Web Hole Capacity ASI
Web Hole Capacity ASI
WITH
WEB OPENINGS
WARREN K.LUCAS
DAvm DARWIN
Lawrence, Kansas
June 1990
ii
ABSTRACT
Three design methods, osiginally deveIoped by Donahey and Darwin (19861, for
dewmining the maximum shear capacity of composite beams with unreinforced web openings are
extended to include steel and composite beams with or without reinforcement at the opening. The
three design methods incorporate sirnplirylng assumptions that pennit closed-form sofutions for
maximum shear capacity. The first method assumes that the neutral axes for secondary knding
lie in the flanges of the top and bottom tees and defines the interaction of shear and normal
stresses by a linear approximation of the von Mises yield function. The second method ignores
the contribution of the flanges to secondary bending moments and employs the von Mises yield
function to define the interaction of shear and normal stresses. The third method ignores the
contribution of the flanges to secondary bending moments and defines the interaction between
shear and normal smsses with a linear approximation of the von Mises yield function. Simplified
design expressions for the maximum moment capacity of steel and composite beams with web
openings are presented. Six refinements of the design methods are investigated to determine their
(1990) for determining the maximum moment capacity of steel and composite kams at web
openings are surnmarjzed. The accuracy and ease of application of the design methods presented
in this report (Methods I, TI, and JJI) and applicable procedures proposed by Redwood and
Shrivastava (1980), Redwood and Poumboums (19841, and Redwood and Cho (1986) are
compared with experimental results of fifty steel beams and thirty-five composite beams.
Resistance factors are- calculated for use in LRFD of structural steel buiIdings. The simplest of
and Darwin (19861, provides excellent agreement with test results and a superior approach in
terms of accuracy and ease of application. Resistance factors of 0.90 and 0.85, applied to both
shear and bending, are suitable for steel and composite beams, respectively.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
requirements for the M.S.C.E. degree. The research was supported by the American Iron and
Steel Institute and the University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc. Structural Engineering and
Materids Laboratory. Numerical calculations were performed on the HARRIS f 200 computer at
the University of Kansas Computer Aided Engineering Laboratory and microcomputer and VAX
ABSTRACT ........................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1
3.6 Effect ai' Limiting PC,by the Net Top Tee Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1 S u m m m ................................................... 44
REFERENCES ............................................... 48
TABLES .................................................... 53
LEST OF TABLES
3.10 Composite Beam Shear Capacity Summary: Method IIL h = 1.4 14 .......... 73
G.6 Steel Beam Capacity Summary. Method Ill. h = 1.207 .................. 182
LIST OF l?EURES
2.3 Cubic Moment-Shear Interaction (Darwin and Donahey 1988) ............ 103
2.6 Yield Functions for Combined Shear and Normal Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2.7 Stress Distributions for Design Method I (Darwin 1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.8 Stress Distributions for Design Methods I1 and III (Darwin 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.10 Difference between Methods I1 and Ill versus aJs. ..................... 107
Legend for Moment .Shear Curves for Figs. 3.1 .3.85 ................. 111
3.33 IMornent .Shear Interaction Curves far Test CR-2A .................... 116
3-38 Moment .Shear Intemctioo Curves for Test CR-7D .................... 116
3.41 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test RB D-C I ................... 117
3.42 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test RM- 1A ................... 117
3.43 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test RM-2A ................... 117
3.45 Moment .Shear Enteraction Curves for Test RM3A ................... 117
3.49 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test RM-2B ................... 118
353 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-3 ...................... 119
354 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-5A ..................... 119
3.56 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-6A ..................... I19
3.57 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-6B ..................... 119
3.58 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-7A ..................... 119
3.59 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-7B ..................... 120
3.61 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-9A ..................... 120
3.62 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test D-9B ..................... 120
3.63 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test R-0 ...................... 120
3-64 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test R-1 ...................... 120
3.65 Moment .Shear Tnteractjon Curves for Test R-2 ...................... 120
3*68 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test R-5 ...................... 121
3.69 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test R-6 ...................... 121
3.70 Moment .Shear Interrtction Curves for Test R-7 ...................... 121
3.71 Moment .Shear Tntemction Curves for Test R-8 ...................... 121
3.72 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test C-1 ...................... 121
3.73 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test C-2 ...................... 121
3.7s Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test C-4 ...................... I22
3.76 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test C-5 ...................... 122
3.80 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test (330-3 .................... 122
3.85 Moment .Shear Interaction Curves for Test WSE-l .................... 123
3.86 Difference Between Methods I and 111 versus At/ A, ................... 124
D.2 Limits on Opening Dimensions. a. /s. versus ao/sb.po = 5.6 .............. 152
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The aims of this repon are to (1) extend three design methods, originally developed by
Donahey and Danvin (1986),for determining the maximum shear capacity of composite beams
with unreinforced web openings to cover steel and composite beams with or without reinforcement
at the opening. (2) summarize simplified design expressions for the maximum moment capaciw
of composite and steel beams with web openings, (3) investigate the effect of the following on
predicted capacities:
(a) the use of a linear approximation for the yon Mises yield function by comparing two
design methods that employ, respectively, the von Mises yield function. and a linear
(b) the relative sizes of h e flange and the web as a function of the design method by
comparing two design methods where the only difference is whether the flanges are included or
(c) reducing the tee depth to approximate the movement of the plastic neutral axis, PNA,
with the addition of reinforcement by comparing two methods, one in which &e PNA is
constrained to the top of the flange, the other in which the PNA is permitted to move within the
flange;
(d) limiting the normal force in the concrete at the high moment end of the opening to
the axial yield capacity of the net top tee steel in a composite tee;
(e) limiting the maximum moment capacity, M,, of reinforced steel beams to ~e plastic
( f ) limiting the normal force permitted in the reinforcement at the opening by the strength
(4) compase the accuracy and ease of application of the three methods with procedures proposed
by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980), Redwood and P o u m b u n s (1984), and Redwood and Cho
(19861, and (5) calculate resistance factors, 9, for use in load and resistance factor design of
Comparisons are made with experimental results of thirty-five composite beams and fifty
steel beams. The methods for shear and moment capacity found in Section 2.0 are compand with
results obtained using procedures proposed by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980) for steel beams
and with resuIts published by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980), Redwood and Poumburas (1984),
and Redwood and Che (1986) for composite beams with ribkd slabs, and composite beams with
In this section, the three design methods proposed by Donahey and Darwin (1986) for
determining the maximum shear capacity, V,, of cornposi te beams with unreinforced web openings
are modified to account for in for cement at the opening and extcnded to cover steel kams.
Design expressions for the maximum moment capacity, Mm,of composite and steel beams, with
or without reinforcement, are also presented, as are the procedures for moment-shear interaction
Figs. 2.1 and 2.2, respectively, illustrate web openings in stcel beams and web openings
in composite b e m s with solid and ribbed slabs. Openings are of length a,, depth h,, and may
have an eccentricity, e, which is always taken as a positive for steeI beams and positive in the
upward direction for composite beams. The slab thicknesses. r, m d r,', effective slab width, b,,
and steel section dimensions, d, bf , tf , t, , s, , sb , b, and t,, are as indicated in these figures. The
regions above and below the opening are referred to as the top tee and bomm tee, respectively.
Definitions of variables and notation used in the report are given in Appendix A.
The procedures descrikd in this report are based on the following assumptions:
(2) Shear forces can be carried in the steel and the concrete at both ends of the opening.
(3) Shear forces in the steeI are carried by the webs of the tees.
(4) Shear stresses are uniformIy distributed over the depth of the webs.
(5) The normal forces in the concrete are applied over an area defined by an equivalent
stress block.
(6) For the calculation of maximum moment capacity, the reinforcement is concentrated
subjected to b t h shear and bending moment are obtained using the interaction equation proposed
This continuous function, iIlustrated in Fig. 2.3, permits the calculation of the nominal
shear and moment capacities and provides good agreement w i h test data (see Section 3.0).
Eq. 2.1 can be reasranged to provide a convenient expression for V, or Mn for a given
The forces acting at a web opening are shown in Fig. 2.4. Under positive bending, the
top and bottom tees an: each subjected to axial forces P,and P,, shear forces, V, and V,, and
relationships result.
z = distance between the local neutrd axes in the top and bottom tees.
2.4 Shear Capacity Equations
In this section, the three design methods, developed by Donahey and Damin (1986) to
predict the maximum shear capacity of composite beams with mreinforced web openings, are
extended to cover both steel and composite h a m s with or without reinforcement at She opening.
Theoretical differences between the methods and limitations of the methods are discussed.
A closed-form solution for the maximum shear capacity at a web opening requires the use
of several simplifying a?sumptions. Three closed-form solutions for the maximum shear capacity
are derived, each simpler than the previous one. These closed-form solutions, hereafter referred
to as Methods I, 11, and 111, are based on the assumption that the normal forces in the top and
bottom tees is zero. As discussed by Qawson and Darwin (1980) and Donahey and Darwin
(19861, this Ioad stare only approximates pure shear at the opening in composite beams because
the secondary bending moments at the high and low moment ends of the top tee are not equal.
As a result, the total moment at the opening center line is cIose to, but not equd to zero. The
procedute, however, does represent pure shear in steel beams and gives a close appmximation of
The approach that is taken in the following sections is to develop an expression for the
maximum shear capacity of the most general case, a top tee in a composite beam with a reinforced
Normal forces in a composite tee are illustrated in Fig. 2.5. For composite beams, the
normal force in the concrete at the high moment end of the opening, PC,,is limited by the
compressive strength of the concrete, the shear connector capacity, and the tensile suength of the
ribbed slabs;
support.
8
Fig. 2.5 shews the location of the concrete normal forces. Shear smsses are assumed to
have no effect on the normal stresses in the concrete at the maximum load.
The concrete force at the low moment end of the tee. PC,,
is dependent upon the number
of shear connectors over the opening, No, and the high moment end concrete force, PC,.
Noand N include only the shear connectors entirely within the opening. Connectors at the edge
The moment arms of the high moment end and low moment end concrete forces about
the top of the steel fIange, d, and d,, respectively, are given by the foIlowing equations.
For ribbed slabs with longitudinal: ribs, d, is the distance from the top of the flange to the centroid
force in the concrete. Only the ribs h a t lie within the effective width, b,, are
of the compre~sior~
considered for this calculation. A conservative estimate of dl can be obtained by treating the sum
of the minimum widths of the ribs that lie within the effective width of the slab as b,.
9
The maximum shear in the top tee, V,, is assumed to be carried by the steel web unIess
V , exceeds the plastic shear capacity of she top tee web, given by
This is possible only for a composite tee, not for other cases derived from the composite
tee. W e n the plastic shear capacity of the sop tee is exceeded, the top tee web will fully yield
in shear and will not contribute to moment equilibrium of the tee. As will 'be explained, Eqs.
2.32, 2.43, and 2.54 predict maximum shear capacity in accordance with Methods I, 11, and 111.
respectively, when the top tee web contributes to moment equilibrium. When the web filly yields
in shear, these equations musr be rederived, excluding any contribu~onof the top tee web to
moment equilibrium. This results in Eq. 2.33 for Method I and Eq. 2.46 for Meshods I1 and 111.
In this case, the normal force in the concrete, at high moment end of the opening, PC,,is further
limited based on the reduced normal force in the top tee steel.
The term on the right side of the inequality in Eq. 2.20 represents the horizontal shear strength
of the web below or above the opening. Following the determination of V,, the result must be
compared to the combined shear capacity of the steel web and the concrete over the opening, VdSh,,
T h e maximum shear capacity of the bottom tee, V , , assumed to be non-composite, may not
exceed the plastic shear capacity of the web in the bottom tee, which is
The maximum shear capacity of the section, V,, is the sum of the maximum capacities of the top
The three design methods are developed for the most general case, a composite tee with
a reinforced opening. In each of the three design methods, the von Mises yield function. or a
simplification of the function, is used to model the reduced normal yield strength of the web. 5,
caused by interaction with the shear stress, T.
For a material with yield strength. F,, the von Mises yield function is given by
The three design methods derived in the following sections empIoy simpIiQing
assumptions that permit a cIosed-form solution for the maximum shear capacity.
2.42.1 Method I
The fully plastic s t m s distribution at an opening with zero axial force in the tees is
illustrated in Fig. 2.7. Two simplifying assumptions wdl be made in the derivation of this method
to facilitate a closed-form solution for the maximum shear capacity. First, the position of the
neutral axis in the top and bottom tees for secondary bending is assumed 'to lie in the flanges.
Second, the interaction of shear and normal stresses is defined by a linear approximation of the
The maximum shear capacity of a composite tee is found by using the moment
the neutral axes at the high and low moment ends of the opening, g, and g,, must be known. g,
and g, are measured with respect 20 the outside of the flange @g. 2.7).
Assuming the neutral axis to k in the flange and using normal force equilibrium,
i n which PI = Fyrt,(b, - tJ
Substituting Eq. 2.25 for F; in Eqs. 2.27 and 2.28 results in the following expressions for gh and
g,,
For the derivation of preceding terms using the different yield strengths for the flanges, web, and
If V, > V,, the web has yielded. Resolving Eq. 2.29 through Eq. 2.31 with = 0.0
gives
2.4.22 Method ll
The primary simplification madc in this method is to ignore the conribution of the flanges
to the secondary bending moments. This approximation works kcause the contribution of the
normal stresses in the flanges to the secondary moments is small when moments are calculated
about the extreme edges of the Ranges. Both the normal and the shear smsses are assumed to
be uniform within the web. The normaI stresses in the reinforcement are assumed to act at the
centroid of the reinforcement. The plastic stress distribution is illustrated in Fig. 2.8. The van
Mises yield function, Eq. 2.24, controls the stresses in the web.
The normal force in the web when shear is acting on a tee, P,, is given by
Substituting Eq. 2.34 and Eq. 2.35 into the von Mises yidd function results in the following
Substituting u = aspect ratio of the tee = ads, into Eq. 2.42 and solving for V, gives
When reinforcement is added at the edge of the opening, the pIastic n e u t d axis, PNA,
will shift toward the opening to maintain equilibrium in the tee. However, a key assumption made
in the derivation of this method is that the PNA is located at the top of the flange. This
16
assumption becomes increasingly unconsentative as more reinforcement is added. An adjustment
can be made to approximate the true movement of the PNA by reducing the effective depth of the
reinforcement present.
Ar
in which; = s - -
2bs
The procedure to approximate the movement of the PNA is discussed in greater detail in Section
2.4.3.2.
When V , exceeds the plastic shear capacity of the web, V,,, an ahemate determination of
maximum shear capacity is necessary because the web has yielded in shear. In this case, P, =
in which p is defined in Eq. 2-38 and u = ads. adjustment is necessary in s for Eq. 2.46,
A linear solution for the maximum shear capacity is possible by adding the linear
approximation for the von Mises yield function, Eq. 2.25, used in Method I to the simplified stress
The normal force in the web when shear is acting on a tee is given by
pW = Fys,tw
The maximum shear capacity in the top tee, V,, can be found by taking moments about the top
of the flange.
As with Method 11, the definition of u shodd be altered to account for the shift in the PNA when
When V , exceeds the plastic shear capacity of the web, V,,, the alternate determination
The preceding derivations can be more fufulIy understood by exploring the limitations of
En this section, the effect of the Iinear approximation for the von Mises yield function for
secondary bending will be evaluated by compating the predicted maximum shear capacities using
M e ~ o d sII and 111. The effect of neglecting the flanges when determining maximum shear
capacity will be established by comparing Methods I and III over the range of pennissibIe
Fig. 2.6 Iustsates the von Mises yield funchon and its Iinear approximations when h =
1.207 and h = 1.414. Two concerns arise when the linear approximation of the von Mises yield
function is used. First, for slender tees (high u), it is possible that the predicted normal stress in
capacity when using Methods I and HI, compared to the maximum shear capacity predicted by
Method 11. Second, for stocky tees (low u), it is possible that the predicted shear stress in the
web, T, will exceed the shear stress predicted by the von Mises yield function. This will also
result in less consewative predictions of maximum shear capacity for Methods I and III compared
to Method 11.
2.43.1 Effect of the Linear Approximation of the von Mises Yield Function
The linear approximation of the von Mises yield function allows the normal stress in &e
web, 5,to be overpredicted by as much as 41 % when h = 1.414, as indicated in Fig. 2.9, which
is a comparison of yield functions considering practical restraints. While this large averprediction
is possible, the practical maximum stress predicted by the linear yield function is 1.236FY when
u is limited to 12.0 and h = 1.414 (see Appendix C). At this same practical maximum. for an
unreinfarced tee, Method III predicts a maximum shear capacity that exceeds that predicted by
Method TI by 24.5%, while the absolute difference between Methods II and III is 3.5% of the
plastic shear capacity of the tee, V,. For an unreinforced tee, when h. = 1.207 and u = 12.0, the
predicted maximum shear capaci~esof Method I1 and IIZ differ by 6.3% which translates to 0.90%
of V,. Another practicd consideration that further reduces the effect of the unconservative normal
stress in the web on the predicted maximum shear capacity is a restriction, p,, placed on the size
of the opening (see Appendix 13). This restriction limits the value of u for the second tee to
2.836 when p, = 5.6, adh, = 3.0 and u = 12.0 for first tee. This is illustrated for h = 1.414 and
h = 1.207 in Figs. 2.10 and 2.1 1. Fig 2.10 iflustrates she difference between the maximum shear
capacities predicted by Methods II and I11 for the top and bottom tees normalized on the plastic
shear capacity of the perforated web versus adsr Fig. 2.11 illustrates the ratio of Methods I1 and
20
versus ads,. A W21X44 beam with an opening depth, h,, equal m 50% of the overall beam
depth is used for the comparisons. The curves were generated by varying the opening length, a,
me ratio of opening length to tee depth for the bottom we, ads,, becomes limited as the opening
length increases, consequently, the difference in h e combined maximum shear capacities of the
top and bottom tees predicted by Methods 11 and I11 diminishes as she opening length increases.
Fig. 2.11 was generated with the same beam and opening except the ratio of the maximum shear
capacities predicted by Methods I1 and III is plotted with respect to aJq. For either value of h,
the predicted maximum shear capacity is not significantly affected by the unconservative
prediction of the normal saess in the web by the linear approximation of the von Mises yield
function.
For openings with a 'low U, the Iinear approximation of the von Mises yield function can
predict the shear stress in the web of a tee to be as much as 9.7% higher than that predicted by
the von Mises yield function when 3c = 1.414 and u = 0.727,as illustrated in Fig 2.9. The
correspondingmaximum shear capacities predicted by Methods I1 and III differ by 9.9%, or 9.0%
of the plastic shear capacity of the tee. When h = 1.207 and u = 0.359, the linear approximation
overpredicts the shear smss in the web by 2.1%, and the corresponding maximum shear capacities
predicred by Methods I1 and IIE differ by 2.2%, or 2.1% of the plastic shear capacity of the tee.
When h = 1.414 and u = 0.717, the potential difference k m e e n the maximum shear capacities
predicted by Methods TI and 111 are significant and will have the most effect on the nominal shear
capacity when the opening is under high shear. Openings with u = 0.717 or 0.359 are very
The effect of the linear approximation of the von Mses yield function on the predicted
capacities of fifty steel and thirty-five composite beams is investigated further in Section 3.4.
2.43.2 Effect of Reducing the Tee Depth in Proportion to Reinforcement
For an unreinfotced steel tee, with p = 0.0, Method I predicts a higher maximum shear
capacity than Method 111 over the entire range of acceptable vaIues of u = ads. as illustrated in
Fig. 2.12. This difference is as high as 15% of the pIastic shear capacity of the tee when ads =
2.00. As reinforcement is added to a tee, the PNA will shift toward the opening, and the
assumption made in the derivation of M e h d s I1 and III, that the PNA is at the top of the flange,
kcomes increasingly unconservative. Method I accounts far the shift of the PNA, so reasonably
reinforcement at an opening. The unconservative difference between Methods I and I11 when
nothing is done to account for the shift in the PNA is about 7.5% of the plastic shear capacity of
the tee when y = 9.0 and ads = 12.0. By reducing the depth of h e tee in propofiion to the
reinforcement present (Eq. 2.44), the uncon~svativedifference between Methods 1 and III is
reduced to a b u t 2% of V,, for heavily reinforced slender tees. As shown in Fig. 2.12, with
increasing quantities of reinforcement, it becomes more likely that the maximum sheat capacity
of a steel tee will be governed by the plastic shear capacity of the tee. The unconsezvazive affect
on predicted shear capacity by an unadjusted PNA Iocation for Method I11 will likely be lessened
in many situations because the plastic shear capacity of a tee will govern However. reducing the
tee depth in proportion to the reinforcement present to approximate the actual shift in the PNA
pennits the prediction of maximum shear capacity more in line with those predicted by
Method I.
2 5 Moment Capacity Equations
The expressions for the maximum moment capacity of steel and compasitc beams with
web openings presented in this section are applicable only to members meeting AISC (19861
criteria for compact sections. InstabiIities in the compression flange or web, likely in non-compact
sections, may render the expressions of this section unconsemative because the full smngth at the
Well established strength procedures are employed in deriving the expressions for
maximum moment capacity, M,. En all cases, fully plastic behavior is aqsumed for the steeI
The maximum moment capacity of unreinforced steel beams, as derived in this section,
bearns are derived by assuming that she reinforcement is concentrated along the top and bottom
edges of the opening and that the thickness of the reinforcement is small. For members with an
eccentric opening, e $0, the plastic neutraI axis will be Iocated in the reinforcement at the edge
of the opening closest to fithe centroid of the original steel section or in the web of the deeper tee.
When reinforcement is used, the maximum moment capacity, M,, should not exceed the flexural
2.13(a), 2.13(b), and 2.13(c) illustrate st~essdiagrams for steel sections in pure bending.
23
25.1.1 Unreinforced Openings
For members with unreinforced openings and eccentricity, e, the maximum moment
in which A A, = hotw,
The maximum moment capacity of steel beams with reinforcement along both the top and
lmttorn edges of the opening are derived in this section. Two simplifying assumptions are used
in the following derivation so that concise, conselvative expressions for M, are possibIe. First,
the reinforcement is assumed to be concentrated dong the top and bttorn edges of the opening,
and second, zhe thickness of the reinforcement is assumed to be small. The maximum moment
capacity of a perforated, reinforced, steel beam in which the PNA resides in the reinforcement and
The maximum moment capacity of a perforated, reinforced, steel beam in which the PNA
["[
M m = Mp - Fytw - + eh, - -2e + -
:])+F#&-!&]5Mp (2-581
unperforated cross-section.
FY
presented in this section. Simplified design expressions (Darwin 1990) are also developed
following a review of the more precise moment capacity equations. When the opening is
reinforced, the maximum moment capacity, M,. should not exceed the flexural stsength of the
unperforated composite section, M,. The eccentricity of the opening, e. is taken to be positive
in the upward direction in composite kms. Figs. 2.14(a), 2.14(b), 2.14(c) illustmle m e s s
For a given beam and opening configuration. the force in the concrete, PC,is limited to
the lower of the concrete compressive strength, the shear connector capacity, or the tensile
The depth of the concrete stress block, a, for solid slabs or for ribbed slabs with transverse ribs
is given by
The maximum moment capacity, M,, is dependent on the governing inequality from Eqs. 2.60,
2.67, and 2.62. If PC= T' [Eq. 2.62, Fig. 2.141a)l. the PNA resides at the top of the steel flange
2*,Fr
in which AAr = hotw - -
FY
Eq. 2.63 is valid for ribkd dabs if a It,'. If a > t,', as is possible for ribbed slabs with
longitudinal ribs, the term jt, - d 2 ) in Eq. 2.64 must be replaced with the appropriate expression
for lhe distance between the top of the steel flange and the centroid of the concrete force.
If PC< T *(Eq. 2.60 or Eq. 2.61), the PNA is in the steel section, placing a portion of the
steel member in compression. The PNA can k eithcr in the flange or the web of the top tee,
If the force in the concrete and the tensile capacity of the flange (left side of Eq. 2.55)
exceeds the tensile capacity of the web (right side of Eq. 2.65). the PNA will be in the flange (Fig.
2.14(b)) at a distance x from the top of the flange, For this case,
If the tensile capacity of the web exceeds the capacity of the concrete slab and steel flange,
the PNA will reside in the web at a distance x from the top of the flange. as illustrated in Fig. 2.15
Simplified design expressions (Damin 1990) for the maximum moment capacity of
perforated composite beams are developed in this section. When the PNA in an unperforated
member resides at the top of the steeI flange, Eq. 2.64, a simplified design expression is possible
by assuming sat F, = F,, and that lthe inlemal moment a m between tensile and compressive
forces is not significantly affected by the loss in steel area due to the opening or the addition of
Rearranging,
28
Using the second assumption. the term (di2 + t, - a12)is assumed to be about the same for the
perforated and mperforated sections. Thus the first term of Eq. 2.71 can k expressed in terms
Eq. 2.72 is usually accurate within a few percent and is conservative when the steel cross-sectional
area of the reinforced beam at the opening is Iess than that of the original unreinforced beam.
When the PNA in the unperforated member resides in the steel section, [Eq. 2.61 or 2.621,
one design expression for M, is possible by assuming that the tern -b,2lA, in Eg. 2.67 and the
Rearranging,
x used in place of
Eq. 2.74 is exact when the PNA lies at the top of the flange and can I
Eq. 2.72, and it is very accurate, but slightly unconservative, when the PNA is in Ehe flange. Eq.
2.74 becomes progressively more unconservative as the PNA moves into the web, A limitation
on the application of Eg. 2.74 is then necessary to preclude overly unconservative results. This
can be conservatively accomplished by limiting the magnitude of the terms neglected by Eq. 2.74
29
(see Eq. 2.67 and 2.69) to less h n 4 percent of dl2 for members in which the flange area is
greater than or equal to 40 percent of the web area [i.e., (bf- tJtf 1 0.4m.This is accomplished
by limiting the force in the concrete, PC,to values greater than FY(0.75t& - M,). The flange-to-
web area ratio stipulation is consemative, and as that ratio increases. the accuracy of Eq. 2.74
improves. For members in which the PNA resides in the web, arid either PC< F,(0.75twd - M,),
or the flange-to-web area ratio is less than 0.40, M, must be determined using Eq. 2.67 or 2.69.
A derivation of the stipulation on P, for configurations where the PNA is located in the web can
be found in Appendix E.
In Ibis section, the design expressions proposed by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980) for
determining the maximum shear capacity, Vm, and an intermediate value of moment used for
moment-shear interaction, M,.for steel beams with and without reinforcement at the opening are
altered to account for the yield strengths of the web and rcinforcent. These aItered expressions
are used in calculating the norninaI capacities of steel beams which are summarized in Tables
3.11, 3.19, and E.6. The expressions for determining moment capacity used with expressions
The intermediate moment capacity, M, for an unreinforced beam at which the nominal
shear capacity commences to diminish kcause of increasing moment at the opening is given by
30
The maximum shear capacity, V,, of the top and bottom tees of an unreinfozced beam is
in which
The intermediate moment capacity, w,far a reinforced beam at which the nominal shear
capacity commences to diminish because of increasing moment at the opening is given by
The maximum shear capacity, Vm,of the top and bottom tees of a reinforced beam is
31
3.1 Introduction
In this section, the three design methods described in Section 2.0 are evaluated. The
results from fifty steel beams and thirty-five composite beams are used for comparison. Of the
fifty steel kams, nineteen are unreinfocced with rectangular openings, ten are unreinforced with
circular openings, and twenty-one are reinforced with rectangular openings. Of the thirty-five
composite beams. twenty-two have ribbed slabs and thirteen have solid slabs. Two of the beams
with solid slabs and one of the beams wizh ribbed slabs are reinforced at the opening. The
proportioning and detailing guidelines presented in Appendix D are also discussed in this section,
along with the equations used to calculate resistance factors. The results of six specific amas of
investigation are presented in Sections 3.4 - 3.9. The six areas investigated are the effects of (1)
varying h, the factor used in the linear approximation of the von Mises yield function, (2)
reducing she tee depth of a reinforced tee to approximate the actual rnoverncnt of the plastic
neutral axis with the addition of reinforcement, (3) limiting PC,,the normal force in the concrete
at the high moment end of the opening, by the axiaf yield capacity of the net steel in a composite
tee, (4) limiting the nonnd force in the reinforcement at an opening by the capacity of the
accompanying weld. ( 5 ) size of the flanges relative to the web as a hncrion of the design method,
and (6) limiting the maximum moment capacity of a perforated beam to the plastic moment
capacity of the unperforated beam. These six areas are important because they are refinements,
simplificadons, and limitations that impact the accurate prediction of shear and moment capacity.
The comparisons made in Sections 3.4 - 3.9 are not based on tests specifically fomuIated
Dimensions znd properties for the steel and composite beams included in Lhe analysis are
The resuIts obtained using the expressions developed in Section 2.0 and presented in
Appendix B to account for the yield strengths of the flanges, web, and reinforcement are
summarized in Tables 3.3 - 3.10, and 3.13 - 3.18. Results obtained using the appropriate methods
proposed by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980), Redwood and Poumbouras (1984) and Redwood
and Cho (1986) are summarized in Tables 3.1 I. 3.12, 3.19 and 3.20. Table 3.21 is an overall
summary of the results of the analysis for all of the methods considered.
Proportioning guidelines have been developed for web openings in steel and composite
beams which ar.: r o s t recently summarized by Darwin (1990). These appear in Appendix D.
The majority of h c guidelines help to insure that failure of a beam, as predicted by the design
The design limitations dictated by the proportioning and detailing guidelines for h a m s
used in the analysis are presented in Table 3.3 for steel beams and in Table 3.4 for composite
beams. Ten of the beams used in the analysis violate one or more of the proportioning
guideleines which are summarized in Table 3.30and Table 3.4(d) for steel and composite beams,
respectively. These beams were retained in the analysis because either the violdon was reIated
more to detailing practice than to the strength of the beam and/or faiIure did not occur bcause
of the violation.
33
Twenty-one steel beams and one composite beam tested in previous studies have been
excluded from consideration in this maIysis due to violations of the proportioning and detailing
guidelines. Sixteen steel hams tested by Kim (1980)were excluded because of extremely
conservative testltheory ratios for tests with shear acting at the opening. Dimensions and
properties, design limitations and results for the design methods presented in this repart and the
applicable Redwood method for the excluded beams are presented in Appendix E.
Resistance factors appropriate for the design methods presented in this report and design
methods proposed by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980), Redwood and Poumbouras (I984),and
Redwood and Cho (1986) were determined in accordance with proceduses outlined in AlSC
The term RJR, is the average testltheosy mtio for a group of beams, expressed as
34
This vaIue was determined by Gdmbos (1978) using a large number of test coupons
from steel beams. It serves te account for the additional strength available from steel
The term V, is the coefficient of variation ~ w l t i n gfrom several sources of variation, which is
given by
Ttie first of six areas investigated is the effect of varying h, the variabIe used in the linear
approximation of the von Mises yield function. The effect of varying his investigated to establish
a value that yields the most accurate predictions of maximum shear capacity by Methods E and
111. Two values for h are considered, 1.207 and 1.414. Donahey and Darwin (1986)used h=
35
1.207 which represents the best uniform approximation of the von Mises yeEd function This
study uses h = 1.414, which represents the practical upper limit for a linear approximation (Fig
2.6). The maximum shear capacities, and the predicted nominal shear and moment capacities for
steel and composite beams using h = I .414 are presented in Tables 3.5 - 3.10,3.13 - 3.18 and
3.21. The maximum shear capacities, and the predicted nominal shear and moment capacities for
steel and composite beams using h = 1.207 are presented in Tables G.1 - G.9.
For the fifty steel b e m s . when h = 1.414, the mean tesvheory mtios are 1.158, 1.213.
and 1.183 and the coefficients of variation are 0.134, 0.179,and 0.150 for Methods I, 11, and 111,
respectively. The corresponding resistance factors for the three methods are 0.929, 0.916, and
0.929. Considering the tesqtheory means, Method I is the most accurate foPlowed by Mchod 111
and Method TI. The fact that Method 111is more accurate, for the bems considered, than Method
Method En,with A = 1.414, tends to give a better match with the test data because the y o n Mises
yield function does not account for strain hardening, which appears in virtudly all of the high
shear tests. The higher values of shear strength obtained with Methods I and TIT with h = 1.474
take advantage of this behavior. For the same steel beams, when h = 1.207, the mean testltheory
ratios are 1.232 and 1.281 and the coefficients of variation are 0.166 and 0.193 for Methods I and
111, respectiveIy. The corresponding ~siszancefactors for Methods 1 and IIE are 0.947 and 0.949.
h = 1.207. In ger-esal, for the steel beams, using h = 1.414 for Methods I and 111 produces lower
testltheosy ratios, lower coefficients of variation, and lower resistance factors. In all cases,
For the thirty-five composite beams, when A = 1.414. the mean test/theory ratios are
1.02.4, 1.065, and 1.039 and the coeficients of variation are 0.084,0.088,and 0.092 for Methods
I. 11, and IIT, respectively. The comsponding resistance factors for the three methods are 0.870,
0.901, and 0.876. Considering the tesvtheory means, coefficients of variation, and resistance
factors, Method I is the most accurate followed by Methods 111 and 11. For the same composite
hams, when h = 1.207, the mean testhheory ratios are 1.060 and 1.083 and the coefficients of
variation are 0.079 and 0.086 for Methods t and 111, respectively. The corresponding resisance
factors for Mcthods I and III are 0.905 and 0.918. Method 11 is not influenced by h. Considering
tesvtheory means, coefficients of variation, and resistance factors, Methed I is the most accurate
followed by Method II and Method In, when h = 1.207. In general. for the composite beams,
using h = 1.414 produces lower test/theory ratios, slightly higher coefficients of variation, and
lower resistance factors. In a l l cases, resistance factors are higher than 0.85. Using h = 1.414 for
both steel and composite beams produces more accurate predictions of nominaI capacity.
The effect of reducing the depth of a tee when reinforcement is present for Methods II
and III is investigated to establish its significance with test data. ResuIts obtained using Method
111 with no adjustment in the tee for reinforcement are compared wirh results obtained using
Method III with am adjustment in the tee for reinforcement. me effect of rcducing the depth of
a tee in the cdculation of u in Eq. 2.44 is summarized in Table 3.22 for twenty-one reinforced
steel beams and three reinforced composite beams. Reducing the tee depth for reinforcement does
reduce the predicted maximum shear capacity and produces slightly more conservative nominal
capacities for those k a m s affected. The overall testJtheory ratio mean for the steel beams
increases from 1.141 to 1.148, the coefficient of variation does not change and the resistance
37
factor increases from 0,929 to 0.935 when the stub is reduced proportionally ~y the reinforcement
present. The test/thcory ratio for the single reinforced composite beam affected (CRO-6) increases
from 1.1I2 to 1.118 when the stub is reduced. The other two beams have very little shear (CHO-
7) or no shear ( W E - 2 ) and are thus not affected. Reducing the tee depth by an amount
proportional to the reinforcement present does not have a large affect on many other beams
because the reinforcement contributes to shear capacity in excess of the maximum permitted by
Section D.1.2. This restriction serves to maintain sirniliar conservatism availabIe with Method I
The effect of limiting PC,,the normal force in the concrete slab at the high-moment end
of the opening. by the normal force in the net steel in the top tee when V , < Ve for Methods II
and I11 was investigated to estabIish if the limitation could be applied accurately and consistently
with all three design methods for predicting maximum shear capacity presented in Section 2.0.
The basis of comparison is h e resuIts obtained from Methods 11 and 111 with h = 1.414 and PC,
not limited to the normal force in the net steel when V , < V,. Donahey and Darwin (1986) did
not limit P, when V, c V,, for Methods II and IIE because this was thought 10 be unconservative
and hconsistent with the assumptions made in the derivation of Methods I1 and 111.
The results of limiting PC,by the net steel when V , < V, and h = 1.414 are summarized
for Method 111 in Table 3.23. For the D-series k m s , the test/theosy mean is unchanged at 0.974,
the coefficient of variation increases from 0.060 to 0.067 and the resistance factor decreases From
0.845 to 0.84 1 when the limitation is applied to PC,. For the R-series beams, the testltheory mean
decreases from 1.065 to 1.050, the coefficient of variation decreases from 0.087 to 0.057, and the
resistance factor increases from 0.902 to 0.915. For the C, G and CHO-series beams the
38
test/theory mean decreases from I. 121 to 1.1 16. the coemcient of variation increases from 0.076
to 0.080.and the resistance factor decreases from 0.960 to 0.952. For the CHO-series bems
(reinforced) the testhheory mean, the coefficient of variation and the resistance factor do not
change. For h e composite beams as a group, the test/theory mean decrease from 1.Q48to 1.043,
the coefficient of variation decreases from 0.1395 to 0.091 and the resistance factor is unchanged
at 0.880. For the thirty-five composite beams considered with h = 1.414, the limitation on PC,
yields tedtheory means closer to l.MM and smaller coefficients of variation, though the
The effect of limiting the normal force in the reinforcement by the weld strength in
determining the maximum shear capacity is checked to establish its significance on the prediction
of maximum shear capzcity for reinforced beams. The results of this investigation are summarized
in Table 3.24. F , kr. nine beams of the twenty-four reinforced beans was affected by the
limitation. Of these nine beams, the maximum shear capacity of only one. CHO-6, was
influenced. No change was seen in the maximum shear capacity for the other eight beams
because the maximum shear capacity was limited by the plastic shear capacity of the tee even after
Because Methods TI and I11 ignore the cemribution of the flanges to the secondary bending
moments, is is possiMe, for beams with large A, /A, ratios, that these rwo methods could
significantly undetpxdict h e maximum shear capacity when compared LQ Method I. Fig. 3.86
(refer to Table 3.25 for selected members and other study parameters) illustrates that. as the Af /A,
39
ratio increases, the difference between Methods I and III also increases and can be very
significant. Within the typical range of Af /A. 0.40 to 0.80,the difference between thc two
methods is never larger than 5% of V,. For A, /A, ratios larger an 0.80, for sections typically
used as beams, the difference between the two methods is as high as 16% (for a W12x58). A
larger difference between the two methods occurs for a W 14x109, but t h i s section is not typically
used as a h a m . me effect of ignoring the contribution of the flanges to the secondary bending
moments for sections typicdly used as hams with moderate flange areas is not significant.
However, unnecessarily conservative predictions of shear capacity can result for some beam
The effcct of limiting the maximum moment capacity by the plastic moment capacity of
the unperforated section is summarized in Table 3.26. All but two of the twenty-one reinforced
steel beams are affected by the limitation. As a group, the tesutheory ratio mean increased from
1.233 to 1.148, the coefficient of variation dropped from 0.128 to 0.122, and the resistance factor
increased from 0.9:6 to 0.935. Insuring that M, IMp provides slightly more conservative
For the purpose of comparison with the current work, nominal shear and moment
capacities are obtained for all of the steel and composite beams considered in the report using
applicable methods deveIoped by Redwood and his coworkers. Maximum capacities are
cdculated for the steel beams using procedures proposed by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980) and
are given in Table 3.11 for beams included in the analysis and in Table E.6 for ;beams not used
40
in the analysis. Equations proposed by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980) are modified in Section
2.6 to account for the individual yield strengths of the flanges, web and reinforcement. Tables
3.1 E and E.6 contain intermediate values, defined in the respective table nnd the respective
reference, used to calculate the maximum shear capacities. Maximum shear capacities are
calculated for thirteen composite beams with ribtxd-slabs tested by Donahey and Darwin (1986)
(D-series) using procedures presented by Redwood: and Pournburas (1984) which are given in
Table 3.12. Capacities for nine composite beams with ribbed slabs tested: by Redwood and
Pournbouras (1984) (R-series) are taken from published values. The capacities for the remaining
unreinforced composite beams with solid slabs are taken from values published by Redwood and
Cho (1986). The predicted nominal shear and moment capacities for the steel and composite
beams are presented in Tables 3-19 and 3.20, respectively. Capacities were not calculated or
provided for beams CHO-6,CHO-7, and W E - 1 because no Redwood method has been published
which accounts for reinforcement in cornpsitc beams. Several of the calculated capacities for
composite beams do not agree with capacities published by Redwood. These discrepencies may
be due to the way in which the shear connector capacities are calculated (see Donahey and Darwin
(7986)).
Shrivnstava (1980). Both require the calculation of an intermediate value for the moment, M,,at
which interaction with shear begins to have an influence on the moment capacity. M,. The first
interaction diagram is composed of two straight lines connecting the maximum shear capacity, Vm,
to M*,and M , to the maximum moment capacity, M m (see Fig. 3.87). This method is referred to
as Redwood&). The second interaction procedure used by Redwood uses a straight line to
connect V, to M,,and a circuIar arc to connect Mv to M m (see Fig. 3.88). This procedure is
41
referred to as RedwoodCC). Both interaction procedures are used for the steel beams, while only
In this section the nominal shear and moment capacities obtained using the design
methods discussed in Section 2.0. using h = 1.414, and those by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980),
Redwood and Poumbouras (1984) and Redwood and Cho (1986) are compared with test results.
The analysis includes fifty steel beams and thirty-five composite beams. A tabular summary of
resuIts for both steel and composite beams is given in Table 3.21. Individual moment-shear
interaction curves and the respective beam test values are given in Figs. 3.1 - 3.85 for the steel
and composite beams. GraphicaI comparisons of the predicted strengths using Method TI1 and the
amaI test v f ues for the steel and composite beams art: given in Figs. 3.89 and 3.90, respectively.
Nineteen of the fifty steel beams are unreinforced with rectangular openings, ten are
unreinfomd with circuIar openings, and twenty-one are reinforced with rectangular openings. The
beams with unreinforced mcmgular openings have testltheory means of 1.213. 1.302, 1.250,
1.265, and 1.391 with coefficients of variation of 0.142, 0.21 1, 0.167, 0.191 and 0.195 for
Methods I, 3E, HI, Redwmd(C), and Redwood&), respectiveIy. The corresponding resistance
factors are Q.963,0.939, 0.960,0.939, and 1.027. The beams with unreinforced circuIar openings
have testhheory means of 1 .OM,1.145, 1.127, 1.1 I I, and 1.264 with coefficients of variation of
0.1 19, 0.154, 0.142, 0.140 and 0.131 for Methods I, 11, 111, Redwood(C), and Redwood&),
group of beams with reinforced rectangular openings have tesmeory means of 1.143, 1,166.
1.148, 1.142, and 1.362 w i h coefficients of variation of 0.121, 0.125, 0.122, 0,151 and 0.195 for
means of 1.158, 1.213, 1.183, 1.183, and 1.353 with coefficients of variation of 0.134, 0.179,
0.150, 0.174 and 0-185 for Methods I, 11. 111, RedwoadCC), and Redwood(L3, respectively. The
cemsponding resistance factors are 0.929, 0.916, 0.930, 0.900, and 1.013. Generally, Method I
provides testhltheory means closest to 1.000, followed by Method 111, Redwood(C), Method 11, and:
Redwood&). Method I gives the smallest coefficients of variation, followed by Method EII,
Redwood(C), Method II, and Redwood&). Redwood(C) gives the lowest resistance factor
OF the thirty-five cornpositc beams, twenty-one have ribbed slabs and unreinforced
rectangular openings. eleven have solid slabs and unreinforced rectangular openings, one has a
ribbed slab and a reinforced rectangular opening, and two have solid slabs and reinforced
rectangular openings. Methods I, Il and 111 are applied to all thirty-five kms. The Redwood(Q
method (Ftedwood and Pornbourn (1984) and Redwood and Cho (1986)) is applied to the thirty-
two beams without reinforcement. Redwood&) is not applicable. The gmup of beams with
rjbkd slabs and unreinforced rectangular openings have test/theery means of 0.995, 1.037, 1.W6,
and 1.090 with coefficients of variation of 0.071, 0.069, 0,072, and 0.121 for Methods I, IT, 111,
and Redwood(C), respectively. The corresponding resistance factors are 0.856,0.893,0.8@, and
0.889. T h e hams with solid slabs and unreinforced ectangutar openings have test'theoq means
of 1.092, 1.I41, 1.1 16, and 1.207 with coefficients of variation of 0.066, 0.075, 0.080, and 0.124
43
for Methods 1, 11, 111, and Redwood(Q, respectively. The corresponding resistance factors are
0.943, 0.978,0.952, and 0.98 1. The beams with ribbed and solid slabs with reinforced rectangular
openings have testhheory means of 0.978, 0.985, and 0.983 with coefficients of variation of 0.1 10,
0.122. and 0.1 19 for Methods I, 11, and III, respectively. The corresponding resistance factors are
0.808, 0.802, and 0.803. These low values are due to h e fact that only three beams are used for
this calculation, and the results are dominated by a singIe member (WE-1) for which failure was
controlled by shear connector capacity (Wiss et al. 1914). Thus these values are not considered
The thirty-five composite beams [thirty-two for Redwood(C)] have tesvtheory means of
1.024, 1.065, 1.039, and 1.131, with coefficients of variation of 0.084, 0.088, 0.092, and 0.128
for Methods I, II, 111, and Redwood(C), respectively. The corresponding resistance factors are
0.870, 0.901, 0,875,and 0.895. Overall, Method I provides tesmeory means closest lo 1.000,
followed by Method 111, Method 11, and RedwoodCC). Method I provides the smallest coefficients
of variation, followed by Method 11, Method 111, and Redwood(C). Method I yields the lowest
3.113 Recommendations
Method 111, the simplest of the design methods for determining maximum shear capacity.
coupled with the cubic moment-shear interaction procedure proposed by Donahey and Darwin
(1986) i s recommended for design. Resistance factors of 0.90 and 0.85, applied to shear and
bending, are recommended for the design of steel and composite beams, respectively. As
illustrated in Figs. 3.89 and 3.90, none of the hams used for the comparisons had a strength
4.1 Summary
Three design methods, originally developed by Donahey and Darwin (1986). for
determining the maximum shear capacity of composite beams with unreinfocced web openings are
extended to include steel and composite beams with or without reinforcement at the opening. The
three design methods incorporate simplifying assumptions that permit closed-form solutions for
maximum shear capacity. The first method assumes that the neutral axes for secondary bending
lie in the flanges of the top and bottom tees and defines the interaction of shear and normal
stresses by a linear approximation of the von Mises yield function. The second method ignores
the contribution of the flanges to secondary bending moments and employs the von Mises yield
function to define the interaction of shear and normal smsses. The third method ignores the
contribution of the flanges to secondary bending moments and defines the interaction between
shear and normal suesses w i a ~linear approximation of the yon Mises yield function Simplified
design expressions for the maximum moment capacity of steel and composite beams with web
openings are presented. Six refinements of the design methods are investigated to determine their
(1990) for determining rhe maximum moment capacity of steel and composite beams at web
opnings are summarized. The accuracy and ease of application of the design methods presented
in this report (Methods I, IT, and 111) and applicable procedures proposed by Redwood and
Shrivastava (1980). Redwood and Poumbouras (1984). and Redwood and Cho (1986) are
compared with experimental results of fifty steel beams and thirty-five composite beams.
Resistance factors are calculated for use in LRFD of structural steel buildings.
4.2 ConcIusions
Based on the work presented in this report, the following concIusions can be made:
1. For slender tees, the predictions of normal stress made by the linear approximation of
the von Mises yield function, when h = 1.414, can be as much as 41% higher than the normal
s t ~ s spredicted by the von Mises yield function. Considering practical design limitations on
opening sizes (Appendix D), lthe normal stress is overpredicted by 26.3%. This translates into a
maximum shear capacity that is overpredicted by 3.5% of the plustic shear capacity of a tee when
2. stocky tees, the linear approximation of the von Mises yield function can
overpredict the shear stress in a tee by as much as 9.7% when h = t .414 and u = 0.717. This
translates into a difference in predicted maximum shear capacity of 9.0% of the plastic shear
capacity of a see. While this difference is signicant,such low values of u are very unlikely to
occur in practice.
3. Using h = 1.414 with Methods E and In, instead of 1.207, for both steel and
composite beams produces more accurate predictions of nominal capacity and more consistent
resistance factors for different opening and slab types thus eliminating unnecessary conservatism
4. Unnecessatily conservative predictions of shear capacity can result for some beam
sections using Methods IT or III, if the ratio of the area of the flange to the area of the web, AjA,,
exceeds 0.80.
5. The effect of reducing the tee depth by an amount proportional to the reinforcement
present, when calculating the maximum shear capacity at an opening, did not have a large effect
in many of the reinforced beams considered, because the reinforcement contributed to shear
capacity in excess of the maximum permitted by Section D.1.2. The procedure, however, serves
46
to maintain conscrvalism similiar to that obtained with Method I for tees with significant
quantities of reinforcement.
6. For the thirty-five composite beams considered, with h = 1.414, consiskntIy limiting
PC,by Ihe axial yield capacity of the top tee steel gives test/theory means closer to 1.0 and smaller
coefficients of variation, than when PC,is not Iimited by the net top tee steel.
8. Insuring that the normal force in the reinforcement is Iess than the capacity of the
corresponding weld provides predictions of shear capacity that are more conservative than when
the normal force in the reinforcement is not limited by the weld capacity.
9. For the steel beams, Method I provides tesvtheory means closest to 1.0, followed by
Method III, Redwood(C), Method 11, and Redwood&). Method I gives the smallest coefficients
of variation, followed by Method 111, Redwood(C), Method 11, and Redwood(L). For the group
of steel beams, Redwood(C) yieIds the lowest resistance factor followed by Method II, Method
I, Method 111, and Redwood&). Far the composite beams, Method I provides testhheory means
closest to 1.0, foIlowed by Method 11, Method 111, and Redwood(C). Method I yields the smallest
coefficients of variation, followed by Method /I, Method 111, and Redwood(C). Method I gives
the lowem resistance factor followed by Method ITE, Redwood(C), and Method 11.
10. Methods proposed by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980), Redwood and Pournbouras
(1986)and Redwood and Cho (1986) for determining shear and moment capacity for steel beams.
composite beams with ribbed slabs, and composite beams with soIid slabs, respectively, are
genesally more complex than the methods in this report and do nos offer any additional accuracy.
47
11, Method I11 coupled with the moment-shear interaction procedures proposed by
Donahey and Dsnvin (1986) is easily applied and provides strength predictions that are in
12. Resistance factors for shear and bending of 0.90 and 0.85 are appropriate for steel
Aglan, Ahmed A., and Qaqish, Samih. (1982). "Plastic Behavior of Beams with Mid-depth
Web Openings," AISC Enpineerin.~Journal, VoI. 19, No.1, pp. 20-26.
Aglan, A h e d A., and Redwood, Richard G. (1974). "Web Buckling in Catellatcd Beams,"
Proceedings, Part 2, Institution of Civil Engineering (London), Vot. 57, June, pp. 307-320.
Bower, John E. (1968). "Ultimate Strength of Beams with Rectangular Holes,'Voumal of the
ASCE, Vol. 94, No. ST 6, June, pp. 1315-1337.
Cato, S. L. (1964). "Web Buckling Failure of BuiIt-up Girden with Rectangular HoIes," M S .
Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Cho, Soon Ho. (1982). "An Iwestigation on the Strength of Composite Beams with Web
Openings,'W.S. Arch. Eng. Thesis. Hanyong University, Seoul, Korea, Dec., 270 pp.
Cho, Soon Ho, and Redwood, Richard G. (1986). ''The Design of Composite Beams with Web
Openings,'YStructural Enfineerinpl Series No. 86-2, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, June, 66 pp.
Clawson, William C., and Danvin, David. (1980). "Composite Beams with Web Openings,"
Report No. 4, University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, Kansas, Oct., 209 pp.
Clawson. William C.. and Danvin. David. (I982a). "Tests of Composite Beams with Web
Openings,''JoumaP of the Smctuml Division, A S E , Vol. 108, No, STI, Jan., pp. 145-162.
Clawson, WilIim C., and Darwin, David. (1982b). "Strength of Composite Beams with Web
Openings." Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Val. 108, No. ST3. Mar., pp. 623-641.
Discussions by R. G.Redwood and Closure to Discussion Vol. 109, No. ST5,Apr. 1983, pp.
1307-1309.
Congdon, Judith G., and Redwood, Richard G. (1970). "'Plastic Behavior of Beams with
Reinforced Holes," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. ST9,ST., pp. 1933-
1955.
Cooper, Peter B., and Snell, Robert R. (1972). "Tests on Beams with Reinforced Web Openings,'"
Journd of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. ST3,Mar.,pp. 611-632.
Cooper, Peter B.;SnelI, Robert R.;and Knosman, Hany D.(1972). "'Failurr:Tests on Beams with
Eccentric Web Holes," Journal of the Structuml Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. ST9, Sep., pp.
1731-1737.
Darwin, David. (1984). "'Composite Beams with Web Openings," Proceedings, National
Engineering Conference, American Institute of SteeI Construction, Chicago, Illinois, Mar.. 17 pp.
Also, Journal of the Boston Societv of Civil Engineers Section, ASCE, Vol. 71, No. 1 & 2, 1985,
pp. 67-83.
Darwin, David. (1988). "Behavior and Design of Composite Beams with Web Openings,"Chapter
3, Steel-Concrete Composite Structures: Stabilitv and Strensh. R. Narayanan, Ed., Applied
Science Publishers, London and New Yo&, 1988, pp. 53-78.
Darwin, David. (1990).Design of Steel and Composite Beams with Web Openings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL,63 pp.
Darwin, David, and Donahey, Rex C. (1988). "LRFD for Composite Beams with Unreinforced
Web Openings," Journal of Structural En~neerinp,ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 3, Mar.. pp. 535-552.
Donahey, Rex C. (1987). "Deflections of Composite Beams with Web Openings," Buildinq
Structures, Proceedings, ASCE Structures Congress, D. R. Sherman, Ed., Orlando, Florida, Aug.,
pp. 404417.
Donahey, Rex C., and Darwin, David. (1986). "Perfomancc and Design of Composite Beams with
Web Openings,"'SM Report No. 18, University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, Kansas,
Apr., 267 pp.
Donahey, Rex C., and Darwin, David. (1988). "Web Openings in Composite Beams with Ribbed
Slabs," Journal of Structural En~neering,ASCE, VoL 114, No. 3, Mar., pp. 518-534.
Donoghue, C. Michael. (1982). i'Composite Beams with Web Openings: Design," JournaI of the
Structural Division, ASCE, VoI. 108, No. ST12,Dec., pp. 2652-2667.
Dougherty, Brian K. (1980). "Elastic Deformation of Beams with Web Openings,"Journal of the
Structural: Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. STI, Jan., pp. 301-312.
Mughesty, Brian K. (1981). "Buckling of Web Posts in Perforated Beams," Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. ST 3, Mar., pp. 507-519.
Ellingwood, Bruce; Galambs, Theodore V.; MacGregor, James G.;and Cornell, C. AUin,.
(1980). Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard
9
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, June.
Frost, Ronald W.. Leffler, Robert E. (197 1). "Fatigue Tests of Beams with Rectangular Web
HoIes," Journal of the Stmctvral Division, ASCE, Vol, 97, No. ST2, Feb., pp. 509-527.
Galamhs, Theodore V. (1978). ""ProposedCriteria for Load and Resistance Factor Design of
Steel BuiIding Structures," Steel Research for Construction Bulletin No. 27, American Iron and
Steel Institute, Washington, DC. Jan.
Galambos, Theodore V., and Ravindra, Mayasandra K. (1973). "Tentative Lead and Resistance
Factor Design Criteria for Steel Buildings," Research Report No. 18, Civil Engineering
Department, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, Sep.
Galambos, Theodore V., and Ravindm, Mayasandm K. (1976). "Load and Resistance Factor
Design Criteria for Composite Beams," Research Report No. 44, Civil Engineerjng Department,
Washington Univc~ity,St. Louis, Missouri, Apr.
Granade, Charles J. (1968). "An Investigation of Composite Beams having Large Rectangular
Openings in Their Webs,'%.S. Thesis, University of Alabama, at University, Alabama, 61 pp.
Hansell, William C.; Galambos, Theodore V.; Ravindra, Mayasandra K.;and Viest, Ivan M.
(1978). "Composite Beam Criteria in LRFD," Journal of the Sltmcturrtl Division, ASCE, Val. 1W,
No. STY, Sep., pp. 1409-1426.
Kim, Kyu Suk. (1980). "An Experimental Study of H-Shape Beams with Role in Web," F
Korean), JournaI of Architectural Tnstitutc of Korea, Vol. 24, No. 95, Aug., pp. 76-85.
hostman, Harry D.; Cooper, Peter B.;and Snell, Robert R. (1977). "Shear Force Distribution at
Eccentric Web Openings," Journal of the Structural Division, A S E , Vol. 103, No. ST6, June, pp.
1276-1221.
Kussman, Richard L., and Cooper, Peter B. (1976). "Design Example for Beams with Web
Openings," ATSC En!zineesing; Journal, VoI. 13, No. 2, pp. 48-56.
Load and Resistance Factor Desim Manual of Steel Construction. (1986). First Edition. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. (1986). American
Institute of Stecl Construction. Inc.. Chicago, Illinois.
Lupien, Roger, and Redwood, Richard G. (1978). "Steel Beams wilh Web Openings Reinforced
on One Side," Canadian Journal of Civil En~ineering,Vol. 5, No. 4, Dec., pp. 45 1-461.
McComick, Michael M. (1972a). "Opcn Web Beams - Behavior, Andysis and Design,"
Report, MRL 17/18, Melbourne Research Laboratories, The Broken Hill Proprietary Company
Limited, Clayton, Vic., Australia, Feb., 195 pp.
McCormick, Michael M. (1972b). Discussion of "Suggested Design Guides for Beams with Web
Holes," Journal of the StmctvraI Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. ST12,Dec., pp. 2814-2816.
Rectanpular, Concentric and Eccentric Unreinforced Web Penetrations in Steel Beams - A Desim
-
Aid. (1986). Revised Ed., ADUSS 27-8482-02, U.S. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Apr,,
3 2 ~ ~ .
Rectangular, Concentric and Eccentric Reinforced Web Penetrations in Composite Steel Beams
- A Design Aid. (1984). ADUSS 27-8532-01, US. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Oct., 27
Rectanmlar, Concentric and Eccentric Unreinforced Web Penetrations in Composite SteeI Beams
- A Design Aid. (1981). ADUSS 27-7108-01, U.S. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June,
Redwood, Richard G. (1968a). "Plastic Behavior and Design of Beams with Web Openings,"
Proceedings, first Camdim Stmctusal Engineering Conference, Toronto,Canadian Steel Industries
Construction Council, Toronto, Canada, Feb., pp. 127-158.
Redwood, Richard G.(1969). "The Strength of Steel Beams with Unreinforced Web Holes," Civil
Eneineerin-4 and Public Works Review (London), VoI. M, No. 755, June, pp. 559-562.
Redwood, Richard G. (197 1). "Simplified Plastic Andy sis for Reinforced Web Holes," AISC
Engineerin2 Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 128-131.
Redwood, Richard 6 .(3983). "Design of I-Beams with Web Perforations," Chapter 4, Beams and
Beam Columns: Stability and Strenjgh, R. Narayanan, Ed., Applied Science Publishers, London
and New York, pp. 95-133.
Redwood, Richard G. (1986). "Tile Design of Composite Beams with Web Openings,"
Proceedinns, Firs! Pacific Strtlcmral Steel Conference, Auktand, New Zealand, Vol. I, Aug.,pp.
169-185.
Redwood. Richard G.; Baranda. Heman; and Daly. Michael J . (1978). "Tests of Thin-Webkd
Beams with Unreinfbsced HoIes," Journal of the Structural Division, A S E , Vol. 104, No. ST3,
Mar., pp. 577-595.
Redwood. Richard G.,and McCutcheon, John 0. (1968). "Beam Tests with Unreinforced Web
Openings," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. ST1,Jan., pp. 1-17.
Redwood, Richard G., and Poumbouras, George. (1983). "Tests of Composite Beams with Web
Holes," Canadian Journal of Civil Enfineerinq, Vol. 10, No. 4, kc., pp 713-721.
Redwood, Richard G., and Poumbouras, George. (1984). "Analysis of Composite Beams with Web
Openings," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, VoI. 110, No. ST9, Sep.. pp. 1949-1958.
Redwood. Richard G.,and Shrivastava, Suresh C. (1980). "Design Recommendations for Steel
Beams with Web Holes," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, Dec., pp 642-650.
Redwood, Richard G.,and Uenoya, Minoru. (I979). "Critical Loads for Webs with Holes,"Journd
of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. STTO,Oct, pp. 2053-2076.
Redwood, Richard G., and Wong, Pahick K.(1982). "Web Holes in Composite Beams with SteeI
Deck," Pmwedincs, Ei~hth Canadian Structurd Enfineering Conference, Canadian Steel
Construction Council, Willowdale, Ontario. Canada, Feb.. 41 pp.
Structural: lnvestipation of a Typical moor Beam at the 200 West Adams Buildinn Chicago,
-
Illinois. (1984). W E No. 840795,Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Northbrook, Illinois,
Aug.. 21 pp.
"Suggested Design Guides for Beams with Web Holes." (1971). By the S u ~ m r n i m eon Beams
with Web Openings of the Task Committee on Flexure Memlxrs of the Smctural Division. John
E. Bower, Chmn., Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. ST1 1, Nov., pp.
2707-2728. Closure to Discussion, Vol. 99, No. ST.6, June 1973, pp. 1312-1315.
Uenoya, Minoru, and Redwood, Richard G. (1978). "Buckling of Webs witb Openings,"
Computers and Structures, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 191-199.
Wang, Tsong-Miirt; SneU, Robert R.; and Cooper, Peter B. (1975). "Strength of Beams with
Eccentric Reinforced Holes." Journal af the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST9, Sep.,
pp. 1783-1799.
53
Designation Reference
Steel Beams
Bower (1968)
DO Doughterty (1980)
Composite Beams
tiranade (1968)
Test'" d
RBD-CI 16.970
RM-IA 8.125
RM-I0 8.125
RM-2A 8.125
RM-2R 8.WO
RM-X 8.040
RM-3A 8.125
WM-4A 81s
RM-4B 8.123
RM-4C 8.125
CK-1A 9.890
CR-ZA 14.130
CR-ZB 14.130
CR-2C 14.220
CR-ZR 14,2'M
CH-3A 14.13[1
CR-3R 14.220
CR4A 14.220
CR4B 14220
CR-SA 14220
CR-7B 14.270
CK-7D 14.270
CSK-2 16.330
CSK-5 16.010
CSK-6 16.010
CSK-7 16.010
CS-I 12.w
CS-2 12.m
CS-3 12.m
RL.5 16.330
RL-6 16.350
B-1 15.940
B-2 15.810
B-3 15.880
B-4 15.800
&4B 17.875
CRaA 14.220
CSK-I 16.130
W-l 7.920
DO-2 7.920
Table 3.1 (continued)
TRIB
TRlB
TRIB
TRIn
TRIA
THIR
1,HIl3
1.HI13
LRlU
THlH
THlR
THlB
THlH
THlU
TKlR
TRIIt
TRlR
TRIH
TRIR
TKII3
TRIB
501,
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
SOL
TRll3
ma
Table 3.2 (continued)
D-1 30m
D-2 3000
U-3 30.00
D-5A Ma)
D5R MOO
D-6A 3000
D-&I3 3000
D-?A MOO
0-7B 3000
D-8A 19.39
D8R W 85
D-9A n.92
6-9tl 30 39
R-O 30 39
R-l OM
R-2 om
R-3 000
K-4 000
R-5 000
R- 6 000
R-7 om
R-8 000
C-1 001)
C-2 000
C-3 om
c-4 0.00
C-5 0.00
C-6 0.00
G-1 am
G-2 000
CHO-3 om
CH04 000
CIIO-5 000
CHO-6 000
Cll#7 am
WIFxI 000
Table 3.2 (continued)
Notes:
Test"'
RBD-CI
RM-IA
RM-IB
RM-2.4
RM-ZB
RW-2C
RM-314
RM4A
R.M4R
R1W4C
CR-IA
CR-2.4
CR-2B
CR-32
CR-2D
CR-3A
CR-3R
CR4A
CR4B
CR-5A
CR-7R
CR-m
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSK-6
CSK-7
CS- I
CS-2
CS-3
RL-5
RL4
B-1
B-2
B-3
B4
CMB
C A-6.4
CSK-I
DO-1
W-2
m3
Do4
DO-S
RBPRlB
RBPW
RM-lfH
RM-21H
RM-2F
RM4F
RM4H
Table 3.3 (continued)
RBDCl
RM-I-IA
RM*lB
RM-2.4
RM-2B
R>f-2C
RM-3A
R.Ua.4
RM4B
RM4C
CR-1A
CR-2.4
CR-2B
CR-aC
CR-2D
CR-3b
CR-W
CR-4A
CR4B
CR-SA
CR-70
CR-m
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSK-&
CSK-7
CS- 1
CS-2
CS-3
RL-S
Rtb
B-1
B-2
B-3
B4
CL4B
CR-6A
CSK-I
m1
W-2
Do-3
m4
DO-5
KBDRlB
RBDR2
RM-11H
RM-ZIH
RM-ZF
RM4F
RM4H
Table 3.3 (continued)
RBDCl
RM-IA
RM-1B
RM-U
RM-ZB
RM-2C
RM-3A
RM4A
RM4B
RM4C
CR-IA
CR-2.4
CR-28
CR-2C
CR-2D
CR-3A
CR-38
CR4A
CR-43
CR-5A
a-7B
CR-m
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSK-6
CSK-7
CS-l
CS-2
CS-3
Rt-5
RG6
B-1
B-2
B-3
B4
CL4B
CK-6A
CSK-I
m1
DO-2
m3
Da4
W S
RBD-RIB
RBD-R2
RM-1131
RMZlH
RM-2F
RM4F
RMdH
Table 33 (continued)
Notes:
(3) Design parameters violated by the respective beams listed did not adversely affect
the prdicted capaciti~sand did not conkibute to premature failure.
65
Table 3.4 Design Limitation Summary for Composite Beams
(2) Design pmamteters violated by the respective beams did not adversely affect
the predicted capacities and did not contribute to premature failure.
Table 3.5 Steel Beam Shear Capacity Summary: Method I, h = 1,414
(values in kips)
Test vnbl v*
RBD+Cl 57.72 47.30
RM-1A 14.89 14.88
RM-IR 7.M 14.69
RM-?A 16.10 15.94
RM-2B 6.41 12.16
RM-2C 11 .a8 11.91
RM-3A 15.02 15.05
RM4A 15.U2 15.02
RM4B 7.63 14.M
RMdC 16.35 16.79
CR-1A 14.39 17.67
CR-?A 30.35 27.71
CR-2n 30.35 27.71
CR-2C 33.00 35.47
CR-2D 33.M) 35.47
CR-3.4 30 36 27.71
CR-3B 39.a2 35.47
ca - a ~ 26.64 35.47
CRAB 26.64 35.47
CR-5A 23.67 25.6
CR-'IB 31.a 31.W
CR-7D 28.47 31.60
CSK-3 8a.n 64.83
CSK-5 M.91 55.15
CSK-6 10.21 15.79
CSK-'I 13.02 15.79
CS- l W.60 21.98
CS-2 23.87 21.16
CS-3 23.54 21.92
RL5 21.30 34.74
RL.4 11.84 21.60
B-1 21.59 33.W
B-2 19.68 30.23
8 -3 18.60 28.88
R4 24.53 34.12
CUB 9.26 31.51
CR4.4 19.13 35.47
CSK-I 5l.m 63.M
DO-I r 1-27 19.43
W-2 4.00 11.19
DO-3 19.18 27.69
lm.4 9.w m.n
DO-5 6.72 11.18
RBD-RIB 49.59 53.80
RBPR2 28.29 43.24
RM-I1H 7.98 17.32
RM-21H 5.35 11.29
RM-2F 5.40 11.17
RM4F 6.81 14.16
RM4A 5.62 11.86
Notes:
(values in kips)
Test
D-1
D-2
D.3
P5A
D*5B
D6A
D-6R
D7.4
D=IB
D-814
P 9A
D9B
R-O
A-1
R-2
R-3
R4
R-5
R-6
R-7
R-Il
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C.5:
C-5
GI
'3-2
CH03
cm-4
c3o.5
CnO-6
CHO=I
WE-I
Notes:
RBPCl
RM-1A
RM-IH
RM-2A
RM-2B
RM-2C
RM3A
RM4A
RM4B
RMN
CR-IA
CR-2-4
CR-ZB
CR-2C
CR-2D
CR-3.4
CR-3R
CR-4A
CR-48
CR-5A
CR-m
CR-m
CSK-2
CSK-S
CSK-6
CSK-7
CS-1
CS-2
CS-3
RL-5
R M
B-l
B-2
B-3
B4
CUE
CR-6A
CSGE
DO-1
W-2
Do-3
W-l
D0.5
RED-RI B
RBQ-R2
RM-11B
RM-21H
RM+E
R,WF
RM4H
Notes:
(values in kips)
Test VNa,
Dl 29.00
D-2 29.n
D-3 30.48
D5A 26.40
D-513 29.93
D-6~ n.01
B6B 41.03
D-7A 327'7
D78 31.36
D8A 0.m
D-9A D.[Y)
D-9B 0.00
R4 0.00
PI-1 17.84
R-2 21.87
R-3 0.m
R4 18.64
R-5 0.00
R-6 1248
R.7 0.00
R.8 0.03
C-1 0.00
C-Z 29.41
C-3 30.74
C4 35.29
C-5 34.90
ca 0.00
G-l 0.00
G2 0.00
ma3 0.m
4x04 0.00
CHO-5 0.00
CHM 0.03
6HG7 0.00
WJE-I 0.00
Notes:
Test
RBD-Ct
RM-IA
RMlB
RM-24
RM-2B
RM-2C
RM-3A
RM4A
RM4E
RMX
CR-IA
CR-2A
CR-2B
CR-2C
CR-2D
CR-3A
CR-3B
CR-4A
CR-4B
EX-5A
CR-7B
CR-m
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSK-6
CSK-7
CS-I
CS-Z
CS-3
At5
Rt6
B-1
B -2
B-3
Bd
CLdB
CR-M
CSK-I
w-1
Da2
DO-3
DO-4
W-5
RBD-R1 B
RBDR2
RM-1TH
RM-21H
RM-2F
RM4F
RM4H
Notes:
refer to Table 3.0 for key to beam designations
V, V, = shear capacity of bottom and top tee, respectively. wing Eq. 2.54.
V,, V, = plastic shear capacity of h a o m and top tee. respectiveIy, using Eqs. 2.22 and 218.
V,, V, = governing shear capacity of bottom and bamm tees, respectively.
vm = maximum permissible shear capacity of beam per Section D.1.2.
VJ = maximum shear capacity as predicted by Method Dl.
Table 3.10 Composite Beam Shear Capacity Summary: Method EX,h = 1.414
(values in kips)
v,
Test Ik) 01, a, term, term,
R8BC1
RM-IA
RMlB
RM-9-24
RM-2E
RM-2C
RM-3A
RMJA
RM4R
RM4C
CR-IA
CR-24
CR-2&
CR-2C
CR-ZD
CR-3A
CR-3B
CR-4A
CR4B
CR-5A
CR-7B
CR-7Q
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSK-6
CSK-7
Table 3.11 (continued)
VP v, v, Y
Test (k) a, term, term, d l (k) 6) Ik)
CS-I 0.0 0.00 0.50 0.00 3257 43.95 43.95
Cs-2 0.m a.m aso 0.m 3x57 4x31 4231
CS-3 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 3257 43.84 43.84
RL5 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 56.56 18.71 69.49
RL-6 0.00 QW 0.14 0.00 58.29 17.51 43.20
B-1 0.67 0.67 0.17 0-17 48.W 4293 67.80
B-2 0.70 0.70 0.18 0.18 49.9.90 3Z.m M56
B-3 0.68 0.H 0.17 0.17 48.48 36.72 57.76
B4 1.05 1.05 0.B 0.m 47.40 48.84 68.P
aaB O.M 0.11 0 0.07 49.29 20.16 6240
CF-6.4 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13 43Al 36.43 70.96
CSK- I 0.35 1.85 0.10 0.35 43.48 64.67 90.38
Do1 0.4 0.66 0.20 0.M 31.42 21.811 36.W
W-2 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.M 31.42 6.23 2236
W 3 0.15 0.94 0.07 0.35 31.42 23.32 36.94
W-4 0 OR 025 Q 05 0.16 28.02 1252 3256
DO-5 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.10 3t.42 11.30 2L35
RBD-RIB 3.39 3.39 0.38 0.38 59.08 94.56 83.01
RBIE W 0.75 0.75 0.22 0.B 58.42 56.58 83.81
RM-I1 W 0.2 0.z 0.m 0.09 21.37 14.61 34.65
RM-21H 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.09 3224 9.25 2259
RM-2F 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.09 31.3 9.28 2233
RM4F 0.22 0.Z 0.W 0.09 29.92 11.W 28.31
RM4H 0.21 0.21 QW 0.09 3237 9.79 23.72
Notes:
c, c, cz v, v, v, M,
Test (k) (k) (k) k6 p Y (k) (kj 04 (in.-k)
Notes:
Cicular Opening
Rectangular Opening
B-1
B-2
B-3
B4
CUB
CR-M
CSK-1
Do.1
DO-2
DO-3
Da4
m 5
RBD-RIB
RBDR2
RM-EIH
RM-21 H
RM-2F
RM-4F
RMdH
v, M,-,
Test?? (in--k) (k) (in.-k)
Reinforced
Rectangular Oper-ing
CR-1A
CR-2A
CR-Z3
CR-2C
CR-ZD
CR-3A
CR-3R
CR-4A
CR-4A
CReSA
CR-7B
CR-7D
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSK-6
C S K-7
CS-I
CS-2
CS-3
RL-5
RL6
Notes:
Reinforced
Ribbed Slab
Solid Slab
Notes:
Mm v, M , V,, Mm V, Test/
Test""in.-k) (k) (h.-k) Ikl (in.-k) (k) Theoty
RectanguIar Opening
Overall Unreinfwced
M a n . . . . . . . ...................... 1.248
C a f i c i s u of Variation ................ 0.203
Rcgistpnec Famr .................... 0.911
Table 3.15 (continued)
M, vm MM VM M, V, Test/
Test'" (in.-k) Ik) h-k) Ik) h.-k) (k) n~
Reinfarced
Rectangular Opening
a-IA 1079.61
CR-2A 236284
CR-28 u6284
CR-2C 2T73.20
CR-2D m3.m
CR-3A 236284
a-3B ZT'3.m
CR-4A Zn3.20
CR4B 2773.23
CR-5A m3.20
CR-70 2501.55
CR-7D 2501.55
CSK-2 3680.73
CSK-5 3141.22
CSK-6 3W3.56
CSK-7 3043.56
CS-I 2137.01
CS-2 2155.60
CS-3 2055%
RL5 2667.74
RL-6 2702.97
M a ........................ 1.166
Cafficicnt of Variation ........... 0.1 25
...............
Overall Steel Beams
Rcsist4na Factor.
-
0.946
Notes:
Ribbed Slab
Mcan ........................
Codician of Variation ...........
R m n m r Factor ................
M e a n . . . . . . . . . . .................. 1.073
Cwfficknt of Variation ............... 0.084
R&arsccFactor ................... 0.912
Table 3.16 (continued)
Ribbed Slab
SaIid Slab
Muul ......................
Cocfficlcnt of Variation ...........
Rcnstancc Fanor ...............
Q v d Reinforced
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.~cfficimtof Variation ...............
R&tmec Factor ...................
Overall Composite Beams
Mean ...............................
Cocffieinn of Variation ...................
RmsumFactor .......................
Notes:
M, v,
Test"' (in.-k) (k)
Circular Opening
RBD*Cl
RM-IA
RM-1B
RM-2.4
RM-2E
RM-2C
RM-3.4
RM4A
RM4B
RM4C
Rectangular Opening
B-1
B.2
B-3
B4
CWB
CR-6A
CSK-I
W-l
m 2
m 3
DCF4
W 5
RBPRIB
RBD-R2
RM-IlH
RM-ZIH
RMZF
RM4F
RM4H
Reinforced
Rectangular Opening
Notes:
Mm v- MM VM M. V Test/
Test'" {in.-k) (k) (in.-k) (k) (in.-k) (k) Theory
Ribbed Slab
Dl 5405.49
D-2 5967.14
D-3 604661
D-SA 5388.57
D-5B 5226.80
P6A 542256
D-6B 5733.80
D-?A 4665.32
D-78 436293
nsn 1w.57
c-8~ lo%.s
D-9A 4791.16
D-98 4588.71
R-0 1258.17
R-l 2630.28
R-2 3516.43
R -3 3774.33
R4 30228
R-5 2791.69
Rd 2594.96
R-7 2833.23
R-8 2817.84
Mean .........................
Coefficient of Varirum ............
Resmancc Rmr ................
Solid Slab
M u . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cpfficht of Variation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ruisuncc F a c m ................
Overall Unreinforced
Table 3.18 (continued)
M, v, v-, Mm V, Testl
Testcn (in.-k) (k) (in.-k) (k) (in--k) (k) Theory
Reinforced
Ribbed Slab
WIE-I 7782% 38.31
Solid Slab
M m .........................
C d c i c n t of Variation . . . . . . . . . . . .
R&ancc F a m r ................
O v e d Composite Beams
Notes:
C i l a t Opening
M a . ...............
...
C d i c i u n of Variatiun
Rcsislancc Factor .......
Rectangular Opening
Curvilinear Line a?
M, vm
Test'" (in.-k) (k]
Notes:
Reinforced
STEEL BEAMS
RMlnptnr Opening
C h l a r Opening
Rcclangulu O p a h g
OVERALL STEn
MMPOSTTE BEAMS
32 1.028 ).On 1.044 1.131 NIA 0081 0.084 O W 0128 NIA 0.676 0912 0.882 0914 N/A
Riblxd Slab 21 0.995 1.037 1.M 1.090 NI.4 0071 0.019 0.m 0.121 NIA 0.856 0.893 0864 0 889 NIA
Solid Slab 11 1092 1.141 1.116 1.207 NIA 0065 0075 0080 0.124 NIA 0943 0.978 0.952 0.981 NIA
3 0978 0985 0983 NIA NIA 0.110 0.122 0.119 NIA NIA 0.808 0.801 0803 NIA NIA
Ribbed Slab 1 0.919 0.919 0919 N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA A NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
Solid S t b 2 1.M8 1.019 1.016 NIA NIA 0.133 0.146 0 143 NJA NIA 0.810 0.805 O.$M NIA NIA
35 1.024 1.065 1.039 1.131 NIA 0.084 0.088 0.092 0.l2e NIA 0.870 0.901 0.876 Q.895 FF/A
Table 3.22 Effect of Reducing the Tee Depth in Proportion to the Reinforcement Present,
Method III, h = 1.414
Mr
n Vmm vmm M-r VM M. Vm Tesv rM, V, Test/
Ted' (in.-k) Ck) (k) (in.-k) (k) (in.-k) (k) Theory @I.-k) (k} Theory
D-1 5405.49 42% 43.95 1606.06 33.80 1773.29 41.74 0.906 184219 43.36 0.872
B2 5967.14 40.79 43.41 -5.M) 39.00 30813 38.83 1.004 3248.86 40.W 0.953
D-3 m661 4202 44.49 m~.m 11.m 6057.19 11.n 1.~3 6063.33 11.28 1.002
D5A 5388.57 40.n 40.73 2768.00 24.m 3048.48 38.11 0.908 3048.68 38.11 0.908
D5B 5226.80 33.72 34.17 2568.00 32m 2576.94 3231 0.997 2607.65 3270 0.985
D6.4 542256 41.27 41.27 0.00 41.00 0.m 41.27 0.994 0.00 41.27 0.W4
D-6B 5733.80 58.81 $416 2U70.00 48.90 2424.95 533 QS54 2323.46 54.89 0.891
M A M5.32 45.78 45.24 1845.00 4350 1897.03 44.73 0.973 1876.15 . 0.983
B3& 436293 46.48 43.45 3379.a) 4260 3150.W 39.71 1.073 3015.41 38.02 1.121
D-%A 1344.57 21-53 21.53 774.00 19.W 795.M) 14.93 0.974 795.00 19.93 0.974
P9A 4791.16 35.38 35.38 1474.M) 34.50 1496.23 35.02 0.985 149623 35.02 a985
D-9B 4588.71 47.25 47 28 1755.00 47.30 172263 46.43 1.019 172L63 46.43 1.019
- -
..
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.974.. . .. .. .. .. . .. .... . a974
C M i d c m of Variatim . . . . . . . . . . ... .... .
0.058 . . . . . . . . . . . 0.067
Resutancc Factor . . ... . . . .. . .. 0.845 . .. .. .. .. ... ... ... . . 0.W1
c-l
C-2
C-3
C4
C-5
C-5
G.1
G-2
CH0.3
CHO-4
Mean ..............
C o c f f ~ c i moIV~ristim
t ..
R&unec Factor ......
- -
Man ..................... 1.016 .................... 1.016
Cdcimt of Variation ......... 0. I45 .................... 0.145
Rmistancc Factor ............. 0.8W .................... 0.854
- -
Man ..................... 1.048.................... 1.039
C d c i e n t of Vuietim ......... 0 . m .................... 0.091
R&ance Factor ............. 0.880 .................... 0.880
Notes:
Notes:
Notes:
12)
Mean .....................1.133
Cdcimt of Variation ........ 0.128
R&stana Factor ............. 0.91 6
Notes:
.=
-,,
I -Pr
1 ', -..
/ ">
Fy
7
F Y 'J ~
LOW High I
~oment Moment
Vrn~
€la End
0.00
0.00 F?
Reduced Axial Yield Strenm 7
Fig. 2.6 Yield Functions for Combined Shear and Normal Stress
"r"
-
.- . _
7 7 -
* 7-
"9 r
1)
, -'
-
sY
f
,
."
V,
/, , ,. I_
M
4. FY
ii Law
MCmerrL
ttiptl
Moment
T
'
mb
E-c E nc
H i gn
Moment
End
s, Iim~ttdby D.1.2
------- q not limited by D.1.2
a, l ST
Fig. 2-10 Difference Beween Methods I1 and 111 versus aJs,
sb lim~tadby D.12
s, not Iirntrcd by D.1.2
--
-\
------ ---=
1- 3
-
-----
-------- ---
Method I
Method I11 without modification to tee
Method Ill w i t h tee mducrd fee reinforcement
-- d
-1
u = a,Is,
Fig. 2.12 Comparison of Methods 1 and 111
with and without adjustment in tee depth
Fig. 2.13(a) Umeinforced Steel Beam i a Pure Bending Fig. 2.13@) Reinforced Steel Ream in Pure Bentling Fig. 2.13(c) Reinforced Steel Beam in Pure Bending
with Neutral Axis in Reinforcement wirh Neutral Axis cn Web
Flg, 2.14(a) C o m p i l e Beam in Pure Bending Fig. 2.14(b) Composite Beam in Pure Bending Fig. 2.14(c) Campsite Beam in Pure Bending
with Neutral Axis at in r l ~ eSteel Flange with Neutral Axis at in the Wcb
with Neutral h i s at or above Steel FLange
Cubic Moment-Shear Interaction Using
Method 111
- ---*-*-**- Curvlinear Moment-Shear Interaction Using
Redwood & Shrivasatava (19801,
Redwood & Pournbouras (19841,
and Redwood & Cno (1986)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 4Q 50 60
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3. 2 Interaction Cuwes for Test 8-2 fig. 3. 6 Internetion Curvea for Test CR-M
1000
a
0 10 20 30 40 50 o Ia 20 30
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3. 3 kiteruction Curvas for Test 8-3 Fig. 3. 7 Intametion C u m for Test 00-1
2500 1000
0 10 20 30 44 50 60 Q 5 10 15
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fiq. 3. 4 tntemction Curves for Test 8-4 Fig. 3. 8 Interaction Curves for Test DO-2
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Shear. kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3. 9 Interndon Curves for Test DO-3 Fig. 3.13 Interaction Curves for Test RBQ-R2
1000 1.000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.1 0 Interaction Curves for Test 00-4 Fg. 3-14 Interaction Curves for Test RM-2F
tom 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
fig. 3.1 1 Internetion Curwrs for Test DO-5 Fig. 3,t5 lntamctian Curves for Test RM-4F
0 20 40 6Q 80 100 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.32 Interaction Cunres for Test REiD-81 Fig. 3.16 Interaction Curves for Test AM-4H
0 5 1O 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.17 InteractJon Curves for Test R M - l l H Fiq. 3.21 Tntemetion Curves for Test CS-2
IOOO 2500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. 3-78 Interaction Curves far Test RM-21 H Fig. 3.22 tnteraciion Curves for T e d CS-3
4000 5000
0 10 20 30 0 20 40 80 80 100 120
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3-1 9 Interaction Cunres for Test Ct-48 Fig. 3.23 Interactition Curvas for Test CSK-2
2500 4000
0 10 20 30 4-0 50 0 20 40 50 80 100
Shear, kips Sheor. kips
Fig. 3.20 Interaction Curves l o r Test CS-t Fig. 3 2 4 lntemcthn Cunes for Test CSK-5
10 20 30 40 50 60 0 SO 20 30 40 50 60 70
Shaar, kips Shear, kips
fig. 3.25 lnteradon Cusues for Test CSK-6 Fig. 3.29 lntemction Curves for Jest CR-4A
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Interaden Curves for Test CSK-7 Fig. 3 3 0 Intemd'on Curves for Test CR-48
3500
c
2500
a
E 2000
d
1500
tooo
2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 4U 50 60
Shear. kips Sheor, kips
Fig. 3.27 Enteraction C u m s for Test CR-3A Fig. 331 Intnmetion Curves for Test CR-SA
4000 t 500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 4CJ
Shear. kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.28 Interaction Curves for Test CR-58 fig. 3.32 Interaction Cums for Test CR-tA
0 0
10 20 40 60 90 0 10 20 30 41) 50 60 70
Shear, kips Sheur, kips
Fig. 3.33 Intamdon Curvas for Test CR-2A Fiq. 3.37 Intemction Curves for Test CR-78
3OOO
-i
-h
a
2000
C
E
i
0
tooo
I
0 10 20 30 4-0 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Eg. 3.34 lntsrrrction Curves for Test CR-28 Fig. 3.38 Interndon Curvas for Test CR-7D
3000 MOO 1 - T ' l - b '
--- - - *.
- I
t
I
I
I . I . . r . 1 .
0 20 40 60 80 O 10 20 30 40 50
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. 3.55 Interu&on Curves for T a d CR-2C Fig. 3.39 lntamction Curws tor Test RL-5
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30
Shear. kips Shear. kips
Fig. 3.36 Interaction Curves for Test CR-2I3 Fig. 3.M Interaction Cuwes for Test RL-6
0 0
0 20 CO 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40
Sheor, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.41 Interaction Curves for fsst RBD-Cf Fig. 3.45 rntemetion Curves for Test RM-3A
1 m 10M1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.42 Interaction Curves for Test RM-1A Fig. 3-46 Interaction Curves fur Test RM-4A
1000 1000
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 313 #
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. 3-43 Intamdon Curves far Tnst RM-24 Eg. 3.47 !ntemction CUFMS for Test RM-4C
0 30 20 30 0 tO 20 30
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 5.44 Interaction Curves for Test RM-PC Fig. 3.48 Internetion Curves for Test RM-I&
Q
0 15 213 30
Shear. kips
Fig. 3.49 lntsmction Curves for Test RM-ZB
f OW
0
0 10 20 30
Shear, kips
Fig. 3.50 lnteroction Curves for Test RM-4B
0 0
0 10 20 30 50 0 10 20 30 40
Shear. kips Shaur, kips
Flg. 3.51 Interadon Curves for Test 0-1 Fig. 3-55 InSemetjon Curves for Test 0-5B
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 70 20 30 40 50
Shear. kipo Shear. kips
Fig, 3.52 Interaction Curve% for Test 0-2 Fig. 3.56 Interaction Curves for Test 0-66
7000 6000
6000
(3 0
0 31) 20 30 40 50 O tO 20 30 40 50 60
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 353 Interaction Cumes for Test 0-3 Fig. 3.57 lntaraetion C u m for Test D-6B
6000
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 SO 0 10 20 30 40 50
Shear, kips Shear, kipo
Fig. 3-54 interaction C u m 3 far Test D-5A Fig. 3.58 Interaction Curves for Test Q-?A
0
10 20 30 40 501 0 10 20 30
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.59 lntamction Cuwes for Test D-78 fig. 3.63 Interaction C u m for Test R-O
1ZOO 30OU
6 FZ 18 24 30 o 10 20 30
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. 3.60 InBmefion Curves for Test D-8A Fig. 3.64 Interae+ion Curves lor Test R-1
6000 400
0
20 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Shear, kips Shenr. kips
!riterattion Curves for Test D-9.4 Fig. 3.85 lntemction C u m far Test R-2
5000
0 I0 20 30 4Q 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.62 Interaction Curves for Test 0-98 Fig. 2-56 lntemction C u m for Test R-3
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 tO 20 30
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. f.fi7 lntemetion Curves for Test R-4 Fig. 3.71 Intam&*h'on Cuwaa for Test R-8
3OQO
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 50
Shear. kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.88 lntemctian Cumes for Test R-5 Fig. 3.72 Interndon Curves for Test C-1
3000 moo
a 0
0 10 20 30 0 TO 20 30 40 50
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.64 I n t ~ m d o nCurves for Test R-6 Fig. 3.73 Interadion Curves for %st C-2
4000
I) 10 20 3Q 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fg. 3.70 Interaction Curves for Test R-7 Fig. 3.74 Interaction Curves far Test C-3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 M 4U
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.75 Intsmc50n Curves for Test C-4 Fig. 3.79 Interadion Curves for Test G-2
6000 t 500
0 0
O tO 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.76 Interaction Cumes for Test C-5 Fig. 3.80 Interaction Curves for Test CHO-3
4000 3000
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fiq. 3.77 Interaction Curves for Test C-6 Fig. 3.81 Internetion Curras for Test CHO-4
2000 3000
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 4 50 60
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. 3.78 Interaction Curves for Test G-5 Fig. 3,82 lntamctian Cuwes for f i s t CHO-5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Shear. kips
Fig. 3.83 Int~ractionCurves for Test CHO-6
0
0 20 40 60
Shear, kips
fig. 3.84 Interaction Curves f o r Test CHO-7
0 20 40 60
Shear, kips
Flg, 3.85 Interaction Curves far Teat WJE-I
Note: refer to Table 3-25 for specific W shapes used
/"--- ----.,-
------------------------_
--1
-*- Partial Composite Action
v m
-
Rectonquiar Opening, Unreinforesd
O Circular Opening, Vnreinfomed
-
A Rectanqubr Opening. Reinfarced
------- Predicted Strength x Resistance Factor (0.90) -
Predicted Strength
-
-
-
----------- -- -
- -
- A
- -
a
- -
El
- -
\
- I
1
1
-
- I
I -
I
&
I
1 -
1
t
I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 - 1
- O Solid
Ribbed Slab
Slab
-
A Reinforced
- ------- Predicted Strength x Resistance Factor (0.85) -
Predicted Strength
- -
- -
Q Q
-
-
----3--__
- ----- -
- -
- -
- -
-
- :o -
1
- 1
I
-
1
- I
1
-
I
I I I 1 1 I I 1 L I n I I I t
APPENDIX A
-
bottom tee regicn of a beam below an opening.
bridging - separation of the concrete sIab from the steel section in composite beams. The
separation occurs over an opening between the low moment end of the opening and a
point outside the opening past the high moment end of the opening.
high moment end - the edge of an opening subjected to the greater primary bending moment.
The secondary and primary bending moments act in the same direction.
-
low moment end the edge of an opening subjected to the lower primary bending moment. The
-
opening index parameter used to limit opening size and aspect ratio.
pIastic neutral axis - position in steeI section, or top or bottom tees, at which the stress changes
-
primary bending moment bending moment at my point in a beam caused by external loading.
reinforcement - longitudinal steel bars welded above and below an o p i n g to increase section
capacity.
secondary bending moment - bending moment within a tee that is induced by the shear camed
by the tee.
unperforated member - section without an opening. Refers to properties of the member at the
position of h e opening.
Area of flange
respectively.
Secondary bending moment at high and low moment ends of top tee, respectively
Number of shear connectors between the high moment end of an opening and the
support
Axial force in concrete at high and Iow moment ends of opening, respectively, for
Qn lndividual shear connector capacity, including reduction factor for ribbed dabs
132
Ratio of facto~dload to design capacity at an opening
=VJW,
=MAM,
Shear at opening
respectively
Factored shear
Width of flange
Distance from top of steel section to centroid of concrete force at high and low
composite sections
Distance from outside edge ef flange to secondary bending neutrd axis in top tee
h0 Depth of opening
-- - Effective depth of a tee. bttorn tee and top tee, respectively, to account for
S, S b P s,
u,when u lp
*
134
Thickness of flange or reinforcement
Thickness of fIange
Thickness of web
beam
z Distance between points about which secondary knding moments are caldated
reinforcement = hotw- 2 4
vdue = fi
Dimensionless ratio relating the secondary bending moment contributions of
concrete and opening reinforcement to the product of the plastic shear capacity of
U, Ub,U, Ratio of length to depth or length to effective depth for a tee, bottom tee or top
Subscripts:
b Bottom tee
m Maximum or mean
n Nominal
t Top tee
~1 Facto~d
136
APPENDIX B
B.1 Method I.
The top and bottom tee shear capacities determined by Method I, considering different
yield strengths for the web, flange, and stiffener, are- calculated using the following expressions.
in which
B 2 Methods II and I
II
The yield strengths of the web and reinforcement are differentiated in Methods II and I11
as follows. The yield strength of the web is accounted for in the calcuIation of V, and V,, as
The yield strength of the reinforcement is accounted for in the expression for p, given by
APPENDIX C
FOR
In this appendix, calculations are presented which provide the basis for values used in
C.1 Overprediction of F, by the Linear Approximation of the von Mises Yield Function
The overprediction of normal stress in a tee under low shear stress by the linear
approximation of the von Mises yield bnction can be as high as 41% when h = 1.414 (Method
111, p = 0.0). Design considerations, however, limit u to 12.0 @amin 1990). The actual effect
Methods I1 and Ill, which employ the von Mises yield function and irs linear approximation,
respectively.
The values of V, JV, for Methods IT and 111 when p = 0.0 and u = 12.0 for h = 1.207
(vm
I T ) = \/3d+9 - Jw0.143
144+3
=
v@ u"3
The difference between Methods TI and 111 is
-
v m r ( ~ ~ ~ Vnvvr) = (0.178 - 0.143)V, h = 1.474
= 0.035VpI;
The ratio of the maximum shear strengths using the two methods is
C,2 Overprediction of T~ by the Linear Approximation of the von Mises YieId Function
The werprediction of shear stress in the web of a tee under high shear stress by the linear
approximation of the von Mises yield function can be as high as 9.7%when h = 1.414 and u =
0.717 (Method III, p = 0.0). This overprediction wodd be even higher without the limit of
0.577FYon the shear stress. A tee with such stocky dimensions is not very likely, but is possible,
and is something that should be considered. The effect of this overprediction can be determined
by comparing Methods I1 and m, which employ the von Mises yield function and its linear
approximation, respectively.
(C.13)
Dividing Eq. C.13 by F
:, and rearranging gives
The linear appmximation of she yon Mises yield function can be expressed as
(C. 16)
By substituting ,z = V,,J(SJ~)
into Eq. C.17,the following expression is obtained
Eq. C.13 and C.18 arc useful in comparing Methods I1 and 111 when z,IF, = 0.577.
The point at which the maximum difference occurs in the predicted shear stress in the web
between the von Mises yield function and its linear approximation can now be easiIy predicted.
This occurs when V,/Vdf,IE = 1.0 due to the maximum permissible shear stress. Eq. C.18 yields
The ~spectiveshear capacities can be determined by substisudng the two preceding values
for F, /F, into Eq. C.15, which gives
The corresponding ratios and differences between Methods I1 and 111 arr:
APPENDIX D
To insure that the strength provided by a beam at a web opening is consistent with the
design equations presented in section 2.4, a number of guidelines must be followed. Unless
otherwise stated, these guidelines apply to unreinforced and reinforced web openings in both steel
and composite beams. All requirements of the AlSC Specifications (1986) should be applied.
The steel sections should meet the AISC requirements for compact sections in both composite and
To insure that locd instabilities do not occur, consideration must be given to local
buckling of the compression flange, web buckling, buckling of the tee-shaped compression zone
above or below the opening, and lateral buckling of the compression flange.
To insure that local buckling does not occur, the AISC (1986) criteria for compact sections
applies. The width to thickness ratios of the compression flange:or web reinforcement are limited
by
143
in which b = projecting width of flange or reinforcement
(a) The opening parameter, p,, should be limited to a maximum vafue of 5.6 for steel
If (d - 2t,)/t, 5 420/% the web qualifies as stocky, In this case, the upper limit on adh.
is 3.0 and the upper limit on V , (maximum nominal shear capacity) for non-composite sections
is 0.675, in which 6 = F,~J/JS, the plastic shear capacity of the unperforated web. For
composite sections, this upper limit may be increased by which equals V,(p,h - 1) 1 0,or
VW, - V,,, whichever is less. All standard rolled W shapes qualify as stocky members.
If 4 2 0 6 < (d - 2t,)/tw5 520/%, then aJh, should be limited a 2.2, and Vm should be
limited to 0.458, for both composite and non-composite members. The limits on opening
dimensions to pwent web buckling, presented in this section are summarized graphically in Egs.
D. 1, D.2, and D.3. Fig. D.1 graphs aJh, versus hJd to determine permissible opening sizes. Figs.
D.2 and D.3 graph ads! versus the value a&, that meets the opening dimension requirements of
this section for steel (p, = 5 6 ) and composite Cp, = 6.0) beams, respectively.
axially loaded column following the procedures of AISC (1986). For urninforced members, this
is not required when the aspect ratio of the tee (u= ad's) is less fian or equaI to 4. For reinforced
openings. this check is only required for Iarge openings in regions of high moment.
For steel beams only: In members subject to lateral buckling of the compression flange,
strength should not x governed by strength at the opening (calculated without reg& te lateral
l
buckling).
145
In mernkrs with unheinforced openings or reinforced openings with Phe reinforcement
placed on both sides of the web, the torsional constant, J , shodd k multiplied by
In members reinforced on o d y one side of the web, A, = 0 for the calculation of M3in
Eq. D.5. Membcrs reinforced en one side of the web should not be used for long, IateraIly
unsupported spans. For shorter spans the lateral bracing closest to the opening should be designed
for an additional load equal to 2 p-cent of the force in the compression flange.
The opening depth should not exceed 70 percent of the section depth (h, 5 0.74. The
depth of the top tee should not k Iess than 15 percent of the depth of the steel section (st 2
0.156). The depth of the bottom tee. s, should not be less than 0.1Sd for steel sections or O.12d
for composite sections. The aspect ratios of the tees (u = aJs) should not be greater than 12 (a&,
The comers of the opening should have minimum radii at least 2 times the thickness of
karing stiffeners are not required to prevent web crippling in the vicinity of an opening due to
a concentrated load if
and h e load is placed at least dJ2 from the edge of the opening.
and the load is placed a t least d from the edge of the opening. In any case, the edge of an
Circular openings may be designed using the expressions in section 2.4 by using the
a, = 0.45 Do (D.
11b)
D.35 Reinforcement
for fillet welds, if required on both sides of the reinforcement. Continuous welds should l
x used
t attach the reinforcement bars, A fillet weld may be used on one or both sides of the bar within
the length of the opening. However, fillet welds should be used on both sides of the
reinforcement on extensions past the opening. T h e required strength of the weId within the length
Rw = V>Pr
If reinforcing bars are only used on one side of the web, the section should meet the
(D.I 6 )
Openings should be spaced in accordance with the follewing criteria to avoid interaction
between openings.
Rectangular openings:
Circular openings:
(D.
18b)
(D. 19a)
S 2 a, @.20a)
S 1 2.0 d (D.20b)
Tn addition to the guidelines presented above, composite membess shouId meet the
following criteria.
150
based on the gmss area of the slab, within a distance d or a,,whichever is greater, of the opening.
For beams with longitudinal ribs, the transverse reinforcement should be below the heads of the
shear connectors.
In addition to the shear connectors used between the high moment end of the opening and
the support, a minimum of two studs per foot should be used for a distance d or a,. whichever
is greater, from the high moment end of the opening toward the direction of increasing moment.
D . 4 3 Construction loads
If a composite beam is to be constructed without shoring, the section ar the web opening
should be checked for adequate strength as a non-composite member under factored dead and
construction loads,
Fig. D.1 Limits on Opening Dimensions
aJhe versus hJd (Darwin 1990)
Fig. D.2 Limits on Opening Dimensions
a, Is,versus a, Is,, go = 5.6
A total of thirty-eight steel and composite beams available from previous research were
excIuded from consideration in determining resistance factors kcause of one or more violations
of design limitations presented in Appendix D. Tables containing materid and section properties,
design limitdon summaries. and capacity summaries and figures showing shear and moment
interaction plots for the excluded beams follow (Tables E.1 - E.6 and Figs. E.0 - E.38).
Most of the excluded beams violated limitations pertaining to local buckling of the
compression flange andlor the web. These violations contributed most significantly to premature
failure of the barns, as illustrated by the results for beams RBD-UG2, RL-3, and RL-4. With the
exception of RL-3. the predicted capacities for h a m s resisting high moment at the opening agreed
reasonably well with test data. The predicted capacities for kams resisting high shear at the
opening generally did not agree very well with test data.
Five beams, RM-ID, RM-2D, RM4D. RM-21 G, and RM4G had closely spaced openings
which, in three cases W - 2 D , RM-2lG, and RM4G),failed as a unit (Redwood and McCutcheon
1968) However, the predicted capacities of all five hams were conservative. Beams RL-1,
RL-2, RL-3, and RL-4 were reinforced on one side of the web and violated associated design
limitations. Beam RL-3 exhibited very premature failure with a testrtheoty ratio of 0.455.
Reasonable strength predictions were obtained for the other four beams.
Sixteen kams tested by Kim (1980). (KKS-series), were excluded from the analysis
although they met all of the design limitations. Without exception, the beams subjected to any
The predicted capacity of KKS-2HRC was the mast conservative with a test/theory ratio of 2.022.
These conservative results may well be due to strain hardening which is not accounted for by the
prediction methods.
Talde E.1 Material nnd Section Properties for Excl~ldedSteel Reams
STEEL SECTION
FP F
W FYi Frr
Test d f, (hi) 130 he 0, b, I, y, (ksi) s hi ,# (ksi) s b, (ksi)
RRD-I1RlA
Kttll-UG2
RIIU-UG24
HRD-UG3
RM-ID
RM-2D
KM-4D
Rl--1
RIA-2
RIA
RL-4
RI3D-EIII
Ilt%ll-HI11
RtIO-11B2
ltt10-llB3
WUD-HR3A
Rl3D-11134
HB1)-HRS
RRD-I IRSA
RM-21G
HM-4G
KKS-IHSC
KKS-IIIRC
KKS-IIISIO
KKS-1IIRIO
K W - 2 t ISC
KKS-21IRC
KE-2HSE
M-2HHE
KKS.31 lRC2
US-31ISC3
KKS-3tISQI
KB-3tIRC3
KKS-3tlSIO
KW-3tllllO
KKS-3HSS.E
KKS-31 t11SE
Notes:
refer lo Table E.0 for key to beam designations
TnbEe E.2 Design Limitation Summary for Exduded SteeI Beams
p, c 6.0 hlt
p, p, pa Test/
Test") (k) (k) (k] IMJM,,, a& Theor,@
Table E.2 Design Limitation Summary for Excluded Steel Beams
A,< Af.n
Notes:
(2) ?he test/thtory ratios for Method III with h = 1.414 are provided
as some indication of the effect of a potential violation of the design
parameter on the predicted capadry. If the tee-shaped mmpression zone
were to buckle prematurely, unconservative prdictiom would result.
Table E.3 Excluded Beam Capacity Summary: Method I, h = 1,414
RBD-H3IA
RBDUGZ
RBD-UG2A
RBD.UG3
RM-1D
RM-2D
BM4D
RL-I
RL-2
RL-3
RLd
MD-EHI
RBBrnl
RBD-IIB2
RBD-H83
RBD-Hn3A
RBD-IIB4
RRD-HRS
RnD-HBSA
RM-21G
RMdG
KKS-1 HSC
KKS-1HRC
KKS-1HSIM
KKS-IHRIQE
KKS-mc
KKS-ZKIIC
KKSlHSE
m-ZHRE
KKS-3HRC25
KKS-3NSC35
KKS-3HSW
KKS-3HRC35
KKS-3HS 10E25
WCS-3m1 om
KKS-3HS5E2S
KKS-3HR5E25
Notes:
M, V, Test/
Test"' (in.-k) (k) Theory
RBD3.HBI A
RBD-UGZ
RBD-UGZA
RBD-UC3
RM-ID
RM-2D
RMPD
RL-1
RL-2
RL-3
RL4
RBD-EHI
RBD-HI31
RBD-K8Z
RBQHB3
RED-HB3A
RBD-HB4
REID-FIBS
RBBrnSA
RM-2lG
RM4G
m.1HSc
KKS-IHRC
KKS-IHSIOE
KKS.lHR10E
WCS.WSC
KKS .2mc
KKS-ZIISE
KKS-2HRE
KKS-3HRC25
KKS-3HSC35
KKS-3IISC25
ws-3~~~35
KKS-3HSI W Z
KKS-3HR10E25
KKS-3HS5E25
KKS-3HR5E25
Notes:
M, Vm M,.,, vw, Mn
Test"' (in.-k) (k) (in.-k) (k) (in.-k)
Notes:
Nates:
E
2 ZOO
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30
Shear. kips Shear, kips
Fig. E
. 1 lntemction Curves for Test RBO-HB1A Fig. E5 Intaraction Curves far Test RM-1 D
0 10 20 3Q 40 50 60 70 80 9Q 0 10 20 30 40
Shear, kips Sheor. kips
Fig. E 2 Interaction Curves for Test RBD-UG2 Fg. 6 Interaction Curves for Test RM-20
5000 800
0 0
0 10 20 30 4U 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. E; 3 InternetIan Curves for Test RB5-UG2A Fig. E 7 Interaction Curves for Test RM-40
5000 5000
(
O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Shear. kips Shsar, kips
f i g . E. 4 Interaction Curves for Test RED-UG3 Fig. E. 8 Interaction G u m s for Test RL-1
0 0
0 1C) 20 30 0 10 20 30
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Kg. E l 9 Intenetion Cum- for Test RL-2 Fig. El3 Interaction Curves for Test RED-HB1
5000 3500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 70 20 30 40
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. El Q Interaction Curves for Test Rt-3 Fig. E l 4 Interaction Cumes for Test RBD-HB2
3000 4400
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. Et 1 lnteraetion Curves for Test R L 4 Fig. Ett 5 Interaction Curves for Test RBD-HBJ
a00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. €.I2 Interaction Curves for Test RED-EH1 Sig. Et 6 Internetion Curves tot Test RED-H83A
a 20 413 60 80 Q 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. E l 7 Intemction Cumes for Test RRD-HB4 Fig. E.21 Internetion Cuwes for Test RM-4G
0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. E.18 Intemction Curves for Test RED-HB5 Fig. €22 Interaction Curves for Test KKS-1 HSC
5000 400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 f0 35 20
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. E l 9 Interaction Curves far Test RBD-HB5A Eg. E.23 Intemction Curves for Test KKS-1 HRC
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 1Q 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. E20 Interndon Curves for Test RM-2lG Fig. E24 Interaction Curves for Test KKS-1 HSfOE
0 0 V
o 5 to 15 20 a 5 to 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
fig. U 4 Interaction Curves far Test KKS-1HSf OE Fig. E.28 lntem&on Curves far Test KKS-2HSE
4# 400
100 100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fq. E-25 Interaction Curves for Test KKS-IHRIOE fig. E29 Interaction Curves fur Test KKS-2HRE
400 4-00
0 - 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
fig. E.26 tntemction Cunres for Teat KKS-2HSC Fig. E30 Interndon Curves far Test KKS-3HRC25
400 400
;200
C
E
. roo
$
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 to 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. E27 Interaction Curves for Jest KKS-2HRC Kg. E51 Interaction Cuwes for Test KKS-3HSW5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 I5 20
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. U
1 Interadon C u m s far Test KKS-3HSUS Fig. U 5 Interaction Cumas far Test KKS-3HRIDE25
0 0
o 5 10 15 20 o 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. E.32 Interaction Curves far Test KK5-3HSC25 Fig. E36 lntamction Curves for Test KKS-3HS5E25
400 400
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear. kips
Fig. E.33 Interaction Curves for Test KKS-3HRC35 Fig. €37 lntamction Curves far Test KKS-3HR5U5
4QO 1600
1400
$ 300 1200
I E
a 3 1000
E Y
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Shear, kips Shear, kips
Fig. L 3 4 lntemction Curves for Test KG-3HSlOE25 Kg. E.38 lntemction Curves for Test 0-88
171
APPENDIX F
DERIVATION OF P
, FOR COMPOSITE BEAM SIMPLIFIED MOMENT EQUATION
When the PNA resides in the steel section, a simplified expression for the maximum
moment capacity of a composite beam, Eq. 2.44, can be used. As the PNA moves into the web,
Eq. 2.74 becomes increasingly unconservarive. In this appendix, the Iirnit on PC is derived for
applying the approximation for M , if the PNA is located in the web of a perforated composite
beam.
The first tern of equation F.1 is an approximation for the correct terns given in Eqs. 2.67 and
in which x is measured from the top of the ffange of the steel section. Solving for x in terms of
Substituting the expression for x in Eq. F.5 into Eq, F.7 results in
173
By substituting 2Af' + dt, - hotwfor A,, in Eq. F.8, xhe expression under the radical can be arranged
to give
Setting Af' = PA, = PtJ* in which P is some fraction results in the following expression.
2pdt:(ad - 5) + ta(d - h ~ t 3 (F.10)
Rearranging gives,
For a = 0.04 (i,e. a 4% maximum error in the first term in Eq, F.1), the following table is
F,t,(d - h,3
F,tw(Q.732d- h,)
Fytw(0.717d- h,)
F,tW(0.654d- h,)
174
h2 is safe and reasonable for building constnrction because p, the ratio of the flange area to the
web area, is rarely below 0.40.
175
APPENDIX G
This appendix contains nine tables summarizing shear capacities and analysis results for
steel and composite kams obtained using Methods I and I11 with h = 1.207. These results were
RBD-CI
RM-1A
RMlB
RM-2.
RM-ZB
RMdC
RM-3A
RM-4A
RM4B
RM4C
CR-IA
CR-24
CR-2B
CR-211
CR-21)
CR-3A
CR+3B
CR4A
CR4B
CR-5A
CR-7B
CR-nJ
CSK.2
CSK-5
CSK-6
CSK-7
CS-1
CS-2
CS-3
RL5
R M
B-l
B.2
B-3
I3
4
CL.48
CB-6A
CSK-1
Dal
W-2
DO-3
W-4
W-5
RBD-RIB
RBD-R2
RM-I 1H
RM-21H
RM-2F
RM4F
RM4H
Test
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-5A
D-SB
D6A
D6B
D7A
D7B
D8A
IT9A
D-9B
R4
R-l
R-2
R-3
Rd
R-5
Ba
R-7
R.8
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
Cd
G.1
G-2
CHO-3
am4
CHO-S
CHO-6
CHQ-7
WTE- 1
Notes:
Test YW Ve Vw vgr VU V. v~
RBD-CI
RM-IA
RM-IB
RM-2A
RM-28
RM-2C
RM-3A
RM4A
RM-lB
R.U4C
CR-1A
CR-24
CR-2l3
CR-ZC
CR-2D
CR-3A
CR-3B
CR-4A
CR48
CR-SA
a-7B
CR-7D
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSK-6
CSK-7
CS- 1
CS-2
CS-3
Rt-5
RL-6
B-1
8-2
B-3
B4
CLdB
-4.4
CSK-I
DO-1
Im-2
DO-3
DO-4
M15
RBIlRlB
RBD.R.2
RM-IIH
RM-21 H
RM-2F
RM4F
RM4H
Notes:
Test
D-1
D-2
I13
D-SA
D.5B
D-6A
DaR
D A
D-78
D8A
D-9.4
D9B
R-0
R-1
R-2
R-3
R4
R-5
R4
R-7
R-8
C.1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
Cb
G.1
G2
CH0.3
ma4
CH05
CHo.6
CHG7
WE-I
Notes:
Circular O p m n g
Rectangular Opening
M a n ........................ 1.340
Coeffitimt d Variation ........... 0.174
R d a n c e Factor. ...............
Overall Uminforoed -1.019
Mm vm M, VW, Mm V, Test/
Test (in.-k) (kid (k) (in.-k) Theory
Rectangular Opening
CR-IA
CR-2.4
CRZB
CR-2C
CR-2D
CR-3A
CR-3B
CR-4.4
CRdR
CR-5A
CR-7B
CR-7D
CSK-Z
CSK-5
CSK-6
CSK.7
CS.1
CS-2
CS.3
RLS
RL6
Notes:
h vm M , v,~t MM V, Test/
Tesr (in.-k) (Id (in.-k) @I (in.-k) (k) Theory
Cirnrlar Opening
Mean ..............
Cafficitnr of Variatim .
Resistance Factor
Kectangdar Opening
B.1
B-2
B-3
B4
cLag
CR-6.4
CSK-I
DO-t
W 2
W 3
DO-4
DO-5
RBD-RIB
RBD-R2
BM-I lf3
RM-21 H
R M-2F
RM4F
RM4H
Mean ........................
...........
Codficicm of Varianon
Rcsistanec Factor ................
Table G.6 (continued)
Mm vm M , VM M. V, Tesd
Test (in.-k) 03 (in.-k) 04 (hk) (k) Theory
Reinforced
Rectangular Opening
CR-IA
CR-2A
CR-2n
CR-aC
CR-2D
CR-M
a-3B
CR4A
CR4B
CR-5A
GR-7B
CR-7D
CSK-2
CSK-5
CSL6
CSK-7
CS-1
CS-2
CS-3
RL-5
R M
Mean ........................
Coefficient of Variadon ...........
Resistance Factor. ...............
O v e d Steel Beams
Mean .............................
Coelfcicnt of Variation ................
Resistance Factor ....................
Notes:
Ribbed Stab
Mcan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.M5
CoefFicimt of Variation ............ 0.070
Raktance Factor ................ 0.899
Solid Slab
Mcpn .........................
Cmfficicnr of Variation ............
Resistance Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overall Unreinforcd
Table 6.7 (continued)
Reinforced
Ribbed Slab
Solid Slab
Man .........................
Cocffieicnt of Varialion ............
Resistance Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OveraIl Reinfored
Mean .............................
Coclficimt of Variptiml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resisrancc Factor ....................
Overall Composite Beams
Mean ................................ I.Om
C o e f f i m of Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.079
Itmistance Factor ........................ 0.905
Notes:
M, vm M, v,., Mm V, Test/
Test (in.-k) (k) (in.-k) (k) (in.-k) (k3 Thew
umeinforced
Ribbgd Slab
Solid Slab
C-E 3110.10
C-Z 460448
C-3 4624.92
c4 4900.59
C-5 5138.23
Cb 3188.26
GI 1734.13
6 2 171264
CHG~ 1369.30
CHO-4 2356%
CHO-5 2d44.36
Ma.........................
CocKimt af Variation ............
R&mm Factor ................
Mern ..............................
C d e i c m of Vcrilrion ..................
l7eshrm Factor ......................
Table G.8 (continued)
Reinfurced
RibM Slab
Solid Slab
Notes:
3TElX BEAMS
Rtclangular Opening
Circular Opaung
Reinforced
MMMSTTT! REAMS
32 1.06% 1.073 1.093 1.131 NIA 0073 0084 OM8 0128 N/A 0917 09J2 0934 0914 N/A
R i b M Slnb 21 1.045 1.037 IM5 1.M NIA 0070 0069 0066 0121 NIA 0899 0893 0920 0B89 NIA
Solid Slab It 1.111 1.141 1.147 1.207 MIA 0065 0075 0076 0.124 NjA 0978 0982 0981 NIA
Ribbcd SIab 1 0919 0919 0919 NIA NIA NIA NIA MIA NIA NIA NIA NEA MIA NIA NIA
Solid Slab 2 1.015 1.019 1.023 MIA NIA 0 140 Q.146 0 152 N/A NIA 0 Ic08 0 805 0803 NIA NIA
35 1 1.065 1.053 1.131 N/A OM9 OD88 0086 0 128 NIA 0904 0901 0918 0895 NIA