archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 186–191

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/acme

Original Research Article

Static and dynamic stiffness of reinforced concrete beams

M. Musiałn
Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Building Engineering, Division of Concrete Structures, Wroclaw University of Technology, pl.
Grunwaldzki 11, 50-377 Wroclaw, Poland

ar t ic l e in f o abs tra ct

Article history: In this paper experimental studies of reinforced concrete beams are reported. The
Received 14 March 2012 influence of load on deflections and basic eigenfrequency was investigated. Eigenfrequen-
Accepted 22 April 2012 cies were registered using the operational modal analysis. Static stiffness (on the basis
Available online 1 May 2012 of deflections) and dynamic stiffness (on the basis of eigenfrequencies) were obtained

Keywords: indirectly (with calculations). A comparative analysis shows that these figures differ in

Beam value. The paper is completed with the theoretical analysis.

Dynamic stiffness & 2012 Politechnika Wrocławska. Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z.o.o. All rights

Eigenvibrations reserved.

Experimental studies
Reinforced concrete

1. Introduction 2. Experimental studies characterization

One of the fundamental principles of the theory of reinforced
concrete structures states that the effects related to cracks
impact the generalized displacements and redistribution of
internal forces. This fact combined with some relevant
scientific works [1,2], inspired the author to investigate the
field of the reinforced concrete beams dynamics. The result
of this investigation was to propose our own calculation
model. The research involved a meticulous preparation of
the experimental setup in order to assure the adequacy of the
elements tested and calculation model. In view of the latter,
the investigations were performed on precast beams. Thanks
to that, the realization of a clear and close to ideal investi-
gative scheme was possible. Moreover, dynamic analyses
required suspending the beams on elastic ropes, as described
in greater detail in the paper.
Experimental studies were performed on reinforced concrete
beams in half-natural scale. Each of the elements had the
dimensions of 3300 mm  250 mm  150 mm. The cross-sec-
tions with a reinforcement are shown in Fig. 1.
Series B-I, B-II, and B-III had the same tensile reinforce-
ment ratio of 0.65%. The B-IV beams series were reinforced
stronger (1.38%). The elements were made of the C25/30 class
concrete. The longitudinal reinforcement was made using
class A-IIIN rebars, while the stirrups were class A-I (classes
of reinforcing steel according to [3]). The basic material
properties are listed in Table 1.
The goal of the investigations was to estimate bending
stiffness of the elements indirectly. The static stiffness was
calculated on the basis of the beams’ deflections. The deflec-
tions were registered with the inductive gauges with accuracy

n
Tel.: þ48 71 320 35 48; fax þ48 71 322 14 65.
E-mail address: michal.musial@pwr.wroc.pl

1644-9665/$ - see front matter & 2012 Politechnika Wrocławska. Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z.o.o. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.04.005
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 186–191 187

Fig. 1 – Investigative elements (dimensions in mm).

Table 1 – Basic material properties.

Material Property Series

B-I B-II B-III B-IV

Concrete Mean compressive strength, fcm (MPa) 51.7 51.2 45.6 41.1
Mean splitting tensile strength, fctm,spl (MPa) 3.58 3.21 3.03 2.79
Mean Young modulus, Ecm (GPa) 30.3 29.6 28.5 30.0

Steel (longitudinal rebars) Mean yield strength, fym (MPa) 563 563 548 555
Mean Young modulus, Esm (GPa) 202 202 200 202

Fig. 3 – Eigenforms of a simply supported beam.

Fig. 2 – Experimental setup for the static analysis—sketch
(dimensions in mm).

of 0.001 mm. The beams were loaded with concentrated force

applied at the mid-span (three points bending test). The
scheme of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2. The
deflection measurements at points 1 and 3 were carried out
to register any potential settings of the supports.
Dynamic stiffness was calculated on the basis of the
eigenfrequency. A Brüel & Kjær data acquisition and proces-
sing system was used in the measurements. The system uses
the operational version of the modal analysis [4]—presently, a
Fig. 4 – Eigenforms of a suspended beam.
popular tool for nondestructive testing of engineering struc-
tures and machines. The system registers the beam’s
response (acceleration of certain points) on external random dynamic parameters of the object investigated (eigenfrequen-
forces. The vibrations in the beams are caused randomly by cies, eigenforms, damping parameters).
the setup environment, and include acoustic noise, air flow, In order to select the optimal investigative procedure,
gentle strokes in investigative element. One of the main several preliminary analyses were carried out [5]. Two
advantages of the operational modal analysis is that there schemes were considered: one consisting of a beam sus-
is no need to measure the external triggering sources and pended on elastic ropes while another involving a simply
separate the element under tests from any background supported beam with an application of double sided, fas-
influences. These characteristics are particularly desirable tened screwed bearings. The acquired and theoretical three
in case of large engineering structures (e.g. chimneys and first eigenforms are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
bridges), when there is no practical possibility of eliminat- It may be noticed that better agreement between the
ing wall external influences. The measurements yield basic measurements and theory is obtained for the case of a beam
188 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 186–191
suspended on elastic ropes. The total elimination of a vertical
movement in the supports is practically impossible in the
simply supported beam scheme. It would result in discre-
pancies between the behavior of the element tested and
calculation model in further analyses. Therefore, it was
decided to carry out the dynamic experiments with using
the suspended scheme only (Fig. 5). This approach is com-
monly used in investigating mechanisms and their charac-
teristics. This is why this approach has gained popularity in
recent years in experimental studies of components of
engineering structures [6].
Considering these facts, the optimal investigative proce-
dure was chosen. Each test was preceded by the dynamic
analysis of a suspended beam. Followingly, the element
under tests was placed on the supports and loaded at the
mid-span with a concentrated force of a given value. The
beam deflection was acquired once it stabilized. Subse-
quently, beam was unloaded and taken from the supports
for the dynamic analysis. In the next step, the beam was once
again placed on the bearings and loaded with a higher force
than in the previous step. The aforementioned procedure was
repeated till the beam failure. When the load-bearing capa-
city was exhausted the modal analysis was performed in the
suspended position. The investigative procedure is shown
below with pictorial static load–deflection behavior diagram
(Fig. 6).
Fig. 5 – Experimental setup for the operational modal
analysis.
Fig. 6 – Investigative procedure on the static load–deflection
path.
The test results were processed by applying the elementary
material strength and structural mechanics relations. The
formula for a deflection of a simply supported beam in three
point bending test has the following form:
3
1 Flef f
a¼ ð1Þ
48 EIs
where F is the concentrated force, leff is the length of span (in
the tests 3000 mm), and EIs is the static stiffness of beam.
The relation for first eigenfrequency of a free bar (without
kinematic boundary conditions) is as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ml4
f ¼g ð2Þ
EId
where g is the coefficient dependent on eigenform’s number
and dynamic scheme (in the investigations g ¼3.49979), m is
the mass of the beam per unit length, l is the total length of
beam (in the investigations 3300 mm) and EId is the dynamic
stiffness of the beam.
The above formulae can be converted to calculate static (on
the basis of measured deflections) and dynamic stiffness (on
the basis of measured eigenfrequencies). It should be empha-
sized that formulae (1) and (2) concern beams with a constant
stiffness. In case of reinforced concrete beams, stiffness is
changing along the length of a beam as a function of bending
moment. The aim of this work is to estimate constant
substitute (equivalent) stiffness which will allow to calculate
eigenfrequencies with the application of formulae for
prismatic beams.
The following diagram (Fig. 7) presents the measured
eigenfrequencies of reinforced concrete beams as a function
of load advancement. The elements were examined after
unloading. The influence of the load history on eigenfre-
quency is therefore demonstrated in the graph.
Significant differences in behavior between the elements
with different reinforcement ratios are clearly noticeable.
Those could be observed already in the first phase of the
work. The elements with the higher reinforcement ratio
(r ¼1.38%) had lower eigenfrequencies than the elements
with the lower reinforcement ratio (r¼ 0.65%). This fact is in
contradiction to the static behavior. This is because it is
known that a higher reinforcement ratio results in a higher
bending stiffness. The difference in behavior can be explained
by the significant influence of gross concrete cross-section
Fig. 7 – Eigenfrequencies in function of load history.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 186–191
and weaker influence of reinforcement on the issues related
to vibrations in uncracked beams. This problem was dis-
cussed by other Authors in [7,8], who introduced the concept
of a so-called dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete,
which is artificially related to the reinforcement ratio. Despite
the indirect, artificial relation between the modulus and
reinforcement ratio, this approach is quite popular and easy
in engineering interpretations.
Jerath and Shibani [7] investigated uncracked reinforced
concrete beams. On the basis of the natural frequencies’
measurements, stiffness of the beams was calculated. This
approach allowed to estimate dynamic Young modulus pur-
suant to the stiffness. Its value was shown to be lower for
typical reinforcement rations than classic modulus of elasti-
city (obtained with axial compression of cylindrical speci-
men). Moreover, the differences between static and dynamic
modulus of elasticity were shown to differ depending on the
difference between the reinforcement ratios. The performed
measurements confirm these observations. The lower initial
dynamic stiffness of the heavier reinforced beams is caused
by the lower dynamic modulus of elasticity. More experi-
mental measurements in this field are currently planned.
Moreover, in the performed investigations it was observed
that in case of beams with low reinforcement ratio, after
exceeding the cracking moment, the decrease of eigenfre-
quencies occurs. This decrease is most significant during the
process of cracks occurrence. The frequency decrease stabi-
lizes for the load advancement reaching 80%, when new
cracks do not appear and the decrease of eigenfrequencies
results from further development in existing cracks and the
deterioration of steel–concrete interaction. The significant
decrease of eigenfrequency after exceeding load-bearing
Fig. 8 – Deflections in function of load advancement.
Table 2 – Cracking moments and load-bearing capacities.
Property Series
B-I
Mean cracking moment (kN m) 7.35
Mean load-bearing capacity (kN m) 26.96
189
capacity is noticeable. It is caused with hinge occurred under
concentrated force.
In terms of the qualitative analysis, the beams with a high
reinforcement ratio are characterized by the same behavior.
The decrease in eigenfrequencies related to the cracking is
relatively smaller than in case of the beams with low
reinforcement ratio. Moreover, the decrease of eigenfrequen-
cies stabilizes earlier—once it reaches the load level of 40%.
For comparative purposes, static behavior of the elements
(equilibrium paths) was registered during the tests, as well.
The measurement diagram (deflection—the level of load
advancement) is included below (Fig. 8). The registered values
of cracking moments and load-bearing capacities are listed in
Table 2.
3. Proposed method of calculations
The method of the dynamic stiffness calculation was for-
mulated with the application of relations for effective stiff-
ness of element proposed in [3,9]. For uncracked beam they
have the following form:
BI ¼ aEc II ð3aÞ
whereas after the Mcr exceeding:
aEc III
BII ¼ ð3bÞ
1b1 b2 ðMcr =MÞ2b ð1ðIII =II ÞÞ
where Ec is the Young modulus of concrete, II, III are the
moments of inertia of cross-section in phases I and II with
the consideration of reinforcement, b1, b2 are the coefficients
depended on rebars bond and load character, and a, b are the
experimental coefficients (in static issues a¼ b¼ 1,0).
The a coefficient is a parameter of transformation from
static to dynamic Young modulus of concrete. The exponent b
expresses the character of changeability of dynamic stiffness
in the domain of the level of load advancement after the
beam cracking.
By taking advantage of the experiment results, described
in the second paragraph of this paper, the scaling of the
parameter b was carried out. For this purpose the tool of
nonlinear regression, implemented in calculation system
[10,11], was applied. On the basis of the collected results
a linear relation for this coefficient was proposed in the
following form:
b ¼ 2:22r þ 0:0669: ð4Þ
Design practice requires economical reinforcement ratio of
beams to be set in range of 0.7–1.5%. The beams investigated
were reinforced with the ratios 0.65 and 1.38%, which is on
the edge of the interval. It can be assumed that the coefficient
b is changing linearly within this range.
B-II B-III B-IV
6.18 5.87 5.60
27.00 26.62 53.29
190 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 186–191
Fig. 9 – The results of investigations for beams with low reinforcement ratio.
Fig. 10 – The results of investigations for beams with high reinforcement ratio.
All of the tested elements were made of the concrete of the
same class (C25/30). Because of that, it is impossible to
propose a general formula for parameter a. The parameter
depends not only on the reinforcement ratio but also on the
concrete mixture and class as well. The latter was proved in
paper [12]. The results of the investigation performed brought
only the regularity covered by Eq. (5) which was used in the
further analyses. Currently supplementary tests in this field
are being prepared in conjunction with other nondestructive
testing methods [13].
a  1:000 for r ¼ 0:65%
a ¼ 0:777 for r ¼ 1:38%: ð5Þ
In the Author’s opinion, the results of the performed
studies can be generalized on the related classes of concrete
(C20/25, C30/37). This generalization involves the classes of
concrete commonly used in building engineering.
The results of the experimental investigations and numer-
ical analyses are gathered in Figs. 9 and 10. In the graph, aside
from stiffness values plotted according to relations 3 and 4,
stiffness calculated recommended by the standard for
designing supporting structures of machines [14] are shown.
4. Summary and conclusions
In this paper the results of the experimental investigations
illustrating the influence of load history on stiffness of
reinforced concrete beams were presented. The method of
calculating the dynamic stiffness, inspired by the formulae
given in the standards for designing reinforced concrete struc-
tures [3,9], was proposed. The comparison of the results shows
significant discrepancies between the static and dynamic char-
acteristics of structures. The guidelines included in the paper
can be useful in nondestructive diagnostic used in conjunction
with the operational modal analysis and applied not only in the
case of reinforced concrete structures, but also in the case of
precast elements before assembly.
Furthermore, despite significant simplifications (calcula-
tions carried out for gross concrete cross-section without
taking into consideration any reinforcement and cracks), it
was observed that the standard for designing supporting
structures cannot be rejected arbitrarily (which was sug-
gested in the paper [15]). The results of the calculations
carried out according to standard [14] were closer to the
measurement results than the calculations carried out
using the formulae proposed in [3,9] without correcting its
coefficients.
The formulae proposed in this paper can be applied in the
dynamic calculations, especially if higher accuracy is required.
As an additional result of the experiments, the method based
on the discrete crack model was formulated as well [16,17]. It
should be emphasized here, that the dynamic analyses are
different from the static calculations. Overstiffening of the
structure is not in fact related to the commonly understood
safety margin. Under certain circumstances it may result in
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 12 (2012) 186–191
eigenfrequencies approaching frequencies of acting force and
lead to resonance.
r e f e r e n c e s
[1] S. Jerath, M.M. Shibani, Dynamic stiffness and vibration of
reinforced concrete beams, ACI Journal 82 (2) (1985) 196–202.
[2] K.C. Johns, M.D. Belanger, Dynamic stiffness of concrete
beams, ACI Journal 78 (3) (1981) 201–205.
[3] PN-B-03264:2002, Plain, reinforced and prestressed concrete
structures—analysis and structural design, Polish Standard,
Warsaw, 2002 (in Polish).
[4] M. Batel, Operational modal analysis—another way of doing
modal testing, Sound and Vibration (2002) 22–27.
[5] J. Grosel, M. Musiał, A. Ubysz, Z. Wójcicki, Experimental
studies on the influence of load history on eigenfrequencies
of concrete beam, Inżynieria i Budownictwo 12 (2010)
714–716 (in Polish).
[6] A.S. Ghods, B. Moghaddasie, Evaluating the dynamic char-
acteristics of reinforced concrete beams, in: Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on FRP Composites in
Civil Engineering (CICE 2008), 2008.
[7] S. Jerath, M.M. Shibani, Dynamic modulus for reinforced
concrete beam, Journal of Structural Engineering 110 (6)
(1984) 1405–1410.
[8] A. Malaikah, K. Al-Saif, R. Al-Zaid, Prediction of the dynamic
modulus of elasticity of concrete under different loading
191
conditions, in: Proceedings of the International Conference
on Concrete Engineering and Technology, 2004.
[9] PN-EN 1992-1-1:2008, Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1:
general rules, and rules for buildings, Polish Standard, War-
saw, 2008 (in Polish).
[10] W. Glabisz, Mathematicas in Structural Mechanics Issues,
WUT Publishing House, Wroclaw, 2003 (in Polish).
[11] S. Wolfram, The Mathematica Book, Wolfram Media and
Cambridge University Press, Champaign, 1999.
[12] W. Hansen, Static and Dynamic Elastic Modulus of Concrete
as Affected by Mix Composition and Compressive Strength,
ACI Special Publication 98 (1986) 115–137.
[13] J. Hoła, K. Schabowicz, State-of-the-art non-destructive
methods for diagnostic testing of building structures—
anticipated development trends, Archives of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering 10 (3) (2010) 5–18.
[14] PN-B-03040:1980, Machine foundations and supporting
structures, Calculation and design, Polish Standard, Warsaw,
1980 (in Polish).
[15] R. Wlazło, Dynamic stiffness of reinforce concrete beams, in:
Proceedings of the XXXIII Konferencja Naukowa KILiW PAN i
KN PZITB, 1987 (in Polish).
[16] M. Kamiński, M. Musiał, A. Ubysz, Eigenfrequencies of the
reinforced concrete beams—methods of calculations, Journal
of Civil Engineering and Management 17 (2) (2010) 278–283.
[17] M. Musiał, Vibrations of reinforced concrete beams with
consideration of discrete crack model, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, 2010 (in Polish).