13th ICSGE Ain Shams University

27-29 Dec. 2009 Faculty of Engineering

Cairo - Egypt Department of Structural Engineering

Therteenth International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

EFFECT OF TRANSVERSE RECTANGULAR OPENINGS ON THE

BEHAIVOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS HAVING VARIOUS
PERCENTAGES AREA OF STEEL

OSMAN RAMADAN
Professor of Structural Eng., Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo University
Cairo, P.O. Box 0000, Egypt
E-mail: firstauthor@yahoo.com
SHERIF ELWAN
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Shorouk Academy
El Shorouk City, Cairo, Egypt.
E-mail: icb_2006@yahoo.com
ARAFA MAHMOUD
Demonstrator, Department of Civil Engineering, Shorouk Academy
El Shorouk City, Cairo, Egypt.
E-mail: arafa_dem@yahoo.co.uk

ABSTRACT
Providing openings through reinforced concrete beams and girders is giving new option
in modern building constructions for passing the utility ducts and pipes. This paper
presents results obtained from a finite element investigation using the ANSYS software
of R.C. Beams containing one rectangular opening. Three series of rectangular R.C.
Beams were modelled under uniform distributed load. Each series is consisted of one
beam without openings as a control beam and another six beams with one rectangular
opening at different positions through the beam length and with the same opening
dimensions. In addition, no special reinforcement is used around the openings to
simulate this more-critical case. The percentage area of steel is the only different
parameter between all series. All beams are loaded gradually up to failure, and the
cracking, deflection, and ultimate load is investigated. Finally guidelines for the best
positions of the opening with respect to the percentage area of steel are presented.

KEYWORDS
Beam, reinforced concrete, finite element, failure, deflection, cracks.

1 INTRODUCTION
With the development of construction technology, and in order to eliminate the dead
space in the buildings that created from placing many pipes and ducts to accommodate
essential services like water supply, and air conditioning underneath or above beams, an
alternative solution have been proposed to pass these ducts through transverse openings
in the floor beams. This arrangement of building services leads to a significant
reduction in the headroom and results of significant saving in total height of the
building especially for the multi-storey buildings as well as the overall loads on the
foundation.
Due to an abrupt change in the cross-sectional dimensions of the beam, the opening
corners are subjected to high stress concentration that may lead to wide cracking and
excessive deflection that is unacceptable from the serviceability viewpoints as well as
the reduction of the stiffness of the beam may also cause a redistribution of the internal
forces and moments in the opening regions. So, the provision of openings in reinforced
concrete beams may change their simple mode of behaviour to a more complex one.
Therefore the design of such beams needs special treatment, which currently the main
objective of many researches concerning with this problem.
During the past fifty years, considerable research efforts have been directed towards
obtaining a better understanding of the behaviour and strength of reinforced concrete
beams with openings. Theoretical and experimental studies have been done on such
beams [1:14]. Although the uniform loads are usually the most practical in most
buildings, few studies have been dealt with this case. The major portion has been
conducted on beams subjected to concentrated loads. In addition, until now there is a
lack of specific information and guidelines on reinforced concrete beams containing
openings in most building codes such as the Egyptian code of practice.

Ali Ibrahim[1] studied the effect of openings on structural elements and directed his
study to the reinforced concrete beams. Different analytical methods to analyze beams
with openings were presented but the use of a numerical method to overcome some
analytical difficult was required. Some beams with openings in the shear zone were
tested. The results indicate that, opening in the shear zone greatly affects the ultimate
load of the beam especially when the concentrated load was applied across the opening.
The deflection line curve differed much from beams without openings. The strain
distribution was affected by the openings.

Nasser et al. [2], and M. Barker et al. [3] studied the behaviour of rectangular reinforced
concrete beams with large openings. Some assumptions in their theoretical approach
were made. The top and bottom cross members of the opening are assumed to behave
similar to the chords of a Verandeel panel. The cross members, when they have
adequate stirrups, carry the external shear in proportion to their cross sectional areas.
The cross members of the openings, when they are not subjected to transverse loads,
have contra-flexure points at their mid span. Finally, there is a diagonal force
concentration at the corners induced by the chord shear, and its value is twice the simple
shear force.
To examine their assumptions, the authors tested experimentally some beams and
concluded that the results of the tested beams were consistent with their assumptions. In
addition they observed that, adequately reinforced large openings in rectangular beams
do not reduce the ultimate capacity of the beam, but they reduce its stiffness. Properly
designed openings do not reduce the maximum moment capacity if the opening does not
reduce the compression zone. Also, the openings reduced the stability and the rotational
capacity of the beams. Finally, the decrease in rotational capacity due to openings
would probably reduced by the addition of compression steel and closed spaced stirrups.

Hemdan [4] studied the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams with end rectangular
openings. A finite element method was used in the analysis, and the results were
verified experimentally. The study concluded that, the position of end openings has no
effect on the maximum values of deflections of the beam and the main parameters
affecting the deflections of the beam with unreinforced openings are the height, length
and rectangularity of the opening. The cracking loads of beams with end openings are
independent on the position of these openings. When the opening is provided closer to
the loading point, the extreme values of longitudinal stresses in this part of opening near
the loading point are increased. A similar behaviour occurs, if the opening is located
closer to supporting point.

Many studies were conducted by Mansur et al. [5, 6, and 7] concerning the analysis and
design of reinforced concrete beams containing openings. The major variables were the
length, depth, eccentricity and location of openings, and the amount and arrangement of
corner reinforcement. The results showed that, both the maximum crack width and
maximum beam deflection increase with an increase in opening length, opening depth,
or moment-shear ratio at the canter of opening. The effect of opening eccentricity is
insignificant for the small eccentricities used in that test program. When the solid
sections are adequately reinforced, the beam fails by the formation of a mechanism with
four hinges in the chords. Total applied shear may be distributed between the top and
bottom chords of the opening accordance to their flexural stiffness, based on either
gross or cracked transformed sections. This distribution applies at both service load and
ultimate conditions irrespective of whether the opening is located within the positive or
negative moment region of a continuous beam. Finally, general guidelines for the best
locations of web openings are suggested.
Abdullah et al. [8] studied the behaviour of concrete beams with openings. The results
of an experimental program on a set of beams containing openings in the shear zone
with different configurations were presented. The study concluded that the opening in
the shear zone of the reinforced concrete beams significantly reduces the loading
capacity of the beam.The opening width has no effect on the beam strength. It is more
preferable to locate the opening in which its edge to be at a distance from the support
not less than the beam effective depth d. It is preferable to choose the opening height so
that it less than half of the beam effective depth d/2.

This paper presents results obtained from ANSYS finite element program of rectangular
reinforced concrete beams containing rectangular openings. The main parameters
considered in this research are the opening position along the beam length as well as the
percentage area of steel.

2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite element model was developed to simulate three series of rectangular reinforced
concrete beams from linear through nonlinear response and up to failure. Using the
software package ANSYS10, modelling simplifications and assumptions developed
during this research are presented below.

2.1 Element Types

A solid element, SOLID65, is used to model the concrete in ANSYS. The solid element
has eight nodes with three transitional degrees of freedom at each node. The element is
capable of simulating plastic deformation, and cracking in three orthogonal directions.
A LINK8 element is used to model the steel reinforcement. Two nodes are required for
this element. At each node, degrees of freedom are identical to those for the SOLID65.
The element is also capable of simulating plastic deformation. This option was favoured
over the alternative smeared stiffness capability as it allowed the reinforcement to be
precisely located whilst maintaining a relatively coarse mesh for the surrounding
concrete medium. The inherent assumption is that there is full displacement
compatibility between the reinforcement and the concrete and that no bond slippage
occurs. Also steel plates are added at the support locations to avoid stress concentration
problems. The solid element (solid 45) was used for the steel plates.

2.2 Non-linear Behaviour in ANSYS Program

Nonlinearity of structural system is due to geometric non-linearity and or material non-
linearity. The geometric non-linearity has to be considered if the structure deforms
largely, and lead to change in its geometric configuration. The material non-linearity is
related to non-linear stress-strain relationship of the structural material used. Non-linear
stress-strain relationship of the structural material causes the structure stiffness to
change during the stage of the analysis.
ANSYS program has two different approaches to treat the material behaviour, the linear
elastic behaviour and the non-linear plastic behaviour. For the linear approach, the
program is based on Hook's law and the stress is linear proportional to the strain
according to the secant slope. The non-linear plastic behaviour of material, which is
characterized by non-recoverable strain, begins when stress exceeds certain stress level
depend on the material type. In reinforced concrete structures, ANSYS program uses
Drucker-Prager plasticity option to represent the concrete non-linear behaviour. In this
study, the second approach is used.

3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

3.1 Concrete material properties

Development of a model for the behaviour of concrete is a challenging task. Concrete is
a quasi-brittle material and has different behaviour in compression and tension. To
model the concrete, ANSYS requires linear isotropic and multi-linear isotropic as well
as some additional concrete material properties to simulate the real concrete behavior.
The required properties are listed in Table 1.
In this study, the ultimate cubic compressive strength of the concrete (fcu) was assumed
25MPa. According to the Egyptian Code of Practice (ECP 203-2007) the corresponding
elastic modulus equals 22000 MPa. Moreover, the tensile strength equals 3 MPa.
Poisson's ratio for concrete equals was taken 0.2. The shear transfer coefficient βt
represents conditions of the crack face. The value of βt ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0
representing a smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and 1.0 representing a
rough crack (no loss of shear transfer) (ANSYS 10). The shear transfer coefficients for
open and closed cracks were determined using the work of Kachlakev, et al. [15] and
Anand Parande [16]. Convergence problems occurred when the shear transfer
coefficient for the open crack dropped below 0.2. No deviation of the response occurs
with the change of the coefficient. Therefore, the coefficient for the open crack was set
to 0.2 while the coefficient for the closed crack was set to 1.0 as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Material properties for concrete elements

Material Model Element
Material Properties
Number Type
Linear Isotropic
EX(Mpa) 22000
PRXY 0.2

Multilinear Isotropic
Strain Stress(Mpa)
Point 1 0.00025 5.5
Point 2 0.0004 8.386
Point 3 0.00055 11.067
Point 4 0.0007 13.377
Point 5 0.00085 15.29
Point 6 0.001 16.811
Solid65 Point 7 0.00125 18.55
1
Point 8 0.0014 19.19
Point 9 0.0018 20
Point10 0.00275 20

Concrete
ShrCf-Op 0.2
ShrCf-Cl 1
UnTensSt 3
UnCompSt -1
BiCompSt default
HydroPrs default
BiCompSt default
UnTensSt default

Equation (1) suggested by MacGregor. (1992) presents the uniaxial compressive stress-
strain relationship for concrete. This equation was used to plot the multi-linear isotropic
stress-strain curve for the concrete till ultimate compressive strength.
 Ec .
f  2 (1)
 
1   
o 
Where; f = stress at any strain ε
εo = strain at the ultimate compressive strength fc’ (=2 fc’/Ec)
fc' = ultimate compressive strength for concrete and according to the E.C.O.P it can be
taken 0.8 fcu

Stress-strain relationship used for this study is based on work done by Kachlakev, et al.
(2001). Point 1, defined as 0.30 fc', is calculated in the linear range Points 2 to 8 are
calculated from Equation 3.2 with ε0 obtained from Equation 3.3. Strains were selected
and the stress was calculated for each strain. Point 9 is defined at fc' and ε0 that
indicating traditional crushing strain for unconfined concrete. The resulting multi-linear
isotropic stress-strain curve for the concrete used in this study is shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1: Uniaxial stress-strain curve for concrete

3.2 Reinforcement and Steel Plates

The test specimens was constructed with the high strength steel (grade 52). The finite
element model for rebar was assumed to be a bilinear isotropic elastic-perfectly plastic
material and identical in tension and compression as shown in Fig.2. Material properties
for the steel reinforcement for all specimens in this study are as follows:
Elastic modulus (Es) = 200,000 MPa, Poisson’s ratio (PRXY) = 0.3
Yield stress (fy) = 360, and 240 MPa for longitudinal and web reinforcement,
respectively, Elastic tangent modulus = 0.0
The steel plates, added to the finite element model, were assumed linear elastic
materials with elastic modulus equal to 200,000 MPa, and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.

Fig.2: Stress-strain curve for steel reinforcement

3.3 Geometry, and Modelling

All tested beams had an overall width, depth and length of 200 mm, 500 mm and 5300
mm, respectively. On the other hand, the dimensions of the opening for all beams are
the same and having 400 mm length and 200 mm height (0.8, and 0.4 the overall depth
of the beam). Also the openings were located at the mid height of all beams while the
position of the opening is varied between the beams in each series as will be discussed
later. The web reinforcement was steel bars of 6mm diameter provided every 200 mm in
spacing along all beams while, the longitudinal reinforcement is differed in each series.
All beams were subjected to uniform distributed load. The geometry, reinforcement, and
loading of a typical beam without opening and a typical beam with opening are shown
in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

All beams were modelled in ANSYS taking the advantage of symmetry across the width
of the beams. This plane of symmetry was represented using relevant constrains in the
finite element node points. This approach reduced computational time and computer
disk space requirements significantly.
 Fig.3: Geometry, reinforcement, and loading of a typical beam without opening

Fig.4: Geometry, reinforcement, and loading of a typical beam with opening

The beam mesh was selected such that the node points of the solid elements will
coincide with the actual reinforcement locations. An additional node points were
provided by sub dividing the mesh, so that a reasonable mesh density was obtained in
the joint regions with recommended aspect ratio of elements. Nodes of the solid
elements (solid 45) were connected to those of adjacent concrete solid elements (solid
65) in order to satisfy the perfect bond assumption. Link 8 elements were employed to
represent the steel reinforcement, referred to here as link elements. To provide a perfect
bond, the link element for the steel reinforcing was connected between nodes of each
adjacent concrete solid element, so the two materials shared the same nodes.

Figs. 6, and 7 shows the finite element model used to simulate a beam without opening
and a beam with opening respectively. The finite element model for each beam without
opening had exactly 4754 total numbers of elements, 4240 solid 65 elements, 22 link 8
elements as main steel bars, 468 link 8 elements as stirrups, and 24 solid 45 elements at
supports. The finite element model for each beam with opening is consisted of 3984
solid 65 elements, 22 link 8 elements as main steel bars, variable number of elements as
stirrups depending on the number of stirrups at the location of opening, and 24 solid 45
elements at supports..

3.4 Loads and Boundary Conditions:

Beams boundary conditions need to be applied at points of symmetry, and where the
supports and loadings exist. The model being used is symmetric about one plane. The
nodes through the plane of symmetry (at Z=0) must be constrained in the perpendicular
direction. These nodes, therefore, have a degree of freedom constraint UZ = zero.
 Concrete Elements (Solid65)
50 mm Length, 50 mm width, and
25 mm Height

Top Bars Elements (Link8)

Steel Plate Elements 50 mm Length
(Solid45)
50 mm length, and 50 mm
Width
Bottom Bars Elements (Link8)
50 mm Length

Stirrups Elements (Link 8)

25 mm Height

Fig.5: Meshing of a typical beam without opening

Concrete Elements (Solid65)

50 mm Length, 50 mm width, and 25
mm Height

Top Bar Elements (Link8)

50 mm Length

Part of Opening

Bottom Bar Elements (Link8)

50 mm Length

Stirrups Elements at Opening location (Link 8)

25 mm Height

Fig.6: Finite element meshing of a typical beam with opening

The left support was modelled in such a way that a roller was created. A single line of
nodes on the plate was given constraint in the UY, and UZ directions, applied as
constant values of zero. By doing this, the beam will be allowed to rotate at the support.
Also, the right support was modelled in such a way that a hinge was created. A single
line of nodes on the plate was given constraint in the UX, UY, and UZ directions,
applied as constant values of zero. By doing this, the beam will not be allowed to rotate
at the support. The applied line load was divided into a series of concentrated loads on
all nodes across the beam length. Figure 7 shows the boundary conditions and the loads
of the prepared model.

Constraint in the Z- direction

Roller Support
Uniform Load

Hinged Support

Fig. 7 : Boundary conditions and loading of the model

3.5 Non-linear solution and failure criteria

In this study the total load applied was divided into a series of load increments (or) load steps.
Newton –Raphson equilibrium iterations provide convergence at the end of each load
increment within tolerance limits. The automatic time stepping in the ANSYS program
predicts and controls load step sizes for which the maximum and minimum load step
sizes are required [17].
After attempting many trials, the number of load steps, minimum and maximum step
sizes was determined. During concrete cracking, steel yielding, and ultimate stage, the
loads were applied gradually with smaller load increments. Failure for each model was
identified when the solution was not converging.
3.6 Verification of the Proposed Finite Element Model:
The goal of the verification of the finite element model is to ensure that the proposed
elements, material properties, real constants and convergence criteria are adequate to
model the response of the beam. In order to verify the model, the control beam (C96)
that tested by Tom Norris et al. [18] was analyzed. The tested beam had a 5 in. x 8 in.
(127 mm x 203 mm) cross section, and 96 in. (2440 mm) length. The beam were
designed to be simply supported over a span of 90 in (2288 mm) and loaded at the
quarter points. The longitudinal reinforcement of the beam consisted of two no. 3 (9.5
mm. dia.) grade 60 tension bars, and two no. 3 (9.5 mm. dia.) grade 60 compression
bars. The spacing for the no. 2 (6 mm. dia.) stirrups in the central region of no shear was
6.5 in. (165 mm) and in the region between the supports and load points was 2 in. (51
mm). Figure 8 shows the geometry, reinforcement details, and loading of the analyzed
beam.

Fig. 8: Geometry, loading, and reinforcement of beam (C96) Tested by Tom Norris et
al.[18]

The steel rebars and concrete used for the beam were tested to determine their strength.
The steel had an average yield stress of 61,000 psi (420 MPa), and the concrete had an
average compressive strength of 5,300 psi (36.5 MPa) at the time the beam were tested.
The finite elements adopted by ANSYS were used as described previously. A quarter of
the full beam was used for modelling by taking advantage of the symmetry of the beam
and loadings. The load versus mid span deflection plots obtained from finite element
study along with the experimental plots reported by Tom Norris, et al. [18] are
presented and compared in Fig. 9.
As shown in figure, the numerical models show 2.5% decrease in ultimate load, and
25% increase in the maximum deflection when comparing with the experimental values.
 Fig.9: Experimental and Numerical load versus mid span deflection plots of Beam
(C96) Tested by Tom Norris et al (1997)

3 THE PARAMETRIC STUDY

Two parameters were taken into consideration through this study, the percentage of the
main longitudinal reinforcement, and the position of the opening along the beam length.
Three series of beams were modelled. Series one had a ratio {( ρ- ρ’)/ ρmax =0.33}, series
two had a ratio {( ρ- ρ’)/ ρmax =0.50}, and series three had a ratio {( ρ- ρ’)/ ρmax =0.75},
where ρ is the percentage of the longitudinal bottom reinforcement, ρ’ is percentage of
the longitudinal top reinforcement and taken (0.2 of ρ), and ρmax is the percentage of the
maximum reinforcement and taken (1.5*5E-5 fcu).
On the other hand, the position of the opening along the beam length was varied and
taken as the ratio S/d in each series is {0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4.77(centred with the beam
length)}, where S is the clear distance between the opening and the nearest support, and
d is the distance from the centre of gravity of the bottom bars to the upper fibre of the
beam. Besides, the six beams with opening in each series, a control beam without
opening was also analyzed. The details of beams in each series are summarized in Table
2.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Crack Patterns and Failure Mode
For all specimens, the loads were applied incrementally and the cracks patterns could be
obtained using the Crack/Crushing plot option in ANSYS, where, Vector Mode plots
must be turned on to view the cracking in the model. The initial cracks in the FE model
were appeared when the applied load creates stress just beyond the modulus of rupture
of the concrete (fr). The cracks in all beams can be classified into five types of cracks
according to their positions along the beam as shown in Fig.10.

For all beams that having the ratio (S/d=0, 0.5, and 1), the first cracks occurred in the
position B. then some cracks were observed at position C. after that the cracks appeared
at positions D, and E followed by appearing cracks at position A. as the load was
increased, cracks propagated towards the opening corners forming both diagonal and
vertical cracks that led to the failure of the beams in a shear mode.
For all beams that having the ratio (S/d=2, and 3), the first cracks occurred in the
position D, followed by appearing cracks at positions B, C, and A, respectively. As the
load was increased, cracks propagated around the opening as well as at mid span
forming both diagonal and vertical cracks that led to the failure of the beams which
indicating that, the beams failed in a flexure shear mode.

For all beams that having the opening at mid span (S/d =4.77), and for control beams
(without opening), the failure was happened due to increasing of the cracks at mid span
and around the opening which indicated that, the beams failed in a flexural mode.

Table 2: Details of Test Series

Series No. (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax S/d Beam Id
Control beam B10
0.00 B11
0.50 B12
1 0.33 1.00 B13
2.00 B14
3.00 B15
4.77 B16
Control beam B20
0.00 B21
0.50 B22
2 0.5 1.00 B23
2.00 B24
3.00 B25
4.77 B26
Control beam B30
0.00 B31
0.50 B32
4 0.75 1.00 B33
2.00 B34
3.00 B35
4.77 B36
 Cr (E) Cr (C)

Cr (B) Cr (D) Cr (A)

Fig.10: Types of Cracks According to their positions

4.2 Load at First Cracks

The values of cracking loads of all beams with openings (Wcr) were obtained and
compared with the cracking loads of the control beams (Wcro) as shown in Table 3, and
Fig.11. Comparing the shown results indicate that providing the opening at a distance
“S” less than one half the beam depth “d” reduce the cracking load by about 20%, 25%,
and 31% for cases of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax=0.33, 0.5, and 0.75,respectively. This reduction is
decreased with increasing the distance between the opening and the support till reached
zero for all cases of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax at the mid span.

Table 3: Ratio of cracking loads for beams with opening to control Beams

S/d Wcr / Wcro

(ρ- ρ’)/ρmax=0.33 (ρ- ρ’)/ρmax=0.50 (ρ- ρ’)/ρmax=0.75
0.00 0.79 0.74 0.68
0.50 0.81 0.77 0.70
1.00 0.85 0.81 0.74
2.00 0.86 0.88 0.85
3.00 0.90 0.88 0.85
4.77 1.00 0.99 0.98

4.3 Failure Loads

The values of the failure loads of all beams with openings (Wu) were obtained and
compared with the failure loads of the control beams (Wuo) as shown in Table 4, and
fig.12. Comparing the results indicate that providing the opening at a distance “S” less
than one half the beam depth “d” reduce the failure load by about 33%, 30%, and 22%
for cases of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax=0.33, 0.5, and 0.75, respectively. Providing the opening at a
distance “S” more than twice the beam depth “d” reduce the failure load by about 13%,
2%, and 12% for cases of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax=0.33, 0.5, and 0.75, respectively. In addition,
providing the opening at mid span reduce the failure load by about 12%, 5%, and 1%
for cases of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax=0.33, 0.5, and 0.75,respectively.
 Fig.11: Relation between S/d and Wcr /Wcro

Table 4: Ratio of ultimate loads for beams with opening to control beams

Wu / Wuo
S/d
(ρ- ρ’)/ρmax=0.33 (ρ- ρ’)/ρmax=0.50 (ρ- ρ’)/ρmax=0.75
0.00 0.67 0.7 0.78
0.50 0.74 0.95 0.79
1.00 0.79 0.61 0.81
2.00 0.93 0.97 0.86
3.00 0.81 0.99 0.86
4.77 0.88 0.95 0.99

Fig.12: Relation between S/d and Wu /Wuo

4.4 Load Deflection Curves

Figures 13, 14 and 15 show the effect of opening positions on load deflection curves for
cases of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.33, 0.5 and 0.75, respectively. The load deflection relations of
the different beams in each case of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax are qualitatively similar. From the
relations one can concludes that the differences between the load deflection curves are
wider in the case (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.75 and these differences were decreased with
decreasing the ratio (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax till they are very small in case of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.33.
the major difference between all cases of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax in the load deflection curves is
the ratio δu/ Wu, where δu is the deflection at failure and Wu is the failure load, where
this ratio is having the smallest value in case of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.75 and biggest value in
case of (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.33.

Fig.13: Effect of opening positions on load deflection curves [(ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.33 ]

Fig.14: Effect of opening positions on load deflection curves [(ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.50 ]
 Fig.15: Effect of opening positions on load deflection curves [(ρ- ρ’) / ρmax =0.75 ]

CONCLUSIONS

From the results obtained from the parametric study carried out herein on rectangular
reinforced concrete beams subjected to uniform distributed load and having one
rectangular opening created with dimensions of 0.8 of the beam overall depth in length
and 0.4 of the beam overall depth in height, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The presence of opening in reinforced concrete beams changes the crack pattern
and mode of failure according to opening location. Variation of the percentage
area of steel is not significant in this case.
2. The presence of openings in reinforced concrete beams causes reduction in both
cracking and ultimate load of the beam. This reduction depends on the position
of the opening along the beam length as well as the percentage area of steel.
3. The reduction in both cracking and failure load is noticeable when the opening is
just beside the support. With increasing the distance between the opening and
the support, this reduction decreases. Noting that, the beams that having the
opening at the mid span failed approximately at the same loads of beams without
opening.
4. The effect of the percentage area of steel becomes significant for cases where the
distance between the opening and the nearest support is greater than the overall
depth of the beam, while this effect is almost not found when the opening shifted
closer to the support.
5. The effect of the percentage area of steel on the cracking load increase slightly
as the opening moves closer to the support. For the tested beams, providing of
opening just beside the support in beam having (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax=0.75 decreased the
cracking load by 32%, while this reduction is 21% for (ρ- ρ’) / ρmax=0.33.
6. Providing opening in a reinforced concrete beam leads to appearing some cracks
around the opening. These cracks increased with increasing the applied load
which leads to quick failure especially when the opening being near from the
supports.
7. Care should be paid in choosing the opening location. It is recommended to
locate openings away from the supports by distance not less than the effective
depth (twice the distance of the critical shear section) in cases of(ρ- ρ’) /
ρmax=0.33 and not less than one half the effective depth in cases of (ρ- ρ’) /
ρmax=0.50, and 0.75.