Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Experiments on elastically braced castellated beams

Hossein Showkati a, Tohid Ghanbari Ghazijahani b, Amir Noori c, Tadeh Zirakian d,⁎
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Mahabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahabad, Iran
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Castellated beams are widely used as flexural members in steel construction. The economical and structural
Received 26 August 2011 advantages of these elements have prompted many researchers to investigate the failure behavior of such
Accepted 17 May 2012 structures. Despite numerous reported researches on the buckling stability of castellated beams, no experi-
Available online 19 June 2012
mental study is found on lateral–torsional buckling of these elements with elastic bracing. In this paper,
the experimental study of nine full-scale castellated beams is reported with the aim of investigation of the
Keywords:
Castellated beams
performance as well as effect of elastic bracing on the buckling stability of these structural elements. In addi-
Buckling tion to the presentation of the experimental observations and findings, the current test results are compared
Elastic bracing with the results of other reported experimental, analytical and numerical studies. Ultimately, the experimen-
Distortion tal findings and results are evaluated by considering the AISC 360–05 code requirements and predictions.
Experimental investigation © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction A review of the literature on lateral and distortional buckling of

Lateral–torsional buckling is a limit-state of some flexural mem-
bers where the deformations change from predominantly in-plane
deflection to lateral and torsional modes of deformation. This type
of buckling is usually associated with intermediate and long span
beams with inadequate lateral support of the compression area. On
this basis, beams may be classified into two categories as following:
1) When a beam element is adequately restrained against lateral de-
flections, its failure takes place along with material yielding at the
zone of maximum moment, so that the beam is capable of attain-
ing its plastic moment capacity.
2) When a beam is subjected to bending about its major axis and the
compression zone is not braced against lateral/torsional buckling,
the beam would consequently fail well before it can reach its full
moment capacity.
Castellated beams as partially built-up members with web perfo-
rations are more susceptible to lateral–distortional mode of buckling
as compared to plain-webbed beams. The reason may be the effect of
enhanced web slenderness, possible mis-match of two upper and
lower halves (as a kind of geometrical imperfection), and residual
stresses developed during the cutting and welding process (as a
kind of material imperfection). Two typical modes of distortional
buckling are shown in Fig. 1.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 818 522 5997.
E-mail addresses: h.showkati@urmia.ac.ir (H. Showkati), tohidghanbari@gmail.com
(T. Ghanbari Ghazijahani), nori.amir@gmail.com (A. Noori), tzirakian@ucla.edu
(T. Zirakian).
castellated beams reveals that there are very few investigations
reported in this regard. Nethercot and Kerdal [1] reported an experi-
mental study on buckling stability of castellated beams. The results of
their study showed that web openings have negligible influence on
the overall lateral–torsional buckling behavior of these beams. Fur-
thermore, it was proposed that in order to determine the lateral buck-
ling strength of castellated beams, design procedures of solid-webbed
beams could be used with provided reduced cross-sectional proper-
ties. Another study was reported by Kerdal and Nethercot [2] on var-
ious possible types of failure for castellated beams subjected to
bending moment and shear loads. Zirakian and Showkati [3,4] also in-
vestigated the distortional buckling of castellated and plain-webbed
I-beams experimentally. The results of these studies confirmed the
occurrence of lateral–distortional mode of buckling in such flexural
members, and the critical buckling loads were predicted accurately
by applying the Southwell, modified, and Massey extrapolation tech-
niques. Mohebkhah [5] reported a numerical study on the moment-
gradient factor of nonlinearp inelastic
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffifficastellated
ffi beams, in which the
modified slenderness (λ ¼ Mp =M ocr ) of these beams was found to
have a significant influence on the moment-gradient factor.
In addition, quite few studies have been performed and reported on
the bracing of perforated as well as plain-webbed I-beams. In the recent
studies by Mohebkhah and Showkati [6,7], the bracing requirements for
castellated beams were studied. It was found that a central elastic lateral
restraint generally increases the inelastic strength of the beam, and an
optimum value of the stiffness for the central lateral restraint at which
the inelastic strength of the castellated beam is equal to that of the
beam with a rigid central lateral restraint, was obtained via numerical
studies. Additional theoretical and numerical studies on the lateral

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.05.008
164 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172

Table 1
Notation Prior tests performed on castellated beams undergoing lateral-torsional buckling
mode.
A Parameter defined by Eq. (3)
Reference No. of tests Year
b Flange width
Cd Coefficient relating relative brace stiffness and curvature [13] 1 1957
[14] 2 1958
cL Reduction factor for the initial imperfection
Toprac and Cooke [15] 4 1959
E Modulus of elasticity Kolosowski [16] 1 1964
G Shear modulus of elasticity Bazille and Texier [17] 2 1968
h Full depth of the section Kerdal [18] 8 1982
Nethercot and Kerdal [1] 8 1982
ho Distance between flange centroids
Zirakian and Showkati [3] 6 2006
hw Clear distance between flanges less the corner radius
Iy Out-of-plane moment of inertia
J Torsional constant
subjected to pure bending. The major objectives of the current inves-
k Lateral brace stiffness
tigation may be summarized as:
L Span length
Lb Unbraced length 1) Introduction of a testing system for the application of pure bend-
Lp Limiting laterally unbraced length for the limit state of ing loads as well as an elastic lateral-bracing system for lateral
yielding restraining of beams;
Lr Limiting laterally unbraced length for the limit state of 2) Experimental investigation of distortional buckling of nine full-
inelastic lateral-torsional buckling scale simply supported castellated beams under pure bending;
Mcr Critical moment 3) Examination of the effect of elastic brace on the lateral buckling
Mn Nominal lateral-torsional buckling strength behavior;
Mo Elastic critical moment of a doubly-symmetric beam 4) Comparison of the experimental results with those of other exper-
undergoing lateral-torsional buckling imental and theoretical studies; and
Mocr Elastic buckling uniform moment 5) Evaluation of the experimental results by considering the AISC
Mp Plastic bending moment 360–05 code requirements and predictions.
Mr Required flexural strength
MTest Experimental buckling moment
2. Test program
Py Elastic critical buckling load
tf Flange thickness
2.1. Test setup
tw Web thickness
βbr Required lateral brace stiffness
Schematic drawing as well as overall view of the test setup is shown
βL Equivalent continuous lateral brace stiffness
in Figs. 2 and 3. It is notable that the present test rig is a novel system to
Δo Initial imperfection value
apply the pure bending moment to the beams with special boundary
φ Reduction factor (LRFD)
conditions and loading system. An elastic bracing system is designed
λ Modified flexural-torsional slenderness of a castellated
by the authors for the first time in order to investigate the behavior of
beam [5]
beams with elastic restraint in an efficient manner.
λp Limiting slenderness parameter for compact element
As shown in the figures, the test rig consists of loading and
λr Limiting slenderness parameter for noncompact element
supporting components, elastic bracing system and the full scale cas-
tellated test beams which are described in the following sections.
restraint and bracing requirements of the beams can be found in [8–12].
A list of the prior reported experimental studies on the lateral–torsional
a) Test setup
buckling of castellated beams is provided in Table 1.
Despite the aforementioned reported studies on buckling stability
of castellated beams, no experimental study has been reported on the
bracing requirements of these flexural members against lateral buck-
ling. Hence, the present experimental study has been conducted to
investigate the behavior of elastically braced castellated beams

a) Restrained beam at the b) Unbraced beam

top flange

b) Loading and support conditions

Load

Fig. 1. Cross-section distortion. (a) Restrained beam at the top flange. (b) Unbraced Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the test rig. (a) Test setup. (b) Loading and support
beam. conditions.
 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172
Fig. 3. Overall view of the test setup.
2.2. Loading system
In the present setup, a hydraulic jack with the capacity of 608 kN
was employed for applying the load to the test specimens. The hydraulic
jack was mounted vertically on a strong bearing frame which, in turn, is
anchored to a steel deck. The steel deck was fixed on a strong concrete
floor to avoid potential unwanted displacements. The load was applied
to a steel box with a proper opening through which the castellated
beam was passed. The steel box was fixed on a steel loading saddle un-
derneath with a hole drilled in it for placing the shaft, which also passed
through both steel loading saddle and the Rigid Inclined Loading Arms,
herein referred to as RILA. It should be noted that this shaft allows the
RILA to rotate around the center of the shaft during loading process,
so that the central zone of loading system acts as a hinged point. It
would seem worthwhile to consider that the two ends of the RILAs
with the aid of the special boundary conditions, apply the pure bending
by means of two concentrated loads which make a couple at the ends of
the castellated beam. Using this system, the true pure bending is applied
at the midspan of the specimens. The details of the loading system are
shown in Figs. 2(b) and 4.
2.3. Boundary conditions
As noted earlier, the special boundary conditions of the present
system allow the castellated beam specimens to be subjected to
pure bending (Fig. 2(b)). As shown in Fig. 5, two ball-bearings along
with a shaft were used at the boundary regions. At each side, the
ball-bearings were fixed on a strong column. The upper ball-bearing
Fig. 4. Details of the loading zone.
165
was placed on the upper flange of the castellated beam and the
lower one was installed under the RILA. The shaft was situated on
the upper region of the RILA with a certain horizontal distance from
the ball-bearings. As observed in Fig. 5(b), the lateral restraint at
the end supports of the test specimens was provided by means of
four ball-bearings (two at each side) and two plates located at both
sides of the beams to avoid the potential lateral instability of the spec-
imens at these locations.
2.4. Bracing system
Schematic illustration of the bracing system along with the name
of each component is presented in Fig. 6. This novel system was
designed and invented to come up with the empirical tests on elasti-
cally braced I-section beams. By considering the application of this
bracing system, it was named as “Elastic Lateral Bracing System of
Beams”, which is referred to as ELBSB in this paper. Details of ELBSB
are shown in Fig. 7.
The present system consists of various components. An axial coil
spring was used as the main component of ELBSB, which was placed
and fixed on a UNP100 element. ELBSB was installed on a strong col-
umn, and four ball-bearings were devised on the UNP section in order
to allow the whole bracing system to move vertically during the ver-
tical in-plane displacement of the test specimen. On the other hand,
the spring was connected to a rolling box. Eight ball-bearings were
connected to the rolling box, which allowed it to move horizontally
without friction and hindrance. In addition, in a certain zone the
spring was surrounded by a plate with a circular cutout to adjust
the stiffness of the spring in such a way that the plate was fixed at a
certain loop of the spring to provide the desirable stiffness. The sur-
rounding plate was connected to the rolling box with the aid of four
long bolts. The bracing arm of ELBSB was connected to the rolling
box at one end and also attached to the upper flange of the test
beam at its other end. As shown in Fig. 7(b), the beam-attached end
of the bracing arm was designed in such a way that the contact of
ELBSB and specimen was hinged in order to allow the beam to rotate
freely at the restrained zone.
2.5. Test specimens
An important issue in castellated beam tests is the fabrication of
high quality specimens, including a precise cutting and proper
welding. As listed in Table 2, nine full-scale specimens were fabricat-
ed and tested in this study. The test specimens were fabricated from
the hot-rolled “IPE12” and “IPE14” profiles according to the German
“Estahl” Standard. For this purpose, lines were initially drawn along
a proper pattern over the web of the original plain-webbed I-
sections and the web was then cut along the lines closely by means
of flame. Subsequently, one half was properly placed on the other
and they were carefully welded together to produce a beam of greater
depth with hexagonal openings in the web, as illustrated in Fig. 8. It
166 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172

a) End support components b) Lateral bracing

Fig. 5. Details of the end supports. (a) End support components. (b) Lateral bracing.

should be noted that some proper stiffeners were attached to the web
and the flanges of the specimens near the end supports to avoid po-
tential shear and web crippling.
The labels as well as geometrical dimensions of the test speci-
mens, as given in Table 2, were selected such that the overall height
and the lateral bracing stiffness were considered. For instance, CB
180–87.7 implies that overall height of the castellated beam is
180 mm and the lateral elastic bracing stiffness is 87.7 N/mm.
In order to obtain the material properties, coupon tests were con-
ducted and the results are tabulated in Table 3. Furthermore, Young's
modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) were taken as 206.01 GPa and
0.385E, respectively.
applied load during the experiments. To capture the lateral displace-
ments and subsequently detect the lateral–torsional buckling of the
test beams, four KYOWA type digital LVDTs were used. Using these
devices, one can obtain the displacements within the accuracy of
0.001 mm; therefore, they are suitable for pre-buckling and buckling
tests. The strain values were recorded by means of strain gauges of
YEFLA-5 type (series YF/Y) by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co. Ltd. All the
a) Overall view of the ELBSB

2.6. Instrumentation

In order to record the applied load as well as the developed dis-

placements and strains values throughout the tests, a proper and effi-
cient data acquisition system was employed to guarantee accuracy. A
digital load cell of KYOWA type with the capacity of 50 kN and situated
under the hydraulic jack arm was used for recording the values of the

b) Bracing of top flange

Fig. 7. Details of midspan elastic lateral bracing. (a) Overall view of the ELBSB. (b) Brac-
Fig. 6. Schematic illustration of ELBSB. ing of top flange.
 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172 167

Table 2 Table 3
Test specimens. Tensile coupon test results.

Original Test h (mm) tw (mm) b (mm) tf (mm) L (m) Test Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa)
hot-rolled specimen specimen
Flange Web Flange Web
profile
CB 180 279.31 233.93 894.35 892.23
IPE12 CB 180–38.38 180 4.4 64 6.3 4.8
CB 210 280.29 332.03 1002.91 671.16
CB 180–61.4
CB 180–76.76
CB 180–102.32
CB 180–153.5 proportionally with the loading until the load reached a certain
IPE14 CB 210–38.38 210 4.7 73 6.9 4.8 value and then the lateral displacements led to nonlinear elastic be-
CB 210–61.4 havior. Consistent with all the experiments, the tested castellated
CB 210–87.7 beams underwent a lateral–torsional buckling mode and the plastic
CB 210–153.5
failure was ultimately observed.

3.2. Torsion of the cross-section

test data were collected and processed by a KYOWA type digital data
logger, a scanner and a software, called UCAM-20PC.
2.7. Test procedure
It is noted that before the tests, a pre-test (trial-run) was per-
formed in order for apparatus calibration and to ensure that the over-
all system was working properly. Thereafter, the main specimens
were tested to evaluate their buckling stability. At the first stage of
each test, loading was initially increased up to a certain value for con-
ditioning of the system to ensure that the measurement devices as
well as the test specimen were properly conditioned, and then the
system was unloaded. Note that loading was performed in an incre-
mental manner, and the measuring devices were checked carefully
to scan the behavior of the specimen during the experiment as the
values of the measuring devices were recorded at very short intervals.
3. Experimental observations and findings
3.1. Observations
It is important to note that at the first stage of loading, lateral dis-
placements of the beams could not be detected by naked eyes. A small
overall flexural deflection was observed in specimens with the stiffest
central elastic brace, while in case of specimens with lower elastic re-
straint stiffness, small lateral as well as flexural displacements were
observed. However, during the main loading stage, the deformations
became larger and visible, and ultimately lateral buckling took place.
As observed in the experiments, the buckling mode of the speci-
mens with lower elastic restraint stiffness was a half-sine wave
with the maximum lateral displacement at the midspan, whereas in
stiffer lateral bracing cases, the maximum lateral displacement was
mostly observed at the quarter points of the total span as shown in
Fig. 9. As a result, the effects of the elastic bracing system on the buck-
ling behavior of the test beams were clearly observed as the stiffness
was increased.
As seen in Figs. 10 and 11, in some of the load–displacement/strain
curves linear elastic behavior was observed at the initial stages of
loading. The aforementioned deformation characteristics increased
The torsional behaviors of cross-sections of all specimens were
monitored during the loading process to determine the torsion center
zone at midspan. The gradual cross-section torsion of CB 210–153.5
and CB 180–102.32 specimens during the loading process is shown
in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. These figures indeed demonstrate
the effectiveness of the elastic bracing in controlling the buckling be-
haviors (out-of-plane deformations) of both groups of test specimens.
As it is seen in Fig. 12, the torsion center of the CB 210–153.5 spec-
imen is located at a point beyond the height of the section approxi-
mately at a distance equal to 0.31 h from the lower flange of the
specimen, while in case of the CB 180–102.32 specimen the torsion
center zone is placed almost at the level of the section height as
shown in Fig. 13. In case of CB 180 specimens, the effect of the elastic
restraint seems to be rather significant in comparison to that in CB
210 specimens. In fact, although the upper flange is susceptible to
buckling because of the compressive stresses developed at the
upper portion of the section, it is found that in case of CB 180 speci-
mens the lower flange is mostly tilted and the torsion center is locat-
ed between the two flanges. In contrast, the upper flange is observed
to be tilted more than the lower flange in CB 210 specimens. This may
also be attributed to the fact that since CB 210 specimens are stronger
than CB 180 specimens, so the elastic bracing may not effectively con-
trol the torsional buckling in these stronger members. It should be
noted that since the lateral displacements of the upper and lower

Fig. 8. Geometrical properties of castellated beams. Fig. 9. Lateral buckling of test specimens.
168 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172

a) CB 180 a) Midspan
25
16
TF 22.5
14
20
12
17.5

Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)

10 BF 15

8 12.5

10
6
7.5
4
5
k = 61.4 N/mm, TF CB 210, k = 153.5 N/mm
2
k = 102.32 N/mm, BF 2.5
CB 210, k = 87.7 N/mm
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Lateral Displacement (mm) Micro Strain
b) CB 210 b) Quarter point
25 25

22.5 22.5

20 20
17.5 17.5
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
TF
15 15
12.5 12.5
10 10
7.5 BF
7.5
5
k = 153.5 N/mm, TF 5
2.5 k = 153.5 N/mm, BF CB 210, k = 153.5 N/mm
CB 210, k = 61.4 N/mm 2.5
0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0
-1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Lateral Displacement (mm)
Micro Starin
Fig. 10. Moment vs. lateral displacement curves. (a) CB 180. (b) CB 210.
Fig. 11. Local strains developed at the center of the top flange. (a) Midspan. (b) Quarter
point.

flanges were only captured in the tests, the cross-section torsion is

demonstrated in a linear form in figures. unbraced length and consequently enhanced buckling capacity. How-
Fig. 14 shows the cross-section torsion of three CB 210 specimens ever, from the figure it is evident that the increasing trend in buckling
at the load of M = 12.5 kN m. From the figure, it is quite evident that moment gradually fades away as the lateral brace stiffness increases
the lateral displacement as well as torsion of the cross-section in- and reaches a certain amount beyond which increase of the stiffness
crease as the brace stiffness decreases. does not seem to be too effective. Current and Yura's reported test
results demonstrate a similar overall behavior as explained above.
4. Evaluation of experimental results

4.1. Comparison with results of other experimental studies

210

4.1.1. Test results reported by Yura

Yura [12] reported the results of a test program on the lateral and
torsional bracing of plain-webbed I-beams. In the test program, the
bracing requirements of 24 ft (7.32 m) long W12 × 14 beams sub-
Section Height (mm)

jected to a concentrated load at midspan were studied experimental-

Loading Progress
7.7 → 22.9 kN.m
ly. An elastic lateral brace was attached to the top flange of the test
beams at midspan. In spite of the differences in geometrical proper- 0
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
ties of the current and Yura's reported test specimens as well as
other testing conditions, a qualitative comparison of the test results
is believed to provide significant insight into the overall behavior
as well as performance of the elastic restraint. The ratios of critical
moment values of elastically restrained beams to those of the beams
with the stiffest lateral brace (Mcr − stiffest) are plotted against the stiff-
Torsion Center Zone
ness values and the results are given in Fig. 15. -210
As it is observed in the figure, buckling capacity of the beam in- Lateral Displacement (mm)
creases as the stiffness of the lateral brace increases. This is attributed
to the fact that increase of lateral brace stiffness results in reduced Fig. 12. Cross-section torsion of CB 210–153.5 specimen at midspan.
 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172 169

180 1

0.9
Torsion Center Zone
0.8

Section Height (mm)

Mcr / Mcr-stiffest
Loading Progress 0.7
5.4 → 15.2 kN.m
0.6

0.5

0.4 Test (Yura, 2001)

CB 180
0.3
0 CB 210
-1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.2
Lateral Displacement (mm) 0 34 68 102 136 170 204 238 272 306 340
k (N/mm)
Fig. 13. Cross-section torsion of CB 180–102.32 specimen at midspan.
Fig. 15. Comparison with Yura's reported test results.

4.1.2. Zirakian and Showkati's test results

Zirakian and Showkati [3] also conducted an experimental study analyses. They considered nine simply supported CIPE14 castellated
on distortional buckling of castellated beams in which the tests beams with different lengths and lateral brace stiffness under pure
were carried out on simply supported castellated beams with central bending. In their models, top compression flange was elastically
concentrated load and an effective lateral brace at the midspan of the braced at midspan. Considering the similarity between the testing de-
top compression flange with constant stiffness. Comparison is made tails of the present study as well as Mohebkhah and Showkati's nu-
between the experimental results of the current and Zirakian and merical models, comparison is made between the experimental and
Showkati's studies in order to evaluate the effect of the elastic re- numerical results in case of CB 210 specimens. Experimental and nu-
straint, as shown in Fig. 16. It should be noted that in Zirakian and merical results are presented in Fig. 17.
Showkati's study, CIPE12 and CIPE14 sections with 3.6, 4.4, and Despite the difference in lengths of the test specimens and numer-
5.2 m span lengths were tested, while in the current test program ical models, from the figure it is apparent that experimental and nu-
the span length is 4.8 m. As illustrated in Fig. 16, results of this exper- merical results are by and large in good agreement. It is also found
imental study are compared with those of the 5.2 m long castellated that at lower stiffnesses the numerical values of the critical moment
beams tested by Zirakian and Showkati (MZ & S(2006)). are larger than those of the experiments, while by increasing of the
Despite the differences in some of the experimental characteristics lateral brace stiffness the experimental results lay between the nu-
of the two test programs, from the figure it is found that the results of merical results of the two 4.2 and 5.46 m beams. Furthermore, it is
the two studies become closer as the stiffness of the elastic restraint clearly observed that the stiffness of the midspan lateral brace ex-
increases. Also, as seen in the figure, the agreement at higher stiffness hibits a similar performance in both experimental and numerical
values is comparatively better in case of CB 180 specimens compared cases. In other words, as the stiffness increases, the buckling moment
to the CB 210 specimens. In any case, it is quite evident that the re- of the beam increases due to reduced unbraced length, however the
sults of the two experimental studies match fairly well which is an in- effectiveness of the stiffness amount tends to decline as it reaches a
dication of validity of the current test results. certain amount.
The discrepancy between the numerical and experimental results
4.2. Comparison with numerical and analytical results may be primarily attributed to the presence of initial geometrical im-
perfections in test specimens. In fact, regardless of the fabrication
4.2.1. Mohebkhah and Showkati's numerical results technique, geometrical imperfections are unavoidable in castellated
In 2005, Mohebkhah and Showkati [6] studied the bracing re- beams due to the large volume of cutting and welding process.
quirements of inelastic castellated beams via nonlinear finite element
1.1

210 1
CB 180
0.9
MTest / MZ&S(2006)

0.8
Section Height (mm)

0.7

105 0.6
CB 210
0.5

CB 210, k = 61.4 N/mm 0.4

L Test = 4800 mm
CB 210, k = 87.7 N/mm
CB 210, k = 153.5 N/mm 0.3 L Z&S(2006) = 5200 mm
0 0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Lateral Displacement (mm) k (N/mm)

Fig. 14. Cross-section torsion of CB 210 specimens at M = 12.5 kN m. Fig. 16. Comparison with Zirakian and Showkati's test results.
170 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172

24 Table 4
Comparison of test results and theoretical predictions of Eq. (1).
22
Test specimen Mcr − Theory (kN m) MTest (kN m) MTest/Mcr − Theory

20 CB 180 (k = 0) 6.13 5.35 0.87

CB 180–38.38 10.90 6.01 0.55
CB 180–61.4 12.02 9.52 0.79
Mcr (kN.m)

18 CB 180–76.76 12.64 14.31 1.13

CB 180–102.32 13.52 15.31 1.13
16 CB 180–153.5 14.98 18.45 1.23
CB 180 (k = ∞) 17.12 20.72 1.21
CB 210 (k = 0) 9.79 10.55 1.08
14
Num., L = 4200 mm CB 210–38.38 16.35 12.58 0.77
CB 210–61.4 17.94 18.02 1.00
Num., L = 5460 mm
12 CB 210–87.7 19.39 20.69 1.07
Test, L = 4800 mm CB 210–153.5 22.19 21.36 0.96
CB 210 (k = ∞) 25.30 23.02 0.91
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
k (N/mm)
From the table it is clear that the agreement between the experi-
Fig. 17. Comparison with Mohebkhah and Showkati's numerical results. mental and theoretical results is by and large satisfactory. This indi-
cates that Eq. (1) yields relatively reliable estimates for the buckling
moment of beams with lateral braces in spite of various theoretical
Moreover, it is obvious that due to the cutting and welding process in considerations as well as test conditions. In case of CB 180 specimens,
fabrication of these structural members, residual stresses present in Eq. (1) overestimates the buckling capacity at lower stiffness values,
the manufactured beams may also govern the lateral buckling capac- while as the lateral brace stiffness increases, theoretical predictions
ity of castellated models. Another possible cause of the difference lay below the experimental results. As well, in case of CB 210 speci-
between numerical and experimental results is the boundary nonlin- mens, a similar trend is observed, however the experimental and the-
earities which generally appear in the form of sliding and friction of oretical results seem to be relatively well-correlated in this case. All in
the supports. In any case, the agreement between the current test re- all, the findings of this study demonstrate that Eq. (1) may be used for
sults and the numerical predictions is quite satisfactory. estimating the buckling capacity of beams with lateral bracing; how-
ever, consideration of further experimental results can improve the
4.2.2. Analytical estimates of Yura's Proposed Equations accuracy of its predictions.
A general design equation was developed by Yura, as reported in
Ref. [19], for discrete or continuous lateral bracing of beams as follows 4.3. Design considerations and comparison with AISC code predictions
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!
u Finally, the experimental results are evaluated by comparing to
u P 2y h2o A
Mcr ¼ t M 2o þ  ð1 þ AÞ ð1Þ the AISC 360–05 [20] code predictions and also considering the min-
4
imum code requirements for the stiffness necessary to provide mem-
ber strengths based on the length between the braces. The design
where requirements of Appendix 6 [20] consider two general types of brac-
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ing systems, relative and nodal. In contrast to a relative brace system,
π π2 E2 I2y h2o a nodal brace controls the movement only at the particular brace
M0 ¼ EIy GJ þ ; ð2Þ
L 4L2 point, without direct interaction with adjacent braced points. In the
current experimental setup, a nodal lateral brace system is applied
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and its effectiveness is investigated herein.
L2 0:67cL βL
A¼ ; ð3Þ According to AISC 360–05 [20], the required nodal bracing stiff-
π EIy
ness is
 
π 2 EIy 1 10Mr C d
Py ¼ ; ð4Þ βbr ¼ ; ð6Þ
L2 ϕ Lb ho

and where ϕ = 0.75, Cd = 1.0 for bending in single curvature, and Mr is

the required flexural strength which is determined by Eq. (2) in here.
1 As summarized in Table 5, the required brace stiffness for the 4.8 m
cL ¼ : ð5Þ
1 þ 1500 ΔLo CB 180 and CB 210 specimens are calculated using Eq. (6) and the

In these equations, βL is the equivalent continuous lateral brace

Table 5
stiffness, cL is a reduction factor for the imperfection, and Δo is the ini- Applied and AISC code required lateral brace stiffness.
tial imperfection value. Eq. (1) applies only to compression flange
bracing, since lateral bracing becomes ineffective when placed at a Test specimen k (N/mm) βbr (N/mm) k/βbr

distance below the compression flange [19]. CB 180 38.38 98.10 0.39
As shown in Table 4, the experimental results are compared with 61.4 0.63
76.76 0.78
the theoretical predictions of Eq. (1). Included in the table are also
102.32 1.04
the comparison results for k = 0 and k = ∞ cases. In order to deter- 153.5 1.56
mine the equivalent continuous brace stiffness (βL) in Eq. (3), the CB 210 38.38 133.96 0.29
stiffness of the single discrete brace at midspan of each test specimen 61.4 0.46
was divided by 75% of the beam length as recommended in Ref. [19]. 87.7 0.65
153.5 1.15
In addition, Δo was set equal to L/1000 in theoretical calculations.
 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172 171

16 CB 180 a) CB 180
20
14
18
12
16
Moment (kN.m)

10 14

Mcr (kN.m)
12
8 AISC (half-span)
10
6
8 AISC (full-span)
4 6
k = 38.38 N/mm
2 4
k = 102.32 N/mm
2 Test (CB 180)
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
Lateral Displacement (mm) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
k (N/mm)
Fig. 18. Effectiveness of brace stiffness in controlling the lateral displacement.
b) CB 210
24
results are compared with the applied brace stiffnesses in the
22
experiments.
As it is seen in Table 5, the experimentally-applied 102.32 and 20
153.5 N/mm brace stiffnesses are larger than the code requirements; AISC (half-span)
18
therefore, the lateral displacement is expected to be effectively con-
Mcr (kN.m) 16
trolled in these beams compared to those with lower stiffness values.
This is clearly illustrated in Fig. 18, where the lateral displacements at 14
the midspan of the top compression flanges of two CB 180 beams
12 AISC (full-span)
with small and large stiffness values are compared.
From the figure, it is quite evident that larger brace stiffness effec- 10
tively controls the lateral displacement. In fact, this implies that the 8
AISC code equations work well by providing the required lateral
6 Test (CB 210)
brace stiffness. This observation also explains the fact that why the
lateral brace effectiveness diminishes relatively as its stiffness in- 4
creases beyond a certain amount. 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Ultimately, the test buckling moment values are compared with k (N/mm)
those predicted by the AISC code equations. In order to apply the
Fig. 19. Comparison of test results and AISC code predictions. (a) CB 180. (b) CB 210.
proper code equations, the cross-section flange and web slenderness
values are determined and compared with the code compactness and
noncompactness limits. Also, the beam limiting lengths are calculated As it is seen in Fig. 19, at lower stiffness test results are in general
as specified in the AISC code to determine the elastic/inelastic range close to the code predictions calculated considering the full-span
of structural response. The results of the calculations are summarized length, while as the brace stiffness increases they tend to approach
in Table 6. the predictions with half-span-length consideration. In case of CB
From the table it is found that in accordance with the AISC 360–05 180 specimens (Fig. 19(a)), test results tend to lay beyond the code
[20] code specifications, the flanges and webs of CB 180 and CB 210 predictions with half-span-length consideration as the brace stiffness
specimens are considered as compact, and the specimens are increases and code equations seem to yield conservative predictions,
expected to undergo elastic lateral buckling based on the calculated while test results lay between the two extreme cases of full-span and
limiting lengths. It should be noted that Mn is calculated for beams half-span lengths over the entire range of brace stiffness values in
with half-span as well as full-span lengths by considering the effect case of CB 210 specimens as shown in Fig. 19(b).
of midspan lateral brace. Based on the test observations, castellated In evaluation of the code predictions as well as experimental re-
beams with lower midspan lateral brace stiffness underwent lateral sults several factors should be taken into consideration, as follows:
buckling with a half-sine-wave mode, while as the stiffness of the First, arrangement of the initial geometrical as well as material imper-
midspan lateral brace was increased the beams exhibited a fections along with the other testing conditions may affect the test re-
complete-sine-wave buckling mode. Hence, the two aforementioned sults, second, consideration of the reduced cross-section properties of
extreme cases are considered in calculation of the code predictions. the castellated beams in theoretical calculations may result in slightly
In Fig. 19(a) and (b), the critical moments are plotted against the lat- conservative predictions, and third, CB 180 and CB 210 may exhibit
eral brace stiffness values for CB 180 and CB 210 test specimens, slightly different behaviors due to the difference in their slenderness
respectively. and consequently interaction between the buckling behaviors of the

Table 6
Summary of AISC code calculations.

Test Flange Web Lp Lr Lb Mn Mp

specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN.m) (kN.m)
λp λr b/tf λp λr hw/tw

CB 180 10.32 27.16 5.08 111.58 169.15 34.86 723.1 1738.0 2400 13.51 22.69
CB 210 10.30 27.11 5.29 93.66 141.98 38.77 753.3 1811.9 2400 22.62 39.37
172 H. Showkati et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77 (2012) 163–172
two adjacent unbraced spans and the restrained midspan section. As
a whole, considering the complexity of the problem, the AISC code
seems to address the problem fairly satisfactorily. However, further
experimental and theoretical work is needed to evaluate and improve
the efficacy of the respective code rules.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, findings and results of testing of nine full-scale sim-
ply supported castellated beams subjected to pure bending with a
central elastic restraint were reported. Test results were evaluated
qualitatively and quantitatively by considering the findings and re-
sults of other reported studies as well as AISC 360–05 code require-
ments. The following conclusions may be drawn from this study:
• Test specimens with lower lateral brace stiffness exhibited a half-
sine-wave buckling mode with a mid-length maximum out-of-plane
deflection, while enhanced brace stiffness resulted in increased buck-
ling capacity and a complete-sine-wave buckling mode with the max-
imum out-of-plane deflections at the span quarter points.
• Consistent with all experiments, castellated beams underwent lat-
eral buckling accompanied by torsion as well as various degrees of
distortion of the cross-section, and inelastic behavior was ultimate-
ly observed.
• The torsion center of the CB 210 specimens is mostly located at a
zone beyond the section height, whereas in the CB 180 specimens
the torsion center zone is mostly placed within the section height.
• In regard to the torsional behavior, the effect of the elastic restraint
seems to be more significant in CB 180 specimens as compared to
that in CB 210 specimens.
• The experimental findings and results of this study were found to
be consistent with those of the other considered experimental as
well as numerical investigations.
• The subject of lateral bracing of structural members seems to be sat-
isfactorily addressed by the AISC 360 code; however, further re-
search especially experimental work is required to improve the
efficacy of the code provisions.
References
[1] Nethercot DA, Kerdal D. Lateral–torsional buckling of castellated beams. Struct
Eng 1982;60B(3):53–61.
[2] Kerdal D, Nethercot DA. Failure modes for castellated beams. J Constr Steel Res
1984;4(4):295–315.
[3] Zirakian T, Showkati H. Distortional buckling of castellated beams. J Constr Steel
Res 2006;62(9):863–71.
[4] Zirakian T, Showkati H. Experiments on distortional buckling of I-beams. J Struct
Eng, ASCE 2007;133(7):1009–17.
[5] Mohebkhah A. The moment-gradient factor in lateral–torsional buckling on in-
elastic castellated beams. J Constr Steel Res 2004;60:1481–94.
[6] Mohebkhah A, Showkati H. Bracing requirements for inelastic castellated beams.
J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:1373–86.
[7] Mohebkhah A. Nonlinear lateral–torsional buckling of castellated beams with an
elastic lateral restraint using FEM. MSc thesis, Engineering Faculty, Urmia, Iran:
Urmia University; February 2003.
[8] Winter G. Lateral bracing of columns and beams. ASCE Trans 1960;125:809–25.
[9] Wang YC, Nethercot DA. Bracing requirements for laterally unrestrained beams.
J Constr Steel Res 1990;17:305–15.
[10] Valentino J, Pi YL, Trahair NS. Inelastic buckling of steel beams with central tor-
sional restraints. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1997;123(9):1180–6.
[11] Valentino J, Trahair NS. Torsional restraint against elastic lateral buckling. J Struct
Eng, ASCE 1998;124(10):1217–25.
[12] Yura JA. Fundamentals of beam bracing. Eng J 2001:11–26 first quarter.
[13] Properties and strengths of castella beams. Consideration of previous tests. Report
D.GE. 71/262. Swinden Laboratories, Rotherham: The United Steel Co. Ltd., Res.
and Dev. Dep.; April 1957.
[14] Properties and strengths of castella beams. Further tests. Report D.GE. 71/261/1.
Swinden Laboratories, Rotherham: The United Steel Co. Ltd., Res. and Dev.
Dept.; July 1958.
[15] Toprac AA, Cooke BR. An experimental investigation of openweb beams. Welding
Research Council Bulletin Series, 47; February 1959.
[16] Kolosowski J. Stresses and deflections in castellated beams. Struct Eng January
1964;42(1):19–24.
[17] Bazille A, Texier J. Essais de poutres ajourees. Constr Met September 1968;3:
12–25.
[18] Kerdal D. Lateral–torsional buckling strength of castellated beams, Thesis pres-
ented to the University of Sheffield in fulfillment of the Ph.D. degree, November
1982.
[19] Yura JA, Phillips BA. Bracing requirements for elastic steel beams. M.Sc.Eng. The-
sis, The University of Texas at Austin, December 1990.
[20] ANSI/AISC 360–05. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL: American
Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.