SEI/ASCE 23-97

Structural Engineering Institute

American Society of Civil Engineers

Specification for Structural

Steel Beams with
Web Openings

This document uses both Systeme International (SI) units and customary units.

Structural Engineering Institute

Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191-4400
ABSTRACT
This Specification covers the design of composite and non-
composite beams with web openings. Basic design proce-
dures involve determination of maximum nominal flexural ca-
pacity, maximum nominal shear capacity, and interaction of
flexure and shear. Section properties are limited to ensure
ductile behavior. Rectangular and circular openings, with or
without opening reinforcement, are addressed. The specifi-
cation follows load and resistance factor design philosophy.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Specification for structural steel beams with web openings

/ American Society of Civil Engineers,
p. cm. — (ASCE standard)
"SEI/ASCE 23-97."
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-7844-0300-7
1. Girders—Specifications—United States. 2. Building,
Iron and steel. 3. Composite construction. 4. Load
factor design. I. American Society of Civil Engineers.
II. Series: American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE
Standard.
TA660.B4S64 1998
624.1 '7723 —dc21 98-41258
CIP
r98

Photocopies. Authorization to photocopy material for internal

or personal use under circumstances not falling within the fair
use provisions of the Copyright Act is granted by ASCE to
libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clear-
ance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, pro-
vided that the base fee of $8.00 per article plus $.50 per page
is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA
01923. The identification for ASCE Books is 0-7844-0300-7/
99/$8.00 + $.50 per page. Requests for special permission
or bulk copying should be addressed to Permissions & Copy-
right Dept., ASCE.

Copyright © 1999 by the American Society of Civil Engineers,

All Rights Reserved.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 98-41258
ISBN 0-7844-0300-7
Manufactured in the United States of America.
 STANDARDS
In April 1980, the Board of Direction approved
ASCE Rules for Standards Committees to govern the
writing and maintenance of standards developed by
the Society. All such standards are developed by a
consensus standards process managed by the Man-
agement Group F (MGF), Codes and Standards. The
consensus process includes balloting by the balanced
standards committee made up of Society members
and nonmembers, balloting by the membership of
ASCE as a whole, and balloting by the public. All
standards are updated or reaffirmed by the same pro-
cess at intervals not exceeding 5 years.
The following Standards have been issued.
ANSI/ASCE 1-82 N-725 Guideline for Design and
Analysis of Nuclear Safety Related Earth
Structures
ANSI/ASCE 2-91 Measurement of Oxygen Transfer
in Clean Water
ANSI/ASCE 3-91 Standard for the Structural Design
of Composite Slabs and ANSI/ASCE 9-91 Stan-
dard Practice for the Construction and Inspection
of Composite Slabs
ANSE 4-86 Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nu-
clear Structures
Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures
(ACI530-95/ASCE5-95/TMS402-95) and Specifi-
cations for Masonry Structures (ACI530.1-95/
ASCE6-95/TMS602-95)
ANSI/ASCE 7-95 Minimum Design Loads for Build-
ings and Other Structures
ANSI/ASCE 8-90 Standard Specification for the De-
sign of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural
Members
ANSI/ASCE 9-91 listed with ASCE 3-91
ANSI/ASCE 10-97 Design of Latticed Steel Trans-
mission Structures
ANSI/ASCE 11-90 Guideline for Structural Condi-
tion Assessment of Existing Buildings
ANSI/ASCE 12-91 Guideline for the Design of Ur-
ban Subsurface Drainage
ASCE 13-93 Standard Guidelines for Installation of
Urban Subsurface Drainage
ASCE 14-93 Standard Guidelines for Operation and
Maintenance of Urban Subsurface Drainage
ANSI/ASCE 15-93 Standard Practice for Direct De-
sign of Buried Precast Concrete Pipe Using Stan-
dard Installations (SIDD)
ASCE 16-95 Standard for Load and Resistance Fac-
tor Design (LRFD) of Engineered Wood
Construction
ASCE 17-96 Air-Supported Structures
ASCE 18-96 Standard Guidelines for In-Process
Oxygen Transfer Testing
ASCE 19-96 Structural Applications of Steel Cables
for Buildings
ASCE 20-96 Standard Guidelines for the Design and
Installation of Pile Foundations
ASCE 21-96 Automated People Mover Standards—
Parti
ASCE 22-97 Independent Project Peer Review
ASCE 23-97 Specification for Structural Steel Beams
with Web Openings
iii
This page intentionally left blank
 FOREWORD
The material presented in this publication has
been prepared in accordance with recognized engi-
neering principles. This Standard and Commentary
should not be used without first securing competent
advice with respect to their suitability for any given
application. The publication of the material contained
herein is not intended as a representation or warranty
on the part of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, or of any other person named herein, that this
information is suitable for any general or particular
use or promises freedom from infringement of any
patent or patents. Anyone making use of this infor-
mation assumes all liability from such use.
v
This page intentionally left blank
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) acknowledges the work of the Structural
Steel Beams with Web Openings Standards Commit-
tee of the Codes and Standards Activities Division of
the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE. This
group comprises individuals from many backgrounds
including: consulting engineering, research, construc-
tion industry, education, goverment, design and pri-
vate practice.
This Standard was prepared through the consen-
sus standards process by balloting in complince with
procedures of ASCE's Codes and Standards Activities
Committee.
This Specification and accompanying Commen-
tary cover the design of composite and noncomposite
beams with web openings. The specification is writ-
ten for structural designers for use with the AISC
David Darwin, Chairman
University of Kansas
W. Samuel Easterling, Secretary
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
John Bailey
Havens Steel Company
Howard Burton
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, Inc.
Harry A. Chambers
TRW Nelson Stud Welding Div.
William C. Clawson
Howard Needles Tamman & Bergandoff
Gregory G. Deierlein
Cornell University
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specifi-
cation for Structural Steel Buildings (1993).
The Specification and Commentary represent the
culmination of many years of work and rely heavily
on the research efforts of many individuals. These
documents were first written by the ASCE Structural
Division Task Committee on Design Criteria for
Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete and were
first published in the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing in 1992. The current documents incorporate mod-
ifications to the original Specification and Commen-
tary that reflect efforts by the Standards Committee
to improve the usability and applicability of the de-
sign procedures embodied in these Standards. Those
individuals who serve on the Standards Committee
are:
Rex C. Donahey
Ellerbe Becket
Lawrence G. Griffis
Walter P. Moore & Assoc. Inc.
Ramon Gilsanz
Gilsanz, Murray and Steficek
Structural Engineers
Nestor Iwankiw
American Institute of Steel Construction
Roberto T. Leon
Georgia Institute of Technology
William D. Wall
International Conference of Building Officials
vii
This page intentionally left blank
 CONTENTS

Page
STANDARDS iii
FOREWORD v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii

Standard
1.0 General 1
1.1 Scope 1

2.0 Applicable Document 1

3.0 Design 1

4.0 Design Procedure 1

4.1 Interaction of Flexure and Shear 1
4.2 Maximum Nominal Flexural Capacity 1
4.3 Maximum Nominal Shear Capacity 1
4.3.1 General Equations 1
4.3.2 Top Tee in Composite Beams 2

5.0 Design Criteria 3

5.1 Steel Section 3
5.2 Web Buckling 3
5.3 Buckling of Tee-Shaped Compression Zone 4
5.4 Lateral Buckling 4
5.5 Maximum Opening Dimensions 4
5.6 Tee Proportions 4
5.7 Corner Radii 4
5.8 Concentrated Loads 4
5.9 Placement of Opening 4
5.10 Spacing Between Opening 4
5.11 Circular Openings 5
5.12 Opening Reinforcement 5
5.13 Composite Members 5
5.14 Fatigue 5
5.15 Deflections 5

Commentary
Cl.O General 6

C2.0 Applicable Document 6

C3.0 Design 6

C4.0 Design Procedure 6

C5.0 Design Criteria 12

References 16

ix
Appendices
Appendix A—Notation for Specification 18
Appendix B—Notation for Commentary 18
Appendix C—Glossary 19

Index 20

x
Specification for Structural Steel Beams with
Web Openings
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 SCOPE
This Specification for Structural Steel Beams
with Web Openings supplements the Load and Resis-
tance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings of the American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion. This Specification applies to both composite and
noncomposite flexural members in which the steel
section meets the requirements of a compact section.
2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENT
Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings (1993), American Insti-
tute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
3.0 DESIGN
The strength of a flexural member at a web
opening shall be determined based on the interaction
of flexure and shear at the opening. Any procedure
may be used that results in prediction of strength in
substantial agreement with results of comprehensive
tests. Unless stated otherwise, the provisions of the
American Institute of Steel Construction Load and
Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings apply.
The requirements of this section may be consid-
ered satisfied by the procedure described in Section
4.0 in conjunction with the provisions of Section 5.0.
4.0 DESIGN PROCEDURE
4.1 INTERACTION OF FLEXURE AND
SHEAR
The interaction of flexure and shear shall be lim-
ited by Eq. (1).
(1)
where
M,, = Factored moment at centerline of opening
K = Factored shear at centerline of opening
Mm = Maximum nominal flexural capacity at opening;
occurs when V,, = 0
Vm - Maximum nominal shear capacity at opening;
occurs when M,, = 0 at opening centerline
4>0 = Resistance factor for opening design = 0.90 for
noncomposite sections and 0.85 for composite
sections
4.2 MAXIMUM NOMINAL FLEXURAL
CAPACITY
The maximum nominal flexural capacity at an
opening M,,, shall be determined from the plastic
stress distribution on the net section. When an open-
ing is reinforced, M,,, shall not exceed the nominal
flexural capacity of the unperforated section without
reinforcement.
4.3 MAXIMUM NOMINAL SHEAR
CAPACITY
The maximum nominal shear capacity at an
opening Vm shall equal the sum of the shear capaci-
ties of the regions below and above the opening, the
bottom, and top tees
4.3.1 General Equations
The shear capacity for an individual tee V,,,,, in-
cluding the top tee in composite beams for which
1.0, is given by
(2)
where
Vp, - Plastic shear capacity of the web of the tee =
Fytn.s,/\/3
Fy = Specified minimum yield stress of steel
tw - Thickness of web
v = Aspect ratio of tee = ajs,', use a0/5^ when open-
ing is reinforced
a0 = Length of opening
s, = Depth of tee
1
SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS
s, = Effective depth of a tee = s, — Awrl(2bf); used
to calculate v in Eq. (2), only when opening is
reinforced and
Awr — Cross-sectional area of web reinforcement along
top or bottom edge of opening
bf= Width of flange
|x - Dimensionless ratio relating the secondary
bending moment contributions of concrete and
opening reinforcement to the product of the
plastic shear capacity of a tee and the depth of
the tee,
(3)
where
Pr = Force in reinforcement along one edge of
opening =
dr = Distance from outside edge of flange to
centroid of reinforcement
PCI, , Pci = Concrete forces at high and low moment
ends of opening, respectively; for top tees
in composite sections only
d,,, di = Distances from outside edge of top flange
to centroid of concrete force at high and
low moment ends of opening, respectively;
for top tees in composite sections only.
Af= Area of flange = bftf.
Afr = Area of flange cover plate reinforcement
tf = Thickness of flange
4.3.2 Top Tee in Composite Beams
The force in the concrete at the high moment
end of the opening Pcl, shall be calculated using the
minimum value obtained from Eqs. (4a) through (4c).
(4a)
(4b)
(4c)
where
f ' c - Specified concrete compressive strength
be = Effective width of concrete slab
N = Number of shear connectors between the high
moment end of the opening and the support
<2,, = Individual shear connector capacity, including
reduction factor for ribbed slabs
2
te = Effective thickness of concrete slab (=ts for solid
slab; =t's for slab with ribs perpendicular to steel
beam; =(t's + ts)/2 for slab with ribs parallel to
steel beam)
t, = Total thickness of concrete slab
t's = Thickness of slab above the rib
As, = Steel area of top tee; where reinforcement of the
opening is used, the area of this reinforcement
shall be included in Asl
be and Q,, shall be calculated in accordance with
Chapter I of the American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings.
The force at the low moment end of the opening,
PC:, shall be calculated using Eq. (5).
(5)
where
N0 = Number of shear connectors over the opening
Only shear connectors completely within the de-
fined ranges shall be considered in TV or N0. The dis-
tances from the top of the flange to the centroids of
the concrete forces at the high and low moment ends
of the opening, dh and d,, respectively, shall be calcu-
lated using Eqs. (6) and (7).
(6)
(7)
for solid slabs.
(7b)
for slabs with ribs perpendicular to steel beams.
For slabs with ribs parallel to the steel beam, d,
shall be based on the centroid of the compressive
force in the concrete considering all ribs that lie
within the effective width be; in lieu of a more pre-
cise calculation, d, may be calculated using Eq. (7a),
replacing be by the sum of the minimum rib widths
for the ribs that lie ^vithin be.
If the term in Eq. (2) ex-
ceeds 1.0, Vm, shall be calculated using Eq. (8):
(8)
 SEI/ASCE 23-97

where

for both reinforced and unreinforced openings.

In Eq. (8), JJL shall be based on Eq. (3) using
values of Pch and Pc, that are limited such that Pch
shall not exceed the values given in Eqs. (4a), (4b),
and (9). the following limitations apply:

(9)

In no case shall Vmt for the top tee in composite

beams exceed the plastic shear capacity of the top
tee, Vm,(sh), given in Eq. (10).

N (lOa) for noncomposite beams and for composite beams in

negative bending
kips (lOb)

where/^ and V7J are in MPa or ksi for Eqs. (lOa)

or (lOb), respectively, and A^ = effective concrete
shear area = 3tste. for composite beams in positive bending.
For

5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA in MPa

To design members with web openings under the
provisions of this Specification, the following criteria
must be satisfied.

the following limitations apply:

5.1 STEEL SECTION

The member must be a compact section, under

the provisions of Chapter B, American Institute of
Steel Construction Load and Resistance Factor De-
sign Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. where

5.2 WEB BUCKLING

5.2.1 The requirements of Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and

5.2.4 shall be satisfied for openings with h0 ^ 0.3d,
unless web buckling strength is evaluated.
whichever is less.
5.2.2 The width to thickness ratio of the web,
(d - 2tf)/tw, shall not exceed 1365/V^, Fy, in MPa, 5.2.4 The opening shall be proportioned such that
(520/ in ksi). the parameter p0 - (a0lh0) + (6hjd) shall not exceed
5.6 for steel beams or 6.0 for composite beams.

3
SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS
5.3 BUCKLING OF TEE-SHAPED
COMPRESSION ZONE
For rectangular openings with MJ(Vud) > 20 at
the centerline of the opening and v > 4, noncompos-
ite tees in compression shall be designed as axially
loaded columns with an effective length = a0.
5.4 LATERAL BUCKLING
Noncomposite beams and negative moment
regions of composite beams subject to lateral buck-
ling of the compression flange shall be proportioned
so that member strength is not governed by the
strength at the opening, determined without regard to
lateral buckling. The effect of the opening on lateral
buckling of the member shall be considered.
5.5 MAXIMUM OPENING DIMENSIONS
The depth of the opening h0 shall not exceed
Q.ld and the length of the opening a0 shall not ex-
ceed 1.5d, where d is the depth of the steel section.
5.6 TEE PROPORTIONS
5.6.1 The depth of a tee in compression shall not be
less than 0.15d.
5.6.2 The ratio of the opening length to the depth of
the steel portion of a tee in compression v shall not
exceed 12.
5.6.3 If the depth of a tee in tension is less than
0.15J for noncomposite beams or 0.12d for compos-
ite beams, or if v is greater than 12, Vm, = 0. Open-
ings shall not extend into the toe of web-to-flange
fillets.
5.7 CORNER RADII
5.7.1 The corner radii of rectangular openings shall
not be less than 2tw or 16 mm (5/8 in.), whichever is
greater, unless the provisions of Section 5.7.2 apply.
5.7.2 The corner radii of rectangular openings shall
not be less than 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) for openings that
satisfy both of the following requirements:
4
(a) the corners are drilled prior to cutting the straight
portions of an opening; and
(b) the straight portions of the opening are cut so
that neither overruns nor notches are formed at
the juncture of the straight portions and the
holes.
5.8 CONCENTRATED LOADS
5.8.1 Unless a detailed analysis is performed, no
concentrated loads shall be placed at an opening.
5.8.2 Bearing stiffeners shall be required for concen-
trated loads if
(a) . ..
in MPa and bit £
n ksi] and the load is placed closer
than d!2 to the edge of the opening; or if
(b) _
in MPa , and bit ^
in ksi] and the load is placed closer
than d to the edge of the opening, where b and t
are the projecting width and thickness, respec-
tively, of flange or reinforcement.
5.8.3 The provisions of 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 do not apply
to concentrated floor loads that are specified in build-
ing codes as an alternative loading for comparison
with uniform loads.
5.9 PLACEMENT OF OPENING
Unless a detailed analysis is carried out, the
nearest edge of the opening shall be placed no closer
than a distance d to a support.
5.10 SPACING BETWEEN OPENINGS
To be treated as individual openings for design,
the clear spacing S between multiple openings in
both noncomposite and composite members shall sat-
isfy Eqs. (lla) through (12b). The spacing between
multiple openings in composite members shall also
satisfy Eqs. (13a) and (13b). Interaction between
openings shall be considered in members with open-
ings not meeting these criteria.
 SEI/ASCE 23-97

For rectangular openings 5.12.1 Opening reinforcement may consist of hori-

zontal web reinforcement, flange reinforcement, or
(lla) both. Web reinforcement shall consist of continuously
welded bars parallel to and attached as closely as
practical to the edge of the opening. Flange rein-
forcement shall consist of plates or bars continuously
(lib) welded to either flange.

5.12.2 The specified yield stress of the reinforcement

shall equal or exceed the specified yield stress of the
For circular openings beam.

(12a) 5.12.3 The weld in each extension of the reinforce-

ment beyond the ends of the opening shall develop
the full strength of the reinforcement.

(12b) 5.12.4 The weld within the length of the opening

shall resist twice the maximum force developed in
the reinforcement.

where 5.12.5 The web reinforcement shall be extended be-

yond each end of the opening by a distance of at
D0 = Diameter of opening.
least \/3 AJ(2tw).
For composite beams
5.12.6 It is permissible to place web reinforcement
(13a) on only one side of the web if A,VT < (Af + Afr)/3,
ajh0 < 2.5, s,/tw < 365/V^, Fy in MPa (s,lt,, <
(13b) 140/V^, Fy in ksi), for each tee, and MJ(V,,d) <
20 at the centerline of the opening.

5.11 CIRCULAR OPENINGS 5.13 COMPOSITE MEMBERS

It is permissible to design members with circular 5.13.1 The concrete slab shall be ignored when cal-
openings using expressions developed for rectangular culating the maximum nominal shear capacity at an
openings, using the following substitutions. opening Vm in the negative moment region of a com-
For unreinforced openings: posite member.

h0 = D0 (for bending) 5.13.2 If a composite beam is constructed without

shoring, the section at the web opening shall be de-
h0 = 0.9D0 (for shear) signed as a noncomposite member to carry factored
dead and construction loads.
a0 = 0.45A,

For reinforced openings: 5.14 FATIGUE

h0 = D0 The effect of fatigue loading shall be considered

where significant repetitive load fluctuations are
an = OA5Da
anticipated.

5.12 OPENING REINFORCEMENT 5.15 DEFLECTIONS

Where used, opening reinforcement shall meet The effect of web openings on beam deforma-
the criteria of Sections 5.12.1 through 5.12.6. tions shall be considered.

5
 COMMENTARY
Cl.O GENERAL
Cl.l SCOPE
This Specification is based on the design proce-
dures and guidelines presented by Darwin (1990) for
both composite and noncomposite beams with web
openings. Darwin (1990) drew heavily on design
guidelines presented by Redwood and Shrivastava
(1980) for noncomposite sections, as well as a wide
range of other references, many of which are cited in
this Commentary. Steel sections must meet the re-
quirements of a compact section for reasons ex-
plained in Section C4.1 of this Commentary.
The specification is formulated in terms of load
and resistance factor design because the capacity of
beams at web openings can be accurately expressed
in terms of strength, but not in terms of stresses at
stages below ultimate. Figure 1 shows the forces act-
ing on a beam in the vicinity of an opening of length
au and depth h0. The figure represents a composite
beam of depth d located in a positive moment region.
The member must be capable of carrying the factored
moment M,, and factored shear Vu, referenced to the
centerline of the opening. In general, the sections
above and below the opening will be subjected to a
net axial load P, shear V,, and V,2 and secondary
bending moments M,,, M,hl, M,,2, and M,,,,.
C2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENT
The provisions in this Standard are intended to
supplement the provisions for beams and other flex-
ural members in the Load and Resistance Factor De-
sign Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
(1993). Except as noted, all provisions of the larger
Specification should be applied in conjunction with
those in this Standard.
C3.0 DESIGN
Several design procedures have been developed
for structural steel beams with web openings (Cho
and Redwood 1986, Clawson and Darwin' 1980, Dar-
win and Donahey 1988, Darwin and Lucas 1990,
Donoghue 1982, Kussman and Cooper 1976, Red-
6
wood 1968, 1971, Redwood and Poumbouras 1984,
Redwood and Shrivastava 1980, Redwood and Wong
1982, Wang et al. 1975). Most of the techniques have
been developed for specific types of members, such
as noncomposite beams with reinforced openings
(Kussman and Cooper 1976, Redwood 1971, Red-
wood and Shrivastava 1980, Wang et al. 1975) or
composite beams with unreinforced openings (Cho
and Redwood 1986, Clawson and Darwin 1980, Dar-
win and Donahey 1988, Redwood and Poumbouras
1984, Redwood and Wong 1982). In most cases,
these procedures have proved to be safe and conser-
vative. To be used under the provisions of this Speci-
fication, a method must provide strength predictions
that accurately match experimental results such as
those detailed for noncomposite beams by Bower
(1968), Clawson and Darwin (1980), Congdon and
Redwood (1970), Cooper and Snell (1972), Cooper et
al. (1977), Lupien and Redwood (1978), Redwood et
al. (1978), and Redwood and McCutcheon (1968),
and for composite beams by Cho (1982), Clawson
and Darwin (1982), Donahey and Darwin (1988),
Granade (1968), Redwood and Poumbouras (1983),
Redwood and Wong (1982), and Structural Investiga-
tion (1984). The method should include calibrated re-
sistance factors that produce a level of reliability
commensurate with that obtained with the provisions
in this Specification (Darwin and Lucas 1990, Lucas
and Darwin 1990).
The procedures presented in Sections 4.0 and 5.0
provide a single technique that applies to all types of
structural steel beams with web openings, that is,
composite and noncomposite members, and rein-
forced and unreinforced openings. These procedures
are generally easier to apply than the earlier tech-
niques and provide for more efficient designs (Lucas
and Darwin 1990).
C4.0 DESIGN PROCEDURE
C4.1 INTERACTION OF FLEXURE
AND SHEAR
The cubic interaction equation for flexure and
shear presented in Eq. (1) provides a consistent and
conservative representation of the interaction between
flexure and shear at web openings in both composite

FIGURE 1. Forces acting at web opening
and noncomposite beams (Darwin et al. 1990; Dona-
hey and Darwin 1986, 1988; Lucas and Darwin
1990). The upper limits on Vu and M,,, design
strengths $0Vn and $0Mn, respectively, can be ob-
tained by substituting the design capacities for the
factored loads in Eq. (1).
The values of <)>„, 0.9 for noncomposite sections and
0.85 for composite sections (Darwin and Lucas 1990,
Lucas and Darwin 1990), are based on a statistical
evaluation of calculated-to-measured beam strengths
COMMENTARY
and happen to correspond to the values of $b used
for bending of noncomposite and composite sections,
respectively, in the American Institute of Steel Con-
struction Load and Resistance Factor Design Specifi-
cation for Structural Buildings.
The nature of the interaction represented by Eq.
(1) is such that the limitation can be simplified to M,,
< 4>0Mm when Va ^ 0.3 4>V,,, and to V,, < $Vm when
M,, < 0.3 4>0M,,,
C4.2 MAXIMUM NOMINAL
FLEXURAL CAPACITY
Expressions for the maximum nominal flexural
capacity of members at an opening Mm are developed
using the same assumptions as used in plastic design
for members without openings. The procedures are
limited to members that meet the requirements of
AISC compact sections (Load Resistance and Factor
Design Specification).
Noncomposite Beams
Figure 2 presents stress diagrams for noncompos-
ite sections in pure bending.
7
SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS
FIGURE 2. Noncomposite sections in pure bending: (a) unreinforced opening; (b) reinforced opening e s
Arltw; (c) reinforced opening e > Ar/tw
Unreinforced Openings
For members with unreinforced openings (Figure
2(a)), the maximum capacity at the opening is ex-
pressed as
(C3)
where
Mp - Plastic bending moment of unperforated section
= FyZ
h0 = Depth of opening
tw = Thickness of web
e = Eccentricity of opening = e\ for noncomposite
sections
Z = Plastic section modulus
Fy = Specified yield strength of steel
Reinforced Openings
For members with reinforcement of area An,r
along both the top and bottom edge of the opening,
and eccentricity e < Awr/tn, (Figure 2(b)), the maxi-
mum moment may be expressed as
In the development of Eq. (C4), the reinforce-
8
ment is assumed to be concentrated along the top and
bottom edges of the opening, and the thickness of the
reinforcement is assumed to be small. These assump-
tions provide a conservative value for Mm and allow
these simplified expressions to be used. For e ^ 0,
the plastic neutral axis, PNA, will be located within
the reinforcing bar at the edge of the opening closest
to the centroid of the original steel section.
For members with larger eccentricities (Figure
2(c)), i.e., e > AllT/f,,, the maximum moment capacity
is
where
Like Eq. (C4), Eq. (C5) is based on the assump-
tions that the reinforcement is concentrated along the
top and bottom edges of the opening and that the
thickness of the reinforcement is small. In this case,
however, the PNA lies in the web of the larger tee.
Equations (C3) through (C5) provide results that
are identical to those obtained for the maximum flex-
ural capacity in Rectangular Concentric (1981,
1986).
Equations (C4) and (C5) are based on equal
areas of web reinforcement Awr above and below the
opening. However, the specification does not preclude
using unequal areas. The equations do not address
member strength when flange reinforcement is used.

Composite Beams
Figure 3 illustrates stress diagrams for composite
sections in pure bending. In each case, the force in
the concrete Pc is limited to the minimum of the con-
crete compressive strength, the shear connector ca-
pacity, or the yield strength of the net steel section,
given in Eqs. (C6a), (C6b), and (C6c), respectively.
(C6a)
(C6b)
(C6c)
where
f'c = Specified compressive strength of concrete
be = Effective width of concrete slab (Load and Re-
sistance Factor Design Specification)
te - Effective thickness of concrete slab (=ts for
solid slab; -t's for slab with ribs perpendicular
to steel beam; =(t's + ts)/2 for slab with ribs
parallel to steel beam)
ts = Total thickness of concrete slab
/,' = Thickness of slab above the rib
N = Number of shear connectors between the high
moment end of the opening and the support
Qn - Individual shear connector capacity, including
reduction factor for ribbed slabs (Load and Re-
sistance Factor Design Specification)
FIGURE 3. Composite sections in pure bending: (a) neutral axis above top of flange; (b) neutral axis in flange;
(c) neutral axis in web
COMMENTARY
T = Maximum tensile force in the net steel section
Am = Net steel area = As — h0tw + 2Anv
As = Cross-sectional area of steel in unperforated
member
The maximum moment capacity Mm depends on
which of the inequalities in Eq. (C6) governs.
If Pc = T' (Eq. (6c) and Figure 3(a)),
(C7)
where
AAS = h0tw - 2A,r
e = Opening eccentricity; for composite sections,
positive when the center line of the opening is
above the center line of the steel section
a = Depth of concrete compression block =
/V(0.85/;6e) for solid slabs and ribbed slabs
for which a ^ t's
If a > t's, as it can be for ribbed slabs with lon-
gitudinal ribs, the term ts - (a/2) in Eq. (C7) must
be replaced with the appropriate expression for the
distance between the top of the steel flange and the
centroid of the concrete force.
If Pc < T' (Eqs. (C6a) or (C6b)), the plastic neu-
tral axis PNA is in either the flange or the web of the
9
SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS
top tee, based on whether
Pc + 2FyAf > T' (C8a)
or
Pc + 2FyAf < T' (C8b)
where
Af - Flange area = bftf
Equations (C8a) and (C8b) are derived from the
inequalities Pc + FyAf > Fy(Asn - Af) and Pc +
FyAf < Fy(Asn - Af), respectively, which determine if
the sum of forces in the concrete Pc and the flange
FyAf is greater than or less than the force that can be
developed in the steel section below the flange.
If Eq. (C8a) governs, the PNA is in the flange
(Figure 3(b)) at a distance x = (T - Pc)/(2bfFy)
from the top flange. In this case,
If Eq. (C8b) governs, the PNA is in the web
(Figure 3(c)) at a distance x = (Asn — 2A/)/(2r,1,) —
Pc/(2FytJ + tf from the top of the flange. In this
case,
(CIO)
Equations (C7), (C9), and (CIO) can be replaced
by two simplified expressions (Darwin 1990, Darwin
and Lucas 1990) with little loss in accuracy. For
beams in which the PNA in the unperforated member
is located at or above the top of the flange, the value
of Mm may be approximated in terms of the nominal
capacity of the unperforated composite section at the
location of the opening Mpc.
(Cll)
Equation (Cll) is always conservative for Asn ^
As. The values of Mpc can be conveniently obtained
from Part 4 of the AISC Load and Resistance Factor
Design Manual (1994).
10
For beams in which the PNA in the unperforated
member is located below the top of the flange and
PC ^ Pcmin = F,[(3/4)tH.d - AAJ, the value of Mm
may be approximated by Eq. (C1.2).
where
ts = Thickness of slab
Pc = Force in the concrete (Eq. (C6))
Equation (C12) is also accurate for members
in which the PNA in the unperforated section is
located at or above the top of the flange. If Pc <
Fy[(3/4)tH,d - MJ, Eq. (C9) or (CIO), as appropri-
ate, should be used to calculate M,,,.
When reinforcement is used, the value of Mm in
Eqs. (C7) and (C9) through (C12) is limited to Mpc,
the flexural strength of the unperforated composite
beam (Darwin 1990, Lucas and Darwin 1990). This
requirement, along with a similar limitation for steel
beams (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980), is required
to ensure safe designs.
The equations in this section are based on equal
areas of web reinforcement Awr above and below the
opening. However, the Specification does not pre-
clude using unequal areas. The equations do not ad-
dress member strength when flange reinforcement is
used.
C4.3 MAXIMUM NOMINAL
SHEAR CAPACITY
C4.3.1 General Equations
The maximum shear capacity at a web opening
coincides with the formation of plastic hinges at all
four corners of the opening (Figure 4) (Clawson and
Darwin 1982, Darwin and Donahey 1988). The maxi-
mum shear capacity is calculated assuming that there
is no axial force in the tees (regions above and below
the opening). The bending moments that act on the
tees are due to shear at the opening and are often re-
ferred to as "secondary bending moments." The ends
of the opening subjected to positive and negative sec-
ondary bending moments are referred to as the high
and low moment ends of the opening (right and left
sides of Figure 4), respectively.
The maximum shear capacity at the opening is
equal to the sum of the shear capacities of the top

FIGURE 4. Axial stress distributions for opening at maximum shear; Fy = reduced axial strength of steel in
web due to combined axial stress and shear stress
and bottom tees. The capacity of the individual tees,
as expressed in Eq. (2), is obtained by solving the
shear-secondary moment equilibrium equations for
the tee and accounting for interaction between shear
and axial stresses within the steel web. Equation (2)
was developed using a simplified version of the von
Mises yield criterion
(CIS)
where
Fy = Reduced axial yield stress
T = Average web shear stress
and simplifying the stress distributions illustrated in
Figure 4 to those shown in Figure 5, which treat the
resultants of the stresses in the flanges as acting at
the outside edges of the respective flanges. The sim-
plifications illustrated in Figure 5 are obtained by
recognizing that (1) under pure shear, the plastic neu-
tral axis PNA of the tee is usually in the flange, and
(2) the exact nature of the stresses in the flange do
not play an important role in the shear-secondary
bending moment equilibrium equations if the second-
ary moments are taken about the outside of the
flange. The full details of the derivation are presented
COMMENTARY
by Donahey and Darwin (1986) and Lucas and Dar-
win (1990).
The use of a modified tee-depth s, for the calcu-
lation of the aspect ratio of the tee v is used to ac-
count for movement of the plastic neutral axis in the
tee due to the presence of reinforcement. As the
amount of reinforcement increases, the PNA moves
further from the outside, thus reducing the effective
moment arm of both the normal stresses in the web
and the reinforcement. The effect of this movement is
handled by modifying s, in the calculation of v only.
The actual value of s, should be used to calculate IJL
in Eq. (3).
C4.3.2 Top Tee in Composite Beams
The force in the concrete at the high moment
opening Pdl is limited by the concrete strength, the
shear connector capacity, and the top tee tensile
strength in Eqs. (4a), (4b), and (4c), respectively. N
is taken as the number of shear connectors between
the high moment end of the opening and the support
rather than the point of zero moment, because tests
(Donahey and Darwin 1986, 1988) show that shear
studs participate, even in negative moment regions,
due to slab movement parallel to the beam. The force
at the low moment end of the opening, Pcl in Eq. (5),
11
SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS
FIGURE 5. Simplified axial stress distributions for opening at maximum shear; Fy = reduced axial strength
of steel in web due to combined axial stress and shear stress
is based on Pch and the shear connector capacity over
the opening N0Q,,.
The distances from the top of the flange to the
centroid of the concrete stress blocks at the high and
low moment ends of the opening, dh and dh respec-
tively, are calculated using Eqs. (6) and (7). The
specification provides guidance for calculating d, for
slabs with longitudinal ribs.
Equation (2) for Vm, is based on the assumption
that all of the shear in the tee is carried by the steel
web. This assumption may be overconservative for
top tees in composite beams since the concrete slab
also carries shear. If the term
in Eq. (2) exceeds 1.0, the web has fully yielded in
shear. Under this state of stress, the force in the con-
crete Pch is limited to the combined axial strength of
the flange and the reinforcement in the top tee. In
this case, Pch in Eq. (4c) must be replaced by Eq. (9).
Upon checking the limiting value of Pcll, and modify-
ing Pcl and (x if necessary, Eq. (8) is used to calcu-
late the capacity of the tee.
Finally, the capacity of the tee may not exceed
the plastic shear capacity of the cross-section, as
given in Eq. (10) (Darwin et al. 1988, 1990). The ef-
fective area of the concrete Avc used in Eq. (10) was
originally proposed by Clawson and Darwin (1980)
and later modified by Donahey and Darwin (1988) to
provide a realistic upper limit on the contribution of
the concrete to shear capacity.
12
C5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA
The design criteria presented in Section 5.0 are
based on both theoretical considerations and experi-
mental observations. Many of the criteria were devel-
oped for noncomposite beams (Redwood and
Shrivastava 1980) and extended as appropriate to
composite beams (Darwin 1990). The criteria help
ensure that the limit states can be obtained upon
which the design expressions are based.
C5.1 STEEL SECTION
Steel sections must meet the AISC requirements
for compact sections (Load and Resistance Factor
Design Specification) to ensure that local instabilities,
specifically buckling of the compression flange, do
not occur. The equations presented in Section 4.0
have been validated experimentally only for compact
sections (Darwin and Lucas 1990, Lucas and Darwin
1990).
C5.2 WEB BUCKLING
The criteria to prevent web buckling for mem-
bers with opening depths h0 ^ 0.3d are based on the
work reported by Redwood and Uenoya (1979) for
steel sections. The recommendations are adopted in
whole for noncomposite members and relaxed

slightly for composite members to account for the
portion of the shear carried by the concrete slab. The
higher limit on the opening parameter p0 of 6.0 for
composite sections versus 5.6 for steel sections is
based on successful test results (Donahey and Darwin
1986, 1988). A method for evaluating web buckling
strength, required if the criteria in Sections 5.2.2,
5.2.3, or 5.2.4 are not satisfied, is presented by Red-
wood and Uenoya (1979).
Web buckling is not considered to be a critical
load case for openings with h0 < 03d.
C5.3 BUCKLING OF TEE-SHAPED
COMPRESSION ZONE
Unreinforced noncomposite tees in compression
must be checked to ensure that buckling does not oc-
cur. This is of primary concern for large openings in
regions of high moment (Redwood and Shrivastava
(1980). Mu/(Vud) > 20 is used to define a high mo-
ment region. Buckling is unlikely to occur in a rein-
forced tee (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980).
C5.4 LATERAL BUCKLING
The design criteria for lateral buckling are based
on the recommendations in Redwood and Shrivastava
(1980) and Subcommittee on Beams (1971). Open-
ings should have little effect on the lateral stability of
W-shaped sections. However, due to a lack of test re-
sults, design expressions have not been formulated to
predict the inelastic lateral buckling capacity of a
member with an opening. To be safe, the strength of
the member should be governed by a point remote
from the opening.
The effect of an opening on the torsional con-
stant of the section / may be accounted for by multi-
plying its value by Eq. (C14),
where
Lb - Unbraced length of compression flange
AA, = /Uv - 2Ar
In members reinforced on only one side of the
web, use Ar = 0 for the calculation of AA^ in Eq.
(C14). Members reinforced on one side of the web
should not be used for long laterally unsupported
COMMENTARY
spans, and for shorter spans, the lateral bracing clos-
est to the opening should be designed for an addi-
tional load equal to 2% of the force in the compres-
sion flange (Redwood and Shrivastava 1980).
Equation (C14) is an extension (Darwin 1990) of
the recommendations made in Redwood and Shrivas-
tava (1980) and Subcommittee on Beams (1971) for
use with the lateral buckling provisions of design
specifications (Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification). It is recommended that Eq. (C14) be
applied only if the value of the expression is less
than 0.90, otherwise modification of J is unnecessary
(Redwood and Shrivastava 1980).
C5.5 MAXIMUM OPENING DIMENSIONS
The limitation on opening depth h0 is based on
both the practical consideration that opening depths
in excess of 70% of the section depth are unrealisti-
cally large and the fact that only 2 beams out of the
85 used to establish the 4>-factors in Section 4.1 of
the Specification had openings with depths in excess
of Q.ld. The limitation on opening length a0 is based
on a lack of test data for longer openings; this crite-
rion will govern only for openings with h0 < 0.3d. a0
for openings with hc s Q.3d is governed by the pro-
visions of Section 5.2.
C5.6 TEE PROPORTIONS
The limitations on the depths of the top and bot-
tom tees are based on the need to transfer some load
over the opening and a lack of test data for shallower
tees. The upper limit of 12 on the aspect ratio of the
tees v is based on a lack of data with members with
greater aspect ratios. These limits, in conjunction
with the limitations on pm prevent the use of open-
ings for which Eq. (2) would provide unconservative
predictions of Vm, (Darwin 1990).
Tees in compression must meet the geometric
criteria, without exception. Tees in tension are al-
lowed to violate the criteria but, if so, cannot be
counted as contributing to the shear capacity of the
section.
C5.7 CORNER RADII
The limitations on the corner radii are based on
the work reported by Frost and Leffler (1971), which
13
SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS
indicates that radii meeting these requirements do not
adversely affect the fatigue capacity of a member.
The use of smaller allowable radii with predrilled
corner holes is based on both the improved control
and the smoother surface provided by drilling com-
pared to flame cutting.
C5.8 CONCENTRATED LOADS
With the exception of concentrated loads speci-
fied as alternate loadings in building codes, concen-
trated loads are not permitted over the opening be-
cause the design formulas do not account for the
local bending and shear that would be caused by a
concentrated load on a tee. If a concentrated load
must be placed at an opening, additional analysis is
required to determine the effect of the load on the
strength of the member at the opening.
The limitations on the locations of concentrated
loads near openings to prevent web crippling are
based on an extension (Darwin 1990) of the criteria
presented by Redwood and Shrivastava (1980).
C5.9 PLACEMENT OF OPENING
The requirement that openings be placed no
closer than a distance d to a support limits the hori-
zontal shear stresses that must be transferred by the
web between the opening and the support. A detailed
analysis is required for openings placed closer than d
to the support.
C5.10 SPACING BETWEEN OPENINGS
The limits on spacing between openings in Eqs.
(11) and (12) are meant to ensure that a plastic
mechanism involving interaction between openings
will not develop, instability of the web posts between
openings will not occur, and web posts between
openings will not yield in shear (Redwood and Shri-
vastava 1980). Guidance for the design of openings
that do not meet the criteria in Eqs. (11) and (12)
may be found in Redwood (1973, 1983). Equations
(13a) and (13b) limit the potential problem of slab
bridging (lifting of the slab from the steel' section)
between adjacent openings (Darwin 1990).
14
C5.ll CIRCULAR OPENINGS
The criteria for converting circular openings to
equivalent rectangular openings for application with
the design expressions come from Redwood and
Shrivastava (1980) and are based on an investigation
into the location of plastic hinges relative to the cen-
ter line of openings in steel members (Redwood
1969). These conversions have been adopted for
composite beams as well (Darwin 1990). The use of
D0 for ha for both shear and bending in members
with reinforced web openings is due to the fact that
the reinforcement is adjacent to the opening. Treating
the reinforcement as if it were adjacent to a shal-
lower opening would provide an unconservative
value for Vm.
C5.12 OPENING REINFORCEMENT
Web reinforcement should be placed as close as
possible to the edges of the opening, leaving ade-
quate clearance for fillet welds, if required, on both
sides of the reinforcement. Continuous welds are re-
quired because the design expressions are based on
the assumption that full strain compatibility exists be-
tween the reinforcement and the steel section.
Fillet welds are used most commonly to attach
the reinforcement to the web. If a single size fillet
weld is used on one side of the bar within the length
of the opening and both sides of the bar within the
extensions, the reinforcement must be extended be-
yond the opening by a distance of at least a0/4. The
extension requirement of V3AlvT/(2rv,,) ensures that
the shear strength of the web is not exceeded.
The required strength of the weld for web or
flange reinforcement within the length of the opening
is
(CIS)
where
<J>0 = 0.90 for steel beams and 0.85 for composite
beams
Awr - Cross-sectional area of web reinforcement
above or below the opening
Afr = Cross-sectional area of flange reinforcement
above or below the opening.
The required strength of a weld within each exten-
sion is
(C16)

The factor 2 in Eq. (CIS) is used because the rein-
forcement is in tension on one side of the opening
and in compression on the other end when the tee is
subjected to shear (Figures 3 and 4). Within the ex-
tensions, the reinforcement must be anchored to
provide the full yield stregth of the bars since
the expressions for Mm are based on this
assumption.
The terms 2Pr in Eq. (15) and FyAr in Eq. (C16)
are multiplied by $0 to convert these forces into
equivalent factored loads. The weld is then designed
to resist the factored load /?„,,. with a value of 4> =
0.75 (Load and Resistance Factor Design Specifica-
tion). The result is a design that is consistent with the
Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings.
The criteria for placing the reinforcement on one
side of the web limit the reductions in strength
caused by out-of-plane deflections caused by eccen-
tric loading of the reinforcement (Lupien and Red-
wood 1978). The limitations on the area of reinforce-
ment Ar and the aspect ratio of the opening, ajh0,
represent the extreme values that have been tested.
The limitation on s,ltw is primarily empirical. The
limitation on MJ(Vud) restricts the use of unsymmet-
rical reinforcement to regions subject to some shear
loading. For regions subjected to pure bending or
negligibly low shear, the out-of-plane deflections of
the web can be severe. Under shear, the lateral defor-
mation mode caused by the unsymmetrical reinforce-
ment changes to allow a greater capacity to be devel-
oped. Additional guidance is given by Lupien and
Redwood (1978) for the use of unsymmetrical rein-
forcement in regions of pure bending or very low
shear.
The provisions of Section 5.12 should not be
construed to restrict the use of a thickened concrete
slab in composite beams, which is considered to be a
modification of the unperforated section.
C5.13 COMPOSITE MEMBERS
There is strong experimental evidence to suggest
that the concrete slab improves the shear strength at a
web opening, even in regions of negative bending.
However, since no tests have actually been carried
out for openings in negative moment regions, the tra-
ditional approach, ignoring the contribution of the
concrete slab, is taken for the design of web open-
ings in negative moment regions of composite
members.
COMMENTARY
The requirement in Section 5.13.2 recognizes
that a composite beam with adequate strength at a
web opening may not provide adequate capacity dur-
ing construction, when it must perform as a noncom-
posite member.
At failure, a significant amount of bridging (lift-
ing of the slab from the steel section) tends to occur
between the low moment end of the opening and a
point past the high moment end of the opening in the
direction of increasing moment (Donahey and Darwin
1986, 1988). Based on this observation, it is recom-
mended that, in addition to shear connectors placed
between the high moment end of the opening and the
support, a minimum of six shear connectors per
meter (two shear connectors per foot) be used for a
distance d or am whichever is greater, from the high
moment end of the opening toward the direction of
increasing moment. These shear connectors will limit
bridging, although the studs do not directly enter into
the calculation of member strength at the opening.
The suggested minimum of two studs per foot
(0.3 m) applies to the total number of studs. If this
criterion is already satisfied by normal stud require-
ments, additional shear connectors are not needed.
Slabs tend to crack both transversely and longi-
tudinally in the vicinity of web openings. To help
limit crack width and improve the postcrack strength
of the slab in the vicinity of a web opening, Donahey
and Darwin (1986, 1988) recommend the use of a
minimum slab reinforcement ratio of 0.0025, based
on the full depth of the slab, within a distance of d
or am whichever is greater, at the opening. A compar-
ison (Lucas and Darwin 1990) of member strength
predicted using the methods described in the Specifi-
cation with the strength of beams with very light slab
reinforcement (Redwood and Poumbouras 1983) indi-
cates that a value of 0.0025 is not needed to provide
adequate strength, and would serve primarily to limit
cracking. Donahey and Darwin (1986, 1988) also
recommend that, to limit the potential for a longitudi-
nal shear failure at the juncture between the rib and
the slab for slabs with ribs parallel to the steel mem-
ber, transverse reinforcement should be located below
the heads of the shear connectors.
C5.14 FATIGUE
Web openings are not recommended for mem-
bers that will be subjected to significant cyclic or fa-
tigue loading. This is due to both a lack of experi-
mental data and a number of specific considerations.
15
SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS WITH WEB OPENINGS
However, most members in buildings are not subject
to a large enough number of cycles of sufficient am-
plitude to require design for fatigue.
A web opening in a steel beam can create severe
stress concentrations, especially near the corners of
an opening (Clawson and Darwin 1980). The magni-
tude of the stresses depends upon several factors, in-
cluding (1) the geometry and location of the opening,
(2) workmanship, (3) corner radius, and (4) loading
(Frost and Leffler 1971). Reinforcement of an open-
ing with bars welded to the web can also increase
local stresses. High localized stresses under fatigue
(cyclic) load conditions can lead to crack initiation
and fracture. Prudent design of web openings for fa-
tigue loading must include a prediction of stresses in
the vicinity of the opening, high quality workmanship
to reduce stress concentrations due to flame cutting
and welding, and proper detailing of corner geometry
and welds.
C5.15 DEFLECTIONS
Web openings reduce the local moment of inertia
of beams which results in an increase in the maxi-
mum deflection. Openings also result in a local de-
crease in the shear stiffness which leads to deflec-
tions through the length of the opening. The first
effect is often greatest when the opening is located in
a region of high moment, the latter when the opening
is in a region of high shear. The effects of the open-
ing on member deformation must be considered by
the engineer. However, in most cases, the effect of a
single web opening on deflection is small. A review
of analysis methods that account for the effects of
web openings on beam deflection is presented by
Darwin (1990).
REFERENCES
ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for
Concrete Structures in Steel and Concrete (1992).
Proposed specification for structural steel beams with
web openings. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE 118, 12,
3315-3324.
Bower, I.E. (1968). Ultimate strength of beams
with rectangular holes. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 94,
ST6, 1315-1337.
Cho, S.H. (1982). An investigation on the
strength of composite beams with web openings.
16
M.S. Arch. Eng. Thesis, Hanyong University, Seoul,
Korea.
Cho, S.H. and Redwood, R.G. (1986). The de-
sign of composite beams with web openings. Struct.
Engrg. Series, 86-2, McGill University, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
Clawson, W.C. and Darwin, D. (1980). Compos-
ite beams with web openings. SM Report 4, Univer-
sity of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS.
Clawson, W.C. and Darwin, D. (1982). Tests of
composite beams with web openings. J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, 108, ST1, 145-162.
Congdon, J.G. and Redwood, R.G. (1970). Plas-
tic behavior of beams with reinforced holes. J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 96, ST9, 1933-1955.
Cooper, P.B. and Snell, R.R. (1972). Tests on
beams with reinforced web openings. J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, 98, ST3, 611-632.
Cooper, P.B., Snell, R.R., and Knostman, H.D.
(1977). Failure tests on beams with eccentric web
holes. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 103, ST9, 1731-1737.
Darwin, D. (1990). Design of Steel and Compos-
ite Beams with Web Openings. Amer. Inst. Steel
Const., Chicago, IL.
Darwin, D. and Donahey, R.C. (1988). LRFD for
composite beams with unreinforced web openings. J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114, 3, 535-552.
Darwin D. and Lucas, W.C. (1990). LRFD for
steel and composite beams with web openings. /.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116, 6, 1579-1593.
Donahey, R.C. and Darwin, D. (1986). Perfor-
mance and design of composite beams with web
openings. SM Report 18, University of Kansas Center
for Research, Lawrence, KS.
Donahey, R.C. and Darwin, D. (1988). Web
openings in composite beams with ribbed slabs. J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114, 3, 51.8-534.
Donoghue, C.M. (1982). Composite beams with
web openings: Design." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 108,
ST12, 2652-2667.
Frost, R.W. and Leffler, R.E. (1971). Fatigue
tests of beams with rectangular web holes. J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 97, ST2, 509-527.
Granade, C.J. (1968). An investigation of com-
posite beams having large rectangular openings in
their webs." M.S. Thesis, University of Alabama.
Kussman, R.L. and Cooper, P.B. (1976). Design
example for beams with web openings. AISC Engrg.
J., 13, 2, 48-56.
Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings. (1993). Amer. Inst.
Steel Const., Chicago, IL.

Load and Resistance Factor Design Manual of
Steel Construction (1994). 2nd ed., Vol. I, Amer. Inst.
Steel Const., Chicago, IL.
Lucas, W.K. and Darwin, D. (1990). Steel and
composite beams with web openings. SM Report 23,
University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence,
KS.
Lupien, R. and Redwood, R. G. (1978). Steel
beams with web openings reinforced on one side.
Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 5, 4, 451-461.
Rectangular, Concentric and Eccentric Rein-
forced Web Penetrations in Steel Beams—A Design
Aid (1986). Rev. ed., ADUSS 27-8482-02, U.S. Steel
Corp., Pittsburgh, PA.
Rectangular, Concentric and Eccentric Unrein-
forced Web Penetrations in Steel Beams—A Design
Aid (1981). ADUSS 27-7108-01, U.S. Steel Corp.,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Redwood, R.G. (1968). Plastic behavior and de-
sign of beams with web openings. In Proceedings of
the First Canadian Structural Engineering Confer-
ence, Can. Steel Indust. Const. Council, Toronto,
Canada, 127-138.
Redwood, R.G. (1969). The strength of steel
beams with unreinforced web holes. Civ. Engrg. and
Public Works Review (London), 64, 755, 559-562.
Redwood, R.G. (1971). Simplified plastic analy-
sis for reinforced web holes. AISC Engrg. J., 8, 3,
128-131.
Redwood, R.G. (1973). Design of Beams with
Web Holes. Can. Steel Indust. Const. Council, Don
Mills, Ontario, Canada.
Redwood, R.G. (1983). Design of I-beams with
web perforations. In Beams and Beam Columns:
Stability and Strength, Ch. 4, R. Narayanan, Ed.,
Applied Science Publ., London and New York, 95-
133.
COMMENTARY
Redwood, R.G. and McCutcheon, J.O. (1968).
Beam tests with unreinforced web openings. J.
Struct. Div., ASCE, 94, ST1, 1-17.
Redwood, R.G. and Poumbouras, G. (1983).
Tests of composite beams with web holes. Can. J.
Civ. Engrg., 10, 4, 713-721.
Redwood, R.G. and Poumbouras, G. (1984).
Analysis of composite beams with web openings. /.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 110, ST9, 1949-1958.
Redwood, R.G. and Shrivastava, S.C. (1980).
Design recommendations for steel beams with web
holes. Can. J. Civ. Engrg., 7, 4, 642-650.
Redwood, R.G. and Uenoya, M. (1979). Critical
loads for webs with holes. J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
105, ST10, 2053-2076.
Redwood, R.G., and Wong, P.K. (1982). Web
holes in composite beams with steel deck. In Pro-
ceedings of the Eighth Canadian Structural Engineer-
ing Conference, Can. Steel Const. Council, Willow-
dale, Ontario, Canada.
Redwood, R.G., Baranda, H., and Daly, M.J.
(1978). Tests of thin-webbed beams with unrein-
forced holes. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 104, ST3, 577-
595.
Structural Investigation of a Typical Floor Beam
at the 200 West Adams Building, Chicago, Illinois
(1984). WJE No. 840795, Wiss, Janney, Elstner As-
sociates, Inc., Northbrook, IL.
Subcommittee on Beams with Web Openings of
the ASCE Task Committee on Flexure Members of
the Structural Division (1971). Suggested design
guides for beams with web holes. J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, 97, ST11, 2707-2728. Closure to discussion
(1973). 99, ST6, 1312-1315.
Wang, T.-M., Snell, R.R., and Cooper, P.B.
(1975). Strength of beams with eccentric reinforced
holes. /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101, ST9, 1783-1799.
17
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A be = Effective width of slab (4.3)

NOTATION FOR SPECIFICATION bf= Width of flange (4.3)
d = Depth of steel section (5.2)
The section number in parentheses after the defi- dh, d, = Distance from top of steel section to
nition of a symbol refers to the section where the centroid of concrete force at high and low
symbol is first defined. moment ends of opening, respectively
(4.3)
Af= Area of flange = bftf (4.3)
dr = Distance from outside edge of flange to
Afr - Area of flange cover plate reinforcement
centroid of opening reinforcement; may
(4.3)
have different values in top and bottom tees
As, = Steel area of top tee (4.3)
(4.3)
Awr = Cross-sectional area of web reinforcement
f'c = Specified compressive (cylinder) strength of
along top or bottom edge of opening (4.3)
concrete (4.3)
An. = Effective concrete shear area = 3tste (4.3)
h0 = Depth of opening (5.2)
D0 = Diameter of circular opening (5.10)
p0 = Opening parameter = (a0/h0) + (6hjd)
Fy = Specified minimum yield stress of steel (4.3)
(5.2)
Mm = Maximum nominal bending capacity at the
s, = Depth of a tee (4.3)
location of an opening (4.1)
s, - Effective depth of a tee accounting for
Mu = Factored bending moment (4.1)
movement of the plastic neutral axis when
N = Number of shear connectors between the
an opening is reinforced; used only for cal-
high moment end of an opening and the
culation of v when
support (4.3)
< 1.0 (4.3)
N0 = Number of shear connectors over an open-
t = Thickness of flange or reinforcement
ing (4.3)
(4.8)
= Axial force in concrete at high and low mo-
te = Effective thickness of concrete slab (4.3)
ment ends of opening, respectively, for a
tf= Thickness of flange (4.2)
section at maximum shear capacity (4.3)
/, = Total thickness of concrete slab (4.3)
Pr = Axial force in opening reinforcement
t's = Thickness of concrete slab above the rib
(4.3)
(4.3)
Qn = Individual shear connector capacity, in-
/,„ = Thickness of web (4.3)
cluding reduction factor for ribbed slabs
= Dimensionless ratio relating the second-
(4.3)
ary bending moment contributions of
5 = Clear space between openings (5.10)
concrete and opening reinforcement to
Vm = Maximum nominal shear capacity at the lo-
the product of the plastic shear capacity
cation of an opening (4.1)
of a tee and the depth of the tee =
Vm, = Maximum nominal shear capacity of a tee
(2Prdr + PcA ~ Pcld!)IVp,s, (4.3)
(4.3)
v = Ratio of length to depth or length to effec-
Vm, (sh) = Plastic shear capacity of top tee in a com-
tive depth for a tee (4.3)
posite beam (4.3)
= Resistance factor for the design of members
Vp, = Plastic shear capacity of the web of a tee
at openings (4.1)
(4.3)
Vu - Factored shear (4.1)
= Contribution of concrete slab to shear ca-
pacity at web opening in composite beam
(5.2) APPENDIX B
= Plastic shear capacity of unperforated beam NOTATION FOR COMMENTARY
(5.2)
a0 = Length of opening (4.3) The notation listed here includes only those sym-
b = Projecting width of flange or reinforcement bols used in the Commentary that are not defined in
(5-8) Appendix A. The section number in parentheses after

18

the definition of a symbol refers to the section in this
Commentary where the symbol is first defined.
As = Cross-sectional area of steel in unperfo-
rated member (3.2)
Asn = Net area of steel section with opening and
reinforcement (3.2)
F, = Reduced axial yield strength of steel (3.3)
Lb = Unbraced length of compression flange (4.4)
Mn = Nominal bending capacity (3.1)
Mp = Plastic bending capacity of an unperforated
noncomposite beam (3.2)
Mpc = Plastic bending capacity of an unperforated
composite beam (3.2)
M,h, M,i - Secondary moments at high and low mo-
ment ends of opening, respectively (1.0)
P = Net axial force in a tee (1.0)
Pc = Axial force in concrete for a section under
pure bending (3.2)
Rur = Required strength of a weld (4.12)
7" = Maximum tensile force in net steel section
(3.2)
V,, = Nominal shear capacity (3.1)
V(i, V,, = Shears acting in top and bottom tees, re-
spectively (1.0)
Z = Plastic section modulus (3.2)
a - Depth of concrete compression block (3.2)
e = Eccentricity of opening; distance between
the centerline of the steel section and the
centerline of the opening; for noncomposite
sections—always positive; for composite
sections—positive when the centerline of
the opening is above the centerline of the
steel section (3.2)
x = Distance from top of flange to plastic neu-
tral axis in flange or web of a composite
beam (3.2)
APPENDICES
AAS = Net reduction in area of steel section due
to presence of an opening and reinforce-
ment = h0tw - 2Ar (3.2)
T = Average shear stress (4.3)
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
The following terms apply to members with web
openings.
bottom tee: region of a beam below an opening.
high moment end: edge of an opening subjected
to the greater primary bending moment; secondary
and primary bending moments act in the same
direction.
low moment end: edge of an opening subjected
to the lower primary bending moment; secondary and
primary bending moments act in opposite directions.
opening index: p0, parameter used to limit open-
ing size and aspect ratio.
primary bending moment: bending moment at
any point in a beam caused by external loading.
reinforcement: longitudinal steel bars welded to
the web above and below an opening to increase sec-
tion capacity.
secondary bending moment: bending moment
within a tee that is induced by the shear carried by
the tee.
tee: region of a beam above or below an opening.
top tee: region of a beam above an opening.
unperforated member: section without an open-
ing; refers to properties of the member at the position
of the opening.
19
 INDEX
Axial stress distributions 11 Nominal flexural capacity, maximum 1, 7-10;
reinforced openings 8; unreinforced openings 8
Beam deformation 5 Nominal shear capacity, maximum 1, 5, 10-12
Bearing stiffeners, concentrated loads 4 Noncomposite beams, stress diagrams 8
Bending moments 10-11
Bottom tee, definition 19 Opening index, definition 19
Bridging 15 Opening reinforcement 5, 14-15
Buckling, lateral 4, 13; tee-shaped compression zone Openings, maximum dimensions 4, 13; placement of
4, 13 4, 14; space between 4-5, 14
Circular openings, criteria for conversion 14; design
Plastic neutral axis (PNA) 8, 9, 11
5; spacing 5
Plastic stress distribution 1
Compact steel section 3, 12
Primary bending moment, definition 19
Composite beams, stress diagrams 9; top tee 2-3
Composite members 5, 15
Concentrated loads 4, 14; limitation on location 14 Rectangular openings, corner radii 4; spacing 5
Concentrated floor loads 4 Reinforcement, openings 5, 8
Concrete slabs 5, 15
Continuous welds 14 Secondary bending moments 10; definition 19
Corner radii 4, 13-14; smaller allowable radii 14 Shear capacity, equation 1-2
Cracking 15, 16 Shear connectors 2, 15
Simplified axial stress distributions 12
Deflections 5, 16 Steel sections, compact 3
Design procedures 1-3, 6-12
Design 1, 6 Tee, definition 19; depth of 4, 13; noncomposite 4,
Design criteria 3-5, 12-16 13; shear capacity 1-2, 11, 12
Top tee, composite beams 2-3; definition 19; shear
Fatigue loading, effect of 5, 15-16 capacity 1-2, 11-12
Fillet welds 14
Flexural members, strength of 1
Unperforated member 1, 10; definition 19
Flexure and shear, interaction of 1, 6-7
Unreinforced openings 8
High moment end, definition 19; force 2 Unsymmetrical reinforcement 5, 13, 15

Inelastic lateral buckling, design expressions 13 Web buckling 3, 12-13; strength, evaluation of 3, 13
Web opening parameters 3
Lateral buckling 4, 13 Web width to thickness ratio 3
Low moment end, definition 19; force 2 Welds 5, 14; continuous 14; fillet 14; strength 14

20