Civil and Environmental Engineering

Vol. 0, Issue 0, DOI: 10.2478/cee-2025-0010

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS FOR SHEAR STRENGTH OF

COMPOSITE BOX STEEL-CONCRETE BEAM
TRANSVERSE INTERMEDIATE TO LARGE
OPENINGS
Ali M. OUDAH1, *, Nasser Hakeem TU'MA1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Misan, Maysan, Iraq.
*
corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract
Keywords:
This research paper presents a numerical analysis of composite box
steel-concrete beams with transverse intermediate to large openings, Composite Beams 1;
conducted using the ABAQUS program. The study focused on various Steel-Concrete Beams 2;
parameters, including opening size, shape, location, shear span to Transverse Openings 3;
effective depth ratio, compressive strength, and diameter of rebars, to Shear Strength 4;
understand their effects on the shear load capacity of the beams. The Numerical Analysis 5;
results demonstrated a strong agreement with experimental data, with ABAQUS 6;
a correlation ranging from 0.927 to 1.023. Key findings include Intermediate to Large
Increasing the opening size from 90x90 mm to 110x110 mm and from Openings 7;
110x110 to 136x136 led to a 12.7% and 42.4% respectively decrease
in shear load, Changing the shape of openings from square to circular
decreased the shear load by 14.7% for 90 mm openings and 14.2% for
110 mm openings, while increased the shear load by 15.25% for 136
mm. Moving transverse openings closer to the loads by 126 mm
reduced the shear load by 7.5% for 90x90 mm openings, 9.8% for
110x110 mm openings and 17.2% for 136×136 mm openings. The
difference in shear load between the highest and lowest (a/d) ratios is
12.5% for 90×90 mm openings, 7.2% for 110×110 mm openings, and
0.8% for 136×136 mm openings. Beams with a compressive strength
of 37.5 MPa showed higher shear loads compared to those with 30
MPa, with increases of slight change, and the shear load increased of
slight change for beams with reinforcement (2∅25-2∅16) compared to
those with (3∅16) for 90x90 mm openings, 110x110 mm and 136x136
mm openings.

1 Introduction
In recent years, there has been a growing demand for buildings with high ceilings. However,
installing ducts and openings for electro-mechanical systems within the clear heights underneath
reinforced concrete beams is necessary. Most building systems use ceiling under beams to cover
these ducts and pipes; this covering takes from floor height and creates dead space on each floor,
The height of this space can add to the overall building height by passing pipes and ducts through the
beams Providing web openings in beams is considered the most practical solution in that case, Thus,
several investigators exerted great efforts to study the behaviour of such beams and introduce reliable
techniques for analysing and designing such beams[1]. Openings with square, circular, or nearly
square shapes may be classified as tiny openings if the depth (or diameter) of the aperture is
proportionate to the size of the beam, specifically less than 40% of the entire beam depth[2]. If such a
situation occurs, beam activity will likely dominate. Hence, the analysis and design of a beam with tiny
openings may be approached similarly to that of a solid beam. However, openings create interruptions
or disruptions in the regular distribution of forces, resulting in the accumulation of stress and the
formation of cracks in the vicinity of the opening. To avoid potential early failure of the beam, it is
necessary to provide an adequate amount of specific reinforcement around the opening's perimeter to
regulate crack widths, as with any discontinuity[3].
The position and size of any openings present often influence the deformation and strength of a
beam. By carefully selecting the location, it is possible to create relatively big gaps in reinforced
concrete beam constructions without compromising their final load-bearing capacity[4]. Nevertheless,

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

even little openings situated in an undesirable location might result in a significant reduction in the
intensity of the beam. Therefore, it is essential to meticulously strategize the dimensions and
positioning of the openings[5]. Nevertheless, the presence of the openings leads to interruptions or
disruptions in the regular passage of stress, leading to a buildup of stress and the occurrence of
cracks around the opening at an early stage. Hence, it is necessary to ensure sufficient reinforcement
is placed in the opening area to effectively manage the breadth of cracks and prevent any potential
early beam failure[6] .Vertical openings in reinforced concrete beams are utilized as an alternative to
tiny openings in slabs, particularly in modest structures in both height and size (low-rise buildings).
Frequently, the effect of tiny gaps on the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete slabs is
disregarded since the structure can redistribute stresses [7].
Nevertheless, installing it will occupy valuable space and make the services more noticeable,
which might not be aesthetically convenient. To address this, a suspended ceiling or specific
decorating may be required to make it visually acceptable. However, to conceal most pipes and ducts,
they are often routed via vertical openings in beams and remain concealed behind the partitions until
they reach the designated position. This is why vertical openings in reinforced concrete (RC) beams
have been widely utilized[8]. Like a beam with tiny openings, big openings may be described as
openings that need more horizontal and vertical supports in the upper and lower sections of the
beam[9] . The validity of Bernoulli's concept about the distribution of plane strain over the whole cross-
section of a big aperture, is questionable. An opening is considered large when its depth (d) or
diameter (D) exceeds 0.25 times the depth of the beam (h) and its length (ℓ) is greater than its depth
(d). The presence of such openings decreases the strength of the beam, resulting in beam behaviour,
as depicted in Figure 1, as described by Somes and Corley[10] .

Fig. 1: large openings description based on structural reaction.

2 Literature Review
In recent years, there has been a considerable emphasis on steel-concrete composite
structures due to their intricate properties and extensive application in engineering projects. Numerous
scholars have acknowledged the importance of combining experimental and numerical studies in
advanced construction engineering design. Numerical simulation tools, especially the finite element
method, play a vital role in analysing the mechanical properties of concrete and steel composite
structures. However, traditional composite beams are typically connected using steel shear studs,
which can sometimes lead to stress concentration and cracking in the composite beam, thereby
shortening its lifespan.
K. S. Hussein and N. H. Tu’ma in 2024[11] conducted experimental research in the structural
members may have openings for utilizing passes and the necessary efforts should be taken to keep
them structurally safe. The work focused on the behaviour of composite encased steel-concrete
beams of longitudinal and transverse openings and investigated strengthening techniques for small
and large transverse square openings. The experimental part includes poured nine (200×300×2100)
mm specimens with transverse square openings in the shear span zone. Three beams attend as
control beams, as well as one specimen without openings. The other two specimens had two
openings located symmetrically at each shear span, At the opening zone with several methods six
beams were strengthened by composite method and NSM CFRP bar. In NSM CFRP bars, Around the
square openings two different configurations were installed (strengthening the specimens with a
diamond strengthening scheme bar and diagonal strengthening scheme bars). Results have been
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

discussed in terms; first cracking load, ultimate load, maximum of deflection, modes of failure, crack of
patterns, toughness value, ductility index, and crack with recognizing the best strengthening proposal
opening. Test results indicate that the technique of strengthening large opening with CFRP bars
diagonal strengthening scheme recorded an increase in the ductility, and toughness by about 59%,
and 16%; respectively compared to the control beam with a large opening. Concerning the specimens
strengthened by the composite method, the load capacity is almost equal to the control beam load
capacity.

Fig. 2: Details of tested beams with web openings.

Yamada performed FE in 2019[12] studies and experiments on reinforced concrete (RC) beams
having several openings in the shear spans. The study tested the effect of longitudinal reinforcement
proportions on the beams' failure. The investigations focused on analysing several factors, such as the
position of debonding fractures at the tension-reinforcing level, crack widths, and the opening location.
The beams tested and studied had no shear reinforcement, and the openings were present throughout
pouring the concrete. This research highlighted that the existence of openings has little effect on the
strength of the beam. This is because the openings enhance the control of the arch mechanism in the
beam rather than the beam mechanism.
Mastan et al. in 2023[13] adjust the design and location of the aperture to improve its structural
performance. The composite steel-concrete beam was studied using ABAQUS v6.14, considering
three shapes: triangle, rectangle, and circle. The optimal geometry is positioned at several locations
between the span's support end and midpoint. The numerical analysis determined that the circular
shape positioned at one-third of the span was useful in reducing stress concentration and maximizing
stress strength. The beams' load-carrying capacity was estimated utilizing an artificial neural network
(ANN) model. The accuracy of the predictions was assessed utilizing multiple mean square error
(MSE) and coefficients of determination (R2). The MSE and R2 values for all the models were more
than 0.09 and 0.94, respectively. This suggests that artificial neural networks (ANN) are suitable for
analysing numerical data.
Jen et al. in 2020[14] conducted experimental research on reinforced concrete beams that
included circular transverse openings. A four-point load test was performed to examine the effect of
the opening's size and location on the beam's performance when subjected to shear and flexural
stresses. Furthermore, three supplementary techniques for the introduction were tested. The beams
were assessed based on their load-displacement responses, mechanical characteristics, deflections,
and failure mechanisms. The presence of an aperture with a diameter that does not exceed 0.25 times
the height of the beam reduces the beam strength by about 20% when no reinforcements are used at
the entrance. The diagonal bar reinforcement technique successfully enhanced the beam's structural
integrity when the opening size did not exceed one-third of the beam's height. The formula model
suggested accurately predicting the maximum load-bearing capacity of the beam with a transverse
aperture using a cautious approach.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

Fig. 4: Beam details and testing sketch.

.

Additionally, Jabbar et al. 2021[15] tested the behaviour of four reinforced concrete beams
having a square cross-sectional area. These beams were subjected to three-point loads until they
failed. Three beams were specifically constructed with tiny web openings of varying forms: circular,
rectangular, and square. The goal of including a beam without any openings (the control beam) was to
facilitate a comparison of the results. The load-deflection curves were satisfactorily produced for the
samples that were tested. The findings showed that introducing tiny web gaps in reinforced concrete
beams resulted in a marginal decrease in their maximum loads, corresponding to an increase in the
maximum deflection. Furthermore, it was determined that the beams with circular web openings
exhibited superior shear strength compared to the other chosen designs.

Fig. 4: Details of tested beams with web openings.

3 Research Significance
The purpose of this study is to provide numerical analyses about the behaviour of Composite
Box Steel-Concrete beams with intermediate to large transverse openings (effect of locations, shape,
and diameters) configurations to explain of the failure mechanism. Making openings reduces the
materials used and makes them service facilities. In addition, study the effects of (a/d) ratio of the
beams and compressive strength of concrete.

4 Description of Finite Element

4.1 Geometry of Model
ABAQUS Finite Element (FE) software, was used to simulate Composite Box Steel-Concrete
beams with transverse intermediate to large openings with width was 200 mm, depth was 300 mm, full
length of 2100 mm, steel box 50*140 mm welded by channel shear connectors 3 mm thickness to
increase the bond between it and the concrete and the cover was 20 mm, The beam geometry,
dimensions, and loading are shown in the Figure 5.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

Fig. 5: Details of Modelled beams with openings.

4.2 Concrete Modelling
The Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) model in ABAQUS is widely used for simulating the
behaviour of concrete structures under various load conditions. This model effectively captures
concrete's non-linear response by incorporating both plasticity and damage mechanisms, accounting
for irreversible deformations and crack formation. Stress-strain relationships are defined through
constitutive equations, with material parameters obtained from various tests. The CDP model can
predict crack initiation and propagation under different loading scenarios, making it an essential tool
for analysing the stability of concrete structures such as buildings and bridges. ABAQUS offers
resources to verify and ensure the accuracy of this model. In ABAQUS, the CDP model is
implemented using parameters detailed in Table 1. The concrete beam was modelled using linear
tetrahedral elements (C3D4), a three-dimensional 4-node mesh, as illustrated in Figure 6.

Table 1: Input Parameters of Concrete Damage Plasticity Model.

Parameter Value
Compressive Strength [MPa] 23.5
Concrete Tensile ft [MPa] 2.7
Modulus of elasticity [GPa] 23.5
Poisson Ratio [ν] 0.2
The Ratio of Biaxial Compressive Strength to Uniaxial
1.16
Compressive Strength [σbo/σco]
The Shape of The Failure Surface [Kc] 2/3
Dilation Angle [ψ] 36°
Eccentricity [є] 0.1
Viscosity Parameter [ν] 0.00375
Modulus of elasticity [GPa] 23.5
Poisson Ratio [ν] 2.7

Fig. 6: Element Types of Composite Box Steel-Concrete beam Model.

4.3 Steel Modelling

The steel bars are modelled as bilinear, isotropic materials with a Young's modulus of 200 GPa
and a Poisson's ratio of 0.3. The material properties are defined using an elastic-perfectly plastic
model, with parameters such as yield stress and ultimate strength detailed in Table 2. These
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

parameters are derived from the experimental study referenced as [11]. For the reinforcement
modelling, truss mesh elements (T3D2) were employed.

Table 2: Properties of Steel Bars.

Bar size (mm) Yield Strength (MPa) Ultimate Strength (MPa)
6 378.57 424.5

10 416.34 618.567

25 585.89 693.36

4.4 Design for Flexural and Shear Strengths

To guarantee shear failure, the overall shear strength must be lower than the beam's flexural
strength. The flexural capacity of each beam was determined using a derived equation, which
identifies the point at which significant reinforcement begins to yield and calculates the compressive
force. This compressive force is divided into two components: a rectangular uniform compressive
pressure of 0.65×fc', and a triangular compressive pressure of the same magnitude. The tensile force
is comprised of two parts: the force from the reinforcing bars and the uniform pressure in the tensile
zone, extending from the neutral axis to the extreme tensile fibres, with an intensity of 0.4×√(fc').
The design process followed the model of the method used by Naser[16], Shear reinforcement
was calculated using either conventional or normal concrete techniques. Flexural strength was
predicted using the mid-cross section of the beams, and the shear design for concrete and fibre
components adhered to the guidelines set by the Japan Society of Civil Engineers JSCE[17].

4.5 Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions in ABAQUS are crucial specifications that determine how a finite element
model interacts with its external environment. They include directives like forces, displacements,
velocities, temperatures, or other physical quantities applied to the model's boundaries or surfaces.
Engineers use these conditions to simulate real-world loading scenarios, such as structural loads or
environmental effects, to accurately represent the system being analyzed. These boundary conditions
are essential in predicting the model's behavior and obtaining valuable insights into structural, thermal,
or fluid dynamics within ABAQUS simulations, the boundary condition of the composite beam is simply
supported, two-point loading were investigated in this study. The load was displacement controlled.
4.6 Constraint and Interaction Conditions
When using ABAQUS, constraints and interactions play essential roles in controlling the
behavior and connections in finite element models. Constraints limit the movement of nodes or
elements, either by fixing specific areas or by linking components together. These constraints are vital
for accurately depicting real-world limitations, like fixed supports or connected interfaces, which help
maintain the stability and integrity of the analysis. On the other hand, interaction conditions simulate
how different sections of the structure interact with each other or with the environment. In this study
used different types of constraint such as: tie constraint between the upper surfaces of supports and
lower surface of composite beam and use this type of constraint between the lower surfaces of load
plates and upper surface of composite beam, also used the embedded region constraint between
steel rebars and concrete beam.
Contact interactions in ABAQUS allow engineers to mimic friction, separation, or adherence between
surfaces, as well as enforce tie constraints to ensure displacements between connected regions are
compatible. By specifying constraint and interaction conditions, engineers can accurately model
complex behaviors and phenomena, facilitating realistic simulations of mechanical, thermal, or multi-
physics systems, in this study use surface to surface contact interaction between steel box outside
surface and beam inside surface.
5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Experimental - Numerical Comparative Analysis
In this study, the structural behaviour of simply supported composite box steel-concrete beams
was simulated based on the experimental tests detailed in reference [11]. The experimental work
involved fifteen reinforced concrete beams, which were divided into five groups and tested under two-
point loading. For validation purposes, eight of these composite beams were used.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

The first group comprised beams CB and CW2, which featured small transverse openings. The
second group included C1S2, where the variable was the extruded encasing around the openings.
The third group, R1S2, tested the effect of adding diagonal bars on either side of the web opening.
The fourth group, ECS2 and ECW2, investigated the strengthening effect of CFRP, utilizing a fully
wrapped system and diagonal strengthening sheets around the square openings. The fifth group,
ECR2 and ECR4, looked at the strengthening effect of NSM CFRP bars arranged in two different
patterns around the square openings, including rhombus shapes and diagonal bars. As illustrated in
Table 3.
Table 3: Details of Experimental Beams Compared.
Group No. Beam name Transverse opening Strengthening type
CB --- ---
1st
CW2 (136×136) mm ---
nd
2 C1S2 (136×136) mm extruded encasing transversely
rd
3 R1S2 (136×136) mm Reinforcement arrangement
ECS2 (136×136) mm CFRP fully wrapping sheets
4th
ECW2 (136×136) mm CFRP diagonal sheets
ECR2 (136×136) mm CFRP diagonal bars
5th
ECR4 (136×136) mm CFRP bars rhombus shape

For verification, the study analyzed shear load-deflection curves, crack patterns, and strain
distribution. As shown in Table 4, the predicted rates varied between 0.927 and 1.023. Figure 8
illustrates the comparison of experimental and numerical shear strength-deflection responses for the
developed beams. The numerical model successfully predicted beam responses with high accuracy,
aligning closely with experimental results, and all specimens exhibited similar flexural stiffness
behavior. The failure mode of beam CW2 is depicted in Figure 7.

Table 4: Comparison Between the Numerical and Experimental Results.

Beam ID Shear Strength (MPa)
Group No.
EXP FEA EXP/FEA
CB 295.4 295.75 0.998
1st
CW2 153.9 159.13 0.967
2nd C1S2 127 136.92 0.927
3rd R1S2 143.4 149.96 0.956
ECS2 176 171.96 1.023
4th
ECW2 154.1 153.23 1.005
ECR2 155.7 164.60 0.945
5th
ECR4 135.2 140.99 0.958
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

Fig. 7: Failure Mode and Strain Distribution for Experimental-Numerical of CW2.

375 180

300 150
120
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

225
90
150
60
75
30
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Dis (mm) Dis (mm)
Numerical Experimental Numerical Expermintal

a. CB b. CW2
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

150 180

120 150

Load (kN)
120
Load (kN)

90
90
60
60
30
30
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Dis (mm) Dis (mm)
Numerical Experimental Numerical Experimental

c.C1S2 d. R1S2
180 200
150
160
120 Load (kN)
Load (kN)

120
90
60 80

30 40
0
0
0 2 64 8 10 12 14 16
Dis (mm) 0 2 3 65 8 9 11 12
Dis (mm)
Numerical Experimental
Numerical Experimental
e. ECS2 f. ECW2

180
150
150
120
120
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

90
90
60 60

30 30
0 0
0 2 4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Dis (mm) Dis (mm)
Numerical Experimental Numerical Experimental

g. ECR2 h. ECR4
Fig. 8: Comparison of the Experimental-Numerical Load-Displacement
5.2 Parametric Study
In this study, thirty parameters were investigated, focusing on various variables modelled and
tested to failure under two-point loading conditions. The composite box steel-concrete beams had
fixed dimensions, with a depth of 300 mm and a width of 200 mm. The primary variables considered
included the (a/d) ratio, the size and location of transverse openings by moving the openings to the left
and right from the centre of shear span by (a/5) equal to 126 mm, concrete compressive strength, and
the diameter of the tensile rebars. Based on these variables, the twenty composite beams were
categorized into six groups. All beams, except those in the last group, were equipped with three
tensile rebars of (3∅25). The final group featured configurations of (3∅16) and (2∅25-2∅16). Details of
the specimens are provided in Table 5.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

Table 5: Details of The Specimens of Composite Box Steel-Concrete Beams.

Compressive
Group Beam Opening Opening Location Dia. Of bars
(a/d) Strength of
Number ID Size (mm) Shape Opening (mm)
Concrete (MPa)
BOS2 90*90
Square Centre the
Group 1 BOS3 110*110 2.4 23.5 3∅25
shear span
BW2 136*136
BOD3 ∅90
BOD4 Circular Centre the
Group 2 ∅110 2.4 23.5 3∅25
shear span
BOD5 ∅136
BOL3 90*90
BOL4 Left the shear
110*110
span
BOL5 136*136 Square
Group 3 2.4 23.5 3∅25
BOL8 90*90
BOL9 Right the
110*110
shear span
BOL10 136*136
BAD3 90*90
BAD4 110*110 2
BAD5 136*136 Square Centre the
Group 4 23.5 3∅25
BAD8 90*90 shear span
BAD9 110*110 2.8
BAD10 136*136
BFC3 90*90
BFC4 110*110 30
BFC5 136*136 Square Centre the
Group 5 2.4 3∅25
BFC8 90*90 shear span
BFC9 110*110 37.5
BFC10 136*136
BDB3 90*90
BDB4 110*110 3∅16
BDB5 136*136 Square Centre the
Group 6 2.4 23.5
BDB8 90*90 shear span
BDB9 110*110 2∅25&2∅16
BDB10 136*136

5.3 Geometry of Openings

5.3.1 Openings Dimension and Shape
This study aimed to investigate the shear strength of composite box steel-concrete beams
featuring intermediate to large transverse square openings. The modelling simulations were used to
determine the shear strength of beams with transverse openings measuring 90×90 mm, 110×110 mm,
and 136×136 mm. The dimensions, shape, and location of the opening’s centre between the loads
and supports were varied, while the composite beam’s cross-sectional area and reinforcement ratio
remained constant. All beams utilized concrete with a compressive strength of 23.5 MPa. The results,
presented in Table 6, indicated that increasing the size of the opening led to a decrease in the ultimate
shear strength. Specifically, beams with various configurations of 90 mm square openings exhibited
lower ultimate shear strengths compared to other transverse opening’s beams. The ultimate shear
strength improved as the size of the opening decreased. Beams with two square openings of 90 mm
or 110 mm dimensions achieved better optimization than those with circular openings. However,
beams with a 136 mm diameter circular opening demonstrated greater shear load capacity than those
with 136 mm two square openings, as illustrated in Figures 6.a and 6.b and summarized in Table 9.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

From the results, we find that the behaviour of the composite beam with a steel box inside it greatly
affected the ultimate shear strength with the change in the opening shape, and this can be compared
through the stresses in the failure mode as shown in Figure 10.
Table 6: Effect of Openings Dimensions, Location and Shape on Composite Beam
Beam Opening Location Opening Shear Ultimate
ID Size (mm) Opening Shape Strength (kN) Deflection (mm)
BOS2 90*90 259.40 17.60
Centre the
BOS3 110*110 Square 230.15 18.60
shear span
BW2 136*136 161.60 17.50
BOD1 ∅90 226.10 15.65
Centre the
BOD2 ∅110 Circular 201.60 14.80
shear span
BOD2 ∅136 186.25 16

Group 1 Openings Size Parameter Beams Group 2 Openings Shape Parameter Beams
BOS2 BOS3 BW2 BOD3 BOD4 BOD5
300 250
250
200
200
LOAD (KN)

150
LOAD (KN)

150
100
100
50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
DEFLECTION (MM) DEFLECTION (MM)
(a) (b)
Fig. 9: (a) Load-Displacement for Square Transvers Openings in Composite Beam;
(b) Load-Displacement for Circular Transvers Openings in Composite Beam.

Fig. 10: Mode Failure for Square and Circular Transvers Openings in Composite Beams.

5.3.2 Openings Location

The presence of openings along and across the transverse axis of a beam significantly reduces
both compression and tensile strengths, thereby diminishing flexural and shear strength. This study
aims to identify the optimal position for openings to enhance shear force while also facilitating the
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

passage of service utilities and reducing the beam's self-weight. Six composite beams were tested:
BOL3 with two 90×90 mm BOL4 with two 110×110 mm and BOL5 with two 136*136 mm square
openings (a/5=126 mm) near the loads, BOL8 with two 90×90 mm, and BOL9 with two 110×110 mm
and BOL10 with two 136*136 mm square openings (a/5=126 mm) near the supports as shown in the
figure 12.
The dimensions of the openings in this study were 90 mm, 110 mm and 136 mm. Results and
analyses of the opening dimensions and their locations are summarized in Table 6. The beam with
two 90×90 mm openings near the supports (BOL8) demonstrated superior shear strength compared to
other configurations, showing a 7.5% increase in shear strength relative to the beam with two 90×90
mm openings near the loads. This is illustrated in Figures 11.a and 7.b, which show shear strength
versus deflection. Additionally, the beam with two 110×110 mm openings near the supports (BOL9)
exhibited a 9.8% increase in shear strength compared to the beam with two 110×110 mm openings
near the loads. And the beam with two 136×136 mm openings near the supports (BOL10) increase in
shear strength compared to the beam with two 136×136 mm openings near the loads by 17.2%. This
indicates that placing square openings near the supports results in higher shear strength compared to
placing them near the loads, as detailed in Table 7.
Table 7: Effect of Openings Location on Composite Beam.
Beam Opening Location Shear Ultimate
ID Size (mm) Opening Strength (kN) Deflection (mm)
BOL3 90*90 221.05 18.7
BOL4 110*110 Near Loads 197.80 17.65
BOL5 136*136 135.35 16.25
BOL8 90*90 237.55 16
BOL9 110*110 Near Supports 217.15 18.8
BOL10 136*136 158.65 17.7

Scientifically speaking, these findings relate to shear force distributions within the beam since shear
forces are greatest towards its supports. Such regions consequently expectance disruption in load
path leading to higher stresses concentration thereby causing significant decreases in shear capacity.
When placed near applied loads on the other hand where there are less shear forces more shear
strength is retained by beam thereby enabling it to sustain even heavier ultimate shear loads
compared to those having openings located elsewhere. This indicates the need for consideration of
where transversal openings are incorporated when designing beams for instance under high amount
of shearing stresses-based structures should pay careful attention on their placement too.

Group 3 Opening Location Near Loads Group 3 Opening Location Near Supports
Parameter Beams Parameter Beams
BOL3 BOL4 BOL5 BOL8 BOL9 BOL10
250 250

200 200
LOAD (KN)

LOAD (KN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DEFLECTION (MM) DEFLECTION (MM)
(a) (b)
Fig. 11: (a) Load-Displacement for Square Transvers Openings Near Loads in Composite Beam;
(b) Load-Displacement for Square Transvers Openings Near Supports in Composite Beam.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

Fig. 12: Details of Locations for Square Transvers Openings in Composite Beams.

5.4 Shear Span to Effective Depth (a/d) Ratio

Six shear span-to-depth ratios (a/d) of 2 and 2.8 were considered to inspect section shear
strength and understand various stress distribution modes. Specimens BAD3, BAD4, and BAD5 have
an (a/d) ratio of 2, while specimens BAD8, BAD9, and BAD10 have an (a/d) ratio of 2.8, as shown in
the figure 14. Table 5 provides the geometric descriptions of the adopted specimen sets, and Table 7
presents the related results analysis. The analysis in Table 8 indicates that varying the shear span
alters the stress distribution modes, with (a/d) ratios of 2 and 2.8, respectively. Figures 8.a and 8.b
show the load-deflection response for specimens with different shear spans. Specimen BAD3, which
is dominated by a shear failure mode, exhibits a ductile response. As the load approaches the
support, the deflection decreases. Specimen BAD8 also shows an acceptable ductile response
characteristic of the shear failure mode. However, as the (a/d) ratio increases, the shear strength
decreases. This decrease in shear strength may be due to the direct compression strut between the
load and the support, as illustrated in Table 8.
Through an examination of how increased shear spans reduce stress on and cause failure in
beams, we find the scientific rationale behind these outcomes. Furthermore, smaller openings
increase stress concentration while being more influenced by alterations of (a/d) ratio; in contrast,
larger ones have already affected inbuilt beam structure hence there is no change when span-length
is raised.

Table 8: Effect of shear span to effective depth (a/d) ratio.

Beam Opening (a/d) Shear Ultimate
ID Size (mm) Ratio Strength (kN) Deflection (mm)
BAD3 90*90 278.30 18.2
BAD4 110*110 2 233.35 15.85
BAD5 136*136 158.10 16.6
BAD8 90*90 247.30 18.35
BAD9 110*110 2.8 217.55 18.6
BAD10 136*136 156.80 16.25
 Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

Group 4 Shear Span to Effective Depth Group 4 Shear Span to Effective Depth (a/d)
(a/d) Ratio (2) Parameter Beam Ratio (2.8)
BAD3 BAD4 BAD5 BAD8 BAD9 BAD10
300 300

250 250

200 200

LOAD (KN)
LOAD (KN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DEFLECTION (MM) DEFLECTION (MM)

(a) (b)
Fig. 13: (a) Load-Displacement for (a/d) Ratio (2) of Beams; (b) Load-Displacement for (a/d) Ratio
(2.8) of Beams.

Fig. 14: Details of Shear Span to Effective Depth for Square Transvers Openings in Composite
Beams.
5.5 Compressive Strength
Different compressive strengths of concrete were evaluated to understand their effect on the
shear strength and ductility of developed composite beams. The dimensions, shapes, and locations of
openings in the specimens are detailed in Table 5, while the corresponding results are presented in
Table 9. Figures 15.a and 9.b illustrate the influence of various compressive strengths on the shear
strength-deflection response. Beam BFC8, with a concrete compressive strength of 37.5 MPa and two
90x90 mm square openings, exhibited a 1.5% higher shear load compared to beam BFC3, which had
a concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa and identical openings. Similarly, specimen BFC9, with
two 110x110 mm square openings and a concrete compressive strength of 37.5 MPa, showed a 1.4%
higher shear load than beam BFC4, which also had a concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa and
the same opening dimensions. Additionally, specimen BFC10, with two 136x136 mm square openings
and a concrete compressive strength of 37.5 MPa, exhibited a 3.9% higher shear load compared to
 Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

beam BFC5, which had a compressive strength of 30 MPa and the same opening dimensions. These
results indicate that while an increase in concrete compressive strength does lead to an increase in
shear load, the effect is relatively small, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Effect of Compressive Strength of concrete on Composite Beam.

Beam Opening Compressive Shear Ultimate
ID Size (mm) Strength (kN) Strength (kN) Deflection (mm)
BFC3 90*90 280.30 16.8
BFC4 110*110 30 240.15 14.55
BFC5 136*136 161.50 12.65
BFC8 90*90 284.45 16.35
BFC9 110*110 37.5 243.55 14.65
BFC10 136*136 167.80 11.7

These increases can be attributed to greater material strength provided by higher compression
concrete that enhances the beam’s ability to resist shear forces acting upon it. Specifically, improved
shear resistance results from superior strength and lower crack widths from use of high compressive
strength concrete enabling better load distribution and consequently improved structural performance.
Also, it can see that taking into consideration all the variables that affect the ultimate shear strength,
the shear strength of large openings is half the shear strength of large openings. Also, when changing
the compressive strength of concrete from 23.5 MPa to 30 MPa, the shear strength is affected
relatively little.

Group 5 Compressive Strength =30 MPa Group 5 Compressive Strength =37.5 MPa
Parameter Beams Parameter Beams
BFC3 BFC4 BFC5 BFC8 BFC9 BFC10
300 300

250 250

200 200
LOAD (KN)

LOAD (KN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
DEFLECTION (MM) DEFLECTION (MM)
(a) (b)
Fig. 15: (a) Load-Displacement for Compressive Strength (30); (b) Load-Displacement Compressive
Strength (37.5).

5.6 Diameter of Bars

Shear strength encompasses several mechanical effects, including shear stress, dowel action,
arch action, aggregate interlock, and residual tensile stress. This study focuses on the effect of bar
diameter on dowel action behaviour. Table 9 presents the relevant results, while Table 4 details the
dimensions, shapes, and locations of openings, along with shear span-to-effective depth ratios (a/d)
and the compressive strength of concrete for the adopted specimens.
Beam BDB8, featuring two 90×90 mm square openings and reinforcement bars (2∅25-2∅16),
exhibited a 5.8% higher shear load compared to beam BDB3, which had the same opening
dimensions but different reinforcement (3∅16). Similarly, specimen BDB9, with two 110×110 mm
square openings and reinforcement (2∅25-2∅16), showed a 6.5% higher shear load than beam BDB4,
which had the same opening dimensions and reinforcement (3∅16). Additionally, beam BDB10, with
two 136×136 mm square openings and reinforcement (2∅25-2∅16), exhibited a 4.2% higher shear
 Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

load compared to beam BDB5, which had the same dimensions and reinforcement (3∅16). These
results are illustrated in Table 9 and Figures 16.a and 16.b.

Table 10: Effect of Bars Diameter on Composite Beam.

Beam Opening (a/d) Shear Ultimate
ID Size (mm) Ratio Strength (kN) Deflection (mm)
BDB3 90*90 232.10 19.7
BDB4 110*110 3∅16 193.90 22.75
BDB5 136*136 141.80 18.1
BDB8 90*90 245.50 16.4
BDB9 110*110 2∅25-2∅16 206.60 21.1
BDB10 136*136 147.75 17.75

Group 6 Diameter of Bar 3∅16 Parameter Group 6 Diameter of Bar 2∅25&2∅16

Beams Parameter Beams
BDB3 BDB4 BDB5 BDB8 BDB9 BDB10
250 300

200 250
200
LOAD (KN)
LOAD (KN)

150
150
100 100
50 50
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DEFLECTION (MM)
DEFLECTION (MM)
(a) (b)
Fig. 16: (a) Load-Displacement for Diameter of Bar (3∅16); (b) Load-Displacement Diameter of Bar
(2∅25&2∅16).

6 Conclusion
The current numerical study investigates the behaviour of composite box steel-concrete beams
using the Abaqus program for finite element analysis (FEM). By comparing the numerical results with
previous experimental data, the structural behaviour of the composite box steel-concrete beam
models can be reasonably predicted. Several factors significantly influence the overall behaviour of
the beam at failure, and these effects can be summarized as follows:
1) Increasing size of the openings does affect shear strength and deflection. Whereas, when
the size of the transverse openings was changed from 90*90 mm to 110*110 mm the shear load
deceased by 12.7%, And when changed the size of the transverse openings from 110*110 mm to
136*136 mm the shear load deceased by 42.4%, Also the deflection will be effect as results.
2) Using two circular transverse openings in beams reduces shear strength. However,
changing the shape of the largest opening can increase the shear load. Specifically, altering the shape
of transverse openings from square to circular decreased the shear load by 14.7% for 90 mm and by
14.2% for 110 mm openings. In contrast, changing the shape from square to circular increased the
shear load by 15.25% for 136 mm openings.
3) The location of the openings affects shear loads and deflection. Moving the transverse
openings 125 mm closer to the applied loads, as opposed to near the supports, decreases the shear
load by 7.5% for 90×90 mm openings, 9.8% for 110×110 mm openings, and 17.2% for 136×136 mm
openings.
4) As the (a/d) ratio increases, the shear strength decreases, and conversely, as the (a/d) ratio
decreases, the shear load increases. The difference in shear load between the highest and lowest
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

(a/d) ratios is 12.5% for 90×90 mm openings, 7.2% for 110×110 mm openings, and 0.8% for 136×136
mm openings.
5) Increasing the compressive strength of concrete leads to a slight increase in shear load. For
beams with two 90×90 mm square transverse openings, a compressive strength of 37.5 MPa results
in a 1.5% higher shear load compared to a compressive strength of 30 MPa. Similarly, for beams with
110×110 mm openings, the shear load increases by 1.4%, and for beams with 136×136 mm openings,
the shear load increases by 3.9% when the compressive strength is raised from 30 MPa to 37.5 MPa.
6) The diameter of the reinforcing bars affects the shear load. For a beam with reinforcement of
(2∅25-2∅16) and two 90×90 mm square openings, the shear load is 5.8% higher compared to a beam
with (3∅16) reinforcement and the same openings. For beams with 110×110 mm openings, the shear
load is 6.5% higher, and for beams with 136×136 mm openings, the shear load is 4.2% higher when
reinforced with (2∅25-2∅16) compared to (3∅16).

Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to [Assist. Prof. Dr. Nasser Hakeem Tu’ma], my
research advisor, for their unwavering support, guidance, and invaluable insights throughout the
course of this study. Their expertise and encouragement have been instrumental in shaping this work.
I also wish to extend my appreciation to [University of Misan/Collage of Engineering] for
providing the necessary resources and facilities that made this research possible. Special thanks to
my colleagues and friends, whose discussions and feedback have enriched this study.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family for their constant support and encouragement,
which has been a source of strength throughout this journey.

References

[1] HUSSEIN, M. J. – MAYYAHI, T. H. – DOMAT, W. B.: Numerical Study of Shear Behavior of

Geopolymer Concrete Beam Without Stirrups. Civil and Environmental Engineering. Vol. 20, No.
1, 2024, pp. 526–543. DOI: 10.2478/cee-2024-0040.
[2] RAGBIR SINGH, P. K.: Effects of Openings in RC Beams Subjected to Static and Cyclic Loads.
2011.
[3] AHMED, A. – FAYYADH, M. M. – NAGANATHAN, S. – NASHARUDDIN, K.: Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Web Openings: A State of the Art Review. Materials & Design. Vol. 40,
2012, pp. 90–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.03.001.
[4] VEDENOJA, K.: The Assessment of Openings in Existing Load Bearing Concrete Structures.
2017.
[5] YAO, Y. – TUNG, S. T. E. – GLISIC, B.: Crack Detection and Characterization Techniques - An
Overview. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2014. DOI: 10.1002/stc.1655.
[6] SIDDIKA, A. – AL MAMUN, M. A. – ALYOUSEF, R. – AMRAN, Y. H. M.: Strengthening of
Reinforced Concrete Beams by Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites: A Review. Elsevier
Ltd, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100798.
[7] QASIM, O. A.: Behavior of Reinforced Reactive Powder Concrete Slabs with Openings. 2013.
[8] MEIJS, M. – KNAACK, U.: Components and Connections: Principles of Construction. 2012.
[9] SCHLAICH, J. – SCHÄFER, K.: The Design of Structural Concrete. In: IABSE Workshop, New
Delhi, 1993.
[10] SOMES, N. F. – CORLEY, W. G.: Circular Openings in Webs of Continuous Beams. 1974, pp.
359–398.
[11] HUSSEIN, K. S. – TU’MA, N. H.: Effect of Using NSM CFRP and Steel Casing on the Structural
Behavior of Simply Supported RC Beams with Transverse Openings. AIP Conference
Proceedings. Vol. 2864, No. 1, 2024, p. 050002. DOI: 10.1063/5.0186116.
[12] YAMADA, Y.: An Analytical Study on Interactions of Artificial Cracks and Holes Contributing to
Increases in the Shear Strengths of RC Beams. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology. Vol.
17, No. 10, 2019, pp. 579–591. DOI: 10.3151/jact.17.579.
[13] MASTAN, S. – NACHIAR, S. S.: Numerical Method and Validation Using ANN of Composite
Steel-Concrete Beam for Optimized Geometry and Emplacement of Web Opening. 2023. DOI:
10.21203/rs.3.rs-3190886/v1.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 0, Issue 0

[14] LING, J. H. – TANG, H. S. – LEONG, W. K. – SIA, H. T.: Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete

Beams with Circular Transverse Openings under Static Loads. Journal of Science and Applied
Engineering (JSAE). Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020, pp. 1–16.
[15] JABBAR, D. N. – AL-RIFAIE, A. – HUSSEIN, A. M. – SHUBBAR, A. A. – NASR, M. S. – AL-
KHAFAJI, Z. S.: Shear Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Small Web Openings. In:
Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier Ltd, 2021, pp. 2713–2716. DOI:
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.710.
[16] TU’MA, N. H. – SAID, A. I.: Yield Line Model for Estimation Shear Strength UHPC Non-Prismatic
Beams. In: Geotechnical Engineering and Sustainable Construction. Springer Singapore, 2022.
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-6277-5.
[17] JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS: Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Tokyo, Japan, 2004.