Ultimate Strength of Ribbed Slab Composite Beams

with Web Openings

J. W. Park1; C. H. Kim2; and S. C. Yang3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A series of tests is performed on composite beams with web openings. The beams have ribbed slabs with the ribs oriented
transversely. The effects of slab width and moment-shear ratio on failure mode and strength are studied. Failure mode of concrete slabs
depends on the slab width. Pullout failure around the shear connectors at the high-moment end occurs in the beams with wide slab width,
while diagonal tension-type failure occurs in a beam with narrow slab width. Based on the test results, a strength model is developed. The
maximum shear capacity is approximated as the sum of the individual shear capacity of the steel beam and the concrete slab. The shear
contribution of the concrete slab is taken as the lesser of the shear strength of the slab and the pullout capacity of the studs. Strength
predictions of the proposed model are compared with test results and predictions of other strength models. The proposed model is easy to
use and gives satisfactory predictions.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:6共810兲
CE Database subject headings: Composite beams; Slabs; Failure modes; Ultimate strength; Webs.

Introduction
It has been a common practice to use composite beams with
formed steel deck as the floor system in steel frame structures.
Providing openings in the webs of steel beams for the passage of
the utility ducts reduces the overall construction depth. However,
the presence of such openings may significantly reduce the
strength at the openings in high-shear regions. Test results have
shown that in composite beams the contribution of the concrete
slabs to both flexural and shear strength at web openings can be
significant 共Redwood and Wong 1982; Redwood and Poumbouras
1983; Donahey and Darwin 1988; Cho and Redwood 1992b兲.
Darwin and Donahey developed a method to generate the
moment-shear interaction diagram for member capacity at open-
ings subjected to both bending and shear 共Darwin and Donahey
1988兲. In the method, the pure moment capacity and the pure
shear capacity are calculated separately, and the two points are
connected using a cubic interaction curve to represent the inter-
action between moment and shear. The simplified axial stress dis-
tributions assumed in the calculation of the maximum pure shear
capacity do not represent the failure modes of the concrete slabs
clearly. However, since the interaction provides a simple and di-
1 shear strength of composite plate girders with web openings
Associate Professor of Architectural Engineering, Hong
Ik Univ., Chochiwon, Chungnam 339-701, Korea. E-mail:
jwp@wow.hongik.ac.kr
2
President, CH Structural Engineering Co. LTD., 705-23 Yuksam-
dong, Gangnamgu, Seoul 135-922, Korea.
3
Assistant Professor of Architectural Engineering, Hong Ik Univ.,
Chochiwon, Chungnam 339-701, Korea.
Note. Associate Editor: Joseph M. Bracci. Discussion open until No-
vember 1, 2003. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on January 25, 2002;
approved August 27, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 6, June 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2003/6-810– 817/$18.00.
rect solution for the capacity and has proven to be accurate and
conservative 共Darwin and Lucas 1990兲, it has been adopted by the
American Institute of Steel Construction in the Steel Design
Guide series 共Darwin 1990兲 and the American Society of Civil
Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute 共SEI/ASCE 1998兲.
Cho and Redwood observed that the failure of concrete slabs
was dominated by diagonal tension crack in solid slabs and by rib
separation in ribbed slabs. They used a truss analogy to consider
the rib separation failure 共Cho and Redwood 1992a兲. In their
model, the shear studs in the opening region are considered as
vertical tension-carrying members, and the shear contribution of
the slabs is governed by the pulling-out capacity of the shear
studs. However, the truss model does not consider the size effect
of the ribbed slabs by assuming that diagonal tension crack does
not occur prior to the pulling-out failure.
Narayanan et al. conducted a series of tests on short-span com-
posite plate girders with solid slabs and web openings, loaded
predominantly in shear 共Narayanan et al.1989兲. The test results
indicated that the concrete slabs exhibited two main types of
shear failure, diagonal tension crack and pulling-out of the shear
studs. Roberts and Al-Amery conducted a supplementary series of
tests and developed a simple analytical model for predicting the
共Roberts and Al-Amery 1991兲. In this method, the shear strength
of a composite plate girder at the web opening is approximated as
the sum of the shear strength of the plate girder alone and the
contribution of the concrete slab. The contribution of the concrete
slab was taken as the lesser of the shear strength of the slab and
the pulling-out capacity of the shear studs.
Herein, a series of tests on composite beams with ribbed slabs
and web openings is described. The test beams were designed to
represent different failure modes of concrete slabs. The test re-
sults were used in the development of a simple analytical model
for predicting the ultimate strength of composite beams with
ribbed slabs and web openings subjected to combined bending
and shear.

810 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Test specimens

Test Program
Test Specimens
A total of nine tests were performed on eight composite beams
and one steel beam. The composite beams had ribbed slabs with
the ribs oriented transversely. 1.2-mm decking with 75-mm deep
ribs on 230-mm centers was selected. The average rib width was
10.3 mm. A single layer of wire mesh of 5.5-mm diameter spaced
at 150 mm was placed at the mid-depth of the concrete slabs
providing a reinforcement of 0.0021 based on the slab thickness
above the deck ribs. All test beams used a wide-flange section of
400 mm 共beam depth兲 ⫻200 mm 共flange width兲 ⫻ 8 mm 共web
thickness兲 ⫻ 12 mm 共flange thickness兲 of SS 400 steel 共similar to
A36 steel兲. Openings had the same size of 260⫻460 mm and
centered at the mid-depth. 22-mm diameter headed studs with
110-mm length were used for shear connection. The studs were
placed in pair in a rib staggered at 38 mm longitudinally and 100
mm transversely. The test specimens are shown in Fig. 1. Three
tests 共RB1, RB2, and RB3兲 were used to investigate the influence
of the size of the concrete slabs on the failure modes under pure
shear condition. In these tests, the slab width was changed. Three
tests 共RB6, RB7, and RB8兲 were used to investigate the effect of
moment-shear ratio 共M/V兲 at the opening. In one test 共RB4兲, three
reinforcing bars of 10-mm diameter were placed in the rib at the
high-moment end of the opening. This test was used to study the
effect of the reinforcement on the pulling-out capacity of the

Table 1. Beam Cross-Sectional Properties

Steel Section Concrete Deck Stud Number
M/V of Web Flange Flange Minimum Maximum
Beam opening Depth thickness width thickness Opening size Width thickness thickness
number 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 N0 N
RB1 0 400 7.32 200 11.8 260⫻460 1,840 75 150 4 10
RB2 0 400 7.32 200 11.8 260⫻460 1,350 75 150 4 10
RB3 0 400 7.31 200 11.72 260⫻460 860 75 150 4 10
RB4 0 400 7.31 200 11.72 260⫻460 1,840 75 150 4 10
RB5 0 400 7.38 200 11.41 260⫻460 1,840 75 150 4 8
RB6 919 400 7.48 200 11.79 260⫻460 1,840 75 150 4 14
RB7 2,330 400 7.48 200 11.79 260⫻460 1,840 75 150 4 26
RB8 5,659 400 7.45 200 11.84 260⫻460 1,840 75 150 4 22
RB9 0 400 7.38 200 11.41 260⫻460 — — — — —
Note: N 0 ⫽ number of studs over opening.
N ⫽ number of studs between high-moment end of the opening and the support.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003 / 811

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817

 Table 2. Material Properties 共in MPa兲
Concrete Steel Flange Steel Web
Beam compressive
number strength Yield Tensile Yield Tensile Studs tensile
RB1 25.7 307.0 422.5 405.5 485.0 484.7
RB2 23.8 307.0 442.8 405.5 485.0 484.7
RB3 21.4 307.0 438.0 366.0 466.5 484.7
RB4 22.2 307.0 438.0 366.0 466.5 484.7
RB5 24.1 300.0 447.0 370.0 470.0 484.7
RB6 24.1 298.0 437.0 366.0 466.5 484.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RB7 25.5 298.0 437.0 366.0 463.5 484.7

RB8 26.0 315.0 441.5 359.5 463.5 484.7
RB9 — 300.0 447.0 370.0 470.0 —
Fig. 3. Comparison of load-deflection curves

shear connectors. One test 共RB5兲 was used to study the effect of
stud configuration along the opening. One steel beam 共RB9兲 was
tested as a reference beam. Beam cross-sectional properties are Instrumentation
summarized in Table 1.
The beams were instrumented with electrical resistance strain
gauges and linear variable differential transformers 共LVDT’s兲.
Materials Strain gauges were placed on the top and bottom tees at the ends
and center of the opening. Strain gauges were also placed on the
Two pairs of tensile coupons taken from the web and the flange
studs at the high-moment end and the studs in the adjacent ribs to
were tested. American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲
measure the tension force induced in the studs. LVDT’s were
A108 Grade 1015 studs used for shear connection were tested
installed at the point of maximum moment and at the ends and
under direct tension. Normal-weight portland cement concrete
center of the opening. Whitewash was applied to the steel beams
with 20-mm maximum aggregate was used. Concrete cylinders
around the web opening and diluted latex paint was applied to the
were cast as the beam slabs were cast. The cylinders were cured
concrete slab.
under the same condition as the test beam slabs and tested at the
same time. The results of material strength tests are listed in Table
2.
Test Results

Loading
All test beams were simply supported at their ends or interior
supports and loaded at one or two points as shown in Fig. 1. The
beams were first cyclically loaded up to about 10% of the esti-
mated ultimate loads to seat the loading system and then loaded
monotonically to failure. Load was applied in increments of about
20 kN first, and then in smaller increments as the beams were
close to failure. The applied loads were monitored using elec-
tronic load cells. The concrete slabs were laterally restrained at
the ends of the beams to prevent any lateral movement.
Fig. 2. Load-deflection curves 共RB1兲
Most of the test beams with wide slabs showed ductile behavior.
The load-deflection curve of Beam RB1 is presented in Fig. 2. In
Fig. 3, load-deflection curves of the beams with different slab
widths are compared. This figure shows that the failure of the
composite beams may become less ductile than the steel beam as
the slab width is reduced. At relatively low levels of loading,
transverse cracks occurred on the top surface of the slabs at the
low-moment end of the openings. Transverse cracks were fol-
lowed by the yielding of the beam web at the opening corners. As
loading increased, longitudinal cracks occurred in the slabs di-
rectly above the steel beam. All the beams except for Beam RB3
exhibited a rib separation type of cracks at the high-moment end
of the openings. The applied loads at first yield and at the first
occurrence of transverse, longitudinal, and rib separation cracks
are summarized in Table 3. Peak loads were governed by the
failure of the concrete slabs.
Beams RB1 through RB5 were tested with the pure shear load-
ing condition at the centerline of the opening. Beams RB1, RB2,
and RB3 were almost identical in every aspect except for the
width of the concrete slab. Beam RB3 with a narrow slab width
failed by a diagonal tension crack through the slab thickness as
shown in Fig. 4. The diagonal tension crack started at the corner
of the rib at the high-moment end of the opening, and propagated
through the slab to the loading point as the load was increased.
Beam RB1 with a wide slab width failed by the pulling-out of the
shear studs from the slab. The pulling-out of the studs occurred at
the high-moment end, and then at the adjacent rib resulting in
bridging of the slab over the opening. Fig. 5 shows the rib sepa-
ration of RB1 after the test. After the test, the concrete slab por

812 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817

 Table 3. Test Result
Appearance of First Crack
Rib
First yield Transverse Longitudinal separation Maximum Maximum
M/V of % of % of % of % of applied shear at
Beam opening ultimate ultimate ultimate ultimate load opening
number 共mm兲 load load load load 共KN兲 共KN兲 Mode of failure
RB1 0 45.2 37.0 77.8 83.3 264.6 170.7 Pullout failure
RB2 0 65.1 27.9 86.0 79.1 210.7 135.9 Pullout failure
RB3 0 56.2 36.7 — — 159.7 103.2 Diagonal tension failure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RB4 0 52.1 32.7 65.0 93.9 240.1 154.8 Pullout failure

RB5 0 47.1 35.3 94.0 76.0 245.0 158 Pullout failure
RB6 919 58.8 47.0 88.0 78.4 249.9 159 Pullout failure
RB7 2,330 49.0 49.0 49.0 91.8 480.2 174.3 Pullout failure
RB8 5,659 73.3 — 77.8 100 441.0 106.6 Pullout and top tee buckling failure
RB9 0 50.0 — — — 137.2 88.5 Web buckling at opening corners

tion at the high-moment end of the opening was removed from
RB1 using a diamond saw as shown in Fig. 6. In this figure, the
cone of concrete around the studs indicates that the studs failed by
pulling-out from the slab.
The average readings of the strain gauges applied to the studs
are presented in Figs. 7 and 8. These figures show that the studs at
the high-moment ends were subjected to the highest-tension
force. Fig. 7 shows that as the studs at the high-moment end
reached close to the pulling-out capacity, the tension force of the
studs in the adjacent rib in the opening length increased rapidly.
Fig. 8 indicates that the diagonal tension crack occurred before
the pulling-out capacity was reached. Beam RB2, whose slab
width is half way between those of RB1 and RB3, exhibited
pulling-out failure. However, the pulling-out of the studs at the
high-moment end was followed by the diagonal tension crack at
the adjacent rib close to the loading point. Ultimate strength of
RB2 was lower than that of RB1.
Beam RB4 was identical to RB1 except that three reinforcing
bars of 10 mm diameter were placed below the heads of the studs
at the high-moment end. The bars were at the height of half the
stud length. Beam RB4 failed by pulling-out of the shear studs
from the slab as RB1. The reinforcing bars did not contribute to
the pulling-out capacity of the studs. On the contrary, the maxi-
mum applied load of RB4 was slightly less than that of RB1. A
possible explanation is that the bars interfered with the concrete
filling around the studs reducing the pulling-out capacity. Beam
RB5 was identical to RB1 except that the studs are placed away
from the high-moment end of the opening. The maximum applied
load was less than that of RB1. However, the reduction was not
significant.
The shear strains measured from the rectangular rosette strain
gauges applied to the top and bottom tees at the center of the
opening length are presented in Fig. 9. This figure shows that
there is no big difference between the shear forces resisted by the
top and bottom tees, though the top flange is connected to the
concrete slab through the studs. This indicates that the shear
strength of a composite beam at the web opening might be ap-
proximated as the sum of the shear strength of the steel beam
alone and the shear contribution of the concrete slab.
Beams RB6, RB7, and RB8 had the same slab width as RB1,
but different values of moment-shear ratio. As the moment-shear
ratio increased, smaller differential deformations across the open-
ing were observed, and the mode of failure of the beams was
closer to flexure type. Nevertheless, concrete slabs exhibited
pulling-out failure in all three beams. The test results of compos-
ite beams are summarized in Table 3.
Formulation of Ultimate Strength
Based on the test results, a simple analytical model for determin-
ing the strength of composite beams with web openings is pro-

Fig. 4. Failure at opening 共RB3兲 Fig. 5. Failure at opening 共RB1兲

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003 / 813

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Load-stud strain curves 共RB3兲

Fig. 6. Pulling-out failure of studs 共RB1兲
posed. This model applies to composite beams with unreinforced
openings and ribbed slabs 共transverse ribs兲 as shown in Fig. 10. In
developing the moment-shear interaction diagram, the procedures
unreinforced openings 共Darwin 1990兲. The maximum shear ca-
pacity of the steel beam is equal to the sum of the individual shear
capacity of the top and bottom tees
V s ⫽V t ⫹V b (3)
The maximum shear capacity of the top tee is

冉 冊
proposed by Darwin and Donahey were followed 共Darwin and
Donahey 1988兲. The maximum pure moment capacity and the 冑6
maximum pure shear capacity are calculated separately, and these V t ⫽V pt ⭐V pt (4)
ao
two points are connected using a cubic interaction curve 冑3⫹
st

冉 冊 冉 冊
Mn
Mm
3
⫹
Vn
Vm
3
⫽1 (1) in which V pt ⫽F yw / 冑3s t t w ⫽plastic shear capacity of top tee;
a 0 ⫽ length of opening; s t ⫽depth of top tee; F yw ⫽yield stress of
in which M m and V m ⫽pure moment and shear capacities, respec- web; and t w ⫽thickness of web.
tively; and M n and V n ⫽nominal moment and shear strengths to The maximum shear capacity of the bottom tee is
be calculated for a particular moment-shear ratio
共M/V兲, respectively.
The maximum pure moment capacity is calculated following
the usual procedures in the design for composite members. In
determining the concrete force, the total shear connector capacity
is calculated using the number of connectors between the support
and the high-moment end of the opening 共Darwin 2000兲. The
maximum pure shear capacity is approximated as the sum of the
individual shear capacity of the steel beam and the concrete slab
V m ⫽V s ⫹V c (2)
in which V s ⫽shear capacity of the steel beam and V c ⫽contri-
bution of the concrete slab.
Calculations of the maximum shear capacity of the steel beam
are based on the procedures for noncomposite steel beams with
Fig. 9. Load-shear strain curves

Fig. 7. Load-stud strain curves 共RB1兲 Fig. 10. Beam and opening configuration

814 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Pulling-out surface areas

V b ⫽V pb
冉 冊
冑3⫹
冑6
ao
sb
⭐V pb (5)
in which A c ⫽ pulling-out cone surface area. The expressions for
A c are presented in Fig. 11 共Hawkins and Mitchell 1984兲.

in which V pb ⫽F yw / 冑3s b t w ⫽ plastic shear capacity of bottom
tee and s b ⫽ depth of bottom tee.
Based on the failure modes observed in the test, the shear
contribution of the concrete slab V c is taken as the lesser of the
shear strength of the slab V r and the pulling-out capacity of the
studs T r . The shear strength of a concrete slab 共ACI 1999兲 is
defined as
冑 f c⬘
V r⫽ rlbt s
6 beams reported by Donahey and Darwin 共Donahey and Darwin
in which f ⬘c ⫽ cylinder compressive strength of concrete in MPa
and b and t s ⫽ slab width and concrete cover thickness, respec-
tively.
In the calculation of the shear strength of the slab, actual slab
width is used in place of the effective slab width, which is used to
calculate the maximum pure moment capacity of the composite
section.
The pulling-out capacity of the studs can be expressed as
T r ⫽0.33冑 f ⬘c A c
Comparison with Test Results
Theoretical predictions based on the proposed method are com-
pared with test results of this study in Table 4. In Table 5, the tests
of this study and the previous tests are compared with the predic-
tions of the proposed method, the strength model of Darwin 共Dar-
win 2000兲, and the truss model of Cho and Redwood 共Cho and
Redwood 1992a兲. The previous tests include five beams reported
(6) by Cho and Redwood 共Cho and Redwood 1992b兲, CH Series; ten
1988兲, D Series; and nine beams reported by Redwood and Wong
共1982兲 and Redwood and Poumbouras 共1983兲, R Series. The
beams which did not have ribbed slabs with the ribs oriented
transversely were excluded from the comparisons.
For D and R Series beams, the ratios of test to predicted
strength by the model of Darwin were quoted from the report by
Lucas and Darwin 共Lucas and Darwin 1990兲. The ratios for CH,
D, and R Series by the truss model of Cho and Redwood were
quoted from their paper 共Cho and Redwood 1992b兲. The other
(7) ratios were calculated by the writers.

Table 4. Comparison of Test Results with Predicted Strengths

Proposed Method
M/V of Shear V n Shear V n V n 共test兲
Beam opening 共test兲 Vs Vr Tr Vc Vm Mm 共predicted兲
number 共mm兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN•m兲 共kN兲 V n 共predicted兲

RB1 0 170.7 70.8 116.6 77.9 77.9 148.7 432.3 148.7 1.148
RB2 0 135.9 70.8 82.3 75.0 75.0 145.7 431.6 145.7 0.933
RB3 0 103.2 63.8 49.7 71.1 49.7 113.5 420.9 113.5 0.909
RB4 0 154.8 63.8 108.4 72.4 72.4 136.2 421.3 136.2 1.137
RB5 0 158.0 65.1 112.9 75.4 75.4 140.5 395.8 140.5 1.124
RB6 919 159.0 65.3 112.9 75.4 75.4 140.7 450.6 139.6 1.139
RB7 2,330 174.3 65.3 116.1 77.6 77.6 142.9 528.7 132.6 1.314
RB8 5,659 106.6 63.9 117.3 78.3 78.3 142.2 520.5 84.9 1.255

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003 / 815

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817

 Table 5. Comparison of Proposed Model with Existing Models mated as the sum of the individual shear capacity of the steel
V n 共Test兲/V n 共Predicted兲 beam and the concrete slab, was proposed. The shear capacity of
M/V of the concrete slab is taken as the lesser of the shear strength of the
Test opening Cho and Redwood Darwin
slab and the pulling-out capacity of the studs.
number 共mm兲 Proposed model 共1992a兲 共2000兲
The predictions of the proposed model were compared with
RB1 0.0 1.148 1.481 1.098 test results and the predictions of other existing methods. The
RB2 0.0 0.933 1.187 0.888 proposed procedures are easy to use and provide an explanation
RB3 0.0 0.909 0.961 0.730 for the different failure modes of the concrete slabs. The proposed
RB4 0.0 1.137 1.437 1.063 procedures give satisfactory agreement with test results and pro-
RB5 0.0 1.124 1.619 1.118 vide better predictions than existing methods for beams with low-
RB6 919 1.139 1.448 0.954 moment-shear ratios.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RB7 2,330 1.314 1.592 1.096

RB8 5,659 1.255 1.310 1.205
CH1 0.0 1.103 1.364 1.459 Acknowledgment
CH2 0.0 0.836 1.039 0.737
CH3 0.0 1.035 1.007 0.773 This research has been performed as a part of Advanced Highway
CH4 950 0.955 1.267 0.872 Research Center Project funded by Korea Science and Engineer-
CH7 1,050 1.098 1.177 1.003 ing Foundation, Korea Ministry of Science and Technology.
D1 1,080 0.930 1.068 0.872
D2 2,016 1.005 1.151 0.953
D3 13,646 1.052 1.073 1.002 Notation
D5A 2,033 0.989 1.214 0.908
D5B 2,027 0.826 0.917 0.985 The following symbols are used in this paper:
D6A 0.0 1.037 1.210 0.994 A c ⫽ pulling-out cone surface area;
D8A 1,016 0.991 0.970 0.974 a 0 ⫽ length of opening;
D8B 758 0.776 0.797 0.985 b,b f ⫽ total width of concrete slab or flange width of
D9A 1,082 0.959 1.272 0.985 steel section;
D9B 954 1.116 1.399 1.019 d ⫽ depth of steel section;
R0 1,000 0.914 1.061 0.933 F yw ⫽ yield strength of steel web;
R1 945 1.059 1.227 1.064 f ⬘c ⫽ compressive 共cylinder兲 strength of concrete;
R2 2,500 1.183 1.247 1.128 H ⫽ depth of opening;
R3 6,000 1.075 1.129 1.081 M m ,M n ⫽ maximum or nominal moment at opening center-
R4 6,000 1.082 1.061 1.097 line;
R5 945 1.040 1.235 0.979 N,N 0 ⫽ number of shear connectors between high-
R6 945 0.856 1.270 1.057
moment end and support, or over opening;
R7 945 1.221 1.172 1.059
s t ,s b ⫽ depth of top and bottom steel tees;
T r ⫽ pulling-out capacity of shear studs;
R8 945 1.266 1.215 1.050
T s ,t s ⫽ total and minimum thickness of concrete slab;
Mean 1,742 1.043 1.206 1.004
t f ,t w ⫽ flange or web thickness of steel section;
Standard 2,725 0.133 0.190 0.138
V m ,V n ⫽ maximum or nominal shear at opening center-
deviation
line;
V pt ,V pb ⫽ plastic shear capacity of top tee or bottom tee;
V s ,V c ⫽ maximum shear in steel section or concrete slab;
The mean and standard deviation of the ratios are 1.043 and and
0.133 for the proposed model; 1.004 and 0.138 for the model of V r ⫽ diagonal tension shear capacity of concrete slab.
Darwin; and 1.206 and 0.190 for the truss model of Cho and
Redwood. The strength model of Darwin provides the best agree-
ments with experimental results. Beams D6A, CH1, CH2, CH3, Referencs
RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, and RB5 were tested under the loading of
pure shear. For these beams, the proposed method provides better American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共1999兲. ‘‘Building code requirements
predictions than the other models. for reinforced concrete.’’ ACI Standard 318-99; and the ‘‘Commen-
tary on building code requirements for reinforced concrete.’’ Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Detroit.
Conclusions Cho, S. H., and Redwood, R. G. 共1992a兲. ‘‘Slab behavior in composite
beams at web openings. I: Analysis.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 118共9兲, 2287–
A test program was conducted on composite beams with ribbed 2303.
slabs and unreinforced web openings. When the width of the con- Cho, S. H., and Redwood, R. G. 共1992b兲. ‘‘Slab behavior in composite
beams at web openings. II: Test and verification.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
crete slab is narrow, the slab failed by a diagonal tension crack
118共9兲, 2304 –2322.
through the slab thickness. When the width of the concrete slab is Darwin, D. 共1990兲. ‘‘Design of steel and composite beams with web
wide, the slab failed by the pulling-out of the shear studs from the openings.’’ American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
slab. Darwin, D. 共2000兲. ‘‘Design of composite beams with web openings.’’
Based on the observed failure modes, a strength model, in Prog. Struct. Eng. Matls., 2共2兲, 157–163.
which the pure shear strength of composite beams is approxi- Darwin, D., and Donahey, R. C. 共1988兲. ‘‘LRFD for composite beams

816 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817

 with unreinforced web openings.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 114共3兲, 535–552.
Darwin, D., and Lucas, W. K. 共1990兲. ‘‘LRFD for steel and composite
beams with web openings.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 116共6兲, 1579–1593.
Donahey, R. C., and Darwin, D. 共1988兲. ‘‘Web openings in composite
beams with ribbed slabs.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 114共3兲, 518 –534.
Hawkins, N. H., and Mitchell, D. 共1984兲. ‘‘Seismic response of compos-
ite shear connections.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 110共9兲, 2120–2136.
Lucas, W. K., and Darwin, D. 共1990兲. ‘‘Steel and composite beams with
web openings.’’ SM Rep. No. 23, Univ. of Kansas Center for Re-
search, Lawrence, Kan., 89–90.
Narayanan, R., Al-Amery, R. I. M., and Roberts, T. M. 共1989兲. ‘‘Shear
strength of composite plate girders with rectangular web cut-outs.’’ J.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SRM Institute of Science and Technology on 09/18/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Redwood, R. G., and Poumbouras, G. 共1983兲. ‘‘Tests of composite beams
with web holes.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng., 10共4兲, 713–721.
Redwood, R. G., and Wong, P. W. 共1982兲. ‘‘Web holes in composite
beams with steel deck.’’ Proc., 8th Canadian Structural Engineering
Conf., Canadian Steel Construction Council, Willowdale, Ont.,
Canada, 41.
Roberts, T. M., and Al-Amery, R. I. M. 共1991兲. ‘‘Shear strength of com-
posite plate girders with web cut-outs.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 117共7兲, 1897–
1910.
Structural Engineering Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers
共SEI/ASCE兲 Standards Committee on Structural Steel Beams with
Web Openings. 共1999兲. ‘‘Specifications for structural steel beams with

Constr. Steel Res., 12, 151–166. web openings 共SEI/ASCE兲 No. 97-023.’’ ASCE, Reston, Va.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2003 / 817

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(6): 810-817