Chen 2014

Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-014-0508-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Experimental and finite element analysis research on I-beam

under web crippling
Yu Chen Xixiang Chen Chaoyang Wang
Received: 11 August 2014 / Accepted: 19 December 2014

RILEM 2014
Abstract To research web crippling property of

I-beam under concentrated load, 48 I-beam with
different boundary conditions, loading conditions,
bearing lengths and section heights were tested. The
experimental scheme, failure modes, concentrated
loadgeneral vertical deformation and equivalent strain
distribution curves were presented in the paper. The
effects of boundary condition, loading condition,
bearing length and section height on web crippling
ultimate capacity and ductility of I-beam were also
studied. Results of these tests show that as bearing
length increases, web crippling ultimate capacity of
I-beam increase significantly. When bearing length was
50 and 100 mm, web crippling ultimate capacity of
I-beam with web slenderness = 17.5 reached its peak;
when the bearing length was 150 mm, web crippling
ultimate capacity of I-beam with web slenderness = 22.5 reached its peak. The middle web entered
plasticity and formed plastic hinge zone in the ultimate
limit state. The web crippling ultimate capacity of
Y. Chen
School of Urban Construction, Yangtze University,
Jingzhou 434023, China
Y. Chen C. Wang
College of Civil Engineering, Huaqiao University,
Xiamen 361021, China
X. Chen (&)
College of Technology & Engineering, Yangtze
University, Jingzhou 434023, China
e-mail: chenyuelite@sina.com
I-beam with bearing length = 50 mm in interior one

flange condition, interior two flanges condition, end one
flange and end two flanges condition decreased
progressively. Finite element analysis could simulate
experimental failure mode and web crippling ultimate
capacity. The simple calculation method of web
crippling ultimate capacity put forward in the paper
can accurately predict experimental value.
Keywords I-beam Web crippling Experimental
research Ultimate capacity Finite element analysis
Simple calculation method
List of symbols
EOF
End-one-flange
IOF
Interior-one-flange
ETF
End-two-flange
ITF
Interior-two-flange
Rw,ul
Experimental web crippling ultimate
capacity
Rw,ulc
Web crippling ultimate capacity obtained
by using Chinese steel structures design
code (GB50013-2003)
Rw,ule
by using European design of steel
structures (Eurocode 3)
Rw,ulFEA Web crippling ultimate capacity obtained
by using finite element analysis
Rw,ulre
by using equations the paper put forward
fy
fu
m
d
E
MD
r
h
b
ht
t
r
a
ht/t
ei
e1
e2
e3
Tensile yield stress

Ultimate tensile stress
Poissons ratio
Elongation after fracture
Elastic modulus
Average deviation of yield stress
Standard deviation of yield stress
Overall height of I-beam
Flange height of I-beam
Web effective height of I-beam
Web thickness of I-beams
Internal radius of corner
Bearing length
Web slenderness
Strain intensity
First principal strain
Second principal strain
Third principal strain
1 Introduction
I-beams nowadays are widely used in stadiums,
towers and bridges due to their high strength, easy
fabrication and fast construction. The web of I-beam
may buckle due to high localized bearing force.
Therefore, web crippling needs to be considered in
designing I-beams.
A considerable amount of research has been
carried out on cold-formed and aluminum tubular
sections under web crippling over many years by
numerous researchers, particularly to validate various
design rules for web crippling, and the majority was
based on experimental investigations. In order to
study the stability of the web in structural steel beams
under a concentrated load, a cooperative investigation
was undertaken by Lyse and Godfrey [1]. The test
program included the testing of six rolled beams, four
of which were cut from the same section and two
from another section. A series of tests on aluminum
square and rectangular hollow sections under web
crippling was presented by Zhou and Young [2, 3].
The web crippling strength in end-two-flange (ETF)
loading condition increased faster than those interiortwo-flange (ITF) loading condition as the bearing
length increased. The effect of the bearing length on
the web crippling strength in ETF loading condition
was more severe than those in ITF loading condition.
The new web crippling test data presented in this

paper could be used to develop design rules for
aluminum square and rectangular hollow sections. An
experimental study was conducted at the University
of Missouri-Rolla by Stephens and Laboube [4] to
establish the web crippling strength of both box and
I-beam in interior-one-flange (IOF) loading condition.
Ren et al. [5] accurately predicted the behavior and
ultimate strengths of cold-formed steel channels
subjected to pure bending as well as combined
bending and web crippling using the verified finite
element models against test results. Carden et al. [6]
investigated the critical web limit states in H-beams
experimentally. The web crippling strength was
greater than that for two independent, single web
C-sections. Genetic programming (GP) as a new tool
for the formulation of web crippling strength of coldformed steel decks for various loading cases was
presented by Cevik [7]. The results of the proposed
GP formulations were compared with results of
existing design codes and were found to be more
accurate for all loading cases. Nine specimens were
tested to collect data on V-core panels subjected to
end one-flange (EOF) loading by Okazaki et al. [8].
The modified equation was found to adequately
predict the measured web crippling strength of V-core
panels. Macdonald et al. [9] presented the results of
an investigation into web crippling behavior of coldformed thin-walled steel lipped channel beams in
IOF, ITF, EOF and ETF loading conditions as defined
by the American Iron and Steel Institute. An experimental program was developed to obtain the load
deformation characteristics of beam members with
varying cross-sectional and loading parameters in the
three web crippling loading conditions. Eighty two
web crippling tests of cold-formed steel sections, with
20 tests on channel sections without web openings
and 62 tests on channel sections with web openings,
were conducted by Uzzaman et al. [10, 11]. The finite
element model was shown to be able to closely
predict the web crippling behavior of the channel
sections, both with and without circular web hole. It
was demonstrated that the main factors influencing
the web crippling strength were the ratio of the hole
depth to the flat depth of the web, and the ratio of the
length of bearing plates to the flat depth of the web. A
combination of experiments and non-linear finite
element analyses were used to investigate the effect
of offset web holes on the web crippling strength of
cold-formed steel channel sections in the ETF loading

condition by Uzzaman et al. [12]. Design recommendations in the form of web crippling strength reduction factors are proposed. An experimental
investigation of web crippling in stainless steel cold
formed sections was presented by Bock et al. [13]. A
new equation was proposed to predict the ultimate
strength of stainless steel cold-formed members under
web crippling. Natario et al. [14] evaluated the web
crippling behavior of cold-formed steel beams by
using quasi-static analyses with explicit integration.
The failure mechanism emerged considerably more
clearly when the quasi-static analysis was adopted.
Wu and Bai [15] investigated the web crippling
behavior of pultruded GFRP sections under concentrated loading, employing four square hollow sections
of different sizes. A simple mechanism based design
equation was proposed to estimate the strength of
such pultruded GFRP sections subjected to web
crippling.
There is little research being carried out on the
behavior of I-beam under web crippling. Therefore,
the ultimate capacity, failure modes and ductility of
I-beam under web crippling need further investigation.
In this paper, the experimental work was conducted on
I-beam under web crippling. The effects of bearing
lengths, web slenderness, boundary and loading
conditions on the ultimate capacity and initial stiffness
of I-beam under web crippling were investigated.
Furthermore, using the calibrated finite element analysis, a parametric study was conducted to comprehensively investigate the effects of some important
geometric parameters on the ultimate capacity of
I-beam under web crippling. The new design simple
calculation method is proposed for I-beam under web
crippling at the end of the paper.
were machined to specified dimensions whose the

length was 300 mm. The bearing plates were designed
to act across the full flange widths of the specimen
sections, so as to ensure the overall displacement
loading.
The test specimens under web crippling comprised
four different section sizes, having nominal heights
ranging from 100 to 160 mm. The measured ratio of
the height to the thickness (web slenderness) of the
webs was 15.0, 18.0, 17.5, 22.5, as shown in Fig. 1.
In the paper, the specimens were tested in four
loading conditions, namely, EOF, IOF, ETF and ITF.
In order to remove the influence of the boundary
condition, the distance from the edge of the bearing
plate to the end of the member was set to be at least 1.5
times the overall height of the web. Figure 2 shows
photos of web crippling tests in four boundary and
loading conditions.
In Table 1, the specimens were labeled so that the
height of sections, the boundary condition, the loading
condition and the width of the bearing plates, could be
identified from the label. Rw,ul is experimental value of
the web crippling ultimate capacity of I-beam specimen in the test. Rw,ul is defined as the maximum load
reached during experiments. For example, the label
I100-ETF-N100 is explained as follows:
The notation I100 indicates the section height of
I-beam in mm (100 mm).
The next three letters indicate that the loading and
boundary condition ETF was used in the test.
2 Experimental investigation
2.1 Specimens design
To research web crippling property of I-beam, 48
I-beams with different boundary condition, loading
condition, section height, and bearing length were
tested.
The bearing plates were fabricated with Q235 steel
whose nominal yield strength was 235 MPa having the
nominal thickness of 30 mm. All the bearing plates
Fig. 1 Definition of symbols of I-beam
Fig. 2 Photos of web crippling tests in four boundary and loading conditions
N100 represents the width of bearing plate in mm

(100 mm).
ratio (m), the elongation after fracture (d), the elastic

modulus (E), average deviation of yield stress (MD),
and standard deviation of yield stress (r).
2.2 Material properties

2.3 Loading and test program
The I-beam specimens were fabricated by hot rolling
using the Chinese Q325 steel. Tensile coupon tests
were carried out to determine the material properties
of the I-beam specimens. The tensile coupons were
taken from the center face of the web plate in the
longitudinal direction of the untested specimens. The
nominal coupons were prepared and tested according
to Chinese metallic materials-tensile testing at ambient temperature (GB/T228-2002) [16], the coupons
were tested in an MTS displacement controlled the
testing machine using friction grips. The strain gauges
and a calibrated extensometer were used to measure
the longitudinal strain. A data acquisition system was
used to record the load and strain at regular intervals
during the material property tests. The material
properties obtained from the tensile coupon tests are
summarized in Table 2, including the tensile yield
stress (fy), the ultimate tensile stress (fu), Poissons
In all structural design, an accurate prediction of the

ultimate capacity of I-beam under web crippling is
required for an efficient and safe use. The local
transverse resistance of the web crippling specimens
was obtained according to European steel structures
design code [17], which can be used as the estimated
load.
The load classification was conducted according to
estimated ultimate capacities. Before the values of
preloading reached 10 % of the estimated ultimate
capacities, slow loading was made on bearing plate by
hydraulic jack. Before the values of formal load
reached 20 % of the estimated ultimate capacities,
continuous load was made, meanwhile monitoring the
loading process if the rosettes strain gauges enter
plasticity or displacement gauges increasing rapidly,
finally continuously slow load was applied until

Table 1 Parameters and ultimate capacity of I-beam under web crippling
Boundary and
loading conditions
Specimens
EOF
I100-EOF-N50
50
67.42
99.82
400
I100-EOF-N100
100
67.54
99.80
I100-EOF-N150
150
67.70
99.80
I120-EOF-N50
50
73.10
I120-EOF-N100
100
I120-EOF-N150
150
I140-EOF-N50
I140-EOF-N100
I140-EOF-N150
IOF
ETF
ITF
a (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
L (mm)
ht (mm)
t (mm)
ht/t
r (mm)
Rw,ul (kN)
75.00
5.08
14.76
6.88
122.3
400
75.06
5.00
15.01
6.60
201.6
400
75.10
5.04
14.90
6.64
179.7
119.20
400
91.72
5.10
17.98
7.60
141.6
73.00
119.52
400
91.58
5.20
17.61
7.64
197.8
72.32
119.40
400
91.60
5.18
17.68
7.64
170.0
50
78.60
140.06
400
113.10
6.40
17.67
7.42
156.8
100
79.54
140.00
400
113.12
6.54
17.30
7.88
193.5
150
78.62
140.02
400
113.08
6.48
17.45
7.60
256.0
I160-EOF-N50
50
89.10
161.50
400
135.10
5.90
22.90
7.90
113.3
I160-EOF-N100
100
89.30
162.00
400
135.10
5.98
22.59
7.88
166.8
I160-EOF-N150
150
89.22
161.36
400
135.06
5.92
22.81
7.72
343.4
I100-IOF-N50
50
67.50
99.82
600
75.04
5.06
14.83
6.88
188.3
I100-IOF-N100
100
67.54
99.84
600
75.04
5.04
14.89
6.76
224.7
I100-IOF-N150
I120-IOF-N50
150
50
67.62
73.12
99.80
119.28
600
600
75.12
91.68
5.04
5.18
14.90
17.70
6.66
7.62
311.9
214.1
I120-IOF-N100
100
73.20
119.52
600
91.54
5.20
17.60
7.64
217.3
I120-IOF-N150
150
72.30
119.82
600
91.62
5.20
17.62
7.70
353.0
I140-IOF-N50
50
78.60
140.08
400
113.10
6.44
17.56
7.52
300.5
I140-IOF-N100
100
79.32
140.10
400
113.12
6.52
17.35
7.88
366.5
I140-IOF-N150
150
78.80
140.04
400
113.20
6.46
17.52
7.60
431.1
I160-IOF-N50
50
89.14
161.50
400
135.10
5.92
22.82
7.92
242.8
I160-IOF-N100
100
89.32
161.48
400
135.18
5.98
22.61
7.88
284.6
I160-IOF-N150
150
89.22
161.36
400
135.06
5.94
22.74
7.78
458.6
I100-ETF-N50
50
67.62
99.90
400
75.08
5.08
14.78
6.88
76.0
I100-ETF-N100
100
67.51
99.80
400
75.06
5.02
14.95
6.60
117.6
I100-ETF-N150
150
67.68
99.82
400
75.14
5.02
14.97
6.66
200.9
I120-ETF-N50
50
73.00
119.32
600
91.72
5.10
17.98
7.60
127.0
I120-ETF-N100
100
73.26
119.52
600
91.58
5.16
17.75
7.68
146.5
I120-ETF-N150
I140-ETF-N50
150
50
72.32
78.60
119.40
140.08
600
400
91.68
113.10
5.18
6.48
17.70
17.45
7.64
7.46
193.5
137.3
I140-ETF-N100
100
78.90
140.02
400
113.16
6.54
17.30
7.88
209.2
I140-ETF-N150
150
78.62
140.02
400
113.08
6.46
17.50
7.60
263.1
I160-ETF-N50
50
89.12
161.50
400
135.08
5.88
22.97
7.86
81.7
I160-ETF-N100
100
89.28
162.00
400
135.10
5.94
22.74
7.88
114.9
I160-ETF-N150
150
89.20
161.80
400
135.06
5.96
22.66
7.78
314.8
I100-ITF-N50
50
67.48
99.82
400
75.08
5.00
15.02
6.70
168.8
I100-ITF-N100
100
67.54
99.80
400
75.06
5.00
15.01
6.60
171.7
I100-ITF-N150
150
67.68
99.80
400
75.12
5.06
14.85
6.64
230.1
I120-ITF-N50
50
73.10
119.22
600
91.72
5.10
17.98
7.66
157.0
I120-ITF-N100
100
73.30
119.52
600
91.58
5.12
17.89
7.84
214.5
I120-ITF-N150
150
72.32
119.86
600
91.64
5.14
17.83
7.64
266.7
I140-ITF-N50
50
78.60
140.06
400
113.10
6.42
17.62
7.42
270.7
I140-ITF-N100
100
79.44
140.04
400
113.12
6.50
17.40
7.88
212.0

Table 1 continued
Boundary and
loading conditions
Specimens
a (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
L (mm)
ht (mm)
t (mm)
ht/t
r (mm)
Rw,ul (kN)
I140-ITF-N150
150
78.62
140.04
400
113.08
6.48
17.45
7.64
337.3
I160-ITF-N50
50
89.12
161.50
400
135.04
5.94
22.73
7.96
176.1
I160-ITF-N100
100
89.30
161.38
400
135.10
5.98
22.59
7.88
241.2
I160-ITF-N150
150
89.28
161.36
400
135.06
5.92
22.81
7.72
414.5
Table 2 Result of material

characteristic test
D1
Members
fy (MPa)
fu (MPa)
d (%)
E (GPa)
MD
I100 9 68 9 5.0
275
390
0.31
38
209
14
I120 9 74 9 5.0
284
396
0.29
36
206
13
I140 9 80 9 6.5
293
385
0.28
37
208
17
I160 9 88 9 6.0
285
405
0.30
34
210
11
D2
Hydraulic jack
D1
D2
Hydraulic jack
gauge (T15), which enabled strain values to be

measured simultaneously, were distributed at the same
interval on the web of I-beam, as shown in Fig. 3b.
Displacement transducers
3 Test results
(ETF and ITF)
(EOF and IOF)
3.1 Failure modes
(a) Displacement transducers

Hydraulic jack
Hydraulic jack
Rosette strain gauge
(ETF and ITF)
(EOF and IOF)
(b) Rosette strain gauges

Fig. 3 Arrangement of displacement and rosette strain gauges
failure. In the actual control, the upper limit of graded

load is continuously adjusted according to the displacement gauges feedback. At the appearance of
obviously large displacement or drop load, the tests
were stopped.
Two displacement gauges D1 and D2 were located
at the surface of the bearing plates on the top flange of
the I-beam in order to record the vertical displacement
during the test, as shown in Fig. 3a. Five rosette strain
All types of failure modes in four loading conditions,

namely, EOF, IOF, ETF and ITF were observed from
the tests, as shown in Fig. 4ad, respectively. In both
EOF and ETF conditions, the compressive top flange
buckled, the bottom flange did not buckle, web
crippled into S type out-of-plane, and the corner
kept right angle. In IOF condition, the top flange
buckled, the bottom flange did not buckle, and the
upper part of web under the bearing plate slightly
buckled. In ITF condition, both the top and bottom
flange buckled, while the upper part of web right under
the bearing plate slightly buckled. Generally, compressive top flange buckled first, then web crippled,
and finally bottom flange buckled. The effects of
bearing lengths and section heights on failure modes
of I-beam under web crippling were little.
3.2 Comparison of ultimate capacity under web
crippling with different bearing lengths
Table 3 shows the ultimate capacity of I-beam under
web crippling with different bearing lengths. The
effect of bearing plate length on the ultimate capacity

Fig. 4 Failure modes in test
and FEA
of I-beam under web crippling was different in the

different loading conditions.
Increasing bearing length ranged from 50 to 100 and
150, the ultimate capacity of I-beam under web
crippling increased by 44 and 83 % in EOF loading
condition compared with 41 and 148 % in ETF loading
condition. Meanwhile, increasing bearing length ranged from 50 to 100 mm, the ultimate capacity of I-beam
under web crippling increased by about 15 % in both
IOF and ITF loading conditions; increasing bearing
length ranged from 50 to 150 mm, the ultimate capacity
of I-beam under web crippling increased by about 65 %

Table 3 Comparison of ultimate capacity of I-beam under web crippling with different bearing lengths
Boundary and
loading conditions
Specimens
Rw,ul
(N = 50,
kN)
Rw,ul
(N = 100,
kN)
Rw,ul
(N = 150,
kN)
Rw,ul (N = 100)/
Rw,ul (N = 50)
Rw,ul (N = 150)/
Rw,ul (N = 50)
EOF
I100-EOFN(50,100,150)
122.30
201.60
179.70
1.65
1.47
I120-EOFN(50,100,150)
I140-EOFN(50,100,150)
141.60
197.80
170.00
1.40
1.20
156.80
193.50
256.00
1.23
1.63
113.30
166.80
343.40
1.47
3.03
Mean
1.44
1.83
COV
0.120
0.446
I160-EOFN(50,100,150)
IOF
ETF
ITF
I100-IOFN(50,100,150)
188.30
224.70
311.90
1.19
1.66
I120-IOFN(50,100,150)
214.10
217.30
353.00
1.01
1.65
I140-IOFN(50,100,150)
300.50
366.50
431.10
1.22
1.43
I160-IOFN(50,100,150)
242.80
284.60
458.60
1.17
1.89
Mean
1.15
1.66
COV
0.080
0.112
I100-ETFN(50,100,150)
76.00
117.60
200.90
1.55
2.64
I120-ETFN(50,100,150)
127.00
146.50
193.50
1.15
1.52
I140-ETFN(50,100,150)
137.30
209.20
263.10
1.52
1.92
I160-ETFN(50,100,150)
81.70
114.90
314.80
1.41
3.85
Mean
1.41
2.48
COV
0.128
0.412
I100-ITFN(50,100,150)
168.80
171.70
230.10
1.02
1.36
I120-ITFN(50,100,150)
157.00
214.50
266.70
1.37
1.70
I140-ITFN(50,100,150)
270.70
212.00
337.30
0.78
1.25
I160-ITFN(50,100,150)
176.10
241.20
414.50
1.37
2.35
Mean
1.13
1.67
COV
0.253
0.299
in both IOF and ITF loading conditions, respectively. It

is shown that the effect of the bearing length on the web
crippling ultimate capacity of I-beam in end-flange
loading condition was more obvious than those of
I-beam in interior-flange loading condition.

crippling with different web slenderness
The comparison of the ultimate capacity of I-beam
under web crippling with different web slenderness is

500
350
N50
300
N100
N50
450
N150
N100
N150
Rw,ul/kN
400
Rw,ul/kN
Fig. 5 Comparison of
capacity of I-beam under
web crippling with different
web slenderness
250
200
350
300
250
150
200
100
15.0(I100)
17.5(I140)
18.0(I120)
150
15.0(I100)
22.5(I160)
17.5(I140)
(a) EOF
22.5(I160)
(b) IOF
350
450
N50
300
N100
N150
N50
400
250
Rw,ul/kN
Rw,ul/kN
18.0(I120)
ht /t
ht /t
200
N100
N150
350
300
250
150
200
100
150
50
15.0(I100)
18.0(I120)
100
15.0(I100)
22.5(I160)
(c) ETF
(d) ITF
Web cripple
250
N/kN
300
200
Top flange
buckle
150
100
50
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
22.5(I160)
Upper part of web cripple
Top flange buckle
I100-IOF-N150(15.0)
I140-IOF-N150(17.5)
I120-IOF-N150(18.0)
I160-IOF-N150(22.5)
/mm
/mm
(b) IOF
(a) EOF
350
450
300
250
Web cripple
I100-ETF-N150(15.0)
400
I140-ETF-N150(17.5)
350
I120-ETF-N150(18.0)
300
I160-ETF-N150(22.5)
200
N/kN
N/kN
18.0(I120)
ht /t
I100-EOF-N150(15.0)
I140-EOF-N150(17.5)
I120-EOF-N150(18.0)
I160-EOF-N150(22.5)
350
17.5(I140)
ht /t
400
N/kN
Fig. 6 Loaddisplacement
of I-beam under web
crippling with different web
slenderness
17.5(I140)
Top flange
buckle
150
250
200
Bottom flange buckle

Upper part of
I100-ITF-N150(15.0)
web cripple
150
100
I140-ITF-N150(17.5)
I120-ITF-N150(18.0)
I160-ITF-N150(22.5)
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.0
Top flange buckle
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
/mm
/mm
(c) ETF
(d) ITF
shown in Fig. 5. The web slenderness values of I-beam

ranged from 15.0 to 22.5.
When the bearing length was 50 and 100 mm,
ultimate capacity of I-beam with the web slenderness = 17.5 reached its peak; when the bearing
3.0
3.5
4.0
lengths was 150 mm, the ultimate capacity of

I-beam with the web slenderness = 22.5 was the
largest value, the ultimate capacity of I-beam with
the web slenderness = 17.5 was the second largest
value.
The loaddisplacement of I-beam under web crippling with different web slenderness is shown in
Fig. 6. X-axis represents the global vertical displacement of specimens (d), Y-axis represents the vertical
load at loading end (N). The global vertical displacement of specimens was calculated as average of D1
and D2 displacement values. The important points on
the loaddisplacement curves corresponding to the
attainment of specific phenomena including top flange
buckled, bottom flange buckled and web crippled were
marked in Fig. 6. The measured web slenderness
values of the specimens ranged from 15.0 to 22.5.
Ductility ratio (du/dy) is defined as ratio of displacement at ultimate load (du) to displacement at yield load
(dy) of all specimens based on the design criteria
recommended by Kurobane et al. [18]. The greater
ductility ratio (du/dy), the better ductility of specimens.
The greater web slenderness, the smaller initial
stiffness and the better ductility. Rw,ul can be defined
as the peak load of loaddisplacement curve.
When the web slenderness was 22.5, the values of

the web crippling ultimate capacity of I-beam in
interior-flange loading condition were larger than
those in end-flange loading condition. Similarly, the
values of the web crippling ultimate capacity of
I-beam with the web slenderness = 22.5 in one flange
loading condition were larger than those in two flange
loading conditions. As the web slenderness decreased,
the trend got unobvious.
Loaddisplacement of I-beam under web crippling
in different loading conditions is shown in Fig. 8.
Value of X-axis is the average of D1 and D2
displacement values. It is shown that the specimens
in the interior-flange loading conditions had high
ultimate capacity and good ductility. The initial
stiffness of the specimens labeled I160 in interior
loading condition was higher than those of I160 in end
loading condition. The initial stiffness of the other
specimens in interior and end loading conditions was
basically the same.

crippling in different boundary and loading
conditions
3.5 Loadequivalent strain on web curves

Equivalent strain distribution in the web region was
derived from the readings of three-element rosettes
strain gauges. The failure mechanism of the joints
were studied from equivalent strain distribution. The
equivalent strain at the measuring points of rosettes
strain gauges corresponding to different load levels
covering the elastic and plastic range of typical
specimens are plotted in Fig. 9, in which the horizontal axis represents the measuring points of strain
gauges (as shown in Fig. 3b), the vertical axis
represents the equivalent strain (ei), and the dash line
represents the boundary equivalent strain corresponding to the yield strength.
The comparison of the ultimate capacity of I-beam

under web crippling in different boundary and loading
conditions is shown in Fig. 7. When the bearing length
was 50 mm, the values of the web crippling ultimate
capacity in interior-flange loading condition were
larger than those in end-flange loading condition. The
values of the web crippling ultimate capacity of
I-beam with bearing length = 50 mm in one flange
loading condition were larger than those in two flange
loading conditions. As the bearing length increased,
the trend got unobvious.
400
350
300
EOF
IOF
ETF
ITF
EOF
IOF
ETF
ITF
450
N/kN
N/kN
200
250
150
200
100
150
50
15.0(I100)
100
15.0(I100)
EOF
IOF
ETF
ITF
400
300
250
N/kN
500
350
350
300
250
17.5(I140)
18.0(I120)
22.5(I160)
200
17.5(I140)
18.0(I120)
22.5(I160)
150
15.0(I100)
17.5(I140)
18.0(I120)
ht/t
ht/t
ht/t
(a) N50
(b) N100
(c) N150
Fig. 7 Comparison of capacity of I-beam under web crippling in different boundary and loading conditions
22.5(I160)

Fig. 8 Loaddisplacement
of I-beam under web
crippling in different
loading conditions
350
400
300
350
300
N/kN
200
150
I100-EOF-N150
I100-ETF-N150
I100-IOF-N150
I100-ITF-N150
100
50
100
50
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
/mm
(c) I140-N150
(d) I160-N150
7000
6000
250kN
300kN
200kN
350kN
458kN
6000
300kN
400kN
5000
343kN
i/
5000
I160-EOF-N150
I160-ETF-N150
I160-IOF-N150
I160-ITF-N150
/mm
200kN
4000
3000
4000
3000
2000
2000
y=1357
1000
y=1357
T2
T3
T4
0
T1
T5
T2
T3
Ti
T4
T5
Ti
(a) I160-EOF-N150
(b) I160-IOF-N150
16000
9000
200kN
285kN
314kN
14000
12000
200kN
350kN
414kN
8000
250kN
300kN
7000
300kN
400kN
6000
10000
i/
i/
(b) I120-N150
100kN
8000
6000
5000
4000
3000
4000
2000
(a) I100-N150
0
T1
/mm
7000
1000
/mm
I140-EOF-N150
I140-ETF-N150
I140-IOF-N150
I140-ITF-N150
8000
i/
200
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
N/kN
Fig. 9 Equivalent strain

distribution curves
250
150
N/kN
N/kN
250
I120-EOF-N150
I120-ETF-N150
I120-IOF-N150
I120-ITF-N150
2000
y=1357
0
T1
y=1357
1000
T2
T3
T4
T5
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
Ti
Ti
(c) I160-ETF-N150
(d) I160-ITF-N150
T5

1
ei p
21 m
1
p
21 m
q
e1 e2 2 e2 e3 2 e3 e1 2
r

2
2
3
ex ey ey ez ez ex 2 c2xy c2yz c2zx :
2
1
In elastic range volume is supposed fixed,
cyz 0;
czx 0;
v 0:5:
The equivalent strain (ei) could be calculated as

follows [19, 20]:
p q
2
ei
e1 e2 2 e2 e3 2 e3 e1 2 ;
3
3
where e1, e2 and e3 are the first, second and third
principal strains, respectively, which were obtained
from three-element rosettes strain gauges along the
joint intersection region.
Measuring points first entered plasticity were
determined by different loading conditions. All measuring points on web of I-beam enter plasticity in the
ultimate limit state. Strain intensity of T3 located at
the centerline of web was the minimum of equivalent
strain.
The design strengths of web crippling ultimate

capacity of cross-sections with a single unstiffened
web can be calculated using the design equations as
follows:

ht =t h
ai
Rw;ule k1 k2 5:92
1 0:01 t2 fy
4
132
t
EOF Eurocode 3 17;

ht =t h
ai
1 0:0007 t2 fy
Rw;ule k4 k5 14:7
49:5
t
IOF Eurocode 3 17;
5

Rw;ule k1 k2 6:66
The experimental web crippling ultimate capacity and

the calculated value of specification in EOF, IOF, ETF
and ITF loading condition are given in Table 4,
respectively. The specification values are calculated
using the measured I-beam geometry size and the
measured yield strength. Rw,ulc and Rw,ule are the web
crippling ultimate capacity of I-beam obtained by
using Chinese steel structures design code (GB500172003) [21] and European design of steel structures
(Eurocode 3) [17], respectively. Rw,ulre is the web
crippling ultimate capacity of I-beam obtained by
using the following design equation the paper put
forward. Up to the authors knowledge, the European
standard is applied to cold formed steel elements or
profiled sheet. There is no design rule for the hot rolled
specimens under web crippling. A comparison
between calculation value obtained by using Eurocode
3 and experimental result was made to check whether
design equation of Eurocode 3 is applicable for hot
rolled specimens or not.
64
ETF Eurocode 3 17;
1 0:01
ai 2
t fy
t

ht =t h
ai
1 0:0013 t2 fy
Rw;ule k4 k5 21:0
16:3
t
ITF Eurocode 3 17;
7

Rw;ulc t a 5hy fy
hy h ht =2;
4 Comparison of web crippling ultimate capacity

h =t h
Chinese code 21;
8
9
where fy is the yield stress of I-beam, t is the web

thickness, a is the bearing length, ht is web height, k1
and k4 are the same parameters that account for the
influence of yield stress, and k2 and k5 are the influence
function for internal radius of the corners and web
thickness.
The mean values of Rw,ulc/Rw,ul ratio are 1.46, 0.90,
1.74 and 1.14 with the corresponding COV of 0.188,
0.128, 0.227 and 0.171 in EOF, IOF, ETF and ITF
loading and boundary conditions, respectively. The
calculated result obtained by using Chinese steel
structures design code (Rw,ulc) was far larger than the
experimental web crippling ultimate capacity (Rw,ul),
because that the ultimate capacity reduction caused by
out-of-plane buckling of the thin web and effects of
loading and boundary conditions on web crippling
ultimate capacity were not considered in Chinese steel
structures design code. The mean values of Rw,ule/Rw,ul
ratio are 0.28, 0.46, 0.37 and 0.73 with the corresponding COV of 0.275, 0.176, 0.370 and 0.253 for EOF,
IOF, ETF and ITF loading and boundary conditions,
respectively. The calculated result obtained by using

Table 4 Comparison of capacity of I-beam under web crippling between test, equation and code
Boundary and
loading conditions
Specimens
Rw,ul (kN)
Rw,ulc (kN)
Rw,ulc/
Rw,ul
EOF
I100-EOF-N50
122.3
156.53
1.28
35.87
0.29
82.00
0.67
I100-EOF-N100
201.6
222.54
1.10
37.95
0.19
123.80
0.61
I100-EOF-N150
179.7
293.49
1.63
41.70
0.23
169.15
0.94
I120-EOF-N50
141.6
171.93
1.21
36.64
0.26
84.82
I120-EOF-N100
197.8
250.83
1.27
41.39
0.21
134.07
0.68
I120-EOF-N150
170.0
322.91
1.90max
44.41
0.26
179.97
1.06max
I140-EOF-N50
156.8
220.15
1.40
57.65
0.37
122.72
0.78
I140-EOF-N100
193.5
320.39
1.66
64.41
0.33
187.59
0.97
I140-EOF-N150
256.0
412.67
1.61
67.53
0.26
245.37
0.96
I160-EOF-N50
113.3
195.05
1.72
48.23
0.43max
104.88
0.93
I160-EOF-N100
166.8
285.04
1.71
53.33
0.32
160.68
0.96
211.56
0.62
I160-EOF-N150
IOF
343.4
364.01
1.06
56.11
Rw,ule/
Rw,ul
0.16
min
Mean
1.46
0.28
COV
0.188
0.275
Rw,ulre (kN)
Rw,ulre/
Rw,ul
0.60min
0.81
0.210
I100-IOF-N50
I100-IOF-N100
188.3
224.7
155.78
224.53
0.83
1.00
97.28
102.80
0.52
0.46
148.29
212.58
0.79
0.95
I100-IOF-N150
311.9
293.42
0.94
109.06
0.35
277.78
0.89
I120-IOF-N50
214.1
175.06
0.82
103.75
0.48
158.23
0.74min
111.14
0.51
228.44
1.05max
I120-IOF-N100
217.3
250.98
max
1.16
min
I120-IOF-N150
353.0
325.63
0.92
117.73
0.33
297.65
0.84
I140-IOF-N50
300.5
221.62
0.74min
161.93
0.54
230.86
0.77
I140-IOF-N100
366.5
319.89
0.87
174.38
0.48
325.16
0.89
I140-IOF-N150
431.1
410.92
0.95
179.67
0.42
409.49
0.95
I160-IOF-N50
242.8
195.72
0.81
133.81
0.55max
194.73
0.80
I160-IOF-N100
284.6
282.49
0.99
144.04
0.51
277.29
0.97
I160-IOF-N150
458.6
365.24
0.80
149.69
0.33min
353.40
0.77
Mean
0.90
COV
ETF
min
Rw,ule (kN)
0.46
0.128
0.87
0.176
0.113
I100-ETF-N50
76.0
156.53
2.06
39.70
0.52
67.49
0.89
I100-ETF-N100
I100-ETF-N150
117.6
200.9
223.43
292.25
1.90
1.45
42.31
45.82
0.36
0.23
96.60
126.96
0.82
0.63
I120-ETF-N50
127.0
172.36
1.36
40.42
0.32
69.48
0.55
I120-ETF-N100
146.5
248.90
1.70
45.00
0.31
102.77
0.70
I120-ETF-N150
193.5
322.62
1.67
49.00
0.25
135.43
0.70
I140-ETF-N50
137.3
223.00
1.62
65.18
0.47
104.68
0.76
I140-ETF-N100
209.2
320.30
1.53
71.09
0.34
148.15
0.71
I140-ETF-N150
263.1
411.40
1.56
74.10
0.28
186.80
0.71
I160-ETF-N50
81.7
194.48
2.38
52.54
0.64max
85.82
1.05
I160-ETF-N100
114.9
283.14
2.46max
57.77
0.50
368.34
min
I160-ETF-N150
314.8
1.17
62.32
0.20
min
123.67
1.08max
160.81
0.51min
Mean
1.74
0.37
0.76
COV
0.227
0.370
0.232

Table 4 continued
Boundary and
loading conditions
Specimens
Rw,ul (kN)
Rw,ulc (kN)
Rw,ulc/
Rw,ul
Rw,ule (kN)
Rw,ule/
Rw,ul
Rw,ulre (kN)
Rw,ulre/
Rw,ul
ITF
I100-ITF-N50
168.8
153.79
0.91
125.48
0.74
120.56
0.71
I100-ITF-N100
171.7
222.54
1.30
127.10
0.74
136.29
0.79
I100-ITF-N150
230.1
294.58
1.28
131.82
0.57
155.20
0.67
I120-ITF-N50
157.0
172.00
1.10
132.36
0.84
127.95
0.81
I120-ITF-N100
214.5
246.98
1.15
135.10
0.63
145.41
0.68
I120-ITF-N150
266.7
321.95
1.21
137.85
0.52
162.98
0.61
I140-ITF-N50
270.7
220.84
0.82min
214.08
0.79
203.91
0.75
I140-ITF-N100
212.0
318.62
1.50max
221.75
1.05max
230.52
1.09max
I140-ITF-N150
337.3
412.76
1.22
222.53
0.66
250.74
0.74
I160-ITF-N50
176.1
196.63
1.12
177.04
1.01
168.34
0.96
I160-ITF-N100
241.2
282.40
1.17
181.43
0.75
189.57
0.79
I160-ITF-N150
Mean
414.5
364.01
0.88
1.14
179.64
0.43min
0.73
204.83
0.49min
0.76
COV
European steel structures design code was very conservative. The experimental web crippling ultimate
capacity was relatively close to calculated result in ITF
condition. The mean values and COV of Rw,ule/Rw,ul in
ITF condition were 0.73 and 0.251, respectively.
5 Finite element analysis

5.1 General
The finite element program ABAQUS version 6.11
[22] was used to simulate I-beam under web crippling.
Three main components have been carefully considered in the FEM. These components are the bearing
plates, I-beam, and the interfaces between the bearing
plates and I-beam. In the FEM, the measured crosssection dimensions and material properties obtained
from the tests were used. The model was based on the
centerline dimensions of the cross-sections. Both
material and geometric nonlinearities have been taken
into account in the finite element models. The bilinear
material model based on the elastic modulus and postyield tangential modulus of steel obtained from the
tensile coupon tests was developed for the material
modelling, while the Von-Mises yield criterion was
applied. Arc-length method was adopted as the
incremental and iterative solution method in the finite
element analysis.
0.171
0.251
0.202
5.2 Element type and mesh

The bearing plates were modeled using analytical rigid
plates and the I-beams were modeled using the C3D8I
solid elements. The C3D8I element is an eight-node
doubly curved thin or thick shell element with reduced
integration, hourglass control, and finite membrane
strains. It is mentioned in the ABAQUS manual that the
element is suitable for complex buckling behavior. The
C3D8I element has six degrees of freedom per node and
provides accurate solutions to most applications. The
finite element mesh used in the model was investigated by
varying the size of the elements in the cross-section to
provide both accurate results and less computational time.
The finite element mesh sizes ranging from 3 9 3 mm
(length by width) to 8 9 8 mm were used for the flanges
and webs depending on the size of the sections.
5.3 Boundary conditions and interfaces
Following the test procedures, the top bearing plate
was restrained against all degrees of freedom, except
for the translational degree of freedom in the loading
direction. The interfaces between the bearing plates
and the I-beam were modeled using the contact pair.
The steel bearing plates were the master elements,
while the I-beam specimen was the slave element of
the interface elements in the FEM. The contact pair
allowed the surfaces to separate under the influence of
a tensile force. However, the two contact surfaces are

not allowed to penetrate each other.
5.4 Method of loading
The loading method used in the FEA was identical to
that used in the tests. The displacement control method
was used for the analysis of the I-beam section under
web crippling. Transverse compressive load was
applied to the specimen by specifying a displacement
to the reference point of the analytical rigid plate that
modeled the bearing plate. Generally, a displacement
of 5 mm was specified in the elastic stage. As the
loading increased, displacement may be reduced to
increase the convergence of the solution.
accuracy of the FEM. The comparison of the ultimate

capacities of all specimens obtained from the test
results (Rw,ul) and finite element analysis results
(Rw,ulFEA) is shown in Table 5. The mean values of
the Rw,ulFEA/Rw,ul ratio were 0.91 with the corresponding COV of 0.052. The minimum error was -9 %, the
maximum error was 9 %. The failure modes, load
displacement curves and equivalent strain-point of
measurement curves obtained from the test and finite
element analysis were also compared in Figs. 4 and 10
for typical specimens, respectively. It is shown from
the comparison that the finite element analysis results
generally agreed well with the test results.
6 Proposed design equations

5.5 Material modeling
The measured stressstrain curves of the tensile
specimens were used in the FEA. The material
behavior provided by ABAQUS allows the multilinear stressstrain curve to be used. The first part of
the multi-linear curve represents the elastic part up to
the proportional limit stress with measured Youngs
modulus as well as Poissons ratio of 0.30. Since the
analysis of post-buckling involves large in-elastic
strains, the nominal (engineering) static stressstrain
curve was converted to a true stress and logarithmic
plastic strain curve. The equations for true stress and
plastic true strain were specified in ABAQUS.
5.6 Verification of FEM
In the verification of the FEM, a total of 48 I-beam
specimens under web crippling were analyzed. A
comparison between the experimental results and the
finite element results was carried out. The main
objective of this comparison is to verify and check the
Table 5 Comparison of design strengths of equations and
FEA results with test results
A total of 48 specimens
Comparison
Rw,ulFEA/Rw,ul
Rw,ulre/Rw,ul
Max
1.09
1.09
Min
0.81
0.49
Mean
0.91
0.80
COV
0.052
0.189
Based on material strength failure of compressive

local web, the calculated results obtained by using
Chinese steel structures design code were larger than
the experimental value. Because the small effect of
bearing length on the web crippling strength in
European steel structures design code, the calculated
obtained by using European steel structures design
code were generally quite conservative.
The calculation equations of web crippling ultimate
capacity in four boundary and loading condition
according to European steel structures design code
were very complicated and very conservative comparing with experimental results, so the effect of the
bearing length was improved in accurate calculation
Eqs. 1013 of I-beam web crippling ultimate capacity
this paper put forward by using curve fitting method.
The design values can be reduced appropriately
according to importance of structure. The design
ultimate capacity (Rw,ulre) of the I-beam under web
crippling calculated using Eqs. 1013, respectively,
were compared with the ultimate capacity obtained
from the test, as shown in Table 5. The calculation
equation could accurately predict experimental value.
The mean values of ratio between the calculation
values obtain by using Eqs. 1013 (Rw,ulre) and
experimental values (Rw,ul) were 0.81, 0.87, 0.76 and
0.76 with the corresponding COV of 0.210, 0.113,
0.232 and 0.202 for EOF, IOF, ETF and ITF in
Table 4, respectively.
The web crippling ultimate capacity of I-beam in
four boundary and loading condition are calculated
using Eqs. 1013 as follows:

Fig. 10 Comparison
between FEA and test
results for typical specimens
350
9000
300
8000
6000
i/
N/kN
250
200
150
50
0
3000
2000
1000
5
/mm
EOF;
10

ht =t h
ai
Rw;ulre 0:8 15
1 0:08 t2 fy
50
t
(2)
(3)
IOF;
11
Rw;ulre

ht =t h
ai
0:9 6
1 0:085 t2 fy
60
t
ETF;
(4)
12
Rw;ulre

ht =t h
ai
0:8 20
1 0:015 t2 fy
16
t
ITF;
13
where fy is the yield stress of I-beam, t is the web

thickness, a is the bearing length, and ht is web height.
7 Conclusions
An experimental investigation was conducted in this
study on the behavior of I-beam under web crippling.
The ultimate capacity, failure modes, local deformations and strain distributions of all specimens were
reported. In addition, the corresponding finite element
analysis was also performed and the validated FE
model was used for the parametric study to evaluate
the effects of main geometric parameters on the
behavior of I-beam under web crippling Based on the
experimental and numerical investigations, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1)
The ultimate capacity and initial stiffness of all

specimens under web crippling significantly
increased with the increase of bearing lengths.
(5)
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Ti
(b) equivalent strain-point of measurement
curves (I160-ITF-N150)
(a) load-displacement curves

ht =t h
ai
Rw;ulre 0:9 6
1 0:12 t2 fy
130
t
5000
4000
I100 -EOF-N150(Test)
I100 -ETF-N150(Test)
I100 -IOF-N150(Test)
I100 -ITF-N150(Test)
I100 -EOF-N150(FEA)
I100 -ETF-N150(FEA)
I100 -IOF-N150(FEA)
I100 -ITF-N150(FEA)
100
200kN(Test)
200kN(FEA)
400kN(Test)
400kN(FEA)
7000
The greater web slenderness of I-beam, the

smaller initial stiffness and the better ductility.
The web crippling ultimate capacity of I-beam
with web slenderness = 22.5 in interior-flange
loading condition were larger than those in endflange loading condition. Similarly, the web
crippling ultimate capacity in one flange loading condition were larger than those in two
flange loading condition.
A FEA that incorporated the geometric and
material non-linear has been developed and
verified against the experimental results. The
FEM accurately predicted the behavior of
I-beam under web crippling.
The proposed simple calculation method of web
crippling ultimate capacity was verified to be
accurate and reliable for I-beam under web
crippling.
Acknowledgments This research work was supported by the

National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51278209
and 51478047) and the Research Grant for Young and Middleaged Academic Staff of Huaqiao University (No. ZQN-PY110).
The authors are also thankful to Fuan Steel Structure Engineering
Co., Ltd., for the fabrication of test specimens. The tests were
conducted in Fujian Key Laboratory on Structural Engineering
and Disaster Reduction at Huaqiao University. The support
provided by the laboratory staff is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Lyse I, Godfrey HJ (1933) Web crippling of steel beams.
Fritz Laboratory Reports, p 1148
2. Zhou F, Young B (2008) Aluminum tubular sections subjected to web cripplingPart I: tests and finite element
analysis. Thin-Walled Struct 46:339351
3. Zhou F, Young B (2008) Aluminum tubular sections subjected to web cripplingPart II: proposed design equations.
Thin-Walled Struct 46:352361

4. Stephens SF, Laboube RA (2003) Web crippling and
combined bending and web crippling of cold-formed steel
beam headers. Thin-Walled Struct 41:10731087
5. Ren WX, Fang SE, Young B (2006) Analysis and design of
cold-formed steel channels subjected to combined bending
and web crippling. Thin-Walled Struct 44:314320
6. Carden LP, Pekcan G, Itani AM (2007) Web yielding,
crippling, and lateral buckling under post loading. J Struct
Eng 133:665673
7. Cevik A (2007) A new formulation for web crippling
strength of cold-formed steel sheeting using genetic programming. J Constr Steel Res 63:867883
8. Okazaki T, Siljenberg BJ, Shield CK et al (2009) Web
crippling strength of a steel sandwich panel with V-shaped
webs. J Constr Steel Res 65:17211730
9. Macdonald M, Heiyantuduw MAD, Kotelko M et al (2011)
Web crippling behaviour of thin-walled lipped channel
beams. Thin-Walled Struct 49:3848
10. Uzzaman A, Lim JB, Nash D et al (2012) Cold-formed steel
sections with web openings subjected to web crippling
under two-flange loading conditionsPart I: tests and finite
element analysis. Thin-Walled Struct 56:3848
11. Uzzaman A, Lim JB, Nash D et al (2012) Cold-formed steel
sections with web openings subjected to web crippling
under two-flange loading conditionsPart II: parametric
study and proposed design equations. Thin-Walled Struct
56:7987
12. Uzzaman A, Lim JB, Nash D et al (2013) Effect of offset
web holes on web crippling strength of cold-formed steel
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
channel sections under end-two-flange loading condition.

Bock M, Arrayago I, Real E et al (2013) Study of web
crippling in ferritic stainless steel cold formed sections.
Natario P, Silvestre N, Camotim D (2014) Web crippling
failure using quasi-static FE models. Thin-Walled Struct
84:3449
Wu C, Bai Y (2014) Web crippling behaviour of pultruded
glass fibre reinforced polymer sections. Compos Struct
108:789800
Chinese Code (2002) Metallic materials-tensile testing at
ambient temperature. GB/T 228-2002. Beijing (in Chinese)
Eurocode 3 (EC3, 2005) Design of steel structuresPart
13: general rulessupplementary rules for cold-formed
members and sheeting, EN 1993-1-8. CEN, Brussels
Kurobane Y, Makino Y, Ochi K (1984) Ultimate resistance
of unstiffened tubular joints. J Struct Eng ASCE 110(2):
385400
Wang W, Chen YY, Meng XD, Leon RT (2010) Behavior of
thick-walled CHS X-joints under cyclic out-of-plane
bending. J Constr Steel Res 66(6):826834
Chen Y, Feng R, Wang J (2015) Behaviour of bird-beak
square hollow section X-joints under in-plane bending.
GB50017-2003 Code for design of steel structure (2003).
Beijing (in Chinese)
ABAQUS (2006) Standard users manual. Version 6.11,
vols 13. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket

Chen 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials and Structures

Experimental and finite element analysis research on I-beam

Received: 11 August 2014 / Accepted: 19 December 2014

Abstract To research web crippling property of

I-beam with bearing length = 50 mm in interior one

Materials and Structures

Tensile yield stress

The new web crippling test data presented in this

Materials and Structures

cold-formed steel channel sections in the ETF loading

were machined to specified dimensions whose the

Fig. 1 Definition of symbols of I-beam

Materials and Structures

N100 represents the width of bearing plate in mm

ratio (m), the elongation after fracture (d), the elastic

2.2 Material properties

In all structural design, an accurate prediction of the

Materials and Structures

Materials and Structures

Table 2 Result of material

gauge (T15), which enabled strain values to be

(EOF and IOF)

3.1 Failure modes

(a) Displacement transducers

Rosette strain gauge

(ETF and ITF)

(EOF and IOF)

(b) Rosette strain gauges

failure. In the actual control, the upper limit of graded

All types of failure modes in four loading conditions,

Materials and Structures

of I-beam under web crippling was different in the

Materials and Structures

in both IOF and ITF loading conditions, respectively. It

3.3 Comparison of ultimate capacity under web

Materials and Structures

Upper part of web cripple

Top flange buckle

Bottom flange buckle

Top flange buckle

shown in Fig. 5. The web slenderness values of I-beam

lengths was 150 mm, the ultimate capacity of

Materials and Structures

When the web slenderness was 22.5, the values of

3.4 Comparison of ultimate capacity under web

3.5 Loadequivalent strain on web curves

The comparison of the ultimate capacity of I-beam

Materials and Structures

Fig. 9 Equivalent strain

Materials and Structures

The equivalent strain (ei) could be calculated as

The design strengths of web crippling ultimate

The experimental web crippling ultimate capacity and

4 Comparison of web crippling ultimate capacity

Chinese code 21;

where fy is the yield stress of I-beam, t is the web

Materials and Structures

Materials and Structures

5 Finite element analysis

5.2 Element type and mesh

Materials and Structures

a tensile force. However, the two contact surfaces are

accuracy of the FEM. The comparison of the ultimate

6 Proposed design equations

Chinese code 21;