To investigate the effects of close stiffeners on tor-

sion we set a HEB 300 7 m long with and without

close stiffeners. Properties we take as if A36 steel.
All stiffeners are 15 mm thick, including end plates,
that will be considered fixed. To ease modeling, we
raise a bit the places where torsion will be applied
at the center of the beam. Gravity is taken unto ac-
count.
In the model that has inner stiffeners they run
from center at 500 mm center to center, both
sides.
The von Mises stress for 1.9 tonne forces ap-
plied at each flange at the center of the beam
inducing torsion. Maximum stress amounts to
about 14 MPa.
The Maximum Principal stress for 1.9 tonne for-
ces applied at each flange at the center of the
beam inducing torsion
In spite of the impressive scaling, maximum
displacement in X amounts to only 0.32 mm.
Our HEB 300 shows to be stout for the loading
and restraint even without stiffeners. Rotation
distortion at the center is hence about 1/468
In the case of the beam with close stiffeners the
worse von Mises stress grows to 46 MPa,
mainly it seems from restrictions to warping
stress by stiffeners at their tips.
The displacement reserves us the surprise that
the worse X displacements grow six times with
adding close stiffeners, and so the rotation to
1/72

This we may initially interpret as the stiffeners hel-

ping to impose a more “rotational” response, less
efficient on displacement and stress than the be-
haviour of each flange holding its load in bending
action.
Now we remove the small bump at center and
apply 21 tonnes in 7 m, i.e, 3 tonnes per meter
at the magenta edge
Biggest von Mises stress goes in this case to
79 MPa
Note how the biggest vertical displacement
stays at the loaded side at near 4 mm.
In slight variation of the deflection for the
uniformly loaded fixed beam at 3.5 mm
 Under the eccentrical uniform loading the
fixed beam only moves the lips of its flange in
the X direction under 0.13 mm. Given what
we have seen under the concentrated torque
at center, some kind of tension stiffening un-
der the flexural stresses seems to be at work.

Since the case of a fixed beam with uniform

torque being applied all throughout is descri-
bed in the AISC guide for torsional analysis
we might try to ascertain in what form the ro-
tational deflection checks with what here
being applied, and, particularly, if the suspec-
ted tension stiffening is for real.
This Mathcad 2000 worksheet substitutes loo-
king unto the charts in “Torsional Analysis of
Steel Members”, AISC 1983, to give the Tor-
sional Functions at abscissas. The rotational
response at center is the first result value
0.053, that for 150 mm radius would give 7.95
mm tangential displacement, akin to X displa-
cement at lips of flanges, that we see however
stay under 0.13 mm. Hence FEM analysis
shows significant tension stiffening be at work.
Now we apply the same 21 tonne total load to the right top edge with
the fixed beam with stiffeners and we get a worse response in terms of
von Mises stress, that grows up to 202 MPa. The addition of stiffeners
works as a beautiful way of enhancing/ensuring torsional response.
The Z displacement at the worst point now is above 9 mm.
The maximum X displacement anywhere is 4.55 mm, under a pure
torsional response without a vertical load for the beam without stiffe-
ners, but 35 times the displacement of the beam loaded as in this mo-
del but without stiffeners.
 CONCLUSIONS

 In the absence of properly typified solutions, a look to the problem through FEM maybe worth to identify
interesting aspects of the response.

 In the absence of anything using the stiffeners to keep the transversal sections with scarce deformation,
and to the light of the pair of comparisons made here, the addition of transversal stiffeners in the intent of
getting a better torsional behaviour shows to be wrong; hence, stiffeneres must NOT be used to correct
excessive torsional response, because will end adding to it.