Figure 1
Schematic representation of the manufacturing process of cellular and castellated beams.
Figure 2
Shear connectors modeling.
Figure 3
Finite elements used in the developed model.
Figure 4
Constitutive models: (a) for profile steel; (b) for reinforcement bars and steel-deck steels.
Figure 5
Constitutive relations in the USERMAT model for concrete: (a) compression; (b) tension.
Figure 6
Combination Drucker-Prager (compression) with Rankine (tension) in the DP-CONCRETE model.
Figure 7
Linear HSD model in DP-CONCRETE: (a) compression; (b) tension.
Figure 8
Boundary conditions: (a) with symmetry; (b) without symmetry.
Figure 9
Geometries of the beams A-1 and G-1, tested by Hosain and Speirs (1973Hosain, M.U., Speirs, W.G. (1973). Experiments on Castellated Steel Beams. Welding Research: Supplement to the Welding Journal 52:329-342.).
Figure 10
Geometries of beams A1 and B1, tested by
Nadjai et al. (2007Nadjai, A., Vassart, O., Ali, F., Talamona, D., Allam, A., Hawes, M. (2007). Performance of cellular composite floor beams at elevated temperatures. Fire Saf. J. 42:489-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2007.05.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2007.0...
).
Figure 11
Geometries of beams 1 and 3, tested by Müller et al. (2006Müller, C., Hechler, O., Bureau, A., Bitar, D., Joyeux, D., Cajot, L.G., Demarco, T., Lawson, R.M., Hicks, S., Devine, P., Lagerqvist, O., Hedman-Pétursson, E., Unosson, E., Feldmann, M. (2006). Large web opening for service integration in composite floors: final report, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Luxembourg). ISBN: 92-79-01723-3).
Figure 12
Numerical model of beam A1.
Figure 13
Rigid element MPC184 used in the numerical model of test 1B, performed by Müller et al. (2006Müller, C., Hechler, O., Bureau, A., Bitar, D., Joyeux, D., Cajot, L.G., Demarco, T., Lawson, R.M., Hicks, S., Devine, P., Lagerqvist, O., Hedman-Pétursson, E., Unosson, E., Feldmann, M. (2006). Large web opening for service integration in composite floors: final report, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Luxembourg). ISBN: 92-79-01723-3).
Figure 14
Diagrams of applied load versus rotation at the support for beams A-1 and G-1.
Figure 15
Vierendeel Mechanism captured by the numerical model in beam A-1 (von Mises stresses, in kN/cm2, when P = 173 kN).
Figure 16
Plastic Hinge captured by the numerical model in beam G-1 (von Mises stresses, in kN/cm2, when P = 164 kN).
Figure 17
Local buckling at the web-post in beam G-1 (transversal displacements, in cm, when P = 160 kN post-peak load).
Figure 18
Load-deflection curves for beam A1.
Figure 19
Load-deflection curves for beam B1.
Figure 20
Web-post buckling due to shear in beam A1 (transversal displacements, in cm, when uy = 1.4 cm).
Figure 21
Beam A1: Comparison between the normal stresses in x direction, in kN/cm2, when uy=1.0 cm.
Figure 22
Equivalent plastic strains in beam B1 when uy=1.0 cm.
Figure 23
Load-deflection curves for beam 1, in tests 1A and 1B.
Figure 24
Buckling of the last web-post in test 1A (transversal displacements, in cm, when P = 725 kN).
Figure 25
Experimental and numerical y-displacements over the span for different load levels in test 1A.
Figure 26
Buckling of the first web-post in test 1B (transversal displacements, in cm, when P = 770 kN).
Figure 27
Load-deflection curves for beam 3.
Figure 28
Vierendeel Mechanism in beam 3 (von Mises stresses, in kN/cm2, when P = 516 kN).
Figure 29
Web-post buckling in beam 3 (transversal displacements, in cm, when P = 674 kN).
Figure 30
Load-deflection curves: comparison between composite beams and composite cellular beam A1.
Figure 31
Load-deflection curves: comparison between composite beams and composite cellular beams 1A and 1B.
Figure 32
Nomenclature of the geometric parameters
Figure 33
Load-deflection curves for the beam with 11m span
Figure 34
Web-post buckling in beams CE1, CE2 and CE3 (transversal displacements, in cm)
Figure 35
Cracking of concrete slab at top face, above the first opening, in beam CE2 (equivalent plastic strains)
Table 1
Comparison between finite element modeling strategies of composite alveolar beams.
Table 2
Material data inserted in the numerical models.
Table 3
Number of elements in the numerical models.
Table 4
Summary of performed numerical analyses.
Table 5
Summary of validation results for failure modes of castellated beams
Table 6
Summary of validation results for failure modes of composite cellular beams
Table 7
Load applied when midspan deflection is equal to L/250 = 27.4 mm
Table 8
Composite beams and composite alveolar beams analyzed for the example of 11m span
Table 9
Linear load applied when the midspan deflection is equal to L/250 = 44 mm
Table 10
Applied linear loads, in kN/m, for the yielding and failure of each beam
Table 11
Applied linear loads q, in kN/m, and midspan deflections uy, in mm, at each stage of behavior of the beams