Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

An application of the direct strength method to the design of castellated

beams subject to flexure
Christovam M. Weidlich , Elisa D. Sotelino *, Daniel C.T. Cardoso
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), R. Marquês de São Vicente, 225 – Gávea, Cardeal Leme
Building, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22451-900, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this research is to investigate the instability of castellated beams and the interaction between lateral-
Direct Strength Method torsional and compression tee local buckling modes. Firstly, a comprehensive study of 197 simply supported
Castellated beams Litzka castellated beams under pure bending is carried out. The study involves eigenvalue and fully nonlinear
Buckling interaction
finite element analyses, e.g. including both material nonlinearity and geometric imperfections. After computing
Computational modeling
Global buckling
the critical moments associated to local and global modes and the ultimate moments, an approach based on the
Local buckling Direct Strength Method is proposed using regression techniques to derive strength prediction equations. The
developed method is then compared with current standards procedures. The results show that the proposed
equation predicts better strength values in all cases, especially those in which local and/or interaction failure
modes dominate the behavior of the beam. The results also show that some of the procedures suggested in
standards and guides for the design of castellated beams under flexure, either underestimate or overestimate the
failure moment when considering the interaction between global buckling mode and plastification.

1. Introduction to occur by the following modes, confirmed in other previous works

The development of automated procedures for the fabrication of
lightweight structural elements, such as castellated and cellular beams,
enables different benefits. The castellated beam is created after a zig-zag
cutting pattern forming hexagonal holes, therefore increasing the orig­
inal I section height. The fabrication process also creates the tee sections
(as indicated in Fig. 1) located above and under the openings. The main
advantage of these structural members is the economy achieved from
the increased load capacity and stiffness. The openings may also inte­
grate distinct construction techniques, which leads to a wide variety of
applications, including aesthetic advantages.
The Litzka beam is a castellated beam which has the geometric pa­
rameters shown in Fig. 1. It has three main characteristics: i) the ratio
between the total section height and the hole’s height is 1.5; ii) the
distance between openings equals to the total section height; and iii) the
tangent of the hole’s angle is 2.
Kerdal & Nethercot [1] identified the failure modes associated with
castellated beams after experimental tests results depending mainly
upon the beam slenderness, geometry of the cut (height, angle, and
spacing), and type of loading. The authors suggest that collapse is likely
[1–3]: Formation of Vierendeel mechanism; Lateral-torsional buckling
of web posts; Web post buckling; Rupture of welded joints; Lateral-
torsional buckling of an entire span; and formation of a flexure
mechanism.
The authors do not mention the failure mode associated with the tee
section local buckling.
Boissonnade et al. [4] and Sonck & Belis [5] investigated cellular
beams against lateral torsional buckling, emphasizing that such profiles
may exhibit complex behavior including the interaction of global/local
instability modes due to the significant increase in the original section
height, pointing to the tendency to lateral torsional buckling. Along with
experimental tests and finite element analyses, the authors suggest new
design assumptions to estimate cellular beam resistance. Sonck & Belis
[6] complemented their previous work considering lateral torsional
buckling in castellated beams conducting experimental tests along with
nonlinear finite element (FE) analysis to estimate ultimate and critical
moments.
The tee local buckling failure mode was mentioned in the work of
Soltani et al. [7], in which the resistance of beams with hexagonal and
octagonal openings was evaluated after FE analyses. The moment

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sotelino@puc-rio.br (E.D. Sotelino).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112646
Received 14 January 2021; Received in revised form 6 April 2021; Accepted 28 May 2021
Available online 12 June 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.M. Weidlich et al.
Fig. 1. The Litzka castellated beam geometry.
Fig. 2. Finite Element mesh.
Fig. 3. Mesh convergence study.
capacity of beams suffered a reduction as a result of the failure mode
associated with the tee local buckling, as reported by the authors. Oli­
veira et al. [8] also investigated this failure mode in castellated beams,
developing explicit equations for the prediction of elastic buckling
critical stress of the compressive tee section after eigenvalue finite
element analyses. The authors also highlight that the tee local buckling
failure mode may become relevant for castellated beams using high-
strength steel.
Zirakian & Showkati [9] investigated the lateral-distortional buck­
ling behavior in castellated beams, which occurs as a simultaneous
distortion and lateral deflection of the section in members with slender
webs and intermediate length and is a consequence of the interaction
between local and lateral buckling modes. After experimental tests, all
beams exhibited lateral torsional buckling, as predicted. Ellobody [10]
also studied the interaction between distortional and LTB buckling
modes in castellated beams using validated finite element analyses. As
reported by the authors, beams that showed significant influence of
2
Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646
distortional mode presented a lower moment capacity resistance. On the
other hand, the interaction between the local tee and global buckling
modes has not been evidently analyzed in previous works.
The interaction, or coupling, between distinct buckling modes, is
observed when their critical loads coincide or are close to each other, as
described by Chilver [11] and Budiansky [12]. They concluded that
structures that present this phenomenon have a great sensibility to im­
perfections, reducing considerably their moment capacity. The authors
also report that thin-walled systems with coinciding critical loads tend
to feature coupling buckling modes.
The Steel Design Guide 31 [13] provides the procedures to approx­
imate the resistance of castellated and cellular beams, among other
design assumptions, according to the North American standard “ANSI/
AISC – 360–16, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings” [14].
Although different limit states are encompassed by the code, it does not
clearly address the possible interaction between individual buckling
modes.
To account for the interaction between different buckling modes, the
Direct Strength Method (DSM) consists in a modern and very convenient
approach, where the structural member moment capacity can be
determined from its plastification and critical elastic buckling loads.
Early works of Hancock et al. [15] and Peköz [16] already presented the
concepts of the method, however, it was the work of Schafer & Peköz
[17] that introduced it as an alternative to the design procedures for
cold-formed steel sections. Therefore, the DSM is able to integrate elastic
buckling simulations and provide efficient structural solutions to com­
plex sections [18], besides eliminating systematic errors [19]. Many
works have made advances in the DSM in the past decade expanding its
applications to different sections and boundary conditions of cold-
formed steel columns and beams, taking into consideration the effects
of modal interaction [20–25]. Although DSM has been originally applied
to cold-formed steel, the present work explores its applicability to other
buckling interaction problems.
The present work aims to study the interaction between the tee local
and lateral-torsional buckling modes on simply-supported castellated
beams under the action of pure bending and, through validated numeric
simulations of a comprehensive database, apply the concepts of the DSM
to the design of castellated beams.
2. Numerical modeling
In order to achieve the objectives previously described, FE simula­
tions were implemented in ABAQUS software package [26], considering
197 models following typical commercial geometries of Litzka castel­
lated beams. After the validation of the modeling technique against
experimental results, elastic buckling and fully nonlinear analyses are
carried out.
2.1. Finite element model
To develop the model, eight-node quadrilateral shell elements with
reduced integration and five degrees of freedom per node (S8R5) were
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

adopted in most of the model, while six-node triangular shell elements

with reduced integration and five degrees of freedom per node (STRI65)
were used in the region surrounding the openings to provide a smooth
mesh transition, as indicated in Fig. 2. The degree of mesh density was
defined after a convergence study as indicated in Fig. 3.
The adopted elastic modulus (E) for the steel was 200 GPa and the
Poisson’s ratio (ν) was 0.3. The yielding strength (Fy) varied from 345
MPa to 2300 MPa. Some of the high values of Fy are not practical but
were inserted in some models to create a larger range of local slender­
ness (λl), preserving commercial geometric measures. The procedure of
considering unrealistic yield stresses to cover a wide slenderness range
was based on the work of Dinis and Camotim [22]. The global and local
slendernesses are defined in equations (1) and (2) and their ranges were
respectively 0.42 ≤ λg ≤ 2.85 and 0.29 ≤ λl ≤ 2.36.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
λg = Mp /Mcrg (1)

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
λl = Mp /Mcrl (2)

In which Mp is the moment of total plastification of the section

Fig. 4. Relation of global and local slenderness of models. considering the opening and Mcr, g, Mcr, l are respectively the global and
local elastic critical buckling moments. The local slenderness (λl) can be
changed by modifying the relations of width and thickness of the

Fig. 5. Load application and boundary conditions.

Fig. 6. Material linear and nonlinear elements on the mesh of the models (σ: stress; ε: strain).

3
C.M. Weidlich et al.
Fig. 7. Result of linear buckling validation analysis and detail of flange rotation.
Table 1
Validation of the modeling techniques.
F [kN] Relative diff.
Experiment, Sonck & Belis [6] 25.92 – of the region, as indicated in Fig. 6. The nonlinear analyses were per­
FE simulation, Sonck & Belis [6] 24.29 6.7%
Present work 25.44 1.9%
components or altering the steel’s strength. The moment of total plas­
tification of the section (Mp) is calculated based on strength of materials
principles (Mp = FyZx, in which Zx is the plastic section modulus). The
relation of global and local slenderness of all models is presented in
Fig. 4.
Other geometric parameters limits were: total beam height of 222
mm ≤ H ≤ 925.5 mm, total length of 888 mm ≤ L ≤ 8329.5 mm, flange
thickness of 4.9 mm ≤ tf ≤ 22.2 mm, web thickness of 4.3 ≤ tw ≤ 17.4
mm. The complete list of geometric and material parameters of each of
the 197 models is presented in Appendix 1, Table A1. All sections pa­
rameters were based on commercial rolled sections.
2.2. Load application and boundary conditions
To simulate the pure bending condition, master–slave constraints
were defined as beam type Multiple Points Constraints (MPCs), where all
nodes of the webs were assigned as slaves to the central node (master) on
both end sections, as illustrated in Fig. 5. A concentrated moment was
then applied on the central nodes (masters) and therefore distributed
throughout the webs on both ends.
Fig. 5 also indicates the boundary conditions and the reference sys­
tem. To simulate a simply-supported beam condition, i.e., the vertical
(Uy) and out of plane (Ux) displacements were restrained at both ends,
while the axial displacement (Uz) was restrained only at one end and the
rotation about the longitudinal axis (Rz) was restrained in both supports.
2.3. Type of analyses
First, in each of the 197 castellated beam models, linear elastic
buckling analyses were performed and the respective buckling modes
and critical moments computed. In fact, the global and local modes were
used as the shapes of the initial global and local geometric imperfec­
tions, respectively, which were then applied on the subsequently fully
nonlinear analyses. Their amplitudes were scaled to i) L/1000 for global
imperfections, where L is the beam’s total length, following the study of
Sonck & Belis [6]; and ii) H/500 for local imperfections, where H is the
4
Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646
total beam height, following the work of Linhares [27].
The material nonlinearity was considered as the definition of elastic-
perfectly plastic constitutive model. Elastic elements were defined in the
vicinity of both ends to avoid early interruptions due to the plastification
formed using the modified Riks method with adaptive steps to capture
the ultimate moment of each model. Residual stresses were not
considered, since they have little influence on the results, as verified in
the work of Sonck & Belis [6].
2.4. Validation of boundary conditions and modeling technique
To validate the boundary conditions applied to the models, a com­
parison was made between model and predictions using the well-known
theoretical equation for the critical buckling moment (Mcr) of a simply
supported beam loaded by a constant bending moment (Eq. (3)).
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
π π2
Mcr = GIt EIz + EI EI (3)
L π2 z w
In which, L is the length of the beam, GIt is the torsion stiffness, EIz
the weak-axis bending stiffness, and EIw the warping stiffness of the
beam’s cross-section.
An I-beam with a commercial geometry (W200x19.3) and the
boundary and loading conditions described in Section 2.2 was modeled.
The beam had an arbitrary total length of 3000 mm, with E = 200 GPa
and ν = 0.3. Then, a linear elastic buckling analysis was carried out and
the critical moment was compared with Eq. (3). The result from the
simulation presented the expected lateral-torsional buckling mode and a
difference of 3.11% of the critical moment when compared with the
theoretical value of Eq.3, and therefore, this validated the boundary and
load conditions. Fig. 7 illustrates the result of the linear buckling vali­
dation analysis that shows flanges are free rotate, eliminating possible
residual stresses due to restrictions. The same mesh convergence study
described in 2.1 was conducted in the validation models.
For the fully nonlinear analyses, the modeling technique adopted
was validated against experimental data reported by Sonck & Belis [6] of
full-scale experimental tests on castellated beams. The modeling strat­
egy described in this section was also adopted by previous works, such as
Oliveira et al. [8] and Linhares [27]. The validation model followed the
geometric specifications as well as boundary and load conditions
applied in the experimental tests by the authors for specimen designated
as “CS1_L3”. Then, a material nonlinear analysis with initial geometric
imperfections was performed on the validation model and the maximum
load capacity (F) was compared. The same lateral-torsional buckling
C.M. Weidlich et al.
Fig. 8. Load-displacement curves of the validation model.
Fig. 9. Load-torsional rotation curves of the validation model.
failure mode was obtained and the relative difference was calculated
taking the experimental value as a reference. The comparison between
the experimental and simulation values are presented in Table 1 and in
the load–displacement curves illustrated in Fig. 8, in which the total load
F is shown versus the vertical displacement w. In addition, a comparison
of the load-torsional rotation curves is shown in Fig. 9 The table also
presents the comparison with the results from the simulation performed
Fig. 10. Buckling modes of model #1: (a) Undeformed shape; (b) Lateral torsional buckling – First mode (global); (c) Tee buckling – Sixth mode (local).
5
Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646
by the authors, which resulted in a 6.7% difference. As can be seen, the
relative difference between their experimental results and the results
obtained in the present work is inferior to 2%, the load displacement,
load-torsional rotation curves correspond and the LTB failure mode was
achieved The modeling technique was therefore considered validated.
3. Results and discussion
After the elastic buckling linear analyses of all models, the respective
global and local critical moments were computed, as well as their
buckling shapes. The number of modes considered in the eigen buckling
analyses was different for each model in order to capture the first global
and local buckling modes. Typical global (LTB) and local (TB) buckling
modes are illustrated in Fig. 10 and correspond to model’s #1 first and
sixth buckling shapes, as an example, for which the global mode dom­
inates its behavior. The global and local critical moments, the imper­
fections scales and respective ultimate moments of all models are
presented in Appendix 1, Table B1.
The behavior of the beams modeled in the studied universe varied
from one another. The examples that are shown in the following para­
graphs illustrate this. The examples were selected because they
encompass the majority of the observed behaviors. For all models, the
out-of-plane displacement, Ux, was measured in the middle node of the
upper flange, at mid-span. The red areas in the following figures indicate
that the Von Mises stresses are greater than the steel’s yielding strength.
Model #80 is an example in which the global mode (LTB) dominates
its behavior (Fig. 11a), with global and local slenderness equivalent to λg
= 2.05 and λl = 0.57. Fig. 11b presents the applied moment M vs Ux
response. As it can be seen, the curve approaches asymptotically the
global critical moment until yielding starts (peak load) after large lateral
deflection. From this point, the moment decreases smoothly as lateral
deflection continues to increase. Yielding leads to an apparent local loss
of stiffness and, in general, it has been observed that its onset is asso­
ciated to the beginning of the descending branch of the curve.
Model #13 is also governed by the global mode (Fig. 12a), but with
an earlier influence of yielding, with global and local slenderness
equivalent to λg = 1.17 and λl = 0.49. From the moment vs Ux curve
presented in Fig. 12b, it can be seen a trend similar to Model #80, but
with yielding occurring at a much lower lateral deflection, as a result of
the proximity between the global critical and plastification moments.
Cases that showed the tee local buckling as the dominant failure
mode were also observed. Model #172 (Fig. 13a) is an example of this
behavior, with global and local slenderness equivalent to λg = 0.72 and
λl = 1.21. The figure shows clearly the local half-waves, whereas the
plastification in one side reflects the influence of overall lateral deflec­
tion (global buckling). In fact, the curve in Fig. 13b shows that, once the
critical local moment is achieved, the beam experiences loss of stiffness
and lateral deflection begins to grow rapidly, even for an applied load
much lower than the critical global moment. Another interesting feature
observed is that the moment applied reached a value greater than the
critical local moment, which is usually characteristic of plate-like
modes.
C.M. Weidlich et al.
Fig. 11a. Failure mode of model #80.
Fig. 11b. Nonlinear analysis result of model #80.
Fig. 12a. Failure mode of model #13.
Although model #124 also showed a predominant tee local buckling
failure mode (Fig. 14a), early influence of yielding could be noticed,
reducing the beam’s moment capacity and making it fail before reaching
its critical local moment, as a result of the proximity between the local
critical and plastification moments. Similarly to model #172, the curve
in Fig. 14b expresses loss of stiffness and lateral deflection increases. The
6
Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646
Fig. 12b. Nonlinear analysis result of model #13.
Fig. 13a. Failure mode of model #172.
respective values of global and local slenderness are λg = 0.61 and λl =
1.02.
Finally, some models exhibited failure modes resulting from inter­
action between global and local buckling modes. Model #123 is an
example of such behavior, as illustrated in Fig. 15a. The critical global
and local moments are near and the coupling of the buckling modes in
the presence of geometric imperfections can be clearly seen. The
respective global and local slenderness for this model are λg = 1.11 and
λl = 1.14. The curve in Fig. 15b does not reach the critical moment,
C.M. Weidlich et al.
Fig. 13b. Nonlinear analysis result of model #172.
Fig. 14a. Failure mode of model #124.
Fig. 14b. Nonlinear analysis result of model #124.
7
Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646
presenting an inferior ultimate moment. Such reduction is a conse­
quence of the interaction of local and global modes in the presence of
imperfections.
Table 2 demonstrates the different global and local relative slen­
derness ratios of the models previously mentioned, which were selected
because of their different slenderness and consequently, distinct failure
modes and distinct behavior.
All examples listed above were then compared, as showed in Fig. 16.
In the Figure, the out-of-plane displacement was normalized with the
curve’s peak displacement (U = Ux /Ux,peak ) and the applied moment
was normalized with respect to the lowest critical moment (LPF = M/
Mcr), i.e., LPF = 1 corresponds to the respective critical moment.
As previously commented, in Fig. 16 it can be seen that the curve of
model #80 got closer to its critical global moment (Mcr g), however not
reaching it due to the geometric imperfections, while Model #13, also
governed by the global failure mode, had a drop in the moment capacity
as a consequence of the influence of earlier yielding. On the other hand,
model #172, with a dominant local failure mode, showed an ultimate
moment (Mu) higher than its local critical moment (Mcr l), LPF > 1. It was
also detected the drop of resistance in model #124 when the plastifi­
cation becomes relevant in the predominantly local buckling failure
mode.
Finally, model #123 showed a reduction in the moment capacity as a
consequence of the interaction between global and local failure modes in
the presence of geometric imperfections. The global and local critical
moments are near and the coupling is evident, causing the moment
capacity to drop.
To evaluate how imperfections and post-buckling reserve of strength
influence the capacity, the ratio between the ultimate moment (Mu) and
the strength for an ideal beam (Mideal) without imperfection – lesser
between critical moments and plastification load – for each beam
studied is presented in Fig. 17 in a local vs global slenderness plot. From
the plot, it can be seen that members with λl near 0.5–0.6 and λg near 1
exhibited the greatest erosion of capacity with respect to their perfect
condition, with a reduction of up to 27%. Analyzing the influence of
global slenderness for the region where λl < 1, the behavior follows a
very regular pattern, with the Mu/Mideal ratio increasing to 1.0 as the
global slenderness moves outwards the ‘valley’ of maximum erosion
discussed in previous sentence. In fact, for low and high global slen­
dernesses, Mu tends to Mp and the critical moments (Mcr l and Mcr g),
respectively. On the other hand, members with λl > 1 exhibited ultimate
moments sometimes greater than their ideal capacity due to post-
buckling phenomenon, reaching Mu/Mideal ratios up to 1.35. This
particular behavior affects the critical region, shifting it towards the
right as local slenderness increases; in the plot, it can be identified as a
‘thalweg’. It can be observed that the interaction of these phenomenon is
very complex to be assessed theoretically and the use of phenomeno­
logical equations such as those used in DSM may be very convenient for
a design approach. Finally, specimens with unrealistic steel grades are
also plotted in the graph (ID > 170). They allowed to cover a wider area
of the plot and to obtain a better comprehension of the member
behavior.
4. Direct strength method approach
4.1. Regression process
After computing all parameters from linear and nonlinear analyses
(Mu, Mcr g, Mcr l, λg and λl) for each of the 197 models, the application of
the DSM concepts to propose a design methodology was conducted. The
main objective was to achieve the equations that represented the con­
ditions of this work: simply-supported castellated beams under pure
bending. The generic form of the equations is indicated in Eq. (4), in
which the coefficients A, B, C and D were obtained after the regression
process.
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Fig. 15a. Failure mode of model #123.

Fig. 15b. Nonlinear analysis result of model #123. Fig. 16. Comparison between models.

Table 2
Global and local slenderness ratios of the selected models.
Model# λg λl

13 1.17 0.49
80 2.05 0.57
123 1.11 1.14
124 0.61 1.02
172 0.72 1.21

( )
F(λ) = AλC 1 − BλD (4)

The regression process was carried using nonlinear least squares

technique through the software MATLAB [28]. As a first step, the
equation referring to the Nominal Global Moment (MnG) was defined.
The ultimate moment (Mu) was normalized with respect to the plastifi­
cation moment (Mp) and the global slenderness was taken as defined in
Eq. (1). Due to the fact that the curve corresponds to the global moment,
the models of castellated beams governed by the local failure mode were
not considered in this first step. A small transition was added to the top
portion of the curve (between λg ~ 0.6 and 0.8). The nominal global
strength curve defined as MnG and obtained through regression is plotted
Fig. 17. Mu/Mideal ratios obtained according to combinations of slenderness.
in Fig. 18 along with numerical results considered. The respective
equations for MnG, are presented in Eq. (5). The main equation of MnG

8
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

(λg > 0.775) had the coefficient of determination R2 and adjusted R2

Fig. 18. Strength curve for Nominal Global Moment.
equal to 0.9991, sum of squared estimate errors (SSE) = 0.008593 and
root mean square error (RMSE) = 0.008003.
⎧
⎨ ( Mp ) if λg ≤ 0.659
MnG = 1.402λg − 2 1 − 0.494λg − 0.801 Mp if 0.659 < λg ≤ 0.775
⎩ ( )
1.556λg − 2.213 1 − 0.5296λg − 0.885 Mp if λg > 0.775
(5)
In a second step, the same methodology was conducted to obtain the
nominal Local-Global Moment (MnLG), which incorporates the interac­
tion between buckling modes. To accomplish this task, the ultimate
moment (Mu) now is normalized with respect to the Nominal Global
Moment (MnG), defined previously in Eq (5). The local–global relative
slenderness (λLG) used in the equation is defined according to Eq. (6). As
Schafer [18] reports, in the case of mode interaction, the slenderness is
redefined in terms of global strength and normalization is to the strength
of the same given mode.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
λLG = MnG /Mcrl (6)
In which MnG is the Nominal Global Moment previously defined (Eq.
(5)) and Mcr l is the local critical moment obtained from eigenvalue
analysis.
The same regression process and generic equation were applied to
obtain MnLG, but no transition was added and all 197 models were
considered. The corresponding final strength curve is presented in

Fig. 19. Strength curve for Nominal Local-Global Moment.

Fig. 20. Relative differences obtained for of DG and DSM.

Table 3
Comparison of strength predictions using different design approaches and FE results.
Model# Mu,FEA Mn,DG dif.relDG Mn,DSM dif.relDSM λg λl Dominant Failure mode

1 28.0 33.3 19.1% 27.4 − 1.9% 1.15 0.58 LTB-P

7 67.6 77.0 13.9% 64.4 − 4.7% 1.07 0.31 LTB-P
17 231.0 241.8 4.7% 235.3 1.8% 0.75 0.53 LTB-P
23 22.9 23.9 4.17% 23.3 1.7% 2.00 0.63 LTB
25 40.8 42.6 6.1% 40.6 1.0% 1.86 0.46 LTB
36 794.1 812.7 2.3% 787.9 − 0.8% 0.73 0.34 LTB
46 730.6 767.3 5.0% 744.3 1.9% 0.77 0.57 LTB
60 804.0 861.1 7.1% 806.2 0.3% 0.86 0.44 LTB
79 261.5 280.9 7.4% 266.8 2.0% 1.72 0.67 LTB
88 584.6 636.6 8.9% 591.9 1.3% 1.68 0.54 LTB
102 94.4 90.3 − 4.4% 93.6 − 0.9% 0.45 0.59 P
111 44.0 44.2 0.4% 45.3 2.9% 0.56 0.58 P
123 666.3 737.9 10.7% 626.9 − 5.9% 1.11 1.14 LTB-TB
151 448.1 266.6 − 40.5% 452.7 1.0% 0.95 1.39 TB-P
162 438.4 327.2 − 25.4% 464.1 5.9% 0.79 1.06 TB-P
175 769.2 440.4 − 42.7% 707.5 − 8.0% 0.88 1.51 TB
181 797.2 440.4 − 44.8% 742.7 − 6.8% 0.99 1.94 TB

*All moments in kNm. In which, LTB = lateral-torsional buckling; TB = tee local buckling; P = plastification.

9
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Table A1
Geometric dimensions and material specifications of models (dimensions in mm).
Model # H tf tw bf bw L Fy [MPa] Mp [Nmm]

1 222 4.9 4.3 100 37.00 2442 345 4.53E+07

2 500 9 5 83.33 83.33 3000 345 1.79E+08
3 500 5 5 300 83.33 8000 345 3.12E+08
4 222 4.9 4.3 100 37.00 1332 345 4.53E+07
5 229.5 7.1 5.8 102 38.25 2524.5 345 6.70E+07
6 228 7.1 5.8 152 38.00 2508 345 9.36E+07
7 240 10.3 6.6 102 40.00 2640 345 9.61E+07
8 235.5 10.3 6.6 153 39.25 2590.5 345 1.35E+08
9 243 11.6 8.1 154 40.50 2673 345 1.58E+08
10 300 5.2 4.3 100 50.00 3300 345 6.92E+07
11 304.5 6.5 5.8 102 50.75 3349.5 345 9.01E+07
12 309 8 6.2 102 51.50 3399 345 1.08E+08
13 310.5 8.4 5.8 133 51.75 3415.5 345 1.38E+08
14 315 10.2 6.4 134 52.50 3465 345 1.67E+08
15 301.5 10.2 6.2 165 50.25 3316.5 345 1.90E+08
16 307.5 11.8 7.2 166 51.25 3382.5 345 2.24E+08
17 304.5 11 7.2 203 50.75 3349.5 345 2.50E+08
18 309 12.6 7.9 204 51.50 3399 345 2.89E+08
19 306 11.3 11.3 207 51.00 3366 345 2.76E+08
20 315 14.2 9.1 205 52.50 3465 345 3.32E+08
21 324 17.4 10.2 206 54.00 3564 345 4.12E+08
22 333 20.6 13 209 55.50 3663 345 5.04E+08
23 376.5 5.3 4.8 101 62.75 4141.5 345 9.79E+07
24 381 6.9 5.8 102 63.50 4191 345 1.26E+08
25 385.5 8.4 6.1 102 64.25 4240.5 345 1.48E+08
26 390 10 6.4 102 65.00 4290 345 1.72E+08
27 387 9.1 6.1 146 64.50 4257 345 2.10E+08
28 393 11.2 6.6 147 65.50 4323 345 2.56E+08
29 399 13 7.6 148 66.50 4389 345 3.01E+08
30 369 10.7 10.5 256 61.50 4059 345 3.93E+08
31 379.5 14.2 8.6 254 63.25 4174.5 345 4.99E+08
32 384 15.6 9.4 255 64.00 4224 345 5.53E+08
33 381 14.4 14.4 260 63.50 4191 345 5.47E+08
34 390 17.3 10.7 256 65.00 4290 345 6.24E+08
35 396 19.6 11.9 257 66.00 4356 345 7.13E+08
36 403.5 22.1 13.5 259 67.25 4438.5 345 8.19E+08
37 454.5 5.7 5.1 101 75.75 4999.5 345 1.35E+08
38 457.5 6.7 5.6 101 76.25 5032.5 345 1.56E+08
39 463.5 8.9 6 102 77.25 5098.5 345 1.96E+08
40 469.5 10.8 6.6 102 78.25 5164.5 345 2.33E+08
41 465 9.7 5.8 165 77.50 5115 345 3.03E+08
42 469.5 11.2 6.6 166 78.25 5164.5 345 3.52E+08
43 475.5 13.2 7.6 167 79.25 5230.5 345 4.18E+08
44 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 4933.5 345 5.96E+08
45 454.5 13.1 13.1 308 75.75 4999.5 345 7.18E+08
46 462 15.4 9.9 305 77.00 5082 345 8.01E+08
47 466.5 17 10.9 306 77.75 5131.5 345 8.92E+08
48 462 15.5 15.4 310 77.00 5082 345 8.61E+08
49 471 18.7 11.9 307 78.50 5181 345 9.88E+08
50 468 17.4 17.4 312 78.00 5148 345 9.79E+08
51 523.5 8.5 5.8 127 87.25 5758.5 345 2.59E+08
52 529.5 10.7 6.5 128 88.25 5824.5 345 3.20E+08
53 528 9.8 6.9 171 88.00 5808 345 3.80E+08
54 532.5 11.6 7.2 171 88.75 5857.5 345 4.39E+08
55 537 13.1 7.9 172 89.50 5907 345 4.98E+08
56 520.5 13.5 7.7 203 86.75 5725.5 345 5.61E+08
57 525 15.1 8.6 204 87.50 5775 345 6.33E+08
58 531 16.8 9.4 205 88.50 5841 345 7.10E+08
59 529.5 16.4 9.5 254 88.25 4765.5 345 8.37E+08
60 535.5 18.3 10.5 255 89.25 4819.5 345 9.43E+08
61 540 19.9 11.4 256 90.00 4860 345 1.03E+09
62 544.5 21.7 13 257 90.75 4900.5 345 1.14E+09
63 598.5 8.8 6.4 140 99.75 5386.5 345 3.49E+08
64 604.5 11.2 7 140 100.75 5440.5 345 4.27E+08
65 604.5 10.9 7.5 177 100.75 5440.5 345 5.10E+08
66 610.5 12.8 7.7 178 101.75 5494.5 345 5.87E+08
67 615 14.4 8.8 179 102.50 5535 345 6.67E+08
68 619.5 16 9.7 180 103.25 5575.5 345 7.46E+08
69 625.5 18.2 10.9 181 104.25 5629.5 345 8.53E+08
70 675 10.8 7.6 152 112.50 6075 345 5.23E+08
71 682.5 13.3 8 153 113.75 6142.5 345 6.24E+08
72 688.5 15.4 9.1 154 114.75 6196.5 345 7.25E+08
73 685.5 14.5 9 190 114.25 6169.5 345 8.10E+08
74 690 16 9.9 191 115.00 6210 345 9.00E+08
(continued on next page)

10
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Table A1 (continued )
Model # H tf tw bf bw L Fy [MPa] Mp [Nmm]

75 694.5 17.7 10.5 192 115.75 6250.5 345 9.93E+08

76 699 19 11.4 193 116.50 6291 345 1.08E+09
77 703.5 20.6 12.6 194 117.25 6331.5 345 1.18E+09
78 787.5 11.4 8.9 165 131.25 7087.5 345 7.41E+08
79 786 10.9 9 207 131.00 7074 345 8.44E+08
80 793.5 13.6 9.7 166 132.25 7141.5 345 8.65E+08
81 792 13.3 9.5 209 132.00 7128 345 9.98E+08
82 802.5 16.5 10.3 166 133.75 7222.5 345 1.01E+09
83 799.5 15.6 10.2 209 133.25 7195.5 345 1.15E+09
84 805.5 17.4 10.9 210 134.25 7249.5 345 1.28E+09
85 808.5 18.8 11.6 211 134.75 7276.5 345 1.38E+09
86 904.5 14.9 10.5 228 150.75 8140.5 345 1.41E+09
87 912 17.3 11.2 228 152.00 8208 345 1.60E+09
88 918 19.6 11.9 229 153.00 8262 345 1.80E+09
89 925.5 22.2 13.1 230 154.25 8329.5 345 2.04E+09
90 916.5 19 12.7 324 152.75 8248.5 345 2.34E+09
91 924 21.6 14 325 154.00 8316 345 2.66E+09
92 799.5 15.6 10.2 209 133.25 3997.5 345 1.15E+09
93 805.5 17.4 10.9 210 134.25 4027.5 345 1.28E+09
94 808.5 18.8 11.6 211 134.75 4042.5 345 1.38E+09
95 904.5 14.9 10.5 228 150.75 4522.5 345 1.41E+09
96 912 17.3 11.2 228 152.00 4560 345 1.60E+09
97 918 19.6 11.9 229 153.00 4590 345 1.80E+09
98 925.5 22.2 13.1 230 154.25 4627.5 345 2.04E+09
99 916.5 19 12.7 324 152.75 4582.5 345 2.34E+09
100 924 21.6 14 325 154.00 4620 345 2.66E+09
101 222 4.9 4.3 100 37.00 888 345 4.53E+07
102 228 7.1 5.8 152 38.00 1368 345 9.36E+07
103 304.5 11 7.2 203 50.75 1827 345 2.50E+08
104 306 11.3 11.3 207 51.00 1836 345 2.76E+08
105 369 10.7 10.5 256 61.50 2214 345 3.93E+08
106 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 2691 345 5.96E+08
107 454.5 13.1 13.1 308 75.75 2727 345 7.18E+08
108 462 15.4 9.9 305 77.00 2772 345 8.01E+08
109 916.5 19 12.7 324 152.75 2749.5 345 2.34E+09
110 924 21.6 14 325 154.00 2772 345 2.66E+09
111 222 4.9 4.3 100 37.00 1110 345 4.53E+07
112 228 7.1 5.8 152 38.00 1824 345 9.36E+07
113 304.5 11 7.2 203 50.75 2436 345 2.50E+08
114 306 11.3 11.3 207 51.00 2448 345 2.76E+08
115 369 10.7 10.5 256 61.50 2952 345 3.93E+08
116 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 3588 345 5.96E+08
117 454.5 13.1 13.1 308 75.75 3636 345 7.18E+08
118 462 15.4 9.9 305 77.00 3696 345 8.01E+08
119 916.5 19 12.7 324 152.75 3666 345 2.34E+09
120 924 21.6 14 325 154.00 3696 345 2.66E+09
121 228 7.1 5.8 152 38.00 2508 690 1.87E+08
122 304.5 6.5 5.8 102 50.75 3349.5 690 1.80E+08
123 448.5 9.5 11 306 74.75 4933.5 690 1.06E+09
124 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 2691 690 1.19E+09
125 381 6.9 5.8 102 63.50 4191 690 2.52E+08
126 385.5 8.4 6.1 102 64.25 4240.5 690 2.96E+08
127 500 9 5 83.33 83.33 3000 690 3.59E+08
128 393 11.2 6.6 147 65.50 4323 690 5.12E+08
129 520.5 13.5 7.7 203 86.75 5725.5 690 1.12E+09
130 598.5 8.8 6.4 140 99.75 5386.5 690 6.98E+08
131 454.5 5.7 5.1 101 75.75 2727 690 2.70E+08
132 675 10.8 7.6 152 112.50 6075 690 1.05E+09
133 682.5 13.3 8 153 113.75 6142.5 690 1.25E+09
134 688.5 15.4 9.1 154 114.75 6196.5 690 1.45E+09
135 786 10.9 9 207 131.00 7074 690 1.69E+09
136 808.5 18.8 11.6 211 134.75 7276.5 690 2.77E+09
137 912 17.3 11.2 228 152.00 8208 690 3.21E+09
138 924 21.6 14 325 154.00 8316 690 5.33E+09
139 918 19.6 11.9 229 153.00 4590 690 3.60E+09
140 916.5 19 12.7 324 152.75 2749.5 690 4.69E+09
141 381 6.9 5.8 102 63.50 2286 690 2.52E+08
142 385.5 8.4 6.1 102 64.25 2313 690 2.96E+08
143 500 9 5 83.33 83.33 2000 690 3.59E+08
144 598.5 8.8 6.4 140 99.75 2992.5 690 6.98E+08
145 675 10.8 7.6 152 112.50 3375 690 1.05E+09
146 682.5 13.3 8 153 113.75 3412.5 690 1.25E+09
147 688.5 15.4 9.1 154 114.75 3442.5 690 1.45E+09
148 786 10.9 9 207 131.00 3930 690 1.69E+09
149 808.5 18.8 11.6 211 134.75 4042.5 690 2.77E+09
(continued on next page)

11
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Table A1 (continued )
Model # H tf tw bf bw L Fy [MPa] Mp [Nmm]

150 912 17.3 11.2 228 152.00 4560 690 3.21E+09

151 448.5 6.9 11 306 74.75 4036.5 690 8.32E+08
152 454.5 7.1 13.1 308 75.75 4090.5 690 9.06E+08
153 462 8.4 9.9 305 77.00 3234 690 9.78E+08
154 912 11 11.2 228 152.00 5472 690 2.38E+09
155 675 5.7 7.6 152 112.50 4050 690 7.12E+08
156 682.5 7.1 8 153 113.75 4095 690 8.37E+08
157 688.5 11 9.1 154 114.75 4131 690 1.16E+09
158 786 5.9 9 207 131.00 4716 690 1.16E+09
159 808.5 11 11.6 211 134.75 4851 690 1.93E+09
160 918 11 11.9 229 153.00 4590 690 2.46E+09
161 448.5 6.9 11 306 74.75 4036.5 460 5.55E+08
162 454.5 7.1 13.1 308 75.75 4090.5 460 6.04E+08
163 462 8.4 9.9 305 77.00 3234 460 6.52E + 08
164 912 11 11.2 228 152.00 5472 460 1.58E+09
165 675 5.7 7.6 152 112.50 4050 460 4.75E+08
166 682.5 7.1 8 153 113.75 4095 460 5.58E+08
167 688.5 5.9 9.1 154 114.75 4131 460 5.44E+08
168 786 5.9 9 207 131.00 4716 460 7.74E+08
169 808.5 11 11.6 211 134.75 4851 460 1.29E+09
170 918 11 11.9 229 153.00 4590 460 1.64E+09
171 448.5 9.5 11 306 74.75 4933.5 965 1.48E+09
172 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 2691 965 1.67E+09
173 448.5 6.9 11 306 74.75 4036.5 965 1.16E+09
174 454.5 7.1 13.1 308 75.75 4090.5 965 1.27E+09
175 462 8.4 9.9 305 77.00 3234 965 1.37E+09
176 675 5.7 7.6 152 112.50 4050 965 9.96E+08
177 682.5 7.1 8 153 113.75 4095 965 1.17E+09
178 786 5.9 9 207 131.00 4716 965 1.62E+09
179 448.5 6.9 11 306 74.75 4036.5 1210 1.46E+09
180 454.5 7.1 13.1 308 75.75 4090.5 1210 1.59E+09
181 462 8.4 9.9 305 77.00 3234 1210 1.72E+09
182 786 5.9 9 207 131.00 4716 1210 2.04E+09
183 448.5 9.5 11 306 74.75 4933.5 1210 1.86E+09
184 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 2691 1210 2.09E+09
185 675 5.7 7.6 152 112.50 4050 1210 1.25E+09
186 454.5 5.7 5.1 101 75.75 2727 1210 4.74E+08
187 228 7.1 5.8 152 38.00 2508 1210 3.28E+08
188 448.5 9.5 11 306 74.75 4933.5 2000 3.08E+09
189 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 2691 2000 3.45E+09
190 448.5 6.9 11 306 74.75 4036.5 2000 2.41E+09
191 454.5 7.1 13.1 308 75.75 4090.5 2000 2.63E+09
192 462 8.4 9.9 305 77.00 3234 2000 2.84E+09
193 448.5 6.9 11 306 74.75 4036.5 1600 1.93E+09
194 454.5 7.1 13.1 308 75.75 4090.5 1600 2.10E+09
195 462 8.4 9.9 305 77.00 3234 1600 2.27E+09
196 448.5 9.5 11 306 74.75 4933.5 2300 3.54E+09
197 448.5 11 11 306 74.75 2691 2300 3.97E+09

Fig. 19 and the respective equations of MnLG are given in Eq. (7). The
statistics parameters of the local-global nominal moment curve fitting
were: R2 = 0.8977; adjusted R2 = 0.8902; sum of squared estimate errors
(SSE) = 0.04942; and root mean square error (RMSE) = 0.04278. As
expected, the MnLG curve showed a slight dispersion due to the consid­
eration of local-global interaction.
{ respective relative difference to the ultimate moment obtained in FE
MnG if λLG ≤ 0.826
MnLG = ( ) (7)
1.1λLG − 1.289 1 − 0.226λLG − 1.289 MnG if λLG > 0.826
With the equations defined for both MnG and MnLG after the Direct
Strength Method concepts application to the universe of 197 simply
supported castellated beams under the action of pure bending, the
methodology can be applied to general problems of interaction between
lateral-torsional and tee buckling in Litzka castellated beams.
4.2. Comparison of design methods
To evaluate the accuracy of the developed DSM approach, a com­
parison between the obtained results and the nominal moments of usual
design methods was conducted. The predicted moment strength ob­
tained after application of Eq. (5) and Eq. (7), Mn,DSM, was then
compared with the recommendations proposed in the Steel Design Guide
31/ANSI-AISC 360–16 [13,14], Mn, DG, for castellated beams under
flexure. The reference strength values were equivalent to the ultimate
moment obtained from nonlinear finite element analyses (Mu, FEA). For
the comparison, a set of 17 models was selected, including beams with a
varied combination of slendernesses. Table 3 shows the global and local
slenderness, the nominal moments of the design methods, and their
analyses.
In all cases, the DSM approach developed in Section 4.1, which
considers the interaction between local and global modes, presented a
good correlation with the beam’s ultimate strength, showing a relative
difference not higher than 8%, including models dominated by their
local/interaction failure mode. The Design Guide could predict with good
accuracy the resistance of beams that are governed by a global (LTB)
failure mode (models #17, #23, #25, #36, #46, #79), and also by a
plastification mode (model #111). However, when the interaction be­
tween modes becomes relevant and/or the local mode (TB) is dominant,
λl > 1, the prediction of the DG showed some discrepancy (models #123,
#151, #162, #175 and #181) presenting higher differences. It is
important to highlight that these latter models have unusual steel
yielding stresses (Fy) values, but high local slenderness values can also
be obtained for castellated beams derived from build-up sections with

12
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Table B1
Critical global and local moments, global and local imperfection scales, global and local slenderness, and ultimate moments of models (moments in Nmm and im­
perfections in mm).
Model # Mcrg Imp.g Mcrl Imp.l λg λl Mu

1 3.41E+07 2.44 1.33E+08 0.44 1.15 0.58 2.80E+07

2 5.66E+07 3.00 4.13E+08 1.00 1.78 0.66 5.19E+07
3 1.78E+08 8.00 1.21E+08 1.00 1.32 1.61 1.17E+08
4 1.03E+08 1.33 1.34E+08 0.44 0.66 0.58 4.24E+07
5 5.52E+07 2.52 3.81E+08 0.46 1.10 0.42 4.47E+07
6 1.60E+08 2.51 2.68E+08 0.46 0.76 0.59 8.52E+07
7 8.37E+07 2.64 1.01E+09 0.48 1.07 0.31 6.76E+07
8 2.41E+08 2.59 7.29E+08 0.47 0.75 0.43 1.27E+08
9 2.81E+08 2.67 1.10E+09 0.49 0.75 0.38 1.50E+08
10 2.76E+07 3.30 1.92E+08 0.60 1.58 0.60 2.50E+07
11 3.93E+07 3.35 4.00E+08 0.61 1.51 0.47 3.54E+07
12 4.94E+07 3.40 6.49E+08 0.62 1.48 0.41 4.45E+07
13 1.01E+08 3.42 5.86E+08 0.62 1.17 0.49 8.39E+07
14 1.28E+08 3.47 9.91E+08 0.63 1.14 0.41 1.06E+08
15 2.31E+08 3.32 8.10E+08 0.60 0.91 0.48 1.57E+08
16 2.76E+08 3.38 1.26E+09 0.62 0.90 0.42 1.87E+08
17 4.43E+08 3.35 8.83E+08 0.61 0.75 0.53 2.31E+08
18 5.19E+08 3.40 1.31E+09 0.62 0.75 0.47 2.70E+08
19 5.11E+08 3.37 1.20E+09 0.61 0.73 0.48 2.60E+08
20 6.01E+08 3.47 1.90E+09 0.63 0.74 0.42 3.13E+08
21 7.60E+08 3.56 3.40E+09 0.65 0.74 0.35 3.96E+08
22 9.79E+08 3.66 5.83E+09 0.67 0.72 0.29 4.99E+08
23 2.44E+07 4.14 2.45E+08 0.75 2.00 0.63 2.29E+07
24 3.45E+07 4.19 4.85E+08 0.76 1.91 0.51 3.24E+07
25 4.29E+07 4.24 6.94E+08 0.77 1.86 0.46 4.02E+07
26 5.25E+07 4.29 9.05E+08 0.78 1.81 0.44 4.91E+07
27 1.16E+08 4.26 8.01E+08 0.77 1.34 0.51 1.02E+08
28 1.49E+08 4.32 1.18E+09 0.79 1.31 0.47 1.30E+08
29 1.82E+08 4.39 1.79E+09 0.80 1.28 0.41 1.59E+08
30 7.11E+08 4.06 9.95E+08 0.74 0.74 0.63 3.62E+08
31 8.97E+08 4.17 1.82E+09 0.76 0.75 0.52 4.62E+08
32 1.00E+09 4.22 2.42E+09 0.77 0.74 0.48 5.17E+08
33 1.04E+09 4.19 2.47E+09 0.76 0.73 0.47 5.18E+08
34 1.14E+09 4.29 3.36E+09 0.78 0.74 0.43 5.88E+08
35 1.32E+09 4.36 4.87E+09 0.79 0.73 0.38 6.81E+08
36 1.55E+09 4.44 7.02E+09 0.81 0.73 0.34 7.94E+08
37 2.28E+07 5.00 2.96E+08 0.91 2.43 0.68 2.21E+07
38 2.77E+07 5.03 4.30E+08 0.92 2.37 0.60 2.68E+07
39 3.88E+07 5.10 6.76E+08 0.93 2.25 0.54 3.73E+07
40 4.95E+07 5.16 9.71E+08 0.94 2.17 0.49 4.74E+07
41 1.45E+08 5.12 7.96E+08 0.93 1.45 0.62 1.29E+08
42 1.74E+08 5.16 1.18E+09 0.94 1.42 0.55 1.55E+08
43 2.16E+08 5.23 1.82E+09 0.95 1.39 0.48 1.91E+08
44 1.01E+09 4.93 1.12E+09 0.90 0.77 0.73 5.34E+08
45 1.24E+09 5.00 1.89E+09 0.91 0.76 0.62 6.55E+08
46 1.37E+09 5.08 2.43E+09 0.92 0.77 0.57 7.31E+08
47 1.54E+09 5.13 3.28E+09 0.93 0.76 0.52 8.20E+08
48 1.52E+09 5.08 3.13E+09 0.92 0.75 0.52 7.98E+08
49 1.72E+09 5.18 4.35E+09 0.94 0.76 0.48 9.16E+08
50 1.77E+09 5.15 4.45E+09 0.94 0.74 0.47 9.20E+08
51 5.64E+07 5.76 6.33E+08 1.05 2.14 0.64 5.38E+07
52 7.57E+07 5.82 9.87E+08 1.06 2.06 0.57 7.20E+07
53 1.47E+08 5.81 1.10E+09 1.06 1.61 0.59 1.34E+08
54 1.77E+08 5.86 1.43E+09 1.07 1.58 0.55 1.61E+08
55 2.08E+08 5.91 1.93E+09 1.07 1.55 0.51 1.89E+08
56 3.41E+08 5.73 1.96E+09 1.04 1.28 0.53 2.94E+08
57 3.95E+08 5.78 2.72E+09 1.05 1.27 0.48 3.40E+ 08
58 4.54E+08 5.84 3.58E+09 1.06 1.25 0.45 3.91E+08
59 1.11E+09 4.77 3.64E+09 1.06 0.87 0.48 7.08E+08
60 1.27E+09 4.82 4.93E+09 1.07 0.86 0.44 8.04E+08
61 1.40E+09 4.86 6.28E+09 1.08 0.86 0.41 8.89E+08
62 1.58E+09 4.90 8.60E+09 1.09 0.85 0.36 9.94E+08
63 9.65E+07 5.39 7.87E+08 1.20 1.90 0.67 8.98E+07
64 1.26E+08 5.44 1.19E+09 1.21 1.84 0.60 1.17E+08
65 2.30E+08 5.44 1.43E+09 1.21 1.49 0.60 2.05E+08
66 2.76E+08 5.49 1.76E+09 1.22 1.46 0.58 2.45E+08
67 3.24E+08 5.54 2.57E+09 1.23 1.44 0.51 2.87E+08
68 3.74E+08 5.58 3.44E+09 1.24 1.41 0.47 3.31E+08
69 4.46E+08 5.63 4.88E+09 1.25 1.38 0.42 3.93E+08
70 1.39E+08 6.08 1.34E+09 1.35 1.94 0.62 1.30E+08
71 1.76E+08 6.14 1.80E+09 1.37 1.88 0.59 1.64E+08
72 2.16E+08 6.20 2.67E+09 1.38 1.83 0.52 2.01E+08
73 3.47E+08 6.17 2.69E+09 1.37 1.53 0.55 3.12E+08
(continued on next page)

13
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Table B1 (continued )
Model # Mcrg Imp.g Mcrl Imp.l λg λl Mu

74 3.97E+08 6.21 3.56E+09 1.38 1.50 0.50 3.56E+08

75 4.53E+08 6.25 4.39E+09 1.39 1.48 0.48 4.05E+08
76 5.04E+08 6.29 5.52E+09 1.40 1.46 0.44 4.50E+08
77 5.70E+08 6.33 7.27E+09 1.41 1.44 0.40 5.09E+08
78 1.66E+08 7.09 1.86E+09 1.58 2.11 0.63 1.57E+08
79 2.86E+08 7.07 1.90E+09 1.57 1.72 0.67 2.62E+08
80 2.06E+08 7.14 2.65E+09 1.59 2.05 0.57 1.94E+08
81 3.62E+08 7.13 2.72E+09 1.58 1.66 0.61 3.29E+08
82 2.55E+08 7.22 3.57E+09 1.61 1.99 0.53 2.41E+08
83 4.31E+08 7.20 3.66E+09 1.60 1.63 0.56 3.92E+08
84 4.95E+08 7.25 4.62E+09 1.61 1.61 0.53 4.49E+08
85 5.51E+08 7.28 5.63E+09 1.62 1.59 0.50 4.99E+08
86 4.65E+08 8.14 3.68E+09 1.81 1.74 0.62 4.26E+08
87 5.48E+08 8.21 4.82E+09 1.82 1.71 0.58 5.02E+08
88 6.39E+08 8.26 6.11E+09 1.84 1.68 0.54 5.85E+08
89 7.53E+08 8.33 8.28E+09 1.85 1.65 0.50 6.88E+08
90 1.58E+09 8.25 7.35E+09 1.83 1.22 0.56 1.32E+09
91 1.84E+09 8.32 1.02E+10 1.85 1.20 0.51 1.53E+09
92 1.23E+09 4.00 3.66E+09 1.60 0.97 0.56 8.61E+08
93 1.40E+09 4.03 4.62E+09 1.61 0.96 0.53 9.71E+08
94 1.54E+09 4.04 5.63E+09 1.62 0.95 0.50 1.06E+09
95 1.35E+09 4.52 3.67E+09 1.81 1.02 0.62 9.83E+08
96 1.56E+09 4.56 4.82E+09 1.82 1.01 0.58 1.14E+09
97 1.80E+09 4.59 6.10E+09 1.84 1.00 0.54 1.30E+09
98 2.08E+09 4.63 8.29E+09 1.85 0.99 0.50 1.50E+09
99 4.67E+09 4.58 7.35E+09 1.83 0.71 0.56 2.14E+09
100 5.37E+09 4.62 1.02E+10 1.85 0.70 0.51 2.45E+09
101 2.20E+08 0.89 1.37E+08 0.44 0.45 0.58 4.56E+07
102 4.65E+08 1.37 2.71E+08 0.46 0.45 0.59 9.44E+07
103 1.40E+09 1.83 8.95E+08 0.61 0.42 0.53 2.56E+08
104 1.48E+09 1.84 1.22E+09 0.61 0.43 0.47 2.85E+08
105 2.23E+09 2.21 1.01E+09 0.74 0.42 0.62 3.89E+08
106 3.20E+09 2.69 1.14E+09 0.90 0.43 0.72 5.94E+08
107 3.67E+09 2.73 1.92E+09 0.91 0.44 0.61 7.23E+08
108 4.23E+09 2.77 2.46E+09 0.92 0.44 0.57 8.11E+08
109 1.11E+10 2.75 7.33E+09 1.83 0.46 0.57 2.38E+09
110 1.30E+10 2.77 1.02E+10 1.85 0.45 0.51 2.73E+09
111 1.44E+08 1.11 1.35E+08 0.44 0.56 0.58 4.40E+07
112 2.81E+08 1.82 2.69E+08 0.46 0.58 0.59 9.15E+07
113 7.82E+08 2.44 8.89E+08 0.61 0.57 0.53 2.47E+08
114 8.91E+08 2.45 1.21E+09 0.61 0.56 0.48 2.77E+08
115 1.27E+09 2.95 1.00E+09 0.74 0.56 0.63 3.87E+08
116 1.80E+09 3.59 1.13E+09 0.90 0.58 0.73 5.76E+08
117 2.20E+09 3.64 1.90E+09 0.91 0.57 0.61 7.05E+08
118 2.42E+09 3.70 2.45E+09 0.92 0.58 0.57 7.90E+08
119 6.99E+09 3.67 7.35E+09 1.83 0.58 0.56 2.23E+09
120 8.07E+09 3.70 1.02E+10 1.85 0.57 0.51 2.58E+09
121 1.60E+08 2.51 2.68E+08 0.46 1.08 0.84 1.35E+08
122 3.93E+07 3.35 4.00E+08 0.61 2.14 0.67 3.86E+07
123 8.64E+08 4.93 8.15E+08 0.90 1.11 1.14 6.66E+08
124 3.20E+09 2.69 1.14E+09 0.90 0.61 1.02 1.04E+09
125 3.45E+07 4.19 4.85E+08 0.76 2.70 0.72 3.52E+07
126 4.29E+07 4.24 6.94E+08 0.77 2.63 0.65 4.38E+07
127 5.66E+07 3.00 4.13E+08 1.00 2.52 0.93 5.61E+07
128 1.49E+08 4.32 1.18E+09 0.79 1.85 0.66 1.44E+08
129 3.41E+08 5.73 1.96E+09 1.04 1.81 0.76 3.29E+08
130 9.65E+07 5.39 7.87E+08 1.20 2.69 0.94 9.76E+07
131 6.58E+07 2.73 2.96E+08 0.91 2.03 0.96 6.29E+07
132 1.39E+08 6.08 1.34E+09 1.35 2.75 0.88 1.41E+08
133 1.76E+08 6.14 1.81E+09 1.37 2.66 0.83 1.78E+08
134 2.16E+08 6.20 2.67E+09 1.38 2.59 0.74 2.17E+08
135 2.86E+08 7.07 1.90E+09 1.57 2.43 0.94 2.84E+08
136 5.51E+08 7.28 5.63E+09 1.62 2.24 0.70 5.41E+08
137 5.48E+08 8.21 4.82E+09 1.82 2.42 0.82 5.44E+08
138 1.84E+09 8.32 1.02E+10 1.85 1.70 0.72 1.74E+09
139 1.80E+09 4.59 6.10E+09 1.84 1.41 0.77 1.62E+09
140 1.11E+10 2.75 7.33E+09 1.83 0.65 0.80 4.62E+09
141 9.81E+07 2.29 4.85E+08 0.76 1.60 0.72 9.08E+07
142 1.19E+08 2.31 6.93E+08 0.77 1.58 0.65 1.10E+08
143 1.16E+08 2.00 4.13E+08 1.00 1.76 0.93 1.08E+08
144 2.80E+08 2.99 7.87E+08 1.20 1.58 0.94 2.56E+08
145 3.95E+08 3.38 1.34E+09 1.35 1.63 0.88 3.65E+08
146 4.94E+08 3.41 1.80E+09 1.37 1.59 0.83 4.55E+08
147 5.91E+08 3.44 2.67E+09 1.38 1.57 0.74 5.45E+08
148 8.41E+08 3.93 1.90E+09 1.57 1.42 0.94 7.52E+08
(continued on next page)

14
C.M. Weidlich et al. Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646

Table B1 (continued )
Model # Mcrg Imp.g Mcrl Imp.l λg λl Mu

149 1.54E+09 4.04 5.63E+09 1.62 1.34 0.70 1.37E+09

150 1.56E+09 4.56 4.82E+09 1.82 1.43 0.82 1.41E+09
151 9.19E+08 4.04 4.32E+08 0.90 0.95 1.39 4.48E+08
152 9.78E+08 4.09 5.37E+08 0.91 0.96 1.30 4.94E+08
153 1.75E+09 3.23 6.01E+08 0.92 0.75 1.28 6.85E+08
154 7.19E+08 5.47 2.60E+09 1.82 1.82 0.96 6.76E+08
155 1.54E+08 4.05 5.80E+08 1.35 2.15 1.11 1.48E+08
156 1.93E+08 4.10 8.21E+08 1.37 2.08 1.01 1.85E+08
157 3.06E+08 4.13 1.84E+09 1.38 1.94 0.79 2.92E+08
158 3.33E+08 4.72 8.01E+08 1.57 1.87 1.20 3.05E+08
159 6.55E+08 4.85 2.70E+09 1.62 1.72 0.85 6.11E+08
160 1.02E+09 4.59 2.84E+09 1.84 1.55 0.93 9.33E+08
161 9.19E+08 4.04 4.32E+08 0.90 0.78 1.13 4.02E+08
162 9.78E+08 4.09 5.37E+08 0.91 0.79 1.06 4.38E+08
163 1.75E+09 3.23 6.01E+08 0.92 0.61 1.04 5.48E+08
164 7.19E+08 5.47 2.60E+09 1.82 1.48 0.78 6.38E+08
165 1.54E+08 4.05 5.80E+08 1.35 1.75 0.90 1.41E+08
166 1.93E+08 4.10 8.21E+08 1.37 1.70 0.82 1.76E+08
167 1.73E+08 4.13 8.49E+08 1.38 1.77 0.80 1.58E+08
168 3.33E+08 4.72 8.01E+08 1.57 1.52 0.98 2.93E+08
169 6.55E+08 4.85 2.70E+09 1.62 1.40 0.69 5.74E+08
170 1.02E+09 4.59 2.84E+09 1.84 1.26 0.76 8.60E+08
171 8.64E+08 4.93 8.15E+08 0.90 1.31 1.35 6.87E+08
172 3.20E+09 2.69 1.14E+09 0.90 0.72 1.21 1.25E+09
173 9.19E+08 4.04 4.32E+08 0.90 1.13 1.64 4.63E+08
174 9.78E+08 4.09 5.37E+08 0.91 1.14 1.54 5.14E+08
175 1.75E+09 3.23 6.01E+08 0.92 0.88 1.51 7.69E+08
176 1.54E+08 4.05 5.80E+08 1.35 2.54 1.31 1.53E+08
177 1.93E+08 4.10 8.21E+08 1.37 2.46 1.19 1.91E+08
178 3.33E+08 4.72 8.01E+08 1.57 2.21 1.42 3.07E+08
179 9.19E+08 4.04 4.32E+08 0.90 1.26 1.84 4.68E+08
180 9.78E+08 4.09 5.37E+08 0.91 1.27 1.72 5.22E+08
181 1.75E+09 3.23 6.01E+08 0.92 0.99 1.69 7.97E+08
182 3.33E+08 4.72 8.01E+08 1.57 2.47 1.60 3.07E+08
183 8.64E+08 4.93 8.15E+08 0.90 1.47 1.51 6.88E+08
184 3.20E+09 2.69 1.14E+09 0.90 0.81 1.36 1.37E+09
185 1.54E+08 4.05 5.80E+08 1.35 2.85 1.47 1.57E+08
186 6.58E+07 2.73 2.96E+08 0.91 2.68 1.27 6.68E+07
187 1.60E+08 2.51 2.68E+08 0.46 1.43 1.11 1.55E+08
188 8.64E+08 4.93 8.15E+08 0.90 1.89 1.94 6.88E+08
189 3.20E+09 2.69 1.14E+09 0.90 1.04 1.74 1.49E+09
190 9.19E+08 4.04 4.32E+08 0.90 1.62 2.36 4.76E+08
191 9.78E+08 4.09 5.37E+08 0.91 1.64 2.21 5.38E+08
192 1.75E+09 3.23 6.01E+08 0.92 1.27 2.17 8.11E+08
193 9.19E+08 4.04 4.32E+08 0.90 1.45 2.11 4.74E+08
194 9.78E+08 4.09 5.37E+08 0.91 1.47 1.98 5.28E+08
195 1.75E+09 3.23 6.01E+08 0.92 1.14 1.94 8.10E+08
196 8.64E+08 4.93 8.15E+08 0.90 2.02 2.08 6.88E+08
197 3.20E+09 2.69 1.14E+09 0.90 1.11 1.87 1.50E+09

large flange width-to-thickness ratios.
Models #1 and #7, which also featured a large difference when
compared to the DG prediction, present a global critical moment (Mcr g)
close to the plastification moment (Mp), which shows that the standards
cannot capture well the interaction between the respective failure
modes.
Fig. 20 shows the difference in module of each model (indicated by
an index number) for the Design Guide and the Direct Strength Method
approach developed in the present work as a function of their respective
Mp/Mcr g ratio and local–global slenderness (λLG). Fig. 20 shows that
when early yielding becomes relevant in the dominant global mode (Mp/
Mcr g = 1) and the higher λLG, the higher the differences of the Design
Guide prediction. Whereas the Direct Strength Method approach showed
satisfactory results to approximate the resistance of simply-supported
castellated beams under the action of pure bending, as it minimized
the differences in all cases.
In the proposed approach, computational linear finite element sim­
ulations are suggested to determine the elastic critical buckling mo­
ments since they do not have a large computational cost as the nonlinear
analyses, allowing the application of the DSM developed in this paper.
However, alternatively, the equations suggested by Sonck & Belis [6]
and Oliveira et al. [8] can be used to approximate the global and local
elastic critical loads.
5. Conclusion
A comprehensive numerical study based on the numerical analysis of
197 simply-supported castellated beams under pure bending was con­
ducted and, based on the results, design DSM-based equations were
proposed. Distinct buckling modes were captured in the model’s data­
base after linear and nonlinear analyses, such as global (lateral-
torsional), local (tee buckling), local–global interactional and influenced
by yielding. The following conclusions can be drawn:
• The interaction between global (LTB), local (TB) buckling modes,
and plastification was observed in the presence of geometric im­
perfections. Such examples exhibited a decrease in their moment
capacity in the presence of imperfections and coincident critical
moments. An increase in capacity due to influence of post-buckling
reserve of strength in local buckling dominated modes was also
observed.

15
C.M. Weidlich et al.
• Although rarely mentioned in literature, it was seen that failure
governed by tee local buckling (TB) may occur for beams with high
local slenderness (λl), resulting from the combination of large flange
width-to-thickness ratios and higher steel grades.
• The resistance prediction of the Design Guide appears to be reason­
able when considering beams with high global slenderness (λg) or
with failure dominated by plastification. However, greater differ­
ences could be seen for cases where coupled or local buckling failure
modes are dominant. In some of the cases governed by interaction of
the global (LTB) failure mode and plastification, the Design Guide
could not capture well their behavior, overestimating their
resistance.
• The proposed DSM equations present satisfactory results and can
approximate effectively the strength of simply-supported castellated
beams under the action of pure bending. In all models, the difference
to the ultimate moment was not higher than 8%.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Christovam M. Weidlich: Conceptualization, Methodology, Inves­
tigation, Writing - original draft. Elisa D. Sotelino: Conceptualization,
Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Daniel C.T. Cardoso:
Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoa­
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES, Finance Code 001 – and by
Brazilian agencies FAPERJ and CNPq.
Appendix 1
References
[1] Kerdal D, Nethercot DA. Failure modes for castellated beams. J Constr Steel Res
1984;4:295–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(84)90004-X.
[2] Redwood R, Demirdjian S. Castellated beam web buckling in shear. J Struct Eng
1998;124:1202–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:10
(1202).
[3] Liu TCH, Chung KF. Steel beams with large web openings of various shapes and
sizes: finite element investigation. J Constr Steel Res 2003;59:1159–76. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(03)00030-0.
[4] Boissonade N, Nseir J, Lo M, Somja H. Design of cellular beams against lateral
torsional buckling. Proc Inst Civil Eng-Struct Build 2014;167(7):436–44. https://
doi.org/10.1680/stbu.12.00049.
16
Engineering Structures 243 (2021) 112646
[5] Sonck D, Belis J. Lateral-torsional buckling resistance of cellular beams. J Constr
Steel Res 2015;105:119–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.11.003.
[6] Sonck D, Belis J. Lateral-torsional buckling resistance of castellated beams. J Struct
Eng (United States) 2017;143(3):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001690.
[7] Soltani MR, Bouchaïr A, Mimoune M. Nonlinear FE analysis of the ultimate
behavior of steel castellated beams. J Constr Steel Res 2012;70:101–14. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.016.
[8] Oliveira JP, Cardoso DCT, Sotelino ED. Elastic flexural local buckling of Litzka
castellated beams: explicit equations and FE parametric study. Eng Struct 2019;186
(November 2018):436–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.034.
[9] Zirakian T, Showkati H. Distortional buckling of castellated beams. J Constr Steel
Res 2006;62(9):863–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.01.004.
[10] Ellobody E. Interaction of buckling modes in castellated steel beams. J Constr Steel
Res 2011;67(5):814–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.012.
[11] Chilver AH. Coupled modes of elastic buckling. J Mech Phys Solids 1967;15(1):
15–28.
[12] Budiansky B. Theory of buckling and post-buckling behavior of elastic structures.
In: Advances in applied mechanics. Elsevier, 1974. p. 1–65.
[13] Fares SS, Coulson J, Dinehart DW. Steel design guide 31 - castellated and cellular
beam design. Am Inst Steel Constr 2016.
[14] AISC. ANSI / AISC 360–16, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Am Inst
Steel Constr 2016:676.
[15] Hancock GJ, Kwon YB, Bernard ES. Strength design curves for thin-walled sections
undergoing distortional buckling. J Constr Steel Res 1994;31(2–3):169–86.
[16] Peköz T. Development of a unified approach to the design of cold-formed steel
members. AISI-Spec Des Cold-Formed Steel Struct Memb 1986;1986(May):77–84.
[17] Schafer BW, Peköz T. Direct strength prediction of cold-formed steel members
using numerical elastic buckling solutions. In: International specialty conference
on cold-formed steel structures: recent research and developments in cold-formed
steel design and construction; 1998. p. 69–76.
[18] Schafer BW. Advances in the Direct Strength Method of cold-formed steel design.
Thin-Walled Struct 2019;140(2018):533–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2019.03.001.
[19] Camotim D, Dinis PB, Martins AD. Direct strength method-a general approach for
the design of cold-formed steel structures. Recent Trends Cold-Formed Steel Constr
Elsevier Ltd 2016;3. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100160-8.00004-9.
[20] Young B, Silvestre N, Camotim D. Cold-formed steel lipped channel columns
influenced by local-distortional interaction: Strength and DSM design. J Struct Eng
(United States) 2013;139(6):1059–74. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000694.
[21] Landesmann A, Camotim D. On the Direct Strength Method (DSM) design of cold-
formed steel columns against distortional failure. Thin-Walled Struct 2013;67:
168–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.01.016.
[22] Dinis PB, Camotim D. A novel DSM-based approach for the rational design of fixed-
ended and pin-ended short-to-intermediate thin-walled angle columns. Thin-
Walled Struct 2015;87:158–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2014.10.013.
[23] Landesmann A, Camotim D, Dinis PB, Cruz R. Short-to-intermediate slender pin-
ended cold-formed steel equal-leg angle columns: experimental investigation,
numerical simulations and DSM design. Eng Struct 2017;132:471–93. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.034.
[24] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Young B, Batista EM. FS lipped channel columns affected by
L-D-G interaction. Part II: Numerical simulations and design considerations.
Comput Struct 2018;207:200–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruc.2017.03.017.
[25] Young B, Dinis PB, Camotim D. CFS lipped channel columns affected by L-D-G
interaction. Part I: Experimental investigation. Comput Struct 2018;207:219–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.03.016.
[26] Manual, Abaqus Users. Version 6.10. ABAQUS Inc; 2010.
[27] Linhares DA. Mapping of Failure Modes and Resistance of Castellated Beams under
Flexure. 2018. Master thesis, Department of civil engineering, Pontifical Catholic
University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro; 2018.
[28] The Math Works, Inc., MATLAB, version R2020a.