ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 98-S39
Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Circular
Openings
by Kiang-Hwee Tan, M. A. Mansur, and Weng Wei
This study examines the adequacy of the ACI Code approach, mod-
ified for the inclusion of transverse openings, for shear design of a
beam with circular openings. Seven T-beams with circular web
openings were designed for moderate to high shear force and
tested in an inverted position to simulate the conditions that exist
in the negative moment region of a continuous beam. Test results
indicate that crack control and preservation of ultimate strength
may be achieved by providing reinforcement around the opening.
Diagonal bars were found to reduce the high stress in the compres-
sion chord, thus avoiding premature crushing of the concrete. The
modified ACI approach has been found to give conservative design
provided the reinforcement is properly detailed near the opening
region.
Keywords: beams; cracking; deflection; design; openings; shear strength;
test.
INTRODUCTION
In the construction of modern buildings, transverse open-
ings are often provided through beams for the passage of
utility ducts and pipes to better utilize the otherwise dead
space below the beam soffit. Such an arrangement of build-
ing services leads to a significant reduction in the dead space
and results in a more compact and economical design. For
multistory buildings in particular, the savings in story height
thus achieved at each level adds up to a substantial savings
in the surface area of partition walls, length of riser ducts,
and overall loads on foundation.
The provision of transverse openings will, however,
change the simple beam behavior into a more complex be-
havior. It is obvious that the provision of openings produces
discontinuity in the normal flow of stresses, and this results
in stress concentration and early cracking around the opening.
The ultimate strength of the beam may also be seriously af-
fected. Therefore, special reinforcement should be provided
around the opening to contain the width of cracks and to pre-
vent possible premature failure of the beam.
When the building services are preplanned, the sizes and
locations of openings are known in advance. Although, no
specific provisions or guidelines are provided in any of the
major codes, the designer can extract the necessary informa-
tion and guidelines from the technical literature1-11 and use
his judgement to arrive at a suitable design solution. Unfor-
tunately, the bulk of the available information is particularly
relevant to beams containing a large rectangular opening.
In cases of small (circular, square, or nearly square) open-
ings, it has been recognized12-14 that the beam behaves in a
manner completely different from those containing a large
rectangular opening. Although several investigations have
treated such an opening under pure torsion,15 torsion com-
bined with bending,16,17 or combined torsion, there is inad-
equate research on bending and shear,18 the most commonly
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001
TECHNICAL PAPER
encountered loading case of combined bending and shear.
Only recently, Mansur19 proposed a design method that is
similar to the ACI Code approach20 for solid beams. It is
based on the test results of joists (unreinforced in shear) con-
taining a small opening, as reported by Hanson,12 and Somes
and Corley,13 as well as the observations made by Salam14
without any experimental verification. The Architectural In-
stitute of Japan21 has adopted a different approach22 based
on the truss model, but this also lacks adequate experimen-
tal substantiation. Further research on the topic is therefore
warranted.
The study reported in this paper was aimed primarily at
checking the adequacy of Mansurs19 modified ACI Code
method for designing a beam with small openings.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
In addition to confirming the modifications proposed to the
ACI Code method for designing a beam with small circular
opening under predominant shear, the research reported here-
in provides answers to some critical design issues. These in-
clude apportioning of the applied shear between the
members above and below the opening, maximum shear that
can be applied to avoid web crushing failure, and the amount
and distribution of reinforcement around the opening for ad-
equate crack control. This information will be useful to prac-
ticing engineers in obtaining a satisfactory design solution
for beams with small openings.
DESIGN METHOD
When a beam contains a small opening, two types of diag-
onal tension failure are possible.19 The first is typical of the
failure commonly observed in prismatic beams, except that
the failure plane passes through the center of the opening. In
the second type, the formation of two independent diagonal
cracks, one in each chord member that bridges the two pris-
matic beam segments, leads to failure. Mansur19 has labeled
these types of failure as beam-type failure and frame-type
failure, respectively, and emphasized that they require sepa-
rate treatment for a complete design.
Beam-type failure
In designing for this type of failure, a 45-degree inclined
failure plane through the center of the opening may be as-
sumed similar to a prismatic beam. According to the ACI
ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3, May-June 2001.
MS No. 00-148 received June 30, 2000, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2001, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
ing the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the March-April 2002 ACI Structural Jour-
nal if received by November 1, 2001.
407

ACI member Kiang-Hwee Tan is an associate professor in civil engineering at the
National University of Singapore. He received his doctorate from the University of Tokyo,
Japan. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
His research interests include fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement, beams with
web openings, external prestressing, and strut-and-tie methods.
M. A. Mansur, FACI, is an associate professor in civil engineering at the National
University of Singapore. He received his engineering degrees from Bangladesh Uni-
versity of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, and his PhD from the University of
New South Wales, Australia. He is a member of ACI Committee 549, Thin Reinforced
Cementitious Products and Ferrocement. He is a corecipient of the ACI Maurice P.
Van Buren Structural Engineering Awards in 1988 and 1992. His research interests
include structural concrete and ferrocement.
Weng Wei is a planning engineer with Paul Y (S) Construction Pte. Ltd., Singapore.
He received his BEng from South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, P.R.
China in 1994, and his MEng from the National University of Singapore in 1998. His
research interests include analysis and design of concrete structures.
Fig. 1Shear resisted by stirrups and diagonal bars.
Fig. 2Free-body diagram at beam opening.
Code,20 the nominal shear strength Vn of a beam consists of
two components as follows
Vn = Vc + V s (1)
where Vc is the shear resistance attributable to the concrete,
and Vs is the shear resistance attributable to shear reinforce-
ment.
In estimating the contribution of the concrete Vc,
Mansur19 has suggested that the simplified ACI expression
should be used by replacing the effective depth d by the net
depth (d do), irrespective of vertical and horizontal location
of the opening, where do is the diameter of the opening.
Thus, Vc for a beam with an opening is given by
1 independently designed by following the usual shear design
V c = --- f c b w ( d d o ) (2)
6 procedure for prismatic beams.
408
where fc is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete in
MPa, and bw is the web width. The applicability of Eq. (2)
was tested by Mansur19 against the results reported by
Hanson12 and Somes and Corley13 and found to give a good
but conservative predictions of the shear strength of a beam
without shear reinforcement.
Refer to Fig. 1 for the component Vs, where it can be seen
that the stirrups available to resist shear across the failure
plane are those by the sides of the opening within a distance
(dv do), where dv is the distance between the top and bot-
tom longitudinal reinforcing bars. The contribution of diag-
onal reinforcement, if any, intercepted by the failure plane
may also be taken into account in the calculation of shear re-
sistance. Thus, including the contribution of diagonal rein-
forcement, one has
A v f yv
- ( d v d o ) + A d f yd sin
V s = V sv + V sd = ----------- (3)
s
where Vsv and Vsd are the contributions of vertical and diag-
onal reinforcement, respectively; Av and Ad are the areas of
vertical and diagonal reinforcement, respectively; fyv and fyd
are the yield strengths of vertical and diagonal reinforce-
ment, respectively; s is the spacing of the stirrups; and is
the inclination of diagonal reinforcement to the beam axis.
Frame-type failure
For this type of failure, each chord member behaves as an
independent entity similar to that in a framed structure.
Therefore, according to Mansur,19 each member should be
designed separately for the respective forces transmitted
through it. As shown in Fig. 2, the applied moment Mu is re-
sisted by the usual bending mechanism, that is, by the couple
formed by the compressive and tensile stress resultants Nu in
the members above and below the opening. These stress re-
sultants may be obtained as
Mu
( N u ) t = ----------------
- = ( Nu )b (4)
d a ---
2
where a is the depth of the ultimate compressive stress block,
which is taken not greater than the depth of the top member,
and the subscripts t and b denote the top and bottom mem-
bers through the opening, respectively.
The applied shear Vu is, however, shared by the two mem-
bers. According to Nasser, Acavalos, and Daniel,8 it may be
assumed that Vu be distributed between the two members in
proportion to their cross-sectional areas. Thus
At
( V u ) t = V u ----------------
- (5)
A + A
t b
and
( Vu ) b = V u ( Vu )t (6)
Knowing the shear and axial forces, each member can be
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001
 Table 1Beam details, cracking load, and service load behavior
Cylinder Cracking load, kN Service load behavior*
Diameter of compressive Maximum Maximum
openings do, strength fc, crack width, deflection,
Beam mm MPa Flexural crack Shear crack mm mm
S NA 3.8 80 200 0.27 4.83
R-1 32.7 92 170 0.43 4.26
R-2 150 33.2 100 170 0.24 4.18
R-3 34.9 100 168 0.26 4.20
R-4 33.6 125 100 0.54 4.79
R-5 200 37.2 130 160 0.36 6.09
R-6 37.2 130 150 0.32 6.20
*For Series 1, service load taken as ultimate load of Beam S/1.7 = 268.6 kN; for Series 2, service load taken as experimental col-
lapse load/1.7.

Maximum shear
To ensure yielding of stirrups when the shear strength is
reached and, hence, to avoid web-crushing failure, the upper
limit on Vu for prismatic beam has been set in the Code20 as
[ V u ] max = 5 V c
where is the strength reduction factor taken as 0.85.
For beams with small openings, it was suggested that the
maximum be limited for the sections above and below the
opening, as well as the overall section through the opening,
in accordance with Eq. (7) to avoid primary crushing failure.
In the latter case, however, the value of Vc to be used in Eq. (7)
should be calculated by Eq. (2).
Crack control
To achieve adequate crack control around a large rectan-
gular opening, Mansur3 suggested the use of a combination
of both vertical stirrups and diagonal bars at each side of the
opening. It was proposed that a shear concentration factor
of 2 be used such that the diagonal bars provide at least 75%
of the shear resistance. Thus, for each side of the opening,
the required area of vertical stirrups Av is given by
0.25 ( V )
A v = -----------------------
f yv
The vertical stirrups should be placed as close to the edge
of the opening as permitted by the concrete cover require-
ment. The area of diagonal reinforcement Ad is given as
0.75 ( V )
A d = -----------------------
f yd sin
Mansur19 tentatively recommended the same amount and
distribution of reinforcement in his design proposal for
beams with small openings.
TEST PROGRAM
It should be noted that there are a few critical issues that
need to be adequately addressed. These include proportion-
ing of the total shear between the two chords, adequacy of
Eq. (7) to prevent web crushing failure, and the reinforcement
requirement to achieve an acceptable level of crack control.
The present experiments have been designed to address these
issues while assessing the modification proposed to the ACI
Code approach.
Test specimens
Table 1 and Fig. 3 show the details of this test program. All
(7) beams were 2.9 m long and contained a central stub to repre-
sent a continuous support. The cross section consisted of a
400 mm deep and 200 mm wide web with a 100 mm thick
and 700 mm wide flange. The openings were located in the
web with a clearance of 50 mm from the flange and with
their centers located at a distance of 625 mm away from the
center of the stub. The general arrangement of reinforcement
can be seen in Fig. 3.
The seven test beams were divided into two series. Series 1
consists of four beams, S, R-1, R-2, and R-3, where the solid
Beam S was included to serve as a reference. It was designed
for a shear capacity of 326 kN using the traditional ACI Code
method.20 Each of the remaining beams in this series was
also designed for the same shear capacity, but contained a
150 mm diameter circular opening on each side. The opening
effect, however, was accounted for by following Mansurs19
modified ACI Code approach.
Beam R-1 was designed for the same shear capacity as
the solid beam using the modified ACI Code method, that
is, using Eq. (1) to (6). Beam R-2 was identical to R-1, ex-
cept that two additional high yield diagonal bars 10 mm in
(8) diameter (designated T10) were provided at 45 degrees on
each side of the opening for crack control. This resulted in
the diagonal bars shear carrying capacity of 52% of the total
shear with a shear concentration factor of 1.32. In Beam R-
3, the short stirrups together with the longitudinal bars above
and below the opening and one of the full-depth stirrups
from each side were withdrawn, and the size of diagonal bars
was increased to T13. With these changes, the proportion of
(9) total shear being carried by the diagonal reinforcement in-
creased to 79% with a shear concentration factor of 1.54.
Thus, these four beams would not only serve as a means to
check the adequacy of the modified ACI Code method, but
would also provide useful information on how much of the
total shear should be assigned to the diagonal reinforcement
and what value of should be used to achieve adequate
crack control.
Series 2 was basically planned to check whether the ACI
limit (see Eq. (7)) on maximum shear stress for solid beams
can still be applied to beams with openings, provided the cal-
culation is based on the net section through the opening. To
achieve this objective, the size of opening had to be increased
to 200 mm and the beams were designed, using the modified

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001 409

 Fig. 3Beam and reinforcement details.
ACI method, for a high shear force of approximately 830 kN.
Based on a design concrete strength of 40 MPa, this corre-
sponded to a maximum shear value of 6.7Vc and 11Vc for
the solid and net sections, respectively. The beams were pro-
vided with sufficient flexural reinforcement to induce a shear
failure prior to flexural distress.
The three beams, R-4, R-5, and R-6, in this series were
provided with the arrangement of shear reinforcement
around the opening that was the same as that in Beams R-1,
R-2, and R-3, respectively. But, because of high shear, the
amount was different, as can be seen in Fig. 3. The shear
410
force carried by the diagonal reinforcement in Beams R-2
and R-3 corresponded respectively to 51 and 76% of the total
shear, with the shear concentration factor being 0.95 and
0.96, respectively.
Test setup, instrumentation, and test procedure
The beams were cast in a plywood mold using concrete
supplied by a ready-mix company. The target cylinder com-
pressive strength was 40 MPa. For each beam, three 150 mm
x 300 mm concrete cylinders were prepared. The beams and
the control specimens were demolded the next day, cured for
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001
7 days in a moist environment by using damp hessian, and
then air-dried in the laboratory. The concrete compressive
strengths at the time of testing the parent beam are presented
in Table 1.
The beams were simply supported over a span of 2.6 m
and tested in an inverted position under a point load applied
through the central stub to simulate the conditions that exist
near the interior support of a continuous beam. A 1000 kN
MTS stroke-controlled actuator was used to apply the load.
A set of linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs)
was used to measure the deflected shape of the beams.
Strains in the steel reinforcement at critical locations were
recorded using 5 mm electrical resistance strain gages. Crack
widths were measured using a hand-held microscope with a
resolution of 0.02 mm. The concrete surface strains were
measured using a demountable mechanical extensometer
(demec gage) with a gage length of 100 mm, as well as by
electrical resistance strain gages arranged in a 60-degree
rosette pattern on the vertical faces at mid-depth of the
compression chord over the opening. From these strain read-
ings, an estimate of the shear force carried by the compres-
sion chord at different stages of loading could be made.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General behavior of beams
The load-deflection curves of beams with openings in Se-
ries 1, plotted in Fig. 4(a), show remarkable similarities with
the solid Beam S. Initially, the beams behaved like a linear
elastic solid, and the presence of an opening showed very lit-
tle effect. This linear elastic response was terminated at the
occurrence of cracking, which led to a sudden decrease in the
slope of the load-deflection curve.
The first crack that appeared in all the beams was of flex-
ural type, and this was followed by diagonal cracking. Being
originated at the edge of the opening (or at mid-depth for the
solid beam), these diagonal cracks propagated towards the
top and bottom faces of the beam as the applied load was in-
creased. New cracks then developed in succession away
from the loading point. Such cracking reduces the beam stiff-
ness, but the load-deflection curve remains essentially a
straight line, indicating elastic response.
This near-linear, postcracking response of Beams S and R-l
continued until near the ultimate load. At this stage, one of the
diagonal cracks continued to grow excessively wide, leading
to final failure. At failure, some crushing of the concrete was
observed at the tip of the major diagonal crack, which, in the
case of Beam R-l, passed through the opening center.
From Fig. 4(a) and the observed crack patterns shown in
Fig. 5, it can be seen that the behavior of Beams R-2 and R-3
were almost the same. Unlike Beams S and R-1, in which the
widest crack was observed to be the shear crack after it
emerged, the widest crack in Beams R-2 and R-3 was always
of flexural type. The growth of shear cracks was relatively
slow and they almost stopped propagating after the loading
was increased to 250 kN. New cracks then developed at both
sides of the openings. The flexural cracks near the central
stub continued to grow wider and extended to the top of the
beams, finally causing the beams to fail in flexure.
The beams in Series 2 behaved similar to the beams in
Series 1, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The load-deflection curves
indicate two near linear portions, one before and the other
immediately after first cracking. At the onset of yielding of
steel reinforcement, observed at approximately 500 kN for
R-4 and 680 kN for R-5 and R-6, the curves deviated from
Fig. 4Load-versus-midspan deflection curves: (a) beams
in Series 1; and (b) beams in Series 2.
linearity; the slope of the curves decreased with an increase
in the applied load. In this series of beams, the diagonal
cracks displayed the widest crack width.
A comparison of cracking patterns in Series 2 beams is
shown in Fig. 5. The first crack observed in Beam R-4 was a
shear crack at the edge of the opening. This crack propagat-
ed diagonally towards the top and bottom faces of the
beam. After that, flexural cracks occurred, but most of them
developed very slowly and remained in the flange region. As
the loading was increased, many secondary flexural cracks
emerged and, in the web region, some diagonal cracks orig-
inated at the mid-depth of the web, propagated towards the
top and bottom faces of the beams. When the load greater
than 600 kN, some small, near horizontal cracks were ob-
served near the top of the beam on the high-moment side of
the openings. One of these cracks then grew excessively wide
and traversed from the top of the opening to the top of the
beam next to the central stub. Close to the ultimate load, some
concrete crushing was noted in between these cracks. When
the load reached 670 kN, concrete crushing occurred on the
top of the beam at the high-moment end of the opening.
The first crack in Beam R-5 was of the flexural type. Be-
fore the nonlinear stage, the overall response of R-5 was
quite similar to that of R-4 (Fig. 4(b)), except that the diago-
nal shear cracks passing through the openings propagated
slowly towards the top of the beam. The small near-horizontal
cracks that occurred above the openings in R-4 did not appear
here. When the load reached approximately 920 kN, some
crushing of concrete was observed on the top near the central
stub on both sides. Because of the confinement effect of the
central stub, the beam was still able to carry additional load.
When the load was increased to 936 kN, many inclined

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001 411

 Fig. 5Cracking patterns of beams.
cracks emerged in a sudden manner between the top of open-
ing and the loading point on the left half-span of the beam.
The beam finally collapsed by concrete crushing at the end
of these inclined cracks near the central stub.
Beam R-6 had a similar overall behavior as Beam R-5
(Fig. 4(b)). When the applied load reached 920 kN, the con-
crete in the compression zone near the central stub crushed
on one side of the beam. When failure occurred, numerous
cracks emerged in different directions in the compression
chord above the right opening (Fig. 5). This may be due to
the lack of any stirrups in the compression chord.
Cracking characteristics
The load at which first vertical (flexural) and diagonal
(shear) cracks occurred are summarized in Table 1. In Series 1,
shear cracking was always preceded by flexural cracking, and
the load at which the first flexural crack occurred was relatively
412
unaffected by the presence of an opening. The shear cracks ap-
peared earlier in the beams with openings than in the solid
beam. The diagonal cracking load was almost constant despite
the difference in the arrangement of shear reinforcement.
Figure 6 shows the load versus maximum crack width
curves. In Beams S and R-1, the shear crack width exceeded
the flexural crack width shortly after shear cracking and re-
mained the widest up to ultimate. In Beams R-2 and R-3,
which had diagonal bars beside the openings, the widest
crack was always of the flexural type.
To evaluate the effect of an opening on the serviceability
limit state of cracking, the solid beam is taken as the refer-
ence for which the service load is calculated as 268.6 kN by
dividing the experimental ultimate load by a factor of 1.7. At
this load, the solid beam exhibited a maximum crack with of
0.27 mm, less than the maximum width of 0.3 mm that is
generally allowed in building codes20 for indoor conditions.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001
Fig. 6Load versus maximum crack width curves: (a)
beams in Series 1; and (b) beams in Series 2.
As can be noted from Table 1, however, the maximum crack
width at the same load level exceeded this permissible value
in Beam R-1. This serves as a warning that the provision of
an opening without any diagonal reinforcement for crack
control might seriously affect the serviceability limit state of
cracking.
On the other hand, the maximum crack widths at the as-
sumed service load for Beams R-2 and R-3 are less than that
of the solid beam. Diagonal bars are therefore essential for
shear crack control. Comparing Beams R-2 and R-3, whose
diagonal bars were designed to carry 52 and 79% of the ap-
plied shear force, the maximum shear crack width curves
show little difference. Because the shear concentration fac-
tors for R-2 and R-3 were 1.32 and 1.54, respectively, it may
be concluded that using diagonal bars to carry 50% of the
shear force with a shear concentration factor of 1.3 seems to
be adequate for crack control around a circular opening.
The flexural cracking load for the beams in Series 2 was
also independent of the amount and arrangement of shear re-
inforcement around the openings (Table 1). The shear crack-
ing load for Beam R-4, however, which had only vertical
stirrups as shear reinforcement, was 100 kN, much less than
those of Beams R-5 and R-6 (that is, 160 and 150 kN, respec-
tively). Compared with the beams in Series 1, it is seen that
when the opening is enlarged, as in Series 2, the diagonal bars
serve to delay shear cracking at the edge of the openings.
The load versus maximum crack width curves for Series 2
beams are plotted in Fig. 6(b), and the maximum crack
widths at service load are given in Table 1. The service load
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001
Fig. 7Proportion of applied shear carried by compression
chord.
for each beam is taken as its own experimental collapse load
divided by a factor of 1.7. For the beam with vertical stirrups
only (Beam R-4), the maximum crack width at service load
is larger than the permissible value for serviceability require-
ment, that is, 0.3 mm for indoor conditions. For Beams R-5
and R-6, the proportions of shear resistance provided by di-
agonal bars were 51 and 76%, respectively, with the shear
concentration factors being 0.95 and 0.96, respectively. It
can be seen that the diagonal reinforcement provided in
Beam R-5 was still not sufficient for achieving adequate
crack control, while those in Beam R-6 could barely satisfy
the serviceability requirement. Hence, a larger value of of
at least 1.3, as in the case of Series 1 beams, should be used
for crack control.
Shear force carried by chord members
The shear forces calculated5 from the strains measured by
the 60-degree rosette at different stages of loading are plot-
ted in Fig. 7. For Beams R-1 and R-4, which did not have any
diagonal bars, the applied shear force was basically distrib-
uted in proportion to the cross-sectional areas of the chords
prior to the shear cracking load. But after the first shear crack
occurred, the compression chord above the opening tended
to carry more shear force. This is due to the development of
the cracks in the tension chord, which reduced its shear car-
rying capacity. At ultimate, the compression chords in
Beams R-1 and R-4 carried 79 and 70% of the applied shear
force, respectively, while their cross-sectional areas were 57
and 50% , respectively, of the net cross section.
413
 Table 2Ultimate shear strength and comparison with modified ACI method
Experimental Modified ACI method19
Ultimate load based on Ultimate
nominal shear strength, kN load based
on nominal
Ultimate Mode of Beam-type Frame-type flexural Mode of
Beam load, kN failure Vt /V failure failure strength, kN failure
S 456.6 S NA 326.4* NA 493.9 S
R-1* 452.2 S 0.79 326.2* 410.7 496.5 S
R-2 515.1 F 0.53 551.2 607.7 497.1* F
R-3 518.9 F 0.07 623.4 * 499.1 CS
486.5
R-4 669.8 WC,F 0.67 838.3* 899.9 874.2 S
R-5 935.8 F 0.55 * 1152.7 883.9 S
858.5
R-6 921.2 F 0.47 881.2 725.2* 883.9 CS
*Figures correspond to predicted failure load.
Note: S = shear compression failure; F = flexural failure; CS = shear failure in compressions chord; and WC = failure by con-
crete crushing in compression chord.

For the other beams with diagonal bars placed beside the
openings, the diagonal shear crack passing through the cen-
ter of opening was well arrested, and the two chord members
carried the applied shear in proportion to the cross-sectional
areas up to ultimate. Therefore, it seems that the assumption
of distributing the total shear between the two chords in pro-
portion to their cross-sectional areas is valid only when suf-
ficient diagonal bars are provided close to the opening.
shape, and the compression chord had a larger depth towards
its ends.
Test results indicate that diagonal bars not only provide
crack control, but also serve as shear reinforcement. Al-
though small stirrups above and below the openings are not
necessary if the diagonal bars can resist the shear force in the
chord members, these stirrups should be provided nominally
for structural integrity.

EVALUATION OF DESIGN METHOD CONCLUSIONS

In Series 1, Beams S and R-1 had almost the same predicted
shear strength. They also had attained similar shear strength in
the tests, indicating that the modified ACI method19 is ade-
quate for the strength design of a beam with an opening.
Beams R-2 and R-3 failed in flexure due to the contribution
of the diagonal bars to the shear strength and their ultimate
loads were accurately predicted.
In Series 2, the predicted ultimate load based on shear fail-
ure of Beam R-4 is 838.3 kN, but it failed prematurely at a
20% lower value of 669.8 kN. Compared with Beams R-5 and
R-6, which have the predicted values closer to the observed
shear strengths, the reduction in ultimate strength for Beam R-
4 is approximately 28%. Thus, there is a need to provide diag-
onal bars to contain early distress due to crack widening. The
failure load of Beam R-4, however, is 6.9 times the value of Vc
calculated for the opening segment using Eq. (7). This value
is considerably larger than the maximum limit set by the ACI
Code.20 As a result, the failure of this beam might have oc-
curred by the concrete crushing rather than yielding of the re-
inforcement. Thus, the ACI limit on maximum shear appears
to apply to beams with openings, provided Vc is calculated
on the basis of net section through the opening.
Beams R-5 and R-6 that contained diagonal bars attained
a much higher strength than Beam R-4 (Table 2). The respec-
tive failure loads were found to be 9.2 and 9.1 times the value
of Vc at the opening segment. These two beams apparently
failed in flexure with no visible web crushing through the net
section. The diagonal bars in these two beams might have
contributed to their increased shear resistance.
No beam failed by the so-called frame-type failure, al-
though Table 2 shows that Beams R-3 and R-6 that were pro-
vided with diagonal bars only were predicted to fail in that
manner. The reason may be that in frame-type failure, the
chord members are assumed to be prismatic with a constant
depth. This is conservative because the opening is circular in
Within the scope of the investigation conducted herein on
concrete beams with small circular openings under bending
and shear, the following conclusions can be made.
1. A beam with circular openings can be conservatively
designed using the modified ACI Code approach.19 This
method incorporates the reduction in concrete contribution
to shear strength due to the opening and considers two differ-
ent types of failure;
2. Diagonal bars are essential for achieving adequate crack
control. The amount of these diagonal bars should be suffi-
cient enough to carry at least 50% of the applied shear with
a shear concentration factor of at least 1.3;
3. When a sufficient quantity of diagonal reinforcement is
provided, the applied shear may be distributed between the
chord members in proportion to their cross-sectional areas; and
4. The ACI Code20 limit on maximum shear force for solid
beam may also be applied to beams with small openings pro-
vided that the calculation is based on net section.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The concrete required for this project was donated by Pioneer Concrete
(S) Pte Ltd. The authors gratefully acknowledge this support.
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in. = 25.4 mm
1 kip = 4.448 kN
1 ft-kip = 1.356 kNm
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
REFERENCES
1. Arney, G. B.; Corley, W. G.; Hanson, J. M.; and Parmelee, R. A.,
Behavior and Design of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Large Web
Openings, Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 22, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1977, pp. 32-61.
2. Huang, L. M., Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams
with Web Openings, MEng thesis, National University of Singapore, Sin-
gapore, 1992, 171 pp.

414 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001

 3. Mansur, M. A., Ultimate Strength Design of Beams with Large
Openings, International Journal of Structures, V. 8, No. 2, July-Dec.
1988, pp. 107-125.
4. Mansur, M. A.; Tan, K. H.; and Lee, S. L., Collapse Loads of Rein-
forced Concrete Beams with Large Openings, Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 11, Nov. 1984, pp. 2602-2618.
5. Mansur, M. A.; Tan, K. H.; and Lee, S. L., Design Method for
Reinforced Concrete Beams with Large Openings, ACI Structural Jour-
nal, V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 517-524.
6. Mansur, M. A.; Huang, L. M.; Tan, K. H.; and Lee, S. L., Deflection
of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Web Openings, ACI Structural Jour-
nal, V. 89, No. 4, July-Aug. 1992, pp. 391-397.
7. Mansur, M. A.; Lee, Y. F.; Tan, K. H.; and Lee, S. L., Tests on R/C
Continuous Beams with Openings, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 117, No. 6, June 1991, pp. 1593-1606.
8. Nasser, K. W.; Acavalos, A.; and Daniel, H. R., Behavior and Design
of Large Openings in Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 64, No. 1, Jan. 1967, pp. 25-33.
9. Ragan, H. S., and Warwaruk, J., Tee Members with Large Web
Openings, Journal of Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 12, No. 4, Aug.
1967, pp. 52-65.
10. Tan, K. H., and Mansur, M. A., Design Procedure for Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Web Openings, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1996, pp. 404-411.
11. Tan, K. H.; Mansur, M. A.; and Huang, L. M., Reinforced Concrete T-
Beams with Large Web Openings in Positive and Negative Moment Regions,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 3, May-June 1996, pp. 277-289.
12. Hanson, J. M., Square Openings in Webs of Continuous Joists,
PCA Research and Development Bulletin, RD 100.01D, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, Ill., 1969, pp. 1-14.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2001
13. Somes, N. F., and Corley, W. G., Circular Openings in Webs of
Continuous Beams, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, V. 1, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1974, pp. 359-398.
14. Salam, S. A., Beam with Openings under Different Stress Condi-
tions, Proceedings of 3rd Conference on Our World in Concrete and
Structures, CI-Premier, Singapore, 25-26 Aug. 1977, pp. 259-267.
15. Mansur, M. A., and Hasnat, A., Concrete Beams with Small Open-
ings Under Torsion, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 105,
ST11, Nov. 1979, pp. 2433-2477.
16. Mansur, M. A., and Paramasivam, P., Reinforced Concrete Beams
with Small Openings in Bending and Torsion, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 81, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1984, pp. 180-185.
17. Mansur, M. A.; Paramasivam, P.; and Lee, S. L., Torsion in Rein-
forced Concrete Beams Containing Circular Opening, International Jour-
nal of Structures, V. 2, No. 3, July-Sept. 1982, pp. 89-98.
18. Hasnat, A., and Akhtaruzzaman, A. A., Beams with Small Rectangu-
lar Opening under Torsion, Bending and Shear, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 113, No. 10, Oct. 1987, pp. 2253-2270.
19. Mansur, M. A., Effect of Openings on the Behaviour and Strength
of R/C Beams in Shear, Journal of Cement and Concrete Composites,
Elsevier Science Ltd., V. 20, No. 6, 1998, pp. 477-486.
20. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
21. Architectural Institute of Japan, AIJ Structural Design Guidelines
for Reinforced Concrete Buildings, 1994, pp. 113-118.
22. Ichinose, T., and Yokoo, S., A Shear Design Procedure of Rein-
forced Concrete Beams with Web Openings, Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Japan, 1990,
pp. 319-322. (in Japanese)
415