Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Vertical shear buckling capacity of web-posts in castellated steel beams

with llet corner hexagonal web openings
Peijun Wang , Xudong Wang, Ning Ma
Civil Engineering Department, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province 200056, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 October 2013
Revised 10 June 2014
Accepted 11 June 2014

Keywords:
Castellated steel beam
Fillet corner hexagonal opening
Web-post buckling
Strut Model

a b s t r a c t
The shear buckling behavior of the web-post in a castellated steel beam with llet corner hexagonal web
openings is studied using the nite element method. The buckling modes and buckling capacity of the
web-post in the castellated beam with llet corner hexagonal web openings are compared with those
having circular and elongated circular openings. The web-post in a castellated steel beam with the proposed opening shape can achieve as good structural performance as that with circular openings. The
effects of the opening distance, the opening height, and the web thickness on the buckling behavior of
the web-post are investigated. The Strut Model is modied for predicating the shear buckling capacity
of the web-post in the castellated steel beam with llet corner openings. The equivalent rectangular
opening is also modied to calculate the Vierendeel failure capacity of the castellated steel beam with
the llet corner hexagonal openings at the perforated sections. The load bearing capacity of the castellated steel beam with the proposed opening shape is the minimum value among the web-post buckling
capacity, the Vierendeel failure capacity at the perforated section, and the shear rupture capacity of the
horizontal weld.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Through cutting and re-welding a solid web steel beam, the
obtained castellated steel beam (CSB) not only has higher bending
capacity compared with its parent section, but also is more convenient in terms of passing service pipes, wires and ventilating ducts
through openings. The structural performance and failure modes of
the web-post in a CSB vary greatly depending on the opening
shapes, the opening dimensions, the distance between the openings, the web-post thickness, etc. The CSB may be failed by one
of the six failure modes [1,2]:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Flexural or shear strength failure of the section.

Global lateral torsional buckling of the beam.
Local buckling of the ange or the web.
Rupture of weld in the web-post.
Vierendeel failure at the perforated section.
Web-post buckling.

The rst three failure modes may also happen in a solid web
steel beam. The web-post buckling and the Vierendeel failure at
the perforated section are the two main concerns of the CSB. For
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13808930272; fax: +86 531 88392843.
E-mail address: tjwangpj@gmail.com (P. Wang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.019
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the length limit of the paper, only the web-post buckling failure
mode is studied here. The Vierendeel failure of a CSB with llet
corner hexagonal openings will be studied in the companion paper.
A modied MV interaction curve for the perforated section is
presented there.
Many researches have been carried out on the web-post
buckling behavior in CSBs with standard circular or hexagonal
openings. Aglan et al. [3] investigated effects of the opening distance on the web-post buckling strength in a CSB with hexagonal
opening using Finite Element Method (FEM). Redwood et al. [2]
proposed a coefcient k for calculating the web-post buckling
capacity, which depended on the opening distance and web thickness. Instead of using one coefcient k, Demirdjian [4] provided a
shear buckling coefcient kv and a exural buckling coefcient kb
for calculating the web-post buckling capacity. A wedge model,
presented by Osgood and amended by Olander [5], was used to calculate the maximum compressive stress and the critical stress
position around the hexagonal opening. However, this model is
too conservative for a CSB with narrow web-posts.
Lawson et al. [6] proposed an optimization method in determining the maximum compressive stress and the critical stress position
around the circular opening based on equilibrium condition.
Tsavdaridis and DMello [7] investigated the web-post buckling on
cellular steel beams with novel opening shapes employing the Strut
Model. Their research results indicated that the cellular steel beam

316

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

Fig. 1. CSBs with various opening shapes. Source: http://www.asdwestok.co.uk.

with vertical and inclined elliptical openings performed much better

than those with conventional circular and hexagonal openings [8].
Ellobody et al. [9] studied the behavior of the CSB failed by the combined web distortional and web-post buckling. They concluded that
the load bearing capacity of the CSB would be overestimated if the
buckling mode interaction was ignored. Abidin et al. [10] employed
the Element Free Galerkin method to assess the local buckling
behavior of a CSB with different opening shapes. Erdal et al. [11]
studied effects of loading position and lateral restraint on CSBs failed
by combined local buckling, web-post buckling and Vierendeel failure. Durif et al. [12] investigated the web-post buckling behaviors of
a CSB with sinusoidal openings. Abidin et al. [13] employed the
Element Free Galerkin method to study the local buckling of steel
beams with irregular web openings.
A wide range of opening shapes and sizes are required in oor
beams because of the various requirements on service arrangements, as shown in Fig. 1. A CSB with llet corner hexagonal openings is presented in this paper. The web opening is obtained
through llet the corner of the rectangular or hexagonal opening,
as shown in Fig. 2. The radius of the llet should be greater than
15 mm in order to reduce the stress concentration at the opening
corners. At the same time, it should not be greater than 1/4 of
the opening height. The opening height d0 and opening width b0
are determined as results of the opening optimization study. When
d0, b0, and r are determined, the opening distance S and the net
width of the web-post S0 are determined as

S 2b0

S0 b0  2r

Compared with the CSB with circular web openings, the CSB
with the llet corner hexagonal openings only needs once cutting
and no expansion ratio is lost. Compared with the CSB with hexagonal opening, the stress concentration at the straight corner can be
reduced. Apparently, the web-post may get cracks due to cyclic or
fatigue loading along the welding line due to the shape of the llet.
This will be discussed in the companion paper.
Tsavdaridis and DMello [7] and Durif et al. [12] had proposed
opening shapes with llet corners for cellular steel beams. The
openings were obtained through introducing llet corners to the
middle height of the circular openings, the elliptical openings, or
the sinusoidal openings. Beams with these kinds of opening can
only be made from an H-section steel beam by cutting the steel
off the web following the opening shape. The load bearing capacity
of the cellular steel beam will not be increased. Only the weight of
the beam is reduced for some steel in the web is cut off. The CSB
with the llet corner hexagonal openings presented here can be
manufactured through cutting an H-section steel beam in a zigzag
pattern then re-welding the two parts together. The load bearing
capacity of the CSB will be increased for the increased section
height.
The Strut Model was rst proposed to calculate the web-post
buckling strength in a castellated or cellular steel beam with circular web openings. The stability of the web-post is checked using
buckling curves of steel columns. Tsavdaridis and DMello [7] modied the Strut Model for checking the stability of the web-post in a
cellular steel beam with lleted circular openings, lleted elliptical
openings and inclined elliptical openings. However, the Strut
Model used by Tsavdaridis and DMello [7] did not include benecial effects of the round corner to the shear buckling of the webpost. For the web-post width and the opening length in a CSB are
not independent, the incline angle of the strut and the compression
force acting on the strut both need to be modied when the Strut
Model is used to check the stability of the web-post in a CSB with
the llet corner hexagonal openings.
The stability of the perforated web in a CSB can also be checked
by dividing it into three parts, which were the web-post, the tee
sections above and below the opening. All parts were checked
based on the thin shell stability theory. However, this method
was complex, and there were ambiguities in the partition division
and the boundary condition denition [14].
Compared with the CSB with polygon openings, the load bearing capacity of a CSB with the llet corner openings can be
increased by 1015% [15] for the stress concentration is reduced
by eliminating the straight corners of hexagonal openings. Wang
and Ma [16] showed that the MV curve of a CSB with the llet

Fig. 2. CSB with llet corner hexagonal openings.

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

corner hexagonal openings can achieve as good performance as

that of a CSB with circular openings.
In this paper, the web-post buckling behavior in the CSB with
the llet corner hexagonal opening is investigated using nite element method. Differences in buckling strengths and buckling
modes of web-posts in CSBs with different opening shapes are presented. The Strut Model is modied for predicating the web-post
buckling strength in the CSB with the llet corner hexagonal opening. The effective width be, the effective length le and the compression force Vh in the Strut Model are all modied for the new shaped
web-post. The equivalent rectangular opening for simplifying the

(a) CSBs with the circular and the fillet corner openings

(b) CSBs with elongated openings with different opening distances

317

calculation of Vierendeel failure capacity at the perforated section

is also modied for the llet corner opening.
2. Finite element model and validation
2.1. Finite element model
The studied CSB was made of H-section steel beam
H450  152  10.9  7.6 with steel grade of S355 (fy = 355 MPa).
The web thickness was selected to be thin enough to assure that
the CSB was failed by web-post buckling instead of by the
Vierendeel failure at the perforated section. Web stiffeners were
added at the supports and the beam mid-span where the concentrated force acted to prevent the local buckling of the web [17].
Three groups of CSBs were analyzed to show effects of the opening
shapes on web-post buckling behaviors, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The
shear-to-moment ratios of each web-post at beams in Fig. 3 are different. However, the shear force is the load that causes the buckling of a web-post. The global bending moment is mainly
resistant by the two anges and its effects of the global moment
on the web-post shear buckling can be ignored. On the other hand,
if the research object is the Vierendeel failure at the perforated section, the shear-to-moment ratio will be a key parameter.
The nite element software ABAQUS was used to investigate
the bucking behavior of the web-post. The anges and the webpost were meshed using the shell element, S4R, in ABAQUS. The
Youngs modulus of steel was taken as 200GPa and the Poissons
ratio as 0.3. The measured yield strength of steel was 375.3 MPa
for model verication and 355 MPa (normalized yield strength)
for parameter analyses.
Three mesh sizes were studied to show effects of mesh density on
buckling behaviors of the web-post, as shown in Fig. 4. The predicated loaddeection curve of the web-post meshed by the size of
30 mm was a little higher than those meshed by sizes of 10 mm
and 5 mm, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The load bearing capacity of the
web-post was 215 kN when it was meshed by the element with size
of 30 mm; and those were 212 kN when they were meshed by the
element with sizes of 10 mm and 5 mm. The difference was only
1.4%. Hence, it was accurate enough to use the 30 mm mesh size
and the element number could be reduced by 75% compare with
the model meshed by element size of 10 mm. The beam will be
meshed using the size of 30 mm in the following parametric study.
Initial out-of-plane geometrical imperfection of the web-post
took the rst order elastic buckling mode obtained from the
Buckling Analysis. The maximum out-of-plane displacement was
taken as 1 mm. The Riks Method was used to capture the whole
loaddisplacement curve of the CSB. The peak value of the load
displacement curve was dened as the buckling capacity of the
web-post.
2.2. Model verication

(c) CSBs with fillet corner hexagonal

openings with different opening distances
Fig. 3. CSBs with different openings.

The deections of the CSB at three locations were compared, as

shown in Fig. 5(b). The deections at position 3 obtained by the
test, the FE model of Tsavdaridis and DMello [7], and the FM model
proposed here were compared are shown in Fig. 5(b). At a given
load level, the measured deection was greater than the both
obtained through the FE model of Tsavdaridis and DMello [7]
and the FE model proposed here. The comparison of the deections
at positions 4 and 5 gave the same results. There exists difference
between the two simulated loaddeection curves. The ascending
branch of curves obtained from the proposed FEM model agreed
well with the FEM simulations reported by Tsavdaridis and DMello
[7]. Furthermore, the proposed FEM model predicated a descending branch of the loaddeection curve that was not achieved by
the FE model presented by Tsavdaridis and DMello [7].

318

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

(a) Mesh of the web-post

(b) Load-deflection curves of the web-post

Fig. 4. Mesh convergence studies.

The ultimate load obtained from the test was lower than those
from FEM simulations, as listed in Table 1. The ultimate load
obtained from the FEM simulation by Tsavdaridis and DMello [7]
was much greater than that from the FE model presented here.
The difference between the two FE models was that the initial
out-of-plan geometric imperfection. Tsavdaridis and DMello [7]
assumed the imperfection of tw/200 (0.038 mm); the imperfection
in the proposed FE model was much greater, which was 1 mm. The
magnitude of the initial imperfection greatly inuences the ultimate load of the CSB. In the experimental study of Tsavdaridis
and DMello [7], no measured initial imperfection was reported.
The imperfection of tw/200 was adopted in their nite element
models [7]. Redwood and Demirdjian [2] recorded a measured
maximum imperfection of the web was of about 1 mm (26.3 times
of tw/200). However, at present there are no research results on a
larger initial imperfection except for the 1 mm. In the following
parametric study, the initial imperfection is taken as 1 mm.
The comparison between the simulated buckling modes and
that obtained from the test is shown in Fig. 5(c). The studied CSB
was failed by the web-post buckling. The S-shape buckling deformation predicated by the FEM simulation agreed very well with
the test results.

was in the opposite direction, which demonstrated that the webpost buckled in an S-shape mode along the section height and
agreed with test results. The maximum out-of-plane displacements in the two directions were +13.5 mm and 14.7 mm,
respectively. The web-post buckling capacity, Pult, was 219.6 kN,
as shown in Fig. 7(b). The distribution of stress around the opening
under different load ratios is illustrated in Fig. 6(b). Although the
llet in the opening eliminated the sharp corner, the steel at corners still yielded at a relatively lower load ratio P/Pult of 0.5. With
the increase in load ratio, the yield region extended to the webpost and T sections above and below the opening. At the load ratio
of 0.8, the steel at middle height of the web-post next to the opening started to yield, as shown in Fig. 6(b). At the load ratio P/Pult of
0.9, the compression zone of web-post in the High Moment Side
(HMS) around the opening all yielded. And at the load ratio of
1.0, the whole web-post yielded.
The plastic hinge will be fully formed when the steel in the web
and anges were all reached the yield stress. For the CSB shown in
Fig. 6, although the steel in the web-post was all reached the yield
stress of steel, most of the steel in the anges remained in the elastic state. There were no plastic hinges formed and the CSB was
failed by the web-post buckling failure.

3. Buckling of web-posts in CSBs with different openings

3.2. Comparison of web-post buckling behavior between CSBs with

circular and llet corner hexagonal openings

3.1. Buckling of web-posts in CSBs with llet corner hexagonal

openings
Simulation results on the out-of-plan displacement, the stress
distribution and the loaddeection curves of the CSB B0 (see
Fig. 2(a)) are presented in Fig. 6. As shown in Fig. 6(a), the outof-plane displacement in the upper and lower part of the web-post

The CSBs showed in Fig. 3(a) were used to illustrate differences

in buckling behaviors of the web-post in CSBs with circular and llet corner hexagonal openings. Except for the difference in opening
shape, the web openings in the two CSBs had the same opening
areas, opening distance and opening height. The distribution of
Von-Mises stresses in the web-post at buckling is shown in

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

319

(a) Dimensions of CSBs and test set up [7]

(b) Comparison of the load-displacement curves

(c) Comparison of the buckling modes

Fig. 5. Comparison of test and FEM results on loaddeection curves of CSBs with circular openings.

Fig. 7(a) and the loaddisplacement curves of the two CSBs are
shown in Fig. 7(b).
FEM results indicated that the whole web-post in the CSB with
llet corner hexagonal web openings had yielded, which is the
same as that in the CSB with circular web openings, as shown in
Fig. 7(a). The llet reduces the stress concentration at the opening
corner and helps the CSB having this kind of openings could
achieve the same good structural performance as that having circular openings. The stiffness of the CSB with llet corner openings
was a slightly smaller than that with circular openings, as shown in

Table 1
Comparison of the ultimate loads.

Ultimate
load
(kN)

Test
results

Simulation results by
Tsavdaridis and DMello [7]

Simulation results by
the proposed FE model

288.7

352

319

Fig. 7(b). The buckling strength of the CSB with llet corner
openings was only lower by 5.4% than that with circular openings.
However, great manufacture cost is saved by using this llet corner
opening.
3.3. Comparison of web-post buckling behavior between CSBs with
elongated circular and llet corner hexagonal openings
The CSBs showed in Fig. 3(b) and (c) is used to illustrate differences in buckling behaviors of the web-posts in CSBs with elongated circular and llet corner hexagonal openings. The cutting
processes of the two beams are given in Fig. 8. All beams had the
same span of 2520 mm. Three opening distance to opening height
ratios (S/d0) of 1.57, 1.8 and 2.0 were studied. To assure the CSB
failed by web-post buckling, the web thickness was taken as
5 mm. The simulation results of the stress distribution and outof-plane displacement of web-post at buckling are shown in Fig. 9.
The three CSBs with elongated circular openings, A1, A2 and A3,
were all failed by web-post buckling. Neither had the upper or

320

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

(a) S-shape web-post buckling mode

(b) Stress distribution in the web-posts

Fig. 6. Simulation results of CSBs with llet corner hexagonal openings.

lower anges yielded, which indicated that plastic hinges did not
form in the T sections above and below the opening, as shown in
Fig. 9(a). However, for three CSBs with the llet corner
polygonal openings, CSB B1 was failed by web-post buckling with
a maximum out-of-plane local displacement of 13.7 mm. The CSB
B2 and B3were failed by Vierendeel mechanism failure, as shown
in Fig. 9(b).
The whole web-post in CSB A1 yielded, which indicated that a
CSB with small S/d0 was more vulnerable to web-post buckling.
In CSB A3, only the web-post in the upper T section in the High
Moment Side (HMS) and the lower T section in the Low Moment
Side (LMS) yielded. The CSB B2 was failed by Vierendeel mechanism failure when the plastic hinge formed at the upper T section
at the HMS and at the lower T section at the LMS. There was significant local buckling in opening corners due to the combined compression forces caused by the global bending moment and
secondary bending moment [18]. The CSB B3 was failed by
Vierendeel mechanism failure at the perforated section. The
increase in the opening length increases the possibility that a
CSB fails by Vierendeel mechanism failure in the T sections.

The magnitude and location of the maximum out-of-plane displacement in web-posts were also affected by the opening shape.
The maximum lateral deections in CSB A1 and A2 were 18.2 mm
and 13.6 mm, respectively. The location of maximum displacement
around the opening in CSB A2 was near the anges. The maximum
lateral displacement in CSB A3 was a smaller value of 11.9 mm and
appeared at the opening corners. In CSB B2, the maximum deformation located at the position of the plastic hinge was10.5 mm.
And the maximum out-of-plane displacement caused by plastic
hinge was 11.4 mm in CSB B3, as show in Fig. 9(b).
Buckling capacities and failure modes of the CSBs are summarized in Table 2. There is no steel cut off in making the CSB with
llet corner openings. The CSB had a wider web-post and thus a
higher buckling capacity than that with elongated circular opening. For CSBs with the same S/d0, the CSB with llet corner hexagonal openings could be failed by Vierendeel failure.
Comparing with the CSB with elongated opening, the load bearing
capacities of CSBs with lleted corner hexagonal opening can be
increased by 66%, 65% and 29%, when S/d0 ratios were 1.57, 1.8
and 2.0, respectively.

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

(a) Stress distribution around the opening when the CSB is at buckling

321

buckling or Vierendeel failure at the openings rst taking place

depends on the opening width and the web-post thickness. Only
the web-post buckling strength is plotted in Fig. 10. However,
the real load bearing capacity of the CSB should be the minimum
value of the web-post buckling strength and the Vierendeel failure
strength.
For each line with the same d0/tw ratio in Fig. 10, the seven
points from left to right stand for the seven S/d0 ratios of 1.57,
1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2. From Fig. 10, it can be found that
the increase in web-post buckling capacities is less than 10% with
S/d0 increases from 1.57 to 2.2. The increase in d0/tw can signicantly decrease the web-post buckling capacity, for the thinner
web-post is more vulnerable to local buckling, as shown in
Fig. 10. For the CSB with d0/tw of 41.4, the increase in S/d0 will
cause the failure mode change from web-post buckling to
Vierendeel failure. Hence the failure mode should be identied rst
when determining the load bearing capacity of a CSB.
4.2. Strut Model for calculating buckling capacity of web-post

(b) Load-mid-span deflection curves

Fig. 7. Comparison of web-post buckling behaviors of CSBs with circular and llet
corner hexagonal openings.

4. Numerical and theoretical analysis on web-post buckling

behaviors in CSBs with llet corner hexagonal opening
4.1. Parametric studies on web-post buckling behavior
The H450  152  10.9  7.6 was selected to make the CSB
with llet corner hexagonal web openings. The opening height
was 315 mm. Through changing the opening distance and the
web thickness, different S/d0 and d0/tw can be obtained. Seven
S/d0 ratios of 1.57, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and four web thickness
of 3.9 mm, 5.0 mm, 6.0 mm and 7.6 mm were investigated. The
corresponding d0/tw ratios were 80.7, 63.0, 52.5 and 41.4.
Web-post buckling capacities obtained by the FEM are presented in Fig. 10. Shadowed points in Fig. 10 stand for the CSB
failed by Vierendeel mechanism failure. Whether is the web-post

Fig. 8. Comparison of cutting process of CSBs with elongated circular and llet
corner polygonal openings.

4.2.1. Strut Model for calculating web-post buckling capacity in a CSB

with circular openings
For a CSB with circular openings, the transfer of shear across the
opening will lead to an inclined compressive strut in web-post
[19], as shown in Fig. 11. The buckling of the web-post under shear
can be treated as the buckling of the strut under compression axial
load. The Strut Model was rst proposed to calculate the web-post
buckling strength in a beam with circular web openings. The stability of the web-post is checked using buckling curves of steel columns. The web under compression due to the secondary bending
moment caused by shear will cause local buckling of the web-post,
as illustrated in Fig. 12. Therefore, the effective width of strut
should exclude the local buckling region of the web-post. BS
5950-1 and EC3-1 [20,21] assume that the effective width takes
half of the total width of the web-post, be = S0/2, as shown in
Fig. 11. The buckling capacity of the web-post is calculated by
[20,21]

Vv
S0
rc be t w rc tw
2
2

where S0 is the width of the web-post; tw is the web-post thickness;

and rc is the buckling stress of the strut. For a CSB with circular
openings, the effective length le of the strut was taken as

q
2
le 0:5 S20 d0

and le should be less than 0.7d0 [7]. The slenderness of the strut k is
taken as

p le
le
12 3:464
tw
tw

The buckling stress rc of the strut is calculated following the

buckling curve c in BS 5950-1.
4.2.2. Modied strut model for calculating web-post buckling strength
in a CSB with llet corner hexagonal openings
For there are two llets at the middle height of the web-post,
the width of the compression strut is different to that in a webpost between two circular openings, as shown in Fig. 13. The Strut
Model for checking the stability of web-post in a CSB with circular
opening should be modied. Tsavdaridis and DMello [7] modied
the Strut Model and used it to check the stability of the web-post in
a cellular steel beam with lleted circular openings, lleted elliptical openings and inclined elliptical openings. However, the Strut
Model used by Tsavdaridis and DMello [7] did not include
benecial effects of the round corner to the shear buckling of the

322

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

(a) Failure of CSBs with elongated openings

(b) Failure of CSBs with fillet corner openings

Fig. 9. Comparison of CSBs with elongated circular and llet corner polygonal openings.

323

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

Table 2
Buckling capacities and failure modes of CSBs with elongated circular and llet corner hexagonal openings.
Model

S/d0

Opening area ratio (AA/AB)

Ultimate load (kN)

Load ratio (VA,ult/VB,ult)

Failure mode

Cuttings

CSB A1
CSB B1

1.57
1.57

1.285

129.19
214.69

0.60

Web-post buckling
Web-post buckling

2
1

CSB A2
CSB B2

1.8
1.8

1.285

136.80
225.05

0.61

Web-post buckling
Strength failure and web buckling

2
1

CSB A3
CSB B3

2.0
2.0

1.285

141.95
182.87

0.78

Web-post buckling
Strength failure

2
1

web-post. For the web-post width and the opening length in a CSB
are not independent, the incline angle of the strut and the compression force acting on the strut both need to be modied when
the Strut Model is used to check the stability of the web-post in
a CSB with the llet corner hexagonal openings.
As shown in Fig. 13, for the varying of the incline angle of the
strut, it is more reasonable that the compression force acting on
the strut Vh takes the value of Vv/2cos h. h is the inclined angle of
strut and depends on the S/d0. For simplicity, h takes a constant
value of 53. To include the defect of llet in middle height of
the web-post, the effective width of the strut be takes 0.8S0.
In addition, the effective length of strut le is modied as

q
2
le 0:5 S02 d0

Fig. 10. Buckling capacities of web-posts in CSBs with llet corner hexagonal
openings.

where S0 is the width of the web-post excluding the defect of llet,

as shown in Fig. 13. When S/d0 P 2.0, that is for the CSB with large
opening distance, the effective length of the strut le can be simplied as

q
2
2
le 0:5 d0 d0 0:7d0

The shear rupture of the web-post is one possible failure mode

of a CSB. For the CSB with the llet corner web openings, the shear
rupture of the web-post should be paid more attention for the llet
corner brings defects to the web-post. We should assure that the
load bearing capacity of the web-post obtained through the Strut
Model is not greater than the shear rupture capacity of the horizontal weld [22]. The upper limit of the horizontal shear force,
Vhp, is dened by the shear capacity of weld

V hp 0:55S0 t w fy

where fy is the yielding strength of steel.

Fig. 11. Strut Model for analysis of web-post buckling in a CSB with llet corner
openings [20,21].

Fig. 12. Local buckling of web-post due to compression caused by shear [20,21].

Fig. 13. Strut Model for web-post buckling analysis in a CSB with llet corner
openings.

324

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

Table 3
Ratio between web-post buckling capacities predicated by modied Strut Model and
FEM simulation.

Fig. 14. Vertical shear and horizontal shear acting on web-post.

The relationship between horizontal shear force acting on weld

and the vertical shear force acting on the web-post is shown in
Fig. 14. The ratio Vh/Vv can be expressed as [3]:

Vh
S

V v dg  2yt

where yt is the distance between the centroid of T section to the top

of the ange; dg is the section height of the CSB.
4.2.3. Comparison of analytical and FEM simulation results
Ratios of web-post buckling capacities calculated through modied Strut Model to those obtained by FEM simulations, PTC/PFEM,
are given in Table 2. The shaded areas in Table 3 stand for the
CSB failed by Vierendeel failure. Results obtained from the modied Strut Model were conservative for the CSBs with a narrow or
a thin web-post. Two reasons account for the lowly predicated
web-post buckling capacity by the modied Strut Model:
(1) when calculating the effective length of strut, the restraint to
strut provided by the ange is ignored, which leads to a larger calculated slenderness of strut.
(2) The torsional restraint provided by web-post center section
is ignored [23], as shown in Fig. 15.
With the increase in the opening space, benecial effects of the
two restraints decrease. The ratio of PTC/PFEM approaches to 1.0.
4.2.4. Lower boundary of the web-post buckling capacity
The CSB will be failed by Vierendeel failure when the CSB has a
larger opening distance or thicker web thickness. At this circumstance, the load bearing capacity of the web-post is determined
by the Vierendeel failure at the perforated section [24].
For simplify the calculation of bending moment capacity of
upper tee section, Mpt, under the combined global bending
moment and secondary bending moment, the circular opening is
replaced by an equivalent rectangular opening [7], as shown in
Fig. 16(a). The equivalent rectangular opening width is obtained
from the stresses concentrations and depended on the position of
the plastic hinge. For calculating the Mpt of the CSB with llet corner openings, a modied equivalent rectangular opening is developed, as shown in Fig. 16(b). It is noticed that the length of the
equivalent rectangular opening is affected by the opening width
and web thickness, as shown in Fig. 16(c). A design formula is proposed to calculate the effective width, as follows:

c c0 S0 =2

10

where c0 is the additional effective width of equivalent rectangular

opening. c is the distance from the center of the opening to the plastic hinge at the top anges. It can be obtained through observation

Fig. 15. Constraints to the web-post provided by anges and central web.

of the simulation results, as shown in Fig. 16(c). Then c0 can be calculated as

c0 c  S0 =2

11

c is affected by the opening height and web thickness

c0 C 1 

 
 2
d0
d0
C2 
tw
tw

12

where C1 and C2 are coefcients. Through curve tting of FEM simulation results, C1 and C2 take the values of 0.007 and 0.154,
respectively.
The shear force that causes the Vierendeel failure of the CSB is
the lower boundary of web-post buckling capacity

V v Mpt

2
c

13

Mpt py  A1  y1 py  A2  y2

14

A bf  t f d T  t w

15

A1 A2

1
A
2

16

where y1 and y2 are the distance between centroids of the two T

sections to the middle height of CSB.
We get two shear capacities of the CSB if the web-post buckling
failure and Vierendeel failure at the perforated section are checked
individually. The lower value is the shear capacity of the CSB. Its
corresponding failure mode is the one that causes the failure of
the CSB. Ratios between the web-post shear buckling capacity
and Vierendeel failure capacity are given in Table 4. That the ratio

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

325

(a) Equivalent rectangular opening for the CSB with circular openings

(b) Equivalent rectangular opening for the CSB with fillet corner hexagonal openings

(c) Additional effective width of equivalent rectangular openings

Fig. 16. Effective width of equivalent rectangular opening in a CSB with different openings.

is less than 1.0 means that the web-post shear buckling capacity is
lower than the Vierendeel failure capacity. The CSB will be failed
by web post buckling if the ratio is less than 1.0 and by Vierendeel
failure when the ratio is greater than 1.0
Considering all the possible failure modes, which are the webpost buckling failure, the Vierendeel mechanism failure, and the
rupture of the weld, the shear capacity of a CSB with llet corner
openings can be calculated using Eqs. (3), (13) which gives a lower
value. Shear capacities of the CSBs with different d0/tw ratio and
S/d0 ratio are shown in Fig. 17. Eq. (3) is used for cases that the
CSB is failed by web-post buckling; while Eq. (13) is used for cases
that the CSBs is failed by Vierendeel failure, as represented by the
shadowed points in Fig. 10. For the CSB with a thinner web, such as
when d0/tw = 80.7, the web-post will be failed by the web-post
buckling. The increase in opening distance can improve shear

Table 4
Ratios between the web-post shear buckling capacity and Vierendeel failure capacity.

The shaded values represent the Virendeel failure mode.

capacity of the web-post. Shear capacities of the CSBs are obtained

through Eq. (3). However, for the CSB with a thicker web, such as
when d0/tw = 41.4, the Vierendeel failure at the perforated section

326

P. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 75 (2014) 315326

The main ndings of this study can be summarized as:

(a) Shear capacities based on the traditional strut model

(1) The CSB with the llet corner opening has as good structural
performances as that with circular openings in forms of the
failure mode, the stresses distribution, the shear capacity
and out-of-plane displacement, etc. Also the CSB with the llet corner opening has a higher shear capacity than that with
elongated circular opening.
(2) A Strut Model for predicating web-post buckling strength is
modied for calculating the buckling strength of the new
shaped web-post. Equations to calculate the compression
force on the Strut, the effective width and the effective
length of the strut are all provided.
(3) The lower boundary to the web-post shear capacity is based
on the Vierendeel failure capacity. The equivalent rectangle
opening is modied to replace the llet corner opening to
simplify the calculation of Vierendeel failure capacity. Modied equations for calculating the length of the equivalent
rectangle opening are presented.

References

(b) Shear capacities based on the modified strut model

Fig. 17. Shear capacities of web-posts considering different failure modes.

takes in control in this kind of situation. Shear capacities of the

CSBs should be obtained through Eq. (13). The load bearing capacity of a CSB reduces with the increase in S/d0 when the CSBs are
failed by Vierendeel failure. It was noticed that results based on
the traditional strut model were too conservative when CSBs
failed by web-post buckling. On the other hand, the modied strut
model was well suitable to evaluate the load capacities of the CSB
for all sizes of llet corner openings.

5. Conclusions
Web-post buckling behaviors of a CSB with llet corner openings are investigated using nite element methods. The structural
performance of the web-post in the CSB with llet corner openings
is compared with beams having circular and elongated circular
openings. A parametric analysis shows that the shear capacity of
the web-post is affected by the opening shape, the opening dimension, the opening distance, and the web thickness. The Strut Model
is modied to predicate web-post buckling strength of the CSB
with the llet corner openings. The effective width be, the effective
length le and the compression force Vh in the Strut Model are all
modied for the new shaped web-post.

[1] Demirdjian S. Stability of castellated beam webs. Department of Civil

Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University; 1999.
[2] Redwood RG, Demirdjian S. Castellated beam web buckling in Shear. J Struct
Eng. Am Soc Civil Eng 1998;124(8):12027.
[3] Aglan AA, Redwood RG. Web buckling in castellated beams. Proc Inst Civil Eng
1974;57:30720.
[4] Demirdjian S. Stability of castellated beam webs. Department of Civil
Engineering and Applied Mechanics. McGill University, PhD thesis; 1999.
[5] Olander HC. ASCE Transaction, paper No. 2698; 1954.
[6] Lawson RM, Lim J, Hicks SJ, Simms WJ. Design of composite asymmetric cellular
beams and beams with large openings. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62(5):61429.
[7] Tsavdaridis KD, DMello C. Web buckling study of the behaviour and strength
of perforated steel beams with different novel opening shapes. J Constr Steel
Res 2011;67(15):160520.
[8] Tsavdaridis KD, DMello C. Optimisation of novel elliptically-based opening
shapes of perforated steel beams. J Constr Steel Res 2012;76(1):3953.
[9] Ellobody E. Nonlinear analysis of cellular steel beams under combined
buckling modes. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;52(1):6679.
[10] Abidin ARZ, Izzuddin BA. Meshless local buckling analysis of steel beams with
irregular openings. Eng Struct 2013;50(2):197206.
[11] Erdal F, Saka MP. Ultimate load carrying capacity of optimally designed steel
cellular beams. J Constr Steel Res 2013;80(3):35568.
[12] Durif S, Bouchar A, Vassart O. Experimental tests and numerical modeling of
cellular beams with sinusoidal openings. J Constr Steel Res 2013;82(1):7287.
[13] Zainal Abidin AR, Izzuddin BA. Meshless local buckling analysis of steel beams
with irregular web openings. Eng Struct 2013;50:197206.
[14] Wang QL, Cao PZ. Study on web stability of castellated beams under pure
bending condition. Struct Anal Calcul 2001;2(1):424.
[15] Chung KF, Liu CH, Ko ACH. Steel beams with large web openings of various
shapes and sizes: an empirical design method using a generalised moment
shear interaction curve. J Constr Res 2003;59:1177200.
[16] Wang PJ, Ma QJ. Investigation on Vierendeel mechanism failure of castellated
steel beams with llet corner web openings. Eng Struct 2014;74(1):4451.
[17] Kerdal D, Nethercot DA. Failure modes for castellated beams. J Constr Steel Res
1984;4(2):295315.
[18] Chung KF, Liu TCH, Ko ACH. Investigation on Vierendeel mechanism in steel
beams with circular openings. J Constr Steel Res 2001;57(4):46790.
[19] Zhang YF. Study on global stability and local stability of castellated beams.
Master Dissertation of Zhongnan University; 2008.
[20] British Standard Institution. BS5950-1:2000, structural use of steelworks in
building. BSI; 2000.
[21] EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part1.1: General rules and
rules for building; 2005.
[22] Husain MU, Speirs WG. Failure of castellated beams due to rupture of welded
Joints. Acier-Stahl-Steel; 1971:1.
[23] Durif S, Bouchar A. Behavior of cellular beams with sinusoidal openings. Proc
Eng 2012;40(1):10813.
[24] Nikos D, Lagaros, Lemonis D, Psarras, Papadrakakis Manolis, Panagiotou
Giannis. Optimum design of steel structures with web openings. Eng Struct
2008;30(9):252837.