Available online at www.CivileJournal.

org

Civil Engineering Journal

Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

Comparative Study of Structural Behaviour for Rolled and Castellated

Steel Beams with Different Strengthening Techniques

Shakir Mahmood Hadeed a, Ahmad Jabbar Hussain Alshimmeri b*

a
M.Sc. Student, Civil Engineering Department, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq.
b
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq.
Received 13 March 2019; Accepted 07 June 2019

Abstract
Currently, the castellated steel beams are used widely because of their useful structural applications and serviceable
performance due to their good significant properties such as light weight, facility in construction, materials economize and
strength. The castellated steel beam fabricated from its origin solid beam (I-beam) by cutting its web in a zigzag path and
then re-joined the two halve by welding so the height of the castellated beam expanded about 50%. The aim of this paper
is to study the effect of castellation with and without strengthening on the structural behaviour of castellated beams and
compare the results with the origin solid steel beam. Three castellated beams with deferent configuration in addition to
solid beam subjected to two equal point loads at mid third of span with simple support condition were analysed numerically
using finite element analysis by Abaqus software virgin (6.14.5) .The results show that the load carrying capacity values
of castellated steel beams that represent (second, third& fourth) models were increased by (39.11, 105.95 and 124.77) %
respectively compared with origin solid beam due to increase beams stiffness after castellation and strengthening process,
while mid-span deflection values at service load were decreased by (36.36, 9.10 and 27.27) % respectively comparing with
the origin solid steel beam due to increasing section dimensions and stiffness after castellation process and using
strengthening technique respectively. Also it was seen that the maximum ultimate moment and ductility were observed in
the fourth model that strengthened by high strength concrete and lacing reinforcement so they increased by 124.79% and
165.65% respectively as compare to reference beam, while the third model that strengthened by high strength concrete was
stiffer than other beams.
Keywords: Castellated Steel Beam; Solid Beam; Load Carrying Capacity; Deflection; Abaqus Software.

1. Introduction
Castellated steel beam is expanded beam manufacturing by expanding standard rolled sections in a method which
produce a uniform shape of opening in the web. Castellated beams are light, strong, low-cost and simple to connect at
construction place. The holes on the beam web are useful to extend pipes and wires and other services across beams
holes. Using of castellated beams give large design and building benefits. Open web beams have a high depth – to –
weight ratio, expanded section modulus, Sx and expanded strong – axis moment of inertia, Ix. These increments lead to
increase spans length that is useful for wide span option by designers, increasing stiffness and strength of standard
section, decreasing deflection compare with the original beams. Castellation proses produced beams with 50% deeper
than the origin beam, enhanced the moment capacity up to 40% without adding steel and increasing load capacity with
reducing beam weight [1].

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091339

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee C.E.J, Tehran, Iran. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms
and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1384
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

1.1. Stiffness and Ductility Factor

Stiffness is known as the load demanded to result unit deflection, while ductility is defined as a member ability to
endure the inelastic deformations after yield deformation without large loss in its load carrying capacity. Ductility is
effective parameter to be evaluated in structures design those exposed to different loading conditions. Flexural members'
ductility can be evaluated from their load – deflection curves [2].
The ratio of the deflection at failure to the first yield deflection is defined as ductility factor (𝜇) as explained in the
Equation 1:
∆𝑢
𝜇= (1)
∆𝑦

Where:
∆𝑢 : Mid- span deflection at ultimate load.
∆𝑦 = Mid-span deflection at first yield.[3]

2. Manufacturing of Castellated Beam

The castellated steel beams are fabricated by using Computer Numerical Control (CNC) to make a zigzag shape
along the web of a wide – flange steel I- section and dividing into two symmetrical halves and then both parts are moved
and reconnected by welding as shown in Figure 1 [4].

Figure 1. Manufacturing process of a castellated beam [4]

3. Literature Review
Ismail et al. (2014) studied the influence of different parameters (cross-section dimensions, length of beam, using
of stiffeners, concrete strength, steel strength and concrete slab dimension) on both ultimate behavior of composite
castellated steel beam and buckling load. ABAQUS program was used. It is found loading capacity of the composite
castellated steel beam was raised by using vertical stiffeners, also it is noted when steel and concrete strength increase,
the ultimate load and ductility increase and when concrete slab thickness increase, ultimate load also increase [5].
Budi et al. (2016) studied the effect of size and distance of castellated steel beams with hexagonal web openings.
The comparison study of castellated steel beams was carried out using finite element method (FEM). The results of
comparison analysis are then achieved by laboratory test of castellated steel beam specimens having 225mm height. Six
specimens were fabricated from IWF section with various hole angle of 45o, 50o, 55o, 60o, 65o and 70o. All models have
vertical height holes (ho) of 150mm and the distance between holes change from 0.052ho to 3.15 ho. All beams having
a clear span of 3000 mm with simple supports and two concentrated load system. Root beam section used was IWF
150 × 75 × 5 × 7 mm which produced a castellated beam of size 225 × 75 × 5 × 7 mm.The analysis of results show
that the capacity of specimens increases by 1.938 to 2.041 as compare to the original section. The best results from FEM

1385
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

analysis was a specimen with 60o angle and the distance between holes was 0.186 ho to 0.266 ho. Comparison between
FEM analysis and laboratory test show good agreement between them [6].
Satyarno et al. (2017) investigated flexural, shear strength and load carrying capacity for castellated steel beams with
total depth rectangular hole with partial encased reinforcement concrete. Two groups of beams were used, one beam
with long span and two beams with short span to study flexural and shear strength respectively. All beams have simple
supports and subjected to two equal concentrated loads at mid third of span. Results show that load carrying capacity at
yield of castellated steel beams without encased reinforcement concrete for long and short span was similar under the
effect of vierendeel truss mechanism. For castellated steel beams encased partially with reinforcement concrete, flexural
failure was identical for long and short span beams while the beams with short span not arrived moment failure because
of shear failure happened firstly, while for shear strength, beams with sort span, the shear failure was occurred at
diagonal struts in the concrete through the web holes. It was concluded that is vierendeel truss failure can prevent by
using partial encased reinforcement concrete for castellated beams and flexural strength increased (3.5) times compared
with origin section [7].
Richard et al. (2017) performed numerical study to investigate the behavior of composite castellated steel beam
subjected to monotonic loading with two-point load and simple support conditions and compare the results with solid
and composite solid beam (without castellation). Hot rolled steel (HRS) I- section was used to fabricate the castellated
beam that have expanded section depth of 306.6 and 3800 mm clear span length, while the reinforced concrete slab for
composite sections have 665 mm width and 150 mm depth. All beams were simulated using ABAQUS program. The
results show that the load carrying capacity of the composite castellated beam enhanced to (6.24) times than the load
carrying capacity of the solid origin I-beam and (1.2) times compared the composite solid beam [8].
Samadhan et al. (2018) carried out analytical study to compare the loads carrying capacity of castellated and solid
steel beams. Steel I- section of ISMB 200 with simple support conditions exposed to one central load at midspan has
been adopted. Castellation ratio is adopting as 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8. Finite element analysis was performed using ANSYS
version 12. It was noted from results that the minimum hole height must not be less than 50% depth of the section,
maximum hole depth must not be greater than 75% depth of the section also it was noted that the best expansion ratio
was 1.5 [9].
Sahar et al. (2019) studied the influence of web holes on the vertical deflection of castellated steel beams using
theoretical analysis that is based on potential energy method and numerically by ANSYS software and estimate the
deflection resulted from shear for castellated steel beams with various span lengths and flange breadths exposed to
uniform distributed load. The results show that shear influence on the deflection of castellated steel beam have
significant effect specially for medium and short beams, also its noted that the influence of web shear on the deflection
decreased when castellated steel beam length raises, however it was seen that the deferent between analytical and
numerical approach was not surpass 6% for short beam length having narrow or wide sections [10].

4. Mode of Failure of Castellated Steel Beams

The design approach of castellated steel beams deepened on a typical limits states but the existence of web holes and
welding lead to more mode of failures. For safe castellated steel beam design, the next limit states must be checked:
 Flexural failure mechanism.
 Rupture of welded joints.
 Vierendeel bending for tee sections.
 Buckling of web post due to shear force.
 Compression web-post buckling.
 Lateral torsional buckling.
These mode of failures are widely related to castellated steel beam geometry, parameters shape, loading type and
providing of lateral supports [11].
The design of castellated steel beam requires calculating global forces (shear and bending moment) at every hole and
web- post result from applied loads, these global forces used to find local forces at upper and lower tees, web posts and
gross section, then the failure of web -posts and tees will be checked under local forces. The mode of failure related to
castellated steel beams are shown in Figure 2 [1].

1386
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

Figure 2. Mode of failure of castellated steel beams [1]

5. Terminology of castellated Steel Beam

Various expressions are used to define the castellated steel beam components as illustrated below:
 Throat Depth: is the web part height between flanges and tee sections.
 Web post: is the solid part cross section of castellated steel beam.
 Throat Width: is a horizontal cutting on parent steel beam.
 Top Tee: Higher part of the beam up of dropping of the throat width.
 Bottom Tee: Down part of the beam under the dropping of the throat width.
 Expansion ratio: Ratio of the increase in depth of the parent beam section to the depth of the castellated section.

All castellated steel beams components are shown in Figure 3 [12].

Figure 3. Castellated steel beam components [12]

Limitations of dimensions for castellated steel beam components are illustrated in Figure 4 [13].

Figure 4. Castellated steel beam components limits [13]

1387
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

6. Investigated Beams Details and Materials Properties

In order to investigate the effect of castellation process with and without strengthening on the ultimate strength and
deflection and compare the results with parent beam, four models are adopted having deferent dimension and properties
as following:
 First model: Solid steel beam (SB), represent the reference specimen with IPE 200 rolled standard section, its
measurements are shown in Table 1.
 Second model: Unconfined castellated steel beam (CB1), represent castellated steel beam with hexagonal holes
without strengthening. Its measurements are shown in Table 2.
 Third Model: Castellated steel beam(CB2), It is a specimen have a (web and flange) confined by high strength
concrete only with (29 mm) depth for each side, its measurements are shown in Table 2
 Fourth model: Castellated steel beam(CB3), It is a specimen with (web and flange) confine by high strength
concrete with (29 mm) depth for each side and (Ø6mm) laced reinforced which are used inclined continuous
reinforcement of two layers on each side of the castellated steel beam web. The inclination angle of lacing
reinforcement with respect to the longitudinal axis is 45,its measurements are shown in Table 2,while castellated
steel beam parameters are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Castellated steel beam parameters (Dimensions in 𝒎𝒎)

Table 1. Origin IPE200 section measurements

G h B 𝒕𝒘 𝒕𝒇 r A 𝑰𝒙 𝒁𝒙 𝑺𝒙
Section
(kg/m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) 104 (mm4) 103 (mm3) 103 (mm3)
IPE200 22.4 200 100 6 8 12 2850 1943 220.6 194.3

Table 2. Investigated castellated steel beam measurements

Section parameters
Specimen
e b d 𝒕𝒘 𝒕𝒇 s 𝒉°
CB1, CB2 & CB3 76 57 300 6 8 266 183

Where:

d= Total beam depth (mm) ℎ° = Hole depth (mm)

S= Center to center distance between holes (mm) e= Distance between holes (mm)

b= Flange width (mm) 𝑡𝑓 = Flange thickness (mm)

𝑡𝑤 = Web thickness (mm) G= Section weight (Kg/m)

A= Section area (𝑚𝑚2 ) B= Flange width (mm)

𝐼𝑥 = Moment of inertia about x-axis (𝑚𝑚4 ) 𝑆𝑍 = Elastic section modulus (𝑚𝑚3 )

𝑍𝑥 = Plastic section modulus (𝑚𝑚3 )

1388
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

The mechanical properties of steel and concrete materials are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Material properties

Material Strength MPa Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) Poisson' s ratio
Concrete 𝑓𝑐′ = 67 38717 0.2
Steel beam 𝑓𝑦 = 360 210000 0.3
Reinforcement bars 𝑓𝑦 = 443 200000 0.3

All specimens have a clear span of (3192 mm) subjected to two equal concentrated load at mid third of the beam
with simple support condition, the specimen configuration and their sections adopt in this study are illustrated in Figure
6.

a-(CB1): Castellated steel beam without strengthening (reference specimen)

b-(CB2): Castellated steel beam confined with high strength concrete

c-(CB3): Castellated steel beam confined with high strength concrete and laced reinforcement

CB1 CB2 CB3

Figure 6. Dimension Details of Castellated Steel Beams and Sections (All Dimensions in mm)

1389
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

7. Finite Element Modeling and Results

7.1. Finite Element Modeling
In this paper, the numerical modeling was carried out by using finite element software (Abaqus, ver.6.14.5), in which
static analysis was performed to calculate the ultimate strength and maximum deflection at mid- span for analyzed solid
and castellated beams subjected to two-point load with simple support conditions. A continuum 3D eight-node
hexahedron solid elements (C3D8R) with reduced integration are used to model castellated steel beam and concrete
.These elements were adequate for modelling general three dimensional solid structures [14]. While two node linear 3D
truss elements (T3D2), were used to simulate laced reinforcement. For the steel castellated beams and concrete interface,
(Tie interaction) was used so the steel beam surface was considered as the master surface and the concrete surface as
the slave surface, while for interfacing between lacing reinforcement and concrete embedded interaction was used. The
size of mesh was selected as a 25 mm for solid steel beam, 30 mm for castellated beam, 20 mm for concrete and 200
mm for lacing reinforcement bars. The finite element models considered both materials geometric and nonlinearity. The
mechanical properties of materials were taken as mention in Table 3. The deflected shape for all analyzed specimens
are shown in Figure 7.

(a) SB (b) CB1

(c) CB2 (d) CB3

Figure 7. Deflected shapes for analyzed beams

1390
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

7.2. Finite Element Results and Discussion

7.2.1. Load Carrying Capacity and Deflection Results
The results of maximum deflection at mid span and corresponding load carrying capacities at both service and failure
stage and comparison with respect to solid beam values for all analyzed beams obtained from Abaqus software were
listed in table 4 and load- deflection curves are shown in Figure 8, while the comparison between load carrying capacity
values for all beams were shown in Figure 9.
Table 4. Load carrying capacity and mid span deflection values for all analyzed beams
Specimen 𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝑷𝒖 ∆𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒕 𝑷𝒖 ∆𝒂𝒕 𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆 ∆𝒂𝒕 𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆−∆𝑺𝑩 𝑷𝒖 − 𝑷𝒖 𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒅
× 𝟏𝟎𝟎% × 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
Number (KN) (KN) (mm) (mm) ∆𝑺𝑩 𝑷𝒖 𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒅
SB 52.5 75 23 11 ……. …….
CB1 73.03 104.33 16 7 36.36 39.11
CB2 108.12 154.46 17.39 10 9.10 105.95
CB3 118.01 168.58 58 8 27.27 124.77

Where:
𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 =Load at service limit that is supposed as a
𝑃𝑢 = Ultimate load
70% of the ultimate load value
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑡 𝑃𝑢 =Total mid-span deflection at ultimate load ∆𝑎𝑡 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 =Mid-span deflection at service load
∆𝑆𝐵 = Deflection of origin solid beam at service load 𝑃𝑢 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 =Ultimate load of origin solid beam

200
180
160
140
120
Load (KN)

100
80
SB
60 CB1
40 CB2
20 CB3

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure 8. Load- deflection curves for all analyzed beams

180 168.58
154.46
160
Load carrying capacity (KN)

140
120 104.3
100
75
80
60
40
20
0
SB CB1 CB2 CB3
Beam designation

Figure 9. Load carrying capacity values for all analyzed beams

1391
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

Noting that service load values are considered as a 70% of ultimate load values for all analyzed beams.
The results show that the load carrying capacity values of castellated steel beams (CB1, CB2 and CB3) were
increased by 39.11, 105.95 and 124.77% respectively compared with origin solid beam (SB) due to increase beams
section depth and rigidity after castellation and strengthening process, while mid-span deflection values at service load
were decreased by 36.36, 9.10 and 27.27% respectively comparing with the origin solid steel beam due to increasing
section dimensions and stiffness after castellation process and using strengthening technique respectively. Noting that
there was significant increasing in total mid-span deflection at ultimate load for CB3 compare with solid beam (SB) due
to increase beam ductility of flexural element after using lacing reinforcement bars.
7.2.2. Stiffness
Stiffness values were calculated from deflection and ultimate load values obtained from finite element analysis.
Results show that the maximum stiffness value was noted in specimen CB2 due to increasing section dimension and
rigidity after castellation and strengthening process respectively. Stiffness values are shown in Table 5 and Figure 10.

Table 5. Stiffness of analysed beams

𝑷𝒖
Specimen Ultimate load 𝑷𝒖 Ultimate deflection Stiffness=
∆𝒖
Difference in
designation (KN) ∆𝒖 (mm) (KN/m) stiffness %

SB 75 23 3.26 -
CB1 104.33 16 6.52 100
CB2 154.46 17.39 8.88 172.39
CB3 168.58 58 2.91 10.74

10
8.88
9
8
7 6.52
Stiffness (KN/m)

6
5
4 3.26
2.91
3
2
1
0
SB CB1 CB2 CB3
Beam designation

Figure 10. Stiffness values for analyzed beams

7.2.3. Ductility Characteristics

Table 6 and Figure 11 show the ductility factor results calculated from mid span deflection values at yield and
ultimate loading stage obtained from finite element analysis. The result show the ductility factor decreased by 26.09%
and 5.65% for CB1 and CB2 respectively while ductility factor was increased by 165.65% for CB3 as compared to
reference beam SB, this enhancement related to using of laced reinforcement that causing significant increasing in
flexural element.
Table 6. Ductility factor of analyzed beams

Specimen Ultimate Deflection at Load at Deflection at yield Ductility Difference

designation Load (KN) ultimate load (mm) Yield (KN) load (mm) factor In ductility %

SB 75 23 60 10 2.3 -
CB1 104.33 16 95 9 1.7 26.09
CB2 154.46 17.39 136 8 2.17 5.65
CB3 168.58 58 157 9.5 6.11 165.65

1392
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

7
6.11
6

5
Ductility factor
4

3
2.3 2.17
2 1.7

0
SB CB1 CB2 CB3
Beam designation

Figure 11. Ductility factor values for analyzed beams

7.2.4. Ultimate Moment Results

Flexural capacity values are shown in Table 7 and Figure 12, the results show that the ultimate moment values
increase by 39.09, 105.49 and 124.79% for CB1, CB2 and CB3 respectively as compare to reference beam SB. This
enhancement related to increasing in section stiffness and strength after castellation and strengthening proses.
Table 7. Ultimate moment of analyzed beams

Specimen Ultimate load 𝑷𝒖 Ultimate moment 𝑴𝒖

% Increasing in
designation (KN) 𝑴𝒖 (KN/m) 𝑴𝒖 𝒓𝒆𝒇. 𝑴𝒖 %

SB 75 39.9 100 -

CB1 104.33 55.5 139.09 39.09

CB2 154.46 82.17 205.94 105.49

CB3 168.58 89.69 224.79 124.79

100
89.89
90 82.17
Ultimate moment (KN.m)

80
70
60 55.5

50
39.9
40
30
20
10
0
SB CB1 CB2 CB3
Beam designation

Figure 12. Ultimate moment values for analyzed beams

1393
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, June, 2019

8. Conclusions
Based on the numerical results obtained from Abaqus program the following conclusion were noted:
 For unconfined castellated steel beam, it was noted that the load carrying capacity was increased by 39.11% and
mid-span deflection at service load was decrease by 36.36% as compared with origin solid steel beam.
 For castellated steel beam strengthened by high strength concrete it was noted that the load carrying capacity
was increased by 105.95% and mid-span deflection at service load was decrease by 9.10% as compared with
origin solid steel beam.
 For castellated steel beam strengthened by high strength concrete and lacing reinforcement it was noted that the
load carrying capacity was increased by 124.77% and mid-span deflection at service load was decrease by
27.27% as compared with origin solid steel beam.
 Maximum ultimate moment and ductility were observed in the fourth model that strengthened by high strength
concrete and lacing reinforcement so they increase by 124.79% and 165.65% respectively as compare to
reference beam, while the third model that strengthened by high strength concrete was stiffer than other beams.

9. Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the University of Baghdad/Iraq for the financial support to complete this research and for
the help and support submitted by the Civil Engineering Department.

10. Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

11. References
[1] American Institute of steel construction, Inc. (AISC). “Castellated and cellular Beam Design”, Steel Design Guide-31, 14th Edition,
2016.
[2] Ahmad, Samer, Adnan Masri, and Zaher Abou Saleh. “Analytical and Experimental Investigation on the Flexural Behavior of
Partially Encased Composite Beams.” Alexandria Engineering Journal 57, no. 3 (September 2018): 1693–1712.
doi:10.1016/j.aej.2017.03.035.
[3] Hallawi, Ali Faiq, and Ali Hussein Ali Al-Ahmed. “Enhancing the Behavior of One-Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Using
Laced Reinforcement.” Civil Engineering Journal 5, no. 3 (March 19, 2019): 718. doi:10.28991/cej-2019-03091282.
[4] Hayder w. AL-Thabhawee, “Experimental Study of Effect of Hexagonal Holes Dimensions on Ultimate Strength of castellated
Steel Beam”, Kufa Journal of Engineering. Vol. 8. No. 1, January 2017, p.p. 97-107.
[5] E.S. Ismail, R., A.S. Fahmy, and N. M. Tawfik. “Ultimate Behavior of Composite Castellated Beams under Vertical Loads.”
International Journal of Computer Applications 108, no. 5 (December 18, 2014): 40–46. doi:10.5120/18911-0214.
[6] Budi, Listiyono, Sukamta, and Windu Partono. “Optimization Analysis of Size and Distance of Hexagonal Hole in Castellated
Steel Beams.” Procedia Engineering 171 (2017): 1092–1099. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.465.
[7] Satyarno, Iman, Djoko Sulistyo, Dina Heldita, and A. Talodaci Corte Real De Oliviera. “Full Height Rectangular Opening
Castellated Steel Beam Partially Encased in Reinforced Mortar.” Procedia Engineering 171 (2017): 176–184. doi:
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.324.
[8] Frans, Richard, Herman Parung, Achmad Bakri Muhiddin, and Rita Irmawaty. “Finite Element Modelling of Composite
Castellated Beam.” Edited by J.-W. Park, H. Ay Lie, H. Hardjasaputra, and P. Thayaalan. MATEC Web of Conferences 138
(2017): 02009. doi:10.1051/matecconf/201713802009.
[9] Morkhade, Samadhan G., Subhan Shaikh, Ajay Kumbhar, Abdulaziz Shaikh, and Rushikesh Tiwari. "Comparative study of
ultimate load for castellated and plain webbed beam." International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 9, no. 8 (2018):
1466-1476.
[10] Elaiwi, Sahar, Boksun Kim, and Long-Yuan Li. “Bending Analysis of Castellated Beams.” Athens Journal of Τechnology &
Engineering 6, no. 1 (February 25, 2019): 1–16. doi:10.30958/ajte.6-1-1.
[11] Kaveh, A., and F. Shokohi. "Application of Grey Wolf Optimizer in design of castellated beams." (2016): 683-700.
[12] Boyed J. P. “Castellated Beam-New Development”, AISC National Engineering Conference, AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 3,
pp. 106-108, 1964.
[13] Harper, C. S. “Design in Steel 4: Castellated & cellular beams”, Port Talbot: British Steel, (1994).
[14] Ellobody, Ehab. “Design Examples of Steel and Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges.” Finite Element Analysis and Design of
Steel and Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges (2014): 221–467. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-417247-0.00004-1.

1394