Revision and Errata List, March 1, 2003

AISC Design Guide 2: Steel and Composite Beams with Web Openings

The following editorial corrections have been made in the
Second Printing, September 1991. To facilitate the
incorporation of these corrections, this booklet has been
constructed using copies of the revised pages, with
corrections noted. The user may find it convenient in some
cases to hand-write a correction; in others, a cut-and-paste
approach may be more efficient.

To Circular openings: (3-38a) accommodate members designed using ASD.85 for composite beams In addition to the requirements in Eqs. the section at the web opening should be checked for ade- quate strength as a non-composite member under factored 6.0025. For beams with longitudinal ribs. AISC ASD Specification (1978). a minimum of two studs per foot should be used for a distance d or whichever is greater. on each side of the opening (Figs 3.00 and (3-38b) a load factor of 1.4). opening.7 for both dead and live loads. in which = area of flange 3. within a distance d or whichever is greater. based on the gross area of the slab. Construction loads = factored moment and shear at centerline of If a composite beam is to be constructed without shoring. Within In addition to the guidelines presented above. respectively. 3-37 and 3-38. 16 . requirements. Spacing of openings dead and construction loads. Shear connectors In addition to the shear connectors used between the high (3-35) moment end of the opening and the support. Openings should be spaced in accordance with the follow- ing criteria to avoid interaction between openings. the section should meet the following additional be a minimum of 0. of the open- (3-33) ing. These fac- tors are in accord with the Plastic Design Provisions of the in which S = clear space between openings. = 0. the expressions presented in this chapter should be used with = 1. Slab reinforcement If reinforcing bars are used on only one side of the Transverse and longitudinal slab reinforcement ratios should web. Additional criteria for composite beams 3/1/03 3/1/03 greater. Rev. Rectangular openings: (3-37a) 3. openings in composite beams should be spaced so that (3-39a) = cross-sectional area of reinforcement above or be- low the opening. Rev. composite each extension.90 for steel beams and 0. (3-34) 2.3 and 3. the transverse rein- forcement should be below the heads of the shear connectors.8 ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN (3-37b) The safe and accurate design of members with web open- ings requires that an ultimate strength approach be used. from the high moment end of the open- (3-36) ing toward the direction of increasing moment. ing by a distance whichever is c. (3-32) 1. (3-39b) The reinforcement should be extended beyond the open. the required strength of the weld is members should meet the following criteria.

the shear rupture force 52. 3-33 through 3-36): × 0.75.2 × 0. Comer radii (section 3. Use to shear. 4.0 in. Use in.800 kips/ft.. (3-22)].5 kips within each ex- Check to see if reinforcement may be placed on one side tension. and will be placed on metal decking.6 0. Use 5 in. The decking has 2 in. Can an unreinforced 11×22 in. in.58 in place of .1 kips Fig. Use extensions of = 20/4 = 5 in.75. For = 59. 27 . Loading: = 1. reinforcement may be placed on one side of the strength = .8 = 2. 59.75 x× 0.0 kips. A fillet weld will be used on one side of the reinforcement bar.0 + 2 × 5.0 = 30.Select reinforcement: = 0. According to AISC (1986b).707 × = 0.7 kips. which provide a shear strength of the weld metal = 0.8.8 kips.90 instead of = 0.608 kips/ft and 0. web. opening be placed at the quarter point of the span? See Fig. tensile strength of base metal. Use a in. = =196 kips 52. OK.7. Moment-shear interaction diagram for Example 2. For the reinforcement.608 + 1. The total length of the reinforcement = 20. The corner radii must be = 0.0 kips within the length of the opening and 4.800 = 2. An A36 W21×44 steel section and normal weight concrete will be used. By inspection. ribs on 12 in.01 kips/ft At the quarter point: 18. This requirement is effectively covered for the steel section by the limitation that which is based on = 0. 9. and = net area subject From the stability check [Eq. centers transverse to the steel beam.75 × 42 × 20 × 0. Rev.90 × 50 × 0.5 EXAMPLE 3: COMPOSITE BEAM WITH UNREINFORCED OPENING Simply supported composite beams form the floor system of an office building.8 = 59.75 0. with the reinforcement on one side of the web. [Note the minimum size of fillet weld for this material is in.].707 × = 27. in which = 0. of web (Eqs. The 36-ft beams are spaced 8 ft apart and support uniform loads of = 0.6x 58 × ksi 58 xksi 3/8×in. 4.39) = 1.46 in. Nor- mal weight concrete (w = 145 = 3 ksi will be used.656 = 29.60 × 70 = 42 ksi (AISC 1986a). but uses 0.6.90 × 2 × 32. or larger.7b2) and weld design: 0.78 in. 4.12 sixteenths are required.6 × 0. The shear rupture Therefore. The weld must develop 0.2. the shear rupture strength of the base metal must also be checked. Welds should be used on both sides of the bar in the extensions. within the length of the opening.0/27. in. Assume E70XX electrodes.656/(2 × 0. Each in. the weld size is identical. 3/1/03 The completed design is illustrated in Fig. The slab has a total thickness of 4 in.7. fillet weld. weld will provide a shear capacity of × 0. x 120 in.

(d) composite beam with solid slab. 5. 5.3 through 5. trate steel beams. shear. Fig. and secondary bending moments. Based on equilibrium. Donahey & Darwin 1988. Congdon & Redwood 1970. For positive bending. is subjected to pbsite beams with solid slabs. Granada 1968). tors. and the gen- eral response of members to loading.2(c) and 5.2. Sections 5.3 through 3. 5. pure bending. The section above the opening.2g summarize the behavior of steel and compos- ite beams with web openings. Forces acting at web opening. 3/1/03 Donahey & Darwin 1986. modes of failure.1. while sections 5. primary moment acting at opening center line length of opening distance between points about which secondary bend- 5. Deformation and failure modes The forces that act at opening are shown in Fig. (b) steel beam. shear ratio. In the figure. Clawson & Darwin Rev. 5. pure bending. Clawson & Darwin 1982a. 1980. a tensile force.1 GENERAL (5-1) This chapter provides the background and commentary for (5-2) the design procedures presented in Chapter 3. (c) composite beam with solid slab. Section 5. or top tee. but the equations that follow ings are illustrated in Fig.2 BEHAVIOR OF MEMBERS WITH ing moments are calculated WEB OPENINGS a. low moment- Fig.2h provides (5-5) the commentary for section 3. Failure modes at web openings. Forces acting at opening b. low moment-shear ratio.2(b) illus- pertain equally well to steel members. while Figs.2.2(d) illustrate com- the section below the opening. 37 .2a (5-3) through 5. The deformation and failure modes for beams with web open- a composite beam is illustrated. and secondary bending moments. The behavior at an opening depends on the ratio of moment to shear.7 on design equations and guide- lines for proportioning and detailing beams with web total shear acting at an opening openings. M/V (Bower 1968. or bottom tee. (a) Steel beam. Figures 5.2(a) and 5.2 on load and resistance fac- Rev. Chapter 5 BACKGROUND AND COMMENTARY 5. High moment-shear ratio jected to a compressive force. is sub. .7 provide the commentary in which 3/1/03 for sections 3. shear. (5-4) ings on stress distributions. 5.1. Cho 1982. including the effects of open.

defor. and shear is assigned solely to the web of the steel section. or Vierendeel. 5. shear and the secondary bending moments steel section is in tension. Strength may failure is accompanied by longitudinal shear failure in the slab be reduced or governed by web buckling in more slender (Fig. failure at web open- ings is quite ductile. even though win 1982a. First yielding in the steel does not give a good repre- sentation of the strength of either steel or composite sec- tions. Web openings cause stress concentrations at the corners of the For composite beams [Fig. win 1982a. Congdon & Redwood 1970) and from 17 to 52 percent Fig. Donahey & Darwin 1988). For steel sections. the diagonal tension failure is eral yielding at the corners of the opening. For steel beams [Fig. 5. the formation of the plas. stresses remain low in the concrete ing can cause portions of the bottom tee to go into compres. 1978. 5. 5. 3/1/03 Fig. failure can be manifested by gen- bers with ribbed slabs. end of the opening. 3/1/03 the opening is subjected to a positive bending moment.2(b)]. 5. and large deflections in the member. followed by web manifested as a rib separation and a failure of the concrete tearing at the high moment end of the bottom tee and the low around the shear connectors (Fig. For composite mem. until well after the steel has begun to yield (Clawson & Dar- Rev. For composite beams. in enough to place the lower portion of the slab in compression which the concrete deck is used only to resist the bending moment. connectors in slab with transverse ribs. Failure Yielding first occurs within the webs of the tees. 5. slab in Fig.2(d)]. wood 1970. moment end of the top tee (Bower 1968. Rib failure and failure of concrete around shear of the failure load in composite members (Clawson & Dar- Rev.2(d)]. Tests show that the load at first yield can vary from 35 to 64 percent of the failure load in steel members (Bower 1968. The concrete contrib.5 (Bower 1968) 1980). 5. failure occurs with the for- mation of plastic hinges at all four corners of the opening. Donahey & Darwin 1988). For mem. yielding of the steel. the effect of In high moment regions. Redwood & Uenoya 1979). For members with low moment-shear ratios. members (Redwood et al. The top and bottom tees exhibit a well-defined change in curvature. In com. as well as the flex- posite beams.Medium and low moment-shear ratio at the low moment end of the opening. although the adjacent As M/V decreases. sion and portions of the top tee to go into tension.4. failure is preceded by large deformations through the opening and significant yielding of the steel.2(b) and 5.6). This contrasts and the steel section over the opening (Fig. For composite members. as illustrated by the tee is a concern for steel members (Redwood & Shrivastava stress diagrams for a steel member in Fig.3). failure is preceded by major cracking in the slab. 5. Congdon & Red- bers with ribbed slabs in which the rib is parallel to the beam. Local buckling of the compression flange is not a con- and the strain diagrams for a composite member with a ribbed cern if the member is a compact section (AISC 1986b). with respect to the member. Secondary bend. Longitudinal rib shear failure. The slip is with the standard design practice for composite beams. large slips take place between the concrete deck ural strength of these beams at web openings. 38 . Redwood & McCutcheon 1968). 5.6 (Donahey & Darwin 1986). 3/1/03 Rev. 5. which results in transverse cracking. causing increasing differential. tensile stress in the top of the concrete slab at the low moment mation to occur through the opening [Figs. compression buckling of the top secondary bending can be quite striking. Secondary bending also results in increase.3. For steel beams.4). utes significantly to the shear strength. openings. depending on the proportions of tic hinges is accompanied by a diagonal tension failure within the top and bottom tees and the proportions of the opening the concrete due to prying action across the opening. For both steel and composite sections.

Fig. For composite sections. This tween the openings. Reinforced opening.7. 5. For composite beams. Stress diagrams for opening in steel beam—low moment- shear ratio (Bower 1968). 5. this reinforcement usually takes the form of longitudi- observed that construction loads as high as 60 percent of nal steel bars which are welded above and below the open- member capacity do not affect the strength at web openings. These bars serve to increase both the pri- the capacity at the opening. the close Rev. the bars must extend past the corners of the open- openings after the slab has been placed can result in a trans. tion. Redwood & Shrivastava 1980). strength can be reduced if the openings are placed too closely together Fig. As shown in Fig. the separation of the slab from the steel sec. 39 . ing (U. 3/1/03 of the individual connectors (Donahey & Darwin 1986. (1) a the capacity of the section.S. f. Strain distributions for opening in composite beam—low moment-shear ratio (Donahey & Darwin 1988). may become unstable.7. Opening shape Generally speaking. Redwood 1968a. which involves interaction be- nectors increases. For composite members. ing in order to ensure that the yield strength of the bars is verse crack. Redwood & Shrivastava 1980).5. Donahey & Darwin 1988). proximity of web openings in composite beams may also be Donahey & Darwin 1988). or web post. Composite sections are also sub. This crack. 5. Redwood and Poumbouras (1983) 5. 1988) observed that cutting effective. the strength at the opening increases. does not appear to affect fully developed. Fig. however. As the capacity of the shear con. Redwood & Shrivastava 1980). detrimental due to bridging of the slab from one opening to ject to bridging. the capacity of the member can be in- d. For steel ing and between the opening and the support strongly affect beams. This improved performance is due to the reduced stress concentrations in the region of the opening and the relatively larger web re- gions in the tees that are available to carry shear. another. e. mary and secondary flexural capacity of the member. or (3) the number of shear connectors or by increasing the capacity web post may yield in shear. g. Dougherty 1981. Shear connectors and bridging (Aglan & Redwood 1974. shear connectors above the open. Construction considerations creased by the addition of reinforcement. plastic mechanism may form. Redwood 1968b. Bridging occurs primarily in beams with transverse ribs and occurs more readily as the slab thickness increases (Donahey & Darwin 1986. Steel 1986. round openings perform better than rec- tangular openings of similar or somewhat smaller size (Red- wood 1969. To be Donahey and Darwin (1986.6. Multiple openings If multiple openings are used in a single beam. (2) the portion of the member between increased capacity can be obtained by either increasing the the openings. c. if the openings are placed in close proximity. Reinforcement of openings If the strength of a beam in the vicinity of a web opening is not satisfactory.

That is. Dona. series of straight line segments. models that use a single curve. 3/1/03 McCutcheon 1968) and 10 with circular openings (Redwood Historically. Redwood & Wong 1982). 5. 1977. Redwood 1968a. Redwood & McCutcheon 1968)]. and connecting these points with a curve or Clawson & Darwin 1982. Cooper et al. these models were developed primarily The design of members with web openings is based on for research. 5. of used by AISC (1986b) for flexure. 40 .9(a). lustrated in Figs. 21 composite beams with ribbed slabs and unrein.9. must be they should also be adopted for the regions of members with determined for all models. beams can carry a large percentage of the maximum moment capacity without a re- duction in the shear capacity and vice versa. Congdon & Redwood of the type shown in Fig. and 3 composite beams with reinforced openings (Cho 1982. Redwood & easiest to apply in practice. Load and resistance factors et al. Wiss et al. The applicability of Virtually all procedures agree on the maximum moment these values to the strength of members at web openings was capacity. Clawson & Darwin 1983. at openings. Clawson & Darwin 1982. Fig. Granade 1968).9(c).9(b)]. addition.8. capacity. 5-7 and 5-29) (Lucas & Darwin 1990). 5. Redwood & openings (Kussman & Cooper 1976. Congdon & Redwood 1970. 5. 5. Redwood 1971. (Bower 1968. as il- The load factors used by AISC (1986b) are adopted. they calculate the maximum shear capacity and what curve tual member dimensions and the individual yield strengths shape is used to complete the interaction diagram.90 for steel members and imum moment that can be carried at the maximum shear = 0. 1975). eccentric unreinforced openings & Snell 1972. generally prove to be the 1970. 5. 21 steel beams calculated for specific cases. Wang Donahey 1988). Poumbouras 1983. the maximum shear capacity. Redwood Poumbouras 1983. Rev. Lupien & Redwood (Kussman & Cooper 1976. Redwood et al. This represents the bending strength at an established by comparing the strengths predicted by the de. Redwood & 1978). 11 composite beams with solid slabs and unreinforced openings (Cho 1982. 1984). This has resulted in a num- hey & Darwin 1988). 1975). Resistance factors of 0. The design of web openings has historically consisted of the construction of a moment-shear interaction diagram of the type illustrated in Fig. Wang et al. However. The methods differ in how sign expressions in Chapter 3 (modified to account for ac. ternate load factors are selected for the structure as a whole.85 are also satisfactory for two other design methods discussed in this chapter (see Eqs. and reinforcement) with the strengths Models which use straight line segments for all or a por- of 85 test specimens (Lucas & Darwin 1990): 29 steel beams tion of the curve have an apparent advantage in simplicity with unreinforced openings [19 with rectangular openings of construction. General moment-shear interaction diagram (Darwin & win 1986. and eccentric reinforced forced openings (Donahey & Darwin 1988. in web openings. 5. Donahey & Dar. the end points. Shrivastava 1980. webs.3 DESIGN OF MEMBERS WITH WEB OPENINGS The interaction between the moment and shear strengths at an opening are generally quite weak for both steel and com- posite sections.90 and 0. Clawson & Darwin 1980. the calculation of which represents the max- The resistance factors. the maximum shear prediction of strength or margin of safety (Bower 1968.8 and 5. ber of different shapes for the interaction diagrams. Cooper openings (Redwood 1968a). = 0. 1977. For design it is preferable to generate the in- strength criteria rather than allowable stresses because the teraction diagram more simply. of the flanges. such as concentric unreinforced with reinforced openings (Congdon & Redwood 1970. This is done by calculating elastic response at web openings does not give an accurate the maximum moment capacity.8. Models have been developed to generate the moment-shear diagrams point by point (Aglan & Qaqish 1982. 1978. 1978. Todd & Cooper 1980. opening subjected to zero shear. Cooper et al. Some other models require. h.85 for composite members. To construct a curve. However. coincide with the values [Fig. If al. has been et al.

Steel 1981). U.6. 3/1/03 Darwin 1982a. little connection between shear capacity expressions for rein. and calculate the maximum moment and shear capacities.8 and 5. in section 5. Fig.9.S. Darwin 1980. data for web openings in negative moment regions. with the maximum moment and shear capacities. Darwin & Dona. and ized equations for each type of construction (U.S. opening design in these regions should follow the procedures for steel beams. concentric and eccentric unreinforced openings (Clawson & U. (Fig. (a) Constructed using straight line segments.S. (c) constructed using a single curve (Clawson & Fig. until test data becomes available. a single approach can generate a fam- hey 1988. However.4 MOMENT-SHEAR INTERACTION The weak interaction between moment and shear strengths at a web opening has been dealt with in a number of differ- ent ways. Redwood & Poumbouras 1984. even in negative moment regions. 1975) in steel beams. Clawson & Darwin 1982b. 5. 3/1/03 41 . Darwin and Dona- hey (1988) observed that this weak interaction can be con- veniently represented using a cubic interaction curve to relate the nominal bending and shear capacities. 5. The result has been a series of special.9. The dom- inant effect of secondary bending in regions of high shear suggests that the concrete slab will contribute to shear strength. 5. Darwin & Donahey 1988). as illustrated in Figs. however. Steel 1986. Rev. Wang et al.10. 5. Until recently (Lucas & Darwin 1990). Cubic interaction diagram (Darwin & Donahey 1988. The following sections present design equations to describe the interaction curve. Moment-shear interaction diagrams. & Shrivastava 1980. The design expressions for composite beams are limited forced and unreinforced openings or for openings in steel to positive moment regions because of a total lack of test and composite beams. Donahey & Darwin 1986). As will be demonstrated Rev. Steel 1984. Redwood & Wong ily of equations which may be used to calculate the shear 1982) and reinforced openings (Donoghue 1982) in composite capacity for openings with and without reinforcement in both beams.10). (b) constructed using multiple junctions (Redwood & Poumbouras 1983). there has been steel and composite members. 5.

PNA. For a given beam and opening configura- tion. by factoring from section is in compression. (b) reinforced opening. top of the steel flange and the centroid of the concrete force. i. 5. 5-13 governs. For = 0. the PNA lies in the web of the larger tee. Eqs. respectively. Composite beams is in the flange [Fig. If [Eq. or the yield strength of the net steel section. may the terms on the right-hand side of the equations and mak. PNA. The plastic neutral axis. 5. be in either the flange or the web of the top tee. the shear connector ( Rev. Lucas and Darwin 1990). 3-7 and 3-8 are obtained from Eqs. the force in the concrete. If (Eq. (5-13a) tral axis. In Chapter 3. is limited to the lower of the concrete compressive strength. the term in Eq.11(c)]. in which the flange area If the left side of Eq. 5-13c and Fig. In this case. in which depth of concrete compression block in which for solid slabs and ribbed slabs for which Like Eq. a portion of the steel 5-11 and 5-12. the PNA b.11. in pure bending.the expressions to be simplified.12(a)]. 5-14 must be replaced ment is small. (5-15) wood & Shrivastava 1980. 3/1/03 capacity. (c) reinforced opening. Eq. 5-13a or 5-13b). Eqs. 5-11. Steel sections in pure bending. in which net steel area the maximum moment capacity is The maximum moment capacity. based on ing the substitution the inequality: The moment capacity of reinforced openings is limited to the plastic bending capacity of the unperforated section (Red.e. 5. In this case. (5-13c) For members with larger eccentricities [Fig. depends on which of the inequalities in Eq. 5-12a and b become with the appropriate expression for the distance between the identically Eq.. ribs. (a) Unreinforced opening. 5-12 is based on the assumptions that If as it can be for ribbed slabs with longitudinal the reinforcement is concentrated along the top and bottom edges of the opening and that the thickness of the reinforce. 5-10.12b] at a distance Figure 5. however. will be located within the reinforcing bar (5-13b) at the edge of the opening closest to the centroid of the origi- nal steel section. 43 . 5. For the plastic neu. 5-15 exceeds the right side.12 illustrates stress diagrams for composite sections from the top of the flange. Fig.

Closed-form solutions require one or more addi. General equation stresses must be considered in order to obtain an accurate A general expression for the maximum shear capacity of a representation of strength. the axial stress in the con. shows that the axial stress.7a2) force at least one tee to be As demonstrated by Darwin & Donahey (1988).14. and appropriate in Chapter 3 will be derived first. and if present. The greatest portion of the shear tee is obtained by considering the most complex configura- is carried by the steel web. comparisons with tests of steel sumptions selected. is conservative. plex expressions. Since the top and bottom tees are subjected to the combined effects of shear and secondary bending. crete is assumed to be is obtained. followed by more com- representations for the stresses in the steel. However. Figure 5. 5. and web shear stress. based on the von Mises criterion. 5-19).14. the form stocky enough (low value of that the calculated value of of the solution for depends on the particular as. which can be repre. Figure 5...14 compares the von Mises For practical design. The capacity at the opening. 5-20 becomes the linear best uni- Eqs. closed-form solutions are criterion with Eq. beams show that the predicted strengths are most conserva- Fig. sented using the von Mises yield criterion. which may include a sim. tional simplifying assumptions. tations on (section 3. predicted strengths. 5-3 and 5-4 and Eq. 5. The von Mises yield criterion. (5-19) Rev. trated in Fig. ing to the concrete and/or the reinforcement. 5-19. for a given material by simply removing the terms in the equation correspond- strength. The equations used equations for the tees. 5-20 for these two values of As illus- desirable. (5-20) 3/1/03 The interaction between shear and axial stress is not con- sidered for the concrete.414. The interaction between shear and normal stress results Expressions for less complex configurations are then obtained in a reduced axial strength. combined with 1.14 also plified version of the von Mises yield criteria (Eq. a maximum shear cutoff. 5-3 and 5-4. is applied. Fig.13.13. that is. however. such as the (5-18) simplified version of the von Mises criterion only or ignor- and are calculated using the moment equilibrium ing local equilibrium within the tees only. interaction between shear and axial a.. the concrete and opening reinforcement. The expressions in Chapter 3 use a sim. yield third order equations form approximation of the von Mises criterion. the limi- locations. or ignoring local equilibrium within the tees. In fact.. Axial stress distributions for opening at maximum shear. 5. the composite beam with a reinforced opening. Darwin and Donahey (1988) used The stress distributions shown in Fig. 45 . Eq. 5. is obtained by summing plified version of the von Mises criterion and ignore some the individual capacities of the bottom and top tees. Eq. research (Lucas & Darwin 1990) indicates that since a closed-form solution cannot be obtained (Clawson 1. may be greatly over- limiting neutral axis locations in the steel tees to specified estimated for low values of shear stress. gives a better match between test results and & Darwin 1980). is simplified us- ing a linear approximation. for which Eq. aspects of local equilibrium within the tees. tion. However. More recent in These equations must be solved by iteration. Other solutions may be obtained by using fewer assumptions. The term can be selected to provide the best fit with data. 5-19.207.. Yield functions for combined shear and axial stress.

Eq. This change from normal practice takes into account the large amount of slip that occurs between the slab and the steel section at openings. The PNA is as. to represent in Eq. a number of additional expres- satisfy the von Mises criterion. tion with Eqs. provides a straightforward solution for both steel Rev. Equations 5-27 and 5-28 are identical with those used by Redwood and Poumbouras (1984) and by Darwin and Dona. than the other two options (Lucas & Darwin 1990). 5-19) to control the interaction limited by the force in the concrete. tee in composite beams. Lucas & Dar. 5-22 than Eq. ever. as illustrated in Examples 2 and 4 in Chapter 3. cannot be used to produce a general design aid. For non. because it was felt to be in- tion is accounted for in the solution for consistent with a model (Fig. ) 3/1/03 and composite beams. its precise loca. 5-27 takes a sim. N. 5-29 pler form. 5-21. This approach uses the linear approximation for dh are calculated using Eqs. a quadratic equation is obtained for The so- lution of that equation takes a somewhat more complex form Equation 5-29 is clearly more complex than Eqs. as required. and the distances to these another approach (Darwin & Donahey 1988. is the von Mises criterion (Eq. 3/1/03 l To use the more conservative approach will greatly under- estimate the shear capacity of openings placed at a point of contraflexure (Donahey & Darwin 1986). Eq. 5-4). but uses a stress distribution based on the full cross. since the flange is included in the calculations. 47 . b. 5. even studs in negative moment regions (Darwin & Donahey Rev. 5-15) that ignored the flange is expressed as follows: of the steel tee (Darwin & Donahey 1988. Lucas and Darwin (1990). perhaps surprisingly.13) to develop the secondary the tensile capacity of the top tee steel section. 5-21. With Eq. high moment end of the opening and the support and section of the steel tee (Fig. It has the advantages that it accounts (5-27) for the actual steel section and does not require a separate calculation for when reinforcement is used. but. 5-29 produces a closer match with the experimental data in which are as previously defined. 5-20). and 5-27 and is best suited for use with a programmable cal- culator or computer. 5-22 and 5-27. Expressions for tees without concrete and/or opening rein- (5-28) forcement can be obtained from Eqs. have shown that generally improved solutions are obtained when all these limitations are used in conjunction with Eqs. 5-29 which considers the flange. Alternate equations for If the full von Mises criterion (Eq. Donahey & Darwin 1988). 3-15a through 3-18b. 5-29 by setting and to zero. The forces in the concrete at the high and low moment To obtain a better match with experimental results requires ends of the opening. which tends to mobilize stud capacity. Donahey & Darwin 1986. instead of the linear approximation (Eq. Composite beams hey (1988) in their "Solution II. The moment equilibrium equation (Eq. 5-22 (Lucas & Darwin 1990). however. Donahey & Dar- win 1986). forces from the top of the flange of the steel section. as well as Eq. however. How- composite tees without reinforcement. not the point of zero moment. 1988. 5-19) is used. do sions are required to calculate the shear capacity of the top not provide a closer match with experimental data than Eq. The number of studs. used for the calculation of in which includes the studs between the high moment end of the open- ing and the support." These equations completely As explained in Chapter 3. based on an average between shear and normal stresses within the web of the steel stress of the stud capacity between the tee. 5-22 and 5-27. and win 1990). third limitation was not originally used in conjunc- sumed to fall in the flange of the steel tee.

As a general rule. evenly distributed between the top and bottom tees. V. which can also be used for steel beams. The first three procedures calculate deflections due to the web opening that are added to the deflection of the beam without an opening.1. calculates total deflections of members with web openings. McCormick 1972a.1) is expressed as (6-2) 6. The ing. The shear at the opening. 6. Like shear deflection.3 APPROXIMATE PROCEDURE A web opening may have a significant effect on the deflec.1) tween the material in the top and bottom tees. eliminating strain compatibility be. The Subcommittee on Beams with Web Openings of the Task tions of a beam. ASCE 1973). the increase in deflection caused by a E = modulus of elasticity of steel single large rectangular web opening is of the same order = moment of inertia of tee of magnitude as the deflection caused by shear in the same beam without an opening. The Vierendeel deformation is usually of greater concern than is the local increase in curvature. cause very little additional in which deflection (Donahey 1987. Fig. while the elimination of strain capability and reduction in mate- rial to transfer shear increase the differential. d. Three 3/1/03 procedures specifically address steel beams (Dougherty 1980.1 GENERAL 6. and circular openings with a diameter. a single web opening is small. deflections for flexural members with web openings. 6. approach (ASCE 1971). deflection across the opening. Rectangular openings with a depth. cent support (Fig. Multiple open. is greater will be the increase in deflection caused by the open. The method developed for com- posite members. the greater the deflection caused by the opening high moment end of the opening and the support caused by relative to the deflection caused by flexure. 3/1/03 51 . shape. at any point between the the beam. = length of opening ings can produce a pronounced increase in deflection. and reducing the total amount of material available to transfer shear (Dona- hey 1987. Chapter 6 DEFLECTIONS 6. 6. and location. Donahey & Darwin 1986). A number of procedures have been developed to calculate Rev. Redwood 1983). and one method covers composite members (Donahey 1987. however. The greatest deflection through the opening itself will deflection through the opening. the influence of Committee on Flexural Members of the Structural Division Rev. is occur when the opening is located in a region of high shear. . Deflections due to web opening—approximate Rev. the with concentric openings. Circular openings have less of the opening to the far end of the beam as a hinged. The larger cantilever (Fig.2 DESIGN APPROACHES in which Web openings increase deflection by lowering the moment = distance from high moment end of opening to adja- of inertia at the opening. The reduction in gross moment of inertia increases the curvature at openings. The method was developed for beams the opening and the closer the opening is to a support. the shorter The additional deflection. propped effect on deflection than rectangular openings. up to 50 percent of (6-1) the beam depth. the opening (Fig.1). 6. up to 60 percent of . of ASCE (1971) developed an approximate procedure that 3/1/03 The added deflection caused by a web opening depends represents the portion of the beam from the low moment end on its size. Three of these methods will now be briefly described. or Vierendeel. In most cases. Donahey & Darwin 1986).

2). 6. Bending and shear deflection due to an opening in a composite beam as well deformation of the tees are included but compatibility at the as a steel beam. which take into ac- count both flexural and shear deformation. 6. the Rev. 3/1/03 comparison with experimental results. As shown in Fig. 6.4 IMPROVED PROCEDURE Dougherty (1980) developed a method in which the deflec- tion due to Vierendeel action at a web opening is obtained (Fig. In that case. but should be based on the composite section at the opening. 3/1/03 beam without an opening. cent support (Fig. 6. an additional component of deflection. or shear length of beam deformation in the beam or through the opening. 1977) the deflection from the low moment end of the opening to area of tee the adjacent support. 6.2. Shear is assigned to the tees in proportion to their relative stiffnesses.2) McCormick (1972b) pointed out that the subcommittee pro. Deflections due to web opening—improved procedure Rev. 3/1/03 52 . 6. be used to calculate line of the opening (McCormick 1972a). 6-2 and shear modulus = 6-3. in which points of contraflexure are assumed at the center The procedure can. 1987) described in the next section. slope compatibility at the low moment moment of inertia of perforated beam end of the opening. The total deflection through a concentric opening is (6-4) Fig. = distance from support to point at which deflection is in which calculated (Fig 6. (Dougherty 1980). based on the work of Donahey ends of an opening is not enforced.2) compatibility between the axial deformation of the tees and The reader is referred to Dogherty (1980) for the case of ec- the rest of the beam.2. (6-6) (6-3) in which (6-7) Rev. is added to the deflection obtained for the Poisson's ratio Rev. He proposed an alternate procedure centric openings.1) (6-5) To enforce slope continuity at the high moment end of the opening. axial deformation of the tees. distance from high moment end of opening to adja- committee reported that the procedure is conservative. The sub. in principle. 2 3/1/03 (6-8) shear at opening center line The sum of the displacements calculated in Eqs. is obtained. fully define the deflec- tion throughout a beam due to deflection through the open- ing. moment of inertia of the top tee should be based on the steel tee only. distance from low moment end of opening to adja- cedure is conservative because of a lack of consideration of cent support (Fig. The procedure does not consider shape factor (Knostman et al. The calculations take into account deformations due to both secondary bending and shear in the tee sections above and below the opening and slope compatibility at the ends of the opening. The increased curvature under primary bending due to the locally reduced moment of inertia at the opening is not included. McCormick made no and Darwin (1986.

Mac- neering and Engineering Materials SM Report No. ____. 1986b). "Tests of Composite Standard A58-Building Code Requirements for Minimum Beams with Web Openings". C. Institute of Steel Construction. Part 2. 1977): 1731-37.STll (November 1971: 2707-28. Fabrication and Erec. Narayanan. Web Buckling Failure of Built-Up Girders with 1986. S. 97:No.. Rex C. David. Structures: Stability and Strength. Snell. Orlando. 99:No." ASCE Journal of Congdon. Web Openings.ST9 (September 1970): Resistance Factor Design of Steel Building Structures. Knostman. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division 107:No. and Richard G. "Plastic Behavior Tests on Beams with Eccentric Web Holes. Allin Cornell. D.6 (June 1973): 1312-15.. June 1986). tural Engineering 114:No." Structural Engi." chapt. Load and Resis.3 (March 1988): 535-52. Galambos. Ahmed A. Kas. nal of the Structural Division 103:No." Proceedings. D. 57 (June 1974): 307-20. ____. and David Darwin. Rectangular Holes. "Fatigue Tests of No. Donahey. Chmn. also American Institute of Steel Construction. Beams with Web Openings. James G. Theodore V. 3/1/03 Clawson." ASCE Journal of Struc- Guides for Beams with Web Holes. and Richard G. Robert R. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures (Washing- Rev. Development of a Lawrence. Ravindra." 1933-55.l (1982): 20-26." Structural Engi- gular Holes. Probability-Based Load Criterion for American National Clawson. 1964. and Darwin. 106:No." ASCE Journal of the Structural Division ____. Lawrence." Series No. ASCE Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers Sec- tance Factor Design Manual of Steel Construction (Chi. "Web Openings in Composite 3/1/03 Beams with Ribbed Slabs". John E. "Plastic Be. William C.: University of Kansas.STl (January 1980): 301-12." ASCE Journal of the Structural Division Cho Soon. 27 (Wa- Cooper. American gineering (London). Flroida. REFERENCES Aglan. ASCE Bower.. David "Strength of Composite Beams with Web Openings".ST2 (February 1971): 509-27. David.: American Iron and Steel Institute..S. March 1984. Closure to Discus. Proceedings. Corvallis." ASCE Journal of the Struc. ASCE Jour- of Beams with Mid-Depth Web Openings.. ____. "Performance and Design of Bower. and Robert R. Brian K. ary 1978). 1986a). December 1982. Bruce. Redwood. and C.3 (March 1988): 518-534.ST6 (June 1968): 1315-37. "An Investigation on the Strength of Composite 108:No. David. havior of Beams with Reinforced Holes. "The Design of Com. Composite Beams with Web Openings. Michael. tural Division 98:No.ST3 Clawson. 4." Building Structures. and Harry D." ASCE Journal of the Structural Division neering and Engineering Materials SM Report No. Proceedings. William C. and Samih Qaquish.C. Beams with Rectangular Web Holes. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division Structures Congress. Sherman. Thesis. Redwood. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification Web Openings." M." by the Subcommit.. "Proposed Criteria for Load and of the Structural Division 96:No.. Korea. "Behavior and Design of Composite Beams with ____." Rev." Structural Engineering ____. R. "Failure Resistance Factor Design Criteria for Steel Buildings. don and New York: Applied Science Publishers. Redwood. Uni- 94:No. "LFRD for Composite Beams American Society of Civil Engineers. Institution of Civil En. R." lated Beams. Chicago. Oregon State Donoghue. Master's Degree thesis. tee on Beams with Web Openings of the Task Committee Donahey.. Ronald W. Theodore V.. "Composite Beams with Web Open- University. Arch.ST12 (December 1982): 2652-67. posite Beams with Web Openings. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division 108: Frost..ST1 (January 1982a): 145-62. .. "Ultimate Strength of Beams with Rectan. and Robert E. sion.St. Judith. 18. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 55 114:No. Steel Research for Construction Bulletin No. and David Darwin. Rex C. Web Openings. and Mayasandra K. June 1980).ST3 (March 1982b): 623-41. 3 in Steel-Concrete Composite for Structural Steel Buildings (Chicago: AISC. Peter B. August 1987: 404-17. Eng. "Deflections of Composite Beams with on Flexure Members of the Structural Division. Seoul. Composite Beams with Web Openings.1&2 (1985): 67-83. Cato. "The Design of (March 1981): 507-19. and Rex C. ed." AISC Engi. "Tentative Load and ____. 86-2 (Montreal: McGill University. "Composite Beams with Web Openings. D. and Darwin. the Structural Division 97:No.ST9 (September neering Journal 19:No. cago: AISC. L. 1978). Darwin. "Suggested Design with Unreinforced Web Openings. Donahey. "Tests on Beams with shington. ings. Snell. ____. and Darwin." ASCE Journal Galambos.ST3 (March 1972): 611-32. ____. National Engineering Conference. Specification for the Design.. versity of Kansas Center for Research. Dougherty. Kansas. Leffler. 1988): tion of Structural Steel for Buildings (Chicago: AISC.C. ed. 53-78. October 1980. (Lon- ____. "Web Buckling in Castel. "Elastic Deformation of Beams with Hanyong University. Gregor. and Richard G. Ellingwood. "Buckling of Web Posts in Perforated Beams. ton. John E. Janu- Reinforced Web Openings. tion 71:Nos. Oregon. Design.: National Bureau of Standards. William C. 108:No..

22. 3 matrix analysis. 37 shear connectors. 15. 13. 37 reinforcement. 13. 43. 15. 39 post-crack strength. 21 resistance factors. 35. 48 secondary bending. 39. 51 proportioning. 8. 12. 16. 21. 21 lateral bracing. 27. 37 plastic hinges. 3. 47 reinforced openings. 20 deformation. 38 shear capacity. 3. 18. 53 unperforated member. 49 stability considerations. 38 Rev. 10 failure modes. 3 moment-shear interaction. 38 slab reinforcement. 3. 9. 21. 48 web buckling. 9 Vierendeel. 11. 45 opening parameter. 3 top tee. 3/1/03 circular openings. 44 3/1/03 failure. 39. 38 bottom tee. 48 63 . 27 opening. 42. 3 Rev. 48 tee. 50 high moment end. 32 von Mises. 49. 35. 16. 24 composite beam. 21. 15. 35. 59 spacing of openings. 21. 21. 38. 33. 3 Rev. slab. 13. 16. 12. 15 opening shape. 42 reinforced opening. 49 stability. 38 rectangular openings. 3 detailing. 3 low moment end. 15. 8 unreinforced. 39. 48 lateral buckling. 50 primary bending moment. 30. 51. 3 plastic neutral axis. 3/1/03 interaction curves. 14. 48 compact section. 30 multiple openings. INDEX bearing stiffeners. 9. 8 reinforcement. 38. 19 opening configurations. 12 local buckling. 49 secondary bending moments. 17. 3. 15. 51 reinforced web openings. 42 unreinforced web openings. 21. 50 bridging in. 50 general yielding. 49 unreinforced openings. 52 opening dimensions. 42 deflections. dimensions. 21. 16 compact sections. 51 unreinforced opening. 25. 39 behavior. 50 design interaction curves. 3 bridging. 16. 7 detailing beams.