Simplified Design of Composite Beams With Large Web Openings To Eurocode 4 PDF

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 135–163
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Simplified design of composite beams with

large web openings to Eurocode 4
K.F. Chung a, R.M. Lawson b,*
a
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong, PR China
b
The Steel Construction Institute, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7QN, UK
Received 19 July 1999; received in revised form 2 March 2000; accepted 9 May 2000
Abstract
The design of composite beams with large rectangular or circular openings is an important
structural and practical problem which is caused by the need to pass service ducts through
the structural zone of floor systems. Careful sizing and positioning of these openings in the
beam webs can minimise their adverse effects on the shear and the bending resistances of
composite beams. A design method [1][Lawson, RM. Design for openings in the webs of
composite beams. The Steel Construction Institute/CIRIA joint publication SCI-P068, 1987.]
for composite beams with large web openings was first formulated in accordance with BS5950
and calibrated against full-scale tests in 1992 [2][Lawson RM, Chung KF, Price AM. Tests
on composite beams with large web openings to justify existing design methods. Struct Eng
1992:70(1).]. With the release of the draft Eurocode 4 in 1994 [3][ENV 1994-1-1: Eurocode
4: design of composite steel and concrete structures. BSI, 1994.], this paper re-presents the
design method in the format of application rules to Eurocode 4 for detailed design of composite
beams with large web openings.
Moreover, the designer needs advice at the scheme design stage, and this paper also presents
general information on sizing of openings as a function of the utilisation of the shear and the
bending resistances of composite beams. Furthermore, the effect of these openings on deflec-
tions is estimated by a simple factor which is dependent on the size and the location of the
openings. Typical design tables for composite beams with large rectangular openings are
presented. Design rules for other forms of construction such as circular openings and notched
beams are also presented with general detailing rules to assist designers.  2001 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1344-623345; fax: +44-1344-622944.

E-mail address: m.lawson@steel-sci.com (R.M. Lawson).
0143-974X/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 0
136 K.F. Chung, R.M. Lawson / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 135–163
1. Introduction
Composite beams comprise steel I-sections attached by shear connectors to a con-

crete or composite slab, so that the bending resistance and the flexural stiffness of
the beams are considerably higher than those of steel I-sections. A common method
of incorporating services within the floor–ceiling zone of buildings using this form
of construction is to create large openings in the webs of the I-sections. The openings
may be rectangular or circular, and may be in the form of discrete openings, or a
series of openings, along the beam. Two examples are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
A large number of tests has been carried out on composite beams with discrete
rectangular openings notably those at the University of Warwick, UK [1], the Univer-
sity of Kansas, USA [4,5], and also in Canada [6] and Australia [7]. An interesting
series of tests [8] on 21 m span beams was carried out at the University of Kaiserslau-
tern, Germany, as a prototype to the construction of the Kommerzbank in Frankfurt.
Circular openings are structurally efficient, and also convenient for distribution of
circular service ducts, and the ‘cellular’ beam [9,10] is one particular system which
has established good ‘track record’ in the UK. Recent research work [11,12] in both
the UK and Germany has also examined the structural performance of slim floor
beams using asymmetric I-sections with elongated circular web openings. Tapered
fabricated beams can be designed with tailor-made openings [13].
A number of design recommendations for composite beams with large web open-
Fig. 1. Rectangular web openings in composite beams.

K.F. Chung, R.M. Lawson / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 135–163 137
Fig. 2. Cellular beam with a series of circular openings.
ings may be found in the literature [1,9,13,14]. Due to the complexity of the structural
problems, many of the design methods are based on the interaction of many depen-
dent variables, and always require iterations to establish the load carrying capacities
of composite beams at various opening positions. One of these design methods is
presented in a SCI/CIRIA publication [1] which is formulated in accordance with
BS5950. The design method is based on basic structural design principles for the
actions of both global and local forces and moments around web openings, and is
calibrated against full-scale tests in 1992 [2]. Design software for both rolled and
fabricated beams is also available to facilitate the general usage of the method. Practi-
cal guidance on the opening sizes in typical composite beams is also reported in the
literature [14,15]. Deflection calculations are also presented in a number of design
recommendations [1,9,12,14,16].
It should be noted that Eurocode 3: Part 1.1 Annex N [16,17] has been drafted
to present design principles and application rules for steel beams with large web
openings. The composite version of the design recommendations, i.e. Eurocode 4:
Part 1.1 Annex N, has not yet been prepared, and is held in abeyance. In the mean-
time, designers are left with no easily usable hand methods which permit the rapid
design of composite beams with web openings of various shapes and sizes. This is
particularly problematical at the scheme design stage, when a structural engineer is
often required to provide schematic solutions quickly with a minimum of design
effort. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is two-fold:
앫 To propose a design method in the format of application rules to Eurocode 4

Part 1.1.
앫 To present simplified design tables for schematic design for simply supported
composite beams with rectangular web openings under various common load
cases.
This paper aims to present a design method for composite beams using hot rolled
steel I-sections with large rectangular openings in which the beams are subject to
positive (sagging) moment. The design method may be extended to composite beams
with a series of regular circular or hexagonal openings, or to fabricated beams. The
same approach may be applied to steel beams when the effect of composite action
is ignored.
2. Behaviour of composite beams with large web openings
The forces acting around a rectangular opening in the web of a composite beam
are shown in Fig. 3. The variation of the global bending moment and the bending
resistance envelope for a typical composite beam are illustrated in Fig. 4. The ‘glo-
bal’ bending action is resisted by tensile force in the lower web-flange section, and
by compression force in the concrete slab, which is controlled by the longitudinal
shear forces developed in the shear connectors from the support to this point in the
span. Where web openings are placed close to the supports, the force developed by
the shear connectors is limited, and therefore compression force is also developed
in the upper web-flange section (as in partial shear connection).
In general, the shear force at an opening is mainly resisted by the web of the upper
web-flange section, because the lower web-flange section is often highly stressed in
tension. The concrete slab also participates in resisting this shear force.
Local ‘Vierendeel’ bending action occurs due to the rate of change of bending
moment (hence the shear force) across an opening. This increase in bending moment
Fig. 3. Forces around an opening in a composite beam.

Fig. 4. Variation of applied moment and simplified bending resistance in a composite beam.
is resisted by the local bending resistances of the upper and the lower web-flange
sections. The local bending resistance of the web-flange sections may be enhanced
by welded horizontal reinforcements (stiffeners) above and below the opening. In
addition, at the higher moment side of the opening, composite action occurs between
the upper web-flange section and the concrete (or composite) slab. The magnitude
of this tension–compression couple depends on the number of shear connectors pro-
vided directly above the opening. In general, this local composite action dramatically
improves the resistance of the composite beam against the Vierendeel bending, and
therefore longer openings can be used in composite beams than in steel beams.
The bending resistance of a composite beam subject to these forces is illustrated
in Fig. 5. TRd1 is the design value of the tensile resistance which may be developed
in the lower web-flange sections, and FRd,0 is the design value of the compression
resistance that may be developed in the concrete slab. The local force due to com-
posite action over the opening is FRd,1. The total Vierendeel bending moment, MV,Sd,
is VSd l, where VSd is the design shear force and l is the effective length of the
opening. For structural adequacy, the total Vierendeel bending resistance of the web-
flange sections incorporating local composite action at an opening, MV,Rd, should
exceed VSd l.
The optimum positions for web openings in the span of the beam depend on the
relative proportion of bending moment and shear forces. In general, the openings
have a greater effect on the shear resistance of the beam than the bending resistance.
Fig. 5. Global and local bending resistance due to composite action.
However, in practice, the composite beam will be designed to utilise a much higher
proportion of its bending resistance in mid-span than its shear resistance at the sup-
ports. The optimum positions for large openings tends to be roughly at the quarter
span points of a uniformly loaded beam, where the shear force is 50%, and the
bending moment is 75% of their maximum values. Often it is more cost effective
to over-design the beam (such as by choosing a deeper beam), so that larger openings
can be used without losing significant overall economy when services costs are also
taken into account.
3. Design criteria
A prerequisite for composite beams with rectangular or circular openings is that

the parent composite beam without web openings is strong and stiff enough for its
overall design requirements. The design of composite beams with large web openings
is strongly influenced by the relative proportions of shear and moment at the position
of the openings, and additional design criteria at the positions of the openings may
be listed as follows:
앫 Shear resistance
The shear resistance of the perforated composite section should be sufficient to
resist the applied shear force at the openings. In general, the concrete slab also
resists local shear force effectively, and tests have shown that the effective width
of slab that participates in shear is at least 3× slab depth. However, this shear
force is developed by tensile forces in the shear connectors, and should not
exceed the pull-out resistance of one shear connector.
The shear resistance of the perforated web of the composite section should be
sufficient to resist the remaining applied shear force acting at this point. The
effective shear area of an unreinforced web-flange section is reduced to 0.9 times
the actual area because of the non-uniform shear flow that it resists in comparison
to an I-section (or a reinforced section).
앫 Bending resistance
The bending resistance of the perforated composite section should be sufficient
to resist the applied bending moment, after allowing for partial shear connection
at the position of the web opening, as necessary. For this reason, openings should
not be positioned too close to supports where the degree of shear connection is
low. The perforated steel section should have sufficient bending resistance
against the loads that occur during the construction stage.
앫 Vierendeel bending resistance
Vierendeel bending occurs in the composite beam around the web opening due
to transfer of shear forces across the opening. The Vierendeel bending resistance
depends on the local bending resistances of the web-flange sections and may be
increased significantly by incorporating effective composite action between the
upper web-flange section and the concrete slab. The total Vierendeel bending
resistance should exceed the shear force times the opening length (or its effective
length for non-rectangular openings). Often welded horizontal reinforcements
(stiffeners) are required above and below the openings to increase the Vierendeel
bending resistance.
앫 Local buckling
The unreinforced edge of the web above an opening may buckle locally in com-
pression under global bending action. Local buckling may be taken into account
by the use of reduced section properties in assessing the section properties of
the web-flange sections. Local buckling of flanges is prevented by using Class
1 and 2 I-sections (plastic or compact sections to BS 5950 Part 1).
앫 Web buckling
The transfer of forces around the opening leads to local vertical compression in
the web, which may cause buckling if the depth to thickness ratio of the web
is high. Buckling of web posts in composite beams with closely spaced openings
may also occur when subject to large horizontal shear forces near the supports.
Vertical web reinforcements are rarely used in hot rolled steel sections, but can
be used in more slender fabricated beams.
앫 Additional deflection
Each web opening leads to additional mid-span deflections due to shear and
bending effects. Often the additional deflections due to one opening is small
(typically less than 2% of that of the unperforated composite beam), but may
be significant when summed over a series of large openings.
4. Proposed design method
The proposed design method is formulated as a step by step procedure in the style
of application rules of Eurocode 4 Part 1.1 [1], and using the relevant design prin-
ciples and nomenclature of Eurocode 4. The suffix ‘Rd’ refers to the design resistance
of the section or component. The method applies to discrete rectangular openings
in Class 1 or 2 hot rolled steel I-sections, but can also be extended to fabricated
sections of similar proportions.
It should be noted that the global shear force and bending moment are evaluated
at the centreline of the opening. This is conservative as the zero moment position
under Vierendeel bending is close to the lower moment side of the opening when
the Vierendeel bending resistance is dominated by composite action.
4.1. Basic resistances against shear, global bending and local bending actions
A1: At an opening, the vertical shear resistance of an unreinforced web is given by:
fy
Va,Rd⫽0.577 ⫻0.9(Av1⫹Av2)
gs
where Av1 and Av2 are the shear areas of the upper and the lower web-flange sections
respectively, fy is the design strength of steel and ga is the partial safety factor for
steel.
If Av1⬎2Av2, then Av2 may be ignored in this equation. If the root radii of the
rolled section are ignored, the coefficient of 0.577 may be increased to 0.6.
For a reinforced web satisfying the requirements of A7, the factor of 0.9 may be
increased to 1.0.
The shear force acting on the web of the perforated composite section is given by:
Va,Sd⫽VSd⫺VC,Rd
where VSd is the shear force acting at the centreline of the opening, and VC,Rd is the
shear resistance of the solid portion of the concrete slab acting over an effective
width of 3 ds, where ds is the slab depth.
The shear resistance of the concrete slab is obtained from ENV 1992-1-1 [18],
but is limited by VC,Rd ⱕ0.3 PRd, where PRd is the design shear resistance of a shear
connector obtained from ENV 1994-1-1.
A2: The web thickness of the web-flange sections may be reduced in the presence
of high shear force as follows:
teff
t
⫽1⫺ 冋
2Va,Sd
Va,Rd
⫺1 册 2
for
Va,Sd
Va,Rd
⬎0.5
where teff is the effective web thickness under high shear, and t is the actual web
thickness.
This effective web thickness is used in calculating the effective properties in A3,
A7 and A8. For shear force less than 0.5 Va,Rd, teff is equal to t.
A3: The maximum tensile force that may be developed in the lower web-flange
section of the beam is given by:
TRd1⫽Abfy/ga
where Ab is the cross-sectional area of the lower web-flange section based on teff
plus any suitably welded horizontal reinforcement.
The maximum compression force that may be developed in the concrete slab at
the lower moment side of the opening is given by the smaller of:
FRd,0⫽N1PRdⱕFc,Rd, and
0.85
Fc,Rdⱕ f b h
gc ck eff c
where
beff is the effective breadth of concrete slab and is equal to 0.5x, for an
internal beam
hc is the solid depth of the concrete slab (above the deck profile)
fck is the characteristic cylinder strength of the concrete
γc is the partial safety factor for concrete (=1.5)
x is the distance to the edge of the opening from its nearer support
N1 is the number of shear connectors provided in length, x
A4: In general, partial shear connection exists at this point, x, in which case, the
maximum compression force developed in the upper web-flange section is given by:
TRd2⫽TRd1⫺FRd,0ⱕAtfy/ga
where At is the cross-sectional area of the upper web-flange section based on teff,
plus any suitably welded horizontal reinforcement.
The degree of shear connection is defined with respect to the actual force trans-
ferred, as in A6.
A5: For partial shear connection, the plastic bending resistance of the composite
beam at the opening position is given by:
MRd,0⫽TRd1(D⫹ds⫺yb⫺0.5yc)⫺TRd2(ds⫹yt⫺0.5yc)
where
D is the depth of the steel beam

ds is the depth of the concrete slab
yb and yt are the distances of the centroids of the lower and the upper web-flange
sections respectively, from the outer edge of each flange
yc is the depth of concrete in compression (conservatively, yc ⬇ ds)
A6: The actual tensile forces, T1 and T2, that are developed in the lower and the
upper web-flange sections depend on the moment ratio acting at the opening position,
and are given approximately by:
T1 T2 MSd
⫽ ⫽
TRd1 TRd2 MRd,0
where MSd is the applied moment at the centreline of the opening.
The actual degree of shear connection developed at the opening should be provided
in such a way that the compression force developed in the slab exceeds the compress-
ive force developed in the upper web-flange section at this point, or:
FRd,0ⱖT2
This minimum degree of shear connection is consistent with tests. For this reason,
composite action should be ignored when openings are located closer than 0.1L from
the supports.
A7: The combined Vierendeel bending resistance due to local bending in the lower
web-flange sections is reduced under the presence of shear and tensile forces acting
on the sections, and is given by:
Mv1,Rd⫽2MRd1 1⫺冋冉冊册 T1
TRd1
n
where
n=1 if the cross-sectional area of the horizontal reinforcement below the open-
ing exceed 0.3× area of the lower flange. If not, or for unreinforced webs,
n=2
MRd1 is the plastic bending resistance of the lower web-flange section based on
teff, together with any suitably welded horizontal reinforcement
A8: The combined Vierendeel bending resistance of the upper web-flange sections
derives from two parts, as given by:
Mv2,Rd⫽2MRd2 1⫺冋冉冊册 T2
TRd2
n
where
n=1 or 2, as presented in A7.

MRd2 is the plastic bending resistance of the upper web-flange section based on
te together with any suitably welded horizontal reinforcement
The additional Vierendeel bending resistance due to local composite action

between the upper web-flange section and the concrete slab is given by:
Mvc,Rd⫽FRd,1(ds⫹yt)⫹hc(T1⫺T2) 1⫺
T1−T2
FC,Rd冋册
where FRd,l=N2 PRd and N2 is the number of shear connectors provided in a length
(l+ds) above the opening.
A9: The total resistance to the local Vierendeel bending is given by the sum of
the components in A7 and A8, and should satisfy:
VSdlⱕMv1,Rd⫹Mv2,Rd⫹Mvc,Rd
A10: The effective length, l, of the opening is given by:
l=length of opening for rectangular openings

=0.45×diameter of opening for circular openings
=0.6×width of opening for hexagonal openings.
4.2. Requirements against web buckling
It is necessary to prevent local buckling of the unsupported web adjacent to an

opening and the design requirements may be summarised as:
A11: The effective depth of an unreinforced web above an opening is given by:
deff⫽dt 冪 1− 冉冊
38te
l
2
where dt is the depth of web below the root radius of the flange, and
冑
e⫽ (235/fy)
If deffⱕ11 t e, the unreinforced web is at least Class 2. The limits on dt/t are
defined in Table 1. Any portion of the web depth exceeding deff should be ignored
in calculating the properties in A7 and A8. If l⬍38 t ⑀, the unreinforced web is at
least Class 2.
The effective depth of the unreinforced web, or any outstand of a horizontal
Table 1
Limits for outstands of unreinforced webs (S275 steel)a
ᐉ/dt 2 3 5 7 10 ⱖ12
dt/tⱕ S275 20.3 15.5 12.4 11.3 10.8 10.2

S355 17.9 13.6 10.9 10.0 9.5 9.0
a
The same limits apply to the unreinforced depth of web below an opening, although here the section
is subject to tension which stabilises the web].
reinforcement should satisfy the Class 1 or 2 criteria in order that plastic properties
may be used.
A12: The unreinforced vertical edge of the web adjacent to an opening may be
checked for buckling as a strut by considering a compression force of VSd/2 acting
over an effective width of the web equal to:0.5 do for unreinforced webs and
0.5 (do+ls⫺l) for webs with horizontal reinforcements above and below web open-
ings
where do is the depth of the opening, and ls is the total length of the welded reinforce-
ment.
In both cases, the effective height of the web for buckling is do, and its slenderness
is therefore 3.5 do/t. For circular openings, the effective height is taken as 0.7 do.
No check on web buckling is required if the following web slenderness limits for
the rolled steel section are satisfied:
d
ⱕ50e for unreinforced webs
t
d
ⱕ65e for webs with horizontal reinforcement above and below web openings
t
If vertical reinforcement is provided adjacent to the openings, it should be designed

to resist a compression force of VSd/2 applied at the top of the vertical reinforcement.
A13: Where the edges of the adjacent openings are closer apart than 2 do, the
compression force acting on the web post, VSd/2, is increased by a factor of:
do
2 for rectangular openings
s
do
2 for circular openings
(s+do)
where s is the distance between the edges of adjacent openings.

The stability of the web is then checked as in A11.
4.3. Serviceability requirements
It is not necessary to check for local stresses existing around the openings at the
serviceability limit state because any local yielding will have limited effect on
deflection. However, the openings contribute to increased deflections due to elastic
effects caused by the local variations in bending and shear stiffness along the span
of the composite beam.
A14: For a composite beam subject to uniformly distributed loading, the additional
bending deflection of the beam at mid-span due to a single opening, db, is given by:
db
do 冉冊冉冊冉冊
⫽19.2 1⫺
x x 2 l EI
L L L EIo
⫺1
where
EIo is the second moment of area of the perforated composite section

EI is the second moment of area of the composite section without web open-
ings
do is the mid-span deflection of the unperforated composite beam due to
pure bending
L is the beam span
x is the position of an opening from one support, and l is the effective
length of an opening (see A10).
A15: For a composite beam subject to uniformly distributed loading, the additional
mid-span deflection of the beam due to local Vierendeel bending at mid-span, ds, is
given by:
ds
do 冉冊冉冊冉冊
⫽0.8 1⫺
2x l
L L
3
EI
EIv
where EIv is the second moment of area of a web-flange section, taking account of
any averaged effect of composite action or varying web depth above or below the
opening; EIv=⬁ for a composite beam without web openings.
A16: The total mid-span deflection of a composite beam with a web opening is
obtained from the sum of the components:
do⫹ds⫹db.
For a composite beam with a continuous series of openings, the deflections due
to all openings should be considered. The total additional deflection at mid-span of
a composite beam with a series of regular openings relative to a solid composite
beam tends to the value of 0.2 do do/D.
4.4. Alternative opening configurations
For a composite beam with a circular opening, the effective length of the opening
[6] may be taken as 0.45 do, where do is its diameter, and the effective depth may
be taken as 0.9 do, as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, the Vierendeel bending effects
are less critical in this case, and the pure shear or the pure bending resistances tend
to limit the design of the composite beam with circular openings.
For composite beams with a series of circular openings, the horizontal shear stress
in the web posts between the openings is often as high as the vertical shear stress
in the perforated web Furthermore, large horizontal shear forces may cause lateral
Fig. 6. Effective size of circular opening.
torsional buckling in the web posts between closely spaced openings, but this case
is not amenable to hand analysis. Empirical design formulae have been established
for this case, which is used in design software [9] and is outside the scope of this
paper.
Often it is desired to offset the vertical position of rectangular openings, so that
there is a greater depth of web above the opening. This is desirable in practice
because a continuous service zone can be created below the depth of any secondary
beams, as shown in Fig. 7. The analysis is simplified because all the shear force and
the Vierendeel bending is resisted by the upper web-flange section.
Fig. 7. Use of non-symmetric opening.

Fig. 8. Details of notched beams.
A similar approach may be adopted for notched beams, where a proportion of the
lower flange and the web is cut away to provide passage for service zones close to
columns, as shown in Fig. 8. The notched web is reinforced so that it can resist the
applied moment, and its bending resistance often determines the maximum length
of the notch.
Openings are usually placed close together in highly serviced commercial build-
ings and diagonal tensile forces are generated in the web, which cause local com-
pression adjacent to the openings, as shown in Fig. 9. This force arises due to the
rate of change of tensile force in the lower web-flange section and it may be analysed
by considering the unsupported web to be a strut with an effective length equal to
Fig. 9. Forces between adjacent openings in a composite beam subject to a constant shear force.
the depth of the opening. In general, rectangular openings should be separated at

least by more than the beam depth, D, apart.
5. Calibration of proposed design rules
In order to demonstrate the validity of the proposed design rules and also its
improvement over the existing SCI design method to BS5950 [1], a calibration exer-
cise on the proposed design rules was carried out. Results from full-scale tests of
composite beams with large web openings at Warwick University were used, and
all the test specimens were back-analyzed according to the proposed design rules
with all partial safety factors set to unity. Measured material properties and dimen-
sions were also used.
It should be noted that the proposed design rules have incorporated three major
modifications in the existing design method [1] as follows:
1. Actions
The global bending moments and the shear forces are evaluated at the centreline
rather than the low moment side of the opening.
2. Resistances against global actions
Improved design formulas are used to evaluate the moment resistance and shear
resistance of the perforated composite section.
3. Resistances against local actions
Improved design formulas are used to in deal with the adverse interaction of co-
existing bending moment, shear force and axial force in web-flange sections.
The tests used to compare with the proposed design method are described in Ref.
[2] (Table 2). They used 10 m span composite beams with openings in high shear
regions. Table 2 summarizes the results of the back analysis for each of the three
possible failure modes, namely, Shear failure, Global flexural failure, and Vierendeel
mechanism. The model factor is the ratio of the resistance according to the proposed
method (using measured properties and unity partial factors) to the force or moment
at failure appropriate to this resistance.
However, it should be noted that the average model factor on shear resistance was
0.54, indicating that shear was not the controlling condition. In the notched beam
Test IN, bending was critical, but not in the other tests. For the Vierendeel mech-
anism, it was shown that the model factors of the proposed design rules are always
larger than unity, ranging from 1.04 to 1.36, with an average of 1.15. The correspond-
ing model factors based on the existing SCI design method [1] range from 1.04 to
1.47 with an average of 1.26. The method becomes more conservative as the moment
ratio increases, which suggests that the interaction between Vierendeel bending and
global bending is treated conservatively in this approach.
Consequently, it is concluded that the structural adequacy of composite beams with
large web openings may be conservatively assessed with the proposed design rules.
Table 2
Back-analysis of the composite beam tests in Ref. [2]a
Tests
Shear failure mode 1N 1S 2N 2S 3N 3S

Applied shear force in tests, Vs (kN) 355.1 0.0 172.7 195.1 306.5 305.9
Shear resistance of concrete, Vc,Rd (kN) 30.6 30.6 27.3 27.3 29.1 29.1
Shear resistance of web-flange sections,Va,Rd (kN) 466.5 944.3 324.0 324.0 492.0 581.0
Model factor on shear resistance(Vs⫺Vc,Rd)/Va,Rd 0.70 – 0.45 0.52 0.56 0.48
Bending moment failure mode
Applied global moment in tests, Ms (kNm) 213.0 1011.3 682.8 810.3 312.8 335.8
Moment resistance, Mc,Rd (kNm) 176.0 930.8 821.2 828.5 719.9 727.5
Model factor on moment resistance Ms/Mc,Rd 1.21 1.08 0.83 0.98 0.43 0.46
Vierendeel moment failure mode
Applied Vierendeel moment in tests, l*Vs (kNm) 214.4 – 60.4 136.6 137.9 183.6
Vierendeel moment resistance, Mv,Rd/Mc,Rd 196.6 – 51.5 100.4 129.5 177.1
Model factor on Vierendeel moment, l*Vs/Mv,Rd 1.09 – 1.17 1.36 1.07 1.04
Load capacity
Total applied load in tests, Ws (kN) 80.6 91.9 77.5 89.4 92.0 92.0
Total load capacity, WRd (kN) 73.7 – 64.7 63.4 85.7 88.4
Model factor on load capacity, Ws/WRd 1.09 – 1.20 1.41 1.07 1.04
a
*Denotes model factors based on the existing SCI design method. + in test 1S, values calculated at the mid-span of the solid composite beam. All
actions and resistances were calculated at the centreline of the openings.
K.F. Chung, R.M. Lawson / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 135–163
151
6. Simplified design tables
Simplified design tables may be established to determine quickly the maximum

sizes and permitted positions of large rectangular openings in composite beams, as
a function of:
앫 The utilisation ratio of bending resistance at mid-span, Sb. This is the ratio of the
applied moment to the plastic resistance of the composite beam without web open-
ings.
앫 The utilisation ratio of shear resistance at supports, Sv. This is the ratio of the
applied shear force to the shear resistance of the composite beam without web
openings.
앫 The loading condition, i.e. uniformly distributed loading, or 1, 2, 3 or 4 equally
spaced point loads, which affects both the bending moment and the shear force
distributions along the span of the composite beam. The variations in the bending
moment and the shear force distributions are denoted as f(x) and g(x) respectively.
The reduced bending resistance of a perforated composite beam using standard rolled
steel sections may be approximated as follows:
Unreinforced web:
Mpl,red⫽Mpl,Rd(1⫺0.45do/D)
Web with horizontal reinforcements:
Mpl,red⫽Mpl,Rd(1⫺0.25do/D)
where
Mpl,Rd is the plastic resistance of the composite section without web openings
do is the depth of the opening
D is the depth of the steel section
The difference between these two equations arises from the contribution of the hori-
zontal reinforcement to the bending resistance of the perforated composite section.
The minimum cross-sectional area of the horizontal reinforcement above or below
the opening is 0.3 times the cross-sectional area of the lower flange. The same formu-
lae also apply conservatively to a perforated steel (i.e. non-composite) section.
The variation of the bending resistance along the span of the composite beam
varies approximately linearly with the shear connection provided at a particular pos-
ition. The bending resistance at the supports is that of the steel beam alone, which
is approximately half that of the bending resistance of the composite section in mid-
span (for a typical beam). Therefore, at any position, x, from the adjacent support,
sufficient bending resistance is provided when:
SbMpl,Rdf(x)ⱕMpl,red(0.5⫹x/L)
where f(x) is the variation of the bending moment diagram as a function of the
position of the opening, and it has a maximum value of 1.0 at mid-span.
For a composite beam subject to uniformly distributed loading, the variation of
applied moment and bending resistance is illustrated in Fig. 4. For a composite beam
with Sb equal to unity, there is little reserve of bending resistance in the middle-
third of the span when compared with the applied moment, and large openings should
be located between 0.1L and 0.25L from the supports. In practice, as the design of
long span composite beams is typically controlled by deflection, the bending resist-
ance at mid-span is not fully utilised, i.e. Sb⬍1.0, and there is significant bending
resistance reserve along the span of the composite beam. Consequently, the bending
resistance envelope may be expanded by the factor 1/Sb to allow for bending resist-
ance reserve in the composite beam, and the above equation can be solved mathemat-
ically or graphically to determine a wider range of possible opening positions.
The pure shear resistance of the perforated web may be approximated by the
following equations:
Unreinforced web: Vpl,red=0.9 Vpl,Rd (1⫺do/D)

Web with horizontal reinforcement: Vpl,red=Vpl,Rd (1⫺do/D)
where Vpl,Rd is the pure shear resistance of the composite beam with web openings.
In order that the perforated web contributes to the Vierendeel bending resistance,
the maximum shear force that may be applied at the opening position is restricted
to 0.8 Vpl,red. Therefore at any position of the opening, x, from the support, sufficient
shear resistance is provided when:
SvVpl,Rdg(x)ⱕ0.8Vpl,red
where g(x) is the variation of the shear force diagram as a function of the position
of the opening, and it has a maximum value of 1.0 at the supports.
The total Vierendeel bending resistance of a composite beam with large web open-
ings may be evaluated as the sum of the local bending resistances of the upper and
the lower web-flange sections together with the composite action contribution
between the upper web-flange section and the concrete slab. The applied Vierendeel
moment is Sv g(x) l. It is assumed that the local bending resistance of the web-flange
section is a multiple of the square of the reduced depth of the web, 0.5 (D⫺do). It
is further assumed that the Vierendeel resistance due to composite action equals that
of the unreinforced web-flange sections. Therefore, the maximum aspect ratio of an
opening may be approximated by the following equations:
Unreinforced web:
1
ⱕ
0.9
do Svg(x)
1⫺冉冊
do 2 D
D do
Web with horizontal reinforcement:
1
ⱕ
1.8
do Svg(x)
1⫺冉冊
do 2 D
D do
Table 3
Maximum sizes of openings in composite beams subject to uniformly distributed loadinga
Form of opening Shear Bending utilisation in mid-span, Sb

utilisation at
supports, Sv
0.5 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75
Unreinforced 0.5 0.2D×0.5D 0.35D×0.8D 0.4D×1.0D 0.5D×0.7D 0.55D×0.6D

ⱕ0.3 0.2D×0.5D 0.35D×0.8D 0.4D×1.0D 0.5D×1.0D 0.6D×0.8D
Reinforced 0.5 0.3D×0.9D 0.5D×0.5D 0.65D×0.65D 0.65D×0.65D 0.65D×0.65D
0.4 0.3D×0.9D 0.6D×0.6D 0.7D×0.7D 0.7D×0.7D 0.7D×0.7D
ⱕ0.3 0.3D×0.9D 0.6D×0.9D 0.7D×0.9D 0.7D×0.9D 0.7D×0.9D
a
Maximum size of openings=depth×length. Permitted opening positions=0.2L–0.35L from either sup-
port. D=beam depth.
In deriving the above equation, the minimum cross-sectional area of the horizontal
reinforcement above the opening is taken as noted earlier for pure bending. The
difference between the two coefficients arises from the increased local bending resist-
ance of the reinforced web-flange sections.
Using these approximate equations, simplified design tables may be presented for
the maximum depth and length of rectangular openings as a function of Sb and Sv.
The design tables are presented for uniformly distributed loading, for a central point
load, and for the low shear zones of beams subject to 2, 3 or 4 point loads (refer
to Tables 3–5 respectively). The optimum positions of the openings also depend on
the loading conditions, and are defined in Fig. 10. For the theoretically zero shear
zones, the minimum value of the shear force function, g(x), is taken as 0.33 in order
to allow for the possibility of shear arising due to unequal point loads.
앫 Composite beams under uniformly distributed loads

The results of a complete analysis of composite beams with large web openings are
Table 4
Maximum sizes of openings in composite beams subject to a central point load a
Form of opening Shear Bending utilisation in mid-span, Sb

utilisation at
supports, Sv
1.0 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8

ⱕ0.3 0.25D×0.6D 0.35D×0.8D 0.45D×0.9D 0.55D×0.6D 0.55D×0.6D
0.4 0.4D×1.1D 0.6D×0.7D 0.6D×0.7D 0.6D×0.7D 0.6D×0.7D
ⱕ0.3 0.4D×1.1D 0.6D×0.9D 0.65D×0.7D 0.65D×0.7D 0.65D×0.7D
a
Maximum size of openings=depth×length. Permitted opening positions=0.1L–0.4L from either sup-
port. D=beam depth.
Table 5
Maximum sizes of openings in low shear zone of composite beams subject to 2, 3 or 4 point loadsa
Form of opening in Shear Bending utilisation in mid-span, Sb

low shear zone utilisation at
supports, Sv
0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7

ⱕ0.3 0.25D×0.5D 0.35D×0.8D 0.45D×1.1D 0.55D×1.3D 0.6D×1.4D
0.4 0.4D×1.1D 0.6D×1.7D 0.7D×1.2D 0.7D×1.2D 0.7D×1.2D
ⱕ0.3 0.4D×1.1D 0.6D×1.7D 0.7D×1.6D 0.7D×1.6D 0.7D×1.6D
a
Maximum size of openings=depth×length. Permitted opening positions as in Fig. 10. D=beam depth.
presented in Tables 6 and 7 for S275 and S355 steel respectively. Two alternative
beam sizes are presented, as slightly heavier but deeper beam permit larger openings.
Designs for this load case are normally controlled by serviceability criteria, and the
bending utilisation ratio Sb is typically 0.8, while the shear utilisation ratio Sv is less
than 0.3.
앫 Composite beams under multiple point loads
The results of a complete analysis for composite beams with multiple point loads
are summarised in Tables 8 and 9. In these primary beam cases, the bending utilis-
ation ratio, Sb, is typically 0.9.
6.1. Additional deflections
Web openings of significant size add to deflections but detailed calculations are
not usually appropriate as they are both complex and potentially inaccurate. In most
cases, the additional deflection due to each opening is less than 2% of that of the
composite beam without web openings. However, there are cases where additional
deflections can be greater and these values (expressed as a percentage increase in
deflection) are presented in Table 10. In all other cases, the additional deflection due
to each opening of depth greater than 0.5D should be taken as 2%. The effect of
smaller openings may be neglected.
7. Detailing requirements
In preparing the simplified design tables, certain dimensional and detailing rules
are adopted, which should also be taken as being representative of good practice.
These limits are summarised as follows:
Basic configurations of composite beams

앫 The steel section should be Class 1 or 2 to EC3 (plastic or compact to BS 5950).
Table 6 156
Maximum sizes of openings for composite beams subject to uniform loading (S275 steel)a
Span of beam Beam size×weight Utilization: Web Number×depth×length Position from Horizontal
(m) (kg/m) reinforcement of openings (mm) support (m) reinforcement (mm)
Shear Bending
9 406×140×46 0.36 0.86 U 4×200×200 1.5–2.8 –

R 4×250×400 1.5–3.5 60×8
9 457×152×52 0.29 0.70 U 4×300×300 1.5–2.8 –
R 4×300×500 1.5–4.5 80×8
10.5 457×152×60 0.32 0.82 U 4×250×500 2.5–4.0 –
R 4×300×500 2.5–4.5 80×8
10.5 457×191×67 0.30 0.76 U 4×300×400 2.5–4.2 –
R 4×300×600 2.5–5.2 80×8
12 457×152×74 0.30 0.82 U 4×250×400 2.5–4.0 –
R 4×300×600 3.0–5.0 80×10
12 533×210×82 0.27 0.65 U 6×300×500 3.0–6.0 –
R 4×350×700 3.0–6.0 100×10
13.5 533×210×82 0.30 0.82 U 4×300×400 2.5–4.2 –
R 4×350×600 3.0–5.0 100×10
13.5 533×210×92 0.26 0.76 U 6×300×500 2.5–5.0 –
R 6×350×700 3.0–6.7 100×10
15 610×229×101 0.27 0.79 U 6×350×500 2.5–5.2 –
R 6×400×600 3.0–6.2 100×12
15 610×229×113 0.26 0.75 U 6×400×500 3.0–6.0 –
R 6×400×700 3.0–7.5 100×12
a
U=Unreinforced web; R=reinforced web (above and below opening). Data used in establishing this table: slab depth=130 mm NWC;
beam spacing=3 m; imposed load=3.5 kN/m2; partitions, services=1.5 kN/m2.
Table 7
Maximum sizes of openings for composite beams subject to uniform loading (S355 steel)a
(m) (kg/m) reinforcement of openings (mm) support (m) reinforcement (mm)
Shear Bending
9 406×140×46 0.28 0.69 U 4×250×350 1.5–3.5 –

R 6×250×600 1.5–4.5 60×8
10.5 457×152×52 0.26 0.75 U 6×300×400 2.0–4.2 –
R 6×300×700 2.0–5.2 80×8
12 457×152×74 0.24 0.68 U 6×300×500 2.5–6.0 –
R 6×300×800 2.5–6.0 80×10
13.5 533×210×82 0.23 0.68 U 6×350×400 2.5–6.7 –
R 6×350×700 2.5–6.7 100×10
15 610×229×101 0.21 0.65 U 6×400×500 2.5–7.5 –
R 6×400×800 2.5–7.5 100×12
a
U=unreinforced web; R=reinforced web (above and below opening); slab depth=130 mm NWC; beam spacing=3 m; imposed load=3.5 kN/m2; partitions,
services=1.5 kN/m2.
157
158
Table 8
Maximum sizes of openings for composite beams subject to multiple point loads (S275 steel)a
(m) (kg/m) reinforcement of openings (mm) Support (m) reinforcement (mm)
Shear Bending
9 406×191×67 0.35 0.92 U 4×200×200 0.9–2.2 –

R 4×250×400 0.9–2.4 80×10
9 533×210×82 0.27 0.82 U 4×250×350 1.0–2.4 –
+2×250×500 3.6–5.4
R 2×300×500 1.00–2.4 100×10
+300×800 3.6–5.4
10.5 533×210×92 0.33 0.94 U 2×250×400 1.1–2.0 –
R 2×300×600 1.1–2.0 100×10
10.5 610×229×101 0.28 0.79 U 2×300×400 1.1–2.0
+2×300×600 3.3–4.6 –
R 2×400×600 1.2–2.0
+2×350×900 3.3–4.6 100×10
12 610×229×113 0.31 0.95 U 2×300×400 1.2–2.1 –
R 2×350×700 1.2–2.2 100×12
12 686×254×125 0.27 0.85 U 2×400×400 1.2–2.1
+2×400×700 3.7–5.3 –
R 2×450×600 1.2–2.3
+2×400×900 3.7–5.3 100×12
13.5 686×254×125 0.32 0.96 U 2×350×400 1.4–2.0 –
R 2×400×600 1.4–2.0 120×12
13.5 762×267×134 0.27 0.81 U 2×400×500 1.4–2.0
+2×400×800 3.5–4.6
R 2×450×500 1.4–2.0
+2×400×1000 3.5–4.6 120×12
a
U=unreinforced web; R=reinforced web (above and below opening). Data as in Table 6, except beam spacing=6 m, and secondary beams at 2.63–3 m
spacing along the primary beam, depending on span.
Table 9
Maximum sizes of openings for composite beams subject to multiple point loads (S355 steel)a
(m) (kg/m) reinforcement of openings (mm) Support (m) reinforcement (mm)
Shear Bending
9 457×152×60 0.28 0.82 U 4×250×300 0.9–2.5 –

+2×200×400 3.5–5.5
R 4×250×600 0.9–2.5 80×8
+2×250×750 3.5–5.5
10.5 533×210×82 0.27 0.85 U 2×300×350 1.1–2.1 –
+2×250×550 3.2–4.6
R 2×300×600 1.1–2.1 100×10
+2×300×900 3.2–4.6
12 610×229×101 0.25 0.82 U 2×350×400 1.2–2.4 –
+2×300×600 3.7–5.3
R 2×400×600 1.2–2.2 100×12
+2×350×900 3.7–5.3
13.5 686×254×125 0.25 0.77 U 2×400×450 1.4–2.0 –
+300×600 3.5–4.6
R 2×400×600 1.4–2.0 100×12
+400×1000 3.5–4.6
a
U=unreinforced web; R=reinforced web (above and below opening). Data as in Table 6.
159
Table 10
Additional deflection (as percentage of solid web beam) for composite beams subject to uniform loading
or multiple point loadsa
Form of openings do/D l/do Position of opening from support, x/L

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Unreinforced 0.6 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

2.5 N/A 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5
Reinforced 0.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
3.0 N/A 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5
Reinforced 0.7 2.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
2.5 N/A 4.5 3.5 3.0 3.0
2.9 N/A N/A 5.0 4.0 3.5
a
N/A=not normally acceptable design case.
앫 The average spacing of shear connectors should not exceed 200 mm.
Geometry and arrangement of web openings
앫 The maximum size of unreinforced openings is:
do/Dⱕ0.6
l/doⱕ2.0
앫 The maximum diameter of a circular opening is 0.75D.
앫 The maximum size of web openings with suitably welded horizontal reinforce-
ment is:
do/Dⱕ0.7
l/doⱕ3.0
앫 The optimum position of openings for different loading conditions is given in
Fig. 10.
앫 The distance between the edge of a web opening and the adjacent support of a
composite beam should not be smaller than the larger of 2D or 0.1L. Otherwise,
composite action should be ignored locally. This limit does not apply for non-
composite beams.
앫 The distance between the edges of adjacent openings should not be less than D.
앫 The distance between the edge of a web opening and an adjacent point load
or transverse beam should exceed D.
Geometry and arrangement of reinforcement
앫 The proportions of all welded reinforcements should be Class 1 or 2 to EC3.
앫 The cross-sectional area of horizontal reinforcements above or below the open-
ings should exceed 0.3 times the cross-sectional area of the lower flange.
앫 Reinforcement may be provided on only one side of the web for rolled sections.
앫 The projection of the reinforcement beyond the edge of an opening (the anchor-
age length), should ensure full utilisation of the tensile resistance of the
reinforcement. The minimum anchorage length should not be smaller than
150 mm.
앫 The minimum distance between a horizontal reinforcement and the adjacent
flange is 50 mm in order to allow easy access for welding.
Fig. 10. Optimum position of openings in composite beams.

앫 These detailing rules are illustrated in Fig. 11.

Notched beams at supports
앫 The maximum size of the notched depth, do, is:
do/Dⱕ0.5
l/doⱕ2.0
앫 Horizontal reinforcement should be provided above the notch, which should
observe the above limits on cross-sectional area, section classification, and
anchorage length.
The limits given in these detailing requirements may be exceeded when justified by
more detailed calculations.
8. Conclusions
With the release of Eurocode 4, a proven design method for composite beams
with large web openings is presented in this paper in the format of application rules
to Eurocode 4. Based on simple and conservative assumptions on the shear utilisation
and the bending utilisation of typical composite beams, simplified design tables on
maximum opening sizes are provided to assist engineers to carry out schematic
design quickly. A calibration exercise on the proposed design method showed that
it is reasonably accurate for high shear regions, but is more conservative as the
moment ratio increases.
Fig. 11. Detailing rules for horizontal reinforcement.

Acknowledgements
The paper is jointly written by the first and the second authors when the second
author visits the Hong Kong Polytechnic University as a Honorary Research Fellow
under the support of a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region (Project No. PolyU5085/97E). The research leading
to this paper has been developed from various commercial contracts, including those
of Westok Ltd, and Fabsec Ltd.
References
[1] Lawson RM. Design for openings in the webs of composite beams. The Steel Construction
Institute/CIRIA joint publication SCI-P068, 1987.
[2] Lawson RM, Chung KF, Price AM. Tests on composite beams with large web openings to justify
existing design methods. Struct Eng 1992:70(1).
[3] ENV 1994-1-1: Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures. BSI, 1994.
[4] Clawson WC, Darwin D. Tests of composite beams with web openings. ACSE J Struct Div
1982:108(ST1).
[5] Dorahey RC, Darwin D. Performance and design of composite beams with web openings. Structural
Engineering and Engineering Materials SM Report No. 18, University of Kansas Centre for Research,
Lawrence, Kansas, 1989.
[6] Redwood RG, Poumbouras G. Tests on composite beams with web holes. Can J Civil Engng 1983.
[7] Patrick MM. Design of simply supported beams with large web penetrations. BHP structural steel
composite structures design manual, April 1999.
[8] Bode H, Stengel J, Zhou D. Composite beam test for a new high-rise building in Frankfurt. In:
Composite construction III. American Society of Civil Engineering, 1996.
[9] Ward JK. Design of composite and non-composite cellular beams. The Steel Construction Institute,
publication 100, 1990.
[10] Surtees JO, Liu Z. Loading tests on cellform beams. Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Leeds, 1995.
[11] Lawson RM, Bode H, Brekelmans JWPM, Wright PJ, Mullett DL. ‘Slimflor’ and ‘Slimdek’ construc-
tion: European development. Struct Eng 1999;77(8):22–30.
[12] Lawson RM, Mullett DL, Rackham JW. Design of asymmetric slimflor beams using deep composite
decking. The Steel Construction Institute, SCI-P175, 1997.
[13] Lawson RM, Oshatogbe D. Design of Fabsec beams in non-composite and composite applications.
The Steel Construction Institute, RT777, December 1999.
[14] Darwin D. Design of steel and composite beams with web openings. In: Steel design guide series
2. American Institute of Steel Construction, 1990.
[15] Chung KF, Chan WM. Practical design of composite beams integrated with building services. Pro-
ceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Tall Buildings, Hong Kong, December 1998. p.
496–501.
[16] Benitez MA, Darwin D, Donahey RC. Deflections of composite beams with web openings. ASCE
J Struct Engng 1998;124(10):1139–47.
[17] ENV 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3: design of steel structures: annex N: ‘openings in webs’. Draft prepared
by Project Team for EC3, 1994.
[18] ENV 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures, 1991.

Simplified Design of Composite Beams With Large Web Openings To Eurocode 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Simplified Design of Composite Beams With Large Web Openings To Eurocode 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simplified Design of Composite Beams With Large Web Openings To Eurocode 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 135–163

Simplified design of composite beams with

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1344-623345; fax: +44-1344-622944.

Composite beams comprise steel I-sections attached by shear connectors to a con-

Fig. 1. Rectangular web openings in composite beams.

Fig. 2. Cellular beam with a series of circular openings.

앫 To propose a design method in the format of application rules to Eurocode 4

2. Behaviour of composite beams with large web openings

Fig. 3. Forces around an opening in a composite beam.

Fig. 5. Global and local bending resistance due to composite action.

A prerequisite for composite beams with rectangular or circular openings is that

4. Proposed design method

D is the depth of the steel beam

n=1 or 2, as presented in A7.

The additional Vierendeel bending resistance due to local composite action

A10: The effective length, l, of the opening is given by:

l=length of opening for rectangular openings

4.2. Requirements against web buckling

It is necessary to prevent local buckling of the unsupported web adjacent to an

dt/tⱕ S275 20.3 15.5 12.4 11.3 10.8 10.2

If vertical reinforcement is provided adjacent to the openings, it should be designed

where s is the distance between the edges of adjacent openings.

4.3. Serviceability requirements

EIo is the second moment of area of the perforated composite section

4.4. Alternative opening configurations

Fig. 6. Effective size of circular opening.

Fig. 7. Use of non-symmetric opening.

Fig. 8. Details of notched beams.

the depth of the opening. In general, rectangular openings should be separated at

5. Calibration of proposed design rules

Shear failure mode 1N 1S 2N 2S 3N 3S

6. Simplified design tables

Simplified design tables may be established to determine quickly the maximum

Unreinforced web: Vpl,red=0.9 Vpl,Rd (1⫺do/D)

Form of opening Shear Bending utilisation in mid-span, Sb

Unreinforced 0.5 0.2D×0.5D 0.35D×0.8D 0.4D×1.0D 0.5D×0.7D 0.55D×0.6D

앫 Composite beams under uniformly distributed loads

Form of opening Shear Bending utilisation in mid-span, Sb

Unreinforced 0.4 0.25D×0.6D 0.35D×0.8D 0.45D×0.7D 0.5D×0.5D 0.5D×0.5D

Form of opening in Shear Bending utilisation in mid-span, Sb

Unreinforced 0.5 0.25D×0.5D 0.35D×0.8D 0.45D×1.1D 0.55D×0.9D 0.6D×0.8D

6.1. Additional deflections

Basic configurations of composite beams

9 406×140×46 0.36 0.86 U 4×200×200 1.5–2.8 –

9 406×140×46 0.28 0.69 U 4×250×350 1.5–3.5 –

9 406×191×67 0.35 0.92 U 4×200×200 0.9–2.2 –

9 457×152×60 0.28 0.82 U 4×250×300 0.9–2.5 –

Form of openings do/D l/do Position of opening from support, x/L

Unreinforced 0.6 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Fig. 10. Optimum position of openings in composite beams.

앫 These detailing rules are illustrated in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. Detailing rules for horizontal reinforcement.

You might also like