Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Interaction of buckling modes in castellated steel beams

Ehab Ellobody
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

article

info

Article history:
Received 8 October 2010
Accepted 13 December 2010
Keywords:
Castellated beams
Buckling modes
Finite element modelling
Normal and high strength
Steel structures
Structural design

abstract
This paper investigates the behaviour of normal and high strength castellated steel beams under combined
lateral torsional and distortional buckling modes. An efficient nonlinear 3D finite element model has been
developed for the analysis of the beams. The initial geometric imperfection and material nonlinearities
were carefully considered in the analysis. The nonlinear finite element model was verified against tests
on castellated beams having different lengths and different cross-sections. Failure loads and interaction
of buckling modes as well as loadlateral deflection curves of castellated steel beams were investigated
in this study. An extensive parametric study was carried out using the finite element model to study
the effects of the change in cross-section geometries, beam length and steel strength on the strength
and buckling behaviour of castellated steel beams. The parametric study has shown that the presence
of web distortional buckling causes a considerable decrease in the failure load of slender castellated steel
beams. It is also shown that the use of high strength steel offers a considerable increase in the failure loads
of less slender castellated steel beams. The failure loads predicted from the finite element model were
compared with that predicted from Australian Standards for steel beams under lateral torsional buckling.
It is shown that the Specification predictions are generally conservative for normal strength castellated
steel beams failing by lateral torsional buckling, unconservative for castellated steel beams failing by web
distortional buckling and quite conservative for high strength castellated steel beams failing by lateral
torsional buckling.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Castellated steel beams fabricated from standard hot-rolled
I-sections have many advantages including greater bending
rigidity, larger section modulus, optimum self-weightdepth ratio,
economic construction, ease of services through the web openings
and aesthetic architectural appearance. However, the castellation
of the beams results in distinctive failure modes depending on
geometry of the beams, size of web openings, web slenderness,
type of loading, quality of welding and lateral restraint conditions.
The failure modes comprise shear [1,2], flexural [2], lateral
torsional buckling [3], rupture of welded joints [4] and web postbuckling failure modes [5,6]. Investigation of these failure modes
was previously detailed by Kerdal and Nethercot [7]. Also, a
detailed review of the experimental and theoretical investigations
on the failure modes of castellated beams was presented by
Demirdjian [8].
Extensive experimental and numerical investigations were
found in the literature highlighting the distortional buckling
behaviour of doubly symmetric steel I-sections mainly by Bradford
[9,10], Vrcelj and Bradford [11] and Zirakian [12]. However, very
few tests were found in the literature on the distortional buckling
behaviour of castellated beams. These tests were carried out by

Tel.: +20 40 3315860; fax: +20 40 3315860.

E-mail addresses: ehab_ellobody@tanta.edu.eg, ehablobody@yahoo.co.uk.

0143-974X/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.012

Zirakian and Showkati [13] and provided useful information in the

form of failure loads, failure modes, loadlateral deflection curves
and loadstrain curves that could be used in developing finite
element models. Finite element modelling could provide better
understanding for interaction of lateral torsional and distortional
buckling behaviour of castellated beams and compensate the lack
in the tests on this form of construction. However, accurate finite
element modelling of the buckling behaviour of castellated steel
beams is quite complicated due to the presence of the initial
geometric imperfections, web openings, lateral buckling restraints
and loading conditions. Hence, to date, there is no detailed finite
element model in the literature highlighting the interaction of
buckling modes in castellated beams, which is addressed in this
study.
Current design rules specified in the American Institute for
Steel Construction AISC [14], Australian Standards [15], British
Standards 5950 [16] and Eurocode 3 (BS EN 1993-1-1) [17] are
applicable to normal strength steel Grades S235 to S460. Although,
Eurocode 3 (BS EN 1993-1-12) [18] has proposed additional rules
for the extension of Eurocode 3 up to steel grades S700, this was
not investigated on the behaviour of steel beams under combined
buckling modes. Furthermore, the behaviour of castellated beams
under distortional buckling was not specified in the specifications,
with only limited design rules were given in the Australian
Standards AS4100 [15] and American Standards AISC [14] for
doubly symmetric I-sections. Hence, the behaviour of normal and

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

Nomenclature
B
b1
b2
b3
b4
COV
D
E
fy
fu
G
H
h
h1
hw
Iy
Iw
J
L
LTB
lu
Mb
MP
Mpx
Myz
PAS4100
PFE
PTest
PTheory
Sx
SY
s
t
WD

m
s
y

Overall flange width of castellated beam

Dimension of castellated beam
Dimension of castellated beam
Dimension of castellated beam
Dimension of castellated beam
Coefficient of variation
Overall depth of cross-section (larger dimension)
Youngs modulus of steel
Yield stress of steel
Ultimate stress of steel
Shear modulus of steel
Overall height of castellated beam
Height of castellated beam in finite element model
Height of opening
Height of web
Minor axis section moment of area
Warping section constant
Uniform torsion section Warping section constant
Length of castellated beam
Lateral torsional buckling failure mode
Lateral unsupported length of castellated beam
Nominal buckling moment strength
Proposed buckling moment strength
Major axis full plastic moment
Elastic buckling moment
Unfactored design load calculated using the Australian Standards
Failure load from finite element analysis
Failure load from tests
Failure load from theoretical analysis
Plastic section modulus
Steel yielding failure mode
Web thickness of specimen
Flange thickness of specimen
Web distortion failure mode
Moment modification factor
Slenderness reduction factor
Yield stress factor
Nondimensional slenderness.

high strength castellated steel beams under combined buckling

modes including distortional buckling is also addressed in this
study.
The main objective of this paper is to develop an efficient nonlinear 3D finite element model highlighting the buckling behaviour
of castellated beams. The finite element program ABAQUS [19] was
used in the analysis, which considered the inelastic material properties of flange and web portions of beams and initial geometric imperfections. The failure loads, failure modes and loadlateral
deflection curves were predicted using the finite element model
and compared against published experimental results. Parametric study was performed to investigate the effect of cross-section
geometries, steel beam length, steel strength and nondimensional
slenderness on the failure loads and buckling behaviour of castellated beams. The failure loads predicted from the parametric study
were compared with that predicted from Australian Standards for
steel beams under lateral buckling.
2. Summary of experimental investigation
The tests on simply supported castellated steel beams under
distortional buckling were conducted by Zirakian and Showkati
[13]. The castellated beams were loaded with central concentrated

815

load applied through 100 100 100 mm steel cubes. Lateral

deflections were prevented at mid-span and at a distance of
165 mm from the supports using lateral bracing. The testing
program included six full-scale tests having nominal depths of
180 and 210 mm and lengths of 3600, 4400 and 5200 mm. The
castellated beams were fabricated from hot-rolled standard IPE
120 and IPE 140, with the castellation dimensions and notations
shown in Fig. 1 and summarized in Table 1. The test specimens
were labeled such that the nominal height and length could
be identified from the label. For example, the label C180-3600
identifies that the castellated beam denoted by the letter C has
a nominal height of 180 mm and a length of 3600 mm.
The castellated beam tests [13] were designed so that the top
compression flange of the beam (Fig. 1) was restrained against lateral buckling at mid-span and near the support. Hence, the crosssection at quarter-span was subjected to unrestrained distortional
buckling while the cross-section at mid-span was subjected to
restrained distortional buckling. More details regarding the two
buckling modes were previously given in [9,13]. According to this
test setup, measurements of lateral deflections and strains were
taken at the mid-span and quarter-span locations. The load was
applied step-by-step until failure occurred. Failure was identified
when the lateral deflections were large at quarter-span locations
and unloading took place. The material properties of flange and
web portions were determined from tensile coupon tests taken
from the two hot-rolled standard IPE 120 and IPE 140 sections.
The yield stresses (fy ) of flange and web portions of IPE 120 were
279 and 234 MPa, respectively, while that of IPE 140 were 280
and 332 MPa, respectively. Further details regarding the castellated
beam tests are given in [13].
3. Finite element modelling
3.1. General
In this study, the finite element program ABAQUS [19] was
used in the analysis of castellated steel beams tested by Zirakian
and Showkati [13]. The model has accounted for the measured
geometry, initial geometric imperfections and measured material
properties of flange and web portions. Finite element analysis
for bucking requires two types of analyses. The first is known
as Eigenvalue analysis that estimates the buckling modes and
loads. Such analysis is linear elastic analysis performed with the
load applied within the step. The buckling analysis provides the
factor by which the load must be multiplied to reach the buckling
load. For practical purposes, only the lowest buckling mode
predicted from the Eigenvalue analysis is used. The second is called
loaddisplacement nonlinear analysis and follows the Eigenvalue
prediction. It is necessary to consider whether the post-buckling
response is stable or unstable. The nonlinear material properties
and loading conditions are incorporated in the loaddisplacement
nonlinear analysis. It should be noted that previous studies by the
author [2023] have shown that the residual stresses had a small
effect on the buckling behaviour of different structural members,
hence it is not included in the present study.
3.2. Finite element type and mesh
A combination of 4-node and 3-node doubly curved shell
elements with reduced integration S4R and S3R, respectively,
were used to model the flanges and web of the castellated
steel beams, as shown in Fig. 1. The elements are suitable for
complex buckling behaviour. The S4R and S3R elements have
six degrees of freedom per node and provide accurate solutions
to most applications. The elements allow for transverse shear
deformation which is important in simulating thick shell elements

816

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

Fig. 1. Definition of symbols and finite element mesh for castellated beam.
Table 1
Dimensions and material properties of castellated beams.
Test

C180-3600
C180-4400
C180-5200
C210-3600
C210-4400
C210-5200

Dimensions (mm)

Material properties fy (MPa)

h1

b1

b2

b3

b4

Flange

Web

176.3
176.3
176.7
206.5
210.3
211.7

64
64
64
73
73
73

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.9
6.9
6.9

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.7
4.7
4.7

3600
4400
5200
3600
4400
5200

170.0
170.0
170.4
199.6
203.4
204.8

60
60
60
70
70
70

30
30
30
35
35
35

60
60
60
70
70
70

60
60
60
70
70
70

180
180
180
210
210
210

279
279
279
280
280
280

234
234
234
332
332
332

(thickness is more than about 1/15 the characteristic length of

the shell). The elements allow for the freedom in dealing with
further parametric studies on slender and compact sections. The
element also account for finite strain and suitable for large strain
analysis as recommended by ABAQUS [19] and Refs. [2023].
Since lateral buckling of castellated beams is very sensitive to
large strains, the S4R and S3R element were used in this study
to ensure the accuracy of the results. In order to choose the
finite element mesh that provides accurate results with minimum
computational time, convergence studies were conducted. It is
found that approximately 15 15 mm (length by width of
S4R element and depth by width of S3R element) ratio provides
adequate accuracy in modelling the web while a finer mesh of
approximately 8 15 mm was used in the flange.
3.3. Boundary conditions and load application
Only half of the castellated beam tests was modelled due to
symmetry as shown in Fig. 1. Since the lateral bracing system
used in [13] was quite rigid, the top compression flange was
prevented from lateral displacements at mid-span and at a distance
of 165 mm from the support, which is identical to the tests. The
load was applied in increments as concentrated static load over
the spreader block area, which is also identical to the experimental
investigation. The nonlinear geometry was included to deal with
the large displacement analysis.
3.4. Material modelling of castellated steel beams
The stressstrain curve for the structural steel given in the
EC3 [17] was adopted in this study with measured values of the
yield stress (fys ) and ultimate stress (fus ) used in the tests [13]. The
material behaviour provided by ABAQUS [19] (using the PLASTIC
option) allows a nonlinear stressstrain curve to be used. The first
part of the nonlinear curve represents the elastic part up to the
proportional limit stress with Youngs modulus of (E ) 200 GPa and
Poissons ratio of 0.3 were used in the finite element model. Since
the buckling analysis involves large inelastic strains, the nominal
(engineering) static stressstrain curves were converted to true
stress and logarithmic plastic true strain curves. The true stress

Ref.

[13]

pl
(true ) and plastic true strain (true
) were calculated using Eqs. (1)

and (2) as given by ABAQUS (2004):

true = (1 + )

pl
true

= ln(1 + ) true /Eo

(1)
(2)

where Eo is the initial Youngs modulus, and are the measured

nominal (engineering) stress and strain values, respectively.
3.5. Modelling of initial geometric imperfections
Initial geometric imperfections are found in structural steel
members as a result of the fabrication process. Previous investigations shared by the author have successfully modelled the initial
geometric imperfections in different structural sections [2023].
Buckling of castellated beams depends on the lateral restraint conditions to compression flange and geometry of the beams. Mainly
two buckling modes detailed in [9,13] could be identified as
unrestrained and restrained lateral distortional buckling modes.
Following the same approach, [2023], the lateral distortional
buckling modes could be obtained by performing Eigenvalue buckling analysis [19] for castellated beams with actual geometry and
actual lateral restraint conditions to the compression flange. Figs. 2
and 3 show examples of unrestrained between ends and restrained
buckling modes along the compression flange of castellated steel
beams, respectively. Only the first buckling mode (Eigenmode 1) is
used in the Eigenvalue analysis. Since buckling modes predicted
by ABAQUS Eigenvalue analysis [19] are generalized to 1.0, the
buckling modes are factored by a magnitude of Lu /1000, where
Lu is the length between points of effective bracing. The magnitude of Lu /1000 is a generally accepted average value for test
measurements as recommended in Refs. [2024]. The factored
buckling mode is inserted into the loaddisplacement nonlinear
analysis of the castellated beams following the Eigenvalue prediction. It should be noted that the investigation of castellated beams
with different slenderness ratios could result in lateral torsional
buckling mode with or without web distortional buckling mode.
Hence, to ensure that the correct buckling mode is incorporated
in the nonlinear displacement analysis, the Eigenvalue buckling
analysis must be performed for each castellated beam with actual
geometry.

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

817

Fig. 2. Unrestrained elastic lateral distortional buckling mode (Eigenmode 1).

Fig. 3. Restrained elastic lateral distortional buckling mode (Eigenmode 1) for a castellated beam laterally restrained along the compression flange.

4. Verification of finite element model

The developed finite element model for castellated beams
under distortional buckling was verified against the test results
detailed in [13]. The failure loads, failure modes and loadlateral
deflection curves obtained experimentally and numerically using
the finite element model were compared. Table 2 shows a
comparison between the failure loads obtained from the tests as
well as calculated using the design equation proposed in Ref. [25]
(PTest/Calculated ) as reported in [13] and finite element analyses
performed in this study (PFE ). It can be seen that good agreement
between the test/calculated and finite element results. The mean
value of PTest/Calculated /PFE ratio is 1.01 with the coefficient of
variation (COV) of 0.020, as shown in Table 2. Three failure modes
were observed experimentally and verified numerically using the
finite element model as summarized in Table 2. All the tested

castellated beams [13] underwent lateral torsional buckling (LTB)

and web distortion (WD), while steel yielding (SY) was observed
in castellated beams with lengths of 3600 and 4400 mm. The
SY failure mode was predicted from the finite element model
by comparing the Von Mises stresses in the castellated beams at
failure against the measured yield stresses. On the other hand,
the SY was judged in the tests by comparing the test failure loads
against the plastic collapse loads (Ppx ) calculated according to
AS4100 [15].
The loadlateral deflection curves predicted experimentally
and numerically were also compared as shown in Fig. 4. The curves
were plotted as an example at quarter-span of test specimen C1803600 at three locations. The locations are the top, middle and
bottom points of the web of castellated beam. It can be shown that
generally good agreement was achieved between experimental
and numerical relationships. The maximum measured lateral

Table 2
Comparison of test and finite element results.
Test/Calculated [Ref.]

Test/Theoretical

PTest/Calculated

Finite element analysis

PFE

PTest/Calculated (kN)

Failure mode

PFE (kN)

Failure mode

C180-3600 [13]
C180-4400 [13]
C180-5200 [13]
C210-3600 [13]
C210-4400 [13]
C210-5200 [13]

21.58
15.63
14.48a
37.22
28.91a
24.90

LTB + SY + WD
LTB + SY + WD
LTB + WD
LTB + SY + WD
LTB + SY + WD
LTB + WD

21.6
16.0
14.8
37.9
28.0
25.4

LTB + SY + WD
LTB + SY + WD
LTB + WD
LTB + SY + WD
LTB + SY + WD
LTB + WD

1.00
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.97
1.02

Mean
COV

1.01
0.020

Denotes predicted failure loads using proposed equation given in Ref. [25].

818

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

fibers at the top and bottom flanges at mid-span exceeded the

measured yield stresses.
5. Parametric study

Fig. 4. Comparison of loadlateral deflection curves at quarter-span of test

specimen C180-3600.

deflections from the tests at failure were 5.6, 2.8 and 0.8 mm at
top, middle and bottom points of the web, respectively, compared
with 6.4, 3.8 and 0.6 mm, respectively, from the finite element
analysis as shown in Fig. 4. The positive sign represents the lateral
deflection in front of the web and the negative sign represents the
lateral deflection in back of the web.
Furthermore, the deformed shapes of castellated beams at
failure observed experimentally and numerically were compared.
Fig. 5 shows as an example of the buckled shape observed in the
test specimen C210-4400 in comparison with that predicted from
the finite element analysis. It can be seen that the experimental
and numerical deformed shapes are in good agreement. The failure
mode observed experimentally and confirmed numerically was
a combination of lateral torsional buckling (LTB), web distortion
(WD) and steel yielding (SY). The data obtained from ABAQUS [19]
has shown that the Von Mises stresses at the maximum stressed

(a) Numerical.

The verified finite element model was used to study the

effects of the change in cross-section geometries, beam length,
steel strength and nondimensional slenderness on the strength
and buckling behaviour of castellated steel beams. Ninety-six
castellated steel beams were analysed using the finite element
model. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the dimensions and material
properties of the castellated steel beams. The beams were divided
into 24 groups denoted G1G24. The first twelve groups G1G12
had a length of 3600 mm, while groups G13G24 had a length of
5200 mm. Group G1 had four castellated beams S1S4 having an
overall height (H ) of 176.3 mm, a width (B) of 64 mm and a web
thickness (s) of 4.4 mm, which is identical to the tested castellated
steel beam C180-3600 [13], but with different flange thickness (t )
of 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm, respectively. This has resulted in B/t ratios
of 32, 16, 10.7 and 8 for specimens S1S4, respectively. Group
G1 had a steel yield stress (fy ) of 275 and an ultimate stress (fu )
of 430. Groups G2 and G3 were identical to G1 except with fy of
460, and 690 MPa and fu of 530 and 760 MPa, respectively. The
yield and ultimate stresses conform to EC3 [18]. The web opening
dimensions in G1G3 were also identical to C180-3600 [13]. Group
G4 had four specimens S13S16 having H of 210.9 mm, B of
73 mm and s of 4.7 mm but with different t of 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm,
respectively, which is identical to the tested castellated steel beam
C210-3600 [13]. The B/t ratios of S13S16 were 36.5, 18.3, 12.2
and 9.1, respectively. Groups G5 and G6 were identical to G4 but
with different steel yield and ultimate stresses. Groups G4G6 had
the same steel stresses as G1G3, respectively. The web opening
dimensions for the castellated beams in G4G6 were also identical
to C210-3600 [13].

(b) Experimental [13].

Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental and numerical buckled shapes at failure for specimen (C210-4400).

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

Group G7 had four castellated beams S25S28 having H of

176.3 mm, B of 64 mm, t of 6.3 mm, which is identical to the
tested castellated steel beam C180-3600 [13], but with different s
of 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm, respectively. This has resulted in h/s ratios
of 85, 42.5, 28.3 and 21.3 for specimens S25S28, respectively.
Groups G8 and G9 were identical to G7 but with different steel yield
and ultimate stresses. Groups G7G9 had the same steel stresses
as G1G3, respectively. The web opening dimensions in G7G9
were also identical to C180-3600 [13]. Finally, Group G10 had four
specimens S37S40 having H of 210.9 mm, B of 73 mm and t of
6.9 mm but with different s of 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm, respectively, which
is identical to the tested castellated steel beam C210-3600 [13].
The h/s ratios of S37S40 were 102, 51, 34 and 25.5, respectively.
Groups G11 and G12 were identical to G10 but with different steel
yield and ultimate stresses. Groups G10G12 had the same steel
stresses as G1G3, respectively. The web opening dimensions for
the castellated beams in G10G12 were also identical to C2103600 [13]. The castellated steel beams S49S96 in Groups G13G24

819

were identical to S1S48 in G1G12 but with different steel beam

length of 5200 mm instead of 3600 mm, respectively. The detailed
dimensions of the castellated steel beams are shown in Tables 3
and 4. The investigated castellated steel beams had different
nondimensional slenderness () calculated based on AS4100 [15]
ranged from 1.03.1. The nondimensional slenderness () is equal
to the square root of the major axis full plastic moment divided by
the elastic buckling moment, and is considered as a guide for beam
slenderness in this study.
The failure loads (PFE ) and failure modes of the castellated steel
beams predicted from the finite element analyses are summarized
in Tables 5 and 6. Looking at Tables 5 and 6, it can be seen that the
failure loads of the castellated beams showed logical and expected
results, with less slender beams followed a more plastic collapse
mode and are obviously driven by the steel strength. The more
slender the beam the more elastic buckling we will have and
collapse behaviour is dependent on the lateral torsional and web
distortional buckling behaviour of the beam. It can also be seen

Table 3
Dimensions and material properties of castellated beams in the parametric study.
Group

Specimen

Dimensions (mm)

Material properties

h1

b1

b2

b3

b4

fy (MPa)

fu (MPa)

G1

S1
S2
S3
S4

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

3600
3600
3600
3600

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G2

S5
S6
S7
S8

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

3600
3600
3600
3600

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G3

S9
S10
S11
S12

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

3600
3600
3600
3600

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

G4

S13
S14
S15
S16

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7

3600
3600
3600
3600

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G5

S17
S18
S19
S20

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7

3600
3600
3600
3600

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G6

S21
S22
S23
S24

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7

3600
3600
3600
3600

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

G7

S25
S26
S27
S28

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

3600
3600
3600
3600

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G8

S29
S30
S31
S32

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

3600
3600
3600
3600

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G9

S33
S34
S35
S36

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

3600
3600
3600
3600

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

G10

S37
S38
S39
S40

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

3600
3600
3600
3600

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G11

S41
S42
S43
S44

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

3600
3600
3600
3600

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G12

S45
S46
S47
S48

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

3600
3600
3600
3600

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

820

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

Table 4
Dimensions and material properties of castellated beams in the parametric study.
Group

Specimen

Dimensions (mm)

Material properties

h1

b1

b2

b3

b4

fy (MPa)

fu (MPa)

G13

S49
S50
S51
S52

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

5200
5200
5200
5200

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G14

S53
S54
S55
S56

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

5200
5200
5200
5200

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G15

S57
S58
S59
S60

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

5200
5200
5200
5200

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

G16

S61
S62
S63
S64

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7

5200
5200
5200
5200

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G17

S65
S66
S67
S68

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7

5200
5200
5200
5200

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G18

S69
S70
S71
S72

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7

5200
5200
5200
5200

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

G19

S73
S74
S75
S76

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

5200
5200
5200
5200

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G20

S77
S78
S79
S80

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

5200
5200
5200
5200

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G21

S81
S82
S83
S84

176.3
176.3
176.3
176.3

64
64
64
64

6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

5200
5200
5200
5200

170.0
170.0
170.0
170.0

60
60
60
60

30
30
30
30

60
60
60
60

60
60
60
60

180
180
180
180

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

G22

S85
S86
S87
S88

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

5200
5200
5200
5200

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

275
275
275
275

430
430
430
430

G23

S89
S90
S91
S92

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

5200
5200
5200
5200

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

460
460
460
460

530
530
530
530

G24

S93
S94
S95
S96

210.9
210.9
210.9
210.9

73
73
73
73

6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9

2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0

5200
5200
5200
5200

204.0
204.0
204.0
204.0

70
70
70
70

35
35
35
35

70
70
70
70

70
70
70
70

210
210
210
210

690
690
690
690

760
760
760
760

that the use of high strength steel offered a considerable increase

in the failure loads of less slender castellated steel beams. It should
be noted that when presenting the failure loads as a percentage of
the plastic collapse load of each castellated steel beam, the failure
load ratios are decreased for high strength less slender steel beams.
Lateral torsional buckling (LTB) was predicted for all the castellated
steel beams, except for specimens S25, S29, S37, S41, S45, S85,
S89 and S93 where web distortion dominated the failure mode.
Steel yielding (SY) was predicted for castellated steel beams S4 and
S16 having a length of 3600 mm. Finally, combination of LTB and
WD was also predicted for some castellated beams as shown as in
Tables 5 and 6.

guides were found in the AS4100 [15] that considers lateral

torsional buckling of doubly symmetric I-sections as well as
design guides in the AISC [14] that controls the errors associated
with neglecting web distortion in doubly symmetric I-sections.
In a recent study by Zirakian and Showkati [13], it is concluded
that the AISC [14] predictions are overconservative and in some
cases may cause economic losses for doubly symmetric I-sections
under distortional buckling. In this study, the failure loads of
the castellated beams investigated in the parametric study were
compared with the design guides given in the AS4100 [15].
Following the AS4100 design guides, the nominal buckling
moment strength (Mb ) of compact doubly symmetric I-section
beams is given by:

6. Comparison with design guides and discussions

Mb = m s Mpx

To date, there is no design guides in current codes of

practice [1417] that account for the distortional buckling of
castellated normal and high strength steel beams. Only design

where, Mpx = fy Sx is the major axis full plastic moment

corresponding to collapse load Ppx , fy is the yield stress, Sx is the
plastic section modulus, m is a moment modification factor which

(3)

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

821

Table 5
Failure loads obtained from finite element analysis and design rules for castellated beams in the parametric study.
Group

L/h

CSB

G1

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46
S47
S48

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G9

G10

G11

G12

Mean
COV

B/t

21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6

h/s

32.0
16.0
10.7
8.0
32.0
16.0
10.7
8.0
32.0
16.0
10.7
8.0
36.5
18.3
12.2
9.1
36.5
18.3
12.2
9.1
36.5
18.3
12.2
9.1
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6

38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
85.0
42.5
28.3
21.3
85.0
42.5
28.3
21.3
85.0
42.5
28.3
21.3
102.0
51.0
34.0
25.5
102.0
51.0
34.0
25.5
102.0
51.0
34.0
25.5

1.50
1.29
1.16
1.06
1.94
1.67
1.50
1.37
2.38
2.05
1.84
1.67
1.43
1.22
1.10
1.01
1.84
1.57
1.42
1.31
2.26
1.93
1.73
1.61
1.09
1.14
1.14
1.10
1.41
1.47
1.47
1.42
1.72
1.81
1.81
1.74
0.99
1.05
1.07
1.06
1.28
1.35
1.38
1.37
1.57
1.66
1.69
1.67

Ppx (kN)

16.8
23.0
29.1
35.0
28.1
38.5
48.6
58.5
42.1
57.7
72.9
87.7
24.7
33.2
41.6
49.8
41.3
55.6
69.6
83.4
61.9
83.4
102.9
125.1
25.0
29.1
33.2
37.3
41.9
48.7
55.6
62.4
62.8
73.1
83.4
93.6
37.3
43.3
49.2
55.1
62.4
72.4
82.3
92.2
93.7
108.6
123.5
138.3

allows for non-uniform moment distributions (taken 1.75 for

simply supported beams under concentrated load at the middle)
and s is a slenderness reduction factor which allows for the effects
of elastic buckling, initial geometric imperfections, initial twist and
residual stresses, and which is given by Trahair [26] as follows:

s = 0.6

Mpx

Myz

+3

Mpx
Myz

1.0

(4)

where Myz is the elastic buckling moment of a simply supported

beam in uniform bending given by:

Myz =

2 EIy
L2u

GJ +

2 EIw
L2u

(5)

where, E and G are the Youngs modulus and shear modulus of

elasticity, Iy , J and Iw are the minor axis section moment of area,
the uniform torsion section constant and the warping section

FE analysis (kN)

Design (kN)

PFE

Failure mode

PAS4100

11.8
19.7
27.7
35.0
16.7
28.1
39.2
50.6
19.2
35.8
52.0
68.2
16.0
27.5
38.0
48.5
23.4
38.8
53.4
74.6
28.1
51.0
72.0
92.6
17.8
28.2
31.3
34.4
24.2
40.1
44.2
48.5
29.5
53.4
58.5
63.8
20.4
41.1
45.3
49.8
26.9
57.8
63.9
69.9
31.9
78.2
86.1
93.4

LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + SY + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + SY + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB

10.4
17.8
25.8
34.7
11.2
19.9
30.0
41.8
11.5
20.8
32.0
45.4
16.5
27.9
39.5
49.8
18.0
31.9
46.8
63.2
18.6
33.7
50.3
69.3
24.0
26.5
30.2
35.4
28.6
31.0
35.3
41.9
30.9
33.1
37.7
45.2
37.3
43.3
48.2
54.6
48.9
52.3
57.7
65.8
54.0
57.0
62.5
71.4

PFE
Ppx

PAS4100
Ppx

PFE
PAS4100

0.70
0.86
0.95
1.00
0.59
0.73
0.81
0.86
0.46
0.62
0.71
0.78
0.65
0.83
0.91
0.97
0.57
0.70
0.77
0.89
0.45
0.61
0.70
0.74
0.71
0.97
0.94
0.92
0.58
0.82
0.79
0.78
0.47
0.73
0.70
0.68
0.55
0.95
0.92
0.90
0.43
0.80
0.78
0.76
0.34
0.72
0.70
0.68

0.62
0.77
0.89
0.99
0.40
0.52
0.62
0.71
0.27
0.36
0.44
0.52
0.67
0.84
0.95
1.00
0.44
0.57
0.67
0.76
0.30
0.40
0.49
0.55
0.96
0.91
0.91
0.95
0.68
0.64
0.63
0.67
0.49
0.45
0.45
0.48
1.00
1.00
0.98
0.99
0.78
0.72
0.70
0.71
0.58
0.52
0.51
0.52

1.13
1.11
1.07
1.01
1.49
1.41
1.31
1.21
1.67
1.72
1.63
1.50
0.97
0.99
0.96
0.97
1.30
1.22
1.14
1.18
1.51
1.51
1.43
1.34
0.74
1.06
1.04
0.97
0.85
1.29
1.25
1.16
0.95
1.61
1.55
1.41
0.55
0.95
0.94
0.91
0.55
1.11
1.11
1.06
0.59
1.37
1.38
1.31
1.18
0.242

constant, respectively. The nondimensional slenderness

() of the
castellated steel beam according to AS4100 is equal to

Mpx
,
Myz

and

is considered as a guide for beam slenderness in this study. The

design load of castellated steel beams, with simply supported ends
under a concentrated load at mid-span, based on AS4100 (PAS4100 )
is calculated from (Mb ). The plastic collapse load (Ppx ) and the
design failure load (PAS4100 ) calculated according to AS4100 [15]
are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
Looking at Tables 5 and 6 that summarize the design failure
loads (PAS4100 ), it can be seen that the Specification predictions
are generally conservative for the castellated beams failing by
Lateral Torsional Buckling (LTB) and having steel yield stress
of 275 MPa, except for S13, S14, S15, S28, S39 and S40 that
experienced unconservative specification predictions ranged from
1% to 9%. This is attributed to the fact that this study covered a wide
range of castellated steel beams having different combinations
of L/h, B/t , h/s and ratios that may not be studied by the
specification. The Specification predictions were unconservative

822

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

Table 6
Failure loads obtained from finite element analysis and design rules for castellated beams in the parametric study.
Group

G13

G14

G15

G16

G17

G18

G19

G20

G21

G22

G23

G24

Mean
COV

CSB

S49
S50
S51
S52
S53
S54
S55
S56
S57
S58
S59
S60
S61
S62
S63
S64
S65
S66
S67
S68
S69
S70
S71
S72
S73
S74
S75
S76
S77
S78
S79
S80
S81
S82
S83
S84
S85
S86
S87
S88
S89
S90
S91
S92
S93
S94
S95
S96

L/h

30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5

B/t

32.0
16.0
10.7
8.0
32.0
16.0
10.7
8.0
32.0
16.0
10.7
8.0
36.5
18.3
12.2
9.1
36.5
18.3
12.2
9.1
36.5
18.3
12.2
9.1
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6

h/s

38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
85.0
42.5
28.3
21.3
85.0
42.5
28.3
21.3
85.0
42.5
28.3
21.3
102.0
51.0
34.0
25.5
102.0
51.0
34.0
25.5
102.0
51.0
34.0
25.5

1.95
1.70
1.51
1.36
2.52
2.20
1.96
1.75
3.09
2.69
2.40
2.15
1.88
1.63
1.47
1.33
2.44
2.11
1.90
1.73
2.98
2.59
2.33
2.11
1.44
1.49
1.46
1.38
1.86
1.92
1.89
1.78
2.28
2.36
2.31
2.18
1.33
1.40
1.40
1.36
1.72
1.81
1.81
1.75
2.11
2.21
2.22
2.15

Ppx (kN)

11.6
15.9
20.1
24.2
19.4
26.6
33.6
40.5
29.2
39.9
50.5
60.7
17.1
23.0
28.8
34.5
28.6
38.5
48.2
57.7
42.9
57.7
72.3
86.6
17.3
20.2
23.0
25.8
29.0
33.7
38.5
43.2
43.5
50.6
57.7
64.8
25.8
30.0
34.1
38.2
43.2
50.1
57.0
63.9
64.8
75.2
85.5
95.8

for specimens S25, S29, S33, S37, S41, S45 and S85 failing mainly
by Web Distortional Buckling (WD), having higher h/s greater than
or equal to 85 and L/h less than or equal 25.5. The specifications
were also unconservative for specimens S16 and S38 failing by
combined (LTB + SY + WD) and (LTB + WD), respectively, and
reaching or approaching full plasticization, respectively. While, the
Specification predictions were quite conservative for all remaining
castellated steel beams particularly beams with high strength steel
fy of 460, and 690 MPa. In overall, the mean value of PFE /PAS4100
ratio for the castellated steel beams having a length of 3600 mm is
1.18 with the coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.242, as shown in
Table 5. On the other hand, the mean value of PFE /PAS4100 ratio for
the castellated steel beams having a length of 5200 mm is 1.63 with
the coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.164, as shown in Table 6.
Fig. 6 plotted the failure loads of castellated steel beams
in groups G1G3 predicted from the finite element analysis
(PFE ) and design guides (PAS4100 ). The failure loads were plotted,
as a percentage of the plastic collapse load (Ppx ), against the

FE analysis (kN)

Design (kN)

PFE

Failure mode

PAS4100

7.2
12.2
17.4
22.8
8.4
15.9
23.8
32.0
8.7
17.3
26.8
37.2
11.0
18.2
25.4
32.8
13.3
24.5
35.5
46.5
13.8
27.0
40.8
55.5
15.6
17.8
19.8
21.8
20.8
24.6
27.0
29.9
21.8
27.6
30.9
34.5
18.4
27.7
30.6
33.4
24.3
39.2
42.7
46.6
28.8
45.5
50.2
55.0

LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB
WD
LTB + WD
LTB
LTB

4.6
8.0
12.3
17.5
4.7
8.4
13.2
19.3
4.8
8.5
13.5
20.1
7.2
12.4
18.4
25.5
7.4
13.1
20.0
28.3
7.5
13.4
20.5
29.4
11.5
12.6
14.9
18.2
12.5
13.6
16.1
20.0
12.9
14.0
16.6
20.7
19.1
20.7
23.4
27.6
21.2
22.7
25.7
30.5
22.1
23.4
26.5
31.7

PFE
Ppx

PAS4100
Ppx

PFE
PAS4100

0.62
0.77
0.87
0.94
0.43
0.60
0.71
0.79
0.30
0.43
0.53
0.61
0.64
0.79
0.88
0.95
0.47
0.64
0.74
0.81
0.32
0.47
0.56
0.64
0.90
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.72
0.73
0.70
0.69
0.50
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.71
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.56
0.78
0.75
0.73
0.44
0.61
0.59
0.57

0.40
0.5
0.61
0.72
0.24
0.32
0.39
0.48
0.16
0.21
0.27
0.33
0.42
0.54
0.64
0.74
0.26
0.34
0.41
0.49
0.17
0.23
0.28
0.34
0.66
0.62
0.65
0.71
0.43
0.40
0.42
0.46
0.30
0.28
0.29
0.32
0.74
0.69
0.69
0.72
0.49
0.45
0.45
0.48
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.33

1.57
1.53
1.41
1.30
1.79
1.89
1.80
1.66
1.81
2.04
1.99
1.85
1.53
1.47
1.38
1.29
1.80
1.87
1.78
1.64
1.84
2.01
1.99
1.89
1.36
1.41
1.33
1.20
1.66
1.81
1.68
1.50
1.69
1.97
1.86
1.67
0.96
1.34
1.31
1.21
1.15
1.73
1.66
1.53
1.30
1.94
1.89
1.74
1.63
0.164

nondimensional flange width-to-thickness ratio (B/t ). Looking at

the castellated beams in G1, it can be seen that S4, having a B/t
ratio of 8 and a nondimensional slenderness ratio of 1.06, failed
at the plastic collapse load. By increasing the B/t ratio from 8 to
16 the PFE /Ppx and PAS4100 /Ppx ratios are reduced in a nonlinear
relationship. On the other hand, the failure load ratios are reduced
linearly as B/t ratios are increased above 16. It can also be seen
that as the steel strength are increased (beams in G2 and G3)
the failure loads are increased and the PFE /Ppx and PAS4100 /Ppx
ratios are decreased significantly compared to beams in G1. The
comparison of the numerical and design predictions has shown
that the AS4100 design guides are generally conservative for the
castellated steel beams with normal yield strength (beams in G1)
while it is quite conservative for the beams with higher yield
stresses (beams in G2 and G3). Similar conclusions could be drawn
for the castellated steel beams in G4G6, G13G15 and G16G18 as
shown in Figs. 79, respectively, except for castellated steel beams
S13, S14, S15 and S16 of G4 that experienced unconservative
specification predictions ranged from 1% to 4%.

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

Fig. 6. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for castellated
beams in groups G1G3.

823

Fig. 9. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for castellated
beams in groups G16G18.

Fig. 7. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for castellated
beams in groups G4G6.

Fig. 10. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for
castellated beams in groups G7G9.

Fig. 8. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for castellated
beams in groups G13G15.

Fig. 11. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for
castellated beams in groups G10G11.

The impact of the web distortional buckling on the failure

loads of castellated steel beams can be shown in Figs. 1013.
Fig. 10 plotted the PFE /Ppx and PAS4100 /Ppx ratios against the
nondimensional web height-to-web thickness ratio (h/s) for the
castellated steel beams in G7G9. Looking at the numerical failure
loads of the castellated beams in G7, it can be seen that S25,
having a h/s ratio of 85 and a nondimensional slenderness ratio
of 1.09, failed prematurely owing to the predicted WD buckling.
As the h/s ratios are decreased from 85 to 42.5 the PFE /Ppx
ratios are increased linearly. On the other hand, the failure load
ratios are decreased approximately nonlinearly as the h/s ratios
are decreased below 42.5. Once again, as the steel strength are

increased (beams in G8 and G9) the failure loads are increased and
the PFE /Ppx ratios are decreased significantly compared to beams
in G7. The comparison of the numerical and design predictions
has shown that the AS4100 design guides are unconservative for
the castellated steel beams failing by distortional buckling (S25,
S29 and S33). It can also be seen that the Specification generally
accurately predicted the failure loads of castellated steel beams
with normal yield strength (beams S26S28 failing mainly by LTB).
The specification predictions were quite conservative for beams
with higher yield stresses (beams in G8 and G9) failing mainly by
LTB. Similar conclusions could be drawn for the castellated steel
beams in G10G11 and G22G24 as shown in Figs. 11 and 13.

824

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

normal steel strength approached the plastic collapse load at of

1.06. On the other hand, the more slender the beam the more elastic buckling we will have and collapse behaviour is dependent on
the lateral torsional and web distortional buckling behaviour of the
beam.
7. Conclusions

Fig. 12. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for
castellated beams in groups G19G21.

Fig. 13. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for
castellated beams in groups G22G24.

The interaction of buckling modes in castellated normal and

high strength steel beams has been investigated and reported in
this paper. A nonlinear finite element model for the analysis of
simply supported castellated steel beams has been developed. The
initial geometric imperfection and nonlinear material properties
of steel have been incorporated in the model. The failure loads
of castellated steel beams, buckling behaviour, failure modes
and loadlateral deflection relationships were predicted from
the nonlinear finite element analysis and verified well against
published tests. Ninety-six castellated steel beams were analysed
in an extensive parametric study highlighting the effects of the
change in cross-section geometries, beam length, steel strength
and nondimensional slenderness on the failure loads and buckling
behaviour of the beams.
The parametric study has shown that the presence of web distortional buckling causes a considerable decrease in the failure load
of slender castellated steel beams. It is also shown that the use
of high strength steel offers a considerable increase in the failure
loads of less slender castellated steel beams. The failure loads predicted from the finite element analysis were compared with that
predicted from Australian Standards for steel beams under lateral
buckling. It is shown that the Specification predictions are generally conservative for normal strength castellated steel beams failing by lateral torsional buckling, except for some castellated steel
beams that experienced unconservative Specification predictions
ranged from 1% to 9%. On the other hand, the Specification predictions were unconservative for castellated steel beams failing by
web distortional buckling and quite conservative for high strength
castellated steel beams failing by lateral torsional buckling.
References

Fig. 14. Comparison of finite element analysis and design predictions for
castellated beams in groups G1G3 and G13G15.

Interestingly, unlike (S25, S29 and S33) in G7G9 failing by WD, the
castellated steel beams (S73, S77 and S81) in G19G21 did not fail
prematurely owing to the predicted LTB failure as shown in Fig. 12.
It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the failure load ratios remained
approximately constant for the beams having h/s ratios greater
than 42.5. It can also be seen that the specification predictions are
quite conservative for the castellated steel beams in G19G21.
The PFE /Ppx and PAS4100 /Ppx ratios are plotted against nondimensional slenderness () as an example for the castellated steel
beams in G1G3 and G13G15 as shown in Fig. 14. Once again, it
can be seen that the failure loads of the castellated beams with

[1] Altifillisch MD, Cooke BR, Toprac AA. An investigation of open web expanded
beams. Welding research council bulletin, vol 47. 1957. p. 7788.
[2] Toprac AA, Cooke BR. An experimental investigation of open-web beams.
Welding research council bulletin, vol 47. 1959. p. 110.
[3] Nethercot DA, Kerdal D. Lateral-torsional buckling of castellated beams. The
Structural Engineering 1892;60B(3):5361.
[4] Husain MU, Speirs WG. Experiments on castellated steel beams. Journal
of American Welding Society, Welding Research Supplement 1973;52(8):
32942.
[5] Zaarour WJ. Web buckling in thin webbed castellated beams. M. Eng. thesis.
Montreal (Canada): Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
McGill University; 1995.
[6] Zaarour W, Redwood R. Web buckling in thin webbed castellated beams.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1996;122(8):8606.
[7] Kerdal D, Nethercot DA. Failure modes for castellated beams. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1984;4:295315.
[8] Demirdjian S. Stability of castellated beam webs. M. Eng. thesis. Montreal
(Canada): Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill
University; 1999.
[9] Bradford MA. Lateraldistortional buckling of steel I-section members. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 1992;23:97116.
[10] Bradford MA. Distortional buckling of elastically restrained cantilevers.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;47:318.
[11] Vrcelj Z, Bradford MA. Elastic distortional buckling of continuously restrained
I-section beamcolumns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006;62:
22330.
[12] Zirakian T. Elastic distortional buckling of doubly symmetric I-shaped flexural
members with slender webs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2008;
46:46675.
[13] Zirakian T, Showkati H. Distortional buckling of castellated beams. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2006;62:86371.
[14] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. American institute for steel
construction. Reston (Chicago, Illinois, USA): ANSI/AISC 360-05; 2005.
[15] Australian Standards AS4100. Steel structures. Sydney (Australia): Standards
Australia, AS4100-1998; 1998.

E. Ellobody / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 814825

[16] BS 5950. Structural use of steelwork in building part 1: code of practice for
design rolled and welded sections. London: British Standards Institution;
2000.
[17] EC3. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures part 11: general rules and rules for
buildings. London (UK): British Standards Institution, BS EN 1993-1-1; 2005.
[18] EC3. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures part 112: additional rules for the
extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S 700. London (UK): British Standards
Institution, BS EN 1993-1-12; 2007.
[19] ABAQUS standard users manual. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc. vols. 1,
2 and 3. Version 6.8-1. USA. 2008.
[20] Ellobody E, Young B. Behaviour of cold-formed steel plain angle column.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2005;131(3):45766. USA.
[21] Young B, Ellobody E. Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel lipped angle
columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2005;131(10):15709. USA.

825

[22] Ellobody E, Young B. Structural performance of cold-formed high strength

stainless steel columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(12):
163149.
[23] Ellobody E. Buckling analysis of high strength stainless steel stiffened and
unstiffened slender hollow section columns. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2007;63(2):14555.
[24] Chen S, Jia Y. Numerical investigation of inelastic buckling of steelconcrete
composite beams prestressed with external tendons. Thin-Walled Structures
2010;48:23342.
[25] Nethercot DA, Trahair NS. Inelastic lateral buckling of determinate beams.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1976;102(ST4):70117.
[26] Trahair NS. Flexuraltorsional buckling of structures. London: E and FN Spon;
1993.