Deflection, Stress Distribution and Failure Modes of Castellated Steel Beams

DEFLECTION, STRESS DISTRIBUTION AND FAILURE
MODES OF CELLULAR BEAMS
A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In the Faculty of Science and Engineering
2017
NABAZ S. SHEENA
School of Mechanical, Aerospace & Civil Engineering

LIST OF CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................................2

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................7
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. 10
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 12
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. 14
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT...................................................................................................................... 14
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................................................... 15
NOTATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 156
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 158
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 20

1.1 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................... 20
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................ 22
1.3 SOLUTION STRATEGY AND ADOPTED METHODS .................................................................. 23
1.3.1 Decomposition the deflection problem ................................................................................. 23
1.3.2 Validation of the FE models ................................................................................................ 24
1.3.3 Solution methods ............................................................................................................... 24
1.4 CONTENT OF THE THESIS ....................................................................................................... 24
1.5 INVESTIGATION OF NON-COMPOSITE CELLULAR BEAMS..................................................... 26
1.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CHAPTERS ............................................................................ 27
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................... 28

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 28
2.2 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................... 28
2.3 FAILURE MODES AND DESIGN OF CELLULAR BEAMS ........................................................... 30
2.3.1 Failure modes in cellular and castellated beams.................................................................. 30
2.3.2 Load carrying capacity........................................................................................................ 33
2.3.2.1 Design of opening, Vierendeel mechanism .............................................................. 34
2.3.2.2 Buckling of the tee section....................................................................................... 36
2.4 LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 36
2.4.1 Elastic stress analysis ........................................................................................................ 36
2.4.1.1 Analytical methods .................................................................................................. 36
2.4.1.2 Photoelastic method................................................................................................ 42
2.4.2 Deflection: analytical methods ............................................................................................ 44
2.4.2.1 Deflection: British Steel Construction Method- castellated beams ............................. 44
2.4.2.2 Deflection; British Steel Construction Method- cellular beam .................................... 49
2.4.2.3 Deflection: proposed method by Warren (2001) ....................................................... 53
2.4.2.4 Deflection: Cellbeam program by Westok ................................................................ 55
2.4.3 Finite element method ........................................................................................................ 59
2.4.3.1 Deflection ............................................................................................................... 59
2.4.3.2 Stress analysis ....................................................................................................... 63
2.5 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON CASTELLATED AND CELLULAR BEAMS...................... 66
2.5.1 Experimental investigation on castellated beams................................................................. 66
2.5.1.1 Tests carried out by British Steel (1958, 1960) ......................................................... 66
2.5.1.2 Test by Kolosowsky, 1964....................................................................................... 67
2.5.1.3 Tests by Hossain and Speirs, 1973 ......................................................................... 67
2.5.1.4 Tests by Srimani and Das, 1978 .............................................................................. 67
2
2.5.1.5 Tests by Nethercot and Kerdal, 1982....................................................................... 68
2.5.1.6 Tests by Zaarour and Reedwood (1996) .................................................................. 68
2.5.2 Experimental investigation on cellular beams ...................................................................... 68
2.5.2.1 Tests by Redwood and McCutcheon 1968 ............................................................... 68
2.5.2.2 Tests carried out by Bradford University 1985 .......................................................... 69
2.5.2.3 Tests undertaken by Surtees and Liu 1995 (Leeds University).................................. 70
2.5.2.4 Tests carried out by Warren (2001) .........................................................................70
2.5.2.5 Tests by Yost et al. (2012)....................................................................................... 71
2.6 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND ORIGINALITY OF THIS RESEARCH...................... 72
CHAPTER 3 NUMERICAL MODELLING, DEVELOPEMENT AND VALIDATION .................................. 76

3.1 NUMERICAL MODELLING USING LUSAS ................................................................................. 76
3.1.1 Analyses type ....................................................................................................................77
3.1.2 Types of element used (LUSAS 2014) ................................................................................ 77
3.1.3 Material properties ............................................................................................................. 79
3.2 CELLULAR BEAMS SELECTED FOR VALIDATION ................................................................... 79
3.3 VALIDATION FOR DEFLECTION ............................................................................................... 81
3.3.1 Experimental set up............................................................................................................ 81
3.3.2 Finite element modelling- deflection .................................................................................... 82
3.3.3 Comparison with experimental results- deflection ................................................................ 82
3.4 VALIDATION FOR STRESSES................................................................................................... 83
3.4.1 Flange stresses- Warren Beam 4A ..................................................................................... 84
3.4.2 Opening centre stresses- Warren Beam 4B ........................................................................ 84
3.4.2.1 Experimental set up for Beam 4B ............................................................................ 84
3.4.2.2 Finite Element Modelling ......................................................................................... 85
3.4.2.3 Comparison with experimental data ......................................................................... 85
3.5 NONLINEAR FLEXTURAL FAILURE- WARREN BEAM 4A ......................................................... 85
3.5.1 Finite element modelling..................................................................................................... 85
3.5.2 Modes of failure and failure load ......................................................................................... 86
3.6 WEB-POST BUCKLING- WARREN BEAM 4B............................................................................. 88
3.6.1 Modelling of Warren Beam 4B ............................................................................................ 88
3.6.2 Applying imperfections and web post buckling analysis ....................................................... 89
3.6.3 Results and findings ........................................................................................................... 91
3.6.4 Arc Length method of analysis ............................................................................................ 92
3.6.5 Sensitivity analysis- scale factor.......................................................................................... 92
3.7 PLASTIC VIERENDEEL FAILURE- WARREN BEAM 2A ............................................................. 94
3.7.1 Experimental set up............................................................................................................ 94
3.7.2 Finite element modelling..................................................................................................... 94
3.7.3 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................. 95
3.7.4 Results and findings ........................................................................................................... 96
3.8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 99
CHAPTER 4 NORMAL AND SHEAR STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS ....................................................... 100

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 100
4.2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS, ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES...................................................... 100
4.2.1 Locations considered in the analysis ................................................................................. 103
4.2.2 Sections between the openings ........................................................................................ 103
4.2.3 Sections at the centre of openings .................................................................................... 105
4.2.4 In the flanges ................................................................................................................... 107
3
4.2.5 Summary of the finite element analysis of the cellular beam .............................................. 109
4.3 NORMAL STRESSES AT OPENING CENTRE.......................................................................... 115
4.3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 115
4.3.2 Normal stresses at opening centres .................................................................................. 115
4.3.3 Observations and discussion ............................................................................................ 117
4.4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 119
CHAPTER 5 EQUIVALENT SECOND MOMENT OF AREA OF CELLULAR WEB................................ 121

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 121
5.2 BENDING DEFORMATION....................................................................................................... 122
5.2.1 The equivalent non-uniform solid section (Step 1 from Beam A to Beam B) ........................ 123
5.2.2 The equivalent stepped solid section (Step 2 from Beam B to Beam C).............................. 125
5.2.3 Validation- Step 2............................................................................................................. 128
5.2.4 The equivalent uniform solid beam- constant bending moment (Step 3; Beam C to Beam D)129
5.2.5 Equivalent stiffness of a beam with variable bending moment (Step 3) ............................... 133
5.2.6 Validation- step 3 ............................................................................................................. 136
5.2.7 Equivalent second moment of area based on maximum deflection..................................... 137
5.2.8 Simplified formulae for a variable bending moment............................................................ 138
5.3 Shear deformation of cellular web beam .................................................................................... 139
5.3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 140
5.3.2 Design parameters ........................................................................................................... 142
5.3.3 Overview of the parameters .............................................................................................. 143
5.3.4 Effect of opening diameter ‘D’ ........................................................................................... 145
5.3.4.1 Bending and shear deformations ........................................................................... 145
5.3.4.2 Shear deformation factor a w versus D ................................................................ 146
5.3.5 Effect of varying opening spacing S ................................................................................. 147
5.3.5.1 Bending and shear deformations ........................................................................... 147
5.3.5.2 Shear deformation factor a w versus opening spacing S ........................................ 148
5.3.6 Effect of span/depth ratio l h .......................................................................................... 149
w
5.3.6.1 Case 1: Diameter/depth ratio (0.71) ....................................................................... 150

5.3.6.2 Observation and discussion of the case ( D hw = 0.71 ) ............................................. 155
5.3.6.3 Other cases: Diameter/depth ration (0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, and 0.77) ..................... 155
5.3.7 Numerical analysis; shear deformation factor ( a w ) versus ( l hw ) ....................................... 155
5.3.7.1 Shear deformation factor for ( D hw = 0.71) , odd number of openings........................ 156
5.3.7.2 Remarks on the shear deformation factor determination ......................................... 157
5.3.7.3 Shear deformation factors for D hw = 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, 0.77 .................................... 159
5.4 VERIFICATION OF HAND METHOD DEVELOPED TO DETERMINE I weq ................................ 159
5.5 LIMITATION ........................................................................................................................... 162

5.6 SUMMARY OF THE HAND CALCULATION .............................................................................. 162
5.7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 163
CHAPTER 6 THE EFFECTIVE SECOND MOMENT OF AREA OF FLANGES .................................... 165

6.1 INTODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 165
6.2 INITIAL COMPARISON BETWEEN HAND AND FE ANALYSES................................................ 165
6.3 DETERMINATION OF TOTAL DEFROMATIONS IN FLANGES D f ......................................... 169
T
6.3.1 Shear deformation in flanges D fs ...................................................................................... 169
6.3.1.1 Determination of D fs1 ............................................................................................ 171
6.3.1.2 Determination of D fs 2 ............................................................................................ 180
6.3.2 Determination of bending deformation in flanges D fb
....................................................... 185
4
6.4 VERFICATION OF THE DEVELOPED METHOD ...................................................................... 187
6.5 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 191
CHAPTER 7 EXAMPLES AND COMPARISONS ................................................................................ 192

7.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 192
7.2 DESIGN EXAMPLES ................................................................................................................ 192
7.2.1 Example 1 (Beam 3, Table 6.3) ..................................................................................... 192
7.2.1.1 Flow Chart for the proposed deflection calculation in a cellular I-beam ............................ 193
7.2.1.2 Determination of equivalent second moment of area of cellular web I weq ....................... 193
7.2.1.3 Determination of the effective I value of the flanges I f ef ................................................. 195
7.2.1.4 Calculate the total effective I value of the cellular I-beam I cbT ......................................... 197
7.2.1.5 Finite element analysis .................................................................................................. 198

7.2.1.6 Summary and remarks .................................................................................................. 199
7.2.2 Example 2 (Beam 9, Table 6.3) ..................................................................................... 199
7.2.2.1 Determination of equivalent second moment of area of cellular web I weq ....................... 200
7.2.2.2 Determination of the effective I value of the flanges I f ef ................................................. 201
7.2.2.3 Calculate the total effective I value of the cellular I-beam I cbT ......................................... 203
7.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPOSED AND EXISTING METHODS ........................................... 204

7.3.1 Comparison with SCI hand method ................................................................................ 204
7.3.2 Comparison with WESTOK preliminary design ............................................................... 212
7.3.3 Comparison with Westok Cellbeam program .................................................................. 214
7.4 LIMITATION ........................................................................................................................... 215
7.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................................... 215
CHAPTER 8 INTERACTION OF FAILURE MODES ............................................................................ 218

8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 218
8.2 NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 218
8.2.1 Finite element modelling................................................................................................... 218
8.2.2 Material modelling of cellular steel beams ......................................................................... 219
8.2.3 Finite element nonlinear analysis ...................................................................................... 220
8.3 PARAMETERIC STUDY ........................................................................................................... 220
8.4 STRESS DISTRIBUTION AND SEQUENCES OF YIELDING..................................................... 226
8.4.1 Pure bending failure ......................................................................................................... 226
8.4.2 Pure Vierendeel failure ..................................................................................................... 228
8.4.3 Web-post buckling............................................................................................................ 231
8.5 MODES OF FAILURE, FAILURE LOAD AND COMPARISONS WITH DESIGN .......................... 235
8.5.1 Design guides and the analytical capacities ...................................................................... 235
8.5.2 Bending failure, Vierendeel mechanism, and web-post buckling......................................... 235
8.6 EFFECT OF CHANGES IN CROSS-SECTION GEOMETRIES .................................................. 236
8.6.1 Effect of web thickness ( hw / tw ) ......................................................................................... 237
8.6.2 Effect of flange thickness ( B / t f )....................................................................................... 237
8.6.3 Effect of ( S / D ) and ( D / hw ) .............................................................................................. 238
8.7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 239
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 242

9.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 242
9.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................. 242
9.2.1 Numerical Modelling and Validation- Chapter 3 ................................................................. 242
5
9.2.2 Bending and Shear Stress Distribution in Cellular I-beam- Chapter 4 ................................. 243
9.2.3 The equivalent second moment of area of cellular web beam- Chapter 5 ........................... 243
9.2.4 The effective second moment of area of the flanges- Chapter 6 ......................................... 245
9.2.5 Design examples and comparisons- Chapter 7.................................................................. 247
9.2.6 Interaction of failure modes- Chapter 8 ............................................................................. 248
9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES.................................................................... 249
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 251
APPENDIX A: (CHAPTER 1) ................................................................................................................. 256

A1: INVESTIGATED WESTOK NON-COMPOSITE CELLULAR BEAMS ........................... 256
A2: UNIVERSAL BEAM SECTIONS AND THE ASSOCIATED WESTOK CELLULAR BEAM
SECTION GEOMETRY.............................................................................................. 258
APPENDIX B: (CHAPTER 2) ................................................................................................................. 261

B1: SECTION PROPERTIES TABLE FOR DESIGN GUIDE BY WESTOK........................ 261
B2: EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON CASTELLATED BEAMS ............................... 269
B3: EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON CELLULAR BEAMS...................................... 271
B3.1: TESTS CARRIED OUT BY REDWOOD AND MCCUTCHEON 1968 ................. 271
B3.2: TESTS BY SURTEES AND LIU 1995, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS (SCI, 2004) .... 273
B3.3: TESTS BY NATAL UNIVERSITY (WARREN 2001) .......................................... 275
APPENDIX C: (CHAPTER 3) ................................................................................................................. 278

C1: STRESS STRAIN CURVE FOR BEAM 4A................................................................. 278
C2: TABLE 2.3 (WARREN, 2001) SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTALRESULTS ................. 279
APPENDIX D: (CHAPTER 4) ................................................................................................................. 280

D1: STRESS DISTRIBUTION AT OPENING CENTRES (Chapter 4) ................................ 280
D2: GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MOMENTS .................. 284
APPENDIX E : (CHAPTER 5) EQUIVALENT SECOND MOMENT OF AREA ACROSS THE OPENING.. 288
APPENDIX F: (CHAPTER 6) EFFECT OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ON FLANGE DEFORMATIONS .... 290

F1: DESIGN PARAMETERS- FLANGES OF THE CELLULAR BEAM .............................. 290
F1.1 Effect of design parameters............................................................................... 291
F1.2 Selection methodology of samples for analyses ................................................. 291
F1.3 Effect of opening diameter ‘D’ ............................................................................ 292
F1.4 Effect of opening spacing ‘ S ’ ........................................................................... 296
F1.5 Effect of span of beam ‘ l ’ ................................................................................. 296
F1.6 Effect of height of the web ‘ hw ’ ......................................................................... 296
F1.7 Effect of thickness of the web ‘ t w ’..................................................................... 299
F1.8 Effect of Width of the flange ‘ B ’ ....................................................................... 299
F1.9 Effect of thickness of flange ‘ t f ’ ....................................................................... 299
F1.10 Remarks......................................................................................................... 301

F2: COMBINING OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................ 302
F2.1 Combine the flange width B with thickness t f as Af ...................................... 303
F2.2 Combine span ‘ l ’ and depth of the web ‘ hw ’ as span depth ratio ‘ l / hw ’ ......... 303
F2.3 Combine spacing ‘ S ’ and diameter of the opening ‘ D ’ as S / D ..................... 303
F2.4 Revised design parameters ............................................................................... 305
Total word count (including appendices): 67,813
6
LIST OF FIGURES
FIG. 1.1: DIFFERENT USAGE OF CELLULAR BEAMS IN CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 21

FIG. 1.2: ADOPTED DEFLECTION SOLUTION STRATEGY .............................................................................................. 23
FIG. 1.3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KEY CHAPTERS AND THE RELEVANT ADOPTED METHODS .......................................... 27
FIG. 2.1: FLEXURAL MECHANISM (PURE BENDING FAILURE) ...................................................................................... 30
FIG. 2.2: VIERENDEEL MECHANISM ..................................................................................................................... 31
FIG. 2.3: WEB POST BUCKLING AND RAPTURE ........................................................................................................ 32
FIG. 2.4: LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF ENTIRE SPAN (KERDAL AND NETHERCOT, 1984) ............................................ 33
FIG. 2.5: VIERENDEEL MECHANISM AROUND THE CIRCULAR WEB OPENING (CHUNG, 2001) .............................................. 35
FIG. 2.6: PERFORATED SECTION APPROACH- VIERENDEEL MECHANISM (CHUNG, ET. AL., 2003) ........................................ 35
FIG. 2.7: STRESSES AROUND THE ELEMENTS (GIBSON AND JENKINS, 1956) .................................................................. 36
FIG. 2.8: FREE BODY DIAGRAMS OF VIERENDEEL LOAD DISTRIBUTION (GIBSON AND JENKINS, 1957 .................................... 37
FIG. 2.9: STRESS DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM (KOLOSOWSKI, 1964) ............................................................................... 38
FIG. 2.10: BENDING MOMENT DUE TO SHEAR AND STRESS DISTRIBUTION (BLODGETT, 1996) ........................................... 39
FIG. 2.11: BENDING MOMENT DUE TO SHEAR AND STRESS DISTRIBUTION (YOST ET. AL., 2012) ......................................... 41
FIG. 2.12: STRESS ANALYSIS- PHOTOELASTIC METHOD (GIBSON AND JENKINS, 1956) ..................................................... 42
FIG. 2.13: STRESS ANALYSIS- PHOTOELASTIC METHOD (GIBSON AND JENKINS, 1957) ..................................................... 44
FIG. 2.14: END MOMENTS AT VERTICAL SUPPORT ENDS (GIBSON AND JENKINS, 1957) .................................................... 45
FIG. 2.15: ILLUSTRATION OF A CASTELLATED BEAM WITH HEXAGONAL OPENING (KNOWLES, 1987) .................................... 47
FIG. 2.16: CIRCULAR OPENING CONVERTED INTO HEXAGONAL OPENING (SCI- P100, 1990) ............................................ 50
FIG. 2.17: FREE BODY DIAGRAM OF LOADS ACTING ON THIS SECTION OF THE BEAM (SCI- P100, 1990) .............................. 51
FIG. 2.18: CANTILEVERED SECTION FOR VIERENDEEL DEFLECTION (WARREN, 2001) ....................................................... 53
FIG. 2.19: SECTION THROUGH OPENING CENTRE LINE (CELLBEAM, 2014) .................................................................... 56
FIG. 2.20: SECTION THROUGH OPENING CENTRE LINE (CELLBEAM) ............................................................................. 56
FIG. 2.21: BENDING OF TEE SECTION AND WEB POST (CELLBEAM, 2014) ..................................................................... 57
FIG. 2.22: VIRTUAL WORK METHOD TO CALCULATE SHEAR DEFORMATION (CELLBEAM, 2014) .......................................... 58
FIG. 2.23: PART SECTION OF THE BEAM (CELLBEAM) ............................................................................................... 58
FIG. 2.24: TYPICAL MEMBER OF CASTELLATED BEAM (HOSAIN AND NEIS, 1974) ........................................................... 60
FIG. 2.25: HALF BEAM IDEALIZATION FOR A TYPICAL MEMBER (HOSAIN AND NEIS, 1974) ................................................ 60
FIG. 2.26: TYPICAL FE MESH OF CASTELLATED BEAM CB-1 (SRIMANI AND DAS, 1978) ................................................... 61
FIG. 2.27: TOTAL DEFLECTION OF IC 225MM (WAKCHAURE AND SAGADE 2012) .......................................................... 62
FIG. 2.28: TOTAL DEFLECTION OF IC 225MM (PANEDPOJAMAN AND THEPCHATRI 2013) ................................................ 63
FIG. 2.29: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL AND TANGENTIAL STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS (HOFFMAN ET. AL, 2006) ............................... 64
FIG. 2.30: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL AND THE STRESS CONTOURS (YOST ET. AL., 2012) .................................................... 66
FIG. 2.31: WEB POST BUCKLING (UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD TESTS) - SCI P100 (WARD, 1990) ....................................... 70
FIG. 2.32: TEST BEAM DETAILS (YOST, 2012) ....................................................................................................... 71
FIG. 2.33: EXPERIMENTAL LOAD, SUPPORT, AND STRAIN INSTRUMENTATION (YOST, 2012) .............................................. 71
FIG. 3.1: PLANE STRESS ELEMENT QPM8 (LUSAS, 2014) ...................................................................................... 77
FIG. 3.2: THIN SHELL ELEMENT QSI4 (LUSAS, 2014) ............................................................................................ 78
FIG. 3.3: THICK SHELL ELEMENT QTS4 (LUSAS, 2014) .......................................................................................... 78
FIG. 3.4: THICK SHELL ELEMENT QTS8 (LUSAS 2014) ........................................................................................... 79
FIG. 3.5: EXPERIMENTAL SET UP WARREN BEAM 4A (WARREN, 2001)- THE DIAL GAUGE LOCATIONS ................................. 81
FIG. 3.6: TYPICAL BEAM TEST DETAILS (WARREN, 2001) ......................................................................................... 81
FIG. 3.7: FE MODEL TYPICAL OF WARREN BEAM 4A ............................................................................................... 82
FIG. 3.8: BEAM 4B (WARREN, 2001) SHOWING LOCATION OF STRAIN GAUGES ............................................................. 84
FIG. 3.9: MATERIAL SPECIFICATION FOR BEAM 4A USED IN THE FE MODEL (WARREN, 2001) ........................................... 86
FIG. 3.10: DEVELOPMENT OF VON MISES STRESSES VERSUS THE APPLIED LOAD- FLEXURAL FAILURE OF WARREN BEAM 4A- AT V3
......................................................................................................................................................... 87
FIG. 3.11: FLEXURAL FAILURE LOAD OF WARREN BEAM 4A ...................................................................................... 88
FIG. 3.12: MATERIAL SPECIFICATION USED IN THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL (WARREN, 2001) ........................................... 88
FIG. 3.13: INITIAL BUCKLING SHAPE OF WARREN BEAM 4B (WARREN, 2001)............................................................... 89
FIG. 3.14: INITIAL BUCKLING SHAPE OF WARREN BEAM 4B ....................................................................................... 89
FIG. 3.15: WEB-POST BUCKLING MODE OF BEAM 4B USING LUSAS BUCKLING ANALYSIS (HALF OF THE BEAM IS DISPLAYED) ..... 90
FIG. 3.16: COMPARISON OF LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES OBTAINED FROM THE TEST DATA AND LUSAS SOFTWARE OF WARREN
BEAM 4B ............................................................................................................................................. 92
FIG. 3.17: COMPARISON BETWEEN NEWTON RAPHSON METHOD AND ARC-LENGTH METHODS BEAM 4B ............................ 92
FIG. 3.18: STRESS-STRAIN CURVE USED IN MODELLING OF CELLULAR BEAM FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .................................. 93
FIG. 3.19: FE MODEL OF THE CELLULAR BEAM FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON SCALE FACTOR .............................................. 93
7
FIG. 3.20: BEAM 2A LOCATIONS OF STRAIN GAUGES (WARREN, 2001) ....................................................................... 94
FIG. 3.21: BEAM 2A MATERIAL SPECIFICATION USED IN THE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS .................................................... 95
FIG. 3.22: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON MESH SIZES USING QTS4 ELEMENTS- WARREN BEAM 2A ......................................... 96
FIG. 3.23: SENSITIVITY STUDY ON MESH SIZES USING QTS8 ELEMENTS ........................................................................ 96
FIG. 3.24: COMPARISON OF FAILURE LOADS OBTAINED FROM THE TEST DATA AND LUSAS SOFTWARE ................................. 97
FIG. 3.25: VIERENDEEL FAILURE OF BEAM 2A USING LUSAS .................................................................................... 98
FIG. 4.1: THREE DIFFERENT BEAM TYPES FOR ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 101
FIG. 4.2: FINITE ELEMENT MODELS OF THE THREE BEAM TYPES ................................................................................ 102
FIG. 4.3: NORMAL AND SHEAR STRESSES ALONG THE WEB HEIGHT ............................................................................ 104
FIG. 4.4: SHEAR AND NORMAL STRESSES AT CENTRE OF OPENINGS 1, 3, AND 6 ............................................................ 106
FIG. 4.5: SHEAR AND NORMAL STRESSES IN FLANGES OF SOLID AND CELLULAR I-BEAMS .................................................. 108
FIG. 4.6: SHEAR AND NORMAL STRESSES IN WEB NEAR OPENING NO .1 ....................................................................... 110
FIG. 4.9: SHEAR AND NORMAL STRESSES IN WEB AT MID-SPAN................................................................................. 113
FIG. 4.10: MODELLING OF A CELLULAR I-BEAM FOR STRESS ANALYSIS AT OPENING CENTRES ............................................ 117
FIG. 4.11: TYPICAL NORMAL STRESSES AT OPENING CENTRES ................................................................................... 118
FIG. 5.1: GEOMETRICAL CONVERSION OF THE CELLULAR WEB BEAM TO AN EQUIVALENT SOLID BEAM ................................. 122
FIG. 5.2: CONVERSION OF CIRCULAR OPENING TO A NON-UNIFORM SOLID SECTION (STEP 1) ........................................... 123
FIG. 5.3: CONVERSION OF NON-UNIFORM SOLID SECTION TO AN EQUIVALENT STEPPED SOLID SECTION (STEP 2) .................. 125
FIG. 5.4: FE MODELLING OF THE CELLULAR WEB BEAM USED IN VALIDATION OF STEP 2 .................................................. 128
FIG. 5.5: CONVERSION OF STEPPED SOLID BEAM TO AN EQUIVALENT UNIFORM SOLID BEAM (STEP 3) ................................. 130
FIG. 5.6: CONVERSION OF STEPPED SOLID BEAM TO AN EQUIVALENT UNIFORM SOLID BEAM ............................................ 131
FIG. 5.7: CELLULAR WEB BEAM SUBJECTED TO CONSTANT BENDING MOMENT .............................................................. 132
FIG. 5.8: ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE; CELLULAR WEB BEAM SUBJECTED TO A POINT LOAD ................................................... 134
FIG. 5.9: EXAMPLE DIAGRAM SHOWING BENDING MOMENTS AT OPENING CENTRE LINE .................................................. 135
FIG. 5.10: A CELLULAR BEAM WITH TWO TYPES OF UNITS ....................................................................................... 138
FIG. 5.11: CELLULAR BEAM SHOWING THE RELEVANT PARAMETERS ........................................................................... 142
FIG. 5.12: THE EFFECT OF OPENING DIAMETER ON SHEAR AND BENDING DEFORMATIONS ............................................... 146
FIG. 5.13: SHEAR DEFORMATION FACTOR VERSUS OPENING DIAMETER ...................................................................... 147
FIG. 5.14: EFFECT OF OPENING SPACING ON SHEAR AND BENDING DEFORMATIONS ....................................................... 148
FIG. 5.15: THE SHEAR DEFORMATION FACTOR VERSUS THE OPENING SPACING ............................................................. 148
FIG. 5.16: THE EFFECT OF ( l / hw ) RATIO ON THE SHEAR AND BENDING DEFORMATIONS ............................................... 150
FIG. 5.17: BEAM 1, a w VERSUS l h w - ODD NUMBER OF OPENINGS FOR THE CASE D h w = 0.71 ............................... 156
FIG. 5.18: BEAM 2, a w VERSUS l h w - ODD NUMBER OF OPENINGS FOR THE CASE D h w = 0.71 ................................. 157
FIG. 5.19: BEAM 3, a w VERSUS l h w - ODD NUMBER OF OPENINGS FOR THE CASE D h w = 0.71 .................................. 157
FIG. 6.1: TYPICAL CELLULAR I-BEAM USED IN THE FE ANALYSES ................................................................................ 166
FIG. 6.2: ILLUSTRATION OF THE ASSOCIATED SHEAR DEFLECTIONS IN THE FLANGES ........................................................ 170
FIG. 6.3: TYPICAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL TO DETERMINE FROM FACTOR b ............................................................... 173
FIG. 6.4: SHEAR STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN WEB-POST FOR DETERMINATION OF FORM FACTOR b ...................................... 174
FIG. 6.5: ILLUSTRATION OF THE EQUIVALENT WEB-POST CARRYING THE SHEAR ............................................................. 175
FIG. 6.6: EXAMPLE 6-1 SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM UNDER UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LOAD ................................................ 180
FIG. 6.7: FREE BODY DIAGRAM OF FORCES ACTING AT THE CENTRE OF OPENING ........................................................... 181
FIG. 6.8: ILLUSTRATION OF THE FLANGE WITHIN THE T SECTION ............................................................................... 184
FIG. 7.1: DESIGN EXAMPLE: CELLULAR BEAM SUBJECTED TO A UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LOAD ......................................... 192
FIG. 7.2: FLOW CHART TO DETERMINE DEFLECTION IN CB USING THE PROPOSED METHOD .............................................. 193
FIG. 7.3: SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM- FORCES AT THE WEB-POST (HALF SPAN) ................................................................. 195
FIG. 7.4: SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM (FORCES AT THE OPENING CENTRE LOCATIONS)- HALF SPAN .......................................... 196
FIG. 7.5: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE DESIGN EXAMPLE ................................................................................... 198
FIG. 7.6: DESIGN EXAMPLE: CELLULAR BEAM SUBJECTED TO A UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LOAD ......................................... 199
FIG. 7.7: SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM- FORCES AT THE WEB-POST AND OPENING CENTRES (HALF SPAN) ................................... 202
FIG. 7.8: SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM DUE TO THE APPLIED UNIT LOAD AT MID -SPAN (HALF SPAN) ......................................... 206
FIG. 7.9: BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM DUE TO THE APPLIED LOAD (HALF SPAN)........................................................... 208
FIG. 7.10: BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM DUE TO THE APPLIED UNIT LOAD AT MID -SPAN (HALF SPAN) ................................ 208
FIG. 8.1: TYPICAL FE MODEL OF BEAM 1_2........................................................................................................ 219
FIG. 8.2: STRESS-STRAIN CURVE USED IN THE MODELLING OF CELLULAR BEAMS ( EN 1993-1-1)...................................... 220
FIG. 8.3: MOMENT-STRESS CURVES FOR BEAM 1_1 PURE BENDING .......................................................................... 226
FIG. 8.4: MOMENT-STRESS CURVES AT FAILURE FOR G39 (B 1_3) VIERENDEEL MECHANISM .......................................... 229
8
FIG. 8.5: MOMENT-STRESS CURVES FOR GROUP 4 BEAM 1_3 WEB-POST BUCKLING .................................................... 232
FIG. A.1: W ESTOK CELLULAR UNIVERSAL BEAMS DIVIDED INTO SUP-GROUPS (W ESTOK, 2014) ........... 256
FIG. B.1: CASTELLATED TESTED BEAM DETAIL (KOLOSOWSKI, 1964)................................................. 269
FIG. B.2: DIMENSIONS OF OPENINGS (REDWOOD AND MCCUTCHEON, 1968) ..................................... 271
FIG. B.3: DETAILS OF THE APPLIED LOADS (REDWOOD AND MCCUTCHEON, 1968) .............................. 272
FIG. B.4: TESTS BY SURTEES AND LIU 1995, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS (SCI, 2004) .............................. 274
FIG. B.5: TESTS BY NATAL UNIVERSITY (W ARREN 2001) ................................................................. 276
FIG. C.1: STRESS STRAIN CURVES FOR BEAM 4A (W ARREN 2001) ................................................... 278
FIG. F.1: CELLULAR BEAM SHOWING THE RELEVANT PARAMETERS .................................................... 290
FIG. F.2: MODELLING OF THE CELLULAR BEAM ................................................................................ 293
FIG. F.3: THE EFFECT OF ’ D ’ ON THE SHEAR AND BENDING DEFORMATIONS ..................................... 294
FIG. F.4: FLANGE SHEAR DEFORMATION CORRECTION FACTOR VERSUS THE OPENING DIAMETER .......... 295
9
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1: MEASURED AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS DEFLECTION RESULTS (YOST, 2012) ..................................... 72
TABLE 3.1: DETAILS OF SELECTED BEAMS FOR VALIDATION .................................................................................. 80
TABLE 3.2: COMPARISON BETWEEN DEFLECTIONS FROM EXPERIMENT AND LUSAS RESULTS- BEAM 4A ..................... 83
TABLE 3.3: CPU TIME VERSUS MESH SIZES ....................................................................................................... 83
TABLE 3.4: COMPARISON BETWEEN FLANGE STRESSES FROM EXPERIMENT AND LUSAS- W ARREN BEAM 4A .............. 84
TABLE 3.5: COMPARISON BETWEEN OPENING CENTRE STRESSES FROM EXP. AND LUSAS- W ARREN BEAM 4A ........... 85
TABLE 3.6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR THE DIFFERENT SCALE FACTORS ............................................................... 94
TABLE 4.1: GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES OF THE ANALYSED CELLULAR BEAM SECTIONS ( D / hw = 0.72 ) .................. 116
TABLE 4.2: GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES OF THE ANALYSED CELLULAR BEAM SECTIONS ( D / hw = 0.74 ) .................. 116
TABLE 5.1: VALIDATION OF STEP 2 USING FE ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 129
TABLE 5.2: VALIDATION OF STEP 3 USING FEA ................................................................................................ 136
TABLE 5.3: COMPARISON BETWEEN FEA AND HAND ANALYSES (FORMULAE 5.13A, B AND 5.34) .............................. 140
TABLE 5.4: DETAILS OF INVESTIGATED BEAMS- VARYING OPENING DIAMETER ........................................................ 145
TABLE 5.5: DETAILS OF INVESTIGATED CELLULAR BEAM FOR VARYING OPENING SPACING ........................................ 147
TABLE 5.6: ALL CASES 1 ( D hw = 0.71- 0.75 and 0.77 ), DETAIL OF INVESTIGATED CWBS .................................... 151
TABLE 5.7: CASE 1 ( D hw = 0.71- 0.75 and 0.77 ), DETAIL OF INVESTIGATED CWBS- CONTINUED ........................... 152
TABLE 5.8: CASE 1 ( D hw = 0.71- 0.75 and 0.77 ), DETAIL OF INVESTIGATED CWBS- CONTINUED ........................... 153
TABLE 5.9: CASE 1 ( D hw = 0.71- 0.75 and 0.77 ), DETAIL OF INVESTIGATED CWBS- CONTINUED .......................... 154
TABLE 5.10: SHEAR DEFORMATION FACTOR ( a w ) FOR UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LOAD .......................................... 158
TABLE 5.11: DETAILS OF THE CELLULAR W EB BEAMS USED FOR THE VERIFICATION ................................................. 160
TABLE 5.12: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FEA AND THE EQUIVALENT HAND ANALYSIS ............................................ 160
TABLE 6.1: HAND AND FE ANALYSES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF CELLULAR I-BEAM .............................. 168
TABLE 6.2: CELLULAR I-BEAMS ANALYSED USING FE ANALYSES FOR DETERMINATION OF hwp e ............................... 177
TABLE 6.3: FORM FACTOR ( b ) FOR SHEAR IN THE WEB-POST ............................................................................ 178
TABLE 6.4: TABLE SHOWING THE CELLULAR I-BEAMS INVESTIGATED 0 .................................................................. 188
TABLE 6.5: VALIDATION OF THE DEVELOPED HAND METHOD TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVE I VALUE OF THE FLANGES . 190
TABLE 7.1: DEFLECTION AND % CONTRIBUTION OF BENDING AND SHEAR IN CB AND ITS COMPONENTS ...................... 199
TABLE 7.2: BEAM 9, DEFLECTION AND % CONTRIBUTION OF BENDING & SHEAR IN CB COMPONENTS ......................... 204
TABLE 7.3: CALCULATION OF Y1 USING THE SCI METHOD .................................................................................. 205
TABLE 7.4: CALCULATION OF Vh AND Vh USING THE SCI METHOD ................................................................. 207
TABLE 7.5: CALCULATION OF Y2 USING THE SCI METHOD .................................................................................. 207
TABLE 7.6: CALCULATION OF Y3 USING SCI METHOD ........................................................................................ 207
TABLE 7.9: SUMMARY OF THE Y1-Y5 DEFLECTIONS USING SCI METHOD ............................................................... 210
TABLE 7.10: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DEFLECTIONS USING SCI, PROPOSED AND FE METHODS .......................... 211
TABLE 7.11: COMPARISON BETWEEN W ESTOK DESIGN GUIDE, FEA & PROPOSED METHOD ..................................... 213
TABLE 7.12: COMPARISON BETWEEN CELLBEAM, FEA AND PROPOSED HAND METHOD ....................................... 214
TABLE 7.13:: NATURAL FREQUENCIES BETWEEN THE FE AND THE THEORETICAL METHODS ..................................... 217
TABLE 8.1: PARAMETERS AFFECTING MODES OF FAILURE AND THE CASES FOR ANALYSIS CONSIDERED ...................... 221
TABLE 8.2: DESIGN GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS OF THE SELECTED CBS AND THE RESULT OF THE PARAMETRIC STUDY 222
TABLE 8.3: G1 (B 1_1) RESULTS, PURE BENDING FAILURE ................................................................................. 227
TABLE 8.4: G39 (B 1_3) RESULTS, VIERENDEEL MECHANISM ............................................................................. 230
TABLE 8.5: G4 (B 1_3) RESULTS, W EB-POST BUCKLING ................................................................................... 234
TABLE A.1: UNIVERSAL BEAM SECTIONS AND THE ASSOCIATED W ESTOK CELLULAR BEAM SECTION GEOMETRY ........... 258
TABLE B.1: CASTELLATED TESTED BEAMS DETAIL (HUSAIN AND SPEIRS, 1964) .................................................... 269
TABLE B.2: SUMMARY OF TEST PROGRAMME (NETHERCOT AND KERDAL, 1982) ................................................... 270
TABLE B.3: SUMMARY OF TEST PROGRAMME (REDWOOD AND MCCUTCHEON, 1968) ............................................. 271
TABLE B.4: TEST BEAM DETAILS (W ARREN, 2001) ........................................................................................... 277
TABLE B.5: TEST BEAM SPANS (W ARREN, 2001) ............................................................................................. 277
TABLE C.1: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (W ARREN, 2001) .................................................................................... 279
TABLE C.2: DEFLECTION RATIOS COMPARED WITH EXPERIMENTAL (W ARREN, 2001).............................................. 279
TABLE E.1: CALCULATION OF THE EQUIVALENT SECOND MOMENT OF AREA ACROSS THE OPENING - TO BE READ WITH FIG.
5.2................................................................................................................................................... 288
TABLE F.1: CELLULAR BEAM DESIGN VARIABLE PARAMETERS ............................................................................. 290
TABLE F.2: EFFECT OF DIAMETER, INVESTIGATED BEAM DETAILS ......................................................................... 292
TABLE F.3: EFFECT OF OPENING DIAMETER BEAM 2 AND 3 ................................................................................ 295
TABLE F.4: EFFECT OF OPENING SPACING (NUMBER OF OPENINGS) ‘ S ’ .............................................................. 298
TABLE F.5: EFFECT OF SPAN ‘ l ’.................................................................................................................. 298
TABLE F.6: EFFECT OF WEB HEIGHT ‘ h w ’ ....................................................................................................... 298
10
TABLE F.7: EFFECT OF WEB THICKNESS ‘ t w ’ .................................................................................................. 300
TABLE F.8: EFFECT OF FLANGE WIDTH ‘ B ’ .................................................................................................... 300
TABLE F.9TABLE F.9: EFFECT OF FLANGE THICKNESS ‘ t f ’............................................................................... 300
TABLE F.10: EFFECT OF THE AREA OF THE FLANGE ‘ Af ’ .................................................................................. 304

TABLE F.11: REVISED DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................................................... 305
11
ABSTRACT
Cellular beams (I sectioned steel beams with web openings) are frequently used in
different types of construction to achieve attractive, flexible, and effective solutions. These
beams have other advantages such as providing passages for building services and
achieving longer spans. However standard beam theory cannot be applied to calculate the
maximum displacement of a cellular beam due to the presence of the web openings
resulting in significant shear deformations in the web and consequently the flanges and to
that normal stresses are no longer distributed linearly across the cross-section.
This research aims to gain a thorough understanding of the serviceability behaviour of

cellular beams and to propose a simple and relatively accurate hand calculation method to
determine their deflections by practicing engineers. The research also examines the
failure loads and modes of failure of simply supported cellular beams when subjected to
vertical loads.
Extensive numerical analyses using finite element (FE) method have been undertaken in
this thesis. Therefore FE models of several cellular beams are first validated against
available experimental measurements in terms of stresses, deflection, and modes of
failure.
The shear and normal stress distributions in cellular beams are examined numerically.
The results show that: 1) there are relatively large shear stresses around the mid-height
section of the web-post with associated very small normal stresses; 2) normal stresses
vary linearly in the web-post with maximum at the flange level and zero at some distances
away from the neutral axis; 3) the normal stresses are non-uniform in the T sections at the
opening centres and the maximum is at the edge of the opening; and 4) the normal
stresses are not smooth along the flanges and suggest that their plane sections do not
remain plane during bending.
To calculate the deflection of simply supported cellular beams, a cellular beam is divided
into two components, the cellular web and the flanges, and their bending and shear
deformations are examined to quantify their individual contributions to the total deflection.
The bending deformation of a cellular web is analytically investigated and equations are
developed to convert the cellular web beam into an equivalent solid beam with variable
cross-sections and then to an equivalent solid uniform beam. Many practically used
cellular webs are evaluated using the FE method to identify their shear deformations. In
this respect shear deformation factor is introduced to quantify the shear deformation of the
web. These studies led to the determination of the equivalent second moment of area of
the cellular web which caters for both bending and shear effects.
The effect of the design parameters (span to depth ratio, opening diameter to height ratio,
web thickness, flange thickness, flange width, and opening spacing) on the deformations
of the flanges is numerically examined and the results reveal that the flanges undergo
significant deformations. These deformations are due to deformations of the cellular web
which arise from two sources: the shear deformation in the web-post and the deformation
at the opening centres. Theoretical equations are developed to determine these
deformations.
A complete hand solution to the deflection problem is developed based on the above
studies. The newly developed method provides an improved understanding of the
deflection problem and quantifies the deflection contributions from shear and bending and
from flanges and the web. Comparison with existing methods shows that the developed
method has simplified the hand calculation of deflection but with enhanced accuracy.
12
Finally, two hand calculation examples are provided together with a flow chart so that the
developed method can be followed by practicing engineers.
The failure modes in cellular beams such as pure bending, Vierendeel Mechanism, and
Web-post buckling using FE program LUSAS have been investigated in a parametric
study. The 3D models have been verified against experimental data prior to their use in
the non-linear analyses. Stress distributions of each failure mode have been examined
with particular emphasis on the initiation and development of Von-Mises stresses up to
the development of plasticity. The failure loads predicted from the parametric study for
each failure type have been compared with the associated existing analytical approaches.
The effects of changes in cross section geometries and the span to depth ratios on the
failure loads and failure modes have also been assessed.
13
DECLARATION
No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other
institute of learning
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
I. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis)
owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the ‘Copyright’) and s/he has given the
University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for the
administrative purposes.
II. Copies of this thesis. Either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic
copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright. Designs and Patents Act
1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in
accordance with licensing agreements which the university has from time to time.
This page must form part of any such copies made.
III. The Ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any introductions of copyright
works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be
described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third
parties. Such intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made
available for issue without the prior written permission of the owner (S) of the relevant
Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.
IV. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions described in it may take place is available from the Head of School of
Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering and for its candidates.
14
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my special gratitude to my advisor Dr Tianjian
Ji for his continuous support, patience and guidance throughout the PhD research.
Working for many years in an engineering environment has impacted on my style of
writing. Academic writing usually differs from engineering writing as they serve different
purposes and address different audiences. Dr T. Ji played a significant role in guiding me
to write my thesis in a presentable manner, it is greatly appreciated.
Besides my supervisor, I would like to thank Dr Adrian Bell who was the internal examiner
for the first and second year reports of the research study as he provided invaluable
advice regarding the direction of the PhD thesis.
I would like to thank my company (Scott Wilson/URS/AECOM) who have contributed in
part funding the research study.
I would also like to thank LUSAS Technical Support, and especially Paul E. Marsden, who
has provided continuous support and advice throughout the thesis in the modelling of
cellular beams.
I would also like to thank Westok Cellbeam, especially the Advisory Engineer Kevin Small,
for his support in solving a number of cellular beam examples independently.
Finally I would also like to thank my lovely wife Viann Sheena for her support throughout
the PhD Research. Last but not least I would like to thank my children Ricardo and Tara
for their love and support throughout these past eight years.
15
NOTATIONS
Ab The cross sectional areas of the bottom tee
Af Area of the flange of the cellular beam
A fict Area of steel beam with solid web
AT Area of tee section
At Cross sectional area of the top tee
B Width of the flange

a Castellation dimension associated with hexagonal castellated beam- refer to 2.15
b Castellation dimension associated with hexagonal castellated beam- refer to 2.15
c Castellation dimension associated with hexagonal castellated beam- refer to 2.15
b Form factor for the shear in cellular beam web-post
D Diameter of the opening of the cellular beam
d Is the distance between the centroids of the top and bottom tees
E Modulus of elasticity of the steel beam
G Modulus of rigidity of the steel beam
h Height of the parent solid I-beam
H Total height of the cellular beam
h Deq Equivalent height of the cellular web beam at the centre of opening
hheq Equivalent solid uniform height of opening
hq Equivalent height of the cellular web beam at q from horizontal
hw Height of the cellular web beam
hweq Equivalent uniform section of the cellular web
hwpe The effective height of the web-post corresponding to the positive shear stresses
Ib The second moment of areas of the bottom tee section
I beam Second moment of area of a solid beam
I cbT The total effective second moment of area of cellular beam
I cbTb The total bending second moment of area of cellular beam
I fb The bending second moment of area of flanges
I fef Effective second moment of area of cellular beam flanges
I fbT Second moment of area of the flange within the tee section at the opening centre
I fict Second moment of area of beam with solid web
I h eq Equivalent second moment of area across the opening
I min Minimum second moment of area of a hexagonal castellated beam
I opening Second moment of area of the opening- defined as B
Ii Second moment of area of the ith unit
Is Second moment of area of a solid part of the cellular web, defined as A
16
It The second moment of area of the top tee section
I weq Equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beam
I weq Equivalent bending component of the second moment of area of a cellular web beam
b
Iq Second moment of area of the slice unit at an angle q from horizontal
l Length/span of the cellular/ web beam
lh Length of the opening in the cellular web beam
li Length of the a slice unit
lS Length of the solid section between the cellular web beam openings
l ST Total length of the solid sections in a cellular web beam
l OT Total length of the openings in a cellular web beam
M The bending moment
M FEA Failure moment from the nonlinear FE analysis
Mi Bending moment of the ith unit caused by a unit force
M pr Primary bending moment
M sr Secondary bending moment
M FE Failure moment from the FE non-linear analysis
Mq Terminal/end moment of the vertical member in hexagonal castellated beam
N Axial force in tee
Ni Axial force in on tee chord at hole i

n Number of units
nh Number of hallow units in the cellular beam
ns Number of solid units of the cellular beam
nD Number of openings in a cellular beam
P Axial force in the vertical in a hexagonal castellated beam

r Radius of the opening
R The radius of the circular arc
S Spacing between the openings of the cellular beam
T Forces in the top and bottom T sections
tf Thickness of the flange plate section
tw Thickness of the cellular web section
V The shear force
Vi Shear force in ith opening
Vwpi Force in web-post i
w Uniformly distributed load (kN/m)

wFEA Failure load from nonlinear FE analysis
X pb Distances of the centroids of the bottom tee sections from the tips of their respective flanges.
X pt Distances of the centroids of the top tee sections from the tips of their respective flanges.
y BF Distance from n.a. of cellular beam section to top fibre of section
y BW Distance from n.a. of cellular beam section to bottom fibre of T section
y TF Distance from n.a. of T section to top fibre of section
y TW Distance from n.a. of T section to bottom fibre of T section
17
yTF Distance from n.a. of T section to n.a. of flange
y TW Distance from n.a. of T section to n.a. of web
w FE Failure load of cellular beam from the FE non-linear analysis
wTheory The allowable load from the analytical design equations: SCI P100 and EN1993-1, BSI 2005 for Pure
Bending (P.B.); SCI P100 for Web-Post Buckling (W.P.B.); and Chung et. al., 2003 for Vierendeel
Mechanism (V.M.)
Z Elastic section modulus
aw Shear deformation factor of the cellular web beam
q Rotation of the cellular beam
q eq Rotation of equivalent beam
qh Rotation of the opening section of the cellular beam
qi Rotation of the ith component of the cellular beam
qS Rotation of the solid section of the cellular beam

j Angular deflection in the top chord of a hexagonal castellated beam
D max Maximum deflection at mid-span
D FEA Maximum deflection from the FE analysis
D fb Bending deflection in flanges
D fs Total shear deflection in flanges
D fs1 Total deflection at mid-span due to deformations in in web-posts
D fs2 Total deflection at mid-span due to deformations in flanges at opening centres
Df Total deflection in flanges

T
D wb Bending deflection in cellular web beam
D ws Shear deflection in cellular web beam
Dw Total deflection in cellular web

eq
Dw The equivalent bending deflection in cellular web
eqb
DcbT Maximum deflection in cellular beam
D cbTb Maximum bending displacement in cellular beam
D cbTs Maximum shear displacement in cellular beam
d fi Shear displacement in flanges at opening centre of ‘ i ’
d wpi Shear displacement in web-post in opening ‘ i ‘
t av Average shear stresses in the web-post
t max Maximum shear stresses in the web-post

s Bending/direct stresses
s pr Primary stresses
s vr Vierendeel stresses
LIST OF ABBREVIATION:
AN: Analytical Method

Ana.: Analytical Analysis
18
CB: Cellular Beam
CWB: Cellular Web-beam
FEA: Finite Element Analysis
NU: Numerical Method
Op.: Opening
P.B.: Pure Bending
UDL: Uniformly Distributed Load
V.M. Vierendeel Mechanism
Wes.: Westok
W.P.B.; Web-Post Buckling
19
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Cellular beams are a form of beams with multiple regular web openings in which
circular openings are more frequently seen nowadays. In comparison with a
conventional I section beam, materials are removed from central parts of the web of a
cellular beam. The rational of such removal is based on the theory of beam bending
that governs the design of structural beams and columns. The related theory can be
presented intuitively:
1. The deflection of a beam and the stress distribution in the cross section of the
beam are proportional to the inverse of the second moment of area of the cross
section.
2. The closer the material to the neutral axis of a cross-section, the smaller the
contribution to its second moment of area of the cross-section.
3. The normal stress induced by bending is linearly distributed along the cross
section of the beam and that around the neutral axis of the cross-section is small.
Therefore the materials are only removed around the neutral axis of the cross section.
This does not significantly reduce the second moment of area of the cross section and
the loading capacity of the cellular beam, but it effectively saves material and makes
the member lighter.
Nowadays, cellular beams and columns have been widely used due to their recognised
advantages (Harper, 1997; Westok, 2013):
1. In comparison with a solid beam with the same dimensions, the cellular beam
saves approximately up to 25% material
2. The overall height of building can be reduced by incorporating services within the
openings of the floor beams (Fig. 1.1), which leads to reduction in the construction
cost.
Chapter 1 Introduction 20
3. The use of cellular beams allows a new architectural expression. And the
lightweight appearance of cellular beams, combined with their high efficiency,
never ceases to inspire structural engineers and architects to use them (SCI
Publication 100).
For these reasons together with competitive fabrication costs cellular beams have been
widely used in steel construction industry. Cellular beam use in UK exceeds 20,000
tonnes per year and worldwide usage exceeds 50,000 tonnes per year (Westok, 2013).
Different usages of cellular beams in construction are shown in Fig. 1.1.
Service
duct
through
opening
Building construction Pedestrian footbridge
Water treatment industry Stadium construction
Fig. 1.1: Different usage of cellular beams in construction
The creation of openings in a cellular beam has also led to that the conventional beam
theory cannot be directly applied to checking serviceability, or calculating the maximum
displacement, of such beams. This is due to three facts:
1. The normal stress is no longer distributed linearly along the neutral axis of the
cellular web.
2. The cellular web is subjected to significant shear deformation.
3. The flanges experience secondary or further deformation due to the shear
deformation of the web.
Furthermore the presence of openings in the web leads to different structural
behaviour. It results in distinctive failure modes such as shear, pure bending, web-post
buckling and Vierendeel mechanism. In comparison the failure mode of a laterally
restrained solid beam is usually governed by flexural yielding.
Cellular I beams appear simple and are similar to conventional solid I beams.
However there are still questions to be answered:
1. How do normal and shear stresses distribute along a cellular web and in flanges of
a cellular beam?
2. If a cellular beam is equivalent to a solid beam what are the effective second
moments of area contributed by the web and the flanges of the cellular beam
respectively?
3. What are the bending and shear deformations the web and the flanges of the
cellular beam contribute to the overall deformations?
This thesis will aim to answer these research questions.
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
This thesis aims to gain a thorough understanding of the serviceability behaviour of
cellular beams and to propose a simple and relatively accurate hand calculation
method to determine their deflections by practicing engineers.
The objectives of the study are:
· Validate various FE models of cellular beams using the available experimental
data.
· Investigate the normal and shear stress distributions in cellular beams.
· Develop and verify a simplified hand method to determine deflection of cellular
beams.
· Examine various modes of failure and failure loads of cellular beams together with
their interactions. Investigate the effect of the changes in cross-section geometries
on the failure load and modes of failure.
1.3 SOLUTION STRATEGY AND ADOPTED METHODS
1.3.1 Decomposition of the deflection problem
In order to understand the bending and shear deformations experienced by the web
and the flanges of a cellular beam, the two types of deformations and the two
components (the web and the flanges) are decomposed and studied individually. This
allows not only gaining an insight of the deformations but also proposing a hand
method for calculating the deformation of the cellular beam.
Fig. 1.2 graphically illustrates the following solution strategy:
1. The displacement of the cellular beam ( D cbT ) is decomposed into total
deformations for the web, ( D wT ) and that for flanges ( D fT ) of the cellular beam.
2. The displacements are decomposed into bending and shear displacements of the
web ( D wb , D ws ) and the flanges ( D f b , D fs ) respectively.
3. The total displacement of the cellular beam is a combination of bending and shear
displacements of the web and flanges.
Cellular Beam
Displacement
Cellular Web Beam Displacement Flange Displacement

1) (Chapter 5) (Chapter 6)
Bending Shear Bending Shear

2) displacement displacement displacement displacements
3)
, is the shear deformation factor
Fig. 1.2: Adopted deflection solution strategy
1.3.2 Validation of the FE models
The study involves a significant amount of numerical analysis. The finite element
models are first validated using the experimental data. The validation provides
confidence for further modelling work.
1.3.3 Solution methods
Combination of analytical and numerical solutions has been used in the thesis. A
numerical method has been used to examine normal and shear stress distributions in
the cellular beams. Analytical solutions are applied to calculate the bending
deformation in the web, while the shear deformations are complemented using the
numerical method. For the flanges analytical solutions have been used to determine
the bending and shear deformations. Finally a numerical method has also been used to
examine the interaction of modes of failure of cellular beams.
1.4 CONTENT OF THE THESIS
The thesis consists of nine chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction that provides:
· Background information and knowledge of cellular beams and it highlights the
research questions for the thesis.
· The aim and objectives of the thesis including the solution methods adopted in the
thesis.
Chapter 2 is the literature review:
· It reviews the background and the subsequent available methods to calculate the
deflection in cellular beams and it critically highlights the current understanding.
· It reviews the current load carrying capacity and modes of failure, while also
providing a literature review of the stress distributions in cellular beams.
· It also provides information of all the experimental test data available on cellular
beams to be used for verification in the study.
· Finally it identifies the gaps in the knowledge and the originality of the research.
Chapter 3 Numerical modelling and validation:
· Covers the validations study of the finite element package LUSAS for the
numerical modelling of cellular beams against various test data.
· The effects of FE mesh sizes and types of elements on simulation results have
also been assessed to determine the type and the optimum mesh size in the
numerical models.
Chapter 4 Normal and shear stress distributions:
· Examines the normal and shear stress distributions in cellular beams in
comparison with a cellular web and a solid beam and summarises the findings.
· Examines stress distributions at opening centres.
· Examines in detail shear distributions in the web-post.
Chapters 5 and 6 together provide the solution to the deflection problem of the cellular
beam. Because of the complexity of the problem the solution strategy has been
presented and illustrated in section 1.3.
Chapter 5 Equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web:
· The cellular web beam is converted into an equivalent solid uniform section in
stages based on the rotational equivalence of a beam with variable cross section.
The cellular beam is initially converted to a non-uniform solid beam and then to an
equivalent solid stepped beam and finally to a solid uniform beam. This enables
the determination of the equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web
beam and consequently the bending component of the displacement.
· The effect of the variable parameters on the shear deformation of the cellular web
beam is investigated. Due to the complexity of the problem, a numerical method is
used to factor in the effect of the shear deformation. As a result a shear
deformation factors are compiled/calculated using a numerical method for all
cellular webs associated with Westok cellular beams. A numerical method is used
to verify the developed hand method.
Chapter 6 covers the analysis of the flanges:
· The deformations in the flanges are investigated. Seven variable parameters have
been identified to have an effect on the flange deformations. The effects of the
variable parameters on the deformations of the flanges are studied using a
numerical method of analysis.
· Deformations in the flanges are investigated further using an analytical method of
analysis. A number of theoretical equations have been developed to determine
shear deformation in flanges. A numerical method has been used to verify the
developed analytical equations.
Chapter 7 presents an example and a flow chart for the proposed hand method:
· Detailed calculations of an example are presented to assist other to follow. In
parallel a flow chart is provided to clarify calculations.
· The insight of the calculations and the understanding are provided.
· Comparison with the existing methods is presented to show the differences and
the improvements.
Chapter 8 investigates the interaction of failure modes:
· The stress distribution for each mode of failure is examined with particular
emphasis on the initiation and development of Von-Mises, shear, and bending
stresses, up to the development of plasticity and failure.
· The failure load and modes of failure are examined in cellular beams together with
their interactions. The effects of the changes in cross-section geometries on the
failure load and modes of failure are investigated.
Chapter 9 summarises the main conclusions obtained in this study and suggests a
number of topics for future research.
1.5 INVESTIGATION OF NON-COMPOSITE CELLULAR BEAMS
There are 22 groups of parent solid I beams/UBs. In each group there are a number of
solid UBs making a total of 77 types of beams. These solid UB beams are castellated
expanded and welded to produce different sizes of cellular beams (Appendix A1).
Westok pioneered the use of cellular beams in the early 90s and they are the lead
manufacturer in the United Kingdom. The detail of parent solid I beams/UBs together
with the Westok cellular beam details are given in Appendix A2.
1.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CHAPTERS
Relationships between the main chapters contents in the thesis together with the
methods used are illustrated in Fig. 1.3. Different colours have been used to
differentiate the chapter’s subject matters.
BEHAVIOUR OF CELLULAR BEAM
Validation
Ch. 3
Normal and shear stress

distributions (NU)
Ch. 4
Deflection Deflection
Cellular Beam Web (AN+NU) Cellular Beam Flanges (AN+NU)
Ch. 5 Ch. 6
Deflection
Design Example &
Comparisons- Full Beam
(AN+NU)
Interaction of Failure
Modes (NU)
Ch. 8
Fig. 1.3: Relationship between the key chapters and the relevant adopted methods
The adopted solution methods are shown inside the boxes between the brackets
NU: Numerical method; AN: Analytical method
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The literature review covers the following relevant topics:
· Background, application, development, and advantageous of cellular I-beams
· Behaviour of cellular beams
· Modes of failure, load carrying capacity and design of cellular I-beams
· Linear elastic analysis; stress distributions in non- composite cellular I-beams
· Linear elastic analysis; deflection of non-composite cellular I-beams
· Experimental tests including photoelastic investigations
· Identification of the gaps and originality of the research
Each main topic has been divided into the following sub-topics:
- Analytical methods
- Finite element methods
2.2 BACKGROUND
Prior to the introduction of cellular I-beams, Universal castellated beams were
introduced. In 1910, Horton, who was a member of the Chicago Bridge and Iron works,
for the first time proposed cutting the beam web and reassembling the two halves to
increase the section modulus (Das and Seimaini, 1985). The idea of castellated beam
was proposed later in 1935 by Geoffrey Boyd who was a structural engineer in the
British Structural Steel Company (Knowles, 1991). Invention of castellated beams
which were previously known as ‘Boyd beams’, won him the British Patent award in
1939. Following these developments, cellular I-beams were then introduced by
Westok, (Westok, 1985) the main manufacturer of cellular I-beams.
Cellular beams are common steel Universal I-beam sections that have been adopted
by adding web openings down the length of the span. The addition of these openings
results in a beam with the same weight as the root beam but stronger and deeper due
to the increased web depth (Hoffman and et. al., 2006).
Chapter 2 Literature Review 28

Cellular beams have many advantages. Advantages of cellular beams in roof
structures are; optimised spans of 10 to 50m, increase in effectiveness of the load
bearing to weight ratio, 25 to 30% weight savings compared with standard sections,
and relatively lower fabrication costs than trusses (Westok, 2012; Harper, 1997).
Advantages of cellular beams in slab structures (Westok, 2012; Harper, 1997) are;
optimised spans of 12 to 25m, increased usable ceiling height through space
optimisation, improved flexibility, allowing distribution pipes and ducts to pass through
the openings, reduced structure weight through asymmetric beam design.
To date there are a number of manufacturers who are engaged in producing cellular
beams, such as Westok and MACSTEEL. Westok has produced an ‘Engineers Design
Guide’ for Cellular Beams which gives guidance on the use of their Software
‘CELLBEAM Auto mate’ (SCI, 2015), a cellular beam software written and maintained
by Steel Construction Institute (SCI) that provides information and guidance for their
floor and roof beams. MACSTEEL (2017a) provides information regarding cellular
beams. It provides section properties intended to be used in conjunction with
CELLBEAM Software, also written by the SCI, which can be obtained from Macsteel
Trading. In another literature MACSTEEL (2017b) provides design guidance on the
choice of suitable parent sections and cell data, and to illustrate the various steps
adopted in the design of cellular beams. In these publications the second moment of
area of the cellular beam is given at the opening centres based on the understanding
that this is the minimum value and can conservatively be used in the design.
ACB are another manufacturer of cellular beams (Constructalia, 2016). ACB have also
provided, in their web site, extensive literature on the advantages of cellular beams
including their use in long span ‘The Intelligent Solution for Long Spans’ (Construtalia,
ArcelorMittal, 2016). Optimisation of the height/weight ratio and the load/weight ratio
has also been undertaken by ACB.

2.3 FAILURE MODES AND DESIGN OF CELLULAR BEAMS
2.3.1 Failure modes in cellular and castellated beams
I-beams with web openings behave entirely differently to solid I-beams. Solid I-beams
usually fail by bending and sometimes by lateral torsional buckling, while I-beams with
web opening have several modes of failure. In addition to those of a solid I-beam, the
other modes of failure are mainly in the web when shear is transferred through the
opening. These include failure around the opening corners, web buckling, and web
weld rapture (Kerdal and Nethercot, 1984).
1. Flexural failure
With the flexure mechanism the upper throat section of the critical panel becomes
completely plastic in compression (Konstantinos, 2012; Warren, 2001) at the hinge
(Fig. 2.1b, c, and d), while the lower throat section behaves similarly in tension (Hosain
and Speirs, 1973). Halleux (1967) observed such failure in castellated beams
subjected to equal concentrated loads at the third point (Fig. 2.1a).
a. Flexural mechanism (Halleux, 1967) b. Flexural mechanism

(Konstantinos, et. al., 2012)
c. Yield pattern of beam (Warren, 2001) d. Failure of beam (Warren, 2001)
Fig. 2.1: Flexural mechanism (Pure bending failure)

2. Pure shear failure
This type of failure is associated with high shear forces and where other modes of
failures are not possible. Section with small opening diameters subjected to high shear
force might result in shear failure, especially in deep web openings (Chung et. al.,
2003).
3. Vierendeel mechanism
A Vierendeel mechanism is the most common failure associated with
castellated/cellular steel beams. This mode of failure is dependent on the presence of
large shear forces around the openings (Kerdal and Nethercot, 1984; Redwood and
Cho, 1993). Beams containing a web opening in a region subjected to shearing forces
typically deform (Fig 2.2) as their ultimate strength is approached. Plastic hinges near
the opening corners lead to large relative deflections between its ends in the shape of a
parallelogram (Fig.2.2c). A Vierendeel mechanism occurs when the both bending and
shear are present (Hossain and Speirs, 1973).
a. Vierendeel mechanism (Kerdal and Nethercot, 1984)
b. Close view of a. c. Formation of four hinges

(Redwood and Cho, 1993)
Fig. 2.2: Vierendeel mechanism

4. Web buckling
Several studies have reported on web buckling (Hossain and Speirs, 1973; Kerdal, and
Nethercot 1984; Redwood and et.al. 1996; Hoffman 2006). The mechanism of the
buckling has been well explained by Kerdal, and Nethercot (1984). The horizontal
shear force F acting along the welded joint (Fig. 2.3a) stresses the web post. Edge
‘AB’ will be stressed in tension while edge ‘CD’ will be stressed in compression (Fig.
2.3a). The lateral displacement of the post will be accompanied by twisting of the
diagonal line XX ' . More recently Konstantinos et.al (2011) studied web post buckling
and depicted it as in Fig. 2.3b, c, and d. Rapture of the welded joint can also occur (Fig.
2.3e and f) if the length of the weld is short (Konstantinos, et. al., 2011; Husain and
Speirs, 1973).
a. Web buckling due to shear b. Typical web post buckling

(Kerdal and Nethercot, 1984) (Konstantinos et. al., 2011)
c. Buckled web post and the region adjacent to the end of the beam
( e' region) (Hoffman, 2006)
d. Web post buckling e. Mid web post rapture f. Rapture of welded joint
(Konstantinos, et. al., 2011) (Konstantinos, et. al., 2011) (Husain and Speirs, 973)
Fig. 2.3: Web post buckling and rapture

4. Lateral torsional buckling
The investigation carried out by Nethercot (1982) and Kerdal (1984) showed that the
lateral torsional behaviour of castellated beams is similar to that of a solid I-beam (Fig.
2.4) with the same buckled configuration consisting of a smooth continuous profile and
no distortion of the web post.
Fig. 2.4: Lateral torsional buckling of entire span (Kerdal and Nethercot, 1984)
In this section various modes of failure have been discussed. It is not possible to
predict the mode of failure with reasonable accuracy. However some simple rules can
be applied. When a beam with web opening is subjected to a uniform moment then the
modes of failure are either flexural mechanism or lateral torsional buckling. When shear
is critical the mode of failure can either be Vierendeel mechanism, web-post bucking,
or web rapture. Many other factors, such as the type of load and the geometry of the
opening relative to the beam, are contributory to the mode of failure that is likely to
occur. The switching from one mode of failure to another is briefly discussed by Chung,
et al., (2001, 2003) and Tsavdaridis, et. al. (2012).
It should be noted that shear failure has not been investigated as it is probably very
rare to occur in practice and therefore has not attracted much attention.
2.3.2 Load carrying capacity
The load carrying capacity of a cellular beam is the smaller of its overall strength in
flexure and lateral torsional buckling, including the local strength of the web posts and
the upper and lower tees (Ward, 1990). From a design point of view, cellular beams
should be checked for both overall and local strength, for ultimate and serviceability
limit states under factored loads.

Overall strength: for the overall strength of a cellular beam, the following is checked:
· Flexural strength: plastic moment capacity of the cross section at the opening
centre is considered.
· Vertical shear capacity: the shear capacity is the sum of shear capacities of lower
and top tees at opening centres.
· Global buckling: beam is checked using the properties of section at opening
centres.
Local strength: for the local strength the following checks are undertaken:
· Local bending: bending capacities of web-post and upper and lower tees
· Local shear: shear capacities of web-post and upper and lower tees
2.3.2.1 Design of opening, Vierendeel mechanism
A number of researchers (Redwood, 1973; Lawson 1987; Darwin, 1990;) have
analysed non-composite castellated beams on the assumption that plastic hinges have
occurred near the four corners of the openings, leading to large relative deflections
between its ends. When a shearing force was present Vierendeel deformation has
occurred. In other words the design approach was based on the assumption that
stresses at the four sections near the opening corners were in equilibrium with the
applied loads and satisfied the Von-Mises criterion, which led to a lower bound
solution. Most of the analytical work was directed at identifying two or three points in
which a moment-shear interaction can be constructed (Redwood and Cho, 1993). For
steel beams with circular web openings, most of the design rules were applicable using
an equivalent rectangular opening of modified dimensions (Redwood, 1969).
More recently a number of researchers (Chung, et. al., 2001, 2003) have carried out an
analytical study on cellular beams. Chung (2001) was critical of the available
conservative design approach as it was based on the assumption that plastic hinges
had formed at the top of the tee-section at the low moment side (LMS) of the web
opening. Chung suggested that the beams were capable of carrying additional load

until four plastic hinges at critical locations were developed to form Vierendeel
mechanism (Fig. 2.5).
Fig. 2.5: Vierendeel mechanism around the circular web opening (Chung, 2001)
An overall review on the design recommendations by the above authors show that
there are generally two design approaches in assessing the structural behaviour of
cellular steel beams with web openings:
Tee section approach: In this approach, the perforated section was considered to be
built up of two tee sections, and all the global actions were represented as local forces
and moments. The structural capacity of the steel beams relied on the section
capacities of the tee sections under co-existing axial and shear forces, and local
moments. In general, the design methods associated with this approach were
complicated and the calculation effort was considerable (Chung, et. al., 2003).
Perforated section approach: In this approach, the perforated section was the critical
section to be considered in the design and relied on the section capacities of the
perforated sections under co-existing global shear forces and moments (Fig. 2.6a).
a. Force distribution b. Reduction in moment-shear interaction

curve due to coupled Vierendeel mechanism
Fig. 2.6: Perforated section approach- Vierendeel mechanism (Chung, et. al., 2003)

The design methods associated with this approach were generally considered to be
simple and suitable for engineers in their practical design. Chung et al. (2003)
managed to develop a generalised moment-shear interaction curve to assess the load
carrying capacity of all steel beams with web opening of various shapes and sizes (Fig.
2.6b).
2.3.2.2 Buckling of the tee section
Lateral torsional buckling of castellated beams was studied by Nethercot and Kerdal
(1982) and provided quantitative data on the lateral-torsional buckling strength of
castellated and plain webbed beams. The lateral stability of an I-shaped cellular beam
was numerically investigated by Sweedan (2011). A three dimensional finite element
analysis was undertaken of simply supported I-shaped cellular beams with a broad
spectrum of cross-sectional dimensions, span lengths and web perforation
configurations. A simplified approach was developed to enable accurate prediction of a
moment modification factor for cellular beams.
2.4 LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYSIS
2.4.1 Elastic stress analysis
2.4.1.1 Analytical methods
It is worth noting that stress distributions in a castellated beam are similar to that of a
cellular beam. Therefore all studies undertaken on castellated beams are also
reviewed and presented.
Fig. 2.7: Stresses around the elements (Gibson and Jenkins, 1956)

A number of studies have investigated the elastic stress distributions within
castellated/cellular beams. Gibson and Jenkins (1956) initially investigated the stresses
around a centrally located opening in rectangular beam subjected to a point load at the
opening centre (Fig. 2.7).
Mathematical formulae were derived to determine stresses around the opening and
were based on the Euler-Bernoulli equations of bending, which describes the deflection
of the beam to the applied load. The developed equation enabled the determination of
polar bending stresses at different angles. Gibson and Jenkins (1957) later realised
that the utilisation of stress function for a single opening is rather easy compared with
the complication associated with the multi connected openings such as those in a
castellated beam. This knowledge, alongside the work of L. Chitty (1947) and
Professor A. J. S. Pippard (1948, 1952) in relation to the analysis of Vierendeel girder
types of structure, provided the foundation for their later work (Gibson and
Jenkins,1957) where they developed an approximate analytical method based on
Vierendeel analogy to determine stresses in castellated beams. The distribution of
loads which is based on the Vierendeel truss type is depicted in Fig. 2.8.
Theoretical
bending moment
Stress distribution
a b
Fig. 2.8: Free body diagrams of Vierendeel load distribution (Gibson and Jenkins, 1957
They argued that the terminal/end moments M q acting on the vertical member must be
balanced by equal counter moments M q in the chords. It was also assumed that these
counter moments are each composed of two counter moments M q / 2 (Fig. 2.8a), then

each of these sections of the chord will bend under the influence of these couples,
resulting in a point of inflection at the opening centre X . The resulting flange stresses
is the algebraic sum of direct stresses and the bending stresses. The bending moment
diagram for the vertical is shown in Fig. 2.8b.
In his article Kolosowski (1964) has developed two methods to determine the elastic
stresses in castellated beams. Both methods are based on Vierendeel analogy. In the
first method the column in the Vierendeel truss is replaced by the web which forms a
continuous medium between the flanges. The second method is the moment
distribution method which takes into account the effect of variable section on the
distribution and carryover factors and also on the fixed-end moments. The simplified
method states that the stress at any point of the castellated girder is a resultant stress
due to an axial force, a bending moment, and a shear force. Their combined effect
depends on the position of the point. Fig. 2.9 shows the calculated stress distributions
using the simplified method. It also shows the comparison with the other methods
including the simple theory of bending.
Fig. 2.9: Stress distribution diagram (Kolosowski, 1964)
Blodgett (1996) has also used the Vierendeel analogy to determine stresses in
castellated beams. Blodgett method employed (Fig. 2.10a and b) direct superposition
of elastic flexural stresses associated with primary and secondary Vierendeel bending.
It should be noted that this method is in principle the same as that suggested by

Kolosowski (1964). Blodgett (1996) might have made some improvement to the
method. The method is based on the following assumptions:
· The top and bottom portions of the girder are subjected to compression and tension
bending stresses from the main bending moment, s b = M S b , M is the applied
bending moment, and Sb is the section modules of the section
· The vertical shear ( V ) is carried by the web, and produces shear stresses in the
solid part of the web and in the top and bottom tee sections
· The vertical shear ( V ) in the open section of the web is divided equally between the
top and bottom tee section providing they are similar in size. The resulting secondary
Ve
bending stresses s T = and this must be added to those of the main bending
4S
moment.
a. Bending moment due to shear
b. Stress distributions
Fig. 2.10: Bending moment due to shear and stress distribution (Blodgett, 1996)

The forces acting on the castellated beam, refer to the central portion of the Fig. 2.3b:
M 1a h V1e M 1b d g V1e
At point 1a, the total stresses s 1a = + and at 1b s 1b = +
Ig 4S s Ig 2 4S f
More recently Yost et. al. (2012) investigated elastic stress distributions in cellular steel
beams under the service loads. They have not developed a new method but rather
used the existing analytical methods associated with castellated beams such as
closed-form analysis developed by Blodgett (1996), and a closed form analysis based
on Eurocode 3 (ENV 1994) on cellular steel beams. They were then compared it with
the finite element analysis and the experimental testing data. Three analytical methods
were deployed in the paper to study the stress distribution in cellular beams; including
elastic FEA and two closed form analyses. It was understood that within the cell
projection the magnitude of each stress component ( s pr and s vr ) was dependent on
the magnitude of the shear force, the bending moment and the opening geometry.
The application of the Blodgett method was depicted in Fig. 2.11c where both the
primary and secondary stresses were superimposed. The load-induced stresses varied
in relation to how these parameters change.
Longitudinal stress within the web-post was referred to as primary stress ( s pr ) and
was calculated using standard flexural theory. Within the cell projection, longitudinal
stresses were equal to the supervision of primary bending stresses ( s pr ) and shear
induced Vierendeel bending stress ( s vr ).
They divided the area of interest around the opening into four quadrants ( I, II , III , IV )
(Fig. 2.11a) and were able to determine using the above analytical methods
longitudinal and tangential stresses at different angles for each quadrant. They were
then compared them with the FEA and experimental results.
The study concluded that the critical stress magnitude and location, calculated using
closed form and FE methods, were in good agreement with the experimentally
measured data.

For both longitudinal and tangential stresses, peak compression stresses occurred in
quadrant I (top left) between 65 and 75 degrees and peak tensile stresses occurred in
quadrant III (bottom right) between 285 and 290 degrees (Fig. 2.11a). For the FEA,
peak cell stress exceeds peak cell compression stress by about 10%, and for closed
form methods, peak cell compression stress exceeds peak cell tension stress by about
5%. In general peak tangential stress exceeded peak longitudinal stress.
a. Analytical nomenclature for Blodgett analysis
b. Tangential stress analysis and stress transformation
c. Longitudinal closed-form stress analysis

Fig. 2.11: Bending moment due to shear and stress distribution (Yost et. al., 2012)

In summary, the finite element model and the closed form analyses captured well the
experimental behaviour of the cellular beams investigated.
In summary, the review of the available literature regarding the stress distribution in
perforated steel beams revealed that the stress distributions in cellular beams and in
particular in the flanges have not been given much attention. An analytical study was
undertaken by Kolosowski (1964) on flanges of castellated beams discussed above.
Since then this subject has not been thoroughly discussed and investigated, despite
the advances in computations and numerical methods.
In addition most of the analytical studies discussed above were based on the
assumption that the point of inflection occurs at the opening centres. But this has not
been validated. Therefore a detailed study will be undertaken to investigate the elastic
stress distributions at the opening centres.
2.4.1.2 Photoelastic method
There were not many studies that utilised photoelastic method to verify the analytical
equations. Gibson and Jenkins (1956, 1957) were the pioneers in this field and utilised
photoelastic methods in both studies.
Experimental
Analytical
formula 1-
solid line
Analytical
formula 2-
not solid line
a. Stress fringes span 5inches- dia.0.5 inches b. Comparison between theoretical

& photoelastic values of around
0.5 in. & 0.667 in. diameter openings
Fig. 2.12: Stress analysis- photoelastic method (Gibson and Jenkins, 1956)
In their first study (1956) two rectangular test beams, having single circular opening
were investigated. The beams were machined from C.R.39, with the diameter of the

opening being 0.50 inches in one case and 0.667 inches in the other, the beams being
1 inch deep.
Each test beam was centrally loaded along the vertical diameter of the opening and
simply supported over spans varying from 5 to 7 inches. The findings were used to
validate the two developed analytical formulae. The loaded beams were viewed under
circularly polarised monochromatic light (sodium yellow) and photographs of the stress
fringes were compiled (Fig. 2.12a) for each span condition. A typical comparison of the
stress distribution around the openings, obtained from the photoelastic stress fringe
patterns and the theoretical values, were drawn (Fig 2.12b). A comparison of the
theoretical and experimental results showed good agreement on the lower half of the
opening away from the disturbing influence of the load.
In the second study Gibson and Jenkins (1957) investigated the behaviour of
castellated beams with regularly spaced hexagonal openings in the web for the case of
bending in a simply supported centrally loaded beam. An approximate analytical
equation, which was based on Vierendeel girder analogy, was developed by the above
authors. The experimental investigation comprised of testing seven castellated beams
and was followed by a photoelastic investigation in which a model of castellated beam
(5.75 inches span) was used.
Before conducting tests on the actual steel castellated sections, Gibson and Jenkins
(1957) decided to investigate photoelastically the stress distribution in a model beam.
With this valuable information, the nature of stress distribution was obtained, and the
regions of maximum stress distribution were clearly indicated. This information proved
invaluable in locating the positions of the gauges for the examination of the other beam
tests. In addition the photoelastic analysis allowed a direct comparison between the
theoretical and experimental results to be made. The geometry, dimensions and
spacing of the openings for the model beam are shown in Fig. 2.13a. The model beam
was subjected to a central load of 53.5 lbs. and the resulting stress fringes were
observed under monochromatic circularly polarised light. The stress fringe photograph
is shown in Fig. 2.13b. The complete plot of the flange stress distribution determined

using the derived theoretical formula is shown in Fig. 2.13a. The figure shows a good
agreement between the dotted (theoretical) and solid (experiment) lines.
a. Stress distribution
b. Stress fringes
Fig. 2.13: Stress analysis- photoelastic method (Gibson and Jenkins, 1957)
2.4.2 Deflection: analytical methods
In addition to stresses, defection is also an essential part of the serviceability limit state
design. Deflections are usually calculated using unfactored loads. In many practical
cases the self-weight deflection is usually built in as precamber (permanent
deformation during fabrication). British Standard BS5950-1 (2000) Table 1.6 and EN
1990 – Annex A1.4 provide deflection limits for beams due to unfactored loads.
2.4.2.1 Deflection: British Steel Construction Method- castellated beams
Kolosowski (1964) employed an analytical method, was verified by experimental test
data, to calculate the deflections of castellated steel beams. Kolosowski used simple
theory of bending and the Vierendeel analogy to calculate the deflections of castellated
beams and concluded unsurprisingly that the simple theory of bending alone

underestimates deflection by 20-30% and was not appropriate to calculate deflections
as well as stresses. Kolosowski added that the Vierendeel analogy produces more
reliable values.
The Vierendeel analogy was originated by Professor S. R. J. Pippard (1948, 1952) and
Miss L. Chitty (1947). Such studies provided the basis for the development of an
approximate solution/method by J. E. Gibson and W. M. Jenkins (1957) in relation to
Vierendeel girder type structures.
Gibson and W. M. Jenkins (1956) in a previous paper investigated the stress
distribution in a beam with a single circular opening utilising stress functions (section
2.4.1.1). They argued that the utilisation of stress functions for a single opening was
relatively easy but their application to a beam with multi hexagonal openings was
extremely complicated. The authors in the first part of their paper (1957) developed an
approximate method for calculating deflections in simply supported castellated beams.
P is the
compressive and
tensile forces in
the top and
bottom chords
a. b.
Fig. 2.14: End moments at vertical support ends (Gibson and Jenkins, 1957)
The developed method, which was based on Vierendeel analogy, was approximate
and based on a number of assumptions. The axial force P (tension or compression) will
cause an angular deflection j of the top chord and due to the end moment M q the
vertical member will rotate through an angle q (Fig. 2.14b). The joint between the chord
and the vertical was rigid resulting in a total angular rotation of the top chord of ( j + q )
(Fig. 2.14b). The angular rotation in the bottom chord was assumed to be the same as
that of the top. The vertical web members were acting as continuous members that
communicate the bending moment. It was further assumed that these moments and

forces produced the same stress distributions and deflections as did the original web
verticals.
The authors compared the results from the developed approximate analytical method
with two types of experiments. The first experiment consisted of photoelastic
investigations on model castellated sections and the second experiment involved
obtaining deflections from the actual steel castellated sections supplied by the
manufacturers. By comparing the theoretical calculations with the available
experimental evidence the authors concluded that the tested sections behave in the
elastic range as predicted by their developed theory and concluded that a form of
Vierendeel action was taking place. It was noted that the experimental work presented
in the present paper was limited to one particular section size (refer to 2.4.2.1). In
addition the authors have also used the previous experimental work carried out at the
University of Glasgow (but were not published) on various section sizes and the results
were of the same nature as presented in the paper.
In a similar fashion Kolosowski’ s (1964) experimental results indicated that castellated
beams were behaving as Vierendeel trusses. However, the Vierendeel analogy was
not exact, owning to the fact that the openings are small compared with the overall
dimensions of the girder, and consequently the members of the Vierendeel truss are
short and some secondary stresses are introduced.
Knowles (SCI P005, 1987) extended the analytical method developed by Gibson and
Jenkins (1957) and formulated a hand method, which was used to calculate the
deflection of castellated beams. The calculation required the summation of individual
deflections of each panel of the beam. Knowles used the virtual work method to
calculate the deflection of each panel with points of inflection and shear force
distributed equally between top and bottom tees:
Mi
N i (Axial force in tee) = ; M i is the bending moment at the panel
h
S (Vi + Vi +1 )
Ti (Shear force on weld) =
2h

Point of
inflection
This shaded area

is considered to
be a rigid area
Actual Unit Load
Bending
Axial
Shear
Fig. 2.15: Illustration of a castellated beam with hexagonal opening (Knowles, 1987)
To find the deflection at any point, a unit load is applied at that point, producing internal
Vi
forces , N i , and Ti
2
A virtual work calculation was then carried out to evaluate the actual deflection in each
panel. A section of a castellated beam of general opening geometry is illustrated in Fig.
2.15.
Consider now one opening i . The total deflection attributable to that opening was four
times the deflection of one half tee plus twice the deflection of one half post. It
comprised of five components as follows y1 to y5 :

a
a3
ò
4 Vi x V i x
Bending, tee: y1 = dx = (ViVi ) ( 2.1a )
EIT 2 2 3EIT
0
ò
2
Bending, post: y2 = Ti z Ti z dz ( 2.1b )
EI z
0
2b
Width of the section = 2 a + z , where z is height of the section at any level parallel to
c
K K
c dimension. Put b = Ka , then width = 2a (1 + z ) , Az = 2at (1 + z ) = 2atz , where
c c
K
z = (1 + z)
c
2 a 3t K 2a 3 t 3 c c
Iz = (1 + z )3 = z , and also z = (z - 1) , dz = dz
3 c 3 K K
When z = 0 , then z = 1 ; When z = c , then z =1 + K , substituting in equation 2.1b:
2
éc ù
c
z2
1+ K
ê K (z - 1)ú c
ë û
ò ò ò
2 2(TiT ) i 2(TiT ) i
y2 = Ti zTi zdz = dz = (z - 1) ( 2.1c)
EI z E Iz E 2 a 3t 3 K
0 1 z
3
2c 3 é a+b 2a a2 3ù
y2 = ê c
log ( ) + ( ) - ( )- ú (TiTi ) (2.1d )
Eb 3t ë a a+b 2( a + b ) 2 2û
S/2
ò N N dx = EA N N
4 2S
Axial, tee: y3 = i i i i ( 2.1e)
EAT T
0
ò
4 AT Vi Vi a
Shear, tee: y4 = dx = ViVi ( 2 .1 f )
GAT ATweb 2 2 GATweb
0
c
a +b
ò
2 T T c
Shear, post: y5 = l i i dz = l log c ( ) TiTi (2.1g )
GAz 2 2 Gbt a
0
The total deflection of the beam was then found by summing y1 to y5 (Knowles SCI
P005).
Approximated method by Knowles (SCI P005, 1985)
Knowles (SCI P005, 1987) admitted that the above discussed calculation method was
tedious and a good approximation can be made by considering the beam as having a

continuous web with constant second moment of area and cross sectional area. The
bending deflection was calculated as follows:
Kwl3
Dm = (2.1h)
EI min
K is the relevant factor for the type of loading. I min is the minimum second moment of
area of the castellated beam. The shear deflection was calculated as follows:
Vi S
D shear = å1
n
(2.1i)
GA fict
å VS
n
where Vi is the shear in panel i and 1 i is the bending moment at panel n . Thus
the shear deflection at a point in a simply supported castellated beam was equal to the
bending moment at this point divided by GA fict , where G is the shear modulus and
A fict was a physical property derived as follows:
1 é a 3 G 3c 3 S G a cS ù
=ê + 3 2 (1) + + 2 ( 2) ú (2.1 j )
A fict êë 3SI T E b h t E SATweb bh t úû
é æ a + b ö æ 2a ö æç a2 ö 3ù
where (1) = êlog e ç ÷+ç ÷-ç ÷ - ú and (2.1k )
è a ø è a + b ø è 2( a + b ) 2 ÷ 2
ëê ø ûú
é æ a + b öù
(2) = êlog e ç ÷ú (2.1l )
ë è a øû
The full derivation of the above formulae is given in the publication. However the values
1
of are also given in Table 2 of the publication (Knowles, 1987). The total deflection
A fict
is the sum of the bending and shear deflections.
2.4.2.2 Deflection; British Steel Construction Method- cellular beam
Prior to the discussion of the SCI method it is worth noting that at present this method
is the only hand method available to be used by practice engineers. Annex N of the
pre-standard ENV 1993-1-1:1992/A2: 1998 covered some aspects of the design of
beams with holes. A draft amendment to Annex N of the pre-standard covering the
design of beams with holes in the web was then started but the committee draft was

not published, nor incorporated into the published Eurocode (Lawson, P355 SCI,
2011). Annex N, however, did not cover the deflection of beams with holes. Current
international standards do not give any details of deflection calculations of beams with
openings.
Full details of the method are given by Ward (SCI-P100, 1990). SCI-P100 stated that
both bending and shear should be calculated using elastic section properties. Ward
(1990) stated that repeated integration of the area of the bending moment diagram
gives the best estimate of the global deflection. The publication also presented an
approximate method for the determination of additional deflections in composite cellular
beams. The approximate method was originally proposed by Chien and Ritchie (1984).
The principle of the method for the non-composite cellular beam is the same as for a
hexagonal opening discussed above. In this case the circular opening was converted
into hexagonal opening as shown in Fig. 2.16.
Fig. 2.16: Circular opening converted into hexagonal opening (SCI- P100, 1990)
Equivalent hexagonal castellated beam for calculating deflection:
Assumptions (SCI-P100, 1990):
· Points of inflection occurred at sections at the centre of the openings; sections i
and i +1 as shown in Fig. 2.17.
· The shear force was distributed equally between the top and bottom tees.
· The shaded area was considered rigid
Associated loads:
· Horizontal shear was developed in the web post due to changes in the axial forces
in the tees. Vertical shear was associated with changes in the bending moment

Equilibriums;
Vertical equilibrium
Ward (1990) neglected the effect of distributed load which gives:
dM M i +1 - M i d
Vi +1 = Vi ; M i = Ti d ; Vi +1 = = = (Ti +1 - Ti ) (2.2a)
dx S S
Horizontal equilibrium
Mi (V + Vi +1 ) S
Ti = ; Vh = i ( 2.2b)
d 2d
d =distance between centroid of Tees
Regid area
Distributed load
Fig. 2.17: Free body diagram of loads acting on this section of the beam (SCI- P100, 1990)
Deflection calculation developed by ‘Steel Construction Institute’ (P100, 1990)
The vertical deflection at any point was found by applying a unit load at any point. The
Vi
unit load produces internal forces: , Ti , V h . A virtual work calculation allowed the
2
deflection to be evaluated. The calculation was the same as for a hexagonal
castellated beam, except for the fact that the circular beam was converted to a
hexagonal castellated (Fig. 2.16). For a single opening in a symmetrical beam, the total
deflection attributable to that opening was stated to be 4 times the deflection of one
half-tee, plus 2 times the deflection of one half web-post. SCI (P100, 1990) provided
the following equations for the calculation of the deflection in five components:
0.45 R V 0.09 R 3
ò
4 Vi x
1. Bending in tee: y1 = i
dx = (ViVi ) dx ( 2.2c )
EIT 0 2 2 3EIT

0.9 R
ò
2
2. Bending in web post: y2 = Vh z Vh z dz
EI Z 0
13.145 é 3ù
2
æ S - 0 . 9 R ö æ S - 2 .0 R ö 1 æ S - 2 . 0 R ö
y2 = êlog e ç ÷ + 2ç ÷- ç ÷ - ú Vh Vh ( 2 .2 d )
E t êë è S - 2 .0 R ø è S - 0 . 9 R ø 2 è S - 0 . 9 R ø 2 úû
ò
4 2S
3. Axial force in tee: y3 = 2
Ti Ti dx = (TiTi ) ( 2.2e)
EAT 0 3E AT
0.45 R
ò
4 AT Vi x Vi x 0.45 R
4. Shear in tee: y4 = dx = (ViVi ) ( 2.2 f )
G AT ATWEB 2 2 G ATWEB
0
0.9 R V 1.636 é æ S - 0.9R öù

ò
2 Vh
5. Shear in web-post: y5 = c h
dz = ê log e ç ÷úVh Vh ( 2 .2 g )
GAZ 0 2 2 Gt ë è S - 2.0 R øû
Total deflection= ( y1 + y2 + y3 + y4 + y5 ) for each opening.
It should be noted that y 3 the deflection caused by the bending moment.
2S 2S
y3 =
3E AT
(Ti Ti ) =
EAT h 2
åMiMi (2.2h)
The literature suggested that the quantity AT d 2 was very nearly equal to I min for the
cellular beam. In fact the quantity of 0.5 AT d 2 is nearly equal to I min .
The shear force leads to additional deflection:
y shear = ( y1 + y 2 + y 4 + y 5 ) (2.2 j )
Critical expositions of the above method are as follows:
· The above method assumed that the cellular beam is behaving as a Vierendeel
girder and the deflection was calculated on that basis. It is interesting to note that
Vierendeel analogy is not exact with the cellular beam configuration. This is due to
the fact that the openings were small compared with the overall dimensions of the
girder and consequently the members of the Vierendeel girder were short
compared with a typical Vierendeel girder. As a result the Vierendeel girder theory
was not fully applicable. On the other hand the Vierendeel analogy assumed that
points of inflection occur in the tee section at the opening centres without proper
validation.

· The above method was complicated, tedious and it was not suitable to be used by
practicing engineers.
The above points encourage seeking alternative method. The alternative method will
treat the problem more realistically as a cellular beam and not as a Vierendeel truss.
The alternative method will be simple, more realistic and relatively more accurate.
2.4.2.3 Deflection: proposed method by Warren (2001)
Warren (2001) proposed a Vierendeel method to calculate the vertical deflection of a
cellular beam. Warren’s method comprised of adding the following two deflections:
1. The deflection due to primary bending
2. The deflection due to the secondary bending effect of the Vierendeel moment.
This secondary bending effect was caused by the shear in the tees.
The primary bending deflections were calculated using Euler-Bernoulli beam theory
equation. This method is a simplification of the linear theory of elasticity. This method
ignores any shear deformations and was valid only when the slopes of the deflection
curve are small. It also requires the beam to be prismatic, which cellular beams are not.
Warren (2001) suggested that the difficulty was overcome by conservatively taking the
second moment of area at the opening centres.
Cantilever
0.21D
Fig. 2.18: Cantilevered section for Vierendeel deflection (Warren, 2001)
For example the deflection for beams with central point loads is given by:
Px
D= (3l 2 - 4 x 2 ) (2.3)
48EI

where x is the position along the beam where deflection is being calculated, P is the
applied point load, and I is the minimum second moment of area at opening centres.
The secondary bending was associated with Vierendeel deflection, the bending of the
cantilevered section (Fig. 2.18). The length of the cantilevered section comprised of
half of the opening and half of the adjacent web-post. The cantilevered section was
approximated as a stepped tee as shown in Fig. 2.18. Warren used the moment-area
method to calculate the deflection of each cantilever section.
Warren (2001) compared the results of the calculated deflections using his proposed
method with the experimental test results that were carried out on the eight cellular
beams. Details of the experimental tests are given in section 2.5.2.4. The comparison
showed that the results using the Vierendeel method (Warren, 2001) were within 10%
for the majority of the test samples, though a significant error of 23% was reported (Fig.
C.2) for one sample (1A). Details of Beam 1A are given in Tables B.4 (1 st column) and
B.5 Appendix B3.3.
Critical exposition of the proposed method:
· The primary bending was calculated using the beam theory equation which ignores
shear deformation in the cellular beam. The shortfall in the proposed method was
compensated for by utilising conservatively the second moment of area at the opening
centres. Firstly it was not realistic to ignore the shear effect in the cellular beam.
Secondly, taking the second moment of area at the opening centres is not realistic and
scientific either.
· The secondary moment is calculated based on the Vierendeel analogy without any
substantiation.
· The length of the cantilever is taken unrealistically from the opening centre to the
centre of the web-post. Recent study (Ward, 1990) showed that a rigid area exists as
shown in Fig. 2.17 and the length of the cantilever is somewhere between the centre of
the opening to the edge of the opening (within the opening projection). The regid area
is identified as an area which undergoes very small deformation and its boundaries
constitute critical sections for the failure mechanism of the web-post and the T section.

· It is interesting to note that ignoring the shear deformation in the cellular I-beam is
reflected on the 23% error in one of the short beams (sample 1A).
The above points show that the proposed method was not coherent and logical. It
lacked the basic understanding of deflection in cellular I-beams for the above reasons.
This has also encouraged the author to treat the problem differently, and more logically
as highlighted in section 1.3 (Fig. 1.2) Chapter 1 of the research study
2.4.2.4 Deflection: Cellbeam program by Westok
Before discussing the Cellbeam program it is worth noting that Westok is providing
information for the second moment of area of cellular beams for preliminary design
(Appendix B1). The provided figures are calculated at the opening centres on the basis
that they are conservative figures and ignore the contribution of the material at the
opening corners. In other words openings are treated as square and it is claimed that
the second moment of area of the cellular beam is not likely to be lower than that at the
opening centres.
Deflection calculation of the cellular beam section (Cellbeam program)
The program (Westok, 2014) calculates deflection of a non-composite beam and the
composite beam at the construction stage on the basis of steel section only. In the
Cellbeam program, the deflection components are integrated across the length of the
beam. Therefore the program accounts for any change in curvature along the beam.
The method is applicable to both prismatic and tapered sections. The following three
components are calculated by the program; pure flexural deflection, pure shear
deflection, and Vierendeel bending deflection. Deflection calculations ignore axial
shortening of the member and movement of supports, but include the bending effects
due to axial load. For steep double tapered members the deflections may be
underestimated by the program, since even vertical load induces axial load in the
inclined member. Deflection calculations for non-composite steel sections ignore the
stiffening effect of infills.

Pure flexural deflection (Cellbeam, 2014)
The second moment of area of the steel section at an opening position was calculated
from the combination of the top and bottom tee sections, assuming plane sections
remain plane (i.e. ignoring shear deformation of the web-post).
The reduced second moment of area, I red of the steel section (Fig. 2.19), was given
by:
At Ab
I red = I t + I b + ( hs - X pt - X pb ) 2 (2.4a)
At + Ab
hs is the height of the steel section
I t and I b are the second moment of areas of the top and bottom Tee sections; At and
Ab are the cross sectional areas of the top and bottom Tee sections; X pt and X pb are
the distances of the centroids of the top and bottom Tee sections from the tips of their
respective flanges.
Fig. 2.19: Section through opening centre line (Cellbeam, 2014)
The effective second moment of area of the section, I eff , was calculated by taking the
proportionate stifnesses of the unreduced and reduced sections along the beam,
referred in Fig. 2.20.
Fig. 2.20: Section through opening centre line (Cellbeam)

The effective length of a circular opening was taken as 0.7D o in this
calculation (Cellbeam, 2014). It follows that I eff for deflection calculations was given by:
S - 0.7 Do 0.7 Do
I eff = Is + I red ( 2.4b)
S S
where I red is the second moment of area of the perforated section (section AA)
I s is the second moment of area of the solid section (section BB)
S is the centre to centre spacing of two adjacent openings
This same equation was used to take account of elongated openings close to the mid-
span zone. In this case the effective length of the opening was S + 0.7 Do .
Pure shear deflection
The pure shear deflection was calculated from the reduced shear area of the top and
bottom Tee sections. The pure shear deflection was stated to be generally small and
can be neglected for hand calculations (Cellbeam, 2014).
Vierendeel bending deflection
Vierendeel bending causes local distortion of the section around the openings. Two
components of this deflection were considered: Bending of the tee section, and
bending of the web post (Fig. 2.21).
Fig. 2.21: Bending of tee section and web post (Cellbeam, 2014)
The effective shear deflection caused by bending of the tee section was given:
l e 3ViVi
d vi = per unit length. ( 2.4c )
S12 E ( I t + I b )
where Vi is the shear force at opening i due to the applied loading; P, acting at any
position along the beam; Vi is the virtual shear force at opening i due to a unit load

applied at mid-span (Fig. 2.22); l e is the effective length of the opening, which is taken
as 0.9Ro for deflection calculations; S is centre to centre spacing of openings.
Fig. 2.22: Virtual work method to calculate shear deformation (Cellbeam, 2014)
The effective shear deflection per unit length for the cellular beam (Fig. 2.22) caused
by bending of the web post is calculated from a semi empirical formula, as a function of
the radius R of the opening, as follows:
13.15 S é æ S - 0 .9 R ö æ S - 2R ö æ S - 2R ö
2 ù
d v2 = V i V i ê log e ç ÷ + 2 ç ÷ - 0 . 5ç ÷ - 1 . 5 ú ( 2 .4 d )
Et h 2 êë è S - 2R ø è S - 0. 9 R ø è S - 0.9 R ø úû
This formula takes account of the varying stiffness of the web post over its height as
indicated on Fig. 2.22. The Vierendeel bending deflection was considered to be small
for a composite section, and can be ignored for composite beams. In this case, the
additional deflection due to openings is due to the change in second moment of area
along the beam. A typical part section of the beam used with Cellbeam is shown in Fig.
2.23.
Fig. 2.23: Part section of the beam (Cellbeam)
Critical exposition of Westok methods:
Preliminary design values (conservative approach)
· Westok is providing values (Appendix B1) for the second moment of area of the
available cellular beam section. The provided values are calculated at the centre of

the openings which is meant to be conservative. In fact the research study
reported herein shows that these values are not conservative.
Cellbeam program
· For the pure bending deflection, the method calculates the reduced second
moment of area ( I red ) at the opening centres which ignores the contribution of the
material at the corners of the openings. The effective second moment of area ( I eff
) is then calculated using an approximate method, equation 2.4b as a proportion of
the ( I red ) and ( I s ) values. The calculated I eff is based on two approximations
without substantiations.
· The shear deflection in the cellular beam is calculated using equations 2.4c
(bending of the Tee sections) and 2.4d (bending of the web-post). The calculation
uses existing equations in the SCI method P100 (Ward, 1990).
· In principle, the method is the same as the SCI method P100 (Ward, 1990) with
some modification to equations so that they can be incorporated into the software.
2.4.3 Finite element method
2.4.3.1 Deflection
In the past, the finite element method was utilised by several researchers to calculate
deflections of castellated beams (Iverson, 1969, Cheng, Hosain, and Neis, 1974). The
named authors found that it was not practical to obtain deflections by direct application
of finite element methods because of storage problems in the computer. Therefore they
developed an alternative method of predicting deflections of long span steel castellated
beams. Most of the studies undertaken, until the late seventies, by the above authors
including Srimani and Das (1977), on steel beams with web openings, treated the
beams as plane stress problem to simplify the problem and the modelling due to
computer storage problems. A two-dimensional analysis was undertaken by the
authors and the flanges, which present a three-dimensional problem, were modelled as
one-dimensional bar elements in the plane of the web having an area equivalent to that
of the flanges.

Few authors (Hosain and Neis, 1974) formed stiffness matrixes for a typical segment of
the beam using the finite element method (Fig. 2.24) and then computed the beam
deflection at the panel points by the conventional stiffness method.
Fig. 2.24: Typical member of castellated beam (Hosain and Neis, 1974)
The hatched area in Fig. 2.25 represents a typical segment (panel) of the castellated
steel beam. The beam is considered as an assemblage of such typical segments.
Different idealisations were tried by the authors. A typical Idealisation shown in (Fig
2.25) was first used to idealise a typical member that has 5 joints and 10 degree of
freedom. The number of degree of freedom was reduced by prescribing the same y-
displacement to the joints on the same line. The aim was to reduce the size of the
stiffness matrix.
Fig. 2.25: Half beam idealization for a typical member (Hosain and Neis, 1974)

Fig. 2.26: Typical FE mesh of castellated beam CB-1 (Srimani and Das, 1978)
Other authors (Srimani and Das, 1978) developed computer programs for the use of
IBM 1620 to compute the deflection in castellated beams. A typical finite element mesh
is shown for the castellated beam in Fig. 2.26. A linear edge displacement was
assumed to derive the element stiffness matrix for the rectangular, triangular and the
bar elements.
All these studies modelled the steel beams with a combination of rectangular and
triangular elements covering the web and axially loaded bar elements
replacing/representing the flanges. More recently Wakchaure and Sagade (2012) used
the finite element method to study deflection at the centre of a castellated beam and
also studied various failure patterns. The modelling was conducted using the finite
element software package ANSYS14. An analysis was carried out on a beam with two
point loads and simply supported conditions. The geometrical details of the beams
analysed were simulated using the four-node shell element. This element has five
degrees of freedom at each node, two translations and three rotations, which enables
explicit simulation of various buckling deformations. A typical model showing the
transverse deflection is presented in Fig. 2.27.
The findings of their study were modest. From the finite element analysis results, it was
concluded that castellated steel beams behave satisfactorily with regards to
serviceability requirements up to a maximum web opening depth of 0.6h, ‘h’ being the

section depth. Castellated beams proved to be efficient for moderately loaded longer
spans where the design was controlled by deflection.
Fig. 2.27: Total deflection of Ic 225mm (Wakchaure and Sagade 2012)
Other authors such as Panedpojaman and Thepchatri (2013) have recently
investigated the effect of the cellular beam configuration on the deflection. Their initial
theoretical deflection at mid-span of the cellular beams was calculated based on the
second moment of area at the opening centres. These deflections were then multiplied
by two factors; one to deal with slenderness; and the other associated with the number
opening effects. They reported that this method is inaccurate for some of the cellular
beams with close opening spacing. Therefore their study was diverted to conduct a
parametric study using the three-dimensional finite element analysis of 408 simply
supported cellular beams under uniform load using the FE program ANSYS. The
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, Young’s modulus of 2 ´ 105 MPa, and yield stress of 245 MPa
were assumed in the analyses of the beams. Beam section sizes as follows:
slenderness ratio in the range of 5 to 40; opening spacing to diameter ratio in the range
of 1.1 to 1.8; opening depth to original beam depth in the range of 0.8 to 1.2; beam
section sizes of H400 ´ 300 ´ 107, H500 ´ 200 ´ 89.6, H700 ´ 300 ´ 185 and H800 ´ 300 ´
210. The cellular beams were modelled using eight-node solid element (Solid45) using
ANYS with three degrees of freedom (DOF) at each node.
Stress analysis in the web-post was also conducted. The effect of span to depth ratios,
the opening diameter to the original beam depth ratios, opening spacing to opening
diameter ratios, and the area of the flange to the area of the web ratios were
investigated in terms of the stiffness obtained from the FE model (stiffness being the

ratio of the uniformly distributed load to the maximum deflection obtained from the FE
analysis) and the ratio of the FE stiffness to the theoretical stiffness (theoretical
stiffness being the ratio of the uniformly distributed load to the theoretical deflection
obtained from the theoretical equation discussed above). Their aim was to calibrate the
theoretical formula so that it can predict deflection more accurately.
They concluded that the stiffness of the cellular beams was increased with smaller
opening diameter, increased span to depth ratios, and increased opening spacing.
They also concluded that the theoretical deflection can be used for large values of span
to depth ratios. Big discrepancy between the FE and the theoretical was observed with
smaller span to depth ratios.
The stress distribution of the finite element (FE) model revealed that the strut stress in
the web-post contributed to the increasing deflection in addition to the regular bending
deflection. The effect of the strut stress (Fig. 2.28) was found to be significant for the
deflection of the short-span beams but less so for the long-span beams. To convert the
theoretical bending deflection to the overall deflection, the calibrating coefficient
function was established by using the empirical study. The function was formulated in
terms of the slenderness, spacing and cross section ratio.
Fig. 2.28: Total deflection of Ic 225mm (Panedpojaman and Thepchatri 2013)
2.4.3.2 Stress analysis
The finite element method was also used by several researchers to investigate stress
distributions in castellated beams (Iverson, 1969; Humphrey and Sunley, 1968; Cheng,
Hosain, and Neis, 1974). Since stress analysis is only normally required in an isolated

area, where stresses are critical, the finite element method is very appropriate and may
be applied to a segment of a castellated beam of any size (Cheng, Hosain, and Neis,
1974).
Hoffman et. al. (2006) employed finite element analysis to determine the elastic stress
distributions around the interior cells of the beam and the failure behaviour of coped
cellular beams (the corners of the beam or the flanges are removed so that it can fit
into the adjoining column) under loading and boundary conditions more commonly
found in practice. To accomplish this, they used the finite element method in parallel
with testing 18 ASTM A570 Grade 50 steel cellular beams.
b. Three dimensional model
c. Tangential stress results around the second and third cell
Fig. 2.29: Finite element model and tangential stress distributions (Hoffman et. al, 2006)

In parallel with the testing, three dimensional finite element (FE) models (Fig. 2.29a)
were constructed in the ANSYS program for each of the tested beams. A linear elastic
isotropic material model (elastic modulus, E = 29x106 psi and Poisson’s ratio, ν = 0.3)
was used. The type of elements was not given in the paper. Since the goals were two-
fold, two separate models of varying complexity were constructed. Due to the shear
flow around the openings, tangential stress gave the best overall picture of the stress
field around the opening. A comparison between experimental stresses and FE
stresses results, as a function of the angular position around the opening for the
second and third openings, was made (Fig. 2.29b). They concluded that stresses
varied greatly depending on the angular location and the maximum stress magnitude,
whilst the location varied from opening to opening.
Yost et. al. (2012) also used the finite element method to study stress distributions in a
cellular beam. ANSYS Version 7.0 was used to develop three-dimensional finite
element models. The model (Fig. 2.30a) was linear elastic for deformation and material
behaviour with isotropic material properties. The three-dimensional model was meshed
with 20-noded hexagonal elements. The finite element method was used to determine
the stress contours (Fig. 2.30b). The findings are given in section 2.4.1.1.
The review of the finite element studies on deflection and stress distributions showed
that at the early stages 2-D analysis was undertaken. Plane stress elements were used
for the web and bar elements for the flanges. In addition rectangular, triangular and bar
elements were utilised accordingly.
In the last two decades with the advances in computations and finite element
packages, researchers used more appropriate 3-D modes to analyse cellular beams. A
four-node shell element (Wakchaure and Sagade, 2012) or an eight-node solid element
‘Solid45’ (Panedpojaman and Thepchatri, 2013) or a 20-noded hexagonal shell
elements (Yost et. al., 2012) have been used to model the geometry of the beams.

a. Finite element model b. Stress contours in N/mm2
Fig. 2.30: Finite element model and the stress contours (Yost et. al., 2012)
2.5 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON CASTELLATED AND CELLULAR

BEAMS
2.5.1 Experimental investigation on castellated beams
The details of the experimental tests undertaken on castellated beams are presented in
Appendix B2
2.5.1.1 Testes carried out by British Steel (1958, 1960)
The deflection of castellated beams with hexagonal openings was studied by British
Steel (1958, 1960). In the first literature (1958) two separate tests on two different
specimens were undertaken. The beams were loaded at two quarter span points such
that it gave the same maximum bending moment at mid-span as if the load was equally
distributed. Two approximate formulae were developed for beams with constant
second moment of area. The results showed that there was a 10% difference between
the beams loaded at quarter span points and equally distributed loading. The recorded
deflections from the tests were compared with the calculated deflection using the
simple bending theory and a constant second moment of area equal to the net second
moment of area of a corresponding beam at a section through an opening.
In the second literature, the deflection of four castellated beams of different sizes has
been investigated by British Steel (1960), while they were loaded in a test frame. The
measured deflections were compared with the calculated deflections using the simple
bending theory. An approximate formula was developed for the mid-span deflection.

The literature stated that the measured deflections exceeded those calculated by the
simple bending theory and the disagreement becomes greater the shorter the span.
The literature didn’t explain the reasons behind those findings. It appeared that at the
time there was not much understanding of the shear and other deformations
associated with castellated beams.
2.5.1.2 Test by Kolosowsky, 1964
Kolosowski (1964) tested one castellated beam to examine its deflection and failure
mode. The overall height of this beam was 150% of its parent section, the span
to depth ratio was 10 and the web post had the angle of 56.3 degree (this angle is 60
degree in UK sections). The beam eventually failed due to overall lateral torsional
buckling as there were no lateral restraints provided within the supports. Kolosowski
was expecting a failure similar to a Vierendeel truss. The detail of the beam is given in
Appendix B2- Fig. B1
2.5.1.3 Tests by Hossain and Speirs, 1973
Hossain and Speirs (Hossain and Speirs, 1973) conducted tests on 12 simple
castellated steel beams (Appendix B2- Table B.1). The objective of the experiment was
to study the effect of opening geometry on the mode of failure and the ultimate strength
of such beams. The effects of changes in the number of panels on the performance of
beams having the same span and expansion ratio were investigated. An attempt was
also made to study the phenomenon of web buckling due to compression and due to
shear in the framework of the existing approximate method of design.
2.5.1.4 Tests by Srimani and Das, 1978
They authors conducted experimental tests on five full sized members including one
tapered beam to evaluate the theoretical solution. The results of the tests have not
been published.

2.5.1.5 Tests by Nethercot and Kerdal, 1982
Two series of tests were conducted on castellated beams: a preliminary series on
specially manufactured small-scale specimens designed to provide qualitative data and
a second series of eight full-scale tests using commercially produced beams. The
results of the preliminary series, subsequently confirmed by the main series of tests,
suggested that the presence of the castellation has negligible effect on lateral buckling
behaviour. Comparisons between the experimentally obtained maximum loads for the
main series and the strengths predicted by the proposed draft Code for structural
steelwork B/20 proved generally satisfactory, provided cross-sectional properties at a
castellation were used in the calculations. The detail of the tested castellated beam is
given in Appendix B2- Table B.2.
2.5.1.6: Tests by Zaarour and Reedwood (1996)
The web-post buckling was only known as a major failure of such beams since 1996
when Zaarour and Redwood (Zaarour and Redwood, 1996) tested 12 short span (3000
mm) castellated beams with thin webs and a minimum web post width to opening depth
ratio ranging from 0.18 to 0.26. Most of these beams failed due to web post buckling
and the rest failed due to lateral-torsional buckling. Redwood and Demirdjian (1998)
also focused on the web post buckling by testing four short span castellated beams
with the UK cutting details. In these tests, they observed a double curvature buckling
shape in the web-post of all but the longest beam in which the web buckled with a
single curvature. The test results showed that web post buckling loads were not
sensitive to the moment/shear ratio.
2.5.2 Experimental investigation on cellular beams
2.5.2.1 Tests by Redwood and McCutcheon 1968
Redwood and McCutcheon (1968) carried out 19 experiment tests on a series of
beams (8WF17) containing one or two openings. Tests were undertaken on 8WF17
beams with circular, rectangular and flat sided openings with semi-circular ends (flange
width 133.4mm, flange thickness 7.8mm, overall height 203.2mm, web thickness

5.8mm), and A36 steel grade (nominal yield strength 248N/mm2). All openings were at
mid-depth of the beam and their dimension and spacing are shown in Appendix B3- Fig
B.2. All openings had a maximum depth of 4.5 inches (114.3mm)- 57% of the beam
depth. The opening edges were finished by machining. The applied load details are
given in in Appendix B3- Fig. B.3. Four different values of the shear moment ratio at the
openings were tested, one of these being pure bending. Measurements made during
the tests consisted only of deflections at several points along the beams and at the
supports. The information required from these tests was the plastic moment at the
opening when the failure occurred. It was considered that this could adequately be
constructed by plotting the moment at the opening against the deflection of any point in
the span of the beam. The mid-point was used in every case.
The results of the measured values of the web and the flange yield stresses, tensile
strengths, the second moment of area, the full plastic moment, and the yield stresses
are given in Appendix B3- Table B3.
The literature concluded the following: under pure bending the moment capacity of the
beams with one or two openings can be calculated based on the plastic modulus of the
net section through the opening; the presence of shear reduced the moment capacity
of the beams below that for pure bending; for single and double circular openings the
moment capacity reduced linearly from the pure bending value by approximately 64%-
72% of the plastic moment of the gross section at the shear moment ratio of 0.425.
2.5.2.2 Tests carried out by Bradford University 1985
The first series of full scale destructive tests were carried out on cellular beams at
Bradford University under the supervision of the Steel Construction Institute (SCI,
1985) where the phenomenon of web-post flexural buckling was observed as shown in
Fig. 2.31. The results of these tests were not published but the relevant design guide
published later by the SCI, titled P100 (Ward, 1990), mentioned that web post flexural
buckling was observed in the tests.

Fig. 2.31: Web post buckling (University of Bradford tests) - SCI P100 (Ward, 1990)
As a result, reviews of the available design methods, were undertaken on cellular
beams and analytical studies were carried out using non-linear FEA to investigate the
capacity of the web posts and the upper and lower tees.
2.5.2.3 Tests undertaken by Surtees and Liu 1995 (Leeds University)
A set of 7 tests were carried out on single and continuous cellular beams at Leeds
University (Surtees and Li, 1995) again under the supervision of the Steel Construction
Institute (Appendix B3- Fig. B4). The aim was to seek greater accuracy in modelling the
behaviour of cellular beams under normal service loading as well as at the point of
failure. Based on these tests it was shown that the use of full height web stiffeners at
the location of point loads invariably increased the loading resistance of the beam.
However, most of the tests were carried out without web stiffeners in order to promote
the most critical conditions in the test.
2.5.2.4 Tests carried out by Warren (2001)
Two different sizes of beams were chosen for testing, namely 203X133X25 and
305X102X25 Universal I-beams. For each size, two ratios of S / D were used
(Appendix B3.3- Fig. B5). The beam spans varied between 3.1- 8.2m. The aim of the
tests was to assess the reliability of the existing method presented by SCI and improve
it where necessary. All of these beams failed due to Vierendeel mechanism apart from
one beam which failed due to web-post buckling. Warren concluded that the SCI
method was accurate in predicting the failure mode but generally over conservative.
The test data of three beams has been used in this research to validate the numerical
approach used to model the cellular beams.

2.5.2.5 Tests by Yost et al. (2012)
The experimental component of this research consisted of laboratory testing of two
cellular beam designs, with four identical beams per design. The two beam designs
were designated LB2 and LB3 with all relevant elevation and cross-section dimensions
provided in Fig. 2.32. Beams LB2 have a depth of 529 mm (20.8 in.), cell diameter of
387 mm (15.25 in.), and there was a web post at mid-span. Beams LB3 have a depth
of 606.6 mm (23.9 in.), cell diameter of 444.5 mm (17.5 in), and there was a cell at mid-
span.
Fig. 2.32: Test beam details (Yost, 2012)
Load and end support conditions were modelled as shown in Fig. 2.33, where it was
noted that all beams were subjected to concentrated point loads and the beam was
shear connected at the ends. The equally spaced point loads were applied to simulate
a uniformly distributed force pattern (w) applied on the top flange of the test beam.
Fig. 2.33: Experimental load, support, and strain instrumentation (Yost, 2012)

Lateral bracing of the top and bottom flanges was provided (Fig. 2.33). However the full
results of the tests were not provided. Deflection results were provided for both beam
types LB-2 and LB-3 (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Measured and finite element analysis deflection results (Yost, 2012)
2.6 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND ORIGINALITY OF THIS RESEARCH
Based on the literature review, the following gaps are concluded:
Linear elastic analysis: stress distributions in cellular beams
· Limited studies are generally available to investigate stress distributions in cellular
beams at the opening centres, in the web-post and in the flanges. Since the recent
advances in computations and FE methods, adequate attention has not been given to
investigate stress distributions in cellular beams.
· Most previous numerical studies and investigations assumed that points of
inflections occur at the opening centres (Kolosowski, 1964; Knowles, 1987; Ward, SCI
1990; Warren, 2001; Yost et. al., 2012; Cellbeam, 2014). This assumption formed the
basis for many studies, to simplify the calculation of the secondary Vierendeel bending
stresses which need to be validated.
· The results from the experiments revealed that the theory of bending
underestimates deflection by approximately 20-30% and a form of Vierendeel action is
taking place.
Linear elastic analysis: deflections of cellular beams
· A number of studies (Westok, 2012; Cellbeam, 2014) used the analogy of utilising
the geometrical properties at the opening centres on the basis that it is conservative.
The focus was on the reduced section in the web as a result of the opening and its
implication on the reduced second moment of area of the beam. The adopted methods
were simplistic. Ward (SCI P100, 1990) suggested calculating the bending deflection

using the second moment of area at the opening centres and added simplistically 25%
for the shear effect.
· Most of the previous studies have adopted the Vierendeel analogy to solve the
deflection problem of beams with web openings as it simplifies the calculation. It is true
that Vierendeel analogy produced more reliable values and it was an improvement to
the application of simple theory of bending. Kolosowski (1964) was first to conclude
that the theory of bending underestimates deflection by 20-30%. However cellular
beams do not behave exactly like a Vierendeel girder. Depicting a cellular beam with a
Vierendeel girder is not entirely exact owning to the fact that the openings are small
compared with the overall dimensions of the girder and the members of the Vierendeel
truss are relatively short.
· Few analytical methods (Ward, SCI P100; Warren, 2001; Knowles, 1964) were
proposed to calculate deflection in cellular beams. These methods were generally
complicated and not easy to use in the design office, and they are based on above
discussed analogies and assumptions. In addition they ignore the shear deformations
in the flanges and underestimate shear deformation in the web. The most popular
method proposed by SCI-P100 is complicated and tedious for use by practicing
engineers regardless of its accuracy.
Non-linear elastic analysis: modes of failure in cellular beam
· Previous studies were mainly focused on castellated beams. Most of the studies
(Redwood and Aglan, 1974; Redwood et. al. 1996; Redwood et.al., 1998; Soltani, et.
al., 2012; Tsavdaridis, et. al. 2011; Showkati, et. al. 2012) investigated analytically one
type of the failure mode such as web-post buckling and very few investigated all modes
of failure in castellated beams (Kerdal and Nethercot, 1984) using the results of the
experimental data.
· There are limited studies on failure modes in cellular beams. However Hennessey
(2004) and Chung et. al. (2000) investigated Vierendeel mechanism in steel beams
with circular openings; Chung (1995) also investigated structural performance of cold-
formed sections with single and multiple web openings; Ward (SCI P100, 1990)

investigated the failure modes of non-composite cellular beams; Hoffman et. al. (2006)
investigated the failure behaviour of coped (the corners of the beam or the flanges are
removed so that it can fit into the adjoining column) cellular beams under loading and
boundary conditions more commonly found in practice. There are no numerical studies
to investigate the interaction between all the failure modes. Shear failure has also not
been thoroughly investigated in the available literature. Lateral torsional buckling
investigation has not been undertaken for unsymmetrical cellular beams with smaller
top flanges compared with that of the bottom flange where it is critical in the temporary
condition.
Based on the summary the main objectives of the research are as follows:
Linear analysis: Stress distributions
· Undertake numerical linear elastic finite element analysis to investigate stress
distributions in cellular beams under serviceability conditions. Using finite element
numerical analysis, investigate stress distribution at the opening centres, in the web-
post and in flanges of cellular beams.
Using numerical finite element method, investigate the stress distribution at the
opening centres and validate the common assumption that point of inflection occurs at
the opening centres. Using the finite element method investigate shear distribution in
the web-post
Linear analysis: Deflection
· Compile a strategy to find a solution to the deflection problem. The solution
strategy should have the following characteristics; be original, distinguishable, relatively
more accurate, and provide a better understanding and meaning to the problem
compared with the available existing solutions. Initially seek to develop analytical
solutions to the problem. If the problem is complicated and analytical solutions are not
possible then seek to utilise alternative numerical methods to simplify and solve the
problem.

Non-linear elastic analysis: modes of failure of cellular beam
· Undertake numerical non-linear elastic analysis using finite element methods to
investigate the modes of failure of cellular beams. Examine the effect of the
geometrical configurations on the modes of failure together with their interactions.

CHAPTER 3 NUMERICAL MODELLING, DEVELOPMENT
AND VALIDATION
3.1 NUMERICAL MODELLING USING LUSAS
Finite element (FE) modelling using LUSAS was intensively used in this project to
develop solutions and check the correctness of the analytical solutions. The accuracy
and validity of the adopted analytical method in the research is dependent on
appropriate use of the finite element software (LUSAS) to model accurately the
behaviour of the cellular beams. The simulation 3D models cover a wide range of
beams with different configurations such as span to depth ratios, opening sizes and
spacing, even or odd numbers and loading regimes associated with linear static
analysis. In addition the nonlinear elastic investigation into the modes of failure of
cellular beams in terms of flexural/bending, Vierendeel mechanism, and web-post
buckling is also dependent on the appropriate use of the software to correctly simulate
the behaviour of cellular beams in each failure mode. Therefore the FE models should
be validated and mesh size sensitivity of the models should be investigated before any
use.
The objectives of this chapter are:
· To validate the FE models against available experimental measurements
· To conduct a mesh sensitivity study to identify the right mesh size for further
study
This chapter covers the following topics. An overview of the adopted numerical
modelling in LUSAS will be discussed in terms of the solver type and the element types
used for different analyses. The experimental data used for the validation study include
the tests carried out at Natal University (Warren, 2001) as they are comprehensive and
can be used for combined purposes (table 3.1).
Chapter 3 Numerical Modelling, Development and Validation 76

3.1.1 Analyses type
The facility ‘General Structural Analysis’ available in LUSAS is used to carry out all
kinds of linear static, eigenvalue, and nonlinear analysis. Unless specified otherwise,
LUSAS will perform a linear elastic analysis.
Linear elastic finite element analysis
Linear elastic finite element analysis assumes that all materials are linear elastic in
behaviour and that deformations are small enough to not significantly affect the overall
behaviour of the structure (LUSAS, 2014). Obviously, this description applies to very
few situations in the real world, but with a few restrictions and assumptions linear
analysis will suffice for the majority of engineering applications.
Eigenvalue analysis; eigenvalue is also a linear analysis. Eigenvalue analysis has
many applications. The main ones are eigenvalue frequency analysis, buckling load
analysis and stiffness analysis. Buckling load is used in conjunction with the non-linear
analysis to predict structural instability or bifurcation points during a geometrically
nonlinear analysis associated with web-post buckling analysis.
Nonlinear Analysis
Three types of nonlinear analysis can be modelled using LUSAS; Geometrical
Nonlinearity, Boundary Nonlinearity and Material Nonlinearity. Geometrical as well as
material nonlinearities have been used in the further analysis.
3.1.2 Types of element used (LUSAS 2014)
2D analysis
For the two-dimensional linear analysis of the cellular web, plane stress elements
(Quadrilateral elements QPM8) have been used in the modelling (Fig. 3.1).
Fig. 3.1: Plane stress element QPM8 (LUSAS, 2014)

This element has the following specification; structural element type is plane stress;
element shape is quadrilateral; interpolation order is quadratic. The element
formulations are based on the standard isoparametric approach. The variation of
stresses within an element can be regarded as constant for the lower order (corner
node only) elements, and linear for the higher (mid-side node) elements. It should be
noted that validation study against experimental measurements has not been
undertaken for the modelling of the cellular web using 2D FE analysis in LUSAS as it
has not been possible to find experimental data on cellular web beams.
3D analysis
For the three dimensional linear elastic analysis of the cellular beams thin QSI4 and
thick QTS4 shell elements as appropriate have been used (Figures 3.2 and 3.3) to
models both the web and the flanges due to their computational efficiency. The
difference between the two is that transverse shear is excluded with the thin shell
elements. Therefore for the stress analysis thick shell elements are used as the
transverse shear deformations are relevant and for the deflection analyses thin shell
elements are used as the transvers shear is less relevant.
Fig. 3.2: Thin shell element QSI4 (LUSAS, 2014)
Fig. 3.3: Thick shell element QTS4 (LUSAS, 2014)
For the 3D non-linear analysis thick shell elements have been used. LUSAS offers 4
types of thick shell elements TTS3 (Traingular-3 nodes), TTS6 (triangular- 6 nodes),
QTS4 (quadrilateral- 4 nodes)- Fig. 3.4, and QTS8 (quadrilateral- 8 nodes)- Fig. 3.4.

The two quadrilateral elements QTS4 and QTS8 have been used in the modelling of
cellular beams when investigating the modes of failures because of their computational
efficiency.
Fig. 3.4: Thick shell element QTS8 (LUSAS 2014)
3.1.3 Material properties
For the 2D and 3D linear elastic analyses the modulus of elasticity E and the Poisson’s
ratio are taken as 200kN/mm2 and 0.3 respectively.
For the 3D non-linear analysis of the tested beams used in the validation, the stress-
strain curve for the material was obtained from the results of tensile tests conducted by
Warren (2001) on the beam materials. The failure load and yield stresses were also
obtained from the test results. For the 3D non-linear analysis associated with
investigating modes of failure in CBs, the material properties have been obtained from
BS EN 1993-1-1 (2005)
3.2 CELLULAR BEAMS SELECTED FOR VALIDATION
The numerical models of CBs were validated against the experimental data (Warren
2001, Appendix B2) conducted on cellular beams and are summarised in Table 3.1.
The following assumptions have been undertaken in the analysis.
Assumptions for linear analysis:
· The loads are applied instantaneously and transient effects are ignored
· Deformations are small enough to not significantly affect the overall behaviour
of the structure.
· The material responses are assumed to be linear.
Treatment of the non-linear analysis
· The loads are applied in increments

· Use of thick shell elements with a linear and quadratic deformation variation
with the ability to handle large deformation, large strains and plasticity.
· Load increments procedure to Newton-Raphson method is to be used. To
investigate post buckling behaviour Arc-length method is to be used.
· Geometrical and material nonlinearities have been considered in the analyses.
Table 3.1: Details of selected beams for validation

Warren
BEAM 4A: Lateral restraints
To validate
models used
to determine
deflection,
flange 8.2m
stresses, and
the non-linear Beam details: Parent section is 305x102x25; total CB height is 463.2mm; opening
flexural failure diameter is 325mm; number of openings is 20; opening spacing is 400mm; flange
width is 101.6mm; flange thickness is 6.8mm; span is 8.2m; and web thickness is
5.8mm.
Warren
BEAM 4B:
To validate
models used
to determine
stresses at
opening 7.4m
centres, and
non-linear Beam details: Similar to Beam 4A apart from the number of openings is 18 and the
web-post span is 7.4m
buckling
failure
Warren
BEAM 2A:
To validate
models used 3.8m
to investigate
non-linear
plastic Beam details: Parent section is 203X133X25; total CB height is 309.3mm; 12
Vierendeel openings, opening diameter is 225mm; opening spacing is 300mm; flange width is
failure 133.4mm; flange thickness is 7.8mm; web thickness is 5.8mm and span is 3.8m
The type of steel for the above three beam types is grade 300W. For the linear elastic
analysis the steel has the following properties: poison’s ratio (0.3) and E value of
200kN/mm2. For the non-linear analysis the yield stresses are derived from the
experimental tensile tests on samples taken from each beam, and different values are
obtained for the flanges and the web (Table 2.6- Warren, 2001). The stress-strain

curves obtained from the experimental tests are given later for each beam as
appropriate.
3.3 VALIDATION FOR DEFLECTION
3.3.1 Experimental set up
In this section Warren Beam 4A will be used to validate the FE model used for
investigating deflection. Beam 4A is 305X102X25 (Table 3.1) and it is part of an eight
cellular beams selected by Warren (2001) for testing (Appendix B3.3). The detail of
Beam 4A is given in Table 3.1. Three vertical dial gauges (V1-V3) were evenly spaced
along half of the beam. A strain gauge was attached to the bottom of the flange. Fig.
3.5 shows the gauge locations for Beam 4A. The details of the beam testing equipment
are shown in Fig. 3.6.
Dial gauges to determine

vertical displacement
Strain gauge to determine

flange stresses
4.1m
Fig. 3.5: Experimental set up Warren Beam 4A (Warren, 2001)- the dial gauge locations
Fig. 3.6: Typical beam test details (Warren, 2001)

3.3.2 Finite element modelling- deflection
Fig. 3.7 shows the FE modelling of Beam 4A. The FE quadrilateral thin shell element
QSI4 is used to model the CB 4A. A number of lateral supports were provided to the
top and bottom flanges by Warren (2001) as shown in Fig. 3.7 to prevent lateral
torsional buckling. These lateral supports have been similarly considered in the
modelling of the beam. A modulus of elasticity of 200kN/mm2 and a Poisson’s ratio of
0.3 have been used in the FE model
a. Elevation view
Element type: Thin shell- QSI4

Element shape: Quadrilateral
Interpolation: Linear
Element size: 25mm
b. Isometric view c. closer view

Fig. 3.7: FE model typical of Warren Beam 4A
3.3.3 Comparison with experimental results- deflection
A number of analyses were carried out considering various mesh densities to find the
suitable element mesh size in the numerical modelling. The deflections obtained from
these analyses were compared firstly with the linear part of the experimental data and
later with each other as a sensitivity analysis to determine the computational efficiency.
Table 3.2 compares the deflections from the experiment and FE models with different
mesh sizes (100mm; 50mm; 25mm; and 10mm) at three locations (V1-V3)- Fig. 3.5.
The % difference between the experimental and the FE analyses is given between the
two brackets in the table. It is clear from table 3.2 that as the mesh sizes are reduced
the discrepancy between the two results reduces and deflections associated with 25
and 10mm mesh sizes are in good agreement with the experimental results.

Table 3.2: Comparison between deflections from experiment and LUSAS results- Beam
4A
æ Exp. - FEA ö
Deflection (mm) çç ´ 100 ÷÷ %
è Ep. ø
Location Applied Exp. FEA FEA FEA FEA
(Fig. 3.6) Load (mesh (mesh (mesh (mesh
(kN) size=100mm) size=50mm) size=25mm) size=10mm)
V1 15.79 13.6 (13.87%) 13.95 (11.65%) 14.13 (10.51%) 14.20 (10.07%)
V2 60 29.00 26.4 (8.96%) 27.06 (6.69%) 27.46 (5.31%) 27.64 (4.69%)
V3 37.65 36.01 (4.35%) 36.77 (2.33%) 37.73 (-0.212%) 38.00 (-0.93)
The % difference between the FE and the experimental results varied at V1, V2 and
V3. The discrepancy between the two results was greater at V1 and V2 compared with
those at V3. This is likely to be due to a number of factors. The geometry of the
fabricated cellular beam might not be exactly the same as those modelled. The
material properties might not be homogeneous along the beam. The testing conditions
at V1, V2, and V3 might have been different to those modelled. Taking into account
that the study considered deflection at mid-span, it was considered logical to select the
results at V3 for comparison.
Table 3.3 compares the CPU times used for the four different meshes.
Table 3.3: CPU time versus mesh sizes

Element detail Mesh size CPU (Sec.) Relative CPU
(mm)
100 44.04 1.00
Thick shell QTS4
50 121.32 2.75
FEA Model using Quadrilateral
LUSAS Linear 25 445.15 10.10
interpolation
Regular mesh 10 3651.4 82.91
It can be seen from Table 3.3 that the CPU time for a 10mm mesh size is
approximately 8 times greater than that associated with a 25mm mesh size.
Considering accuracy and calculation efficiency, the mesh size of 25mm is selected for
further analysis in this thesis.
3.4 VALIDATION FOR STRESSES
In this section Warren Beams 4A and 4B are used to validate the FE models employed
to determine stresses in the flanges and at the opening centres respectively.

3.4.1 Flange stresses- Warren Beam 4A
The CB 4A (Table 3.1, Fig. 3.5) has been used to validate the FE models employed to
determine flange stresses. The beam has been modelled in a similar manner to those
in section 3.3.2. A number of analyses are carried out considering various mesh
densities to find a suitable mesh size in the numerical modelling. The flange stresses
obtained from these analyses at the selected location (Fig. 3.5) are compared firstly
with the experimental results and later with each other as a sensitivity analysis to
determine the computational efficiency. Table 3.4 compares the stresses from the
models with different mesh sizes (100mm; 50mm; 25mm; and 10mm) with the stresses
from the experimental data. Table 3.4 shows that the results from the FE analyses are
generally in close agreement with the experimental data. The FE results from the 10
and 25mm meshes are generally closer and in a better agreement with the
experimental data. Considering the accuracy obtained in this validation together with
the calculation efficiency discussed before, the mesh of 25mm size will be used in the
subsequent modelling to determine flange stresses.
Table 3.4: Comparison between flange stresses from experiment and LUSAS- Warren Beam 4A
æ Exp. - FEA ö
Stresses (N/mm ) çç ´ 100 ÷÷ %
2
è Ep . ø
Load (mesh (mesh (mesh (mesh
(kN) size=100mm) size=50mm) size=25mm) size=10mm)
(Fig. 3.6) 40 165.00 157.83 (4.34% 160.76 (2.56%) 162.31 (1.63%) 164.04 (0.58%)
3.4.2 Opening centre stresses- Warren Beam 4B
3.4.2.1 Experimental set up for Beam 4B
Warren Beam 4B (testing details previously discussed in section 3.3.1) has been used
to validate the FE models employed to determine stresses at the opening centres.
Strain gauge to determine opening centre stresses
3.6m
Fig. 3.8: Beam 4B (Warren, 2001) showing location of strain gauges

The detail of Beam 4B is given in Table 3.1. Fig. 3.8 shows the location of the strain
gauge installed to determine stresses at opening centres.
3.4.2.2 Finite Element Modelling
The modelling of Warren Beam 4B has been similar to that of Beam 4A (section 3.3.2).
The lateral supports which were provided to the top and bottom flanges (Table 3.1) by
Warren (2001) have been similarly considered in the modelling of the beam.
3.4.2.3 Comparison with experimental data
A number of elastic analyses are carried out considering various mesh densities to find
the suitable element mesh size in the numerical modelling. Table 3.5 compares the
stresses from the FE models with different mesh sizes (100mm; 50mm; 25mm;
and10mm) with the stresses from the experimental data. Table 3.5 shows that the
results from the 10 and 25mm meshes are very close and in a good agreement with
the experimental data. Considering the accuracy and the calculation efficiency
discussed before, the mesh size of 25mm is selected for further analyses to determine
stresses at the opening centres.
Table 3.5: Comparison between opening centre stresses from exp. and LUSAS- Warren
Beam 4A
æ Exp. - FEA ö
Stresses (N/mm ) çç ´ 100 ÷÷ %
2
è Ep. ø
Load (kN) (mesh (mesh (mesh (mesh
size=100mm) size=50mm) size=25mm) size=10mm)
(Fig. 3.9) 40 112..0 100.24 (10.5%) 103.12 (7.92%) 107.6 (3.92%) 108.0 (3.57%)
3.5 NONLINEAR FLEXTURAL FAILURE- WARREN BEAM 4A
3.5.1 Finite element modelling
Warren Beam 4A previously modelled has been used for this validation study. Few
changes have been made to the model. The stress-strain curve used for the material
has been obtained from the results of the one-dimensional tensile test conducted on
the web and flange materials separately. The failure load and yield stresses for the web
and flanges have been obtained from Table 2.6 (Warren, 2001).

The stress-strain curve given by Warren (2001) (Appendix C1) has been modified to
suit this validation study. The modulus of elasticity of 200kN/mm2 and the Poisson’s
ratio of 0.3 were kept unchanged in the FE model. Fig. 3.9 shows the stress-strain
curve for both the web and flange materials that are used in the finite element model.
0.021655, 477
500 0.021715, 440
0.002215, 430 500
Stresses (N/mm2)
0.00255, 437
450
Stresses (N/mm2)
450
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 Stress strain curve- 250 Stress strain curve-
200 web material 200 flange material
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Strain Strain
a: Web material b: Flange material
Fig. 3.9: Material specification for Beam 4A used in the FE model (Warren, 2001)
3.5.2 Modes of failure and failure load
It is mentioned in the test report (Warren, 2001) that the beam showed no tendency to
buckle laterally until plastic failure was well developed. The report stated that the rate
of vertical deflection increased as the load was increased further from 65kN. At a load
of 90kN the beam continued to deflect under a constant load. Bending failure was
reported at this load. The failure mode predicted by LUSAS software has also been in
bending. Fig. 3.10 shows the bending failure mode of Warren Beam 4A. It also shows
the development of the Von-Mises stresses as the load increases and also reveals the
agreement with the test data (Fig. 3.10c).
It can be seen from Fig. 3.10a that the Von-Mises stresses were 452.36N/mm 2 under
the point load of 93.5kN at mid-span in the top and bottom tees. These stresses were
slightly greater than the yield stress of the flange material which was 437.0N/mm2. This
showed the agreement between the stresses developed in the model and the
experimental results. The slight discrepancy (3.5%) might be that the material in the
flanges is not the same as that tested. The beam was reported (Warren, 2001) to fail
due to developing plastic bending in the top flange under the point load of 90kN (Fig.
3.10c). Two nonlinear analyses were undertaken to investigate further the failure load

and the behaviour; 1st analysis, nonlinear analysis without the application of
geometrical nonlinearity and the 2nd analysis, nonlinear analysis with the application of
geometrical nonlinearity.
Point load=93.5kN
a: Flexural failure using LUSAS
Point load=100.37KN
b: Von Mises stresses versus the applied load

The beam was
painted with
PVA on one
side. When the
metal yielded
and the paint
cracked and
the yield
pattern was
revealed when
the cracked
paint was
brushed off the
beam c: Flexural failure (Warren, 2001)
Fig. 3.10: Development of Von Mises stresses versus the applied load- Flexural
failure of Warren Beam 4A- at V3
Fig. 3.11 shows load-deflection curve predicted by LUSAS software and the test results
near mid-span at V3. It can be seen from the figure that the results of the LUSAS
software were in agreement with the test result in the linear part of the curve. However

there were some differences in the failure load. In the 1st FE analysis the beam
continued to deflect beyond 200mm at a load of 110.0kN, while in the 2 nd FE analysis
the beam deflected up to 88.0mm at a load of 100.7kN. The failure mode predicted by
both FE analyses was in agreement with the experimental result. However the failure
load was approximately 11% higher than the test result (90kN) which is found to be
reasonable taking into account many other factors affecting the test results such as the
exact position of the load during the testing, the adequacy of the provided lateral
supports (set up), and the variation in material properties.
120.0
FEA (Failure load)
Applied load (KN)
110.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
Experimental (Failure
70.0
60.0
Experimental
50.0
FEA_Lusas (No geometrical nonlinearity)
40.0
FEA_Lusas (geometrical nonlinearity)
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 220.00
Deflection at V3 (mm)
Fig. 3.11: Flexural failure load of Warren Beam 4A
3.6 WEB-POST BUCKLING- WARREN BEAM 4B
3.6.1 Modelling of Warren Beam 4B
Warren Beam 4B (Table 3.1) has been used for this validation study. Few changes
have been made to the model.
450 0.021258, 400

450
Stresses (N/mm2)
0.02151, 400
Stresses (N/mm2)
0.002009, 390
400 0.001858, 360
400
350
350
300 300
250 250
Stress strain curve- Stress strain curve-
200 200
web material flange material
150 150
100 100
50 50
0
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Strain Strain

Fig. 3.12: Material specification used in the finite element model (Warren, 2001)

The stress-strain curve used for the material was obtained from the results of the one-
dimensional tensile test conducted on the web and flange materials separately. The
failure load and yield stresses for the web and flanges were obtained from Table 2.6
(Warren, 2001). The stress-strain curve (Warren, 2001- Appendix 3) was modified to
suit the analysis on Beam 4B (Fig. 3.12).
3.6.2 Applying imperfections and web post buckling analysis
Before embarking on web post buckling it is worth discussing the initial mode of
buckling. It was reported in the testing procedure (Warren, 2001) that the load was
initially applied in increments of 11.4kN to the beam at the two locations. The beam at
this stage was restrained at three locations in the middle and at both ends. The beam
started to buckle in an S shape at the load of 80kN in the flexural zone (Fig. 3.13). The
LUSAS model predicted a similar mode shape of buckling (Fig. 3.14).
Fig. 3.13: Initial buckling shape of Warren beam 4B (Warren, 2001)
Lateral restraint
Lateral restraint
Fig. 3.14: Initial buckling shape of Warren beam 4B
Considering imperfections in the modelling of CBs is important to develop web-post
buckling (WPB). The process of fabrication of cellular beams will certainly cause some
geometrical perturbation. The model produced for the cellular beam in LUSAS reflects
a perfect geometry with no induced deformation. Therefore if a nonlinear buckling
analysis is carried out and a post-buckling solution is required, then a small

deformation of the initial geometry is needed to reflect the reality. This deformation
should be small enough such that it does not affect the results, but just disturbs the
symmetry of the mesh enough to encourage a certain post-buckling path. LUSAS has
quadratic order shell elements and a small imperfection or perturbation load is required
to converge on a post-buckling solution. LUSAS is able to solve using a post-buckling
path. It is just that in a buckling analysis something with ‘perfect’ geometry can buckle
equally in two opposite directions. This limit point or bifurcation point when buckling
occurs is returned as a negative pivot and the solution stops.
a. With geometrical non-linearity
Web-post
Buckling-
close up of
opening
b: Web-post buckling (close up of opening) of Warren Beam 4B (Warren, 2001)
Fig. 3.15: Web-post buckling mode of Beam 4B using LUSAS buckling analysis (half of
the beam is displayed)
From this point forth, there are two or more valid solution paths for the solver to
progress; using an initial imperfection or perturbation load just encourages one solution
path over another. This may be achieved by adopting one of the two approaches;
firstly by introducing the imperfection when defining the geometry from the outset or

alternatively start from a deformed mesh from Analysis 1 (Eigenvalue buckling
analysis) specified as a scale factor. The latter option has been pursued in the web-
post buckling analysis of the beam. Sensitivity analysis has been undertaken for scale
factors in the range of 0.1mm- 6.0mm (section 3.6.5) and results of the analysis found
that with a scale factor of 0.1mm the desired result can be achieved. In the further
analysis the beam is also restrained at quarter point in addition to the supports, and
mid-span. This is compatible with the subsequent test procedure.
The method pursued in undertaking the non-linear analysis comprises of two
steps/analyses. The first step/analysis was to perform Eigenvalue buckling analysis to
get the first local buckling mode. In the following step, a non-linear analysis has been
undertaken with some imperfection applied to the model mesh in the form of a scale
factor (0.1mm). Fig. 3.15a shows the web-post buckling failure mode of the Beam 4B
predicted by LUSAS similar to the experimental results (Fig. 3.15b), and LUSAS
predicted the same load-deflection behaviour. It should be noted that the load applied
to the FE model was 160kN.
3.6.3 Results and findings
It has been mentioned in the test report (Warren, 2001) that once all the supports were
held firmly, the beam was loaded in increments of 23kN up to 69.0kN and then in
increments of 5.5kN to failure. The rate of vertical deflection increased at 108.0kN
indicating that plastic failure was approaching. The beam failed due to the web-post
buckling at 114kN.
The failure mode predicted by LUSAS was also web-post buckling similar to that of the
experimental results. The prediction of the failure load by LUSAS varied with whether
geometrical non-linearity has been considered. Fig 3.16 compares the load-deflection
curves and the failure loads of the two analyses.
Fig. 3.16 shows that the failure load prediction was much greater compared with not
considering geometrical non-linearity. Overall the load-deflection curve and the failure
load (99.71kN) associated with considering geometrical no-linearity is much more

realistic. Therefore geometrical non-linearity will be considered in the subsequent
analysis investing web-post buckling.
Beam 4B (Warren, 2001)

160.0
Applied load (KN)
150.0
140.0 Failure load=130.0KN
130.0
120.0 Failure load=114.0KN
110.0
100.0
90.0 Failure load=99.71
80.0
70.0 Load-deflection at V3- Experimental
60.0 FEA- load-deflection at V3 with no geometrical non-linearity
50.0 FEA- load-deflection at V3 with geometrical non-linearity
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 3.16: Comparison of Load-deflection curves obtained from the test data and LUSAS
Software of Warren Beam 4B
3.6.4 Arc Length method of analysis
In all previous analyses the constant load (Newton Raphson) method has been used in
the validation study. To investigate the post buckling of the cellular beam, the Arc-
length method is used where it can handle the post buckling behaviour of the beam
(Fig. 3.17).
160.0
Applied load (kN)
140.0
Failure load=114.0kN
120.0 (Experimental)
100.0
Failureload=99.71kN
80.0 (FEA_Lusas)
60.0
40.0 Load-deflection at V3- Experimental

FEA- load-deflection at V3 with geometrical non-linearity
20.0
FEA- load-deflection at V3 (Arc Length method)
0.0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 3.17: Comparison between Newton Raphson method and Arc-length methods Beam 4B
Fig. 3.17 shows the comparison between the Newton Raphson method where it
managed to simulate up to the failure/buckling (buckling point) and the Arc-length

method where it managed to handle post buckling behaviour of the beam. This further
confirms the validity of the finite element method using LUSAS software.
3.6.5 Sensitivity analysis- scale factor
Sensitivity analyses have been undertaken on a simply supported CB (details as
below) for the non-linear analyses against web-post buckling using different scale
factors in the range of 0.1mm to 6.0mm.
A simply supported cellular I-beam is subjected to a uniformly distributed load of
100kN/m. Details of the cellular beam is given below:
l = 3.271m; H = 463.2mm; Number of opening = 7; D = 325mm; t w = 5.8; t f = 6.8; S / D = 1.35;

B = 101.6mm; E = 200kN / mm
Fig. 3.18 shows the bi-linear stress-strain curve which was adopted in the nonlinear
numerical modelling of the CB.
450
0.05, 391
Stress N/mm2
400 0.001775, 355

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain
Fig. 3.18: Stress-strain curve used in modelling of cellular beam for sensitivity analysis
of scale factor (EN 1993-1-1)
A 3D nonlinear FE model has been developed for the cellular beam (Fig. 3.25)
Element type: Thick shell- QTS8;

Element shape: Quadrilateral;
Interpolation: Quadratic; Element
size: 25mm
Fig. 3.19: FE model of the cellular beam for sensitivity analysis on scale factor

The results of the analyses are given below in Table 3.6
Table 3.6: Sensitivity analyses for the different scale factors

Scale factor
0.1mm 0.5mm 1.0mm 2.0mm 6.0mm
Failure load kN/m 82.1 80.9 80.3 78.8 76.3
% difference with
respect to the
0.0 1.46 2.2 4.02 7.07
0.1mm from
factor
Observations:
The results show that as the scale factor increases the % difference between the
failure loads, relative to minimum scale factor of 0.1mm, increases too. The results
reveal that the minimum scale factor which leads to web-post buckling is 0.1mm.
3.7 PLASTIC VIERENDEEL FAILURE- WARREN BEAM 2A
3.7.1 Experimental set up
The study on Warren Beam 2A is to validate the numerical investigation using LUSAS
that will be carried out on CBs undergoing plastic Vierendeel failure. The test data
indicated a failure at a load of 112.0kN at mid-span. And the mode of failure was
reported to be plastic Vierendeel failure (Warren, 2001). The details of the testing
were discussed previously in section 3.3.1. The detail of Beam 2A is given in Table 3.1.
Strain gauges and dial gauges were taken at each increment during loading and
unloading. The strain gauges are installed as shown in Fig. 3.20.
3.8
m
Fig. 3.20: Beam 2A locations of strain gauges (Warren, 2001)
Warren Beam 2A is modelled in similar way to Beams 4A and 4B. Quadrilateral thick
shell elements QTS8 are used to model cellular beam 2A. The lateral supports which

were provided to the top and bottom flanges near mid-span by Warren (2001) was
similarly considered in the modelling of the beam.
0.0212875, 0.0210516,
Stresses (N/mm2) 400 0.0017875, 357 400 360
347 0.0016516,
Stresses (N/mm2)
350 350 320
300 300
250 250
200 Stress strain curve- 200 Stress strain curve-
web material flange material
150 150
100 100
50 0, 0 50 0, 0
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Strain Strain

Fig. 3.21: Beam 2A Material specification used in the finite element analysis
The stress-strain curve used for the material has been obtained from the one-
dimensional tensile test data. The failure load and yield stresses for the web and
flanges have been obtained from Table 2.6 (Warren, 2001). The stress-strain curve
given by Warren (2001) (Appendix C1) was modified to suit the analysis on Beam 2A
(Fig. 3.21).
3.7.3 Sensitivity analysis
The objective of this section is to find a suitable mesh type and size in the numerical
modelling. Two sets of LUSAS analyses have been undertaken and compared with the
experimental data. One set is to represent element type QTS4 (Fig. 3.22) and the other
set to represent QTS8 (Fig. 3.23). These figures show the load-deflection curves for
the models developed for Warren Beam 2A with different mesh sizes (100mm; 50mm;
25mm; and10mm) at V3 and compared with the experimental data. The following has
been concluded:
· Fig. 3.22 which represents QTS4 reveals that there are some discrepancies
between the load-deflection curves when compared with each other, especially the
100mm mesh size. The figure also reveals that the load-deflection curves are not in
good agreement with the experimental data.

150.0
140.0
Applied load (kN)

130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0 V3- Experimental
60.0 V3- FEA (Mesh size=100mm)
50.0 V3- FEA (Mesh Size=50mm)
40.0
V3- FEA (Mesh size=25mm)
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 3.22: Sensitivity analysis on mesh sizes using QTS4 Elements- Warren Beam 2A
· Fig. 3.23 which represents QTS8 reveals that the load-deflection curves are in
agreement with each other and with the experiment.
Considering the accuracy of using QTS8 and the calculation efficiency, element QTS8
with the 25 mm mesh size will be used in the subsequent models investigating
Vierendeel failure.
150.0
Applied load (kN)
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0 V3- Experimental
50.0
40.0
30.0
10.0
0.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 3.23: Sensitivity study on mesh sizes using QTS8 Elements
3.7.4 Results and findings
It has been mentioned in the test report (Warren, 2001) that the failure was a fully
plastic Vierendeel failure. Loading was in increments of 11.3kN up to 79.0kN and then
in increments of 5.6kN to failure. At the load of 107.0kN the failure at the centre of the
beam was evident. The load was incremented until the beam continued to deflect at a
constant load of 112.0kN, the failure load.

Two analyses have been undertaken to determine the failure load and the modes of
failure with and without geometrical nonlinearity (Fig. 3.24). The following can be
noticed:
· The load-deflection curve is in good agreement in the lower section of the linear
part.
· The beam continued to deflect up to 36mm when geometrical nonlinearity is not
taken into account contrary to the experimental data. The curve associated with
applying geometrical nonlinearity is generally in reasonable agreement with the
experimental results in terms of deflection at failure. However the failure load
predicted by LUSAS software was higher than that of the experimental by
approximately 8% which seems to be reasonable.
· The failure mode predicted by LUSAS software has also been the Vierendeel failure.
160.0
Applied load (kN)
Failure load
140.0
FEA (LUSAS)=
122.1.0kN
120.0
100.0
Failure load
(Experimental)=
80.0
112.0kN
60.0 V3-Experimental
V3- FEA (No geometrical non-linearity)
40.0 V3- FEA_Lusas (geometrical non-linearity)
20.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 3.24: Comparison of failure loads obtained from the test data and LUSAS software
Fig. 3.25 shows the development of Von Mises stresses with increasing load and the
failure load from the experiment (Fig. 3.25c).
The figure reveals the following:
· The development of plasticity around the opening in the four corners, especially in
the middle section. This is compatible with the Vierendeel deformations and the
failure mode.

· As the load is increased plasticity has developed further around the openings
followed by plasticity initiating in the tee sections.
· Vierendeel distortion to the openings predicted by LUSAS software is evident and it
is happening to a number of openings. Meanwhile, from the experiment (Fig. 3.25c)
Vierendeel failure is occurring to one of the openings adjacent to the load. It appears
that the load during the test has shifted to one side of the stiffener.
Applied
load=112.2kN
a: Vierendeel failure of Beam 2A using LUSAS
Applied
load=132kN
b: Closer view of the middle section, Load=132kN
Distortion to the opening in the

manner of parallelogram due to
large relative deflections between its
ends
c: Failure of Beam 2A (Warren, 2001)
Fig. 3.25: Vierendeel failure of Beam 2A using LUSAS

· It can be concluded that the load-deflection curve, the failure load and the mode of
failure predicted by LUSAS software is compatible with those of the experimental
results.
3.8 CONCLUSION
This chapter has presented the results of the validation, numerical modelling,
development, and sensitivity study. Based on the results of the validation study the
following simulation techniques will be incorporated into the modelling and investigation
that will be undertaken on cellular beams in the subsequent chapters. The conclusions
are summarised below:
· FE models have been validated against experimental data and the simulations
results are generally in good agreement with the test data.
· It is identified that for investigating deflection and stresses, modelling the cellular
beam with thick shell elements (QST4- mesh size=25mm) provides adequate
results as well as computation efficiency.
· It is identified that for investigating modes of failure, modelling with quadrilateral 8
nodes thick shell elements (QTS8- mesh size=25mm) provides adequate results
as well as computation efficiency.
· It is identified that the boundary conditions have a significant influence when
investigating the modes of failure of CBs. Lateral restraints will be applied to either
side of the flanges along the CBs in the subsequent non-linear analysis.
· Geometrical as well as material nonlinearity will be applied to the FE models
employed to investigate modes of failure.
· It is considered that the equivalent stress (Von Mises) distribution from the
numerical modelling provides a good indication of the likely yielding of the cellular
beam by comparing the Von Mises stress distribution against the yield stress.

CHAPTER 4 NORMAL AND SHEAR STRESS
DISTRIBUTIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Stress distributions in a cellular I-beam subjected to vertical loads are complicated and
they have not been described adequately in the literatures (Gibson and Jenkins, 1957;
Kolosowski, 1964; Yost et. al. 2012). Therefore this chapter is devoted to describing
stress distributions in cellular I-beams at the service limit state using the finite element
(FE) method. In section 4.2 a cellular I-beam, a cellular web beam, and a normal solid
I-beam are analysed and their normal and shear stress distributions at typical cross
sections along their length are compared and summarised. In these analyses the
investigation has specifically focused on stress distributions in the web-post, the
flanges, and at the opening centres. In section 4.3 a number of cellular I-beams with
different geometrical configurations and span/depth ratios are analysed using the FE
method and the normal stress distributions at the opening centres near the support, at
quarter point and at mid-span are investigated. The study reveals that it is logical to
assume that points of inflection occur at the opening centres. The primary and
secondary bending moments are also investigated at the opening centres.
4.2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS, ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
The three beam types investigated are a cellular web beam modelled as 2-D (Fig. 4.1a)
using ‘plane stress’ elements (Fig. 4.2a); a cellular I-beam and a solid I-beam modelled
as 3-D (Figs. 4.1b, c) using QTS4 thick shell elements (Figs. 4.2b, c). The finite
element models are linear and elastic for deformations and material behaviour with
isotropic material properties for steel ( E = 200kN / mm 2 and Poisons ratio u = 0.3 ). The
geometrical details of the beams are given in Fig. 4.1. The geometrical details of the
two I-beams are the same apart from the cellular I-beam which has 11 openings in the
web. The geometry of the cellular web beam is the same as the web of the cellular
I-beam.
Chapter 4 Normal and Shear Stress Distributions 100

1.3125 2.49 4.4625
0.91 2.1 4.068

A B
0.52 10kN/m
D
5
tw
1 2 3 4 5 6 hw
l Section A-A
A B
hw
a: Cellular web beam

Section B-B
10kN/m
D C
tf
hw
l B
D C
b: Cellular I-beam Section C-C
D 10kN/m tf
hw
D l B
Section D-D
c: Solid I-beam
Geometrical properties of the cellular beam:
hw = 745.9mm; l = 8925mm; B = 208.8mm; D = 525mm; t w = 9.6mm; t f = 13.2mm; S = 1.5 D
Fig. 4.1: Three different beam types for analysis
Chapter 4 Normal and Shear Stress Distribution 101

Type; Plane stress elements
Interpolation: Quadratic
Element size: 25mm
Isometric view Closer view on one panel

a. Cellular web beam
Element type: Thick shell- QTS4

Element size: 25mm
Isometric view
Closer view on one panel
b. Cellular I-beam

Element size: 25mm
Isometric view
Closer view on one panel
c. Solid I-beam
Fig. 4.2: Finite Element Models of the three beam types

4.2.1 Locations considered in the analysis
The investigation has generally focused on a number of sections along the beams and
in particular on three locations of interest; near the supports, near quarter points, and
near mid-spans under uniformly distributed load. The investigation is divided into three
sections; sections between the openings, sections at the opening centres, and along
the flanges.
4.2.2 Sections between the openings
The FEA results have been plotted graphically for the shear and normal stress
distributions at the three sections; between openings 1 and 2- 0.91m from the support
(Figs. 4.3a, d), between openings 3 and 4- 2.49m from the support (Figs. 4.3b, e), and
between openings 5 and 6- 4.068m from the support (Figs. 4.3c, f).
Observations:
SHEAR STRESSES (Figs. 4.3a, b, and c)
· Fig. 4.3a compares the shear stress distributions across the depth of the web of
the three beam types. For a solid I-beam at 0.91m near the support, it can be seen
that the shape of the shear stress distributions are as anticipated and varies in a
parabolic distribution on one side of the vertical axis.
· The shape of the shear stress distributions for the cellular web beam and the
cellular I-beam are rather different compared to those of a solid I-beam (Fig. 4.3a).
The shear stress distributions vary significantly across the depth of the web. In the
middle section along the opening diameter, the shear stresses are much greater
compared with those of a solid I-beam and still maximum at the centre of the beam.
The shape and magnitude of these significant stresses are changing with the opening
diameter and spacing and its location within the beam. The rate of change is much
greater compared with that of a solid I-beam.
· Shear stress distributions for the cellular web beam and the cellular I-beam are
comparable. The shear stresses in a cellular I-beam are slightly less than those of the
cellular web beam as the flanges in a cellular I-beam are anticipated to carry a small

percentage of the shear stresses. At sections away from the support (Fig. 4.3b, c) the
shear stresses reduce towards the centre of beam as it follows the reduction in the
shear force.
Shear stresses along the web height Normal stresses along the web height
Distance along the depth of the beam (m)

0.8
0.8
0.7 Cellular web 0.7 Cellular web
Cellular I-beam Cellular I-beam
0.6 0.6
Solid I-beam Solid I-beam
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 -150.00 -100.00 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00
-0.1 -0.1
Shear stresses N/mm^2 Normal stresses N/mm^2
a: between openings 1 and 2 d: between openings 1 and 2
Shear and stresses along the web height Normal stresses along the web height
0.8 0.8
Cellular web Cellular web
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 Solid I-beam
Soild I-beam
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 -150.00 -100.00 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00
-0.1 -0.1
b: between openings 3 and 4 e: between openings 3 and 4
Shear stresses along the web height Normal stresses along the web height
0.8 0.8
0.7 Cellular web 0.7 Cellular web

0.6 0.6
Solid I-beam Solid I-beam
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 -150.00 -100.00 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00
-0.1 -0.1
C: between openings 5 and 6 f: between openings 5 and 6
Fig. 4.3: Normal and shear stresses along the web height

· At sections 2.49 and 4.068m (Figs. 4.3b and 4.3c) from the support shear stresses
reduce in proportion to the reduction in the shear force which is why the shear stresses
are very small or zero at mid-span.
NORMAL STRESSES (Figs. 4.3d, e, and f)
· Normal stresses in a solid I-beam vary linearly as expected along the web height
and their values increase toward the centre in accordance with the bending formula.
· The normal stress distributions for a cellular I-beam are rather different. It is
interesting to see from the figures (4.3d, e, and f) at the three sections that the normal
stresses are very small along the middle section along the depth of the opening.
· The normal stress distributions for a cellular web beam are comparable with the
cellular I-beam in the middle section along depth of the beam, but they are different in
the top and bottom sections. Relatively large stresses are generated in the extreme top
and bottom fibres of the cellular web due to the fact that there are no flanges to carry
the significant normal stresses at the extreme fibres and the load/deflection remaining
the same.
4.2.3 Sections at the centre of openings
FEA results are plotted for the following sections; section 1 is at the centre of opening
1- 0.525m from the support (Figs. 4.4a, and d), section 2 is at the centre of opening
3- 2.1m from the support (Figs. 4.4b, and e), and section 3 is at centre of opening
6- 4.4625m from the support (Figs. 4.4c, and f).
Observations:
SHEAR STRESSES
· Fig. 4.4a shows that the shear stress distributions are not linear in the top section
of the opening. They vary significantly along the depth of the top T section. It should be
noted that the shear stresses are the highest at the edge of the opening and reduce
towards the flange levels.

Shear stresses Normal stresses
Distance along depth of T section (m)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
0 0
0.02 Top section 0.02 Top section
0.04 0.04
0.06 0.06
0.08 Open. 0.08

1
0.1 0.1
0.12 0.12
(a) Centre of opening 1 (0.525m from support) (d) Centre of opening 1
Distance along the depth of the top


-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
0 0
section (m)
0.04 0.04
0.06 0.06
0.08 Open. 0.08

3
0.1 0.1
0.12 0.12
(b) Centre of opening 3 (2.1m from support) (e) Centre of opening 3

Distance along the depth of the top section (m)

Distance along the depth of the top section (m)
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50

0 0
0.04 0.04
0.06 0.06
Open.
0.08 6 0.08
0.1 0.1
0.12 0.12
(c) Centre of opening 6 (4.4625m from support) (f) Centre of opening 6
Fig. 4.4: Shear and normal stresses at centre of openings 1, 3, and 6
· At approximately quarter point (2.1m from the support) the shear stress
distributions are also not linear (Fig 4.4b). The shear stresses vary along the top

section, but the rate of change is less compared with the shear stress distributions near
the support.
· At mid-span (Fig. 4.4c) as anticipated the shear stress distributions are zero in
top T section.
NORMAL STRESSES
· The normal stress distributions are also non-linear (Fig. 4.4d). They vary between
maximum at the opening perimeter and minimum at the flange locations.
· At quarter point the normal stress distribution are also varies non-linearly across
the depth of the top T section. They are the highest at the opening level and reduce
towards the flange level.
· At mid-span (Fig. 4.4f) the normal stress also varies non-linearly across the depth
of the T section and they are maximum and follow the maximum bending moment.
4.2.4 In the flanges
Fig. 4.5 compares the normal and shear stress distributions in the top flange of a solid
I-beam and a cellular I-beam.
OBSERVATIONS
NORMAL STRESSES
For a solid I-beam (Fig. 4.5a), as anticipated, the normal stresses are significant at the
flange level. More interestingly they vary smoothly along the span of the beam and
increasing in a parabolic shape which follow the bending moment. While the normal
stress distributions in the flanges of the cellular I-beam (Fig. 4.5a) do not follow the
same pattern as those of a solid I-beam and they do not vary smoothly. The peak
stresses are not at the openings. Rather they are between the openings on either side
of the openings. Within the openings the normal stresses are reduced at the flange
level and as discussed before they peak in the web at the edge of the opening.
In additon the magnitude of the normal stresses are relatively larger in the cellular I-
beam flanges compared with those of a solid I-beam.

Solid I-beam
Along the top flange Cellular I-beam
40 36.54 35.22
Normal stresse N/mm2 34.25 34.39
35
29.67 30.91
30 26.24 32.82 33.57 33.84
22.8 31.26
25 29.55
27.25
18 24.45
20
13.5 20.94
15
16.84
10
7.7
12.5
5 0.975 7.23
0
0.13125 0.525 0.91875 1.31 1.706 2.1 2.49 2.88 3.281 3.67 4.068 4.46
0.539
Distance along the length of the beam (m)
a: Normal stresses variation (half span)
Solid I-beam
Along the top flange
Cellular I-beam
1.31
1.4 1.24
1.15
Shear stresse N/mm2
1.2 1.04
0.93
1
0.79
0.8 0.66
0.54
0.6
0.4
0.4 0.238 0.26
0.195 0.152
0.097 0.13
0.2
0.027 0.043 0.027 0.024 0.014 0.064 0.004 0.01
0
0
-0.2
0.13125 0.525 0.91875 1.31 1.706 2.1 2.49 2.88 3.281 3.67 4.068 4.46
Distance along the length of the beam (m)
b: Shear stress variation (half span)
Fig. 4.5: Shear and normal stresses in flanges of solid and cellular I-beams
SHEAR STRESSES
The shear stress distributions in the solid I-beam flanges (Fig. 4.5b) vary smoothly
along half of the span of the beam and increasing very close to linear, maximum at the
support reducing to zero at mid-span which follows the shear force diagram. The

magnitudes of the shear stresses are larger than those of the cellular I-beam flanges.
The shear stress distributions in the cellular I-beam flanges are totally different from
those of the solid I-beam and do not vary smoothly along the beam. The magnitudes of
the shear stresses are larger at the opening centres compared with those between the
openings. Their magnitudes are generally much lower than those of a solid I-beam.
4.2.5 Summary of the finite element analysis of the cellular beam
The normal and shear stresses obtained at different sections between the openings
and at the opening centres have been summarised below in Figs. 4.6- 4.9. The
following has been observed and is summarised below:
Shear stresses
Shear stress distributions in a solid I-beam comprises of a parabolic distribution
superimposed on a constant value. The peak shear stresses are in the web at the
neutral axis and reduce away from the neutral axis until they become constant values
at the flange levels. Many authors (Popov, 1978; Benham et. all, 1996; Blodgett, 1982;
Gere, 2004) introduced the form factor to describe approximately the relationship
between the average constant part of the shear stresses and the maximum at the
centroid of the beam. The form factor varies for different types of beams. It is 1.2 for a
simply supported solid I-beam. For the cellular I-beam Figs (4.6- 4.9) show that the
shear stresses do not follow this pattern.
· Shear stress distributions in the web-post (Fig. 4.6- 4.9- view c) still vary in a
parabolic shape and comprise of three parts; the peak one is in the middle on one side
of the vertical axis compatible with the diameter of the opening and the other two parts
are at the top and bottom sections symmetrical along the neutral axis on the other side
of the vertical compatible with the webs of the top and bottom tee sections. The
maximum shear stress still occurs at the n.a.

Section Normal stresses Shear stresses
A (0.13125m) (Approximate shapes) (Approximate shapes)
2 2
0.9 N/mm -0.8 N/mm
2
Compression -2.3 N/mm
110.45mm
2
-10.9 N/mm
2 12.4 N/mm
2
Opening Opening 10.1 N/mm
1 2 2
10.4 N/mm
2 12.8 N/mm
2
Tension -2.1 N/mm
2 2
A- A -0.9 N/mm -0.7 N/mm
A
(a) (c)
B (0.525m)
2
2 21.7 N/mm
- 7.6 N/mm
2
Compression 22.6 N/mm
2 2
-11.5 N/mm 3.4 N/mm
Opening Opening
1 2
2
14.7 N/mm
2 3.5 N/mm
Tension 23.2 N/mm

2
2 2
B B-B 7.2 N/mm 21.8 N/mm
(b) (d)
Fig. 4.6: Shear and normal stresses in web near opening no.1
Observations: (a) Normal stress distribution is anti-symmetrical along the centreline of the beam but doesn’t follow a known pattern. The peak stresses are concentrated close to the centroid of the
beam rather than at the flange levels. (b) Peak normal stresses occur at edge of opening. (c) Shear stresses vary along the web height with the peak stresses not at the centroid of the beam. (d)
Shear stresses are unsymmetrical on one side of the vertical and the peak stresses are close to the centroid of the T section.

Normal stresses Shear stresses
Section (Approximate shapes)
A (0.91m) (Approximate shapes)
2
-13.5 N/mm
Compression 2
-6.1 N/mm
Normal stresses 2
Opening Opening 19.0 N/mm
very small less
1 2
than1.0N/mm2
2
-6.0 N/mm
Tension
2
14.3 N/mm
A- A
A
(a) (c)
B (1.3125m)
2
-17.9 N/mm 0.2 N/mm
2
2
2 2
-19.9 N/mm 5.2 N/mm
Opening Opening
1 2
2
19.9 N/mm
2 4.3 N/mm
Tension 18.3 N/mm

2
2 2
B-B 17.5 N/mm 5.9 N/mm
B
(b) (d)
Observations: (a) Normal stress distribution is antisymmetrical along the centreline of the beam. The peak stresses occur at the flange levels. There are no normal stresses in the middle section.
(b) Peak normal stresses occur at edge of opening. (c) Shear stresses vary along the web height with the peak stresses at the centroid of the beam. (d) Shear stresses are anti-symmetrical on one
side of the vertical and the peak stresses are close to the centroid of the T section.

Section (Approximate shapes) (Approximate shapes)
A (2.49m)
2
-29.6 N/mm
Compression
2
-3.5 N/mm
Opening Opening Normal stresses 2

10.7 N/mm
3 4 very small less
than1.0N/mm2
2
-3.5 N/mm
Tension
2
30.3 N/mm
A- A
A
(a) (c)
B (2.88275m)
2
- 31.2 N/mm 2
2.9 N/mm
2
2
-34.9 N/mm
2 2.6 N/mm
Opening Opening
3 4
2
35.6 N/mm 2.7 N/mm
2
Tension 9.16N/mm
2
2 2
B B-B 31.0 N/mm 2.9 N/mm
(b) (d)
Observations: Observations are similar to those of opening no.3 (Fig. 4.7)

A (4.068m) Section (Approximate shapes) (Approximate shapes)
2
-36.5 N/mm
Compression -0.7 N/mm

2
Opening Opening Normal stresses 2.1 N/mm

2
5 6 very small less

than1.0N/mm2
2
Tension -0.7 N/mm
2
37.1 N/mm
A- A
A
(a) (c)
B (mid-span, 4.4625m)
2
- 35.0 N/mm
Compression
2
-48.5 N/mm
Opening Opening
No shear stresses
5 6
2
46.9 N/mm
Tension
2
B B-B 34.6 N/mm
(d)
(b)
Fig. 4.9: Shear and normal stresses in web at mid-span
Observations: Observations are similar to those of opening no.3 (Fig. 4.7) apart from (d). (d) There are no shear stresses

· Shear stress distributions at the opening centres (Figs. 4.6- 4.9- view d) are totally
different to those in the web-post. Stress distributions remain on one side of the vertical
axis and comprise of two parts; unsymmetrical parabolic distribution superimposed on
a smaller unsymmetrical trapezoidal section. The distribution is not symmetrical along
the centre of the T sections. The peak value occurs somewhere closer to the flange
level, much closer to the centroid of the T sections.
Normal stresses
· In a solid I-beam the maximum tensile and compressive bending stresses always
occur at points located farthest from the neutral axis. In a cellular I-beam at the web-
post the maximum tensile and compressive stresses also occur at points farthest from
the neutral axis. But there are no normal stresses close to either sides of the neutral
axis (Figs. 4.6- 4.9- view a).
· Normal stress distributions at sections at the opening centres (Figs. 4.6- 4.9- view
b) are totally different. The maximum value occurs at the edge of opening. The
distributions do not vary linearly, but in a parabolic shape. This is due to the presence
of a small resultant moment arising from the combined secondary and primary bending
moments. It is interesting to note that the sections at the opening centrelines are mainly
under axial forces (compression and tension) and the moments are very small. This
signifies that points of inflection occur at the opening centres in the flanges.
Shear and normal stresses in flanges
· The normal stress distributions in the flanges of the cellular I-beams do not vary
smoothly. Within the solid section of the web they are slightly greater than those of a
comparable solid I-beam. On the other hand the normal stresses at the openings are
lower than those at similar positions in a comparable solid I-beam. This phenomenon is
interesting and suggests that the flanges undergo some deformation which can assist
to develop an analytical solution to determine deformations in the flanges. The shear
stresses, though do not vary smoothly in the flanges, are lower than those in the solid I-
beam.

4.3 NORMAL STRESSES AT OPENING CENTRE
4.3.1 Introduction
Normal stresses at the opening centres of cellular I-beams at the serviceability limit
state have not been given adequate attention in the available literature (Gibson and
Jenkins, 1957; Kolosowski, 1964; Yost et. al. 2012). The numerical study in section 4.2
on the selected example reveals that the normal stress distributions at opening centres
are not uniform along the top and bottom T sections at the opening centre. They vary in
a parabolic shape and usually peak at the edge of the opening centre. This suggests
the existence of a small resultant moment arising from the combined primary and
secondary moments and leads to additional stresses at the bottom of the T section. To
obtain a better understanding of the distributions of normal stresses at the opening
centres numerical analyses on a number of CBs have been undertaken. The objective
in this section is to establish that the magnitude of the additional resultant moment is
very small in the flanges at the opening centres and can be neglected and point of
inflection is occurring at the opening centres in the flanges. This concept will be utilised
in Chapter 6 to determine deformations in the flanges.
4.3.2 Normal stresses at opening centres
A number of cellular I-beams have been selected for FE analysis with different
geometrical properties and span/depth ratios (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Table 4.1
represents D / hw = 0.72 , while Table 4.2 represents D / hw = 0.74 . It can be seen from
each table that different opening spacing configurations ( S / D = 1.2, 1.35, and 1.5 ) have
been considered together with different span/depth ratios ( l / h ).
The finite element models are linear and elastic with isotropic material properties
identified for steel ( E = 200kN / mm 2 and Poisons ratio- u = 0.3 ). Each model has been
meshed with QTS4 thick shell elements (25mm element size). Fig. 4.10 shows a typical
FE model of the cellular I-beams. It can be noted that the line in the model at the

opening centre has been divided into 10 divisions (Fig. 4.10b) to obtain further
understanding of the stress distribution.
The full results of the FE analyses are given in Appendix D. In all figures normal
stresses are given at opening centres along the top T section. The results are given at
three locations along the beams: near a support (opening 1), at a quarter point, and at
mid-span. A sample of figures at quarter point has been presented (Fig. 4.11) for
discussion.
Table 4.1: Geometrical properties of the analysed cellular beam sections ( D / hw = 0.72 )
* Load-
Original No. Span/depth
tf tw hw h D S Span kN / m
UB of End dist.
Ex. section (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) op. (mm) (mm) (mm) l (m) l / hw
1 9 5.775 7.61
1.2D
2 17 52.500 10.815 14.25
(630)
3 37 23.415 30.85
4 533 X 9 6.5625 8.65

13.2 9.6 732.7 759.1 525 1.35D 10
210 X 82 91.875
5 15 (708.75) 10.815 14.25
6 33 23.572 31.05
7 9 1.5D 7.350 9.68

131.250
(787.5)
8 15 12.075 15.91
* Load does not include self-weight
Table 4.2: Geometrical properties of the analysed cellular beam sections ( D / hw = 0.74 )
Original
* Load-
tf tw hw Span Span/depth
UB h No. D S End dist. kN / m
Ex section (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) of op. (mm) (mm) (mm) l (m) l / hw
1 9 3.575 7.75
1.2D
2 17 32.500 6.695 14.51
(390)
3 37 14.495 31.41
4 9 4.0625 8.80
305 X 1.35D
5 10.2 6.0 441.1 461.5 15 325 56.875 6.695 14.51 5
165 X 40 (438.75)
6 33 14.5925 31.62
7 9 4.550 9.86
1.5D
8 15 81.250 7.475 16.20
(487.5)
9 29 14.300 30.99
* Load does not include self-weight

Type; Thick shell
elements QTS4
Element shape:
The line at the
opening centre has
been divided into 10
divisions
a. Isometric view b. Closer view on one panel at mid-span
b. Elevation view of the beam
Fig. 4.10: Modelling of a cellular I-beam for stress analysis at opening centres
4.3.3 Observations and discussion
Observations
· The normal stress distributions along the depth of the T section at the opening
centres vary to different degrees.
· The effect of the opening diameter/depth ratio ( D / hw ) is as follows: The ( D / hw )
ratio has little effect on stress distribution at the opening centres for both
D / hw = 0.72 (Figs. 4.11a and b) and D / hw = 0.74 (Figs. 4.11c and d).
· The effect of the opening spacing/diameter ratio ( S / D ) is as follows. The
variation in normal stress distributions at the opening centre between the top and
bottom of the top T section increases slightly as S / D ratio increases for both
cases D / hw = 0.72 and D / hw = 0.74 . It can be observed that the variation in stress
distribution is slightly greater for S / D = 1.35 (Figs. 4.11b, and d) compared with
S / D = 1.2 (Figs. 4.11a, and c).

· The effect of span/depth ratio ( l / h ) is obvious. The variation in the stress
distributions is very small for lower span to depth ratios ( l / h = 7 - 15 ). As the span
to depth ratio increases such as l / h ³ 30 the variation increases too (Figures.
4.11a-d).
· The effect of opening location is as follows. At quarter point the variation in stress
distribution is usually very small compared with those at mid-span (Appendix D1).
Opening at quarter point (0.72; 1.35D)

Opening at quarter point (0.72; 1.2D)
Normal stresses N/mm^2 Normal stresses N/mm^2
-25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0
Distance along depth of top T section (m)

-25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0
0 0
0.01 0.01
0.02 h = 7.61
l /λ=7.61 0.02 / h = 7.61
lλ=8.65
0.03 h = 14.25
l /λ=14.25 0.03 / h = 14.25
lλ=14.25
Bottom of Top h = 31 .25
l /λ=30.85 / h = 31.25
lλ=31.05
0.04 0.04
Flange
0.05 0.05
0.06 0.06
0.07 0.07
0.08 0.08
0.09 0.09
0.1 0.1
a. b.
Opening at quarter point (0.74; 1.2D) Opening at quarter point (0.74; 1.35D)
-25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0 -25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0
0 0
0.01 0.01
l / h = 7.61 l / h = 7.61
λ=7.75 λ=8.80
0.02 / h = 14.25
lλ=14.51 0.02 h = 14.25
l /λ=14.51
/ h = 31.25
lλ=31.41 h = 31.25
l /λ=31.62
0.03 0.03
0.04 0.04
0.05 0.05
0.06 0.06
c. d.
Fig. 4.11: Typical normal stresses at opening centres
The investigations undertaken on the CBs, with various geometrical opening
configurations compatible with those covered in the study, reveal the presence of some
non-uniform additional normal stresses at the opening centres, varying between zero at

the top of the T section to maximum at the bottom of the T section, superimposed on a
large constant uniform normal stresses. This suggests the existence of a small
additional resultant moment at the opening centres resulting from the combined
primary and secondary moments. The study reveals that the variations are generally
small for most of the geometrical opening configurations. More importantly the variation
is even smaller along the thickness of the flanges. It is considered logical to assume a
uniform stress distribution at the flange level at the opening centres which follows that
the moment is diminishing and a point of inflection is forming at the flanges at the
opening centres. It should be noted in advance that this concept has been adopted as
an assumption in chapter 6.
4.4 CONCLUSION
In this chapter the normal and shear stress distributions have been investigated in
cellular I-beams in comparison with solid I-beams together with cellular web beams.
The following main conclusions can be drawn:
NORMAL STRESSES
· At the opening centres maximum normal stresses do not occur at the flange level,
but occur at the edge of openings (Figs. 4.6b, 4.7b, 4.8b, and 4.9b). In the web-post
between the openings normal stress distributions vary linearly between maximum at
the flange level and zero at a level above the centroid of the beam (Figs. 4.6a, 4.7a,
4.8a, and 4.9a). There are no normal stresses in web-posts close to the centroid of the
beam. Normal stresses between the openings are greater in the cellular I-beam
flanges (Fig. 4.5a) compared with those in solid I-beams. While at the openings,
normal stresses in the cellular I-beam flanges (Fig. 4.5a) are smaller compared with
those of the solid sections between the openings. This suggests that the flange
sections do not remain plane and some deformation is taking place in the flanges at
the opening centres and at the web-post locations. This finding has assisted in
developing the concept underlying the analytical solution in Chapter 6.

· The stress distribution (section 4.3) at the opening centres determined using FE
analyses reveal the presence of secondary bending moment in addition to the primary
bending moments. The magnitudes of the secondary moment at the opening centres
are relatively small. The study concludes that it is logical to assume that points of
inflection are taking place at the opening centres. This concept will be used in Chapter
6 in developing a formula to determine deformations in the flanges.
SHEAR STRESSES
· Shear stress distributions at the opening centres vary in a parabolic shape (Figs.
4.6d, 4.7d, 4.8d, and 4.9d). The distribution is not symmetrical and the maximum value
occurs somewhere closer to the centroid of the T sections. Shear stress distributions in
the web-post are totally different to those at the opening centres. The presence of
large shear stresses is evident in the web-post (Figs. 4.6c, 4.7c, 4.8c, and 4.9c).
Shear stresses in cellular I-beam flanges are generally insignificant and lower than
those in a solid I-beam (Fig. 4.5b).
· Although the contents of some sections in this chapter are straightforward, the
detailed examination does reveal something unnoticed in the past. Flange sections do
not remain plane; normal stresses are maximum at the edge of openings; no normal
stresses in the web-post on either side of the neutral axis; and large shear stresses in
the web-post are concentrated along the opening diameters. It should be noted that the
observations obtained regarding the stresses and deformations in the flanges is
compatible with the findings from the experimental test carried by Gibson and Jenkins
(1957) using photoelastic method (section 2.4.1.2). These findings helped to gain a
better understanding of how each component of the cellular beam is deflecting. This in
return assisted in developing some of the analytical solutions especially those in
chapter 6.

CHAPTER 5 EQUIVALENT SECOND MOMENT OF AREA
OF CELLULAR WEB
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the second moment of area ( I ) of the cellular web beam (CWB) has
been investigated. The I value of the CWB varies along the length of the beam,
maximum at the solid sections between the openings and minimum at the opening
centres (Fig. 5.1a). The I value also varies along the opening, minimum at the opening
centres increasing to maximum at the edge of the openings. Because of these
geometrical variations and the significant shear deformations associated with the
openings it is not straightforward to determine the equivalent I value of the CWB by
simple calculations. The challenge in this chapter is to determine the equivalent second
moment of area of the CWB. In the first part of the chapter a simplified analytical
method has been developed to enable the determination of the bending component of
the equivalent I value of the CWB I weq by adopting the following three steps of
b
evolution (Fig.5.1):
Step 1: Convert the CWB to an equivalent non-uniform solid beam (Fig. 5.1b).
Step 2: Convert the non-uniform solid beam into an equivalent stepped beam (Fig.
5.1c).
Step 3: Convert the stepped beam into an equivalent uniform beam (Fig. 5.1d)
In the second part of the chapter the FE method is used to evaluate the effect of the
shear deformation for many widely used cellular webs and a simple shear deformation
factors ( a w ) is introduced which allows hand calculations possible. The derived factors
a w are based on relating the total deformation using FE analysis to the hand developed
evaluated bending deformation. The determined I weq has been factored down by the
b
a w to enable equivalent determination of the effective I value of the CWB ( I weq ). FE
analysis has been used to validate the proposed hand method. Several examples are
worked out to clarify the developed equation at each stage.
Chapter 5 Equivalent Second Moment of Area of Cellular Web 121

5.2 BENDING DEFORMATION
The analogy of equivalent representations of beams with variable cross-sections has
been adopted. Zheng and Ji (2011) studied a beam with periodically variable cross
sections and converted it to a uniform beam.
Centre of opening
Edge of the
opening Diameter D
B A
A-A B-B
B A
Step 1 a) The cellular web beam- Beam A
C A
A-A C-C
C A
Step 2 b) An equivalent non- Beam B
D A
A-A D-D
D A
Step 3 c) An equivalent stepped solid beam- Beam C
E-E
E
d) An equivalent uniform solid beam- Beam D
is the thickness of the web beam at all sections
Fig. 5.1: Geometrical conversion of the cellular web beam to an equivalent solid beam
The idea has been used to convert the cellular web beam in stages to an equivalent
uniform beam.

5.2.1 The equivalent non-uniform solid section (Step 1 from Beam A to Beam B)
An enlarged view of the opening is shown in Fig. 5.2 which illustrates the relevant
parameters. The second moment of area of the solid web beam at section A-A (solid
section) is given by equation 5.1.
t w hw 3
I A- A = I S = (5.1)
12
where I S is the second moment of area of the solid section, t w is the thickness of the
section and hw is the height of the cellular web beam.
A B F
M M
B A
Opening
A B F
Section A-A Section B-B Section F-F
a) The cellular web beam- enlarged single opening
Solid section
A C F
M M
B A
A C F Section A-A Section C-C Section F-F
b) An equivalent non-uniform solid section
Fig. 5.2: Conversion of circular opening to a non-uniform solid section (step 1)
The second moment of area at section B-B (centre of the opening) is:
I. B - B =
t w hw3 t w (2r )3 tw 3
12
-
12
=
12
(
hw - 8r 3 ) (5.2)
where r is the radius of the opening and the other symbols having previous definitions.

The second moment of area of the section between section B-B and the edges of the
opening varies between maximum at the edge of the opening and minimum at centre of
the opening (section B-B) due to changes in the height of the web beam between the
edge and centre of the opening.
Consider a unit width l i at an angle q from the horizontal (section F-F) - (Fig. 5.2a, b).
t w hq 3 t w hw 3 t w (2 r sin q )
( )
3
t
Iq = = - = w hw 3 - 8r 3 sin 3 q (5.3)
12 12 12 12
where I q is the second moment of area of the section at angle q and hq is the height of
the section at angle q .
hq = 3
12 I q
tw
(
= 3 hw 3 - 8r 3 sin 3 q ) (5.4)
p
when q = 0 , hq = hw and when q = , hq = 3 hw - (2r ) 3
3
(5.5)
2
If I B-B is considered as the second moment of area of a solid section the equivalent
height of the section- hDeq (Fig. 5.2b) at the centre line of the opening (section C-C)
can be obtained as follows:
hDeq = 3 ( hw 3 - D 3 ) (5.6)
Example 5-1
A cellular web beam has the following geometrical properties along the openings, refer
to Fig. 5.2:
hw = 274.3mm , t w = 5.8mm , D = 200 mm , r = 100 mm . Calculate hDeq ?
Using equation 5.3 calculate the equivalent height of the solid section at opening
centres hDeq :
hDeq = 3 (hw 3 - D 3 ) = 3 ( 274.33 - 200 3 ) = 232.8mm
Validation

It not possible to validate the formula developed for the conversion from Beam A to
Beam B as there is considerable shear deformations associated with Beam A due to
the openings in the web compared with the solid non-uniform beam (Beam B).
5.2.2 The equivalent stepped solid section (Step 2 from Beam B to Beam C)
Fig. 5.3a shows a non-uniform solid section along the diameter of the opening with
different second moment of area Iq . While Fig. 5.3b shows another equivalent uniform
solid section with constant second moment of area I heq . The two sections have the
same length 2r ; the thickness of the web beams is t w and elastic modulus is E .
Solid section
A C F
M M
B A
A C F Section A-A Section C-C Section F-F
a) An equivalent non-uniform solid section (Beam B)
Solid section
A D
M M
B A
A D
Section A-A Section D-D
b) An equivalent stepped solid section (Beam C)
Fig. 5.3: Conversion of non-uniform solid section to an equivalent stepped solid section
(step 2)

Both beams are subjected to the same constant bending moment M at their ends.
The beams will be in pure bending by couples of moment.
The bending deformation of the non-uniform solid section is represented by the rotation
q . The rotation ( q ) of the non-uniform solid section is the sum of rotations of all the
slice units along the diameter of the opening. The rotation q can be expressed as
follows:
q =p
Ml i
q=
ò
q =0
EI q
dq (5.7)
where l i is the length of the slice unit.
For the uniform section (Fig.5.3b) with equivalent section rigidity:
Ml M ( 2r )
q eq = = , Where l = 2 r (5.8)
EI heq EI heq
where I heq is the equivalent second moment of area of the section along the opening.
If q = q eq then rearrange equations 5.7 and 5.8, we get:
q =p
Ml i
ò
M ( 2r )
dq = (5.9)
EI q EI heq
q =0
2r
I heq = q =p (5.10)
li
ò
q =0
Iq
dq
l i = dx = r sin q (5.11)
2r
Substituting for Iq (Equation 5.3), then, I heq = q =p
(5.12)
r sin q dq
ò
q =0 t w hw 3 8t w r 3
- sin 3 q
12 12
t whw3 8tw r 3
Put = I S = A and = Iopening = B (5.13a, b)
12 12
to give,

2r 2
I heq = p
= p
(5.14)
ò ò
r sin q dq sin q dq
0 A - B sin 3 q 0 A - B sin 3 q
The above equation is not solvable directly even with using the Mathematica (Welfram
research, 2015). Therefore it is converted into a summation form as follows:
2
I heq = n
(5.15)
(sin q ) p
å ( A - B sin
i =1
3
q) n
where n is the number of divisions in the range of ( 0, p ) . A number of cases have
been tested and n > 20 is suggested
12 I heq
hheq = 3 (5.16)
tw
where hheq is the equivalent height of the section along the opening
Calculating I heq and hheq is straightforward. A spreadsheet is provided to calculate the
I heq in Appendix E.
Example 5-2
For the same cellular beam in Example 5-1, calculate I heq and hheq
The geometrical properties are as follows, refer to Fig. 5.3:
hw = 274.3mm , t w = 5.8mm , D = 200 mm , r = 100 mm .
t w hw3 5.8 ´ 274.33

Using equation 5.13a; A = I S = = ´ 10-4 = 997.5cm 4
12 12
8t w r 3 8 ´ 5.8 ´ 1003
Using equation 5.13b; B = I Opening = = ´ 10-4 = 386.6cm4
12 12
Substituting these numbers in equation 5.15 gives:
2 2
I heq = n
= n
= 749.7cm 4
(sin q ) p (sin q ) p
å ( A - B sin
i =1
3
q) n
å (997.5 - 386.6 sin
i =1
3
q) n
Using equation 5.16 gives:

12 I heq 12 ´ 749.7 ´ 10000
hheq = 3 =3 = 249.4 mm (Fig. 5.3- section D-D)
tw 5.8
5.2.3 Validation- Step 2
The FE method using LUSAS has been used to validate equations 5.13a, b and 5.15
which are developed to convert the solid non-uniform section to a stepped solid
section. Two examples have been selected for the validation (Table 5.1). For each
example the depth of the solid section at the opening centre ( hDeq ) has been
calculated using equation 5.3 (Table 5.1- column 2). This enabled the modelling of the
beam which represents the non-uniform solid section (Fig. 5.4a). Equations 5.13a, b
and 5.15 have been used to determine the geometry of the stepped converted solid
section (Table 5.1- columns 3-6).
a. Non-uniform solid section
Element type: Plane Stress- QPM8

Element size: 25mm
Closer view
b. Stepped solid section
Element type: Plane Stress QPM8

Element size: 25mm
Closer view
Fig. 5.4: FE modelling of the cellular web beam used in validation of Step 2

High span to depth ratio beams have been used (Table 5.1- column 7) to reduce
significantly the shear effects from the deflection. The modelling of the beam is given in
Fig. 5.4b. Plane stress elements have been used in the modelling. The cellular web
beams are simply supported and subjected to central point loads of 10kN. For
comparison the displacement at mid-span has been used. The results from the FE
analyses have been given in table 5.1- columns 8 and 9. The results from the two
analyses for each example show that they are in close agreement Table 5.1- column
10.
Table 5.1: Validation of Step 2 using FE analysis

Non- Stepped solid section FEA
uniform Total/bending %
solid deflection at mid-span difference
section D (mm) D1 - D 2
X 100
CWB hDeq A B I heq hheq l (m ) Non- Uniform D1
uniform stepped
(mm) ( cm 4 ) (cm 4 ) (mm ) (l / hw )
(cm 4 ) solid solid
section section
D1 (mm) D 2 (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ex.1
h w = 274 . 3 mm
, t w = 5 . 8 mm
12.1
, D = 200mm 232.8 997.5 386.6 749.7 248.01
(44.1)
231.0 233.6 -1.1
, n = 40 ,
S = 300mm
Ex.2
h w = 622 .9 mm
t w = 8 . 5 mm
D = 450mm 532.0 17119.6 6454.7 12995.3 568.22
18.45
49.60 49.21
(29.61) 0.8
n = 33
S = 540mm
5.2.4 The equivalent uniform solid beam- constant bending moment (Step 3;
Beam C to Beam D)
From the previous section it has been possible to convert the non-uniform section
across the opening projection into a uniform solid section. Consequently the cellular
web beam has been converted into a beam with two different solid uniform stepped
sections (Fig. 5.5a). The challenge is now to convert the stepped solid web beam to
another equivalent uniform solid web beam (Fig.5.5b). The two beams have the same
length l , web thickness t w and the elastic modulus is E . Both beams are subjected to

the same constant bending moment M at their ends. Hence pure bending applies
under couples of moment M .
The bending deformation of the whole beam is represented by the rotation q , which is
alternatively demonstrated by the summation of the slope at the two ends.
Thus the rotations of the solid sections (deeper sections) and the solid shallow sections
(which represent the openings) of the beam are:
Ml S MD
qS = ; qD = ; l = ns l S + nD D (5.17)
EI S EI h eq
where q S and q D are the rotation at the solid deeper and solid shallow sections
respectively; l S and D are the length of solid deeper and solid shallow sections of the
CWB respectively; ns and n D are the numbers of solid deeper and solid shallow
sections (number of openings) respectively.
D A
M M
A-A D-D
D A
a) An equivalent stepped solid beam (refer to Fig. 5.1)
M M
E-E
E
b) An equivalent uniform solid beam (refer to Fig.5.1)
Fig. 5.5: Conversion of stepped solid beam to an equivalent uniform solid beam (step 3)
The rotation q of the beam is the sum of the rotations of the solid and shallow
sections, hence:
n s Ml S n D MD M æn l ö
q = n sq S + n D q D = + = ç s S + nD D ÷ (5.18)
EI S EI heq E ç IS I heq ÷
è ø

For the uniform beam with equivalent second moment of area (Fig. 5.5b):
Ml
q eq = (5.19)
EI weq
b
where I weq is equivalent bending second moment of area of the CWB section
b
If q = q eq then rearrange equations 5.18 and 5.19:
æn l ö
M ç s S + n D D ÷ = Ml (5.20)
E ç IS I heq ÷ EI weq
è ø b
l
I weq = (5.21)
b æn l ö
ç s S + nD D ÷
ç IS I heq ÷
è ø
All the symbols have their previous definitions.
12 I weq
hweq = 3 b
(5.22)
tw
Consider a cellular beam with n different sections (perforated and solid) subjected to a
constant bending moment M (Fig. 5.6). A general expression can be formulated.
Equation 5.18 can be re-written as follows:
æ l1 l 2 l 3 l l ö M n
l
å I ii
M
q= çç + + + ........ + i + ........ + n ÷÷ = (5.23)
E è I1 I 2 I 3 Ii In ø E i =1
M M
Fig. 5.6: Conversion of stepped solid beam to an equivalent uniform solid beam
Equating equation 5.20 and 5.23, the following general expression can be formulated
to determine the second moment of area (bending component) for a beam subjected to
constant bending moment:

n n
å li å li
i =1 i =1
I weq = n
= ns n (5.24)
b l l h l
å Ii å Ii +å I i
i =1 i i =1 s i =1 heq
Example 5-3
A cellular web beam with the following geometrical properties is subjected to a constant
bending moment at its ends (Fig. 5.7). Calculate I weq :

b
l = 3.375 m hw = 348.7mm , t w = 5.7mm , D = 250 mm , r = 125 mm , S = 375 mm , n D = 9 ,
nS = 9
n n
åi =1
li ål
i =1
i
Using equation 5.24, I weq = =

n ns nh
å
b
å åI
li li li
+
Ii Is heq
i =1 i =1 i =1
B A
M M
A-A B-B
B A
Fig. 5.7: Cellular web beam subjected to constant bending moment
Number of openings nD = 9
Total length of the openings = n D ´ D = 9 ´ 250 = 2250mm
n S = 9 ; l S = S - D = 125mm
Total length of the solid section = nS ´ l S = 9 ´ 125 = 1125mm
t w hw 3 5.7 ´ 348.7 3
Using equation 5.13a; A = I S = = x10 -4 = 2014cm4
12 12
8t w r 3 8 ´ 5.7 ´ 1253
Using equation 5.13b; B = = x10 -4 = 742cm 4
12 12
Substituting these numbers in equation 5.15 gives:

2 2
I heq = = = 1541cm 4
n
(sin q ) p n
(sin q ) p
å ( A - B sin 3 q ) n å (2014 - 742 sin 3 q ) n
i =1 i =1
Substituting in equation 5.24:
ål i =1
i
3375
I weq = = = 1672cm 4
b ns nh
æ 1125 2250 ö
åI +å I
li li ç + ÷
è 2014 1541 ø
i =1 s i =1 heq
5.2.5 Equivalent stiffness of a beam with variable bending moment (Step 3)
In the previous section, the equivalent representation was based on a condition that the
beam was subjected to a uniform bending moment along the length of the beam. In
practice, the bending moment in most cases varies along the length of the beam, such
as a simply supported beam subjected to uniformly distributed loads, or subjected to a
point load. Hence a formula should be provided for such common cases. To determine
the equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beam I weq , the beam will be
b
divided into n small units and the averaged bending moment M i across each unit is
assumed to be constant as shown below. By adopting the same methodology in
section 5.2.4 the expressions for the total rotation q of the beam and the equivalent
beam q eq at its ends are:
ì n n ns nh
M ili ü
å å å å
Mili M ili
ïq = qi = = + ;ï
ïï i =1 i =1
EI i
i =1
EI S
i =1
EI heq ïï
í ý (5.25)
ï n
ï
å
M il i
ïq eq = ï
ïî i =1
EI weqb ïþ
By equating the two rotation angles ( q eq = q ) and re-arranging, the equivalent second
moment of area I weq of the cross section with different opening sizes and spacing
b
subjected to variable bending moment can be obtained from the following expression:

n n
å Mi li å Mi li
i =1 i =1
I weq = n
= ns nh
(5.26)
b Mili
å Ii å
Mili
IS
+ å
M il i
I
i =1 i =1 i =1 h eq
A generalised expression can be formulated for the equivalent second moment of area:
ò M ( x)dx
I weq = o
l
(5.27)
b M ( x) dx
ò I ( x)
0
Example 5-4
Consider a cellular web beam section subjected to a point load of 5.0kN at mid-span
with span l = 4.0m, depth of the beam hw = 274.3mm, opening diameter D = 200mm,
number of openings=15, opening spacing S = 300mm, end distance= 200mm (Fig.
5.8). Determine I weq using equations 5.26.

b
n
åMi li
i =1
Equation 5.26 is as follows: I weq = ns n
b h
M il i Mili
å IS
+ å I
i =1 i =1 h eq
Pl 5.0 ´ 4.0
Maximum bending moment under a point load= = = = 5.0kN .m
4 4
The bending factors are also calculated at the opening centres as shown in Fig. 5.9.
200mm diameter openings 5.0kN A
4.0m
274.3 X 5.8
A
Section A-A
Fig. 5.8: Illustrative example; Cellular web beam subjected to a point load

Using equations 5.13a, and 5.13b:
t w hw3 5.8 (274.3) 3

A = IS = = ´ 10 -4 = 997cm 4 ;
12 12
8t w r 3 8 x5.8 x1003
B = I opening = = = 386cm 4
12 12
2 2
Using equation 5.15, I heq = = = 749cm 4
n
(sin q ) p n
(sin q ) p
å ( A - B sin 3 q ) n å (997 - 386 sin 3 q ) n
i =1 i =1
The numerator of equation 5.26 is as follows:
n
å M i l i = Area under the bending moment diagram = 0.5 x 4.0 x5.0 = 10.0kN .m 2
i =1
The denominator of equation 5.26 is as follows:
The first term:
nh
M i l i 0.2(0.5 + 1.25 + 2.0 + 2.75 + 3.5 + 4.25) ´ 2 + 0.2 ´ 5.0 6.7
å I
=
749 ´ 10 -8
=
749
´ 10 8
i =1 heq
= 0.00895 ´ 10 8 kN / m 2
Fig. 5.9: Example diagram showing bending moments at opening centre line
The second term of the denominator is as follows:

ns
M i l i Area under the bending moment corresponding to the soild sec tion
å IS
=
IS
=
i =1
Total area - area corresponding to the openings (10 - 6.7) 3.3

= -
= ´ 108 =
IS 997 ´ 10 8 997
0.00331 ´ 108 kN / m 2

10.0
I weq = ´ 108 = 816cm4
b (0.00331 + 0.00895) ´ 10 8
5.2.6 Validation- step 3
The FE method using LUSAS has been used to validate equation 5.26 which is
developed to convert the stepped solid section to a uniform solid section. The same
two examples in section 5.2.3 have been used for the validation (Table 5.2). Equation
5.26 has been used to determine the equivalent height of the uniform solid section
hweq (Table 5.2- column 4). The modelling of the uniform solid beams is similar to
those in section 5.2.3. The cellular web beams are simply supported and subjected to a
point load of 10kN at mid-span. For comparison purposes the displacement at mid-
span has been used. The results from the FE and hand analyses have been given in
Table 5.2 (columns 9 and 10).
Table 5.2: Validation of step 3 using FEA

Stepped solid Uniform solid section Hand FEA % diff. % diff.
section Bending
Deflection at
Total bending
deflection at mid-span
D1 - D 2 Db - D1
X100 X100
mid-span D (mm) D1 Db
D b (mm)
CWB I heq Uniform solid

hheq IS Stepped Uniform
I weq section solid solid
b hweq l
D b (mm) section section
(cm 4 ) (mm) (cm4 ) (cm 4 ) (mm) (m) D 1 ( mm ) D 2 ( mm )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ex.1
h w = 274 .3 mm
, t w = 5.8mm ,
D = 200mm ,
749.7 232.8 997.5 816 255.11 12.2 226.2 233.60 230..0 1.3 -1.6
n = 40 ,
S = 300mm
Ex.2
h w = 622 . 9 mm
t w = 8.5mm
D = 450mm 12995 568.2 17119 13537 572.35 18.45 49.03 49.21 49.37 -0.3 -0.7
n = 25
S = 540mm
The results from the two analyses for each example show that they are in agreement. It
should also be noted that the bending deflection using hand analysis has been used to

determine the bending deflection (Table 5.2- column 8). This result has been compared
with the FE result (Table 5.2- column 10) and they are in close agreement (column 5.2-
column 12). This reveals the validity of the developed method to determine the bending
deflection.
5.2.7 Equivalent second moment of area based on maximum deflection
If the equivalent second moment of area is determined using the maximum deflection
analogy, the expression can be expressed using the unit-load method:
l
M ( x) M ( x)
Maximum deflection D max = ò EI ( x)
dx (5.28)
0
M (x) is the bending moment caused by external loads and M (x ) is the bending
moment caused by the unit load P = 1 applied in the direction and location where it
causes the maximum deflection.
l
M ( x) M ( x)
D eq max = ò EI w eq
dx (5.29)
0 b
By equating the deflection in the above two expressions i.e. D max = D eqmax , the
equivalent second moment of area is as follows:

l
ò M ( x) M ( x) dx
I weq = 0
l
(5.30)
b
M ( x ) M ( x ) dx
ò I ( x)
0
The discrete form of the above equation is:

l
å M i M i ( x)
i =1
I weq = l
(5.31)
b M i M i li
ò Ii
0

5.2.8 Simplified formulae for a variable bending moment
Consider a cellular beam consisting of n different size units (Fig. 5.10).
Assumptions:
· Beam consisting of a number of units. The units are of two types ( ns is the
number of deep solid units and nh is the number of shallow solid units which
represent the openings).
· The bending moment varies along the beam, but it can be assumed to be
constant in each unit as the variation is very small.
· Assume the total bending moment is equal to the summation of individual
bending moments across each unit.
Fig. 5.10: A cellular beam with two types of units
n ns nh
åMi = åMi + åMi (5.32)
i =1 i =1 i =1
Substituting equation 5.32 in equation 5.25
n n n n n n n
åM l
i =1
i i åM ål
i =1
i
i =1
i åM ål
i =1
i
i =1
i ål
i =1
i ål
i =1
i
I weq = n
== n n
= ns nh
= n
= ns nh
n
å åM å å
b
å M + å M )å å åI
M il i li li li li li
i ( i i +
Ii Ii Ii Ii IS h eq
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1
l
= (5.33)
æn l ö
ç s S + nD D ÷
ç IS I heq ÷
è ø
All symbols have their previous definitions.

If nS l S = l - l OT = l ST the total length of the solid sections between the openings and
at the ends, and n D D = l OT the total length of the openings, and substituting these into
equation 5.32, gives:
l l
I weq = = (5.34)
b æn l ö æl ö
ç s S + nD D ÷ ç ST + l OT ÷
ç IS I heq ÷ ç IS I heq ÷
è ø è ø
Equation 5.34 reveals that the equivalent second moment of area can be determined
using the CWB geometrical properties without using the bending moment at the units.
Example 5-5
Determine I weq for the same cellular web beam given in Example 5-4 using the
b
simplified equation 5.34.
l OT = 13 ´ 0.2 = 2.6m
l ST = l - l OT = 4.0 - 2.6 = 1.4m
Using the simplified equation 5.34 to determine I weq

b
l 4 4
I weq = = = = 821cm 4
b æl ö é 1 . 4 2. 6 ù 0 .0014 + 0 . 00347
ç ST + l OT ÷ ê 997 + 749 ú
ç IS I heq ÷ ë û
è ø
The difference between the two results using equations 5.26 ( I weq = 816.0cm 4 -
b
example 5-3) and 5.33 ( I weq = 821.0cm 4 - example 5-4) is very small (0.5%). This
b
reveals how simple and easy is to use the simplified expression to determine I weq .
b
5.3 Shear deformation of cellular web beam
Shear deformation in a beam is directly associated with shear stress and its
distributions. Shear stress distributions in a solid web beam with rectangular section
are generally not complex. When it is subjected to a transverse loading shear stresses
(in addition to bending stresses) cause deformations on a plane normal to the axis of
the beam. The magnitude of these shear stresses is relatively small (Fig. 4.3- chapter

4) and the corresponding shear deformation represents a small percentage of the total
deformation and it is usually ignored. While in a comparable cellular web beam
subjected to a similar loading, shear stresses between the openings (Fig. 4.3) and in
sections within the opening projection vary differently and their distribution is complex.
The associated shear deformations are also increasing significantly.
It is very challenging to determine by hand the effect of shear in cellular web beams
due to its complexity. Instead a numerical method has been developed to determine
the effects of shear deformation in CWBs.
Shear stresses at 0.91m from the support

Distance along the depth of beam
0.8
0.7 Shear stresses- cellular web

0.6 Shear stresses- solid I beam
0.5
(m)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
-0.1
Shear stresses N/mm^2
Fig. 4.3: Shear stresses at 0.91m from the support (repeated for clarity)
5.3.1 Introduction
A number of CWBs with different opening and span configurations have been analysed
(Table 5.3) using the hand method developed (formulae 5.34) and the FEA.
Table 5.3: Comparison between FEA and hand analyses (formulae 5.13a, b and 5.34)
Size of Opening Opening End Span Number I weq Dmax FEA - Ana.
b x100%
cellular web dia. spacing distance l of
(cm )
4 Displacement at FEA
beam D S (mm) (mm) opening
mid-span (mm)
investigated (mm) (mm)
(mm) FEA Hand
Ana.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2800 9 825 1.90 1.39 26.8
3400 11 824 3.22 2.51 22.0
4000 13 823 5.11 4.08 20.2
274.5 X 5.8 200 300 200 4600 15 823 7.62 6.21 18.5
5200 17 823 10.8 8.97 16.9
5800 19 822 14.9 12.4 16.8
7600 25 822 25.9 21.9 15.4
8200 27 822 41.3 35.1 15.0
9400 31 821 61.9 52.9 14.5

The equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beams I weq (Table 5.3- col.
b
7) using the developed hand method has been used to determine displacements at
mid-span for comparison purposes (Table 5.3 col. 9).
Example 5-6
Calculate I weq for the 1st cellular beam in Table 5.3

b
Number of openings nD = 9
t w hw3 5.8 ´ 274.53

Using equation 5.13a; A = I S = = ´10 -4 = 999.7cm 4
12 12
8t w r 3 8 ´ 5.8 ´ 1003
Using equation 5.13b; B = = ´ 10-4 = 386.67cm4
12 12
Substituting these numbers in equation 5.15 we get:
2 2
I heq = n
= n
= 752.0cm 4
å ( A - B sin
i =1
3
q) n
å (999.7 - 386.67 sin
i =1
3
q) n
l OT = 9 ´ 0.2 = 1.8m
l ST = l - l OT = 2.8 - 1.8 = 1.0m
l 2.8
2.8
I weq = = =
= 825.0cm4 (column. 7)
b æl ö é 1.0 1.8 ù 0.0010003+ 0.00239361
ç ST + lOT ÷ ê + ú
ç I S I h ÷ ë999.7 752.0û
è eq ø
Pl 3 5 ´ 2.83
D= ´ 105 = 1.39mm (column 9)
48EI eqb 48 ´ 200 ´ 825.0
It can be observed from the FEA and hand calculation results in Table 5.3:
· There are significant differences between the results from the FE analyses
(column 8) and the hand method using equation 5.34 (column 9).
· The difference between the two results decreases as the span increases (columns
5 and 10) 26.8% for the 2.8m span beam and 14.5% for 9.4m span beam.

· The difference between the results of the FEA and the hand method using
equation 5.34 is associated with the presence of shear deformation in the CWBs
which has not been accounted for so far. This will be discussed in the proceeding
sections.
· The values of I weq (column 7) are basically independent of the span (column 5)
b
providing the geometrical configurations remain the same.
The aim is now to study and investigate numerically and add the effect of the shear
deformation as a correction factor which can also take into account the shear
deformation. The equivalent second moment of area of a cellular web beam can then
be calculated which caters for both bending shear deformations.
5.3.2 Design parameters
The second moment of area of a cellular web beam is a function of several design
parameters such as t w , hw : D , S , l (Fig. 5.11). These parameters vary and have an
effect on the shear deformation of the cellular web beam.
Section A-A
A
Fig. 5.11: Cellular beam showing the relevant parameters
It should be noted that the web beam thickness t w is thin and signifies a plane stress
problem where in plane stresses are negligible. It has no effect on the shear
deformation and therefore has not been investigated. If the span and depth of the web
beam are combined together as Span/depth ratio, then three parameters will be
investigated l / hw , D and S .

Justification for using span to depth ratio as one parameter
æ l ö
The justification for combining the two parameters l and çç ÷÷ is as follows. Consider
è hw ø
a simply supported uniform beam with a length of l and cross-section ( t w ´ h w ), the
maximum deflection D max is:
For a uniformly distributed load w per unit length:
3
5 wl 4 5wl 4 12 60w æ l ö
D max = = = ç ÷ l
384 EI 384E t w hw 3 Et w çè hw ÷ø
For a concentrated load P applied at mid-span:
3
Pl 3 P 12 12 P æ l ö
D max = = = çç ÷÷
48 EI 48 E t w h w 3 48 Et w è hw ø
The above two equations show that D max for a uniformly distributed load is a function of
æ l ö æ l ö
çç ÷÷ and l , while is a function of çç ÷÷ for a concentrated load. The relationship that
è hw ø è hw ø
æ l ö
D max is proportional to the çç ÷÷ powered three for a uniformly distributed load may not
è hw ø
æ l ö
hold, however the ratio of çç ÷÷ is often used in practice and will be used in the
è hw ø
following study, but the limitation of the treatment is noted.
5.3.3 Overview of the parameters
There are three parameters for designing cellular webs. The diameter of the opening
(Fig. 5.11) in practice is a function of the size (the depth) of the parent beam or column.
Example 1: if a UB 457x191x67 is converted into a CB the diameter of the opening is a
round figure which is slightly less than the depth of the parent Universal Beam. In this
instant the diameter of the cellular beam is usually 450mm which is slightly less than

the height of the parent UB which is 457mm. The height of the produced cellular web
hw is 622.9mm.
Example 2: If a UB 254x102x25 is converted to a CB the diameter of the opening is
250mm which is slightly less than 254mm. The height of the produced cellular web hw
is 348.7mm. This means that the diameter of the opening in a cellular beam is a
function of the depth of the universal beam and the depth of the produced cellular
beam. The diameter of the opening, in practice, usually varies between 0.71- 0.77 of
the depth of the cellular web beam hw (Example 1: D / hw = 450 / 622.9 = 0.72 ; Example
2: D / hw = 250 / 348.7 = 0.71 ). The opening diameter is usually a multiple of 25mm such
as 150, 200, 250, 500, 550, 400, 450, 525, 600, etc.
The spacing S (cell pitch) between the openings usually varies between minimum
1.08D and maximum1.6D (MACSTEEL, 2005). For example a lightly loaded cellular
roof beam can be designed with a maximum possible depth, and opening centres
approaching the minimum permissible (1.08D). In practice a slight adjustment to the
opening centres is usually made so that there is a full web post at the end of the beam.
The geometry of a cellular beam can be chosen to match the exact structural
requirement. However in practice the spacing between the openings for a lightly loaded
cellular roof beam is usually 1.2 to 1.25 times the opening diameter. And for a floor
beam the spacing is usually 1.5 times the opening diameter.
A full web-post at each end of the cellular beam needs to be provided to withstand the
shear load effect. The following equation is usually used to calculate the end distance
D
End disance = S - (Fig. 5.11).
2
The Span to depth ratio of the beam is a variable parameter and dependent on the
gap the beam requires to bridge.
The depth of the beam is dependent on mainly the span and occasionally the diameter
of the opening that is required to incorporate any services. In the following sections

numerical analysis using FE analysis will be undertaken to determine the effect of the
shear deformation by considering the effect of the design parameters discussed above.
5.3.4 Effect of opening diameter ‘D’
Shear deformation in a CWB is very much associated with the presence of openings in
the web and their size. Numerical analyses have been undertaken on a CWB with the
same cross-section ( 421 .4 ´ 5.8 ) but different span arrangements (Table 5.4) to
determine the effect of the size of the opening on both the bending and shear
deformations.
Table 5.4: Details of investigated beams- varying opening diameter

Cellular Web l hw l / hw ratio S (mm) Opening diameters
beam size (m) D (mm)
(mm)
4.02 9.97 200,225,250, 275, 300
421.4 X 5.8 6.00 14.24 200,225,250, 275, 300
421.4 450
7.80 18.51 200,225,250, 275, 300
The investigation on this beam will satisfy the objective of determining the effect of
opening diameter. For each span apart from the diameter, all the other parameters are
kept unchanged. The opening diameter has been varied such as (200, 225, 250, 275,
and 300). Fifteen analyses have been undertaken in total.
5.3.4.1 Bending and shear deformations
Bending and shear deformations as a % of the total deformation have been calculated
for the three span/depth ratios (table 5.4) and drawn as shown in Fig. 5.12.
The adopted calculation entails the following steps:
· The three CWB sections have been modelled using LUSAS. The modelling of the
CWBs has been similar to those modelled in section 5.2.3. The total displacements at
mid-span have been calculated for a central point load of 5.0kN.
· The hand analysis comprised of determining I weq using formulae 5.34 for the
b
three CWB sections. Using the theoretical approximate equation (for a simply
supported beam subjected to a point load at mid-span) the bending component of the
deflection has been obtained using the value of I weq .

b

Shear and bending deformation versus opening diameter
Shear and bending deformation as % of total

100
90
80
70
Span depth ratio 9.97 Bending
60
Span depth ratio 9.97
50 Span depth ratio 14.24
40 Span depth ratio 14.24 Shear
Span depth ration 18.51
20
10
0
175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Opening diameter (mm)
Fig. 5.12: The effect of opening diameter on shear and bending deformations
· The shear deformation has been determined by subtracting the total determined
displacement using the FEA from the bending component using the approximate
theoretical equation. The shear and bending deformations as a percentage of the total
displacement are calculated and plotted against the opening diameters (Fig. 5.12).
Fig. 5.12 shows that the shear deformation increases as the opening diameter
increases providing the other parameters such as ‘span/depth’ ratio and ‘spacing’ are
kept constant.
On the other hand the bending deformation relatively decreases as the opening
diameter increases. It can also be noted that shear deformation is relatively greater for
the lower span depth ratios.
5.3.4.2 Shear deformation factor a w versus D
Shear deformation factor a w assuming uniformly distributed load can be defined as
follows:
4
Total deformatio n Bending deformation + Shear deformation 5 wl / 384 EI weq I weq
aw = = = 4
= b
Bending deformation Bending deformation 5 wl / 384 EI weq I weq
b
1
I weq = I weq (5.35)
aw b

Taking into account the above definition, the value of ‘ a w ’ has been determined and
plotted against the opening diameter for the three span/depth ratios (Fig. 5.13).
Shear deformation factor versus opening diameter

1.40

Shear deformation factor
1.30 Span depth ratio 14.24

1.20
1.10
1.00
175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Fig. 5.13: Shear deformation factor versus opening diameter
It can be observed from Fig. 5.13 that the shear deformation factor increases as the
opening diameter increases for the span depth ratios. The shear deformation factor is
greater for lower span depth ratios and the variation is not linear.
5.3.5 Effect of varying opening spacing S
A further numerical analysis has been undertaken to determine the effect of opening
spacing on the shear and bending deformations. Apart from the opening spacing, all
the other parameters were kept constant. The analyses have been undertaken on
another beam (Table 5.5) selected from the UB sub-groups (Appendix A1). The
modelling of the CWB is similar to those modelled in section 5.2.3. The investigation on
this CWB will satisfy the intended objective of the analysis.
Table 5.5: Details of investigated cellular beam for varying opening spacing
Size of beam l (mm) hw (mm) l / h w ratio D (mm) S
7210 14.90 Varies between 1.2 and 1.80
485.6 X 6.9 485.6 350
5.3.5.1 Bending and shear deformations
Bending and shear deformations have been calculated for the three span/depth ratios
(Table 5.5) with varying opening spacing. Both bending and shear deformations as a %

of the total deformation have been plotted against the opening spacing (Fig.5.14). The
figure shows that the shear deformation increases as the opening spacing reduces. On
the other hand the bending deformation relatively increases as the opening spacing
increases. It is also clear that the shear deformation is relatively greater for the lower
span depth ratios.
Shear and bending deformations versus opening spacing

100
Shear and bending deformation as % of total
90
80
70 Bending

40
Shear Span depth ratio 25.33
30
20
10
0
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Spacing betwee openings as multiplier of diameter
Fig. 5.14: Effect of opening spacing on shear and bending deformations
5.3.5.2 Shear deformation factor a w versus opening spacing S
Shear deformation factor has been determined for different opening spacing
configurations using the same procedure adopted previously.
Shear deformation factor versus opening spacing

1.30
1.25 Span depth ratio 18.38
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85
Spacing between openings as a multiplier of diameter
Fig. 5.15: The shear deformation factor versus the opening spacing

Shear deformation factors versus opening spacing have been plotted (Fig. 5.15). From
the figure the following can be observed. The shear deformation factor reduces as the
opening spacing increases for all span depth ratios. The shear deformation factor is
relatively lower for high span to depth ratios. The variation is almost linear for each of
them. It can also be noticed that the variations are slightly steeper for lower span depth
ratios.
5.3.6 Effect of span/depth ratio l

hw
Further analysis has been undertaken to investigate the shear and bending
deformations versus the span/depth ratio of CWBs. In this section it is intended to fix all
the parameters apart from span/depth ratios. The following parameters have been
fixed: diameter (diameter/depth ratio), opening spacing and thickness. The span/depth
ratios have been varied.
A number of cases relating to different diameter/depth ( D ) ratio have been

hw
considered in this investigation. The considered cases are compatible with the
information published by Westok and presented in a tabulated manner to assist
understanding (Table A2, Appendix A2). Diameter/depth ratios of 0.71, 0.72, 0.73,
0.74, 0.75, and 0.77 have been considered in this study (Table 5.6). For the case of
0.71, three types of beams have been analysed relating to appropriate opening and
spacing. The opening spacing is related to diameter of the opening and they are 1.2,
1.35 and 1.5 times the diameter. The results from the analyses of the three beams
have revealed that they are very close. Therefore for the cases of 0.72, 0.73, and 0.74,
two beams have been selected for analysis. For the remaining cases diameter/depth
ratios of 0.75 and 0.77 one beam has been selected for analysis as there is only one
beam for each of these cases (Appendix A2).
Case study 0.71 (odd number of openings) has only been presented in the main body
of the report to avoid presenting repetitive information. However the results for all the
cases have been given in Table 5.7.

5.3.6.1 Case 1: Diameter/depth ratio (0.71)
Investigation has been undertaken on three cellular web beam sections. The details
are given below in Table 5.6. The analyses have been undertaken for 1.2D, 1.35D and
1.5D opening spacing.
Bending and shear deformations have been calculated in a similar manner to those
calculated in section 5.3.5.2 as a % of the total deflection for span/depth ratios listed in
Table 5.6 for opening spacing of 1.2, 1.35 and 1.5 times diameter and these have been
plotted for the odd number of openings as shown below in Figures 5.16 ( S = 1.2 D ;
S = 1.35 D ; S = 1.5 D ).
Shear and bending deformations as a % versus span/depth ratio (0.71)

Shear and bending deformations as a % of the total
90
Beam 1 Bending (S=1.2D)

Beam 1 Shear (S=1.2D)
70 Beam 2 Shear (S=1.2D)
50 S=1.2D S=1.35D S=1.5D Beam 2 Shear (S=1.35D)
30 Beam 2 Shear (S=1.5D)
10
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Span/depth ratio
Fig. 5.16: The effect of ( l / hw ) ratio on the shear and bending deformations
( D / hw = 0.71; S = 1.20 D ; S = 1.35D ; S = 1.50 D )

Table 5.6: All cases 1 ( D hw = 0.71- 0.75 and 0.77 ), detail of investigated CWBs
Cellular web D D hw S (mm) Odd number of openings Even number of openings
beam
(mm)
investigated (l, l / hw , n) (l, l / hw , n)
(3.3, 7.85, 9), (4.02, 9.54, 11), (4.74, 11.25, 13), (5.46, 12.96, (3.66, 8.69, 10), (4.38, 10.39, 12), (5.10, 12.10, 14), (5.82, 13.81,
360 (1.2D) 15), (6.18, 14.67, 17), (6.9, 16.57, 19), (8.54, 19.79, 23), (9.78, 16), (6.54, 15.52, 18), (7.98, 18.94, 22), (9.42, 22.35, 26), (10.86,
25.21, 27), (11.22, 26.65, 31). 25.77, 30)
Beam 1
(3.75, 8.9, 9), (4.56, 10.82, 11), (5.57, 12.74, 13), (6.18, 14.67, (4.15, 9.86, 10), (4.96, 11.78, 12), (5.77, 13.70, 14), (6.58, 15.63,
421.4 X 5.8 300 0.71
405 (1.35D) 15), (6.99, 16.59, 17), (7.8, 18.51, 19), (9.42, 22.55, 23), (11.04, 16), (7.39, 17.55, 18), (9.02, 21.39, 22), (10.63, 25.24, 26), (12.25,
26.20, 27), (12.66, 30.04, 31). 29.08, 30)
(4.2 , 9.97, 9), ( 5.10, 12.1, 11), (6.0 , 14.24, 13), (6.9 ,16.57, (4.65 , 11.03, 10), ( 5.55, 13.17, 12), (6.45 , 15.31, 14), (7.35
450 (1.5D) 15), (7.8 ,18.51, 17), (8.7, 20.65, 19), 10.5, 24.92, 23), (12.50, ,17.44, 16), (8.25 ,19.58, 18), (10.05, 23.85, 22), (10.205 , 22.29,
29.19, 27), (14.10, 33.46, 31) 26), (11.765, 25.70, 30)
(3.37, 7.8, 9), (4.55, 9.54, 11), (5.15, 11.22, 13), (5.915, 12.92, (3.96, 8.66, 10), (4.74, 10.37, 12), (5.52, 12.07, 14), (6.305, 13.77,
390 (1.2D) 15), (6.69, 14.63, 17), (7.47, 16.55, 19), (9.05, 19.76, 23), 16), (7.1, 15.48, 18), (8.64, 18.89, 22), (9.03, 19.74, 26), (10.59,
(10.59, 25.15, 27), (12.15 , 26.55, 31) 23.15, 30)
Beam 2
325 0.71 (4.06, 8.87, 9), (4.94, 10.79, 11), (5.82, 12.71, 13), (6.69, 14.63, (4.50, 9.83, 10), (5.38, 11.75, 12), (6.26, 13.67, 13), (7.13, 15.58,
457.7 X 5.8
459 (1.35D) 15), (7.57, 16.54, 17), (8.45, 18.46, 19), (10.20, 22.29, 23), 16), (8.01, 17.50, 18), (9.76, 21.34, 22), (11.52, 25.17, 26), (13.27,
(11.96, 26.13, 27), (15.71, 29.96, 31) 29.00, 30)
(4.55, 9.94, 9), (5.50,12.03, 11), (6.5, 14.20, 13), (7.47, 16.55, (5.04, 11.01, 10), (6.01,13.14, 12), (6.99, 15.27, 14), (7.96, 17.40,
488 (1.5D) 15), (8.45, 18.46, 17), (9.42, 20.59, 19), (11.37, 24.85, 23), 16), (8.94, 19.53, 18), (10.89, 23.79, 22), (12.84, 28.05, 26),
(13.32, 29.11, 27), (15.27, 33.57, 31) (14.79, 32.31, 30)
(6,87, 7.84, 9), (8.37, 9.56, 11), (9.87,11.27, 13), (11.37 ,12.98, (7.62, 8.70, 10), (9.12, 10.41, 12), (10.62,12.12, 14), (12.12 ,13.84,
750 (1.2D) 15), (12.87, 14.69, 17), (14.375, 16.40, 19), (17.37, 19.83, 23), 16), (13.62, 15.55, 18), (16.62, 18.97, 22), (19.62, 22.39, 26),
(20.37, 23.25, 27), (23.375, 26.67, 31) (22.62, 25.82, 30)
Beam 3 (7.813, 8.91, 9), (9.5, 10.84, 11), (11.188, 12.77, 13), (12.87, (8.65, 9.88, 10), (10.34, 10.80, 12), (12.03, 13.73, 14), (13.72,
625 0.71 843.75 (1.35D) 14.69, 15), (14.56, 16.62, 17), (16.25, 18.54, 19), (19.62, 22.39, 15.65, 16), (15.41, 17.58, 18), (18.78, 21.43, 22), (22.16, 25.28,
876.4 X 10.5
23), (23.00, 26.24, 27), (26.375, 30.09, 31). 26), (25.53, 29.13, 30)
(8.75, 9.98, 9), (10.625, 12.12, 11), (12.50, 14.26, 13), (14.37, (9.69, 11.05, 10), (11.56, 13.19, 12), (13.44, 15.33, 14), (15.31,
937.5 (1.5D) 16.40, 15), (16.25, 18.54, 17), (18.12, 20.68, 19), (21.875, 17.47, 16), (117.19, 19.61, 18), (20.94, 23.89, 22), (24.69, 28.17,
24.96, 23), (25.62, 29.24, 27), (29.37, 33.52.19, 31) 26), (28.44, 32.45, 30)

Table 5.6: Case 1 ( D hw = 0.71- 0.75 and 0.77 ), detail of investigated CWBs- continued
Cellular web D D hw S Odd number of openings Even number of openings
beam
(mm) (mm) (l, l / hw , n) (l, l / hw , n)
investigated
(3.85, 7.96, 9), (4.69, 9.70, 11), (5.53, 11.44, 13), (6.37, 13.17, (3.85,7.96, 10), (4.69, 9.70, 12), (5.53, 11.44, 14), (6.37, 13.17,
420 (1.2D) 15), (7.21, 14.91, 17), (8.05, 16.65, 19), (9.73, 20.12, 23), 16), (7.21, 14.91, 18), (8.05, 16.65, 22), (9.73, 20.12, 26), (11.41,
(11.41, 23.59, 27), (13.09, 27.07, 31). 23.59, 30)
Beam 1 (4.375, 9.05, 9), (5.32, 11.0, 11), (6.265, 12.95, 13), (7.21, (4.38, 9.05, 10), (5.32, 11.00, 12), (6.27, 12.95, 14), (7.21, 14.91,
350 0.72
483.6 X 6.9 472.5 (1.35D) 14.91, 15), (8.155, 16.86, 17), (9.1, 18.82, 19), (10.99, 22.73, 16), (8.16, 16.86, 18), (9.10, 18.82, 22), (10.99, 22.73, 26), (12.88,
23), (12.88, 26.63, 27), (14.77,30.54, 31). 26.63, 30)
(4.9 , 10.13, 9), ( 5.95, 12.3, 11), (7.0 , 14.47, 13), (8.05 ,16.65, (4.90 , 10.13, 10), ( 5.95, 12.30, 12), (7.0 , 14.47, 14), (8.05 ,16.65,
525 (1.5D) 15), (9.1 ,18.82, 17), (10.15, 20.99, 19), (12.25 ,25.33, 23), 16), (9.10 ,18.82, 18), (10.15, 20.99, 22), (12.25 , 25.33, 26),
(14.35, 29.67, 27), (16.45, 34.02, 31) (14.35, 29.67, 30)
(4.40, 7.95, 9), (5.36, 9.68, 11), (6.32, 11.42, 13), (7.28, 13.15,
(4.88, 8.82, 10), (5.84, 10.55, 12), (6.80, 12.28, 14), (7.76, 14.02,
480 (1.2D) 15), (8.24, 14.88, 17), (9.20, 16.62, 19), (11.12, 20.09, 23),
16), (8.72, 15.75, 18), (10.64, 19.22, 22), (12.56, 122.69, 26),
(13.04, 23.55, 27), (14.96 , 27.02, 31)
(14.48, 26.16, 30)
Beam 2
(5.0, 9.03, 9), (6.08, 10.98, 11), (7.16, 12.93, 13), (8.24, 14.88, (5.54, 10.01, 10), (6.62, 11.96, 12), (7.70, 13.91, 13), (8.78, 15.86,
553.6 X 6.3 400 0.72
540 (1.35D) 15), (9.32, 16.84, 17), (10.40, 18.79, 19), (12.56, 22.69, 23), 16), (9.86, 17.81, 18), (12.02, 21.71, 22), (14.18, 25.25.61), (16.34,
(14.72, 26.59, 27), (16.88, 30.49, 31) 29.52, 30)
(5.60, 10.12, 9), (6.80,12.28, 11), (8.0, 14.45, 13), (9.2, 16.62,
(6.20, 11.21, 10), (7.40,13.37, 12), (8.60, 15.53, 14), (9.80, 17.70,
600 (1.5D) 15), (10.40, 18.79, 17), (11.60, 20.95, 19), (14.0, 25.29, 23),
16), (11.00, 19.87, 18), (13.40, 24.21, 22), (15.80, 28.54, 26),
(16.40, 29.62, 27), (18.80, 33, 31)
(18.20, 32.88, 30)
(2.20, 8.02, 9), (2.68, 9.77, 11), (3.16,11.52, 13), (3.64 ,13.27, (2.44, 8.90, 10), (2.92, 10.65 12), (3.40, 12.12, 40), (3.88, 14.15,
16), (4.36, 15.90, 18), (5.32, 19.39, 22), (6.28, 22.89, 26), (7.24,
240 (1.2D) 15), (4.12, 15.02, 17), (4.60, 16.77, 19), (5.56, 20.27, 23), (6.52,
26.39, 30)
23.77, 27), (7.48, 27.27, 31)
Beam 1 (2.50, 9.11, 9), (3.04, 11.08, 11), (3.58, 13.05, 13), (4.12, 15.02,
200 0.73 (2.77, 10.10, 1), (3.31, 12.07, 12), (3.85, 14.04, 14), (4.39, 16.00,
274.3 X 5.8 270 (1.35D) 15), (4.66, 16.99, 17), (5.20, 18.96, 19), (6.28, 22.89, 23), (7.36,
16), (4.93, 17.97, 18), (6.01, 21.91, 22), (7.09, 25.85, 26), (8.17,
26.83, 27), (8.44, 30.77, 31).
29.78, 30)
(2.80, 10.21, 9), (3.40, 12.40, 11), (4.0, 14.58, 13), (4.60, 16.77, (3.10, 11.30, 10), (3.70, 13.49, 12), (4.30, 15.68, 14), (4.90, 17.86,
300 (1.5D) 15), (5.20, 18.96, 17), (5.80, 21.14, 19), (7.0, 25.52, 23), (8.20, 16), (5.50, 20.05, 18), (6.70, 24.43, 22), (7.90, 28.80, 26), (9.10,
29.89, 27), (9.40, 34.27, 31) 33.18, 30)

beam (mm) (mm) (l, l / hw , n) (l, l / hw , n)
investigated
(2.75, 8.03, 9), (3.35, 9.78, 11), (3.95, 11.53, 13), (4.55, 13.28, (3.05, 8.91, 10), (3.65, 10.66, 12), (4.25, 12.41, 14), (4.85, 14.16,
300 (1.2D) 15), (6.15, 15.04, 17), (5.75, 16.79, 19), (6.95, 20.29, 23), (8.15, 16), (5.45, 15.91, 18), (6.65, 19.42, 22), (7.85, 22.92, 26), (9.05,
23.80, 27), (9.35, 27.30, 31). 26.42, 30)
Beam 2 (3.12, 9.12, 9), (3.80, 11.09, 11), (4.47, 13.07, 13), (5.15, 15.04, (3.46, 10.11, 10), (4.14, 12.08, 12), (4.81, 14.05, 14), (5.49, 16.02,
250 0.73
342.5 X 6.1 337.5 (1.35D) 15), (5.82, 17.01, 17), (6.5, 18.98, 19), (7.85, 22.92, 23), (9.20, 16), (6.16, 17.99, 18), (7.51, 21.93, 22), (8.86, 25.88, 26), (10.21,
26.86, 27), (10.55, 30.80, 31). 29.82, 30)
(3.5 , 10.22, 9), ( 4.25, 12.41, 11), (5.0 , 14.60, 13), (5.75 ,16.79, (3.88 , 11.31, 10), ( 4.63, 13.50, 12), (5.38 , 15.69, 14), (6.13
375 (1.5D) 15), (6.5 ,18.98, 17), (7.25, 21.17, 19), (8.75, 25.55, 23), (10.25, ,17.88, 16), (6.88 , 20.07, 18), (8.38, 24.45, 22), (9.88 , 28.83, 26),
29.93, 27), (11.75, 34.31, 31) (11.38, 33.21, 30)
(3.57, 8.11, 9), (4.35, 9.88, 11), (5.13, 11.64, 13), (5.91, 13.41, (3.97, 8.99, 10), (4.75, 10.76, 12), (5.53, 12.53, 14), (6.31, 14.29,
390 (1.2D) 15), (6.69, 15.81, 17), (7.47, 16.95, 19), (9.03, 20.49, 23), 16), (7.09, 16.06, 18), (8.65, 19.60, 22), (10.21, 23.14, 26), (11.77,
(10.59, 24.02, 27), (12.15 , 27.56, 31) 26.67, 30)
Beam 1 (4.06, 9.21, 9), (4.94, 11.20, 11), (5.82, 13.19, 13), (6.69, 15.18, (4.50, 10.20, 10), (5.38, 12.19, 12), (6.26, 14.18, 13), (7.13, 16.17,
325 0.74
441.1 X 7.1 459 (1.35D) 15), (7.57, 17.17, 17), (8.45, 19.16, 19), (10.20, 23.14, 23), 16), (8.01, 18.16, 18), (9.77, 22.14, 22), (11.52, 26.12, 26), (13.28,
(11.96, 27.12, 27), (13.71, 31.10, 31) 30.10, 30)
(4.55, 10.32, 9), (5.52,12.53, 11), (6.5, 14.74, 13), (7.47, 16.95, (5.04, 11.42, 10), (6.01,13.63, 12), (6.99, 15.84, 14), (7.96, 18.05,
488 (1.5D) 15), (8.45, 19.16, 17), (9.42, 21.37, 19), (11.37, 25.79, 23), 16), (8.94, 20.26, 18), (10.89, 24.68, 22), (12.84, 29.10, 26),
(13.32, 30.22, 27), (15.27, 34.64, 31) (14.79, 33.52, 30)
(3.03, 8.12, 9), (3.69, 9.89, 11), (4.35,11.66, 13), (5.01 ,13.43, (3.36, 9.01, 10), (4.01, 10.79, 12), (4.68,12.56, 14), (5.34 ,14.33,
330 (1.2D) 15), (5.67, 15.20, 17), (6.33, 16.97, 19), (7.65, 20.51, 23), (8.97, 16), (6.00, 16.11, 18), (7.32, 19.65, 22), (8.64, 23.20, 26), (9.96,
24.05, 27), (10.29, 27.60, 31) 26.75, 30)
Beam 2 (3.44, 9.22, 9), (4.18, 11.22, 11), (4.92, 13.21, 13), (5.67, 15.20, (3.81, 10.23, 1), (4.55, 12.23, 12), (5.29, 14.22, 14), (6.04, 16.22,
275 0.74 371.25 (1.35D) 15), (6.41, 17.19, 17), (7.15, 19.18, 19), (8.64, 23.17, 23), 16), (6.78, 18.21, 18), (8.26, 22.22, 22), (9.75, 26.19, 26), (11.23,
392.7 X 6.3
(10.12, 27.15, 27), (11.61, 31.14, 31). 30.18, 30)
(3.85, 10.33, 9), (4.68, 12.54, 11), (5.50, 14.76, 13), (6.33, (4.26, 11405, 10), (5.09, 13.67, 12), (5.91, 15.89, 14), (6.74, 18.10,
412.5 (1.5D) 16.97, 15), (7.15, 19.18, 17), (7.98, 21.40, 19), (9.63, 25.83, 23), 16), (7.56, 20.32, 18), (9.21, 24.75, 22), (10.86, 29.18, 26), (12.51,
(11.28, 30.25, 27), (12.93, 34.68, 31) 33.62, 30)

beam
(mm) (mm) (l, l / hw , n) (l, l / hw , n)
investigated
(3.03, 8.25, 9), (3.68, 10.05, 11), (4.345, 11.86, 13), (5.00, (3.36, 9.15, 10), (4.02, 10.95, 12), (4.68, 12.76, 14), (5.34, 14.56,
16), (6.00, 16.36, 18), (7.32, 19.96, 22), (8.64, 23.56, 26), (9.96,
330 (1.2D) 13.66, 15), (5.66, 15.46, 17), (6.325, 17.26, 19), (7.64, 20.86,
27.16, 30)
23), (8.96, 24.46, 27), (10.28 , 28.06, 31)
Beam 1
(3.44, 9.38, 9), (4.18, 11.41, 11), (4.92, 13.43, 13), (5.65, 15.46, (3.81, 10.39, 10), (4.55, 12.42, 12), (5.29, 14.44, 13), (6.04, 16.47,
366.5 X 7.2 275 0.75
371.25 (1.35D) 15), (6.41, 17.48, 17), (7.15, 19.51, 19), (8.63, 23.56, 23), 16), (6.78, 18.50, 18), (8.26, 22.55, 22), (9.75, 26.60, 26), (11.23,
(10.12, 27.61, 27), (11.60, 31.66, 31) 30.65, 30)
(3.85, 10.50, 9), (4.67,12.76, 11), (5.50, 15.01, 13), (6.32, 17.26, (4.26, 11.63, 10), (5.09,13.88, 12), (5.91, 16.13, 14), (6.74, 18.38,
412.5 (1.5D) 15), (7.15, 19.51, 17), (7.97, 21.76, 19), (9.62, 26.26, 23), 16), (7.56, 20.63, 18), (9.21, 25.14, 22), (10.86, 29.64, 26), (12.51,
(11.27, 30.76, 27), (12.92, 35.27, 31) 34.14, 30)
(2.47, 8.43, 9), (3.01, 10.27, 11), (3.55,12.10, 13), (4.09 ,13.94, (2.75, 9.35, 10), (3.29, 11.18, 12), (3.83,13.02, 14), (4.37 ,14.86,
270 (1.2D) 15), (4.63, 15.78, 17), (5.17, 17.62, 19), (6.25, 21.30, 23), (7.33, 16), (4.91, 16.70, 18), (5.99, 20.38, 22), (7.07, 24.06, 26), (8.15,
24.97, 27), (8.41, 28.65, 31) 27.73, 30)
Beam 1 (2.81, 9.58, 9), (3.42, 11.64, 11), (4.03, 13.71, 13), (4.63, 15.78, (3.12, 10.61, 1), (3.72, 12.68, 12), (4.33, 14.75, 14), (4.94, 16.82,
225 0.77
293.7 X 6.3 303.75 (1.35D) 15), (5.24, 17.85, 17), (5.85, 19.92, 19), (7.06, 24.06, 23), (8.28, 16), (5.55, 18.88, 18), (6.76, 23.02, 22), (7.98, 27.16, 26), (9.19,
28.19, 27), (9.49, 32.33, 31). 31.29, 30)
(3.15, 10.73, 9), (3.82, 13.02, 11), (4.50, 15.32, 13), (5.17, (3.49, 11.87, 10), (4.16, 14.17, 12), (4.84, 16.47, 14), (5.51, 18.77,
337.5 (1.5D) 17.62, 15), (5.85, 19.92, 17), (6.52, 22.22, 19), (7.87, 26.81, 23), 16), (6.19, 21.07, 18), (7.54, 25.66, 22), (8.89, 30.26, 26), (10.24,
(9.22, 31.41, 27), (10.575, 36.01.19, 31) 34.86, 30)

5.3.6.2 Observation and discussion of the case ( D hw = 0.71 )
The following can be observed from the numerical analyses undertaken:
· Fig. 5.16 shows that the shear deformation is generally greater for lower
span/depth ratios. As the span/depth ratio increases the shear deformation reduces
considerably. The bending deformation increases relatively compared with shear as the
span/depth ratio increases.
· It is interesting to note that the figure shows that the results from the analyses of
the relevant three CWBs coincide with each other or overlap providing the following
design parameters ( D hw = 0.71 ), ( S ) and l hw are kept the same.
5.3.6.3 Other cases: Diameter/depth ration (0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, and 0.77)
The analyses undertaken on the above case ( D hw = 0.71 ) have been applied to all the
other cases D hw = 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, and 0.77. These analyses have not been
presented as they do not provide additional knowledge and the findings from these
analyses are the same as that undertaken for the case ( D hw = 0.71 ) apart from the
fact that the relative % shear deformation increases as the opening diameter to depth
ratio increases.
5.3.7 Numerical analysis; shear deformation factor ( a w ) versus ( l hw )
For the definition of shear deformation factor refer to section 5.3.4.2. Shear
deformation factors have been calculated for all the cases compatible with Westok
used sections such as D hw = 0.71, 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, and 0.77 for the opening
spacing of 1.2D, 1.35D and 1.5D and for different span to depth ratios. In this section
the calculation of the shear deformation factors for the case of ( D hw = 0.71) and odd
number of openings has only been presented.

5.3.7.1 Shear deformation factor for ( D hw = 0.71) , odd number of openings
The following procedure has been adopted:
· Three cellular I-beams have randomly been selected from the list of cellular I-beams
given in Appendices A1 and A2. These cellular web beams (Table 5.6) would represent
all the cellular I-beams with D hw = 0.71 .
· Two different sets of analyses have been undertaken as the investigation showed
that the shear deformation factor for three CWBs with similar parameters but one with
odd numbers and another with even numbers of openings do not follow the same path.
· Shear deformation factors have been calculated for each beam using a curve
fitting technique for S = 1.2 D, 1.35 D, and 1.5 D for both odd and even numbers of
openings and plotted against the span to depth ratios. Only the results for the odd
number of openings have been presented (Figures 5.17, 5.18, and 5.19).
· Shear deformation factors a w have been calculated, using equation 5.35, by
dividing the total displacement using FE analysis over the bending component using
the developed hand method.
· The results from the analyses of the three web beams have been compiled and later
averaged.
Shear deformation factor versus span/depth ratio

1.60
Beam 1, S=1.2D
Beam 1, S=1.35
Beam 1, S=1.5D
Poly. (Beam 1, S=1.2D)
1.40
Poly. (Beam 1, S=1.35)
1.20
1.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Span/depth ratio
Fig. 5.17: Beam 1, a w versus l h w - odd number of openings for the case D h w = 0.71

Shear deformation factor versus psan/depth ratio
1.60

Beam 2, S=1.2D
Beam 2, S=1.35
Beam 2, S=1.5D
1.40 Poly. (Beam 2, S=1.2D)
1.20
1.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Span/depth ratio
Shear deformation factor versus psan/depth ratio

1.60
Beam 3, S=1.2D
Beam 3, S=1.35
Beam 3, S=1.5D
1.40 Poly. (Beam 3, S=1.2D)
1.20
1.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Span/depth ratio
5.3.7.2 Remarks on the shear deformation factor determination
· Figures 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 show that variations of the shear deformation are not
linear but rather are exponential. The shear deformation factor increases with reducing
span/depth ratios.
The shear deformation factor is relatively much greater for closer opening spacing such
as 1.2 times diameter compared with 1.35 and 1.5 times diameter. It is also interesting
to note that the shear deformation associated with 1.35 is very close to those of 1.5
times diameter.

Table 5.7: Shear deformation factor ( a w ) for uniformly distributed load
Opening diameter/depth ratio=0.71 Opening diameter/depth ratio=0.72 Opening diameter/depth ratio=0.73
Spacing between opening(Odd Spacing between opening(Even Spacing between opening(Odd Spacing between opening(Even Spacing between opening(Odd Spacing between opening(Even
numbers) numbers) numbers) numbers) numbers) numbers)
l
hw 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D
10 1.397 1.324 1.300 1.410 1.334 1.304 1.413 1.341 1.311 1.433 1.361 1.329 1.422 1.355 1.322 1.433 1.361 1.329
11 1.349 1.292 1.274 1.362 1.302 1.280 1.365 1.309 1.286 1.384 1.327 1.303 1.373 1.325 1.295 1.384 1.327 1.303
12 1.312 1.266 1.252 1.324 1.276 1.259 1.326 1.282 1.265 1.346 1.300 1.282 1.334 1.299 1.273 1.346 1.300 1.282
13 1.284 1.244 1.235 1.294 1.255 1.241 1.297 1.261 1.247 1.316 1.278 1.264 1.305 1.277 1.255 1.316 1.278 1.264
14 1.263 1.227 1.221 1.272 1.238 1.227 1.273 1.244 1.233 1.293 1.260 1.248 1.282 1.260 1.240 1.293 1.260 1.248
15 1.247 1.213 1.209 1.254 1.224 1.215 1.256 1.231 1.222 1.276 1.245 1.236 1.265 1.246 1.228 1.276 1.245 1.236
16 1.234 1.201 1.200 1.240 1.213 1.206 1.241 1.221 1.212 1.262 1.234 1.226 1.251 1.234 1.219 1.262 1.234 1.226
17 1.224 1.191 1.193 1.229 1.204 1.198 1.230 1.212 1.205 1.252 1.224 1.217 1.240 1.224 1.212 1.252 1.224 1.217
18 1.215 1.183 1.188 1.219 1.197 1.192 1.220 1.206 1.198 1.244 1.217 1.210 1.231 1.217 1.207 1.244 1.217 1.210
19 1.207 1.176 1.183 1.210 1.191 1.186 1.212 1.201 1.194 1.237 1.211 1.204 1.223 1.210 1.202 1.237 1.211 1.204
20 1.199 1.169 1.180 1.202 1.186 1.182 1.204 1.196 1.189 1.231 1.205 1.200 1.216 1.205 1.199 1.231 1.205 1.200
21 1.191 1.163 1.177 1.194 1.182 1.178 1.196 1.192 1.186 1.226 1.201 1.196 1.208 1.200 1.196 1.226 1.201 1.196
22 1.184 1.157 1.174 1.187 1.178 1.175 1.189 1.188 1.183 1.221 1.196 1.192 1.201 1.196 1.194 1.221 1.196 1.192
23 1.177 1.150 1.171 1.181 1.175 1.172 1.183 1.185 1.180 1.217 1.192 1.189 1.194 1.193 1.192 1.217 1.192 1.189
24 1.171 1.144 1.169 1.176 1.171 1.170 1.177 1.181 1.178 1.213 1.189 1.186 1.187 1.189 1.190 1.213 1.189 1.186
25 1.167 1.137 1.166 1.172 1.168 1.167 1.174 1.177 1.176 1.211 1.185 1.184 1.182 1.186 1.187 1.211 1.185 1.184
26 1.166 1.131 1.164 1.172 1.165 1.165 1.173 1.173 1.173 1.210 1.182 1.181 1.179 1.183 1.185 1.210 1.182 1.181
27 1.169 1.125 1.162 1.176 1.163 1.162 1.175 1.169 1.171 1.212 1.179 1.179 1.179 1.180 1.183 1.212 1.179 1.179
Opening diameter/depth ratio=0.74 Opening diameter/depth ratio=0.75 Opening diameter/depth ratio=0.77
Spacing between opening(Odd Spacing between opening(Even Spacing between opening(Odd Spacing between opening(Even Spacing between opening(Odd Spacing between opening(Even
numbers) numbers) numbers) numbers) numbers) numbers)
l 1.35*
hw 1.2* D D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.35* D 1.5* D 1.2* D 1.55* D 1.5* D
10 1.430 1.360 1.331 1.418 1.354 1.322 1.457 1.386 1.352 1.503 4.285 1.382 1.454 1.314 1.264 1.452 1.387 1.356
11 1.378 1.327 1.304 1.368 1.319 1.296 1.405 1.351 1.325 1.442 4.841 1.351 1.429 1.289 1.238 1.400 1.351 1.328
12 1.338 1.300 1.282 1.329 1.290 1.274 1.364 1.322 1.303 1.394 5.462 1.325 1.417 1.273 1.217 1.358 1.322 1.304
15 1.305 1.278 1.263 1.298 1.267 1.255 1.332 1.299 1.284 1.357 6.148 1.303 1.416 1.263 1.198 1.325 1.297 1.284
14 1.280 1.260 1.248 1.273 1.248 1.239 1.308 1.280 1.268 1.328 6.896 1.284 1.423 1.260 1.183 1.299 1.277 1.267
15 1.260 1.246 1.235 1.255 1.233 1.226 1.289 1.266 1.255 1.306 7.707 1.269 1.438 1.262 1.170 1.278 1.260 1.253
16 1.243 1.235 1.225 1.240 1.221 1.216 1.275 1.254 1.245 1.288 8.578 1.256 1.459 1.270 1.160 1.262 1.247 1.241
17 1.228 1.225 1.217 1.228 1.212 1.207 1.263 1.244 1.236 1.274 9.510 1.246 1.485 1.282 1.151 1.249 1.236 1.231
18 1.214 1.218 1.210 1.217 1.204 1.200 1.254 1.237 1.229 1.263 10.501 1.238 1.516 1.299 1.144 1.238 1.227 1.223
19 1.201 1.212 1.205 1.209 1.198 1.194 1.246 1.231 1.223 1.253 11.551 1.231 1.551 1.321 1.139 1.229 1.220 1.216
20 1.188 1.207 1.201 1.201 1.193 1.189 1.238 1.226 1.219 1.244 12.659 1.225 1.588 1.346 1.134 1.221 1.214 1.210
21 1.174 1.203 1.197 1.193 1.188 1.185 1.231 1.221 1.215 1.236 13.825 1.220 1.628 1.375 1.130 1.213 1.209 1.205
22 1.158 1.199 1.194 1.186 1.184 1.181 1.224 1.217 1.211 1.228 15.048 1.216 1.670 1.409 1.127 1.206 1.204 1.201
25 1.142 1.195 1.191 1.180 1.180 1.178 1.216 1.214 1.209 1.220 16.329 1.213 1.715 1.446 1.124 1.200 1.200 1.198
24 1.125 1.191 1.189 1.174 1.176 1.175 1.210 1.210 1.206 1.213 17.667 1.210 1.762 1.486 1.121 1.193 1.196 1.195
25 1.108 1.188 1.187 1.169 1.172 1.172 1.204 1.206 1.204 1.208 19.063 1.207 1.811 1.531 1.119 1.188 1.192 1.192
26 1.091 1.184 1.184 1.166 1.169 1.170 1.199 1.202 1.201 1.204 20.515 1.204 1.864 1.580 1.117 1.184 1.189 1.190
27 1.074 1.181 1.182 1.166 1.165 1.168 1.197 1.199 1.199 1.203 22.025 1.201 1.921 1.633 1.115 1.181 1.185 1.187
Note 1: Shear deformation factor is assumed to vary linearly between the figures given in the above table. Therefore for any opening spacing different to those tabulated, linear interpolation can
be used to determine the corresponding shear deformation factor for uniformly distributed load.

· It should be noted that the shear deformation factors calculated for the selected
three cellular beams are very close to each other. The difference in most cases is less
than 0.1%. As discussed before (section 5.7.3.1) the factors from the three beams are
averaged and used in Table 5.7.
5.3.7.3 Shear deformation factors for D hw = 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, 0.77
For the other cases D hw = 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, and 0.77 for the opening spacing of
1.2D, 1.35D and 1.5D shear deformation factors have also been calculated with
varying span to depth ratios in a similar fashion to the above methodology. All the
results are tabulated in Tables 5.7. The findings from the analyses of these cases are
the same that obtained for the case of ( D hw = 0.71) .
Remarks on Table 5.7
· From Table 5.7 it is clear that for the same span/depth ratio the shear deformation
factor is higher for cellular web beams with even numbers compared with odd number
where there is an opening at mid-span.
· The table shows that shear deformation factor decreases as the span/depth ratio
increases. For greater span/depth ratios (say greater than 25) the shear deformation
factors for all cases get closer to each other and do not vary that much with increased
span depth ratio.
5.4 VERIFICATION OF HAND METHOD DEVELOPED TO DETERMINE I weq
A number of examples have been selected from Westok UB sub groups (Appendix A1)
to verify the hand method developed using FE analysis. The selection has been
random as follows: different types of beams; different opening spacings
( S = 1.2, 1.35, 1.5 D) ; different (l / hw ) ; different (D / hw ) as shown below in Table 5.8.
The results of the verification analyses have been tabulated in Table 5.9. It can be
seen from Table 5.9 that the equivalent second moment of area of the CWB ( I weq )

has been calculated (Table 5.9- column 9) using equation 5.35. The displacement was
determined at mid-span for comparison purposes (Table 5.9- columns11 and 12). The
results of the hand analyses (Table 5.9- column 11) are very close to those calculated
using FEA (Table 5.9- column 12). It is clear from the table that the % error (Column
12) between the two analyses is less than 1%. This reveals the validity of the hand
method
Cellular Web Beam (CWB)

UB Section Cellular beam investigated
h H
D
S=Pitch
Table 5.8: Details of the cellular web beams used for the verification
Cellular Beam (CB) Cellular Web Beam (CWB) section
S tf
H D No. of
hw tw l
Original UB section Pitch
(mm) (mm) openings (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Ex. 1 796.1 550 19 660 (1.2) 13.2 769.7 9.6 12650
Ex. 2 575.8 400 21 600 (1.5D) 10.9 554.0 7.6 12800

Ex. 3 1292.7 900 15 1215 (1.35D) 20.2 1252.5 15.1 18540
914x505x201
Ex. 4 648.5 450 22 675 (1.5D) 12.7 622.9 8.5 15750
457x191x67
Ex.5 289.8 200 23 240 (1.2D) 7.8 274.2 5.7 5560
205x155x25
Ex.6 461.5 325 18 390(1.2D) 10.2 441.1 6.0 7085
305x165x40
Ex.7 386.3 275 13 371.25 (1.35D) 6.8 372.7 5.7 4922.5
305x165x40
Ex. 8 391.9 275 16 330 (1.2D 12.7 366.5 7.2 5335
254x146x43
Ex. 9 312.9 225 17 337.5 (1.5D) 9.6 293.7 6.4 5850
203x133x30
Table 5.9: Comparison between the FEA and the equivalent hand analysis
Geometrical data Hand Analysis Mid-spam
displacement % Difference
(mm) FEA - Ana.
´ 100
Applied Hand FEA
I weq
l / hw D / hw S/D A B I heq b aw Iw
eq load
FEA
Ana.
4 4
( cm ) ( cm ) 4 ( cm )
4
4 (kN/m)
Ratio ( cm ) ( cm )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Ex. 1 16.43 0.71 1.20 2200 13310 28004 29183 1.230 23726 5 35.2 35.1 -0.19
Ex. 2 23.10 0.72 1.50 4400 4053 8179 8916 1.180 7559 5.0 46.5 46.2 -0.60
Ex. 3 14.80 0.72 1.35 5040 91733 188728 201706 1.236 163192 2.0 70.6 70.7 0.09
Ex. 4 25.28 0.72 1.50 5850 6455 12996 14273 1.175 12147 2.0 66.0 65.9 -0.03
Ex. 5 20.28 0.73 1.20 960 380 735 768 1.216 632 15.0 19.6 19.7 0.41
Ex. 6 16.06 0.74 1.20 1235 1716 3200 3348 1.262 2653 5 31.1 30.9 -0.62
Ex. 7 13.21 0.74 1.35 1348 988 1823 1962 1.283 1529 10 25.0 25.0 0.06
Ex. 8 14.56 0.75 1.20 935 1248 2146 2254 1.316 1713 16 30.6 30.8 0.52
Ex. 9 19.92 0.77 1.50 2025 608 837 964 1.134 850 5 44.6 44.9 0.58

Example 5-7
Determine the displacement at mid-span for the CWB given as Example 1 in Tables
5.8 and 5.9.
Using equations 5.13a, and 5.13b:
t w hw3 9.6 (769.7)3

A = IS = = ´ 10 -4 = 36480cm4 ;
12 12
8t w r 3 8 ´ 9.6 ´ (0.5 ´ 505) 3

B = I opening = = = 13310cm4
12 12
2 2
Using equation 5.15, I heq = n
= n
= 28004cm 4
å ( A - B sin
i =1
3
q) n
å (36480 - 13310sin
i =1
3
q) n
Using equation 5.34:
l 12.65
I weq = = = 29183cm 4
b æ l ST l OT ö 2.2
+
10.45
ç + ÷
ç IS I heq ÷ 36480 28004
è ø
Using equation 5.35:
1
I weq = I weq
aw b
From Table 5.5 for S = 1.2 D , odd number of openings, D / hw = 0.71 and l / hw = 16.43
the a w = 1.23
1 29183
I weq = I weq = = 23726cm 4
aw b 1.23
5 wl 4 5 ´ 5 ´ 12.65 4
D weq = = ´ 10 5 = 35.13mm
384 EI weq 384 ´ 200 ´ 23726
From the FE analysis D max = 35.20mm
FEA - Ana. 35.20 - 35.13

The % difference= ´ 100 = ´ 100 = 0.2
FEA 35.2

5.5 LIMITATION
The investigation doesn’t cover all cellular beams with all possible opening diameters
and spacing:
· It covers all the commonly used cellular beams compatible with Westok
developed cellular beams such as equal opening spacing S and a range of diameter
to depth D hw ratios (0.71-0.77) and a range of diameters (200-1000mm) in multiples
of 25mm.
· A number of cellular beams have been selected to represent the majority of the
commonly used beams.
· A number of design parameters have been investigated such as l hw : D , S .
The span l as a separate parameter has not been investigated. Instead span to depth
ratios has been investigated to simplify the investigation. Span to depth ratio is
commonly used in practice and it is as good as the span.
· The compiled shear deformation factors given in Table 5.7 are for span to depth
ratios (l hw ) between 10 and 27. This range covers most of the beams specified in
practice. However for lower span to depth ratios the % error increases.
· Therefore shear deformation factors have only been compiled for (l hw ) within
the range between 10 and 27. It should be noted that for longer (l hw ) the shear effect
is significantly reduced and for shorter (l hw ) deflection is usually not problematic.
5.6 SUMMARY OF THE HAND CALCULATION
From the proceeding research study in this chapter it has possible to quantitatively
compile a method to determine the equivalent second moment of area of CWB section.
The study has focused on CWB sections with openings at certain spacings compatible
with the webs of available Westok cellular beams (Appendix A1). The study covered
CWBs with S varying between 1.2 and 1.5. The study has not covered cellular beams
with random opening spacing and diameter. The methodology developed is as follows:

1. Calculate ‘ A ’ the second moment of area of the solid section and ‘ B ’ the second
tw hw3
moment of area of the opening using equations 5.13a ( A = I S = ) and 5.13b
12
8t wr 3
( B = I opening = ).
12
2. Calculate the second moment of area of the opening using equation 5.15:
2
( I heq = ).
n
(sin q ) p
å ( A - B sin 3 q ) n
i =1
3. Calculate the equivalent bending second moment of area of the CWB using
equation 5.34:
l
( I weq = ).
b æ l ST l OT ö
ç + ÷
ç IS I heq ÷
è ø
4. Based on the geometrical information of the cellular beam section select the shear
deformation factor ( a w ) from Table (5.7) using linear interpolation between the
numbers given in the table.
5. Determine the equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beam using
eq. 5.35:
1
( I weq = I weq ).
aw b
5.7 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter studies the bending and shear deformations of cellular web beam sections
in general. In particular it studies the equivalent representation of the second moment
of area of a cellular web beam section. A hand calculation method has been developed
to determine equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beam I weq . The
findings and conclusions from the study in this chapter are summarised as follows:
· Based on a number of assumptions and the theory of bending it has been possible
to derive a formula to determine the equivalent second moment of area across the

opening projection, I heq , of a cellular web beam using the criteria of equivalence of
rotation.
· It has been possible to derive a formula to determine the second moment of area
of cellular web beam which caters only for the bending deformation of beam. It
doesn’t take into account the effect of shear deformation.
· The study shows that shear deformation in cellular web beams is significant and
cannot be ignored. However the determination of shear deformation directly for the
whole cellular web beam is very challenging.
· A numerical method has been developed to determine indirectly the effect of
shear deformation through introducing a shear deformation factor a w in the
cellular web beam by relating the total deformation from the FE analysis to the
bending deformation.
· A curve fitting technique has been used to compile the shear deformation factors
aw .
· It has been possible to develop a simplified hand method to calculate accurately
the equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beam ( I weq ).

CHAPTER 6 THE EFFECTIVE SECOND MOMENT
OF AREA OF FLANGES
6.1 INTODUCTION
In this chapter the aim is to determine the effective IValue of the flanges to add to the
equivalent IValue of the CWB ( I weq ) to enable the determination of the total effective
IValue of the cellular I-beam ( I cbT ). It is usually thought that it is simple to determine by
hand the effective IValue of the flanges similar to those of a solid I-beam. Using the finite
element method the accuracy of adding the bending IValue of the flanges to the
equivalent IValue of the CWB ( I weq ) is investigated. The study showed that it is
incorrect to simply add the bending based IValue of the flanges to the equivalent IValue of
the (CWB) as there are significant shear deformations in the flanges in addition to the
bending deformations. The effects of the design parameters
(l hw , D hw , t w , t f , B, and S ) on the shear deformations of the flanges have been
investigated and together with the findings from the stress distributions in chapter 4, it
has been possible to identify the nature of the shear deformations in the flanges which
are emanating from two sources; shear deformations in the web-posts and at the
opening centres. As a result an analytical method has been developed to determine the
total deformations in the flanges and thereby calculate the effective IValue of the
flanges.
6.2 INITIAL COMPARISON BETWEEN HAND AND FE ANALYSES
As there are no openings in the flanges it is initially thought that the IValue of the flanges
hw t f 2
in a cellular I-beam can be determined using equation ‘ I fb = 2 B t f ( + ) ’ in a
2 2
similar way to that of a solid I-beam. Hand and FE analyses have been undertaken on
a number of cellular I-beams with different geometrical configurations (Table 6.1). The
cellular I-beams are simply supported and subjected to uniformly distributed loads. The
Chapter 6 The Effective Second Moment of Area of Flanges 165

hand analyses comprise of determining the bending second moment of area of the
flanges ( I fb ) and the equivalent IValue of the web ( I weq ). For comparison the IValue
determined for the CBs has been used to determine deflections at their mid-spans. The
cellular I-beams listed in Table 6.1 have been modelled using the FE program LUSAS,
analysed and subjected to similar vertical loads (Fig. 6.1). The results from the hand
analyses have been compared with the FE analyses.

Element size: 25mm
Isometric view
Closer isometric view on

part of the beam
Fig. 6.1: Typical cellular I-beam used in the FE analyses
Table 6.1 summarises the cellular I-beams analysed under uniformly distributed loads
(column 9). The hand calculated IValue of the cellular webs and the flanges are given in
columns 11 and 12 respectively. Columns 13 and 14 show the maximum

displacements of the beams using the simplified hand method and the FE method
respectively. The last column in the table gives the relative difference of the two
displacements calculated by the two methods. A worked example for the 1 st row in
Table 6.1 is given below for clarity. The same methodology has been used for the other
CBs.
Hand analysis (Example: 1st row from Table 6.1)
The second moment of area of the flanges ( I fb ) has been calculated as follows:
hw t f 2 567.3 10.9 2
I fb = 2 B t f ( + ) = 2 ´ 177.6 ´ 10.9 ( + ) ´ 10 - 4 = 34640cm 4
2 2 2 2
For the cellular web beam use equations 5.13a and b:
t w hw 3 7.6 ´ 587.3^3
A= = ´ 10 -4 = 12830 cm 4 ,
12 12
8t w r 3 8 ´ 7.6 ´ (0.5 ± 425) 3
and B= = ´ 10 -4 = 4862 cm 4
12 12
2
Using equation 5.15; I heq = = 9722 cm4
n
sin q p
å ( A - B sin 3 q ) n
i =1
l 6.925
Using equation 5.34; I weqb = = = 10222 cm4
æ l ST l OT ö æ 6.925 - 13´ 0.425 13´ 0.425 ö
ç + ÷ ç + ÷
ç IS I ÷ è 12830 9722 ø
è heq ø
From Table 5.7 Chapter 5, a w =1.369
1 10222
Using equation 5.35: I weq = I weq = = 7467 cm4
aw b 1.369
The second moment of area of cellular I-beam= I weq + I fb = 34640 + 7467 = 42107 cm
4
For a uniformly distributed load the maximum displacement can be determined from:
5wl 4 5 ´ 20 ´ 69254
D max = = ´ 10- 7 = 7.11mm
384EI 384 ´ 200 ´ 42107
FE analysis
The result from the FE analysis is:
The maximum displacement D max = 10.20mm

The % difference between the two analyses:
FEA - Ana. 10.20 - 7.11

= ´ 100 = = 30.28%
FEA 10.20
The results of the two analyses (Table 6.1- columns 13-15) have been compared and
they are not in agreement. The above shows that the hand calculation significantly
underestimates the maximum displacement in the CB.
Table 6.1: Hand and FE analyses for the determination of value of cellular I-beam
Web Flange l No. D S l hw E Uniform
I weq I value I value Disp. Disp. FEA - Ana.
size Size of Dist. Hand FEA 100
(mm) 2 FEA
(mm ) Op. (mm) (kN / m ) Load Hand Flanges CB Method (mm )
(kN / m) Metho Bending - Hand (mm )
d Ana.
cm4
cm4 cm4
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
20 7.11 10.20 30.28

6925 13 11.79 7967 42107
587.3 177.6
20 15.95 22.52 29.16
X X 8500 16 425 525 14.47 200 7964 34640 42604
7.6 10.9
20 20.23 28.03 27.82
9025 17 15.36 8055 42695
20 54.46 73.31 25.71

11560 22 19.83 8406 43046
20 8.55 10.70 20.05

5775 14 13.98 1866 16930
412.9 165
20 18.22 21.13 13.79
X X 6990 17 300 405 16.93 200 2001 15064 17065
5.8 10.2
20 34.46 38.08 9.50
8205 20 19.87 2061 17125
20 59.67 63.71 6.34

9420 23 22.81 2118 17182
It can be observed from the results in the last three columns in Table 6.1 that:
· The displacements from the finite element analyses are much greater than those of
the hand analyses
· Smaller span to depth ratios lead to larger differences.
This reveals that it is not adequate to consider only the bending IValue of the flanges in
a cellular I-beam. The flanges undergo shear deformation besides the bending
deformation, and can be expressed by the following relationship;
Df
T
=D fb
+ D fs (6.1)
where D fT , D fb , and D fs are the total, the bending and shear deformations in the
flanges at mid-span respectively. Therefore the effective IValue of the flanges ( I f ef ) is

introduced to take into account the shear as well as the bending deformations as
follows:
D fb D fb
I f ef = I fb = I fb (6.2)
D fT D fb + D fs
Hence the total effective second moment of area of the cellular I-beam can be
determined from the following equation:
D fb
I cbT = I f ef + I weq = I fb +
1
Iw (6.3)
D fT a w eqb
where I cbT is the total effective second moment of area of the cellular I-beam.
The objective is now to develop a hand method to determine the total deformations in
the flanges ( D fT
).
6.3 DETERMINATION OF TOTAL DEFROMATIONS IN FLANGES D fT
The total deformation in the flanges comprises of the shear deformations ( D fs ) and the
bending deformation ( D fb )- refer to equation 6.1.
6.3.1 Shear deformation in flanges D fs
The stress distributions undertaken in Chapter 4 revealed that the flanges do not
remain plane and they undergo transverse deformations. The numerical study
l D
undertaken on the effect of each design parameter ( , , t w , t f , B, and S ) on the
hw hw
deformation of the flanges (Appendix F) revealed that the flanges undergo shear
deformations even though there are no openings in them. Part of the deformation in the
flanges is at the opening centres which is directly associated with the presence of the
openings in the web. The other part is associated indirectly with the shear deformation
in the web-post. It has been concluded that the total shear deformations D fs in the
flanges are arising from the following two sources:
· ( D fs1 ) Total deformation at mid-span due to shear deformation in the web-posts.

· ( D fs 2 ) Total deformation at mid-span due to shear deformation in the flanges at
the opening centres due to transverse shear.
Hence total shear deformation at mid-span D fs = D fs1 + D fs 2 (6.4)

Fig. 6.2 illustrates the associated shear deformations occurring in the flanges.
Open. 1 Open. 2 Open. 3 Open. 4 Open. 5 Open. i
Deflection in the flanges due to shear in the web-posts
Deflection in the flanges due to shear in the flanges at opening centres
: Flange at opening centre 1

: Vertical shear deflection in one flange at opening centre 1
: Web-post at the support
: Vertical shear deflection at web-post 1
Fig. 6.2: Illustration of the associated shear deflections in the flanges
Using the energy method the total deflection at mid-span D fs1 due to deformations in
the web-posts is as follows:
n
1 ´ D fs1 = d wp 1 + d wp 2 + ......... + d wpi + ......... + d wpn = åd
i =1
wpi (6.5)
where d wp1 is the shear deformation at web-post number 1
Using the energy method the total deflection at mid-span D fs 2 due to deformations in
the flanges at the opening centres is as follows:

n
1 ´ D fs 2 = d f 1 + d f 2 + .......... + d fi + ......... + d fn = åd i =1
fi (6.6)
where d f 1 is the shear displacement in flanges at the centre of opening number 1.
Substituting equation 6.4 into equation 6.1, then the D fT

can be expressed as:
D fT = D fb + D fs = D fb + D fs1 + D fs 2 (6.7)
6.3.1.1 Determination of D fs1
The FEA analysis undertaken on the web-posts in Chapter 4 (Fig. 4.3a, b) shows the
presence of significant shear stresses in the middle section across the height of the
web-post and very small associated normal stresses (Fig.4.21).
0.8
0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 0
-0.1 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
a. Near the support b. At quarter point
Fig. 4.3: Shear stress distributions along the web height (repeated for clarity)
A 2 2
(1.706m) -22.852 N/mm -1.791 N/mm
Compression 2
-5.449 N/mm
Normal
stresses very 2
15.69 N/mm
Open. 2 Open. 3 small less
than1.0N/mm2
Tension -5.44 N/mm

2
2
Section A- A -1.791 N/mm
A Approximate shape Approximate
of normal stresses shape of shear
Fig. 4.21: Summary of shear and normal stresses in a cellular beam near opening no.3
(Repeated for clarity)
To quantitatively determine the deflection D fs1 at mid-span due to the deformations of
the web-posts of a cellular I-beam further examination of the shear stress distributions
is required. For a solid I-beam many authors (Popov, 1978; Benham et. all, 1996;
Blodgett, 1982; Gere, 2004) introduced the form factor b to describe approximately
the relationship between the average constant part of the shear stresses and the
maximum at the centroid of the beam. The form factor varies for different types of solid
I-beams (Blodgett, 1982). For example for a simply supported solid I-beam the form
factor is 1.2. For the cellular I-beam the shear stresses do not follow this pattern.
Shear stress distributions in the web-post of a cellular I-beam vary in a parabolic
shape along the height of the opening. These shear stresses change directions in the
top and bottom sections the web. This study examines in detail the shear stress
distributions in the web-post and an attempt is made to determine approximately their
distributions along the web-post. The form factor b is introduced to describe
approximately the relationship between the maximum and average shear stresses in
the web-posts of cellular I-beams. The FE method has been employed to examine in
detail the shear stress distributions in the web-posts of cellular I-beams for different
geometrical configurations within the limitation of the study (sections 5.5 and 7.4).
Finite element analysis
Comprehensive FE analyses are undertaken on a number of cellular I-beams with
different geometrical configurations and span to depth ratios. The following have been
considered; different diameter to height ratios ( D / hw = 0.71, 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, and
0.75); different opening spacing configurations ( S / D = 1.2, 1.35, and 1.5); and different
span to depth ratios ( l / hw £ 12 -Low, l / h ³ 12 £ 18 -Medium, and l / h ³ 18 -High). For
the cases of D / hw = 0.71, 0.72, 0.73, 0.74 two cellular I-beams have been analysed,
while one cellular I-beam has been analysed for the case D/ hw = 0.75 as there is only
one cellular I-beam available (Appendix A2) making up the total of 81 cases (Table
6.2). Three-dimensional (3D) FE models are developed for all the selected cellular I-
beams. A typical model representing part of a cellular I-beam is shown in Fig. 6.3. The
models developed are analysed under uniformly distributed loads. Shear stresses are

drawn along the web-posts (Fig. 6.3b) between all the openings for all the selected
cellular I-beams.
Web-post
Opening Opening Opening

1 2 3
a. Finite element mesh b. Part elevation of the model
Fig. 6.3: Typical finite element model to determine from factor b
Fig. 6.4 shows the shear stress distribution along the centre line of the web-post for
Beam 1, D/ hw = 0.71, S = 1.2 D , l / hw = 9.25 under a uniformly distributed load of 10.0
kN/m.
Shear stress distribution along the web-post
-1.92 0.00
-6.00
-6.36
-6.51 1.1
-6.49
-6.30
-5.96
-5.46 1.0
-4.84
-4.09
-3.20
0.9
-2.21
-1.02
0.28
1.70
0.8 3.59
6.17
8.65
11.10
0.7 14.18
17.22
19.86
21.78
0.6 22.73
hwpe 22.51
21.50
19.64
0.5 17.11
14.17
11.03
8.38
0.4 5.81
3.55
2.07
0.42
0.3 -1.19
-2.35
t av.
-3.23
-4.08
-4.80 0.2
-5.40
-5.90
-6.23
-6.40 0.1
-6.42
-6.26
-5.90
0.0-1.89 0.00
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
a. Between openings 1 and 2
Fig. 6.4: Shear stress distribution in web-post for determination of form factor b
Beam 1, CB: 1196.1X292, S = 1.2 D, D/ hw = 0.71, l / hw = 9 .25
Shear stresse distribution along the web-post
-1.61 0.00
-5.02

-5.31
-5.43 1.1
-5.39
-5.22
-4.93
-4.52 1.0
-4.02
-3.43
-2.72
0.9-1.87
-0.85
0.18
1.41
0.8 2.71
4.48
6.71
8.79
0.7 11.10
13.52
15.69
17.33
0.6 18.22
18.22
17.34
15.70
0.5 13.53
11.11
8.81
6.73
0.4 4.54
2.79
1.48
0.19
0.3 -0.92
-1.85
-2.71
-3.41
-4.00 0.2
-4.51
t av.
-4.93
-5.24
-5.41 0.1
-5.45
-5.34
-5.05
0.0-1.62 0.00
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
b. Between openings 2 and 3
Fig. 6.4: Shear stress distribution in web-post for determination of form factor b
Beam 1, CB: 1196.1X292, S = 1.2 D, D/ hw = 0.71, l / hw = 9 .25
The shear stress distributions along the web-posts between the openings of all the
other cellular I-beams are similar to those shown in Fig. 6.4.
The observations are summarised as follows (Fig. 6.4a, b):
· The height of the web-post corresponding to the positive shear stresses along the
web (hwpe ) is the same for all the web-posts between all the openings providing the
opening spacing and the diameter to depth ratios remain the same.
· The value of the ( hwpe ) is also the same for all span to depth ratios.
· The value of hwpe varies with changes to the spacing to diameter ratio ( S / D ) and
opening depth to height ratio (D / hw ) .

· The magnitude of the maximum shear stresses varies with the changes in the shear
forces.
Determination of the form factor b
Several assumptions and simplifications are made to develop a hand method (Refer to
Fig. 6.5):
· The applied shear is assumed to be carried by the shaded rectangular area of the
web-post ‘abcd’ (Fig. 6.5) between the openings. The height is equivalent to the height
of the positive shear stresses ( hwpe ). As the majority of the shear stresses are
concentrated within the positive shear stresses in the middle part of the web-post, the
average shear stresses are calculated based on ( hwpe ) and the justification to adopt
this approach and neglect the negative shear stress distributions is discussed below.
The average shear stresses can expressed as follows:
V wp
t av. = (6.8)
t w ´ hwpe
where Vwp is the shear force in the web-post, and t w is the web thickness
i I+1
Web-post Uniformly Distributed Load
Fig. 6.5: Illustration of the equivalent web-post carrying the shear
· Regarding the negative shear stress distributions in the top and bottom of the web-
post, two options have been considered. Option 1: the negative shear stresses in the
top and bottom of the web-post are accounted for in the calculation of the average
shear stresses ( t av. ) by taking into account the full height of the web-post ( hw ). Option
2: the negative shear stresses in the top and bottom of the web-post are excluded and
the average shear stresses ( t av. ) is calculated taking into account the height of the
positive shear stress distributions ( hwpe ). Form factors ( b ) have been calculated for
both options for a number of examples in table 6.2. It has been found that the
calculated form factors are comparable and in most cases the form factors associated
with option 1 are slightly lower compared with those of option 2. Option 2 has been
considered in the calculation of the average shear stresses ( t av. )- refer to formula 6.8.
Besides the selected approach (option 2) simplifies the calculation.
· The FE analyses revealed that the shear stress distributions do not vary across the
width of the web-post. The shear stress distributions are therefore assumed to be
uniform across the width of the web-post (S-D).
· The shape of the shear stress distribution at the support is different to those
between the openings. The form factor for the shear stress distribution at the support is
lower than that between the openings by less than 5%. As its effect is relatively very
small compared with those between the openings, the form factor at the support is
therefore considered to be the same as those between the openings to simplify the
calculation.
· Form factors b are calculated for all the investigated cellular I-beams (Table 6.2)
with different opening configurations using the following formula:
t max Maximum positive shear stresses

b= = (6.9)
t av. Average shear stresses along hwp e
The maximum positive shear forces are calculated from the positive area under the
curve obtained from the FE results. The average shear stresses in web-posts are
calculated as per equation 6.8.
The results of the calculation of the height of the positive shear stresses ( hwpe ) for all
the cellular I-beams using FE analyses are given in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Cellular I-beams analysed using FE analyses for determination of hwpe
Cellular I-beam D D hw S (mm) Low Medium High
investigated (mm) (l, l h, n ) ( l , l h, n ) ( l , l h, n )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
990 (1.2D) (11.055, 9.25, 11) (16.995, 14.21, 17) (35.805, 29.94, 36)
hwpe 0.66D 0.66D 0.66D
Beam 1 1113.75 (1.35D) (10.3125, 8.62, 9) (16.995, 14.21, 15) (34.815, 29.12, 31)
UB: 838X292X176 825
hwpe 0.78D 0.78D 0.78D
(CB total height 1195.7)
1237.5 (1.5D) (11.55 , 9.66, 9) ( 21.45, 17.94, 17) (36.301 , 30.36, 29)
hwpe 0.84D 0.84D 0.84D
0.71 360 (1.2D) (3.3, 9.24, 9) (6.18, 14.21, 17) (13.02, 29.93, 36)
hwpe 0.67D 0.67D 0.67D
Beam 2 405 (1.35D) (3.75, 8.62, 9) (6.18, 14.21, 15) (12.66, 29.10, 31)
UB: 305X102X25 300
hwpe 0.78D 0.78D 0.78D
450 (1.5D) (4.2, 9.66, 9) (7.8,17.93, 17) (13.2, 30.34, 29)
hwpe 0.84D 0.84D 0.84D
1080 (1.2D) (9.9, 7.66, 9) (18.54, 14.34, 17) (40.14, 31.05, 37)
hwpe 0.67D 0.67D 0.67D
Beam 1 1215 (1.35D) (11.25, 8.7, 9) (18.54, 14.34, 15) (40.41, 31.26, 33)
UB: 914X305X201 900
hwpe 0.76D 0.76D 0.76D
1350 (1.5D) (12.6 , 9.75, 9) (18.0, 13.92, 13) (40.95 , 31.68, 30)
hwpe 0.83D 0.83D 0.83D
0.72
720 (1.2D) (6.6, 7.65, 9) (12.36, 14.33, 17) (26.76, 31.03, 37)
hwpe 0.67D 0.67D 0.67D
Beam 2 810 (1.35D) (7.5, 8.7, 9) (12.36, 14.33, 15) (26.94, 31.24, 33)
UB: 610X229X101 600
(CB total height 862.4) hwpe 0.76D 0.76D 0.76D
900 (1.5D) (8.4, 9.74, 9) (12.0, 13.91, 13) (27.3, 31.66, 30)
hwpe 0.83D 0.83D 0.83D
300 (1.2D) (2.75, 7.55, 9) (5.15, 14.14, 17) (11.15, 30.61, 37)
hwpe 0.67D 0.67D 0.67D
Beam 1 337.5 (1.35D) (3.125, 8.58, 9) (5.15, 14.14, 15) (11.225, 30.81, 33)
UB: 254X146X37 250
hwpe 0.76D 0.76D 0.76D
375 (1.5D) (3.5 , 9.61, 9) ( 5.0, 13.72, 13) (11.375 , 31.22, 30)
hwpe 0.84D 0.84D 0.84D
0.73 1200 (1.2D) (11.0, 7.84, 9) (20.6, 14.68 17) (44.6, 31.78, 37)
hwpe 0.66D 0.66D 0.66D
Beam 2 1350 (1.35D) (12.5, 8.9, 9) (20.6, 14.68, 15) (44.9, 32.0, 33)
UB: 1016X302X222 1000
hwpe 0.76D 0.76D 0.76D
1500 (1.5D) (14.0, 9.98, 9) (20.0,14.25, 13) (45.5, 32.42, 30)
hwpe 0.82D 0.82D 0.82D
360 (1.2D) (3.575, 7.73, 9) (6.696, 14.48, 17) (14.495, 31.34, 37)
hwpe 0.69D 0.69D 0.69D
Beam 1 405 (1.35D) (4.0625, 8.78, 9) (6.695, 14.48, 15) (14.5925, 31.55, 33)
UB: 305X165X40 325
hwpe 0.76D 0.76D 0.76D
450 (1.5D) (4.55 , 9.84, 9) (7.475, 16.16, 15) (14.7875, 31.97, 30)
hwpe 0.84D 0.84D 0.84D
0.74
390 (1.2D) (3.025, 7.83, 9) (5.665, 14.66, 17) (12.265, 31.75, 37)
hwpe 0.69D 0.69D 0.69D
Beam 2 459 (1.35D) (3.4375, 8.90, 9) (5.665, 14.66, 15) (12.3475, 31.96, 33)
UB: 254X102X22 275
hwpe 0.76D 0.76D 0.76D
488 (1.5D) (3.85, 9.97, 9) (5.5, 14.24, 13) (12.5125, 32.39, 30)
hwpe 0.83D 0.83D 0.83D
330 (1.2D) (3.025, 7.79, 9) (5.665, 14.59, 17) (12.265, 31.59, 37)
hwpe 0.69D 0.69D 0.69D
Beam 1 371.25 (1.35D) (3.475, 8.85, 9) (3.665, 14.59, 15) (12.3475, 31.8, 33)
UB: 254X146X37 275 0.75
hwpe 0.76D 0.76D 0.76D
412.5 (1.5D) (3.85 , 9.92, 9) (5.5, 14.16, 13) (12.5125 , 32.22, 30)
hwpe 0.83D 0.83D 0.83D
Observations- Table 6.2:
· The values of hwpe vary between 0.66D and 0.69D for opening spacings of 1.2D.

· The values of hwpe vary between 0.76 and 0.78 for opening spacings of 1.35D.
· The values of hwpe vary between 0.82 and 0.84 for opening spacings of 1.5D.
The results from Table 6.2 are averaged and rationalised and given in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Form factor ( b ) for shear in the web-post

Diameter/ ( S = 1 .2 D ) ( S = 1.35 D ) ( S = 1 .5 D )
web height Form Factor Form Factor Form Factor
Row ratio Span/depth
in the in the in the
No. ratio
web-post hwpe web-post hwpe web-post hwpe
(l / hw ) (b ) (b ) (b )
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Low
2 0.67D 1.61 0.78D 1.40 0.84D
0.71 Medium 2.07
High
Low
3 0.67D 1.60 0.76D 1.39 0.83D
0.72 Medium 2.06
High
Low
4 0.67D 1.54 0.76D 1.36 0.83D
0.73 Medium 2.06
High
Low
5 0.69D 0.76D 0.83D
0.74 Medium 2.05 1.52 1.35
High
Low
6 1.90 0.69D 1.47 0.76D 1.35 0 .83D
0.75 Medium
High
It can be observed from Table 6.3 that:
· As the opening spacing S increases from 1.2 to 1.35 and 1.5, the form factor ( b )
reduces (cols. 3, 5, and 7) and the equivalent web-post height (hwpe ) increases (cols.
4, 6, and 8).
· For all span to depth ratios (col. 2) for a specific cellular I-beam with the same
opening diameter and spacing the form factor ( b ) is the same.
· As the diameter to web height ratio (D / hw ) increases (col. 1) the form factor ( b )
reduces (rows 2-6), but the ( hwpe ) reduces.
It is apparent from the analyses that due to the reduction in the shear area in the web
as the result of the openings the shear stresses are re-distributing to accommodate
those reductions. The redistribution of the shear stresses is mainly concentrated in the
middle section of the web-post close to the neutral axis of the beam and has a certain
pattern compatible with specific geometrical configurations. These large stresses are
compatible with the absence of any normal stresses in these regions.
Summary and conclusion
The FE method is employed to investigate the shear stress distributions in the web-
posts of cellular I-beams. It has been possible to determine approximately the
magnitude of these highly concentrated shear stresses by introducing a form factor ( b ) .
This information will be used to determine the relevant vertical displacement in the
web-post ( d wpi ).
é Lù
Blodgett equation (Blodgett, 1982) for a vertical deflection in the web ê b t av. ú has
ë G û
been used to determine the vertical shear displacement of the shaded rectangular
section (Fig. 6.5) of the web-post due to the vertical shear force V wpi and substituting
for L as ( S - D ) and for t av. as per equation 6.8:
Vwpi ´ ( S - D)
Vertical shear displacement in web-post i = d wpi = b t av.
L
=b (6.10)
G G ( t w ´ hwpe )
Substituting for d wpi in equation 6.5 the total vertical shear deformation D fs1 at mid-
span due to shear deformation in all the web-posts between the openings can be
determined as follows:
n n
(S - D)
D fs1 = å
i =1
d wpi = b
G (t w ´ hwp e ) åV
i =1
wpi (6.11)
Example 6-1
Calculate D fs1 for the following example:
Parent Universal Beam Section; 533 x 210 x 82, Cellular I-beam geometrical details:
H = 759.1mm; hw = 732.7 mm; l = 8.925m; n = 11; B = 208.8mm; D = 525mm;

t w = 9.6mm; t f = 13.2mm; S = 1.5D; E = 200kN / mm 2 ; load = 10kN / m
(Refer to Fig. 6.6).

Calculation of parameters in equation 6.11:
E 200
G= = = 76.92kN / mm 2
2(1 + 3u ) 2(1 + 2 ´ 0.3)
For half of the span at A-F (Fig.6.6):
åV
i =1
wpi = 43.97 + 35.43 + 27.56 + 19.68 + 11.81 + 3.93 = 142.4kN
From Table 6.3; b = 1.40 and hwpe = 0.83D for S = 1.5 D and D / hw = 0.71
1 2 3 4 10kN/m 5 6
4462.5
A B C D E F
44.62kN
43.97kN
39.37kN
35.43kN
27.56kN
23.62kN
31.5kN
19.68kN
15.75kN
11.81kN
7.87kN
3.93kN
Fig. 6.6: Example 6-1 Shear force diagram under uniformly distributed load
For half of the span:
n
(S - D) (787.5 - 525)
D fs1 = b
G (t w ´ hwpe ) åV
i =1
wpi = 1.39 ´
76.92 ´ 9.6 ´ 0.83´ 525
´142.4 ´ 2 = 0.322mm
6.3.1.2 Determination of D fs 2
For the deformation of the flanges at the opening centres due to shear, consider the
top half section of a cellular I-beam between sections i - 1 and i + 1 as shown in Fig.
6.7. The free body diagram of the forces acting on the section is shown in Fig. 6.7a.
The flange is subjected to axial forces ( N - 1 , N + 1 ) due to bending of the beam. In
addition it is subjected to bending and shear due to the shear force Vi / 2 at the i

opening centre. This is based on the assumption that the shear force is equally divided
between the top and bottom flanges at the opening centre.
a) Free body diagram at sections and
Point of contr-flecture
The udl is neglected from (b) and
b) Assumed formation of contra-flecture (c) as its effect is relatively very
small compared with the applied
shear forces (refer to justification
on sheet 182). It also simplifies
the deflection calculation.
c) Free body diagram at (Cantilever action)
Fig. 6.7: Free body diagram of forces acting at the centre of opening
Assumptions:
· Consider fixity on lines ab and cd (Fig. 6.7a). The assumption of considering a
specific area between the openings as rigid and lines of fixity occur at 0.45R from the
opening centre is associated with calculating deflection in hexagonal castellated beams
(Knowles, 1985).
· The uniformly distributed load is neglected as it is relatively small

· Consider the formation of point of contra-flexure in the flanges at the opening
centre (Fig. 6.7b).
In Chapter 4 stress distribution analyses were undertaken at the opening centres. The
study showed that the resultant direct stresses from the primary and secondary
moments are not uniform across the depth of the T sections which suggests the
presence of small moment at the section. Many researchers at the serviceability limit
state (Gibson and Jenkins, 1957; Kolosowski, 1964; Knowles, SCI P005, 1987; Ward,
SCI P100, 1990; Warren, 2001; Yost et. al. 2012) assumed points of inflection in the T
sections at the opening centres.
However the stress profile across the depth of the flanges is almost uniform (Fig. 4.11)
suggesting no resultant moment. Therefore it is justifiable and logical to assume the
formation of inflection in the flanges at the opening centres. This assumption would
also simplify the problem.
· Fig 6.7c shows one cantilever and the free body diagram at section i where it is
subjected to a shear force Vi . The effect of the distributed load is neglected as its
2
effect is relatively very small. For the justification refer to Example 6.1: deflection due to
39.37(0.45R) 3
the shear force at opening centre 1 = ; deflection due to the udl=
3EI
10(0.45R) 4
. The proportion of the deflection due to udl to those of the shear is 1.12%.
8 EI
Neglecting the effect of the distributed load and from equilibrium:
Vab =
Vi
(6.12)
2
· When the cantilever section is subjected to a point load due to the vertical shear at
its end (Fig. 6.7), there would be associated bending and shear deformations. The total
deformation in flanges has been expressed by Popov (1978) and substituting for
V
l = 0.45 R , h = t f , and for the applied point load as i , the total displacement
2
(bending and shear) in flanges at the opening centre is expressed as follows:

Vi 3
l 3Et f 2
d fi = 2 (1 + )=
3EI 10 Gl 2 (6.13a )
3 2 3 2
0.5Vi (0.45R ) 3Et f 0.0151875 Vi R 1.4814 Et f
(1 + 2
)= (1 + )
3EI 10 G (0.45 R) EI GR 2
The first term of equation 6.13a represents the bending deformation and the second
E
term represents the shear deformation. The shear modulus G = , puttingn = 0.3 ,
2(1 + n )
E / G = 2.6 and substituting in equation (6.13a), then:
The total vertical displaceme nt in the flang at the opening centre

0.0151875 V R 3 1.4814 E t f2
0.0151875 V R 3
2
3.851 t f (6.13b)
= (1 + 2
) = (1 + )
EI GR EI R2
For the majority of the cellular I-beams R >> t f , the smallest being R = 9.55t f (Appendix
A2). Substituting for R = 9.55t f in equation 6.13b, gives:
The total vertical displaceme nt in the flang at the opening centre
0.0151875 V R 3 é 3.851 t f ù 0.0151875 V R 3

ê1 +
2
ú=
(6.13c )
= (1 + 0.042)
EI êë (9.55t f ) 2 úû EI
The second term represents the shear effect in the cantilever section and is relatively
very small and can be neglected.
The first term of equation 6.13c can be used to calculate the deformation in the flange
due to the transverse shear at the opening centre ‘ i ‘ as follows:
0.0151875 Vi R 3 0.0151875 Vi R 3
= = (6.13d )
EI EI fbT
I is the second moment of area of the flange section and is equal to the effective
bending stiffness of the flange I fbT within the T section (Fig. 6.8).
FE analysis has been undertaken to obtain the equivalent second moment of area of
the T section. It has been found that the equivalent second moment of area lies
approximately at a section mid-span (0.225D from the opening centre) of the cantilever
(section 1-1). The depth of the T section at 0.225R from the opening centre is slightly
greater than that at the opening centre and has little difference on the second moment

of area of the flanges. For example the height of the web at the opening centre in
Example 6-2 below is 103.85mm, while the depth of the web at 0.225R from the
opening centre is 110.58, small difference. To simplify the calculation the I fbT will be
taken at the opening centre within the T section.
1
Web
1
R
Fig. 6.8: Illustration of the flange within the T section
For a single opening the total deflection attributable to that opening will be 2 times the
deformation of one cantilever; one to represent the deformation at the top flange and
the other to represent the deformation at the bottom flange. Hence,
The total vertical deformation in the flanges at the opening centres d fi attributable to
one opening is as follows:
0.0151875Vi R 3 0.030375Vi R 3
d fi = 2 ´ = (6.14)
E I fbT E I fbT
All the symbols have their previous definitions.
Substituting d fi in equation 6.6 the total deformation at mid-span due to the
deformations of the flanges at opening centres for all the openings in the cellular I-
beam can be expressed as follows:
n
0.030375 Vi R 3 0.030375 R 3 n
D fs 2 = å = åVi (6.15)
i =1 E I fbT EI fbT i =1
where n is the number of openings in the cellular I-beam
Substituting D fs1 and D fs 2 in equation 6.4, the total shear deformation in the flanges is:
(S - D) n
0.030375 R 3 n
D fs = D fs1 + D fs 2 = b å
G (t w ´ hwp e ) i =1
Vwpi +
EI fbT
åVi (6.16)
i =1
Example 6-2
Calculate D fs 2 using equation 6.16 for Example 6-1:
Parent Universal Beam Section is 533 x 210 x 82. Cellular I-beam geometrical details:
H = 759.1mm; hw = 732.7 mm; l = 8.925m; n = 11; B = 208.8mm; D = 525mm;

t w = 9.6mm; t f = 13.2mm; S = 1.5 D; E = 200kN / mm2 ; load = 10kN / m
åV
0.030375 R 3
D fs 2 = i
EI fbT
i =1
Area of the T section=
208.8×13.2+103.85x9.6= 3753mm
2 Centroid
Of T section
Centroid for the T section:
Moment of area of the T section along X-X=

3
208.8 13.2 6.6+103.85 9.6 65.125=83117.7mm
Section at opening centre

showing the T section
Bt f 3 208.8 ´ 13.23
I fbT = + B t f y2 = ´ 10- 4 + 208.8 ´ 13.2 ´ 15.5462 = 4.002 + 66.612 = 70.614cm4
12 12
11
å Vi = 2 ´ (39.37 + 31.5 + 23.62 + 15.75 + 7.87) = 236.25kN (refer to Fig. 6.6)
i =1
0.030375R 3 11
0.030375´ 262.53
D fs 2 =
EI fbT
å Vi =
200 ´ 70.614
´ 236.25 ´ 10- 4 = 0.92mm
i =1
6.3.2 Determination of bending deformation in flanges D f

b
The total bending displacement at mid-span for a simply supported cellular I-beam
under uniformly distributed load can be expressed as follows:
C
(6.17)
D cbTb =
(I weqb + I f b )
where D cbTb is the total bending displacement in the cellular I-beam, I w eq is the
b
equivalent bending second moment of area of the CWB, I fb is the bending second

Bt f 3
moment of area of the flanges which will be calculated from , and C is constant
12
5wl 4
and equal to for a uniformly distributed load.
384E
I cbTb = I weq + I f b
b
(6.18)
where, I cbTb is the bending second moment of area of the cellular I-beam.
Within the beam the relationship between the total bending displacement, bending
displacement of the flanges and the bending displacement of the cellular web can be
expressed as follows:
1
=
1
+
1
(6.19)
D cbTb D fb D weqb
D fb for a simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load can be
5wl 4
calculated as follows: D fb = (6.20)
384EI fb
Example 6-3
Calculate D fb using equation 6.21 for Example 6-1 and also calculate DcbTb and D weqb
for Example 6-1.
I fb
[ ]
= 2 ´ (t f ´ B ) ´ 0.5 ´ ( hw + t f ) 2 = 2(13.2 ´ 208.8) ´ [0.5 ´ (732.7 + 13.2) ]2 ´ 10 - 4 = 76679 cm 4
The bending displacement in the flanges D fb

from equation 6.21 is as follows:
5wl 4 5 ´10 ´ 8925

D fb = = = 5.385mm
384EI fb 384 ´ 200 ´ 76679
Determination of I weq
b
t whw3 9.6 ´ 732.7 ^3

A= = ´ 10- 4 = 31468 cm4 ,
12 12
8t r 3 8 ´ 9.6 ´ (0.5 ´ 525)3
and B = w = x10- 4 = 11576 cm4
12 12

2
Using equation 5.15; I heq = = 24090 cm 4
n
sin q p
å ( A - B sin 3 q ) n
i =1
l 8.925
Using equation 5.34; I weqb = = = 26263 cm4
æ l ST l OT ö æ 8.925 - 11´ 0.525 11´ 0.525 ö
ç + ÷ ç + ÷
ç IS I ÷ è 31468 24090 ø
è heq ø
I cbTb = I f b + I weq = 76679 + 26263 = 102942 cm 4

b
5 wl 4 5 ´ 10 ´ 8925 4
D cbTb = = ´ 10 -7 = 4.01mm (total bending deformation);
384 E I cbTb 384 ´ 200 ´ 102942
5wl 4 5 ´ 10 ´ 8925 4
D weq = = ´ 10 - 7 = 15.73mm (web bending deformation)
b 384 E I weq 384 ´ 200 ´ 26263
b
Total deformation in the flanges D fT
Total deformation in the flanges is the summation of the bending and shear
deformation. Substituting D fb and D fs in equation 6.1, the total displacement in
flanges:
D f = D fb + D fs
T
( S - D)
n n (6.21)
å å
0.030375 R 3
= D fb +b Vwpi + Vi
G (t w ´ hwpe ) EI fbT
i =1 i =1
Example 6-4
Calculate D fT using equation 6.22 for Example 6-1:
D fs1 = 0.322mm (Example 6-1); D fs 2 = 0.92mm (Example 6-2)
D fb = 5.385mm (Example 6-3)
D fT = D fb + D fs = D fb + D fs1 + D fs 2 =5.385+0.322+0.92=6.63mm
6.4 VERFICATION OF THE DEVELOPED METHOD
In this section the aim is to verify the developed formulae for the determination of the
total deformations in the flanges and consequently the calculation of the effective I value
of the flanges. Full beam analysis using the FE method has been used for the

verification. A number of cellular I-beams have been selected from the list of CBs in
Appendix A2 (Table A2) for analysis.
The selection is stratified and based on certain characteristics such as different span to
depth ratios l/ hw , different opening spacings S, different opening diameters D , and
different diameter to height ratios D/ hw . The diameter of the opening has been kept
within the limits specified in Westok (2012).
Table 6.4: Table showing the cellular I-beams investigated0

H Cellular I-beam
tf B tw
Parent No. of l
(mm) (mm) D hw D / hw S/D l
Beam type Universal Beam (mm) (mm) openi hw
(mm) (mm) ngs (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Beam 1 533X210X82 759.1 13.2 208.8 9.6 525 732.7 0.71 1.50 11 8925 12.18
Beam 2 914X305X201 1292.7 20.2 303.3 15.1 900 1252.3 0
0.72 D
1.50 12 16650 13.29
Beam 3 914X305X201 1292.7 20.2 303.3 15.1 900 1252.3 0
0.72 D
1.35 15 18540 14.80
Beam 4 914X305X201 1292.7 20.2 303.3 15.1 900 1252.3 0
0.72 D
1.25 21 23850 19.04
Beam 5 610X229X101 862.4 14.8 227.6 10.5 600 832.8 0
0.72 D
1.50 13 12000 14.40
Beam 6 305X102X25 435.0 6.8 101.6 5.8 300 421.4 0
0.71 D
1.50 15 6900 16.37
Beam 7 533X210X82 759.1 13.2 208.8 9.6 525 732.7 2
0.72 D
1.35 9 6563 8.95
Beam 8 533X210X82 759.1 13.2 208.8 9.6 525 732.7 0.72 D
1.25 18 11445 15.62
Beam 9 305X102X25 435.0 6.8 101.6 5.8 300 421.4 0.71 D
1.50 9 4200 9.96
Beam 10 914X419x343 1301.5 32.0 418.5 19.4 900 1237.5 2
0.73 D
1.25 23 26100 21.09
Beam 11 914X419x343 1301.5 32.0 418.5 19.4 900 1237.5 0.73 D
1.35 17 20970 16.95
Beam 12 914X419x343 1301.5 32.0 418.5 19.4 900 1237.5 0.73 D
1.50 13 18000 14.55
D
The diameter of the opening is limited approximately to the depth of the parent UB and
should not to exceed it ( D» h ), where h is the total depth of the parent solid UB. The
hand and FE results are given in Table 6.4. The detailed calculation for the previously
worked Examples 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 constitute parts of Example 1 in Tables 6.3 and 6.4.
The calculation for the other examples has been undertaken in a similar fashion.
Finite element analysis
The cellular I-beams have been modelled using the FE method. The modelling is
similar to that described in section 6.2. The displacement at the mid-span has been
determined (col. 3) for a uniformly distributed load specified in Table 6.4 (col. 2)
Hand analysis
· The equivalent I value of the web I weq is determined using eq. 5.34 (col. 4). From
Table 5.7 the shear deformation factor a w of the cellular web is obtained (col. 5).

· The shear deformation components of the flanges D fs1 and D fs 2 are determined
using equations 6 .11 and 6 .16 respectively (columns 6 and 7). The total shear
deformation of the flanges ( D fs

= D fs1 + D fs 2 ) has been calculated using eq. 6.4 (col.
8).
· The bending deformation of the flanges D fb is determined using eq. 6 .21 (col. 9).
· The total bending deformation in a cellular I-beam D cbTb is determined using eq.
6.20 (col. 10).
· The total deformation in the flanges D fT is determined using eq. 6 .22 (col. 11).
· Using eq. 6 . 3 the second moment of area of the cellular I-beam I cbT is determined
(col. 15) and the displacement at mid-span D cbT is also determined (col. 16).
· The calculated displacement from the FE analyses (col. 3) has been compared
with those of the hand analyses (col. 16).
Observation and discussions:
· Shear displacements in flanges (col. 8) are relatively significant compared with the
associated bending displacement (col. 10)
· Shear displacements in the flanges at the opening centres D fs 2 (col. 7) are greater
than those arising from the web-post D fs1 (col. 6).
· The reduction in the second moment of area of the flanges as a result of the
associated shear displacement is significant. It varies between 10% to 50% (col. 12).
· The table shows that the results from the hand analysis (col. 16) are comparable
with those calculated using FEA (col. 3). The % difference is small and varies between
0.5% and 3.0%. It is noted that some of the hand results are lower and others greater
than the FE results. Due to the complexity of the problem and the number of variable
parameters involved it is not possible to ascertain specifically the underlying reasons.
· It is concluded that the method developed can be used to determine the effective
second moment of area of the flanges.

Table 6.5: Validation of the developed hand method to determine the effective I value of the flanges
FEA Hand analysis
Applied D cbT I weqb aw D fs1 * D fs 2 ** D fs D fb *** DcbTb D fT **** D fT I fb I f ef I cbT ***** D cbT
Beam No. load D fb FEA- ANA
(mm) Shear dis. Shear dis. in Bend. Total Total dis. (mm) 100%
( kN / m) ( cm 4 ) in the flanges
Total
dis. In bend. dis. In flanges
(cm4 ) (cm4 ) (cm4 ) FEA
shear dis.
web-post (mm) In flanges flanges In beam (mm)
(mm) (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Beam 1 10.0 05.02 26263 1.275 0.32 0.92 1.24 5.385 4.01 6.63 1.23 76680 62341 82922 4.98 0.82
Beam 2 40.0 34.26 205911 1.260 1.64 4.79 6.42 40.34 28.51 46.76 1.16 496073 427960 591382 33.84 1.22
Beam 3 40.0 52.72 201786 1.235 1.98 6.70 8.68 62.02 44.09 70.70 1.14 496073 435056 598445 51.41 2.48
Beam 4 40.0 140.07 198569 1.212 3.45 12.19 15.66 169.85 121.30 185.52 1.09 496073 454183 618019 136.34 2.66
Beam 5 30.0 29.31 41981 1.285 1.37 4.27 5.64 33.47 24.85 39.11 1.17 121012 103556 136226 29.73 -1.43
Beam 6 20.0 35.37 3029 1.198 1.08 4.20 5.27 46.59 31.52 50.46 1.11 6334 5706 8234 35.84 -1.32
Beam 7 30.0 5.38 25783 1.550 0.53 1.65 2.19 4.73 3.54 6.92 1.46 76680 52368 69003 5.25 2.39
Beam 8 30.0 47.36 25330 1.258 1.63 6.20 7.84 51.83 38.96 59.71 1.15 76680 66560 86504 45.95 2.98
Beam 9 20.0 5.61 3036 1.350 0.42 1.01 1.43 6.40 4.32 7.83 1.22 6334 5175 7424 5.46 2.67
Beam 10 40.0 107.24 243312 1.208 2.46 12.95 15.41 111.96 91.36 127.37 1.14 1079376 948781 1150198 105.07 2.03
Beam 11 40.0 45.88 247388 1.220 1.87 7.63 9.50 46.65 37.95 56.15 1.20 1079376 896824 1099601 45.80 0.20
Beam 12 40.0 25.19 252697 1.227 1.26 4.94 6.20 25.33 20.52 31.53 1.24 1079376 867123 1073070 25.48 -1.14
* Equation 6.11 has been used to determine D fs1

** Equation 6.15 has been used to determine D fs 2
*** Equation 6.21 has been used to determine D fb
**** Equation 6.22 has been used to determine D fT
***** Equation 6.3 has been used to determine I cbT

6.5 CONCLUSION
This chapter studies the deformation of the flanges in cellular I-beams. In particular it
studies the flanges effective representation and contribution to the total second
moment of area of the cellular I-beam. The findings and conclusions from the study in
this chapter are summarised as follows:
· The study demonstrates that it is not possible to simply add the bending based
second moment of area of the flanges to the equivalent second moment of area of the
web to determine the effective second moment of area of the cellular I-beam.
· Flanges undergo significant shear deformations and cannot be ignored.
· It has been possible to develop an analytical method to determine the following:
- Total shear deformations in the flanges
- Bending deformation in the flanges
- Total deformations in the flanges
- And the effective I value of the flanges.
· It has ultimately been possible to develop an analytical hand method to determine
the I value of the cellular I-beam which can be used by practicing engineers.

CHAPTER 7 EXAMPLES AND COMPARISONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter two cellular beam examples (Table 6.3) have been presented where the
developed hand method has been used to calculate the total effective second moment
of area of the cellular beams and ultimately determine the maximum deflection at their
mid-spans. The two examples have been selected to represent two different span to
depth ratios; one example is to represent a medium span to depth ratio of 14.8 and the
other to represent a low span to depth ratio of 9.96. In the first part of the chapter
comprehensive calculations for the two ceelular beams are presented to show in detail
the procedure of the calculations utilising the developed formulae so that they can
easily be followed up by others. A flow chart has also been presented. In every part of
the calculations remarks have been made to show the insight of the calculations. The
FE method is used to validate the deflection results of the two cellular beams. In the
second part of the chapter comparisons have been undertaken with the available
existing methods such as the SCI hand method (Ward, 1990- P100), the preliminary
design guidance by Westok, and the Westok program. A detailed calculation of
example 1 using the SCI hand method is also presented. In the final section concluding
remarks have been provided.
7.2 DESIGN EXAMPLES
7.2.1 Example 1 (Beam 3, Table 6.3)
In this section calculations are presented for example 1:

A simply supported cellular I-beam is subjected to a uniformly distributed load
( w = 40kN / m) . Calculate the maximum deflection.
Section A-A
A
Fig. 7.1: Design example: cellular beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load
Chapter 7 Examples and Comparisons 192

Parent Universal Beam Section: 914 x 305 x 201
Cellular I-beam geometrical details:
H = 1292.7mm; hw = 1252.3mm; l = 18.54m; n = 15; B = 303.3mm; D = 900mm; tw = 15.1mm;

t f = 20.2mm; S = 1.35D; E = 200kN / mm2
7.2.1.1 Flow Chart for the proposed deflection calculation in a cellular I-beam
Fig. 7.2 shows the flow chart to determine deflection in cellular beams
Cellular web, determine: Flanges, determine:
Df s1 Df s 2 Df b
(7.2.1.2) (7.2.1.2) (7.2.1.2) (7.2.1.2) (7.2.1.3) (7.2.1.3) (7.2.1.3)
(7.2.1.2) (7.2.1.3)
(7.2.1.4)
Fig. 7.2: Flow chart to determine deflection in CB using the proposed method
7.2.1.2 Determination of equivalent second moment of area of cellular web I weq
1. Calculate A and B using equation 5.13a, b :
t w hw3 15.1 ´ 1252.3^3

A = IS = = ´ 10 - 4 = 247127cm 4 ,
12 12
8t w r 3 8 ´ 15.1 ´ (0.5 ´ 900) 3
and B = I opening = = ´ 10 - 4 = 91732.5cm 4
12 12
2. Calculate the second moment of area across the opening I heq using equation 5.15:
2
I heq = n
= 188850cm 4 (Refer to the excel sheet in Appendix E)
å ( A - B sin
sin q p
i =1
3
q) n
3. Calculate the equivalent bending second moment of area of the cellular web I weq
b
using equation 5.34

l 18540 18540
I weq = = = = 201786cm 4
b æl ö é18540 - 15 ´ 900 15 ´ 900 ù 0.0203943 + 0.0714853
ç ST + l OT ÷ ê +
ç IS I heq ÷ ë 247127 188850 úû
è ø
4. Calculate the shear deformation factor aw :
l 18540
Span to depth ratio = = 14.8
hw 1252.3
Number of openings= 15 (odd numbers)
D 900
Diameter to depth ratio = = 0.72
hw 1252.3
l D
Use Table 5.7 for ( = 14.8, odd number of openings, S = 1.35 D and = 0.72 ), the
hw hw
shear deformation factor of the cellular web a w = 1.235
5. Calculate the equivalent second moment of area of the web I weq using eq. 5.35;
I weq 201786
I weq = b
= = 163389cm 4
aw 1.235
Remarks:
From the above the total, bending and shear deflections in the cellular web can be
calculated as follows:
5wl 4 5 ´ 40 ´ 185404
The total deflection, D weq = = ´ 10 -7 = 188.31mm
384 EI weq 384 ´ 200 ´ 163389
5wl 4 5 ´ 40 ´ 18540 4
The bending deflection, D weq = = ´ 10 -7 = 152.48mm
b 384 EI weq 384 ´ 200 ´ 201786
b
Hence the shear deflection D ws = 188.31-152.48= 35.83mm
Bending as a proportion of the total deflection= 81.0%
Shear as a proportion of the total deflection= 19.0%
The above reveals the physical contribution of the bending and shear deflections within
the cellular web.

7.2.1.3 Determination of the effective I value of the flanges I f ef
1. Calculate the 1st shear deformation component D fs1 (web-post):
n n
åd åV
( S - D)
Using equation 6.9, D fs1 = wpi =b wpi
G (t w ´ hwpe )
i =1 i =1
E 200
G= = = 76.92kN / mm2
2(1 + 3u ) 2(1 + 2 ´ 0.3)
Refer to Fig. 7.3
n I
å Vwpi = åVwpi = 364.5 + 315.9 + 267.3 + 218.7 + 170.1 + 121.5 + 72.9 + 24.3 = 1555.2kN
i =1 i= A
1 2 3 4 5 40kN/m 6 7 8
9270
A B C D E F G I
364.5kN
315.9kN
267.3kN
218.7kN
170.1kN
121.5kN
72.9kN
370.8kN
24.3kN
7 x 1215
157.5
Fig. 7.3: Shear force diagram- forces at the web-post (half span)
From Table 6.3: For S = 1.35 D and D / hw = 0.72 , b = 1.60 and hwpe = 0.76D
Substituting in Equation 6.9:
n
( S - D) (1215 - 900)
D fs1 = b
i =1
wpi = 1.60
76.92 ´ (15.1´ 0.76 ´ 900)
´ 1555.2 ´ 2 = 1.98mm

2. Calculate the 2nd shear deformation component D fs 2 (opening centres)
n
0.030375 Vi R 3 0.030375 R 3 n
Using equation 6.15 D fs 2 = å = åVi
1 2 3 4 5 40kN/m 6 7 8
9270
A B C D E F G
340.2kN
291.6kN
243.0kN
194.4kN
145.8kN
97.2kN
48.6kN
765 7 x 1215
Fig. 7.4: Shear force diagram (forces at the opening centre locations)- half span
R = 450 mm ; E = 200 kN / mm 2
Refer to Fig. 7.4:
15
åVi = 2 ´ (340.2 + 291.6 + 243.0 + 194.4 + 145.8 + 97.2 + 48.6) = 2721.6kN
i =1
303.3×20.2+176.15×15.1= 8786.525mm2 Centroid

303.3×20.2×10.1+17615×15.1×108.275=34987.1mm3

Bt f 3 303.3 ´ 20.23
I fbT = + B t f yTF 2 = ´ 10 - 4 + 303.3 ´ 20.2 ´ 29.712
12 12
= 20.83 + 540.79 = 561.62cm 4

15
0.030375 ´ 450 3
å
0.030375R 3
D fs 2 ( at mid - spam) = Vi = ´ 2721.6 ´ 10 -4 = 6.7mm
EI fbT 200 ´ 561.62
i =1
3. Calculate the bending deformation in the flanges D fb within the cellular
beam
303.3 ´ 20.23
I fb = 2 ´ ´ 10 - 4 + 2 ´ 303.3 ´ 20.2(0.5 ´ 1292.7 - 0.5 ´ 20.2) 2 ´ 10 - 4 = 496073cm 4
12
5wl 4 5 ´ 40 ´ 185404
D fb = = ´ 10 -7 = 62.02mm
384 E I cbTb 384 ´ 200 ´ 496073
4. Calculate the total deformation in the flanges
Use equation 6.7 to determine D f

T
D f = D fb + D fs = D fb + D fs1 + D fs 2 = 62.02 + 1.98 + 6.70 = 70.70mm

T
Remarks:
It is possible to quantify the bending and shear deflections within the flanges:
Total shear deflection D fs =1.98 +6.70=8.68mm
the flanges.
7.2.1.4 Calculate the total effective I value of the cellular I-beam I cbT
1. Calculate the effective I value of the flanges I f ef
D fb 62.02
Using equation 6.2, I fef = I fb = ´ 496073 = 0.877 ´ 496073 = 435056cm4
D fT 70.70
2. Calculate the total effective I value of the cellular I-beam I cbT
I cbT = I fef + I weq = 435056 + 163389 = 598445cm 4

5 wl 4 5 ´ 40 ´ 18540 4
Maximum deflection at mid-span; D cbT = = X 10 -7 = 51.41mm
384 EI 384 ´ 200 ´ 598445
Remarks:
Maximum cellular beam bending deflection; D cbTb
5wl 4 5 ´ 40 ´ 18540 4
= = X 10 - 7 = 44.1mm
384 E ( I weq + I fb ) 384 ´ 200 ´ ( 201786 + 496073)
b
Maximum cellular beam total deflection; D cbT = 51.41mm
Maximum shear deflection in CB; DcbTs = 51.41- 44.1= 7.31mm
7.2.1.5 Finite element analysis
The finite element method has been used to validate the deflection result from the hand
analysis. A three-dimensional (3D) finite element model has developed (Fig. 7.5) for
the purpose of determining the maximum deflection of the simply supported beam and
compare with the developed hand analysis.

Element size: 25mm
Isometric view Closer isometric view of

the first opening
Fig. 7.5: Finite element model for the design example
Finite element method is conducted for the cellular I-beam that is assumed to be
constructed of linear elastic material with E = 200 kN / mm 2 and Poisson’s ratio n = 0.3 .

The maximum deflection result from the finite element analysis is as follows:
D FEA =52.72mm
7.2.1.6 Summary and remarks
The summary of the results for the CB and its components together with the FEA result
are given in table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Deflection and % contribution of bending and shear in CB and its components
Cellular Web Flanges Total CB FEA
mm (%) mm (%) mm (%) mm (%)
1 2 3 4 5
Bending 152.48 (81.0) 62.02 (87.8) 44.10 (85.8)
Shear 35.83 (19.0) 8.68 (12.2) 7.31 (14.2)
Total 188.31 70.70 51.41 52.72 (2.48)
Remarks on Table 7.1
· The shear deformation in the flanges (col. 3) is relatively significant (12.2%).
· The shear deflection in the cellular web (col. 2) is relatively greater than those in the
flanges (col.3).
· The results from the FE analysis (col. 5) is comparable with hand method (col. 4) of
calculation (% difference between the two methods is 2.48).
7.2.2 Example 2 (Beam 9, Table 6.3)
In this section calculations are presented for example 2:
A simply supported cellular I-beam is subjected to a uniformly distributed load

( w = 20kN / m)
Calculate the maximum deflection.
Section A-A
A
Fig. 7.6: Design example: cellular beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load
Parent Universal Beam Section; 305 ´ 102 ´ 25
Cellular I-beam geometrical details:

H = 435.0mm; hw = 421.4mm; l = 4.2m; n = 9; B = 101.6mm; D = 300mm; t w = 5.8mm;
t f = 6.8mm; S = 1.5D; E = 200kN / mm2
7.2.2.1 Determination of equivalent second moment of area of cellular web I weq
1. Calculate A and B using equation 5.13a, b:
t w hw3 5.8 ´ 421.4^3

A = IS = = ´ 10 - 4 = 3616.8cm 4 ,
12 12
8t w r 3 8 ´ 5.8 ´ (0.5 ´ 300) 3
and B = I opening = = ´ 10 - 4 = 1305cm 4
12 12
2. Calculate the second moment of area across the opening I heq using equation 5.15:
2
I heq = = 2787cm 4 (Refer to the excel sheet in Appendix E)
n
sin q p
å ( A - B sin 3 q ) n
i =1
3. Calculate the bending equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web I weq
b
using equation 5.34:
l 4200 4200
I weq = = = = 3036cm 4
b æl ö é 4200 - 9 ´ 300 9 ´ 300 ù 0.41473125 + 0.96878363
ç ST + l OT ÷ ê +
ç IS I heq ÷ ë 3616.8 2787 úû
è ø
4. Calculate the shear deformation factor aw :
l 4200
Span to depth ratio = = 9.96
hw 421.4
Number of openings= 9 (odd numbers)
D 300
Diameter to depth ratio = = 0.71
hw 421.4
l D
Use Table 5.7 for ( = 9.6, odd number of openings, S = 1.5D and = 0.71 ), the
hw hw
shear deformation factor of the cellular web a w = 1.35

5. Calculate the equivalent second moment of area of the web I weq using eq. 5.35:
I weq 3036
I weq = b
= = 2248cm4
aw 1.35
Remarks:
From the above the total, bending and shear deflections in the cellular web can be
calculated as follows:
5wl 4 5 ´ 20 ´ 4200 4
The total deflection, D weq = = ´ 10 -7 = 18.02mm
384 EI weq 384 ´ 200 ´ 2248
5wl 4 5 ´ 20 ´ 4200 4
The bending deflection, D weq = = ´ 10 -7 = 13.25mm
b 384 EI weq 384 ´ 200 ´ 3036
b
Hence the shear deflection Dws = 18.02-13.25= 4.77mm
the cellular web.
7.2.2.2 Determination of the effective I value of the flanges I f ef
1. Calculate the 1st shear deformation component D fs1 (web-post):
n n
Using equation 6.10, D fs1 = åd
i =1
wpi =b
( S - D)
i =1
wpi
E 200
G= = = 76.92kN / mm 2
2(1 + 3u ) 2(1 + 2 ´ 0.3)
Refer to Fig. 7.7
n I
å Vwpi = åVwpi = 40.5 + 31.5 + 22.5 + 13.5 + 4.5 = 112.5kN (half span)
i =1 i= A
From Table 6.3: For S = 1.5D and D / hw = 0.71, b = 1.40 and hwpe = 0.84D
Substituting in Equation 6.9:

n
( S - D) ( 450 - 300)
D fs1 = b
i =1
wpi = 1.40
76.92 ´ (5.8 ´ 0.84 ´ 300)
´ 112.5 ´ 2 = 0.42mm
1 2 3 4 5 20kN/m
2100
A B C D E
22.5kN
18.0kN
13.5kN
9.0kN
42.0kN
40.5kN
4.5kN
36.0kN
31.5kN
27.0kN
4 x 450
75
300 4 x 450
Fig. 7.7: Shear force diagram- forces at the web-post and opening centres (half span)
2. Calculate the 2nd shear deformation component D fs 2 (opening centres)
n
0.030375 Vi R 3 0.030375 R 3 n
Using equation 6.15 D fs 2 = å = åVi
R = 450 mm ; E = 200 kN / mm 2
Refer to Fig. 7.7:
9
åVi = 2 ´ (36.0 + 27.0 + 18.0 + 9) = 182.0kN
i =1
101.6×6.8+60.7×5.8= 1043.0mm2 Centroid

101.6×6.8×3.4+60.7×5.8×37.15=15428.0mm3


Bt f 3 101.6 ´ 6.83
I fbT = + B t f yTF 2 = ´ 10 - 4 + 101.6 ´ 6.8 ´ 11.39 2 ´ 10 - 4
12 12
= 0.27 + 8.96 = 9.23cm 4
0.030375 R 3 15
0.030375 ´ 150 3
D fs 2 =
EI fbT å Vi =
200 ´ 9.23
´ 182.0 ´ 10 - 4 = 1.01mm
i =1
3. Calculate the bending deformation in the flanges D fb within the cellular beam
101.6 ´ 6.83
I fb = 2 ´ ´ 10 - 4 + 2 ´ 101.6 ´ 6.8(0.5 ´ 435.0 - 0.5 ´ 6.8) 2 ´ 10- 4
12
= 0.53 + 6333.82 = 6334cm 4
5wl 4 5 ´ 20 ´ 42004
D fb = = ´ 10- 7 = 6.4mm
384 E I cbTb 384 ´ 200 ´ 6334
4. Calculate the total deformation in the flanges
Use equation 6.7 to determine D f

T
Df =D fb
+ D fs = D fb + D fs1 + D fs 2 = 6.4 + 0.42 + 1.01 = 7.83mm
T
Remarks:
It is possible to quantify the bending and shear deflection within the flanges:
Total shear deflection D fs =0.42+1.01=1.43mm
the flanges.
7.2.2.3 Calculate the total effective I value of the cellular I-beam I cbT
1. Calculate the effective I value of the flanges I f ef

D fb 6.4
Using equation 6.2, I f ef = I fb = ´ 6334 = 0.817 ´ 6334 = 5175cm4
D fT 7.83
2. Calculate the total effective I value of the cellular I-beam I cbT
I cbT = I f ef + I weq = 5175 + 2248 = 7423cm 4

5wl 4 5 ´ 20 ´ 4200 4
Maximum deflection at mid-span; D cbT = = ´ 10 - 7 = 5.46mm
384 EI 384 ´ 200 ´ 7423
Remarks:
Maximum cellular beam bending deflection; D cbTb
5wl 4 5 ´ 20 ´ 4200 4
= = ´ 10 - 7 = 4.32mm
384 E ( I weq + I fb ) 384 ´ 200 ´ (3036 + 6334)
b
Maximum cellular beam total deflection; D cbT = 5.46mm
Maximum shear deflection in CB; DcbTs = 5.46 - 4.32 = 1.14mm
Table 7.2: Beam 9, deflection and % contribution of bending & shear in CB components
Cellular Web Flanges Total CB FEA
mm (%) mm (%) mm (%) mm (%)
1 2 3 4 5
Bending 13.25 (73.5) 6.400 (81.7) 4.32 (79.1)
Shear 4.77 (26.5) 1.43 (18.3) 1.14 (20.9)
Total 18.018 7.818 5.45 5.61(2.85)
Table 7.2 reveals the following:
· The shear contribution is high in both components (the cellular web and the
flanges) individually (cols. 2 & 3), and also the shear contribution in the overall CB (col.
4) is also high (20.9%).
7.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPOSED AND EXISTING METHODS
In this section comparison between the developed hand method and existing methods
(the SCI hand method, Westok preliminary design guidance, and the Westok program)
has been undertaken.
7.3.1 Comparison with SCI hand method
In this section design example 1 in section 7.2.1 will be analysed using the SCI hand
method (Ward, 1990- P100). The SCI method assumes that point of inflection occurs at
the opening centres and shear force is distributed equally between the bottom and top

tees. The deflection at any point is found by applying a unit load at that point. The
virtual work method underpins this method. The calculation is the same as for
hexagonal castellated beams. For a single opening in a symmetrical beam, the total
deflection attributable to that opening will be 4 times the deflection of one half–tees
plus 2 times the deflection of one half web-post (Refer to chapter 2 section 2.4.2.2).
i. Deflection due to bending in tee (y1)
0.45 R
0.09 R 3
ò
4 Vi Vi x
Using equation 2.2c; y1 = dx = (ViVi )
EI T 0 2 2 3EI T
V i is the shear due to the applied unit load. Vi is the shear at the opening centres.
E = 200 kN / mm 2 . For the calculation of Vi refer to Fig. 7.4. V i is calculated as follows:
a unit load is applied at mid-span and the shear is determined at the opening centres
(Fig. 7.8). The results of the calculation to determine y1 are given in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Calculation of y1 using the SCI method

Position Vi * Vi y1
( kN ) (kN ) (mm)
2 340.20 0.5 0.0942
3 291.60 0.5 0.0807
4 243.00 0.5 0.0673
5 194.40 0.5 0.0538
6 145.80 0.5 0.0404
7 97.20 0.5 0.0269
8 48.60 0.5 0.0135
9 0.00 0.0 0.0000
Total 0.37
(*) Refer to Fig. 7.4
Calculation of the second moment of area of

Centroid
303.3×20.2+176.15×15.1= 8786.5mm2

303.3×20.2×10.1+17615×15.1×108.275=34987.1mm3


The T section ’ IT ’:
Bt f 3 t w [0.5( hw - D)]3
IT = + + B t f yTF 2 + t w [0.5( hw - D) ]yTW 2 =
12 12
303.3x 20.2 3 15.1[0.5(1252.3 - 900]3
´ 10 -4 + + 303.3 ´ 20.2 ´ 29.712 +
12 12
15.1[0.5(1252.3 - 900)] ´ 68.465 2 = 2496.2cm 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9270 half of span

157.5 1.0kN
A B C D E F G
0.5kN 0.5kN 0.5kN 0.5kN 0.5kN 0.5kN 0.5kN
765 7 x 1215
Shear force diagram
Fig. 7.8: Shear force diagram due to the applied unit load at mid-span (half span)
ii. Deflection due to bending in web-post (y2)
Using equation 2.2d:
13.145 é 3ù
2
æ S - 0 .9 R ö æ S - 2 . 0 R ö 1 æ S - 2 .0 R ö
y2 = êlog e ç ÷ + 2ç ÷- ç ÷ - ú Vh Vh
E t ëê è S - 2.0 R ø è S - 0 .9 R ø 2 è S - 0 . 9 R ø 2 úû
The following parameters ( Vh , d, and Vh ) are calculated as follows:
S ( Vi + Vi +1 ) S ( Vi + Vi +1 )
Using eq. 2.2b, Vh = ; Vh =
2d 2d
d = H - yT
The results of the calculations are summarised in Tables 7.4 & 7.5

Table 7.4: Calculation of Vh and Vh using the SCI method
Vi S H yTF d Vh Vi Vh
Position
(m ) (m ) (mm) (m ) (kN ) (kN )
(kN ) (kN )
2 340.20 316.40 0.5 0.5008
3 291.60 267.72 0.5 0.5008
4 243.00 219.05 0.5 0.5008
5 194.40 1.215 1.2927 39.819 1.213 170.37 0.5 0.5008
6 145.80 121.69 0.5 0.5008
7 97.20 73.02 0.5 0.5008
8 48.60 24.34 0.5 0.2504
9 0.00 0 0.0 0
Table 7.5: Calculation of y2 using the SCI method

Vh Vh æ S - 0 .9 R ö æ S - 0.9 R ö æ S - 2 .0 R ö y2
Position ç ÷ log e ç ÷ ç ÷
(kN ) (kN ) è S - 2 .0 R ø è S - 2.0 R ø è S - 0 .9 R ø (mm)
2 316.40 0.5008 0.1011

3 267.72 0.5008 0.0856
4 219.05 0.5008 0.0700
5 170.37 0.5008 2.571 0.9444 0.3888 0.0545
6 121.69 0.5008 0.0389
7 73.02 0.5008 0.0233
8 24.34 0.2504 0.0039
9 0 0 0.0000
Total 0.38
iii. Deflection due to axial force in tee (y3)
ò
4 2S
Using eq. 2.2e: y 3 = 2
Ti Ti dx = (Ti Ti )
EAT 0 3 E AT
Fig. 7.9 shows the bending moment diagram due the applied load for half of the span,
while Fig. 7.10 shows the bending moment diagram due the unit load applied at mid-
span. Table 7.6 summarises the results of the calculation of the parameters required to
determine y3.
Table 7.6: Calculation of y3 using SCI method
Position
M d T M T AT S y3
(kN .m) (m ) (kN ) (kN .m) (kN )
2
( mm ) (m ) ( mm )
2 271.96 224.19 0.382 0.32 0.0978
3 655.78 540.60 0.990 0.82 0.6101
4 980.55 808.32 1.597 1.32 1.4720
5 1246.27 1.213 1027.37 2.205 1.82 8786.525 1.215 2.5823
6 1452.94 1197.75 2.812 2.32 3.8400
7 1600.56 1319.44 3.42 2.82 5.1439
8 1689.13 1392.46 4.027 3.32 6.3928
9 1718.66 1416.79 4.635 3.82 0.0000
Total 20.14

3 4 5 40kN/m 6 7 8
1 2
9270
A B C D E F G
272.96kN.m
655.78kN.m
980.55kN.m
1246.27kN.m
1453.94kN.m
1600.56kN.m
1689.13kN.m
1818.66kN.m
765 7 x 1215
Fig. 7.9: Bending moment diagram due to the applied load (half span)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9270
1.0kN
A B C D E F G
0.99kN.m
3.42kN.m
0.38kN.m
2.21kN.m
4.63kN.m
2.81kN.m
4.03kN.m
1.59kN.m
765 7 x 1215
Fig. 7.10: Bending moment diagram due to the applied unit load at mid-span (half span)
Deflection due to shear in tee (y4)
0.45 R
ò
4 AT Vi x Vi x 0.45 R
Using eq. 2.2f, y 4 = dx = (ViVi )
G AT ATweb 2 2 G ATweb
0
Table 7.7 summarise the calculation of y4.

Vi Vi ATweb G R y4
Position
(kN ) (mm2 ) (kN / mm 2 ) (m ) ( mm )
(kN )
2 340.20 0.5 0.1683

3 291.60 0.5 0.1443
4 243.00 0.5 0.1202
5 194.40 0.5 2659.865 76.923 0.45 0.0962
6 145.80 0.5 0.0721
7 97.20 0.5 0.0481
8 48.60 0.5 0.0240
9 0.00 0.0 0.0000
Total 0.67
iv. Deflection due to shear in the web-post (y5)

0.9 R
1.636 é æ S - 0.9 R öù
ò
2 Vh Vh
Using eq. 2.2g, y 5 = c dz = c êlog e ç ÷úVh Vh
GAZ 0 2 2 Gt ë è S - 2. 0 R ø û
Table 7.8 summarises the calculation of y5 at all positions.

æ S - 0 .9 R ö æ S - 0. 9 R ö c G AT
Vh Vh ç ÷ log e ç ÷ y5
Position è S - 2. 0 R ø è S - 2.0 R ø (kN / mm ) 2 2
( mm ) (mm)
(kN ) (kN )
2 316.40 0.5008 0.3162

3 267.75 0.5008 0.2675
4 219.05 0.5008 0.2189
5 170.37 0.5008 2.571 0.9444 1.5 76.923 8786.5 0.1702
6 121.69 0.5008 0.1216
7 73.02 0.5008 0.0730
8 24.34 0.2504 0.0122
9 0 0 0.0000
Total 1.18
v. Deflection of the end of the beam 157.5mm (y6)
bt f 3
I beam = 2 ´
12
+
t w hw 3
12
[
+ 2 ´ bt f 0.5hw - 0.5t f ]2 =
303.3 ´ 20.2 3 15.1 ´ 1252.33
2´ + + 2 ´ 303.3 ´ 20.2(0.5 ´ 1252.3 - 0.5 ´ 20.2) 2 = 2479091927mm 4
12 12
= 247909cm 4
Deflection due to bending of the solid end of the beam y6=
157.5
é 40 x 2 ù 0. 5 x
ò ò
MM
dx = ê370.8 x - ´ 10 -3 ú dx =
EI beam êë 2 úû EI beam
0
=
[185.4 ´ x / 3 - 10 ´ 10 -3 ´ x 4 / 4 0
3
] 157.5
= 4.9 ´ 10 - 4 mm
(200 ´ 2479091927)

The summary of the calculation of y1-y5 is given in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9: Summary of the y1-y5 deflections using SCI method

y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 yi
Position
( mm ) ( mm ) ( mm ) ( mm ) ( mm ) (mm )
2 0.0942 0.1011 0.0978 0.1683 0.3162 0.7776

3 0.0807 0.0856 0.6101 0.1443 0.2675 1.1882
4 0.0673 0.0700 1.4720 0.1202 0.2189 1.9484
5 0.0538 0.0545 2.5823 0.0962 0.1702 2.9571
6 0.0404 0.0389 3.8400 0.0721 0.1216 4.1130
7 0.0269 0.0233 5.1439 0.0481 0.0730 5.3152
8 0.0135 0.0039 6.3928 0.0240 0.0122 6.4464
9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Deflection due to half of the first opening top and bottom tees:
1 1
Defelction - y 7 = ( y1 + y3 + y 4) = (0.0942 + 0.0978 + 0.1683) = 0.18mm
2 2
Total deflection D cbT
= 2( y6 + y7 + y1 + y 2 + y3 + y 4 + y5) =
2(0.00049 + 0.18 + 0.7776 + 1.1882 + 1.9484 + 2.95571 + 4.1130 + 5.3152 + 6.4464) = 45.85mm
Total deflection from the FEA= 52.72mm
Total deflection from the developed hand method=51.39mm
The % difference between the FEA and the SCI= 13.1
The % difference between the developed hand method and the SCI = 10.8
Further comparison
Further comparison has been undertaken between the SCI, the developed and the
FEA methods. The examples presented in chapter 6, Tables 6.3 and 6.4 have been
used for this comparison and the results are given in Table 7.10.
· There is a big discrepancy (col. 8) between the deflection results using the SCI
method (col. 6) and the FEA (col. 4).
· It is interesting to note that the discrepancy between the SCI and the FEA methods
increases as the span to depth ratio (col. 2) reduces. The % difference is significant
(34.31%) with Bea m 9. This suggests the inability of the SCI method to take into

account adequately the shear deformations in CBs. As the span to depth ratio reduces
the shear deformation increases in the beam.
Table 7.10: Comparison between the deflections using SCI, proposed and FE methods
Beam No. Parent H Span/ Applied FEA Developed SCI hand FEA- ANA FEA - SCI
Universal (mm) Depth load D cbT hand method 100% 100%
FEA FEA
Beam Ratio ( kN / m) method D cbT
(mm) D cbT
l (mm)
hw (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Beam 1 533X210X82 759.1 12.1 10.0 05.02 4.99 4.12 0.5 17.8
Beam 2 914X305X201 1292.7 8
13.2 40.0 34.26 33.86 29.76 1.1 13.1
Beam 3 914X305X201 1292.7 9
14.8 40.0 52.72 51.39 45.85 2.5 13.0
Beam 4 914X305X201 1292.7 0
19.0 40.0 140.07 136.48 126.85 2.5 9.4
Beam 5 610X229X101 862.4 4
14.4 30.0 29.31 29.48 25.20 -0.6 14.0
Beam 6 305X102X25 435.0 0
16.3 20.0 35.37 34.97 31.67 1.1 10.5
Beam 7 533X210X82 759.1 7
8.95 30.0 5.38 5.24 4.16 2.6 22.7
Beam 8 533X210X82 759.1 15.6 30.0 47.36 45.98 40.29 2.9 14.9
Beam 9 305X102X25 435.0 2
9.96 20.0 5.61 5.45 3.69 2.8 34.3
Beam 10 914X419x343 1301.5 21.0 40.0 107.24 105.64 96.15 1.5 10.3
Beam 11 914X419x343 1301.5 9
16.9 40.0 45.88 45.84 39.99 0.1 12.8
Beam 12 914X419x343 1301.5 5
14.5 40.0 25.19 25.63 21.25 -1.7 15.6
5
A worked example for a CB has been presented in SCI P100 (1990) pages 44-46
which provides in detail the calculations for the determination of the maximum
deflection (13.06mm).
The details of the CB are as follows:
H = 626.8mm; hw = 601.4mm; l = 10.0m; n = 16; B = 189.9mm; D = 400mm; t w = 8.5mm;

t f = 12.7mm; S = 1.5 D = 600mm; E = 205KN / mm2 ; applied UDL = 12.39kN / m.
The CB has been modelled using FEA and the obtained maximum deflection was
15.45mm resulting in 18.3% difference between the two methods.
Discussion:
As discussed in section 2.4.2.2 that the SCI method is based on a Vierendeel girder
analogy which is not exact. However the SCI method considers shear deformations in
the web–post with no proper validation. The shear deformation in the web-post is
calculated horizontally due to the longitudinal shear at centre of the web-post and
added to the deflection in the vertical direction which gives different physical meaning.
Even the considered height of fixity (0.9D) in the web-post in the SCI method is not
correct. The present study showed that it varies (section 6.3.1.1) and the length ( hwpe )
of fixity in the web-post is dependent on the geometrical configurations of the CB and

cannot be approximated to 0.9D. Most importantly the SCI method doesn’t consider
shear deformations in the flanges adequately. The combined effect of the above raised
points underlines the discrepancy in the results and especially when the span to depth
ratio reduces.
7.3.2 Comparison with WESTOK preliminary design
A number of cellular I-beam sections have been selected (Table 7.11- columns 1-3)
from the cellular sub-groups (Appendix A). Westok provides engineer with a ‘Cellbeam
Program Design Guide’ where it gives the geometrical details and the second moments
of areas for the hand preliminary design. The second moment of area of the selected
cellular beams has been abstracted from the design guide in Appendix B1 (column 5).
The proposed hand method has also been used to calculate the second moment of
area of the cellular I-beam sections (column 6). The solid second moments of area of
the I-beams are also given for comparison (column 4). The selected cellular I-beams
have been modelled using the FE method. The beams have been subjected to different
uniformly distributed loads (column 7) and the displacements at their mid-spans using
different methods have been calculated (columns 8-10).

Table 7.11: Comparison between Westok design guide, FEA & proposed method
Second moment of area Displacement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Universal Westok Geom. I solid I cbT * I cbT ** Load FEA Ana. Wes. FEA- ANA FEA-Wes.
100% 100%.
Beam equivalent details kN/m D cbT D cbT Hand FEA FEA
cm4 Westok Ana.
section
mm mm D cbT
Design
cm4 mm
Guide
cm4
Web: l = 8925mm
Beam1 (732.7X9.6) S = 1.5D
108139 96581 82733 50 25.11 25.49 21.38 1.5 14.8
(533X210X82) Flange: D = 325mm
(208.8X13.2) 11holes
Web: l = 16650mm
Beam 2 (1252.3X15.1) S = 1.5D
743159 651484 576158 40 34.26 34.73 30.72 1.3 10.2
(914X305X201) Flange: D = 900mm
(303.3X20.2) 12holes
Web: l = 12000mm
Beam 3 (832.8X10.5) S = 1.5D
176159 152655 141509 40 39.08 39.60 35.36 2.3 9.5
(610X229X101) Flange: D = 600mm
(227.6X14.8) 13holes
* Westok: Information taken from Westok design guide (Appendix B1)

D fb 1
** Hand analysis: I cbT = I fef + I weq = I fb + Iw
D fT a w eqb

· The equivalent second moment of area for the cellular I-beam sections using the
proposed hand methods and the FEA are very much in agreement (col. 11). However
the second moment of areas of the sections abstracted from Westok design guide are
not in agreement with both the FEA and the proposed method (col. 12).
· The second moment of area given by Westok is much greater than those calculated
using the proposed method and the FEA (col.12). It varies between approximately 9%-
15%. The Westok second moment of area is based on the minimum section at the
opening centreline which is meant to be conservative. In summary the Westok values
taken at the opening centres are not conservative as they don’t take into account the all
the deformations in the cellular beam.
7.3.3 Comparison with Westok Cellbeam program
Westok is one of the main manufacturers to develop software to assist undertaking the
design of cellular beams including the determination of maximum deflection. Westok
provides engineers with a design service and has already produced the design
software Cellbeam AutoMate. The same examples given in Table 6.3 have been
selected for analysis by the Cellbeam program version 10.2 (Table 7.12- col. 1). The
beams are subjected to the same loads (col. 2) as before.
Table 7.12: Comparison between CELLBEAM, FEA and proposed hand method
Proposed Westok Cellbeam
Beam No. Applied FEA hand method Program FEA- ANA FEA-WESTOK
load
D cbT D cbT D cbT FEA
100%
FEA
100%
( kN / m)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 7 8
Beam 1 10.0 05.02 4.99 4.14 0.5 17.5
Beam 2 40.0 34.26 33.86 28.71 1.1 16.2
Beam 3 40.0 52.72 51.39 44.93 2.5 14.7
Beam 4 40.0 140.07 136.48 119.84 2.5 14.4
Beam 5 30.0 29.31 29.48 25.14 -0.6 13.3
Beam 6 20.0 35.37 34.97 30.95 1.1 12.5
Beam 7 30.0 5.38 5.24 4.1 2.6 23.8
Beam 8 30.0 47.36 45.98 32.93 2.9 30.5
Beam 9 20.0 5.61 5.45 4.45 2.8 20.7
Beam 10 40.0 107.24 105.64 91.44 1.5 14.7
Beam 11 40.0 45.88 45.84 39.01 0.1 14.9
Beam 12 40.0 25.19 25.63 21.1 -1.7 16.2
The geometrical details (Table 6.3) of the CBs have been given to Westok to undertake
the analysis of the beams and determine the maximum deflection for each beam under

the specified loading using their program version 10.2. The results of the Westok
calculations are given in Table 7.12 (col. 5).
The deflection results are compared with the FEA results (col. 3). The deflections
determined by the proposed method have been presented too for comparison (col. 4).
· There are significant discrepancies between the deflection results obtained using
the Cellbeam program and the FEA (col. 8). This discrepancy is associated with lack of
understanding of the relevant deformations in a CB especially in the flanges.
7.4 LIMITATION
1. Linear Analysis: the developed method for the determination of deflection in
cellular beams has not included any nonlinear analysis. The proposed method has
been developed undertaking linear elastic analysis only. From the design point of
view, limiting deflection is a serviceability requirement. Hence small deflections are
anticipated and the cellular beams experience only linear elastic deformations.
2. Geometrical parameters of cellular beams
Not all possible values of the parameters of cellular beams have been considered
in this thesis, more specifically:
a. Span to depth ratios: the developed method does not cover span to depth
ratios less than 10 and greater than 27 as it was not possible to compile shear
deformation factors for the cellular web beams outside the range of between 10
and 27. This range covers most of the beams specified in practice. It should be
noted that for longer span to depth ratios the shear effect is significantly reduced
and its effect becomes negligible. For smaller span to depth ratios, deflection is
usually not problematic. However it is worthwhile to investigate cellular I-beams
with span to depth ratios less than 10.
b. Opening spacing: the developed method does not cover beams with irregular
opening spacing as these types of beams are not common in practice.

c. Opening diameter to web height: the developed method does not cover
opening diameter to web height ratios less than 0.71 and greater than 0.75 as
these types of cellular beams are not common in practice. For opening diameter to
web height ratios less than 0.71 the benefits of cellular I-beams are reduced.
However, it is worthwhile to investigate cellular I-beams with opening diameter to
web height ratios greater than 0.75.
3. Loading condition: the developed method does not cover cellular beams
subjected to point loads as the majority of load cases in practice are uniformly
distributed loads which is often the least favourable loading scenario.
4. Articulation: the developed method is limited to simply supported cellular beams.
Deflection is more problematic in simply supported beams compared with
continuous beams. However it is advisable to investigate deflection in continuous
cellular I-beams using the developed method.
5. Natural Frequencies: the developed method does not cover natural frequency
analysis. However there has been a well-developed simple equation which is often
used in practice for simply supported beams (Cobb, 2005):
1
f = 18 (7.1)
D
where f is the fundamental natural frequency of a simply supported beam and ‘ D ’
is the maximum displacement of the beam subjected to its self-weight and
measured in millimetres.
Three cellular beams (1, 2, and 3) from Table 6.3 have been selected to check if
equation 7.1 is applicable to cellular beams. The calculated results are compared
in Table 7.13 where:
Column A shows the calculated maximum displacement using the proposed
method; Column B gives the natural frequencies evaluated using equation 7.1 and
the displacement in Column A; and Column C lists the fundamental natural
frequencies of the three beams calculated directly from the finite element analysis.

It should be noted that the self weight of the beam is factored to cover the
conversion of the applied load (Table 6.4) into an equivalent applied mass. It can
be noted from Table 7.13 that the differences between the simplified analysis and
FE analysis are very small.
Table 7.13:: Natural frequencies between the FE and the theoretical methods
Beam type D cbT (mm) Natural Natural B -C
frequency ( f ) frequency ( f ) ( ) ´ 100%
Proposed
Equation 7.1 FEA
C
method
(A) (B) (C)
Beam 1 (Table 6.3) 4.98 29.04 28.43 2.1
Beam 2 (Table 6.3) 33.84 14.23 13.97 1.8
Beam 3 (Table 6.3) 51.41 11.64 11.42 1.9
7.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter presents two cellular beam examples to show in detail the procedure and
the calculations utilising the developed formulae so that they can be appreciated by
others. It also presents comparisons of the developed method with existing methods
such as the SCI hand method, the Westok preliminary design guidance and the
Westok Cellbeam program version 10.2. The conclusions are summarised as follows:
· It provides in detail the procedure and calculations for deflection in a cellular beam
using the developed method.
· It provides a thorough understanding of the deflection problem in a cellular beam.
· It provides a physical understanding of the percentage contribution of bending and
shear deflections in both components of the cellular beam; the cellular web and the
flanges (Tables 7.1 and 7.2).
· It also provides a physical understanding of the overall % contributions of bending
and shear in the full cellular beam (Tables 7.1 and 7.2).
· It compares the results from the existing methods with the FEA and the developed
method. It also shows the significant discrepancies associated with the existing
methods.
· The proposed hand method has simplified the calculation of deflections of a
cellular beam where it can be followed by practice engineers in the design office. It
also provides results with greater accuracy.

CHAPTER 8 INTERACTION OF FAILURE MODES
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter investigates the failure modes such as Pure Bending (P.B.), Vierendeel
Mechanism (V.M.), Web-Post Buckling (W.P.B.) and the failure loads in cellular beams
(CBs). Lateral torsional buckling of the entire span is excluded from this study. A 3D
nonlinear FE model has been developed to investigate the failure modes and the
failure loads in CBs. This model was verified against experimental measurements in
chapter 3. The predictions for the failure modes from the nonlinear FE analyses were
the same as those from the experimental tests. However some differences were
observed in the failure loads between the experiment and FE results.
An extensive parametric study is carried out to investigate the effect of cross-sectional
geometry on the failure load and the failure modes. The objectives of this chapter are:
· To examine the stress distribution for each mode of failure, with particular
emphasis on the initiation and development of Von-Mises, shear and direct stresses,
up to the development of plasticity and failure.
· To examine the failure load and failure modes of CBs. The failure loads predicted
from the parametric study are compared with the available analytical approaches.
· To assess the effect of changes in cross-section geometries and the span to depth
ratios on the failure loads and the failure modes together with emphasis on the
interaction between the failure modes.
8.2 NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
In this study a 3D nonlinear FE model has been developed to analyse the CBs. The FE
quadrilateral thick shell element QTS8 (8-node), available in LUSAS, is used to model
the web and the flanges of the CBs. The size of the meshing is kept as 25mm to
achieve the computational efficiency with good accuracy (Fig. 8.1).
Chapter 8 Interaction of Failure Modes 218

Element size: 25mm
Lateral support
a. Isometric View
b. Closer view of the meshing
Fig. 8.1: Typical FE model of Beam 1_2
8.2.2 Material modelling of cellular steel beams
The mechanical properties of steel at 20 °C have been taken as those given in BS EN
1993-1-1 (2005) for normal temperature design and analysis. The Poisson’s ratio ( u ) is
taken as 0.3. Fig. 8.2 shows the bi-linear stress-strain curve which was adopted in the
nonlinear numerical modelling of the CBs resulting from the following three
assumptions:
f u = 1.1 f y
e u = 0.05 = 28.17e y (It should not be less than 15e y )
E = 200kN / mm2

450
0.05, 391
Stress N/mm2
400 0.001775, 355
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain
Fig. 8.2: Stress-strain curve used in the modelling of cellular beams ( EN 1993-1-1)
8.2.3 Finite element nonlinear analysis
Nonlinear analysis has been undertaken on the CB models and the following
procedures have been applied:
· The cellular beams were subjected to uniformly distributed load. Lateral supports
to the flanges are provided along the beams.
· Eigenvalue linear elastic buckling analysis is firstly undertaken as a starting point to
identify the lowest buckling mode from the analysis.
· The nonlinear buckling analysis is then performed starting with the deformed mesh
from the Eigenvalue analysis. Geometrical imperfections are applied and specified at a
scale factor of 0.1mm.
· The Newton-Raphson procedure has been used in the analysis. In addition
geometrical nonlinearity has also been used in the analysis.
8.3 PARAMETERIC STUDY
The FE nonlinear 3D model verified in Chapter 3 was used to study the effect of
changes in geometrical configurations such as span to depth ratio, web thickness,
flange thickness, diameter to depth ratio and opening spacing to diameter ratio on the
failure modes.
Table 8.1 shows the relevant parameters affecting the failure mode and the cases for
the analysis considered.

Table 8.1: Parameters affecting modes of failure and the cases for analysis considered
Parameter Practical range Considered cases for the investigation
Min. Max.
l / hw 5 28 3 cases: low (6.0-7.0), medium (12.0-14.0), high (26-28)
S /D 1.23 1.5 3 cases (1.23, 1.35, 1.5)
D / hw 0.7 0.75 3 cases (0.7, 0.73, 0.75)
10 20 2 cases (12, 15 )
Bf /t f
hw / t w 49 89 3 cases (62, 77, 88)
Total number of 162 CBs) cases

investigated CBs
The parametric study covers the analysis of 162 different CBs. Table 8.2 (col. 1-15)
summarises the dimensions of the CBs investigated. The beams are divided into 54
groups denoted G1-G54 (col. 1). In each group there are 3 types of CBs (col. 2); the
first beam (B1_1) represents a high span to depth ratio beam, the second beam (B1_2)
represents a medium span to depth ratio beam and the third beam (B1_3) represents a
low span to depth ratio beam. Each beam type in each group is different to those in the
other groups, for example beam type 1 (B 1_1) in G1 is different to those in the other
53 groups and beam type 2 (B 1_2) is different to those in the other 53 groups and
beam type 3 (B 1_3) is different to those in the other 53 groups. In summary 162
different cellular beams with different geometrical parameters have been analysed and
examined. The results of the parametric study are given in Table 8.2. (Column 16-18).
The failure loads w FE from the FE parametric study are given in column 16. The
allowable loads w FE for all the investigated CBs from the FE analyses have been
converted to allowable moments M FE (Table 8.2 col. 17) so that they can be compared
with the allowable analytical moments. The failure modes are given in col. 18, while the
allowable loads wTheory from the analytical equations are given in col. 19. It should be
noted that the allowable load from the analytical design equations is obtained from the
following: SCI P100 and EN1993-1 and BSI 2005 for Pure Bending (P.B.); SCI P100
for Web-Post Buckling (W.P.B.); and Chung et. al. (2003) for Vierendeel Mechanism
(V.M.). The ( w FE / wTheory ) ratios are given in col. 20.

Table 8.2: Design geometrical parameters of the selected CBs and the result of the parametric study
B tw B FE Analysis Design wFE
l/H D/H tf hw
Beam l D n H S/D S-D (mm) * w FE ** M FE Failure *** wTheory
Type (mm) (mm) (mm) tf tw Mode wTheory
(mm) (mm) (kN/m) (kN.m) (kN/m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
B 1_1 12200 30 26.34 9.04 168.19 P.B. 8.18 1.11
325 463.2 0.70 1.23 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 6200 15 13.39 75.00 28.6 137.42 P.B. 33.40 0.86
G1 B 1_3 3000 7 6.48 73.8 83.02 W.P.B 45.52 1.62
B 1_1 12046 27 26.01 9.36 169.77 P.B. 8.39 1.12
325 463.2 0.70 1.35 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 5904 13 12.75 113.75 37.48 163.31 P.B. 34.93 1.07
G2 B 1_3 3271 7 7.06 79.8 106.73 W.P.B. 66.19 1.21
B 1_1 12388 25 26.74 9.48 181.85 P.B. 7.93 1.19
325 463.2 0.70 1.50 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 6050 12 13.06 162.50 36.5 167.00 P.B. 33.26 1.10
G3 B 1_3 3125 6 6.75 100.02 122.09 V.M.+ W.P.B. 126.00 0.80: 1.29
B 1_1 12264 29 26.48 8.43 158.49 P.B. 7.92 1.06
338 463.2 0.73 1.23 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 6024 14 13.01 78.00 32.6 147.88 W.P.B 17.80 1.83
G4 B 1_3 3112 7 6.72 77.8 94.18 W.P.B. 42.71 1.82
B 1_1 12064 26 26.04 8.5 154.64 P.B. 9.19 0.92
338 463.2 0.73 1.35 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 5676 12 12.25 118.30 38.6 155.45 W.P.B. 29.13 1.33
G5 B 1_3 2938 6 6.34 88.6 95.60 W.P.B. 72.82 1.22
B 1_1 12368 24 26.70 8.64 165.20 P.B. 7.79 1.11
338 463.2 0.73 1.50 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 5777 11 12.47 169.00 39.5 164.78 P.B. 35.72 1.11
G6 B 1_3 3242 6 7.00 90.08 118.35 W.P.B. 71.05 1.27
B 1_1 12254 28 26.46 8.56 160.67 P.B. 7.77 1.10
350 463.2 0.75 1.23 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 6227 14 13.45 80.50 25.9 125.54 W.P.B. 16.79 1.54
G7 B 1_3 3214 7 6.94 60.8 78.51 W.P.B. 40.29 1.51
B 1_1 12485 26 26.95 8.24 160.55 P.B. 7.48 1.10
350 463.2 0.75 1.35 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 6343 13 13.69 122.50 31.85 160.18 P.B. 29.00 1.10
G8 B 1_3 3508 7 7.57 68.8 105.83 W.P.B. 54.63 1.26
B 1_1 13325 25 28.77 7.22 160.24 P.B. 6.57 1.10
350 463.2 0.75 1.50 101.6 6.8 5.8 14.94 77.51
B 1_2 6500 12 14.03 175.00 30.8 162.66 P.B. 27.62 1.12
G9 B 1_3 2825 5 6.10 98.7 98.46 W.P.B. 87.77 1.12
B 1_1 12200 30 26.34 9.56 177.86 P.B. 8.72 1.10
325 463.2 0.70 1.23 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 6200 15 13.39 75.00 31.76 152.61 P.B. 33.77 0.94
G 10 B 1_3 3000 7 6.48 95.5 107.44 W.P.B 62.34 1.53
B 1_1 12046 27 26.01 10.12 183.56 P.B. 8.92 1.13
325 463.2 0.70 1.35 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 5904 13 12.75 113.75 41.90 182.56 P.B. 37.25 1.12
G 11 B 1_3 3271 7 7.06 100.9 134.95 V.M 128.00 0.79
B 1_1 12388 25 26.74 8.35 160.18 P.B. 8.46 0.99
325 463.2 0.70 1.50 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 6050 12 13.06 162.50 40.00 183.01 P.B. 35.47 1.13
G 12 B 1_3 3125 6 6.75 104.1 127.08 V.M. 134.00 0.78
B 1_1 12264 30 26.48 9.03 169.77 P.B. 8.42 1.07
338 463.2 0.73 1.23 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 6024 15 13.01 78.00 40.60 184.16 P.B. 34.91 1.16
G 13 B 1_3 3112 7 6.72 103.0 124.69 W.P.B. 94.63 1.09
Note: There are three different types of beams in each group and all the cellular beams differ from each other, i.e. 162 different cellular beams have been analysed.
* w FE : Allowable load from the FE analysis. ** M FE : The allowable moment from the FE analysis.
*** wTheory : The allowable load from the analytical design equations: SCI P100 and EN1993-1, BSI 2005 for Pure Bending (P.B.); SCI P100 for Web-Post Buckling (W.P.B.); and Chung et. al., 2003 for
Vierendeel Mechanism (V.M.)

Table 8.2: continued
tw B hw FE Analysis Design wFE
tf
Beam l D H l/H D/H S /D S-D B * w FE ** M FE Failure *** wTheory
Type (mm)
n (mm) (mm) tf tw Mode
wTheory
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m) (kN.m) (kN/m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
B 1_1 12064 338 27 26.04 9.08 165.19 P.B. 8.7 1.04
463.2 0.73 1.35 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 5676 13 12.25 118.30 43.9 176.79 P.B. 39.32 1.12
G 14 B 1_3 2938 7 6.34 101.0 108.98 V.M. 149.00 0.58
B 1_1 12368 338 25 26.70 9.3 177.82 P.B. 8.28 1.12
463.2 0.73 1.50 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 5777 12 12.47 169.00 42.7 178.13 P.B. 37.96 1.12
G 15 B 1_3 3242 6 7.00 100.72 132.33 V.M. 122.0 0.88
B 1_1 12254 28 26.47 9.18 172.31 P.B. 8.22 1.12
350 463.2 0.75 1.23 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 6227 14 13.45 80.50 35.5 172.07 P.B. 31.86 1.11
G 16 B 1_3 3214 7 6.94 85.7 110.66 W.P.B. 56.33 1.52
B 1_1 12485 27 26.95 8.84 172.24 P.B. 7.92 1.12
350 463.2 0.75 1.35 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 6343 13 13.69 122.50 34.15 171.75 P.B. 30.71 1.11
G 17 B 1_3 3508 7 7.57 99.90 153.67 V.M. 103.2 0.97
B 1_1 13325 25 28.77 7.76 172.23 P.B. 6.95 1.12
350 463.2 0.75 1.50 101.6 6.8 7.2 14.94 62.44
B 1_2 6500 12 14.03 175.00 32.45 171.38 P.B. 29.24 1.11
G 18 B 1_3 2825 6 6.10 100.4 100.16 V.M. 154.00 0.65
B 1_1 12200 30 26.34 8.53 158.70 P.B. 7.48 1.14
325 463.2 0.70 1.23 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 6200 15 13.39 75.00 23.43 112.58 W.P.B. 14.05 1.67
G 19 B 1_3 3000 7 6.48 46.9 52.76 W.P.B. 36.53 1.28
B 1_1 12046 27 26.01 8.98 162.88 P.B. 7.67 1.17
325 463.2 0.70 1.35 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 5904 13 12.75 113.75 37.50 163.39 W.P.B. 22.34 1.68
G 20 B 1_3 3271 7 7.06 64.5 86.26 W.P.B. 49.16 1.31
B 1_1 12388 25 26.74 6.91 132.55 P.B. 7.26 0.95
325 463.2 0.70 1.50 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 6050 12 13.06 162.50 25.95 118.73 P.B. 30.42 0.85
G 21 B 1_3 3125 6 6.75 79.57 97.13 W.P.B. 58.05 1.37
B 1_1 12264 30 26.48 8.10 152.29 P.B. 7.29 1.11
338 463.2 0.73 1.23 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 6024 15 13.01 78.00 35.45 160.80 W.P.B. 14.13 2.51
G 22 B 1_3 3112 7 6.72 62.5 75.66 W.P.B. 33.91 1.84
B 1_1 12064 27 26.04 8.73 158.82 P.B. 7.53 1.16
338 463.2 0.73 1.35 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 5676 13 12.25 118.30 30.85 124.24 W.P.B. 22.66 1.36
G 23 B 1_3 2938 7 6.34 70.96 76.56 W.P.B. 56.66 0.25
B 1_1 12368 25 26.70 8.30 158.70 P.B. 7.17 1.16
338 463.2 0.73 1.50 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 5777 12 12.47 169.00 36.65 152.89 V.M. 44.00 0.83
G 24 B 1_3 3242 6 7.00 72.80 95.65 W.P.B. 52.74 1.38
B 1_1 12254 28 26.47 8.26 155.04 P.B. 7.18 1.15
350 463.2 0.75 1.23 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 6227 14 13.45 80.50 20.45 99.12 W.P.B. 13.18 1.55
G 25 B 1_3 3215 7 6.94 50.50 65.25 W.P.B. 33.00 1.53
B 1_1 12485 27 26.95 7.96 155.10 P.B. 6.92 1.15
350 463.2 0.75 1.35 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 6343 13 13.69 122.50 30.88 155.30 P.B. 26.81 1.15
G 26 B 1_3 3508 7 7.57 53.69 82.59 W.P.B. 42.00 1.28
B 1_1 13325 25 28.77 6.98 154.92 P.B. 6.07 1.15
350 463.2 0.75 1.50 101.6 6.8 5.1 14.94 88.15
B 1_2 6500 12 14.03 175.00 29.15 153.95 V.M. 35.40 0.82
G 27 B 1_3 2825 6 6.10 83.6 83.40 W.P.B. 64.27 1.30

l D H l/H
D/H B tf tw B hw FE Analysis Design wFE
Beam n S/D * w FE ** M FE **** wTheory
Type
(mm) (mm) (mm) S-D (mm)
(mm) (mm) tf tw
Failure
wP100
(kN/m) (kN.m) Mode
(kN/m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
B 1_1 12200 30 26.34 9.87 183.63 P.B. 9.52 1.04
325 463.2 0.70 1.23 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 6200 15 13.39 75.00 28.56 137.23 P.B. 36.88 0.77
G 28 B 1_3 3000 7 6.48 65.8 74.03 W.P.B 45.36 1.45
B 1_1 12046 27 26.01 10.84 196.62 P.B. 9.77 1.11
325 463.2 0.70 1.35 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 5904 13 12.75 113.75 39.45 171.89 W.P.B. 28.38 1.39
G 29 B 1_3 3271 7 7.06 83.7 111.94 W.P.B. 62.45 1.34
B 1_1 12388 25 26.74 8.2 157.30 P.B. 9.24 0.89
325 463.2 0.70 1.50 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 6050 12 13.06 162.50 43.00 196.74 P.B. 38.73 1.11
G 30 B 1_3 3125 6 6.75 102.6 125.24 V.M. 130.5 0.78
B 1_1 12264 30 26.48 9.66 181.61 P.B. 9.26 1.04
338 463.2 0.73 1.23 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 6024 15 13.01 78.00 33.45 151.73 W.P.B. 17.73 1.89
G 31 B 1_3 3112 7 6.72 80.7 97.69 W.P.B. 42.05 1.92
B 1_1 12064 27 26.04 10.56 192.11 P.B. 9.57 1.10
338 463.2 0.73 1.35 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 5676 13 12.25 118.30 39.6 159.47 W.P.B. 29.13 1.36
G 32 B 1_3 2938 7 6.34 92.5 99.81 W.P.B. 72.82 1.27
B 1_1 12368 25 26.70 10.06 192.36 P.B. 9.10 1.11
338 463.2 0.73 1.50 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 5777 12 12.47 169.00 45.9 191.48 P.B. 41.72 1.10
G 33 B 1_3 3242 6 7.00 95.2 125.08 W.P.B. 71.05 1.34
B 1_1 12254 28 26.47 9.96 186.95 P.B. 9.10 1.09
350 463.2 0.75 1.23 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 6227 14 13.45 80.50 26.4 127.96 W.P.B. 16.73 1.58
G 34 B 1_3 3214 7 6.94 62.5 80.70 W.P.B. 40.15 1.56
B 1_1 12485 27 26.95 9.64 187.83 P.B. 8.77 1.10
350 463.2 0.75 1.35 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 6343 13 13.69 122.50 36.15 181.81 P,B. 33.98 1.06
G 35 B 1_3 3508 7 7.57 71.5 109.99 W.P.B. 54.63 1.31
B 1_1 13325 25 28.77 8.44 187.32 P.B. 7.70 1.10
350 463.2 0.75 1.50 101.6 8.4 5.8 12.1 77.51
B 1_2 6500 12 14.03 175.00 35.3 186.43 P.B. 32.35 1.09
G 36 B 1_3 2825 6 6.10 98.7 98.46 W.P.B. 87.77 1.12
B 1_1 12200 30 26.34 10.00 186.05 P.B. 10.07 0.99
325 463.2 0.70 1.23 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 6200 15 13.39 75.00 36.80 176.82 P.B. 38.98 0.94
G 37 B 1_3 3000 7 6.48 98.20 110.48 V.M. 116.1 0.86
B 1_1 12046 27 26.01 11.60 210.40 P.B. 10.33 1.12
325 463.2 0.70 1.35 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 5904 13 12.75 113.75 47.825 208.38 P.B. 42.99 1.11
G 38 B 1_3 3271 7 7.06 100.7 134.68 V.M. 146.8 0.69
B 1_1 12388 25 26.74 9.29 178.21 P.B. 9.76 0.95
325 463.2 0.70 1.50 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 6050 12 13.06 162.50 45.05 206.12 P.B. 40.94 1.10
G 39 B 1_3 3125 6 6.75 104.00 126.95 V.M. 153.45 0.68
B 1_1 12264 30 26.48 10.44 196.28 P.B. 7.17 1.46
338 463.2 0.73 1.23 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 6024 15 13.01 78.00 44.5 201.86 P.B. 29.72 1.50
G 40 B 1_3 3112 7 6.72 102.9 124.57 W.P.B. 58.9 1.75
B 1_1 12064 27 26.04 11.24 204.48 P.B. 7.41 1.52
338 463.2 0.73 1.35 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 5676 13 12.25 118.30 49.62 199.83 P.B. 33.48 1.48
G 41 B 1_3 2938 7 6.34 100.6 108.55 V.M. 156.4 0.81

tw B hw FE Analysis Design wFE
B tf
Beam l D H l/H D/H S/D S - D (mm) * w FE ** M FE Failure **** wTheory
Type (mm)
n (mm) (mm) tf tw Mode
wTheory
(mm) (mm) (kN/m) (kN.m) (kN/m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
B 1_1 12368 25 26.70 10.66 203.83 P.B. 9.59 1.11
338 463.2 0.73 1.50 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 5777 12 12.47 169.00 49.10 204.83 P.B. 43.96 1.12
G 42 B 1_3 3242 6 7.00 100.37 131.87 V.M. 137.3 0.73
B 1_1 12254 28 26.47 10.60 198.96 P.B. 9.56 1.11
350 463.2 0.75 1.23 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 6227 14 13.45 80.50 37.35 181.03 W.P.B 23.39 1.60
G 43 B 1_3 3214 7 6.94 88.20 113.89 W.P.B. 56.14 1.57
B 1_1 12485 27 26.95 10.20 198.74 P.B. 9.21 1.11
350 463.2 0.75 1.35 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 6343 13 13.69 122.50 39.15 196.89 P.B. 35.68 1.10
G 44 B 1_3 3508 7 7.57 101.03 155.41 V.M. 115.8 0.87
B 1_1 13325 25 28.77 9.48 210.40 P.B. 8.09 1.17
350 463.2 0.75 1.50 101.6 8.4 7.2 12.1 62.44
B 1_2 6500 12 14.03 175.00 37.45 197.78 P.B. 33.98 1.10
G 45 B 1_3 2825 6 6.10 100.0 99.76 V.M. 152.94 0.65
B 1_1 12200 30 26.34 10.21 189.96 P.B. 8.83 1.16
325 463.2 0.70 1.23 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 6200 15 13.39 75.00 27.05 129.98 W.P.B. 14.00 1.93
G 46 B 1_3 3000 7 6.48 50.28 56.57 W.P.B. 36.4 1.38
B 1_1 12046 27 26.01 10.47 189.91 P.B. 9.05 1.16
325 463.2 0.70 1.35 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 5904 13 12.75 113.75 31.19 135.90 W.P.B. 22.34 1.40
G 47 B 1_3 3271 7 7.06 66.80 89.34 W.P.B. 49.16 1.36
B 1_1 12388 25 26.74 7.80 149.63 P.B. 8.56 0.91
325 463.2 0.70 1.50 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 6050 12 13.06 162.50 51.25 234.48 V.M.+ P.B. 35.89 1.43
G 48 B 1_3 3125 6 6.75 82.40 100.59 W.P.B. 58.05 1.42
B 1_1 12264 30 26.48 9.42 177.10 P.B. 8.62 1.09
338 463.2 0.73 1.23 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 6024 15 13.01 78.00 26.61 120.70 W.P.B. 14.08 1.89
G 49 B 1_3 3112 7 6.72 64.40 77.96 W.P.B. 33.79 1.91
B 1_1 12064 27 26.04 10.19 185.38 P.B. 8.91 1.14
338 463.2 0.73 1.35 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 5676 13 12.25 118.30 31.45 126.65 W.P.B. 22.66 1.39
G 50 B 1_3 2938 7 6.34 73.90 79.74 W.P.B. 56.66 1.30
B 1_1 12368 25 26.70 9.69 185.28 P.B. 8.47 1.14
338 463.2 0.73 1.50 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 5777 12 12.47 169.00 37.85 157.90 V.M. 49.7 0.76
G 51 B 1_3 3242 6 7.00 76.50 100.51 W.P.B. 52.74 1.45
B 1_1 12254 28 26.47 9.67 181.51 P.B. 8.52 1.14
350 463.2 0.75 1.23 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 6227 14 13.45 80.50 21.15 102.51 W.P.B. 13.14 1.61
G 52 B 1_3 3214 7 6.94 51.70 66.76 W.P.B. 31.52 1.64
B 1_1 12485 27 26.95 9.32 181.59 P.B. 8.20 1.14
350 463.2 0.75 1.35 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 6343 13 13.69 122.50 35.90 180.55 P.B.+ V.M. 31.78 1.13
G 53 B 1_3 3508 7 7.57 57.00 87.68 W.P.B. 42 1.36
B 1_1 13325 25 28.77 8.194 181.86 P.B. 7.20 1.14
350 463.2 0.75 1.50 101.6 8.4 5.1 12.1 88.15
B 1_2 6500 12 14.03 175.00 32.90 173.75 P.B.+ V.M. 30.27 1.09
G 54 B 1_3 2825 6 6.10 56.1 55.96 W.P.B. 64.27 0.87

8.4 STRESS DISTRIBUTION AND SEQUENCES OF YIELDING
In this section three modes (P.B., V.M., and W.P.B.) of failure in CBs have been
discussed separately. For each failure mode a typical example has been selected from
Table 8.2 to examine the stress distribution, the initiation of Von-Mises stress together
with the shear and direct stresses.
8.4.1 Pure bending failure
The stress distributions of a number of selected CBs failing in P.B. have been
examined to gain a better understanding of the failure mode and the development of
the yielding. G1 (B 1_1) from Table 8.2 has been selected as an example to represent
CBs failing in P.B. Direct and shear stresses together with the Von Mises stresses from
the nonlinear analysis have been presented for the beam at mid-span and near the
support between openings 1 and 2 (Fig. 8.3). The stress distribution results for the
shear, direct and Von-Mises are given in Table 8.3
Fig. 8.3 reveals the following:
· At mid-span under high global bending moment direct stresses are developing
rapidly with the increased applied loads, triggering the initiation of plasticity and P.B.
failure. At mid-span direct and Von-Mises stresses are overlapping (Fig. 8.3a) and also
Von-Mises stresses reaching yielding.
G1 (B 1_1)- 12.2m span G1 (B 1_1)- 12.2m span

200 200
Applied moment at mid-span (kN.m)
180 180
160 Mid-span 160
140 140
Between openings 1 and 2
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
Von-Mises stresses Von-Mises stresses
40 40
Shear stresses Shear stresses
20 20
Direct stresses Direct stresses
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Stresses (N/mm2) Stresses (N/mm2)
a. b.
Fig. 8.3: Moment-stress curves for Beam 1_1 pure bending

At the support the shear stresses are not developing as rapidly and not large enough to
initiate plasticity around the opening to trigger a failure mechanism. It can be seen from
Fig. 8.3b that the direct stresses are zero and shear stresses are increasing with the
applied loads, but they are not relatively large enough to trigger V.M. or W.P.B. The
Von-Mises stresses have only reached 252N/mm2 and yielding did not take place.
Table 8.3: G1 (B 1_1) results, pure bending failure

Load Loca- Von-Mises At the support At mid-span section
2
tion stress (kN/mm )
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top
1 Udl.=7.0 flange
No plasticity Initiation of plasticity between the openings
kN/m;
Applied load=
2 0.77 failure Web
load
No plasticity Initiation of minor plasticity
Top
3 Udl.=9.04 flange
No plasticity Full plasticity in flanges
kN/m;
Applied
4 Web
load=
failure load
No plasticity Full plasticity in tee webs at opening centres
Load Loca- Shear stress At the support At mid-span section
5 tion 2
(kN/mm )
Top
6 Udl.=7.0 flange
Very small shear stresses Very small shear stresses
kN/m;
Applied load=
7 Web
0.77 failure
load
Shear stress developing around the openings Small shear stresses
Top
8 Udl.=9.04 flange
Very small shear stresses Very small shear stresses
KN/m;
Applied
9 Web
load=
failure load
Shear stresses increasing Small shear stresses
Load Loca- Direct stress At the support At mid-span section
10 tion 2
(kN/mm )
Top
11 Udl.=7.0 flange
Development of small direct stresses Development of large direct stresses
kN/m;
Applied load=
12 Web
0.77 failure
load
Very small direct stresses Initiation/development of direct stresses
Top
13 Udl.=9.04 flange
Smaller direct stresses developed Direct stresses increased significantly
kN/m;
Applied
14 load= Web
failure load
Smaller direct stresses developed
Direct stresses increased
Failure mode:
15
Pure Bending Failure
No V.M. or W.P.B
Pure bending failure

· As the load increases from 7.0kN/m (Row 7) to 9.04kN/m (Row 9) shear stresses
are increasing in the web too but not as rapidly to trigger a failure.
· At mid-span at a load of 7.0kN/m (Row 11) direct stresses in the flanges have
already developed rapidly and as the load increases to 9.04kN/m (Row 13) direct
stresses have developed further.
· While the Von-Mises stresses in the flanges have already developed in parallel
with direct stresses. It can be seen from Table 8.3 that as the load increases from
7.0kN/m (Rows 1) to 9.04kN/m (Row 3) Von-Mises stresses also increase.
· Row 15 shows the P.B. failure mode.
8.4.2 Pure Vierendeel failure
Examination of the stress distributions of the CBs failing in Vierendeel Mechanism has
been undertaken for a selected beam G39 (B 1_3). Direct and shear stresses together
with the Von Mises stresses have been presented for the beam as an example of pure
V.M. failure.
Direct and shear stresses together with the Von Mises stresses from the nonlinear
analysis at the failure load have been drawn for the beam at mid-span (Fig. 8.4a, b)
and near the support between openings 1 and 2, at top left corner (Fig. 8.4c) and at top
right corner (Fig. 8.4d) of opening 1. The stress distribution results for the shear, direct,
and Von-Mises stresses have been given in Table 8.4 at 0.76 w FE and at the failure
load w FE when yielding occurs.
· Fig 8.4a reveals that at failure the direct stresses in the flanges at mid-span are
overlapping with Von-Mises stresses and they have reached 205N/mm2 only, which is
much lower than the yield stress.

· Fig 8.4b reveals that at failure the relatively high shear stresses combined with
small direct stresses have not led the Von-Mises stress (223.0N/mm2) to develop to the
yield stress.
· Fig. 8.4c reveals that combined shear and direct stresses in the left hand corner of
opening 1 (382.0N/mm2) have led the Von-Mises stress to develop to the yield stress
and for plasticity to occur.
· Fig. 8.4d reveals that the shear stresses in the right hand corner of opening 1 are
almost overlapping on the direct stresses allowing the development of Von-Mises
stress (395.0N/mm2) to develop to yield stress and for plasticity to occur.
G39 (B 1_3)- 3.125m span

G39 (B 1_3)- 3.125m span
200
200

Mid-span top flange Bet. Openings 1
180 180
and 2 mid-height
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 Von-Mises stresses 60
Von-Mises stresses
40 Shear stresses 40
Shear stresses
20 Direct stresses 20 Direct stresses
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
a. b.
G39 (B 1_3)- 3.125m span G39 (B 1_3)- 3.125m span

200
200
180 180
Top left corner- Top right corner-
160 opening 1 160 opening 1
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
Von-Mises stresses Von-Mises stresses
40 40
20 20 Direct stresses
Direct stresses
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
c. d.
Fig. 8.4: Moment-stress curves at failure for G39 (B 1_3) Vierendeel mechanism

Table 8.4: G39 (B 1_3) results, Vierendeel mechanism
Load Loca- Von-Mises At the support At mid-span section
2
tion stress (kN/mm )
1 2 3 4 5
Top
1 flange
Udl.=78.0 Increase in Von-Mises stresses- no plasticity Increase in Von-Mises stresses-no plasticity
kN/m
Applied load Web

2 = 0.76 failure
load
Significant increase in Von-Mises stresses Increase in Von-Mises stresses- no
around openings plasticity
3
Top Plasticity developed in the flanges Development of significant Von-Mises
Udl.=104.0 flange stresses but no plasticity
kN/m;
Applied Web
4 load=
failure load
Full plasticity around the openings Development of Von-Mises stresses but no
plasticity
5 2
tion (kN/mm )
Top
6 flange
Udl.=78.0 Small shear stresses Small shear stresses
kN/m;
Applied load Web

7 = 0.76 failure
load
Development of shear stresses around the Small shear stresses
openings
Top
8 flange Modest increase in shear stresses Small shear stresses
Udl.=104.0
kN/m;
Web
9 Applied
load=
Development of shear stresses between and Still small shear stresses. No plasticity
failure load around openings especially in the four corners between opening at mid-span

10 2
tion (kN/mm )
Top
11 flange
Udl.=78.0 Initiation of direct stresses Initiation of direct stresses
kN/m;
Applied load
12 = 0.76 failure
load Web
Initiation of direct stresses around the Initiation of direct stresses in Tee web
openings
Top
13 flange
Udl.=104.0 Increase in direct stresses nearer to mid-span Further increase in direct stresses
kN/m;
Applied
load= Web
14
failure load
Further increase in direct stresses and Further increase in direct stresses in Tee
development of stresses around the openings web
especially in four corners
Failure mode
15
Vierendeel Mechanism
Failure Vierendeel mechanism
No bending failure

· As the load increases, shear stresses in the web near the support and direct
stresses in the flanges at mid-span are increasing but at a different rate.
· At the support shear stresses develop rapidly in the web around the opening (Rows
7 and 9).
· At mid-span direct stresses in the flanges are developing as the load increases
(Rows 11 and 13), but the level of the direct stresses is not high enough to trigger
bending failure. Von-Mises stresses in the flanges at mid-span are not increasing as
rapidly to trigger the initiation of plasticity. At failure, Von-Mises stresses have reached
205N/mm2 only (Fig. 8.4a) and the overlapping of direct and Von-Mises stresses is
apparent.
· Near the support around opening 1, shear stresses are at a relatively high level
and combined with direct stresses are triggering Von-Mises stresses to develop rapidly
around the opening in the 4 corners of opening 1 (Rows 2 and 4), reaching the yielding
point and leading to a V.M. failure.
· Table 8.4 shows the changing nature of the stress distribution around the opening
near the support and along the span.
8.4.3 Web-post buckling
Examination of the stress distributions of the cellular beams failing in W.P.B. has been
undertaken for a selected beam G4 (B 1_3) and presented as a typical example for
CBs failing in W.P.B. Direct and shear stresses, together with the Von Mises stresses
from the nonlinear analysis at the failure load ( w FE ), have been drawn for the beam at
mid-span, near the support in the middle and either side of the web-post between
openings 1 and 2 (Fig. 8.5). The stress distribution results for the shear, direct and
Von-Mises stresses have been given (Table 8.5), prior to yielding (0.77 w FE ) and at
failure load ( w FE ) when yielding occurs.

· At mid-span, direct stresses are not developing as rapidly with the increased
applied loads and therefore Von-Mises stresses are not increasing as rapidly to trigger
the initiation of plasticity. At failure, Von-Mises stresses reached approximately
202N/mm2 (Table 8.5, Fig. 8.5a). The overlapping of direct and Von-Mises stresses is
apparent.
G4 (B 1_3)- 3.112m span G4 (B 1_3)- 3.112m span

140 140

Bet. Openings 1 and 2
120 Mid-span top flange 120 Mid-height
100 100
80 80
60 60
Von-Mises stresses
40 Shear stresses 40 Von-Mises stresses
Direct stresses Shear stresses
20 20 Direct stresses
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Stresses (N/mm 2) Stresses (N/mm 2)
a. Stresses at mid-span in the top flange b. Stresses between the openings 1 and 2
G4 (B 1_3)- 3.112m span G4 (B 1_3)- 3.122m span

140 140

120 Top left corner 120 Bet. Openings 1 and 2
Bottom left corner
100 100
80 80
60 60
Von-Mises stresses
40 40 Von-Mises stresses
Shear stresses
Shear stresses
20
Direct stresses 20 Direct stresses
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
c. Stresses in the opposing corners creating tension forces in the web-post
G4 (B1_3)-3.112m span
140 G4 (B 1_3)- 3.112m span
140

120
Top right corner 120 Bet. Openings 1 and 2
Bottom left corner
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 Von-Mises stresses 40 Von-Mises stresses

20 Direct stresses 20 Direct stresses
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
d. Stresses in the opposing corners creating compression forces in the web-post
Fig. 8.5: Moment-stress curves for Group 4 Beam 1_3 Web-post buckling

· Near the support, large shear stresses are developing rapidly between the
openings. Maximum shear occurs in the web-post between openings 1 and 2, where
there are no direct stresses (Fig. 8.5b). The large shear stresses are leading to Von-
Mises stresses to reach the yielding point, initiating plasticity and triggering failure due
to W.P.B.
· Figs. 8.5c and d show the how the shear and direct stresses are developing in
parallel in the opposite corners of the web-post, resulting in Von-Mises stresses
reaching yielding point, initiating plasticity and triggering failure.
· At mid-span direct stresses in the flanges are developing as the load increases
(Rows 11 and 13). The direct stresses are not high enough to trigger bending failure.
Von-Mises stresses are not increasing as rapidly to trigger the initiation of plasticity.
· Between openings 1 and 2, as the load increases from (0.77 w FE ) to ( w FE ), the
shear stresses increase rapidly (Rows 7 and 9) initiating plasticity and failure.
· As the load increases from (0.77 w FE ) to ( w FE ) the direct stresses in the opposite
corners of the web-post between openings 1 and 2 (Rows 12 and 14) increase too.
· The combined effect of increased shear and direct stresses leads to Von-Mises
stresses reaching the yield stresses, initiating plasticity and local buckling of the web-
post.

Table 8.5: G4 (B 1_3) results, Web-post buckling
Load Loca- Von-Mises stress At the support At mid-span section
2
tion (kN/mm )
1 2 3 4 5
Top
1 flange
Udl.=60.0 No plasticity No plasticity
kN/m;
2 Applied load Web

= 0.77 failure
load No plasticity
Initiation of plasticity around the openings
Top
3 Udl.=77.7 flange
kN/m; No plasticity Development of stresses but no
plasticity
Applied
load= Tension
failure load Web
4 Compression
Development of plasticity between and around No plasticity

the openings
5 2
tion (kN/mm )
Top
6 flange
Udl.=60 Very small shear stresses Very small shear stresses
kN/m;
Applied load Web

7
= 0.77 failure
load Initiation and development of shear stresses Very small shear stresses
between and around the openings
Top
8 Udl.=77.8 flange
kN/m; No shear plasticity Very small shear stresses
Applied
load= Web
9
failure load
Development of high shear stresses and shear Very small shear stresses
plasticity around and between the openings
10 2
tion (kN/mm )
Top
11 Udl.=60.0 flange
kN/m; Small direct stresses Development of direct stresses
Applied load
= 0.77 failure Web
12
load
Development of shear plasticity between the Development of direct stresses in the
openings web
Top
13 flange
Udl.=77.8 Development of direct stresses Development of higher direct stresses
kN/m;
Web
Applied
14
load=
failure load Development of plasticity around the openings Extension of direct stresses to the web
Failure mode
15
Web-post buckling

8.5 MODES OF FAILURE, FAILURE LOAD AND COMPARISONS WITH DESIGN
It is apparent from the analysis of the CBs (Table 8.2) that the beams fail either in P.B.,
V.M. and W.P.B. The failure loads vary significantly and depend on the type of failure.
In this section the failure loads (Table 8.2, col. 16-17) and the modes of failure (Table
8.2, col. 18) will be discussed and the results from these analyses are compared with
each other and the available analytical equations (Table 8.2, col. 19).
8.5.1 Design guides and the analytical capacities
The allowable loads ‘ wTheory ’ of the investigated CBs, obtained from the design guides
against the P.B. failure, have been calculated (Table 8.2, col. 19) in accordance with
EN1993-1-1 (BSI, 2005a) and SCI P100 (SCI, 1994).
The W.P.B. capacity of the CBs has been calculated in accordance with the SCI P100
(SCI, 1994). The equations provided in the above literature have been used to
determine the allowable load wTheory (Table 8.2, col. 19) against W.P.B.
The SCI (SCI P100, 1994) proposes a method for Vierendeel mechanism which is
based on the interaction between the Vierendeel moment and the axial force, and
proposes a linear interaction equation to assess the capacity of CBs against V.M.
Chung’s empirical formula (Chung et. al., 2003) for V.M. is based on a simplified
moment shear interaction curve where moment capacities can be obtained. The
Vierendeel capacities of the CBs in terms of the allowable load wTheory have been
calculated (Table 8.2, col. 19) using Chung’s approach.
8.5.2 Bending failure, Vierendeel mechanism and web-post buckling
Failure modes: Table 8.2, col. 18 reveals the following:
· With high ( l / H ) span to depth ratios (Table 8.2, col. 7), P.B. failure occurs in all
CBs (B 1_1 in all groups)
· With medium ( l / H ) span to depth ratios, the CBs fail either by P.B., V.M. or W.P.B.
CBs failing in P.B. (B 1_2: G10-G18 and G37-G45) occur, in the majority cases, when
the web thickness t w increases to 7.2mm ( h w / t w = 62 ). In one case (G43- B 1_2)

where the opening spacing S = 1.5 D and D / hw = 0.75 , the CB fails by W.P.B. As t w
reduces to 5.1mm ( h w / t w = 88 ) where S = 1.23 D / 1.35 D and D / h w = 0.73 / 0.75 , the CBs
(B 1_2- G19, G20, G22, G23, G25, G46, G49, G50 and G52) fail in W.P.B. Few beams
are failing in V.M. (B 1_2: G1, G24, G27, G51, G53 and G54) form factor t w is 5.1mm (
h w / t w = 88 ) and D / h w = 0.73 / 0.75 , and in majority cases t f is 8.2mm ( B / t f = 12 ).
· With low ( l / H ) span to depth ratios, the CBs fail either by V.M. or W. P.B. The
V.M. occurs in CBs mainly where t w is 7.2 ( h w / t w = 62 ) and D / h w = 0.70 / 0.73 ;
S = 1 .35 D / 1.5 D (B 1_3: G3, G11, G12, G14, G15, G17, G18, G30, G37-G38, G41,
G42, G44 and G45). The rest of the CBs (B 1_3 in all groups) fail in W.P.B.
FAILURE LOADS
· The failure moments associated with P.B. are generally greater than those failing
in V.M. and W.P.B.
· The predicted failure loads from the FE analysis for CBs failing in P.B. (col. 18-
B1_1 in most groups) are generally greater than the analytical values by up to 55%.
The higher % difference corresponds to the CBs with t w and t f being 7.2mm (
B / t f = 15 ) and 8.2mm ( B / t f = 12 ) respectively. In a few analyses the P.B. failure
loads from the FE analyses are lower than the analytical ones such as B 1_1 (G3, G5,
G12, G21, G30, G37, G39 and G48). In the majority of them, they are associated with
opening spacing S = 1.5 D and D / h w = 0 .7 .
· The predicted failure loads from the FE analysis for CBs failing in V.M. (B 1_3: G1,
G3, G11, G12, G14, G15, G17, G18, G37-G42, G44 and G45, and also B 1_2: G27)
are generally lower than the analytical values by up to 35%.
· The predicted failure loads from the FE analysis for CBs failing in W.P.B. are
greater than the analytical values by up to 92%.
8.6 EFFECT OF CHANGES IN CROSS-SECTION GEOMETRIES
Reference should be made to Table 8.2 cols. 16-18

8.6.1 Effect of web thickness ( h w / t w )
The effect of web thickness t w on the failure load and the mode of failure has been
examined. The ( hw / t w ) ratio values are varied between 62 and 88. The analyses of
CBs (Beam type B 1_1: G1, G10, G19, G28, G36, G45 and G54) show that the t w has
little influence on the failure loads of CBs failing in P.B. As t w increases the failure load
increases too as anticipated.
t w has an effect on CBs failing either by V.M. or W.P.B. Change in t w has considerable
effect on the failure loads of CBs failing in W.P.B., for example compare the load failure
of beam type B1_3 in G1 ( w FE =62.5kN/m), G10 ( w FE =95.5kN/m) and G19 ( w FE =46.9kN/m).
The change in t w has an effect of the failure mode too. In some cases as t w increases
the failure mode changes from W.P.B. to V.M., for example compare G2 (B 1_3) to
G11 (B 1_3). In other cases the failure mode changes from W.P.B. to P.B., for example
compare G4 (B 1_2) to G13 (B 1_2).
8.6.2 Effect of flange thickness ( B / t f )
The effect of flange thickness t f on failure loads and the modes of failure has also
been examined. The ( B / t f ) ratio values varies between 12 and 15. As t f increases
from 5.8mm ( B / t f = 15 ) to 8.4mm ( B / t f = 12 ), the failure loads of the CBs failing in
P.B. increases too as anticipated by 16.4% - compare G1 (B 1_1) to G28 (B 1_1) , by
16.7% - compare G4 (B 1_1) to G31 (B 1_1), by 17.8% - compare G8 (B 1_1) to G34
(B 1_1).
The changes in t f have lesser effect on the failure loads of CBs failing in W.P.B. With
the same increase in t f , the failure load increases by 5.3%- compare G1 (B1_3) to
G28 (B1_3), by 4.9%- compare G2 (B1_3) to G29 (B1_3), by 2.6%- compare G3
(B1_3) to G30 (B1_3).

The changes in t f have no effect on the failure loads of CBs failing in V.M., no
increases have been observed, compare G11 (B1_3) to G38 (B1_3) and G12 (B1_3) to
G39 (B1_3).
The changes in t f has little effect on the failure modes of CBs failing in P.B. which are
usually associated with high span to depth ratios. On the other hand it has an effect on
certain CBs failing in P.B. which are usually associated with medium span to depth
ratios. Once t f increases from 5.8mm to 8.2mm the failure mode changes from P.B. to
W.P.B., compare G2 (B1_2) to G29 (B1_2). This is due to the fact that as t f increases
the bending capacity increases too and it becomes more difficult for specific CBs to fail
in P.B. As a result other modes of failure develop.
8.6.3 Effect of ( S / D ) and ( D / h w )
The effects of S / D and D / h w have been examined. The S / D has little effect on the
failure load/failure moment of the CBs failing in P.B. As S / D increases from 1.23 to
1.35 and 1.5, the change in the failure moment is very small, for example compare the
failure moments (col. 17) of beam type 1 (B1_1) in G1 (168.19kN.m), G2 (169.77kN.m)
and G3 (172.31kN.m) and also compare B1_1 in G4 (158.49kN.m), G5 (154.64kN.m)
and G6 (165.20kN.m). The difference is even smaller when D / h w is 0.75, for example
compare the failure moments of B1_1 in G7 (160.67kN.m), G8 (160.55), G9
(160.24kN.m) and also compare G16 (172.31kN.m), G17 (172.24kN.m) and G18
(172.23kN.m). S / D has no effect on the failure modes of CBs failing in P.B.
S / D has a significant effect on the failure loads of CBs failing in W.P.B. As S / D
increases the failure load/moment increases too, for example compare the failure
moments (col.18) of B1_3 in G1 (70.31kN.m), G2 (106.73kN.m) and G3 (122.09kN.m),
and also compare (B 1_3) in G46 (56.57kN.m), G47 (89.34kN.m) and G48
(100.59kN.m).
S / D also has an effect on the failure modes. As S / D increases from 1.23 to 1.35 and
1.5, the failure mode changes from W.P.B. to V.M. (col. 18), for example compare the

failure mode of beam G10 (B 1_3) - which fails in W.P.B. to G11 (B1_3) and G12 (B
1_3) which both fail in V.M.
The effect of D / h w on the failure loads of CBs failing in P.B. is small. As D / h w
increases from 0.70 to 0.73 and 0.75, there are small changes in the failure
loads/moments, for example compare the failure moments of (B 1_1) in G1
(168.19kN.m), G4 (158.48kN.m) and G7 (160.67kN.m). The effect of D / h w on the
failure mode is as follows; as a result of the changes in ( D / h w ) the failure mode
changes from P.B. to W.P.B., for example compare the failure mode of G1 (B 1_2) to
G4 (B 1_2) and G7 (B 1_2).
The effect of D / h w on the failure loads of CBs failing in V.M. and W.P.B. is within 10%.
For example, as D / h w increases from 0.70 to 0.73 and 0.75, the failure load reduces,
for example compare the failure load for ( B 1_3) in G21 (97.13kN.m), in G24
(95.65kN.m) and in G27 (83.40kN.m).
The effect of D / h w is apparent on the failure mode of CBs failing in W.P.B. As the
D / h w increases from 0.70 to 0.73 and 0.75, the failure mode changes from P.B. to
W.P.B., for example compare the failure mode of G1 (B1_2) to G4 (B 1_2) and G7 (B
1_2) where the failure mode changes from P.B. to W.P.B. as a result of increases in
D / hw .
8.7 CONCLUSIONS
The interaction of various possible modes of failure of cellular beams has been
investigated and reported. One hundred and sixty two cellular beams have been
analysed in an extensive parametric study assessing the effects of changes in cross-
section geometries and span to depth ratios on the failure loads and modes of failure of
the beams.
· The stress distributions including the Von-Mises stresses have provided an insight
into the nature and the types of the failure modes in cellular beams.

· Pure bending failure usually occurs at high to medium span to depth ratios.
Vierendeel mechanism failure usually occurs at medium to lower span to depth ratios.
Web-post buckling failure, in the majority of cases, can occur at lower span to depth
ratios. Web-post buckling can also occur at relatively high span to depth ratios when
the openings are closely spaced and the web thickness is the low.
· The failure loads associated with pure bending failure are greater than those
associated with Vierendeel mechanism failure and web-post buckling failure.
· The failure loads predicted from the finite element analyses have been compared
with those predicted from the analytical methods such as the SCI method (SCI P100,
1994) and Chung’s empirical method (2002). It is shown that the failure loads from the
analytical methods are conservative for cellular beams failing in pure bending and web-
post buckling. On the other hand the predictions from the analytical method for cellular
beams failing in V.M. are un-conservative.
· The effects of changes in cross-section geometries vary. Web thickness has
generally no effects on the failure load and failure mode of cellular beams failing in
pure bending. On the other hand web thickness has significant influence on the failure
load and failure mode of cellular beams failing in web-post buckling.
· Flange thickness has a small effect on the failure load cellular beam failing in pure
bending. Flange thickness has in some cases an effect on the failure mode especially
when the flange thickness increases resulting in changing the failure mode from pure
bending to web-post buckling. Flange thickness has generally no effect on the failure
loads and modes of failure of cellular beams failing in Vierendeel mechanism and web-
post buckling.
· Opening spacing has no effect on the failure load of cellular beams failing in pure
bending but it has an effect on the failure load of cellular beams failing in web-post
buckling.

· Opening diameter has no effect on the failure load of cellular beams failing in pure
bending. Increases in opening diameter may lead to changes from pure bending
failure to web-post buckling failure in some cases

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Finite element methods have been used extensively in this thesis to investigate stress
distributions, deflection and nonlinear behaviour of cellular beams. Therefore the finite
element models of the cellular I-beams were first validated against experimental
measurements so that they can be employed for further analyses. This research
studied the stress distributions in cellular I-beams, including both shear and direct
stresses in the cellular web and the flanges respectively. The research also focused
mainly on the serviceability limit state, and especially the deflection of simply supported
cellular I-beams. For investigating the deflection of the cellular I-beam, the I-beam was
decomposed into the cellular web beam and the flanges, and they were studied
separately and then brought together. A simplified hand calculation method which can
be used in the design office was developed to determine the maximum deflection of
simply supported cellular I-beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads. The modes
of failure of cellular I-beams, such as pure bending failure, Vierendeel mechanism and
web-post buckling, were also studied.
9.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
9.2.1 Numerical Modelling and Validation - Chapter 3
The validation of the FE models was carried out by comparison between the author’s
numerical simulation results, using Finite Element software LUSAS and the
experimental results of the tests carried out by Warren (2001) at Natal University. The
experimental results (Warren, 2001) were used for the validation of deflection, stress
analyses, the non-linear flexural failure, the non-linear web-post buckling failure, and
the Vierendeel mechanism failure. The numerical simulation results were generally in
agreement with the experimental measurements.
Chapter 9 Concluions and Recommendations 242

9.2.2 Bending and Shear Stress Distribution in Cellular I-beam - Chapter 4
Comparing stress distributions in a cellular I-beam with those in a cellular web beam
and in a comparable solid I-beam has provided a better understanding and insight of
how stresses are distributed differently in a cellular I-beam:
· Normal stresses in the web-post vary linearly between the maximum at the flange
level and zero at a level above the neutral axis. There are no normal stresses in
the middle section of the web-post and this reflects the presence of significant
shear stresses. While normal stresses at the opening projection distribute
differently, the stresses distribute in a parabolic shape with the maximum at the
edge of the opening suggesting the presence of small resultant moments arising
from the primary and secondary moments. As a result, it has been assumed that
points of inflection occur at the opening centres. This has simplified the
determination of deformations in the flanges (Chapter 6).
· Normal stresses along the flanges of a cellular I-beam do not vary smoothly along
the length of the beam unlike those in the flanges of a solid I-beam. Normal
stresses in the flanges over the opening projection are lower than those in the
sections between the openings. Shear stresses in cellular I-beam flanges are
generally insignificant and lower than those in a solid I-beam. This suggests an
important phnomena that the flange plane sections do not remain plane.
· The research findings from this chapter, alongside the other findings from the
investigations undertaken in Chapter 6 (discussed in section 9.2.4), have assisted
in identifying the locations along the flanges where deformations can occur. These
findings greatly helped the compilation of the formulae used to determine
deformations in the flanges (Chapter 6).
9.2.3 The equivalent second moment of area of cellular web beam - Chapter 5
The research studied the cellular I-beam components separately by dividing the cellular
I-beam into two separate components: the cellular web beam and the flanges. This has

assisted greatly in providing a better understanding of how deformations occur in each
component. This chapter investigated the deformation of the cellular web beam only.
· The research studied the bending deformation of a cellular web beam. A simplified
analytical method was developed to determine the equivalent bending second
moment of area of the cellular web beam I weq . This was undertaken in three
b
steps using the criterion of equivalent rotation (Fig. 5.1).
Step 1: The cellular web beam was converted into an equivalent non-uniform solid
beam (Fig. 5.1b). An analytical formula was developed to determine the equivalent
height of the non-uniform solid section at the opening centres:
hDeq = 3 ( hw 3 - D 3 )
Step 2: The non-uniform solid beam was converted into an equivalent solid
stepped beam (Fig. 5.1c) and an analytical formula was developed to determine
the equivalent height of the solid section along the opening as follows:
2
I heq = n
, and
(sin q ) p
å ( A - B sin
i =1
3
q) n
Step 3: The solid stepped beam was finally been converted into an equivalent
uniform solid beam (Fig. 5.1d) and an analytical formula was developed as follows:
l
I weq =
b æn l ö
ç s S + nD D ÷
ç IS I heq ÷
è ø
The determined equivalent bending second moment of area of the cellular web
beam I weq caters only for the bending deformation of the cellular web beam.
b
· The research investigated the shear deformation in the cellular web beam and
found that its determination is analytically challenging. The research study has
therefore examined the shear deformation in the web post using a numerical
method. In a parametric study, the effects of the geometrical configurations (such

as opening diameter to height ratios, opening spacing to diameter ratios, and span
to depth ratios) on the shear deformation of the cellular web beam were
investigated. The numerical examination results showed that shear deformations in
a cellular web beam were significant and varied depending on the geometrical
configuration of the beam. In this respect a shear deformation factor ‘ a w ’ was
introduced to factor in the equivalent bending second moment of area ‘ I weq ’ to

b
quantify the determination of the equivalent second moment of area of the cellular
web beam ‘ I weq ’, and consequently calculate the total deflection of the cellular
web beam.
By adopting numerical analyses and curve fitting techniques, shear deformation
factors a w were determined for cellular web beams associated with commonly
used Westok cellular I-beams with different configurations of opening diameters,
1
opening spacings, and span to depth ratios. A simple formula, ( I weq = Iw ) ,
a w eqb
was developed to determine the equivalent second moment of area of the cellular
web beam ( I w eq ) .
9.2.4 The effective second moment of area of the flanges - Chapter 6
In this chapter the study focused on determining the effective I value of the flanges. The
study showed that it was not possible to determine the effective I value of cellular I-
beams by simply adding the I value of the flanges (bending component) to the
equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beam ‘ I w eq ’. Therefore further
investigation was undertaken to determine the reasons behind the discrepancy and
furthermore, develop an analytical solution to determine the effective I value of the
flanges ‘ I f ef ’ and consequently the total effective I value of the cellular I-beam ‘ I cbT ’:

· The study showed that although there are no openings in the flanges, they
undergo significant shear deformations. The study investigated the underlying
causes by examining the effects of a number of variable design geometrical
parameters (span to depth ratios, opening diameter to web height ratios, web
thickness, flange thickness, width of the flange, and opening spacing) on the shear
deformations of flanges. The study showed that the shear deformation in the
flanges increases when the opening spacing, the web thickness, and the size of
the flanges are reduced.This understanding, together with the knowledge obtained
from the stress distributions in cellular I-beams (chapter 4) has assisted in
compiling formulae to determine the deformations in the flanges and the
development of an analytical solution for the determination of the effective I value of
the flanges ‘ I f ef ’.
· The investigation of the flanges revealed that shear deformations in the flanges ‘
D fs ’ emanates from two sources; shear deformation at the web-posts ‘ D fs1 ’, and
shear deformation at the opening centres ‘ D fs 2 ’. Two analytical formulae were
developed to determine both deformations:
( S - D) n
D fs1 = b å
G (t w ´ hwp e ) i =1
Vwpi
åV
0.030375 R 3
D fs 2 = i
EI fbT
i =1
The following formula was also developed to determine the total shear
deformations in the flanges:
n n
( S - D)
å åV
0.030375 R 3
D fs = D fs1 + D fs 2 = b Vwpi + i
G (t w ´ hwpe ) EI fbT
i =1 i =1
· The bending deformation in the flanges ‘ D fb ’ was determined using the simple
formula for calculating deflection in a simply supported beam subjected to a

uniformly distributed load and also using the bending I value of the flanges ‘ I fb ’.
The total deformation in the flanges ‘ D f ’ was determined by adding the bending
T
deformation ‘ D fb ’ and the shear deformations ‘ D fs ’ in the flanges as follows:
n n
( S - D)
å åV
0.030375 R 3
D f = D fb + D fs = D fb + D fs1 + D fs 2 = D fb + b Vwpi + i
T G (t w ´ hwpe ) EI fbT
i =1 i =1
· An analytical formula was developed to determine the effective second moment of
area of the flanges ‘ I f ef ’:
D fb
I fef = I fb
D fT
· Finally the cellular web beam and the flanges were brought together. The following
formula was also developed to determine the effective I value of the cellular I-beam ‘
I cbT ’ by adding the effective second moment of area of the flanges ‘ I f ef ’ to the
equivalent second moment of area of the cellular web beam ‘ I weq ’:
D fb 1
I cbT = I f ef + I weq = I fb + I
D fT a w weqb
· The hand method developed was tested on a number of selected cellular I-beams
and the results were compared favourably with FEA results indicating that the
developed method can be used to determine the maximum deflections of simply
supported cellular I-beams.
9.2.5 Design examples and comparisons - Chapter 7
This chapter provides two examples to show in detail the procedure and the
calculations used to determine deflections in cellular I-beams using the developed
formulae.

developed to determine deflections in different components of the cellular I-beam
and for the full beam. This chapter shows in detail the rationale behind the method
developed. It also shows the physical meaning of each step of the deflection
calculations.
· The method developed for calculating deflection in cellular I-beams was compared
with the existing SCI hand method (Ward, 1990- P100), the Westok approximate
method, and Westok Cellbeam program and it showed that the developed method
is simpler and more accurate than the existing methods.
9.2.6 Interaction of failure modes - Chapter 8
The nonlinear parametric study investigated the modes of failure in cellular I-beams.
The main findings are as follows.
· When a braced cellular I-beam is subjected to a uniformly distributed load, failure
is likely to occur either by pure bending, Vierendeel mechanism, or Web-post
buckling.
· Pure bending failure usually occurs at high span to depth ratios. Web-post buckling
is mainly affected by the opening spacing and the web thickness. In the majority of
cases, it can occur at lower span to depth ratios. Vierendeel mechanism is mainly
affected by the opening diameter to web height ratio and can occur at lower to
medium span to depth ratios.
The failure loads predicted from the finite element simulations were compared with
those predicted from the analytical methods (SCI P100 and EN1993-1, BSI 2005
for Pure Bending; SCI P100 for Web-post Buckling; and Chung et. al., 2003 for
Vierendeel Mechanism) and the research showed that the failure loads from the
analytical methods are conservative for cellular I-beams failing in Pure Bending
and Web-post buckling. On the other hand the research showed that the
predictions from the analytical methods for cellular I-beams failing in Vierendeel
Mechanism are unconservative.

· Failure moments associated with pure bending are generally greater than those
associated with Vierendeel mechanism. Failure moments associated with Web-
post buckling are generally lower than those associated with the Vierendeel
mechanism.
9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES
· The research study was partly based on finite element analyses of cellular web
beams. More experimental work on the deflection of cellular web beams is
necessary to provide direct evidence for validation of the numerical simulation
models.
· The research study on cellular I-beams was limited to span to depth ratios in the
range of 10 to 27. Further research study is required to investigate the deflection of
cellular I-beams with span to depth ratios of less than 10.
· The research study was carried out on simply supported non-composite cellular I-
beams. The principles of the adopted methodologies in the research study can be
applied to composite cellular I-beams.
· The developed method can be applied to other I-beams, such as unequal cellular
I-beams where the compression flange is much smaller than the tension flange.
· The research studies the modes of failure of braced cellular I-beams in which
lateral torsional buckling is prevented. Research to investigate lateral torsional
buckling of the entire span is required in cellular I-beams and especially for cellular
I-beams with unequal flange sizes.
· The bending capacity of a cellular I-beam is calculated conservatively based on
the minimum section at the opening centres. The research revealed that the failure
moments are much greater than those calculated using the plastic section modulus
at the opening centres. Further work is recommended to be carried out to
determine accurately the bending capacity of cellular I-beams.

· Further work is recommended to determine more accurately the predictions from
the analytical method for cellular I-beams failing in Vierendeel mechanism which
are found to be unconservative.
· Cellular I beams are mainly used in the building constrution. They have also been
used in footbridges on a small scale. Research is required to investigate whether
cellular I beams can be accommodated in bridges.

REFERENCES
.Aglan, A. & Redwood, RG. (1974), ‘Web buckling in castellated beams’ Proc. Dept. of
Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill Univ., Montreal, Canada
B/20 ‘Draft standard specification for the structural use of steelwork in building: Part 1:
Simple construction and continuous construction’, London, British Standards Institution,
1978
Benham, P. P., R. J. Crawford & C. G. Armstrong. (1996), ‘Mechanics of Engineering

Materials’ (Harlow: Armstrong).
Blodgett, W. Omer (1996), ‘Design OF Welded Structures’ Lincoln Arc Welding

Foundation, Cleveland, OH
Boley, AB. (1963), ‘On the accuracy of the Bernoulli–Euler theory for beams of variable
section’, Journal of Applied Mechanics 1963; 30:373–8
Bower JE. (1968), ‘Design of beams with web openings’, Journal of the structural
division, 5869(ST3). Proc. ASCE; p. 783–807.
British Steel, ‘Properties and strengths of Castella beams: Further tests’ (Rotherham:
BS 1958).
British Steel, ‘Properties and strengths of Castella beams: Deflection characteristics’

(Rotherham: BS 1960).
British Standards Institution, ‘BS5950-1:2000, structural use of steelworks in building’

BSI; 2000.
British Standards Institution (2005a), BS EN1993-1-1, Eurocode 3 Design of steel

structures, Part 1.1 General Rules and Rules for Building. London: British Standards
Institution..
Cellbeam (2014),mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files%20(x86)\SCI%20Software\
Cellbeam%208.0\
Cheng W. K., Hosain, M. U. & Neis V. V. (1974), ‘Analysis of castellated steel beams
by the finite element method’. Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Finite
Element Method in Civil Engineering. Montreal, Canada, 1-2.
Chien, E. Y. L., & Ritchie, J. K. (1984), ‘Design of composite floor systems’ Canadian
Institute of Steel Construction.
Chitty, L. (1947), ‘On the cantilever composed of a number of parallel beams

interconnected by cross bars’, Phil. Mag., Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 685-699.
Chung, K. F., Liu, T. C. H. & Ko, A. C. H. (2001). ‘Finite element modelling on

Vierendeel mechanism in steel beams with large circular web openings’. Structural
Engineering, Mechanics and Computation (Vol. 2), 1567-1574.
Chung, K.F., Liu, T.C.H. & Ko, A.C.H. (2001), ‘Investigation on Vierendeel mechanism
in steel beams with circular web openings’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research
57, 467-490.
References 251
Chung, K.F., Liu, T.C.H., Ko, A.C.H. (2003), ‘Steel beams with large web openings of
various shapes and sizes: an empirical design method using a generalised moment –
shear interaction curve’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59,1177-1200
Chung, K.F. (1995), ‘Structural performance of cold-formed sections with single and
multi-web openings, part 2: design rules’, The Structural Engineer Vol. 73, issue 14
Constructalia, ‘ACB- Cellular steel beams with circular openings’
http://www.constructalia.com/english/products/structures/steel_sections_and_merchant
_bars/cellular_and_castellated_sections/acb_cellular_steel_beams_with_circular_open
ings#.WI2p0U1XXDc (2016)
Cobb, F. (2005), ‘Structural Engineer’s Pocket Book’, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Constructalia, ArcelorMittal (2016), ‘The intelligent Solution of Long Spans’

http://www.constructalia.com/repository/Publications/ACB_brochure/ACB_EN.pdf
Darwin, D. (1990), ‘Steel and Composite Beams with Web Openings’, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Design Guide Series No. 2, Chicago, IL.
Das, P. K. & Seimaini, S. L. (1985), ‘Handbook for the Design of castellated Beams’.
Dougherty, Brian K. (1980), ‘Elastic deformation of beams with web openings’, Journal
of the Structural Division, 106 (ST1), 301-312
Eurocode 3 (EC3) (1993), ‘Design of Steel Structures- Annex N: Opening in Webs,

ENV 1993-1-1: 1992/A2’, European Committee Standardisation.
Gere, J. M. (2004), ‘Mechanics of Materials’, Sixth Edition, (Belmont: Thomson

Books/Cole)
Gibson, J. E. & Jenkins, W. M. (1956), ‘The Stress Distribution in a Simply Supported

Beam with a Circular Hole’, The Structural Engineer, Vol. XXXIV
Gibson, J. E. & Jenkins, W. M. (1957), ' An investigation of the stresses and deflexions
in castellated beams', J Structural Engineer, Vol. XXXV, No. 12
Harper, C. S. (1997), ‘Castellated and Cellular Beams’, (Redcar, Cleveland: British

Steel)
Halleux, P. (1967), ‘Limit Analysis of Castellated Steel Beams’, Acier-Stahl-Steel, No. 3
Hennessey, J., Dinehart, D., Hoffman, R., Gross, S. & Yost, J. (2004), ‘Effect of cope
geometry on the strength and failure behaviour of non-composite open web expanded
beams’, Research Report 7 to SMISteel Products, Villanova University
Hoffman R., Dinehart D., Gross S. & Yost J. (2006), ‘Analysis of Stress
Distribution and Failure Behaviour of Cellular Beams’,
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar.
Hosian, M. U. & SPEIRS, W. G. (1973) Experiments on castellated steel beams.

Journal of the American Welding Society, 52, 329-342
References 252
Hosian, M. U. & Cheng W. K. & Neis V. V. (1974) ‘Deflection analysis of expanded
open-web steel beams’ Computers and Structures 4 (2), pp 327-336
Humphrey, A. T. & Sunley V. K. (1968), ‘Finite element analysis of an expanded I-

section beam and an axi-symmetric flanged cylinder’. Conference Records, Advanced
Stress Analysis, 3-14 Joint British Conference for stress Analysis. Vol. 3, No.14
Iverson, P. A. (1969), ‘Some aspects of the finite element method in two-dimensional

problems’, Finite element methods in stress analysis (Edited by Ivar Holand and
Kolbein Bell) Tapir-Trykk, Trondheim, Norway
Kerdal, D. & Nethercot. A. (1984), ’Failure Modes for Castellated Beams’, J.

Construction Steel Research (295-315)
Kolosowski, J. (1956), 'A theoretical and experimental study of the castellated girder',
MSc Thesis, University of London
Kolosowski, J. (1964), ' Stresses and deflections in castellated beams', J Structural

Engineer, Vol. 42, No. 1
Konstantinos D.T. & Cedric D. (2011), ‘Web buckling study of the behaviour and
strength of perforated steel beams with different novel web opening shapes’, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 67, 1605–1620
Konstantinos D.T. & Cedric D. (2012), ‘Optimisation of novel elliptically-based web

opening shapes of perforated steel beams’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research
76; 39-53
Knowles P. R. (1985), 'Design of castellated beams', Steel Construction Institute, P005
Lawson R. M. (1987), ‘Design for openings in the webs of composite beams’,

CIRIA/Steel Construction Institute, CIRIA Special Publication and SCI Publication 068.
Lawson R. M., Hicks, S. J. (2011), ‘Design of composite beams with large web
openings’, Steel Construction Institute, SCI Publication P355.
LUSAS (2014), ‘LUSAS Version 14’, FEA Ltd., Surry, UK.
MACSTEEL (2017a), ‘Cellbeam program design guide’

https://www.macsteel.co.za/files/section_property_tables.pdf
MACSTEEL (2017b), ‘Cellbeam beams design guide’

https://www.macsteel.co.za/files/data_downloads/25/macsteel-trading-cellular-beams-
design-guide.pdf
Nethercot D. A. & Kerdal D.(1982), ‘Lateral-torsional buckling of castellated beams’,

The Structural Eng., 60B (3):53-61.
Panedpojaman, P. & Thepchatri, T (2013), ‘Finite Element Investigation on Deflection

of Cellular Beams with Various Configurations’, International Journal of Steel
Structures, Vol 13, No 3, 487-494
Pippard, A. J. S. (1948), ‘The Critical load of a battened column’, Phil. Mag., Vol.
XXXIX, pp. 58-66
References 253
Pippard, A. J. S. (1952), ‘Studies in Elastic Structures’, Publishers Edward Arnold &
Co.
Popov, E. P. (1978), ‘Mechanics of Materials’, New Jersey, 1978
Redwood R.G. & McCutcheone J. o. (1968), ‘Beams tests with un-reinforced web
openings’, J Struct Div., Proc ASCE; 94 (ST1): 1-17
Redwood R. G. & Soon H. C. (1993), ‘Design of steel and composite beams with web
openings’, Journal of Construction Steel Research 25; P23-41
Redwood R. G. & Demirdjian S. (1998), ‘Castellated beam web buckling in shear’,

Journal of Structural Eng., ASCE; 124(10); 1202-7
Redwood R. G. & McCutcheon J. O. (1968), ‘Investigation on Vierendeel mechanism in

steel beams with circular web openings’, Journal of structural division; 94(ST1); Proc
ASCE; p. 1–17
Redwood R. G. (1969), ‘The strength of steel beams with unreinforced web holes’, Civil
engineering and public works review
Redwood R. G. (1973), ‘Design of beams with web holes’, Willowdale, Ontario,

Canada: Canadian Steel Industry Construction Council
Redwood, R. G., Zaarour W. & Megharief J. (1996),’ Web post buckling in castellated
beams’, Advances In Steel Structures, Vol. 1, 67-72
Showkati, H., Ghazijani, T. G., Noori, A. & Zirakian, T. (2012), ‘Experiment on

elastically castellated beams’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 77163-172
Steel Construction Institute (2004), ‘Report to Westok Ltd., Evaluation of cellular beam
test data at normal temperatures’, (SCI Publication Document RT 1025 version 1)
Srimani S. L. & Das P. K. (1978), ‘Finite element analysis of castellated beams’,

Structural engineering section, Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute.
Durgapur, India
Surtees, J. O. & Liu, Z. (1995), ‘Loading test on cellular beams: Research report’,
University of Leeds
Sweedan Amr M.I., Soltani. M. R., & El-Sawy K. M. (2011), ‘Elastic local buckling of
perforated webs of steel cellular beam-column elements’, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 67 (2011); 1115–1127
Sweedan Amr M.I. & El-Sawy K. (2011), ‘Elastic local buckling of perforated webs of
steel cellular beam-column elements’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67;
1115–1127
Tsavdaridis, K.D. & D’Melloe, C. (2012), ‘Optimisation of novel elliptically-based web

opening shapes of perforated steel beams’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research
76; 39-53.
Tsavdaridis, K.D. & D’Mello, C. (2011), ‘Web buckling of the behaviour and strength of
perforated beams with different novel web opening shapes’, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 67; 1605-1520.
References 254
Wakchaure, M.R. & Sagade, A. V., ‘Finite Element Analysis of castellated steel beams’,
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT) Volume 2,
Issue 1
Ward, J.K. (1990), ‘Design of Composite and Non-Composite Cellular Beams’, Steel
Construction Institute, (SCI Publication 100)
Warren, J. (2001), ‘Ultimate load and deflection behaviour of cellular beams’, School of
Civil Engineering, Durban, University of Natal
Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 10.3, Champaign, IL (2015).
Westok (2012), ‘Engineers Design Guide; Cellular beams’

‘http://www.westock.co.uk’
Yost, J. R., Dinehart, D. W., Hoffman, R. M., Gross, S. P. & Gallow, M. (2012)
‘Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Service-Load Stresses in Cellular Beams’,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE
Zaarour W. & Redwood R. G. (1996), ‘Web buckling in thin webbed castellated beams’,
Journal of Structural Eng., ASCE; 122(8); 860-6.
Zheng T., Ji T. (2011), ‘Equivalent representation of beams with periodically variable

cross-sections’, Engineering Structures 33; 706-719
References 255
APPENDIX A : (CHAPTER 1)
A1: INVESTIGATED WESTOK NON-COMPOSITE CELLULAR BEAMS
Westok pioneered the use of cellular beams in the early 90s and they are the lead
manufacturers in the United Kingdom. There are 22 sub-groups of parent solid UBs in
which they are castellated, expanded and welded to produce different sizes of cellular
beams (Fig. A1). Each sub-group contain a number of beams with different geometrical
configurations.
Parent Solid UBs

22 groups of solid Castellated
UBs (in total 77 Westok cellular
types of beams) beams
Cellular UB Group Cellular UC Group

154 Standard Cellular 62 Cellular universal
universal beams columns
22 Sub-groups UBs 6 Sub-groups UCs
1. 1016X305 (16 nos.) 1. 356X406 (14 nos.)

2. 914X419 (4 nos.) 2. 356X368 (8 nos.)
3. 914X305 (8 nos.) 3. 305X305 (14 nos.)
4. 838X292 (6 nos.) 4. 254X254 (10 nos.)
5. 762X267 (8 nos.) 5. 203X203 (10nos.)
6. 686X254 (8 nos.) 6. 152X152 (6 nos.)
7. 610X305 (6 nos.)
8. 610X229 (8 nos.)
9. 533X210 (10 nos.)
10. 457X191 (10 nos.)
11. 457X152 (10 nos.)
12. 406X178 (10 nos.)
13. 406X140 (4 nos.)
14. 356X171 (8 nos.)
15. 356X127 (4 nos.)
16. 305X165 (6 nos.)
17. 305X127 (6 nos.)
18. 305X102 (6 nos.)
19. 254X146 (6 nos.)
20. 254X102 (6 nos.)
21. 203X133 (4 nos.)
22. 203X102 (2 no)
Fig. A.1: Westok Cellular Universal Beams divided into sup-groups (Westok, 2014)
For example the 1016 X 305 cellular sub-groups contain 16 different beams with
different weight configurations and different geometrical configurations such as height,
web thickness, flange thickness and opening diameter.
In total there are 77 solid UBs (Fig. A1). Each solid UB is castellated to produce a
minimum of two cellular beams. For example the 1016X305X487 is castellated and
converted to two different beam heights; one with the following geometrical detail
Appendix A 256
(H=1469mm, D=1000, and S=1.5D- floor beam); the other one is deeper with the
geometrical details (H=1546mm, D=1050, and S=1.25D- roof beam). This means there
are a minimum of 154 Westok cellular beams to deal with (Appendix A). It should be
noted that the spacing between the openings varies between 1.2 and 1.5D depending
on the intended usage and the gap the cellular beam is bridging. Therefore it leads to
1078 number of cellular beam configurations assuming 0.05D increments.
Fig. A1 shows that the Westok non-composite population is divided into two groups.
One is representing the 154 standard cellular Universal Beams and the other is
representing 62 standard cellular Universal Columns. The study covers all these non-
composite Westok cellular beam sections. The study does not cover the cellular
column sections as they are not critical from the serviceability displacement point of
view; hence they are excluded from the study.
Appendix A 257
A2: UNIVERSAL BEAM SECTIONS AND THE ASSOCIATED WESTOK CELLULAR BEAM SECTION GEOMETRY
Table A.1: Universal beam sections and the associated Westok cellular beam section geometry
Cellular beam- floor usage Cellular beam- roof usage
Parent solid Total height Total height D / hw

Universal beam H D B
tf hw tw D / hw H D hw
1016X305X487 1469.0 1000.0 308.5 54.1 1360.8 30.00 0.73 1546.0 1050.0 1437.8 0.73
1016X305X438 1458.9 1000.0 305.4 49.0 1360.9 26.90 0.73 1535.8 1050.0 1437.8 0.73
1016X305X393 1449.0 1000.0 303.0 43.9 1361.2 24.40 0.73 1525.9 1050.0 1438.1 0.73
1016X305X349 1441.0 1000.0 302.0 40.0 1361.0 21.10 0.73 1518.0 1050.0 1438.0 0.73
1016X305X314 1433.0 1000.0 300.0 35.9 1361.2 19.10 0.73 1509.9 1050.0 1438.1 0.73
1016X305X272 1423.1 1000.0 300.0 31.0 1361.1 16.50 0.73 1500.0 1050.0 1438.0 0.73
1016X305X249 1413.2 1000.0 300.0 25.0 1363.2 16.50 0.73 1490.1 1050.0 1440.1 0.73
1016X305X222 1403.3 1000.0 300.0 21.2 1360.9 16.00 0.73 1480.2 1050.0 1437.8 0.73
914X419X388 1310.7 900.0 420.5 36.6 1237.5 21.40 0.73 1382.5 950.0 1309.3 0.73
914X419X343 1301.5 900.0 418.5 32.0 1237.5 19.40 0.73 1373.3 950.0 1309.3 0.73
914X305X289 1316.3 900.0 307.7 32.0 1252.3 19.50 0.72 1388.1 950.0 1324.1 0.72
914X305X253 1308.1 900.0 305.5 27.9 1252.3 17.30 0.72 1379.9 950.0 1324.1 0.72
914X305X224 1300.1 900.0 304.1 23.9 1252.3 15.90 0.72 1371.9 950.0 1324.1 0.72
914X305X201 1292.7 900.0 303.3 20.2 1252.3 15.10 0.72 1364.5 950.0 1324.1 0.72
838X292X226 1211.7 825.0 293.8 26.8 1158.1 16.10 0.71 1273.7 875.0 1220.1 0.72
838X292X194 1201.5 825.0 292.4 21.7 1158.1 14.70 0.71 1263.5 875.0 1220.1 0.72
838X292X176 1195.7 825.0 291.7 18.8 1158.1 14.00 0.71 1257.7 875.0 1220.1 0.72
762X267X197 1094.6 750.0 268.0 26.4 1041.8 15.60 0.72 1157.1 800.0 1104.3 0.72
762X267X173 1087.0 750.0 266.7 21.6 1043.8 14.30 0.72 1149.5 800.0 1106.3 0.72
762X267X147 1078.8 750.0 265.2 17.5 1043.8 12.80 0.72 1141.3 800.0 1106.3 0.72
762X267X134 1074.8 750.0 264.4 15.5 1043.8 12.00 0.72 1137.3 800.0 1106.3 0.72
686X254X170 988.7 675.0 255.8 23.7 941.3 14.50 0.72 1031.8 700.0 984.4 0.71
686X254X152 983.3 675.0 254.5 21 941.3 13.20 0.72 1026.4 700.0 984.4 0.71
686X254X140 979.3 675.0 253.7 19 941.3 12.40 0.72 1022.4 700.0 984.4 0.71
686X254X125 973.7 675.0 253.0 16.2 941.3 11.70 0.72 1016.8 700.0 984.4 0.71
Appendix A 258
Table A2: continued

Universal beam H D B tf hw tw D / hw H D hw
610X305X238 895.6 600.0 311.4 31.4 832.8 18.40 0.72 939.2 625.0 876.4 0.71
610X305X179 880.0 600.0 307.1 23.6 832.8 14.10 0.72 923.6 625.0 876.4 0.71
610X305X149 872.2 600.0 304.8 19.7 832.8 11.60 0.72 915.8 625.0 876.4 0.71
610X229X140 877.0 600.0 230.2 22.1 832.8 13.10 0.72 920.8 625.0 876.6 0.71
610X229X1125 872.0 600.0 229.0 19.6 832.8 11.90 0.72 915.6 625.0 876.4 0.71
610X229X113 867.4 600.0 228.2 17.3 832.8 11.10 0.72 911.0 625.0 876.4 0.71
610X229X101 862.4 600.0 227.6 14.8 832.8 10.50 0.72 906.0 625.0 876.4 0.71
533X210X122 775.3 525.0 211.9 21.3 732.7 12.70 0.72 812.3 550.0 769.7 0.71
533X210X109 770.3 525.0 210.8 18.8 732.7 11.60 0.72 807.3 550.0 769.7 0.71
533X210X101 767.5 525.0 210.0 17.4 732.7 10.80 0.72 804.5 550.0 769.7 0.71
533X210X92 763.9 525.0 209.3 15.6 732.7 10.10 0.72 800.9 550.0 769.7 0.71
533X210X82 759.1 525.0 208.8 13.2 732.7 9.60 0.72 796.1 550.0 769.7 0.71
457X191X98 662.1 450.0 192.8 19.6 622.9 11.4 0.72 696.3 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X191X89 658.3 450.0 191.9 17.7 622.9 10.5 0.72 692.5 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X191X82 654.9 450.0 191.3 16.0 622.9 9.9 0.72 689.1 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X191X74 651.9 450.0 190.4 14.6 622.7 9.0 0.72 686.1 475.0 656.9 0.72
457X191X67 648.3 450.0 189.9 12.7 622.9 8.5 0.72 682.5 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X152X82 660.7 450.0 155.3 18.9 622.9 10.5 0.72 694.9 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X152X74 656.9 450.0 154.4 17.0 622.9 9.6 0.72 691.1 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X152X67 652.9 450.0 153.8 15.0 622.9 9.0 0.72 687.1 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X152X60 649.5 450.0 152.9 13.3 622.9 8.1 0.72 683.7 475.0 657.1 0.72
457X152X52 644.7 450.0 152.4 10.9 622.9 7.6 0.72 678.9 475.0 657.1 0.72
406X178X74 586.0 400.0 179.5 16.0 554.0 9.5 0.72 619.3 425.0 587.3 0.72
406X178X67 582.6 400.0 178.8 14.3 554.0 8.8 0.72 615.9 425.0 587.3 0.72
406X178X60 579.6 400.0 177.9 12.8 554.0 7.9 0.72 612.9 425.0 587.3 0.72
406X178X54 575.8 400.0 177.7 10.9 554.0 7.7 0.72 609.1 425.0 587.3 0.72
406X140X46 576.5 400.0 142.2 11.2 554.1 6.8 0.72 609.7 425.0 587.3 0.72
406X140X39 571.2 400.0 141.8 8.6 554.0 6.4 0.72 604.5 425.0 587.3 0.72
Appendix A 259
Table A2: continued

Universal beam H D B tf hw tw D / hw H D hw
356X171X67 515.0 350.0 173.2 15.7 483.6 9.1 0.72 544.1 375.0 512.7 0.73
356X171X57 509.6 350.0 172.2 13.0 483.6 8.1 0.72 538.7 375.0 512.7 0.73
356X171X51 506.6 350.0 171.5 11.5 483.6 7.4 0.72 535.7 375.0 512.7 0.73
356X171X45 503.0 350.0 171.1 9.7 483.6 7.0 0.72 532.1 375.0 512.7 0.73
356X127X39 505.0 350.0 126.0 10.7 483.6 6.6 0.72 534.1 375.0 512.7 0.73
356X127X33 500.6 350.0 125.4 8.5 483.6 6.0 0.72 529.7 375.0 512.7 0.73
305X165X54 440.3 300.0 166.9 13.7 412.9 7.9 0.73 468.5 325.0 441.1 0.74
305X165X46 436.5 300.0 165.7 11.8 412.9 6.7 0.73 464.7 325.0 441.1 0.74
305X165X40 433.3 300.0 165.0 10.2 412.9 6.0 0.73 461.5 325.0 441.1 0.74
305X127X48 440.9 300.0 125.3 14.0 412.9 9.0 0.73 469.1 325.0 441.1 0.74
305X127X42 437.1 300.0 124.3 12.1 412.9 8.0 0.73 465.3 325.0 441.1 0.74
305X127X37 434.3 300.0 123.3 10.7 412.9 7.1 0.73 462.5 325.0 441.1 0.74
305X102X33 442.6 300.0 102.4 10.8 421.0 6.6 0.71 470.8 325.0 449.2 0.72
305X102X28 438.6 300.0 101.8 8.9 420.8 6.0 0.71 466.8 325.0 449.0 0.72
305X102X25 435.0 300.0 101.6 6.8 421.4 5.8 0.71 463.2 325.0 449.6 0.72
254X146X43 367.9 250.0 147.3 12.7 342.5 7.2 0.73 391.9 275.0 366.5 0.75
254X146X37 364.3 250.0 146.4 10.9 342.5 6.3 0.73 388.3 275.0 366.5 0.75
254X146X31 359.7 250.0 146.1 8.6 342.5 6.0 0.73 383.7 275.0 366.5 0.75
254X102X28 368.7 250.0 102.2 10.0 348.7 6.3 0.72 392.7 275.0 372.7 0.74
254X102X25 365.5 250.0 101.9 8.4 348.7 6.0 0.72 389.5 275.0 372.7 0.74
254X102X22 362.3 250.0 101.6 6.8 348.7 5.7 0.72 386.3 275.0 372.7 0.74
203X133X30 293.4 200.0 133.9 9.6 274.2 6.4 0.73 312.9 225.0 293.7 0.77
203X133X25 289.8 200.0 133.2 7.8 274.2 5.7 0.73 309.3 225.0 293.7 0.77
203X102X23 289.8 200.0 101.8 9.3 271.2 5.4 0.74 309.3 225.0 290.7 0.77
Appendix A 260
APPENDIX B : (CHAPTER 2)
B1: SECTION PROPERTIES TABLE FOR DESIGN GUIDE BY WESTOK
Appendix B 261
Appendix B 262
Appendix B 263
Appendix B 264
Appendix B 265
Appendix B 266
Appendix B 267
Appendix B 268
B2: EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON CASTELLATED BEAMS
Fig. B.1: Castellated tested beam detail (Kolosowski, 1964)
Table B.1: Castellated tested beams detail (Husain and Speirs, 1964)
Appendix B 269
Table B.2: Summary of test programme (Nethercot and Kerdal, 1982)
Appendix B 270
B3: EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON CELLULAR BEAMS
B3.1: TESTS CARRIED OUT BY REDWOOD AND MCCUTCHEON 1968
Identification
A
Height of all openings =113.4mm
171.45
D
228.6
57.15 113.4
171.45
228.6
171.45
171.45
285.75
Fig. B.2: Dimensions of openings (Redwood and Mccutcheon, 1968)
Table B.3: Summary of test programme (Redwood and Mccutcheon, 1968)
Appendix B 271
Fig. B.3: Details of the applied loads (Redwood and Mccutcheon, 1968)
Appendix B 272
B3.2: TESTS BY SURTEES AND LIU 1995, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS (SCI, 2004)
Test 1
Test 2
Appendix B 273
Test 3
Test 5
Fig. B.4: Tests by Surtees and Liu 1995, University of Leeds (SCI, 2004)
Appendix B 274
B3.3: TESTS BY NATAL UNIVERSITY (WARREN 2001)
Beam 1A
Beam 2A
Beam 3A
Beam 4A
Appendix B 275
Beam 1B
Beam 2B
Beam 3B
Beam 4B
Fig. B.5: Tests by Natal University (Warren 2001)
Appendix B 276
Table B.4: Test beam details (Warren, 2001)
Beam1 Beam 2 Beam 3 Beam4
Parent section 203x133x25 203x133x25 305x102x25 305x102x25
Height ( h ) 289.8 309.3 435.0 463.2
Cell Diameter ( D) 200 225 300 325
Opening spacing ( S ) 300 300 450 400
Flange width ( B) 133.4 133.4 101.6 101.6

Flange thickness ( t f ) 7.8 7.8 6.8 6.8
Web thickness ( t w ) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
Table B.5: Test beam spans (Warren, 2001)

Beam 1A !B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B
Span (m) 3.1 5.5 3.8 5.6 3.8 4.2 8.2 7.4
Appendix B 277
APPENDIX C : (CHAPTER 3)
C1: STRESS STRAIN CURVE FOR BEAM 4A
Fig. C.1: Stress strain curves for Beam 4A (Warren 2001)
Appendix C 278
C2: TABLE 2.3 (WARREN, 2001) SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTALRESULTS
Table C.1: Experimental results (Warren, 2001)
Table C.2: Deflection ratios compared with experimental (Warren, 2001)
Appendix C 279
APPENDIX D : (CHAPTER 4)
D1: STRESS DISTRIBUTION AT OPENING CENTRES (Chapter 4)
Figures (D1, a-c the 1st row) show the results for D / hw = 0.72 and S / D = 1.2 at Opening
1, at quarter point, and at mid-span.
Figures (D1, d-f the 2nd row) show the results for D / hw = 0.72 and S / D = 1.35 at
Opening 1, at quarter point, and at mid-span.
Figures (D2, g-i the 3rd row) show the results for D / hw = 0.72 and S / D = 1.5 at Opening
Figures (D2, j-l the 4th row) show the results for D / hw = 0.74 and S / D = 1.2 at Opening
Figures (D3, m-p the 2nd row) show the results for D / hw = 0.74 and S / D = 1.35 at
Figures (D3, q-s the 3rd row) show the results for D / hw = 0.74 and S / D = 1.5 at
Appendix D 280
Opening at quarter point (0.72; 1.2D) Opening at mid-span (0.72;2 1.2D )
Opening 1 (Near support) (0.72; 1.2D)
Normal stresses N/mm^2 Normal stresses N/mm^2 Normal stresses N/mm^2

0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0 -25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0

0 0 0
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.02 0.02 0.02
h = 7 . 61
l /λ=7.61 h = 7 . 61
l /λ=7.61 h = 7 . 61
l /λ=7.61
0.03 l /λ=14.25
h = 14 . 25 0.03 l /λ=14.25
h = 14 . 25 0.03 l /λ=14.25
h = 14 . 25
l /λ=30.85
h = 31 . 25 l /λ=30.85
h = 31 . 25 l /λ=30.85
h = 31 . 25
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.06 0.06 0.06
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.08 0.08 0.08
0.09 0.09 0.09
0.1 0.1 0.1
(a) (b) (c)

Opening 1 (Near support) (0.72; 1.35D) Opening at quarter point (0.72; 1.35D) Opening at mid-span (0.72; 1.35D)
0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0 -25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0

0 0 0
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.02 l / λ=8.65
h = 7 . 61 0.02 l / λ=8.65
h = 7 . 61 0.02 h = 7 . 61
l /λ=8.65
l / λ=14.25
h = 14 . 25 l / λ=14.25
h = 14 . 25 h = 14 . 25
l /λ=14.25
0.03 0.03 0.03
l / λ=31.05
h = 31 . 25 h = 31 . 25
l / λ=31.05 h = 31 . 25
l /λ=31.05
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.06 0.06 0.06
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.08 0.08 0.08
0.09 0.09 0.09
0.1 0.1 0.1
(d) (e) (f)
Fig. D.1: Normal stresses at opening centres (a-f)
Appendix D 281
Opening 1 (near support) (0.72; 1.5D) Opening at quarter point (0.72; 1.5D) Opening at mid-span (0.72; 1.5D)

Normal stresses N/mm^2
Distance along depth of top T section(m)

0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0
-25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0
0 0
0
0.01 0.01
0.01
0.02 h = 7 .61
l / λ=9.68 0.02 l /λ=9.68
h = 7 . 61
0.02 l /λ=9.68
h = 7 .61
0.03 l / λ=15.91
h = 14 . 25 l /λ=15.91
h = 14 . 25 0.03 h = 14 . 25
l /λ=15.91
0.03 h = 31 . 25
l /λ=30.43
l / λ=30.43
h = 31 .25 0.04 h = 31 .25
l /λ=30.43
0.04 0.04
0.05 0.05
0.05
0.06 0.06
0.06
0.07 0.07
0.07
0.08 0.08
0.08
0.09 0.09
0.09
0.1 0.1
0.1
(g) (h) (i)

Opening 1 (near support) (0.74; 1.2D) Opening at quarter point (0.74; 1.2D) Opening at mid-span (0.74; 1.2D )

0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0 -25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0
0 0 0
0.01 0.01 0.01

h = 7 . 61
l /λ=7.75 h = 7 . 61
l /λ=7.75 l /λ=7.75
h = 7 . 61
0.02 h = 14 . 25
l /λ=14.51 0.02 l /λ=14.51
h = 14 . 25 0.02 l /λ=14.51
h = 14 . 25
h = 31 .25
l /λ=31.41 l /λ=31.41
h = 31 .25 l /λ=31.41
h = 31 .25
0.03 0.03 0.03
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.06 0.06 0.06
(j) (k) (l)
Fig. D.2: Normal stresses at opening centres (g-i)
Appendix D 282
Opening 1 (near support) (0.74; 1.35D) Opening at quarter point (0.74; 1.35D) Opening at mid-span (0.74; 1.35D)


0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0
-25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0
0
0 0
0.01 0.01
0.01
h = 7 . 61
l /λ=8.80 h = 7 . 61
l / λ=8.80 h = 7 . 61
l /λ=8.80
0.02 l /λ=14.51
h = 14 . 25 h = 14 . 25
l / λ=14.51 0.02 h = 14 . 25
l /λ=14.51
0.02
l /λ=31.62
h = 31 .25 l / λ=31.62
h = 31 .25 h = 31 .25
l /λ=31.62
0.03 0.03
0.03
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.06 0.06 0.06
(m) (n) (p)

Opening at mid-span 0.74; 1.5D)
Opening 1 (near support) (0.74; 1.5D) Opening at quarter point (0.74; 1.5D)
-25.0 -75.0 -125.0 -175.0 -225.0 -275.0
Distance along depth of top T section(m)

0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0
0 0 0
0.01 0.01 0.01

h = 7 . 61
l /λ=9.68
h = 7 . 61
l /λ=9.68 h = 14 . 25
l /λ=16.20 / h = 7 . 61
l λ=9.68
0.02 h = 14 . 25
l /λ=16.20
0.02 0.02
h = 31 . 25
l /λ=30.99 / h = 14 . 25
l λ=16.20
h = 31 . 25
l /λ=30.99 / h = 31 . 25
l λ=30.43
0.03 0.03 0.03
0.04
0.04 0.04
0.05 0.05
0.05
0.06 0.06
0.06
(q) (r) (s)
Fig. D.3: Normal stresses at opening centres (m-s)
Appendix D 283
D2: GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MOMENTS
Fig. D2 shows the normal stress distributions in a simply supported cellular I-beam
under transverse loads on the vertical section 1-1 at the opening centre for the primary
bending moment (Fig. D2a) and the secondary bending moment (Fig. D2b). The
primary moment ( M pr ) causes primary stresses ( s pr ) in the top and bottom T
sections as follows (Fig. D2c):
Normal stresses at top fibre of the T section (flange level) at 1b:
M pr
s pr = y BF ( D 2.1a)
I 1-1
Normal stresses at bottom fibre of T section (web level) at 2b:
M pr
s pr = y BW ( D 2.1b)
I1-1
where s pr is the normal stresses due to primary bending moment, M pr is the main
primary bending moment, I1-1 is the second moment of area of the beam at section 1-
1, y BF is the distance from the neutral axis of the beam to the top fibre of the beam,
yBW is the distance between the neutral axis of the beam to the bottom of the T
section.
The secondary bending moment ( M sc ) produces secondary stresses s sc in the top
and bottom T section at the opening centre as follows (Fig. D2d):
Normal stresses at top fibre of the T section (flange level) at 1b:
M sc
s sc = yTF ( D 2.2a)
IT
Normal stresses at bottom fibre of T section (web level) at 2b:
M pr
s sc = yTW ( D 2.2b)
IT
Appendix D 284
where s sc is the normal stresses due to secondary bending moment, M sc is the
secondary bending moment, I T is the second moment of area of the T section at
section 1-1, yTF is the distance from the neutral axis of the T section to the top fibre of
the T section, yTW is the distance between the neutral axis of the T section to the
bottom of the T section
Appendix D 285
N.A of T-section
1 1
1
b
2
b
= =
3
b
4
Section Primary Secondary Total resultantbdirect
1 1 stress stress
stress
Fig. D.4: Normal stresses at the opening centre
Appendix D 286
The resultant normal elastic stresses ( s x ) can be determined by superimposing the primary
and secondary stresses as follows (Fig. D2e):
Resultant stresses at the top ( s xt ) and bottom ( s xb ) fibres are as follows (Fig. D2e):
M pr M sc
s xt = s pr - s sc = y BF - yTF ( D 2.3a)
I 1-1 IT
M pr M sc
s xb = s pr + s sc = y BW + yTW ( D 2.3b)
I1-1 IT
Appendix D 287
APPENDIX E : (CHAPTER 5) EQUIVALENT SECOND MOMENT OF AREA ACROSS THE OPENING
Table E.1: Calculation of the equivalent second moment of area across the opening- to be read with Fig. 5.2
q in radians
sin q p (sin q )
i i (p ) p /n sin q sin q
3
B sin q 3
A - B sin q3
p A - B sin 3 q n ( A - B sin 3 q )
n n A B
1 0.104733333 30 0.10473333 0.104541967 306377 117855 0.001142542 134.654234 306242 3.142 3.4137E-07 3.57528E-08
2 0.209466667 30 0.10473333 0.207938254 306377 117855 0.0089909 1059.62254 305317 3.142 6.81056E-07 7.13293E-08
3 0.3142 30 0.10473333 0.309055735 306377 117855 0.029519597 3479.03208 302898 3.142 1.02033E-06 1.06863E-07
4 0.418933333 30 0.10473333 0.40678626 306377 117855 0.067312981 7933.1714 298444 3.142 1.36302E-06 1.42754E-07
5 0.523666667 30 0.10473333 0.500058794 306377 117855 0.125044101 14737.0725 291640 3.142 1.71464E-06 1.7958E-07
6 0.6284 30 0.10473333 0.58785116 306377 117855 0.20314313 23941.4336 282436 3.142 2.08136E-06 2.17988E-07
7 0.733133333 30 0.10473333 0.669201237 306377 117855 0.299688588 35319.7986 271057 3.142 2.46886E-06 2.58572E-07
8 0.837866667 30 0.10473333 0.743217506 306377 117855 0.410532734 48383.3354 257994 3.142 2.88076E-06 3.01711E-07
9 0.9426 30 0.10473333 0.809088818 306377 117855 0.529649537 62421.8462 243955 3.142 3.31655E-06 3.47353E-07
10 1.047333333 30 0.10473333 0.866093287 306377 117855 0.649671802 76567.0702 229810 3.142 3.76874E-06 3.94712E-07
11 1.152066667 30 0.10473333 0.913606198 306377 117855 0.762565427 89872.1484 216505 3.142 4.2198E-06 4.41953E-07
12 1.2568 30 0.10473333 0.951106854 306377 117855 0.860375301 101399.531 204977 3.142 4.64006E-06 4.85968E-07
13 1.361533333 30 0.10473333 0.978184285 306377 117855 0.93597025 110308.774 196068 3.142 4.989E-06 5.22515E-07
14 1.466266667 30 0.10473333 0.994541748 306377 117855 0.983714458 115935.667 190441 3.142 5.2223E-06 5.46949E-07
15 1.571 30 0.10473333 0.999999979 306377 117855 0.999999938 117854.993 188522 3.142 5.30442E-06 5.5555E-07
16 1.675733333 30 0.10473333 0.994499163 306377 117855 0.9835881 115920.776 190456 3.142 5.22167E-06 5.46883E-07
17 1.780466667 30 0.10473333 0.978099582 306377 117855 0.935727128 110280.121 196097 3.142 4.98784E-06 5.22393E-07
18 1.8852 30 0.10473333 0.950980962 306377 117855 0.860033697 101359.271 205018 3.142 4.63853E-06 4.85809E-07
19 1.989933333 30 0.10473333 0.913440495 306377 117855 0.762150577 89823.2563 216554 3.142 4.21808E-06 4.41773E-07
20 2.094666667 30 0.10473333 0.86588959 306377 117855 0.649213519 76513.0593 229864 3.142 3.76697E-06 3.94527E-07
21 2.1994 30 0.10473333 0.808849359 306377 117855 0.529179409 62366.4392 244011 3.142 3.31481E-06 3.47171E-07
22 2.304133333 30 0.10473333 0.742944909 306377 117855 0.410081175 48330.1169 258047 3.142 2.87911E-06 3.01539E-07
23 2.408866667 30 0.10473333 0.66889849 306377 117855 0.299282034 35271.8842 271105 3.142 2.4673E-06 2.58409E-07
24 2.5136 30 0.10473333 0.587521581 306377 117855 0.202801644 23901.1878 282476 3.142 2.0799E-06 2.17835E-07
25 2.618333333 30 0.10473333 0.499705994 306377 117855 0.124779625 14705.9027 291671 3.142 1.71325E-06 1.79435E-07
26 2.723066667 30 0.10473333 0.406414106 306377 117855 0.067128403 7911.41799 298466 3.142 1.36168E-06 1.42613E-07
27 2.8278 30 0.10473333 0.308668305 306377 117855 0.029408719 3465.96461 302911 3.142 1.01901E-06 1.06724E-07
28 2.932533333 30 0.10473333 0.207539794 306377 117855 0.008939313 1053.54273 305323 3.142 6.79737E-07 7.11912E-08
29 3.037266667 30 0.10473333 0.104136844 306377 117855 0.00112931 133.094849 306244 3.142 3.40045E-07 3.56141E-08
30 3.142 30 0.10473333 -0.000407346 306377 117855 -6.75914E-11 -7.966E-06 306377 3.142 -1.32956E-09 -1.39249E-10
Total 8.66133E-06 230912
Note: Obtain the value of the second moment of area along the opening by inserting the values of A & B only
Appendix E 288
Solid
A C F section
M M
BA
A C F Section Section
Section
A-A C-C F-F
a) An equivalent non-uniform solid section
Solid
A D section
M M
BA
A D Section
Section
A-A D-D
b) An equivalent stepped solid section
Fig. 5.2: Conversion of circular opening to a non-uniform solid section (step 1)
(REPEATED FOR CLARITY)
Appendix E 289
APPENDIX F : (CHAPTER 6) EFFECT OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ON FLANGE
DEFORMATIONS
F1 DESIGN PARAMETERS- FLANGES OF THE CELLULAR BEAM
The second moment of area of the flanges in a cellular beam is a function of several
design parameters such as D , S , l , hw , t w , B , and t f (see Table F.1 and Fig. F.1).
Table F.1: Cellular beam design variable parameters

Design Dia. Of Dist. bet. Span Web Web Flange Flange Number of
parameters opening opening of height thick, width thick. combinations
centres beam
Symbols D S l hw tw B tf All
Number of
33 6 330 36 80 106 109 2.1742X10^12
possibility
These parameters vary and have an effect on the deformation of the beam flanges. In
this section investigations will be undertaken to determine the deformation correction
factor a f for the flanges using numerical method (FEA program LUSAS).
Section A-A
A
Fig. F.1: Cellular beam showing the relevant parameters
Table F.1 shows that there are 7 variable parameters that need to be investigated
thoroughly to shed light on the problem. Before discussing the effect of each design
parameter, it is worth knowing the number possible combinations of these variable
parameters. The number of possibilities is based on the following assumptions:
D : assuming 25mm increment (150-1000mm); S : assuming 50mm increment (1.20-
1.5D); l ; assuming 100mm increment (3000-35000mm); for hw , t w , B f and t f : refer to
Westok catalogue (Westok, 2012) and Appendix A2. From the Table F.1 it is clear that
the number of combinations is too large to be able to solve the problem. Therefore
effort will be made to understand first the effect of each individual parameter and
Appendix F 290
secondly seek the possibility of combining some of them and reduce the number of
combinations
F1.1 Effect of design parameters
As discussed before, cellular I-beams are the products of Universal beams being
castellated. As a result a number of openings will be in the web. The diameter of the
opening ‘ D ’ is a function of the depth of the universal beam or the depth of the
produced cellular beam. The diameter of the opening, in practice, usually varies
between 0.70 and 0.75 of the depth of the web of the cellular beam and it is usually a
multiple of 25mm such as 150, 450mm, 525mm, 600mm, etc. The diameter of the
opening is approximately equivalent to the height of the parent UB ( D» h ).
The spacings (cell pitch) between the openings ‘ S ’ usually vary between minimum
1.08D and 1.6D (MACSTEEL, March 2003). In practice the spacing between the
openings for a lightly loaded cellular roof beam is usually 1.25 times the diameter of the
opening. And for a floor beam the spacing is usually 1.5 times the diameter of the
opening. The Span ‘ l ’ of the beam is a variable parameter and dependent on the gap
the beam requires to bridge. The depth ‘ hw ’ of the beam web is dependent on the span
and the diameter of the opening that is required to incorporate the services through.
Thickness of the web ‘ t w ’ also varies for each type of beam and weight configuration.
Width of the flange ‘ B ’ and Thickness of the flange ‘ t f ’ in solid Universal Beam or
a Cellular Beam varies for each type of beam (Corus, 2002). It should be noted that the
geometry of the flange and the thickness of the web are the same for both the solid
Universal and Cellular I-beams.
F1.2 Selection methodology of samples for analyses
In the following sections the effect of each individual parameter has been considered.
The methodology adopted comprises of the following. A number of beams will be
selected from the sub-groups (Fig. A1, Appendix A1) for analyses making sure it
Appendix F 291
satisfies the intended purpose. It also represents the sub-groups and ultimately the
parent beam population.
F1.3 Effect of opening diameter ‘D’
Deformations other than bending are very much associated with the presence of
openings in the web and their size. Analyses have been undertaken to determine the
effect of the size of the opening on both the bending and the other associated
deformations in the flanges.
Bending and shear deformations
From the UB sub-groups (Fig. A1) three different types of cellular beams have been
selected to represent the Westok cellular beam sections. Beam1 (421.4x5.8) is to
represent small size beams; Beam 2 (832.8x10.5) is to represent medium size beams
and Beam 3 (1252.3x15.1) is to represent large size beams. The selection of the
beams has been random in each group. For each type of beam, one size of opening is
generally applicable. The findings from these beams will satisfy the intended objectives
of the analyses and represent all the beam section types. For determining the effect of
diameter, the opening size has been varied for each beam type as shown below in
Table F.2. The aim is to determine the effect of opening diameter on the shear
deformation of the flanges. For Beam 1 the bending and shear deformations have been
calculated in the flanges for three span/depth ratios and ultimately both bending and
shear deformations as a % of the total deformation has been calculated (Fig. F.3).
Table F.2: Effect of diameter, investigated beam details

Universal Beam Cellular beam l No. of D (mm) l
Type openings hw
Web size Flange size (mm )
4200 9 9.97
Beam 1
305x102x25Kg 421.4x5.8 101.6x 6.8 6000 13 14.24
200,225,250,275,300
7800 17 18.51
Beam 2 8400 9 10.08
610x229x101Kg 832.8x10.5 227.6x14.8 13800 750, 800,850,900, 950
15 16.57
Beam 9900 9 7.905
914x305x 201Kg 1252.3x15.1 303.3x201. 19620 600,650,750, 800,900, 950
18 15.667
Appendix F 292
The flange deformation correction factors for the flanges have also been calculated
versus opening diameter (Fig. F.4). While for Beams 2 and 3 the results are tabulated
(Table F.3).
The adopted methodology for the analysis of Beam 1 entails the following steps:
1. The cellular I-beam sections discussed above have been modelled using Finite
Element programme LUSAS (Fig. F.2) and the total displacements at mid-span
have been calculated for a point load of 5.0kN.
2. For the CWB the equivalent second moment of area I weq has been determined
using formulas 5.13a, 5.13b, 5.15, and 5.34.
3. For the flanges the second moment of area of the flanges (bending component)
é h tf ù
I fb has been calculated using equation 1.1a ê I fb = B t f ( w + ) 2 ú
ë 2 2 û
Element type: Thin shell- QSI4

Element size: 50mm
Closer view
on one panel
Isometric view
Fig. F.2: Modelling of the cellular beam
4. The above two I values (steps 2 and 3) have been added ( I weq + I fb ) for the
cellular beam and the displacement at mid-span is calculated using the basic
bending formula.
5. The shear deformation in the flanges has been determined by subtracting the total
calculated displacement using the FEA (step 1) from the hand calculated
Appendix F 293
displacement (step 4). As a result it has been possible to determine the %
contribution of shear and bending in the flanges.
6. The ‘ a f ’ has been calculated by dividing either the second moment of area of the
flanges (step 3) by the second moment of area of the flanges calculated using
D fT
FEA. Or alternatively the ’ a f ’ can be determined using equation 6 .3d ( a f = ),
D fb
where ( a f ³ 1.0 ).
Fig. F.3 shows that the flange shear deformation increases as the opening diameter
increases providing the other parameters such as ‘span/depth’ ratio and ‘spacing’ are
kept constant. On the other hand the bending deformation relatively decreases as the
opening diameter increases. It is also clear from the figure that the % shear
deformation is relatively greater for the lower span depth ratios.
Flange bending and shear deformations versus opening diameter

Bending and shear deformations as % of total
100
90
80
Bending
70
60 span depth ratio 9.97 span depth ratio 9.97
50 span depth ratio 14.24 span depth ratio 14.24
40 span depth ratio 18.51 span depth ration 18.51
30
Shear
20
10
0
175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Fig. F.3: The effect of ’ D ’ on the shear and bending deformations
Fig. F.4 shows that ’ a f ’ reduces as the opening diameter reduces for all span depth
ratios. It is also clear from the figure that the flange deformation factor is greater for
lower span depth ratios. In addition the variation is not linear. More interestingly the ’
a f ’ is 1.0 when the span to depth ratio is high, more than a limit and the diameter is
small. For Beam 2 and 3 (Table F.2), the results of the FEA together with the hand
Appendix F 294
analyses have been tabulated in Table F.3. The adopted methodology is similar to
Beam 1.
Fig. F.4: Flange shear deformation correction factor versus the opening diameter
Table F.3: Effect of opening diameter Beam 2 and 3

Beam
Type
l No. of
openin
D I weq Hand I fb * I value
Cellular ** D cbT ***Disp.
FEA
% Diff.
between
(mm ) gs (mm ) Method Hand Beam- Hand Dis. FEA
Displacement (mm )
Ana. and Hand
cm 4 Hand Method
4 Ana.
cm cm 4 (mm )
400 43397 164409 0.394 0.431 8.53
450 41391 162403 0.399 0.445 10.25
500 38716 121012 159728 0.406 0.464 12.60
600 31015 152027 0.426 0.536 20.44
8400 9 650 25855 146866 0.441 0.605 26.98
Beam 2 700 19765 140777 0.461 0.725 36.51
400 46167 167179 2.824 2.892 2.31
450 44289 165300 2.856 2.947 3.06
500 41750 121012 162762 2.901 2.957 1.88
600 34313 155325 3.040 3.303 7.94
13800 15 650 29245 150256 3.142 3.551 11.48
700 23153 144165 3.275 3.965 17.39
600 211692 707766 0.463 0.499 7.24
650 205559 701632 0.467 0.509 8.21
700 198061 694134 0.472 0.522 9.47
800 178431 496073 674504 0.486 0.558 12.86
900 151833 647906 0.506 0.619 18.28
12600 9 950 135687 631760 0.519 0.667 22.15
1000 117549 613622 0535 0.734 27.16
600 227895 723968 6.748 6.802 0.78
Beam 3 650 222227 718300 6.802 6.877 1.10
700 215217 711290 6.868 6.973 1.48
800 196597 692671 7.053 7.241 2.59
900 170966 667039 7.324 7.670 4.50
24750 18 950 155224 651298 7.501 7.982 6.02
496073
1000 137351 633424 7.713 8.397 8.14
* The second moment of area of the cellular beam calculated by adding I weq with I fb
5wl 4
** Hand Method; Total displacement at mid-span D cbT =
384 E ( I w + I f )
eq b
*** FE Method; Total displacement at mid-span calculated using FEA
Remarks: the results in the table show that as the diameter of the opening increases
the deformations in the flanges increases too. As the span reduces the flange
deformation increases. This is obvious in the table for both beam types.
Appendix F 295
F1.4 Effect of opening spacing ‘ S ’
Numerical analyses have been undertaken on a number of cellular beams with different
opening spacing configurations. All other parameters apart from the spacing S
between opening centrelines have been kept unchanged. The selection of the beams
from the sub-group is random (Fig. A1) and the selection will satisfy the objective of the
analysis. The same methodology adopted in section F.1.3 has been pursued to
determine the % difference between the hand and FEA analyses (Table F.4). It should
be noted that the hand method included the bending and shear deformation of the
cellular web together with the bending of the flanges only. The shear deformation of the
flanges has not accounted for. However from the table it is apparent that the %
difference in deflection between the FEA and the hand analyses increases as the
opening spacing reduces. This indicates that the deformation in the flanges increases
as the opening spacing reduces.
F1.5 Effect of span of beam ‘ l ’
From the past analyses the effect of span is rather known and straightforward.
However numerical analyses have been undertaken on one particular beam with
different span configurations. The selection of this beam is random and it will achieve
the same objective regardless of which beam is selected from the sub-group (Fig. A1,
Appendix A1). All other parameters apart from the span have been kept the same. The
methodology pursued in section F.1.3 has been adopted. The results of the analyses
are shown in Table F.5 below.
F1.6 Effect of height of the web ‘ hw ’
The effect of the web height is more or less inter-related with the effect of opening
diameter. Numerical analyses have been undertaken on a number of beams. The
selection will achieve the intended objectives. All other parameters apart from the web
height have been kept unchanged. The methodology pursued in section F.1.3 has
been adopted. The results of the analyses are shown in Table F.6 below. From the
Appendix F 296
table it is apparent that the % difference in deflection between the FEA and the hand
analyses reduces as the span of the cellular beam increases. As the web height
reduces in relation to the opening diameter (this means as ‘ D / hw ’ increases) the flange
deformation increases too.
Appendix F 297
Table F.4: Effect of opening spacing (number of openings) ‘ S ’
* D cb
Beam Web Flange size l No. of D S E UDL Equivalent I I value I value **Disp. FEA % Diff.
Type size openin kN / m value Web- Flanges Cellular T (mm) between
(mm)
gs
(mm) kN / m 2 Hand (bending) Beam- Disp. Hand Dis. FEA
Method cm 4 Hand Ana. Method and Hand
cm 4
cm 4 (mm) Ana.
11 1.500D 26171 102843 0.8033 0.996 24.0

732.7
533x210x82 208.8x13.2 8925 12 525 1.385D 25755 76672 102427 0.8065 1.036 28.5
x9.6
13 1.285D 25403 102075 0.8093 1.081 33.5
200 2
9 1.500D
1252.3
914x305x201 303.3x20.2 12600 10 900 1.363D 496073
x15.1
11 1.25D
Table F.5: Effect of span ‘ l ’

l * D cb
Web size Flange size No. of D l E UDL Equivalent I I value I value Cellular **Disp. FEA % Diff.
(mm ) openin hw 2 value Web- Flanges Beam- Hand T (mm ) between Dis.
(mm ) kN / m
gs kN / m Hand Method (bending) Ana. Disp. Hand FEA and Hand
cm 4 cm 4 cm 4 Method Ana.
(mm )
6925 13 11.791 10180 44820 0.668 0.957 43.3
7450 14 12.685 10180 44820 0.895 1.236 38.1
8500 16 14.470 10185 44825 1.516 1.965 29.6
9025 17 15.336 10185 44825 1.927 2.431 26.1
587.3x7.6 177.6x10.9 9550 18 425 16.260 200 2 10187 34640 44827 2.416 2.898 23.7
10075 19 17.154 10187 44827 2.993 3.627 21.2
11125 21 18.940 10188 44828 4.449 5.232 17.6
11650 22 19.836 10188 44828 5.350 6.220 16.3
14275 27 24.306 10212 44852 12.055 13.385 11.0
15850 30 26.987 10212 44852 18.322 20.005 9.2
Table F.6: Effect of web height ‘ h w ’

l * D cb
Web size Flange size No. of D E UDL D / hw Equivalent I I value I value Cellular **Disp. FEA % Diff.
(mm) opening (mm) 2 value Web- Flanges Beam- Hand T (mm) between Dis.
s kN / m Hand Ana. Disp. Hand FEA and
kN / m
Method cm 4 cm 4 Method (mm) Hand Ana.
cm 4
709.4 X 9.6 0.74 18707 71957 90664 1.1141 1.365 18.38
719.1 X 9.6 208.8 X 13.2 9.385 13 525 200 2 0.73 19138 73901 93039 1.0857 1.316 17.50
729.1 X 9.6 0.72 19994 75933 95927 1.0530 1.269 17.02
739.4 X 9,6 0.71 21401 78055 99456 1.0156 1.225 17.12
5wl 4
* Hand Method; Total displacement D cbT at mid-span =
384E( I weq + I f b )
** FE Method; Total displacement at mid-span calculated using FEA
Appendix F 298
F1.7 Effect of thickness of the web ‘ t w ’
It is worth reminding ourselves that the previous study on the CWB (chapter 4)
revealed that the web thickness has no effect on the shear deformation of the cellular
web beam. While within the cellular beam, the effect of the web thickness on the flange
deformation is apparent. One cellular beam has been selected for analysis. It is thought
that the finding from the analysis on this cellular beam will satisfy the same objectives if
any other beam is selected from the sub-group (Fig. A1, Appendix A1). It can be seen
from Table F.7 that all other parameters apart from the web thickness have been kept
unchanged. The methodology pursued in section F.1.3 has been adopted. It is
apparent from the table that the flange deformation increases as the web thickness
reduces.
F1.8 Effect of Width of the flange ‘ B ’
Numerical analyses have been undertaken on selected three pairs of cellular beam
configurations. The findings from the analysis on these cellular beams will satisfy the
intended objectives and represent all beams in the sub-group cellular UBs (Fig. A1,
Appendix A1). For each pair all other parameters apart from the flange width have
been kept unchanged. The methodology pursued in section F.1.3 has been adopted.
The results of the analyses are shown in Table 6.9. From the table it is apparent that
flange deformation increases as the flange width increases.
F1.9 Effect of thickness of flange ‘ t f ’
One beam type has been selected for analyses. The selection of one cellular beam is
based on the fact that the finding from the analysis on this beam would be the same if
any other beam is selected from the sub-group cellular UBs. All other parameters
apart from the flange thickness have been kept unchanged as shown in Table F.9.
Appendix F 299
Table F.7: Effect of web thickness ‘ t w ’
* D cb
l No. of D E UDL Equivalent I I value I value Cellular % Diff.
opening kN / m value Web- Flanges Beam- Hand T **Disp. FEA between Dis. FEA
(mm) (mm) 2
Web size Flange size s kN / m Hand Method Ana. Disp. Hand and Hand Ana.
cm 4 (mm)
cm 4 cm 4 Method (mm)
732.7x15.6 31799 108471 0.6839 0.7797 9.58
732.7x12.6 25684 102356 0.7247 0.8540 12.66
76672
732.7x9.6 208.8x9.6 8688 12 525 200 2 19569 96241 0.7708 0.9529 18.21
732.7x6.6 13454 90126 0.8231 1.1016 27.85
732.7x4.6 9377 86049 0.7911 1.2692 47.81
Table F.8: Effect of flange width ‘ B ’

* D cb
l No. of l D E UDL Equivalent I I value I value Cellular % Diff.
openin hw 2 kN / m value Web- Flanges Beam- Hand T **Disp. FEA between Dis. FEA
(mm) (mm) kN / m
Web size Flange size gs Hand (bending 0nly) Ana. Disp. Hand (mm) and Hand Ana.
Method cm 4 cm 4 Method (mm)
4
587.3 121.75x15.9 34640 44820 0.364 0.488 25.4
x7.6 5950 9 10.13 425 7565
177.6x15.9 50525 60705 0.268 0.390 31.3
123.0x10.2 11230 13586 1.658 1.844 10.09
412.9 200 2
6450 14 15.62 300 2356
x6.1 165.0x10.2 15067 17423 1.293 1.5002 15.81
123.0x10.2 11230 13711 11.543 11.838 2.50
412.9
10500 23 25.43 300 2481
x6.1 165.0x10.2 15067 17548 9.019 9.442 4.48
Table F.9Table F.9: Effect of flange thickness ‘ t f ’

l * D cb
No. of D l E UDL Equivalent I I value I value Cellular % Diff.
opening hw kN / m value Web- Flanges Beam- Hand T **Disp. FEA between Dis.
Web size Flange size
(mm)
s
(mm) kN / m 2 Hand (bending only) Ana. Disp. Hand FEA and Hand
(mm)
Method cm 4 cm 4 Method (mm) Ana.
4
177.6x5.0 15576 23141 1.294 1.474 12.21
177.6x7.5 23563 31128 0.962 1.185 18.90
587.3
177.6x8.0 6925 13 425 11.79 200 2 7565 25177 32742 0.915 1.143 19.95
x7.6
177.6x10.9 34640 42205 0.709 0.957 25.91
177.6x15.0 48330 55895 0.535 0.796 32.79
177.6x20.0 65525 73090 0.409 0.675 39.40
5wl 4
* Hand Method; Total displacement D cbT at mid-span =
384E ( I weq + I fb )
** FE Method; Total displacement at mid-span calculated using FEA
Appendix F 300
The same methodology pursued in section F.1.3 has been adopted. From the table it is
apparent that as the flange thickness increases the flange deformation increases too.
F1.10 Remarks
It is worthwhile to clarify few points on the tables before we embark on discussing the
effect of each variable parameter on the flange deformation. All the tables contain a
column where displacements have been determined using the hand method. These
displacements account for the shear and bending deformation in the web plus the
bending deformation in the flanges. On the other hand all the tables contain another
column where the displacements from the FEA are obtained. These displacements
account for the total deformations (bending and shear in both the cellular web beam
and the flanges) which are taking place in the cellular beam under transverse loads.
The column highlighted in green provides the % difference between the two sets of
displacements which is a measure of the shear deformation in the flanges.
The following can be noted from the tables:
· The bigger the size of the opening diameter the greater the shear deformation in
the flanges (Fig. F.3, Table F.3). The reason is as follows. The bigger size of the
opening diameter leads to bigger span of the flanges in the opening projection. As a
result this leads to greater deformations in the flanges at the opening centres.
· As the opening spacing increases the % difference between the two analyses and
so as the deformation in the flanges reduces (Table F.4). The reason behind this is as
follows. As the opening spacing increase the width web-post relatively increases. This
leads to a reduction in the shear deformation in the web-post and the deformation in at
the flanges between the openings.
· The smaller is the span (Table F.5) the greater the shear deformation in the
flanges. This is obviously compatible with the fact that the bending and shear
deformations vary differently with the span. The bending deformation increases rapidly
as the span increases in length. It varies in a parabolic shape. While the shear
Appendix F 301
deformation varies linearly as the span increases. On the other hand as the span
decreases in length the % difference between the two reduces. In other words the
shear deformation relatively increases in the cellular beam as the span reduces in
length. The greater shear in the beam at any section leads to a greater relative shear
deformation in the flanges.
· As the web thickness reduces in size (Table F.7) the % difference between the two
analyses, which is a measure of the shear deformation factor, increases.
The explanation is as follows. As the web thickness reduces the shear deformation in
the web-post increases and this consequently leads to an increase in the shear
deformation of the flanges D fs .
· As the size of the flanges increases (Tables F.8 and F.9) the shear deformation in
the flanges decreases. The reason behind this is as follows. The bigger the relative
size of the flanges obviously leads to an increase of the second moment of area of the
flanges. This consequently leads to a reduction in the displacement in the flanges.
· Overall it can be argued that in general a reduction in the size of the web as a
result of an increase in opening diameter, reduction in the thickness of the web, and
reduced opening spacing leads to an increase in shear deformation of the flanges.
In summary the flanges will undergo shear deformation similar to the cellular web, but
with different magnitude and type. This will become clearer as the research advances
and once a better understanding is obtained.
F2 COMBINING OF DESIGN PARAMETERS
It is apparent from the above analyses that the deformation of the flanges is not simply
limited to bending. The flanges undergo shear deformations as well as bending. The
shear deformation of the flanges in a cellular beam is significant and cannot be
ignored. It was clear from the above analyses that each design parameter has different
degree of effect on the shear deformation of the flanges. Attempts will now be made to
Appendix F 302
study the design parameters further and reduce them to a more manageable numbers
by combining some of them.
F2.1 Combine the flange width B with thickness t f as A f
It is possible to combine the width and thickness of the flange into one parameter which
is the area of the flange A f . To verify this, three different types of cellular beams with
different configurations have been selected for investigation (Table F.10). The selection
is based on the fact that the findings from the limited selected beams will represent the
cellular UB (Fig. A1, Appendix A1) and satisfy the intended objectives. As it can be
seen from the table that for each beam configuration type the flange width and the
thickness have been varied but kept the flange area A f the same for both. As
anticipated the % difference in deflection between the FEA and the hand analyses
reduces as the span of the cellular increases. More interestingly the % difference
between the two analyses for each pair is the same. This suggests that the two
parameters B and t f can be combined as one single design parameter, area of the
flange A f .
F2.2 Combine span ‘ l ’ and depth of the web ‘ hw ’ as span depth ratio ‘ l / hw ’
As previously discussed the span and depth of the web can be combined to single
variable as span to depth ratio. The justification for combining the two is given in
section 5.3.2.
F2.3 Combine spacing ‘ S ’ and diameter of the opening ‘ D ’ as S / D
It has been discussed previously that the spacing between the openings is a function of
the diameter of the opening. The spacing varies between 1.20/1.25 and 1.5 times the
diameter. These two design parameters can be combined together as S / D .
Appendix F 303
Table F.10: Effect of the area of the flange ‘ A f ’
Beam Web Flange size Area l No. of D l E UDL Equivalent I I value I value Cellular Disp. Disp. % Diff.
Type size of Op. hw value Web- Hand FEA Dis.
kN / m 2 Flan. Beam-
each (mm) kN / m Hand Method Hand Ana. Method (mm )
(mm ) Ben. cm 4
flange cm 4 4 (mm )
cm
(mm 2 )
587.3 177.6x10.9 0.386 0.490 21.7

1 1935.8 5950 9 425 10.13 7565.7 34640
x7.6 121.75x15.9 42205.7 0.386 0.490 21.7
412.9 122.846x13.7 200 2 1.293 1.500 13.78
2 1683.0 6450 14 300 15.62 2357.2 15067 17423.2
x6.1 165.0x10.2 1.293 1.500 13.78
412.9 122.846x13.7 9.020 9.442 4.48
3 1683.0 10500 23 300 25.43 2481.0 15067 17423.2
x6.1 165.0x10.2 9.020 9.442 4.48
Appendix F 304
F2.4 Revised design parameters
From the above analyses it has been possible to combine together a number of design
parameters. Table F.1 can now be revised incorporating the combined design
parameters (Table F.11).
Table F.11: Revised design parameters

Design Opening spacing to Span to depth Web thick, Flange area Number of
parameters diameter ratio ratio combinations
Symbols S/D l / hw tw Af All

Number of
33 330 80 109 94.9X10^6
possibilities
From the above table it is clear that the number of combinations has reduced
compared with those in table F.1. However the number of combinations is still
significant to be able to find a numerical solution to the problem.
Appendix F 305

Deflection, Stress Distribution and Failure Modes of Castellated Steel Beams

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

Deflection, Stress Distribution and Failure Modes of Castellated Steel Beams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEFLECTION, STRESS DISTRIBUTION AND FAILURE

MODES OF CELLULAR BEAMS

A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of

In the Faculty of Science and Engineering

School of Mechanical, Aerospace & Civil Engineering

LIST OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3 NUMERICAL MODELLING, DEVELOPEMENT AND VALIDATION .................................. 76

CHAPTER 4 NORMAL AND SHEAR STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS ....................................................... 100

CHAPTER 5 EQUIVALENT SECOND MOMENT OF AREA OF CELLULAR WEB................................ 121

5.3.6.1 Case 1: Diameter/depth ratio (0.71) ....................................................................... 150

5.5 LIMITATION ........................................................................................................................... 162

CHAPTER 6 THE EFFECTIVE SECOND MOMENT OF AREA OF FLANGES .................................... 165

CHAPTER 7 EXAMPLES AND COMPARISONS ................................................................................ 192

7.2.1.3 Determination of the effective I value of the flanges I f ef ................................................. 195

7.2.1.5 Finite element analysis .................................................................................................. 198

7.2.2.2 Determination of the effective I value of the flanges I f ef ................................................. 201

7.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPOSED AND EXISTING METHODS ........................................... 204

CHAPTER 8 INTERACTION OF FAILURE MODES ............................................................................ 218

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 242

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 251

APPENDIX A: (CHAPTER 1) ................................................................................................................. 256

APPENDIX B: (CHAPTER 2) ................................................................................................................. 261

APPENDIX C: (CHAPTER 3) ................................................................................................................. 278

APPENDIX D: (CHAPTER 4) ................................................................................................................. 280

APPENDIX F: (CHAPTER 6) EFFECT OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ON FLANGE DEFORMATIONS .... 290

F1.10 Remarks......................................................................................................... 301

Total word count (including appendices): 67,813

FIG. 1.1: DIFFERENT USAGE OF CELLULAR BEAMS IN CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 21

TABLE F.10: EFFECT OF THE AREA OF THE FLANGE ‘ Af ’ .................................................................................. 304

This research aims to gain a thorough understanding of the serviceability behaviour of

This page must form part of any such copies made.

intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any introductions of copyright

Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.

Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering and for its candidates.

Working for many years in an engineering environment has impacted on my style of

purposes and address different audiences. Dr T. Ji played a significant role in guiding me

to write my thesis in a presentable manner, it is greatly appreciated.

advice regarding the direction of the PhD thesis.

I would like to thank my company (Scott Wilson/URS/AECOM) who have contributed in

part funding the research study.

for his support in solving a number of cellular beam examples independently.

Ab The cross sectional areas of the bottom tee

Af Area of the flange of the cellular beam

A fict Area of steel beam with solid web

AT Area of tee section

At Cross sectional area of the top tee

B Width of the flange

D Diameter of the opening of the cellular beam

E Modulus of elasticity of the steel beam

G Modulus of rigidity of the steel beam

h Height of the parent solid I-beam

H Total height of the cellular beam

hheq Equivalent solid uniform height of opening

hq Equivalent height of the cellular web beam at q from horizontal

hw Height of the cellular web beam

hweq Equivalent uniform section of the cellular web

Ib The second moment of areas of the bottom tee section

I beam Second moment of area of a solid beam

I cbT The total effective second moment of area of cellular beam

I cbTb The total bending second moment of area of cellular beam

I fb The bending second moment of area of flanges

I fef Effective second moment of area of cellular beam flanges