web stiffeners. Thin-Walled Struct. 1993, 15, 1–13.
[CrossRef]
9. Alinia, M.; Moosavi, S. A parametric study on the longitudinal stiffeners of web panels. Thin-Walled Struct. 2008, 46, 1213–1223.
[CrossRef]
10. Vu, Q.-V.; Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Graciano, C.; Kim, S.-E. Optimum linear buckling analysis of longitudinally multi-stiffened steel
plates subjected to combined bending and shear. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 136, 235–245. [CrossRef]
Metals 2023, 13, 323 18 of 18

11. Vu, Q.-V.; Truong, V.-H.; Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Graciano, C.; Kim, S.-E. Bend-buckling strength of steel plates with multiple
longitudinal stiffeners. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 158, 41–52. [CrossRef]
12. Elbanna, A.; Ramadan, H.; Mourad, S. Buckling enhancement of longitudinally and vertically stiffened plate girders. J. Eng. Appl.
Sci. 2014, 61, 351–370.
13. HKim, S.; Park, Y.; Kim, B.; Kim, K. Numerical investigation of buckling strength of longitudinally stiffened web of plate girders
subjected to bending. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2018, 65, 141–154.
14. Hoàn, P.; Trung, P.; Vi, V. Nghiên cứu xác d̄ịnh vị trí tối ưu của sườn tăng cường dọc của dầm cầu thép chịu uốn. Tạp chí Khoa
học Công nghệ Xây dựng. NUCE 2020, 14, 29–38.
15. Kim, S.-E.; Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Graciano, C.; Truong, V.-H.; Do, Q.T.; Kong, Z.; Vu, Q.-V. Optimal design of longitudinal
stiffeners of unsymmetric plate girders subjected to pure bending. Ocean Eng. 2021, 221, 108374. [CrossRef]
16. Cho, E.-Y.; Shin, D.-K. Elastic web bend-buckling analysis of longitudinally stiffened I-section girders. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2011, 11,
297–313. [CrossRef]
17. AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th ed.; American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
18. Rockey, K.; Cook, I. Optimum reinforcement by two longitudinal stiffeners of a plate subjected to pure bending. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 1965, 1, 79–92. [CrossRef]
19. Rockey, K.; Cook, I. The buckling under pure bending of a plate girder reinforced by multiple longitudinal stiffeners. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 1965, 1, 147–156. [CrossRef]
20. Kim, B.J.; Park, Y.; Kim, K.; Choi, B. Web bend-buckling strength of plate girders with two longitudinal web stiffeners. Struct. Eng.
Mech. 2019, 69, 383–397.
21. Maiorana, E.; Pellegrino, C.; Modena, C. Influence of longitudinal stiffeners on elastic stability of girder webs. J. Constr. Steel Res.
2010, 67, 51–64. [CrossRef]
22. Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Vu, Q.-V.; Nguyen, V.-S.; Truong, V.-H. Optimum location of a single longitudinal stiffener with various
cross-section shapes of steel plate girders under bending loading. J. Sci. Technol. Civ. Eng. (STCE)—NUCE 2022, 16, 65–75.
[CrossRef]
23. Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Muñiz-Calvente, M.; Martínez-Pañeda, E. Abaqus2Matlab: A suitable tool for finite element post-
processing. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017, 105, 9–16. [CrossRef]
24. ABAQUS. Analysis User’s Manual, Version 6.14; Dassault Systems: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014.
25. MathWorks, Inc. MATLAB R2017b; MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2017.
26. Frank, K.H.; Helwig, T.A. Buckling of webs in unsymmetric plate girders. Eng. J. Second Quart. 1995, 32, 43–53.
27. CEN. EN 1993-1-5; Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures-Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements. European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
28. Byrd, R.H.; Gilbert, J.C.; Nocedal, J. A trust region method based on interior point techniques for nonlinear programming. Math.
Program. 2000, 89, 149–185. [CrossRef]
29. Byrd, R.H.; Hribar, M.E.; Nocedal, J. An Interior Point Algorithm for Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming. SIAM J. Optim. 1999,
9, 877–900. [CrossRef]
30. Waltz, R.; Morales, J.; Nocedal, J.; Orban, D. An interior algorithm for nonlinear optimization that combines line search and trust
region steps. Math. Prograhm. 2006, 107, 391–408. [CrossRef]
31. Pham, V.T.; Vu, Q.V.; Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Ngo, V.T. Efficiency of Abaqus2Matlab toolbox for structural optimization problems.
IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 869, 022025. [CrossRef]
32. Ghorashi, M.; Askarian, A.; Gashtasby, M. Optimal design of stiffened plates for buckling under in-plane forces and bending
moments. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Application of Artificial Intelligence to Civil and
Structural Engineering Computing, Stirling, UK, 19–21 September 2001; pp. 83–84.
33. Silva, D.A.B.; Filho, J.O.F.; Barreto, R. Numerical study for optimization of the buckling behavior of longitudinally stiffened
plates under pure bending. In Proceedings of the 1st International Congress on Structural Integrity and Maintenance—SIM 2021,
Online, 8–9 April 2021.
34. Papazafeiropoulos, G.; Vu, Q.-V.; Truong, V.-H.; Luong, M.-C.; Pham, V.-T. Prediction of buckling coefficient of stiffened plate
girders using deep learning algorithm. Lect. Notes Civ. Eng. 2019, 54, 1143–1148. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.