Design recommendations for steel beams with web holes

R. G. REDWOOD
A N D S. C. SHRIVASTAVA
Departtnent of Civil Et~gineeringand Applied Mechanics, McGill University, 817 Sherbrooke Street W . , Montreal, P.Q.,
Canada H3A 2 K 6
Received April 15, 1980
Revised manuscript accepted August 21, 1980

Concise design recommendations are given relating to the design of W-shaped beams for
building structures when it is necessary to provide large web openings. These recommendations
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20

are followed by a commentary describing the background to each of the recommendations, and
references are given that will be useful for designers who wish to treat situations beyond the scope
of the recommendations presented.

On donne de brefs recommandations au sujet de la conception des poutres en forme de W pour

les structures d'edifices lorsqu'il est necessaire de fournir de grandes ouvertures d'8me. Suite a
ces recommandations, un commentaire donne la description de I'arrikre-plan de chacune des
recommandations. Des references sont incluses qui seront utiles aux dessinateurs desirant traiter
certaines situations en dehors du champ des recommandations presentees.
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 7,642-650 (1980) [Traduit par la revue]

Introduction designer wishes to go beyond the limitations to

~h~ cutting of a large opening in the web of a which the recommendations are subject.
beam can have a significant effect on the behaviour The design recommendations given herein relate
to steel beams considered as acting noncom~ositel~.
For personal use only.

of the beam under load. The stresses in the beam, its

ultimate strength, the stability of the web, the
deflection, and the ability to carry concentrated loads
near the hole may all be to a considerable
extent. Factors that may be affected less significantly
are the lateral torsional buckling resistance and
flange stability. rn view of the frequency of the need
to cut such openings, a considerable amount of
research has been performed to investigate these
various effects. some of these research results were
documented and resulting recommendations for
design were presented by Bower et al. (1971), Red-
wood (1973), and Hijglund and Johansson (1977).
The present document gives design recommendations
based upon research findings to date insofar as they
relate to situations most frequently faced by a
designer, that is, holes in W-shaped beams in
building structures.
Design recommendations are given in Part I in as
concise a manner as possible. In formulating these
recommendations in the concise forms given, it was
sometimes necessary in the interests of simplicity to
forego some accuracy and to restrict the breadth of
application. Where this has been done, the errors are
usually on the conservative side, and the limits of
application are believed to embrace a very large
proportion of practical situations. Part I1 forms a
commentary in which the recommendations of Part I
are treated in turn, giving the background and refer-
' ences to publications describing the research in
greater detail. The references may be useful if the
03 15- 1468/80/040642-09$01.00/0
@I980 National Research Council of CanadalConseil national de recherches du Canada
In the Case of composite Steel-concrete beams, if
these are the
section alone they will lead to conservative estimates
the beam resistance at the They may
however, necessarily ensure satisfactory behaviour of
the concrete under serviceability loads. Analysis for
this has been presented by Swartz and Eliufoo (1980),
and further On this problem is underway.
Part I-Design Recommendations
1 General Requirements
The proposals contained herein relate to beams
subjected to bending moment and shear force with
the following general restrictions.
(i) The beams are of class 1 or class 2 W-shapes as
defined in CSA standard CAN3-S16.1-M78 (Cana-
dian Standards Association 1978).
(ii) The steel used should have Fy I 0.80Fu,where
Fy is the specified minimum yield stress, and Fu is
the specified minimum tensile strength. In addition,
the steel should exhibit the characteristics necessary
to achieve moment redistribution.
(iii) The height of the openings considered are
between 30 and 70% of the beam depth, and their
length may be up to three times their height.
(iv) The hole corners should have radii at least
equal to the larger of 16 mm or twice the web
thickness.
(v) Concentrated loads are not applied to the beam
within the length of the hole.
 REDWOOD A N D SHRIVASTAVA
(vi) The width-thickness ratio of outstanding re-
inforcing plates should not exceed 1 4 5 / f i where F,
has units of megapascals.
(vii) Other than the comments in $Cl, loading
leading to fatigue conditions is not considered.
2 Beam Resistance-Unreitforced Holes
2.1 Rectangular Holes
Providing requirements relating to stability, as
outlined in §4 below, are satisfied, a rectangular hole
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20
may be cut in the web of a W-shaped beam if the
factored applied shear force Vf, and the factored
applied moment M, applied to the hole centre line,
satisfy
[I1 VfIV,
in which
For personal use only.
where
and
and M r is the factored moment resistance of a class I
or 2 section ( = $ZF,), and V, is the factored shear
resistance based upon plastic analysis (0.55$wdFY).
Other symbols are defined in Fig. 1 and in the
Appendix. The eccentricity e should be considered
positive, whether the hole is above or below the beam
centre line.
2.2 Circular Holes
For circular holes of radius R, the equations for
rectangular holes, [4]-[7], may be used with the hole
length 2a and height 2 H taken as 2a = 0.9R and
2H = 1.8R. In [3], the hole height 2 H should be
taken as 2R.
3 Beam Resistance-Holes with Horizontal
Reinforcing Bars
3.1 Rectaizgtrlar Holes
Horizontal reinforcing bars may be used to
increase the resistance at the hole. If the bars are
placed close to the edges of the hole, have equal
areas A , above and below the hole, and are sym-
metrically placed with respect to the plane of the
web, the following requirements o n the applied
factored loads should be satisfied, again subject to
stability requirements given in $4.
[gal Mf 5 MO - (Mo - MI)V~/VI
[9b] M f I M,
in which
where again V, is based upon plastic analysis, and e
is always positive.
3.2 Circular Holes
The above relationships for reinforced rectangular
holes may be used for reinforced circular holes of
 644 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 7, 1980

Hole G 4.1 Class I Sections

I
Vf 1 0.67V,
and for rectangular holes
a/H 5 3.0
a / H + 6(2H/d) 5 5.6
4.2 Class 2 Sections
Vf 1 0.45 V,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20

FIG.1. Details of web hole and notation and for rectangular holes
radius R, providing the hole length 2a and hole a/H I 2.2
height 2H are taken as 2a = 0.9R and 2H = 2R. a/H + 6(2H/d) 5.6
3.3 Unsymmetric Reinforcement-Class I Sections
For cases that lie outside of these limits, reference
Reinforcement may be placed on one side only of should be made to Part 11.
the web of class 1 sections providing the following
conditions are satisfied : 5 Compression Zone Stability
For large rectangular holes in a region subjected
A , 5 0.333Af
to high bending moments, the stability of the com-
Mi I 20 Vfd at the hole centre line pression zone should be checked by treating it as an
axially loaded column with effective length equal to
For personal use only.

the length of the hole. For unreinforced holes in

d,/w < 3 7 0 / a (F, is in megapascals) typical W-shapes, this check is necessary only if the
If the hole is eccentric, d, should be taken as the length of the hole, 2a, exceeds four times the overall
larger of the two possible values. depth of the compression tee section, d,.
3.4 Attachment of Reinforcement 6 Lateral Stability
Within the length of the hole, the factored resist- 6.1 Unreinforced Holes
ance of the welds connecting the reinforcement to When a hole is located within a length of beam
the web should be at least as great as two times the that may be subject to lateral buckling, the hole
factored tensile resistance of the relevant reinforce- should be small enough, or should be suitably re-
ment area except that it need not exceed 2 a w ~ , / f i inforced, so that the ultimate strength of the beam,
The weld should be continuous, and a fillet weld calculated without considering lateral buckling, is
could be placed on one side only of the reinforcing governed by the resistance at a section remote from
bar. the hole. If, in such a case, the hole is not reinforced,
If a fillet weld is placed on the hole side of the bars, the provisions of $13.6 of CSA standard CAN3-
it will be necessary to displace the bars away from S16.1-M78 can be applied to the laterally un-
the hole. The above requirements are not affected, supported span with the following modification.
providing the displacement is kept to the minimum When h < 0.95, the St. Venant torsion constant
necessary for the weld. should be modified by multiplying by hZ. Alter-
The factored resistance of the welds anchoring the natively the stress o, should be multiplied by h.
reinforcement beyond an end of the hole should be When h 2 0.95, no modification is necessary. In the
at least equal to the factored tensile resistance of the above
reinforcing bars, and the factored shear capacity of
the web along these welds should not be exceeded.
The weld length will depend upon the chosen size of
welds and the web resistance, but it is recommended where L is taken as the unsupported length of the
that it be at least equal to one quarter of the hole compression flange, or 0.85L,, whichever is greater.
length.
6.2 Reinforced Holes
4 Web Stability Beams with horizontal reinforcing bars at the hole
In order that the resistance of the beam, computed may be assumed to have lateral buckling resistance
using the method of $2 or $3, will not be significantly at least as great as that for the beam without the
reduced by web buckling, the following conditions hole, unless the bars are placed only on one side of
should be satisfied. the web. Such reinforcement is undesirable in long
 REDWOOD A N D SHRIVASTAVA 645

laterally unsupported spans and, in other cases, the
nearest lateral bracing on either side of the opening
should be capable of resisting a force of 2% of the
compression force in the flange at the hole in
addition to the capacity required in the absence of
the hole.
7 Deflections
The deflection of a beam containing one o r more
holes can be estimated by adding the effects produced example, through a concrete slab, the slab should be
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20
used, concentrated loads should be at least a distance
d away from the edge of a hole.
(iii) When a hole is close to a support, the resis-
tance of the web to horizontal shearing forces near
the mid-depth of the beam should be verified. In the
case of reinforced holes, the length over which the
shear is carried should be the distance from the
nearest end of the reinforcement bars t o the support.
(iv) I n the case of a distributed load applied, for

by the local deformations around the hole to those capable of carrying the load over the length of the
calculated for the beam without consideration of the hole.
hole. The local deformations should include the
effects of local bending of the sections above and Part 11-Commentary on Design Recommendations
below the hole over its length. In this calculation, for Steel Beams with Web Holes
the deflections arising from shear deformations may CI General Requirements
be of the same order of magnitude as those due to (i) The most common need for web holes arises in
bending, and should be included in the deflection building structures, and much of the research on
calculation. The additional deflections arising from which the recommendations have been based relates
the presence of one or two circular holes in a beam to class 1 and 2 sections, since these are representa-
can normally be considered negligible, and those tive of the great majority of beams in buildings. For
from rectangular holes are usually small, unless the more slender sections, some guidance may be
presence of the hole causes the resistance of the beam obtained from this commentary, especially 9C4
For personal use only.

to be governed by the section at the hole. relating to web buckling.

(ii) The recommendations relating t o beam resis-
8 Multiple Holes
tance are based upon plastic analysis, and therefore
T o avoid interaction effects between two holes, the steel should be sufficiently ductile. This require-
which may occur when the shear force is high, it is
ment is identical to the CSA standard CAN3-Sl6.1-
necessary that the length of web between the holes, s,
M78 requirement for steel for structures analysed
should satisfy the following.
plastically.
Rectangular holes : (iii) Openings with heights 70% of the beam height
are probably beyond a practical limit. Holes with
heights less than 30% of the beam height will not
not cause much reduction in beam resistance and the
critical section of the beam will usually be at some
other position. Although the resistance checks of 42
Circular holes
and 43 apply to holes smaller than this 30% limit,
there is currently insufficient evidence that the
stability limits of 94 and the treatment of multiple
holes as given in 99 can be applied t o holes smaller
than 30% of the beam height. The restriction of the
where in each case, the length, height, or radius refers hole aspect ratio to three or less results from a lack
to that of the larger of the two holes. of experimental verification for longer holes.
The possibility of interaction effects between (iv) The minimum corner radius given has been
closely spaced reinforced holes, that is, those that shown to provide adequate fatigue life for most
do not satisfy the above conditions, should be purposes (Frost and Leffler 1971). Since this limit
investigated by considering the alternative plastic is not restrictive, it is recommended herein, although
mechanisms that could form in the region of the fatigue is not normally a consideration in building
holes. frames.
(v) The beam resistances given in the following
9 Other Factors sections are not valid if concentrated loads are
(i) For class 1 sections, if no bearing stiffeners are applied within the length of the hole. T o consider
used, it is necessary that the edge of bearing of con- such loading, the region above the hole should be
centrated loads or reactions be at least a distance analysed with the applied local bending loads in addi-
d/2 away from the hole edge. tion to those produced by the moment and shear in
(ii) For class 2 sections, if no bearing stiffeners are the beam at the hole.
 646 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 7 , 1980
C2 Beam Resistance-Unreinforced Holes
c2.1
The beam resistance at an unreinforced hole
described in this section is based upon a plastic
analysis that considers rectangular holes placed at
any position within the depth of the web (Wang et al.
1975; Kussman and Cooper 1976). The failure
mechanism involves plastic hinges near the hole
corners, and is based upon the assumption that no
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20
local instability occurs. Numerous tests have shown
that flanges with slenderness corresponding to class 2
section limits (b/2t = 1 7 0 / P y )justify this assump-
tion, and therefore for class 1 and 2 sections no con-
sideration need be given to flange slenderness. Web
buckling, on the other hand, does impose some
limitations, which are outlined in 94.
The factored shear resistance of the beam with
the hole is given as a proportion of the factored shear
resistance, V,, of the beam without the hole. It
should be noted that the latter should be based upon
the plastic analysis capacity (0.55+dwFy)and not the
larger value permitted for elastic analysis, a part of
For personal use only.
which is based upon resistance due to strain
hardening.
The equations given do not consider all possible
yield mechanisms; they also do not fully account for
the resistance provided by shear forces carried by the
flanges (Shrivastava and Redwood 1979). Within the
range of application of these recommendations, this
additional resistance and the development of strain
hardening compensate for any neglected yielding
mode.
C2.2
The treatment of a circular hole as equivalent to a
rectangular hole is based upon investigation of
various locations of the plastic hinges in relation to
the centre line of the hole (Redwood 1969).
C3 Beam Resistance-Holes with Horizontal
Reinforcing Bars
C3.1
Only horizontal reinforcing bars, located close to
the top and bottom edges of the hole, are considered.
These are simple to fabricate, and are structurally
efficient for the relative magnitudes of bending
moments and shear forces usually encountered in
beams in building structures. For very high shear
forces, web doubler plates or some other means of
carrying shear force directly may be required; such
cases are not considered herein.
Because the cost of reinforcing a hole is primarily
in the handling and welding, the area of the rein-
forcing bars is of little concern, once the necessity
of reinforcement has been established. For this
reason, in the interest of simplicity, [Ill and [12]
neglect the effect of eccentricity and give a con-
servative estimate of the beam resistance. The effect
of eccentricity on the moment M,, which is the
moment capacity in pure bending, cannot, however,
be safely neglected, and this is reflected in [lo]. The
former equations are based on Redwood (1971) and
the latter on analyses of Kussman and Cooper (1976),
subsequently modified and simplified by Redwood
(1978a). The use of these equations to obtain an
explicit formula for the necessary reinforcement area
has been described by Redwood (1978b).
C3.2
Reinforced circular holes can basically be treated
in the same way as unreinforced circular holes,
except that since it is required that reinforcement be
placed close to the top and bottom of the hole, it is
necessary to take, conservatively, the height of the
equivalent rectangular hole as the diameter of the
circular hole.
C3.3
These limits were established on the basis of an
experimental test program described by Lupien and
Redwood (1978).
c3.4
The weld size is based upon the fact that the
maximum force the weld may have to transmit
occurs when yield of the full reinforcement area
occurs in tension at one end of the hole and com-
pression at the other, and the limit of 2awFy/J3
corresponds to yielding of the web in shear. A con-
tinuous weld is called for because the bars will be in
compression over some or all of their length. The
weld on one side has been observed in many tests
to perform satisfactorily.
The anchorage of the bars beyond the hole should
permit the full normal yield force of the reinforce-
ment area to be transferred. Some theoretical
objections to this have been expressed (Larsen and
Shah 1976); however, this procedure has proven
satisfactory in numerous experimental ultimate
strength tests.
C4 Web Stability
The limitations given in 94 enable the designer to
verify very rapidly if web instability should be con-
sidered or not. The limitations are not severe, and it
will be found that a wide range of practical situations
will lie within these limits. For other cases, a general
method of constructing a web buckling strength
curve, relating web buckling strength to web slender-
ness ratio, has been given by Redwood and Uenoya
(1979). This method has been verified experimentally
to have generally conservative results for webs with
slenderness up to h/w = 1590/Jc, which is in the
 REDWOOD AND SHRIVASTAVA
middle of the range for webs of class 3 sections
defined by CSA standard CAN3-S16.1-M78. Web
buckling has been considered by Hoglund (1971)
for beams with much more slender webs having
( l ~ / w ) ( f lin) the range 3310-4965.
c5
lone need be checked
in the case very large holes when the loading at
the hole is primarily a bending moment. For rein-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20
forced holes this buckling is not likely, and for un-
reinforced holes adherence to the conditions given
in $5 will normally result in a negligible reduction
in strength.
C6
The presence of a web hole is not expected to have
a significant effect on the lateral stability of a
W-shaped beam and the few tests that have been
carried out in which lateral buckling might have
occurred have confirmed this. In general, it seems
that the reduction in in-plane bending strength of a
beam due to an unreinforced hole exceeds any
For personal use only.
reduction in lateral bending strength. Nevertheless, a
reduction in the St. Venant torsion contribution to
the lateral stiffness is suggested, following Bower et al.
(1971). The recommendations given relate to the
case when the critical section of the beam, calculated
on the assumption that lateral buckling does not
occur, lies at some distance from the hole. If this is
not the case the limit of elasticity and the resisting
moment of the beam will both be related to the
resistance at the hole, and in this case the buckling
resistance cannot be determined by use of the
equations in the CSA standard CAN3-S16.1-M78.
For simplicity, therefore, it is recommended that this
case be avoided by reinforcing the hole if necessary.
When the critical section is not at the hole, the
lateral buckling provisions of the CSA standard may
be used, with modification to the St. Venant torsion
constant only. Other parameters in the provisions
relate to the unperforated beam section. It is
suggested that this same treatment should be applied
to eccentric holes. The provisions of this section will
rarely have to be applied.
C7
The presence of rectangular holes in regions sub-
jected to shear forces will seldom produce significant
additional beam deflections particularly if the beam
resistance is not governed by the hole. If estimation
of deflections is considered necessary, the calculation
is straightforward, as indicated in the Appendix. A
discussion of the factors that should be considered
is also given in Bower et al. (1971) and McCormick
(1 972).
647
C8
The limitation of the spacing between unreinforced
holes to a maximum of 2 H for rectangular holes and
3R for circular holes for class 1 and 2 sections
ensures that a plastic mechanism involving- inter-
action between the holes will not develop, and in
addition, that instability of the web post between the
holes will not occur (Aglan and Redwood 1973). The
further limitation, depends upon the shear
force, ensures that yielding of the web post in shear
will not occur. This follows Redwood (1968) and is
conservative than Bower nl, (1971) and
Hoglund and Johansson (1977) when the shear force
is low.
An appropriate treatment of multiple reinforced
holes is described in some detail by Redwood (1973).
c9
(i) Little information is available concerning the
effect of concentrated loads near holes. The recom-
mended distance of d/2 for unreinforced holes in
class 1 sections is based upon tests by Cato (1964)
and follows Bower et al. (1971). The same distance
is recommended for reinforced holes, although the
supporting evidence is very limited (see Shrivastava
and Redwood 1977). A t the specified distance, it may
be assumed that the hole will not affect the web
crippling capacity of the beam. Hoglund and
Johansson (1977) suggest that smaller loads may be
placed closer to the hole without the addition of
bearing stiffeners, on the basis of a linear variation
from the full web crippling strength a t the specified
distance to zero strength a t the hole edge.
(ii) For class 2 sections a greater distance is
suggested in view of the more slender web. However,
no supporting evidence is available and careful
consideration should be given to each case. Again it
would be reasonable to permit small loads to be
applied closer to the hole than the recommended
limit.
(iii) When a hole is very close to a support and
subjected to high shear force, the shear resistance of
the beam may be governed not by the strength of the
beam at the hole but by the capacity of the web t o
carry horizontal forces over the length between the
edge of the hole and the adjacent support. This can
be computed from a knowledge of the horizontal
forces above and below the hole at the hole center
line.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of the Canadian Steel
Industries Construction Council and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, which resulted in a number of the research
 648 C A N . J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 7. 1980

findings presented herein, is gratefully acknow- SWARTZ,S. E., and ELIUFOO, K. S. 1980. Composite beams
ledged. with web openings. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
106(ST5), pp. 1203- 1208.
AGLAN,A. A., and REDWOOD, R. G. 1973. Elastic and inelastic WANG,T.-M., SNELL,R. R., and COOPER, P. B. 1975. Strength
instability of webs between holes. McGill University Struc- of beams with eccentric reinforced holes. ASCE Journal of
tural Mechanics Series No. 73-5. Montreal, P. Q. the Structural Division, 101(ST9), pp. 1783- 1799.
BOWER,J. E., et a / . 1971. Suggested guidelines for beams with
web holes. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, List of Symbols
97(STll), pp. 2707-2728.
CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION. 1978. Steel structures A, = area of one flange
for buildings - limit states design. Rexdale, Ont., CAN3- Ar = area of reinforcement along top or
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20

S16. I-M78. bottom edge of hole

CATO,S. L. 1964. Web buckling failure of built-up girders with = area of web ( = dw)
rectangular holes. M.Sc. thesis, Oregon State University,
A v+
a = half length of hole
Corvallis, OR.
FROST,R. W., and LEFFLER,R. E. 1971. Fatigue tests of beams b = width of flange
with rectangular web holes. ASCE Journal of the Structural d = overall depth of beam
Division, 97(ST2), pp. 509-527.
HOGLUND, T. 1971. Strength of thin plate girders with circular
4 = depth of web, including the flange thick-
ness above or below the hole
or rectangular web holes without web stiffeners. Reports of
the Working Commissions, Vol. 11, International Association e = eccentricity of mid-depth of hole
for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) Symposium. measured from the beam mid-depth
London, England, pp. 353-365. Fu = specified minimum tensile strength (MPa)
HOGLUND, T., and JOHANSSON, B. 1977. Chapter 5.111 Steifen- = specified minimum yield stress (MPa)
lose Stahlskeletttragwerke und diinnwandige Vollwand- FY
trager. Edited by F. Reinitzhuber. Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst, H = half height of hole
Berlin. h = height of web, equal to the clear distance
For personal use only.

KUSSMAN, R. L., and COOPER, P. B. 1976. Design example for between flanges (h = d - 2t)
beams with web openings. AISC Engineering Journal, 13(2), L = the grea er of the unsupported cngth of
pp. 48-56. compression flange, or 0.85Lu
LARSEN,M. A,, and SHAH,K. N. 1976. Plastic design of web
openings in steel beams. ASCE Journal of the Structural Divi- L,, = maximum unsupported length of com-
sion, lOZ(ST5). pp. 1031-1041. pression flange for which the unperforated
LUPIEN, R., and REDWOOD, R. G. 1978. Steel beams with web beam section bending resistance can be
openings reinforced on one side. Canadian Journal of Civil developed
Engineering, 5, pp. 45 1-461.
MCCORMICK, M. M. 1972. Open web beams-behaviour, M, = bending moment due to factored loads
analysis, and design. BHP Melbourne Research Laboratories Mr = factored moment resistance of an
Report 17/18. Melbourne, Australia. unperforated beam
REDWOOD, R. G. 1968. Ultimate strength design of beams with M,, M, = values of moment resistance defined in
multiple openings. American Society of Civil Engineers Na-
tional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, Preprint 757.
52.1 and 93.1
1969. The strength of steel beams with unreinforced web R = radius of a circular hole
holes. Civil Engineering
- - and Public Works Review, 64(755), s = length of web between adjacent holes
pp. 559-562. t = thickness of flange
1971. Simplified plastic analysis for reinforced web
holes. AISC Engineering Journal, 8(3), pp. 128-131. vf = shear force due to factored loads
-1973. Design of beams with web holes. Canadian Steel Vr = factored shear resistance of an unper-
Industries Construction Council. Don Mills. Ont. forated beam
1978a. Analyse et dimensionnement des poutres ayant V,, V , = values of shear resistance defined in 52.1
des ouvertures dans les Imes. Construction MCtallique, and 53.1
1978(3), pp. 15-27.
w = thickness of web
19786. Dimensionnement du renfort d'bme de poutres
comportant une ouverture. CRIF (Centre de recherches Z = plastic section modulus of unperforated
scientifiques et techniques de I'industrie des fabrications beam
metalliques), Bruxelles, Note Technique No. 16. h = St. Venant torsion constant modification
REDWOOD,R. G., and UENOYA,M. 1979. Critical loads for
webs with holes. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
factor
105(ST10), pp. 2053-2067. 4 = performance factor
SHRIVASTAVA, S. C., and REDWOOD, R. G. 1977. Web instabil-
ity near reinforced rectangular holes. Proceedings, Interna- Appendix-Examples
tional Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, To illustrate application of the design recom-
P-6/77.
1979. Shear carried by flanges at unreinforced web holes.
mendations, consider a framing plan as shown in
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 105(ST8), pp. Fig. A l . The beams and girders are assumed to have
1706-171 1 . continuous lateral support.
 REDWOOD A N D SHRIVASTAVA
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20
FIG. A l . Layout for example problems. Dead load =
4.25 kPa; live load = 2.40 kPa; a, = 1.25; a, = 1SO. Steel :
G40.21 M, grade 300 W.
AI. Hole in a Typical Beam B
Suppose that a rectangular hole, 300 mm long and
200 mm high, is required at a location 2 m from a
support. The problem is to determine if a mid-depth
hole, e = 0 , needs reinforcement.
For personal use only.
Allowing for live load reduction, the factored
design load is 27.8 kN/m as shown in Fig. A2. The
section is determined to be W460 x 61 with prop-
erties as shown in Fig. A3. The design procedure is
as follows.
(i) The section is verified to be of class 2 with
M, = 354 kN-m, and V, = 542 kN (plastic design
value).
(ii) The hole parameters are 2H/d = 0.444 < 0.7
and > 0.3, and 2a/2H = 1.5 < 3. Therefore, the hole
is of allowable size according to $1.
(iii) The applied factored loads at the hole center
line are V, = 83.4 kN, and M, = 222.4 kN.m.
(iv) At first, it is determined whether an unrein-
forced hole would be adequate. The above dimen-
sions in the equations of $2 give V, = 176.2 kN, and
M, - (M, - M,)(V,/V,) = 244.3 kN.m. Hence,
V, and M, meet the requirements of [ I ] and [2]of $2
and consequently no reinforcement is needed for
strength purposes.
(v) Since the hole dimensions and loading satisfy
the limits of $4 for web stability, of $5 for com-
pression zone stability, and of $6 for lateral stability,
FIG. A2. Loading on beam B.
189
FIG. A3. Section of beam B.
the strength at the hole is not affected by stability
considerations.
A2. Hole it1 the Girder
(i) The loading, allowing for live load reduction, is
as shown in Fig. A4. A hole of the same size as in
beam B is located 2.5 m from the support. The hole
is located eccentrically, with its center 225 mm below
the top flange of the girder.
(ii) The section is chosen to be W530 x 123 with
properties as shown in Fig. A5. The hole eccentricity
is 47 mm. The section is of class 1 with the following
capacities: V, = 1058 k N (plastic design value),
M, = 867 kN.m.
(iii) The hole parameters are 2H/d = 0.329 > 0.3,
and 2a/2H = 1.5 < 3.0. Therefore, the hole is of
acceptable size according to $1.
(iv) The applied factored loads a t the hole are
V, = 259 kN, and M, = 647.5 kN. m.
(v) First, it is determined whether o r not the hole
needs reinforcement. Formulas of $2 give V, = 476.3
kN, and M, - (M, - M,)(V,/V,) = 570 kN.m.
Since M, exceeds the moment capacity, [2] of $2 is
not satisfied and reinforcement a t the hole is
necessary.
(vi) As a trial choose reinforcement consisting of
bars 75 mm x 10 mm welded one each on the top
and bottom of the hole on one side of the web. Thus
A , = 750 mm2. This bar size satisfies the width-to-
thickness restriction of $1.
(vii) To check the adequacy of the reinforcement,
provisions of $3 are applied. $3.1 gives V, = 442.2
kN, and M, - (M, - M,)(Vf/V,) = 650.4 kN.m.
Comparing these values with Vf and M,, the applied
factored loads, it may be concluded that the rein-
Hole
G
FIG. A4. Loading on girder G.
 C A N . J. CIV. EN'G.VOL. 7. 1980
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 24.212.58.21 on 02/24/20
FIG.AS. Section of girder G.
FIG.A6. Loading for deflection calculation.
For personal use only.
forcement chosen is adequate. The requirements of
$3.3 governing the use of one-sided reinforcement
are satisfied and therefore 7 5 mm x 10 mm bar
reinforcement is provided on one side of the web.
(viii) Since the hole dimensions and loading satisfy
the restrictions of $4, web stability is assured. Also,
the hole length and the factored moment are small
enough not to warrant a stability check of $5 for the
compression zone. Also, since the girder is provided
with continuous lateral support, lateral stability con-
siderations of $6 do not arise.
A3. Dejection Calculation
As an example, consider a hole with 2 H = 200 mm
and 2a = 385 mm in beam B, located 2 m from the
end support as shown in Fig. A6. The specified live
load is taken as 8 kN/m.
(i) Central deflection, ignoring presence of hole,
is A, = 5 w L 4 / 3 8 4 E ~Substituting
. the values I = 259
x l o 6 mm4, w = 8 kN/m, and L = 10 m one obtains
A , = 20.1 mm.
Hole
FIG.A7. Effect of hole deflection.
(ii) Now calculate the deflection over the length
of the hole. With a mid-depth hole, the shear is
equally divided between the parts above and below
the hole, and AH, the relative deflection between the
hole ends when the ends are not allowed to rotate,
can be computed from
where I , is the moment of inertia of the tee section
above o r below the hole; V is the total shear force at
center line of the hole; and Q is the first moment of
area about the neutral axis of the tee, of the area on
one side of this axis. If the axis lies in the flange, the
area moment of the flange should be taken about
the flange-web junction. For the present case:
V = 2 4 kN, 1, = 3.51 x lo6 mm4, a n d Q = 40.6 x
lo3 mm3, giving AH = 0.17 mm. This is extremely
small, and this and other cases computed suggest
that deflections due to one or two holes may usually
be ignored.
(iii) In cases where the relative deflection between
the hole ends AH cannot be ignored, the effect of AH
on deflections elsewhere in the beam should be
treated as follows. AH is the relative deflection
between the hole ends without rotation of the cross
sections at the hole ends. It must be such that there
is no relative rotation of the two parts of the beam.
Therefore, the effect of AH on the rest of the beam
is as shown in Fig. A 7 , in which it is assumed that AH
is concentrated at the hole center line. The total
deflection is a superposition of that from Fig. A7 and
that when the hole is ignored.