International Conference on Advances in Structural and

Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE’19
27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt

Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Slabs with Opening

Abd-Elhakim A. Khalil1, Ahmed M. Atta1, Ahmed T. Baraghith2 and Dalia O. Kandil3

1Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University – Egypt

E-mail: abdelhakeem.khalil@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg
1Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University – Egypt

E-mail: drahmedatta2003@yahoo.com
2Assistant professor, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University – Egypt

E-mail: ahmed_baraghit@yahoo.com
3Master Candidate, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University – Egypt

E-mail: Daliakandil2@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Often, there are a great need to introduce sectional openings in slabs as well as in wall
structures for facility requirements. That openings can severely weaken the slabs due to the cut-
out of both concrete and reinforcing steel. This research evaluates the effect of openings on the
behaviour of reinforced concrete cantilever slabs. Six slabs including cut-out in addition to one
slab without cut-out as a reference slab were tested up to failure under incremental monotonic
loading. Size and location of openings are the main parameters that are investigated in this
research. It can be conducted that the presence of openings in cantilever slabs showed a
decrease in the flexural ultimate capacity and the stiffness of these slabs compared to the
control slab without openings. It was also found that, the opening location had a pronounced
effect on the overall structural performance of cantilever slabs.

Keywords: Reinforced Concrete, Cantilever slabs, Openings; Flexural behaviour.

INTRODUCTION

For old buildings with solid slab systems, utility pipes and ducts are necessary to accommodate
essential services. These services include air-conditioning, power supply, telephone line,
computer network, sewerage and water supply. In practice pipes and ducts are usually hung
below the floor beams, and covered by a suspended ceiling for its aesthetics. These openings
can be different in shapes and sizes such as circular, square or rectangular [1]. The presence
of openings in reinforced concrete (RC) structures leads to many problems in behavior such as
reduction in stiffness, excessive cracking, excessive deflection and then reduction in strength .
Furthermore, inclusion of openings leads to high stress concentration around the openings
especially at the opening’s corners. The reduction of area in the total cross sectional dimension
changes the behavior of RC elements to a more complex one [2- 5].

The structural effect of an opening depends on many factors such as support boundary
conditions, tension and compression reinforcement (As, As'), opening location ,sizes and load
types [6]. The effect of openings on the behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) slab elements
was studied by various researchers in the past. Afefy and Fawzy [7] carried out an
experimental investigation on one way RC slabs with openings and found that the ultimate
strength and deflection reduced by 50% and 45% respectively due to the provision of openings.
They noted that the decrease in ultimate strength was not directly proportional to the reduction
International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

in width of section due to opening. Al-hafiz et al. [8] carried out experimental studies on one way
RC slabs with thickness ranging from 40 mm to 80 mm with a cut-out width of 19% of the width
of the slab. They found that the ultimate strength decreased from 34% to 38% compared to the
un-cut slab. Further, it was observed that the thickness of slabs played a major role in the
reduction of ultimate strength due to openings. Casadei et al. [9] tested one-way slabs with both
centrally located openings and openings near the supports, strengthened by carbon FRP
(CFRP) laminates. This method has been proved to be effective only for the case with openings
in the sagging region. The presence of the openings in the hogging region increased the shear
stress in the concrete slab, leading to premature failure.

On the other hand, several studies were conducted for study the behaviour of openings in RC
beams. It has been noted that the classification of openings depends on the structural response
of the beam; when the opening is small enough to maintain the beam-type behavior, then the
opening could be classified as a small opening. Otherwise, large openings are those that
prevent beam-type behavior from developing [1, 10, and 11]. A circular opening may be
considered large when its diameter exceeds 40% of the depth of the web [12, 13], but square
openings are considered large when the height exceeds a quarter of the depth of the web [14,
15]. Recently, many studies have conducted on RC beams with openings. Saksena and patel
[16] studied the effect of sizing and location of the circular unreinforced opening on the behavior
of concrete beams and found that by introducing the circular opening with diameter less than
55% of the depth of the beam (without special reinforcement in opening zone). No effect on the
ultimate load capacity of RC rectangular beams was noticed by introducing small openings. This
means that these beams behave similarly to beams without an opening. The structural effect of
small openings is often not considered due to the ability of the structure to redistributed
stresses. However, for large openings, the static system may be altered when it involves a
significant amount of concrete and reinforcement bar that need to be removed. This may lead to
decrease in ability of the structure to withstand the imposed loads and the structure needs
[17,18].

Installation of cutouts in existing RC cantilever slabs for the passage of service ducts would
result in a significant reduction in the flexural capacity. When such openings are unavoidable,
adequate measures shall be study the effect of this openings on the cantilever slabs. Few
studies on the slabs with cutouts were found in the literature. This work focuses on the RC
cantilever slabs behaviour with openings and tries to fill in the knowledge gap existing in this
area.

Experimental Program:
Seven RC slabs, 120 mm thickness, 830 mm width, and 2650 mm long, divided into three
groups , were cast for this research. The main reinforcement of the tested slabs was 6 bars of
10mm diameter distributed across the width. The transverse reinforcement consists of 10 mm
diameter reinforcing bars spaced at 200 mm.

The first group is the control reference group without opening. Group (2) consisted of three
cantilever slabs with the same opening dimension 200X400 mm and the same location but
differs in orientation either parallel to the support or perpendicular to the supporting beams . No
additional reinforced was placed around the edges of the openings for all slabs in this group
except for slab ( SB*400-200), One bar of 10 mm diameter are placed directly in both sides of
the opening to compensate the cut bars by this opening . To study the effect of location of the
opening on the study behaviour of RC cantilever slabs . Three slabs were casted in group (3)
with the same opening location( at the middle of the cantilever slabs ) and differs in dimension
and location either parallel to the support or perpendicular to the supporting beams.
The geometry and the details of reinforcement of the tested slabs in all groups are illustrated in
Fig.(1-3) also Table (1)summarize the description of the tested slabs .

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 2

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

0.1

120
150
200

1000 150 1500

2650

Load 100
6 D 10mm D 10mm @ 200 mm
120

LVDT

1000 150 1500

830

1000.00 150 1500

2650

Fig.(1) (a) Test setup and specimens' details SC(Control slab) Group(1)
215
400

830
215

800 200

1000 150 1400 100

2650

(b) Slab (SB-400-200)

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 3

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

315
200

830
315

600 400
1000 150 1500
2650

(c)Slab (SBC-200-400)
215
400

830
215

800 200
1000 150 1500

2650

(d) Slab (SB*-400-200)

Fig.(2) ): Concrete dimensions and reinforcement detailing for the Group(2)
215
400

830
215

475 200 325

1000 150 1500

2650

(e) Slab (SM-400-200)

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 4

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

215
400

830
215

375 400 225

1000 150 1500

2650

(f) Slab (SM-400-400)

315
200

830
315

375 400 225

1000 150 1500

2650

(g) Slab (SM-200-400)

Fig.(3): Concrete dimensions and reinforcement detailing for the Group(3)

Material Properties

CONCRETE

Ready Mix Concrete had been used in many well-known company which is mostly used in
construction in Egypt. A concrete mix was designed to give an average cube crushing strength
after 28 days ( fcu ) equals to 25 MPa.

STEEL REINFORCEMENT

Nominal yield stress of main and secondary steel in specimens with diameters 10 and 8 mm
was 480 and 250 MPa respectively.

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 5

 International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

Table 1: Description of test slabs

Fcu OPENING Internal

GROUP (MPa) reinforcement
slab Shape
(mm2)

G1
SC D10@160mm

SB-400-200 D10@160mm

G2 SB-200-400 D10@160mm

SB*-400-200 25 D10@160mm

SM-400-200 D10@160mm

G3
SM-400-400 D10@160mm

SM-200-400 D10@160mm

Test Setup And Procedure

All the tested slabs were loaded by line load at the free end of the cantilever. The slabs were
positioned under a hydraulic actuator that was mounted on a steel reaction frame. The actuator
and load cell were positioned at a distance of 150 mm from the free end. Steel plates and
adjustable rollers were used to distribute the load at the top surface of the slab. Strain gauges of
6mm length were installed at the longitudinal reinforcement uncut bars before and in front the
opening and one strain gages installed at the longitudinal reinforcement cut bar in front of the
opening. The deflections were measured at the mid span and under the loading point (cantilever
tip) by using ± 100 mm linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs). The load cell used for
measuring the driving force was of 100 kN capacity . The measured data were recorded by a
logger connected to computer system programmed .The instrumentation used to monitor the
behavior of the slabs during testing is shown in Fig.(4).

Load Cell

LVDTs

Strain gauges

Fig. (4): Test setup and equipment.

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 6

 International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

Test Results And Discussion

The obtained experimental results are presented and subsequently discussed in terms of
the observed mode of failure, ultimate loads, load deflection behavior and Ultimate tensile
strains.

(1) Loads and Failure Modes

The control slab(SC) presented a traditional flexural mode of failure in which the slab failed
by yielding of main steel reinforcement followed by crushing of concrete in the compression
zone. It is worth mentioning that the appearance of the first flexural crack ranged between a
load of 2.50 kN and 7 kN for all the tested slabs. For slabs in group (1) and (2) the main crack
appears at the support in the compression zone and the failure is caused by flexural cracks at
the ultimate load . For slabs in group (3) the main flexural crack appeared at the beginning of
the opening near to the support beam. The test results of cracking and ultimate loads are shown
in Table 2 and Figs. (5-11). The failure load of the control slabs SC was 37 kN . However, the
ultimate loads of the three slabs in group2 SB-400-200 ,SB-200-400, and SB*-200-400 which
has the opening at the beginning of the cantilever decreased to 18.36, 19.72 kN and 24.50 kN
respectively. It may be attributed for the large decrease in the moment of inertia of the slab
cross section due to the existing of opening . The ultimate load of the slabs in Group 3 SM-
400-200 ,SM-200-400 and SM-400-400 which has the opening in the middle of the cantilever
decreased to 27.20, 30.60 kN and 23.12kN respectively compared to the control slab(SC) it
worth mentioned that the decrease of the ultimate load in slabs of group(2) was considerably
more than the slabs in group (3). It may be related for the location of opening in such groups .In
group(2), the opening was more nearly for the supporting beam.

Table 2 .Test results

Ultimate Frist flexural Max strain at
Opening size Mode of
Group Slab Load, cracking main steel, Toughness
, mm x mm failure
kN load, kN micro-strain
G1 N/A(without opening)
SC(Control) 37 7 14562 1602

SB-400-200 400 *200 18 2.50 11761 565

G2
SB-200-400 200 * 400 20 4.50 7031 1253
Flexural
SB*-400-200 400*200 25 2.50 8858 767
failure
SM-400-200 400 * 200 27 5.00 4000 1154
G3
SM-400-400 400*400 23 5.00 2965 971

SM-200-400 200*400 31 6.00 8657 1118

(a)Top view of slab(SC) (b) Side view of slab(SC)

Fig. (5). Crack pattern of slab SC

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 7

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

(a)Top view of slab(SB-400-200) (b) Side view of slab(SB-400-

200)
Fig. (6). Crack pattern of slab SB-400-200

(a)Top view of slab(SB-200-400) (b) Side view of slab(SB-200-

400)
Fig. (7). Crack pattern of slab SB-200-400

(a)Top view of slab(SB*-400-200) (b) Side view of slab(SB*-400-

200)
Fig. (8). Crack pattern of slab SB*-400-200

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 8

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

(a)Top view of slab(SM-400-200) (b) Side view of slab(SM-400-

200)
Fig. (9). Crack pattern of slab SM-400-200

(a)Top view of slab(SM-400-400) (b) Side view of slab(SM-400-

400)
Fig. (10). Crack pattern of slab SM-400-400

(a)Top view of slab(SM-200-400) (b) Side view of slab (SM-200-

400)
Fig. (11). Crack pattern of slab SM-200-400

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 9

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

Load-deflection response
Fig.(12) shows the measured load-deflection response for all slabs. The control slab SC show
the usual elastic and inelastic parts of its deflection behavior. It failed, as expected, due to
yielding of the tensile steel reinforcement prior to crushing of the concrete. For all tested slabs,
the response of the load-deflection relationship can be divided into three regions .In the first
region, the deflection increased linearly with the applied load till flexural cracks appeared. In the
second region, due to stiffness reduction caused by cracking, the deflection was increased
rapidly until the internal reinforcement started to yield. Finally, after the section of maximum
moment had become sufficiently plasticized, the deflection increased substantially with little
increase in load. It is noticed that the slab (SC) exhibited the highest stiffness and showed the
least values of deflection at any load level compared to the rest of the tested slabs .It may be
related to that the existing of opening decreased the moment of inertia of the section which
highly affect the deflection behaviour .Increasing the opening size in the direction of the
supporting beam also lead to decrease inertia and secant stiffness. The secant stiffness of slab
SB-400-200 was smaller than stiffness of slab SB-200-400 by about 42%.Adding steel
reinforcement adjacent the opening didn’t affect the inertia stiffness of the slabs . till reach the
first flexural cracking , the stiffness of slab SB*-400-200, SB-400-200 was the same. After
reaching the cracking load ,the secant stiffness of slab SB*-400-200 was greater than the
stiffness of slab SB-400-200 by about 25%. It may be attributed to that the adjacent steel
reinforcement able to arrest the propagated cracks around the opening which lead to increase
the secant stiffness. Moving the opening away from the supporting beam lead to increase the
secant stiffness of slabs. Slabs SM-400-200 and SM-200-400 had greater secant stiffness
rather the slabs SB-400-200 and SB-200-400 by about 25% and 39% respectively . Of course,
moving the opening away from supporting beam lead to decrease the applied bending moment
at the same load level which already decrease the propagated cracks and increase the secant
stiffness.

45 SB-400-200 SB-200-400 SC
SM-400-200 SM-400-400 SM-200-400
40 SB*-400-200
35
30
Load (kN)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deflection (mm)

Fig. (12). Load- deflection curves for all slabs

The toughness was measured as the area under the load - deflection curve for each specimen
which may be considered as a ductility indicator. The difference among the tested slabs are
shown in Table (2) and Fig. (13). The existence of an opening in the direction of the supporting

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 10

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

beam in slab SB-400-200 show high drop in toughness at about 66% compared for the control
specimen (SC), slab SB-200-400 lead a less drop in toughness compared to the control slab,
the toughness dropped by about 17%. Adding an additional reinforcement adjacent to the
opening in slab SB*-400-200 lead to an increase in the toughness by about 35% compared to
slab SB-400-200. It can be seen that the moving the opening away from the supporting beam
lead to increase the toughness of slab. In comparison to slab SM-400-200 and slab SM-200-
400 with slab SB-400-200 and slab SB-200-400 shown the toughness increase by about 58%
and 16 respectively . Slab SM-400-400 had less toughness compared to the control slab (SC)
by about 39%.

1800
1594.6
1600
1400 1334.64
1176.01
1200 1117.84
Toughness (KN.mm

970.1
1000
766.55
800
600 497.1
400
200
0
SB*-400-200

SM-400-200

SM-200-400

SM-400-400
SB-200-400

SB-400-200

0
SC

Fig. (13). Comparison among specimens concerning toughness.

Ultimate tensile strains

Electrical strain gauges were mounted on the longitudinal reinforcing bars as presented in Fig
(1:3) to obtain the main steel strain. Fig. (14) shows the load versus strain in the tension
reinforcement during loading. In all specimens, the trend of the load-strain plots for strain gages
installed on the longitudinal steel reinforcement at the section of the maximum moment could be
described by a tri-linear relationship. In the first part, the increase in tension steel strain was
linear up to the flexural cracking load. However, after cracking, the rate of increase in strain
increased, and close to ultimate the rate increased rapidly. From fig.(8) ,it can be seen that all
slabs reached to the yield strain (ξ y=2000µ ). After yielding the load –strain curve, exhibited
a plateau up to failure.

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 11

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

40

35
SC
30 SB-400-200
SM-400-200
25
SM-400-400
Load (kN)

20 SB-200-400
SM-200-400
15

10

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Strain (Micro Strain)
Fig. (14). Load vs internal reinforcement steel strain relations St1 for all specimens.

Ductility

Ductility may be broadly defined as the ability of a structure to undergo inelastic deformations
beyond the initial yield deformation with no decrease in the load resistance. Ductility has
generally been measured by a ratio called the ductility index or factor (µ). The ductility index is
usually expressed as a ratio of rotation (ɵ), curvature (ᵠ), deflection (displacement) (∆).

Fig. 15 shows schematically the typical load–deflection response of the RC slab. Point A
corresponds to the first steel yielding at the main tension steel adjacent to the cut-out, and point
B to failure. Based on Fig. 8, the displacement ductility index is defined by Eq. (1)

∆u
µ=∆y (1)




  

Fig. (15). Definition of key parameters for displacement.

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 12

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

where (∆u) is the mid-span deflection at ultimate slab load and (∆y) is the mid-span deflection at
yielding load of the tensile steel reinforcement adjacent to the openings. Table 3 and Fig. 16
shows the experimental values of (∆u), (∆y), the displacement ductility index value of (µ∆) for all
slabs. It can be seen that the control slab (SC) developed the highest yielding deflection
compared to all the slabs and the lowest deflection at failure. As a consequence, the lowest
displacement ductility was obtained for slab SC . The percentages of increases in displacement
ductility indexes are 155%, 115%, 73%, 50% ,115% and 68%, respectively, for slabs SB-200-
400,SB-400-200,SB*-400-200,SM-200-400,SM-400-200 and SM-400-400 compared to that of
slab SC. The slab SB-200-400 showed the highest ductility index. However, it cannot restore the
full ductility of slab without cut-out (SC). It attained only 86% of the corresponding ductility of the
reference slab S-C. On the other hand, the slab SM-200-400, which achieved the highest
capacity cannot achieve the highest ductility. That means it a matter of compromise to decide
which criteria is the most important for the assigned system, strength or ductility. The most
significant observation was that slab SB-400-200 exhibited the lowest capacity and high
ductility among all strengthened slab.

Table 3 Ductility indices for test slabs.

∆u
Group Specimen ∆y ∆u µ=∆y
G1 29.072
SC(Control) 37 1.28

SB-400-200 15.89 43.71 2.75

G2
SB-200-400 24.265 79.23 3.26

SB*-400-200 18.88 41.96 2.22

SM-400-200 21.38 58.85 2.75

G3
SM-400-400 26.91 58.03 2.15

SM-200-400 21.35 41.1 1.92

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 13

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

4
3.5 3.26
3 2.75 2.75
2.5 2.22 2.15
1.92
2
ductility

1.5 1.28
1
0.5
0
SB*-400-200

SM-400-400
SM-400-200

SM-200-400
SB-200-400

SB-400-200

0
SC

Fig. (16). among slabs concerning Ductility.

CONCLUSION
Experimental program was conducted in order to evaluate the structural behaviour of reinforced
concrete slabs with opening. Within the scope of this study the following conclusions may be
drawn:
• The presence of openings in slabs showed a decrease in stiffness. In this study, slab
with openings gave the minimum results in the ultimate load compared with the control
solid slab.
• The study revealed that the site of the openings has an important effect in the collapse,
where it was found that the openings on the face of the beam bear a few and a collapse
occurs before the slabs which have opening in the middle of the Cantilever slabs.
• In order to restore and increase the capacity beyond the design value of the cantilever
slabs with opening ,should be Suggestion the strengthening system to restitution the
Lost capacity.
• It a matter of compromise to decide which criteria is the most important for the assigned
system, strength or ductility taking into account the cost of the strengthening technique
since the slab SM-200-400 exhibited the highest ultimate capacity, while slab SB-200-
400 , SB-400-200 and exhibited the highest ductility based on the adopted scheme.

Units:
• The International system of units (SI) should be used; Equivalents in other units may be given
in parentheses

REFERENCES
[1] M.A. Mansur, K.H. Tan, “Concrete beams with openings: analysis and design,” Boca Raton,
Florida, USA: CRC Press LLC; 1999. p.220.
[2] S.C. Chin, N. Shafiq and M.F. Nuruddin, “Strengthening of RC Beams with Large Openings
in Shear by CFRP Laminates: 2D Nonlinear FE Analysis,” World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural,
Construction and Architectural Eng ineering Vol.6, No.2, 2012, pp.153-158

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 14

International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering 2019

[3] M.A. Mansur, “Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings,”6th Asia-Pacific
Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2006, pp.104-
120.
[4] Soroush Amiri, Reza Masoudnia and Ali Akbar Pabarja, “The Study of the Effects of Web
Openings on the Concrete Beams ,”Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, V.5 No.7,
2011, pp.547-556.
[5] Said M. Allam, “Strengthening of RC beams with large openings in the shear zone,”
Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol.44, No.1, 2005, pp.59-78.
[6] Osman M. Ramadan, Kamal G. Metwally, and Wafaa M. Shaban “Proposed
recommendations for the design of reinforced concrete beams with openings,” world congress
on advanced in structural engineering and mechanics (NSEN15) Incheon, Korea, 2015, 19p
[7] Afefy HM, Fawzy TM. Strengthening of RC one-way slabs including cut-out
using different techniques. Eng Struct 2013;57:23–36.onstruction and Building Materials, pp:
810-826.oncrete Institute; 2008.
[8] Al-hafiz AM, Chiad SS, Farhan MS. Flexural strength of reinforced concrete one way
opened slabs with and without strengthening. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2013;7:642–51.
[9] Casadei P, Ibell TJ, Nanni A. Experimental results of one-way slabs with openings
strengthened with CFRP laminates. In: Proceedings of proceedings, fibre-reinforced polymer
reinforcement for concrete structures, FRPRCS – 6. Singapore Conference 8–10 July,
Conference 2003. p. 1097–106.
[10] J.G. Niea, C.S. Caib, H.Wua, and J.S. Fana, “Experimental and theoretical study of steel-
concrete composite beams with openings in concrete flange”, Engineering Structures journal
Vol.28, 2006, pp.992-1000.
[11] Tamer El-Maaddawy and Bilal El-Ariss, “Investigation into the performance of concrete
beams with rectangular openings strengthened in shear with CFRP composites,” 2009, 97-101
[12] M.A. Mansur, “Effect of Openings on the Behavior and Strength of R/C Beams in Shear,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol.20, 1998, pp.477-486.
[13] Subhajit Mondal, J.N.Bandyapadhya, and Chandra Pal Gautam, “Strengthening and
Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Beams with opening, International Journal of civil and
Structural Engineering, India. Vol.2, No.1, 2011.pp.127-137.
[14] N.F. Somes and W.G. Corley, “Circular openings in webs of continuous beams,” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich, vol. SP42, 1974, pp.359-398.
[15] J.K Lee, C.G. Li and Y.T. Lee, "Experimental Study on Shear Strength on Reinforced
Concrete Continuous Deep Beams with Web Opening,” the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 2008. pp
[16] Saksena and et. al., “Effect of the circular opening on the behavior of concrete beams
without additional reinforced concrete in opening region using FEM method'' International
Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology, 2013, Vol. IV, No.II, pp.40-42.
[17] Taljsten B., Lundqvist J., Enochsson O., Rusinowski P. and Olofsson T. "CFRP
Strengthened Openings in Two-way Concrete Slabs – An Experimental and Numerical Study",
Construction and Building Materials, , 2006, pp.810-826 .
[18] Taljsten, B., L. Joakim, O. Enochsson, P. Rusinowski and T. Olofsson, 2006. CFRP
Strengthened Openings in Two-way Concrete Slabs – An experimental and numerical study.

ICASGE’19 27-30 March 2019, Hurghada, Egypt 15