Authors:
Erzsébet Bärnkopf Pál Vásárhelyi Doctoral School of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Erzsébet Bärnkopf in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0180-5059
,
Bence Jáger Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Bence Jáger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Balázs Kövesdi Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Balázs Kövesdi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

There is currently no accurate calculation procedure for determining the lateral-torsional buckling resistance of trapezoidally corrugated web girders. Therefore, a detailed investigation is performed in the frame of an experimental and numerical research program at the Department of Structural Engineering of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Based on the previous experimental results, a numerical model is developed to be used to determine the lateral-torsional buckling resistance by using deterministic method. The effect of flange size, corrugation geometry and boundary conditions are investigated. An improved design method is developed for the determination of the lateral-torsional buckling resistance of trapezoidally corrugated web girders.

Abstract

There is currently no accurate calculation procedure for determining the lateral-torsional buckling resistance of trapezoidally corrugated web girders. Therefore, a detailed investigation is performed in the frame of an experimental and numerical research program at the Department of Structural Engineering of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Based on the previous experimental results, a numerical model is developed to be used to determine the lateral-torsional buckling resistance by using deterministic method. The effect of flange size, corrugation geometry and boundary conditions are investigated. An improved design method is developed for the determination of the lateral-torsional buckling resistance of trapezoidally corrugated web girders.

1 Introduction

The web of the traditional steel beam is flat, requiring stiffeners both transversely and longitudinally. These stiffeners are post-welded to the thin web panels to prevent local or global buckling, which procedure is labor intensive. The innovation of the trapezoidally corrugated girders is that the flat web plate is replaced by a corrugated web, thus reducing the amount of work by avoiding post-welding. In addition, the web can generally be thinner in this case, so that overall lighter structures can typically be built. The only major difficulty with this type of girder is that special technology is required to manufacture trapezoidally corrugated web girders.

The use of trapezoidally corrugated beams began in Sweden, where these structures were already in use in the late 1960s [1]. Today, they are mainly used in industrial and commercial buildings and in bridge construction, where their high load-bearing capacity compared to the use of materials is particularly advantageous. Trapezoidally corrugated web girders have spread relatively quickly and are becoming increasingly popular in the structural engineering practice. Numerous bridges with corrugated web have been built in the world, also in Hungary (M43 Tisza-bridge and the new Paks-Kalocsa Danube bridge is currently being built also with trapezoidally corrugated web girders).

The previous research results show these structures differ from conventional I-beams in their lateral-torsional buckling behavior. In a similar way, differences in structural behavior were observed in this case, as Bartuš and Odrobiňák [2] showed for another girder that the occurrence of strap openings affects the lateral-torsional stability of the girders. Therefore, their design, and the Lateral-Torsional Buckling (LTB) resistance calculation method require detailed investigations. The first studies are attributed to Lindner [1], who investigated the elastic critical moment of trapezoidally corrugated girders, and then, taking into account the initial imperfections, their LTB resistance was also investigated. He observed that these values are significantly higher than those of their conventional flat web competitors. Following the results of Lindner, numerous researchers confirmed his claim.

Lindner [1] has refined the equation elastic critical moment in the case of a beam using traditional flat web subjected to a constant bending moment for the case of trapezoidally corrugated girders by adding an extra term to the warping constant in the formula. In this way, the higher performance experienced is taken into account. This term was given a correction factor cw and included length, even though the Iw warping constant should be theoretically a cross-sectional property.

In 2013, Larsson and Persson [3] performed an extensive numerical study and confirmed the equation suggested by Lindner. In this study, Larsson and Persson modified the equation, which had theoretical significance. Namely, the two formulas result practically equal elastic critical moments, but with the revision, all cross-sectional properties are independent of the span length. In 2013, Ilanovský [4] also confirmed that the elastic critical moment and ultimate strength of trapezoidally corrugated beams are higher than those of conventional flat web beams.

Following the proposal of Larsson and Persson, in 2017 Lopes et al. [5] tested trapezoidally and sinusoidal corrugated web girders too. Based on a comprehensive numerical research program they modified the values of the parameters c1 and c2 in the formula.

So far, no general design procedure has been developed to calculate the LTB resistance of trapezoidally corrugated web girders. Only suggestions for the determination of the elastic critical moment have been given. Hence, further investigations are needed to better understand their structural behavior and to determine the critical load parameter and the reduction factor associated with the LTB.

2 Research strategy and numerical modeling

2.1 Research strategy

The main purpose of this study is twofold. On the one hand, they aim to define an equivalent imperfection, which could be used in Geometric and Material Nonlinear Imperfection Analysis (GMNIA). Equivalent geometric imperfections are sought, related to the manufacturing tolerances of EN 1090-2:2018 [6], both shape and size specifications are required. On the other hand, the second objective is to determine which buckling curve from EN 1993-1-1:2005 [7] can be applied to determine the LTB resistance of trapezoidally corrugated web girders. Imperfections are of primary importance in determining resistance. Therefore, special attention should be paid to this issue and the imperfections should be investigated by treating them together as initial geometric imperfections and residual stresses, and also their equivalent geometric imperfections should be determined, and the results compared.

Two kinds of analysis are performed on the Finite Element (FE) model: the elastic critical moment is determined from Linear Buckling Analysis (LBA) the lateral-torsional buckling resistance is calculated using GMNIA. The results are statistically evaluated according to EN 1990:2002 [8] and the required resistance-side partial factor is determined for each buckling curve from EN 1993-1-1:2005 [7].

2.2 Numerical model development and validation

An advanced FE model is developed using ANSYS 19.2 software [9]. The model is verified, a detailed mesh-sensitivity test is carried out, and it is validated by using the results of a laboratory test performed at the Department of Structural Engineering of Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BUTE) in 2018 [10]. In the experiments, eleven real-size test specimens were examined by four-point-bending. Six types of cross-section geometry (the difference was in the flange size) were investigated but the corrugation profile was not varying. The primary objective of the series of laboratory experiments was to determine the imperfections of the fabricated girders and their LTB resistance. The model development and the details of the validation are presented in [10].

In the parametric study simply supported girder subjected by constant bending moments is studied, which is the basic case for the LTB buckling curve development. The FE model uses four-node shell elements, namely Shell 181 in the software. Figure 1 shows the meshed numerical model; together with the boundary conditions and the force couple (distributed along the width of the flange) resulting in the bending moment shown by arrows.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

The meshed FE model (illustrating both the boundary conditions and the applied load shortest span) (Source: Authors' result)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 3; 10.1556/606.2023.00797

The model provides a choice of free or fixed warping and rotation about the vertical axis at the ends. Based on Timoshenko [11] and EN1993-1-1 [7], this effect is taken into account in Eq. (1) by the factors kw and k for the case of the beam using traditional flat web subjected to a constant bending moment,
Mcr=πkLEIZ[(πkwL)2EIw+GIt],
where Mcr is the elastic critical moment; E is the elastic modulus; G is the shear modulus; k is the effective length factor about the weak axis rotation; L is the span length of the girder; Iz is the moment of inertia about the minor axis; kw is the effective length factor with respect to warping; Iw is the warping constant; It is the torsional constant.

With the factors kw and k, the three boundary conditions can be easily described first when both warping and rotation are free (kw = k = 1.0), rotation is free, but warping is fixed (kw = 0.5 and k = 1.0), and both are fixed (kw = k = 0.5). In the model, a master node is created, to which the end cross-section nodes are connected by assigning the relevant degrees of freedom, thus producing different layouts.

In the first case, only the transverse and vertical displacements and the twist around the longitudinal axis are blocked. In the second case, the longitudinal displacement of the nodes of the end cross-section is blocked in addition to these. In the third case, both the longitudinal displacement and the twist around the vertical axis are fixed.

The material model used in GMNIA is the multi-linear model, which is proposed by Gardner et al. [12]. Only steel S355 (using fy = 355 MPa as yield strength, fu = 510 MPa as tensile strength, and E = 210 GPa as elastic modulus) is tested. Two approaches are existing to determine LTB resistance:

  1. i)reduction factor procedures (traditional); and
  2. ii)numerical model-based design procedures using substitution imperfection.

In the last decades, the former approach has been mainly used, in which the reduction factor is determined based on buckling curves. Therefore, the development of empirical buckling curves was previously essential for the design praxis, although they have also a strong theoretical background. In the practice, buckling curves are usually based on the statistical evaluation of a large dataset of experimental results. In the past, experiments could only be laboratory tests. Nowadays they can be replaced by numerical simulations, where imperfections are directly taken into account in the FE model and the LTB resistance is calculated by geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis. The use of numerical simulations allows a large number of virtual tests to be carried out, allowing a highly accurate statistical evaluation to be made. The second approach is the numerical model-based design approach using substitution imperfection, which makes it possible to determine the LTB resistance by the numerical model directly, without using the buckling curves. Using this design method, highly accurate and reliable equivalent geometric imperfections should be developed.

In this paper, both approaches are addressed; first the determination of the required equivalent geometric imperfections is presented in the context of the numerical model-based design procedure.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Equivalent geometric imperfection calibration

In the imperfection-sensitivity analysis, five cross-sections are tested, which only differ in their flange width, thickness, and corrugation angle. For each specimen, the height of the web (hw) is 520 mm, and its thickness (tw) is 6 mm. Each cross-section is doubly symmetrical; the five different sizes of flanges are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

The investigated flange sizes using the notations of Fig. 2

bf [mm]tf [mm]
a)14014
b)16014
c)18014
d)22016
e)25016
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Applied notations related to the corrugation profile (Source: Authors' plot)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 3; 10.1556/606.2023.00797

The applied trapezoidally corrugation profile does not change during the tests and is characterized by the following parameters: α = 45°, a1 = a2 = 98 mm; see Fig. 2 for markings.

The different corrugation angles only in case of a) flange size are investigated (see Table 1), applying α = 30° and 40° (other parameters of the model remain unchanged). In total 6 to 8 different slenderness are tested using different spans. In the imperfection-sensitivity study, the first global buckling eigenmode is determined from LBA and applied as an artificial geometric imperfection with the corresponding scaling. Local imperfections have been neglected in the modeling, since the applied flanges were not sensitive for local buckling (no class 4 flanges were studied) and according to Jáger [13] the effect of the flange imperfection for this particular case is less than 1–2%.

The equivalent geometric imperfection, which is required, is obtained to have the same effect on the numerical model-based resistance as the initial geometric imperfection of L/1000 magnitude together with the expected residual stresses. The magnitude, namely L/1000 is defined in Annex B of EN 1090-2:2018 [6] it means the greatest tolerated value for member out-of-straightness. The used residual stress pattern is derived from [10], which pattern has an experimental-based origin.

In the imperfection-sensitivity study, the load-carrying capacity is determined using several different equivalent geometric imperfection magnitudes for every different girder type. The first global buckling eigen-mode is determined from LBA and applied as an artificial geometric imperfection with the corresponding scaling. The maximum displacement value in the middle of the girder was always L/xxx. In this calculation, the required values of equivalent geometric imperfection magnitudes (xxx) are obtained from linear interpolation. Figure 3 shows the final results of the investigation. On the diagram the vertical axis indicates the so-called scaling factor on the span length L and the horizontal axis represents the relative slenderness ratio of the corrugated web girder regarding lateral torsional buckling (by calculating the critical bending moment using the numerical model for the relative slenderness ratio).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Effect of varying the flange size on the magnitude of the required equivalent geometric imperfection (Source: Authors' result)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 3; 10.1556/606.2023.00797

The effect of equivalent geometric imperfections shown in Fig. 3 is equal to the effect of initial geometric imperfections combined with residual stresses. The tendency of the curves is the same for all flange sizes tested. The wider the flanges the larger the scaling factor of L, so the smaller the magnitude of equivalent geometric imperfection. If the relative slenderness is less than 0.7 then the differences between the curves are greatly reduced, whereas for larger relative slenderness the differences are significant and consistently cross-section dependent. Unambiguous that the equivalent geometric imperfection highly depends on the relative slenderness. For ease of application, a constant value of L/350 for equivalent geometric imperfection magnitude is suggested, which is considered safe for all geometries and slenderness analyzed.

3.2 Effect of boundary conditions

In the current parametric study three different support types are used as presented in Section 2.2, namely support #1, when k = 1.0 and kw = 1.0; support #2, when k = 1.0 and kw = 0.5; and support #3, when k = 0.5 and kw = 0.5.

The influence of boundary conditions on the elastic critical moment is presented in Fig. 4. In this figure the calculated elastic critical moment is plotted as a function of the span length L. The elastic critical moment is determined using three methods:

  1. i)from LBA (i.e., FEM result);
  2. ii)with the recommendation of Lindner [1]; and
  3. iii)with the proposal of Lopes et al. [5].

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Influence of boundary conditions on the elastic critical moment using analytical and numerical calculation methods [14] (Source: Authors' result)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 3; 10.1556/606.2023.00797

From the results it is clear that the smallest value of elastic critical moment belongs to the support #1 condition, and support #3 has the greatest one as expected from Eq. (1). As the span length increases, the effect of the warping term becomes lower.

The arrangement of support #1 and support #2 converges more quickly and results in the same Mcr for long spans where it is clear that the torsional constant is dominant, and the warping term virtually disappears. Overall, the difference between the two analytical and numerical calculation approaches is not significant, the results obtained with the analytical methods follow well the numerical calculation results.

The numerical results and analytical suggestions are compared. It is observed that Lindner's calculation method is accurate for support #1. When the smallest span is used, comparatively significant differences are observed, which is not surprising since in this case the failure is practically ruled by the strength of the steel. The LBA results also confirm this, as in these tests, not pure lateral-torsion buckling eigenmodes are observed, but eigenmodes combined with local flange buckling.

The influence of boundary conditions on the numerical model-based LTB resistance is also investigated. As expected, the girder has the smallest load-carrying capacity for support #1 since in this case the end sections are free to rotate and warp.

In Fig. 5 the reduction factors obtained using the three types of boundary conditions are presented as a function of relative slenderness. The LTB reduction factors are calculated by Eq. (2) in which Mb,R is the numerical model-based LTB resistance using again L/1000 equivalent geometric imperfection using the scaled-up first global eigenmode shape. The cross-sectional moment capacity is marked by My, which is determined by neglecting the web contribution and by taking into account only the Steiner's terms as given by Eq. (3) following EN 1993-1-5:2006 [15]. In the equation bf,eff is the effective width given by Jáger et al. [16, 17]. Practically, every data point follows the same curve, independent of the boundary conditions without significant differences. For that reason, in further numerical simulations, only support type #1 is used.
χLT=Mb,RMy,
My=bf,efftffyf(hw+tf).
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Effect of support conditions on the reduction factor [14] (Source: Authors' result)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 3; 10.1556/606.2023.00797

3.3 Determination of required partial factor

In the deterministic analysis, five cross-sections are tested, in the same way as the imperfection-sensitivity analysis presented in Section 3.1. The applied flange sizes are shown in Table 1. For flange size a), two more different correlation profiles are again investigated as well. The geometric imperfection's magnitude is L/1000 and residual stress is also considered. The numerical results obtained by the deterministic analysis are compared with the flexural buckling curves “a” and “b” and lateral-torsional buckling curves “c” and “d”, which are close to the results. In Fig. 6, the four buckling curves are compared with the reduction factors calculated from the linear buckling analysis and geometrical and material nonlinear imperfect analysis results as shown above.

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

The reduction factors from the deterministic test and the flexural buckling curves “a” and “b” and the LTB curves “c” and “d” from EN 1993-1-1 [8]

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 3; 10.1556/606.2023.00797

The resulting γM1 partial factors are summarized in Table 2. Based on the statistical evaluation of the deterministic analysis, the smallest partial factor γM1 is associated with the flexural buckling curve b.

Table 2.

Partial factors γM1 determined from the deterministic GMNIA [14]

γM1 [-]
flexural buckling curve a)1.0562
flexural buckling curve b)1.0162
LTB curve c)1.0562
LTB curve d)1.0753

Source: Authors’ result

The results of the deterministic analysis are statistically evaluated by the method given in Annex D of EN 1990:2002, Section 8.2, [8], comparing the results with the LTB curves c and d (with the parameters: β = 0.75 and λLT,0 = 0.4) and the flexural buckling curves a and b from EN 1993-1-1:2005 [7]. The resulting γM1 partial factors are summarized in Table 2. Based on the statistical evaluation of the deterministic analysis, the smallest partial factor γM1 is associated with the flexural buckling curve b. However, it is important to underline that for every of the buckling curves investigated, values between 1.0 and 1.1 are obtained.

4 Conclusion

In the current study, a numerical parametric analysis is presented using deterministic and stochastic methods. The basic aim is the determination of the equivalent geometrical imperfection and the buckling curve applicable in the case of LTB, which are required according to EN 1993-1-1 for the design of trapezoidally corrugated web girders. Highlighting only the most relevant results, the numerical study presented above leads to the following conclusions:

  • In this paper, the required equivalent geometric imperfections are calculated in such a way as to give the same resistance in the numerical model-based calculation as using the initial geometric imperfection (L/1000) combined with the corresponding residual stress pattern. Based on the results, a constant lower bound, namely L/350, as recommended equivalent geometric imperfection is given using the scaled first global eigenmode shape;

  • The impact of boundary conditions is tested using three versions, by controlling the warping and rotation of the cross-sections at the end of the girder. The support condition does not have a significant impact on the buckling reduction factor (e.g., buckling curve);

  • From the deterministic analysis it seems that the flexural buckling curve b can be applied for trapezoidally corrugated web girders using partial factor γM1 = 1.0. The other investigated buckling curves (lateral-torsional buckling curves c and d, and flexural buckling curves a) results larger required γM1;

Acknowledgements

The research work is connected to the MTA-BME research group “New generation steel bridges” Lendület (LP2021-06/2021) at the BUTE Department of Structural Engineering; the financial support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  • [1]

    J. Lindner, “Lateral torsional buckling of beams with trapezoidally corrugated webs,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Stability of Steel Structures, Budapest, Hungary, April 25–27, 1990, pp. 7982.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    J. Bartuš and J. Odrobiňák, “Lateral-torsional buckling of nonsymmetrical plate girders with web openings,” Pollack Period., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 4752, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    M. Larsson and J. Persson, “Lateral-torsional Buckling of Steel Girders with Trapezoidally Corrugated Webs,” MSc Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    V. Ilanovsky, “Assessment of bending moment resistance of girders with corrugated web,” Pollack Period., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 3544, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    G. C. Lopes, C. Couto, P. V. Real, and N. Lopes, “Elastic critical moment of beams with sinusoidal corrugated webs,” J. Construct. Steel Res., vol. 129, pp. 185194, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    EN 1090-2:2018, Execution of Steel Structures and Aluminum Structures - Part 2: Technical Requirements for Steel Structures, CEN, Brussels, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    EN 1993-1-1:2005, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2005.

  • [8]

    EN 1990:2002, Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design, CEN, Brussels, 2002.

  • [9]

    ANSYS® v19.2, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

  • [10]

    B. Jáger and L. Dunai, “Nonlinear imperfect analysis of corrugated web beams subjected to lateral-torsional buckling,” Eng. Struct., vol. 245, 2021, Paper no. 112888.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    S. P. Timoshenko and J. M. Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London, 1961.

  • [12]

    L. Gardner, X. Yun, A. Fieber, and L. Macorini, “Steel design by advanced analysis: Material modeling and strain limits,” Engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 243249, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    B. Jáger and L. Dunai, “Nonlinear imperfect analysis of corrugated web beams subjected to lateral-torsional buckling,” Eng. Struct. , vol. 245, 2021, Paper no. 112888.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    E. Bärnkopf, B. Jáger, and B. Kövesdi, “Lateral-torsional buckling resistance of corrugated web girders based on deterministic and stochastic nonlinear analysis,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 180, 2022, Paper no. 109880.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    EN 1993-1-5:2006, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements, CEN, Brussels, 2005.

  • [16]

    B. Jáger, L. Dunai, and B. Kövesdi, “Flange buckling behavior of girders with corrugated web, Part I: Experimental study,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 118, pp. 181195, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    B. Jáger, L. Dunai, and B. Kövesdi, “Flange buckling behavior of girders with corrugated web, Part II: Numerical study and design method development,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 118, pp. 238252, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [1]

    J. Lindner, “Lateral torsional buckling of beams with trapezoidally corrugated webs,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Stability of Steel Structures, Budapest, Hungary, April 25–27, 1990, pp. 7982.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    J. Bartuš and J. Odrobiňák, “Lateral-torsional buckling of nonsymmetrical plate girders with web openings,” Pollack Period., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 4752, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    M. Larsson and J. Persson, “Lateral-torsional Buckling of Steel Girders with Trapezoidally Corrugated Webs,” MSc Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    V. Ilanovsky, “Assessment of bending moment resistance of girders with corrugated web,” Pollack Period., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 3544, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    G. C. Lopes, C. Couto, P. V. Real, and N. Lopes, “Elastic critical moment of beams with sinusoidal corrugated webs,” J. Construct. Steel Res., vol. 129, pp. 185194, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    EN 1090-2:2018, Execution of Steel Structures and Aluminum Structures - Part 2: Technical Requirements for Steel Structures, CEN, Brussels, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    EN 1993-1-1:2005, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2005.

  • [8]

    EN 1990:2002, Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design, CEN, Brussels, 2002.

  • [9]

    ANSYS® v19.2, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

  • [10]

    B. Jáger and L. Dunai, “Nonlinear imperfect analysis of corrugated web beams subjected to lateral-torsional buckling,” Eng. Struct., vol. 245, 2021, Paper no. 112888.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    S. P. Timoshenko and J. M. Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London, 1961.

  • [12]

    L. Gardner, X. Yun, A. Fieber, and L. Macorini, “Steel design by advanced analysis: Material modeling and strain limits,” Engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 243249, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    B. Jáger and L. Dunai, “Nonlinear imperfect analysis of corrugated web beams subjected to lateral-torsional buckling,” Eng. Struct. , vol. 245, 2021, Paper no. 112888.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    E. Bärnkopf, B. Jáger, and B. Kövesdi, “Lateral-torsional buckling resistance of corrugated web girders based on deterministic and stochastic nonlinear analysis,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 180, 2022, Paper no. 109880.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    EN 1993-1-5:2006, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements, CEN, Brussels, 2005.

  • [16]

    B. Jáger, L. Dunai, and B. Kövesdi, “Flange buckling behavior of girders with corrugated web, Part I: Experimental study,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 118, pp. 181195, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    B. Jáger, L. Dunai, and B. Kövesdi, “Flange buckling behavior of girders with corrugated web, Part II: Numerical study and design method development,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 118, pp. 238252, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instructions template is available in MS Word.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Amália

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Péter

 

Scientific Secretary

Miklós M. Iványi

Editorial Board

  • Bálint Bachmann (Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Jeno Balogh (Department of Civil Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA)
  • Radu Bancila (Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Terrestrial Communications Ways, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, “Politehnica” University Timisoara, Romania)
  • Charalambos C. Baniotopolous (Department of Civil Engineering, Chair of Sustainable Energy Systems, Director of Resilience Centre, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.)
  • Oszkar Biro (Graz University of Technology, Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Austria)
  • Ágnes Borsos (Institute of Architecture, Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Matteo Bruggi (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
  • Petra Bujňáková (Department of Structures and Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Slovakia)
  • Anikó Borbála Csébfalvi (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Mirjana S. Devetaković (Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Szabolcs Fischer (Department of Transport Infrastructure and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Architerture, Civil Engineering and Transport Sciences Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Radomir Folic (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad Serbia)
  • Jana Frankovská (Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • János Gyergyák (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Kay Hameyer (Chair in Electromagnetic Energy Conversion, Institute of Electrical Machines, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
  • Elena Helerea (Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania)
  • Ákos Hutter (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technolgy, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Károly Jármai (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Teuta Jashari-Kajtazi (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina, Kosovo)
  • Róbert Kersner (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Rita Kiss  (Biomechanical Cooperation Center, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • István Kistelegdi  (Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Stanislav Kmeť (President of University Science Park TECHNICOM, Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia)
  • Imre Kocsis  (Department of Basic Engineering Research, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • László T. Kóczy (Department of Information Sciences, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, University of Győr, Hungary)
  • Dražan Kozak (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia)
  • György L. Kovács (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Balázs Géza Kövesdi (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Engineering and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tomáš Krejčí (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Jaroslav Kruis (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Miklós Kuczmann (Department of Automations, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Tibor Kukai (Department of Engineering Studies, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Maria Jesus Lamela-Rey (Departamento de Construcción e Ingeniería de Fabricación, University of Oviedo, Spain)
  • János Lógó  (Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary)
  • Carmen Mihaela Lungoci (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Universitatea Transilvania Brasov, Romania)
  • Frédéric Magoulés (Department of Mathematics and Informatics for Complex Systems, Centrale Supélec, Université Paris Saclay, France)
  • Gabriella Medvegy (Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Tamás Molnár (Department of Visual Studies, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Ferenc Orbán (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán Orbán (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Dmitrii Rachinskii (Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA)
  • Chro Radha (Chro Ali Hamaradha) (Sulaimani Polytechnic University, Technical College of Engineering, Department of City Planning, Kurdistan Region, Iraq)
  • Maurizio Repetto (Department of Energy “Galileo Ferraris”, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
  • Zoltán Sári (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Grzegorz Sierpiński (Department of Transport Systems and Traffic Engineering, Faculty of Transport, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland)
  • Zoltán Siménfalvi (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Andrej Šoltész (Department of Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • Zsolt Szabó (Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary)
  • Mykola Sysyn (Chair of Planning and Design of Railway Infrastructure, Institute of Railway Systems and Public Transport, Technical University of Dresden, Germany)
  • András Timár (Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Barry H. V. Topping (Heriot-Watt University, UK, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)

POLLACK PERIODICA
Pollack Mihály Faculty of Engineering
Institute: University of Pécs
Address: Boszorkány utca 2. H–7624 Pécs, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36 72) 503 650

E-mail: peter.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu 

or amalia.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • SCOPUS
  • CABELLS Journalytics

 

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
14
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.298
Scimago Quartile Score

Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation (Q3)
Software (Q3)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1.4
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 256/350 (27th PCTL)
Modeling and Simulation 244/316 (22nd PCTL)
General Materials Science 351/453 (22nd PCTL)
Computer Science Applications 616/792 (22nd PCTL)
Software 344/404 (14th PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
0.861

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
12
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,26
Scimago Quartile Score Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q4)
Modeling and Simulation (Q4)
Software (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 232/326 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 536/747 (Q3)
General Materials Science 329/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 228/303 (Q4)
Software 326/398 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,613

2020  
Scimago
H-index
11
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,257
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
340/243=1,4
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 219/318 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 487/693 (Q3)
General Materials Science 316/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 217/290 (Q4)
Software 307/389 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
1,09
Scopus
Cites
321
Scopus
Documents
67
Days from submission to acceptance 136
Days from acceptance to publication 239
Acceptance
Rate
48%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
10
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,262
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
269/220=1,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 206/310 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 445/636 (Q3)
General Materials Science 295/460 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 212/274 (Q4)
Software 304/373 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,933
Scopus
Cites
290
Scopus
Documents
68
Acceptance
Rate
67%

 

Pollack Periodica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 336 EUR / 411 USD
Print + online subscription: 405 EUR / 492 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

 

Pollack Periodica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2006
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1788-1994 (Print)
ISSN 1788-3911 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Dec 2023 0 440 51
Jan 2024 0 251 69
Feb 2024 0 496 43
Mar 2024 0 78 45
Apr 2024 0 16 14
May 2024 0 74 27
Jun 2024 0 40 3