Cellular and Castellated Beams: Optimizing for Weight, Span, and Service Integration

1. Introduction: The Intersection of Scarcity and Innovation

The history of structural engineering is, at its core, a narrative of optimization—the relentless pursuit of doing more with less. 

In the realm of steel construction, few innovations embody this philosophy as perfectly as the expanded web beam. 

Whether referred to as castellated, cellular, or simply “beams with web openings,” these structural elements represent a sophisticated response to the tripartite pressures of modern construction.

The architectural demand for expansive, column-free volumes; the economic imperative to minimize material expenditure; and the environmental necessity to reduce embodied carbon.

The fundamental premise of the cellular and castellated beam is elegant in its simplicity yet complex in its behavior. 

By longitudinally profiling the web of a standard hot-rolled I-section and re-joining the halves with an offset, engineers can increase the section depth by approximately 50% without adding a single gram of additional steel mass.1 

This geometric transmutation significantly enhances the major-axis moment of inertia ($I_x$) and section modulus ($S_x$), thereby vastly improving the strength-to-weight ratio and span capabilities of the member.

However, this increase in efficiency comes at the cost of complexity. 

The introduction of regular perforations along the neutral axis transforms the predictable behavior of a solid-webbed beam into a highly indeterminate system subject to localized failure modes unknown to traditional I-beams. 

The “Vierendeel mechanism,” web-post buckling, and complex stress concentrations at re-entrant corners replace simple bending and shear as the governing limit states.1 

Furthermore, the integration of these beams requires a paradigm shift in project coordination, where the structural steelwork becomes an active conduit for the building’s mechanical “veins”—the HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems.4

This report provides an exhaustive, 360-degree analysis of cellular and castellated beam technology. 

It is designed for the professional structural engineer, the architect, and the steel fabricator. We will traverse the historical evolution from the scarcity-driven “Boyd beam” of the 1930s to the robotic fabrication cells of the 2020s. 

We will dissect the structural mechanics using advanced theoretical frameworks, compare global design codes (AISC vs. Eurocode), and confront the critical serviceability challenges of floor vibration and fire protection. 

Finally, we will rigorously evaluate the sustainability credentials of these systems in the context of the climate crisis, determining whether the material savings translate to genuine reductions in global warming potential.

2. Anatomy and Terminology of Expanded Beams

Before delving into the mechanics, it is essential to establish a precise lexicon. 

The terminology in this field is often used interchangeably, yet distinct differences exist between the various forms of expanded beams.

2.1 The Castellated Beam

The term “castellated” is derived from the architectural “battlements” or “castles” of medieval fortifications, which the beam’s profile resembles.

• Definition: A castellated beam is produced by making a single continuous zigzag cut along the web of a root beam (typically a Wide Flange or Universal Beam).
• Geometry: The openings are hexagonal. The geometry is relatively fixed because the “tooth” of the top half must align with the “valley” of the bottom half. The angle of the cut (typically 45 or 60 degrees) dictates the expansion ratio.6
• Legacy: This is the original form of the expanded beam, prevalent in the mid-20th century due to the simplicity of the single-pass cut.1

2.2 The Cellular Beam

The cellular beam represents the modern evolution of the concept, favoring circular openings over hexagonal ones.

• Definition: A cellular beam is fabricated by cutting the web in a semi-circular or looped pattern. Modern fabrication often allows for a “two-pass” process or intricate profiling that decouples the top and bottom tee geometries.
• Geometry: The openings are circular. This shape is far more conducive to the passage of round service ducts and pipes, minimizing the risk of damage to services during installation compared to the sharp corners of hexagonal holes.7
• Flexibility: Unlike castellated beams, cellular beams (such as the Westok system) allow for variable cell spacing ($S$) and cell diameter ($D$). The web-post width can be adjusted to suit the shear diagram—narrower posts in low-shear zones (mid-span) and wider posts in high-shear zones (supports).8

2.3 The Asymmetric Beam

A significant advancement in composite floor design is the Asymmetric Cellular Beam (ACB).

• Mechanism: In a composite floor, the concrete slab acts as the compression flange. Therefore, the steel top flange of the beam is largely redundant in terms of compression resistance; its primary role is merely to anchor the shear studs.
• Optimization: Fabricators produce ACBs by splitting two different root beams. A smaller, lighter section is used for the top tee, and a heavier, wider section is used for the bottom tee (which must resist substantial tension). This optimizes the steel usage further, often resulting in a highly efficient “bottom-heavy” section.9

2.4 Glossary of Key Terms

• Root Beam: The original hot-rolled section (e.g., W12x14 or UB 406×178) before cutting.
• Expansion Ratio: The ratio of the final beam depth to the root beam depth. Typical ratios range from 1.4 to 1.6.
• Web Post: The solid portion of the web remaining between two openings. This acts as a vertical strut transferring shear.
• Tee-Section: The T-shaped steel section above or below an opening.
• Infill Plate: A steel plate welded into an opening to restore solid web properties, typically used at point load locations or high-shear connections.11

3. Historical Evolution: From Scarcity to Robotics

The trajectory of expanded beam technology is a fascinating case study in how economic constraints drive engineering innovation.

3.1 The “Boyd Beam” and Post-War Europe

The concept was independently developed by Geoffrey Murray Boyd in Argentina in 1935 and later patented in the UK.1 

However, it remained a niche curiosity until the geopolitical cataclysm of World War II.

In the post-war reconstruction of Europe (1940s-1950s), steel was a scarce strategic resource. 

European mills had limited capacity and could only roll a restricted range of section sizes. Conversely, labor was abundant and relatively inexpensive. 

This high material-cost / low labor-cost environment created the perfect economic incubator for the castellated beam.6

Engineers realized that by expending cheap labor to cut and re-weld beams, they could stretch their limited steel allocation significantly. 

A standard I-beam could be transformed into a deeper section capable of spanning longer distances, effectively “creating” steel through geometry.

3.2 The American Divergence

The adoption curve in the United States was markedly different. 

The US steel industry did not suffer the same wartime devastation; mills could produce massive rolled sections, and steel was relatively cheap. 

However, American labor was expensive. The “Boyd beam” process—which required manual flame cutting and welding—was simply not cost-effective compared to buying a heavier rolled beam. 

Thus, for decades, castellated beams were viewed in the US as a “European curiosity” or a solution only for specialized architectural applications.1

3.3 The Litzka Process and Automation

In 1964, Litzka Stahlbau Boyer developed the “Litzka process,” which introduced industrial efficiency to the fabrication. 

This involved specialized machinery to automate the zigzag cut and the re-welding phase. This standardization helped improve the reliability of the product, but the fundamental labor-cost barrier remained in high-wage economies.6

3.4 The Digital and Robotic Turn

The renaissance of cellular beams in the 21st century has been driven by the inversion of the historical economic model.

1. Computer-Aided Design (CAD): The complexity of designing these beams (calculating 20+ failure modes) was solved by software.
2. Robotic Fabrication: Modern fabrication no longer relies on manual oxy-fuel cutting. High-speed plasma torches mounted on robotic arms can execute complex “double-pass” cuts with sub-millimeter precision.
3. Service Integration Value: As buildings became more serviced-intensive (requiring more ducts and cables), the value of the beam shifted from pure “steel weight savings” to “building volume savings.” The ability to pass services through the beam became a primary economic driver, justifying the fabrication cost.4

4. Fabrication Processes and Quality Control

Understanding the manufacturing process is critical for the design engineer, as the limitations of the machine dictate the limitations of the design.

4.1 Modern Cutting Technologies

The fabrication of a cellular beam begins with the “root beam.” This hot-rolled section is placed on a profiling bed.

• Thermal Profiling: Historically, oxy-fuel torches were used. Today, high-definition plasma or laser cutting is preferred for speed and edge quality. Laser cutting, in particular, minimizes the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), which is crucial for the fatigue performance of the steel.12
• The Cutting Pattern:

• Castellated: A single continuous zigzag path. The torch moves longitudinally, and the separation is immediate.
• Cellular: The path is looped. In some proprietary systems (like Westok), the process involves a “ribbon cut” or a complex two-pass sequence that generates waste “cookies” (the circular steel cutouts) which are recycled.10

4.2 Welding and Cambering

Once cut, the two tees are separated. One is shifted (offset) relative to the other to align the “teeth” (for castellated) or the web posts (for cellular).

• The Mid-Web Weld: The two halves are welded together along the web post interface. This is a critical structural weld. It is typically a partial joint penetration (PJP) or full joint penetration (FJP) butt weld, executed by automated submerged arc welding (SAW) gantries. The quality of this weld is paramount, as failure here leads to catastrophic “zip-wire” failure of the beam.13
• Cambering: One of the hidden advantages of this process is the ease of cambering. If a pre-camber is required (to counteract dead load deflection), the fabricator does not need to use hydraulic rams to bend the beam. Instead, they simply cut the top and bottom tees on a slight curve. When welded together, the beam naturally assumes the cambered shape without residual stresses.14

4.3 Geometric Tolerances and Standards

The expanded beam is a “fabricated section,” and thus subject to different tolerances than a rolled beam.

• Depth Tolerance: Because the depth depends on the welding alignment, tolerances are typically $\pm 2$mm to $\pm 3$mm.
• Camber Tolerance: AISC Code of Standard Practice (Section 6) and ASTM A6 provide guidelines. However, since the camber is “built-in” via cutting, it is often more accurate than heat-induced cambering.
• Sweep and Twist: The splitting process releases residual stresses locked into the root beam during the rolling process. This can cause the tees to twist or bow (“banana”) immediately after cutting. Fabricators must use clamping jigs and heat straightening to correct this before welding.15

4.4 Inspection and NDT (Non-Destructive Testing)

Given the reliance on the mid-web weld, inspection is rigorous.

• Visual Inspection (VT): The first line of defense, checking for gross porosity or lack of fusion.
• Ultrasonic Testing (UT): Used to detect internal volumetric defects in the weld.
• Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI): Effective for detecting surface-breaking cracks at the weld toe, which are critical fatigue initiation sites.
  The “zone of inspection” is typically focused on the ends of the beam (where shear is highest) and the web posts. NDT protocols are specified in AWS D1.1 (in the US) or EN 1090 (in Europe).17

5. Structural Mechanics: A Deep Dive into Failure Modes

To design a cellular beam is to navigate a minefield of stability limit states. 

Unlike a solid beam, which typically fails in simple yielding or Lateral-Torsional Buckling (LTB), a cellular beam has multiple, interacting local failure modes.

5.1 The Vierendeel Mechanism

The most defining characteristic of a cellular beam’s behavior is the Vierendeel mechanism.

In a solid beam, vertical shear is carried by the continuous web. 

In a cellular beam, the web is absent for large portions of the span. The shear force ($V$) must essentially “bridge” the gap across the opening.

It does this by splitting into the top and bottom tee-sections. 

This shear force, acting over the length of the opening ($l_o$), generates localized secondary bending moments ($M_{vier}$) in the tees.

$$M_{vier} = \frac{V \times l_o}{2}$$

(Assuming equal distribution).

These secondary moments act in addition to the global bending axial forces. 

The “Vierendeel mechanism” occurs when the combined stresses cause plastic hinges to form at the four corners of the opening (two in the top tee, two in the bottom).

When these four hinges form, the opening deforms into a parallelogram, and the beam loses stability. This is why large openings are dangerous in high-shear zones (near supports). 

The capacity of the beam is no longer controlled by the web’s shear strength, but by the bending strength of the shallow tee-sections.3

5.2 Web-Post Buckling (WPB)

The solid steel between two openings is the “web post.” Structurally, this element acts as a strut.

When the beam is loaded, the change in global bending moment manifests as horizontal shear forces at the neutral axis. 

These forces try to slide the top tee past the bottom tee. The web post resists this.

Consequently, the web post is subjected to a diagonal compressive stress field. If the web post is too slender (i.e., too narrow or too thin), it will buckle out of plane. 

This is Web-Post Buckling.

• The Strut Analogy: Eurocode 3 and SCI P355 model the web post as a compressive strut. The design involves calculating the effective length of this strut and checking it against buckling curves.21
• Double Curvature: In reality, the web post buckles in a complex twisting mode involving double curvature, driven by the shear forces.22

5.3 Web-Post Shear and Weld Fracture

Even if the post doesn’t buckle, it can shear off. Horizontal shear failure occurs when the shear stress exceeds the yield strength of the steel.

Furthermore, the weld connecting the two halves is located at the mid-depth of the web post—precisely the point of maximum horizontal shear. 

If the weld is defective or undersized, it can “unzip,” leading to immediate loss of composite action and beam failure.13

5.4 Lateral-Torsional Buckling (LTB) of the Tees

When a cellular beam is subject to global LTB, the behavior is complex. The torsional stiffness of the section is reduced by the openings. 

Specifically, the “distortional buckling” mode becomes relevant, where the web distorts, and the bottom flange swings sideways independently of the top flange. 

Standard LTB formulas for solid I-beams must be modified to account for this reduced torsional rigidity.6

5.5 Table: Summary of Failure Modes

Failure Mode	Mechanism	Critical Location	Governing Parameter
Vierendeel Mechanism	Formation of 4 plastic hinges at opening corners due to shear transfer.	High Shear Zones (Supports)	Opening Length ($l_o$)
Web-Post Buckling	Out-of-plane buckling of the web post acting as a strut.	High Shear Zones	Web Post Width ($s$) & Web Thickness ($t_w$)
Horizontal Shear	Yielding of the web post material in shear.	High Shear Zones	Web Post Area
Weld Fracture	Rupture of the mid-web weld.	Any location with high shear flow	Weld throat thickness
Tee-Section Rupture	Tensile yielding of the bottom tee.	High Moment Zones (Mid-span)	Net area of tee
Tee-Section Buckling	Local buckling of the compressed top tee bridging an opening.	High Moment Zones	Tee slenderness

6. Design Codes and Optimization Strategies

Navigating these failure modes requires robust design standards. The approach differs significantly between the US and European jurisdictions.

6.1 AISC Design Guide 31 (USA)

In the United States, AISC Design Guide 31: Castellated and Cellular Beam Design is the bible.

• Methodology: It utilizes a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach. It provides specific interaction equations for checking the combination of flexure and shear at the openings.
• Geometric Limits: DG 31 is prescriptive. It sets limits to ensure the validity of the equations:

• Maximum Opening Depth: $0.8h$ (80% of beam depth).23
• Minimum Web Post Width: Typically $\ge 0.25$ to $0.5$ times the opening diameter.
• Opening Eccentricity: Limited to ensure stress distribution remains predictable.

• Infills: The guide provides procedures for designing “infill plates” (rectangular plates welded into the holes) to reinforce openings that fail the Vierendeel or buckling checks.11

6.2 Eurocode 3 and SCI P355 (Europe)

In Europe, the design is governed by BS EN 1993-1-1 (Eurocode 3) in conjunction with SCI Publication P355.

• The “Strut Model”: The European approach is more theoretical, explicitly modeling the web post as a strut. It relies heavily on the “effective length” factor ($k$) to account for the rotational restraint provided by the flanges.
• Composite Action: Eurocode 4 (BS EN 1994) is heavily integrated, as cellular beams are almost always composite. The code allows for partial shear connection but warns against the flexibility introduced by the openings.9

6.3 Optimization Software

Because the interactions are too complex for manual calculation, design is almost exclusively done via software.

• Westok Cellbeam: The industry standard in the UK/Europe. It automates the “strut” checks and optimizes the cell diameter and spacing for the specific shear envelope.10
• FBEAM / FABSEC: Used for plated beams (beams made from three plates rather than rolled sections).
• RAM Structural System: Widely used in the US, integrating AISC DG 31 checks into the global building analysis.24

7. Service Integration: The Architectural Value Proposition

While structural engineers obsess over web-post buckling, architects and developers choose cellular beams for one primary reason: Service Integration.

In a modern office building, the “services” (HVAC ducts, sprinkler pipes, data trays, power conduits) compete for ceiling space.

7.1 The “Pass-Through” Advantage

In a traditional solid-beam floor:

1. Beam Depth: 600mm
2. Service Zone: 400mm (suspended under the beam)
3. Ceiling/Lighting: 100mm
4. Total Void: 1100mm.

With a cellular beam:

1. Beam Depth: 750mm (Deeper than solid)
2. Service Zone: 0mm (Services pass through the 500mm openings in the beam)
3. Ceiling/Lighting: 100mm
4. Total Void: 850mm.

Result: A net saving of 250mm per floor. In a 40-story tower, this saves 10 meters of building height—equivalent to three entire floors of cladding, wind load, and column length. Alternatively, it allows for three additional revenue-generating floors within the same zoning height limit.4

7.2 Coordination Rules of Thumb

To achieve this, the structural and MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing) designs must be synchronized.

• Hole Diameter: For a circular duct to pass through, the hole diameter ($D$) typically needs to be the duct diameter + 50mm tolerance for insulation and installation access.
• Hole Shape: Round spiral ducts fit perfectly in cellular beams. Rectangular ducts are problematic. If rectangular ducts are used, engineers often need to create “elongated openings” by removing a web post between two cells. This creates a “Vierendeel mechanism” hotspot and usually requires stiffening plates.9
• The “Zone of Availability”: Not all holes are open for business.

• Zone A (Supports): High shear. Holes here are often small or filled.
• Zone B (Mid-span): Low shear, high moment. This is the “sweet spot” for large ducts.
• Zone C (Point Loads): Any location supporting a column or secondary beam usually requires a solid web or infill.11

8. Serviceability Limit States: Vibration and Fire

Beyond the ultimate strength, two serviceability factors often govern the design of these lightweight floors: Vibration and Fire.

8.1 Floor Vibration Analysis

Cellular beams are lighter than solid beams. While this is great for cost, it is detrimental to dynamic performance. 

Mass provides damping; removing mass makes the floor “lively.”

Modern long-span offices (12m – 15m spans) using cellular beams are susceptible to resonance from human footfall. 

If the natural frequency of the floor aligns with the pacing frequency of walking (approx. 2Hz) or its harmonics, resonance occurs, causing discomfort to occupants.

SCI Publication P354 is the global standard for assessing this. It defines “Response Factors” ($R$):

• $R=8$: Standard Office.
• $R=4$: Higher quality office or laboratory.
• $R=1$: Operating Theatre (extremely strict).

Achieving these limits with cellular beams often requires:

1. Increasing stiffness ($I_x$): Making the beam deeper.
2. Composite Action: Relying on the concrete slab’s stiffness.
3. Damping: Assuming a higher damping ratio (e.g., 3% for fully fitted offices).26

8.2 Fire Engineering and the “Yellow Book” Controversy

Fire protection is a critical safety aspect. In a fire, steel loses strength. At 600°C, steel retains only about 50% of its yield strength.

Cellular beams behave poorly in fire compared to solid beams for one geometric reason: Section Factor ($H_p/A$).

The web posts are thin columns of steel surrounded on all sides by fire. They have a high surface area ($H_p$) relative to their cross-sectional area ($A$). Consequently, they heat up very rapidly—much faster than the thick flanges.

Historically, the industry used the “20% Rule” from the ASFP “Yellow Book,” which simply suggested adding 20% more intumescent paint thickness to a cellular beam than a solid beam.

Research has proven this unsafe. The web posts can reach critical temperatures and buckle long before the flanges fail.

Modern best practice requires:

1. Multi-Temperature Analysis: Using software that calculates the specific temperature of the web post distinct from the flange.
2. Product-Specific Testing: Using intumescent coatings that have been rigorously tested on cellular geometries, not just plates.
3. Edge Retention: The sharp edges of the holes are prone to “edge recession” where the intumescent char pulls away. High-quality coatings are required to stick to these edges.28

9. Sustainability and Economics

In the 2020s, the conversation has shifted from “Cost” to “Carbon.”

9.1 Embodied Carbon (kgCO2e)

Cellular beams are a powerful tool for decarbonization. The most efficient way to reduce embodied carbon is to use less material.

• Weight Savings: A cellular beam is typically 20-30% lighter than a solid beam for the same span.
• Carbon Math: If a project requires 1000 tons of structural steel, switching to cellular beams might reduce this to 750 tons. Even if the cellular beam requires slightly more energy to fabricate (welding electricity), the savings from not producing 250 tons of primary steel are massive.
• Foundation Effects: The lighter superstructure imposes lower dead loads on the foundations, allowing for smaller concrete footings—a secondary but significant carbon saving.31

9.2 The “Viability Index” and Labor Costs

The economics still rely on the balance of labor vs. material.

$$\text{Viability} \propto \frac{\text{Material Cost}}{\text{Fabrication Cost}}$$

• Material: Steel prices are volatile. When steel is expensive, the material savings of cellular beams dictate the market.
• Labor: Historically, high US labor costs hindered adoption. However, automation has reduced the “man-hours per ton” for cellular beams.
• The 30/30/30 Rule: A rough rule of thumb for steel cost is 1/3 material, 1/3 shop labor, 1/3 erection. Cellular beams reduce the Material third and the Erection third (lighter lifts, fewer crane picks) while slightly increasing the Shop Labor third. As automation lowers the shop labor component, the equation increasingly favors cellular beams.32

10. Case Studies and Applications

Theory is validated by practice. Several iconic structures demonstrate the capabilities of cellular beams.

10.1 The Swiss Re Building (The Gherkin), London

While famous for its diagrid shell, the internal floor framing of 30 St Mary Axe utilizes cellular beams extensively. 

The radial geometry required beams to span from the central core to the perimeter. 

Cellular beams allowed the massive MEP services required for a high-spec office to be integrated within the structural depth, maximizing the floor-to-ceiling heights in this premium real estate.33

10.2 City Quays, Belfast

This project utilized Westok cellular beams to achieve clear spans of 11.3m without internal columns. 

The design choice was driven by the need for flexible office space. 

The 600mm deep Westok beams accommodated all services, and the lighter frame reduced the load on the pile foundations—a critical factor given the riverside soil conditions.34

11. Conclusion: The Future of the “Holey” Beam

Cellular and castellated beams have evolved from a post-war necessity into a cornerstone of high-performance structural design. They sit at the convergence of three modern imperatives:

1. Architectural Freedom: Enabling long spans and high ceilings.
2. Service Integration: Solving the “spaghetti” of modern MEP systems.
3. Sustainability: Offering a tangible route to reducing the embodied carbon of steel frames.

The future of this technology lies in Computational Optimization. We are moving away from standard “patterns” towards beams where every hole is parametrically sized and positioned based on the specific stress at that millimeter of the span. 

Coupled with Robotic Fabrication, which makes such bespoke cutting patterns no more expensive than standard ones, the cellular beam is poised to become the default choice for the sustainable, serviced, long-span structures of the future.

For the engineer, the responsibility is clear: to master the complex mechanics of the Vierendeel web and to advocate for the holistic value—carbon, cost, and space—that these elegant structural voids provide.

Works cited

1. Castellated and Cellular Beam Design – BetonCelik.com, accessed December 16, 2025, http://www.betoncelik.com/images/31_Steel_Design_Guide_Castellated_and_Ce.pdf
2. Gain a competitive edge in structural design using cellular beams – MasterSeries, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.masterseries.com/blog/2019/gain-a-competitive-edge-in-structural-design-using-cellular-beams
3. Investigation on Vierendeel mechanism failure of castellated steel beams with fillet corner web openings | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262691041_Investigation_on_Vierendeel_mechanism_failure_of_castellated_steel_beams_with_fillet_corner_web_openings
4. Castellated vs. Cellular Beams: What’s the Difference? – Benchmark Fabricated Steel, accessed December 16, 2025, https://benchmarksteel.com/2025/06/castellated-vs-cellular-beams-whats-the-difference/
5. Service integration – SteelConstruction.info, accessed December 16, 2025, https://steelconstruction.info/Service_integration
6. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CASTELLATED BEAMS – PEARL, accessed December 16, 2025, https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=secam-theses
7. Unlocking the Potential of Castellated and Cellular Beams in Construction ‪@FrameMindsEngineering‬ – YouTube, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ez9i8GFTg
8. castellated-beams-vs-cellular-beams.pdf – Macsteel, accessed December 16, 2025, https://macsteel.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/castellated-beams-vs-cellular-beams.pdf
9. DESIGN OF COMPOSITE BEAMS WITH LARGE WEB OPENINGS – SteelConstruction.info, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.steelconstruction.info/images/e/e7/SCI_P355.pdf
10. Westok cellular beams – ASD Ltd, accessed December 16, 2025, https://asd.ltd/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/ASD-Westok-A5-Pocket-Guide.pdf
11. AISC Design Guide 31 – Castellated and Cellular Beam Design PDF – Scribd, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/420216058/AISC-Design-Guide-31-Castellated-and-Cellular-Beam-Design-pdf
12. How Robotics is Transforming the Steel Fabrication Industry – Buy a Beam, accessed December 16, 2025, https://buyabeam.com/blogs/steel-beams/steel-industry-robotics/
13. Investigation of Web Post Compression Buckling Limit State and Stiffener Requirements in Castellated Beams, accessed December 16, 2025, https://menkulasi.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/9/4/10945509/menkulasi_et_al_castellated_beams.pdf
14. Design Guide 31: Castellated and Cellular Beam Design | American Institute of Steel Construction, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.aisc.org/Design-Guide-31-Castellated-and-Cellular-Beam-Design
15. Tolerances Illustrated steelwise – AISC, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/modern-steel/steelwise/102006_30758_steelwise_tolerances.pdf
16. Specifying Camber steelwise – AISC, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/modern-steel/steelwise/30755_steelwise_camber.pdf
17. Weldments (Welded Joints) – Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques : Ultrasound, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.nde-ed.org/NDETechniques/Ultrasonics/SelectedApps/weldments.xhtml
18. Explore Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Methods for Industry Safety – ASNT, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.asnt.org/what-is-nondestructive-testing/methods
19. Vierendeel bending study of perforated steel beams with various novel web opening shapes, through non-linear Finite Element analyses – City Research Online, accessed December 16, 2025, https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/1041/
20. Vierendeel Bending Study of Perforated Steel Beams with Various Novel Web Opening Shapes through Nonlinear Finite-Element Analyses | Journal of Structural Engineering | Vol 138, No 10 – ASCE Library, accessed December 16, 2025, https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000562
21. City Research Online, accessed December 16, 2025, https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/27945/3/Clean_Manuscript%20%28R1%29.pdf
22. Comparison of Steel Beams – IRJET, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.irjet.net/archives/V2/i4/Irjet-v2i4230.pdf
23. Web openings (Beams: EC3 Eurocode) | Trimble User Assistance, accessed December 16, 2025, https://support.tekla.com/doc/tekla-structural-designer/2025/ref_webopeningsbeamsec3eurocode
24. Nomenclature, accessed December 16, 2025, https://docs.bentley.com/LiveContent/web/RAM%20Structural%20System%20Help-v4/en/GUID-77265B9A-CD20-483D-A20B-0AF31FDCA4D4.html
25. technical report 2, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/thesis/portfolios/2013/vai5005/vai%20tech%202.pdf
26. Introduction to floor vibration (P354) – Trimble User Assistance – Tekla, accessed December 16, 2025, https://support.tekla.com/doc/tekla-structural-designer/2025/vib_p354introduction
27. Floor vibrations – SteelConstruction.info, accessed December 16, 2025, https://steelconstruction.info/Floor_vibrations
28. Best Practice Guide for Passive Fire Protection for Structural Steelwork – UL Solutions, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2019-04/Best-Practice-Guide-for-Passive-Fire-Protection-for-Structural-Steelwork.pdf
29. Better predictions for cellular beams – newsteelconstruction.com, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/better-predictions-for-cellular-beams/
30. Behavior of cellular beams protected with intumescent coatings – ResearchGate, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316865548_Behavior_of_cellular_beams_protected_with_intumescent_coatings
31. Improving the financial and environmental cost of steel framed buildings, whilst raising structural performance – REF Impact Case Studies, accessed December 16, 2025, https://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id=44364
32. The hidden cost drivers and overlooked details of structural steel fabrication, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/article/shopmanagement/the-hidden-cost-drivers-and-overlooked-details-of-structural-steel-fabrication
33. Multi-storey office buildings – SteelConstruction.info, accessed December 16, 2025, https://steelconstruction.info/Multi-storey_office_buildings

Rising high – newsteelconstruction.com, accessed December 16, 2025, https://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/rising-high/