E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

Experimental Study on the Performance of Concrete Beams Including

Holes Reinforced with Glass Fiber Polymer
Hasan Hussein Ali1, a* and Abdulmuttailb I. Said1, b
1Civil Engineering Department, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
a [email protected] and b [email protected]

*Corresponding author

Abstract. This paper carried out An examination of the performance characteristics of concrete beams
including openings that were reinforced with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars. This investigation
studied five reinforced concrete (RC) beams with both longitudinal and transverse GFRP reinforcement with
openings in two directions (horizontal and vertical) were studied. Both the orientation of the openings and the
number of openings were considered to be the main parameters in this research. These holes are located in
the beams' flexural region. The results demonstrate that relative to the reference beam, the vertical openings
significantly reduced the maximum load of the tested beams by 27.8% and increased the mid-span
displacement by 39% relative to the control beam. In addition, the research results demonstrated that the
strength of the beam was scaled down if one equivalent opening was used to substitute for two adjacent
openings.

Keywords: GFRP bar, openings, flexure, concrete beams.

1. INTRODUCTION
A significant number of pipes and ducts are required in the construction of modern buildings so that
important services, including the water system, electricity, telecommunications, and network devices, can be
provided. These pipes and ducts are put on the exterior of a construction member, where they are subjected
to the environment. This can lead to a decline in their mechanical integrity [1]. In general, utility pipes make it
possible for designers to significantly decrease the needed story level by using the space upon the soffit of
beams, which ultimately results in a design with a lower overall height [2]. In recent years, a web of beams
and conduits has been utilized to protect these pipes from the damaging effects of inclement weather and
enhance structures' appearance. Holes can be made in existing reinforced concrete (RC) beams by disrupting
the normal stress distribution, hence decreasing the beam's capacity and stiffness. Service loads can produce
great displacement in an RC beam if its stiffness is scarce, leading to a considerable redistribution of internal
forces and moments. The ultimate load route (the line connecting the load to the support points) was
significantly reduced due to holes. Flexural strengths of transverse web openings in reinforced concrete beams
have been studied. However, there is less literature available on vertical openings [3].
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer is a superior composite material with exciting new applications in the
building industry. This material has a higher tensile strength than steel and exhibits a linear stress–strain
response up to failure. In addition, the modulus of elasticity of GFRP is substantially less than that of steel [4].
Corrosion of steel reinforcement represents the most restricting issue During the service life of construction
materials, and GFRP material's high resistance, high grade-to-weight ratio, magnetic apathy, and simple
installation make it a potentially excellent for implementation when standard steel is unable to provide enough
performance in reinforced concrete [5,6]. The majority of previous research investigated the performance of
RC beams with holes reinforced by standard steel bars, while the others investigated the beams reinforced by
FRP bars [7,8, 9-11]. Therefore, this research aims to experimentally examine the effect of openings in the
flexure zone of GFRP-reinforced concrete beams.

2. EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAM

2.1 Description of Tested Beams
This research looks into the flexure behavior of simply supported RC beams with holes in both the vertical
and transverse directions. The opening size and opening orientation are the two main variables examined. The
experimental program involves testing five specimens to evaluate the behavior of concrete beams with
openings reinforced with GFRP bars as bending and shear reinforcement. These beams measure 2700 mm ×
180 mm × 260 mm. One of these specimens is devoid of openings and serves as a control (reference) beam.
The rest four (4) specimens have openings installed in the flexure zone; two beams have two adjacent
openings fabricated from a PVC pipe with a 63mm diameter; the openings in the first beam are installed
vertically in the mid-width, while the openings in the second beam are installed horizontally in the flexure
compression zone. The remaining two beams in this set are similar to previous beams with the exception of a

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

single 89mm-diameter PVC pipe opening that is approximately equal to the two-opening size of the previous
beams. All beams have the same inner GFRP reinforcing. The longitudinal flexural tensile reinforcement
consists of deformed (2ø12 mm) GFRP bars, while the longitudinal compression reinforcement consists of
deformed (2 ø8 mm) GFRP bars. At the same time, the design of the vertical reinforcement (stirrups) is (6@120
mm). Figure 1 shows the typical GFRP reinforcement for specimens tested.
The orientation of the holes (both horizontally and vertically) and the number of holes are the main
parameters examined in the research. These openings are placed within the flexure region of the beams. The
described beams that were tested may be seen in Figure 1 and Table 1.

(Beam Cross section)

( GB )

(GB-FO-H1)

(GB-FO-H2)

(GB-FO-V1)

(GB-FO-V2)
Figure 1. Schemes of the tested beams

2
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

Table 1: Description of the tested beams.

Beam designation Number of openings Diameter of openings(mm) openings direction
GB (control) NA - -
GB-FO-H1 1 89 horizontal
GB-FO-H2 2 63 horizontal
GB-FO-V1 1 89 vertical
GB-FO-V2 2 63 Vertical

2.2 Material Properties and Prepare Casting

The materials' characteristics in this investigation were determined by experimentation. To guarantee that
the compressive strength of each beam was equal, they were all cast at the same time and subjected to the
same curing conditions. At 28 days, concrete had an average compressive strength of 36 MPa, as measured
by the cube test. Deformed GFRP bars of 12 mm diameter were subjected to a direct tensile test. The tensile
strength was 1380 MPa. Five plywood molds were prepared to accommodate the reinforcement cages, and
strain gauges were submitted on flexure reinforcement at mid-span. The opening was created using PVC pipe
inserted in the beam before casting. Figure 2 displays the mold's outside look with the reinforcing cage still
inside at the moment of casting.

Figure 2: Reinforcing and casting of the tested beams.

2.3 Test Setup

Hydraulic testing equipment with a capacity of 600 kN was utilized in order to apply two-point loads to each
beam until the beams collapsed. The specimens were placed on a roller at one end, and at the other, they
were placed on a hinge. It was possible to achieve a simply supported length of 2500 mm by positioning the
supports 100 mm from either end of the beam. The shear length was 833 mm, and the distance between loads
was also 833 mm. In order to impart the load on the beam that was being inspected, a spreader steel beam
was installed. To prevent the local crushing of concrete at supports and loading points, bearing plates with the
dimensions 100 mm on the long side and 75 mm on the short side and a thickness of 12 mm were employed.
During the test, LVDTs were utilized at the mid-span section and were maintained in a vertical position. This
allowed for the measurement of the deflection of the beams that were being tested. The rise in load was 5 kN.

3
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

The records of crack growth on the concrete beams were marked with a thick felt pen to make it easier to
position and identify cracks during and after the test. Figure 3 presents the configuration setup for a beam test.

Figure 3: Beam setup for test.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Flexure cracks were noticed in all beams of tested beams and were observed at the soffit of tested beams.
During the crack development phase, it was noted that cracks occur at random sites and are typically vertical,
beginning in the middle zone of tested beams and spreading towards supports covering the entire flexural
region. These cracks grew and propagated upwards over the test until failure happened. The cracks and
manner of failure of the examined beams are illustrated in Figure 4. Table 2 displayed a summary of the tested
beams' load-carrying capacity, deflections, and the mode of failure for examined beams.

Figure 4: Mode of failure for the tested beams.

4
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

Table 2: An overview of the experimental result and the tested beams' failure mode.
Specimen Ultimate load Max. deflection Decreasing in ultimate Mode of failure
designation (mm) load (%)
GB 120.12 63.9 ---- Flexural compression
GB-FO-H1 93.6 50.5 22 Flexural compression
GB-FO-H2 109.7 63.5 8.6 Flexural compression
GB-FO-V1 86.7 48.9 27.8 Flexural compression
GB-FO-V2 106.7 63 11.17 Flexural compression

3.1 Opening Direction Effect on The Load- Deflection Response

Generally, the placement of holes within beams causes a decline in ultimate load and an increase in mid-
span deflection. The effect of the opening direction on the load-deflection curves of the tested beams is seen
in Figure 5. These diagrams show that compared to the reference beam (GB), the vertical openings cause a
greater reduction in ultimate strength and a rise in mid-span displacement. This is due to the vertical opening
greatly reducing the concrete at the critical region. For beams with a single opening relative to the reference
beam, the percentage reduction in ultimate strength for vertical and horizontal openings was approximately
27.8 and 22%, respectively, as displayed in Figure 5a. In contrast, for beams with double openings in Figure
(5-b), the proportion decrease in ultimate load was around 11% for vertical openings and 8.6% for horizontal
openings relative to the control beam. Furthermore, for a specific load (the maximum load of a beam has a
vertical opening), switching the opening's direction from horizontal to vertical causes the mid-span deflection
to rise to around 32% and 39% for beams with a single opening, respectively. However, when comparing
beams with two openings to the control beam, these percentages were approximately 18% and 30%,
respectively, as shown in Figure 5b.

ϭϮϬ ϭϮϬ

ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ

ϴϬ ϴϬ
>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ

>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ

ϲϬ ϲϬ

ϰϬ ϰϬ
' '
ϮϬ &KͲ,ϭ ϮϬ &KͲ,Ϯ
&KͲsϭ &KͲsϮ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ
ĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ;ŵŵͿ ĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ;ŵŵͿ
(a) Single opening (b) Double opening
Figure 5: Load-mid-span deflection response for tested beams (effect of opening orientation).

3.2 Effect of Number of Openings on Load-Deflection Response

Load-deflection diagrams for investigated tested beams are displayed in Figure 6 below, where the effect
of opening number (1 or 2) is indicated. Single opening has a greater influence than two openings on
decreasing ultimate strength and steadily rising mid-span deflection relative to the reference beam. This can
be because a single aperture, as opposed to two adjacent apertures, can have a more substantial effect on
the amount of concrete removed from the critical section. The percentage reduction in ultimate load for beams
with one and two horizontal openings was 22% and 8.6%, respectively, as shown in Figure (6-a). In contrast,
for beams with vertical apertures in Figure (6b), the proportion decline in ultimate load was around 27.8% for
one opening and 11.1% for two openings relative to the reference beam. Conversely, at a certain load value
(considered the maximum load of a beam with a single opening), increasing the openings from single to double
increases the mid-span deflection by 32% and 21%, respectively, for beams with horizontal holes (Figure 6).
(6a). Whereas these percentages increased to around 45% and 25% for beams with vertical holes in Figure
(6b) relative to the control beam.

5
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

ϭϮϬ ;ĂͿ,ŽƌŝnjŽŶƚĂůŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ϭϮϬ ;ďͿsĞƌƚŝĐĂůŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ

ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ

ϴϬ ϴϬ
>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ

>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ
ϲϬ ϲϬ

ϰϬ ' ϰϬ
'
&KͲ,Ϯ
ϮϬ &KͲsϮ
&KͲ,ϭ ϮϬ
&KͲsϭ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ
ĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ;ŵŵͿ ĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ;ŵŵͿ
Figure 6: Load-deflection response for tested beams (effect of openings number).

3.3 Opening Direction Effect on The Load- GFRP Strain Response

The opening direction installed within the examined beams had the main influence on the load strain for
longitudinal flexural GFRP bars in the tested beams, as shown in Figure 7. In general, the installation of
openings within beams steadily raises the strain on the GFRP main bars. This graph demonstrates that vertical
openings have a more significant influence than web openings on raising the GFRP strain relative to the
reference beam. This can be due to the vertical opening significantly reducing the concrete at the critical region,
which resulted in rising the longitudinal GFRP bars strain. Furthermore, for a specific load (the maximum load
of a beam with vertical holes), When the opening is turned from horizontal to vertical, the GFRP strain increases
by about 20.7% and 34.85%, respectively, for beams with a single opening, Figure 7a. However, when
comparing beams with two openings to the control beam, these percentages were approximately 11.5% and
19.6%, respectively, as shown in Figure 7b.
ϭϰϬ ϭϰϬ
;ĂͿ^ŝŶŐůĞŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ;ďͿŽƵďůĞŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ
ϭϮϬ ϭϮϬ

ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ

ϴϬ
>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ

ϴϬ
>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ

ϲϬ ϲϬ
'
ϰϬ ' ϰϬ
&KͲ,Ϯ
&KͲ,ϭ
ϮϬ ϮϬ &KͲsϮ
&KͲsϭ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ ϯϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϵϬϬϬ ϭϮϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ ϭϴϬϬϬ Ϭ ϯϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϵϬϬϬ ϭϮϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ ϭϴϬϬϬ
^ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶďŽƚƚŽŵďĂƌ;ϭϬͿͲϲ ^ƚƌŝĂŶŝŶďŽƚƚŽŵďĂƌ;ϭϬͿͲϲ
Figure 7: Load- flexure GFRP reinforcement strain for the tested beams (effect of opening direction).

3.4 Effect of Number of Openings on Load- GFRP Strain Response

Figure 8 illustrates how the number of openings within the beams affects the load-strain in the flexure GFRP
reinforcement for the tested beams. Generally, a reduction in the number of holes within beams increases the
strain on the GFRP main reinforcement. This diagram demonstrates that increasing the number of apertures
in the GFRP beam relative to the control beam causes one opening to have a more significant effect than two.
Compared to the control beam, the GFRP bottom bar strain percentages increased by approximately 30 % for
beams with single openings and 9.3% for beams with double openings in Figure 8a. Figure 8b shows that the
strain in the bottom bar increased by 34.85% for a beam with a single vertical opening, and by 13.1% for a
beam with two vertical openings compared to the control beam.

6
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

ϭϯϬ ϭϯϬ
ϭϮϬ ;ĂͿ,ŽƌŝnjŽŶƚĂůŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ϭϮϬ ;ďͿsĞƌƚŝĐĂůŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ
ϭϭϬ ϭϭϬ
ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ
ϵϬ ϵϬ
ϴϬ ϴϬ

>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ
>ŽĂĚ;ŬEͿ

ϳϬ ϳϬ
ϲϬ ϲϬ
ϱϬ ϱϬ
' ϰϬ '
ϰϬ
ϯϬ &KͲ,Ϯ ϯϬ &KͲsϮ
ϮϬ ϮϬ
&KͲ,ϭ &KͲsϭ
ϭϬ ϭϬ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ ϯϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϵϬϬϬ ϭϮϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ ϭϴϬϬϬ Ϭ ϯϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϵϬϬϬ ϭϮϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ ϭϴϬϬϬ
^ƚƌŝĂŶŝŶďŽƚƚŽŵďĂƌ;ϭϬͿͲϲ ^ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶďŽƚƚŽŵďĂƌ;ϭϬͿͲϲ
Figure 8: Load- strain of bottom GFRP reinforcement for the tested beams (effect of openings number).

The results in terms of ultimate load and ultimate deflection are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Illustrated ultimate load and strain in GFRP flexural reinforcement for the tested beams.
Specimen Number of openings Opening Direction of Ultimate Ultimate strain
designation within beam diameter (mm) openings load (kN) bar (10)-6
GB NA - - 120.12 14565
GB-FO-H1 1 89 horizontal 93.6 13708
GB-FO-H2 2 63 horizontal 109.7 14369
GB-FO-V1 1 89 vertical 86.7 12959
GB-FO-V2 2 63 vertical 106.7 14364

4. CONCLUSIONS
This research examined the effect of installed openings with different numbers and sizes in both directions
(vertical and horizontal) on concrete beams reinforced with GFRP reinforcement. The principal conclusion
is as follows:
• Openings within RC beams significantly affect the overall performance by reducing the ultimate
strength, raising the mid-span displacement, and reinforcing strain.
• The research demonstrated that a single opening is more effective than two adjacent openings of the
same size and position in decreasing the carrying capacity of beams.
• The highest reduction in ultimate load for beams with GFRP reinforcement with openings in the flexure
zone was around 27.8% for the specimen with single vertical openings compared to the specimen
without an opening (control beam).
• The highest increase in deflection for the specimen with a single opening with vertical orientation in
the flexural region was around 39% at the identical ultimate load.
• Under the same load level, the highest rise in tension GFRP reinforcement strain was around 34.85%
for the specimen with a single opening with a vertical direction in the flexural region.

REFERENCES
[1] Mansur, M.; Tan, K.-H. Concrete Beams with Openings: Analysis and Design. CRC Press: New York,
USA. 1999.
[2] Auta, S.M., Jamiu, O., Alhaji, B. Effect of vertical circular openings on flexural strength of reinforced
concrete beam. Magazine of Civil Engineering. 2021;106(6).
[3] Khalaf, M.R.; Al-Ahmed, A.H.A.; Allawi, A.A.; El-Zohairy, A. Strengthening of Continuous Reinforced
Concrete Deep Beams with Large Openings Using CFRP Strips. Materials. 2021;14(1): 3119.
[4] ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 440. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars—Code and Commentary. ACI 440.11-22.
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. 2022.
[5] FERNANDES, Tales Viebrantz; PALIGA, Aline Ribeiro; PALIGA, Charlei Marcelo. Bending reinforced
concrete beams with glass fiber reinforced polymer bars: an experimental analysis. Revista IBRACON de
Estruturas e Materiais. 2021.

7
E3S Web of Conferences 427, 02010 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342702010
ICGEE 2023

[6] Dybel, P.; Kucharska, M.; Rzadzka, I. Analysis of flexural strength of beam elements reinforced with
GFRP bar. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020;960.
[7] Murugan, R.; Kumaran, G. Experiment on RC Beams Reinforced with Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcements. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering.
2019;8(6S4):35-41.
[8] Ali, Hasan Hussein and Said, Abdul Muttailb I. Flexural behavior of concrete beams with horizontal and
vertical openings reinforced by glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. Journal of the Mechanical
Behavior of Materials. 2022; 31(1): 407-415.
[9] Said, AbdulMuttalib, I.; Tu’ma, N.H. Numerical Modeling for Flexural Behavior of UHPC Beams Reinforced
with Steel and Sand-Coated CFRP Bars. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021;856.
[10] Said, AbdulMuttalib I.; Abbas, O.M. Serviceability behavior of High Strength Concrete I-beams reinforced
with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer bars. Journal of Engineering. 2013;19(11):1515-1530.
[11] Ibrahim, T. H. and Allawi, A. A. The Response of Reinforced Concrete Composite Beams Reinforced with
Pultruded GFRP to Repeated Loads. Journal of Engineering. 2023; 29(1): 158–174. doi:
10.31026/j.eng.2023.01.10.