Behavior Of Castellated Composite Beam Subjected To Cyclic Loads

International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
ISSN (Online) 2319-183X, (Print) 2319-1821
Volume 3, Issue 12 (December 2014), PP.18-23
www.irjes.com 18 | Page
Behavior Of Castellated Composite Beam Subjected To
Cyclic Loads
Mara. J1
, Parung. H2
, Tanijaya. J3
and Djamaluddin R4
1
Civil Engineering Doctoral Student, Hasanuddin University, Makassar-Indonesia
2
Civil Engineering Department, Hasanuddin University, Makassar-Indonesia
3
Civil Engineering Department, Paulus Christian University of Indonesia, Makassar-Indonesia
4
Civil Engineering Department, Hasanuddin University,Makassar-Indonesia
Abstract:- The purpose of this study is to determine the behavior of beam-column sub-assemblages castella
due to cyclic loading. Knowing these behaviors can if be analyzed the effectiveness of the concrete filler to
reduce the damage and improve capacity of beam castella. Test beam consists of beam castella fabricated from
normal beam (CB), castella beams with concrete filler between the flange (CCB) and normal beam (NB) as a
comparison. Results showed castella beam (CB) has the advantage to increase the flexural capacity and energy
absorption respectively 100.5% and 74.3%. Besides advantages, castella beam has the disadvantage that
lowering partial ductility and full ductility respectively 12.6 % and 18.1%, decrease resistance ratio 29.5 %
and accelerate the degradation rate of stiffness ratio 31.4%. By the concrete filler between the beam flange to
improve the ability of castella beam, then the beam castella have the ability to increase the flexural capacity of
184.78 %, 217.1% increase energy absorption, increase ductility partial and full ductility respectively 27.9 %
and 26 %, increases resistance ratio 52.5 % and slow the rate of degradation of the stiffness ratio 55.1 %..
Keywords: - Steel, castella, column beams, cyclic load
I. INTRODUCTION
The need for shelter is increasingly rising day by day in Indonesia in line with population growth. Besides, the
land for the construction of buildings or other buildings is more difficult to obtain and the price is higher,
especially in urban areas. To save the land, then the solution is to build a multi-storey building for office
buildings, dwellings or other buildings. Most of the building structure with steel material uses solid steel profiles
as advantageous solution in terms of strength and material usage. Experts are trying to structure how to increase
the strength of steel elements without an increase in self-weight of steel in order to obtain some new methods
that beams with openings entity known as castella beam.
One form of the body opening is hexagon shape. Research on this openings has been done by Wakchaure MR,
Sagade AV, Auti V. (2012) and the results showed that the openings with 0.6 of the beam height is the possible
maximum openings , or in other words the maximum eligible beam height of the castella beam that can be
fabricated. Research on the angle and length of exposure to a high of 0.60 to a high aperture solid beam has been
carried out by Parung Herman et al (2013) are given monotonic load.. Solid steel profiles fabricated into castella
beam is IWF 200 100 5.5 8. Research results show the opening angle of 600
and aperture length e = 3b = 9 cm
gives the best result of the angle and length of openings for openings hexagon. To increase capacity and avoid
damage that commonly occur in castella beam, then the beam castella beam reinforced with fresh concrete
between the flanges The purpose of this study was to determine the ability and stiffness of the castella beam or
castella beam reinforcement of concrete due to cyclic loading for possible use as a structural element in
multistory buildings that receive earthquake loads.
II. TESTING PROGRAM
1. Testing Principle
The principle of the test is based on the structure of the framework that burdened earthquake load as in
Fig. 1a by taking part beams and columns that are restricted to the joint (s) Fig. 1b. Due to horizontal load, the
moment at mid beam and column values will be close to zero. Therefore, the position of the zero moment can be
modeled as HINGED, column and beam sections tested are considered to represent part with the end as a
HINGE (the moment = ZERO).

Behavior of Castellated Beam Column Due To Cyclic Loads
Specimen beamSpecimen beam
columncolumn
H
H
H
Cyclic load
H
H
H
H
H
(a) (b)
Figure 1. (a) The moment area of a frame due to earthquake loads, (b) Principle of the test
Beam-column element
2. Test Beams
For specimens, a steel beam used is a profile IWF 200 x 100 x 8 x 5.5 with hexagon shaped openings. High
aperture 0.6 H, a distance of 9 cm and the aperture opening angle 600
. The cross section of the test beam as in
Fig. 2. Variations of the test specimen consists of a solid beam (NB) as a comparison, castella beam (CB), and
castella composite beam (CCB). The placement of the holes on the castella beam based on a comparison of
plastic moments between the solid section and perforated section, assuming when a solid beam section in
yielding, then the hole section will also in yielding.
146cm
181cm
35cm
(a)
(b)
(c)
SG-FLK 2.12
SG-FLK 2.12SG-FLK 2.12
SG-FLK 2.12
SG-FLK 2.12 SG-FLK 2.12
SG-FLK 2.12 SG-FLK 2.12
SG-FLK 2.12
Fig. 2. Beam test for the: (a) NB, (b) castella CB, and (c) CCB
3. Testing Framework
The testing requires testing framework. Testing framework is designed based on the principle of test as
in Fig. 1. Steel beams used are H 250 250 9 14 for the middle column and the IWF 200 100 5.5 8 for the other
columns Fig. 3. Testing framework laid out on the floor and walls of reinforced concrete. Equipment and
testing instruments required are: crane, strain gauge FLK 2.12, LVDT (Linear Variable Displacement
Transducer) with a precision of 0.005 and 0.01, actuator (horizontal jack) with a capacity of 1200 KN, data
logger and switching box.

Horisontal jack
205 cm 205 cm
175cm175cm
LVDT LVDT
LVDT LVDT
LVDT LVDT
SG
FLK 2.12
Fig. 3. Framework for testing and placement of testing instruments
4. Testing Implementation
The cyclic loading is given in the form of displacement-controlled at the upper end of the column.
Method of loading each cycle based on the Recommended Testing Procedure for Assessing the Behavior of
Structural Elements under Cyclic Loads issued by the European Convention for Constructional steelwork
(ECCS). The testing stopped when loading cycles plans and additional cycle for the specimen fails could not
be continued due to displacement is limited by the maximum displacement of the actuator (horizontal jack).
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 4. Testing implementation for the, (a) NB, (b) CB and (c) CCB
III. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Load-Displacement (P-∆)
Fig. 5, curve (P-Δ) for maximum load (Pmax) and maximum displacement (Δmax) of the test beam. The
load and maximum displacement for positive moment (P+
, Δ-
) and negative moments (P-
, Δ+
) of the test beam;
the NB test beam, (P+
) is 30 KN, (∆-
) is 9.25 mm, (P -
) is 30.60 KN, and (∆+
) is 8.69 mm. The CB test beam,
(P+
) is 60.75 KN, (∆-
) is 10.4 mm, (P-
) is 61.5 KN, and (∆+
) is 10.7 mm. The CCB test beam, (P+
) is 85.75
KN, (∆-
) is 9.32 mm (P-
) is 88.25 KN and (∆+
) is 9.65 mm. Average percentage of the maximum load of the
test beam CB and CCB to control beam NB respectively 202.15% and 287.95%.
Fig. 6, curve (P-Δ) with average data from the load and displacement of each cycle in the negative
moment area. NB test beam began yielding in the fourth cycle with an average load 16.66KN, CB test beam
began yielding in the sixth cycle with an average load of 47.25 KN and CCB test beam began yielding in the
sixth cycle with an average load of 43.5 KN. At the end of the loading cycle plans, test beams are given
additional cycles with a maximum displacement of the tool that is up to 20 cm. The percentage of the cycle
addition load to the maximum load of the test beam NB, CB and CCB respectively 87.9%, 86.52% and 88.16%.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5. The load-displacement curve relationship (P-∆) for, (a) NB, (b) CB and (c) CCB

(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 6. The load-displacement curve relationship in negative moment regions for,
(a) NB, (b) CB and (c) CCB
2. Moment – Rotation
Fig. 7, the moment - rotation relationship curves (M-φ) at the one end of the test beams. This curve is
identical with load-displacement curve relationship (P-∆). The magnitude of rotation angle due to positive
moment (ϕ-
) and negative moments (ϕ+
) at the yielding conditions and the maximum condition on each test
beam as follows :
At the yielding conditions, rotation angle for : NB test beam, (ϕ-
) is 0.220
, (ϕ+
) is 0.220
. For CB test beam,
(ϕ-
) is 0.300
, (ϕ+
) is 0.280
. And for the CCB test beam, (φ-) is 0210
and (ϕ+
) is 0.210
At the maximum conditions, rotation angle for; NB test beam, (ϕ-
) is 1.280
and (ϕ+
) is 1.370
. CB test beam, (ϕ-
)
is 2.610
and (ϕ+
) is 2.500
. and CCB test beam, (ϕ-
) is 0740
and (ϕ+
) is 0730
. Average percentage of the rotation
progress from the yielding conditions to maximum conditions for the test beam NB is 502.27%, CB test beam is
781.03%, and the test beam CCB is 250%. These conditions indicate the NB and CB test beam already
unstable at the maximum load condition compared with CCB test beam. This condition is shown in Fig. 7.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7. Moment-rotation relationship curve for the, (a) the NB, (b) CB and (c) CCB
3. Flexural Capacity
Tab. 1, The list of moment resistance for the test beams at yielding and maximum condition. At the
yielding conditions, the ability of each specimen beams to receive positive moment and negative moment ;
the ability of CB test beam increased respectively by 184.6 % and 183.5%, or an average 184.1 %, and the
ability of CCB test beam increased by 165.1% and 161%, or an average 163% when compared to the NB test
beam. At the maximum conditions, the ability of each test beam to receive moment positive and negative ; the
capability of CB test beam increased respectively by 98.85% and 101.3% or an average is 100.08%, the ability
of CCB test beam increased respectively increased by 180.69% and 188.87 %, or an average 184.78% when
compared to the NB test beam, and the ability of CCB test beam increased respectively by 41.15% and 43.5%,
or an average 42.32% when compared to the CB test beam.
Table 1. MOMENT, DISPLACEMENT, AND DUCTILITY

4. Ductility
Tab. 1, the list of partial ductility (Δmax / Δy) and full ductility (Δimax / Δy) for the test beams. The partial
ductility of each test beam at the positive moment and negative moment; the partial ductility of CB test beam
decreased respectively by 12.95 % and 12.19 %, or an average is 12.6 % and the partial ductility of CCB test
beam increased respectively by 10.35% and 13.34%, or an average is 11.84 % when compared to the NB test
beam. The partial ductility of CCB test beam increased respectively by 26.77 % and 29.1 %, or an average is
27.9 % when compared to the CB test beam. The full ductility (ui) for each test beam at the positive moment
and negative moment; the full ductility of CB test beam decreased respectively by 15.62 % and 20.56 %, or an
average 18.1 %, and the full ductility of the CCB test beam increased respectively by 1.13% and 4.97 %, or an
average is 3.05 % when compared to the NB test beam. The full ductility of CCB test beam increased
respectively by 19.86 % and 32.14 % or an average 26% when compared to the CB test beam.
5. Energy
Tab. 2, the list of energy absorption (P-Δ) for the test beams at yielding and maximum conditions.
At the yielding conditions, the absorption energy of each test beam at the positive moment and negative
moment: the energy absorption of CB test beam increased respectively by 98.1% and 50.5% or an average
74.3%, the energy absorption of CCB test beam increased respectively by 108.6% and 92.23% or an average
105.4% when compared with NB test beam, and absorption energy of the CCB test beam increased
respectively by 5.3% and 27.7% or an average is 16.5% when compared to the CB test beam. At the maximum
conditions, absorption energy for the beam test on the positive moment and negative moment: The absorption
energy of CB test beam increased respectively by 36.5% and 22%, or an average 29.3%, the energy absorption
of CCB test beam increased respectively by 253.2% and 181% or an average 217.1% when compared to the NB
test beam, and energy absorption of CCB test beam increased respectively by 158.8% and 130.3% or an
average 144.6% when compared to the CB test beam.
TABLE 2. ENERGY, STIFFNESS, AND RESISTANCE
6. Stiffness
Tab. 2 , the list of stiffness ratio (ξ = tgαi / tgαy) for the test beam. The stiffness ratio of each test beam
at the positive moment and the negative moment: The stiffness ratio of CB test beam decreased faster is
respectively 30.3% and 32.5% or an average 31.4%, the stiffness ratio of CCB test beam decreased more slowly
is respectively 76.6 % and 33.3 %, or an average is 55 % when compared to the NB test beam, and the stiffness
ratio of CCB test beam also experienced a slower decline respectively by 52.5% and 53.66 % or an average is
55.1% when compared to the CB test beam.
7. Resistance
Tab. 2, the list of resistance ratio (ε = P/Py) for the test beams at the time of maximum load. The
resistance ratio of each test beam at the positive moments and negative moments: the resistance ratio of CB
test beam decreased respectively by 30 % and 28.5%, or an average of 29.5 % and the resistance ratio of CCB
test beam increased respectively by 6.7% and 9.2%, or an average is 7.9% when compared to the NB test
beam. The resistance ratio of CCB test beam increased respectively by 52.51% and 53.66 %, or an average 52.5
% when compared to the CB test beam.
8. The Failure of the Test Specimen
The failure of the specimen at cyclic loading different than failure of the test specimen due to
monotonic loading. In the monotonic loading, failures caused by the greater deflection due to the addition of
the applied load. In the cyclic loading to the frame, the deflection that occurs is much smaller than the
monotonic loading. The failure of cyclic loading is fatigue failure due to cyclic loading from a given number of
loading cycles.
The failure of NB test beam is flange buckling at cycle VI and reducing capacity of the beam after the
application of an additional cycle. Likewise, the failure of CB test beam is flange buckling at cycle VII and
reducing capacity after application additional cycles. The failure of the CCB test beam seems at cycle VII with

the onset of cracks in the concrete and reducing the capacity of the beam after the application of additional
cycles.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
From the discussion above, a number of conclusions as follows:
1. Fabrication normal beam (NB) into castella beam (CB) will increase the flexural capacity of 100.5%,
increase an energy absorption of 74.3%, lower the ductility partial and the full ductility respectively by 12.6 %
and 18.1%, decrease the resistance ratio 29.5% and accelerate of degradation rate of the stiffness ratio 31.4%
2. Fabrication normal beam (NB) into castella composite beam (CCB) will increase the flexural capacity
184.78 %, increase an energy absorption 217.1%, increase the ductility partial and the full ductility respectively
24.45% and 26.2%, increases the resistance ratio 7.9 % and slows the rate of degradation of the stiffness ratio
55 %.
3. Function concrete filler between the flange of the castella beam will increase the flexural capacity
42.32 %, increase an energy absorption 144.6%, increase the ductility partial and the full ductility respectively
27.9 % and 26 %, increase the resistance ratio 52.5 % and slows the rate of degradation of the stiffness ratio
55.1 %.
REFERENCES
[1]. Anonymous, Recommended Testing Procedure for Assessing the Behavior of Structural Elements
under Cyclic Loads , European Convention for Constructional steelwork (ECCS)
[2]. Wakchaure M.R, Sagade A.V and Auti V.A, Parametric Study of Castellated Beam with Varying
Depth of Web Opening. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue
8, August 2012.
[3]. Parung et al, Experimental Study on Castellated Steel Beam Using Monotonic Loading, ITB Bandung,
KNPTS, 2013.

Behavior Of Castellated Composite Beam Subjected To Cyclic Loads

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Behavior Of Castellated Composite Beam Subjected To Cyclic Loads

Similar to Behavior Of Castellated Composite Beam Subjected To Cyclic Loads (20)

More from irjes

More from irjes (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Behavior Of Castellated Composite Beam Subjected To Cyclic Loads