ZEJNELI, Berat and ZEJNELI, Shinasi and KAPROL, Meryem (2026) COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MA IN BEAMSMADE OF STEEL WITH DIFFERENT SPANS. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE “FROM RESEARCH TO APPLICATION”, 20 May, 2026.
![[img]](https://eprints.unite.edu.mk/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Proceedings Book 2026-183-199.pdf Download (1MB) |
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to perform a comparative analysis of steel beam, providing a comparative parametric analysis of six different types of structural solutions for the main steel beam: I-section, H-section, □-section (rectangular), ○-section (tube), variable-height beams (trapezoidal beams) and constant-height beams (parallel-strip beams). Method: The analysis covers ten spans, ranging from 8 m to 44 m, with a distance between main supports of l = 4 m. Five roof slope angle variants (0°, 5°, 10°, 15°, and 20°), two boundary conditions (free support and fixed support), and two cases of distributed vertical loads (g = 6 kN/m² and g = 12 kN/m²) are considered. All models were built and analyzed in the Tower 8 software (Radimpex), using S235 steel. For each combination of slope angle (5 values) and span between main supports (10 values), beam models are constructed in Tower 8 (Radimpex). In each model, six different types of structural solutions are applied sequentially. Each beam is analyzed for both boundary conditions and both vertical load cases. Results: For each combination, normal stresses and relative deformations were calculated and compared, taking the I-profile as a reference, so the results could be directly compared despite variations in span and slope. Normal stresses (σ) and relative deformations (δ) were calculated for each combination, with the values being compared using the I-profile as a reference (σₙ = 1.000 for the I-profile in every combination of span × slope). Numerical analysis results are presented organized by slope angle (0°, 5°, 10°, 15°, and 20°). For each slope, two tables are given: one for free support and one for fixed support-embedding, both for the light load case. The results for the heavy load case are discussed in the paper and are almost identical in relative values. The value of 1.000 corresponds to the I-profile (the reference); values < 1 indicate better performance, while values > 1 indicate poorer performance. Conclusions: The conclusions identify which type of structural solution is most efficient for each span and slope range, providing a quantitative basis for the selection of main beams during the design phase. 1. The I-beam is the most efficient of the four solid beams in almost all combinations. 2. The H-beam is 2-50% less efficient than the I-beam in terms of deflections for spans between 8 and 28 m, but achieves almost equal performance (±6%) for spans of 32-44 m at all slopes. 3. Hollow beams (□ and ○) are 7-94% less efficient than the I-beam, with a clear trend of performance deterioration as the span increases. 4. The beam with constant height produces 25-67% lower deflections and 33-93% lower deformations than the I-beam, provided that L ≥ 12 m. 5. Trapezoidal beam (variable height beam) depends strongly on the slope: it is inefficient at 10° (+40–118%), becomes almost comparable at 15° and outperforms the I-profile for L ≥ 36 m at a slope of 20°. None of the profiles are efficient for very short spans (L = 8 m), where full profiles are more efficient.
| Item Type: | Conference or Workshop Item (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | Q Science > Q Science (General) |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences > School of Social Sciences |
| Depositing User: | Unnamed user with email zshi@unite.edu.mk |
| Date Deposited: | 04 Sep 2026 13:16 |
| Last Modified: | 04 Sep 2026 13:16 |
| URI: | http://eprints.unite.edu.mk/id/eprint/2376 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
