Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Review

Local failures of coped steel beams — A state-of-the-art review

Michael C.H. Yam a,1, Cheng Fang b,⁎,2, Angus C.C. Lam c,3, J.J. Roger Cheng d,4
a
Department of Building & Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
b
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom
c
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Macau, Macau
d
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Coped (notched) steel beams are widely used in steel frame structures. A state-of-the-art review on local failures
Received 9 April 2014 of coped steel beams is presented with the main aim of providing a clear insight into the up-to-date research out-
Accepted 5 July 2014 comes and design approaches on the issues of local web buckling, block shear, and fatigue. With a comprehensive
Available online 1 August 2014
review of the available research database, the rationale behind the current design treatments for these failure
modes is evaluated. For the design of local web buckling for coped beams with bolted end connections, adopting
Keywords:
Coped (notched) steel beam
the lowest value of the resistances governed by elastic local web buckling, flexural yielding, and shear yielding
Local web buckling can be safe. A reduction factor of 0.9 on the design local web buckling resistance may be applied for the case of
Block shear welded connections due to the possible interactive effect of block shear. Use of the AISC–LRFD equations is sug-
Fatigue gested for the block shear design of coped beams with single-line bolted connections, and both the AISC–LRFD
Design and the CSA-S16-09 equations are suitable for the case of double-line bolted connections. For coped beams
Review with welded connections, the use of a reduced Ut of 0.7 in the CSA-S16-09 equations is recommended. For fatigue
design, use of a new category curve modified from the relevant equations in AISC–LRFD is proposed in this paper
to ensure a safe and consistent design. Illustrative design examples are presented based on the recommended
design methods. The expected future work is also outlined.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
2. Local web buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
2.1. Top flange coped beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
2.2. Double-coped beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
2.3. Reinforcing strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
3. Block shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
3.1. Coped beams with bolted connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
3.2. Coped beams with welded connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
3.3. Current design specifications and comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
4. Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
5. Comments, summary, and future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
6. Recommended design examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
. Illustrative Example 1 (bolted connections) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Local web buckling design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Block shear design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
. Illustrative Example 2 (welded connections) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Local web buckling design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 191 208 7099.

E-mail address: cheng.fang@ncl.ac.uk (C. Fang).
1
Associate Professor.
2
Lecturer.
3
Assistant Professor.
4
C W Carry Professor.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.07.002
0143-974X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
218 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232

Block shear design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

. Illustrative Example 3 (fatigue design) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

1. Introduction behind experimental evidence. Equations have been proposed by early

In steel structures, the identical elevation is often required for the
flanges of both secondary beams and primary beams to satisfy architec-
tural purposes at member intersections. In this case, the secondary
beams are usually coped (notched) at the top, bottom, or at both flanges
to avoid interference between the connected structural members, so
that sufficient clearance can be provided at the connections. From the
structural response perspective, however, the presence of copes ex-
poses the beams to the risk of several types of local failure that are nor-
mally not considered for an uncoped beam section. Firstly, due to the
reduced bending and torsional stiffness, local web buckling could
occur near the top coped edge (as shown in Fig. 1(a)) which is usually
under compression if the connection at the coped end has insignificant
rotational rigidity (and thus can be seen as a pinned connection). A high
stress concentration near the cope corner due to the geometric discon-
tinuity could lead to the occurrence of local buckling after initial yield-
ing, i.e. inelastic local web buckling. Secondly, due to the lack of
restraint offered by the top flange, block shear failure can be a common
type of coped beam failure, as shown in Fig. 1(b). This failure type is pos-
sible for coped beams with both bolted and welded connections. Third-
ly, when the connection at the cope end has a large rotational rigidity, a
negative moment can be induced and the cope edge is thus subjected to
tension. This could cause fatigue cracks, as shown in Fig. 1(c), if the
coped beams are used in bridges as stringers, where a cyclic load in-
duced by passing vehicles is continuously applied during the whole
bridge service life. Another possible fatigue crack development scenario
at the coped region is due to induced cyclic compressive stress in the
presence of a tensile residual stress (usually caused by the frame cut
procedure when producing the cope).
While the presence of beam copes inevitably increases the vulnera-
bility of structures to local failure, relevant design guidance seems to lag
researchers based on limited test data [1] for evaluating the local web
buckling strength and fatigue strength of coped beams. The design
guidance for block shear failure is currently available in major design
standards, but some of these are partially based on earlier block shear
tests on other types of connection (e.g. gusset plate). With newly
emerging test data on the block shear failure of coped beams with
bolted and welded connections, it is beneficial to re-evaluate the reli-
ability of the latest versions of these standards. The main aim of this
paper therefore is to offer a comprehensive and critical review of the
latest research outcomes on the local failures of coped beams and
preventive design methods, so as to benefit the communities of both
researchers and designers. The test database collected in this paper
also facilitates future reliability analysis towards safer and making
more rational designs for coped beams. For each failure mode, various
design methods are examined below, full comparisons with the avail-
able test data, and available reinforcement strategies for mitigating
local failures are discussed. Possible interactions between local web
buckling and block shear failure, which could lead to unsafe design,
are also identified. After the review, design examples are provided and
future research directions are also highlighted. The symbols (defining
the coped beam geometry and details) frequently used in the following
discussion are illustrated in Fig. 1(d).
2. Local web buckling
When the top flange of a coped beam is effectively restrained against
lateral movement, local web buckling can be one of the failure modes
within the coped region, particularly when the cope length/depth is
large and the web thickness is small. Research studies of bolted beam
end connections in the late 1970s and early 1980s [2–6] revealed that
local web buckling of coped beams in the coped region occurred

a b c

Web
buckling

Fig. 1. Common local failure modes and symbols for coped beams: a) local web buckling, b) block shear, c) fatigue cracking, d) symbols.
 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232
subsequent to the development of either fracture or significant defor-
mation of the web around the bottom bolt line in the connection.
Milek [7] warned that the reduced strength and stiffness of the coped
region should be carefully considered in the design of coped steel
beams. Generally, secondary beams are coped at one or both flanges
to avoid interference at member intersections, and different responses
may be expected for the two conditions, i.e. top flange only coped
beams and double coped beams, cases which are discussed in the
sections below.
2.1. Top flange coped beams
A series of FE analysis was first performed by Cheng et al. [8] and
Cheng and Yura [9] to investigate the local buckling behaviour of top
flange coped beams. Design recommendations were proposed based
on their parametric study. It was observed that when local buckling
occurred, lateral movement was considerable near the coped top edge,
whereas limited lateral movement was induced near the bottom flange.
Considering this deformation mode, a classical plate bucking model
with simplified boundary conditions was proposed to predict the local
buckling response of the coped region, as reproduced in Fig. 2(a). It
was assumed that the top edge of the plate was free, and the other
three edges, i.e. the bottom flange, the end of the beam, and the vertical
line dividing the coped and uncoped regions, were simply supported. A
linear stress distribution with a maximum value of σcr at the top of the
cope and zero at the bottom was assumed. The critical stress was given
by:
 2
π2 E tw
σ cr ¼ k
 f ð1Þ
12 1−v2 ho
where E = Young's modulus, ν = Poisson's ratio, tw = web thickness,
ho = beam depth at coped region, k = plate buckling coefficient given
by:
1:65
k ¼ 2:2ðho =cÞ for c=ho ≤1; or k ¼ 2:2ho =c for c=ho N1 ð2Þ
Fig. 2. Design models for local web buckling of coped beams (Cheng et al. [8]): a) top
flange coped beam, b) double flange coped beam.
219
where c = cope length. Since the classical plate buckling model did not
consider the effects of stress concentration, shear stress, cope depth, and
moment variation (from the beam end to the end of the cope), a single
adjustment factor f was applied to the equation to conservatively con-
sider all these effects:
f ¼ 2c=D for c=D ≤1; or f ¼ 1 þ c=D for c=DN1 ð3Þ
where D = beam depth. For practical design, it was required that the
critical stress σcr calculated from Eq. (1) should not exceed the design
bending stress calculated from conventional beam theory (known as
M/Z, where M = bending moment and Z = elastic section modulus).
The above design equations have been adopted by the AISC Steel Con-
struction Manual [10]. The SCI and BCSA publication ‘Joints in Simple
Construction: Simple Connections’ [11] also recommends this equation
for a local buckling check, but it also states that local web buckling
checking is not required provided that the cope depth and length are
less than the stipulated limit, e.g. local web buckling checking is not re-
quired when dc b D/2 and c b D, for D/tw b 48 for S355 steel where dc is
the cope depth and tw is the beam web thickness as illustrated in
Fig. 1(d).
It is possible that under certain conditions, e.g. when the d/tw ratio is
low and the stress concentration is significant, the reduced section of a
coped beam can fail by inelastic local buckling. It was observed from the
parametric study [8] that the routine check of the bending stress and
shear stress could always offer a lower bound. In other words, explicitly
checking of inelastic buckling was not required, provided that flexural
yielding, shear yielding, and elastic buckling (Eq. (1)) were checked.
To verify the reliability of the proposed design equations, ten tests on
top flange coped beams were conducted by Cheng and Yura [9]. The
first five hot-rolled specimens (three with bolted angle cleats and two
with end-plate connections) were designed such that inelastic buckling
could govern the failure mode, while the remaining five (three hot-
rolled profile and two plate girders with end-plate connections) were
designed to fail by elastic buckling. It was generally found that for the
case of elastic local web buckling, the overall response (i.e. load-
vertical deflection response) was almost linear until the occurrence of
local web buckling (after which the load started to drop quickly). For
those specimens which failed by inelastic buckling, on the other hand,
a nonlinear load-vertical deflection response, which indicates yielding,
was evident before buckling. The strain gauge readings also showed sig-
nificant stress concentration near the cope corner. The basic properties
of the specimens used for the group of elastic buckling tests are listed in
Table 1, while those which failed by inelastic buckling are summarised
in Table 2. All the geometric properties and calculated results listed in
the tables relate to, where available, the measured dimensions and
strength reported in the literature. The test-to-predicted ratios are
discussed below in this section.
The calculation model proposed by Cheng and Yura [9] is based on
the theory of plate bucking. From four more elastic local web buckling
tests and subsequent FE analysis on top flange coped beams, Yam
et al. [12] noticed that the buckling line in the web was usually oriented
at nearly 45° from a vertical line, particularly for those specimens (and
FE models) with relatively small ratios of c/ho. This indicates that
‘plate shear buckling’ might more realistically reflect the actual buckling
behaviour of the coped region. Attempting to seek an alternative solu-
tion, Yam et al. [12] proposed a new calculation model derived from
the perspective of plate shear buckling, and the critical shear stress τcr,
therefore, was considered to be the governing design parameter, as
given by:
 2
π2 E tw
τcr ¼ ks
 ð4Þ
12 1−v2 ho
where ks is the shear buckling coefficientks = a(ho/c)b, and a = 1.38 −
1.79dc/D, b = 3.64(dc/D)2 − 3.36dc/D + 1.55. It was required in design
220 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232

Table 1
Summary of elastic local web buckling tests.

Specimen code Coping details (mm) Rtest(kN) Ry (kN) Rvy(kN) Rcheng(kN) Ryam (kN) Rtest Rtest Note
Rcheng Ryam

Cheng et al. [8] RB12B c = 304.8, dc = 28.7 123.7 121.2 331.2 93.0 118.9 1.33 1.04 EP
RB12C c = 450.7, dc = 25.4 74.7 84.0 335.2 51.9 71.6 1.44 1.04 EP
RB12D c = 454.6, dc = 79.5 57.4 54.5 263.2 40.9 61.5 1.40 0.93 EP
PB26Aa c = 332.7, dc = 28.7 62.7 356.3 510.4 30.4 37.2 2.06 1.69 EP
PB26Ba c = 207.3, dc = 23.1 92.5 572.6 514.8 62.5b/64.6c 62.5b/77.0d 1.48b 1.48b EP
Yam et al. [12] 406d005 c = 342.9, dc = 19.9 165.9 224.1 479.2 135.1 164.9 1.23 1.01 EP
406d01 c = 342.9, dc = 39.8 161.1 202.1 454.0 126.5 152.4 1.27 1.06 EP
406d03 c = 342.9, dc = 119.4 111.9 127.0 353.1 101.3 108.7 1.10 1.03 EP
457d02 c = 388.0, dc = 90.0 268.9 221.0 541.8 210.1 244.8 1.28 1.10 EP

Mean= 1.40 1.15

CoV= 0.195 0.219

Note:
a
Plate girder with the h/tw ratio of 197.0,
b
Failure governed by elastic web shear buckling away from copes,
c
Capacity predicted by Cheng's method,
d
Capacity predicted by Yam's method, EP = End-plate connection.

practice that the critical shear stress τcr calculated from Eq. (4) should
not exceed the design shear stress calculated from conventional beam
theory (known as V/twho, where V = shear force, and other symbols
have been illustrated in Fig. 1(d)). Details of the relevant test specimens
and the local buckling resistances obtained (ultimate reaction Rtest) are
given in Table 1.
Aalberg and Larsen [13] conducted six tests to study the local buck-
ling response of top flange coped beams, where one test was on an
uncoped beam and the remaining five were on coped beams with
different coping details. Instead of using actual end-plate or angle
cleat connections at the coped beam end, these specimens were tested
as simply supported beams with beam ends seated in a small steel
block supported by a cylindrical bearing which provided free rotation.
The test results showed that the uncoped beam S1 and the coped
beam S2 with the smallest cope length (c = 100 mm) failed by com-
pressive web buckling at the supported region. The remaining four
specimens, S3–S6, failed by inelastic local web buckling. It is worth
mentioning that compressive web buckling may be less likely to occur
in actual situations, where the vertical free edge of the web is connected
to the supporting primary beam/column via connections, rather than
the test case where the bottom flange was just simply seated on a sup-
port. Nevertheless, the test specimens S3–S6 extended the test database
for the study of local web buckling. Through comparisons with the
uncoped specimen, it was concluded that, at most, half of the load car-
rying capacity could be lost for the largest practical cope dimensions.
All the available test data are summarised in Table 1 for the cases of
elastic local web buckling and Table 2 for the cases of inelastic local web
buckling. For both tables, the ultimate beam reactions calculated based
on the critical bending stress σcr proposed by Cheng and Yura [9], the
critical shear stress τcr proposed by Yam et al. [12], the bending yield
strength, and the shear yield strength are given for comparison. Based
on these design approaches, the calculated reactions are designated as
Rcheng, Ryam, Ry, and Rvy, respectively. The design capacities of specimens
which fail by elastic buckling are expected to be governed by Rcheng or
Ryam, while the design capacities of the specimens that failed by inelastic
buckling are expected to be governed by Ry or Rvy based on simple beam
theory. It can be found from Table 1 that local web buckling governs the
design resistance of all the specimens listed. Using Cheng's method, the
test-to-predicted ratios obtained ranged from 1.10 to 2.06. The mean
test-to-predicted ratio was 1.40 with an associated coefficient of varia-
tion (CoV) of 0.195. The design reactions obtained from Yam's method
were closer to the test results, where the test-to-predicted ratios ranged
between 0.93 and 1.69, and with a mean test-to-predicted ratio of 1.15
with associated CoV of 0.219. It was noticed that both methods tend to
be overly conservative for the two thin web girder specimens, where
the web depth to thickness ratio is large. For the remaining specimens,
Yam's method led to good agreement between the test and predicted
results, while Cheng's method could be slightly conservative. According
to the literature reporting these test data, all the specimens shown in
Table 2 failed by inelastic local web buckling. For specimen RB12A, how-
ever, the design reaction was governed by the critical reaction obtained
from Cheng's method. This indicates that the failure mode of this
specimen might fall between the cases of elastic buckling and inelastic
buckling. For the other specimens, failure was governed by either bend-
ing or shear yielding. The test-to-predicted ratios ranged between 0.88
and 1.36, with a mean value of 1.20 and associated CoV of 0.142.

Table 2
Summary of inelastic local web buckling tests.

Specimen code Coping details (mm) Rtest(kN) Ry(kN) Rvy(kN) Rcheng(kN) Ryam(kN) Rtest Note
Rdesign

Cheng et al. [8] W-1 c = 88.9, dc = 31.75 512.6 1021.7 510.0 2635.5 2018.6 1.01 DAB
W-2 c = 165.1, dc = 31.75 496.2 550.0 510.0 949.0 884.6 0.97 DAB
W-3 c = 254.0, dc = 31.75 440.6 357.8 510.0 466.2 498.2 1.23 DAB
RB18A c = 457.2, dc = 77.7 206.9 161.5 454.8 169.7 196.8 1.28 EP
RB12A c = 226.1, dc = 31.75 168.7 157.5 320.0 133.8 158.4 1.26 EP
10-4 c = 203.2, dc = 29.7 209.2 141.5 281.7 230.5 248.8 1.47 DAB
10-7 c = 127.0, dc = 44.45 262.6 198.9 267.4 451.1 369.4 1.32 DAB
18-14 c = 203.2, dc = 38.1 670.6 612.8 623.0 1763.2 1619.6 1.09 DAW
18-15 c = 127.0, dc = 38.1 730.7 980.3 623.0 3829.1 2981.2 1.17 DAW
Aalberg & Larsen [13] S3 c = 200.0, dc = 110.0 243.0 198.4 380.2 269.6 221.8 1.22 SS
S4 c = 300.0, dc = 110.0 166.0 124.9 380.2 169.8 159.9 1.33 SS
S5 c = 200.0, dc = 70.0 254.0 287.3 460.7 351.8 290.7 0.88 SS
S6 c = 200.0, dc = 150.0 170.0 124.8 299.8 215.0 156.3 1.36 SS

Mean= 1.20
CoV= 0.142

Note: DAB = Double angle cleat bolted connection, DAW = Double angle cleat welded connection, EP = End-plate connection, SS = Simply-supported.
 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232
In practice, to precisely distinguish the elastic and inelastic web
buckling modes in the absence of advanced analysis (e.g. FE analysis)
or tests may be difficult because of the effects of stress concentration
near the cope corner. A design strategy that uses the lowest value
of Rbuckling (either Rcheng or Ryam), Ry, and Rvy for the local web buckling
design of top flange coped beams would cover both buckling modes,
and it would seem to be safe for a wide range of practical steel beam
profiles and cope details (the cope details with c ≤ 1.5D and dc ≤ 0.5D
were covered by the available test database). For elastic local web buck-
ling, Yam's method, which is a modified plate shear buckling model,
predicts the critical resistance reasonably well, whereas Cheng's meth-
od can be slightly conservative. Cheng et al. [8] believed that even a
slight rotational stiffness provided by the connections at the coped
beam end could be beneficial to the local web buckling capacity, and
this might, in part, explain the conservative predictions (noting that
Cheng's method was initially proposed based on numerical results
where connection rigidities were not considered).
2.2. Double-coped beams
Double-coped beams are usually used at beam-to-beam intersec-
tions where both top and bottom flanges of the secondary beam are
coped to maintain the same top and bottom flange elevations for floor
and ceiling support, respectively. The local web buckling strength of
double flange coped beams has been studied numerically by Cheng
et al. [8] following which, design recommendations were proposed. A
simple lateral–torsional plate buckling model was used, with an
unbraced length c and a linearly increasing moment diagram as
shown in Fig. 2(b), to deal with the local buckling problem for double-
coped beams. The critical moment Mcr was determined by
πqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Mcr ¼ f d EIy GJ
c capacity provided that the minimal stiffener extension length LRx equal
where c = cope length, E = elastic modulus, Iy = hot3w/12 (ho is the
depth of a beam at coped region; tw is the web thickness), G = shear
modulus, J = hot3w/3, fd = an adjustment factor taken as fd = 3.5 −
7.5(dc/D) to account for other parameters such as stress concentration,
cope depth, and shear stress. Eq. (5) can be also expressed in terms of
critical bending stress σcr = 0.62πE(t2w/cho)fd.
The proposed equations are applicable to copes with a length less
than twice the beam depth (c ≤ 2D) and a depth less than one-fifth of
the beam depth (dc ≤ 0.2D). For practical design, it was suggested that
the calculated value of Mcr should not exceed the flexural yield moment
of the coped region, and in addition, yielding in shear of the coped
region should also be checked. Similar to the case of top flange coped
beams, inelastic buckling strength in double-coped beams could be
conservatively covered by the conventional bending and shear stress
calculations at the reduced section against material yielding. Compari-
sons with numerical study results, found the design recommendation
to be conservative.
The AISC Steel Construction Manual [10] employs the same formulae
for the local web buckling design of double-coped beams with the cope
details satisfying c ≤ 2D and dc ≤ 0.2D. For the beams with cope dimen-
sions beyond this limit, a conservative procedure based on classical
plate buckling theory, later simplified by Muir and Thornton [14], can
be used:
σ cr ¼ σ y Q
Where σy = yield strength, Q = 1 for λ ≤ 0.7; Q = 1.34–0.486 λ for
0.7 b λ ≤ 1.41; Q = 1.30/λ2 for λ N 1.41, and
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
ho σ y
λ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
10t w 475 þ 280ðho =cÞ2
221
It should be noted that in Eq. (7), the unit of σy is ksi, and 1 ksi =
6.89 MPa. To date, no physical test data is available to validate the
above design recommendations. Therefore, further experimental work
on double-coped beams is desirable.
2.3. Reinforcing strategy
As beam capacities can be significantly reduced by the cope, it may
be necessary to reinforce the web in the coped region under certain con-
ditions. The most straightforward way would be to increase the mem-
ber section size. Alternatively, local reinforcement can be applied in
the coped region to effectively prevent local buckling. Following FE
analysis, three types of reinforcement, i.e. types A to C as shown in
Fig. 3(a), were first proposed by Cheng et al. [8]. It was preliminarily
suggested that for hot-rolled sections, where d/tw (d is the net depth
of the web for the uncoped section) is normally less than 60, reinforce-
ment types A or C could be sufficiently effective, provided that LRx is
larger than dc. For plate girders where the ratio of beam depth to web
thickness can be excessively large (thin web), e.g. d/tw N 60, reinforce-
ment type B with LRx ≥ c/3 was recommended. Satisfying the above re-
inforcement arrangement details, requires only material yield checking
for the coped region based on conventional beam theory. This work has
been adopted by the AISC Steel Construction Manual [10].
To provide test evidence, Yam et al. [15] first conducted three full
scale tests on top flange coped beams with reinforcement type A pro-
posed by Cheng et al. [8]. Among the three tests, two specimens were
considered with different longitudinal stiffener lengths (c + LRx) and
compared with an unreinforced specimen. It was shown that the maxi-
mum beam end resistance was improved by the applied stiffeners, but
web crippling, as shown in Fig. 3(b), prevented the full development
of cross-section yielding. In addition, it was found that the stiffener
ð5Þ extension length of LRx had no obvious influence on local web buckling
to dc was ensured. Ten more full scale tests were subsequently conduct-
ed by Yam et al. [16] on top flange coped beams to investigate reinforce-
ment types A and B and a new reinforcement type D as shown in
Fig. 3(a). Among these, two specimens without reinforcement failed
as expected by local web buckling, and the failure modes for the remain-
ing eight reinforced specimens varied. For the specimens with longitu-
dinal stiffeners only (type A), flexural yielding of the full beam section
at the location of maximum bending moment occurred first, which
was followed by web crippling. For the specimens with combined longi-
tudinal and transverse stiffeners (types B and D), flexural yielding of the
full beam section occurred first, but web crippling was avoided due to
the presence of vertical stiffeners. As the load increased, local buckling
of the compressive flange near the loading position was observed, as
shown in Fig. 3(b). A summary of the available tests on reinforced
coped beams is provided in Table 3, which includes the coping details
and main test results (ultimate reaction and failure mode). The ultimate
reaction ratios of the reinforced specimens over their unreinforced
counterpart, which indicate the effectiveness of the reinforcements,
are also shown in the Table.
The experimental work was followed by a comprehensive numerical
study [17], where the structural response predicted by the FE models
agreed well with the test results. A parametric study was performed to-
wards practical recommendations for reinforcements which best cater
to various cope details. Two reinforcement types, A and D, were recom-
mended for hot-tolled coped beams for most of the available sizes. Rein-
ð6Þ forcement type A with extension length LRx = 2dc was recommended
for coped beams with d/tw ≤ 52.7, dc/D ≤ 0.3 and c/D ≤ 0.75, and the re-
inforcement type D with the extension length LRx = dc and LRy = dc for
coped beams with 52.7 b d/tw ≤ 57.1, dc/D ≤ 0.3 and c/D ≤ 0.9. For cope
details beyond the above ranges, e.g. for thin web thickness girders with
d/tw N 57.1, the need for stricter reinforcement details was suggested,
ð7Þ
but no further details were given. The recommendations proposed by
Yam and Chung [17] did not include the use of reinforcement types B
222 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232

Web
crippling

Flange
buckling

Fig. 3. Reinforcement of coped beams against local web buckling: a) reinforcing strategies, b) possible failure modes of reinforced coped beams (Yam et al. [16]).

and C and neither was there any information or discussion on the rein-
forcement details for double-coped beams.
3. Block shear
Block shear failure can occur within various structural details includ-
ing steel gusset plates, angles, and coped beams. The failure pattern nor-
mally involves tensile fracture on a plane transverse to the loading
direction combining shear failure (yield or fracture) on a plane parallel
with the loading direction, resulting in a fully or partially torn out of a
block of material. Although block shear can occur in both bolted and
welded connections, relevant research on the former type, because of
reduced net area concerns was initiated much earlier. In this section,
the study of block shear failure in coped beams only is discussed.
Block shear in other types of members, e.g. gusset plates and tension an-
gles, which have been well reported in [18–25] and by others are not
covered in this paper.
3.1. Coped beams with bolted connections
It is necessary to unify the definitions of bolt row/line orientations
and end/edge distances, which are usually used inconsistently among
different researchers. In this paper, bolt lines and rows are defined as
the vertical line A-A and horizontal line B-B, which are parallel and per-
pendicular to the line of action of the reaction force, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 4(a). End distance is defined as the horizontal distance be-
tween the vertical beam edge to the first bolt line, and edge distance is
defined as the vertical distance between the horizontal coped edge to
the first bolt row, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a).
The block shear type of failure in coped beams was first revealed in a
double angle steel beam connection test conducted by Birkemoe and
Gilmor [2]. This test was initially intended to study the allowable bolt
bearing capacity of steel beams and to evaluate the effect of the cope
that might potentially reduce the bearing capacity of the bolt hole due
to the removal of the constraint provided by the top flange. At ultimate
load, prior to attaining the nominal ultimate bearing stress, the web ma-
terial at the location of the lowest bolt was significantly torn with neck-
ing followed by fracture. Local web buckling was also observed at the
ultimate state. The block shear failure mode observed in that study
raised significant research interest. A preliminary design equation,
which included the parameters, the sum of the ultimate tensile strength
over the net tension area and the ultimate shear strength over the net
shear area, was first proposed for calculating the block shear capacity
of coped beams.
Following the work of Birkemoe and Gilmor [2], Yura et al. [5] per-
formed eight tests on top flange coped beams with bolted double
angle connections, where six tests included standard bolt holes and
two tests using slotted holes. Both single and double bolt line arrange-
ments were taken into account. All the coped beam specimens failed
by block shear, except for one specimen which failed by general web

Table 3
Summary of tests on reinforced coped beams.

Specimen code Coping details (mm) c/D dc/D Rtest Reinforced/unreinforced capacity ratio Reinforcement type Local failure mode
(kN)

Yam et al. [15] 406d03sa c = 343.0, dc = 119.0 0.87 0.30 172.1 1.54 Type A Web crippling
406d03sb c = 334.0, dc = 120.0 0.84 0.30 173.2 1.55 Type A* Web crippling
Yam et al. [16] A2 c = 207.0, dc = 59.7 0.59 0.17 305.6 1.51 Type A Web crippling
A3 c = 210.0, dc = 62.0 0.60 0.18 329.0 1.63 Type A Web crippling
A4 c = 202.8, dc = 64.3 0.58 0.18 327.5 1.62 Type B Flange local buckling
A5 c = 209.7, dc = 64.3 0.60 0.18 340.3 1.69 Type D Flange local buckling
B2 c = 207.2, dc = 105.0 0.59 0.30 293.9 1.97 Type A Web crippling
B3 c = 315.3, dc = 105.0 0.90 0.30 240.7 1.61 Type A Web crippling
B4 c = 212.3, dc = 107.7 0.61 0.31 318.8 2.13 Type B Flange local buckling
B5 c = 209.3, dc = 106.3 0.60 0.30 333.0 2.23 Type D Flange local buckling

Note: * shorter stiffener length with a clearance equal to dc at beam end.

 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232
Fig. 4. Block shear failure of coped beams: a) definition of bolt layout, b) definition of eccentricity (Fang et al. [35]), c) design model for coped beams with welded connections (Yam et al.
[38]).
yielding. The main finding was that increasing the end distance im-
proved the block shear capacity. As a follow-up to the study of Yura
et al. [5], Ricles and Yura [6] reported four more tests on top flange
coped beams with double bolt lines carried out to further study the ef-
fects of end and edge distances and bolt layouts. The new test results
showed that all the specimens failed in block shear with fracture
along the entire tension plane and significant yield along the shear
plane. The hole deformations along the tension plane of fracture were
much more significant than for the remaining holes, which indicated
that the loads resisted by the bolts were not equal. Local web buckling
was also observed in some of the tests, but this only occurred after
web fracture, and was therefore not considered to have affected the
ultimate block shear capacity. In addition, increasing the end distance
was more effective in improving the block shear capacity than increas-
ing the edge distance. Elastic FE analysis was subsequently performed to
obtain a clearer insight into the elastic stress distribution within the
web, particularly along the tensile and shear planes. It was shown that
increasing the end distance could change the tensile stress distribution
along the tension plane from triangular (the maximum stress was at the
beam end) to bilinear (the maximum stress was under the outer bolt),
and that the shear stress distribution along the shear plane was less in-
fluenced by the bolt layout. The influence of angle connection flexibility
was also studied. The more flexible angle connection could lead to a
223
greater portion of the reaction contributed to by the tension plane. Com-
bining the FE analysis results with the test observations, a new design
model was proposed, as given by:
P u ¼ 0:5f u Ant þ 0:6 f y Agv ð8Þ
where Pu = block shear capacity (unfactored), fu = ultimate tensile
strength, fy = yield strength, Ant = net tension plane, Agv = gross
shear plane. This equation indicates that the block shear capacity is
the sum of the fracture strength of the net tension plane assuming a tri-
angular stress distribution and the full yield strength of the gross shear
plane. This equation formed an important basis of the more reasonable
design models employed later in the North American Standards. The
above test results were summarised by Kulak and Grondin [26,27],
and compared with the relevant design specifications (US, Canadian,
European, and Japanese standards) used at that time. Inconsistent com-
parisons were generally observed among the different specifications.
Eq. (8) proposed by Ricles and Yura [6], because it led to good compar-
isons, was recommended by Kulak and Grondin [26,27].
Aalberg and Larsen [28] performed eight block shear tests on four
sets of coped beams, where one normal steel beam web and one high
strength steel beam web were tested for each set. All specimens
underwent block shear failure at the end of the tests, and it was noticed
224 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232
that the ultimate load was reached before the occurrence of tensile frac-
ture for the high strength steel specimens, whereas tensile fracture oc-
curred during the load increasing stage for the normal strength steel
specimens. The deformations at ultimate load for the normal steel
specimens were generally larger than those for the high strength steel
specimens. The test-to-predicted ratios of the ultimate capacities for
the normal strength steel specimens were higher than those for the
high strength steel specimens, and this difference could be due to the
influences of material ductility and yield-to-tensile strength ratio. It
should be noted that four double-coped beams were examined
among the eight, but no obvious differences were observed between
the block shear responses of single flange and double flange coped
beams.
Franchuk et al. [29,30] significantly enriched the test database by
conducting seventeen more block shear tests on coped beams connect-
ed by double angle connections. One of those was a double-coped beam
and the remaining sixteen specimens were top flange coped beams. All
top flange coped beams failed in block shear, whereas the double-coped
beam failed in pure shear yielding over the web due to the reduced
shear resistance of the full cross-section. The main test parameters con-
sidered in this programme were the effects of edge and end distances,
end rotation, gross shear area, bolt diameter, and connection depth.
The main conclusions were that 1) end rotation had a limited effect on
block shear capacity and ductility of the beams concerned; 2) the actual
shear resisting area was greater than the net shear area, but might be
slightly less than the gross shear area; 3) doubling the end and edge dis-
tances (from 25 mm to 50 mm for both cases) led to an increase in block
shear capacity of 20% and 9%, respectively; 4) bolt diameter did not
affect the connection behaviour; and 5) predictions deriving from dif-
ferent specifications were generally inconsistent and the predicted
block shear capacities for two bolt line connections might be unsafe.
Based on all the available test data (thirty-six tests by then), a reliability
analysis was undertaken by Franchuk et al. [31] to evaluate the level of
safety of the major design standards. A new design equation, which was
later adopted by the latest Canadian Standard CAN/CSA-S16-09 [32],
was proposed:
 
fy þ fu
P u ¼ Rt Ant f u þ Agv pffiffiffi
2 3
where Rt is a stress correction factor, and Rt = 0.3 for two bolt line
connections, and Rt = 0.9 for one bolt line connections. This equation
assumes that the block shear capacity is governed by fracture of the
net tension area (but assuming a non-uniform stress distribution)
combined with failure of the gross shear area with average yield and
ultimate shear strengths. A reliability analysis model involving all
thirty-six available tests found the required resistance factors to be
0.78, 0.72, and 0.66 in achieving the target safety indices of 3.5, 4.0,
and 4.5, respectively. This equation was also recommended by Driver
et al. [33] for coped beams. In addition, the stress correction factors in
Eq (9) were modified to extend its validity to more types of block
shear, e.g. block shear in angles, tees, and gusset plates. Topkaya [34]
presented a nonlinear FE analysis study on block shear of coped
beams, and compared the FE results with the available experimental
works. Numerical modelling was adopted for the subsequent paramet-
ric study comprising ninety analyses. Based on the test data and the
parametric study, an alternative block shear model, which is applicable
to both single-line and double-line connections was developed. The
simplified equation is given by:
P u ¼ f y Ant þ 0:5f y Agv
The use of this equation is intended as an alternative to the more tra-
ditional code equations, and good comparisons, on the conservative
side, with the test results were found.
All the above studies focused on coped beams with double clip angle
bolted connections, in the absence of any information on those with
single-sided connections using tees or single angles. The main differ-
ence between the two connection types is the out-of-plane loading
eccentricity induced between the centreline of the beam web and the
centroid of the connection when single-sided connections are used, as
shown in Fig. 4(b). This effect was recently investigated by Fang et al.
[35], where ten full-scale coped steel I-beam tests were conducted,
including seven specimens with single-sided connections and the
remaining three with double angles. It was found that in general,
the out-of-plane loading eccentricity had no detrimental effect on the
block shear capacity of the specimens. Further numerical studies con-
firmed this observation, although under some conditions. For example,
specimens with double-line/row (two by two) bolt layouts in combina-
tion with very flexible connections in rotation exhibited a reduced block
shear capacity for beams with single-sided connections. It was believed
that more friction (mainly caused by the out-of-plane rotation of the
web), which might reduce the load carried by the block, could be in-
duced between the angle and beam web when single-sided connections
were employed, such that the possible detrimental effects of out-of-
plane loading eccentricity could be counteracted by the benefit of
friction. It was preliminarily concluded that the effect of single-sided
connections on block shear strength could be ignored in practical
design.
Tables 4 and 5 summarise the details of the available tests for single
bolt line and double bolt line connections, respectively. The designa-
tions used for typical bolt layout types are illustrated in Fig. 4(a). The
reason for separating the two types of layout (single bolt line and double
bolt line) is mainly because of the difference in e stress distribution
along the failure plane, particularly the tensile failure plane. The test-
to-predicted ratios are also shown, which are further discussed in
Section 3.3.
3.2. Coped beams with welded connections
Besides the coped beams with bolted connections, those with
welded connections, e.g. double angle cleats welded to the web
(Fig. 4(c)), are also susceptible to block shear failure even though
ð9Þ
there are no bolt holes. In such cases, the block of the web material
can be torn out by a combination of tensile and shear failure along the
perimeter adjacent to the weld toes. Relevant research including exper-
imental work on block shear failure in tension members using welded
connections can be traced back to the 1990s [36], but investigations
on the case of coped beams have occurred only recently and was first
attempted by Yam et al. [37,38]. Ten full-scale coped beam tests were
conducted, out of which two specimens failed by block shear, six speci-
mens by local web buckling combined with significant ‘block shear type’
deformations, and no failure was achieved in the remaining two
specimens because of loading capacity limitations. For the specimens
featuring block shear failure, partial tear-out of the web block with a
tensile fracture underneath the bottom weld line of the clip angles
was exhibited, and no shear fracture was observed. The effects of
block aspect ratio, web thickness, beam section depth, cope length,
and connection position were explored. By comparing with the predic-
tions of the major standards, it was preliminarily found that none of
these standards accurately reflected the actual failure modes observed
in the tests. Following this experimental work, a FE study was per-
formed to examine the stress distribution along the shear and tension
planes and the fracture mechanism of the web. Good agreement was
found between the FE predictions and test results in terms of both ulti-
mate capacity and failure modes. Subsequent parametric studies were
ð10Þ
conducted, based on which, a new block shear model for coped beams
with welded end connections was proposed. The basic form of the
block shear capacity model normally used, which sums up the tensile
strength of the tension plane and yield strength of the shear plane,
was modified to account for the effect of non-uniform stress distribution
 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232 225

Table 4
Summary of block shear tests — single bolt line.

Specimen code Bolt layout Rtest (kN) Test-to-predicted ratio

AISC–LRFD CSA-S16-09 EN1993-1-8 AIJ

Birkemoe & Gilmor [2] I-2 1-3 498.4 1.00 0.87 1.51 1.24
Yura et al. [5] 18-3 1-5 943.4 1.22 1.03 1.89 1.59
18-4 1-5 894.5 1.28 1.03 1.85 1.73
18-5 1-5 769.9 1.18 0.95 1.75 1.62
18-8 1-5-s 645.3 0.91 0.75 1.39 1.23
18-9 1-3 676.4 0.88 0.74 1.19 1.02
Franchuk et al. [30] A1 1-4 439.0 1.02 0.86 1.55 1.42
A2 1-4 496.0 1.15 0.97 1.75 1.60
B1 1-4 514.0 1.19 1.01 1.79 1.64
B2 1-4 475.0 1.10 0.93 1.65 1.51
C1 1-3 402.0 0.99 0.85 1.40 1.28
D1 1-3 448.0 1.01 0.88 1.53 1.37
E1 1-4 568.0 1.07 0.95 1.69 1.39
E2 1-4 517.0 1.08 0.92 1.58 1.46
F1 1-3 324.0 1.02 0.87 1.55 1.38
G1 1-3 379.0 1.20 1.00 1.71 1.53
G2 1-3 387.0 1.22 1.02 1.75 1.56
H1 1-3 324.0 1.23 0.99 1.64 1.48
H2 1-3 341.0 1.29 1.04 1.73 1.55
Aalberg & Larsen [28] S1-S355 1-2 401.0 1.18 1.08 1.92 1.46
S2-Weldox 1-2 523.0 1.08 0.90 1.42 1.13
S3-S355 1-3 563.0 1.25 1.10 2.02 1.63
S4-Weldox 1-3 716.0 1.13 0.89 1.42 1.20
S5-S355 1-3 662.0 1.23 1.08 1.84 1.55
S6-Weldox 1-3 823.0 1.02 0.85 1.24 1.09
S7-S355 1-3 636.0 1.18 1.04 1.76 1.49
S8-Weldox 1-3 836.0 1.04 0.86 1.26 1.11
Fang et al. [35] A1-1-3-a 1-3 304.7 1.16 0.92 1.64 1.45
T1-1-3-a 1-3 331.9 1.27 1.00 1.79 1.59
A1-1-3-b 1-3 392.6 1.20 1.01 1.80 1.42
T1-1-3-b 1-3 414.9 1.26 1.06 1.89 1.50
T2-1-3-a 1-3 358.3 1.33 1.03 1.81 1.62
T2-1-3-b 1-3 484.6 1.40 1.16 2.04 1.62
A1-1-3-a-S 1-3 319.2 1.21 0.96 1.70 1.51

Mean= 1.15 0.96 1.66 1.44

CoV= 0.106 0.101 0.130 0.126

along the failure planes. The proposed design equation, illustrated in
Fig. 4(c), assumes a trapezoidal tensile stress distribution and uniform
shear stress distribution which linearly decreases to zero from the top
of the angle towards the top edge of the web, as expressed by:
P u ¼ Rt f u At þ Rv 0:6 f y Av
where Rt = (1.05 − φa/2fu) is a tension correction factor, and Rv =
1.5528 − 0.0078a is a shear correction factor, At = (a + s)tw is the
tension area, and Av = (b + s + 0.5p)tw is the shear area, in which
φ =0.0342a − 0.8231, where a is the length of the tension area and
40 mm ≤ a ≤ 100 mm, b is the length of the shear area, tw is the thick-
ness of the beam web, s is the size of the fillet weld, and p is the distance
between the angle and the top web edge.
ð11Þ With the need for more experimental evidence, Wei et al. [39] con-
ducted twelve more tests to study the block shear failure of coped
beams with welded connections. Eight specimens were found to fail
by block shear, two specimens with the longest cope lengths failed by

Table 5
Summary of block shear tests — double bolt line.

Specimen code Bolt layout Rtest (kN) Test-to-predicted ratio

AISC–LRFD CSA-S16-09 EN1993-1-8 AIJ

Yura et al. [5] 18-10 2-2-a 494.0 0.94 0.88 1.08 0.80
18-11 2-2-a-s 449.5 0.75 0.74 0.84 0.59
18-12 2-2-a 676.4 1.16 1.14 1.31 0.92
Ricles & Yura [6] 18-16 2-2 494.0 1.00 0.93 1.15 0.84
18-17 2-2 583.0 1.06 1.03 1.20 0.84
18-18 2-2-b 449.5 1.00 0.95 1.26 0.88
18-19 2-2-b 596.3 1.09 1.06 1.31 0.92
Franchuk et al. [30] C2 2-3 537.0 1.13 1.08 1.40 1.06
J1 2-3 667.0 1.37 1.32 1.70 1.29
J2 2-2 338.0 1.24 1.29 1.48 1.04
Fang et al. [35] A2-2-2-a 2-2 384.0 1.66 1.61 1.88 1.31
T1-2-2-a 2-2 379.7 1.63 1.58 1.85 1.29
T2-2-2-a 2-2 329.0 1.49 1.45 1.71 1.20

Mean= 1.19 1.16 1.40 1.00

CoV= 0.230 0.235 0.224 0.224
226 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232

local web buckling, one specimen failed in the welds, and no failure
occurred in the remaining specimen. The eight specimens which failed
by block shear featured a similar failure mode, i.e. tensile fracture with
significant shear yielding. The test results were compared against the
major design equations and Eq. (11), and it was found that CAN/CSA-
S16-09 [32] (using Ut = 0.9) and Eq. (11) provided the most reasonable
estimations. With extended test data, further FE analysis and parametric
analyses were subsequently conducted by Yam et al. [40]. One of the im-
portant findings was that the block shear capacity increased with in-
creasing connection rotational stiffness. This is explained by the fact
that when the connection rotational stiffness is small, the relatively
large end rotation leads to less significant shear yielding over the
shear plane, as confirmed by the FE analysis results. In this respect, the
above proposed design equation (Eq. (11)) was improved by taking
into account the effect of connection rotational stiffness. The main strat-
egy was to change the shear correction factor Rv, and thus lead to a more
reasonable agreement with the FE observation. The modified Rv was re-
expressed asRv = 1.087 − 0.00549a when the g/t ratio ≥ 5.6, where g is
the bolt gauge as shown in Fig. 4(c) and t is the thickness of the angle
part connected to the supporting face. A larger g/t ratio indicates a rela-
tively smaller rotation stiffness. It was also suggested that when the g/t
ratio b 5.6, the previous equation for Rv can still be used. It was shown
through a reliability analysis that when the modified design equation
was employed in conjunction with the use of a resistance factor of
0.76, a safety index β of 4.0 could be achieved.
Summarising all the observations from the tests and the FE analyses
undertaken by Yam and colleagues, some important conclusions can be
drawn: 1) block shear capacity is affected by the geometry of the
welded angle, and in general, the capacity increases with increasing
web block aspect ratio (ratio of shear area over tension area); 2) in-
creasing the tension area increases the in-plane loading eccentricity
(expressed as the distance from the centroid of the weld group to
the supporting column face), which leads to decreased shear yielding;
3) to improve block shear capacity, increasing the shear area is
preferred over increasing the tension area; 4) the beam depth, cope
depth, and connection position seem to have little influence on the con-
nection capacity; 5) increasing the connection rotational stiffness is
beneficial to block shear capacity.
Recently, Oosterhof and Driver [41] recommended the use of unified
block shear equations to estimate the block shear capacities of lap
plates, slotted HSS-to-gusset plates, and coped beams – all with welded
connections. With the available test database, reliability analysis was
employed to achieve this goal. The unified equation, following the
form of that in CAN/CSA-S16-09 [32], was expressed as:
 
fy þ fu
P u ¼ U t f u Ant þ 0:6 Agv
2 the test data, are also within reasonable ranges. Both Eurocode and AIJ
where Ut is the equivalent tensile stress factor which has a similar
meaning to the tension correction factor proposed by Yam et al. [38].
Different values of Ut were proposed for various connection types. For
the coped beam case, Ut = 0.7 was recommended. It is worth noting
that Ut = 0.9 leads to a test-to-predicted ratio close to unity, but given
the relatively large scatter in the test-to-predicted ratio, a decreased Ut
is employed based on the reliability analysis in order to secure a suffi-
cient level of safety. Eq. (12) offers a simpler alternative to the
Eq. (11) earlier proposed by Yam et al. [38], and importantly, Eq. (12)
is consistent with the equations used for bolted connections.
3.3. Current design specifications and comparisons
General equations for block shear have been stipulated in various
major standards, including the American Standard AISC–LRFD [42],
Canadian Standard CSA-S16-09 [32], Eurocode 3 [43], and Japanese
standard AIJ [44]. Although some studies have attempted to evaluate
the reliability of these standards in predicting the block shear capacity
[26,27], only older versions of standards were available to those studies.
Noting that AISC–LRFD, CSA-S16-09, and Eurocode 3 have all been
updated in the last decade, it is now necessary to re-evaluate the latest
versions of these standards based on the latest test database. The design
equations employed in those standards are summarised in Table 6.
As indicated in Table 6, AISC–LRFD assumes that in combination
with tensile fracture, either gross yielding or net rupture on the shear
area governs the block shear capacity and the utilisation level of the ten-
sile fracture resistance depends on bolt layouts. CSA-S16-09 considers
that block shear capacity is governed by fracture of the net tension
area combined with failure of the gross shear area based on average
yield and ultimate shear strengths and that the tensile fracture
resistance also depends on bolt layouts. Eurocode 3 assumes the block
shear capacity to be governed by tensile fracture on the net tension
area and shear yielding on the net shear area, and a factor of 0.5 is
applied to the tensile fracture resistance, regardless of bolt layouts. AIJ
considers two possible failure modes, namely, tensile fracture in combi-
nation with net shear yielding, or tensile yielding in combination with
net shear fracture, although the latter case has hardly been observed
in any coped beam test. In view of the above, all standards share a sim-
ilar design strategy (i.e. block shear capacity = resistance of tension
plane + resistance of shear plane), but they differ in two main aspects:
1) the determination of the efficiency of the net tension plane in
resisting fracture (an efficiency coefficient is usually used), and 2) the
choice of yield or ultimate shear strengths over the net or gross shear
plane.
Tables 4 and 5 give the test-to-predicted ratios of the available test
specimens with single bolt line and double bolt lines, respectively. For
the case of the single bolt line, AISC–LRFD and CSA-S16-09 provide
sound predictions with average test-to-predicted ratios relatively
close to unity. The associated CoVs, indicating the level of scatter of
ð12Þ
are conservative, and the CoVs are slightly larger than those of AISC–
LRFD and CSA-S16-09. For the case of the double bolt line, the CoVs
for all four considered standards are large. It seems that AIJ provides a
good prediction of the average test-to-predicted ratio, which is unity.

Table 6
Design equations for block shear in major standards.

Codes Design procedures

AISC–LRFD [42] Pr = ϕ(UbsFuAnt + 0.6FuAnv) ≤ ϕ(UbsFuAnt + 0.6FyAgv)

Canadian Standard CSA-S16-09 [32]
Eurocode 3 EN1993-1-8 [43]
AIJ [44]
where ϕ = resistance factor, Ubs = 1.0 if the tensile stress is uniform (single bolt line or welded connections); Ubs = 0.5 if
the tensile stress is non-uniform (double or multiple bolt lines); the other symbols have been defined in the previous section.
Pr = ϕu[UtFuAnt + 0.6Agv(Fy + Fu)/2]
where ϕu = the resistance factor; and Ut = the efficiency factor: Ut = 0.9 for coped beams with one bolt line; Ut = 0.3 for coped
beams with two bolt lines.
 pffiffiffi
P r ¼ 0:5F u Ant =γM2 þ 1= 3 F y Anv =γM0
where γM0 = the partial safety factor for resistance of cross-section; γM2 = the partial safety factor for resistance of cross-section
in tension to fracture.
h  pffiffiffi i h  pffiffiffi i
P r ¼ φ F u Ant þ 1= 3 F y Anv or P r ¼ φ F y Ant þ 1= 3 F u Anv
and the lesser governs the design capacity. The symbols are similar to those in the above codes.
 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232 227

Table 7
Summary of block shear tests — welded connection.

Specimen code a/b (mm) Rtest (kN) Test-to-predicted ratio

AISC–LRFD CSA-S16-09 EN1993-1-8 AIJ Yam

Yam et al. [37] C2-457T 50/120 630.0 1.06 1.03 1.43 1.08 1.02
E1-356T 50/120 601.2 1.18 1.11 1.62 1.20 1.13
Wei et al. [39] A1 50/100 532.3 0.91 0.88 1.26 0.93 1.03
A2 51/100 582.2 0.99 0.95 1.37 1.00 1.12
A3 50/100 632.1 1.08 1.04 1.50 1.10 1.04
A4 50/101 652.0 1.12 1.08 1.56 1.14 1.07
A5 50/120 671.2 1.08 1.03 1.47 1.11 1.23
S2 51/161 631.8 1.09 1.02 1.42 1.11 1.03
S3 50/158 638.2 1.12 1.05 1.45 1.14 1.06
S4 51/157 591.9 1.04 0.98 1.35 1.06 0.99

Mean= 1.07 1.02 1.44 1.09 1.07

CoV= 0.071 0.066 0.070 0.071 0.066

The predictions from AISC–LRFD and CSA-S16-09 are also acceptable,
but Eurocode 3 gives a quite conservative prediction. It is of interest to
note that the test-to-predicted ratios for the double bolt line specimens
investigated by Fang et al. [35] are generally higher than those for the
remaining specimens (Table 5). A possible explanation is that the
shear areas of the specimens in Fang et al. [35] were clearly less than
those for the other specimens, and this may result in a more efficient
utilisation of the shear area, thus leading to increased test-to-
predicted ratio. This speculation, however, needs further verification.
The codified design equations in Table 6 are mainly based on re-
search on bolted connections, so their applicability to welded conditions
is not made clear. In practice, these equations may be applied to welded
connections with a reasonable level of reliability, although appropriate
efficiency factors (to allow for non-uniform stress distributions) for
tension planes are generally lacking. The latest version of AISC–LRFD
stipulates the tensile stress distribution factor Ubs, to be taken as 1.0,
for coped beams with welded connections. This assumes a uniform
tensile stress distribution along the tensile plane. Table 7 shows the
test-to-predicted ratios for the available coped beam tests when welded
connections apply. For CSA-S16-09, the efficiency factors are taken as
those used for the case of single bolt line (Ut = 0.9). The test-to-
predicted ratios obtained from Yam's design equation [38], which was
explicitly proposed for welded connections, are also included in the
table. It should be noted that Table 7 only includes the specimens failing
in block shear. Those failing in inelastic local buckling but with signifi-
cant ‘block shear type’ deformation (as reported in Yam et al. [37,38])
are listed in Table 8 separately. It is observed from Table 7 that AISC–
LRFD, CSA-S16-09, AIJ, and Yam's design equation provide good predic-
tions, with the mean test-to-predicted ratios slightly above 1.0 and the
CoVs near 0.07, whereas Eurocode 3 is again conservative. The main rea-
son why Eurocode 3 is conservative is that a factor of 0.5 is applied to the
tensile fracture resistance, regardless of the bolt or weld layouts actually
proposed.
On the other hand, as shown in Table 8, the ultimate capacities of the
coped beam specimens that fail by inelastic local buckling and signifi-
cant ‘block shear type’ deformation are overestimated by the predic-
tions deriving from both local web buckling checking (lowest value of
Ry, Rvy, and Rcheng/Ryam governed by flexural yielding, shear yielding,
and local buckling, respectively) and block shear checking (particularly
for AISC–LRFD, CSA-S16-09, and AIJ), which leads to unsafe design. This
is possibly due to the interaction between the inelastic shear deforma-
tion (along shear plane due to block shear) and local web buckling in
the coped web welded to angle cleats. In other words, the significant
‘block shear type’ deformation along the shear plane may interactively
induce earlier inelastic local web buckling. This possible interaction,
which has never been considered in any existing studies, needs further
investigation. To ensure a safe design, a reduction factor may be applied
to both the local web buckling resistance and the block shear resistance
for coped beams with welded connections, but this suggestion should
be subjected to further studies. It is noted that unsafe predictions
were not made for coped beams with bolted connections, as confirmed
in Table 2 (specimens with double angle cleat bolted connections). This
is probably due to the fact that the plane of shear deformation was
restrained by the angle legs and, therefore, interaction between block
shear and local web buckling is less likely to occur.
4. Fatigue
Fatigue is another common failure type for coped beams/stringers
used in bridges. The case studies reported by Fisher [45] raised research
interest in this issue, and experimental studies have been subsequently
undertaken. Nine tests were first conducted by Yam and Cheng [46,47]
to evaluate the fatigue strength of coped beams, where one specimen
had a square cut cope, five specimens had flame cut copes with nominal
radii from 10 mm to 30 mm, two specimens used flame cut copes and
ground smooth edges. The cope of the remaining specimen was flame

Table 8
Summary of block shear test specimens with welded connections — failed by inelastic local buckling with significant ‘block shear type’ deformation.

Specimen code a/b (mm) Rtest (kN) Test-to-predicted ratio

Inelastic local buckling AISC-LRFD CSA-S16-09 EN1993-1-8 AIJ Yam

Yam et al. [37] A1-406r3 50/160 395.2 0.85 0.94 0.87 1.22 0.96 0.88
A2-406r2 70/140 437.4 0.94 0.95 0.92 1.32 0.97 1.02
B1-406t 50/120 394.0 0.84 1.05 1.00 1.42 1.07 1.01
B2-406r1 90/110 390.3 0.84 0.81 0.80 1.20 0.85 1.00
D1-457R1 90/120 623.0 0.74 0.81 0.81 1.18 0.84 0.99
E2-356P 50/120 581.0 1.09 1.05 0.98 1.41 1.07 1.04
Wei et al. [39] C1 100/100 448.0 0.89 0.71 0.71 1.09 0.77 0.97
C2 83/130 506.7 1.01 0.83 0.80 1.20 0.85 0.97

Mean= 0.90 0.89 0.86 1.26 0.92 0.99

CoV= 0.123 0.137 0.115 0.092 0.122 0.048
228 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232
cut from a 10 mm pre-drilled hole. The span of each beam was 3.67 m,
and a cyclic point load was applied at mid-span. The up-side-down test
beams were simply supported at both ends, such that the coped edge
was in tension under the downward point load. The nominal stress
ranges were 40 MPa, 50 MPa, and 70 MPa with a nominal mean stress
of 70 MPa in tension for all specimens. It was observed that fatigue life
increased with an increase of cope radius and decrease of the stress
range. The crack growth rate after initial cracking was not dependent
on the cope details, but increased with increasing nominal stress
range. An analytical model was developed to estimate the fatigue life
of coped beams, and the predictions were shown to be conservative.
Sixteen more fatigue tests were performed by Roeder et al. [48,49]
on coped beams. The bolted connection geometry was arranged to en-
sure sufficient connection rotational stiffness, such that negative mo-
ment could be induced and the coped edge of the beam became under
tension. The span of each beam was 7.0 m, and a cyclic load was applied
at 3.31 m from the coped end. Among the sixteen specimens, two spec-
imens used square cut copes, six specimens used flame cut copes with
22 mm radius, and the remaining eight specimens used 22 mm-radius
flame cut copes with additional notches to speed up crack initiation.
The test programme included two stages: the first stage was the study
of the initial fatigue crack, and the second stage was to evaluate the
effectiveness of three damage limitation methods (DLM) applied after
initiation of the crack. The three DLMs consisted of a drilled hole, a
Fig. 5. Fatigue failure of coped beams: a) repair strategies, b) comparisons against S-N design curves.
drilled hole with inserted bolt, and bolt removal, as illustrated in
Fig. 5(a). The first two methods eliminate the crack tip because of the
additional hole drilled at the end of the crack development path. The
last method reduces the negative moment by removing several bolts/
rivets near the top edge of the coped web. The tests mainly showed
that: 1) the copes with square cut or notched flame cut were more sus-
ceptible to fatigue crack initiation, but the crack growth rate was inde-
pendent of the cope surface finish; 2) connection rotational stiffness
had an important influence on the fatigue resistance of the cope;
3) the drilled hole DLM was less effective than the drilled hole with
inserted bolt and bolt removal; and 4) a new crack could occur when
the drilled hole with inserted bolt DLM was used, and this crack might
propagate very quickly. Finally, the test data were used to propose a de-
sign based approach associated with the S-N curve (i.e. Stress range vs.
Number of cycle to allowable crack) for evaluating the fatigue strength
of coped beams.
As an alternative solution to the conventional damage limitation
methods mentioned above, a new repair method employing carbon
fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) patches was proposed recently by
Holden [50]. Six tests were conducted, including one unrepaired speci-
men with the other five repaired by CFRP patches. For the repaired
cases, the bare coped beams were subjected to cyclic loading until a
crack length of 10 mm was evident, and CFRP patches were then applied
before for further fatigue testing with the same cyclic loading. The test
 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232 229

parameters included single/double sided repair, orientation of the The work presented in this study not only offers a clear view of the
patch, and total thickness of CFRP. The nominal stress range at the current treatments for these local failure modes, but also facilitates
cope was 80 MPa. All copes were flame cut with a radius of 15 mm, future reliability analysis studies towards more reliable design equa-
with an additional notch 0.5 mm long for all cases to hasten crack initi- tions. The following comments are noted based on this work:
ation. The test results showed that applying double sided CFRP patches
• For the design against elastic local web buckling of top flange coped
were quite efficient in increasing fatigue life, whereas single sided CFRP
beams, two methods are currently available. For most commercially
patches proved marginal with earlier adhesive bond failure. Angled re-
available hot-rolled sections, Yam's method [12] can lead to predic-
pairs were more effective than the other orientations. Increasing the
tions very close to the test results, and closer than Cheng's method
CFRP patch thickness did increase fatigue life, but the improvement
[8] which tends to be conservative. Both methods tend to be conserva-
was not significant. For instance, applying the double sided CFRP
tive for plate girders with ‘thin’ webs. Where inelastic web buckling
patches at a crack of 10 mm improved the remaining fatigue life by
is possible, the design strategy that uses the lowest value of Rbuckling
three times before a 30 mm crack was reached when compared with
(either Rcheng or Ryam), Ry, and Rvy can be safe for coped beams with
the unrepaired specimen. When angled single sided patches were
bolted connections. For coped beams with welded connections, a
employed, the remaining fatigue life was approximately 1.5 times that
reduction factor of 0.9 is suggested for the local web buckling design
of the unrepaired one. For the other patch orientations, the remaining
resistance due to the possible interactive effect of block shear. For
fatigue life was only 1.15 times that of the unrepaired one. A supple-
coped beams with insufficient local web buckling resistance, the
mentary study showed that earlier repair achieved more efficient
reinforcement strategies using stiffeners were found to be effective.
usage of CFRP patches. Finally, an analytical model was proposed to
For the design of double flange coped beams, the current design meth-
evaluate the fatigue life of CFRP repaired coped beams [51].
od, which was based on numerical studies, is on the conservative side.
In design practice, S-N curves with various categories are used by
No test evidence is currently available for the case of double flange
engineers to conduct design against fatigue. Different categories are
coped beams.
applicable to different scenarios as stipulated in relevant standards
• Design equations for block shear failure of coped beams are available
(AISC–LRFD [42], Eurocode 3 [43], AS4100 [52], and CAN-S16-09 [32]).
in the current major design standards, but inconsistent test-to-
Although categorization is slightly different in the different standards,
predicted strength ratios were generally found, based on the available
the basic principle is similar, i.e. linking the design stress range to the
test database. For coped beams connected by bolted connections with
predicted fatigue life. Fig. 5(b) shows the S-N relationships for the test
single bolt line, AISC–LRFD's design equations are recommended as
specimens after initial crack (crack first observed by visual inspection)
they provide good predictions (mean test-to-predicted ratio = 1.15)
and a 30 mm crack, using the relevant AISC–LRFD category curves. For
and an acceptable CoV. Although CSA-S16-09 can also provide sound
some test specimens subjected to variable load amplitude, the nominal
predictions (mean test-to-predicted ratio = 0.96), the level of scatter
stress ranges reported by Roeder et al. [49] were, in fact, effective stress
of the test data might lead to unsafe design. For the case of bolted
ranges using Miner's rule [53]. In addition, when applying S-N curves,
connections with a double bolt line, although relatively large levels
Yam and Cheng [47] and Roeder et al. [49] used modified stress ranges
of CoV have been observed for all of the four design codes considered,
(allowing for stress concentrations) and nominal stress ranges, respec-
the AISC–LRFD and CSA-S16-09 equations are recommended, with a
tively. Most of the standards recommend that for the application of
mean test-to-predicted ratio of 1.19 and 1.16, respectively. For
the category curves, the nominal stress range should be used without
coped beams with welded connections, AISC–LRFD, CSA-S16-09, AIJ,
stress concentration factors (SCFs). Eurocode 3, however, also states
and Yam's method (Eq. (11)) provide sound and relatively consistent
that the stress concentration effect at details other than the stipulated
predictions with mean test-to-predicted ratios slightly above 1.0. But
cases should be accounted for when determining the stress range. Con-
based on the reliability analysis conducted by Oosterhof and Driver
sidering the fact that a precise determination of the SCF for various cope
[41], a decreased Ut might have to be employed to secure a sufficient
details is difficult, the stress ranges shown in Fig. 5(b) are the nominal
level of safety, bearing in mind that there are possible interactions be-
values, which may be convenient for engineers. It was shown that for
tween local web buckling and block shear. The authors recommended
square cut copes or copes flame cut with radius and notch, the test
that Ut is taken as 0.7 in the CSA-S16-09 equation, as suggested by
data lay significantly below the category E' curve. These cope details
Oosterhof and Driver [41].
should be avoided in practical design. For flame cut copes with a certain
• For fatigue design of coped beams, a new category S-N curve
range of radii (which are more practical cases) and an allowable crack
(allowing a 30 mm crack length) is proposed in this paper based on
length of 30 mm, it seems that category E' is not appropriate for the fa-
the available test database. The new curve is a modification of the
tigue strength estimation. Therefore, a new category curve modified
relevant equations in AISC–LRFD with a newly proposed constant
from relevant AISC–LRFD equations in, as shown in Fig. 5(b), is proposed
Cf = 2.0 × 108. The nominal stress range without considering the ef-
in this paper, and given by:
fect of stress concentration should be used when the new category
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi curve is referred to. To strengthen or repair a coped beam with
3 C f  329 existing cracks, the two DLMs of drilled hole with inserted bolt and
F SR ¼ ð13Þ
nSR bolt removal are adequately effective. Using CFRP patches is also an
available alternative, but these have to be placed at both sides of the
cracked web, preferably with angled repairs, to ensure a satisfactory
where FSR = nominal stress range (MPa), nSR = fatigue life (maximum
efficiency. It is noted that a smooth surface of the cope radius effec-
number of load fluctuation), and Cf = 2.0 × 108. This curve could be pre-
tively postpones the occurrence of the initial crack.
liminarily used for the coped beam case, with an allowable crack length
of 30 mm. Based on the above, the recommended design solutions are
summarised in Table 9. Shortcomings in the scope of current research
5. Comments, summary, and future research and design approaches are also identified. The following future studies
are required:
A comprehensive overview of the updated research outcomes and
design approaches to control the local failures of coped beams is pre- • Modified local web buckling design equations are desirable for coped
sented in this paper. The failure modes considered in this study include beams with d/tw ratio larger than 60 (e.g. plate girders with
local web bucking, block shear, and fatigue. The available test database thin webs), in which case the Cheng and Yam methods can be conser-
in the literature and corresponding design solutions are also discussed. vative.
230 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232

Table 9
Summary of recommended design solutions.

Failure mode Recommended design solutions Comments

Local web buckling – bolted
connection (single cope)
Local web buckling – welded
connection (single cope)
Local web buckling – double cope
Block shear – single bolt line
Block shear – double bolt line
Block shear – welded connection
Fatigue
Yam's method [12]
A coefficient of 0.9 to be applied on the
result obtained from Yam's method [12]
Cheng's method [8]
AISC–LRFD [42]
AISC–LRFD [42] or CSA-S16-09 [32]
CSA-S16-09 [32] equation modified by
Oosterhof and Driver [41]
The newly proposed category curve
(Eq. (13) in this paper)
Tends to be conservative for thin web girder specimens. May need to be revised
for thin web girder specimens.
More tests are required to investigate the possible interaction effect between
local web buckling and block shear.
Test evidence is necessary.
–
Tends to be conservative for the cases where the shear area is relatively small
compared with the tension area. More test data are required.
Ut = 0.7 was recommended
Nominal stress range should be used without considering stress concentration
factors (SCFs). The allowable crack length is 30 mm for the new curve.

• Test evidence on the failure and behaviour of double-coped beams is Illustrative Example 1 (bolted connections)
necessary, and possible reinforcement strategies are also required.
• The effect of out-of-plane eccentricity on coped beams with single- Local web buckling design
sided welded connections is worth investigating. Assume that the applied reaction is 250 kN.
• The possible interaction effect between local web buckling and block
1) Check for flexural yielding:
shear on coped beams with welded connections may lead to unsafe
design, and this aspect should, therefore, receive attention. 2 5 3
• To improve the fatigue life of coped beams, more investigations are M co;x ¼ f y Z co;x ¼ 360N=mm  1:34  10 mm ¼ 48:24kN:m;
desirable on the application of CFRP patches, which seems to be
efficient especially when they are applied on both sides. It is also
worthwhile to optimize the timing of the application of CFRP patches. Ry ¼ M co;x =c ¼ 48:24kN:m=200mm ¼ 241:2kN:
The feasibility of using other types of FRP (e.g. GFRP) is also worth
investigating. 2) Check for shear yielding:
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi 2
pffiffiffi
Rvy ¼ f y Av = 3 ¼ f y t w ho = 3 ¼ 360N=mm  6mm  299mm= 3
6. Recommended design examples ¼ 372:9kN:

Three illustrative examples are provided covering local web buck- 3) Check for local web buckling:
ling, block shear, and fatigue design. Grade S355 UB356 × 127 × 33 According to the design recommendations discussed above, Yam's
coped steel beams are considered, for which the geometric and material method is used:
properties are given in Fig. 6. Resistance factors/partial factors are not
considered in the calculation. a ¼ 1:38−1:79dc =D ¼ 1:38−1:79  50=349 ¼ 1:1235;

Fig. 6. Geometric dimensions and material properties for illustrative design examples.
 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232 231

2
b ¼ 3:64ðdc =DÞ −3:36dc =D þ 1:55 Block shear design
2
¼ 3:64ð50=349Þ −3:36ð50=349Þ þ 1:55 ¼ 1:1442: The CSA-S16-09 equation with the decreased tensile factor Ut = 0.7
(Oosterhof and Driver 2011) is recommended for block shear design of
coped beams with welded connections:
The shear buckling coefficient ks =a(ho/c)b =1.1235(299/200)1.1442 =
 
1.78, and thus: fy þ fu 2 2
R ¼ 0:6 Agv þ U t f u Ant ¼ 0:6  430N=mm  1032mm
2  2   2
π E t π2 2:0  105 N=mm2 6 2 2 2
τcr ¼ ks
2
 w ¼ 1:78
2
 þ0:7  500N=mm  372mm ¼ 396:5kN;
12 1−v ho 12 1−0:3 299
2
¼ 129:4N=mm ;
noting that the tensile plane and shear plane are positioned along the
outer perimeter of the welds.
Rbuckling = τcrtwh0 = 129.4N/mm2 ⋅ 6mm ⋅ 299mm = 232.1kN, (it is
noted that Rbuckling predicted by Cheng's method is 238.5 kN). Illustrative Example 3 (fatigue design)

Therefore, the  local web buckling design is governed by min
Ry ; Rvy ; Rbuckling ¼ Rbuckling ¼ 232:1kN, which is less than the applied Assume that the negative bending moment Mc over the critical sec-
reaction of 250 kN, so stiffeners are required. Since d/tw = 311.6/6 = tion fluctuates between 0 kN.m and 10 kN.m (Fig. 6), and hence the
51.9 b 52.7, dc/D = 50/349 = 0.14 b 0.3, and c/D = 200/349 = range of nominal stressΔMc/Zco,x = 10 kN.m/134,000 mm3–0 =
0.57 b 0.75, stiffener type A (Fig. 3(a)) with LRx = 2dc = 100 mm is pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
74.7 MPa. According to the proposed equation F SR ¼ 3 C f  329=nSR ,
recommended. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
i.e. 74:7MPa ¼ 2  108  329=nSR , the fatigue life nSR controlled by a
3

Block shear design 30 mm crack length is 157,857 cycles. Alternatively, directly employing
AISC–LRFD (2010) is recommended for block shear design of coped the S-N design curve given in Fig. 5(b), the obtained fatigue life nSR is
beams with bolted connections: approximately 150,000 cycles.

2 2
R ¼ 0:6f u Anv þ U bs f u Ant ≤0:6 f y Agv þ U bs f u Ant ¼ 0:6  500N=mm  480mm Acknowledgement
2 2 2 2
þ1:0  500N=mm  228mm ≤ 0:6  360N=mm  840mm
2 2 The work described in this paper was partially supported by a grant
þ1:0  500N=mm  228mm ¼ 258:0kN ≤ 295:4kN:
from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administra-
tive Region, China (project no. PolyU 5288/13E).

Illustrative Example 2 (welded connections) References

[1] Cheng JJR. Design of steel beams with end copes. J Constr Steel Res 1993;25:3–22.
Local web buckling design
[2] Birkemoe PC, Gilmor MI. Behavior of bearing critical double-angle beam connections.
Again assume that the applied reaction is 250 kN. Eng J 1978;15(4):109–15.
[3] Ricles JM, Yura JA. The behavior and analysis of double-row bolted shear web
1) Check for flexural yielding: connections. Phil. M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory Thesis No. 80-
1University of Texas at Austin; 1980.
2 5 3 [4] Shelton BG, Yura JA. Tests of bolted shear web connections. Department of Civil
M co;x ¼ f y Z co;x ¼ 360N=mm  1:34  10 mm ¼ 48:24kN:m; Engineering, Report No. 80-1Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory,
University of Texas at Austin; 1981.
[5] Yura JA, Birkemoe PC, Ricles JM. Beam web shear connections: an experimental
study. J Struct Div 1982;108(ST2):311–25.
Ry ¼ M co;x =c ¼ 48:24kN:m=100mm ¼ 482:4kN: [6] Ricles JM, Yura JA. Strength of double-row bolted-web connections. J Struct Eng
1983;109(ST12):126–42.
[7] Milek WA. A cautionary note on beam copes. Eng J 1980;17(3):72–3.
2) Check for shear yielding: [8] Cheng JJ, Yura JA, Johnson CP. Design and behavior of coped beams. Ferguson
Structural Engineering Laboratory Report No. 84-1Department of Civil Engineering,
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi 2
pffiffiffi University of Texas at Austin; July 1984.
Rvy ¼ f y Av = 3 ¼ f y t w ho = 3 ¼ 360N=mm  6mm  299mm= 3 [9] Cheng JJR, Yura JA. Local web buckling of coped beams. J Struct Eng
¼ 372:9kN: 1986;112(10):2314–31.
[10] American Institute of Steel Construction. Steel Construction Manual. One East
Wacker Drive, Suite 700, Chicago, Illinois14th ed. ; 2011.
3) Check for local web buckling: [11] The Steel Construction Institute and the British Constructional Steelwork Association
Limited. Joints in Steel Construction: Simple Connections. Publication No. 212, UK;
2002.
b 1:1442
ks ¼ aðho =cÞ ¼ 1:1235ð299=100Þ ¼ 3:933; [12] Yam MCH, Lam ACC, Iu VP, Cheng JJR. The local web buckling strength of coped steel
I-beam. J Struct Eng 2003;129(1):3–11.
[13] Aalberg A, Larsen PK. Local web buckling of coped beams. Proceedings of Nordic
Steel Construction Conference NSCC 2001, Helsinki, Finland; 2001.
2  2 2 5 2  [14] Muir LS, Thornton WA. A technical note: a direct method for obtaining the plate
π E tw π 2:0  10 N=mm 6 2
τ cr ¼ ks
 ¼ 3:933
 buckling coefficient for double-coped beams. Eng J 2004;41(3):133–4.
12 1−v2 ho 12 1−0:32 299 [15] Yam MCH, Lam ACC, Wei F, Chung KF. The local web buckling strength of stiffened
2 coped steel-I-beam. Int J Steel Struct 2007;7(2):129–38.
¼ 286N=mm ; [16] Yam MCH, Ma HW, Lam ACC, Chung KF. Experimental study of the strength and be-
haviour of reinforced coped beams. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:1749–59.
[17] Yam MCH, Chung KF. A numerical study of the strength and behaviour of reinforced
Rbuckling = τcrtwh0 = 286N/mm2 ⋅ 6mm ⋅ 299mm = 513.1kN, (it is
coped beams. J Constr Steel Res 2013;80:224–34.
noted that Rbuckling predicted by Cheng's method is 748.5 kN). [18] Clements DDA, Teh LH. Active shear planes of bolted connections failing in block
shear. J Struct Eng 2013;139(3):320–7.
The local web buckling design is governed by min(Ry, Rvy, Rbuckling) = [19] Huns BBS, Grondin GY, Driver RG. Tension and shear block failure of bolted gusset
Rvy = 372.9kN. For welded connections, because a reduction factor of plates. Can J Civ Eng 2006;33(4):395–408.
0.9 is suggested to consider the possible interactive effect of block [20] Topkaya C. A finite element parametric study on block shear failure of steel tension
members. J Constr Steel Res 2004;60(11):1615–35.
shear, the final local web buckling resistance is 0.9 × 372.9 kN = [21] Topkaya C. Block shear failure of gusset plates with welded connections. Eng Struct
335.6 kN, and no stiffeners are required. 2007;29:11–20.
232 M.C.H. Yam et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 102 (2014) 217–232
[22] Epstein HI, McGinnis MJ. Finite element modeling of block shear in structural tees.
Comput Struct 2000;77:571–82.
[23] Oosterhof SA, Driver RG. Effects of connection geometry on block shear failure of
welded lap plate connections. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:525–32.
[24] Orbison JG, Wagner ME, Fritz WP. Tension plane behavior in single-row bolted
connections subject to block shear. J Constr Steel Res 1999;49:225–39.
[25] Hardash SG, Bjorhovde R. New design criteria for gusset plates in tension. Eng J, 22.
AISC; 1985 77–94.
[26] Kulak GL, Grondin GY. Block shear failure in steel members — a review of design
practice. In: Leon RT, Easterling WS, editors. Proceedings of fourth international
workshop on connections in steel structures IV: steel connections in the new millen-
nium. Chicago (III): AISC; 2000.
[27] Kulak GL, Grondin GY. AISC LRFD rules for block shear—a review. Eng J
2001;38(4):199–203.
[28] Aalberg A, Larsen PK. Strength and ductility of bolted connections in normal and
high strength steels. Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on struc-
tural failure and plasticity; 2000.
[29] Franchuk CR, Driver RG, Grondin GY. Block shear behaviour of coped steel beams.
Structural engineering report no. 244. Department of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering. Edmonton (AB, Canada), University of Alberta; 2002.
[30] Franchuk CR, Driver RG, Grondin GY. Experimental investigation of block shear
failure in coped steel beams. Can J Civ Eng 2003;30(5):871–81.
[31] Franchuk CR, Driver RG, Grondin GY. Reliability analysis of block shear capacity of
coped steel beams. J Struct Eng 2004;130(12):1904–13.
[32] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). CAN/CSA-S16-09 Limit states design of steel
structures; 2009. Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON, Canada.
[33] Driver RG, Grondin GY, Kulak GL. Unified block shear equation for achieving consis-
tent reliability. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:210–22.
[34] Topkaya C. Finite element modeling of block shear failure in coped steel beams. J
Constr Steel Res 2007;63(4):544–53.
[35] Fang C, Lam ACC, Yam MCH, Seak KS. Block shear strength of coped beams with
single-sided bolted connection. J Constr Steel Res 2013;86:153–66.
[36] Zhao XL, Hancock GJ. Longitudinal fillet welds in thin cold-formed RHS members. J
Struct Eng 1995;121(11):1683–90.
[37] Yam MCH, Zhong YC, Lam ACC, Iu VP. An investigation of the block shear strength of
coped beams with a welded clip angle connection-part I: experimental study. J
Constr Steel Res 2007;63(1):96–115.
[38] Yam MCH, Zhong YC, Lam ACC, Iu VP. An investigation of the block shear strength of
coped beams with a welded clip angle connection-part II: numerical study. J Constr
Steel Res 2007;63(1):116–34.
[39] Wei F, Yam MCH, Chung KF, Grondin GY. Tests on block shear of coped beams with a
welded end connection. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(11):1398–410.
[40] Yam MCH, Grondin GY, Wei F, Chung KF. Design for block shear of coped beams with
a welded end connection. J Struct Eng 2011;137(8):811–21.
[41] Oosterhof SA, Driver RG. Performance of the unified block shear equation for
common types of welded steel connections. Eng J 2011;48(2):77–92.
[42] AISC-LRFD. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel build-
ings. Chicago, IL, USA: American Institute of Steel Construction; 2010.
[43] EN 1993-1-8:2005. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures – Part 1-8: Design of
Joints. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization; 2005.
[44] Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Standard for limit state design of steel
structures; 1990.
[45] Fisher JW. Fatigue and fracture in steel bridges: case studies. John Wiley & Sons;
1984.
[46] Yam MCH, Cheng JJR. Fatigue strength of coped steel beams, Structural Engineering
report no. 160. University of Alberta, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineer-
ing; 1988.
[47] Yam MCH, Cheng JJR. Fatigue strength of coped steel beams. J Struct Eng
1990;116(9):2447–63.
[48] Roeder CW, MacRae GA, Kalogiros AY, Leland A. Fatigue crack of riveted, coped,
stringer-to floorbeam connections. Final report no. WA-RD494.1Olympia, Washing-
ton: Washington Department of Transportation; 2001.
[49] Roeder CW, MacRae G, Leland A, Rospo A. Extending the fatigue life of riveted coped
stringer connections. J Bridg Eng 2005;10(1):69–76.
[50] Holden TA. Fatigue rehabilitation of coped steel beams using carbon fibre reinforced
polymers. [MSc thesis] Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Uni-
versity of Alberta; 2012.
[51] Holden TA, Cheng JJR, Lam ACC, Yam MCH. Analytical study of fatigue repair of coped
beams using carbon fibre reinforced polymers. The International Association for
Bridge Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS; 2010 [2010].
[52] AS 4100-1998. Steel structures. Sydney, Australia: Australian Standard; 1998.
[53] Miner MA. Cumulative damage in fatigue. J Appl Mech 1945;67:A159–64.