Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Abstract
In previous studies of the structural behavior of castellated steel beams, different possible failure modes of these extensively used structural
members have been identified and investigated. On the other hand, during the past 25 years or so, a proliferation of research work has been
undertaken on the distortional buckling of steel members. Nonetheless, no studies are found in the literature on the distortional buckling of
castellated beams. Accordingly, tests of six full-scale castellated beams are described, in which the experimental investigation of distortional
buckling was the focus of interest. In addition to the test strengths, the accurate critical loads of the beams have been obtained using some
extrapolation techniques, and ultimately a comparison has been made between the obtained test loads and some theoretical predictions.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Distortional bucklings; Castellated steel beams; Experimental investigation; Buckling loads; Theoretical predictions
1. Introduction
Modern techniques of fabricating steel members allow for
welded I-beams to be easily fabricated and it is often economical to produce such beams with equal flanges and slender
unstiffened webs using standard hot-rolled beams. Castellated
beams are such structural members, which are made by flame
cutting a rolled beam along its centerline and then rejoining
the two halves by welding so that the overall beam depth is increased by 50% for enhanced structural performance against
bending. Therefore, application of these structural members
may lead to substantial economies of material. Basically, the
reasons for fabricating castellated beams are as follows:
(a) the augmentation of section height that results in the
enhancement of moment of inertia, section modulus,
stiffness, and flexural resistance of the section;
(b) decreasing the weight of the profile which, in turn, reduces
the weight of the whole structure and economizes on
construction work;
(c) optimum utilization of the existing profiles;
(d) no need to plate girders; and
(e) the passage of services through the web openings.
Corresponding author.
864
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
2.95 + 4.070w 1.143w2;
flange width;
1;
equivalent moment factor for beams which
accounts for the effects of moment gradient and
end conditions of the beam [3];
Cw = warping section constant;
E
= Youngs modulus of elasticity;
Fy = yield stress;
G = shear modulus of elasticity;
h
= overall cross-sectional height;
= 1 (I y /Ix );
Ir
Ix , I y = second moments of area about the x, y axes;
J
= torsional constant;
L
= length;
M = bending moment;
M I = inelastic buckling moment;
M px = full plastic moment;
M yz = elastic uniform bending buckling moment;
P, Pcr = buckling load;
PElastic = elastic lateral buckling load;
PInelastic = inelastic lateral buckling load;
PMassey = extrapolated buckling load using Massey Plot;
PModified = extrapolated buckling load using Modified
Plot;
PSouthwell = extrapolated buckling load using Southwell
Plot;
PTest = test strength (maximum test load);
r
= radius of the gable-shaped web-flange junction;
s
= web thickness;
t
= flange
thickness;
w = (/L) ECw /G J ;
x, y = cross-sectional principal axes;
m = moment modification factor [6];
= lateral deflection.
A
b
B
Cbs
=
=
=
=
865
Table 1
Test beam dimensions
Original hot-rolled profile
Test specimen
Nominal h (mm)
Measured h (mm)
b (mm)
t (mm)
s (mm)
r (mm)
L (mm)
IPE12
C180-5200
C180-4400
C180-3600
180
180
180
176.67
176.33
176.33
64
64
64
6.3
6.3
6.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
7
7
7
5200
4400
3600
IPE14
C210-5200
C210-4400
C210-3600
210
210
210
211.67
210.25
206.50
73
73
73
6.9
6.9
6.9
4.7
4.7
4.7
7
7
7
5200
4400
3600
866
867
Table 2
Summary of tension test results
Fabricated profile
CIPE12
Flange
Web
279.31
233.93
894.35
892.23
CIPE14
Flange
Web
280.29
332.03
1002.91
671.16
that web-post buckling did not occur in any case. Fig. 10 shows
the longitudinal web deformations of a typical test beam.
1/2 point: At this point, a concentrated load was applied on
the top effectively braced compression flange, so that the web
was subjected to significant compressive stresses, and thus it
might become unstable and deflect out-of-plane while pulling
the tension flange as it buckled. The result would be a web with
a distorted shape, and indeed a restrained distortional or web
lateral mode of buckling would occur [4]. On the other hand,
distortional behavior of the web at the mid-span was influenced
by various factors such as the initial geometric imperfections,
interaction of the two distortional modes, interaction between
the buckling behaviors of the two adjacent spans, web openings,
etc., so that, in some cases, a complex distortional behavior
was observed at this point. Overall, web distortion at the midspan has been revealed through the measurements. In Fig. 11,
unequal discrepancies in the amounts of lateral deflection of the
three section-height points are observed clearly, which indicates
that the three points have not remained on a straight line just
because of flexural deformation or distortion of the web. In
Fig. 12, on the other hand, flexural deformation or distortion
of the web is represented by divergence of the strains in the
gauges mounted on each side of the web at the mid-height
point. Ultimately, in Fig. 13 distortion of the web during the
loading process is shown in a typical beam, which has been
drawn on the basis of values of lateral deflections measured
at the three section-height points. In spite of the little lateral
displacement of the top restrained flange, it is observed clearly
868
Fig. 16. Distortional behavior of the web at the 1/4 point (C180-3600).
with the lateral instability of the beam, the occurrence of lateraldistortional (or simply distortional) buckling is confirmed.
Fig. 14. Loaddeflection curves (C180-3600).
869
Table 3
Test strengths, extrapolated buckling loads, and theoretical predictions
Test specimen
PTest (kN)
PSouthwell (kN)
PModified (kN)
PMassey (kN)
PElastic (kN)
PInelastic (kN)
C180-5200
C180-4400
C180-3600
C210-5200
C210-4400
C210-3600
25.92a
16.72
22.94
26.88
42.19
40.32
16.01
22.68
25.86
41.94
39.46
17.68
22.94
27.74
40.82
40.82
20.60
31.96
55.45
35.48
56.07
97.44
14.48
18.55
23.85
22.77
28.91
35.11
15.63
21.58
24.90
39.94b
37.22
a Due to the influence of initial geometric imperfections and interaction between the buckling behaviors of the two adjacent spans, failure of the beam has occurred
at a higher load than the expected amount. This was quite evident in loaddeflection curves of the 1/4 point, where the beam has suddenly undergone large lateral
deflections in the opposite direction to the pre-buckling direction of deflection.
b Because of some frictional restraint at the loading point, which was observed during the test, the test strength is high compared to those for the other C210
beams.
=
L
E Iy G J
1 + w2
Ir
(1)
(2)
870
Table 4
Some of the quantities used in the calculations of buckling loads
Test specimen
Measured L a (mm)
I y (mm4 )
Ix (mm4 )
J (mm4 )
Cw (mm6 )
M px (kN mm)
Cbs
C180-5200
C180-4400
C180-3600
C210-5200
C210-4400
C210-3600
4880.0
4073.5
3271.0
4875.0
4060.0
3269.5
275 415.50
275 579.02
275 579.02
447 860.63
447 856.48
447 845.75
6874 632.32
6845 584.37
6845 584.37
12 499 300.38
12 310 323.36
11 818 606.42
15 327.38
15 317.73
15 317.73
22 835.26
22 786.11
22 656.34
19 552.04
19 506.11
19 506.11
29 608.14
29 357.98
28 700.97
4.315
4.545
4.865
4.613
4.877
5.207
Ir = 1 (I y /Ix )
ECw
w=
L GJ
(3)
(4)
5. Conclusions
(5)
2
M px
M px
(0.61 0.3 + 0.07 )
(6)
871
[3] Chen WF, Lui EM. Structural stability (theory and implementation). New
York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.; 1987.
[4] McCormac JC. Structural steel design; LRFD method. 2nd ed. New York:
HarperCollins; 1995.
[5] Nethercot DA, Kerdal D. Lateral-torsional buckling of castellated beams.
The Struct. Eng. 1982;60B(3):5361.
[6] Nethercot DA, Trahair NS. Inelastic lateral buckling of determinate
beams. J Struct Div, ASCE 1976;102(ST4):70117.
[7] Ng MLH, Ronagh HR. An analytical solution for the elastic lateraldistortional buckling of I-section beams. Adv Struct Eng 2004;7(2):
187200.
[8] Redwood R, Demirdjian S. Castellated beam web buckling in shear. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 1998;124(10):12027.
[9] Trahair NS. Deformations of geometrically imperfect beams. J Struct Div,
ASCE 1969;95(ST7):147596.
[10] Zaarour W, Redwood R. Web buckling in thin webbed castellated beams.
J Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(8):8606.