Question 2

(a) Select a suitable web and flange thickness, model the I-beam (without opening) using 3D
volume method and determine the max deflection and max bending stress in the beam.
(b) Due to floor height constraint, the web openings are introduced (in the opening zone
shown above) in the I-beams to allow two 150 mm diameter services pipes pass through
it (each opening). This enables the structural elements and service piping occupy in the
same space. Propose a suitable web opening (shape and size) within the opening zones by
limiting the max deflection increment within 20 % compared to Q2a, at the same time not
exceeding maximum allowable deflection L/240.
(c) Compare and discuss the results of deformation and stress distribution between the two
models.
(d) By applying the convergence allowable change between 5-10%, determine the optimum
number of elements for both models.
(e) Show the section-cut result at the location of max stress for both models.
Question 2

a) Select a suitable web and flange thickness, model the I-beam (without opening) using 3D
volume method and determine the max deflection and max bending stress in the beam.

The proposed dimension for the I-beam in Question 2 is UB 610 x 229 x 113. The dimension and
the properties of the Universal Beam conform to Eurocode 3 standards. The max deflection and
bending stress in the beam is determined with Ansys, an engineering simulation software using
3D volume method.

Item Symbol Value Unit

Depth of Section h 607.6 mm

Width of Section b 228.2 mm

Thickness of Web tw 11.1 mm

Thickness of Flange tf 17.3 mm

Root Radius r 12.7 mm

Depth between Filets d 547.6 mm

Young’s Modulus E 2.1 x 1011 Pa

Poisson’s Ratio v 0.3 -

Second moment of area in z-z axis Iz 3430 cm4

Second moment of area in y-y axis Iy 87300 cm4

 Figure 1: Fixed support at end of the I beam

Figure 2: Force acting on the top of the I beam

 FIgure 3: Total Deformation on the I beam

Figure 4: Directional Deformation on the I beam (x-axis)

Figure 5: Directional Deformation on the I beam (y-axis)

Figure 6: Directional Deformation on the I beam (z-axis)

Figure 7: Total Normal Stress acting on the I beam

Figure 7: Total Shear Stress acting on the I beam

Figure 8: Total Equivalent Stress acting on the I beam
b) Due to floor height constraint, the web openings are introduced (in the opening zone shown
above) in the I-beams to allow two 150 mm diameter services pipes pass through it (each
opening). This enables the structural elements and service piping occupy in the same space.
Propose a suitable web opening (shape and size) within the opening zones by limiting the max
deflection increment within 20 % compared to Q2a, at the same time not exceeding maximum
allowable deflection L/240.

Similar to Question 2a, the proposed I-beam section is a UB 610 x 229 x 113. It has two circular
openings with a diameter of 150 mm, located at distances of 1 meter and 3 meters from the fixed
end, respectively. Both openings are situated at the midpoint of the beam's web.

Item Symbol Value Unit

Depth of Section h 607.6 mm

Width of Section b 228.2 mm

Thickness of Web tw 11.1 mm

Thickness of Flange tf 17.3 mm

Root Radius r 12.7 mm

Depth between Filets d 547.6 mm

Young’s Modulus E 2.1 x 1011 Pa

Poisson’s Ratio v 0.3 -

Second moment of area in z-z axis Iz 3430 cm4

Second moment of area in y-y axis Iy 87300 cm4

 Figure 9: Total deformation on the I beam with opening

For the I beam in Question 2a, the maximum deflection occurs at the free end of the I beam. The
value of maximum deflection in Question 2a is 0.17544mm which is significantly small.
Comparing it with the maximum deflection in Question 2b, the maximum deflection value is
0.17603mm. This satisfies the question 20% deflection increment limit where the deflection
increases by only 0.336%. It also at the same time does not exceed the maximum allowable
deflection which has the value of 16.67mm.

0.17603−0.17544
𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 0.17544
𝑥100% = 0. 336%
𝐿 4000
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 240
= 240
= 16. 67𝑚𝑚
Figure 10: Fixed Support at the end of I beam with openings

Figure 11: Force acting on the I beam with openings

Figure 12: Normal Stress acting on the I beam with openings

Figure 13: Shear Stress acting on the I beam with openings

Figure 14: Equivalent Stress acting on the I beam
 c) Compare and discuss the results of deformation and stress distribution between the two
models.

I-beam without circular I-beam with circular

hollow hollow

Maximum total deformation (mm) 0.17544 0.17603

Average total deformation (mm) 0.06212 0.07435

Maximum equivalent stress (Mpa) 3.677 3.0177

Average equivalent stress (Mps) 0.96625 0.72786

Comparing the results of deformation and stress distribution between the two I-beam
models reveals important information about how structural changes can affect
performance. Let's start by looking at the deformation data. The maximum total
deformation of an I-beam without a circular hollow is 0.17544 mm, whereas the
maximum deformation of an I-beam with a circular hollow is slightly higher at 0.17603
mm. Although the difference is small (0.00059 mm), it shows that adding a hollow
section causes a marginal increase in beam deformation under load. Furthermore, the
average total deformation of an I-beam with a circular hollow is 0.07435 mm, as opposed
to 0.06212 mm for a solid I-beam. This 0.01223 mm increase indicates that the overall
deformation of the structure is more noticeable when a hollow section is present. The
reduced material in the hollowed I-beam most likely contributes to the increased
deformation by providing less stiffness to resist the applied forces.

When we shift our focus to stress distribution, the findings show that incorporating a
circular hollow has significant benefits. The maximum equivalent stress in the I-beam
without a circular hollow is 3.677 MPa, but it decreases to 3.0177 MPa in the I-beam
with the hollow. This reduction of 0.6593 MPa is significant, indicating that the hollow
section helps to alleviate the beam's peak stresses. Similarly, the average equivalent stress
falls from 0.96625 MPa in the solid I-beam to 0.72786 MPa in the hollowed I-beam, a
decrease of 0.23839 MPa. These findings indicate that the presence of a circular hollow
reduces maximum stress concentrations while also resulting in a more uniform stress
distribution across the beam. By redistributing stresses more evenly, the hollow section
contributes to the beam's overall stress-handling capability, potentially preventing
localized failures and extending the structure's life.

To put this into context, the I-beam with a circular hollow exhibits a slight increase in
deformation but benefits significantly from lower stress levels. This trade-off is critical in
many engineering applications where lowering stress concentrations is more important
than reducing deformation. The hollow section helps to redistribute stress, reducing the
likelihood of material fatigue or failure over time. This insight is especially useful when
designing structures that must withstand variable loads and harsh conditions, as stress
concentration can lead to critical failures.

In conclusion, the comparison of I-beam models demonstrates the nuanced trade-offs

involved in structural engineering. Incorporating a circular hollow in an I-beam causes a
slight increase in deformation but a significant decrease in stress levels. This finding
emphasizes the importance of considering both deformation and stress distribution when
designing beams for specific applications. Understanding these dynamics allows
engineers to make informed decisions to improve the performance and longevity of their
structures, balancing the need for stiffness with the benefits of reduced stress.