Buildings 13 00808

buildings
Review
Lateral Distortional Buckling Resistance Predictions of
Composite Alveolar Beams: A Review
Vinicius Moura de Oliveira 1, * , Alexandre Rossi 2 , Felipe Piana Vendramell Ferreira 2 ,
Adriano Silva de Carvalho 3 and Carlos Humberto Martins 3
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos 13565-905, Brazil
2 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38408-100, Brazil
3 Department of Civil Engineering, State University of Maringá, Maringá 87020-900, Brazil
* Correspondence: engenheiro.viniciusmoura@gmail.com
Abstract: Few studies have investigated the structural behavior of steel-concrete composite alveolar
beams in hogging bending regions. Their resistance can be reached by lateral distortional buckling
(LDB), coupling LDB and local failure modes, or limit states of cracking or crushing in the concrete
slab. This case is characteristic of continuous or cantilever elements. Another critical issue is that
the design and calculation recommendations only address the LDB verification on steel-concrete
composite beams without web openings, thus disregarding the interaction between the buckling
modes. Furthermore, it is necessary to use adaptations of these formulations for beams with web
openings. This review paper aims to evaluate the different approaches for standard code adaptations
to verify the LDB resistance of the beams in question and to highlight the investigations that addressed
this issue. The addressed adaptations consist of different approaches which determine the cross-
section geometric properties in the central region of the openings, the so-called double T section, in
the region of the web posts (solid section), and the averages between the solid section and double T
section. The accuracy of the formulations in question is verified against experimental results from the
literature. Furthermore, discussions and suggestions for further studies are presented.
Keywords: steel-concrete composite alveolar beams; lateral distortional buckling; hogging moment;
Citation: de Oliveira, V.M.; Rossi, A.; web openings; castellated beams; cellular beams
Ferreira, F.P.V.; de Carvalho, A.S.;
Martins, C.H. Lateral Distortional
Buckling Resistance Predictions of
Composite Alveolar Beams: A 1. Introduction
Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 808.
Steel profiles generally meet the resistance needs obtained in the structural pre-
https://doi.org/10.3390/
dimensioning of beams with large spans and relatively low loads. However, there is
buildings13030808
difficulty in meeting the service requirements. In this case, there is a need for beams with
Academic Editor: Nerio Tullini greater height and, consequently, greater stiffness. This kind of situation usually occurs in
Received: 28 February 2023
roof structures (sports halls, industrial sheds, supermarkets, theaters), parking buildings,
Revised: 15 March 2023
bridges, walkways, and bus station floors [1].
Accepted: 16 March 2023
The use of steel profiles with sequential web openings is an adequate solution to this
Published: 19 March 2023 problem. These profiles have greater flexural stiffness when compared to the parent profile
used for its manufacturing. Moreover, beams with web openings allow the passage of
ducts that favor integration between services [2].
The first kind of steel profiles with sequential web openings were the ones with
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. hexagonal opening geometry. These beams received the nomenclature of castellated beams,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. as their geometry is similar to the walls of medieval castles [3]. As an alternative to
This article is an open access article
castellated beams, the steel beams with circular web openings, known as cellular beams,
distributed under the terms and
were consolidated. Castellated beams require only one cut with a zig-zag pattern along
conditions of the Creative Commons
their web (Figure 1), and cellular beams require two cuts in a semicircular pattern (Figure 2).
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Although cellular beams were developed primarily for architectural application, being
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
considered aesthetically pleasing, they produce an efficient and economical solution due
4.0/).
Buildings 2023, 13, 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030808 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 37
their web (Figure 1), and cellular beams require two cuts in a semicircular pattern (Figure
2). Although cellular beams were developed primarily for architectural application, being
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 considered aesthetically pleasing, they produce an efficient and economical solution 2 of 35 due
their web (Figure 1), and cellular beams require two cuts in a semicircular pattern (Figure
to their geometry [4]. Figure 3 shows the geometric parameters of castellated and cellular
2). Although cellular beams were developed primarily for architectural application, being
beams.
considered aesthetically pleasing, they produce an efficient and economical solution due
to their geometry [4]. Figure 3 shows the geometric parameters of castellated and cellular
beams.
beams.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Castellated beams manufacturing (c)
process [5]: (a) Cutting; (b) Parting; (c) Welding.
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Castellated beams manufacturing
Castellated beams manufacturing process
process [5]:
[5]: (a)
(a) Cutting;
Cutting; (b)
(b) Parting;
Parting; (c)
(c) Welding.
Welding.
(a) (a) (b)

(b) (c) (c)
Figure
Figure 2.
2. 2. Cellularbeams
Cellular beams manufacturing process [6,7]: (a) Cutting; (b) Parting; (c) Welding.
Figure Cellular beams manufacturing process
manufacturing process [6,7]:
[6,7]: (a)(a) Cutting;
Cutting; (b) Parting;
(b) Parting; (c) Welding.
(c) Welding.
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
Figure 3. Geometric parameters of alveolar beams: (a) Parent; (b) Castellated; (c) Cellular section.
bf = flange width; bw = web-post width; bwe = end-post width; D0 = opening depth or diameter; d =
Figure 3. Geometric parameters of alveolar beams: (a) Parent; (b) Castellated; (c) Cellular section.
Figure 3. Geometric
bf = flange width; bparameters
w = web-post ofwidth;
alveolar
bwe beams: (a) Parent;
= end-post width; D(b)
0 =Castellated; (c) Cellular
opening depth section.
or diameter;
bf =dflange width;
= parent sectionbwdepth;
= web-post width;beam
dg = alveolar bwe =depth;
end-post width;between
p = length D0 = opening depth
the opening or diameter;
diameter centers;d =
s = length of the hexagonal opening diagonal edge; tf = flange thickness; tw = web thickness.
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 3 of 35

parent section depth; dg = alveolar beam depth; p = length between the opening diameter centers; s
= length of the hexagonal opening diagonal edge; tf = flange thickness; tw = web thickness.
The considerable
The considerable gain
gain in
in the
theresistant
resistantcapacity
capacityofofthe
thefloor
floorsystem
systemjustifies
justifiesthe
theuse
useofof
alveolar profiles in steel-concrete composite beams. Thus, these beams can be designed toto
alveolar profiles in steel-concrete composite beams. Thus, these beams can be designed
cover spans
cover spans from
from 1212 to
to 20
20 m
m [8,9].
[8,9].However,
However,thethebehavior
behaviorof ofsteel
steelalveolar
alveolarbeams
beamsbecomes
becomes
more complex than steel profiles without sequential web openings [10]. Alveolar
more complex than steel profiles without sequential web openings [10]. Alveolar profiles profiles
are susceptible to different types of buckling modes or their interaction [10–12].
are susceptible to different types of buckling modes or their interaction [10–12]. The The increase
in the composite
increase alveolar beam
in the composite resistance
alveolar over non-composite
beam resistance beams is more
over non-composite beamsevident
is morein
long spans
evident [13]. Figure
in long 4a,b show
spans [13]. Figureexamples
4a,b showof composite
examples of castellated
compositeandcastellated
cellular beams
and
with steel deck slab, respectively.
cellular beams with steel deck slab, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Applications of composite alveolar beams [14]: (a) With castellated section; (b) With
Figure 4. Applications of composite alveolar beams [14]: (a) With castellated section; (b) With cellular
cellular section.
section.
Steel-concrete
Steel-concrete composite
compositebeams beamssubjected
subjectedto tohogging
hoggingmoment momentare arecharacteristics
characteristicsofof
continuous
continuous or cantilever elements. Continuous composite beams present hogging hogging
or cantilever elements. Continuous composite beams present moments
moments near to supports.
near to supports. On the other On hand,
the other hand, cantilever
cantilever compositecomposite
beams are beams
submitted are submitted
to hogging
to hogging
moment in moment in all their span.
all their span.
The
The steel I-section is is
steel I-section compressed
compressed in hogging
in hogging moment momentregionsregions of steel-concrete
of steel-concrete compos-
composite beams, and the concrete slab is tensioned [15]. Due to
ite beams, and the concrete slab is tensioned [15]. Due to this, these beams can reach failurethis, these beams can
reach
by lateral distortional buckling (LDB), an instability mode characterized by a lateral by
failure by lateral distortional buckling (LDB), an instability mode characterized dis-
aplacement
lateral displacement
and rotationand of therotation of the accompanied
lower flange lower flange by accompanied
web distortionby web distortion
(Figure 5a) [16].
(Figure
Since the 5a)steel
[16].profile
Since the steel profile
is subjected is subjected to
to compressive compressive
stress, the lower stress,
flangethetends
lowertoflange
move
tends to move laterally out of the bending plane. When
laterally out of the bending plane. When the profile web does not have enough the profile web does not have
flexu-
enough flexural
ral stiffness stiffness
to contain this tolower
contain this lower
flange lateralflange lateral displacement,
displacement, the LDB can the LDB
occur canas
[17],
occur
shown[17], as shown
in Figure 5b.inThe
FigureLDB 5b.behavior
The LDBof behavior of the steel-concrete
the steel-concrete composite composite beams
beams without
without web openings
web openings was considerably
was considerably investigated.
investigated. Elastic numerical
Elastic numerical analysesanalyses
[18–23],[18–23],
inelastic
inelastic
numerical numerical
analysesanalyses
[16,24–31],[16,24–31], and experimental
and experimental tests [32–40]
tests [32–40] were conducted.
were conducted. In
In addi-
addition to LDB, web local buckling has also been addressed
tion to LDB, web local buckling has also been addressed by experimental and numerical by experimental and
numerical
investigationsinvestigations [41–45]. Additionally,
[41–45]. Additionally, studies have studies have assessed
assessed ways to ways to improve
improve the
the crack-
cracking of the concrete slab of these beams, such as the use of
ing of the concrete slab of these beams, such as the use of high-performance concrete high-performance concrete
(HPC)
(HPC) [46],
[46], ultra-high-performance
ultra-high-performance concrete concrete (UHPC)
(UHPC) [47–49],
[47–49], engineered
engineeredcementitious
cementitious
composite
composite (ECC)(ECC) [49,50],
[49,50],prestressed
prestressedconcrete
concrete slabs
slabs [51],[51],
andand carbon
carbon fiber-reinforced
fiber-reinforced poly-
polymer
mer (CFRP) (CFRP)
[52]. [52].
OtherOther
issues, issues,
such as such
theas the shear
shear interaction
interaction steel beam-concrete
steel beam-concrete slab
slab [53–55],
[53–55], beam-to-column
beam-to-column joints
joints [56], and [56], and residual
residual deflectionsdeflections
[57], have[57],also
have alsostudied
been been studied
for the
for the beams
beams in question. in question.
Buildings2023,
Buildings 13,x808
2023,13, FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4ofof37
35
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Lateral distortional buckling in steel-concrete composite beams: (a) Cross-section behavio
(Adapted from Rossi et al. [16]); (b) Experimental tests by Kitaoka et al. [35].
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Lateral distortional buckling in steel-concrete composite beams: (a) Cross-section behavior
Among
Figure thedistortional
5. Lateral few experimental studies that
buckling in steel-concrete evaluated
composite beams: (a)the behaviorbehavior
Cross-section of composit
alveolar beams under hogging bending [58–60], Salah [58] and Gizejowski and Salah [59
presentAmong the only
Among the thetests in which the
fewexperimental
few experimental beams
studies
studies
showed
thatthat
instability
evaluated
evaluated
modes
the behavior
the behavior ofbycomposite
of composite
the LDB (Figur
alveolar
6). alveolar
In all, only
beams beams
under five investigations
under
hogging hogging
bendingbending that analyzed
[58–60], [58–60],
Salah [58] the
Salah LDB
and[58] andin Gizejowski
Gizejowski composite
and Salah alveolar
and Salah
[59] beams wer
[59]
present
present
found;
the only the
the tests only
main tests in
focus the
in which which
of beams the
each is beams showed
summarized
showed instability
instabilityin Table
modes modes
by1.theThe by the
LDBpapers LDB
(Figure 6). (Figure
in Inquestion
all, ar
6). In all,
discussed
only fiveonly five investigations
ininvestigations
Section 2.3.thatThus, that
it isanalyzed
analyzed clear
the LDB the
that LDB in composite
insteel-concrete
composite alveolar
beamsbeams
composite
alveolar beams
were were
found;with solid
found; thefocus
mainoffocus of each is summarized in Table 1. Theinpapers in are
question are
webtheare mainsignificantly each
moreis summarized
studied than in Table
those 1. with
The papers question
web openings. discussed
However, due to th
discussed
in Sectionin2.3. Section
Thus,2.3.it isThus,
clearitthat
is clear that steel-concrete
steel-concrete composite composite
beams with beams with
solid web solid
are
alveolus,
web
the behaviormore
are significantly
of the composite alveolar beams becomes more due complex than th
significantly more studied studied than those than those
with web with web openings.
openings. However, However,
due to the to the
alveolus,
composite
alveolus,
the behavior
beams
the behavior without openings.
of the composite
of the composite
The
alveolar beams
alveolar
alveolar profiles
beams more
becomes becomes are susceptible
morethan
complex complex than the failur
to
the composite
local
modesbeams that
composite do not
beams
without occuropenings.
without
openings. in
TheI-sections with solid
The alveolar
alveolar profiles profilesweb are [4,10,61–63].
are susceptible susceptible These
to localtofailure
local local failur
failure
modes
modesthat are
modes dothat web
not do post
occurnot in buckling
occur (WPB)
in I-sections
I-sections with solid andweb
with the[4,10,61–63].
solid Vierendeel mechanism
web [4,10,61–63].
These (VM)
Thesefailure
local local due to shea
failure
modes
modes
forceare and
web arepostwebbuckling
tee post buckling
local (WPB)(WPB)
buckling and (TLB)and
the the Vierendeel
Vierendeel
caused mechanism
mechanism
by bending (VM) (VM)
due to
moment, due to shear
shear
which forcehas been
force
and and
tee localtee local
buckling buckling
(TLB) (TLB)
caused bycaused
bending by bending
moment, moment,
which
investigated in steel castellated beams [64–68], steel cellular beams [12,69–75], steel beam has which
been has
investigated been in
investigated
steel castellated in steel
beamscastellated
[64–68], beams [64–68], steel cellular
steel cellular beams
steel[12,69–75], steel beams
with sequential sinusoidal web openingsbeams [12,69–75],
[76,77], beams with
and steel-concrete sequential
composite cellula
with sequential sinusoidal web openings [76,77], and steel-concrete
sinusoidal web openings [76,77], and steel-concrete composite cellular beams under positive composite cellular
beams
beams under
bending under positive bending
positiveInbending
[13,78–81]. addition, [13,78–81].
[13,78–81].
the lateralIn In addition,
addition,
torsional the
the lateral
buckling lateral
torsional
(LTB) torsional
and its buckling
interaction buckling
with (LTB
(LTB)
and itsits
and
local interaction
failure modeswith
interaction with local
local
has also failure
failure
been modes
modes
assessed inhas has
also
steel also
beenbeen
alveolar assessed
beams, assessed
in steel
with in steel
alveolar
studies alveolar
beams, beams
concentrated
with onstudies
with steel
studies concentrated
castellated
concentrated ononsteel
steel
beams [65,66,82–85], castellated
steel cellular
castellated beams beams
beams [65,66,82–85],
[86–93], and
[65,66,82–85], steel
steelsteel beams
cellular cellular
with beam
beams
sequential
[86–93], and sinusoidal
steel beamsweb openings
with sequential [94–96].
sinusoidal
[86–93], and steel beams with sequential sinusoidal web openings [94–96]. web openings [94–96].
Figure 6. Lateral distortional buckling in steel-concrete composite alveolar beams [58].
Figure
Figure 6. Lateraldistortional
6. Lateral distortional buckling
bucklinginin
steel-concrete composite
steel-concrete alveolar
composite beams [58].
alveolar beams [58].
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 5 of 35
Table 1. Investigations on the LDB behavior of composite alveolar beam.
Model Reference Highlight

Salah [58] and Performed tests with steel-concrete composite beams with circular, hexagonal, and
Experimental
Gizejowski and Salah [59] rectangular web openings
Salah [58] and Carried out sensitivity analysis with geometrical and physical nonlinear finite
Numerical
Gizejowski and Salah [59] element models
Used geometrical nonlinear finite element models to analyze the stability behavior
Gizejowski and Salah [97]
of continuous composite cellular beams
Conducted nonlinear analysis to investigate the effect of the opening diameter, web
Oliveira et al. [98]
post width, I-section dimensions, free span, and hogging moment distribution
Oliveira et al. [99] Analyzed the elastic behavior of the same beams investigated by Oliveira et al. [98]
According to Bradford [20], web distortion causes different effects on the elastic
critical moment depending on the structure type. In steel I-sections, web distortion is
responsible for reducing the elastic critical moment compared to the classical theories of
LTB [20,100,101]. However, Bradford [20] states that in the case of steel-concrete composite
beams, the LDB elastic critical moment is higher than that obtained by analytical formu-
lations that do not consider the possibility of cross-section distortion. The classical LTB
theories consider Vlasov’s hypothesis [102].
AISC 360-16 [103], AASHTO 2017 [104], AS: 1998 R2016 [105], AS/NZS2327-2017 [106],
EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107], and ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108] are codes that address the LDB
resistance prediction of steel-concrete composite beams with full web. As these codes do
not include composite alveolar beams, it is necessary to make adaptations for the beams
in question to predict their bearing capacity to LDB. The resistance of composite alveolar
beams can be reached by an interaction between LDB and local failure modes, such as WPB
and the formation of plastic mechanisms [58,59,97–99]. These interactions are disregarded
in the analytical procedures for the LDB resistance prediction analyzed in the present
paper. This is because the cited codes’ formulations were not developed for beams with
web openings. SCI P355 [109] and Steel Design Guide 31 [110] provide methodologies to
evaluate the resistance to WPB and VM of composite and non-composite alveolar beams.
However, they do not present approaches for LDB.
The present review paper focuses on two issues: the gap in the investigations of the
LDB behavior in composite alveolar beams and the need for codes procedures for these
structures. Furthermore, this work discusses the parameters that need further assessment
and describes some approaches for adapting the LDB resistance predictions developed
for beams without web openings. The accuracy of these approaches is assessed with
experimental results from Salah [58]. Therefore, this paper can support future investigations
of the LDB resistance of composite alveolar beams.
2. LDB Standard Codes, Analytical Methodologies, and Investigations

The standard procedures presented in this section do not address the LDB verification
on continuous steel-concrete composite beams with web openings. However, some authors
give adaptations of these standards [111–113]. In addition, assessments on the lateral-
torsional buckling behavior of steel cellular beams show that the methodologies developed
for solid I-beams can be adapted to cellular I-beams, which must determine the cross-
section geometric properties in the central region of the openings, the so-called double T
section [94–96,114,115]. On the other hand, Sonck and Belis [114,115] recommend that the
torsional constant (J) must be obtained by an average (J2T ,Average ) between the J of the I-
section (Jsolid ) and the J of the double T section (J2T ) obtained through Equation (1), where the
parameters are: number of openings (n), equivalent opening length for the adapted torsion
(J2T,Average) between the J of the I-section (Jsolid) and the J of the double T section (J2T) obtained
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 through Equation (1), where the parameters are: number of openings (n), 6 ofequivalen
35
(J2T,Average) between
opening length for thethe
J of adapted
the I-section (Jsolid) and
torsion the J of(lthe
constant double T section (J2T) obtained
0,avg), and I-section unrestrained length
through Equation (1), where the parameters are: number of openings (n), equivalent
(L). The opening equivalent length (l0,avg) for the castellated and cellular I-sections are
opening length for the adapted torsion constant (l0,avg), and I-section unrestrained length
determined
constant 0,avgas
(L). The (lopening
shown
), and in Figure
I-section
equivalent
7 [114,115].
unrestrained
length (l0,avg)length (L).castellated
for the The opening andequivalent length (l0,avg
cellular I-sections are)
for the castellated
determined and in
as shown cellular
FigureI-sections
7 [114,115]. are determined as shown in Figure 7 [114,115].
nl0 , avg  nl0 , avg 
J 2T , Average = J +  1 − J (1
nl0,avg
nl0 , avgJ L+ 1 − nl
2T  0 0,avg
nl  LJ  solid
J2T,Average = 2TJ +  1 −  , avg
 (1)
J 2T , Average = L 2T  L  J solidsolid (1)
L  L 
Figure 7.
Figure
Figure 7.7.Equivalent
Equivalent
Equivalent rectangular openings
rectangular
rectangular for calculation
openings
openings for calculation of the
theof
for calculation
of adapted torsion constant.
the adapted
adapted torsion constant.constant.
torsion Adapted Adapted
Adapted
from Sonck and Belis [114,115].
fromSonck
from Sonckandand Belis
Belis [114,115].
[114,115].
Other approaches
Other approaches were were presented
presented by by Carvalho,
Carvalho, Rossi,Rossi, and
and Martins
Martins [94],
[94], which
which cover
cover
Other approaches were presented by Carvalho, Rossi, and Martins [94], which cover
different methods
methods in in the
the determination
determination of of geometric
geometric properties:
properties: without
without webweb openings
openings
different methods
(solid section);
section); in the determination
the calculation
calculation of properties
properties at of center
at the
the geometric theproperties:
of the opening (doublewithout
(double T); and web
three openings
(solid the of center of opening T); three
(solid section);
approaches
approaches theaverage
using
using calculation
average ofbetween
values
values properties
between the theat the center
of theof
properties
properties the
the opening
ofsolid (double
solid section
section and theand T);the
double and three
approaches
Tdouble
section, using
𝑇 section, average
the so-called
the so-called values
“average “average between
section”,
section”, “linear the properties
“linear weighting
weighting section”, and of the
section”, solid weighting and the
section
and “superficial
“superficial
double
section”. 𝑇section”.
weightingThe section,
mean The themean
value so-called
betweenvalue “average
thebetween
propertiessection”,
the is used“linear
properties
in the weighting
is “average
used in the section”,
“average
section”. and “superficia
section”.
In addition,
weighting
In addition,
the weightingsection”.
the theThe
ofweighting mean
values, ofthe value
the values,
total between
theoftotal
length thelength
the properties
web of the
post, isweb
and used
the in the
post,
total and“average
length the section”
theoftotal
length
openings, of
In addition,the openings,
are utilized are utilized
in the “linear
the weighting of the in the
weighting “linear
values,section”. weighting
the total section”.
Finally,
length theof Finally,
weighting the
the webofpost, weighting
the values,
and the tota
of
the the values, the total area of steel in the web, and the total area
length of the openings, are utilized in the “linear weighting section”. Finally, thethe
total area of steel in the web, and the total area of the web of the
openings, web
are openings,
adopted in are
weighting
“superficial
adopted inweighting
the section”.
“superficial The
weightinglast two approaches
section”. The are
last detailed
two in
approaches
of the values, the total area of steel in the web, and the total area of the web openings, Figure
are 8, where
detailed the
in are
parameters
Figure 8, whereare: arbitrary geometric
the parameters property (GP),
are: arbitrary arbitrary
geometric geometric
property (GP), property
arbitrary calculated
geometric
adopted in the “superficial weighting section”. The last two approaches are detailed in
at plain section
property web (GP
calculated sol ), and
at plain the arbitrary
section web (GP geometric
sol), and theproperty calculated
arbitrary geometricat theproperty
middle
Figure
of the 8, where
opening the parameters
(double T section). are: arbitrary geometric property (GP), arbitrary geometric
calculated at the middle of the opening (double T section).
property calculated at plain section web (GPsol), and the arbitrary geometric property
calculated at the middle of the opening (double T section).
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Approaches to weighting the geometric properties of the cross-section: (a) superficial way;
(b) linear. Adapted from Carvalho, Rossi, and Martins [94].
(a) (b)
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 7 of 35

Figure 8. Approaches to weighting the geometric properties of the cross-section: (a) superficial way;
(b) linear. Adapted from Carvalho, Rossi, and Martins [94].
The resistance predictions of LDB addressed

addressed in the present paper are based on the
calculus of the elastic critical moment. This
This way,
way, design curves are applicated to obtain
the ultimate moment. Thus,
Thus, the
the elastic
elastic and ultimate moment formulations
formulations found
found in the
literature are described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. In Section 3, a comparison
between the methods is discussed.
2.1. LDB
2.1. LDB Elastic
Elastic Critical
Critical Moment
Moment
The standard
The standardprocedures thatthat
procedures address the LDB
address theverification in steel-concrete
LDB verification composite
in steel-concrete
beams use the conventional LTB theories of partially constrained beams
composite beams use the conventional LTB theories of partially constrained beams or the U-frame
or the
model [116]. These methodologies are illustrated in Figure 9.
U-frame model [116]. These methodologies are illustrated in Figure 9.
(a) (b)
9. Models
Figure 9.
Figure Modelsused
usedby
bythe standards:
the (a)(a)
standards: Partially restricted
Partially beams
restricted [105,106];
beams (b) Inverted
[105,106]; U-frame
(b) Inverted U-
model [107].
frame model [107].
The European
The European standard
standard (EN 1994-1-1: 2004
(EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107])
[107]) and
and Brazilian
Brazilian standard
standard (ABNT(ABNT NBR NBR
8800: 2008 [108]) use the inverted U-frame model to determine the elastic
8800: 2008 [108]) use the inverted U-frame model to determine the elastic critical moment critical moment
to LDB
to LDB (M
(Mcr ). The U-frame model (Figure 9b) considers the composite beam cross-section
cr). The U-frame model (Figure 9b) considers the composite beam cross-section
as an I-section with its
as an I-section with its upper
upper flange
flange with
with lateral
lateral displacement completely prevented
displacement completely prevented and and
rotation partially
rotation partially prevented
prevented byby aa rotational
rotational stiffness
stiffness spring
spring (k ). The
(kss). The rotational stiffness kkss,,
rotational stiffness
given by Equation (2), is composed of the bending stiffness of the slab (k
given by Equation (2), is composed of the bending stiffness of the slab (k1, Equation 1 , Equation (3)) (3))
per
unit of beam length and the bending stiffness of the web I-section (k2 , Equation (4)):
per unit of beam length and the bending stiffness of the web I-section (k2, Equation (4)):
k k2
k s k= = k11 k2 (2)
s k1 + k2 (2)
k1 + k2
α( EIc )
k1 = α ( EI c )2 (3)
k1 = a 2 (3)
Eta3w
k2 = (4)
4(1 − v2 ) h0
3
Etw
where the parameters are: coefficientk2related = to2 the I-section position (α), being equal
to 2 for end beams, 3 for intermediate beams, (
4 1 − and )
v h40 for internal beams having four or
(4)
more similar neighboring sections [17]; flexural stiffness of the reinforced concrete slab
with
where homogenized
the parameters composite section related
are: coefficient per unittoofthe beam lengthposition
I-section (EIc2 ); distance
(α), being between
equal tothe2
I-sections;
for end beams,I-section
3 forelasticity modulus
intermediate beams,(E);and
web4thickness (tw );
for internal I-section
beams Poisson
having four ratio (n);
or more
and distance
similar betweensections
neighboring the flanges
[17];centroids (h0 ).
flexural stiffness of the reinforced concrete slab with
The studycomposite
homogenized by Müllersection
et al. per
[111]unit
wasofonebeam of length
the first(EIfound in the between
c2); distance literaturethe
that
I-
addressed the verification of resistance to LDB in composite beams with
sections; I-section elasticity modulus (E); web thickness (tw); I-section Poisson ratio (n); and web openings.
The authors
distance presented
between an adaptation
the flanges centroidsof(hthe0). European standard (EN 1994-1-1-2004 [107]),
contemplating the calculation of k
The study by Müller et al. 2[111] was one cellular
for composite beams
of the first foundand composite beams with
in the literature that
only one rectangular opening in the web. To calculate the M , the
addressed the verification of resistance to LDB in compositecrbeams with web openings. authors suggest using
the proposition
The by Hanswille
authors presented et al. [117].
an adaptation According
of the European to Müller
standard et al.
(EN[111], it can be taken
1994-1-1-2004 as
[107]),
shown in Equations (5) and (6).
contemplating the calculation of k2 for composite cellular beams and composite beams
Et3w
k2 = k∗ (5)
4(1 − v2 )h0 hole
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 8 of 35
3D0
k∗hole = 1 − forcellularbeams. (6)
4p
Studies of LDB in composite castellated beams also presented adaptations of k2 rota-
tional stiffness [112,113]. Basically, these propositions approach the k2 rotational stiffness
determination of a composite alveolar beam from the adaptation of the k2 of a composite
beam without web opening, applying a reduction factor referring to the web openings.
Silva et al. [113] presented a reduction factor equal to 0.51, and the method by Müller
et al. [111], for the experimental models of Salah [58], provided a reduction factor equal
to 0.524.
Silva et al. [112] presented an analytical formulation for calculating the rotational stiff-
ness of castellated composite beams. For this, the authors performed numerical simulations
of composite beams using castellated beams with Anglo-Saxon, Litzka, and Peiner opening
patterns. According to the authors, rotational stiffness strongly depends on the web’s
rotational stiffness (k2 ), which can be determined by considering the web as a cantilever
plate in the centroid of the upper flange and free in the centroid of the lower flange [112].
Thus, a simplified numerical slab model was developed to determine the web stiffness
of the castellated profiles. Silva et al. [112] verified a linear relationship between the k2
results obtained by the numerical models of the plates with hexagonal openings and
the results obtained by the analytical formulations provided by the Brazilian standards
(ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108]) and European standards (EN 1994-1-1-2004 [107]) of the web
without openings adopting the same dimensions as the plates with hexagonal openings.
The relationship between the numerical/analytical results was 0.53, 0.54, and 0.55 for
the Anglo-Saxon, Litzka, and Peiner opening patterns, respectively. Thus, the authors
proposed an adjustment coefficient (β) whose value is equal to the relationship between
the numerical/analytical results of each type of opening. According to the authors, the
determination of the rotational stiffness of castellated profiles, considering the total height
of the expanded I-section, dg , can be taken as:
E tw 3
k2 = β (7)
4d g (1 − ν2 )
Subsequently, Silva et al. [113] presented a new equation for calculating k2 very similar
to the one shown by Silva et al. [112]. However, to maintain the same parameters used in
the standard prescriptions, they adopted the distance between the flanges centroids (h0 ),
instead of the total height of the section (dg ). The equation proposed by Silva et al. [113]
is limited only to the castellated composite beams with Anglo-Saxon pattern openings.
Equation (8) presents the expression proposed by the authors to calculate the rotational
stiffness of the web of castellated composite beams:
E tw 3
k2 = 0.51 (8)
4h0 (1 − ν2 )
The procedure proposed by Silva et al. [113] was verified from the results obtained
by numerical simulations using ANSYS software. According to the authors, with the
statistical treatment of the results, it was observed that the proposed procedure is suitable
for evaluating the LDB behavior of castellated composite beams. In addition, the authors
also observed that the procedure remains valid when the stiffness of the slab is varied.
According to Fan [37], the inverted U-frame model is more appropriate to evaluate
the LDB in steel-concrete composite beams than the T section, which is composed of only
one I-section associated with the slab. Given that the U-frame model better represents
the slab’s collaboration in the LDB strength, it is possible to analyze the lateral displace-
ment and torsional restrictions imposed on the steel I-section by the concrete slab and
by the shear connector. The U-frame model also relates to typical situations since most
constructions use floor systems of parallel steel beams equally spaced under the concrete
slab [112]. However, Rossi et al. [116] explain that the inverted U-frame model consists of
slab’s collaboration in the LDB strength, it is possible to analyze the lateral displa
and torsional restrictions imposed on the steel I-section by the concrete slab and
shear connector. The U-frame model also relates to typical situations sinc
constructions use floor systems of parallel steel beams equally spaced under the c
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 9 of 35
slab [112]. However, Rossi et al. [116] explain that the inverted U-frame model co
the simplified consideration of a beam uniformly compressed by the maximum b
stress
the and restricted
simplified by of
consideration springs
a beam along
uniformlyits compressed
length. Thus, the
by the compressed
maximum bending beam rep
the I-section
stress lower
and restricted flange,along
by springs anditsthe springs
length. Thus,represent the beam
the compressed rigidity imposed
represents the by the
I-section lower flange, and the springs represent the rigidity imposed by the
section, as shown in Figure 10. In most cases, the steel-concrete composite beam web I-section,
as shown in Figure 10. In most cases, the steel-concrete composite beams under hogging
hogging moment present a significant moment gradient, which makes the pr
moment present a significant moment gradient, which makes the procedure based on the
based on
inverted the inverted
U-frame U-frame
model highly modelinhighly
conservative conservative
most cases [116]. in most cases [116].
Figure 10. Inverted U-frame model. Adapted from Vrcelj and Bradford [26].
Figure 10. Inverted U-frame model. Adapted from Vrcelj and Bradford [26].
Currently, the Brazilian standard (ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108]) uses the methodology
proposed by Roik et the
Currently, al. [118] to determine
Brazilian the Mcr based
standard (ABNT on theNBRinverted U-frame
8800: 2008model.
[108]) u
That method was also presented in the previous version of EC4
methodology proposed by Roik et al. [118] to determine the Mcr based on the inve(ENV 1994-1-1: 1992 [119]).
The current version of EC4 (EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107]) does not present equations for deter-
frame model. That method was also presented in the previous version of EC4 (EN
mining the Mcr . However, it proposes the use of calculation methodologies based on the
1-1: 1992
inverted [119]).
U-frame The Incurrent
model. version
the literature, of EC4propositions
calculation (EN 1994-1-1: based on2004
this [107]) does not
model are
equations
also presentedfor in thedetermining
works by Hanswille the M al.. [117]
et cr However,
and Dias it proposes
et al. [120]. the use of cal
According to Rossi et al. [116], the LDB research methods
methodologies based on the inverted U-frame model. In the literature, for the elastic critical moment cal
determination generally fall into two categories: studies based on the energy method
propositions based on this model are also presented in the works by Hanswille et
(Galerkin method) or those based on the elastic foundation-beams theory. The formulations
and
of Dias
Roik et al.et[118]
al. [120].
and Dias et al. [120] are within the methodologies developed using the
According
energy method as well to as
Rossi et al. [116],
the propositions the LDB
of Svensson [121]research
and Williamsmethods
and Jemah for[122].
the elastic
On the other
moment hand, Hanswillegenerally
determination et al. [117] utilized
fall into thetwo
elastic foundation-beams
categories: studiestheory
basedin on the
their prediction procedure. The methods in question are objectively
method (Galerkin method) or those based on the elastic foundation-beams theo described below.
formulations
2.1.1. of Roik
Svensson [121] et al. [118] and Dias et al. [120] are within the method
developed using thefound
The first procedures energyin themethod
literatureas
arewell
basedas
on the propositions
the energy of Svensson
method, such as the [1
Williams
works and Jemah
of Svensson [122].
[121] and On the
Williams and other hand,and
Jemah [122], Hanswille et al. [117]
the methodologies utilized th
proposed
in
foundation-beams theory in their prediction procedure. The methodsthein ques
these works are very similar. Starting with the method proposed by Svensson [121],
author adopted the T section model (considers only an I-section associated with the slab) to
objectively described below.
evaluate the structure, in which it was considered that the I-section compressed flange could
be treated as a column subjected to axial compressive loads. The author proposed a method
2.1.1.
that canSvensson
be applied [121]
to several bending moment distributions. Svensson’s formulation [121]
is described in Equations
The first procedures(9)–(12), whereinWthe
found x is the elastic section
literature modulus
are based on taken about the
the energy method,
strong axis. Equation (12) and Table 2 describe the formulation to obtain the slenderness
the works
parameter (λ).
of Svensson [121] and Williams and Jemah [122], and the method
proposed in these works are very similar. π 2 E Starting with the method proposed by S
Mcr = Wx (9)
[121], the author adopted the T sectionλmodel 2
el
(considers only an I-section associat
the slab) to evaluate the structure, in which it was considered that the I
cr= = λelWx (9)
MM
M = λ2 elel222W W (9)
(9)
(9)
λel2λλ2elel
cr cr
cr x xx
ππ EE
MMcrcr== 2L2elL W
W (9)
(9)
λelλ=el =λLλelLLelelelx x
(10)
(10)
λλelλelelel==== bb f belf elel12
L 1212 (10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
b fbbffLL1212
12
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 λλelLel=L== =Lf ⋅Lelλel⋅−λ0.5−0.5 (10)
10 of(10)
35(11)
(11)
Lel===LfLL⋅f λ⋅⋅λλ−0.5−−0.5
el elbb −0.5
12 12
LL elLelel = L ⋅
0.5 (11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
1 1
LLel==LL⋅ λ⋅tλw−0.5 −0.5  

3 34 4 14 4
3t wL4 L
334L44 
   (11)
(11)

1 114
β Lβ L = el1.35
= 1.35
 
L
 t (12)
(12)
bt ff b1f 1
el 3 4 44
λ =1.35  √ 3L 
βββLelLLL====1.35 dwtgwd3wtg L
t t w3L
(12)
(10)
1.35
1.35
b f /


 d3g12 33t f b f 
f (12)
(12)
(12)
4 4
dgtddtgtg ftLtbL
3 3 4b 4 
fffb
ff 
 ww  
βLβLL== L · λ−30.5
(12)
(12)
el =1.35
1.35
 ddg gt tf bf bf f 
3 (11)
Table
Table2. 2.
λ values forfor
λ values different bending
different bending moments
moments  [121].
[121].  1
Adapted
Adapted from Svensson
from Svensson [121].
[121].
Table 2. λ values for different bending moments [121]. Adapted from Svensson [121].
Table
Table2.2.
λλ values
values
for
fordifferent
different
bending
bending moments
moments[121].
[121]. Adapted
4Adapted from
from Svensson
Svensson [121].
[121].
!
Table 2. λ values for different bending moments [121].
t 3L Adapted 4 from Svensson [121].
λβLλValues
Values
= 1.35
w
(12)
λ Values d[121].3 b
Table
Table2.2.λλvalues
valuesfor
fordifferent λλλValues
differentbending
bendingValues
moments
moments[121].
Values
CaseCase g t fAdapted Adapted
f from
fromSvensson
Svensson[121].
[121].
Case
Case
Case
βLβL 11 22 33 44 Case
λλValues 55
Values 66 77 88 99
βL βL
βL 11
11.000 2
21.881
22Table 2. λ2.3553
3values
33 4 4
4 5 55 6 66 7 77 8 88 9 99
00
βL 1.0001 1.881 2.355 5.824
4
5.824
for different bending 2.835
Case 5
2.835
Case 4.518
moments [121]. 6
4.518 Adapted 10.83 10.83
7
10.83 5.824
from Svensson5.824 8
5.824
[121]. 0.377
9
0.377
00100 1 1.000
1.000
1.000
1.010
1.000
1.881
1.881
1.881
1.889
1.881
2.355
2.355
2.355
2.376
2.355
5.824
5.824
5.824
5.856
5.824
2.835
2.835
2.835
2.860
2.835
4.518
4.518
4.518
4.538
4.518 10.83
10.83
10.84
10.83 5.824
5.824
5.856
5.824
0.377
0.377
0.377
0.438
0.377
βL βL 11.010
1 21.889
2 32.376
3 45.856
4 52.860
5 64.538
6 710.84
7 85.856
8 90.438
9
11211 2 1.010
1.010
1.010
1.164
1.010
1.164
1.889
1.889
1.889
2.166
1.889
2.166
2.376
2.376
2.376
2.694
2.376
2.694
5.856
5.856
5.856
6.309
5.856
6.309
2.860
λ2.860
2.860
3.235
2.860
Values
3.235
4.538
4.538
4.538
4.827
4.5384.827
10.84
10.84
10.84
11.02
10.84
11.02
5.856
5.856
5.856
6.309
5.856
6.309
0.438
0.438
0.438
1.332
0.438
1.332
020 1.000
1.000
1.164 1.881
1.881
2.166 2.355
2.355
2.694 5.824
5.824
6.309 2.835
2.835
3.235 4.518
4.518
4.827 10.83
10.83
11.02 5.824
5.824
6.309 0.377
0.377
1.332
2 322 3 1.164
1.164
1.832
1.164
1.832 2.166
2.166
3.240 2.694
3.240
2.166 2.694
3.944
2.694
3.944 6.309
6.309
7.952
6.309
7.952 3.235
3.235
4.732
3.235
Case4.732 4.827
4.827
5.884
4.8275.884 11.02
11.02
11.72
11.02
11.72 6.309
6.309
7.952
6.309
7.952 1.332
1.332
4.543
1.332
4.543
11 1.010
1.010 1.889
1.889 2.376
2.376 5.856
5.856 2.860
2.860 4.538
4.538 10.84
10.84 5.856
5.856 0.438
0.438
33433 4 1.832
1.832
1.832
3.628
3.240
3.240
3.240
5.472
3.944
3.944
3.944
6.450
7.952
7.952
7.952
11.06
4.732
4.732
4.732
8.044
5.884
5.884
5.884
7.875
11.72
11.72
11.72
13.26
7.952
7.952
7.952 4.543
4.543
4.543
βL22 1.832
13.628
1.164
1.164 3.240
5.472
2.166
2.166
2 3.944
6.450
2.694
2.694
3 7.952
11.06
6.309
6.309
4 4.732
58.044
3.235
3.235 5.884
4.827
4.82767.875 11.72
713.26
11.02
11.02 811.06
7.952
11.06
6.309
6.309 6.775
4.543
6.775
1.332
91.332
404544 5 3.628
3.628
3.628
5.604
3.628
5.604
1.000
5.472
5.472
5.472
8.110
5.472
8.110
1.881
6.450
6.450
6.450
9.537
6.450
9.537
2.355
11.06
11.06
11.06
15.24
11.06
15.24
5.824
8.044
8.044
8.044
13.16
8.044
13.16
2.835
7.875
7.875
7.875
10.41
7.875
4.518 10.41
13.26
13.26
13.26
15.65
13.26
15.65
10.83
11.06
11.06
11.06
15.24
11.06
5.82415.24
6.775
6.775
6.775
9.135
6.775
0.3779.135
33 1.832
1.832 3.240
3.240 3.944
3.944 7.952
7.952 4.732
4.732 5.884
5.884 11.72
11.72 7.952
7.952 4.543
4.543
515655 6 5.604
5.604
5.604
1.010
7.326
5.604
7.326
8.110
8.110
8.110
1.889
10.91
8.110
10.91
9.537
9.537
9.537
2.376
12.86
9.537
12.86
15.24
15.24
15.24
5.856
20.06
15.24
20.06
13.16
13.16
13.16
2.860
19.48
13.16
19.48
10.41
10.41
10.41
4.538
13.20
10.4113.20
15.65
15.65
15.65
10.84
18.67
15.65
18.67
15.24
15.24
15.24
5.856
20.06
15.24
20.06
9.135
9.135
9.135
0.438
12.48
9.135
12.48
44 3.628
3.628 5.472
5.472 6.450
6.450 11.06
11.06 8.044
8.044 7.875
7.875 13.26
13.26 11.06
11.06 6.775
6.775
626866 8 7.326
1.164
7.326
7.326
13.67
7.326
13.67
10.91
2.166
10.91
10.91
18.06
10.91
18.06
12.86
2.694
12.86
12.86
20.91
12.86
20.91
20.06
6.309
20.06
20.06
30.99
20.06
30.99
19.48
3.235
19.48
19.48
33.16
19.48
33.16
13.20
4.827
13.20
13.20
20.28
13.2020.28
18.67
11.02
18.67
18.67
25.23
18.67
25.23
20.06
6.309
20.06
20.06
30.99
20.06
30.99
12.48
1.332
12.48
12.48
20.26
12.48
20.26
585 5.604
5.604
13.67 8.110
8.110
18.06 9.537
9.537
20.91 15.24
15.24
30.99 13.16
13.16
33.16 10.41
10.41
20.28 15.65
15.65
25.23 15.24
15.24
30.99 9.135
9.135
20.26
83108810 1.832
13.67
13.67
20.41
13.67
20.41
3.240
18.06
18.06
26.92
18.06
26.92
3.944
20.91
20.91
30.75
20.91
30.75
7.952
30.99
30.99
43.62
30.99
43.62
4.732
33.16
33.16
47.21
33.16
47.21
5.884
20.28
20.28
29.27
20.2829.27
11.72
25.23
25.23
34.17
25.23
34.17
7.952
30.99
30.99
43.62
30.99
43.62
4.543
20.26
20.26
29.18
20.26
29.18
4610
6 7.326
7.326
3.628
20.41 10.91
10.91
5.472
26.92 12.86
12.86
6.450
30.75 20.06
20.06
11.06
43.62 19.48
19.48
8.044
47.21 13.20
13.20
7.875
29.27 18.67
18.67
13.26
34.17 20.06
20.06
11.06
43.62 12.48
12.48
6.775
29.18
10 10
12.5
10
58812.5 20.41
20.41
31.66
20.41
31.66
5.604 26.92
26.92
40.41
26.92
40.41
8.110 30.75
30.75
45.51
30.75
45.51
9.537 43.62
43.62
61.89
43.62
61.89
15.24 47.21
47.21
66.65
47.21
66.65
13.16 29.27
29.27
42.74
29.27
10.41 42.74 34.17
34.17
47.83
34.17
47.83
15.65 43.62
43.62
61.89
43.62
15.2461.89 9.135 29.18
29.18
42.73
29.18
42.73
12.5 13.67
13.67
31.66 18.06
18.06
40.41 20.91
20.91
45.51 30.99
30.99
61.89 33.16
33.16
66.65 20.28
20.28
42.74 25.23
25.23
47.83 30.99
30.99
61.89 20.26
20.26
42.73
12.5
12.5
61515
12.5 31.66
31.66
45.79
31.66
7.326
45.79 40.41
40.41
56.56
40.41
10.91
56.56 45.51
45.51
63.00
45.51
12.86
63.00 61.89
61.89
82.97
61.89
20.06
82.97 66.65
66.65
88.86
66.65
19.48
88.86 42.74
42.74
58.73
42.74
13.20 58.73 47.83
47.83
64.10
47.83
18.67
64.10 61.89
61.89
82.97
61.89
20.0682.97 42.73
42.73
58.73
42.73
12.4858.73
10 10 20.41
20.41 26.92
26.92 30.75
30.75 43.62
43.62 47.21
47.21 29.27
29.27 34.17
34.17 43.62
43.62 29.18
29.18
15815
15
17.5
1517.5
45.79
13.67
45.79
45.79
62.75
45.79
62.75
56.56
18.06
56.56
56.56
75.35
56.56
75.35
63.00
20.91
63.00
63.00
83.20
63.00
83.20
82.97
30.99
82.97
82.97
106.8
82.97
106.8
88.86
33.16
88.86
88.86
113.9
88.86
113.9
58.73
20.28
58.73
58.73
77.21
58.7377.21
64.10
25.23
64.10
64.10
82.96
64.10
82.96
82.97
30.99
82.97
82.97
106.8
82.97
106.8
58.73
20.26
58.73
58.73
77.20
58.73
77.20
12.5
12.5
17.5
10 31.66
31.66
62.75
20.41 40.41
40.41
75.35
26.92 45.51
45.51
83.20
30.75 61.89
61.89
106.8
43.62 66.65
66.65
113.9
47.21 42.74
42.74
77.21
29.27 47.83
47.83
82.96
34.17 61.89
61.89
106.8
43.62 42.73
42.73
77.20
29.18
17.5
17.5
20
17.5 62.75
62.75
81.63
62.75 75.35
75.35
96.78
75.35 83.20
83.20
106.1
83.20 106.8
106.8
133.5
106.8 113.9
113.9
141.7
113.9 77.21
77.21
98.18
77.21 82.96
82.96
104.4
82.96 106.8
106.8
133.5
106.8 77.20
77.20
98.18
77.20
15
12.51520
20 45.7981.63
45.79
31.66
81.63
96.78
56.56
56.56
40.41
96.78
106.1
63.00
63.00
45.51
106.1
133.5
82.97
82.97
61.89
133.5 88.86141.7
88.86
66.65
141.7 58.73
58.73
42.74
98.18
98.18 64.10104.4
64.10
47.83
104.4
133.5 42.73
82.97
82.97
61.89
133.5
98.18
58.73
58.73
98.18
20
15 20
20 81.63
81.63
81.63
45.79 96.78
96.78
96.78
56.56 106.1
106.1
106.1
63.00 133.5
133.5
133.5
82.97 Legend 141.7
Legend 141.7
141.7
88.86 98.18
98.18
98.18
58.73 104.4
104.4
104.4
64.10 133.5
133.5
133.5
82.97 98.18
98.18
98.18
58.73
17.5
17.5 62.75
62.75 75.35
75.35 83.20
83.20 106.8
106.8 Legend 113.9
113.9 77.21
77.21 82.96
82.96 106.8
106.8 77.20
77.20
17.5
20 20 62.75
81.63
81.63 75.35
96.78
96.78 83.20
106.1
106.1 106.8Legend
133.5
133.5
Legend
Legend 113.9
141.7
141.7 77.21
98.18
98.18 82.96
104.4
104.4 106.8
133.5
133.5 77.20
98.18
98.18
20 81.63 96.78 106.1 133.5 141.7 98.18 104.4 133.5 98.18
Legend
Legend
Legend
Case
Case 11 Case
Case 22 Case
Case 33
Case
Case
Case1111 Case
Case
Case2222 Case
Case
Case3333
Case
Case 1
Case
Case 2
Case
Case 3
Case
Case11 Case
Case22 Case
Case33
Case
Case 44 Case
Case 55 Case
Case 66
Case
Case 44
Case
Case Case
Case 55 Case
Case 66
Case 44
4 Case
Case
Case 55
5 Case
Case
Case 66
6
Case
Case44 Case
Case55 Case
Case66
Case 7 Case 8 Case 9

Case
Case 77 Case
Case 88 Case
Case 99
Case
Case
Case7 77 Case
Case
Case8 88 Case
Case
Case 9 99
Case 7 Case 8 Case 9
2.1.2. Williams and Jemah [122]
Case
Case77 Case
Case88 Case
Case99
Williams and Jemah [122] presented a proposal based on Svensson’s method [121].
The authors considered that in addition to the compressed flange, a 15% portion of the web
could also be analyzed as a column under compression (Figure 11). The proposition of
Williams and Jemah [122] is presented in Equation (13). The slenderness parameter (λel ) is
obtained as described in Section 2.1.1.
π2 E
λ2el
Wx
Mcr = b t
(13)
1 + 0.15 h f twf
0
2.1.2. Williams and Jemah [122]
Williams and Jemah [122] presented a proposal based on Svensson’s method [121].
The authors considered that in addition to the compressed flange, a 15% portion of the
web could also be analyzed as a column under compression (Figure 11). The proposition
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 11 of 35
of Williams and Jemah [122] is presented in Equation (13). The slenderness parameter (λel)
is obtained as described in Section 2.1.1.
Figure 11. Williams and Jemah [122] model. Adapted from Williams
Williams and
and Jemah
Jemah [122].
[122].
2.1.3. Roik et al. [118]

The formulation proposed by Roik et al.π [118]
2
E
Wx is presented in Equations (14)–(16),
where the parameters are: coefficient referring λtoel the hogging moment distribution (Cdist ),
2
M =
 modulus
as described in Tables 3 and 4; I-section crshear  flange inertia moment about(13)
b f t (G);
f
the
 1
weak axis (Iaf ,y ); composite cross-section inertia+ 0.15
moment about the strong axis (Ix ); I-section
 h t w 
inertia moment about the strong axis (Iax ); I-section0inertia moment about the weak axis
(Iay ); I-section sectional area (Aa ); composite cross-section sectional area (A).
2.1.3. Roik et al. [118] s
L2 presented in Equations (14)–(16),

The formulation proposed by C dist
Roik et al. [118]k sis
Mcr = α g GJ + 2 EIa f ,y (14)
L
where the parameters are: coefficient referring to theπhogging moment distribution (Cdist),
as described in Table 3 and Table 4; I-section shear modulus (G); flange inertia moment
h0 Ix /Iax
about the weak axis (Iaf,y); composite α g = cross-section inertia moment about the strong axis (15)
2 ( Iax + Iay )
(Ix); I-section inertia moment about the strongh0 /4+ axis A a (Iax); I-section inertia moment about the
e + h0
weak axis (Iay); I-section sectional area (Aa); composite cross-section sectional area (A).
AIax
e = (16)
CAdista yc (A − A ksaL)2 
Mcr = α g  GJ + 2  EI af , y (14)
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW L  π  12 of 37
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 3. C
distcoefficient for continuous beams with loading on the analyzed span
12 of 37 (L). Adapted from
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW ABNT NBR 8800:2008 [108]. 12 of 37
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW h0 I x I ax 12 of 37
αg =
( )
I ax +ψI ay
* Moment Distribution 41.5 30.2 24.5 21.1 h0219.04 + 17.5 16.5 15.7 15.2 (15)
0.50 30.2 0.7524.5 1.00
41.5 21.1 1.25
19.0 17.5Aa 16.51.7515.7 2.00
1.50 15.2 2.25 2.50
41.5 30.2 24.5 21.1 19.0 17.5 + h 15.7
16.5 15.2
41.5 30.2 24.5 21.1 19.0 e17.5 16.5 0 15.7 15.2
41.5 30.2 24.5 21.1 19.0 17.5 16.5 15.7 15.2
41.5
41.5 30.2 30.224.5 24.5 21.1 19.0
21.1 17.5 19.0 16.5 17.515.7 16.5 15.2 15.7 15.2
33.9 22.7 17.3 14.1 13.0 AI 12.0 11.4 10.9 10.6
33.9 22.7 17.3 14.1 e =13.0 ax
12.0 11.4 10.9 10.6 (16)
33.9
33.9
22.7
22.7
17.3
17.3
14.1
14.1
13.0
13.0
12.0
(
A − Aa 11.4
Aa yc 12.0 11.4
) 10.9
10.9
10.6
10.6
33.9
33.9 22.7 22.717.3 17.3 14.1 13.0
14.1 12.013.0 11.4 12.010.9 11.4 10.6 10.9 10.6
33.9 22.7 17.3 14.1 13.0 12.0 11.4 10.9 10.6
28.2 18.0 13.7 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.5 9.1 8.9
28.2 18.0 13.7 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.5 9.1 8.9
Table 3. Cdist coefficient
28.2 for continuous
18.0 13.7 beams10.6
11.7 with loading
10.0 on 9.5the analyzed
9.1 span
8.9 (L). Adapted from
28.2
ABNT NBR 8800:2008 28.2 18.0 18.0
[108]. 13.7 11.7
13.7 10.6
11.7 10.010.6 9.5 10.0 9.1 8.9
9.5 9.1 8.9
28.2 18.0 13.7 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.5 9.1 8.9
28.2 18.0 13.7 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.5 9.1 8.9
21.9 13.9 11.0 9.6 8.8 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.6
* Moment Distribution 21.9 13.9 11.0 9.6 8.8 8.3 ψ 8.0 7.8 7.6
21.9
21.9 13.9 13.90.75
11.0 11.0 9.6 8.8
9.6 8.38.8 8.0 8.3 7.8 8.07.6 7.8 7.6
21.9 0.50
13.9 11.0 1.00 8.8
9.6 1.25 8.3 1.508.0 1.75 7.8 2.00
7.6 2.25 2.50
21.9 13.9 11.0 9.6 8.8 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.6
21.9 13.9 11.0 9.6 8.8 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.6
28.4 21.8 18.6 16.7 15.6 14.8 14.2 13.8 13.5
28.4
28.4 21.8 21.818.6 18.6 16.7 15.6
16.7 14.815.6 14.214.813.8 14.2 13.5 13.8 13.5
28.4 21.8 18.6 16.7 15.6 14.8 14.2 13.8 13.5
28.4 21.8 18.6 16.7 15.6 14.8 14.2 13.8 13.5
28.4 21.8 18.6 16.7 15.6 14.8 14.2 13.8 13.5
28.4 21.8 18.6 16.7 15.6 14.8 14.2 13.8 13.5
12.7
12.7 9.89 9.898.6 8.0
8.6 7.7
8.0 7.47.7 7.2 7.4 7.1 7.27.0 7.1 7.0
12.7 9.89 8.6 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.0
12.7 9.89 8.6 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.0
12.7 9.89 8.6 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.0
* Mo* isMthe
o ismaximum12.7
the maximum 9.89
moment,
moment, 8.6 the analyzed
considering
considering 8.0 7.7
the analyzed 7.4 as simply
span asspan
simply 7.2 supported.
supported. 7.1 7.0
* Mo is the maximum 12.7 9.89
moment, 8.6 the 8.0
considering analyzed7.7 7.4
span as simply 7.2
supported. 7.1 7.0
* Mo is the maximum moment, considering the analyzed span as simply supported.
*Table
Mo is 4.
theCdist coefficient
maximum for continuous
moment, beams
considering the without
analyzedloading
span ason the analyzed
simply span (L). Adapted
supported.
*from
Mo isABNT
Table theCdist
4. maximum moment,
coefficient
NBR considering
for continuous
8800:2008 [108] . the without
beams analyzedloading
span ason
simply supported.
the analyzed span (L). Adapted
*Table
Mo is the
4. Cmaximum moment,
dist coefficient considering
for continuous the analyzed
beams span as on
without loading simply supported.
the analyzed span (L). Adapted
from ABNT NBR 8800:2008 [108] .
Table 4. Cdist coefficient for continuous beams without loading on the analyzed span (L). Adapted
from ABNT
Table NBR 8800:2008
4. Cdist coefficient [108]. beams without loading ψ
for continuous on the analyzed span (L). Adapted
from ABNT
* Moment Distribution
Table NBR 8800:2008
4. Cdist coefficient [108].
for continuous beams without loading on
from ABNT NBR 8800:2008 [108]0.00 . 0.25 ψ the analyzed
0.50 0.75
span (L). Adapted
1.00
* Moment Distribution ψ
12.7 9.89 8.6 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.0
12.7 9.89 8.6 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.1
12.7 9.89 8.6 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.1
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 12 of 35
Table 4. Cdist coefficient for continuous beams without loading on the analyzed span (L). Adapted
Table 4. Cdist coefficient for continuous beams without loading on the analyzed span (L).
from ABNT
Table NBR Table
8800:2008
4. Cdist coefficient for Cdist[108]
4. continuous . beams
coefficient without loading
for continuous beamsonwithout
the analyzed span
loading on (L). Adapted span (L).
the analyzed
from ABNT NBR 8800:2008 [108].
from ABNT NBR 8800:2008
from ABNT [108].NBR 8800:2008 [108].
ψ
* Moment Distribution ψ
* Moment Distribution 0.00 0.25 0.50ψ 0.75 ψ 1.00
**Moment Distribution
Moment Distribution 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
0.00 0.00
0.25 0.25
0.50 0.750.50 1.00 0.75
11.1 9.5 8.2 7.1 6.2
11.1 9.5 8.2 7.1
11.1 9.5
11.1 8.29.5 7.1 8.2 6.2 7.1
11.1 12.8 14.6 16.3 18.1

11.1 11.1
12.8 12.8
14.6 16.314.6 18.1 16.3
11.1 12.8 14.6 16.3
**MMo oisisthe
the higher
higher moment,
moment, in modulus,
in the
* Mo is modulus, in the analyzed
higherinmoment,
the analyzed span, ψinvalues
span, in which
in modulus,
which ψ values
higher
in the analyzed
higher
than 1.00
span, mustthan
in which be 1.00
ψ taken
values higher
must
as 1.00.be taken as 1.00.
* Mo is the higher moment, in modulus, in the analyzed span, in which ψ values higher
must be taken as 1.00.
must be taken as 1.00.
2.1.4.
2.1.4. Hanswille
Hanswille et et al.
al. [117]
[117]
2.1.4. Hanswille et al. [117]
In
In the
the search
search for
for aHanswille
2.1.4. a new
new strategy
et al. for
strategy for determining
determining the
[117] the LDB
LDB elastic
elastic critical moment,
Hanswille et al. [117] In the search
developed a for a new
proposal strategy
similar to for et
Roik determining the the
LDBinverted
elastic critical m
Hanswille et al. [117] In developed
theetsearch a proposal similar
fordeveloped
a new to Roik
strategy et al. [118] using
al. [118]
for determining using
the etthe inverted
LDB elasticusing
critical
U-frame Hanswille al. [117] a proposal similar to Roik al. [118] the m
U-frame model
model to to represent
represent
Hanswille
the
the composite
composite
et al. [117]
beam.
beam.
developed
However,
However,
acomposite
the
the
proposal similar
authors
authors deduced
deduced
to Roik et al.
their
their
procedure U-frame model to represent the beam. However, the[118] using
authors the
deduc
procedure through
through the
theelastic
U-frame elastic
model
foundation-beams
foundation-beams
to represent the
theory
theory (Figure
(Figure
composite
12).
12). However, the authors deduc
beam.
procedure through the elastic foundation-beams theory (Figure 12).
procedure through the elastic foundation-beams theory (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Analogy between the compression member on elastic foundation and the lateral torsional
buckling problem. Adapted from [16].
The formulation for Mcr proposed by Hanswille et al. [117] is presented in Equa-
tion (17). !
π 2 ECw,d

1
Mcr = + GJe f (17)
kz ( β b L )2
where the parameters are the cross-section geometric parameters described by Equation (18)
(kz , yf and e), the distance between the I-section centroid and the composite section (rein-
forcement bar and I-section) centroid (y*),
Iax + Iay dg − b f

Iax 1 2 Iax
kz = 2y f − yf + ; yf = ;e = (18)
Ix e Aa 2 y ∗ Aa
where the warping constant calculated with the pole in the center of the profile upper
flange had by Equation (19) (Cw ,d ),
Cw,d = Ia f ,y h0 2 (19)
where the effective length factor determined by Equation (20) (βB ),

 1/n2
1
β B = β 0B  (20)
 
√ n1 
ηb
1+ a π
 
1
β B = β0 B  
  1
n

 1+ a η b  
  π  
   
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 13 of 35
where the stiffness factor presented in Equation (21) (ηb), and the effective S
torsion stiffness (GJef), as shown in Equation (22).
where the stiffness factor presented in Equation (21) (η b ), and the effective Saint Venant
torsion stiffness (GJef ), as shown in Equation (22). ks L4
η = b
s EC w ,d
ksL4
ηb =
(
ECw,dGJ ef = A 1.5 − 0.5ψ GJ ) (21)
To calculate the = A(1.5 − B

GJe fparameters B and
0.5ψ ) GJGJef it is necessary to obtain (22)the coeff
η1, and
To calculate the ηparameters
2, which are dependent on the hogging moment factors: the relationsh
BB and GJef it is necessary to obtain the coefficients A, a, η 1 ,
and η 2 , which are dependent onand
the end moment the the maximum
hogging moment moment ψ);relationship
factors: (the and the relationship
between thebetween
end momentend moment
and the maximum andmoment
the higher end
(ψ); and themoment.
relationship The parameters
between , η1, and η
A, aend
the smaller
moment andaccording
the higher to the
end load configurations,
moment. The parameterswhichA, a, η 1are detailed
, and in Table
η 1 are given 5 (for membe
according
to the load configurations,
moments), Table which6 are
(fordetailed
members in Table
with5concentrated
(for members with loadend
andmoments),
end moments),
Table 6 (for members with concentrated load and end moments),
(members with uniformly distributed load and end moments). and Table 7 (members
with uniformly distributed load and end moments).
Table 5. Approximate determination of the elastic critical moment for members with en
Table 5. Approximate determination of the elastic critical moment for members with end moments.
Adapted from Hanswille et al. [117].
Adapted from Hanswille et al. [117].
2
β0B==–0.11
β0B ψ2 −
–0.11ψ 0.37ψψ++0.74
− 0.37 0.74
ψ ψ a a η1 η1 η2 η2
1.0 1.0 1.48 1.48 9.10 9.10 9.30 9.30
0.5 1.45 8.30 8.80
0.0 1.40 6.40 7.30
–0.5 1.25 4.70 5.70
–1.0 1.00 4.20 5.10
Table 6. Approximate determination of the elastic critical moment for members with concentrated
Table 6. Approximate determination of the elastic critical moment for members with concentrated
load and end moments. Adapted from Hanswille et al. [117].
load and end moments. Adapted from Hanswille et al. [117].
2 + 0.25ψ 2 + 0.06ψ
β0B ==0.320ψ
β0B 0.320ψ + 0.53
+ 0.53 0B = 0.075
β0B =β0.075ψ ψ2 ++0.25
0.35ψ + 0.35 β0B =β0.116ψ
0B = 0.116 ψ2 + +0.06
0.21ψ + 0.21
αα= =11 α = 0.5α = 0.5 α = 0.25
α = 0.25
A = 1.25 A = 1.5 A = 1.6
A = 1.25 A = 1.5 A = 1.6
a a η 1η1 η 2 η2 a a η 1 η1 η 2 η2 a a η 1 η1 η 2 η2
ψ = 1.0
ψ = 1.0 1.46
1.46 9.85
9.85 9.55 9.55 1.35 1.35 7.10 7.10 6.85 6.85 0.95 0.95 4.90 4.90 4.50 4.50
ψ = 0.5 1.45 9.00 9.75 1.30 5.75 6.80 0.85 4.50 5.60
ψ = 0.5
ψ = 0.0 1.45
1.35 9.00
5.95 7.75 9.75 1.05 1.30 4.60 5.75 6.30 6.80 0.70 0.85 4.15 4.50 6.10 5.60
ψ = 0.0 1.35 5.95 7.75
* Mo is the maximum 1.05 the analyzed
moment, considering 4.60 span as 6.30 0.70
simply supported. 4.15 6.10
Table 7. Approximate determination of the elastic critical moment for members with uniformly
distributed load and end moments. Adapted from Hanswille et al. [117].
β0B = 0.037ψ2 + 0.30ψ + 0.4 β0B = 0.16ψ2 + 0.05ψ + 0.24 β0B = 0.07ψ2 + 0.01ψ + 0.13
a η1 η2 a η1 η2 a η1 η2
ψ = 1.0 1.46 9.85 9.55 1.35 7.10 6.85 0.95 4.90 4.50
ψ = 0.5 1.45 9.00 9.75 1.30 5.75 6.80 0.85 4.50 5.60
= 0.0 2023, 13,1.35
ψ Buildings 808 5.95 7.75 1.05 4.60 6.30 0.70 4.15 14 of 6.10
35
2
= 0.037ψ + 0.30ψ + 0.4 2
β0B = 0.16ψ + 0.05ψ 2
ββ0B
0B = 0.037ψ2 + 0.30ψ + 0.4 β0B = 0.16ψ2 ++0.05
0.24
ψ + 0.24 β0B =β0.07ψ + 0.01ψ + 0.13
0B = 0.07ψ2 + 0.01ψ + 0.13
α=1 α = 0.5 α = 0.25
α=1 α = 0.5 α = 0.25
A = 1.25 A = 1.5 A = 1.75
A = 1.25 A = 1.5 A = 1.75
a η1 η2 a η1 η2 a η1 η2
a η1 η2 a η1 η2 a η1 η2
ψ = 1.0 1.45 8.80 8.95 1.15 4.90 5.15 0.65 4.05 4.50
ψ = 1.0
ψ = 0.5 1.45
1.37 8.80
5.95 6.70 8.95 0.95 1.15 4.50 4.90 5.90 5.15 0.55 0.65 4.00 4.05 5.70 4.50
ψ = 0.5
ψ = 0.0 1.37
1.13 5.95
4.50 5.75 6.70 0.77 0.95 4.20 4.50 5.95 5.90 0.48 0.55 3.95 4.00 6.15 5.70
ψ = 0.0 1.13 4.50 5.75
* Mo is the maximum 0.77 the analyzed
moment, considering 4.20 span as simply
5.95 supported.
0.48 3.95 6.15
2.1.5. Dias et al. [120] and Oliveira [123]
The et
2.1.5. Dias methodology
al. [120] andproposed
Oliveiraby Dias et al. [120] and Dias [124] only covers steel-
[123]
concrete composite beams under uniform hogging moment and is shown in Equation (23).
The methodology proposed by Dias et al. [120] and Dias [124] only covers steel-
concrete composite beams underk g uniform

EChogging
w,d

moment
2
η and
b
2

is shown in Equation (23).
Mcr = GJ + 2
( nπ ) + (23)
h0 L nπ
kg  ECw ,d   ηb   
2
( )
2
The kg coefficient considersM
the = GJ
cr elastic
+ 2axis and
neutral nπ moment
+ 
portion absorbed by the (23)
h0  L   nπ   
reinforcement bars.   
Ix
kg = 0.31 + 0.69 · 0.05y∗/h0 (24)
Iax neutral axis and moment portion absorbed by the
The kg coefficient considers the elastic
reinforcement bars. of Hanswille et al. [117], η b is the stiffness factor (Equation (25)), and
As in the proposition
Cw ,d is the warping constant calculated with the pole in the center of the profile upper
flange (Equation (26)). I
k g = x 0.31
I ax
(
s + 0.69 ⋅ 0.05 0
ks L 4
y* h
) (24)
ηb = (25)
ECw,d
As in the proposition of Hanswille et al. [117], ηb is the stiffness factor (Equation (25)), and
Cw,d is the warping constant calculated 2
Cw,d with
= Ia fthe
,y h0 pole in the center of the profile (26)upper
flange (Equation (26)).
According to Dias et al. [120], the number of waves (n) must be an integer to fulfill essential
boundary conditions. Thus, one may calculate the Mcr value for the two integers n1 and n2
4
nearest to nid (Equation (27)) and adopt the smallest
ks Lvalue of the critical moment obtained.
ηb = √ (25)
EC
ηb w , d
nid = (27)
π
Oliveira [123] presented an adaptation based on the methodology of Dias [124] to
verify beams subjected to non-uniform moment, according to Equation (28).
( )(
Lneg −0.1
)
kg
η 2
ECw,d 2 b
Mcr = GJ + 2 (nπ ) + 2.13β (28)
h0 Lneg nπ h0
Oliveira’s proposition [123] imposed a reduction factor equal to 1/4 in the stiffness
factor (η b ), determined according to Equation (29).
s
1 k s L4neg
ηb = (29)
4 ECw,d
1 ks L4neg
ηb = (29)
4 EC w ,d
Equation (30) describes the conditions to determine the β coefficient related to the
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 positions of supports for different hogging moment diagrams. The parameters15 of of 35
Equation (30) are the smallest length of the negative moment stretch (L1); and the critical
length of the composite beam (Lcr) had by Equation (31), in which hw is the web depth. The
Lneg and L(30)
lengthsEquation 1 are determined as shown in Figure 13.
describes the conditions to determine the β coefficient related to the posi-
tions of supports for different hogging
 momentL1 diagrams. The parameters of Equation (30)
 β = 1.0, ifmoment
are the smallest length of the negative ≥ 1.0stretch (L1 ); and the critical length of the
 L
composite beam (Lcr ) had byβ =Equation
 (31),crin which hw is the web depth. The lengths Lneg
(30)
and L1 are determined as shown  β in Figure  L13. L1
= −0.16  1
 +1.15, if < 1.0

(  Lcr  Lcr
β = 1.0, i f LLcr1 ≥ 1.0
β = (30)
( )
0.25

β = −0.16 b fLL3cr1t f 1+−1.15,
v 2 i f Lcr1 < 1.0
L
Lcr = 2.4hw   (31)
 t 3h  #
 3w w
"  0.25
b f t f 1 − v2
Lcr = 2.4hw (31)
tw 3 hw
Figure 13. Possible positions of supports for different hogging moment diagrams. Adapted from
Figure 13. Possible positions of supports for different hogging moment diagrams. Adapted from
Oliveira
Oliveira [123].
[123].
2.2. LDB Ultimate Moment
The standards address the LDB in continuous composite beams by applying a reduc-
tion factor in the plastic moment (Mpl ) of the analyzed section under hogging moment.
For this, these standards use curves expressed in terms of the slenderness ratio and the
reduction factor determined by full-scale tests of steel elements with initial geometric
imperfections and residual stress.
European codes (EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107]) and Brazilian codes (ABNT NBR 8800:
2008 [108]) present analogous formulations to determine the cross-section plastic moment
(Mpl-C.beam ), which are composed of steel I-beam and reinforcement bars (composite section).
According to the codes in question, the plastic theory (full plastic rectangular distribution
stress) must be used, and Mpl-C.beam is obtained with Equation (32), where the parameters are:
longitudinal reinforcement area (Abar ); reinforcement bars yield strength (fy ,bar ); I-section
tensioned area (Aat ); I-section compressed area (Aac ); steel I-section yield strength (fy );
distance between the geometric centers of the composite cross-section and reinforcement
bars (d3 ); distance between the geometric centers of the composite cross-section and I-
section tensioned area (d4 ); and distance between the geometric centers of the composite
cross-section and I-section compressed area (d5 ).
M pl −C.beam = Abar f y,bar d3 + A at f y d4 + A ac f y d5 (32)
The parameters which compose Equation (32) depend on the composite section ge-
ometry, materials yield strength, and plastic neutral axis (PNA) position. This way, two
cases of PNA position usually occur in steel-concrete composite beams in hogging moment
regions: PNA on the I-section web and PNA on the I-section upper flange. In the present
paper, the Mpl-C.beam formulations are developed considering the composite section in the
center region of the opening. Thus, to calculate Mpl-C.beam in the region with solid web, Do
equal to zero must be adopted. The cases in question are detailed below.
I—PNA on the I-section web is true if “(Aa − Af ) * fy ≥ Af * fy + Tds ”, which can have
PNA position (yPNA ) defined in relation to the I-section upper face, as shown in Figure 14.
present paper, the Mpl-C.beam formulations are developed considering the composite section
in the center region of the opening. Thus, to calculate Mpl-C.beam in the region with solid web,
Do equal to zero must be adopted. The cases in question are detailed below.
Buildings 2023, 13,I—PNA
808 on the I-section web is true if “(Aa − Af) * fy ≥ Af * fy + Tds”, which can have 16PNA of 35
position (yPNA) defined in relation to the I-section upper face, as shown in Figure 14. The
parameters are Af, which is the flange area, and Tds, which is the calculation tensile
The parameters
strength of the reinforment bars Afbar
are(A , which ). the flange area, and Tds , which is the calculation tensile
* fy,baris
strength of the reinforment bars (Abar * fy ,bar ).
Figure 14. PNA on the I-section web.

Figure 14. PNA on the I-section web.
As the PNA position is on the web, the steel I-section’s tensioned area (Aat ) and
As the PNAcompressed
position area
is on
(Aacthe
) are web,
definedthe steel I-section’s
as presented in Equations tensioned area
(33) and (34), (Aat) and
respectively.
compressed area (Aac) are defined as presented in Equations (33) and (34), respectively.

A at = b f t f + y PN A − t f tw (33)
(
Aat = b f t f A+ y=PNA
ac A −A a
)
− t f tw− D
at o tw
(33)
(34)
This way, the PNA position is obtained with the equilibrium of resulting forces. These
Aac =toAfull
resulting forces are equivalent
− Aat − rectangular
a plastic
Do tw (34)
distribution stress on reinforcement
bars and the I-section’s tensioned and compressed area. Thus, the PNA position in relation
to the I-section upper face is determined by Equation (35).

− Abar f y,bar + f y A a − 2b f t f − Do tw
y PN A = t f + (35)
2 f y tw
To calculate the distances d2 and d3 of Equation (32), the geometric center positions
of the I-section’s tensioned (y*at ) and compressed area (y*ac ) are necessary. Equation (36)
shows the formulation for the tensioned area with the origin on the I-section upper face.
On the other hand, Equation (37) presents the calculus for the compressed area with the
origin on the I-section lower face.
h i
0.5b f t f 2 + tw y PN A − t f 0.5 y PN A − t f + t f
y∗at = (36)
A at
2
2
0.5b f t f + tw 0.5 d g − y PN A − t f − Do + t f
y∗ac = (37)
A ac
Finally, the distances d1 , d2 , and d3 are obtained according to Equations (38)–(40), in
which c is the distance between the geometric center of the reinforcement bars and the
I-section upper face.
d1 = y PN A + c (38)
d2 = y PN A − y∗at (39)
d1 = yPNA + c (38)
d2 = yPNA − yat* (39)

Buildings 2023, 13, 808 17 of 35
d3 = dg − y PNA − y *
ac (40)
II—PNA on the I-section upper flange is d3 true

= d gif−“( AaA−−Ay∗ac
y PN f)*fy < Af * fy + Tds” and “Aa(40) * fy
≥ Tds”, which can alsoII—PNA
have on thethePNA position
I-section (yPNAis) true
upper flange defined
if “(Aa in
− Arelation to the I-section
f )*fy < Af * fy + Tds ” and “Aa *
upper face. Figurefy 15
≥ Tillustrates this
ds ”, which can alsocase.
have the PNA position (yPNA ) defined in relation to the I-section
upper face. Figure 15 illustrates this case.
Figure 15. PNA on the I-section upper flange.

Figure 15. PNA on the I-section upper flange.
As the PNA position is on the upper flange, the steel I-section’s tensioned area (Aat )
As the PNA and
position is onarea
compressed the(Aupper flange, by
ac ) are obtained theEquations
steel I-section’s tensioned
(41) and (42), area (Aat)
respectively.
and compressed area (Aac) are obtained by Equations A = b y
(41) and (42), respectively. (41)
at f PN A
A = b y
(41)
A ac = b f t f at+ tw fd gPNA
− 2t f − Do + b f t f − y PN A (42)
Thus, the PNA position in relation to the I-section upper face is determined by Equa-
tion (43). h i
− Abar f y,bar + f y 2b f t f + tw d g − 2t f − Do
y PN A = (43)
2 fy b f
Like the case I, the formulation for the center position of the tensioned area is devel-
oped with the origin on the I-section upper face, and for the compressed area, the origin
is on the I-section lower face. Equations (44) and (45) describe the calculus of the center
positions y*at and y*ac . Equations (38)–(40) must be used to obtain the distances d1 , d2 ,
and d3 .
y
y at = PN A (44)
2
h i
0.5b f t f 2 + tw d g − Do − 2t f 0.5d g + b f t f − y PN A d g − y PN A − 0.5 t f − y PN A
y ac = (45)
A ac
EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] uses multiple Perry–Robertson design curves that constitute
the ECCS (European Convention for Constructional Steelwork) curves [125], while ABNT
NBR 8800:2008 [108] uses the 2P design curve provided by the SSRC (Structural Stability
Research Council) [116]. However, according to Rossi et al. [116], the Perry–Robertson
curves were developed considering only steel elements under bending. This situation can
lead to an inaccurate determination of the LDB strength in steel-concrete composite beams.
On the other hand, the 2P curve provided by SSRC is the result of experimental tests of
steel elements under compression.
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 18 of 35
Differently from the standards that are fundamental in the inverted U-frame model,
the North American standards (AISC 360-16 [103] and AASHTO 2017 [104]) and Australian
standards (AS4100: 1998 R2016 [105] and AS/NZS2327-2017 [106]) present adaptations
of the classic lateral-torsional buckling theories of partially constrained beams. These
methodologies consider only the steel I-beam as a resistant cross-section against LDB.
Equation (46) determines the I-section plastic moment (Mpl.I.-beam ).
tw h2w − D02

t f + hw

M pl I −beam = 2b f t f + (46)
2 4
AASHTO [104] proposes modifications to the LTB formulation of steel I-beams present
in AISC [103]. On the other hand, the Australian standards (AS4100: 1998 R2016 [105]
and AS/NZS2327-2017 [106]) present a method that evaluates the so-called critical flange
that is not restricted against instability phenomena [116]. According to the above, there
are differences between the standard procedures. Table 8 presents the formulations for
determining the LDB ultimate moment present in the mentioned standards, except the
North American standards (AISC 360-16 [103] and AASHTO 2017 [104]), as they will not be
covered in this work. In Table 8, le is the effective length according to the codes [105,106].
Table 8. Procedures for determining the LDB strength in SCCB. Adapted from Rossi et al. [29].
Source EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] NBR 8800: 2008 [108] Australian Standards [105,106]
Mu,dist = χ LT M pl −C.beam Mu,dist = χM pl −C.beam Mu,dist = αm αs M pl I −beam ≤ M pl I −beam
−1 1.7Mm∧ x
≤ 2.5
q
2
λ0 ≤ 1.5 : χ = 0.658λ0
2 αm = q
χ LT = φLT + φ2LT − λ LT ≤1 ( M )2 +( M3 )2 +( M4 )2 ]
Mu χ = 0.877/λ20
λ0 > 1.5 : q v" [ 2 
2
h i #
u 2 
φLT = 0.5 1 + α LT λ LT − 0.2 + λ LT M pl M pl
u
M pl −C.beam I − beam I − beam
q λ0 = Mcr
αs = 0.6 t Mcr +3 − Mcr
M pl −C.beam  
λ LT = Mcr
Formulation proposed by
Formulations developed based on the
rn
π 2 EIy
h io
Mcr Roik et al. [118] π 2 ECw
U-frame model (Sections 2.1.3–2.1.5) Mcr = le2
GJ + le2
(Section 2.1.3)
Salah [58] performed experimental tests on twelve composite beams with web open-
ings under hogging bending. The author also numerically investigated the behavior of the
models tested using the ABAQUS software. Salah [58] used the results of these investiga-
tions to validate the direct strength equation developed to verify the Mu to LDB. According
to Gizejowski and Salah [126], calculations were performed to predict the relative slender-
ness λ in terms of the elastic buckling load factor Λcr and the limit load factor Λpl . For
each tested beam, the dimensionless distortion buckling load Λb ,exp / Λpl was calculated,
where Λb ,exp is the experimentally obtained distortional buckling load factor. The results
were compared with the predictions of the Λb,dsm / Λpl direct strength method, according to
Equations (47) and (48).
Λb,dsm

1 1
= α1 − α2 k (47)
Λ pl λ λ
k
s
Λ pl
λ = (48)
Λcr
From the parametric study of Salah [58], the author obtained the following constants
for Equation (47): α1 = 0.75, α2 = 0.11, and k = 1. The proposed methodology was compared
with the results of the experimental tests. The authors concluded that the proposed method
provides safe results of the LDB-resistant capacity of the composite beams with web
openings.
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 19 of 35
2.3. LDB Experimental and Numerical Investigations

Salah [58] and Gizejowski and Salah [59] performed experimental investigations on
twelve beams. Two sets of specimens were assessed, six with long spans to represent the
cases where bending is predominant in the behavior of composite beams and another six
short spans to the instances where shear is dominant. The specimens had rectangular,
circular, and hexagonal openings, and for a beam with equal geometry, the steel was varied
(S355 and S420). The authors observed the lateral distortional mode predominance (LDB)
in the long-span beams with circular and hexagonal openings, showing a significant lateral
displacement in the I-section lower flange and a small deformation with web distortion
(Figure 16a). This failure occurred due to the significantly hogging moment and because
these beams have longer unrestrained lengths than those with a short span, which favors
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
global lateral instability. On the other hand, in the short-span beams there occurred a 21 of 37
torsional-distortional mode (WPB) with a not significant contribution of lateral lower flange
deformations (Figure 16b). This failure mode is characteristic of beams with a predominance
of shear forces, the case of the short-span beams, in which the shear force was more critical
was more critical than the hogging moment. In addition, this behavior was also noted in
than the hogging moment. In addition, this behavior was also noted in the beams with
the beams with rectangular openings and long spans, as, due to the lower web post area
rectangular openings and long spans, as, due to the lower web post area than the ones
than the ones
with circular andwith circularopenings,
rectangular and rectangular openings,
these beams are morethese beamstoare
susceptible themore susceptible
local web
to the local web
post-failure modes.post-failure modes.
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Experimental tests by Salah [58] and Gizejowski and Salah [59]: (a) Lateral distortional
Figure 16. Experimental tests by Salah [58] and Gizejowski and Salah [59]: (a) Lateral distortional
mode; (b) Torsional-distortional mode.
mode; (b) Torsional-distortional mode.
Salah [58] also performed a sensitivity analysis of the numerical models developed in
Salah [58]
the ABAQUS also performed
software, which wasaverified
sensitivity
withanalysis of the numerical
the experimental models
results obtained by developed
the
in the ABAQUS
author. Furthermore, software,
the authorwhich was verified
conducted with the
a parametric studyexperimental
using validatedresults obtained by
numerical
models.
the SalahFurthermore,
author. [58] observed, the by the deformations
author conducted obtained numerically,
a parametric that the
study slender
using validated
sections of composite beams fail by excessive bending, presenting the LDB
numerical models. Salah [58] observed, by the deformations obtained numerically, thatbefore reaching the
loadslender
the of the Vierendeel mechanismbeams
sections of composite in thefail
beam
by plane.
excessive bending, presenting the LDB before
Gizejowski and Salah [97] analyzed the continuous composite cellular beams behavior
reaching the load of the Vierendeel mechanism in the beam plane.
via geometrically nonlinear analysis. The authors noted that the buckling mode in short-
Gizejowski and Salah [97] analyzed the continuous composite cellular beams
span beams is characterized by the interaction between LDB and WPB. On the other hand,
behavior
in long-spanviabeams,
geometrically nonlinear
the instability mode analysis.
changes toTheLDB.authors noted that the buckling mode
in short-span
Oliveira et al. [98] carried out numerical investigations onbetween
beams is characterized by the interaction LDBofand
the behavior WPB. On the
composite
other hand,
cellular beamsinsubjected
long-span to beams,
hogging the instability
moment. mode observed
The authors changes that
to LDB.
models subjected
to uniform hogging moment distribution (without shear loads) reached
Oliveira et al. [98] carried out numerical investigations on the behavior failure by LDBof orcomposite
its
interaction with compression tee yielding (CTY). In contrast, the models
cellular beams subjected to hogging moment. The authors observed that models subjectedsubjected to linear
hogging
to uniform moment
hoggingdistribution
moment (with shear loads)
distribution reached shear
(without failureloads)
by WPB with thefailure
reached formation
by LDB or
of plastic mechanism (PM), LDB, LDB+CTY, LDB+WPB+PM, LDB+WPB+PM+CTY, and
its interaction with compression tee yielding (CTY). In contrast, the models subjected to
linear hogging moment distribution (with shear loads) reached failure by WPB with the
formation of plastic mechanism (PM), LDB, LDB+CTY, LDB+WPB+PM,
LDB+WPB+PM+CTY, and LDB+WPB+CTY. According to the authors, in many models
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 20 of 35
LDB+WPB+CTY. According to the authors, in many models with lower global slenderness
(L/ry ) and subjected to linear hogging moment, the ultimate moment to LDB reached
values above the plastic moment of the composite section. Oliveira et al. [98] concluded
that the I-section dimensions were the parameters that had the most significant influence
on the load-carrying capacity of the models.
Oliveira et al. [99] conducted elastic analyses and compared them with the inelastic
assessments previously performed by Oliveira et al. [98]. Analyzing the first positive
eigenvector of the beams, the authors observed buckling modes characterized by LDB,
WPB, TLB, web local buckling (WLB), and the interaction between them. Furthermore,
Oliveira et al. [99] verified that the instability modes by TLB and WLB did not occur in the
inelastic analysis.
According to the above, the behavior of composite cellular beams under hogging
bending requires further investigation. There is still no knowledge about the influence
of composite cellular beam parameters, such as the dimensions of the slab cross-section
degree,and
(height expansion
width),ratio
slabof the cellular
typology, the profile, mechanical
longitudinal properties
reinforcement of structural
ratio, steel (E,
shear interaction
fdegree,
y, fu), and the use of asymmetric I-sections.
expansion ratio of the cellular profile, mechanical properties of structural steel (E,
fy , fu ),As
anddescribed
the use ofinasymmetric
this section,I-sections.
there are many possibilities to calculate the ultimate
moment As described in this section, there are alveolar
to LDB of steel-concrete composite beams. Mosttoofcalculate
many possibilities these approaches still
the ultimate
need to have
moment to LDB their precisions measured
of steel-concrete composite foralveolar
the beams in question,
beams. Most of mainly for composite
these approaches still
castellated
need to havebeams, in which there
their precisions is no assessment
measured for the beamspresent in the bibliography.
in question, This way,
mainly for composite
Section 3 deals
castellated beams,within the accuracy
which there isverification of allpresent
no assessment approaches
in theshown in this section
bibliography. for
This way,
composite castellated and cellular beams.
Section 3 deals with the accuracy verification of all approaches shown in this section for
composite castellated and cellular beams.
3. Accuracy Obtained by LDB Resistance Formulations
3. Accuracy
To verifyObtained by LDB
the accuracy Resistance
of the Formulations
calculation procedures presented in Sections 2.1 and 2.2,
To verify
the results the accuracy
obtained of the
by these calculation
procedures procedures
were compared presented in Sections 2.1results
to the experimental and 2.2, of
the results obtained by these procedures were compared to the experimental
Salah [58]. Four composite alveolar beams which reached the failure by LDB were used, results of
Salah [58]. cellular
two with Four composite
I-sectionalveolar
(C4S355 beams
and which
C4S420)reached
and twothe failure by LDB were
with castellated used,
I-section
two with cellular
(H4S355 I-sectionas
and H4S420), (C4S355 and C4S420)
illustrated in Figureand17.
twoTable
with castellated
9 describesI-section (H4S355
the geometric
and H4S420),ofasthe
parameters illustrated in Figure
specimens, and 17. Table
Table 10 9presents
describestheir
the geometric
mechanical parameters
propertiesof andthe
specimens, and Table 10 presents their mechanical properties and ultimate
ultimate load (Pu). As these specimens are the only ones in the literature with the load (P u ). As
these specimens are the only ones in the literature with the instability
instability mode characterized by LDB, there are no experimental results of othermode characterized
by LDB, there
composite are no beams
alveolar experimental
to use results
in this of othertocomposite
study verify the alveolar beams
accuracy to use
of the in this
analytical
study to verify the accuracy of the
formulations from Sections 2.1 and 2.2. analytical formulations from Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
(a) (b)
Figure 17.
Figure 17. Analyzed
Analyzed beams:
beams: (a)
(a) C4S355
C4S355 and
and C4S420;
C4S420; (b)
(b) H4S355
H4S355 and
and H4S420.
H4S420. Adapted
Adapted from
from [58].
[58].
Table9.9.Geometric
Table Geometricparameters
parametersof
ofthe
thespecimens
specimens(in
(inmm
mmand
andmm
mm22).).
Specimen L dg bf tf tw D0 bw s p *n Abar c
Specimen L dg b tf tw D0 bw s p *n Abar c
C4S355 2116 480 100f 6 4 336 193 92 529 4 1256.64 50
C4S355
C4S420 2116
2116 480
480 100
100 6 6 4 4336 336
193 193
92 92
529 5294 4 1256.64
1256.64 50
50
C4S420 2116 480 100 6 4 336 193 92 529 4 1256.64 50
H4S355
H4S355 2116
2116 480
480 100
100 6 6 4 4321 193
321 92
193 529
92 5294 4 1256.64
1256.64 50
50
H4S420
H4S420 2116
2116 480
480 100
100 6 6 4 4321 193
321 92
193 529
92 5294 4 1256.64
1256.64 50
50
* n is the number of openings.
* n is the number of openings.
Table 10. Mechanical properties and ultimate load of the specimens.
Specimen E (GPa) fy (MPa) fy,bar (MPa) Pu (kN)

C4S355 200 355 459.6 59.56
C4S420 200 420 459.6 62.26
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 21 of 35
Table 10. Mechanical properties and ultimate load of the specimens.
Specimen E (GPa) fy (MPa) fy ,bar (MPa) Pu (kN)

C4S355 200 355 459.6 59.56
C4S420 200 420 459.6 62.26
H4S355 200 355 459.6 62.03
H4S420 200 420 459.6 62.55
The used methodologies are adaptations of procedures developed to verify the LDB
in composite beams without web openings, so it was necessary to adopt geometric prop-
erties that were adapted to sections of the alveolar beams, as presented in Section 2. The
approaches presented by Sonck and Belis (J2T,Average ) [114,115] and Carvalho, Rossi, and
Martins (solid, double T, average, superficial, and linear weighting section) [94] were utilized.
To determine the rotational stiffness of the web (k2 ), the adaptation proposed by Müller
et al. [111] and Silva et al. [113] was adopted for cellular and castellated beams, respectively.
The graphs below show the comparison of the experimental results of Salah [58]
with the following calculation procedures to determine the Mu ,dist to the LDB: AS4100:
1998 R2016 [105] and AS/NZS2327-2017 [106], EN 1994- 1-1: 2004 [107], ABNT NBR 8800:
2008 [108] and Salah [58]. The proposition of Roik et al. [118] is described in the Brazilian
code (ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108]) to calculate the Mcr . On the other hand, Eurocode 4 (EN
1994- 1-1: 2004 [107]) does not specify a formulation to obtain the Mcr . However, this code
proposes calculation methodologies based on the inverted-U frame model. The equations
of Roik et al. [118], Hanswille et al. [117], and Dias et al. [120] are based on the model in
question. These methodologies and those proposed by Svensson [121] and Williams and
Jemah [122] to determine Mcr were also used in the calculation of Salah’s proposition [58]
for the determination of Mu ,dist . The proposition by Dias et al. [120] considers only the
uniform hogging moment configuration. However, the procedure by Oliveira [123] was
used, which adopted the proposal by Dias et al. [120] for other loading settings. In the
graphs below, the capital letters S, W, R, H, and O mean that the procedure for determining
the Mu ,dist is the calculation of the Mcr from the propositions of Svensson [121], Williams
and Jemah [122], Roik et al. [118], Hanswille et al. [117], and Oliveira [123], respectively.
The ratio between the ultimate moment theoretical and the ultimate moment of the tests
(Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test ) with values above 1 represent unsafe results.
From Figures 18 and 19, it is noted that most code’s adaptation methods provided
unsafe results. The procedures that had conservative results were: ABNT NBR 8800:
2008 [108] for all geometric properties approaches (Figures 18b and 19b); and EN 1994-1-1:
2004 [107], from Mcr determination by Roik et al. [118] for all approaches, and Mcr by
Oliveira [123] for J2T,Average and double T (Figures 18c and 19c). Among these formulations,
EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] with Mcr by Oliveira [123] and J2T,Average was the formulation that
had the highest average of the ratio (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 0.951), followed by the same
equations with double T geometric properties (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 0.949). For ABNT NBR
8800: 2008 [108], the highest Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test value (0.83) was obtained with the solid
section (Figure 18b). The methods that had non-conservative results were: AS4100:1998
R2016 [105] for all geometric properties approaches (Figures 18a and 19a); EN 1994-1-1:
2004 [107] with Mcr by Hanswille et al. [117] for all geometric properties approaches; and
EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] with Mcr by Oliveira [123] for the solid, average, superficial, and linear
weighting section (Figures 18c and 19c). EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] with Mcr by Hanswille
et al. [117] and solid section obtained the most unsafe results within the code’s adaptations,
having the highest Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test value equal to 1.97. For EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] with
Mcr by Hanswille et al. [117], the solid, average, superficial, and linear weighting section pro-
vided Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test values above 1.5, which shows the significant non-conservatism
of then. Within the other combinations of Mu and Mcr equations with unsafe results, the
Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test values were: AS4100:1998 R2016 [105] for solid section (1.42); and EN
1994-1-1: 2004 [107] with Mcr by Oliveira [123] for solid section (1.32). Another issue is that
no significant differences were observed between the accuracies obtained for the models
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 22 of 35
with circular and hexagonal openings considering the same calculation method. For the
Australian code (AS4100:1998 R2016 [105]), the geometric properties considering J2T,Average ,
double T and average section had similar values to Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test (Figures 18a and 19a),
which also occurred with superficial and linear weighting sections in the composite cellular
beams (Figure 18a). On the other hand, superficial and linear weighting section provided lower
values of Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test than J2T,Average , double T, and average section in the composite
castellated beams (Figure 19a). In addition, these geometric properties approaches pre-
sented a trend for the other procedures, shown in Figures 18 and 19. This trend is double T,
J2T,Average , linear weighting, average, superficial weighting, and solid section from the smallest to
highest values of Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test (Figures 18 and 19). Finally, the only methodologies
that obtained safe results for all section approaches were EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] and ABNT
NBR 8800: 2008 [108] with Mcr by Roik et al. [118].
1.6 1
1.4
0.8
Mu-Theoretical/Mu-test
1.2
1 0.6
0.8
0.6 0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0
C4S355 C4S420 C4S355-R C4S420-R
Specimen and Mcr-proposition Specimen and Mcr-proposition
J2T-av Double T Solid J2T-av Double T Solid

Average Superficial Linear Average Superficial Linear
(a) (b)
2
1.5
0.5
0
C4S355-R C4S420-R C4S355-H C4S420-H C4S355-O C4S420-O
Specimen and Mcr-proposition
J2T-av Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear
(c)
Figure 18. Accuracy obtained by the code’s adaptation approaches for composite cellular beams: (a)
Figure 18. Accuracy
AS4100:1998 obtained
R2016 [105]; by the
(b) ABNT code’s
NBR 8800:adaptation approaches
2008 [108]; (c) for 2004
EN 1994- 1-1: composite
[107]. cellular beams:
(a) AS4100:1998 R2016 [105]; (b) ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108]; (c) EN 1994- 1-1: 2004 [107].
Buildings
Buildings 2023,
2023, 13,13,
808x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 23
37of 35
1.6 1
1.4
0.8
1.2
1 0.6
0.8
0.6 0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0
H4S355 H4S420 H4S355-R H4S420-R
Specimen and Mcr-proposition Specimen and Mcr-proposition
J2T-av Double T Solid J2T-av Double T Solid

Average Superficial Linear Average Superficial Linear
(a) (b)
2
1.5
0.5
0
H4S355-R H4S420-R H4S355-H H4S420-H H4S355-O H4S420-O
(c)
Figure 19. Accuracy obtained by the code’s adaptation approaches for composite castellated beams:
Figure 19. Accuracy
(a) AS4100:1998 obtained
R2016 byABNT
[105]; (b) the code’s adaptation
NBR 8800: approaches
2008 [108]; for composite
(c) EN 1994- castellated beams:
1-1: 2004 [107].
(a) AS4100:1998 R2016 [105]; (b) ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108]; (c) EN 1994- 1-1: 2004 [107].
Figures 20 and 21 show that most approaches with Salah’s Mu proposition [58]
Figures
provided 20 and
unsafe 21 show
results. Thisthat most approaches
Mu formulation with M with Salah’s Mu proposition
cr by Roik et al.
[58] ,pro-
[118] for J2T,Average
vided unsafe results. This M u
double T, average section, superficial, formulation with M cr
and linear weighting by Roik et al. [118] for
section were the procedures J 2T,Average double
, that T,
average section, superficial,
had conservative and linear20a
results (Figures weighting
and 21a). section
Among were the calculation
these proceduresmethodologies,
that had conserva-
tive
the results
one with (Figures 20a and 21a).
the superficial Among
weighting these
section calculation
had the highest methodologies,
average of the theratio
one with(Mu- the
superficial weighting
Theoretical/Mu-test section
= 0.902), had the
followed highest
by the average
average sectionof(Mthe ratio /M
u-Theoretical (Mu-test = 0.863).
u-Theoretical /MThe use
u-test = 0.902),
of
followed
Mcr, proposed by thebyaverage
Roik etsection (Mu-Theoretical
al. [118], with solid/M u-test =
section and0.863).
Mcr by The use of M
Oliveira cr, proposed
[123] with the by
Roik et al.
J2T,Averange [118],
, and with
double solid section
T section provided Mcrmost
and the by Oliveira [123] with
similar results againstthetheJ2T,Averange , and double
tests. However,
Tthe
section provided the most similar results against the tests.
results of the models C4S420 and H4S420 were non-conservative (Figures 20a and 21a).However, the results of the
models C4S420 and H4S420 were non-conservative (Figures
The methods that obtained non-conservative results were: Mcr by Roik et al. [118] with 20a and 21a). The methods
that
solidobtained
section; and non-conservative
Mcr by Hanswille results Mcr by Roik
were:Oliveira
et al. [117], [123],et al. [118][121],
Svensson with andsolidWilliams
section; and
Mand
cr by Jemah [122] for
Hanswille all [117],
et al. geometric properties
Oliveira approaches.
[123], Svensson Some
[121], and methodologies
Williams andfall into [122]
Jemah a
for all geometric properties approaches. Some methodologies fall into a high level of non-
conservatism with Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test values above 2, such as Mcr by Hanswille et al. [117]
with solid section; Mcr by Svensson [121] and Williams and Jemah [122] with solid, average,
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 24 of 35

high level of non-conservatism with Mu-Theoretical/Mu-test values above 2, such as Mcr by
Hanswille et al. [117] with solid section; Mcr by Svensson [121] and Williams and Jemah
[122] with solid, average, superficial, and linear weighting section. Within these methods, Mcr
superficial, and linear weighting section. Within these methods, Mcr by Svensson [121] and
by Svensson [121] and Williams and Jemah [122] with solid section presented Mu-Theoretical/Mu-
Williams and Jemah [122] with solid section presented Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test values above 2.5.
test values above 2.5. The most unsafe result was observed in Mcr by Svensson [121] and
The most
solid section unsafe
, havingresult was observed
a Mu-Theoretical in Mequal
/Mu-test value cr by Svensson
to 2.65 for [121] and solidC4S420
the specimen section,(Figure
having a
M u-Theoretical
20b). /M u-test value equal to 2.65 for the specimen C4S420 (Figure
Other formulations with significant non-conservatism provided Mu-Theoretical/Mu-test 20b). Other formu-
lations with significant non-conservatism
values above 1.5, such as Mcr by Hanswille et al. [117] with provided M u-Theoretical /M u-test T, superficial, 1.5,
J2T,Average, double values above
such as M by Hanswille et al. [117]
and linearcrweighting; and Mcr by Svensson [121] with J 2T,Average , double T, superficial,
and Williams and Jemah [122], and linear
with weighting;
double
and Mcr by
T section . AsSvensson
well as for[121]
theandcode’s Williams
adaptationand Jemah
methods [122], with18
(Figures double
and T section.
19), As well
significant
as for the code’s
differences wereadaptation
not observed methods between (Figures 18 and 19),
the accuracies significant
obtained for differences
the models were with not
observed
circular and between the accuracies
hexagonal openingsobtained
considering for the
the models with circular
same calculation and hexagonal
method (Figures 20a open-
ings
andconsidering
21a). Finally,the thesame
samecalculation
trend of themethod geometric (Figures
section20a and 21a). in
approaches Finally,
Figures the18same
and 19trend
ofare
thenoted
geometric section
in Figures 20 approaches
and 21, in which, in Figures
from 18 theand 19 aretonoted
smallest in Figures
the highest 20 and
values of M21,
u- in
which, from the smallest to the highest values of
Theoretical/Mu-test, is double T, J2T,Average, linear weighting, average M /M
, superficial
u-Theoretical , is double T, J
u-testweighting, and2T,Average
solid ,
linear
section. weighting, average, superficial weighting, and solid section.
2
1.5
0.5
0
C4S355-R C4S420-R C4S355-H C4S420-H C4S355-O C4S420-O
(a)
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
C4S355-S C4S420-S C4S355-W C4S420-W
Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear
(b)
Figure 20. Accuracy obtained by the Salah’s Mu proposition [58] for composite cellular beams: (a) Mcr
calculation based on the U-frame model; (b) Mcr calculation proposed by Svensson [121] and Williams
and Jemah [122].
Figure 20. Accuracy obtained by the Salah’s Mu proposition [58] for composite cellular beams: (a)
Mcr calculation based on the U-frame model; (b) Mcr calculation proposed by Svensson [121] and
Williams and Jemah [122].
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 25 of 35
2
1.5
0.5
0
H4S355-R H4S420-R H4S355-H H4S420-H H4S355-O H4S420-O
(a)
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
H4S355-S H4S420-S H4S355-W H4S420-W
Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear
(b)
Figure 21. Accuracy obtained by the Salah’s Mu proposition [58] for composite castellated beams:
Figure 21. Accuracy obtained by the Salah’s Mu proposition [58] for composite castellated beams:
(a) Mcr calculation based on the U-frame model; (b) Mcr calculation proposed by Svensson [121] and
(a) Mcr calculation
Williams and Jemah [122].on the U-frame model; (b) Mcr calculation proposed by Svensson [121] and
based
Williams and Jemah [122].
Table 11 shows the Mu-Theoretical/Mu-test values obtained by the calculation procedure of
Table 11 shows
AS4100:1998 R2016the Mu-Theoretical
[105]. As noted,/Mu-test all values obtained
geometric by the approaches
property calculation procedure
provide of
AS4100:1998
significantly R2016
unsafe[105]. As noted,
results, with M allu-Theoretical
geometric /Mu-testproperty
values approaches
above 1.23. provide
This may significantly
occur
unsafe
becauseresults,
the codewith Mu-Theoretical
disregards some /Mfactors
u-test values above 1.23.
that occurred This
in the may occur
specimens, because
such as thethewebcode
disregards some
distortion and factors
the that occurred
interaction with local infailure
the specimens,
modes (WPB).such as
Onthe
theweb
otherdistortion
hand, ABNT and the
interaction
NBR 8800:with 2008local
[108]failure modes
provides only(WPB).
safe resultsOn theasother hand,in
described ABNT
TableNBR 8800:
12, in 2008
which [108]
the
provides only safeofresults
highest average as described
the ratio (Mu-Theoreticalin
/MTable
u-test = 12,
0.80) in was
which the highest
obtained with average
the solidofsection
the ratio
(Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 0.80) was obtained with the solid section approach. In addition, the
double T section had the most conservative result (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test average = 0.66).
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 26 of 35
Table 11. Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test obtained by the calculation procedure of AS4100:1998 R2016 [105].
Geometric Properties Approach

Model
J2T-Average Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear
C4S355 1.22 1.22 1.38 1.22 1.17 1.17
C4S420 1.27 1.27 1.42 1.27 1.27 1.27
H4S355 1.18 1.18 1.32 1.18 1.18 1.18
H4S420 1.28 1.28 1.42 1.29 1.29 1.28
Avg. 1.24 1.24 1.39 1.24 1.23 1.23
SD. (%) 4.77 4.75 4.52 4.78 6.09 6.07
Var. (%) 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.37 0.37
Table 12. Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test obtained by the calculation procedure of ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108].
Geometric Properties Approach

Model
J2T-Average Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear
C4S355 0.69 0.67 0.83 0.76 0.78 0.74
C4S420 0.69 0.67 0.79 0.74 0.75 0.71
H4S355 0.67 0.65 0.79 0.73 0.75 0.71
H4S420 0.68 0.67 0.79 0.73 0.75 0.72
Avg. 0.68 0.66 0.80 0.74 0.76 0.72
SD. (%) 1.05 0.92 2.01 1.42 1.51 1.36
Var. (%) 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02
Table 13 presents the Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test values provided by the standard recommen-
dation of EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107]. As observed, utilizing the Mcr calculation proposed
by Roik et al. [118], this code obtained safe results for all geometric property approaches,
with the highest average of the ratio (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 0.71) obtained with the solid
section approach. In addition, considering all the results in Table 13, the Mcr proposition
by Hanswille et al. [117], with the solid section, had the most unsafe Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test
values, having an average equal to 1.90. As previously stated, using Mcr by Oliveira [123]
and J2T,Average , EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] formulation had the highest average of the ratio
(Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 0.951) considering only the safe values, followed by the double T
section approach (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 0.949). Finally, within all methods analyzed in
this study, the most conservative results were obtained by EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] rec-
ommendation with Mcr by Roik et al. [118] and the double T section (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test
average = 0.58).
Within all formulations analyzed in this work, Salah’s Mu proposition [58] with Mcr by
Roik et al. [118] and solid section, as well as with Oliveira [123] and the double T section, had
the better average of the ratio (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 1.00), as shown in Table 14. However,
these formulations provided unsafe results for the specimens C4S420 and H4S420. On the
other hand, among the results presented in Table 14, the most unsafe results were obtained
using Mcr by Hanswille et al. [117] and solid section (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test average = 2.06).
As noted, all results presented in Table 14 were significantly unsafe. Within all for-
mulations analyzed in the present review paper, Salah’s Mu proposition [58] with Mcr by
Svensson [121] and the solid section provided the most unsafe results, in which the average
Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test ratio was 2.55 (Table 15). This way, one must have a critical eye when
adopting the propositions of Svensson [121] and Williams and Jemah [122] to determine
the Mcr .
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 27 of 35
Table 13. Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test obtained by the calculation procedure of EN 1994- 1-1: 2004 [107].
Mcr Proposition/* Geometric Properties Approach

Model Roik et al. [118] Hanswille et al. [117] Oliveira [123]
J2T-Avg Db. T Solid Avg. Sup. Lin. J2T-Avg Db. T Solid Avg. Sup. Lin. J2T-Avg Db. T Solid Avg. Sup. Lin.
C4S355 0.60 0.58 0.73 0.66 0.68 0.64 1.24 1.24 1.86 1.57 1.66 1.48 0.94 0.93 1.31 1.14 1.19 1.09
C4S420 0.59 0.58 0.72 0.65 0.67 0.62 1.34 1.34 1.97 1.68 1.77 1.59 0.97 0.97 1.32 1.16 1.21 1.11
H4S355 0.58 0.56 0.70 0.64 0.65 0.62 1.22 1.22 1.79 1.52 1.60 1.44 0.92 0.91 1.26 1.10 1.15 1.05
H4S420 0.59 0.58 0.71 0.65 0.67 0.63 1.37 1.37 1.96 1.69 1.77 1.60 0.98 0.98 1.31 1.16 1.21 1.11
Avg. 0.59 0.58 0.71 0.65 0.67 0.63 1.29 1.29 1.90 1.61 1.70 1.53 0.95 0.95 1.30 1.14 1.19 1.09
SD. (%) 0.94 0.83 1.39 1.11 1.19 1.09 7.35 7.35 8.89 8.30 8.51 8.07 2.93 2.91 2.96 2.88 2.89 2.87
Var.(%) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.54 0.54 0.79 0.69 0.72 0.65 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08
* Db. T is the double T, Avg. is the Average, Sup. is the Superficial, and Lin. is the Linear weighting section approaches.
Table 14. Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test obtained by the calculation procedure of Salah’s Mu proposition [58] with Mcr calculation based on the U-frame model.
Mcr Proposition/*Geometric Properties Approach

Model Roik et al. [118] Hanswille et al. [117] Oliveira [123]
J2T-Avg Db. T Solid Avg. Sup. Lin. J2T-Avg Db. T Solid Avg. Sup. Lin. J2T-Avg Db. T Solid Avg. Sup. Lin.
C4S355 0.72 0.71 1.00 0.86 0.90 0.82 1.50 1.49 2.04 1.79 1.86 1.72 0.99 0.99 1.42 1.21 1.27 1.15
C4S420 0.74 0.73 1.03 0.88 0.92 0.83 1.58 1.58 2.13 1.88 1.95 1.80 1.03 1.03 1.47 1.26 1.32 1.20
H4S355 0.70 0.69 0.96 0.83 0.86 0.79 1.46 1.46 1.96 1.73 1.80 1.66 0.97 0.97 1.36 1.17 1.23 1.12
H4S420 0.75 0.74 1.02 0.88 0.92 0.85 1.60 1.60 2.12 1.88 1.95 1.80 1.04 1.04 1.46 1.26 1.32 1.20
Avg. 0.73 0.72 1.00 0.86 0.90 0.82 1.53 1.53 2.06 1.82 1.89 1.74 1.01 1.00 1.43 1.23 1.28 1.17
SD. (%) 2.39 2.34 3.28 2.78 2.75 2.40 6.67 6.66 7.84 7.25 7.42 7.08 3.54 3.53 4.86 4.16 4.36 3.98
Var.(%) 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.61 0.52 0.55 0.50 0.13 0.12 0.24 0.17 0.19 0.16
* Db. T is the double T, Avg. is the Average, Sup. is the Superficial, and Lin. is the Linear weighting section approaches.
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 28 of 35
Table 15. Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test obtained by the calculation procedure of Salah’s Mu proposition [58] with Mcr calculation proposed by Svensson [121] and Williams
and Jemah [122].
Mcr Proposition/Geometric Properties Approach

Model Svensson [121] Williams and Jemah [122]
Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear
C4S355 1.66 2.51 2.10 2.22 1.99 1.65 2.48 2.08 2.19 1.96
C4S420 1.78 2.65 2.23 2.35 2.11 1.76 2.61 2.20 2.30 2.05
H4S355 1.64 2.41 2.04 2.15 1.93 1.62 2.38 2.02 2.12 1.91
H4S420 1.82 2.64 2.24 2.35 2.13 1.80 2.60 2.21 2.32 2.10
Avg. 1.72 2.55 2.15 2.27 2.04 1.71 2.52 2.12 2.23 2.01
SD. (%) 8.57 11.06 9.68 10.05 9.34 8.34 10.78 9.43 9.36 8.45
Var. (%) 0.73 1.22 0.94 1.01 0.87 0.70 1.16 0.89 0.88 0.71
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 29 of 35
4. Discussion
Due to a gap in the studies that investigated composite alveolar beams under hogging
bending, there are no studies that investigated all possible failure modes in these structures.
However, based on the main observations by the works presented in this literature review,
it was observed that the composite alveolar beams subjected to hogging bending could
reach failure by LDB, WPB, the formation of plastic mechanisms, and their interactions.
It is noted that the assessment presented in Section 3 is limited, as it addresses only
four specimens (C4S355, C4S420, H4S355, and H4S420). Furthermore, when verifying the
same formulations addressed in this study for beams with other geometries and materials,
the calculation procedures can obtain different precisions from those presented in Section 3.
Salah [58] tested the other four composite cellular and castellated beams with short spans
(C2S355, C2S420, C2S355, and C2S420). However, these beams reach failure predominantly
by WPB. This way, formulations for WPB resistance must be verified.
Furthermore, it is also essential to investigate the influence of other parameters not
assessed in Salah’s experimental tests [58]. According to the LDB studies discussed in
Section 2.3, the only parameters that have already been analyzed are the unrestrained
length, the web openings pattern, the strength of the steel I-beam, the I-section dimensions,
hogging moment distribution, the opening diameter of composite cellular beams, and the
web post width of composite cellular beams. This way, suggestions for future investigations
are stated in Section 5.
LDB resistance predictions provided by the standard codes do not comprehend com-
posite alveolar beams, having only the formulations for composite beams with solid webs.
This way, it is necessary to use adaptation approaches for beams with web openings. An-
other critical point is that calculation propositions directly developed to verify the Mcr to
LDB of the composite alveolar beams were not found in the literature. Only adaptations
made by authors who proposed changes to the methodologies that consider the verifi-
cation of the Mcr of composite beams without web openings were found. From these
adaptations, it is possible to obtain the Mu to LDB by the methodologies presented by
Salah [58] and the European standards (EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107]) and Brazilian standards
(ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108]). In addition to these methodologies, using the geometric
properties of alveolar sections presented by Sonck and Belis [114,115] and Carvalho, Rossi,
and Martins [94], it is also possible to verify the Mu to LDB using the Australian stan-
dards procedure (AS4100: 1998 R2016 [105] and AS/NZS2327-2017 [106]). The accuracy of
these procedures was verified by comparing their results with the experimental results of
Salah [58]. Through this analysis, it was observed that many analyzed approaches provided
unsafe results. Among the formulations that had only safe results, the combination of
EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] with Mcr by Oliveira [123] and J2T,Average obtained the highest
average of the ratio (Mu-Theoretical /Mu-test = 0.951). Additionally, EN 1994-1-1: 2004 [107] and
ABNT NBR 8800: 2008 [108] with Mcr by Roik et al. [118] were the only methodologies that
provided conservative results for all section approaches.
As discussed, the procedures assessed in the present study are adaptations of method-
ologies for checking the LDB in steel-concrete composite beams without web openings.
Therefore, specific development design calculation for composite alveolar beams is neces-
sary to consider the possibility of WPB. However, it is a complex study to be carried out
due to the significant influence of many parameters. This way, some authors have been
using artificial intelligence algorithms, in which a reliable database with information on
the behavior of alveolar beams is adopted to generate mathematical formulations for the
beams resistance prediction [83,127–133]. These techniques were also used for the LDB
resistance prediction of beams without web openings [134–137].
5. Conclusions
The investigations on the LDB behavior of composite alveolar have few studies, in
which the assessments by Salah [58] and Gizejowski and Salah [59] are the only ones
that present experimental results. However, few parameters were evaluated in the Salah
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 30 of 35
tests [58]. These parameters were the free span under hogging bending, the opening
pattern, and the strength of the steel. According to the above, it is concluded that further
investigations are necessary to understand the LDB behavior of steel-concrete composite
alveolar beams. Many parameters that have a significant influence on the resistance capacity
of these structures need to be clarified. Therefore, some guidelines for the development of
future investigations are:
• Investigations on the influence of the concrete slab and the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio in elastic stability analysis and the LDB inelastic behavior;
• Assessments of composite beams with high-strength steel alveolar I-section and ultra-
high-performance concrete;
• The influence of the expansion factor (dg /d) of the alveolar profile;
• The influence of the presence of transverse stiffeners in the web of the alveolar profile
on the LDB behavior;
• Investigations into the influence of the use of asymmetrical alveolar profiles;
• Investigations on the LDB behavior of steel-concrete alveolar composite beams with
sinusoidal web openings;
• Investigations via experimental tests of the LDB behavior of composite alveolar beams
subjected to uniform hogging moment distribution, and others’ moment distribution;
• Calculation propositions that are directly developed for LDB verification in steel-
concrete composite alveolar beams. One option is to use artificial intelligence algo-
rithms to determine the LDB ultimate moment using a set of input parameters.
Author Contributions: V.M.d.O.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology,

Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. A.R.: Formal analysis, Methodology,
Visualization, Writing—review and editing. F.P.V.F.: Visualization, Writing—review and editing.
A.S.d.C.: Visualization, Writing—review and editing. C.H.M.: Supervision, Writing—review and
editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq)—408498/2022-6.
Data Availability Statement: Data available on request from the authors.
Acknowledgments: This study was financed by the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improve-
ment (CAPES, Brazil)—Finance Code 001 and the National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development (CNPq).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Vieira, H.C. Numerical Analysis of Web Post Buckling Due to Shear in Cellular Steel Beams [in Portuguese]. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal
University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2014.
2. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Martins, C.H.; Nardin, S. Advances in Composite Beams with Web Openings and Composite Cellular Beams. J.
Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 172, 106182. [CrossRef]
3. Oliveira, L.B. De Procedures to Define the Geometric Characteristics of Alveolar Steel Beams to Floor Systems and Roof Systems
[in Portuguese]. Master’s Thesis, Ferderal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil, 2012.
4. Erdal, F.; Saka, M.P. Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Optimally Designed Steel Cellular Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 80,
355–368. [CrossRef]
5. Grunbauer. Available online: http://www.grunbauer.nl/ (accessed on 27 February 2023).
6. AcelorMittal ACB Cellular Beams. Available online: https://constructalia.arcelormittal.com/en/products/acb (accessed on 27
February 2023).
7. UK Kloeckner Metals. Available online: https://www.kloecknermetalsuk.com/ (accessed on 27 February 2023).
8. Lawson, R.M.; Lim, J.; Hicks, S.J.; Simms, W.I. Design of Composite Asymmetric Cellular Beams and Beams with Large Web
Openings. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2006, 62, 614–629. [CrossRef]
9. Lawson, R.M.; Saverirajan, A.H.A. Simplified Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Composite Beams and Cellular Beams to Eurocode 4. J.
Constr. Steel Res. 2011, 67, 1426–1434. [CrossRef]
10. Grilo, L.F.; Fakury, R.H.; de Castro e Silva, A.L.R.; de Souza Veríssimo, G. Design Procedure for the Web-Post Buckling of Steel
Cellular Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018, 148, 525–541. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 31 of 35
11. Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Mello, C.D. Web Buckling Study of the Behaviour and Strength of Perforated Steel Beams with Different Novel
Web Opening Shapes. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2011, 67, 1605–1620. [CrossRef]
12. Shamass, R.; Guarracino, F. Numerical and Analytical Analyses of High-Strength Steel Cellular Beams: A Discerning Approach. J.
13. Benincá, M.E.; Morsch, I.B. Numerical Simulation of Composite Steel-Concrete Alveolar Beams: Web-Post Buckling, Vierendeel
and Flexural Mechanisms. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 2020, 17, 1–28. [CrossRef]
14. C-Beams. Available online: https://www.c-beams.com/ (accessed on 27 February 2023).
15. De Angelis, A.; Pecce, M.R.; Logorano, G. Evaluation of the Plastic Hinge Length of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams under
Hogging Moment. Eng. Struct. 2019, 191, 674–685. [CrossRef]
16. Rossi, A.; Nicoletti, R.S.; de Souza, A.S.C.; Martins, C.H. Numerical Assessment of Lateral Distortional Buckling in Steel-Concrete
Composite Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 172, 106192. [CrossRef]
17. Amaral, T.V.; Oliveira, J.P.S.; Calenzani, A.F.G.; Teixeira, F.B. Lateral-Distortional Buckling of Continuous Steel-Concrete Compos-
ite Beam. IBRACON Struct. Mater. J. 2018, 11, 719–737. [CrossRef]
18. Dekker, N.W.; Kemp, A.R.; Trinchero, P. Factors Influencing the Strength of Continuous Composite Beams in Negative Bending. J.
Constr. Steel Res. 1995, 34, 161–185. [CrossRef]
19. Bradford, M.A.; Gao, Z. Distortional Buckling Solutions for Restraint by Slab Distortion of Web Flange Remains Rigid. J. Struct.
Eng. 1992, 118, 73–89. [CrossRef]
20. Bradford, M.A. Distortional Buckling of Elastically Restrained Cantilevers. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1998, 47, 3–18. [CrossRef]
21. Vrcelj, Z.; Bradford, M.A. Elastic Bubble Augmented Spline Finite Strip Method in Analysis of Continuous Composite Beams.
Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 2007, 7, 75–84. [CrossRef]
22. Rossi, A.; Nicoletti, R.S.; de Souza, A.S.C.; Martins, C.H. Numerical Analysis of the Elastic Critical Moment to Lateral Distortional
Buckling of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams. Holos 2021, 8800, 1–28. [CrossRef]
23. Araujo, H.F.; Andrade, C.M.; Basaglia, C.; Camotim, D. Lateral-Distortional Buckling of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams:
Kinematics, Constrained-Mode GBT and Analytical Formulae. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 192, 107210. [CrossRef]
24. Bradford, M.A.; Johnson, R.P. Inelastic Buckling of Composite Bridge Girders Near Internal Supports. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 1987,
83, 143–159. [CrossRef]
25. Bradford, M.A. Strength of Compact Steel Beams with Partial Restraint. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2000, 53, 183–200. [CrossRef]
26. Vrcelj, Z.; Bradford, M.A. Inelastic Restrained Distortional Buckling of Continuous Composite T-Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2009,
65, 850–859. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, S.; Jia, Y. Numerical Investigation of Inelastic Buckling of Steel–Concrete Composite Beams Prestressed with External
Tendons. Thin-Walled Struct. 2010, 48, 233–242. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, S.; Wang, X. Finite Element Analysis of Distortional Lateral Buckling of Continuous Composite Beams with Transverse
Web Stiffeners. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2012, 15, 1607–1616. [CrossRef]
29. Rossi, A.; de Souza, A.S.C.; Nicoletti, R.S.; Martins, C.H. Stability Behavior of Steel–Concrete Composite Beams Subjected to
Hogging Moment. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 167, 108193. [CrossRef]
30. de Oliveira, J.P.S.; Dias, J.V.F.; Fakury, R.H.; Calenzani, A.F.G. Resistant Bending Moment to Lateral-Torsional Buckling of
Continuous Steel and Concrete Composite Beams with Transverse Stiffeners. Rev. IBRACON Estruturas e Mater. 2021, 14, 1–18.
[CrossRef]
31. Rossi, A.; Sander, A.; De Souza, C.; Silva, R.; Humberto, C. The Influence of Structural and Geometric Imperfections on the LDB
Strength of Steel—Concrete Composite Beams. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 162, 107542. [CrossRef]
32. Hope-Gill, M.C.; Johnson, R.P. Tests on Three-Span Continuous Composite Beams. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 1976, 61, 367–381.
[CrossRef]
33. Johnson, R.P.; Fan, C.K.R. Distortional Lateral Buckling of Continuous Composite Beams. Proc.—Inst. Civ. Eng. Part 2 Res. Theory
1991, 91, 131–161. [CrossRef]
34. Johnson, R.P.; Chen, S. Stability of Continuous Composite Plate Girders with U-Frame Action. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build.
1993, 99, 187–197. [CrossRef]
35. Kitaoka, S.; Kanno, R.; Hiroshima, S.; Hanya, K.; Takada, K.; Yoshida, F. Strength of Lateral-Torsional Buckling of a Composite
Steel Beam Subjected to Reverse Curvature Bending. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Composite
Construction in Steel and Concrete, Jackson, WY, USA, 29 July–2 August 2017; pp. 334–345.
36. Tong, L.; Liu, Y.; Sun, B.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, F.; Tian, H.; Sun, X. Experimental Investigation on Mechanical Behavior of Steel-Concrete
Composite Beams under Negative Bending. J. Build. Struct. 2014, 35, 1–10. [CrossRef]
37. Fan, C.X.R. Buckling in Continuous Composite Beams. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK, 1990.
38. Chen, S. Instability of Composite Beams in Hogging Bending. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK, 1992.
39. Vasdravellis, G.; Uy, B.; Tan, E.L.; Kirkland, B. Behaviour and Design of Composite Beams Subjected to Negative Bending and
Compression. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 79, 34–47. [CrossRef]
40. Vasdravellis, G.; Uy, B.; Tan, E.L.; Kirkland, B. The Effects of Axial Tension on the Hogging-Moment Regions of Composite Beams.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 68, 20–33. [CrossRef]
41. Bui, V.T.; Truong, V.H.; Trinh, M.C.; Kim, S.E. Fully Nonlinear Analysis of Steel-Concrete Composite Girder with Web Local
Buckling Effects. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2020, 184, 105729. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 32 of 35
42. Zhou, X.; Men, P.; Di, J.; Qin, F. Experimental Investigation of the Vertical Shear Performance of Steel–Concrete Composite Girders
under Negative Moment. Eng. Struct. 2021, 228, 111487. [CrossRef]
43. Men, P.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, Z.; Di, J.; Qin, F. Behaviour of Steel–Concrete Composite Girders under Combined Negative Moment
and Shear. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2021, 179, 106508. [CrossRef]
44. Men, P.; Di, J.; Jiang, H.; Zhou, X.; Qin, F. Web Shear Buckling of Steel–Concrete Composite Girders in Negative-Moment Regions.
Eng. Struct. 2021, 237, 112210. [CrossRef]
45. Men, P.; Di, J.; Qin, F.; Su, Y. Experimental Investigation of the Shear Behavior of Slender Continuous Steel–Concrete Composite
Girders in Hogging Moment. J. Struct. Eng. 2023, 149, 04022218. [CrossRef]
46. Hamoda, A.; Hossain, K.M.A.; Sennah, K.; Shoukry, M.; Mahmoud, Z. Behaviour of Composite High Performance Concrete Slab
on Steel I-Beams Subjected to Static Hogging Moment. Eng. Struct. 2017, 140, 51–65. [CrossRef]
47. Zhang, Y.; Cai, S.; Zhu, Y.; Fan, L.; Shao, X. Flexural Responses of Steel-UHPC Composite Beams under Hogging Moment. Eng.
Struct. 2020, 206, 110134. [CrossRef]
48. Qi, J.; Cheng, Z.; Wang, J.; Tang, Y. Flexural Behavior of Steel-UHPFRC Composite Beams under Negative Moment. Structures
2020, 24, 640–649. [CrossRef]
49. Wu, F.; Fan, Z.; He, L.; Liu, S.; Zuo, J.; Yang, F. Comparative Study of the Negative Bending Behaviour of Corrugated Web
Steel—Concrete Composite Beams Using NC, ECC and UHPC. Eng. Struct. 2023, 283, 115925. [CrossRef]
50. Fan, J.; Gou, S.; Ding, R.; Zhang, J.; Shi, Z. Experimental and Analytical Research on the Flexural Behaviour of Steel–ECC
Composite Beams under Negative Bending Moments. Eng. Struct. 2020, 210, 110309. [CrossRef]
51. Wang, Y.-H.; Yu, J.; Liu, J.-P.; Zhou, B.-X.; Chen, Y.F. Experimental Study on Assembled Monolithic Steel-Prestressed Concrete
Composite Beam in Negative Moment. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 167, 105667. [CrossRef]
52. Liu, X.; Tang, L.; Jing, Y.; Xiang, J.; Tian, X.; Liu, W.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, G.; Zhao, W.; Yang, G. Behaviour of Continuous
Steel–Concrete Composite Beams Strengthened with CFRP Sheets at Hogging-Moment Region. Compos. Struct. 2022, 291, 115695.
[CrossRef]
53. Jurkiewiez, B.; Tout, F.; Ferrier, E. Push-out and Bending Tests of Steel-Concrete Adhesively Bonded Composite Elements. Eng.
Struct. 2021, 231, 111717. [CrossRef]
54. Ding, J.; Li, Y.; Xing, W.; Ren, P.; Kong, Q.; Yuan, C. Mechanical Properties and Engineering Application of Single-Span
Steel-Concrete Double-Sided Composite Beams. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 40, 102644. [CrossRef]
55. Fang, J.; Bao, W.; Ren, F.; Pang, L.; Jiang, J. Behaviour of Composite Beams with Beam-to-Girder End-Plate Connection under
Hogging Moments. Eng. Struct. 2021, 235, 112030. [CrossRef]
56. Song, Y.; Wang, J.; Uy, B.; Li, D. Behaviour and Design of Stainless Steel-Concrete Composite Beam-to-Column Joints. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2021, 184, 106800. [CrossRef]
57. Song, A.; Wan, S.; Jiang, Z.; Xu, J. Residual Deflection Analysis in Negative Moment Regions of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams
under Fatigue Loading. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 50–60. [CrossRef]
58. Salah, W.A. Modelling of Instability Behavior in Hogging Moment Regions of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams. Ph.D. Theis,
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, UK, 2009.
59. Gizejowski, M.A.; Salah, W.A. Stability and Ductility of Castellated Composite Beams Subjected to Hogging Bending. In
Proceedings of the SDSS’ Rio 2010: International Colloquium Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
8–10 September 2010; Volume 2, pp. 839–846.
60. Geng, K.; Jia, L.; Xu, F.; Li, Q. Experimental Study on the Mechanical Behaviour of Castellated Composite Beams under a Negative
Bending Moment. Structures 2023, 47, 953–965. [CrossRef]
61. Kerdal, D.; Nethercot, D.A. Failure Modes for Castellated Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1984, 4, 295–315. [CrossRef]
62. Warren, J. Ultimate Load and Deflection Behaviour of Cellular Beams. Master’s Thesis, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa,
2001.
63. Panedpojaman, P.; Thepchatri, T.; Limkatanyu, S. Novel Design Equations for Shear Strength of Local Web-Post Buckling in
Cellular Beams. Thin-Walled Struct. 2014, 76, 92–104. [CrossRef]
64. Deepha, R.; Jayalekshmi, S.; Jagadeesan, K. Nonlinear Analysis of Castellated ISMB150—I Beam with Hexagonal Openings—A
Finite Element Approach. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 27, A8–A16. [CrossRef]
65. Weidlich, C.M.; Sotelino, E.D.; Cardoso, D.C.T. An Application of the Direct Strength Method to the Design of Castellated Beams
Subject to Flexure. Eng. Struct. 2021, 243, 112646. [CrossRef]
66. de Oliveira, J.P.; Cardoso, D.C.T.; Sotelino, E.D. Elastic Flexural Local Buckling of Litzka Castellated Beams: Explicit Equations
and FE Parametric Study. Eng. Struct. 2019, 186, 436–445. [CrossRef]
67. Braga, J.J.V.; Linhares, D.A.; Cardoso, D.C.T.; Sotelino, E.D. Failure Mode and Strength Prediction of Laterally Braced Litzka-Type
Castellated Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2021, 184, 106796. [CrossRef]
68. Liu, M.; Liang, M.; Ma, Q.; Wang, P.; Ma, C. Web-Post Buckling of Bolted Castellated Steel Beam with Octagonal Web Openings. J.
69. Mohebkhah, A.; Azandariani, M.G. Shear Resistance of Retrofitted Castellated Link Beams: Numerical and Limit Analysis
Approaches. Eng. Struct. 2020, 203, 109864. [CrossRef]
70. Kang, L.; Hong, S.; Liu, X. Shear Behaviour and Strength Design of Cellular Beams with Circular or Elongated Openings.
Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 160, 107353. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 33 of 35
71. Limbachiya, V.; Shamass, R. Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Web-Post Shear Resistance of Cellular Steel Beams.
72. Zaher, O.F.; Yossef, N.M.; El-Boghdadi, M.H.; Dabaon, M.A. Structural Behaviour of Arched Steel Beams with Cellular Openings.
73. Zewudie, B.B. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis and Comparison of In-Plane Strength of Circular and Parabolic Arched I-Section
Cellular Steel Beam. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 13. [CrossRef]
74. Morkhade, S.G.; Gupta, L.M.; Martins, C.H. Effect of Web Post Width on Strength Capacity of Steel Beams with Web Openings:
Experimental and Analytical Investigation. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2022, 27, 1–9. [CrossRef]
75. Qiao, H.; Guo, Z.; Chen, Y. Experimental Investigation of a Substructure in a Frame with Castellated Steel Beams in Case of a
Column Loss. Eng. Struct. 2022, 255, 113926. [CrossRef]
76. Nawar, M.T.; Arafa, I.T.; Elhosseiny, O. Numerical Investigation on e Ff Ective Spans Ranges of Perforated Steel Beams. Structures
2020, 25, 398–410. [CrossRef]
77. França, G.M.; Weidlich, C.M.; Sotelino, E.D.; Cardoso, D.C.T. An Appraisal of the Vierendeel Mechanism Capacity of Cellular
Beams with Sinusoidal Openings. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 198, 107539. [CrossRef]
78. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Martins, C.H.; Nardin, S. Assessment of Web Post Buckling Resistance in Steel-Concrete Composite Cellular
Beams. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 158, 106969. [CrossRef]
79. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Martins, C.H.; De Nardin, S. Buckling and Post-Buckling Analyses of Composite Cellular
Beams. Compos. Struct. 2021, 262, 113616. [CrossRef]
80. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Martins, C.H.; Nardin, S. De Composite Action on Web-Post Buckling Shear Resistance of
Composite Cellular Beams with PCHCS and PCHCSCT. Eng. Struct. 2021, 246, 113065. [CrossRef]
81. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Martins, C.H.; De Nardin, S. Ultimate Strength Prediction of Steel–Concrete Composite Cellular
Beams with PCHCS. Eng. Struct. 2021, 236, 112082. [CrossRef]
82. Ponsorn, P.; Phuvoravan, K. Efficiency of Castellated and Cellular Beam Utilization Based on Design Guidelines. Pract. Period.
Struct. Des. Constr. 2020, 25, 1–11. [CrossRef]
83. Hosseinpour, M.; Sharifi, Y. Finite Element Modelling of Castellated Steel Beams under Lateral-Distortional Buckling Mode.
Structures 2021, 29, 1507–1521. [CrossRef]
84. Muhammed Jasir, T.; Raj, M.P. Numerical Investigation on Behaviour of Castellated Steel Beam in Lateral Distortional Buckling.
Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 65, 3874–3880. [CrossRef]
85. Salah, W.A. Performance of Hybrid Castellated Beams Prediction Using Finite Element Modeling. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2022, 12,
8444–8451. [CrossRef]
86. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Rossi, A.; Martins, C.H. Lateral-Torsional Buckling of Cellular Beams According to the Possible Updating of EC3.
87. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Martins, C.H. LRFD for Lateral-Torsional Buckling Resistance of Cellular Beams. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 18, 303–323.
[CrossRef]
88. Sehwail, M.M.; Celikag, M. Load Carrying Capacity of Hot-Rolled Hybrid Cellular Steel Beams: Experimental Investigations.
Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 47, 12633–12648. [CrossRef]
89. Salah, W.A. Lateral Torsional Buckling Capacity Assessment of Cellular Steel Beams. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2023, 28,
1–15. [CrossRef]
90. Ertenli, M.F.; Erdal, E.; Buyukkaragoz, A.; Kalkan, I.; Aksoylu, C.; Özkılıç, Y.O. Lateral Torsional Buckling of Doubly—Symmetric
Steel Cellular I—Beams. Steel Compos. Struct. 2023, 5, 10. [CrossRef]
91. Bhat, R.A.; Gupta, L.M. Moment-Gradient Factor for Perforated Cellular Steel Beams Under Lateral Torsional Buckling. Arab. J.
Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 8727–8743. [CrossRef]
92. Bhat, R.A.; Gupta, L.M. Interaction of Buckling Modes for Cellular Steel Beams Under Flexure. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2021, 21,
260–273. [CrossRef]
93. Khatri, A.P.; Katikala, S.R.; Kotapati, V.K. Effect of Load Height on Elastic Buckling Behavior of I-Shaped Cellular Beams.
94. de Carvalho, A.S.; Rossi, A.; Martins, C.H. Assessment of Lateral–Torsional Buckling in Steel I-Beams with Sinusoidal Web
Openings. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 175, 109242. [CrossRef]
95. de Carvalho, A.S.; de Oliveira, V.M.; Rossi, A.; Martins, C.H. Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Behavior of Steel I-Beams with
Sinusoidal Web Openings. Structures 2023, 47, 23–36. [CrossRef]
96. de Carvalho, A.S.; Martins, C.H.; Rossi, A.; de Oliveira, V.M.; Morkhade, S.G. Moment Gradient Factor for Steel I-Beams with
Sinusoidal Web Openings. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2023, 202, 107775. [CrossRef]
97. Gizejowski, M.A.; Salah, W.A. Numerical Modeling of Composite Castellated Beams. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete 2008, Tabernash, CO, USA, 20–24 July 2008; pp. 554–565. [CrossRef]
98. de Oliveira, V.M.; Rossi, A.; Ferreira, F.P.V.; Martins, C.H. Stability Behavior of Steel—Concrete Composite Cellular Beams
Subjected to Hogging Moment. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 173, 108987. [CrossRef]
99. de Oliveira, V.M.; Carvalho, d.A.S.; Rossi, A.; Ferreira, F.P.V.; Martins, C.H. Elastic and Inelastic Analyses of Composite Cellular
Beams in Hogging Moment Regions. Thin-Walled Struct. 2023, 184, 110513. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 34 of 35
100. Rossi, A.; Ferreira, F.P.V.; Martins, C.H.; Mesacasa Júnior, E.C. Assessment of Lateral Distortional Buckling Resistance in Welded
I-Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 166, 105924. [CrossRef]
101. Rossi, A.; Martins, C.H.; Nicoletti, R.S.; de Souza, A.S.C. Reassesment of Lateral Torsional Buckling in Hot-Holled I-Beams.
102. Vlasov, V.Z. Thin Walled Elastic Beams; Isr. Progr. Sci. Transl.; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, USA, 1961.
103. AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings; ANSI/AISC 360-16; Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016.
104. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
8th ed.; With 2017 Interim Provisions; AASHTO: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
105. Standards Association of Australia. AS 4100 Steel Structures. Sydney Australia, 1998; Standards Association of Australia: Sydney,
Australia, 2016.
106. Standard Association of Australia Standard Association of New Zealand. AS/NZS 2327 Composite Structures—Composite Steel
Concrete Construction in Buildings Sydney (Australia); Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2017.
107. Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Standard; Comite
Europeen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium, 1994.
108. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas ABNT NBR 8800; Projeto de Estruturas de Aço e de Estruturas Mistas de Aço e Concreto
de Edifícios, Standard; Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2008.
109. Lawson, H. Design of Composite Beams with Large Web Openings; The Steel Constrution Institute, 2011; ISBN 0-9679749-0-9. Available
online: https://www.steelconstruction.info/images/e/e7/SCI_P355.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2023).
110. Fares, S.; Coulson, J.; Dinehart, D. Dinehart Castellated and Cellular Beam Design 31. Am. Inst. Steel Constr. 2016, 1–116.
111. Müller, C.; Hechler, O.; Bureau, A.; Bitar, D.; Joyeux, D.; Cajot, L.G.; Demarco, T.; Lawson, R.M.; Hicks, S.; Devine, P.; et al. Large
Web Openings for Service Integration in Composite Floors; Technical Steel Research. European Comission, Contract No 7210-PR/315.
Final Report; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2006; ISBN 9279017233.
112. Silva, C.C.; Caldas, R.B.; Fakury, R.H.; Carvalho, H.; Dias, J.V.F. Web Rotational Stiffness of Continuous Steel-Concrete Composite
Castellated Beams. Frat. Ed Integrita Strutt. 2019, 13, 264–275. [CrossRef]
113. Silva, C.C.; Caldas, R.B.; Fakury, R.H.; Dias, J.V.F.; Carvalho, H. Elastic Critical Moment of Lateral Distortional Buckling of
Castellated Composite Beams under Uniform Hogging Moment. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2020, 25, 04020032. [CrossRef]
114. Sonck, D.; Belis, J. Lateral-Torsional Buckling Resistance of Cellular Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015, 105, 119–128. [CrossRef]
115. Sonck, D.; Belis, J. Lateral-Torsional Buckling Resistance of Castellated Beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2017, 143, 1–9. [CrossRef]
116. Rossi, A.; Nicoletti, R.S.; de Souza, A.S.C.; Humberto Martins, C. Lateral Distortional Buckling in Steel-Concrete Composite
Beams: A Review. Structures 2020, 27, 1299–1312. [CrossRef]
117. Hanswille, G.; Lindner, J.; Münich, D. Lateral Torsional Buckling of Composite Beams [in German]. Stahlbau 1998, 67, 525–535.
[CrossRef]
118. Roik, K.; Hanswille, G.; Kina, J. Solution for the Lateral Torsional Buckling Prob Lem of Composite Beams [in German]. Stahlbau
1990, 59, 327–332.
119. Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Standard; Comite
Europeen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
120. Dias, J.V.F.; Oliveira, J.P.S.; Calenzani, A.F.G.; Fakury, R.H. Elastic Critical Moment of Lateral-Distortional Buckling of Steel-
Concrete Composite Beams under Uniform Hogging Moment. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2019, 19. [CrossRef]
121. Svensson, S.E. Lateral Buckling of Beams Analysed as Elastically Supported Columns Subject to a Varying Axial Force. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 1985, 5, 179–193. [CrossRef]
122. Williams, F.W.; Jemah, A.K. Buckling Curves for Elastically Supported Columns with Varying Axial Force, to Predict Lateral
Buckling of Beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1987, 7, 133–147. [CrossRef]
123. Oliveira, J.P.S. New Proposition for Verification of Lateral Distortional Buckling of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams [in Por-
tuguese]. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2018.
124. Dias, J.V.F. Determination of the Elastic Critical Moment to Lateral Distortional Buckling of Continuous and Semicontinuous
Composite Beams [in Portuguese]. Master’s Thesis, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2018.
125. Zhou, W.-B.; Yan, W.-J. Refined Nonlinear Finite Element Modelling towards Ultimate Bending Moment Calculation for Concrete
Composite Beams under Negative Moment. Thin-Walled Struct. 2017, 116, 201–211. [CrossRef]
126. Gizejowski, M.A.; Salah, W.A. Restrained Distortional Buckling Strength of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams—A Review of
Current Practice and New Developments. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference Modern Building Materials,
Structures and Techniques, Vilnius, Lithuania, 19–21 May 2010; pp. 604–612.
127. Hosseinpour, M.; Shari, Y.; Shari, H.; Sharifi, Y.; Moghbeli, A.; Sharifi, Y.; Moghbeli, A.; Hosseinpour, M.; Sharifi, H. Neural
Network Application for Distortional Buckling Capacity Assessment of Castellated Steel Beams. Structures 2020, 29, 1174–1183.
[CrossRef]
128. Sharifi, Y.; Moghbeli, A.; Hosseinpour, M.; Sharifi, H. Study of Neural Network Models for the Ultimate Capacities of Cellular
Steel Beams. Iran. J. Sci. Technol.—Trans. Civ. Eng. 2020, 44, 579–589. [CrossRef]
129. Moghbeli, A.; Sharifi, Y. New Predictive Equations for Lateral-Distortional Buckling Capacity Assessment of Cellular Steel Beams.
Buildings 2023, 13, 808 35 of 35
130. Rajana, K.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Koltsakis, E. Elastic and Inelastic Buckling of Steel Cellular Beams under Strong-Axis Bending.
131. Ferreira, F.P.V.; Shamass, R.; Limbachiya, V.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Martins, C.H. Lateral–Torsional Buckling Resistance Prediction
Model for Steel Cellular Beams Generated by Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 170, 108592. [CrossRef]
132. Shamass, R.; Ferreira, F.P.V.; Limbachiya, V.; Santos, L.F.P.; Tsavdaridis, K.D. Web-Post Buckling Prediction Resistance of Steel
Beams with Elliptically-Based Web Openings Using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 180, 109959.
[CrossRef]
133. de Carvalho, A.S.; Hosseinpour, M.; Rossi, A.; Martins, C.H.; Sharifi, Y. New Formulas for Predicting the Lateral–Torsional
Buckling Strength of Steel I-Beams with Sinusoidal Web Openings. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 181, 110067. [CrossRef]
134. Tohidi, S.; Sharifi, Y. Neural Networks for Inelastic Distortional Buckling Capacity Assessment of Steel I-Beams. Thin-Walled
Struct. 2015, 94, 359–371. [CrossRef]
135. Hosseinpour, M.; Rossi, A.; Sander Clemente de Souza, A.; Sharifi, Y. New Predictive Equations for LDB Strength Assessment of
Steel–Concrete Composite Beams. Eng. Struct. 2022, 258, 114121. [CrossRef]
136. Rossi, A.; Hosseinpour, M.; Martins, C.H.; Sharifi, Y. A New Formula for Predicting Lateral Distortional Buckling Strength of
I-Beams Subjected to Different Loading Conditions. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2022, 2250129, 1–29. [CrossRef]
137. Couto, C. Neural Network Models for the Critical Bending Moment of Uniform and Tapered Beams. Structures 2022, 41, 1746–1762.
[CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Buildings 13 00808

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildings 13 00808

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030808 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (a) (b)

Buildings 2023, 13, 808 3 of 35

Figure 6. Lateral distortional buckling in steel-concrete composite alveolar beams [58].

Table 1. Investigations on the LDB behavior of composite alveolar beam.

Model Reference Highlight

2. LDB Standard Codes, Analytical Methodologies, and Investigations

Buildings 2023, 13, 808 7 of 35

The resistance predictions of LDB addressed

LLel==LL⋅ λ⋅tλw−0.5 −0.5  

Case 7 Case 8 Case 9

2.1.3. Roik et al. [118]

11.1 12.8 14.6 16.3 18.1

where the effective length factor determined by Equation (20) (βB ),

To calculate the = A(1.5 − B

M pl −C.beam = Abar f y,bar d3 + A at f y d4 + A ac f y d5 (32)

Figure 14. PNA on the I-section web.

d2 = yPNA − yat* (39)

II—PNA on the I-section upper flange is d3 true

Figure 15. PNA on the I-section upper flange.

2.3. LDB Experimental and Numerical Investigations

Table 10. Mechanical properties and ultimate load of the specimens.

Specimen E (GPa) fy (MPa) fy,bar (MPa) Pu (kN)

Table 10. Mechanical properties and ultimate load of the specimens.

Specimen E (GPa) fy (MPa) fy ,bar (MPa) Pu (kN)

J2T-av Double T Solid J2T-av Double T Solid

J2T-av Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear

J2T-av Double T Solid J2T-av Double T Solid

J2T-av Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear

Buildings 2023, 13, 808 24 of 35

J2T-av Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear

Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear

J2T-av Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear

Double T Solid Average Superficial Linear

Geometric Properties Approach

Geometric Properties Approach

Mcr Proposition/* Geometric Properties Approach

Mcr Proposition/*Geometric Properties Approach

Mcr Proposition/Geometric Properties Approach

Author Contributions: V.M.d.O.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology,

You might also like