A

PRESENTATION ON

Strengthening of preloaded RC beams with

square opening using CFRP and GFRP sheets

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

SUBMITTED BY
SANTOSH
USN-3PD12CSE12

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF

PROF. SHIVARAJ MANGALGI
 INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
5. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION
 Utility pipes and ducts are necessary to accommodate essential services in a
building.
 Providing an opening in the web of a reinforced concrete beams resulted to many
problems in the beam behavior.
 Strengthening of beams with openings primarily depends whether the building
services are pre-planned or post-planned.
Types of Opening:
1) Small opening: opening size is less than or equal to 40% of overall beam depth.
2) Large opening: opening size is more than 40% of overall beam depth.
The most common type of FRP in the concrete industry is made with carbon,
aramid and glass fibers.
 Fiber Reinforced Polymer:
 An FRP composite is defined as a polymer that is reinforced with a fiber.
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer:
 It is an extremely strong and light fiber reinforced polymer which contains carbon
fibers.
 Advantages:
1. CFRP sheets have excellent high strength to weight ratio
2. Easy method of applying
3. Free maintenance properties,
4. Cost effectiveness and less impact on environment.
 Applications:
1. For increasing the load carrying capacity of old structures
2. CFRP can also be applied to enhance shear strength of reinforced concrete by
wrapping fabrics or fibers around the section to be strengthened.
3. In case of columns an increase in axial load carrying capacity is achieved by
wrapping.
 CHAPTER – 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. S.C.Chin et.al(2011) in their study on “Strengthening of RC beams
containing large opening at flexure with CFRP Laminates” . This paper
presents the study of strengthening RC beams with large circular and square
opening located at flexure zone by Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP) laminates. A total of five beams were tested to failure under four
point loading to investigate the structural behavior including ultimate load
and load deflection behavior. Test results show that inclusion of large square
opening in RC beam significantly decreases the beam strength 48% and
increased the beam deflection to 30% more than solid control beam.
2. Subhajit Mondal et.al(2011) in their study on “Strengthening and
Rehabilitation of RC beams with opening”. In this paper the use of Glass
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) to strengthen and rehabilitate are
discussed. In this experiment ten beams, one solid as reference beam and
other nine beams categorized as beams with openings, strengthened beams
and rehabilitated beams are tested.
 Test results revealed that Beams with larger opening the failure are
governed by the opening size. FRP does not increase the ultimate
load carrying capacity of these beams. The beams with openings
shown the maximum deflection at a point which is in between the
middle point of beam and middle point of opening instead of
maximum deflection at central point of solid beam.
3. S.C.Chin et.al (Jan 2012) in their study on “Strengthening of RC
Beams with large Openings in shear by CFRP Laminates:
Experiment and 2D non linear finite element analysis”. This study
presents the experimental study and numerical analysis of
Reinforced Concrete (RC) beams with large square openings placed
in the shear region, at a distance 0.5d and d away from the support,
strengthened by Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
laminates. A total of six RC beams were tested to failure under two
point loading including control beams, un-strengthened and
strengthened RC beams with large square openings. The use of
CFRP laminates increased the structural capacity of the beam by
54%.
4. Prashant. M.H et.al (December 2012) in their study on
“Performance Enhancement of Preloaded RC beams using CFRP
sheets”. In the present experimental investigation, RC beams are
preloaded up to 0 to 50 % of the ultimate load carrying capacity and
are applied with CFRP sheets at the soffit of the beams. The use of
CFRP sheets enhances ductility to beams. Beams strengthened at
higher level of preloads have a lower ultimate strength than those of
beams strengthened at lower levels of preload.
5. Mithun kumar et.al (October 2013) in their study on “Behaviour
of R.C.C Beam with Circular opening Strengthened by CFRP and
GFRP sheets”. This paper explores the behavior of R.C.C. beam
with circular opening strengthened by GFRP and CFRP sheets. The
test showed that the ultimate load carrying capacity of the R.C.C.
beam strengthened with GFRP sheets of different schemes were
increased in the range of 8.13% to 45.56% and beams strengthened
with CFRP sheets increased in the range of 13.01% to 55.32%.
Among all the strengthening schemes, the strengthening with CFRP
around and inside the opening was found very effective in
improving the ultimate load carrying capacity of beam.
6. Rakesh kumar et.al (October 2013) in their study on “Behaviour of
R.C.C Beam with Square opening Strengthened by CFRP and
GFRP sheets”. In this paper the behavior of R.C.C. beam with
rectangular opening strengthened by CFRP and GFRP sheets were
studied. The test results showed that the ultimate load carrying
capacity of the R.C.C. beam with opening strengthened with GFRP
sheets of different schemes were increased in the range of 3.74 to
37.41% and beams strengthened with CFRP sheets increased in the
range of 9.35% to 50.50%. Among all these techniques, the
strengthening with CFRP around and inside the opening was found
more effective in improving the ultimate load carrying capacity of
beam.
 CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
CEMENT: In the present work OPC 43 grade conforming to
IS 8112-1989 has been used.
Table 3.1: Cement Test Results
SI.NO. Test Conducted Results Requirements as per
Obtained IS 8112-1989
1 Normal Consistency 34% -

2 Initial setting time 35 min Shall not be less than 30

min
3 Final setting time 186 min Shall not be more than 600
min

4 Specific gravity 3.12 3.15

Aggregates: Coarse aggregates of 12mm and 20 mm down size are used conforming to
IS: 383-1970 and locally available sand is used as the fine aggregates.
Table 3.2: Fine Aggregates Test Results

SI.NO. Test Conducted Results Requirement as per

obtained IS:383-1970
1 Specific gravity 2.61 2.6-3.0

2 Zone II -

3 Fineness modulus 2.92 2.8-3.2

 Table 3.3: Coarse aggregates (20 mm) Test Results

SI.NO. Test Conducted Results Requirement as per

obtained IS:383-1970
1 Specific gravity 2.7 2.6-2.8

2 Fineness modulus 8.0 -

Table 3.4: Coarse aggregates (12 mm) Test Results
Table 3.4: Coarse aggregates (12 mm) Test Results

SI.NO. Test Conducted Results Requirement as per

obtained IS:383-1970
1 Specific gravity 2.62 2.6-2.8

2 Fineness modulus 8.0 -

3.5 water: Clean portable water is used for the preparation of concrete mix and for
curing concrete.
3.6 Mix proportions:

SI.NO Concrete Cement Sand Aggregates Water

1. M20 grade 358.18 kg/m3 683.35 kg/m3 1153.39 kg/m3 197 kg

Mix proportions 1 1.91 3.22 0.55

3.6 Compressive Strength Test:

Identification Load in KN Average load in (KN) Compressive strength
on cube equivalent to 28 days
curing (N/mm2)

C1 407.2

C2 410.9 409.89 30.87

C3 411.5
CHAPTER – 4
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
4.1 OBJECTIVES
 To study the behavior of reinforced concrete beams with circular pre-
opening at shear zone.
 To estimate the loss of load carrying capacity of beams with opening
compared to solid beam.
 To estimate the percentage increase in the load carrying capacity of
preloaded beams strengthened with CFRP and GFRP sheets as compared to
the solid beam and control beam.
 To study the crack pattern, load deflection behavior and failure modes in
strengthened and non-strengthened beams with circular opening.
Table 4.1: Details of the beam specimens

Beam specimens Preloading Conditions

Solid beam (SB) Nil Without sheets

Control beam Nil Without sheets

(CB)
B- 1 30 percent Strengthening with GFRP

B-2 45 percent Strengthening with GFRP

B-3 60 percent Strengthening with GFRP

B-4 30 percent Strengthening with CFRP

B-5 45 percent Strengthening with CFRP

B-6 60 percent Strengthening with CFRP

Fig 4.1 Dimensions of Beam with square opening
at Shear Zone
 Fig.4.2 Details of Beam reinforcement

The steel consists of 2 main bar of 12mm diameter at the bottom and 2 holding
bar of 10mm diameter at the top m. tied with the vertical stirrups of 8mm diameter at a
spacing of 150m

4.2 Quantity of Materials Required

4.2.1: Quantity of Material Required For Casting One Beam

CEMENT (kg) FINE AGGREGATE (kg) COARSE AGGRGATE (kg) WATER (lt.)

26.96 51.493 86.811 14.775

1 1.91 3.22 w/c = 0.55

4.3 casting:

Fig.4.3 Mould used for casting of beam

The plywood moulds were used for casting of beams and beam had a
rectangular cross section of 150mm wide and 250mm depth and a length of
2000mm (in to in dimension). The moulds were coated initially with oil so as to
enable easy removal of the moulds. Cover blocks were used to ensure that an
effective cover of 30mm.
The concrete is prepared in tray using the required quantity of the
constituent materials and mixed thoroughly by using required tools. Concrete is
poured into the mould and compacted in three layers and each layer is compacted
by using tamping rod to obtain a uniform distribution. The top surface is finished
well by using trowel as shown in figure 4.3
 4.4Curing

All the beams were demoulded carefully after 24 hours of casting and in pre-opening cases
the solid wooden piece placed in position of shear zone and it is removed hitting by hammer. The
beams were then cured for a period of 28 days by placing it in a curing tank as shown in figure
4.6.

Figure 4.6: Curing of beams in curing tank

4.5 Strengthening process:
All the beams except the solid beam and control beam are strengthened by using CFRP and
GFRP sheets.
4.6 Application of CFRP and GFRP sheets:
1. Surface preparation
2. Removal of dust particles
3. Epoxy resin and hardener mixed in a proportion of 10:1
4. CFRP and GFRP sheets were cut to required size
5. 6 days curing
6. Tested in loading frame
Fig.4.7: Lapox Epoxy Resin and Lapox Hardener

Fig.4.8: The Mixture of Epoxy Resin and Hardener

Fig.4.9 Beam applied with CFRP sheets

Fig.4.10 Beam applied with GFRP sheets

4.7 Experimental Set up:
4.7.1 Loading frame: All the beams are tested under loading frame of 1000 KN
capacity.

Fig.4.12 Experimental set up of specimen

4.8.3 Specimen Testing:
 All the beams were tested with two point loading applied at one third of the span.
 The beam is placed such that the center of the beam and center of the loading frame
lie on the same line.
 The load is distributed at two points by means of rigid distributing beam and rollers.
 Load is indicated by the pressure gauge provided in the loading jack. After
arrangement of the loading system dial gauges were placed just below the mid span
of the beam, one at centre of the opening and one at other end of the beam at 300
mm from support.
 Before loading the jack reading is set to zero and also dial gauges reading are set to
zero. The load is applied at an increment of 2 KN.
 At every load increment dial gauges reading are recorded up to beam fails and load
corresponding first crack load is noted down.
CHAPTER-5
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SOLID BEAM
120

100

80

Load in KN At right side

60
At center
At left side
40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection in mm

Fig 5.1 Load Deflection Relationship for Solid Beam

Figure 5.1 shows the load deflection relationship, the beam fails at a load of 106 KN in flexure
mode. The maximum deflection observed at mid span is 10.6 mm, at left side 9.19 mm and at right
side 9.56 mm.
 CONTROL BEAM
90

80

70

60

Load inKN
50
right deflection
40 center deflection
Below opening
30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection in mm

Fig 5.2 Load Deflection Relationship for Control Beam

Figure 5.2 shows the load deflection relationship for the control beam. The
beam fails at a load of 80 KN in shear mode. The maximum deflection
observed at mid span is 10.42 mm, below the opening 8.43 mm and at right
side 3.65 mm.
Load deflection behavior of beams after strengthening:

Fig 5.9: Load Deflection Relationship for Beam 1

Figure 5.9 shows the load deflection relationship, the beam fails at a load of
98 KN in shear zone. The maximum deflection observed at mid span is 12.3
mm, below the opening 12.1 mm and at right side 5.6 mm
 Fig 5.10: Load Deflection Relationship for Beam 2
Figure 5.10 shows the load deflection relationship, the beam fails at a load
of 94 KN in flexure mode. The maximum deflection observed at mid span is
12.3 mm, below the opening 7.89 mm and at right side 5.25 mm.
 Fig 5.11: Load Deflection Relationship for Beam 3
Figure 5.11 shows the load deflection relationship, the beam fails at a load
of 92 KN in flexure mode. The maximum deflection observed at mid span is
8.75 mm, below the opening 4.99 mm and at right side 4.6 mm.
 Fig 5.12: Load Deflection Relationship for Beam 4
Figure 5.12 shows the load deflection relationship, the beam failed at a load
of 106 KN in shear mode. The maximum deflection observed at mid span is
13.7 mm, below the opening 7.5 mm and at right side 6.4 mm
 Fig 5.13: Load Deflection Relationship for Beam 5
Figure 5.13 shows the load deflection relationship, the beam fails at a load of 102 KN in flexure
mode. The maximum deflection observed at mid span is 13 mm, below the opening 8.88 mm and at
right side 5.3 mm.
 Fig 5.14: Load Deflection Relationship for Beam 6
Figure 5.14 shows the load deflection relationship, the beam fails at a load
of 98 KN in flexure mode. The maximum deflection observed at mid span is
10.6 mm, below the opening 9.55 mm and at right side 5.5 mm.
5.2 Comparisons of deflections
At Middle Span

Fig.5.15: Load-deflection relationship for all beams at mid span

 Figure (5.15) show load-deflection relationships for all the tested beams at mid
span of the beam. Comparing the deflection for beam SB (solid beam without
opening) and CB (control beam with opening) revealed a significant increase in
the mid span deflection for the beam CB when compared to solid SB.
 At below Opening

DEFLECTION AT OPENING

120 SB

100 CB

80 B1
Load in kN
60 B2

40 B3

20
B4

0
B5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection in mm
B6

Fig.5.16: Load-deflection relationship for all beams at below opening

Figure (5.16) show load-deflection relationships for all the tested beams at below opening of the
beam. Comparing the deflection for beam SB (solid beam without opening) and CB (control beam
with opening) revealed a significant increase in the below opening deflection for the beam CB when
compared to solid SB.
 At Right Side

Fig.5.17: Load-deflection relationship for all beams at below opening

Figure (5.17) show load-deflection relationships for all the tested beams at below right side of the beam.
Comparing the deflection for beam SB (solid beam without opening) and CB (control beam with
opening) revealed a significant increase in the right side deflection for the beam CB when compared to
solid SB
5.3 Cracking patterns and Failure modes:

Fig.5.18: Cracking pattern for Solid beam

For the solid beam as shown in figure 5.18, the first crack is observed at mid span of the
beam at a load of 32 KN , most of the cracks are observed in the flexure zone and finally
beam failed in flexure zone at a load of 106 KN.

Fig.5.19: Cracking pattern for Control beam

For the control beam as shown in figure 5.19, the first crack is observed in shear zone that is
around the opening at a load of 24 KN, most of the cracks are observed around the opening.
Finally the beam failed in shear zone with a major diagonal crack at a load of 80KN.
5.3.1 Cracking patterns of beams after preloading:

Fig 5.20: Cracking pattern for the beam 1 (30% Preloading)

The beam 1 is as shown in figure 5.20, is subjected to 30% preloading that is equal to 24 KN
(30% of the ultimate load 80 KN).

Fig 5.21: Cracking pattern for the beam 2 (45% Preloading)

The beam 2 is as shown in figure 5.21, is subjected to 45% preloading that is equal to 36
KN. The first crack is observed at the mid span at a load of 20 KN.
 Fig 5.22: Cracking pattern for the beam 3 (60% Preloading)
The beam 3 as shown in figure 5.28 is subjected to 60% preloading that is equal to 48 KN.
The first crack is observed at the mid span at a load of 20 KN.

Fig 5.23: Cracking pattern for the beam 4 (30% Preloading)

The beam 4 as shown in figure 5.23 is subjected to 30% preloading that is equal to 24 KN.
No cracks were observed in the beam.
 Fig 5.24: Cracking pattern for the beam 5 (45% Preloading)
The beam 5 as shown in figure 5.24 is subjected to 45% preloading that is equal to 36
KN. The first crack is observed at the mid span at a load of 20 KN.

Fig 5.25: Cracking pattern for the beam 6 (60% Preloading)

The beam 6 as shown in figure 5.25 is subjected to 60% preloading that is equal to 48
KN. The first crack is observed at the mid span at a load of 22 KN.
5.3.2 Cracking patterns and failure modes of beams after strengthening:

Fig 5.26: Cracking pattern for the beam 1 (30% preloaded, GFRP sheets)
The beam 1 shown in figure 5.26 is strengthened with GFRP sheets. The first crack is
observed in the beam at a load of 20 KN. The beam failed in shear zone at a ultimate load of
98KN.

Fig. 5.27: Cracking pattern for the beam 2 (45% preloaded, GFRP sheets)
The beam 2 shown in figure 5.27 is strengthened with GFRP sheets. The beam failed in
flexure zone at an ultimate load of 94 KN.
 Fig. 5.28: Cracking pattern for the beam 3 (60% preloaded, GFRP sheets)
The beam 3 shown in figure 5.28 is strengthened with GFRP sheets. The beam failed in
flexure zone at an ultimate load of 92 KN.

Fig. 5.29: Cracking pattern for the beam 4 (30% preloaded, CFRP sheets)
The beam 4 shown in figure 5.29 is strengthened with CFRP sheets. The first crack is
observed in the beam at a load of 26 KN. The beam failed in flexure zone at an ultimate load
of 106 KN.
 Fig. 5.30: Cracking pattern for the beam 5 (45% preloaded, CFRP sheets)
The beam 5 shown in figure 5.30 is strengthened with CFRP sheets. The beam failed in
flexure zone at an ultimate load of 102 KN.

Fig. 5.31: Cracking pattern for the beam 6 (60% preloaded, CFRP sheets)
The beam 6 shown in figure 5.31 is strengthened with CFRP sheets. The beam failed in
flexure zone at an ultimate load of 98 KN.
 5.4 Results and Discussion
Table 5.15: Test Results
Increase
Crack Ultimate in load percentage
Beam Strengthening Deflection Mode of
Preloading load load in carrying decrease in
designation technique in mm failure
in KN KN capacity deflection
in %
Not
SB - strengthened 28 106 - 10.60 - Flexure
Not
CB - strengthened 22 80 - 10.42 - Shear
Strengthened
B1 30% with GFRP 20 98 22.5 8.20 21.30 Flexure
Strengthened
B2 45% with GFRP 18 94 17.5 8.39 19.50 Flexure
Strengthened
B3 60% with GFRP 20 92 15 6.42 38.38 Flexure
Strengthened
B4 30% with CFRP 22 106 32.5 8.26 20.73 Shear
Strengthened
B5 45% with CFRP 20 102 27.5 8.49 18.53 Flexure
Strengthened
B6 60% with CFRP 20 98 22.5 6.60 36.68 Flexure
 DISCUSSION
 Examining the results presented in the Table 5.15, it is clear that the presence of an opening
within the shear zone reduces the load carrying capacity by 24.5%.

 From the results it is clear that the preloaded beams strengthened with CFRP and GFRP
sheets have shown increase in load carrying capacity and decrease in deflection.
 The first crack load observed in the solid beam and control beam are 28KN and 22KN
respectively.
 For the beams B1, B2 and B3 strengthened with GFRP sheets the percentage increase in load
carrying capacity observed is 22.5%, 17.5% and 15% respectively as compared to control
beam, where as the beams B4, B5 and B6 strengthened with CFRP sheets the percentage
increase in load carrying capacity observed is 32.5%, 27.5% and 22.5% respectively.
 The beam B4 strengthened with CFRP sheet preloaded up to 30% has failed at an ultimate
load of 106 KN, where as beam B1 strengthened with GFRP preloaded up to 30% has failed
at an ultimate load of 98 KN.
 For the beams strengthened with GFRP sheets for every increase in 15% in preloading the
percentage increase in load carrying capacity gets reduced i.e. by 5% and 2.5% and in case of
beams strengthened with CFRP sheets for every increase in 15% in preloading the percentage
in load carrying capacity is reduced by 5%.
 The percentage increase in load carrying capacity in beams B4, B5 and B6 strengthened with
CFRP sheets is 2.27%, 8.52% and 6.52% more than beams B1, B2 and B3 strengthened with
GFRP sheets respectively.
 For the beams B1, B2, B3 percentage decrease in deflection observed is 21.30%, 19.50%
and 38.38% respectively as compared to the control beam, where as in case of beams B4,
B5, B6 the percentage decrease in deflection observed is 20.73%, 18.53% and 36.68%
respectively as compared to the control beam.
 The control beam (CB) failed in shear by development of diagonal crack at opening. The
beams strengthened with GFRP and CFRP sheets failed in flexure, instead of diagonal
failure at opening because FRP sheets prevent the propagation of cracks at the opening.
CHAPTER-6
CONCLUSION
 From the study it is concluded that, the inclusion of circular opening significantly decreases
load carrying capacity by 24.5% as compared to solid beam.
 For preloaded beams B1, B2 and B3 strengthened with GFRP sheets the percentage increase
in load carrying capacity observed is 22.5%, 17.5% and 15% respectively as compared to
control beam.
 For preloaded beams B4, B5 and B6 strengthened with CFRP sheets the percentage increase
in load carrying capacity observed is 32.5%, 27.5% and 22.5% respectively as compared to
control beam.
 From the study it is observed that the beams strengthened at higher level of preloads have a
lower load carrying capacity than those of beams strengthened at lower levels of preload.
 The percentage increase in load carrying capacity for preloaded beams strengthened with
CFRP sheets is 8.27%, 8.52% and 6.52% in comparison to preloaded beams strengthened
with GFRP sheets.
 For preloaded beams B1, B2 and B3 strengthened with GFRP sheets the percentage decrease
in deflection is 21.3%, 19.50% and 38.38% respectively as compared to control beam.
 For preloaded beams B4, B5 and B6 strengthened with CFRP sheets the percentage decrease
in deflection is 20.73%, 18.53% and 36.68% respectively as compared to control beam.
 From the crack pattern study it is observed that, the effective crack control is achieved by
using CFRP and GFRP sheets.
 The application of GFRP and CFRP sheets thus reduces the excessive cracking and beam
deflection and increases the ultimate load carrying capacity and stiffness of the beam.
 6.1 Scope for further study
 The following topics may be investigated further in continuation of the present work.
 Analysis of the present experimental work by using software.
 Optimum size and location of the openings.
 Prestressed concrete beams with openings.
Publication Details:
Research paper Published in International journal for scientific Research and
development.
Santosh kamthane , Prof. Shivaraj Mangalgi “Strengthening of Preloaded RC
Beams containing square opening at shear by using CFRP and GFRP sheets” vol.
2, No. 1, issue11, january 2015.
 REFERENCES
 M.A.Mansur, “Design Of Reinforced Concrete Beams With Web Openings”, Proceedings
of the 6th Asia Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference(APSEC
2006), 5– 6 September 2006, pp. A104-A120, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
 Mithun Kumar, Shivaraj Mangalgi and Rajendrakumar Harsoor. “Behavior of RCC
Beam with Circular opening Strengthened by CFRP and GFRP sheets” International
Conference on Recent Innovations in Civil Engineering, pp. 180-185, 25-27 October
2013.
 Prashant.M.H, Suraj. K, Babu Narayan.K.S and Ravikumar.C.M. “Performance
Enhancement of Preloaded RC Beams using CFRP Sheets” International Journal of
Earth Sciences and Engineering, Vol 05 , No 06(01) pp.1715-1719, December
2012.
 Rakesh Diggikar, Shivaraj Mangalgi and Rajendrakumar Harsoor. “Behavior of RCC
Beam with Rectangular opening Strengthened by CFRP and GFRP sheets” International
Conference on Recent Innovations in Civil Engineering, pp. 186-190, 25-27 October
2013.
 S.C.Chin, N.Shafiq and M.F.Nuruddin (2011) “Strengthening of RC beams containing
large opening at flexure with CFRP Laminates” world academy of science and
technology, Vol: 60 pp. 1423-1429, 2011-12-25.
 S.C.Chin, N.Shafiq and M.F.Nuruddin (2011). “Stregthnening of RC Beams with Large
Openings in Shear by CFRP Laminates: Experiment and 2D Nonlinear Finite Element
Analysis” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 4(9): pp. 1172-
1180, 2012.

 Subhajit Mondal, Bandyapadya J.N, ChandraPal Gautam. “Strengthening and

Rehabilitation of RC beams with opening” International journal of civil and structural
Engineering, Vol 2, No 1, pp. 127-135, 2011.
 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 Sicernces, 5 (7): 547-
556,2011.

 “IS: 456-2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of practice.

 “IS: 10262-2009, Indian Standards, Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design.
 “IS: 12269-1987, Test on Cement.
 “IS: 383-1970, Test on Fine and Coarse Aggregate.
 www.wikipedia.org/wiki/carbon-reinforced-polymer
THANK YOU