Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846
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 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 probabilitybased 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. Email address: dundar@cu.edu.tr (C. Dundar).
09659978/$  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 shortterm 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 probabilitybased 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 shortterm 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 probabilitybased 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} ¼ I _{1} ;
for M < M _{c}_{r}
M
cr
M
m
I _{2} ; for M P M _{c}_{r} 
ð1aÞ 
ð 1bÞ 
where m = 3. In the CEB model I _{e}_{f}_{f} 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 _{c}_{r}
I _{e}_{f}_{f} ¼ I _{1} ;
ð2aÞ 

for M < M _{c}_{r} 
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 _{c}_{r} is the moment corresponding to ﬂexural cracking considered. The cracking moment, M _{c}_{r} 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 probabilitybased effective stiffness model has also been considered for the effective moment of inertia of a cracked member. In the probabilitybased effective stiffness model, which considers the cracking of concrete with the stiffness reduc tion in the reinforced concrete ﬂexural members, the value of I _{e}_{f}_{f} is determined as the ratio of the area of moment diagram segment over which the working moment exceeds the cracking moment M _{c}_{r} to the total area of moment diagram in the following form ( Fig. 1 ).
A _{u}_{n}_{c}_{r} ¼ A _{4} þ A _{5} þ A _{6} þ A _{7} ¼
Z M ð xÞ <M _{c}_{r}
A _{c}_{r} ¼ A _{1} þ A _{2} þ A _{3} ¼
Z M ð xÞ PM _{c}_{r}
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
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 _{e}_{f}_{f} ¼ P _{u}_{n}_{c}_{r} I _{1} þ P _{c}_{r} I _{2}
ð 4dÞ
ð4e Þ
ð 4f Þ
where A _{c}_{r} is the area of moment diagram segment over which the working moment exceeds the cracking moment M _{c}_{r} and A is the to tal area of moment diagram. In the same equation, P _{c}_{r} and P _{u}_{n}_{c}_{r} 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 AlMahaidi [16] . In this model, AlMahaidi proposed the following hyperbolic expression
for the reduced shear stiffness G _{c} to be employed in the constitu tive relation of cracked concrete
for e _{1} P e _{c}_{r}
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 _{c}_{r} is the crack ing tensile strain. In this study, since threedimensional analysis is considered, I _{e}_{f}_{f} , M _{c}_{r} , M , I _{1} , I _{2} , e _{1} and e _{c}_{r} 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
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 _{1}_{1} 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 _{9}_{9}
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 _{i}_{j} 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 _{z}_{i} , M _{z}_{j} , M _{y}_{i} , M _{y}_{j} , V _{z}_{i} , V _{z}_{j} , V _{y}_{i} , V _{y}_{j} , M _{b}_{i} , M _{b}_{j} , 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.
7
2
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 ﬁxedend 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 _{1}_{0} ¼ P _{2}_{0} ¼ P _{3}_{0} ¼ P _{4}_{0} ¼ P _{5}_{0} ¼ P _{6}_{0} ¼ P _{9}_{0} ¼ P _{1}_{1}_{0} ¼ 0 :
ð8a Þ
ð8b Þ
ð 8cÞ
ð 8dÞ
ð8e Þ
P _{1}_{2}_{0} ¼ qL ^{2} = 2 þ P ð L aÞ þ P _{7}_{0} L þ P _{8}_{0}
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
_{1}_{0}_{0}
¼
ð Þ=
ð
ðqL þ P þ P _{7}_{0} 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 nondimensional 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 ^{d}^{n} ^{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 ^{d}^{n} ^{þ} sL
A
n
_{I} effy dn
1
_{I} effy dn
Z 1
0
1
G
c
dn
f 70 ¼ 2E ^{q}^{L} 4
c Z 1
0
3
I
n
effy ^{d}^{n} ^{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 ^{q}^{L} 3
c Z 1
0
2
I
n
effy ^{d}^{n} ^{þ} PL 2
E
c
dn þ ^{s}^{L}
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 probabilitybased 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 ^{q}^{L} 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 ^{s}^{L}
A
f 80 ¼ ^{q}^{L} 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} 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 nonconvergent 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
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 _{e}_{f}_{f} , 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 crosssection 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 probabilitybased effective stiff ness models. The variation of the experimentally determined I _{e}_{f}_{f} is also shown in Fig. 6 . In obtaining the the value of I _{e}_{f}_{f} 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} , which means different reductions in the ﬂexural stiffness of cracked beams. The value of effective moment of inertia calculated from midpoint loading case is much larger than other two forms of loading for the same level of M _{m}_{a}_{x} / M _{c}_{r} value. The reason is that the area of A _{c}_{r} segment over which the working moment exceeds
the cracking moment for the midpoint loading case is less than
450 mm
Fig. 5. Simply supported beam with midspan 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. Midspan load 
B161 
400 
3 / 16 3 / 20 3 / 25 
2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 2 / 12 

B201 
396 

B251 
393.5 

2. Twopoint load 
B162 
400 
3 / 16 3 / 20 3 / 25 3 / 16 

B202 
396 

B252 
393.5 

U (uniformly 
B16U 
400 

distributed load) 

B20U 
396 
3 / 20 3 / 25 
2 / 12 2 / 12 

B25U 
393.5 
I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846
841
I _{e}_{f}_{f} *10 ^{6}
mm ^{4}
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
M max /M cr

Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B251) Experimental(B251) Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B252) Experimental(B252) Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B25U) Experimental(B25U) ACI 
CEB 
Fig. 6. Comparisons of the experimental and computed I _{e}_{f}_{f} values using different models for B25 beams subjected to the three loading conditions.
0123456
M max /M cr
B201(steel effect considered)
B161(steel effect considered)
B251(steel effect considered)
B201(experimental results)
B161(experimental results)
B251(experimental results)
Fig. 8. Comparisons of the experimental I _{e}_{f}_{f} and analytical results for beams subjected to midpoint 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} for the midpoint loading case but overestimates for the other two cases. However the results of the probabilitybased 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} for beams subjected to midpoint 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 B251, which the steel ratio equals to 0.39 q _{b} , signiﬁcant differ ences are obtained for B201 and B161 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
0123456
M max /M cr
B201(steel effect not considered) B201(experimental results) B161(steel effect not considered) B161(experimental results) B251(steel effect not considered) B251(exprimental results)
Fig. 7. Comparisons of experimental I _{e}_{f}_{f} for beams subjected to midpoint loading case with the theoretical results using probabilitybased effective stiffness model (without considering the effects of reinforcement ratio).
and I _{e}_{f}_{f} was modiﬁed as the following equation:
I _{e}_{f}_{f} ¼ 1 P _{c}_{r} 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} obtained from experimental and analytical results without considering the
I _{e}_{f}_{f} *10 ^{6}
mm ^{4}
2000
1500
1000
500
0
012345
M max /M cr
B202(steel effect not considered) B202(experimental results) B162(steel effect not considered) B162(experimental results) B252(steel effect not considered) B252(experimental results)
012345
M max /M cr
B25U(steel effect not considered)
B16U(steel effect not considered)
B25U (experimental results)
B16U(experimental results)
Fig. 10. Comparisons of the experimental I _{e}_{f}_{f} 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
Displacement (mm)
B251(Probabilitybased effective stiffness model)
B251(experimental results)
B201(Probabilitybased effective stiffness model)
B201(experimental results)
B161(Probabilitybased effective stiffness model)
B161(experimental results)
Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental and analytical results of the deﬂection of beams under midpoint loading.
02468
Displacement (mm)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B251)
ACI model(B251)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B252)
ACI model(B252)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B25U)
ACI model(B25U)
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
Displacement (mm)
B25U(Probabilitybased effective stiffness model)
B25U(experimental results)
B16U(Probabilitybased effective stiffness model)
B16U(experimental results)
Fig. 12. Comparisons of the analytical and experimental results of the deﬂection of beams under uniformly distributed loading.
Displacement (mm)
B252(Probabilitybased effectie stiffness model) B252(experimental results)
B202(Probabilitybased effective stiffness model)
B202(experimental results)
B162(Probabilitybased effective stiffness model)
B162(experimental results
Fig. 13. Comparison between experimental and predicted deﬂection of beams under twopoint loading.
012345678
Displacement (mm)
B251(shear deformation considered) 

B201(shear deformation considered) 

B251(shear deformation not considered) 

B201(shear deformation not considered) 

Fig. 15. Theoretical inﬂuence of shear deformation on the deﬂection of beam under midpoint concentrated loading.
through Fig. 13 . The numerical results obtained from the present computer program by using the probabilitybased 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
02468
Displacement (mm)
B252(shear deformation considered)
B202(shear deformation considered)
B252(shear deformation not considered)
B202(sher deformation not considered)
Fig. 16. Effect of shear deformation on the deﬂection of beam under twopoint concentrated loading.
I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846
843
Displacement (mm)
B25U(shear deformation considered) B16U(shear deformation considered)
B25U(shear deformation not considered) B16U(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 AlShaikh and AlZaid [12] .
Types of load 
Beam 
Tensile 
Compressive 

type 
reinforcement 
reinforcement 

C 
(midspan load) 
B3C 
2 / 16 
/ 10 
T 
(thirdpoint load) 
B5T 
2 / 16 
/ 10 
U 
(uniformly distributed 
B1U 
2 / 16 
/ 10 
load) 
bers. As seen from the ﬁgure, there is satisfactory agreement be tween ACI and probabilitybased effective stiffness model for beams subjected to midpoint 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 twopoint 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 ).
Displacement (mm)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B1U) Experimental (B1U)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(B3C)
Experimental (B3C)
Fig. 19. Comparison between experimental and predicted deﬂection of beams under the different loading conditions.
AA
240
Fig. 20. Simply supported beam with midspan load tested by AlShaikh 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} *10 ^{6}
mm ^{4}
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
012345
^{M} max ^{/}^{M} cr
B1U(Probability based effective stiffness model) B1U(experimental results) B3C(Probability based effective stiffness model) B3C(experimental results) B5T(Probability based effective stiffness model) B5T(experimental results) ACI model CEB model
Fig. 18. Comparisons of the experimental and computed I _{e}_{f}_{f} values using different models for beams subjected to the three loading conditions.
I _{e}_{f}_{f} *10 ^{6}
mm ^{4}
250
200
150
100
50
0
0123456
M max /M cr
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(BL11,p=0.8%)
Experimental(BL11,p=0.8%)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(BN12,p=1.4%)
Experimental(BN12,p=1.4%)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(BH13,p=2%)
Experimental(BH13,p=2%)
Fig. 21. Comparisons of experimental I _{e}_{f}_{f} with the theoretical results using probabilitybased effective stiffness model (without considering the effects of reinforcement ratio).
844
I.F. Kara, C. Dundar / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 836–846
_{e}_{f}_{f} *10 ^{6}
I
mm ^{4}
250
200
150
100
50
0
0123456
M max /M cr
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(BL11,p=0.8%)
Experimental(BL11,p=0.8%)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(BN12,p=1.4%)
Experimental(BN12,p=1.4%)
Probabilitybased effective stiffness model(BH13,p=2%)
Experimental(BH13,p=2%)
Fig. 22. Comparisons of the experimental I _{e}_{f}_{f} and analytical results including the effects of reinforcement ratio.
which included midspan concentrated load; thirdpoint concen trated load and uniformly distributed load. Fig. 18 shows the comparisons of experimentally determined I _{e}_{f}_{f} for beams under different loading conditions. The variation of the effective moment of inertia obtained from the probabilitybased 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 probabilitybased 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 midspan 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 _{e}_{f}_{f} 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
Section AA
(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 (probabilitybased 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 midpoint 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 twospan 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 probabilitybased 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 probabilitybased 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 midpoint 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 probabilitybased effective stiff ness models for beams subjected to midpoint 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 twopoint 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. Tensionstiffening 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 timedependent 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 36001994, 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. Elastoplastic 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 EuroInternational du Beton. Manual on cracking and deformation, Bulletin d’Information; 1985. p. 158E.
[12] AlZaid RZ, AlShaikh AH, AbuHussein 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] AlMahaidi 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] AlShaikh AH, AlZaid 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] ACI31895. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, Michigan;
1995.
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.