525

Minimum flexural reinforcement for T-beams

made of higher strength concrete
Guney Ozcebe, Ugur Ersoy, and Tugrul Tankut

Abstract: Design codes specify minimum flexural reinforcement for reinforced concrete beams. With the extensive use
of higher strength concrete, the empirical expressions of the past for minimum flexural reinforcement, in which the
concrete strength is not considered, had to be revised. Six reinforced concrete T-beams, having small ratios of flexural
reinforcement, were tested to study the behaviour at the positive moment region and to evaluate the code requirements
on minimum flexural reinforcement. A criterion was set and evaluations of different minimum reinforcement
requirements were made using this criterion and the test data.

Key words: beams, crack control, ductility, flexural strength, high strength concrete, minimum flexural reinforcement,
reserve strength.

Résumé : Les codes de conception spécifient le renforcement en flexion minimum pour les poutres en béton armé. Les
expressions empiriques du passé pour le renforcement en flexion minimum, dans lesquelles la résistance du béton
n’apparaissait pas, ont dû être révisées avec l’usage considérable de béton à haute performance. Six poutres en T en
béton armé, ayant de faibles rapports de renforcement en flexion, ont été testées pour étudier le comportement dans la
région de moment positif et pour évaluer les exigences du code pour le renforcement en flexion minimum. Un critère a
été fixé et differentes exigences de renforcement en flexion minimum ont été évaluées en utilisant le critère et les
résultats des tests.

Mots clés : poutres, contrôle de fissures, ductilité, résistance en flexion, béton à haute performance, renforcement de
fléchissement minimum, résistance de réserve.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Ozcebe et al. 534

Introduction evaluated to study the minimum flexural reinforcement re-

Design codes specify minimum flexural reinforcement for
reinforced concrete beams. The main objective in specifying
a lower limit for flexural reinforcement is to prevent the
beam from failing in a brittle manner, similar to plain con-
crete beams.
In general, the expressions given in the design codes for
minimum flexural reinforcement are empirical. One criterion
in evaluating the minimum flexural reinforcement require-
ments is to have an ultimate moment, Mu, that is greater than
the cracking moment, Mcr, i.e., Mu /Mcr > 1.0. Although all
researchers agree that the ultimate moment should be greater
than the cracking moment, there is no agreement on what
this ratio should be.
Six reinforced concrete beams having low flexural rein-
forcement were tested (Basaran 1993). Test results were
Received August 11, 1998.
Revised manuscript accepted February 16, 1999.
G. Ozcebe,1 U. Ersoy, and T. Tankut. Department of Civil
Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531,
Ankara, Turkey.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until February 29, 2000 (address inside
front cover).
1
Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed
(e-mail: ozcebe@metu.edu.tr).
quirements. Three of the specimens had a nominal concrete
strength of 60 MPa (8520 psi), and the other three had a
strength of 90 MPa (12 800 psi). Based on the observed be-
haviour of the test specimens, code requirements for mini-
mum flexural reinforcement were evaluated and discussed.
Research significance
All design codes require minimum flexural reinforcement
for beams. The reason for such requirements is to provide a
reasonable ductility and reserve capacity after the initiation
of flexural cracks. A review of the past research reveals that
data related to minimum flexural reinforcement are very lim-
ited and there is only one paper discussing the philosophy
behind the minimum flexural reinforcement requirements
(Freyermuth and Aalami 1997).
The empirical expressions for minimum reinforcement
given in the Canadian Standards CSA-A23.3-94 (CSA 1994)
and the American Concrete Institute Code ACI 318-95 (ACI
1995) have recently been revised, considering the extensive
use of higher strength concrete. A similar revision was made
in the 1999 revision of the Turkish Code TS500 (TS500-99).
The revision in the Turkish code was originally proposed by
Ersoy (1985).
Six T-beams made of higher strength concrete (60 and
90 MPa) were tested. Test results were evaluated considering
the reserve strength beyond flexural cracking stage. The re-
quirements given in the 1989 and 1995 ACI codes, the 1994

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 26: 525–534 (1999) © 1999 NRC Canada

526 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999

Canadian standards, and the 1999 Turkish code were also Equating eqs. [4] and [5], the following expression is ob-
evaluated using the test results. tained for the minimum reinforcement ratio:

As f f′
Minimum flexural reinforcement [6] = ρmin = 0.90 ct = 0.3 c
bwd fy fy
The minimum flexural reinforcement requirements given
in the Canadian standards and the ACI codes are briefly The reinforcement ratio given in eq. [6] was introduced
summarized in the following paragraphs. In all expressions into the 1999 Turkish code as the minimum flexural rein-
SI units are used. forcement. Equation [6] is very similar in form to the ones
The 1984 Canadian standards and the 1989 ACI code (CSA- given in the 1995 ACI code and the 1994 Canadian stan-
A23.3-84 and ACI 318-89): dards. It should be pointed out that the ultimate moment
 A  1.4 would be higher if the strain hardening of the reinforcing
[1] ρmin =  s  = steel is considered. If this is taken into account, it will be
 bwd  min fy possible to reduce the minimum given in eq. [6]. However, it
should be noted that if the concrete strength is higher than
the specified value, which is possible, the minimum rein-
The 1994 Canadian standards (CSA-A23.3-94): forcement required would increase.
The expression in the Canadian standards for minimum
flexural reinforcement was revised in 1994 to include the
concrete strength. The expression is very similar to the one Experimental program
given in ACI 318-95.
Test specimens
 A  f′ Six T-beams were tested under two-point loading. Dimen-
[2] ρmin =  s ⯝ 0.2 c sions, reinforcement details, and loading are shown in Fig. 1.
 bt h  min fy
The shear spans were the same in all specimens, i.e., a/d =
The 1995 ACI code (ACI 318-95): 3.3. Since very low ratios of flexural reinforcement were
Equation [1] does not include the concrete strength as a used, the flexural capacity of all test specimens was lower
parameter. With the extensive use of higher strength con- than the diagonal cracking capacity. Therefore, no shear
crete, it was felt that eq. [1] would yield inadequate rein- cracks were expected. However, minimum ties were pro-
forcement ratios because it was based on test results vided in the shear span as an extra precaution. These ties
obtained on beams made of normal strength concrete. The and the top bars holding the ties were terminated at the
expression given below is provided to be effective for higher boundaries of the constant moment region (Fig. 1).
strength concrete as well as the normal strength concrete. Test specimens were grouped into two series according to
their concrete strength (60 and 90 MPa). Each series con-
 A  f′ sisted of three beams. In each series, three different rein-
[3] ρmin =  s  = 0.25 c forcement ratios were used.
 bwd  min fy
The properties of the test specimens are summarized in
The 1999 Turkish code (TS500): Table 1. In columns 6–9, minimum flexural reinforcement
Ersoy (1985) developed an expression for the minimum ratios, which are required by the codes for the actual mate-
flexural reinforcement by equating the cracking strength of a rial strengths given in columns 3 and 5, are presented.
T-beam to its ultimate strength. In this derivation, the fol- In designing the test beams, “supplied reinforcement” was
lowing assumptions were made: calculated using the target strength of concrete and the ac-
(i) The section modulus of the T-beam was set equal to tual strength of reinforcing bars obtained from tests. There-
twice the section modulus of the same beam without fore, the variations of supplied reinforcement ratios from the
flanges. required ones were unavoidable, since the concrete strengths
(ii) The effective depth of the section was taken as 90% of were somewhat different from the target values. Ratios of
its total depth, i.e., d = 0.9h. ρsupplied/ρrequired are presented in Table 1 (column 12).
With these assumptions, the equations for the cracking In specimen T901, two bars different in size and strength
and ultimate moments can easily be written. were used. In calculating the required minimum flexural re-
inforcement, the weighted average of the yield strengths was
≈ fctf   bwh 2 (2) ≈ 0.40 fctf bwd 2
fctf I 1 used for this specimen.
M cr =
y  6
Materials
Assuming that the flexural tensile strength of concrete is Two different concrete mixes were used in casting the test
twice the direct tensile strength, i.e., fctf ≈ 2fct, the cracking specimens. The mixes were designed to obtain compressive
moment can be written as follows: strengths of 60 and 90 MPa (8520 and 12 800 psi) at the end
of 28 days. Concrete mix proportions per cubic metre are
[4] Mcr = 0.80fctbwd 2
given in Table 2 for each mix. Concrete compressive strength,
On the other hand, the ultimate moment is given in Table 1 for each specimen, represents the average of
three uniaxially loaded standard cylinders. Split cylinder test
[5] Mr = As fy( j)d = 0.9As fyd results for each specimen are also given in Table 1 (column

© 1999 NRC Canada

Ozcebe et al.
Fig. 1. Dimensions and reinforcement of test specimens. All dimensions are in millimetres.
4). The values listed are the average tensile strengths, which
are obtained from performing three split cylinder tests for
each specimen.
Two different sizes of deformed bars were used as flexural
reinforcement (10 and 12 mm in diameter). A typical stress–
strain curve for each bar is shown in Fig. 2.
Instrumentation and test procedure
Test specimens were instrumented to measure the applied
load, mid-span deflection, and strains on concrete and rein-
forcement in the constant moment region. A general view of
the instrumentation is shown in Fig. 3.
Concrete strains in the constant moment region were mea-
sured at four locations, two at the top and two at the bottom.
Linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) for mea-
suring the concrete strains were attached to threaded bars
anchored into the concrete core.
Two electrical resistance strain gauges mounted on the
bottom reinforcing bars were used to measure the strains up
to yielding. The locations of the strain gauges are also
shown in Fig. 3. Data obtained from these gauges were later
used to estimate the cracking and the yield loads of the test
specimens.
All specimens were tested 28 days after casting in a spe-
cially built test frame. As shown in Fig. 3, monotonically in-
creasing two point loads were applied by a single hydraulic
ram through a cross-beam. The applied load was measured
by a calibrated load cell.
527
Test results
General
The main objective of this research was to investigate the
amount of minimum flexural reinforcement that would result
in satisfactory behaviour. For this purpose, beams having
different ratios of flexural reinforcement were tested. The re-
inforcement ratios used were close to the ratios given in de-
sign codes.
The adequacy of the flexural reinforcement can be evalu-
ated by considering the reserve strength beyond flexural
cracking, displacement ductility, and crack width or deflec-
tion at various stages. Presently, there are no generally ac-
cepted criteria for such an evaluation.
Since beams having minimum flexural reinforcement are
all underreinforced, their behaviour will be very ductile,
unless the maximum capacity of the tensile reinforcement
(Fs = As fsu ) is less than the tensile force taken by concrete
prior to flexural cracking. For this reason, the authors be-
lieve that the amount of ductility should not be a decisive
criterion in evaluating the test results. Freyermuth and
Aalami (1997) made similar suggestions.
The reserve strength beyond the first flexural cracking
could be used as a criterion in evaluating the performance of
the test specimens. A reserve strength parameter can be de-
fined as the ratio of the yield load to the cracking load or as
the ratio of the ultimate load to the cracking load.
Freyermuth and Aalami (1997) believed that cracking mo-
ment should not be taken as the basis for establishing the
© 1999 NRC Canada
528 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999

Table 2. Mix proportions.

fc′
fy
Series I Series II

ρ supplied
Material (fc′ = 60 MPa) (fc′ = 90 MPa)

0.16
0.23
0.32
0.19

0.25
0.37
(13)
Cement 25.0%….. 24.0%…..
Water 6.0%…… 5.1%…..
Silicafume 3.7%…… 4.5%…..
ρ required
ρ supplied

0.89 Superplasticizer 1.0%…… 2.2%…..

0.93
1.06
1.23

1.02
1.23
(12)

(Melment L33)
Gravel (0–3 mm) 19.0%…… 19.0%…..
Gravel (3–7 mm) 9.7%…… 9.6%…..
Gravel (7–15 mm) 35.6%…… 35.6%…..
0.00323
0.00484
0.00643
0.00394

0.00465
0.00698
ρsupplied
Reinforcement provided

(11)

minimum flexural reinforcement. They pointed out that the

minimum reinforcement obtained by equating the ultimate
reinforcement

Three 10-mm

Three 12-mm

moment to the cracking moment can be unrealistically high,

Four 10-mm
Two 10-mm

Two 12-mm
One 10-mm
and one

since the load corresponding to cracking could be more than

12-mm
Tension

30 times the legally specified loading. The authors agree

with Freyermuth and Aalami for the case where only gravity
(10)

loads are considered. However, under a potential seismic at-

tack, plastic hinges are expected to develop at the ends of
the beams, rather than at the columns. Therefore, in such a
TS500-99
(eq. [6])

0.00604
0.00621
0.00608
0.00640

0.00550
0.00568

case, the beam under consideration must have a moment ca-

pacity at least equal to, and preferably greater than, the mo-
(9)

ment causing flexural cracking.

In general, the tests were terminated when the mid-span
Required minimum ratio (ρ = As/bwd)*

deflection reached about 1/40 – 1/30 of the span length, be-

(eq. [3])

0.00504
0.00518
0.00507
0.00533

0.00458
0.00473

Required reinforcement ratios were calculated using the average yield strength of 10-mm and 12-mm bars.
ACI-95

yond which the stability of the test setup could be endan-

gered. At this stage, the load applied on the beam and the
(8)

corresponding mid-span deflection were designated as Pend

and ∆end, respectively. Even under such large deformations,
Flexural reinforcement

(eq. [2])

test beams were able to carry increasing loads due to strain

CSA-94

0.00403
0.00414
0.00405
0.00427

0.00367
0.00397

hardening of the reinforcing steel. However, the rate of this

(7)

increase was very small and, for practical purposes, Pend

Underlined values were used to calculate the ratios given in column 12 of the table.

could be taken as the ultimate load in the evaluations.

Crack width increases rapidly upon yielding of the tension
(eq. [1])
CSA-84

0.00362
0.00362
0.00362
0.00321

0.00288
0.00288

reinforcement. In the case of beams with low flexural rein-

ACI-89

forcement ratios, increase in the crack width becomes more

(6)

significant. Therefore the authors believe that the ratio of

Effective yield strength, fy = 387 × 0.41 + 486 × 0.59 = 445 MPa.

yield to cracking will be more meaningful in the evaluation

of the test results.
(MPa)

Crack width can also be considered as a criterion. How-

445‡
387
387
387

486
486

ever, since crack width is a serviceability criterion, it is not

(5)
fy

as important as the reserve strength consideration.

Behavior of test specimens

(MPa)

3.82
3.97
3.86
4.42

4.42
4.51

In all specimens, flexural cracks were observed first in the

(4)
fcts
Table 1. Properties of test specimens.

constant moment region. As the load was increased, tension

reinforcement yielded, which resulted in a significant in-
crease in the crack width and the deflection. It was noted
(MPa)

that the ratio of the yield moment to the cracking moment

60.9
64.3
61.5
86.5

79.4
84.8
(3)
fc′

increased with increasing reinforcement ratio.

As the load was increased, flexural cracks also appeared
outside the constant moment region. No shear cracks were
T901†
Beam

T601
T602
T603

T902
T903

observed until the end of the test, since the shear stress never
(2)

exceeded 0.4 fc′ (MPa) in any of the test specimens. Crack

patterns of the beams of series 1 and series 2, at the end of
the test, are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The mea-
Series

sured load versus mid-span deflection curves are presented

(1)

*
†
‡

in Figs. 6 and 7 for beams of both series.

1
1
1
2

2
2

© 1999 NRC Canada

Ozcebe et al. 529

Fig. 2. Properties of reinforcing bars.

800

12 mm bars
600
Stress (MPa)

10 mm bars
400
Bar Size fy fsu
(MPa) (MPa)

200 10 mm 387 540

12 mm 486 760

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15
Strain

Fig. 3. Test setup and instrumentation (gauge length a = 120 mm).

Strength of test specimens
The test results are summarized in Table 3. In column 2,
the ratio of the supplied reinforcement to the required mini-
mum is presented. In columns 3 and 4, the calculated crack-
ing and ultimate loads are given. The experimental values
are presented in columns 5–7.
The values in column 2 of Table 3 indicate that the sup-
plied reinforcement ratios were somewhat different from the
values required in the codes. This was unavoidable because
of the variation in concrete strength and limitations in stan-
dard bar sizes.
Experimental values of the load corresponding to yielding
(Py) and the ultimate load (Pend), given in columns 6 and 7
of Table 3 respectively, were normalized by multiplying
these values by the ratio ρrequired /ρsupplied. Since the supplied
reinforcements were different from the required values, the
normalization was necessary for a more meaningful evalua-
tion of the code requirements. The required reinforcement
was calculated using the actual material strengths. It should
be noted that the minimum reinforcement ratio required of
each series would be 1.4/fy for the first specimen, 0.25 fc′ /fy
for the second specimen, and 0.30 fc′ /fy for the third speci-
men. The normalized yield and maximum load values are
listed in the last two columns of the table.
Discussion of test results
It was stated earlier that one criterion for evaluating the
minimum flexural reinforcement requirements could be to
set a lower limit for the ratio of the ultimate moment to the
cracking moment, which has to be greater than unity. In

© 1999 NRC Canada

530
Fig. 4. Crack patterns for series 1 specimens.
Fig. 5. Crack patterns for series 2 specimens.
other words, the reserve strength of the beam beyond flex-
ural cracking could establish a criterion to define its mini-
mum flexural reinforcement requirement. Here, an attempt
will be made to quantify this ratio and to evaluate the test
results according to this criterion.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999
In the derivation of the TS500 equation, it was assumed
that the section modulus of the flanged section was twice
that of the web. In practice, the ratio of section modulus of
the flanged section to that of the web can be different from
the one assumed in this derivation. To have an idea about the
© 1999 NRC Canada
Ozcebe et al. 531

Fig. 6. Load–deflection curves for beams of series 1.

40 T603
Series 1

30 T602
Load (kN)

20 T601
P P
30

20
∆
10 ∆ end (mm)
10 Beam Pend (kN) Pend/Pcr
T601 23.2 2.22 60.5
0 T602 35.5 1.78 79.8
T603 44.3 1.42 64.3
0 1 2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 7. Load–deflection curves for beams of series 2.
50
Series 2
T903
40
Load (kN)

30 T902
T901
P P
20 30

15 ∆
10 Beam Pend (kN) Pend/Pcr ∆ end (mm)
0 T901
T902
31.7
36.9
1.49
1.80
67.4
80.1
0 1 2 T903 57.0 2.50 77.9

0
0 5 10
Deflection (mm)
upper limits of this ratio, the flanged section shown in Fig. 8
was considered. The flange width chosen corresponds ap-
proximately to the maximum given in the Canadian code.
For the section shown in Fig. 8, the ratio of the section
modulus of the gross concrete section to that of the web is
1.5 when the flange is in compression and is 4.5 when the
flange is in tension. If eq. [6] was derived using these ratios,
the constant in this equation would be 0.22 and 0.63 respec-
tively, instead of 0.30. One should keep in mind that when
the flange is in tension, slab reinforcement in the flange
15 20 25 30
should also be taken into account in calculating the rein-
forcement ratio. Therefore, the minimum reinforcement ratio
for the beam will be considerably lower than 0.63 fc′ /fy if
only the reinforcement inside the web width is considered.
In practice, if the concrete strength is higher than the as-
sumed value and the steel strength is less than the intended
value, the actual demand for minimum reinforcement will be
higher. Considering the possibility of having concrete
strength 50% higher than the factored concrete strength and
steel yield strength 15% lower than the factored steel

© 1999 NRC Canada

532 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999

Table 3. Test results.

Experimental value (kN)
Calculated strength (kN) Normalized
ρ supplied
Cracking Ultimate Cracking Yield End
Specimen ρ required Pcr* Pu† Pcr Py Pend Py Pend
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) = (2) × (6) (9) = (2) × (7)
T601 0.89 20.0 18.3 16.3 17.6 23.2 19.7 26.0
T602 0.93 20.8 27.3 20.0 28.8 35.5 30.8 38.0
T603 1.06 20.4 36.3 20.0 36.4 44.3 34.4 41.9
T901 1.23 24.1 25.5 21.3 21.9 31.7 17.8 25.8
T902 1.02 23.0 32.9 20.5 27.7 36.9 27.3 36.3
T903 1.23 23.8 49.5 22.8 41.9 57.0 34.1 46.4
*
P values in this table are equal to the shear force, P = V.
†
Calculated ultimate strength Pu = As fy d /a.

Fig. 8. Sample beam.

4.5h

t = 0.25h
h

b w = 0.50h
strength, the demand would be about 40% higher. If one
considers the material resistance factors given in the Cana-
dian and Turkish codes for concrete and steel (CSA-A23.3-
94 suggests φc = 0.60 and φs = 0.85; TS500 suggests φc =
1/1.5 and φs = 1/1.15), overstrength assumed for concrete
and understrength assumed for steel seem to be reasonable.
Moreover, in real structures, the actual flange width is also
uncertain. Considering all these uncertainties, it would be
reasonable to have a reserve capacity of 50% beyond the
flexural cracking capacity.
In Table 4, ratios of yield load to cracking load and ulti-
mate load to cracking load are given in columns 6 and 7 re-
spectively. It should be recalled that Py* and Pend* are the
normalized yield and ultimate loads given in Table 3. Since
the crack width and deformations increase drastically be-
yond the yield, the authors prefer to use the ratio of yield
load to cracking load in evaluating the test results.
If column 6 of Table 4 is evaluated on the basis of the cri-
terion set for the reserve strength (Py*/Pcr ≥ 1.5), it will be
seen that for medium strength concrete (series 1), adequate
reserve strength is provided when either the ACI 318-95 or
the 1999 Turkish code requirement is used. However, when
higher strength concrete is used, the set criterion is only sat-
isfied if the reinforcement complies with the 1999 Turkish
code, i.e., eq. [6]. The same argument is valid for the 1994
Canadian standards, since the minimum reinforcement re-
quired by this code is 20% less than that of the ACI 318-95
code. However, such an evaluation should not lead to defi-
nite conclusions, because the criterion set for reserve
strength is open to discussion. Although this is the case, one
can conclude that the reinforcements required by the
ACI318-89 and CSA A23.3-84 codes do provide adequate
reserve strength. It is also observed that the reserve strength
decreases for higher strength concrete.
In column 6 of Table 4, the Py*/Pcr ratio for the test beam
T901 is 0.84. It is evident that this ratio cannot be less than
1.0. However, in this test beam, the supplied reinforcement
was 23.4% more than the required value, thus resulting in a
Py*/Pcr ratio of less than 1.0. This means that if the required
reinforcement were provided, the beam reinforcement would
be yielding as soon as the cracking took place.
The crack widths for the specimens are listed in column 5
of Table 4. These values correspond to the stage where the
first cracking was detected. Although crack widths seem to
decrease as the reinforcement ratio increases, it is difficult to
set a criterion based on the crack width. Further tests are
needed. However, one can reach some qualitative conclu-
sions by examining the crack patterns shown in Figs. 4 and
5. In general, beams designed by using the CSA-A23.3-84
and ACI 318-89 minimum reinforcement requirements, i.e.,
specimens T601 and T901, reached failure with a few wide
cracks. The crack pattern was improved when ACI 318-95
was taken as the basis for minimum reinforcement (speci-
mens T602 and T902). On the other hand, beams designed
using the 1999 Turkish code minimum reinforcement re-
quirement, i.e., specimens T603 and T903, had well-

© 1999 NRC Canada

Ozcebe et al. 533

Table 4. Evaluation of test results.

Crack
fc′ fy width
Specimen Code (MPa) (MPa) (mm) Py*/Pcr Pend*/Pcr
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
T601 CSA-84 / ACI-89 60.9 387 0.2 1.21 1.60
T602 ACI-95 64.3 387 0.1 1.55 1.91
T603 TS500-99 61.5 387 0.1 1.72 2.09
T901 CSA-84 / ACI-89 86.5 444 0.2 0.84 1.21
T902 ACI-95 79.4 486 0.1 1.33 1.77
T903 TS500-99 84.8 486 0.1 1.51 2.05
*
P entries in columns 6 and 7 are the experimental values taken from Table 3.

distributed cracks with smaller crack widths. This was espe-
cially evident when higher strength concrete was used (spec-
imen T903).
Conclusions and recommendations
The main objective of this experimental study was to ob-
serve the behaviour of beams having low ratios of flexural
reinforcement. It was also intended to evaluate the minimum
reinforcement requirements given in the codes. To be able to
make this evaluation, the reinforcement ratios used in the
test specimens were chosen considering the requirements
given in different design codes.
Six reinforced concrete flanged beams were tested under
monotonically increasing two point loads. In the test pro-
gram, beams were designed to have the following reinforce-
ment: (i) the minimum specified in the 1984 Canadian and
1989 ACI codes, (ii) the minimum specified in the 1995 ACI
code, and (iii) the minimum specified in the 1999 Turkish
code. It should be noted that the ACI 318-95 equation is
very similar to the one given in the 1994 Canadian stan-
dards, resulting in 25% more reinforcement.
The following conclusions can be made based on the ex-
perimental research reported in this paper.
1. It was intended to evaluate the test results considering
the reserve strength criterion. For this purpose, a reserve
strength parameter is defined by the authors as the ratio of
yield strength to cracking strength. Considering the material
factors used in the Canadian and Turkish codes, the authors
believe that the ratio of yield load to cracking load could be
taken as 1.5.
2. Beams reinforced in accordance with the CSA-A23.3-
84 and ACI 318-89 requirements for minimum flexural rein-
forcement had very little or no reserve strength. Considering
the possible variations in concrete and steel strengths, these
equations cannot be considered conservative for beams made
of higher strength concrete, such as those studied in this re-
search.
3. Beams reinforced in accordance with the 1999 Turkish
code (TS500-99) behaved well and had adequate reserve
strength. The reserve strength criterion set was satisfied in
the beams of both series.
4. Beams reinforced using the 1995 ACI code equation,
which yields about 17% less reinforcement as compared to
eq. [6], i.e., the TS500-99 minimum, also behaved well. The
reserve strength criterion was satisfied in the beams of the
first series ( fc′ ≈ 60 MPa) but remained somewhat below
the limit in the beams of the second series ( fc′ ≥ 80 MPa).
Since the equation given in the 1994 Canadian standards re-
sults in 20% less reinforcement as compared to the ACI 318-
95 code, the criterion that the ratio of yield load to cracking
load equals 1.5 will not be satisfied for beams having con-
crete strengths of 80 MPa or higher.
5. The crack width increased as the reinforcement ratio
decreased.
The authors recommend the following:
1. Beams with wider flanges should be tested to investi-
gate the effect of flange width on the behaviour.
2. The Turkish code expression, i.e., eq. [6], is derived by
equating the cracking strength of the beam to its ultimate
strength. In this case, the beams in which the flange is in
tension will require higher minimum reinforcement, since
the section modulus will be higher. This should be investi-
gated.
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out at the Structural Mechanics
Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering, Middle
East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. The research pro-
ject INTAG502 was supported by the Scientific and Techni-
cal Research Council of Turkey and the Middle East
Technical University.
References
ACI Committee 318. 1989. Building code requirements for
reinforced concrete. ACI 318-89, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Mich.
ACI Committee 318. 1995. Building code requirements for struc-
tural concrete. ACI 318-95 and ACI 318R-95, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
Basaran, H. 1993. An experimental study on minimum flexural
reinforcement requirement for high strength concrete beams.
M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
CSA. 1984. Design of concrete structures. Standard CSA-A23.3-84,
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont.
CSA. 1994. Design of concrete structures. Standard CSA-A23.3-94,
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont.
Ersoy, U. 1985. Reinforced concrete. Middle East Technical Uni-
versity Press, Ankara, Turkey.
Freyermuth, C.L., and Aalami, B.O. 1997. Unified minimum flex-
ural reinforcement requirements for reinforced and prestressed
concrete members. ACI Structural Journal, 94(4): 409–420.

© 1999 NRC Canada

534
TSI. 1999. Design and construction requirements for structural
concrete. Standard TS500, Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara,
Turkey.
List of symbols
a: shear span
As: area of tension reinforcement
bt: width of tension zone of section
bw: web width
d: distance from extreme compression fibre to centroid of
tension reinforcement
fc′: compressive strength of concrete
fct: direct tensile strength of concrete
fctf: flexural tensile strength of concrete
fcts: split cylinder tensile strength of concrete
fsu: ultimate strength of reinforcement
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 26, 1999
Fs: maximum capacity of the tensile reinforcement
fy: yield strength of reinforcement
h: overall depth of beam
I: moment of inertia of gross concrete section about
centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement
Mcr: cracking moment
Mu: ultimate moment
Pcr: force (shear) corresponding to cracking
Pend: force (shear) carried by the beam at the end of test
Pu: calculated ultimate load, As fyd/a
Py: force (shear) corresponding to yielding of tension rein-
forcement
ρmin: minimum ratio of nonprestressed tension reinforce-
ment, (As/(bwd))min or (As/(bth))min
φ c: resistance factor for concrete
φ s: resistance factor for steel
© 1999 NRC Canada