Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Shear behaviour and design of Lipped Channel Beams with non-circular web MARK
openings
⁎
K.S. Wanniarachchia,b, M. Mahendrana, , P. Keerthana
a
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia
b
Faculty of Engineering, University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cold-formed steel Lipped Channel Beams (LCB) with web openings are commonly used as floor joists and bearers
Cold-formed steel structures in building structures. Their shear behaviour is influenced by the presence of web openings and the shear
Lipped channel beams capacities are considerably reduced. However, the shear behaviour and capacity of LCBs with non-circular web
Non-circular web openings openings (square, rectangular and elliptical web openings) has not been investigated adequately. Hence a
Shear capacity
detailed numerical study was conducted to investigate the shear behaviour and capacity of LCBs with non-
Finite element analyses
circular web openings. Finite element models of simply supported LCBs under a mid-span load with aspect ratios
Design rules
of 1.0 and 1.5 were developed and validated by using the available shear test results. They were then used in a
detailed parametric study to investigate the effects of various influential parameters. Numerical results showed
that the current shear design equations in cold-formed steel structures design standards are conservative or
unsafe. New shear design equations were therefore proposed for the accurate prediction of the shear capacity of
LCBs with non-circular web openings. This paper presents the details of finite element modelling of LCBs with
unreinforced non-circular web openings and the development of new shear design rules. The proposed shear
design equations in this paper can be considered for inclusion in the future versions of cold-formed steel design
standards. Suitable design equations were also developed under the direct strength method.

1. Introduction
In recent times, cold-formed steel sections are frequently used in
residential, commercial and industrial buildings due to their notable
strength to weight ratio, ease of fabrication and ease of construction
(see Fig. 1). Cold-formed steel sections such as lipped channel and Z-
sections are commonly used in floor and roof framing systems, wall and
truss systems and many other load bearing systems. Among these
sections, lipped channel beam (LCB) sections (Fig. 1b) are commonly
used as joists or bearers in floor systems (Fig. 1a). Commonly used LCB
section have their section depths in the range of 150–300 mm, section
widths in the range of 50–76 mm, and thickness in the range of
1.0–2.4 mm, and are made of steel of nominal yield strengths of 450
and 500 MPa. Many applications in such floor systems include web
openings in the joists or bearers in order to include building services
within them as shown in Fig. 1(a). Although the most common shape of
openings used in floor systems is circular, different shapes such as
square, rectangular and elliptical are considered as alternative web
opening shapes.
Past research on the shear behaviour and strength of cold-formed
steel sections containing web openings has been limited to lipped
channel sections [1,2]. Shan et al. [1] recommended the use of a
reduction factor (qs) applied to the solid web strength of the shear
element for calculating the shear capacity of cold-formed lipped
channel beams with web openings. Eiler [2] extended Shan et al.’s
[1] work to include the behaviour of web elements with openings
subjected to linearly varying shear force. These shear strength equa-
tions have been adopted in AISI S100 [3] and AS/NZS 4600 [4] design
standards for cold-formed steel structures. Keerthan and Mahendran
[5,6] conducted experimental and finite element analyses to investigate
the shear behaviour of lipped channel beams with circular unreinforced
web openings and developed improved design equations for the
prediction of their shear capacities.
The use of web openings in cold-formed steel beams causes a
significant reduction to their shear capacities. Many parameters affect
the shear capacity of cold-formed steel beams containing web openings.
They are the shape, size and location of the web openings and the
slenderness of the web element. Past research [1,5] has reported that
the most influential parameter for the shear capacity of LCBs with web
openings is the ratio of the depth of web opening (dwh) to clear height

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.mahendran@qut.edu.au (M. Mahendran).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.03.035
Received 30 September 2016; Received in revised form 6 March 2017; Accepted 31 March 2017
Available online 08 June 2017
0263-8231/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al.
Fig. 1. LCBs with web openings.
of web (d1) and thus developed their shear capacity reduction factors in
terms of dwh/d1. However, past research has concentrated on circular
web openings.
The primary aim of this research is to investigate the effect of
unreinforced non-circular web openings (square, rectangular and
elliptical) on the shear capacity of lipped channel beam (LCB) sections
using detailed finite element analyses (FEA) and to investigate the
accuracy of current design rules. This paper presents the details of this
numerical study into the shear behaviour and design of LCBs with
unreinforced non-circular web openings located centrally within their
web height. Shear capacities from FEA are compared with the predicted
shear capacities using the current design rules in AS/NZS 4600 [4] and
AISI S100 [3], based on which improved shear design rules are
proposed.
2. Current shear design rules for LCBs with web openings
Current shear design rules for cold-formed steel beams with web
openings are based on a reduction factor (qs) defined as the ratio of the
nominal shear capacity of LCBs with web openings (Vnl) to the nominal
shear capacity of LCBs without web openings (Vv). Hence suitable
design rules are also needed to predict Vv, and this section presents the
currently available design rules for both Vv and qs.
In general the shear design of LCBs considers web shear buckling
behaviour in isolation without the effect of flange rigidity. LaBoube and
Yu [7] investigated the shear strength of LCBs using single web side
plates at the end supports and the loading point. Their shear strength
equations are based on simply supported conditions at the web-flange
juncture and do not include the available post-buckling strength in
LCBs. Pham and Hancock [8,9] performed both experimental and
numerical studies to investigate the shear behaviour of high strength
cold-formed steel channel sections. They proposed improved design
equations for the shear capacity of channel sections by including the
available post-buckling strength in LCBs and the effect of additional
fixity at the web-flange juncture (Eq. (1)–(3)). In these equations based
on the direct strength method [9], the nominal shear capacity (Vv) is
proposed using Vcr (elastic buckling capacity in shear) and Vy (shear
yield capacity). These shear design equations are now included in AISI
S100 [3].
d1 Ek v
Vv = Vy for ≤ 0.952
tw fyw
(1)
84
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102
⎡ ⎛ V ⎞0.4 ⎤ ⎛ V ⎞0.4
VV = ⎢⎢1 − 0.15⎜⎜ cr ⎟⎟ ⎥⎥ ⎜⎜ cr ⎟⎟ Vy for 1 > 0.952
d Ek v
⎣ ⎝ y⎠ ⎦⎝ y⎠
V V t w fyw
(2)
Vy = 0.6fyw d1tw (3a)
k vπ 2Etw3
Vcr =
12(1 − ν 2 )d1 (3b)
where Vv=nominal shear strength, d1=depth of the flat portion of
web, tw=web thickness, E=elasticity modulus of steel, fyw=design
web yield stress, Vy and Vcr are given by Eqs. (3a) and (3b), and kv is the
enhanced elastic shear buckling coefficient of channel sections and its
values are given in Pham and Hancock [8].
Keerthan and Mahendran [10] also proposed improved shear
capacity equations for the LCBs based on their experimental and FEA
results. Their shear capacity equations included the available post-
buckling capacity in LCBs and the additional fixity at the web-flange
juncture. The presence of additional fixity at the web-flange juncture of
LCBs is allowed for by including an increased shear buckling coefficient
(kv) equation.
The investigation of cold-formed steel sections containing web
openings was undertaken during the 1990s. However, only limited
research has been undertaken in relation to LCBs with non-circular web
openings. Shan et al. [1] proposed a shear capacity reduction factor qs
to determine the shear capacity of cold-formed steel beams with web
openings as a function of the ratio of depth of web opening to clear web
height (i.e. dwh/d1) based on their experimental study. Eiler [2] also
proposed improved design equations to determine the shear capacity of
cold-formed steel beams with web openings based on qs using his
experimental results. However, the shear capacity reduction factor qs
proposed by Eiler [2] also considers the remaining web area above the
openings. Eiler [2] found that the parameter, c/t, was the dominant
parameter affecting the shear behaviour of webs with circular and non-
circular openings (Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 2, the parameter c depends
on the shape and size of the openings. AS/NZS 4600 [4] and AISI S100
[3] gives identical shear design equations (Eqs. (4)–(8)), which are
based on Eiler's [2] recommendations.
Vnl = qsVv (4)
c
qs = 1 > 54
t (5)
c c
qs = 5≤ < 54
54t t (6)
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Eqs. (9)–(11) show the proposed design equations for qs of a hollow

flange channel beam known as LiteSteel beam (LSB) with unreinforced
circular web openings developed by Keerthan and Mahendran [11]
based on the ratio of dwh/d1 in a similar manner to Shan et al. [1].

⎡d ⎤ d wh
qs = 1 − 0.6⎢ wh ⎥ 0< ≤ 0.25
⎣ d1 ⎦ d1 (9)

⎡d ⎤ d wh
qs = 1.1 − ⎢ wh ⎥ 0.25 < ≤ 0.65
⎣ d1 ⎦ d1 (10)

⎡d ⎤ d wh
qs = 0.84 − 0.6⎢ wh ⎥ 0.65 < ≤ 0.85
⎣ d1 ⎦ d1 (11)

3. Finite element analyses of LCBs with non-circular web openings

3.1. General

This section describes the development of finite element (FE)

models to investigate the shear behaviour of lipped channel beams
(LCBs) with unreinforced non-circular web openings located centrally
within their web height. For this purpose, a general purpose finite
element program, ABAQUS Version 6.13 [12], was used. Appropriate
parameters were chosen for the geometry, mechanical properties,
loading and support conditions. Keerthan and Mahendran [5] con-
ducted 40 shear tests of simply supported back to back LCBs with
circular web openings under a three-point loading arrangement as
shown in Fig. 3. Shear test results in [13] showed that the shear
capacities of back to back LSBs and single LSBs with a shear centre
loading are equal. Hence FE models of simply supported single LCBs
with shear centre loading were used by them [13] to simulate the shear
tests of back to back LCBs with web openings. FE models of single LCBs
with a shear centre loading and simply supported boundary conditions
were used in this study also to simulate the shear behaviour of LCBs
Fig. 2. Shear failure locations of LCBs with circular and non-circular web openings [2]. with circular and non-circular web openings.
ABAQUS [12] has several element types to simulate the shear
d1 d behaviour of beams with web openings. In this study, shell element was
c= − wh for circular web openings
2 2.83 (7) selected as it has the capability to simulate the elastic buckling and
nonlinear ultimate shear behaviour of thin steel beams such as LCBs.
d1 d The shell element S4R in ABAQUS [12] was used to model the LCBs
c= − wh for non−circular web openings with non-circular web openings. This element is thin, shear flexible,
2 2 (8)
isometric quadrilateral shell with four nodes and five degrees of
d wh d wh
d1
< 0.7, tw
≤ 200 , d wh > 15 mm, d wh≤150 mm. freedom per node, utilizing reduced integration and bilinear interpola-
tion scheme.
Two methods of analysis were used. Bifurcation buckling analyses
were first used to obtain the eigenvectors for the inclusion of initial
geometric imperfections in non-linear static analysis. Non-linear static
analyses including the effects of large deformation and material
yielding were then employed to investigate the shear behaviour and
strength of LCBs with non-circular web openings until failure.

3.2. Finite element mesh of LCB with non-circular web openings

Finite element models were developed using centerline dimensions.

In this study, the required numbers of elements to model flange and
web elements of LCBs were chosen based on convergence studies. These
convergence studies showed that in general, the use of element sizes of
approximately 5 mm×5 mm was able to simulate the shear buckling
and yielding deformations and provided accurate shear capacity results
for all the sections. The geometry and finite element mesh of typical
LCBs with unreinforced non-circular web openings are shown in
Fig. 3. Shear test set-up. Fig. 4(a)–(c).

85
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Fig. 4. Geometry and finite element mesh of LCB with non-circular web openings.

3.3. Material model and properties of LCBs Note: ux, uy and uz are translations and θx, θy and θz are rotations in
the x, y and z directions, respectively.
The ABAQUS classical metal plasticity model was used in all the Fig. 5 shows the applied loads and boundary conditions of the FE
analyses. This model implements the von Mises yield surface to define model. Experimental conditions were simulated by single point con-
isotropic yielding, associated plastic flow theory, and either perfect straints and concentrated nodal forces in the FE models. The point load
plasticity or isotropic hardening behaviour. A perfect plasticity model and simply supported boundary conditions were used at the shear
was adopted in all the FE models with measured and nominal yield centre using a fixed node to eliminate twisting of the section (see
stresses. Keerthan and Mahendran [13] showed that the use of Fig. 5). The vertical translation was not restrained at the loading point.
measured strain hardening in the web element in finite element Shear test specimens as shown in Fig. 3 included a 45 mm wide full
analyses (FEA) improved the shear capacity by less than 1%. Hence height web side plate at each support to prevent lateral movement and
strain hardening was not considered in the analyses. The elastic twisting of the cross-section. These full height web side plates were
modulus and Poisson's ratio were taken as 200 GPa and 0.3, respec- modeled as 20 mm thick rigid plates.
tively. The nominal yield stress was used in the analyses of LCBs with
non-circular web openings whereas the measured yield stress of 3.5. Initial geometric imperfections and residual stresses of LCBs
515 MPa was used in the validation reported in Section 3.6.
The magnitude of local imperfections was taken as 0.006d1 for all
3.4. Loads and boundary conditions of LCBs LCB sections [6]. The critical imperfection shape was introduced using
the *IMPERFECTION option in ABAQUS. Preliminary FEA showed that
Simply supported boundary conditions were implemented in the FE the effect of residual stresses on the shear capacity of cold-formed steel
models of LCBs with non-circular web openings. beams (LiteSteel beam) without web openings is less than 1% [13].
Therefore the effect of residual stresses on the shear capacity of cold-
formed steel beams with web openings is also likely to be very small.
Left and right supports: Mid-span loading point: Hence the residual stresses were not considered in the FEA of LCBs with
ux=restrained θx=free ux=restrained θx=free non-circular web openings.
uy=restrained θy=free uy=free θy=free
uz=free θz=restrained uz=restrained θz=restrained 3.6. Validation of finite element models
Experimental studies [5] showed that the failure of straps did not
occur when they were used in the tests. Hence the straps were It is essential to validate the developed FE models for non-linear
simulated using suitable boundary conditions as follows. analyses of LCBs with web openings subjected to shear. For this purpose
FE models of Keerthan and Mahendran's [6] 11 shear test specimens of
200×75×15×1.9 LCBs and 160×65×15×1.9 LCBs with circular
Strap Location: web openings were developed first and analyzed, and their results were
ux=restrained θx=free compared with those from testing, with particular attention given to the
uy=free θy=free ultimate loads, load-deflection curves and failure mechanisms. Table 1
uz=free θz=restrained presents the FEA results of the ultimate shear capacities of LCBs with
circular web openings in shear (Vnl) and a comparison with the

86
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Fig. 5. Application of loads and boundary conditions to LCBs.

corresponding shear test results. The mean and COV of the ratio of test
to FEA ultimate shear capacities are 1.00 and 0.047, respectively.
Similarly, FE models of Pham et al. [14] four shear test specimens of
200×75×15×1.5 LCBs with square web openings, were also devel-
oped and analyzed. Table 2 compares the FEA and test results of
ultimate shear capacities of LCBs with square web openings. In this
case, the mean and COV of the ratio of test to FEA ultimate shear
capacities are 0.98 and 0.03. Comparison in Tables 1 and 2 show that
the FE models developed in this study are able to predict the ultimate
shear capacities of LCBs with circular and non-circular web openings
accurately.
Fig. 6 shows the FEA results in the form of applied load versus
deflection for 160×65×15×1.9 LCB with 60 mm circular web open-
ings (Test Specimen 11 in Table 1) and compares them with corre-
sponding experimental results while Fig. 7 shows the shear failure
modes. The FEA and test results shown in these figures show a good

Table 1
Comparison of ultimate shear capacities of LCBs with circular web openings.

No. LCB Section fyw (MPa) Aspect Ratio dwh (mm) dwh/d1 Vnl (kN) Test/FEA

Test FEA

1 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.0 0 0.00 75.80 80.02 0.95

2 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.0 30 0.15 74.83 76.42 0.98
3 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.0 60 0.30 63.35 62.93 1.01
4 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.0 100 0.51 38.83 42.08 0.92
5 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.0 125 0.63 29.38 29.65 0.99
6 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.5 0 0.00 63.36 61.30 1.03
7 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.5 30 0.15 57.09 57.63 0.99
8 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.5 60 0.30 53.09 54.04 0.98
9 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.5 100 0.51 37.15 36.23 1.03
10 200×75×15×1.9 515 1.5 125 0.63 28.82 26.38 1.09
11 160×65×15×1.9 515 1.0 60 0.38 47.10 49.60 0.95
Mean 1.00
COV 0.047

87
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 2
Comparison of ultimate shear capacities of LCBs with square web openings.

No. LCB Section fyw (MPa) Aspect Ratio dwh (mm) dwh/d1 Vnl (kN) Test/FEA

Test [14] FEA

1 200×75×15×1.5 513 1.0 0 0.00 53.44 55.99 0.95

2 200×75×15×1.5 513 1.0 40 0.20 47.13 46.84 1.01
3 200×75×15×1.5 513 1.0 80 0.40 29.12 30.66 0.95
4 200×75×15×1.5 513 1.0 120 0.60 15.06 14.88 1.01
Mean 0.98
COV 0.033

agreement and thus further confirm the adequacy of the developed FE
models in predicting the ultimate loads, deflections and failure modes
of LCBs with circular web openings subjected to shear. Therefore
validated FE models were then used to investigate the shear behaviour
of LCBs with non-circular web openings (square, rectangular and
elliptical web openings).
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show the shear failure modes of non-circular web
openings with 200×75×18×2.0 LCB having 125×125 mm square
web openings and 125×60 mm elliptical web openings. Fig. 9(a) shows
the plot of applied load versus vertical deflection for 200×75×18×2.0
LCB with varying rectangular web openings (aspect ratio=1.5) and
confirms the presence of significant reserve capacity beyond elastic
buckling for LCBs with non-circular web openings whereas Fig. 9(b)
shows the mechanics of web panel post-buckling behaviour in shear for
the same LCB with 100×60 mm rectangular web openings.
4. Parametric study of LCBs with non-circular web openings
Following the validation of the developed FE models, a detailed
parametric study was undertaken using the validated model to develop
an extensive shear strength database for LCBs with unreinforced non-
circular web openings (square, rectangular and elliptical shapes) and
then use them to develop improved design equations. In this study, two
aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5 were used with two LCB sections,
200×75×18 LCB and 150×65×15 LCB, considered to represent the
commonly used LCBs. Nominal dimensions (tw of 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm
and d1 of 150 mm and 200 mm) and web yield stresses (fyw of 400 MPa
and 500 MPa) were used in the analyses (Tables 3–5). The corner radius
was assumed to be zero in the analyses with the given dimensions taken
as centerline dimensions.
In order to investigate the effect of web yield stress (fyw) and web
clear height to web thickness ratio d1/tw on the ultimate shear capacity
of LCBs with non-circular web openings, the same FE model was used
with varying web thickness (tw) and web yield stress (fyw) values. The
(d1/tw) ratio was thus varied from 75 to 200 by changing the web
thickness (tw=1 mm and 2 mm). In the parametric study, web opening
depths (dwh), 0, 30, 60, 100, 125, 150 and 175 mm and widths (bwh) of
30, 60, 80, 100, 125 and 150 mm were considered. Although AS/NZS
4600 restricts the ratio of dwh /d1 to 0.7, it was varied between 0.0 and
0.88 in this parametric study.
The ultimate shear capacities of LCBs with web openings (Vnl) and
the corresponding shear capacity reduction factors (qs) for varying
ratios of dwh/d1 obtained from these analyses are given in Tables 3–5.
The ultimate shear capacities of the selected LCBs without web open-
ings (Vv) were also obtained from FEA. The shear capacity reduction
factor (qs) was calculated as the ratio of Vnl to Vv. The results presented
in Tables 3–5 show that the ultimate shear capacities decrease rapidly
with increasing ratios of dwh/d1.

Fig. 6. Applied load versus vertical deflection plot for 160×65×15×1.9 LCB with
60 mm circular web openings (Aspect Ratio=1.0). Fig. 7. Shear failure mode of 160×65×15×1.9 LCB with 60 mm circular web openings
(Aspect Ratio=1.0).

88
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Fig. 8. Shear failure modes 200×75×18×2.0 LCBs with non-circular web openings.

5. Comparison of shear capacities with current design rule calculated using a reduction factor qs applied to the shear capacity of
predictions LCBs without web openings (Vv). Eq. (1)–(3) in Section 2 of this paper
present the shear capacity equations for LCBs without web openings
In this section, the ultimate shear capacities of LCBs with non- (VV). In this section, new equations are provided for qs based on two
circular web openings obtained from FEA are compared with the criteria. The first criterion considers qs as a function of the ratio of
predictions from the currently available design equations based on depth of web opening to clear web height (dwh/d1) while the second
suitable shear capacity reduction factors as shown in Tables 6–8. It criterion considers qs as a function of the ratio qa of web opening area to
must be noted that the FEA shear capacities of LCBs without web shear panel area (Ah/Af).
openings obtained from this study and reported in Tables 3–5 were used
as the reference values to determine the shear capacity reduction factor 6.1. Shear capacity equations based on dwh/d1 ratio
qs in all cases. Comparison of shear capacities was undertaken to
investigate the accuracy of only the shear capacity reduction factor This section describes the development of shear capacity (Vnl)
equations. equations for LCBs with unreinforced centrally positioned square,
The comparison of shear capacity reduction factors (qs) from FEA rectangular and elliptical web openings based on the critical dwh/d1
and various design equations shows that the shear capacities predicted ratio. The shear capacity data obtained from the parametric study
by Shan et al.’s [1] design equations are very conservative for LCBs with (Section 4) were used to derive the new Equations, Eqs. (12)–(15). This
web openings in most cases. For compact and moderate slender shear capacity data confirms that the depth of web openings signifi-
sections, AS/NZS 4600 [4] and AISI S100 design equations (Eqs. cantly influences the shear capacity than the width of web openings.
(4)–(8)) are also conservative for LCB sections with small square web Currently available design rules (Eqs. (4)–(8)) also do not include the
openings. However, they are unconservative for LCB sections with large web opening width (bwh). However, a shape factor defined as the ratio
square web openings. For slender sections, these design equations are of depth to width of web openings (dwh/bwh) is introduced in these
very unconservative for both LCB sections with small and large square equations to consider the effect of rectangular shape.
web openings (see Table 6). The ultimate shear capacities from FEA are
also compared in Tables 6–8 with the predictions from Keerthan and Shear capacity of LCBs with unreinforced square and rectan-
Mahendran's [11] equations developed for hollow flange channel gular web openings
beams with circular web openings. This comparison shows that the Vnl = qsVv (12)
shear capacities predicted by Keerthan and Mahendran's [11] design
equations are unconservative for LCBs with large web openings. ⎡d ⎤ d wh
Therefore new shear design equations are deemed necessary to predict qs = 1 − 0.667⎢ wh ⎥ 0< ≤ 0.30
⎣ d1 ⎦ d1 (13)
the shear capacities of LCBs with non-circular web openings. Details of
the proposed shear capacity reduction factor equations are given next. ⎛ ⎡ d ⎤⎞ ⎛ d ⎞0.4 d wh
AS/NZS 4600 [4] restricts the dwh/d1 ratio to a value of 0.7. Some qs = ⎜⎜1.145 − 1.35⎢ wh ⎥⎟⎟ ⎜ wh ⎟ 0.30 < ≤ 0.70
⎝ ⎣ d1 ⎦⎠ ⎝ bwh ⎠ d1 (14)
FEA conducted in this research exceeded the above limit (see Tables
6–8) and hence their equations were not used in predicting the shear ⎛ ⎡ d ⎤⎞ ⎛ d ⎞0.4 d wh
capacities in such cases. qs = ⎜⎜0.667 − 0.667⎢ wh ⎥⎟⎟ ⎜ wh ⎟ 0.70 < ≤ 0.85
⎝ ⎣ d1 ⎦⎠ ⎝ bwh ⎠ d1 (15)
6. Proposed design equations for the shear capacities of LCBs with
non-circular web openings
qs = shear capacity reduction factor (i.e. Vnl/Vv)
d wh = depth of web opening
Since the currently available shear capacity reduction factor equa-
bwh = width of web opening
tions are either conservative or unsafe, new shear design equations are
d1 = clear height of web
proposed to predict the shear capacity of LCBs with square and d wh
= shape factor; i.e. 1.0 for square web openings.
rectangular web openings first based on FEA results. It is proposed bwh
d wh
that the shear capacity of LCBs with web openings (Vnl) can be bwh
≤ 1.0 for rectangular web openings

89
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Fig. 9. Shear behaviour of 200×75×18×2.0 LCB with rectangular web openings (Aspect Ratio=1.5).

Fig. 10 shows the non-dimensional curve of qs versus dwh/d1 for shape factor, dwh/bwh is 1.0. It shows that the shear capacity reduction
LCBs with square web openings based on the proposed Equations (Eqs. factors predicted by Eqs. (12)–(15) agree well with FEA shear capacity
(12)–(15)), and compares it with the corresponding FEA shear capacity reduction factors. The overall mean value of the ratio of FEA to
reduction factors reported in Table 9. For square web openings, the predicted shear capacity reduction factor (square web openings) is

90
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 3
Parametric study results of LCBs with square web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect Ratio fyw (MPa) d1 (mm) bwhxdwh (mm) d1/tw dwh/d1 Vv (kN) Vnl (kN) qs

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 0×0 99 0.00 79.71 79.71 1.00

2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 60×60 99 0.30 79.71 56.89 0.71
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×100 99 0.51 79.71 31.58 0.40
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×125 99 0.63 79.71 19.71 0.25
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 150×150 99 0.76 79.71 9.06 0.11
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 0×0 99 0.00 61.44 61.44 1.00
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 60×60 99 0.30 61.44 53.93 0.88
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 100×100 99 0.51 61.44 29.20 0.48
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×125 99 0.63 61.44 17.50 0.28
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 150×150 99 0.76 61.44 8.65 0.14
11 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 198 0×0 99 0.00 67.40 67.40 1.00
12 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 198 60×60 99 0.30 67.40 47.97 0.71
13 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 198 100×100 99 0.51 67.40 26.95 0.40
14 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 198 125×125 99 0.63 67.40 17.00 0.25
15 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 198 150×150 99 0.76 67.40 7.54 0.11
16 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 198 0×0 99 0.00 51.78 51.78 1.00
17 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 198 60×60 99 0.30 51.78 43.25 0.84
18 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 198 100×100 99 0.51 51.78 24.72 0.48
19 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 198 125×125 99 0.63 51.78 14.97 0.29
20 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 198 150×150 99 0.76 51.78 7.26 0.14
21 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 199 0×0 199 0.00 24.33 24.33 1.00
22 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 199 60×60 199 0.30 24.33 19.09 0.78
23 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 199 100×100 199 0.50 24.33 12.31 0.51
24 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 199 125×125 199 0.63 24.33 6.75 0.28
25 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 199 150×150 199 0.75 24.33 3.24 0.13
26 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 199 0×0 199 0.00 19.36 19.36 1.00
27 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 199 60×60 199 0.30 19.36 16.21 0.84
28 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 199 100×100 199 0.50 19.36 12.52 0.65
29 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 199 125×125 199 0.63 19.36 6.30 0.33
30 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 199 150×150 199 0.75 19.36 3.16 0.16
31 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 199 0×0 199 0.00 20.65 20.65 1.00
32 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 199 60×60 199 0.30 20.65 16.43 0.80
33 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 199 100×100 199 0.50 20.65 11.09 0.54
34 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 199 125×125 199 0.63 20.65 5.73 0.28
35 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 199 150×150 199 0.75 20.65 2.74 0.13
36 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 199 0×0 199 0.00 16.90 16.92 1.00
37 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 199 60×60 199 0.30 16.90 14.11 0.83
38 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 199 100×100 199 0.50 16.90 8.52 0.50
39 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 199 125×125 199 0.63 16.90 5.39 0.32
40 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 199 150×150 199 0.75 16.90 2.59 0.15
41 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 30×30 99 0.15 79.71 74.30 0.93
42 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 80×80 99 0.40 79.71 44.69 0.56
43 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 175×175 99 0.88 79.71 3.25 0.04
44 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 0×0 74 0.00 63.40 63.4 1.00
45 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 30×30 74 0.20 63.40 57.58 0.91
46 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 60×60 74 0.41 63.40 37.96 0.60
47 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 100×100 74 0.68 63.40 13.59 0.21
48 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 148 0×0 74 0.00 52.53 52.53 1.00
49 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 148 60×60 74 0.41 52.53 34.56 0.66
50 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 148 100×100 74 0.68 52.53 12.77 0.24

Table 4
Parametric study results of LCBs with rectangular web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect Ratio fyw (MPa) d1 (mm) bwhxdwh (mm) d1/tw dwh/d1 Vv (kN) Vnl (kN) qs

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×60 99 0.30 79.71 49.50 0.62

2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×150 99 0.76 79.71 12.95 0.16
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×60 99 0.30 79.71 45.49 0.57
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×100 99 0.51 79.71 27.97 0.35
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×150 99 0.76 79.71 10.49 0.13
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 100×60 99 0.30 61.44 43.77 0.71
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 100×150 99 0.76 61.44 12.59 0.20
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×60 99 0.30 61.44 38.55 0.63
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×100 99 0.51 61.44 25.30 0.41
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×150 99 0.76 61.44 10.09 0.16
11 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 60×30 99 0.15 79.71 68.07 0.85
12 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×80 99 0.40 79.71 39.91 0.50
13 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×175 99 0.88 79.71 5.83 0.07
14 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 80×60 74 0.41 63.40 35.46 0.56
15 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 80×100 74 0.68 63.40 16.10 0.25
16 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 148 80×60 74 0.41 52.53 30.35 0.58
17 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 148 80×100 74 0.68 52.53 14.99 0.29

91
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 5
Parametric study results of LCBs with elliptical web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect Ratio fyw (MPa) d1 (mm) bwhxdwh (mm) d1/tw dwh/d1 Vv (kN) Vnl (kN) qs

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×60 99 0.30 79.71 58.63 0.74

2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×80 99 0.40 79.71 50.88 0.64
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×150 99 0.76 79.71 25.04 0.31
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×60 99 0.30 79.71 54.30 0.68
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×100 99 0.51 79.71 40.77 0.51
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 125×150 99 0.76 79.71 23.29 0.29
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 100×60 99 0.30 61.44 50.35 0.82
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 100×80 99 0.40 61.44 46.53 0.76
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×150 99 0.76 61.44 25.13 0.41
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×60 99 0.30 61.44 47.10 0.77
11 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×100 99 0.51 61.44 35.96 0.59
12 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 198 125×150 99 0.76 61.44 21.47 0.35
13 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 60×30 99 0.15 79.71 72.50 0.91
14 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×80 99 0.40 79.71 50.89 0.64
15 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 198 100×175 99 0.88 79.71 15.06 0.19
16 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 80×60 74 0.41 63.40 44.22 0.70
17 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 148 80×100 74 0.68 63.40 27.01 0.43
18 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 148 80×60 74 0.41 52.53 41.67 0.79
19 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 148 80×100 74 0.68 52.53 24.99 0.48

0.95 while the corresponding coefficient of variation (COV) is 0.16.
Commonly used cold-formed steel floor systems normally have
rectangular web opening with dwh/bwh ratios less than 1.0. Hence only
the results for dwh/bwh ratios less than 1.0 were considered in
developing Eqs. (14) and (15). These equations in their current format
could not be extended to cover dwh/bwh ratios greater than 1.0.
However, they can be used conservatively to predict their shear
capacities by assuming dwh/bwh as 1.0.
Fig. 11 shows the non-dimensional curve of qs versus dwh/d1 for
LCBs with square and rectangular web openings, but assuming dwh/
bwh=1.0. It can be observed from Fig. 11 that the shear capacities of
LCBs with rectangular web openings are smaller than the shear
capacities of LCBs with square web openings. The comparison given
in Table 10 further shows that the shear capacities of LCBs with
rectangular web openings are smaller than the shear capacities of LCBs
with square web openings (dwh/bwh < 1.0). Therefore the shape factor
(dwh/bwh) was introduced in Eqs. (12)–(15) and the predicted shear
capacities of LCBs with rectangular and square web openings were
plotted in Fig. 12. It shows that the proposed Equations (Eqs. (12)–(15))
are able to predict the shear capacities of LCBs with rectangular and
square web openings more accurately with the inclusion of the shape
factor.
Table 10 shows the comparison of shear capacity reduction factors
with Eqs. (12)–(15) with and without the use of the shape factor for
LCBs with rectangular web openings (dwh/bwh < 1.0). The overall mean
value of FEA to predicted shear capacity reduction factor ratio is 1.02
and its corresponding COV is 0.11 when the shape factor was used.
These values are 0.85 and 0.11 when the shape factor was not used.
Fig. 12 and Table 10 show that Eqs. (12)–(15) are able to predict the
shear capacities of LCBs with rectangular web openings more accu-
rately with the use of the shape factor.
Keerthan and Mahendran [6] developed suitable design equations
for the shear capacity of LCBs with circular unreinforced web openings
based on experiments and FEA results. Shear capacities of LCBs with
square and rectangular web openings are compared with Keerthan and
Mahendran's [6] circular web opening equations in Fig. 13. This figure
shows that the shear capacities of LCBs with square and rectangular
web openings are less than the shear capacities of LCBs with circular
web openings. This is due to a large web area being removed in square
and rectangular web openings compared to circular web openings.
Fig. 14 shows the shear capacity reduction factors qs for
200×75×18×2.0 LCB (moderately slender section (d1/tw=100),
aspect ratios 1.0 and 1.5) as a function of dwh/d1 ratio in comparison
to those proposed by other researchers in the past. These figures show
that Shan et al.’s [1] design equations underestimate the shear capacity
of LCBs with web openings significantly when dwh/d1 is greater than
0.2 while their shear capacity reduction factor (qs) is equal to 1.0 (no
reduction in shear capacity) when dwh/d1 is less than 0.2. Hence Shan
et al.’s [1] design equations are not acceptable for the shear design of
LCBs with square and rectangular web openings. As seen from Fig. 14,
AS/NZS 4600 and AISI S100 design equations are conservative for LCB
sections with smaller square web openings while they are unconserva-
tive for LCB sections with larger square openings. However, the
proposed design Equations (Eqs. (12)–(15)) are able to accurately
predict the FEA shear capacities of LCBs with square web openings.
Keerthan and Mahendran's [11] Eqs. (9)–(11) for the shear capacity
reduction factor of hollow flange channel beams are in terms of dwh/d1.
These equations are similar to the proposed equations for LCBs in this
paper. As seen in Fig. 14, Keerthan and Mahendran's [11] equations
were able to predict the shear capacity reduction factors for LCBs with
dwh/d1 ratio less than 0.3. However, their equations overestimated the
shear capacities of LCBs when the dwh/d1 ratio is greater than 0.3 as
they were developed for hollow flange channel beams.
Fig. 15 shows the shear capacity reduction factors qs of slender
200×75×18×1.0 LCB (slender section (d1/tw=200), aspect ratios 1.0
and 1.5) as a function of dwh/d1 in comparison to those proposed by
other researchers in the past. For slender sections, AS/NZS 4600 [4]
design equations are very unconservative for both LCB sections with
small and large square web openings as seen in Fig. 15. However, Eqs.
(12)–(15) are able to predict their shear capacities quite well.
Shear design equations for cold-formed steel beams with web
openings (i.e. Eqs. (4)–(8)) given in AS/NZS 4600 [4] and AISI S100
[3] are based on Eiler's [2] recommendations. Eiler [2] used the old
version of AISI S100 [3] to determine the shear capacity of cold-formed
steel beams without web openings. Since the old version of AISI S100
[3] shear design equations are based on simply supported conditions at
the web-flange juncture and also without including the post-buckling
strength in LCBs, Eiler's [2] equations used in AISI S100 should be
recalibrated with AISI S100 shear design equations for cold-formed
steel beams without web openings.
Currently available shear design equations are conservative or
unsafe for LCBs with square or rectangular web openings. It should

92
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 6
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with current design rules for LCBs with square web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect Ratio fyw (MPa) dwh/d1 (mm) qs

FEA Shan et al. [1] AS/NZS 4600 [4] Keerthan and Mahendran [11]

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00

2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.30 0.71 0.60 0.64 0.82
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.51 0.40 0.27 0.45 0.55
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.63 0.25 0.22 0.34 0.38
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.76 0.11 NA NA 0.26
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.30 0.88 0.60 0.64 0.82
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.51 0.48 0.27 0.45 0.55
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.63 0.28 0.22 0.34 0.38
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.76 0.14 NA NA 0.26
11 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00
12 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.30 0.71 0.60 0.64 0.82
13 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.51 0.40 0.27 0.45 0.55
14 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.63 0.25 0.22 0.34 0.38
15 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.76 0.11 NA NA 0.26
16 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00
17 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.30 0.84 0.60 0.64 0.82
18 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.51 0.48 0.27 0.45 0.55
19 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.63 0.29 0.22 0.34 0.38
20 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.76 0.14 NA NA 0.26
21 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
22 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.30 0.78 0.61 1.00 0.82
23 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.50 0.51 0.27 0.92 0.55
24 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.63 0.28 0.22 0.69 0.39
25 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.75 0.13 NA NA 0.26
26 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
27 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.30 0.84 0.61 1.00 0.82
28 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.50 0.65 0.27 0.92 0.55
29 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.63 0.33 0.22 0.69 0.39
30 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.75 0.16 NA NA 0.26
31 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
32 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.30 0.80 0.61 1.00 0.82
33 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.50 0.54 0.27 0.92 0.55
34 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.63 0.28 0.22 0.69 0.39
35 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.75 0.13 NA NA 0.26
36 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
37 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.30 0.83 0.61 1.00 0.82
38 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.92 0.55
39 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.63 0.32 0.22 0.69 0.39
40 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.75 0.15 NA NA 0.26
41 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.15 0.93 1.00 0.78 0.91
42 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.40 0.56 0.31 0.55 0.68
43 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.88 0.04 NA NA NA
44 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00
45 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.20 0.91 0.97 0.55 0.88
46 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.41 0.60 0.25 0.31 0.50
47 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.68 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.33
48 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00
49 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.41 0.66 0.25 0.31 0.50
50 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.68 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.33

be noted that the shear capacity reduction factor (qs) predicted by AS/
NZS 4600 is 0.92 for 200×75×18×2.0 LCB (see Table 6) when LCBs
do not have any web openings. This research has shown that the current
design rules in AS/NZS 4600 [4] for the shear capacity of LCBs with
square and rectangular web openings must be modified. It is therefore
recommended that Eqs. (12)–(15) are adopted for LCBs with square and
rectangular web openings.
Keerthan and Mahendran [6] developed suitable design equations
for the shear capacity of LCBs with circular unreinforced web openings
based on experimental and FEA results (Eqs. (16)–(19)). Fig. 16 shows
the non-dimensional curve of qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with circular
and elliptical web openings. It also includes some experimental shear
capacity results for circular web openings. In order to check the
suitability of Eqs. (16)–(19) for LCBs with elliptical web openings, the
shear capacity reduction factors of LCBs with elliptical web openings
were compared with Eqs. (16)–(19) in Fig. 17 and Table 11. As for
rectangular web openings, the results for dwh/bwh ratios greater than
1.0 were not considered. The overall mean value of FEA to predicted
shear capacity reduction factor ratio is 0.98 while the corresponding
coefficient of variation (COV) is 0.09 without applying a shape factor.
Table 11 also shows the shear capacity reduction factor qs with the
introduction of a shape factor (i.e. (dwh/bwh)0.15) to Keerthan and
Mahendran's [6] equations. It gives the overall mean value of FEA to
predicted shear capacity reduction factor ratio as 1.04 with the
corresponding COV of 0.07. Hence this is considered as an improved
solution, which is also compared in Fig. 18. Fig. 19 shows that Eqs.
(20)–(23) with the new shape factor can be used to predict the shear
capacity reduction more accurately in comparison to other design

93
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 7
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with current design rules for LCBs with rectangular web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect Ratio fyw (MPa) dwh/d1 (mm) qs

FEA Shan et al. [1] AS/NZS 4600 [4] Keerthan and Mahendran [11]

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.30 0.62 0.61 0.65 0.82

2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.76 0.16 NA NA 0.26
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.30 0.57 0.61 0.65 0.82
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.51 0.35 0.27 0.46 0.56
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.76 0.13 NA 0.23 0.26
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.30 0.71 0.61 0.65 0.82
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.76 0.2 NA NA 0.26
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.30 0.63 0.61 0.65 0.82
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.51 0.41 0.27 0.46 0.56
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.76 0.16 NA NA 0.26
11 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.15 0.85 1.00 0.79 0.91
12 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.40 0.50 0.31 0.56 0.69
13 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.88 0.07 NA NA NA
14 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.41 0.56 0.31 0.42 0.69
15 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.68 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.34
16 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.41 0.58 0.31 0.42 0.69
17 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.68 0.29 0.21 0.23 0.34

Table 8
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with current design rules for LCBs with elliptical web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect Ratio fyw (MPa) dwh/d1 (mm) qs

FEA Shan et al. [1] AS/NZS 4600 [4] Keerthan and Mahendran [11]

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.30 0.74 0.60 0.64 0.82

2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.40 0.64 0.31 0.55 0.68
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.75 0.31 NA NA 0.26
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.30 0.68 0.60 0.64 0.82
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.50 0.51 0.27 0.45 0.55
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.75 0.29 NA NA 0.26
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.30 0.82 0.60 0.64 0.82
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.40 0.76 0.31 0.55 0.68
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.75 0.41 NA NA 0.26
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.30 0.77 0.60 0.64 0.82
11 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.50 0.59 0.27 0.45 0.55
12 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.75 0.35 NA NA 0.26
13 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.15 0.91 1.00 0.78 0.91
14 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.40 0.64 0.31 0.55 0.68
15 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.88 0.19 NA NA NA
16 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.40 0.70 0.31 0.41 0.68
17 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.67 0.43 0.20 0.22 0.33
18 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.40 0.79 0.31 0.41 0.68
19 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.67 0.48 0.20 0.22 0.33

equations including those from AS/NZS 4600 and AISI S100 (Identical). Vnl = qsVv 0 < d wh / d1 ≤ 0.85 (16)

Shear capacity of LCBs with unreinforced circular web open- ⎡d ⎤ d wh

qs = 1 − 0.6⎢ wh ⎥ 0< ≤ 0.30
ings ⎣ d1 ⎦ d1 (17)

⎡d ⎤ d wh
qs = 1.215 − 1.316⎢ wh ⎥ 0.30 < ≤ 0.70
⎣ d1 ⎦ d1 (18)

⎡d ⎤ d wh
qs = 0.732 − 0.625⎢ wh ⎥ 0.70 < ≤ 0.85
⎣ d1 ⎦ d1 (19)
Shear capacity of LCBs with unreinforced elliptical web open-
ings
Vnl = qsVv 0 < d wh / d1 ≤ 0.85 (20)

⎡ ⎛ d ⎞⎤ d wh
qs = ⎢1 − 0.6⎜ wh ⎟⎥ 0< ≤ 0.30
⎢⎣ ⎝ d1 ⎠⎥⎦ d1 (21)

⎡ ⎛ d ⎞⎤⎛ d ⎞0.15 d
Fig. 10. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with qs = ⎢1.215 − 1.316⎜ wh ⎟⎥⎜ wh ⎟ 0.30 < wh ≤ 0.70
⎢⎣ ⎝ d1 ⎠⎥⎦⎝ bwh ⎠ d1 (22)
square web openings from FEA and Eqs. (12)–(15).

94
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 9
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with proposed design rules for square web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect Ratio fyw (MPa) bwh×dwh (mm) dwh/d1 qs FEA/Proposed Eqs. (12)–(15)

FEA Proposed Eqs. (12)–(15)

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 60×60 0.30 0.71 0.80 0.89
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 100×100 0.51 0.40 0.47 0.85
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 125×125 0.63 0.25 0.29 0.85
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 150×150 0.76 0.11 0.16 0.69
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 60×60 0.30 0.88 0.80 1.10
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 100×100 0.51 0.48 0.47 1.02
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 125×125 0.63 0.28 0.29 0.95
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 150×150 0.76 0.14 0.16 0.87
11 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 60×60 0.30 0.71 0.80 0.89
13 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 100×100 0.51 0.40 0.47 0.85
14 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 125×125 0.63 0.25 0.29 0.85
15 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 150×150 0.76 0.11 0.16 0.69
16 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
17 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 60×60 0.30 0.84 0.80 1.05
18 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 100×100 0.51 0.48 0.47 1.02
19 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 125×125 0.63 0.29 0.29 0.98
20 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 150×150 0.76 0.14 0.16 0.87
21 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
22 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 60×60 0.30 0.78 0.80 0.98
23 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 100×100 0.50 0.51 0.47 1.09
24 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 125×125 0.63 0.28 0.29 0.95
25 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 150×150 0.75 0.13 0.17 0.78
26 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
27 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 60×60 0.30 0.84 0.80 1.05
28 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 100×100 0.50 0.65 0.47 1.38
29 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 125×125 0.63 0.33 0.29 1.12
30 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 150×150 0.75 0.16 0.17 0.96
31 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
32 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 60×60 0.30 0.80 0.80 1.00
33 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 100×100 0.50 0.54 0.47 1.15
34 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 125×125 0.63 0.28 0.29 0.95
35 200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 150×150 0.75 0.13 0.17 0.78
36 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
37 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 60×60 0.30 0.83 0.80 1.04
38 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 100×100 0.50 0.50 0.47 1.06
39 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 125×125 0.63 0.32 0.29 1.09
40 200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 150×150 0.75 0.15 0.17 0.90
41 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 30×30 0.15 0.93 0.90 1.03
42 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 80×80 0.40 0.56 0.64 0.88
43 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 175×175 0.88 0.04 NA NA
44 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
45 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 30×30 0.20 0.91 0.87 1.05
46 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 60×60 0.41 0.60 0.64 0.94
47 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 100×100 0.68 0.21 0.47 0.45
48 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0×0 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
49 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 60×60 0.41 0.66 0.64 1.04
50 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 100×100 0.68 0.24 0.47 0.51
Mean 0.95
COV 0.16

⎡ ⎛ d ⎞⎤⎛ d ⎞0.15 d
qs = ⎢0.732 − 0.625⎜ wh ⎟⎥⎜ wh ⎟ 0.70 < wh ≤ 0.85
⎢⎣ ⎝ d1 ⎠⎥⎦⎝ bwh ⎠ d1 (23)

d wh
= shape factor; i.e. 1.0 for circular web openings.
bwh
d wh
bwh
≤ 1.0 for elliptical web openings

6.2. Shear capacity equation based on Ah/Af ratio

Fig. 11. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with
square and rectangular web openings from FEA and Eqs. (12)–(15) without shape factor.
In this section, shear design equations are developed for LCBs with
unreinforced square, rectangular and elliptical web openings based on
the ratio qa defined as the ratio of the web opening area (Ah) to full web
shear panel area (Af) (i.e. qa=Ah/Af). Eqs. (24) and (25) show the
proposed design equations for the shear capacity of LCBs with
unreinforced square, rectangular and elliptical web openings (Vnl)

95
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 10
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with proposed design rules for rectangular web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect fyw (MPa) bwh×dwh dwh/d1 Shape Factor qs FEA/Eqs. (12)–(15)
Ratio (mm) dwh/bwh
FEA Eqs. (12)–(15) Eqs. (12)–(15) (with Without Shape With Shape
(without Shape Shape Factor) Factor Factor
Factor)

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 100×60 0.30 0.60 0.62 0.80 0.65 0.78 0.95
2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 125×60 0.30 0.48 0.57 0.80 0.60 0.71 0.96
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 125×100 0.51 0.80 0.35 0.46 0.42 0.77 0.84
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 100×60 0.30 0.60 0.71 0.80 0.65 0.89 1.09
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 125×60 0.30 0.48 0.63 0.80 0.60 0.79 1.06
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 125×100 0.51 0.80 0.41 0.46 0.42 0.90 0.98
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 60×30 0.15 0.50 0.85 0.90 0.68 0.94 1.25
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 100×80 0.40 0.80 0.50 0.61 0.55 0.83 0.90
9 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 80×60 0.41 0.75 0.56 0.59 0.53 0.95 1.06
10 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 80×60 0.41 0.75 0.58 0.59 0.53 0.98 1.10
Mean 0.85 1.02
COV 0.11 0.11

tional shear capacities due to Vierendeel mechanism. However, they

Fig. 12. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with
square and rectangular web openings from FEA and Eqs. (12)–(15) with shape factor.
based on a shear capacity reduction factor qs.
Vnl = qsVv (24)
qs = 1 + 3.33qa2 − 3.234qa qa ≤ 0.5 and d wh /d1 ≤ 0.7 (25)
The application of Eqs. (24) and (25) is limited to an aspect ratio of
1.5 and thereby the maximum shear panel area is limited to 1.5d12,
where d1 is the clear height of the web panel. The maximum web
opening area is also limited to 50% of the full web shear panel area (i.e.
qa≤0.5). LCBs with large web openings (dwh/d1 > 0.70) have addi-
were not considered in developing Eq. (25). Hence Eq. (25) is restricted
to dwh/d1 < 0.7.
Fig. 20 shows the variation of qs versus qa for different non-circular
web opening shapes using the parametric study results. It shows that
Eqs. (24) and (25) are able to predict the shear capacity of LCBs with
non-circular web openings reasonably well. Tables 12–14 show the
comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with the proposed Eq.
(25) for square, rectangular and elliptical web openings, respectively.
The overall mean value of FEA to predict shear capacity reduction
factor ratios for square, rectangular and elliptical openings are 1.00,
1.01, and 1.13 with their corresponding COVs of 0.121, 0.134, and
0.09, respectively, whereas the overall mean value and COV consider-
ing all the shapes together are 1.03 and 0.124, respectively. These
results show that Eq. (25) is able to predict the shear capacity of LCBs
with non-circular web openings.
As seen from Fig. 20, a common pattern of reduction in shear
capacity is observed irrespective of the web opening shape when
considering the ratio Ah/Af. This indicates that the shear capacity of
cold-formed steel beam with openings in the web not only depends on
its cross sectional properties, but also the shear panel properties. This is
understandable as the maximum shear stress in a shear panel occurs at
45° to the longitudinal direction of web panel as shown by Eiler [2] in
Fig. 2. Therefore the ratio Ah/Af is a relevant parameter that can be
used to predict the shear capacity reduction in web panels with
different shapes of openings.
In order to verify the applicability of Eq. (25) for LCBs with circular
web openings, experimental results of circular web openings from

Fig. 13. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with
square and rectangular web openings from FEA and Keerthan and Mahendran's [11] Fig. 14. Comparison of shear capacity of 200×75×18×2.0 LCBs with square web
equations for circular web openings. openings from FEA with Eqs. (12)–(15) and current design equations (d1/tw=100).

96
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al.
Fig. 15. Comparison of shear capacity of 200×75×18×1.0 LCBs with square web
openings from FEA with Eqs. (12)–(15) and current design equations (d1/tw=200).
Keerthan and Mahendran [6] were also plotted in Fig. 21. It shows that
Eq. (25) is able to predict the shear capacity of LCBs with circular and
non-circular web openings equally well.
7. Direct strength method for shear capacities of LCBs with web
openings
The direct strength method (DSM) provides simple design proce-
dures for cold-formed steel members. Pham and Hancock [9] developed
DSM equations (Eq. (1)–(3)) for the shear capacities of LCBs without
web openings based on test and FEA results. Keerthan and Mahendran
[10] also developed DSM equations for the shear capacities of LCBs
without web openings based on test and FEA results. In this study, new
DSM based equations (Eqs. (26)–(28)) were developed to calculate the
shear capacities of LCBs with web openings.(Vnl) using a reduction
factor qs applied to the shear capacity of LCBs without web openings
(Vv).
Pham et al. [15] proposed DSM nominal shear capacity (Vv)
equations by including tension field action. Their DSM plots with test
and FEA results showed that the results for some sections were located
below the DSM curve. Hence a scale factor of 0.9 was used to modify
the DSM curve. In the same manner, the DSM equations of LCBs without
web openings (Eqs. (1) and (2)) are modified by including the shear
capacity reduction factor (qs) to predict the shear capacities of LCBs
with web openings (Vnl).
Vnl
= 1 × qs λ ≤ 0.776
Vy
Fig. 16. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with
circular and elliptical web openings from FEA with Eqs. (20)–(23).
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102
Fig. 17. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with
elliptical web openings from FEA with Eqs. (16)–(19) without shape factor.
⎡ ⎛ V ⎞0.4 ⎤ ⎛ V ⎞0.4
= ⎢⎢1 − 0.15⎜⎜ cr ⎟⎟ ⎥⎥ ⎜⎜ cr ⎟⎟ × qs λ > 0.776
Vnl
Vy
⎣ ⎝ Vy ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ Vy ⎠ (27)
Vy
λ=
Vcr (28)
In these equations Vcr is the elastic shear buckling capacity of LCBs
without web openings (Eq. (3b)), Vy is the shear yield capacity of LCBs
without web openings (Eq. (3a)), and the shear capacity reduction
factor (qs) is based on Eqs. (12)–(25).
The ultimate shear capacity results of LCBs with and without web
openings from FEA were processed within the DSM format and
compared with the proposed DSM based design equations. Fig. 22
shows the non-dimensional shear capacity curves for LCBs without web
openings and the FEA results of LCBs with and without web openings. It
includes the shear capacities plotted in a non-dimensional format of
Vnl/Vy versus λ. In this figure, qs was not included for LCBs with web
openings.
Fig. 23 shows the non-dimensional shear capacity curves for LCBs,
where qs was included for LCBs with web openings. It shows that Eqs.
(26) and (27) (with qs) safely predict the shear capacities of LCBs with
web openings. Figs. 22 and 23 also show the comparisons based on the
DSM equations of LCBs without web openings developed by Keerthan
and Mahendran [10].
(26)
Fig. 18. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs versus dwh/d1 for LCBs with
elliptical web openings from FEA with Eqs. (16)–(19) with shape factor.
97
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 11
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with proposed design rules for elliptical web openings.

No. LCB Section Aspect fyw (MPa) bwh×dwh dwh/d1 Shape Factor qs FEA/proposed Eqs.
Ratio (mm) dwh/bwh
FEA Eqs. (16)–(19) Eqs. (20)–(23) (with Without Shape With Shape
(without Shape Shape Factor) Factor Factor
Factor)

1 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 100×60 0.30 0.60 0.74 0.82 0.76 0.90 0.97
2 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 100×80 0.40 0.80 0.64 0.69 0.67 0.93 0.96
3 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 125×60 0.30 0.48 0.68 0.82 0.73 0.83 0.93
4 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 125×100 0.51 0.80 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.94 0.97
5 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 100×60 0.30 0.60 0.82 0.82 0.76 1.00 1.08
6 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 100×80 0.40 0.80 0.76 0.69 0.67 1.10 1.14
7 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 125×60 0.30 0.48 0.77 0.82 0.73 0.94 1.05
8 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 125×100 0.51 0.80 0.59 0.54 0.53 1.08 1.12
9 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 60×30 0.15 0.50 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00
10 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 100×80 0.40 0.80 0.64 0.69 0.67 0.93 0.96
11 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 80×60 0.41 0.75 0.70 0.68 0.65 1.04 1.08
Mean 0.98 1.04
COV 0.09 0.07

8. DSM for shear capacity of LCBs with square web openings

New design equations (Eqs. (12)–(15) and (24) and (25)) were
developed for the shear capacity of LCB with square web openings (Vnl ).
They are simply based on a reduction factor qs applied to the shear
capacity of LCBs without web openings (Vv ) (Sections 6.1 and 6.2).
Hence a general DSM shear design equation that applies to LCB sections
with or without web openings is developed in this section.
For this purpose, it is proposed to replace the web plate of the LCB
cross-section with square web openings with a solid web plate having
an equivalent reduced thickness using this simple and practical
approach. The shear capacity equations already developed for LCBs
without web openings (Eqs. (1) and (2) or those given in [10]) can be
then used for LCBs with web openings. Therefore finite element studies
were first conducted to develop an equivalent reduced web thickness
method that allows for the effect of square web openings on the elastic Fig. 20. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs for non-circular web openings
shear buckling load. The validated FE model was used to develop an from FEA with Eq. (25).
extensive data base of elastic shear buckling loads for LCBs with square
web openings. Two aspect ratios (a/d1) of 1.0 and 1.5 were considered coefficient of LCBs without web openings (kLCB) given in Keerthan
in this study. Table 15 shows the elastic shear buckling loads (Vcr) of and Mahendran [10] were also used for LCBs with web openings. Eq.
selected LCBs with square web openings obtained from finite element (29) was then used to determine the equivalent reduced web thickness
analyses (FEA). (tEqu-web) for the selected LCB sections with the same web openings,
The effect of web openings on the web-flange boundary condition of which are given in Table 15. Based on these values, Eq. (30) was
LCBs is considered very small and hence the shear buckling coefficients proposed for tEqu-web as a function of dwh/d1.
of LCBs with and without square web openings (kLCB) are assumed to be
the same. Hence the predictive equations for the shear buckling 3
0.905EkLCBtEqu − web
Vcr =
d1 (29)

Fig. 19. Comparison of shear capacity of 200×75×18×2.0 LCBs with elliptical web Fig. 21. Comparison of shear capacity reduction factor qs from the test results of circular
openings with available design equations (d1/tw=200). web openings with Eq. (25).

98
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 12 Table 14
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with proposed design rules based on Ah/ Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with proposed design rules based on Ah/
Af ratio for square web openings. Af ratio for elliptical web openings.

LCB Section Aspect fyw (MPa) qa qs LCB Section Aspect fyw (MPa) qa qs
Ratio Ratio
Ah/Af FEA Eq. (25) FEA/ Ah/Af FEA Eq. (25) FEA/
Eq. (25) Eq. (25)

200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.12 0.74 0.66 1.12
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.09 0.71 0.73 0.97 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.16 0.64 0.57 1.13
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.26 0.40 0.39 1.02 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.15 0.68 0.59 1.15
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.40 0.25 0.24 1.03 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.25 0.51 0.40 1.28
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.08 0.82 0.76 1.08
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.06 0.88 0.81 1.08 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.11 0.76 0.69 1.10
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.17 0.48 0.55 0.88 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.10 0.77 0.71 1.08
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.27 0.28 0.38 0.74 200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.17 0.59 0.55 1.07
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.04 0.91 0.89 1.02
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.09 0.71 0.73 0.97 200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.16 0.64 0.57 1.13
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.26 0.40 0.39 1.02 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.17 0.7 0.54 1.29
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 400 0.40 0.25 0.24 1.03 150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.29 0.43 0.35 1.24
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.11 0.79 0.67 1.17
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.06 0.84 0.81 1.03 150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.19 0.48 0.50 0.95
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.17 0.48 0.55 0.88
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 400 0.27 0.29 0.38 0.77 Mean = 1.13, COV = 0.09.
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.09 0.78 0.73 1.06
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.25 0.51 0.40 1.29
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 500 0.39 0.28 0.24 1.15
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.06 0.84 0.82 1.03
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.17 0.65 0.55 1.18
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 500 0.26 0.33 0.38 0.87
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.09 0.80 0.73 1.09
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.25 0.54 0.40 1.36
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 400 0.39 0.28 0.24 1.15
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.06 0.83 0.82 1.02
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.17 0.50 0.55 0.91
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 400 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.84
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.02 0.93 0.93 1.00
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.16 0.56 0.56 1.00
150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.04 0.91 0.87 1.04 Fig. 22. Non-dimensional shear capacity curve for LCBs without shear capacity reduction
150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.16 0.60 0.56 1.07 factor (qs).
150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.46 0.21 0.22 0.96
150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ⎡ d ⎤
150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.11 0.66 0.69 0.96 tEqu − web = ⎢1 − wh ⎥tw
150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.30 0.24 0.33 0.74 ⎣ 2d1 ⎦ (30)

Mean = 1.00, COV = 0.121. To verify the accuracy of Eq. (30), elastic shear buckling loads of the
same LCBs with web openings were calculated using Eqs. (29) and (30)
and compared with those obtained from FEA. Table 15 shows that they
agree well with a mean of 1.00 and a COV of 0.068. Hence it is
Table 13 proposed that the equivalent reduced web thickness method based on
Comparison of shear capacity reduction factors with proposed design rules based on Ah/ Eq. (30) is used to determine the elastic shear buckling loads of LCBs
Af ratio for rectangular web openings.
with web openings (Vcr). Effect of reduction in shear buckling load due
LCB Section Aspect fyw (MPa) qa qs
Ratio
Ah/Af FEA Eq. (25) FEA/
Eq. (25)

200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.15 0.62 0.58 1.06

200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.19 0.57 0.50 1.13
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.32 0.35 0.31 1.13
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.10 0.71 0.71 1.01
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.13 0.63 0.64 0.98
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 500 0.21 0.41 0.46 0.88
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.05 0.85 0.86 0.99
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 500 0.20 0.5 0.48 1.04
150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.22 0.56 0.45 1.24
150×65×15×2.0 1.0 500 0.37 0.25 0.26 0.95
150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.15 0.58 0.60 0.97
150×65×15×2.0 1.5 500 0.24 0.29 0.41 0.71

Mean = 1.01, COV = 0.134.

Fig. 23. Non-dimensional shear capacity curve for LCBs with shear capacity reduction
factor (qs).

99
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

finite element methods. He has proposed suitable equations for the

Fig. 24. Shear yield loads of 200×75×18×4 LCBs with square web openings.
to web opening was considered only in equivalent reduced web
thickness. It is considered that any small changes to kLCB caused by
web openings will be accommodated by tEqu-Web given by Eq. (30). Eq.
(30) is similar to Keerthan and Mahendran's [11] equivalent reduced
web thickness equation for hollow flange channel beams with web
openings. Alternatively, tEqu-Web equation can also be developed in
terms of web panel area reduction (Ah/Af).
Pham [16,17] investigated the shear buckling coefficient (kLCB) of
the LCBs with square and circular openings using spline finite strip and
shear buckling coefficient of LCBs with square and circular openings.
His equations can be also used to determine the elastic shear buckling
load of LCBs with web openings.
The DSM is based on both the elastic shear buckling load (Vcr) and
the shear yield load (Vy). Therefore a suitable predictive equation is
needed for Vy of LCB sections with square web openings. For this
purpose FE models of thicker LCB sections (200×75×18×4 LCB and
200×75×18×5 LCBs) with (20×20, 40×40x, 80×80, 120×120,
140×140, 170×170 and 190×190 mm) and without openings were
developed and analyzed. All of these thicker sections failed in shear
yielding. In these FEA, thicker (4 mm and 5 mm) LCBs were used to
eliminate elastic buckling, thus providing the shear capacities close to
the shear yield load (Vy). Table 16 and Fig. 24 show the shear yield
loads of 200×75×18×4 LCBs with square web openings. New
equations (Eqs. (31) and (32)) were developed for the shear yield load
of LCBs with square web openings based on FEA results. Eqs. (31) and
(32) restrict the dwh/d1 ratio to 0.7.
d wh
Vy WebOpening = Vy Solid = 0.6fyw d1tw ≤ 0.1
d1 (31)
⎡ ⎛ d ⎞⎤ d wh
Vy WebOpening = Vy Solid ⎢1.14 − 1.4⎜ wh ⎟⎥ > 0.1
⎢⎣ ⎝ d1 ⎠⎥⎦ d1 (32)
When the depth of web opening, dwh, was equal to the clear web
height (d1), the failure was caused by the Vierendeel mechanism with

Table 15
Elastic Shear Buckling Loads of LCBs with Square Web Openings.

Section Aspect Ratio tw (mm) fyw (MPa) bwh×dwh Vcr (FEA) tEqu-web mm (FEA) Vcr (Proposed) Vcr FEA/Vcr Proposed

200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 0 81.05 2.00 81.05 1.00

200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 60×60 45.00 1.11 49.51 0.91
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 100×100 31.36 0.77 33.85 0.93
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 125×125 27.02 0.67 25.98 1.04
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 0 57.02 2.00 57.02 1.00
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 60×60 34.41 1.21 34.83 0.99
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 100×1100 22.48 0.79 23.81 0.94
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 125×125 18.61 0.65 18.27 1.02
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 400 0 81.05 2.00 81.05 1.00
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 400 60×60 45.00 1.11 49.51 0.91
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 400 100×1100 31.36 0.77 33.85 0.93
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 400 125×125 27.02 0.67 25.98 1.04
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 400 0 57.02 2.00 57.02 1.00
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 400 60×60 34.41 1.21 34.83 0.99
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 400 100×1100 22.48 0.79 23.81 0.94
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 400 125×125 18.61 0.65 18.27 1.02
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 500 0 10.22 1.00 10.22 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 500 60×60 5.72 0.56 6.26 0.91
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 500 100×1100 4.01 0.39 4.29 0.93
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 500 125×125 3.46 0.34 3.30 1.05
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 500 0 7.21 1.00 7.21 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 500 60×60 4.37 0.61 4.42 0.99
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 500 100×1100 2.87 0.40 3.03 0.95
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 500 125×125 2.38 0.33 2.33 1.02
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 400 0 10.22 1.00 10.22 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 400 60×60 5.72 0.56 6.26 0.91
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 400 100×1100 4.01 0.39 4.29 0.93
200×75×18×1.0 1.0 1.0 400 125×125 3.46 0.34 3.30 1.05
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 400 0 7.21 1.00 7.21 1.00
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 400 60×60 4.37 0.61 4.42 0.99
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 400 100×100 2.87 0.40 3.03 0.95
200×75×18×1.0 1.5 1.0 400 125×125 2.38 0.33 2.33 1.02
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 0 107.28 2.00 107.28 1.00
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 30×30 77.62 1.45 77.86 1.00
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 60×60 48.53 0.90 41.69 1.16
200×75×18×2.0 1.0 2.0 500 100×100 34.74 0.65 31.15 1.12
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 0 75.76 2.00 75.76 1.00
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 30×30 58.02 1.53 54.98 1.06
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 60×60 36.44 0.96 29.44 1.24
200×75×18×2.0 1.5 2.0 500 100×100 23.71 0.63 21.99 1.08

Mean=1.00, COV=0.068.

100
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102

Table 16
Shear yield loads of 200×75×18×4 LCBs with square web openings (Aspect Ratio=1.0).

Section fyw (MPa) tw (mm) bwh×dwh (mm) dwh/d1 Vy (kN) FEA Vy_WebOpening/Vy_Solid

200×75×18×4 300 4 0 0.00 121.10 1.00

200×75×18×4 300 4 20×20 0.10 119.72 1.00
200×75×18×4 300 4 40×40 0.20 110.50 0.91
200×75×18×4 300 4 80×80 0.40 74.60 0.62
200×75×18×4 300 4 120×120 0.60 37.80 0.31
200×75×18×4 300 4 140×140 0.70 22.30 0.18
200×75×18×5 300 5 0 0.00 148.13 1.00
200×75×18×5 300 5 20×20 0.10 146.92 0.99
200×75×18×5 300 5 40×40 0.20 135.56 0.92
200×75×18×5 300 5 80×80 0.40 92.78 0.63
200×75×18×5 300 5 120×120 0.60 46.83 0.32
200×75×18×5 300 5 140×140 0.70 26.99 0.18
200×75×18×5 300 5 170×170 0.85 10.33 0.07
200×75×18×5 300 5 190×190 0.95 6.24 0.04

Fig. 25. Vierendeel mechanism of 200×75×18×5 LCB.

hinges forming locally at the four opening corners. Fig. 25 shows the
Vierendeel mechanism of 200×75×18×5 LCB while Table 16 presents
their ultimate shear capacities. It shows that LCBs have not lost the
entire shear capacity (4%) even when the web opening extends to the
full web height (dwh=d1) due to Vierendeel action.
Pham et al. [18,19] developed a methodology based on Vierendeel
mechanism to determine the shear yield load of LCBs with square and
circular web openings. Their shear yield model can also be used to
determine the shear yield load of LCBs with web openings.
The ultimate shear capacity results of LCBs with and without web
openings from finite element analyses were proposed based on the DSM
format and compared with the DSM based design equations given in
[8,10]. Fig. 26 shows the non-dimensional shear capacity curves for
LCBs without web openings and the FEA results of LCBs with and
without web openings. In this figure, the shear capacities are plotted in
a non-dimensional format of Vv/Vy versus λ, where λ is (Vy/Vcr)0.5.
Here Vcr (elastic shear buckling load of LCBs with square web openings)
can be calculated using Eqs. (29) and (30) while Vy (Shear yield load of
LCBs with square web openings) using Eqs. (31) and (32). Fig. 26 shows
that the proposed DSM equations are able to safely predict the shear
capacities of LCBs with square web openings. A similar approach can be
used for LCBs with rectangular and elliptical web openings.

9. Conclusions

This paper has presented a detailed investigation into the shear

Fig. 26. Non-dimensional shear capacity curve for LCBs.
behaviour and strength of cold-formed steel lipped channel beams
(LCB) with unreinforced non-circular web openings (square, rectangu-
lar and elliptical) using finite element analyses. Finite element models
of LCBs with these web openings were developed and validated using
available shear test results. The developed models predicted the shear
capacities and associated failure modes accurately. Numerical results
showed that the current shear design rules in cold-formed steel
structures design standards are conservative or unsafe. Two sets of
new shear design equations were proposed based on a shear capacity
reduction factor using the ratios of web opening height to clear web
depth (i.e. dwh/d1) and web opening area to full shear web panel area
(i.e. Ah/Af). Proposed design equations are able to predict the shear
capacity of LCBs with circular and non-circular web openings. Suitable
design equations were also developed under the direct strength method.

101
K.S. Wanniarachchi et al.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Australian Research Council for
their financial support (Grant LP120200650) and the Queensland
University of Technology for providing the necessary facilities and
support to conduct this research project.
References
[1] M.Y. Shan, R.A. LaBoube, J.E. Langan, W.W. Yu, Cold-formed steel webs with
openings: summary report, Thin-Walled Struct. 27 (1997) 79–84.
[2] M.R. Eiler, Behaviour of Web Elements with Openings Subjected to Linearly
Varying Shear (Masters Thesis), University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, USA, 1997.
[3] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), North American Specification for the
Design of Cold-formed Steel Structural Members, AISI, Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
[4] Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Australia/New Zealand Standard AS/
NZS4600 Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Sydney, Australia, 2005.
[5] P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, Experimental studies of the shear behaviour and
strength of lipped channel beams with web openings, Thin-Walled Struct. 73 (2013)
131–144.
[6] P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, Improved Shear Design Rules for Lipped Channel
Beams with Web Openings, J. Constr. Steel Res. 97 (2014) 127–142.
[7] R.A. LaBoube, W.W. Yu, Cold-formed Steel Beam Webs Subjected Primarily to
Shear, Research Report, American Iron and Steel Institute, University of Missouri-
Rolla, Rolla, USA, 1978.
[8] C.H. Pham, G.J. Hancock, Elastic Buckling of Cold-Formed Channel Sections in
102
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 83–102
Shear, Thin-Walled Struct. 61 (2012) 22–26.
[9] C.H. Pham, G.J. Hancock, Direct strength design of cold-formed C-sections for shear
and combined actions, J. Struct. Eng. Am. Soc. Civil. Eng. 138 (2012) 759–768.
[10] P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, Experimental Investigation and Design of Lipped
Channel Beams in Shear, Thin-Walled Struct. 86 (2015) 174–184.
[11] P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, New Design Rules for the Shear Strength of LiteSteel
Beams with Web Openings, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 137 (2013) 1428–1439.
[12] Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc. (HKS), ABAQUS User’s Manual, New York,
USA, 2007.
[13] P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, New Design Rules for the Shear Strength of LiteSteel
Beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2011) 1050–1063.
[14] C.H. Pham, Y. Chin, P. Boutros, G.J. Hancock, The behaviour of cold-formed C-
sections with square holes in shear, in: Proceeding of 22nd International Specialty
Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St Louis, Missouri, USA, 2014.
[15] S.H. Pham, C.H. Pham, G.J. Hancock, Direct strength method of design for shear
including sections with longitudinal web stiffeners, Thin-Walled Struct. 81 (2014)
19–28.
[16] C.H. Pham, Elastic shear buckling of plates and thin-walled channel sections with
centrally located holes, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Coupled Instabilities in Metal Structures, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2016.
[17] C.H. Pham, Shear Buckling of Plates and Thin-Walled Channel Sections with Holes,
J. Constr. Steel Res. 128 (2017) 800–811.
[18] S.H. Pham, C.H. Pham, G.J. Hancock, A Direct Strength Method (DSM) of Design for
Channel Sections in Shear with Square and Circular Web Holes, Proceedings of the
23rd International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2016.
[19] S.H. Pham, C.H. Pham, G.J. Hancock, Direct strength method of design for channel
sections in shear with square and circular web holes, J. Struct. Eng. Am. Soc. Civil.
Eng. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001765.