Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Advances in Engineering

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevi er.com/locate/advengsoft Effect of loading types and reinforcement ratio on an

Effect of loading types and reinforcement ratio on an effective moment of inertia and deflection of a reinforced concrete beam

Ilker Fatih Kara a , Cengiz Dundar b, *

a Department of Civil Engineering, Nigde University, 51235 Nigde, Turkey

b Department of Civil Engineering, Cukurova University, 01330 Adana, Turkey

article info

Article history:

Received 4 August 2008 Received in revised form 23 December 2008 Accepted 24 January 2009 Available online 27 February 2009

Keywords:

Reinforced concrete Effective moment of inertia Effective shear modulus Deflections Loads

abstract

In the design of reinforced concrete structures, a designer must satisfy not only the strength require- ments but also the serviceability requirements, and therefore the control of the deformation becomes more important. To ensure serviceability criterion, it is necessary to accurately predict the cracking and deflection of reinforced concrete structures under service loads. For accurate determination of the member deflections, cracked members in the reinforced concrete structures need to be identified and their effective flexural and shear rigidities determined. The effect of concrete cracking on the stiffness of a flexural member is largely dependent on both the magnitude and shape of the moment diagram, which is related to the type of applied loading. In the present study, the effects of the loading types and the reinforcement ratio on the flexural stiffness of beams has been investigated by using the com- puter program developed for the analysis of reinforced concrete frames with members in cracked state. In the program, the variation of the flexural stiffness of a cracked member has been obtained by using ACI, CEB and probability-based effective stiffness model. Shear deformation effect is also taken into account in the analysis and the variation of shear stiffness in the cracked regions of members has been considered by employing reduced shear stiffness model available in the literature. Comparisons of the different models for the effective moment of inertia have been made with the reinforced concrete test beams. The effect of shear deformation on the total deflection of reinforced concrete beams has also been investigated, and the contribution of shear deformation to the total deflection of beam have been theoretically obtained in the case of various loading case by using the developed computer program. The applicability of the proposed analytical procedure to the beams under different loading conditions has been tested by a com- parison of the analytical and experimental results, and the analytical results have been found in good agreement with the test results.

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Reinforced concrete members crack at relatively low load level even with presence of reinforcement because of the very low ten- sile strength of concrete. The crack initiation and propagation is highly load dependent and have a significant effect on the stiffness and hence displacement of reinforced concrete structures. The ten- sile cracking of concrete reduces the flexural and shear stiffness of members and thus results in an increase in the deflection of rein- forced concrete members. In recent years, the serviceability of reinforced concrete struc- tures has become a much more important design consideration with the use of high strength steel and concrete coupled with more accurate and efficient analytical procedures that enabled practicing engineers to satisfy ultimate state requirements with more slender

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 0322 3386762; fax: +90 322 3386702. E-mail address: dundar@cu.edu.tr (C. Dundar).

0965-9978/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.01.009

but more highly stressed structural members. When designing reinforced concrete structures, a designer must satisfy not only the strength requirements but also the serviceability requirements, and therefore the control of the deformation is important to ensure serviceability criterion. For accurate determination of member deflection, the prediction of flexural and shear stiffness of mem- bers after cracking becomes important. Therefore, an analytical model which can include the effects of nonlinearity due to the con- crete cracking on the flexural and shear stiffness of the members and accurately assess the deflections would be very useful. Deflections of reinforced concrete flexural members have been the focus of several research activities in the past decades, and as a consequent, various methods have been developed for predicting them under short-term deflection [1–4] . For calculating the deflec- tion of reinforced concrete members under working load, an empir- ical expression for the effective moment of inertia developed by Branson [5] is perhaps the most widely used, and various form of Branson formula can be found in the ACI [6] and AS 3600–1994 [7] .

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

837

Several methods are available in the technical literature for com- puting the deflections in reinforced concrete structures, consider- ing the nonlinear effects of concrete cracking [8,9] . These methods take into account the constitutive relationships of both steel and concrete together with the bond–slip relationship. Due to the complexities of the actual behavior of reinforced concrete members and the cumbersome computations to be performed, these procedures can not be easily adopted by the design engineers. Cosenza [10] developed an analytical procedure for the finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams in a cracked state. The moment–curvature relationship models, such as linear ten- sion stiffening, constant tension stiffening, ACI [6] and CEB [11] models, which include the contribution of tensile resistance of concrete to flexural rigidities, were considered in the analysis. In obtaining the flexibility influence coefficients, simply sup- ported beam elements with uniformly distributed load was used. Also the variation of shear rigidity due to cracking was not con- sidered in the formulation. However shear deformation can be large and significant after the development of cracks. Therefore,

reduction of shear rigidity due to cracking should be included in the analysis for improving results of the analysis and obtaining more accurate results.

A model for estimating the effective moment of inertia of

cracked member was developed to account for the load type by considering the variation in the cracked length, defined as the length of the beam segment over which working moment exceeds the cracking moment [12] . This procedure forms the basis and a

rotational approach to take into account some variable affecting the effective moment of inertia.

A probability-based effective stiffness model was also devel-

oped for predicting the effective stiffness of reinforced concrete

flexural members under service load conditions [13,14]. The effects of load types and reinforcement ratios on the flexural stiffness characteristics of the beams were investigated, but the compari- sons of the experimental and theoretical deflections of beams were not included in the study. However shear deformation effect, which can be large and significant following crack developments and therefore be of practical importance in the design, was not considered in the analysis. There are many factors affecting the short-term deflection of a reinforced concrete flexural member. These factors involve the span length, end constraints, material and sectional properties, magnitude and distribution of loads, and the ratio of reinforce-

ment. The most significant effect on the reduction of the flexural stiffness of members in the serviceability loading range is the load- ing type effect, which is believed to be one of the dominant factors controlling the cracking behavior.

In the present study, the effect of loading type and reinforce-

ment ratio on the flexural stiffness of beams has been investigated by using the computer program, based on the iterative analytical procedure, developed for the analysis of reinforced concrete frames with members in cracked state. In the program, the variation of the flexural stiffness of a cracked member has been evaluated by using ACI, CEB and probability-based effective stiffness model. Shear deformation effect is also taken into account in the analysis and the variation of shear stiffness in the cracked regions of members has been considered by employing reduced shear stiffness model available in the literature. Comparisons of various models for the effective moment of inertia have been made with the results of the simply supported test beams. The effect of shear deformation on the total deflection of reinforced concrete beams has been investigated, and the contribution of shear deformation to the total deflection of beam have been theoretically obtained in the case of various loading case by using the developed computer program. The influence of reinforcement ratio on the flexural stiffness of beams has also been discussed in the present study. The numerical

solution of the analytical procedure is carried out by using the stiff- ness matrix method, and the cracked member stiffness equation is obtained, including the uniformly distributed and point loads on the member. In the evaluation of the flexibility influence coeffi- cient, a cantilever beam model is used which greatly simplifies the integral equation. Verification of the analytical procedure has been presented by the experimental results of simply supported beams subjected to various loading types, and the statically inde- terminate beams.

2. Models used for the effective moment of inertia of a cracked member

Different models for the effective moment of inertia which in- clude the effect of cracking and participation of tensile concrete be- tween cracks, called tension stiffening, have been proposed to define the effective flexural behavior of reinforced concrete cracked section. In the ACI model based on the Bronson studies [1] the effective moment of inertia is given in the following form:

I eff ¼

M

cr

M

m

I 1 þ 1

I eff ¼ I 1 ;

for M < M cr

M

cr

M

m

I 2 ; for M P M cr

ð1aÞ

ð 1bÞ

where m = 3. In the CEB model I eff is also defined as

I eff ¼

"

b 1 b 2

M cr

2 1

I

1

M

þ 1 b 1 b 2

M cr

M

2 !

I

1

2

#

1

; for M P M cr

I eff ¼ I 1 ;

 

ð2aÞ

for M < M cr

ð 2bÞ

in which b 1 is the coefficient representing the quality of the rein- forcing bars; b 1 = 1 for high bond reinforcement and 0.5 for plain bars. b 2 is the coefficient characterizing the influence of the dura- tion or repetition of loading; b 2 = 1 for the first loading and 0.5 for the loads applied in a sustained manner or in a large number of load cycles [15]. In Eqs. (1) and (2) , I 1 and I 2 are the moments of inertia of the gross uncracked section which accounts for the reinforcing steel to the stiffness, and the cracked transformed section, respectively, M is the bending moment, M cr is the moment corresponding to flexural cracking considered. The cracking moment, M cr is com- puted by the program using the following equation:

M cr ¼

f

ð

r

þ r

v

ÞI 1

y t

ð 3Þ

where f r is the flexural tensile strength of concrete, y t is the dis- tance from centroid of gross section to extreme fiber in tension and r v is the axial compressive stress, especially for beam case r v = 0. In present study, the probability-based effective stiffness model has also been considered for the effective moment of inertia of a cracked member. In the probability-based effective stiffness model, which considers the cracking of concrete with the stiffness reduc- tion in the reinforced concrete flexural members, the value of I eff is determined as the ratio of the area of moment diagram segment over which the working moment exceeds the cracking moment M cr to the total area of moment diagram in the following form ( Fig. 1 ).

A uncr ¼ A 4 þ A 5 þ A 6 þ A 7 ¼

Z M ð xÞ <M cr

A cr ¼ A 1 þ A 2 þ A 3 ¼

Z M ð xÞ PM cr

M ðxÞ

A ¼ A cr þ A uncr

M ð xÞ

ð4aÞ

ð 4bÞ

ð4cÞ

838

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

q P i j L M i A 7 M j A 4 M cr
q
P
i
j
L
M i
A 7
M j
A 4
M
cr
M cr
Beam
A
1
A 3
M
cr
M cr
A
5
A 6
A
2
1
2
3
4 5
ξ 1 =0 ξ 2
ξ 3
ξ 4
ξ 5 ξ 6 =1

1, 3, 5 cracked regions 2, 4 uncracked regions

Fig. 1. Cracked and uncracked regions of the simply supported beam element.

P

P

uncr

½

M ð xÞ < M

cr

A uncr

¼ A

cr

½

M ðxÞ P M

cr

A cr

¼ A

I eff ¼ P uncr I 1 þ P cr I 2

ð 4dÞ

ð4e Þ

ð 4f Þ

where A cr is the area of moment diagram segment over which the working moment exceeds the cracking moment M cr and A is the to- tal area of moment diagram. In the same equation, P cr and P uncr are the probability of occurrence of cracked and uncracked sections, respectively. Comparisons of aforementioned models for the effective mo- ment of inertia are presented in this study.

3. Model used for the reduced shear stiffness of a cracked member

Shear deformation can be large and significant especially after the development of cracks and therefore be of practical importance in the design of reinforced concrete members. The variation of the effective shear modulus of concrete due to cracking is considered by employing the model developed by Al-Mahaidi [16] . In this model, Al-Mahaidi proposed the following hyperbolic expression

for the reduced shear stiffness G c to be employed in the constitu- tive relation of cracked concrete

G c ¼ 0 :4G c ; e 1 =e cr
G c ¼ 0 :4G c
;
e 1 =e cr

for e 1 P e cr

ð 5Þ

where G c is the elastic shear modulus of uncracked concrete, e 1 is the principal tensile strain normal to the crack and e cr is the crack- ing tensile strain. In this study, since three-dimensional analysis is considered, I eff , M cr , M , I 1 , I 2 , e 1 and e cr are the values related to the flexure in local y and z -directions.

4. Formulation of the analytical procedure

In the present study, the stiffness matrix method has been em- ployed taking into account the cracking effect with the effective stiffness model. The reduction of shear stiffness following the crack development is also considered by employing the reduced shear

y z Z Y P 5 , d 5 P 10 , d 10 P
y
z
Z
Y
P 5 , d 5
P 10 , d 10
P
x
P 6 , d 6
P 12 , d 12
P 7 , d 7
P 2, d 2
q
P 4 , d 4
P 8 , d 8
P 3 , d 3
P 11 ,d 11
P 1 , d 1
X
P 9 , d 9
a
L

Fig. 2. A typical three dimensional member subjected to a point and a uniformly distributed loads.

stiffness model available in the literature. The analytical procedure does not increase the numbers of degrees of freedom with respect to common procedure and, at the same time, is particularly useful in the case of highly statically indeterminate structures [17] . The formulation of the analytical procedure is obtained for the three dimensional analysis of reinforced concrete frame.

In this part the flexibility influence coefficients of a member will

first be evaluated and then the stiffness matrix and the load vector

of a member with some region in the cracked state will be obtained by using compatibility conditions and equilibrium equations.

A typical three dimensional member subjected to a point and a

uniformly distributed load, and positive end forces with corre- sponding displacements are also shown in Fig. 2 . For calculating the relations between nodal actions and basic deformation param- eters of a general space element, a cantilever model is used ( Fig. 3 ). The basic deformation parameters of a general space element may be established by applying unit loads in turn in the directions of 1– 3 and 7–9. Then, the compatibility conditions give the following equation in matrix form:

2

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

4

f 11 00000

3

7

000 7 6 6 P 2 7

7

7

7

7

7

7

5

000

0

0

3

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

5

2

6

6 6 6 6 6 4

P

P

P

P

P

1

3

7

8

9

0

0

000 f 77 f 78

000 f 87 f 88 00000 f 99

f 22

f 32

f 23

f 33

¼

2

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

4

3

d

d 2 7

7

7

d

d 7 7

d

8

3

7

7

7

5

d

9

1

7

ð

6Þ

in which, f ij is the displacement in i th direction due to the applica- tion of unit loads in j th direction, and can be obtained by means of the principal of virtual work as follows:

f ij ¼ Z L

0

M zi M zj þ M yi M yj þ V yi V yj

E c I effz

E c I effy

G c A

s þ V zi V zj s þ M bi M bj þ N i N j

G c A

G c I o

E c A

dx:

ð 7Þ

In Eq. (7), M zi , M zj , M yi , M yj , V zi , V zj , V yi , V yj , M bi , M bj , N i and N j are the bending moments, shear forces, torsional moments and axial forces due to the application of unit loads in i th and jth directions, respec- tively, E c denotes the modulus of elasticity of concrete, s and A are the shape factor and the cross sectional area, respectively.

3 9 1
3
9
1

7

8
8

2

the cross sectional area, respectively. 3 9 1 7 8 2 z y x Fig. 3.
z y
z y

x

Fig. 3. A cantilever model for calculating the relations between the nodal actions and basic deformation parameters.

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

839

Stiffness matrix of space frame members is obtained by invert- ing the flexibility matrix in Eq. (6) and using the equilibrium conditions. The member fixed-end forces for the case of a point and a uni- formly distributed load can be obtained by using the compatibility and equilibrium conditions as follows:

P 10 ¼ P 20 ¼ P 30 ¼ P 40 ¼ P 50 ¼ P 60 ¼ P 90 ¼ P 110 ¼ 0 :

ð8a Þ

ð8b Þ

ð 8cÞ

ð 8dÞ

ð8e Þ

P 120 ¼ qL 2 = 2 þ P ð L aÞ þ P 70 L þ P 80

P 70

¼ ð

f 88 f 70

f 78 f 80

f 78 f 70

f 77 f 88

Þ= ð

f 77 f 88

f 78 f 87

f 78 f 87

Þ

Þ

P 80 ¼

P

100

¼

ð Þ=

ð

ðqL þ P þ P 70 Þ

f 77 f 80

where f i 0 (i = 7,8) is the displacement in i th direction due to the application of span loads which can be evaluated by means of the principal of virtual work in the following form:

f i0 ¼ Z L

0

M yi M 0

E c I effy

þ

V zi V 0

G c A

s dx

ð 9Þ

where M 0 and V 0 are the bending moment in local y -direction and shear force in local z -direction due to the span loads. Finally, the member stiffness equation can be obtained as

k d þ P 0 ¼ P

ð 10Þ

where k (12 12) is the stiffness matrix, d (12 1) is the displace- ment vector, P 0 (12 1) is the fixed end force vector and P (12 1) is the total end force vector of the member. Eq. (12) is given in the

member coordinate system (x , y , z ). Hence it should be transformed

to the structure coordinate

The effect of cracking on the behavior of a flexural member is largely dependent on both the magnitude and shape of the mo- ment diagram, which is related to the type of applied loading. In general the member has three cracked and two uncracked region, as seen in Fig. 1 . The integral values in Eqs. (7) and (9) will there- fore be carried out in these cracked and uncracked regions individually. The flexibility influence coefficient can now be obtained by using Eqs. (7) and (9), with the following terms of moment and shear forces expressed in terms of non-dimensional coordi- nate n

M 2 ð nÞ ¼ nL ; V 2 ð nÞ ¼ 1

system ( X , Y, Z).

ð

11aÞ

M

M

1;

M

M 9 ð nÞ¼ 1;

3 ð nÞ¼ 7 ð nÞ¼

8 ð nÞ¼

1; V 3 ð nÞ ¼ 0 n L; V 7 ð nÞ ¼ 1

V 8 ð nÞ

¼ 0

2

;

V 9 ð nÞ ¼ 0

qð nLÞ 2

8

<

0 6 n 6 a=L

M 0 ð nÞ ¼

:

qð nLÞ 2

2

P ð nL aÞ ; a=L < n 6 1

V 0 ð nÞ ¼

qnL ;

0 6 n 6 a=L

qn L þ P ; a= L < n 6 1

9

=

;

ð

ð

ð

ð

11bÞ

11cÞ

11dÞ

11eÞ

ð 11f Þ

ð 11gÞ

where n = x/ L . In general case, n i , i = 1, 2,

If ACI and CEB models are considered for the effective mo- ment of inertia of the cracked members, the flexibility influence coefficient can be evaluated using Eqs. (7), (9) and (11) as

follows

,6 as seen in Fig. 1 .

f 22 ¼ L 3

E

c Z 1

0

f 23 ¼ L 2

E

c

Z 1

0

f 33 ¼ L

E

c

Z 1

0

2

I

n

effz dn þ sL

A

ð

nÞ

I

effz

dn

1

I effz dn

Z 1

0

1

Gc d n

ð 12aÞ

ð

ð

12bÞ

12cÞ

f 77

f 78

¼ L 3

E

c

¼ L 2

E

c

88 ¼ L

f

E

c

Z 1

0

Z 1

0

Z 1

0

2

I

n

effy dn þ sL

A

n

I effy dn

1

I effy dn

Z 1

0

1

G

c

dn

f 70 ¼ 2E qL 4

c Z 1

0

3

I

n

effy dn þ qsL 2

A

Z a=L

0

n

G

c

dn

þ PL 3

E

c

1

Z

a=L

nð n a= LÞ

I

effy

f 80 ¼ 2E qL 3

c Z 1

0

2

I

n

effy dn þ PL 2

E

c

dn þ sL

A

1

Z

a=L

P

G

c

dn

1

Z

a=L

ð n a= LÞ

I

effy

dn

ð 12dÞ

ð12eÞ

ð 12f Þ

ð12gÞ

ð12hÞ

On the other hand, if the probability-based effective stiffness model is used for the effective flexural stiffness of the cracked members, the flexibility influence coefficients can be obtained as

F 22 ¼

L

3

sL

þ

3E c I effz

A

L 2

f 23 ¼

f 33 ¼

2E c

L

I effz

E c I effz

f 77 ¼

L

3

sL

þ

3E c I effy

A

f 78 ¼

f 88 ¼

L

2

2E c I effy

L

E c I effy

Z

0

1

Z

0

1

1

Gc d n

1

G

c

dn

f 70 ¼ qL 4

8E c I effy

þ

qsL 2

A

Z a=L

0

n

G

c

dn

þ

P

3E c

I effy ðL 3 þ a 3 =2 3aL 2 = 2Þ þ sL

A

f 80 ¼ qL 3

6E c I effy

þ

P

2

E c I effy

L =2 þ a = 2 aL

2

1

Z

a=L

P

G

c

 

ð13aÞ

ð13bÞ

ð

13cÞ

ð

13dÞ

ð13eÞ

ð 13f Þ

d n

ð13gÞ

ð13hÞ

In the cracked regions where the applied moment is greater than or

equal to the cracking moment, I eff and G c vary with M along the re- gion. Therefore, the integral values in these regions should be calcu- lated by a numerical integration technique. The stiffness of a cracked member varies according to the amount of crack formation occurring in the members. Changes in stiffness of the cracked mem-

ber leads to a certain transfer of the internal forces of these mem- bers to the other uncracked member, thus causing the cracking of

some of the otherwise uncracked members. Since the analytical procedure allows for changes in stiffness of members, the variation of the effective moment of inertia and effective shear modulus of concrete in the cracked regions necessitate the redistribution of the internal moments and forces in the structure. Hence iterative procedure should be applied to obtain the final deflections and internal forces of the structure. This procedure is computationally more efficient especially in the case of the large indeterminate rein- forced concrete structures. In the analytical procedure developed on the basis of stiffness matrix method, member equations are first obtained and then the system stiffness matrix and system load vector are assembled by considering the contributions which come from each element. Finally, the system displacements and member end forces are determined by solving the system equation. This procedure is re- peated step by step in all iterations.

840

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

5. Computer program

A general purpose computer program developed for the three dimensional analysis of reinforced concrete structures based on the iterative procedure is coded in Fortran 77 language. The flow chart of the solution procedure of the program is given in Fig. 4 . In the iterative procedure, over reduction of stiffness in some members at one iteration may cause smaller redistributions of internal forces for these members and therefore result in excessive increase in the stiffness of these cracked members in the subse- quent iteration. Increase of flexural stiffness attracts the transfer of more internal forces to these members, thus leading to over reduction to occur again. The alternate increase and decrease in the stiffness of members causes a generally non-convergent proce- dure. Therefore, in the solution procedure, the member end forces used at each iteration step are taken as the mean value of the end forces of all previous iterations [10,17] . In the program,

P

n

i

P

n

i

1

P

n

i

6 e

ð14 Þ

is used as convergence criterion. Here, n is the iteration number, e is the convergence factor and P (i = 1,12) is the end forces of each member of the structure for n th iteration.

n

i

Input structure and material properties Input external loads Perform linear elastic analysis of the structure
Input structure and
material properties
Input external loads
Perform linear elastic
analysis of the structure
Determine cracked and uncracked
regions of the members of the structure
Determine member stiffness and load vector using
I eff and
G
and assemble the system stiffness matrix
c
Compute displacements of joints
and member end forces
Compute the mean
value of the end
forces of all the
previous iterations
n
n
1
No
P
P
i
i
≤ ε
n
P
i
Yes
Store/output
results

Fig. 4. Solution procedure of the program.

6. Verification of theoretical results

In order to determine feasibility for applying the analytical pro- cedure to the beams under different loading conditions and com- pare the different models for the value of I eff , the reinforced concrete test beams subjected to various loading configurations are considered. For this purpose four examples are presented. The first three examples are the simply supported beams subjected to different loading conditions. The fourth example is the applica- tion of the proposed analytical method on the two span continuous beams.

6.1. Example 1

In this example, the experimental results of the reinforced con- crete beams tested by Ning [14] subjected to various loading types are compared with the present computer program. The test beams had the same dimensions of 300 450 mm cross-section with simply supported clear span of 3000 mm. The reinforcing steel in the beams, the span and the load are shown in Fig. 5 . The geometric properties of the test beams and the reinforcement arrangement

are also listed in Table 1 . Fig. 6 presents the comparisons of effective moment of inertia obtained from the ACI, CEB and probability-based effective stiff- ness models. The variation of the experimentally determined I eff is also shown in Fig. 6 . In obtaining the the value of I eff by using ACI and CEB models, maximum moment on a relevant flexural member is considered because ACI and CEB relationships are inde- pendent of applied loading types. From Fig. 6 it is clearly indicated that different forms of the applied loading gives different values of I eff , which means different reductions in the flexural stiffness of cracked beams. The value of effective moment of inertia calculated from mid-point loading case is much larger than other two forms of loading for the same level of M max / M cr value. The reason is that the area of A cr segment over which the working moment exceeds

the cracking moment for the mid-point loading case is less than

P A A 3000 mm
P
A
A
3000 mm
A s ' A s d' 300 mm A-A
A s
'
A s
d'
300 mm
A-A

450 mm

Fig. 5. Simply supported beam with mid-span load tested by Ning [14] .

Table 1 Simply supported reinforced concrete beams tested by Ning [14] .

Types of load

Beam

Effective

Tensile

Compressive

type

depth

reinforcement

reinforcement

 

(d,mm)

(

A s )

ð

A

0

s Þ

1. Mid-span load

B16-1

400

3 / 16 3 / 20 3 / 25

2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12

B20-1

396

B25-1

393.5

2. Two-point load

B16-2

400

3 / 16 3 / 20 3 / 25 3 / 16

B20-2

396

B25-2

393.5

U (uniformly

B16-U

400

distributed load)

 

B20-U

396

3 / 20 3 / 25

2 / 12 2 / 12

B25-U

393.5

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

841

I eff *10 6

mm 4

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

2500 2000 1500 I eff *10 6 mm 4 1000 500 0123456 0
2500
2000
1500
I eff *10 6
mm 4
1000
500
0123456 0
2500 2000 1500 I eff *10 6 mm 4 1000 500 0123456 0 M max /M

M max /M cr

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-1) Experimental(B25-1) Probability-based effective stiffness

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-1)

Experimental(B25-1)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-2)

Experimental(B25-2)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-U)

Experimental(B25-U)

ACI

 

CEB

Fig. 6. Comparisons of the experimental and computed I eff values using different models for B25 beams subjected to the three loading conditions.

0123456

M max /M cr

B20-1(steel effect considered)

B16-1(steel effect considered)B20-1(steel effect considered) B25-1(steel effect considered) B20-1(experimental results) B16-1(experimental results)

B25-1(steel effect considered)B20-1(steel effect considered) B16-1(steel effect considered) B20-1(experimental results) B16-1(experimental results)

B20-1(experimental results)B16-1(steel effect considered) B25-1(steel effect considered) B16-1(experimental results) B25-1(experimental results)

B16-1(experimental results)B16-1(steel effect considered) B25-1(steel effect considered) B20-1(experimental results) B25-1(experimental results)

B25-1(experimental results)B16-1(steel effect considered) B25-1(steel effect considered) B20-1(experimental results) B16-1(experimental results)

Fig. 8. Comparisons of the experimental I eff and analytical results for beams subjected to mid-point loading case including the effects of reinforcement ratio.

that of other two forms of loading cases. ACI code relationship pre- dicting the effective moment of inertia without the considering the loading types, underestimates the value of I eff for the mid-point loading case but overestimates for the other two cases. However the results of the probability-based effective stiffness model are in good agreement with the test results in all loading cases. Fig. 7 compares the theoretical and experimental results of I eff for beams subjected to mid-point loading case for the three differ- ent reinforcement ratios, which are equivalent to 0.15, 0.24, 0.39 of q b , the steel ratio at balanced condition, when not considering the reinforcement effect. This figure indicates that although there is satisfactory agreement between the test and theoretical results for B25-1, which the steel ratio equals to 0.39 q b , significant differ- ences are obtained for B20-1 and B16-1 case, the steel ratios of beams equal to 0.24 q b , 0.15 q b . To improve the prediction of the effective moment of inertia of beams by using the probability- based effective stiffness model, it is necessary to take into account the reinforcement effect. Hence, to determine the interaction effect between reinforcement and concrete P q was defined by Ning [14] as

P q ¼ ðP cr Þ a ð 15aÞ ( p 3 ) ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi q
P q ¼ ðP cr Þ a
ð
15aÞ
(
p
3
)
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
q 00 1 ;
when
0 6 q 00 6 1
a
¼
p
3
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð
15bÞ
q
00 0: 46 ; when
q 00 > 1
s
q
¼ A
q
ð
15cÞ
bd q 00 ¼ h d
2500
2000
1500
I eff *10 6
mm 4
1000
500
0

0123456

M max /M cr

B20-1(steel effect not considered) B20-1(experimental results) B16-1(steel effect not considered) B16-1(experimental

B20-1(steel effect not considered) B20-1(experimental results) B16-1(steel effect not considered) B16-1(experimental results) B25-1(steel effect not considered) B25-1(exprimental results)

Fig. 7. Comparisons of experimental I eff for beams subjected to mid-point loading case with the theoretical results using probability-based effective stiffness model (without considering the effects of reinforcement ratio).

and I eff was modified as the following equation:

I eff ¼ 1 P cr P q

I uncr þ P cr P q I cr

ð 16Þ

Fig. 8 presents the variation of the effective moment of inertia con- sidering the modification of the reinforcement effect in the analysis. As seen from figure the analytical results show more accurate pre- diction than those of values not considering the steel effect. Figs. 9 and 10 show the comparisons of the value of I eff obtained from experimental and analytical results without considering the

I eff *10 6

mm 4

2000

1500

1000

500

0

the I e f f *10 6 mm 4 2000 1500 1000 500 0 012345 M

012345

M max /M cr

B20-2(steel effect not considered) B20-2(experimental results) B16-2(steel effect not considered) B16-2(experimental

B20-2(steel effect not considered) B20-2(experimental results) B16-2(steel effect not considered) B16-2(experimental results) B25-2(steel effect not considered) B25-2(experimental results)

Fig. 9. Comparisons of experimental I eff for beams subjected to two point loading case
Fig. 9. Comparisons of experimental I eff for beams subjected to two point loading
case with the theoretical results using probability-based effective stiffness model
(without considering the effects of reinforcement ratio).
2000
1500
I eff *10 6
1000
mm 4
500
0

012345

M max /M cr

B25-U(steel effect not considered) B16-U(steel effect not considered) B25-U (experimental results) B16-U(experimental

B25-U(steel effect not considered)

B16-U(steel effect not considered)

B25-U (experimental results)B25-U(steel effect not considered) B16-U(steel effect not considered) B16-U(experimental results)

B16-U(experimental results)B25-U(steel effect not considered) B16-U(steel effect not considered) B25-U (experimental results)

Fig. 10. Comparisons of the experimental I eff and analytical results for beams subjected to uniformly distributed loading case (without considering the effects of reinforcement ratio).

842

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 P (kN)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2
4
6
8
10
P (kN)

Displacement (mm)

B25-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model)B25-1(experimental results) B20-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model) B20-1(experimental results)

B25-1(experimental results)B25-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model) B20-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model) B20-1(experimental

B20-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model)

B20-1(experimental results)

B16-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model)results) B20-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model) B20-1(experimental results) B16-1(experimental results)

B16-1(experimental results)effective stiffness model) B20-1(experimental results) B16-1(Probability-based effective stiffness model)

Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental and analytical results of the deflection of beams under mid-point loading.

500 400 300 200 100 0 P (Total load,kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
P (Total load,kN)

02468

Displacement (mm)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-1)ACI model(B25-1) Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-2) ACI model(B25-2) Probability-based effective stiffness

ACI model(B25-1)Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-1) Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-2) ACI model(B25-2)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-2)effective stiffness model(B25-1) ACI model(B25-1) ACI model(B25-2) Probability-based effective stiffness

ACI model(B25-2)Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-2) Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-U) ACI

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B25-U)

ACI model(B25-U)

Fig. 14. Numerical comparison of the deflection obtained by various models for the effective flexural stiffness.

steel effect for the two point and uniformly distributed loading cases. This figure indicates that it is not necessary to consider the modification of the steel effect in the analysis for these loading cases. The comparison between the test and theoretical results for the maximum vertical deflection of beams is presented in Fig. 11

500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 P (Total load,kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2
4
6
8
10
P (Total load,kN)

Displacement (mm)

B25-U(Probability-based effective stiffness model)

B25-U(experimental results)

B16-U(Probability-based effective stiffness model)B25-U(Probability-based effective stiffness model) B25-U(experimental results) B16-U(experimental results)

B16-U(experimental results)effective stiffness model) B25-U(experimental results) B16-U(Probability-based effective stiffness model)

Fig. 12. Comparisons of the analytical and experimental results of the deflection of beams under uniformly distributed loading.

400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 P (Total load,kN)
400
300
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
P (Total load,kN)

Displacement (mm)

B25-2(Probability-based effectie stiffness model) B25-2(experimental results)

B20-2(Probability-based effective stiffness model)effectie stiffness model) B25-2(experimental results) B20-2(experimental results) B16-2(Probability-based

B20-2(experimental results)results) B20-2(Probability-based effective stiffness model) B16-2(Probability-based effective stiffness model)

B16-2(Probability-based effective stiffness model)results) B20-2(Probability-based effective stiffness model) B20-2(experimental results) B16-2(experimental results

B16-2(experimental resultseffective stiffness model) B20-2(experimental results) B16-2(Probability-based effective stiffness model)

Fig. 13. Comparison between experimental and predicted deflection of beams under two-point loading.

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 P (kN)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
P (kN)

012345678

Displacement (mm)

 

B25-1(shear deformation considered)  B20-1(shear deformation considered) B25-1(shear deformation not considered) B20-1(shear deformation not considered)

B20-1(shear deformation considered)  B25-1(shear deformation considered) B25-1(shear deformation not considered) B20-1(shear deformation not considered)

B25-1(shear deformation not considered)B25-1(shear deformation considered) B20-1(shear deformation considered) B20-1(shear deformation not considered)  

B20-1(shear deformation not considered)B25-1(shear deformation considered) B20-1(shear deformation considered) B25-1(shear deformation not considered)  

 

Fig. 15. Theoretical influence of shear deformation on the deflection of beam under mid-point concentrated loading.

through Fig. 13 . The numerical results obtained from the present computer program by using the probability-based effective stiff- ness model are in good agreement with the test results with max- imum discrepancies of 9% in all loading cases. It can also be seen from the figure that reinforcement ratio influences significantly the deflection of a cracked member in the serviceability loading range (see Fig. 12 ). Fig. 14 presents a comparison of the deflections using the differ- ent models for the effective moment of inertia of the cracked mem-

400 300 200 100 0 P (Total load,kN)
400
300
200
100
0
P (Total load,kN)

02468

Displacement (mm)

B25-2(shear deformation considered)

B20-2(shear deformation considered)B25-2(shear deformation considered) B25-2(shear deformation not considered) B20-2(sher deformation not considered)

B25-2(shear deformation not considered)

B20-2(sher deformation not considered)B25-2(shear deformation considered) B20-2(shear deformation considered) B25-2(shear deformation not considered)

Fig. 16. Effect of shear deformation on the deflection of beam under two-point concentrated loading.

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

843

500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 P (Total load,kN
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
P (Total load,kN )

Displacement (mm)

B25-U(shear deformation considered) B16-U(shear deformation considered)

B25-U(shear deformation not considered) B16-U(shear deformation not considered)

Fig. 17. Theoretical influence of shear deformation on the deflection of beam under uniformly distributed loading.

Table 2 Simply supported beams tested by Al-Shaikh and Al-Zaid [12] .

Types of load

Beam

Tensile

Compressive

type

reinforcement

reinforcement

C

(mid-span load)

B3-C

2 / 16

/ 10

T

(third-point load)

B5-T

2 / 16

/ 10

U

(uniformly distributed

B1-U

2 / 16

/ 10

load)

bers. As seen from the figure, there is satisfactory agreement be- tween ACI and probability-based effective stiffness model for beams subjected to mid-point loading case. Although the differ- ences between the computed deflections obtained by the different effective flexural stiffness models are found at the initial stage of applied loading for beams subjected to two-point and uniformly distributed loads, the results are close to one another with increas- ing the vertical loads. Fig. 15 through Fig. 17 shows the influence of shear deformation on the maximum total deflection of the reinforced concrete beams. It can be seen that the contribution of the shear deformation to the total vertical deflection of the beams increase with increasing ver- tical loads in all loading cases. The results also indicate that the percentage of shear deformation in the total deflection of beams is approximately 11% (see Fig. 16 ).

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 P
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
P (Total load,kN)

Displacement (mm)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B1-U) Experimental (B1-U)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(B3-C)Probability-based effective stiffness model(B1-U) Experimental (B1-U) Experimental (B3-C)

Experimental (B3-C)Probability-based effective stiffness model(B1-U) Experimental (B1-U) Probability-based effective stiffness model(B3-C)

Fig. 19. Comparison between experimental and predicted deflection of beams under the different loading conditions.

φ10 P 188 A A s A 2500 200
φ10
P
188
A
A
s
A
2500
200

A-A

240

Fig. 20. Simply supported beam with mid-span load tested by Al-Shaikh and Al- Zaid [18] (dimensions in mm).

6.2. Example 2

The accuracy of the proposed analytical procedure has also been investigated using other test results available in the literature [12] . Comparisons have been made with the results reported of three beams with rectangular sections under different loading condi- tions. The test beams had the same 200 mm square cross section with simply supported clear span of 2500 mm and same tensile reinforcement arrangement, two 16 mm diameter deformed steel bars. The reinforcing steel in the beams and the types of load are listed in Table 2 . Three different types of loading were applied,

I eff *10 6

mm 4

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

applied, I e f f *10 6 mm 4 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

012345

M max /M cr

B1-U(Probability based effective stiffness model) B1-U(experimental results) B3-C(Probability based effective stiffness

B1-U(Probability based effective stiffness model) B1-U(experimental results) B3-C(Probability based effective stiffness model) B3-C(experimental results) B5-T(Probability based effective stiffness model) B5-T(experimental results) ACI model CEB model

Fig. 18. Comparisons of the experimental and computed I eff values using different models for beams subjected to the three loading conditions.

I eff *10 6

mm 4

250

200

150

100

50

0

conditions. I e f f *10 6 mm 4 250 200 150 100 50 0 0123456

0123456

M max /M cr

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BL-11,p=0.8%) Experimental(BL-11,p=0.8%) Probability-based effective stiffness

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BL-11,p=0.8%)

Experimental(BL-11,p=0.8%)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BN-12,p=1.4%)

Experimental(BN-12,p=1.4%)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BH-13,p=2%)

Experimental(BH-13,p=2%)

Fig. 21. Comparisons of experimental I eff with the theoretical results using probability-based effective stiffness model (without considering the effects of reinforcement ratio).

844

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

eff *10 6

I

mm 4

250

200

150

100

50

0

836–846 e f f *10 6 I mm 4 250 200 150 100 50 0 0123456

0123456

M max /M cr

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BL-11,p=0.8%) Experimental(BL-11,p=0.8%) Probability-based effective stiffness

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BL-11,p=0.8%)

Experimental(BL-11,p=0.8%)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BN-12,p=1.4%)

Experimental(BN-12,p=1.4%)

Probability-based effective stiffness model(BH-13,p=2%)

Experimental(BH-13,p=2%)

Fig. 22. Comparisons of the experimental I eff and analytical results including the effects of reinforcement ratio.

which included mid-span concentrated load; third-point concen- trated load and uniformly distributed load. Fig. 18 shows the comparisons of experimentally determined I eff for beams under different loading conditions. The variation of the effective moment of inertia obtained from the probability-based effective stiffness model, and ACI and CEB predictions at different moment levels are also presented in Fig. 18 . As seen from the fig- ure, similar results are obtained for the variation in the effective moment of inertia as the previous example. The comparison be-

tween test and theoretical results indicate that probability-based effective stiffness model are in good agreement with the test re- sults more satisfactorily in all loading cases than the ACI and CEB models. The comparison between the test and theoretical results for the maximum deflection of beams obtained by the developed com- puter program is presented in Fig. 19 . It can be seen from figure that the numerical results agree well with the test results with maximum discrepancies of 6%. This analytical method also predicts the deflection with a high degree of accuracy in the serviceability loading range.

6.3. Example 3

In this example, comparisons of different models for the effec- tive moment of inertia obtained by the present computer program have been made with the results of simply supported test beams, having three different reinforcement ratios under the mid-span load case [18] . The section dimensions of beams were 200 mm wide and 240 mm deep. The reinforcing steel in the beams, the span and the load are shown in Fig. 20 . Fig. 21 compares the experimental and theoretical values of I eff for beams with 0.8%, 1.4% and 2% steel ratio which are equivalent to 2.2, 0.4 and 0.55 q b when not considered the reinforcement ef- fect in the analysis. As seen from the figure significant differences are found between test and theoretical results. In order to obtain more accurate results and improve this prediction of effective mo- ment of inertia of beams, it is necessary to consider the effect of reinforcement ratio by using Eqs. (15) and (16) for this loading case as the first example. Fig. 22 shows the variation of the effective

A q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A 0.21 L 0.165 L 0.125
A
q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A
0.21 L
0.165 L
0.125 L 0.125 L
0.165 L
0.21 L
L
A s '
h
A s
b w

Section A-A

(a) Two span continuous beams with uniformly distributed load

Beam

b

h

q

L

Negative Moment

Positive Moment

(mm)

(mm)

(kN/mm)

(mm)

 

Region

   

Region

 

A

s

 

A

s '

A

s

 

A

s '

X1,X4

152.4

203.2

2.77

12192

684

 

600

400

 

400

X2,X5

152.4

203.2

2.77

12192

684

600

400

200

X3,X6

152.4

203.2

2.77

12192

684

600

400

 

-

Y1,Y4

304.8

127

2.13

12679.7

1000

1000

516

516

Y2,Y5

304.8

127

2.13

12679.7

1000

1000

516

258

Y3,Y6

304.8

127

2.13

12679.7

1000

1000

516

-

Z1,Z4

304.8

76.2

0.99

10668

516

 

645

284

284

Z2,Z5

304.8

76.2

0.99

10668

516

645

284

 

142

Z3,Z6

304.8

76.2

0.99

10668

516

645

284

-

b (dimensions of beams)

Fig. 23. Two span continuous beams tested by Washa and Flock [19].

 

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

 

845

Table 3 Comparison of experimental [19] and predicted deflections at joint 2.

 

Beam type

Deflection at joint 2 (mm)

Ratio

Experimental ( A )

Present study (probability-based eff. stiff. mod. ( B )

Present study (ACI mod.) ( C )

Cosenza [6] ( D )

B / A

C /A

D / A

X1,X4

14.2

14.6

13.4

16

1.03

0.94

1.13

X2,X5

14.4

14.9

13.8

16.3

1.03

0.96

1.13

X3,X6

13.2

15.3

14.3

16.6

1.16

1.08

1.26

Y1,Y4

22.6

23.5

21.7

25.1

1.04

0.96

1.11

Y2,Y5

23.6

24.1

22.4

25.7

1.02

0.95

1.09

Y3,Y6

25.4

24.8

23.3

26.2

0.98

0.92

1.03

Z1, Z4

26.4

28.6

26

32.3

1.08

0.98

1.22

Z2, Z5

28.7

29.3

26.8

32.6

1.02

0.93

1.13

Z3, Z6

30.5

30

27.7

33

0.98

0.91

1.08

 

Mean ratio

1.03

0.96

1.13

moment of inertia taking into account the modification of rein- forcement effect in the analysis. It can be seen from figure that the results show more accurate prediction than those of values not considering the reinforcement effect. Hence it is important to consider the effect of reinforcement in the analysis for beams un- der the mid-point loading case in order to obtain more accurate results.

6.4. Example 4

In the last example, two span continuous beam tested by Washa and Flock [19] is taken into account. The continuous beam subjected to uniformly distributed loads is modeled by six beam elements as seen in Fig. 23 . The dimensions of the beam, the spans and the loads are also shown in the figure. For calculating the flexural tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete the following equations (ACI Code Eq. [20] ) are also used.

E c ¼ 4730

p

ffiffiffiffi

f

c

ð N= mm 2 Þ

f r ¼ 0: 62

p

ffiffiffiffi

f

c

ð N= mm 2 Þ

ð 17aÞ

ð 17bÞ

in which, f c is the compressive strength of concrete. The comparison between experimental and theoretical deflec- tion of joint 2 obtained from the present study using the different models for the effective moment of inertia are given in Table 3 . As seen in Table 3 the results of the theoretical deflections determined from present computer program agree well with the experimental results. It can also be seen that different models provide similar results. In this example, almost the same results are also obtained whether the steel effect is considered or not considered in the anal- ysis. Therefore the same conclusion is reached for the case of the two-span continuous beam as for the simple beam examples.

7. Conclusions

The work described in this paper is concerned with the effect of the loading types and reinforcement ratios on the stiffness and deflection of reinforced concrete beams. For this purpose, an itera- tive analytical procedure, which considers the cracking effect with the effective stiffness model in the reinforced concrete structures under different loading conditions, has been presented. The feasi- bility for applying the proposed procedure to the beams subjected to different loading configurations has also been tested by a com- parison between experimental and numerical results. In the analytical procedure, the variation of the flexural stiffness of a cracked member has been evaluated by using ACI, CEB and probability-based effective stiffness model. Shear deformation ef- fect, which can be large following crack developments and thus be practical importance in design, is also taken into account in the analysis, and the variation of shear stiffness in the cracked re-

gions of members has been considered by employing reduced shear stiffness model available in the literature. Comparisons of various models for the effective moment of inertia have been made with the reinforced concrete test beams. The probability-based effective stiffness model predicts effective stiffness of members more accurately than the either ACI or CEB relationships. The results also indicate that different forms of the applied loading give different values of the effective moment of inertia, which implies different reductions in the flexural stiffness of cracked beams. The numerical results of the analytical procedure indicate that the effect of reinforcement ratio on the effective moment of inertia has a significant factor on the beams under mid-point loading case, while it has less significant effect on the beams under the two- point and uniformly distributed loading cases. Therefore it is nec- essary to consider the effect of reinforcement ratio for the mid- point loading case. The feasibility and the reliability of the proposed analytical pro- cedure have been tested by means of comparisons with the theo- retical and experimental results of the deflection of reinforced concrete beams. The numerical results have been found to be in good agreement with the test results. The analytical procedure also predicts the deflections with a high degree of accuracy in the ser- viceability loading range. The theoretical deflection of beams has also been obtained with the different effective flexural stiffness models. There is satisfac- tory agreement between ACI and probability-based effective stiff- ness models for beams subjected to mid-point loading case. Although the differences between the deflections obtained by the different effective flexural stiffness models are found at the initial stage of applied loading for beams subjected to two-point and uni- formly distributed loads, the results are close to one another with increasing the vertical loads. Stiffness matrix method has been applied to obtain the numer- ical solutions of the proposed analytical procedure. The major advantage of this procedure is that it is efficient from the view- points of computational effort and convergence rate to analyze the statically indeterminate structures with members in cracked state. The numerical results of the analytical procedure indicate that contribution of the shear deformation to the total defection of the reinforced concrete beams increases with increasing loads. It is therefore important to consider the variation of shear rigidity in the cracked regions of members for obtaining more accurate results.

References

[1] Cauvin A. Influence of tension stiffening on behavior of structures. In:

Proceedings of the IABSE colloquium, international association of bridge and structural engineers, Zurich; 1991. p. 153–8.

846

I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846

[2] Massicotte B, Elwi AE, MacGregor JG. Tension-stiffening model for planar reinforced concrete members. J Struct Eng ASCE 1990;116(11):3039–58. [3] Polak MA, Vecchio FJ. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shells. J Struct Eng ASCE 1993;119(12):3439–62. [4] Sakai K, Kakuta Y. Moment–curvature relationship of reinforced concrete members subjected to combined bending and axial force. ACI J

1980;77:189–94.

[5] Branson DE. Instantaneous and time-dependent deflections of simple and continuous reinforced concrete beams. HPR, Alabama Highway Department/ US Bureau of Public Roads, Report no. 7, vol. 1; 1963. p. 78. [6] ACI Committee 435. Deflection of reinforced concrete flexural members. ACI J

1966;63:637–74.

[7] Standarts Association of Australia (SAA). SAA concrete structures code. AS 3600-1994, Sydney, Australia; 1994. [8] Ngo D, Scordelis AC. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams. ACI J

1967;64(3):152–63.

[9] Channakeshava C, Sundara Raja Iyengar KT. Elasto-plastic cracking analysis of reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 1988;114:2421–38. [10] Cosenza E. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete elements in a cracked state. Comput Struct 1990;36(1):71–9. [11] Comite Euro-International du Beton. Manual on cracking and deformation, Bulletin d’Information; 1985. p. 158-E.

[12] Al-Zaid RZ, Al-Shaikh AH, Abu-Hussein MM. Effect of loading type on the effective moment of inertia of reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J

1991;88(2):184–90.

[13] Ning F, Mickleborough NC, Chan CM. Service loads response prediction of reinforced concrete flexural members. Struct Eng Mech 2001;12(1):1–16.

[14] Ning F. Lateral stiffness characteristics of tall reinforced concrete buildings. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Hong Kong University Science and Technology, Hong Kong; 1998. [15] Ghali A, Favre R. Concrete structures: stresses and deformations. NY: Chapman and Hall; 1986. [16] Al-Mahaidi RSH. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete deep members. Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Report no. 79, vol. 1; 1978. p. 357. [17] Dundar C, Kara IF. Three dimensional analysis of reinforced concrete frames with cracked beam and column elements. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):2262–73. [18] Al-Shaikh AH, Al-Zaid RZ. Effect of reinforcement ratio on the effective moment of inertia of reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 1993;90:144–9. [19] Washa GW, Fluck PH. Plastic flow (creep) of reinforced concrete continuous beams. ACI J 1956;52:549–61. [20] ACI-318-95. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, Michigan;

1995.