Reevaluation of Deflection Prediction for Concrete Beams

Reinforced with Steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars

Peter H. Bischoff1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper provides a critical evaluation of equations commonly used to compute short-term deflection for steel and fiber
reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 reinforced concrete beams. Numerous proposals have been made for FRP in particular, and the different
approaches are linked together by comparing the tension-stiffening component of each method. Tension stiffening reflects the participation
of concrete between cracks in stiffening the member response. The Branson equation used in North America and other parts of the world
is based on an empirically derived effective moment of inertia to calculate deflection. The tension-stiffening component with this method
is highly dependent on the applied level of loading relative to the cracking load as well as the ratio of uncracked-to-cracked transformed
moment of inertia 共Ig / Icr兲 for the beam section. Tension stiffening is overestimated for the high Ig / Icr ratios typical with FRP concrete,
leading to a much stiffer response and underprediction of member deflection. Deflection of steel reinforced concrete with reinforcing
ratios less than 1% is also likely to be underestimated because of higher Ig / Icr ratios at these lower reinforcement levels, but not to the
same extent. In both cases, service loads are less than twice the cracking load where tension stiffening is most significant. Modifications
to Branson’s equation for deflection prediction of FRP concrete soften the member response by reducing the tension-stiffening component,
mostly by introducing empirical factors that effectively decrease the Ig / Icr ratio. An alternative expression for calculating beam deflection
is developed with a rational approach that incorporates a tension-stiffening model adopted in Europe. The proposed equation gives an
effective moment of inertia that is independent of Ig / Icr and works equally well for either steel or FRP reinforced concrete.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2005兲131:5共752兲
CE Database subject headings: Deflection; Beams; Concrete, reinforced; Steel.

Introduction More comprehensive methods of analysis to account for creep

Serviceability problems related to deflection have become more
prevalent as the use of higher strength materials leads to shal-
lower member sections and/or less reinforcement. Fiber rein-
forced polymer 共FRP兲 bars are attractive because of their resis-
tance to corrosion and have a higher strength than conventional
steel reinforcement, but they also have a lower elastic modulus
that can be as little as one-fifth the stiffness of steel. For this
reason, concrete beams reinforced with advanced composite ma-
terials are particularly susceptible to excessive deflection 共Nanni
1993兲.
Deflection in reinforced concrete beams is typically controlled
by using a minimum thickness based on a limiting span/depth
ratio. Alternatively, it is necessary to ensure that computed deflec-
tions do not exceed specified limits. Immediate or short-term de-
flection can be calculated by using an average effective moment
of inertia 共Ie兲 in conjunction with elastic deflection formulae or by
integration of curvature along the length of the beam. Additional
deflection from long-term loading is often based on the computed
short-term deflection by taking some multiple of this initial value.
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton
NB, Canada E3B 5A3. E-mail: bischoff@unb.ca
Note. Associate Editor: Rob Y. H. Chai. Discussion open until
October 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on August 16, 2004;
approved on October 15, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 5, May 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9445/2005/5-752–767/$25.00.
and shrinkage effects are also acceptable 共Gilbert 1988; Collins
and Mitchell 1991; Ghali and Favre 1994兲. This paper is con-
cerned with short-term deflection only.
The ACI Building Code: ACI 318-02 共ACI 2002兲 and Cana-
dian Concrete Design Standard: CSA A23.3-04 共CSA 2004兲 both
use an effective constant moment of inertia originally proposed
by Branson 共1965, 1977兲. This empirical relationship is given by
Eq. 共1兲 and represents a gradual transition from the uncracked
transformed moment of inertia 共Iunc兲 to a fully cracked moment of
inertia 共Icr兲 based on a cracked transformed section analysis. The
intent of this equation is to account for the effects of reinforce-
ment and cracking on member stiffness under increasing load. Iunc
is replaced by the gross moment of inertia 共Ig兲 in most cases,
except for heavily reinforced sections. Use of Icr implies that be-
havior at a cracked section is linear elastic up to yielding of the
steel reinforcement.
Ie = 冉 冊 冋 冉 冊册
M cr
Ma
m
Ig + 1 −
M cr
Ma
m
Icr 艋 Ig 共1兲
The cracking moment M cr is determined from the elastic flexure
formula; and M a represents the applied service load moment at
which deflection is being calculated. Setting the power m equal to
4 accounts for the tensile contribution of concrete between cracks,
referred to as tension stiffening, and gives an effective stiffness at
the section only. An average stiffness over the entire span is ob-
tained by using a value of 3 for m, in order to reflect the change
in member stiffness 共EI兲 along the length of beam in addition to
the tension stiffening effect of concrete. ACI 318-02 and CSA
A23.3-04 set the value of m to 3.

752 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

 Branson’s equation provides a reasonable estimate of deflec-
tion for beams reinforced with typical amounts of steel. This is
not surprising since his expression for Ie was correlated from test
results of beams reinforced with steel. Most of these beams were
simply supported rectangular beams having a reinforcement ratio
␳ equal to 1.65% and a corresponding gross-to-cracked stiffness
ratio Ig / Icr of about 2.2 共Washa and Fluck 1952; Branson 1965兲.
Comparison of deflections was made at a load level that was
about 2.5 times the cracking value. A few T beams with Ig / Icr
equal to 3 共Yu and Winter 1960兲 and some continuous beams
were also included in the analysis. All beams were uniformly
loaded. Branson 共1977兲 subsequently carried out a parametric
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
study for beams with values of Ig / Icr between 1.5 and 4.0. This
corresponds to steel reinforcement ratios that range from 2.2%
down to about 0.6% for a rectangular beam with 35 MPa
共5,000 psi兲 concrete. Service load moments 共M a兲 in this case
would range from a high of about 4 or 5 down to twice the
cracking moment 共M cr兲 as the reinforcing ratio drops from 2.2%
to 0.6%. It will be shown later that the accuracy of Eq. 共1兲 de-
pends to a large extent on both the level of service load 共relative
to the cracking moment兲 and the ratio of uncracked-to-cracked
moment of inertia 共Ig / Icr兲. Note that Ig / Icr also reflects the ratio of
uncracked to cracked stiffness of the section.
Deflection behavior of FRP reinforced concrete beams is not
always predicted well by using existing methods that were devel-
oped for concrete structures reinforced with steel. The effective
moment of inertia proposed by Branson 关Eq. 共1兲兴 often underes-
timates deflection of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars,
effectively overestimating Ie and giving a response that is too
stiff. Problems with predicting beam deflection are particularly
evident for beams reinforced with a low percentage of FRP bars
that also have a low elastic modulus. For example, early work by
Nawy and Neuworth 共1977兲 shows that prediction of deflection
for glass FRP beams improves from less than one-half of the
measured value up to about 90% accuracy as the reinforcing per-
centage increases from 0.7% to 2.5%. Others have also recog-
nized the influence of reinforcing ratio on the Branson equation.
This problem with predicting deflections has led to a number of
proposed changes to Branson’s original equation. For example,
Gao et al. 共1998兲 added a reduction coefficient ␤b to get a better
fit with experimental data, giving
Ie = 冉 冊
M cr
Ma
m
冋 冉 冊册
␤ bI g + 1 −
M cr
Ma
m
Icr 艋 Ig
with m = 3; and ␤b = 0.6 for glass FRP bars 共Theriault and
Benmokrane 1998; Masmoudi et al. 1998兲. ACI 440 共ACI 2003兲
and ISIS 共2001兲 recommend use of this modified expression, with
␤b = ␣b关Efrp / Es + 1兴. ␣b is a bond dependent coefficient equal to
0.5 until more data become available, while Efrp and Es are the
elastic modulus values of the FRP and steel bars, respectively.
Note that ␤b equals 0.6 for a glass FRP bar with stiffness of
40 GPa. Yost et al. 共2003兲 take account of the influence of rein-
forcing ratio by setting ␣b = 0.064共␳ / ␳b兲 + 0.13, where ␳ is the
reinforcing bar ratio and ␳b is the balanced reinforcing bar ratio.
The observed discrepancy in expected behavior and inability to
correctly predict deflection of FRP reinforced concrete beams is
often attributed to differences in bond characteristics and cracking
behavior as well as a lower bar stiffness 共ACI 2003兲. Yost et al.
共2003兲 realized also the importance of reinforcing ratio on pre-
dicted behavior as noted above.
Dolan 共1989兲 recognized that the power m in Eq. 共1兲 should be
greater than 3 for FRP reinforcement, and work by Toutanji and
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767
Saafi 共2000兲 recommends setting m = 6 − 10␳Efrp / Es for beams re-
inforced with glass FRP 共GFRP兲 when ␳Efrp / Es ⬍ 0.3. In this case
␳ is expressed as a percentage. Interestingly enough, Al-Shaikh
and Al-Zaid 共1993兲 observed the same effect for steel reinforced
concrete beams 共0.8% ⬍ ␳ ⬍ 2 % 兲, with the power m decreasing
to about 1.5 for the higher reinforcement ratios. Other work
共Brown and Bartholomew 1996兲 suggests using a value of 5 for m
in Eq. 共1兲, based on tests of GFRP beams having a reinforcing
ratio close to 2% and Ig / Icr ⬇ 11. Once again, extensive cracking
compared to beams reinforced with steel was thought to be the
reason for needing to modify Branson’s original equation for Ie.
Increasing the power m effectively softens the member response
and increases deflection.
Ghali et al. 共2001兲 proposed another relationship for Ie given
below
IgIcr
Ie = 共3兲
Icr + 关1 − 0.5共M cr /M a兲2兴共Ig − Icr兲
that has been recommended by ISIS 共2001兲 as an alternative to
Eq. 共2兲. This equation is derived from curvature relationships
found in the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 共CEB-FIP 1993兲 and the
form shown was originally intended for beams subjected to sus-
tained or cyclic loading.
Other approaches involving integration of curvature 共M / EI兲
along the length of the beam have been proposed for both steel
共Ghali 1993兲 and FRP reinforced concrete beams 共Toutanji and
Saafi 2000; Rasheed et al. 2004兲. This is used in lieu of assuming
a constant average value of Ie over the entire length of beam.
However, the accuracy of this approach still depends on the val-
ues assumed for the postcracking curvature. In other words, the
flexural stiffness 共EI兲 still needs to be defined by an effective
moment of inertia in the regions where the beam is cracked. For
FRP beams subjected to four-point loading, Faza and GangaRao
共1992兲 assumed the central part of the beam between point loads
is fully cracked with Icr, while the end parts of the beam are
partially cracked with Ie based on Eq. 共1兲. For loads applied at the
third points, integration of curvature then gives a modified mo-
ment of inertia equal to 23IcrIe / 共8Icr + 15Ie兲 = Icr / 共0.65
+ 0.35Icr / Ie兲. Razaqpur et al. 共2000兲 assume that tension stiffening
is insignificant in cracked regions of an FRP beam, using EcIg
when M ⬍ M cr and EcIcr when M ⬎ M cr to integrate the curvature
共2兲
M / EI along the beam span. This leads to simple expressions for
beam deflection that have been adopted by the Canadian Design
Standard for FRP reinforced concrete buildings 共CSA 2002兲, and
depends also on the type of load and support conditions for the
beam. For example, the deflection of simply supported beams
with a point load P at midspan is given by ␦ = PL3 / 共48EcIe兲, with
Ie = Icr / 关1 − ␩共M cr / M a兲3兴 and ␩ = 1 − Icr / Ig. For a simply supported
beam subjected to third point loads ␦ = 23PL3 / 共648EcIe兲 with Ie
= Icr / 关1 − 0.35␩共M cr / M a兲3兴, while deflection of a cantilever beam
with a uniformly distributed load q is predicted using ␦
= qL4 / 共8EcIe兲 with Ie = Icr / 关1 − ␩共M cr / M a兲2兴. Predicted results in
this instance were validated at loads between 50% and 70% of the
ultimate beam capacity. This corresponds to a service load some-
where in the range of 3.5 to 5 times the cracking load for GFRP
beams, indicating that the extent of cracking at this load level was
quite extensive.
This paper reevaluates Branson’s original equation for Ie, and
determines that the accuracy of Eq. 共1兲 is affected by the ratio
Ig / Icr. The tension stiffening effect in Eq. 共1兲 is highly dependent
on both the power m and ratio Ig / Icr, and is overestimated for
values of Ig / Icr ⬎ 3 when m equals 3. The ratio Ig / Icr in turn
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 753
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Member deformation for 共a兲 axial member and 共b兲 flexure member

depends on the reinforcing ratio ␳ as well as the modular ratio n. 1978, 1993兲 gives an effective modulus 共Ēb兲 of embedded rein-
Reasonable values of Ie are only obtained for steel reinforced forcement with a bar area Ab. In this case
concrete beams when ␳ ⬎ 1% since this corresponds to a ratio of
Ig / Icr ⬍ 3. Beams reinforced with low elastic modulus FRP bars
have much lower values of n␳ and this gives 5 ⬍ Ig / Icr ⬍ 25. There Eb Eb
is also a tendency to use less reinforcement with higher strength Ēb = = with ␩ = 1 − Acr /Aunc
1 − ␤c␩共Pcr /Pa兲 1 − ␩共Pcr /Pa兲2
bars. These high Ig / Icr ratios cause the value of Ie to be grossly
overestimated. Introducing the reduction coefficient ␤b into Eq. 共4兲
共2兲 effectively reduces the tension stiffening effect by decreasing
the Ig / Icr ratio to a reduced value ␤bIg / Icr. In addition to providing when the tension stiffening factor ␤c = Pcr / Pa, based on an as-
insight into why the Branson equation does not predict deflection sumption proposed by Rao 共1966兲 that the tension stiffening
well for FRP reinforced concrete beams 共and also most likely for strain varies inversely with the bar stress at the crack locations
steel reinforced concrete beams having low reinforcement ratios 共that is, ␤c = f b,cr / f b兲. The axial member response is then predicted
less than about one percent兲, basic concepts of tension stiffening using P = ĒbAb␧m. This method ignores the concrete tensile
are used to develop an alternative expression for Ie that works
stresses but increases the apparent stiffness Ēb of the reinforce-
equally well with either steel or FRP reinforcement.
ment to account for the concrete contribution between cracks, and
has been used in numerical finite element analysis to compute the
response of reinforced concrete slabs 共Gilbert and Warner 1977兲.
Tension Stiffening in Reinforced Concrete Definition of symbols and full details of the derivation for Eq. 共4兲
are provided in Appendix I.
The tensile capacity of concrete is typically neglected in strength Expressing the effective member stiffness with a concrete
design calculations, assuming that tensile forces are resisted en- modulus Ec and effective concrete area Ae gives
tirely by the reinforcement at a crack. However, concrete contin-
ues to carry tension between the cracks through transfer of bond
forces from the reinforcing bars into the concrete. The concrete
contribution between cracks is called tension stiffening, and this
phenomenon has an effect on member stiffness, deflection, and
crack widths under service load conditions.
Tension stiffening is best understood by considering the axial
response of a reinforced concrete tension member as illustrated in
Figs. 1共a兲 and 2. The member response is initially uncracked and
governed more by the concrete than the reinforcement. Once
cracked, the member response is affected by the reinforcing bar
stiffness and follows a gradual transition toward the bare bar re-
sponse as cracks develop in the member. Cracking is accompa-
nied by a gradual reduction in average load carried by the con-
crete between cracks 共P̄c兲 as more cracks develop. Once cracking
has stabilized, the load carried by the concrete continues to de-
crease as secondary internal cracks develop between the primary
cracks 共Goto 1971; Bischoff 2001兲.
The effects of cracking and reinforcement on member stiffness
can be taken into account a number of different ways. Most result
in an effective member rigidity 共EA兲eff. The tension stiffening
strain approach adopted by the CEB-FIP model code 共CEB-FIP Fig. 2. Tensile member response

754 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Postcracking response of concrete for steel and glass fiber
reinforced polymer reinforced concrete 共adapted from Bischoff and
Paixao 2004兲
Acr Acr
Ae = = 共5兲
1 − ␤c␩共Pcr /Pa兲 1 − ␩共Pcr /Pa兲2
when ␤c = Pcr / Pa. Once again, ␩ = 1 − Acr / Aunc and Aunc can be
replaced by the gross concrete area Ag for convenience. Acr is the
transformed concrete area of the cracked section given by nAb. In
this case, the member response is given by P = EcAe␧m and agrees
reasonably well with tests using either steel or GFRP as reinforce-
ment 共Bischoff and Paixao 2004兲. However tension stiffening is
slightly overestimated at lower reinforcing ratios when ␤c is ap-
proximated with Pcr / Pa 共Bischoff 2001; Bischoff and Paixao
2004兲. Using Branson’s approach to determine an effective area
Ae for axial tension members is similar in form to Eq. 共1兲 共ACI
1986兲, providing a much stiffer response that grossly underesti-
mates member extension with low modulus reinforcing bars 共Bis-
choff and Paixao 2004兲. Results from this work provided the im-
petus for the present paper and give a good indication of
limitations that arise when using Branson’s equation to predict
beam deflection. All of the above approaches are well suited for
design.
An alternative approach for modeling the postcracking mem-
ber response is to account for the tensile contribution of concrete
between cracks with an average stress-strain response for the
cracked concrete 共see inset of Fig. 2兲. This gives a concrete ten-
sile response with a descending branch after cracking and is
equivalent to assuming the concrete has a reduced effective
modulus of elasticity 共Ēc兲 that depends on the level of strain in
the member. Results from tests plotted in Fig. 3 共Bischoff and
Paixao 2004兲 show that the postcracking tensile strength of con-
crete f c = ␤c f cr is modeled reasonably well with
␤c = e−1,100共␧m−␧cr兲共Eb/200兲 共6兲
given the bar modulus Eb in GPa. Results presented in Fig. 3
clearly indicate that tension stiffening is present in FRP reinforced
concrete after cracking. This type of relationship based on mem-
ber strains is not well suited for design and is more conducive to
numerical solutions involving a detailed section analysis or use of
finite elements.
In lieu of carrying out a detailed section analysis to determine
the moment-curvature response for beams and modeling the con-
crete with an average postcracking tensile response to account for
tension stiffening 共Scanlon et al. 2004兲, it is more convenient to
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 755
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767
use an effective moment of inertia value 共Ie兲 using the same ap-
proach described for axial members in Fig. 1. This gives
Icr Icr
Ie = = with ␩ = 1 − Icr /Iunc
1 − ␤c␩共M cr /M a兲 1 − ␩共M cr /M a兲2
共7兲
In this case, the tension stiffening factor ␤c is assumed to equal
M cr / M a since f b,cr / f b = M cr / M a, and is used for want of a better
approximation. Moment curvature is then predicted using M
= EcIe␾m. Full details of the derivation are given in Appendix II.
Another approach to using an effective moment of inertia is to
carry out a transformed section analysis using the effective modu-
lus 共Ēb兲 of the reinforcement to give an effective modular ratio
n̄ = Ēb / Ec. This is then used to calculate an effective value 共Īcr兲 for
the cracked transformed moment of inertia that is equivalent to Ie.
For flexure
Eb Eb
Ēb = =
1 − ␤c␩共M cr /M a兲 1 − ␩共M cr /M a兲2
Icr d − cunc
with ␩ = 1 − · 共8兲
Iunc d − ccr
and assuming that ␤c = M cr / M a. The ratio 共d − cunc兲 / 共d − ccr兲 ac-
counts for the shift in neutral axis after cracking, where the effec-
tive depth of reinforcement equals d and the neutral axis is given
by c. Comparison of the two approaches 关Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲兴 shows
little difference between them. The latter approach was proposed
by Murashev as early as 1940 共Murashev 1940; Murashev et al.
1971兲 and provided inspiration toward the development of Bran-
son’s empirical equation for an effective moment of inertia 共Bran-
son 1977兲. Branson initially expected a value of 2 for the power
m in Eq. 共1兲, but obtained a better fit with experimental data using
m = 3. Murashev’s use of ␤c = f b,cr / f b = M cr / M a for the tension
stiffening factor is based on experimental work by Nemirovsky
共Nemirovsky 1949; Murashev et al. 1971, p. 85兲 and predates the
work by Rao 共1966兲. Details of Murashev’s derivation are pre-
sented in Appendix III.
Branson’s Equation Revisited
Before we take a closer look at Branson’s development of Eq. 共1兲,
it is helpful to review how tension stiffening affects the theoreti-
cal moment-curvature response described in Fig. 4. Tension stiff-
ening is characterized by a change in curvature 共⌬␾兲 relative to
the cracked member response and cannot exceed the maximum
change in curvature 共⌬␾max兲 at first cracking. The tension stiffen-
ing factor ␤c equals the ratio of these two values 共that is ␤c
= ⌬␾ / ⌬␾max 艋 1兲. Hence, the member response is bounded by an
upper limit defined by a member response with constant tension
stiffening 共␤c = 1兲 and a lower limit given by a cracked member
response 共Icr兲 with no tension stiffening 共␤c = 0兲. Using this ap-
proach, curvature is then predicted using ␾m = M a / 共EcIe兲, with Ie
= Icr / 共1 − ␤c␩M cr / M a兲 and ␩ = 1 − Icr / Iunc 关see derivation of Eq.
共7兲兴.
Branson’s use of Eq. 共1兲 for Ie 共with m set equal to 3兲 is shown
in Figs. 5共a–d兲, giving the response of members with Ig / Icr equal
to 2, 4, 7, and 25. Results clearly show that tension stiffening is
overestimated as the ratio Ig / Icr increases and, hence, is not mod-
eled correctly. Branson does not explicitly define the tension stiff-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Moment curvature response incorporating tension stiffening Fig. 6. Tension stiffening component in Branson’s equation

ening factor ␤c, but this factor is easily obtained by rearranging

Eq. 共1兲 and this helps us to evaluate the concrete contribution of Ig / Icr and tends toward M a / M cr as Ig / Icr goes to infinity. This is
properly shown in Fig. 6. Substitution of ␤c = M a / M cr into Eq. 共7兲 gives
Ie = Ig, indicating that Branson’s approximation for an effective
⌬␾ M a /M cr moment of inertia Ie tends toward Ig as the ratio Ig / Icr increases.
␤c,Branson = =
⌬␾max 1 + 关1 − 共M cr /M a兲m兴共Icr /Ig兲/共M cr /M a兲m Changes in ␤c are plotted in Fig. 6 for different values of Ig / Icr
and are compared to the Comité Euro-International du Béton
共9兲
共CEB兲-based value of ␤c = M cr / M a. Tension stiffening is modeled
The value of ␤c in Branson’s equation equals 1 at the cracking reasonably well for Ig / Icr = 2 which is not surprising since Bran-
load 共M a = M cr兲 and 0 when fully cracked for M a = ⬁. However, ␤c son calibrated his work using beams with Ig / Icr = 2.2. However, as
increases considerably between these two limits for large values the ratio Ig / Icr is increased to 4, tension stiffening starts to be-

Fig. 5. Member response using Branson’s equation for different Ig / Icr ratios

756 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. 共a兲 Comparison of CEB-based equation with Branson equation for monotonic loading and 共b兲 repeated loading effect for CEB-based
equation
come excessive at lower load levels less than about twice the
cracking moment. Tension stiffening is grossly overestimated at
higher values of Ig / Icr. This of course leads to a much stiffer
response and smaller deflections than expected, which is why the
expression does not work well with GFRP beams.
Branson’s equation gives a weighted average of the gross and
cracked moments of inertia at a given load level. However, ten-
sion stiffening really represents a variation in stiffness of un-
cracked and cracked sections along the length of member. This is
analogous to a series of cracked and uncracked springs 共Farra and
Jaccoud 1992兲 where the average or effective stiffness is then
determined by taking a weighted average of the inverse stiffness
values, that is 1 / 共EI兲 and not EI. Given that the effective member
response is also being calculated at a specified level of load, then
deflection and not inertia needs to be averaged. Deflection is in-
versely proportional to the moment of inertia. Hence, a weighted
average should be taken of the inversed moment of inertia, lead-
ing to a subtle change in Eq. 共1兲 that is given below
1
Ie
=冉 冊 冋 冉 冊册
M cr
Ma
m
1
Ig
+ 1−
M cr
Ma
m
1
艌
1
Icr Ig
共10兲
Calibration of this equation with Branson’s original equation
关using m = 3 in Eq. 共1兲兴 for a beam with Ig / Icr = 2.2 now gives m
= 2. Recall that Branson calibrated his original equation using
beams with this ratio of Ig / Icr. A comparison is made in Fig. 7共a兲
and results differ by less than a few percent. Using a value of 2
for the power m in Eq. 共10兲 is equivalent to using a tension-
stiffening factor ␤c = M cr / M a that remains constant for different
ratios of Ig / Icr. Note also that Eq. 共10兲 is simply a rearranged form
of Eq. 共7兲 proposed earlier on in the paper. Using Eq. 共10兲 with m
set equal to 2 is identical also to the CEB-based equation given in
Eurocode 2 关European Committee for Standardization 共CEN兲
1991兴 for an average curvature ␾m = 共1 − ␨兲␾g + ␨␾b, where ␨ = 1
− 共M cr / M a兲2 and ␾ = M / EcI. Reduction factors used to account for
differences in bond behavior and the influence of long-term ef-
fects, such as sustained or repeated loading, have been left out of
the expression for ␨. See Ghali and Favre 共1994兲 for a detailed
explanation of the CEB-based method used in Eurocode 2.
The CEB-based codes use a loading factor ␥ = 0.5 to account
for sustained or repeated loading. Incorporating this effect into
Eq. 共7兲 gives
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 757
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767
Icr
Ie = 共11兲
1 − ␥␩共M cr /M a兲2
and is identical to Eq. 共3兲 but in a more simplified form. Note that
the same ␥ factor can also be incorporated into Eq. 共8兲. Fig. 7共b兲
compares behavior of a beam subjected to an initial monotonic
load 共␥ = 1兲 and repeated loading 共␥ = 0.5兲. The member obviously
cracks under the initial load and experiences a loss of stiffness
upon reloading. Recall that a significant amount of tension stiff-
ening is lost as cracks develop during the initial loading process.
Hence, the repeated load effect reflects a loss of member stiffness
after the member has been cracked and does not really represent
behavior of short-term monotonic tests carried out on 共uncracked兲
beams in the lab.
The effective moment of inertia originally proposed by Bran-
son 关with m = 3 in Eq. 共1兲兴 represents a constant or averaged value
intended for use with elastic deflection formulae. Setting the
power m in this equation to 4 gives an approximation of the
moment-curvature for a cross section 共Branson 1965, 1977兲. This
is equivalent to setting the power m = 3 in Eq. 共10兲 and gives a
comparable response for a beam with Ig / Icr = 2.2. In other words,
the tension stiffening factor ␤c = 共M cr / M a兲2 for the localized
moment-curvature response and this gives Ie = Icr / 关1
− ␩共M cr / M a兲3兴.
Steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforced
Concrete
Flexure design of steel and FRP reinforced concrete both satisfy
the same basic principles of equilibrium and strain compatibility
based on plane sections remaining plane after bending. However,
the high strength and lack of ductility in FRP bars often lead to
beams designed as over-reinforced and with a higher margin of
safety against failure than steel reinforced concrete beams which
are under-reinforced to ensure yielding of the steel before the
concrete crushes 共ACI 2003兲. Failure initiated by rupture of the
FRP bars before the concrete crushes 共␧c ⬍ ␧cu兲 requires use of
revised rectangular stress block factors 共ISIS 2001兲 and is usually
not recommended 共CSA 2002兲. Creep rupture of the FRP bars
under sustained loading also needs to be considered 共CSA 2002;
ACI 2003兲. Low stiffness of FRP bars affects deflection and crack
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Strength and serviceability requirements for 共a兲 steel and 共b兲 glass fiber reinforced polymer reinforced concrete beams

width control to an extent that serviceability requirements often
control design. Other requirements, such as shear and bond
strength, are not considered in this study. Design criteria used in
this paper are outlined in Appendix IV and based on ACI 318-02
for steel reinforced concrete and ACI 440.1R-03 for FRP rein-
forced concrete. Note that ACI 440.1R-03 uses load factors from
ACI 318-95 that differ from ACI 318-02.
The required strength 共␾M n 艌 M u兲 and corresponding service
load 共M a = ␾M n / ␣Load兲 are plotted in Fig. 8共a兲 for steel reinforced
concrete beams of rectangular cross section with f ⬘c = 35 MPa
共5,000 psi兲 and f y = 400 MPa 共60 ksi兲. Results are plotted in terms
of the flexural resistance factor R = M / bd2 versus the reinforcing
bar ratio ␳, and compares well with serviceability requirements
based on limiting the bar stress to about 60% of the yield stress f y.
The steel strain under service loads has a significant effect on
crack width, and the value of steel stress f s at service loads is
typically taken as 0.6f y in crack control calculations. Note that
this value of stress in the steel bar represents the ratio of strength
reduction factor to average load factor multiplied by the yield
stress 共equal to 0.64f y in ACI 318-02 and 0.58f y in ACI 318-99
and earlier codes兲. The corresponding steel strain for a 400 MPa
steel is 1,200 ␮␧.
Larger crack widths are tolerated with FRP bars because there
is no risk of corrosion, and an upper limit on bar strain equal to
2,000 ␮␧ 共5 / 3 of 1,200 ␮␧兲 is used to limit crack widths to 5 / 3
of the values allowed for steel reinforced concrete members 共ISIS
2001; Newhook et al. 2002兲. This corresponds to an allowable bar
stress under service loads of 80 MPa with GFRP bars 共E
= 40 GPa兲. Strength and serviceability requirements are plotted in
Fig. 8共b兲 for GFRP reinforced concrete beams of rectangular
cross section. Results clearly show that serviceability 共based on
␧b 艋 2,000 ␮␧兲 now governs design because of the lower bar stiff-
ness. Creep rupture requirements for GFRP limit the bar stress to
0.2f u 共or 120 MPa for f u = 600 MPa兲 under sustained service
loads 共ACI 2003兲 and is less critical than the 80 MPa limit needed
for crack control. Deflection requirements also need to be
checked.
Recall that member rigidity is controlled by the ratio Ig / Icr
when using Branson’s Eq. 共1兲 to compute the effective moment of
inertia Ie. Fig. 9 shows the effect of reinforcing ratio and bar
stiffness on Ig / Icr for rectangular beams reinforced with steel and
GFRP. Ig / Icr increases as the reinforcing ratio drops and is sig-
nificantly greater for GFRP. While the moment of inertia for the
uncracked transformed section is affected mainly by the gross
concrete area, the moment of inertia of the cracked transformed
section is highly dependent on the amount and stiffness of rein-
forcement. Plots of Ig / Icr in Fig. 10共a兲 show a definite correlation
with n␳. Hence, the dependence of Branson’s Ie on bar stiffness,
reinforcing ratio, and concrete stiffness. While Ig / Icr remains
below an upper limit of 5 for steel reinforced concrete at low
reinforcing ratios 共0.6%兲, this parameter increases significantly to
values as high as 25 for GFRP reinforcement. The parameter
Ig / Icr is affected also by the ratio of effective depth of reinforce-
ment d to beam height h. Beams and slabs typically have a value
of d / h between 0.8 and 0.9, but this ratio has been as low as 0.70
for some beam tests.
Fig. 9 also plots the influence of reinforcement on the level of
service load relative to the cracking moment 共M a / M cr兲 at which
deflection is calculated. For these curves, the applied service load
moment is based on strength requirements for steel reinforced
concrete 关Fig. 8共a兲兴 and serviceability requirements for GFRP re-
inforced concrete 关Fig. 8共b兲兴 discussed earlier. Results plotted
show an increase in the applied service moment with increasing
amounts of reinforcement, while service load moments are sig-
nificantly less for GFRP reinforced concrete. Fig. 10共b兲 clearly
illustrates how the ratio M a / M cr decreases with increasing values
of Ig / Icr, and indicates that the applied service load is typically
less than twice the cracking moment for GFRP beams. This is
particularly important when evaluating prediction equations, since
the accuracy of deflection calculations becomes increasingly sus-
Fig. 9. Effect of reinforcing ratio and bar type on Iunc / Icr and
M a / M cr

758 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. 共a兲 Dependence of Iunc / Icr on n␳ and 共b兲 variation of M a / M cr with Iunc / Icr

ceptible to the magnitude of applied service load as it gets closer
to the cracking load.
Service loads are typically evaluated at about 60 to 65% of the
nominal moment capacity for steel reinforced concrete beams
关Fig. 8共a兲兴, while the level of service load drops to about 25% of
the nominal beam capacity for over-reinforced GFRP beams 关Fig.
8共b兲兴. Hence, evaluation of deflection prediction for GFRP beams
at service loads in the 60% range of ultimate capacity 共typical for
steel reinforced concrete members兲 is at a load level much higher
than what would typically be expected and can lead to erroneous
conclusions as the member response is much closer to the fully
cracked response 共Icr兲 at this higher level of load.
Evaluation of Deflection Prediction for Steel
and Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Beams
The effective moments of inertia 共Ie兲 using Branson’s Eq. 共1兲 and
the proposed Eq. 共7兲 are compared in Fig. 11共a兲 with the fully
cracked moment of inertia 共Icr兲 at service load levels defined in

Fig. 11. Variation of effective moment of inertia at service load levels for 共a兲 steel reinforced concrete, 共b兲 glass fiber reinforced polymer 共GFRP兲
reinforced concrete, and 共c兲 at higher loads for GFRP reinforced concrete

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 759

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Comparison of ACI 440 prediction response and corresponding tension stiffening component for glass fiber reinforced polymer beams
Fig. 8共a兲 for a rectangular steel reinforced concrete section. Simi-
lar comparison is made in Fig. 11共b兲 using service load levels
defined in Fig. 8共b兲 for a rectangular GFRP reinforced concrete
section. Results demonstrate that Branson’s equation begins to
overestimate the stiffness of steel reinforced concrete members
when reinforcing ratios are less than about 1%, corresponding to
values of Ig / Icr greater than 3 and an applied service load less
than 2.5 times the cracking load. This implies that deflection is
underestimated for slabs with low reinforcement ratios. Branson’s
expression is known to consistently underestimate short-term de-
flection for lightly reinforced members 共R. I. Gilbert, personal
communication, July 2004兲 and modifications to the Australian
Standard AS3600 共Standards Australia 1994兲 impose an upper
limit on Ie of 0.6Ig for steel reinforced beams and slabs with a
reinforcing ratio less than 0.5% 共Gilbert 2001兲. Note also that Icr
begins to closely approximate the effective moment of inertia
once the steel reinforcing ratio reaches about 1.5%.
With GFRP beams on the other hand, member stiffness is
overestimated using Branson’s original equation for reinforcing
ratios up to 3%. In other words, Branson’s equation is not appli-
cable for the whole range of practical levels of reinforcement.
This corresponds to values of Ig / Icr greater than 4 and applied
service loads around 2.5 times the cracking load or less. Compari-
son is also made with the effective moment of inertia proposed by
ACI 440 关Eq. 共2兲兴 for GFRP beams, showing in this case that
stiffness is overestimated for reinforcing ratios less than about
2%. This corresponds to Ig / Icr greater than 5.5 and an applied
service load that is now twice the cracking load. Icr begins to
approximate the effective moment of inertia at a reinforcing ratio
of about 3%, which could be considered as an upper limit on
760 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767
reinforcement in terms of constructability. Some care should be
taken when interpreting these results since the assumed level of
applied service load can have an equal amount of control over
predictions of the effective beam stiffness, as does the amount of
reinforcement. Differences between the different prediction meth-
ods are more prominent at the lower load levels and become less
pronounced at higher loads as the member response approaches
the cracked response Icr. This is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 11共c兲
where the effective moment of inertia is evaluated for GFRP
beams at a service load equal to 60% of the nominal moment
capacity 共3 艋 M a / M cr 艋 5兲. Tension stiffening is practically non-
existent at this higher level of loading.
Deflection prediction equations are presented in Fig. 12共a兲 for
a GFRP beam with Ig / Icr equal to 7 and in Fig. 12共b兲 for Ig / Icr
equal to 25. When compared to the proposed Eq. 共7兲 based on
␤c = M cr / M a, Branson’s original equation 关Eq. 共1兲 with m = 3兴 un-
derestimates deflection by up to 40% for service loads less than
twice the cracking moment when the beam has a Ig / Icr ratio of 7.
The ACI 440 modified formula 关Eq. 共2兲兴 provides a more reason-
able prediction with values that differ by less than 20%. Differ-
ences become less pronounced at higher levels of load. For the
beam with a higher Ig / Icr ratio of 25, both the Branson and ACI
440 equation predict a member stiffness that is quite excessive at
even high load levels, giving deflections as little as one fifth of
expected values. For this particular example, using a much
smaller reduction coefficient ␤b = 0.16 with the ACI 440 proposal
gives a good fit with Eq. 共7兲 关Fig. 12共c兲兴 because the modified
stiffness ratio ␤bIg / Icr is now reduced to a value of 4. Values of
Ig / Icr less than 4 give a reasonable estimate of tension stiffening
with the Branson equation as indicated earlier and this is shown in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Comparison of modified prediction response and corresponding tension stiffening component for glass fiber reinforced polymer beam
Fig. 12共d兲. Interestingly enough, work by Engel et al. 共1999兲 sug-
gests using a value of ␤b = 0.15 共based on a bond factor ␣b of 0.1兲
for carbon FRP 共CFRP兲 grid beams with Ig / Icr between 13 and 17.
Using this value for the reduction factor ␤b then gives a modified
stiffness ratio ␤bIg / Icr of about 2.25, which results in a more
reasonable estimate of member deflection. Hence, prediction of
deflection with the Branson equation is sensitive to the
uncracked-to-cracked stiffness ratio Ig / Icr of the beam.
Use of the reduction coefficient ␤b in the ACI 440 proposal
reduces tension stiffening by lowering the stiffness ratio Ig / Icr and
this softens the member response. Ig / Icr varies with the product of
the modular n and reinforcing ␳ ratios, and this factor 共Ig / Icr兲
needs to be modified for values of n␳ less than about 0.04 to
obtain reasonable estimates of deflection with Branson’s original
empirically derived formula. Hence, ␤b and ␣b are not affected by
the bond properties of the bar or level of cracking as implied by
ACI 440 共ACI 2003兲, and these two coefficients should be
thought of as curve fit factors that depend on the bar stiffness and
amount of reinforcement only. Others also have recognized the
importance of the reinforcing ratio on predicted behavior with
Branson’s equation 共Nawy and Neuworth 1977; Yost et al. 2003兲.
Yost et al.’s 共2003兲 proposal for ␣b is based on the reinforcing
ratio and gives a value of about 0.175 for a GFRP beam with
Ig / Icr = 25. This subsequently gives a value of 0.21 for ␤b and a
modified stiffness ratio ␤bIg / Icr of 5.25, which provides a more
reasonable prediction of beam deflection when used with the ACI
440 equation. However, it is important to remember that the de-
pendence on the reinforcing ratio and bar stiffness occurs with
Branson’s model only because tension stiffening is not modeled
correctly and increases with Ig / Icr. The proposed Eq. 共7兲 incorpo-
rates a relatively constant value of tension stiffening for different
member cross sections and, hence, is independent of the amount
or type of reinforcement.
Another option for reducing the tension-stiffening component
in beams with high Ig / Icr ratios is to increase the power m in
Branson’s original equation. Others have recommended this alter-
native for FRP beams 共Brown and Bartholomew 1996; Toutanji
and Saafi 2000兲 and even for steel reinforced concrete beams
共Al-Shaikh and Al-Zaid 1993兲. In most instances, the power m
was recognized as being dependent on the reinforcing ratio ␳, in
other words Ig / Icr. For example, Brown and Bartholomew’s
共1996兲 recommendation of using a value of 5 for m with their
GFRP beam tests 共for beams having a Ig / Icr ratio of about 11兲
reduces tension stiffening to an amount that is reasonably consis-
tent with the proposed approximation ␤c = M cr / M a that is used in
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 761
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767
Eq. 共7兲. This is shown in Figs. 13共a and b兲, indicating that the
prediction of deflection is still underestimated at the lower load
levels.
It is interesting to note that the deflection equations proposed
for FRP beams in the Canadian Design Standard CSA S806 共CSA
2002兲 yield equations for Ie 共see Introduction兲 that are similar in
format to the proposed Eq. 共7兲. However, the bases for derivation
of the two methods are quite different, with the former assuming
that FRP does not exhibit any tension stiffening after cracking,
but integrating over the length of beam to give an average value
of Ie that effectively provides some tension stiffening from the
uncracked regions of the beam. The effective moment of inertia
共Ie兲 for a cantilever beam with uniform loading is identical to Eq.
共7兲, while a simply supported beam with point loading uses a
tension stiffening coefficient of ␤c equal to 共M cr / M a兲2 instead of
M cr / M a. Ie for a simply supported beam under third-point loading
is similar to a beam that has been subjected to repeated loading
using Eq. 共11兲 with a loading factor ␥ of 0.35 instead of 0.50 and
␤c equal to 共M cr / M a兲2. Predicted deflections using the CSA
method for the beams with point loads are obviously larger than
deflection values computed using Ie from Eq. 共7兲, mainly because
the beam is assumed to have less tension stiffening.
Postscript
Deflection behavior needs to be put into proper context when
evaluating the validity of deflection prediction equations such as
those proposed by Branson 共1965兲 and the modified version rec-
ommended by ACI 440 共ACI 2003兲 for FRP reinforced concrete.
Variability of deflections is large because of uncertainty in the
material properties, loads, loading history, and construction prac-
tice, not to mention the wide variation in shrinkage and creep
affects controlled by the ambient temperature and humidity levels
as well as concrete age. Thankfully, some room for error can be
tolerated since emphasis is placed on structural serviceability and
not strength criteria related to safety. For these reasons, it is im-
portant to recognize that Branson never intended for the engineer
to place undue reliance on the computed results 共Branson 1977兲.
His intent was to develop an approximate procedure that was
practical and easy to use in design for control of deflections, and
not to provide precise predictions of deflection.
Nevertheless, there is room for improvement when the level of
inaccuracy in computed deflections becomes too excessive. Bran-
 son’s equation for the effective moment of inertia Ie • Member cracking load: Pcr = f cr共Ac + nAb兲 = Ac f cr共1 + n␳兲
= 共M cr / M a兲3Ig + 共1 − 共M cr / M a兲3兲Icr was empirically derived and • Transformed area of uncracked section: Aunc = Ac + nAb = Ac共1
does not correctly account for tensile stresses in the concrete be- + n␳兲
tween cracks. Hence, the equation is not well suited to modeling • Uncracked member stiffness: Ec Aunc ⬇ Ec Ag
tension stiffening and results in a concrete contribution that in- • Area of cracked section transformed to concrete: Acr = nAb
creases unrealistically with the ratio of uncracked-to-cracked = n␳Ac
transformed moment of inertia 共Ig / Icr兲. This gives a member re- • Cracked member 共bare bar兲 stiffness: Eb Ab = Ec Acr
sponse that is much too stiff for FRP reinforced concrete, since • Ratio of uncracked-to-cracked transformed section area:
concrete reinforced with advanced composite materials typically
has an Ig / Icr ratio at least three to five times higher than conven-
1 + n␳ 1
tional steel reinforced concrete. Attempts have been made to Aunc /Acr = ⇒ ␩ = 1 − Acr /Aunc =
modify Branson’s original equation by either decreasing the Ig / Icr n␳ 1 + n␳
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ratio with an appropriate reduction factor ␤b to give ␤bIg / Icr or • Maximum tension stiffening strain 共at first cracking兲:
increasing the cubed term in the equation to a higher power. Both
methods have the effect of reducing the tension stiffening contri-
bution to a more reasonable level. This gives a softer response ⌬␧max = ␧b,cr − ␧cr
and more realistic deflections. An alternative equation for the ef- Pcr
fective moment of inertia Ie = Icr / 共1 − ␩共M cr / M a兲2兲 with ␩ = 1 = 共1 − Acr /Aunc兲
Ec Acr
− Icr / Ig is proposed that works equally well for both steel and FRP
reinforced concrete. This equation incorporates a rational tension- f cr
= 共Aunc /Acr − 1兲
stiffening component that is independent of Ig / Icr and varies in- Ec
versely with the applied load once the beam cracks.
Other issues that need to be resolved include the need to ac- f cr 1
=
count for concrete shrinkage that occurs before the beam has been Ec n␳
loaded or tested. Changes in the cracking moment M cr caused by
shrinkage affect the accuracy of computed deflections and propos-
als have been made to account for this effect by reducing the Ac f cr Pcr Pcr
or ⌬␧max = = = 共1 − Acr /Aunc兲
computed cracking load moment M cr by an appropriate amount Eb Ab Eb Ab共1 + n␳兲 Eb Ab
共CEB-FIP 1993; Gilbert 2001; Rangan and Sarker 2001兲. The
effect of shrinkage on tension stiffening in beams also needs to be • Tension stiffening strain at service load Pa:
evaluated 共Bischoff 2001; Fields and Bischoff 2004兲. Nonlinear- ⌬␧ = ␤c⌬␧max ⇒ ␤c = ⌬␧ / ⌬␧max
ity of the cracked member response 共Icr兲 can increase deflection in • Average load carried by concrete:
FRP reinforced concrete members at higher load levels and can be P̄c = Ac f c = ␤c Ac f cr ⇒ ␤c = f c / f cr
taken into account by using a reduced value of Icr in deflection • Average member strain:
computations 共Rasheed et al. 2004兲. The influence of service load
level on member deflection requires more evaluation, and the Pa
suitability of using an averaged effective moment of inertia that is ␧m = ␧b − ⌬␧ = − ␤c⌬␧max
constant along the length of beam compared with integration of Eb Ab
curvature along the beam span to compute deflection still needs to Pa ␤c Pcr
be resolved. Long-term deflection also merits further study. = −
Eb Ab Eb Ab共1 + n␳兲

冋 册
On a final note, deflection behavior of steel reinforced concrete
was compared mostly with GFRP reinforced concrete since this Pa Pcr 1
= 1 − ␤c
type of member is expected to have the least stiffness of the Eb Ab Pa 共1 + n␳兲
different types of FRP concrete available. Concrete reinforced
• Average member stiffness:
with CFRP bars and aramid FRP bars should fall somewhere be-
tween the two extremes of a concrete member reinforced with
steel and another reinforced with GFRP. Although analysis was Eb Ab
restricted to rectangular sections, comparable behavior is ex- 共EA兲eff = Pa /␧m =
1 − ␤c共Pcr /Pa兲/共1 + n␳兲
pected for T-shaped sections as well.
Ec Acr
=
1 − ␤c共Pcr /Pa兲/共1 + n␳兲
Acknowledgments
• Effective bar stiffness given that 共EA兲eff = Ēb Ab:
Support provided by the Univ. of New Brunswick and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is grate- Eb
fully appreciated. Ēb =
1 − ␤c共Pcr /Pa兲/共1 + n␳兲
• Effective concrete area given that 共EA兲eff = Ec Ae:
Appendix I. Tension Stiffening in Axial Tension
Members Acr
Ae =
1 − ␤c共Pcr /Pa兲/共1 + n␳兲
Refer to Figs. 1共a兲 and 2 in the main text to help explain the
following derivation for tension stiffening in axial members.

762 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

 • Tension stiffening factor :
f b,cr Pcr Eb
␤c ⬇ = ⇒ Ēb =
fb Pa 1 − ␩共Pcr /Pa兲2

and Pa = Ēb Ab␧m

Acr
⇒ Ae =
1 − ␩共Pcr /Pa兲2
and Pa = Ec Ae␧m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Appendix II. Tension Stiffening in Flexural Members

Refer to Figs. 1共b兲 and 4 in the main text to help explain the
following derivation for tension stiffening in flexural members Fig. 14. Typical moment-deflection curve
共analogous to axial tension members兲.
Computation of curvature: ␾ = M / EI
• Cracking moment: M cr = f rIunc / y t ⬇ f rIg / y t M cr M cr M cr
⌬␦max = kL2 − kL2 = kL2 共1 − Icr /Iunc兲
• Transformed moment of inertia for uncracked section: Iunc EcIcr EcIunc EcIcr
⬇ Ig 共see Appendix IV兲 • Tension stiffening deflection at service load M a:
• Uncracked member stiffness: EcIunc ⬇ EcIg ⌬␦ = ␤c⌬␦max ⇒ ␤c = ⌬␦ / ⌬␦max
• Transformed moment of inertia of cracked section: Icr 共see • Average deflection:

冋 册
Appendix IV兲
• Cracked member stiffness: EcIcr Ma M cr
• Stiffness ratio: Iunc / Icr ⇒ ␩ = 1 − Icr / Iunc 共see Appendix IV兲 ␦m = ␦b − ⌬␦ = kL2 1 − ␤c 共1 − Icr /Iunc兲
EcIcr Ma
• Maximum tension stiffening curvature 共at first cracking兲:
• Average member stiffness:
M cr M cr M cr
⌬␾max = − = 共1 − Icr /Iunc兲 共EI兲eff = kL2M a/␦m
EcIcr EcIunc EcIcr
• Tension stiffening curvature at service load M a: EcIcr
=
⌬␾ = ␤c⌬␾max ⇒ ␤c = ⌬␾ / ⌬␾max 1 − ␤c共M cr /M a兲共1 − Icr /Iunc兲
• Average curvature: • Effective moment of inertia given that 共EI兲eff = EcIe:
Ma Icr Icr
␾m = ␾b − ⌬␾ = − ␤c⌬␾max Ie = =
EcIcr 1 − ␤c共M cr /M a兲共1 − Icr /Iunc兲 1 − ␩␤c共M cr /M a兲
M a ␤cM cr • Tension stiffening factor:
= − 共1 − Icr /Iunc兲
EcIcr EcIcr

冋 册
f b,cr M cr Icr
Ma M cr ␤c ⬇ = ⇒ Ie =
= 1 − ␤c 共1 − Icr /Iunc兲 fb Ma 1 − ␩共M cr /M a兲2
EcIcr Ma
Ma
• Average member stiffness: and ␦m = kL2
E cI e
共EI兲eff = M a/␾m
EcIcr
=
1 − ␤c共M cr /M a兲共1 − Icr /Iunc兲 Appendix III. Murashev’s Derivation of Ēb
• Effective moment of inertia given that 共EI兲eff = EcIe:
Murashev accounts for the concrete resistance between cracks by
Icr Icr using a mean modulus of elasticity Ēb = Eb / ␺b that effectively
Ie = =
1 − ␤c共M cr /M a兲共1 − Icr /Iunc兲 1 − ␩␤c共M cr /M a兲 stiffens the reinforcement with a stiffening factor ␺b = 1
− 2 / 3共M cr / M a兲2. Beam deflection is calculated using a trans-
• Tension stiffening factor: formed moment of inertia of the cracked concrete section based
f b,cr M cr Icr on a modified modular ratio n̄ = Ēb / Ec 共Murashev et al. 1971;
␤c ⬇ = ⇒ Ie = Branson 1977兲. This gives a modified value of the cracked trans-
fb Ma 1 − ␩共M cr /M a兲2
formed section Īcr that is equivalent to an effective moment of
and M a = EcIe␾m
inertia Ie.
Computation of deflection 共refer to Fig. 14兲: ␦ = kML2 / EI The tensile stress-strain relationship for reinforcement embed-
• Deflection coefficient k is dependent on loading and support ded in concrete is given in Fig. 15 for an axially reinforced mem-
conditions. ber. Tension is resisted by reinforcement at the cracked sections
• Maximum tension stiffening deflection 共at first cracking兲: and by both the concrete and reinforcement between the cracks.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 763

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

 ⌬f b = f b − f b1 = ␹共Pcr /Ab − nf cr兲 = ␩␹Pcr /Ab 共A3兲
where Pcr = Ac f cr共1 + n␳兲; ␩ = 1 / 共1 + n␳兲 = 1 − Acr / Aunc; and ␹
= reduction factor to account for the drop in maximum concrete
stress f c,max 艋 f cr between cracks.
Substitution of Eq. 共A3兲 into Eq. 共A2兲 gives
Pcr
␺b = 1 − ␥␹␩ 艋1 共A4兲
Pa
The maximum tensile stress in the concrete between cracks f c,max
is defined with Nemirovsky’s experimental relationship
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

f c,max f b,cr Pcr

␹= ⬇ = 共A5兲
f cr fb Pa
which finally gives
Fig. 15. Stress-strain response of embedded reinforcement
␺b = 1 − ␩␥共Pcr /Pa兲2 共A6兲
Murashev’s relationship assumes the member is already cracked
and, hence, effectively accounts for repeated loading with the
The average stress 共f bm = ␺b f b兲 and average strain 共␧bm = ␺b␧b兲 in
factor ␥ = 2 / 3. By assuming Pcr ⬇ Ac f cr, then ␩ = 1 and ␺b = 1
the reinforcing bar are characterized by the stiffening factor ␺b
− 0.67共Pcr / Pa兲2.
艋 1 to account for the concrete in tension between cracks. This
For the flexure member in Fig. 16, the change in bar stress ⌬f b
leads to a mean elastic modulus Ēb defined by equals
⌬f b = f b − f b1 = ␹关nM cr共d − ccr兲/Icr − nf r共d − cunc兲/共h − cunc兲兴

冋 册
fb fb Eb
Ēb = = = 共A1兲
␧bm ␺b␧b ␺b M cr Icr 共d − cunc兲
= ␹n 共d − ccr兲 1 − 共A7兲
Icr Iunc 共d − ccr兲
Referring to Fig. 16, the reduction factor ␺b is defined by
where M cr = Iunc f r / 共h − cunc兲; and ␹ = reduction factor accounting
for the drop in maximum concrete stress f c,max 艋 f r between
f bm f b − ␥⌬f b ⌬f b
␺b = = =1−␥ 艋1 共A2兲 cracks. Substitution of Eq. 共A7兲 into Eq. 共A2兲 gives
fb fb fb
M cr
where ⌬f b = f b − f b1 represents the change in bar stress between ␺b = 1 − ␥␹␩ 艋1 共A8兲
Ma
cracks. The factor ␥ accounts for the shape of the tensile stress
distribution in the concrete between cracks 共equal to 2 / 3 for a with ␩ = 1 − 共Icr / Iunc兲共d − cunc兲 / 共d − ccr兲 for flexure. Once again, the
parabola兲 and gives the mean or average change in bar stress after maximum tensile stress in the concrete between cracks f c,max is
cracking has stabilized. defined with Nemirovsky’s experimental relationship
For the axial member in Fig. 16, the change in bar stress ⌬f b f c,max f b,cr M cr
equals ␹= ⬇ = 共A9兲
fr fb Ma
Substitution of Eq. 共A9兲 into Eq. 共A8兲 then gives
␺b = 1 − ␩␥共M cr /M a兲2 共A10兲
Murashev’s relationship assumes the member is already cracked
with ␥ = 2 / 3 关compare with Eq. 共11兲兴. Ignoring changes to the
position of the neutral axis between cracks and assuming the in-
ternal lever arm remains constant gives ␩ = 1, and this again re-
sults in ␺b = 1 − 0.67共M cr / M a兲2. Setting ␥ = 1 and ␩ = 1 − 共Icr / Iunc兲
⫻共d − cunc兲 / 共d − ccr兲 gives a response exactly the same as Eq. 共8兲
that is comparable to the proposed response using Eq. 共7兲 as
shown in Fig. 17. Murashev also proposed setting ␥ = M cr / M a to
obtain closer agreement with experimental results and this is
equivalent to using a tension-stiffening factor ␤c equal to
共M cr / M a兲2.

Appendix IV. Design Requirements used for Steel

and Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforced
Concrete

Concrete properties: Ec = 4730冑 f ⬘c and f r = 0.62冑 f ⬘c

Fig. 16. Variation of stresses in concrete and reinforcement Rectangular stress block: ␣1 = 0.85 and ␤1 = 0.85− .05共f ⬘c
for stabilized crack pattern − 27.6兲 / 6.9艌 0.65 at ␧cu = 3,000 ␮␧

764 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

 0.5 + 共n − 1兲␳共d/h兲2
cunc = kunch and kunc = ⬇ 0.5
1 + 共n − 1兲␳共d/h兲
Cracked section properties 共rectangular beam兲:

Icr 3
= kcr /3 + n␳共1 − kcr兲2
bd2

ccr = kcrd and kcr = 冑共n␳兲2 + 2n␳ − n␳

Gross to cracked section ratio 共rectangular beam兲:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Iunc 关1/12 + 共0.5 − kunc兲2 + 共n − 1兲␳共d/h兲共d/h − kunc兲2兴

=
Icr 关kcr
3
/3 + n␳共1 − kcr兲2兴共d/h兲3
Ig
⬇
Icr
Fig. 17. Comparison of member response using Murashev’s method
共1/12兲
=
关kcr
3
/3 + n␳共1 − kcr兲2兴共d/h兲3
Load and strength reduction factors for steel 共ACI 318-02兲:
␣Load ⬇ 共1.2+ 1.6兲 / 2 = 1.4 and ␾steel = 0.65艋 关3.95− 2共␳ / ␳b兲兴 / 3
艋 0.90
Load and strength reduction factors for GFRP 共ACI 318-95
and ACI 440.1R-03兲:
␣Load ⬇ 共1.4+ 1.7兲 / 2 = 1.55 and ␾FRP = 0.50艋 0.5共␳ / ␳b兲 艋 0.70
Notation
Ab
Reinforcing ratio: ␳ =
bd The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ab ⫽ reinforcing bar area;
Flexural strength analysis 共␾M n 艌 M u = ␣LoadM a兲:
Ac ⫽ net concrete area;
f ⬘c ␧cuEb Acr ⫽ transformed concrete area of cracked section
• Balanced reinforcement ratio: ␳b = ␣1␤1 共nAb兲;
f u ␧cuEb + f u
Ae ⫽ effective concrete area;
共note that f u is replaced by f y for steel兲 Ag ⫽ gross concrete area;
Aunc ⫽ transformed concrete area of uncracked section
• Bar stress: f b = 0.5Eb␧cu关冑1 + 4␣1␤1 f c⬘/共␳Eb␧cu兲 − 1兴 共Ac + nAb兲;
艋 f u or f y b ⫽ beam width;
ccr ⫽ neutral axis depth for cracked section;
• Nominal flexural resistance factor: cunc ⫽ neutral axis depth for uncracked section;
Mn d ⫽ effective depth of reinforcement;
Rn = = ␳f b关1 − ␳f b/共2␣1 f ⬘c 兲兴 E ⫽ elastic modulus;
bd2
Eb ⫽ elastic modulus of reinforcing bar;
• Strength requirement: M a = 共␾/␣Load兲M n Ēb ⫽ effective modulus of embedded reinforcement;
Ec ⫽ elastic modulus of concrete;
Elastic cracked-section analysis 共serviceability兲:
Ēc ⫽ effective modulus of concrete;
Ma 共1 − kcr兲
• Bar stress: f b = n 艋 Eb␧limit Efrp ⫽ elastic modulus of fiber reinforced polymer bar;
bd 共kcr /3兲 + n␳共1 − kcr兲2
2 3
Es ⫽ elastic modulus of steel reinforcing bar;
• Serviceability requirement: 共EA兲eff ⫽ effective axial rigidity;
共EI兲eff ⫽ effective flexural rigidity;
Ma 3
kcr /3 + n␳共1 − kcr兲2 f b ⫽ bar stress 共at a crack兲;
2 = Ec␧limit f bm ⫽ average stress in reinforcing bar;
bd 共1 − kcr兲
f b1 ⫽ minimum bar stress between cracks;
␾steel f y ⌬f b ⫽ drop in bar stress between cracks;
with ␧limit = = 1,286 ␮␧
␣Load Es f b,cr ⫽ bar stress at first cracking;
f c ⫽ 共average兲 tensile stress of concrete;
for steel and ␧limit = 2,000 ␮␧ for FRP reinforcement to control the
f c,max ⫽ maximum concrete stress between cracks;
width of cracks 共ISIS 2001兲.
f ⬘c ⫽ concrete compressive strength;
Uncracked section properties 共rectangular beam兲:
f cr ⫽ cracking strength of concrete;
Iunc f r ⫽ concrete rupture modulus;
= 关1/12 + 共0.5 − kunc兲2 + 共n − 1兲␳共d/h兲共d/h − kunc兲2兴/共d/h兲3 f s ⫽ steel stress;
bd3
f u ⫽ ultimate stress of fiber reinforced polymer bar;
Ig f y ⫽ yield stress of reinforcing steel;
⬇ = 共1/12兲/共d/h兲3
bd3 h ⫽ beam height;

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 765

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

 I ⫽ moment of inertia; ␳b ⫽
balanced reinforcing ratio;
Icr ⫽ cracked transformed moment of inertia; ␾ ⫽
curvature or strength reduction factor;
Īcr ⫽ effective cracked moment of inertia 共⬅Ie兲; ␾b ⫽
curvature of cracked section 共M / EcIcr兲;
Ie ⫽ effective moment of inertia; ␾cr ⫽
curvature at first cracking 共M cr / EcIunc兲;
Ig ⫽ gross moment of inertia; ␾g ⫽
curvature of uncracked section 共M / EcIg兲
Iunc ⫽ uncracked transformed moment of inertia; ␾m ⫽
average or mean curvature;
k ⫽ beam deflection coefficient; ␾steel ⫽
strength reduction factor for steel reinforcement;
kcr ⫽ neutral axis factor for cracked section; ␾FRP ⫽
strength reduction factor for fiber reinforced
kunc ⫽ neutral axis factor for uncracked section; polymer reinforcement;
L ⫽ beam span; ␹ ⫽ stress reduction factor used in Murashev’s
lcr ⫽ stabilized crack spacing; derivation 共=f c,max / f cr兲; and
⫽ ␺b ⫽ stiffening factor used in Murashev’s derivation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M moment;
Ma ⫽ applied service load moment;
M cr ⫽ cracking moment;
Mn ⫽ nominal moment capacity; References
Mu ⫽ factored moment
m ⫽ power coefficient in Eqs. 共1兲, 共2兲, 共9兲, and 共10兲; ACI Committee 224. 共1986兲. “Cracking of concrete members in direct
n ⫽ modular ratio 共Eb / Ec兲; tension 共ACI Committee 224 Report, ACI 224.2R-86兲.” ACI J., 83共1兲,
n̄ 3–13.
⫽ effective modular ratio 共Ēb / Ec兲;
ACI Committee 318. 共2002兲. “Building code requirements for structural
P ⫽ axial load or concentrated beam load; concrete 共ACI 318-02兲 and commentary 共ACI 318R-02兲.” ACI, Farm-
Pa ⫽ applied axial load; ington Hills, Mich.
Pcr ⫽ axial cracking load; ACI Committee 440. 共2003兲. “Guide for the design and construction of
P̄c ⫽ average load carried by concrete between cracks; concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI 440.1R-03, ACI, Farmington
Hills, Mich.
P̄s ⫽ average load carried by steel reinforcement;
Al-Shaikh, A. H., and Al-Zaid, R. Z. 共1993兲. “Effect of reinforcement
q ⫽ uniformly distributed load; ratio on the effective moment of inertia of reinforced concrete
R ⫽ flexural resistance factor 共M / bd2兲; beams.” ACI Struct. J., 90共2兲, 144–149.
yt ⫽ distance from centroid to extreme tension fiber; Bischoff, P. H. 共2001兲. “Effects of shrinkage on tension stiffening and
␣b ⫽ bond dependent coefficient 关for Eq. 共2兲兴; cracking in reinforced concrete.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 28共3兲, 363–374.
␣Load ⫽ load factor; Bischoff, P. H., and Paixao, R. 共2004兲. “Tension stiffening and cracking
␣1 ⫽ rectangular stress block factor for stress; of concrete reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer 共GFRP兲
␤b ⫽ reduction coefficient 关for Eq. 共2兲兴; bars.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 31共4兲, 579–588.
␤c ⫽ tension stiffening factor 共=f c / f cr = ⌬␧ / ⌬␧max Branson, D. E. 共1965兲. “Instantaneous and time-dependent deflections of
= ⌬␾ / ⌬␾max = ⌬␦ / ⌬␦max兲; simple and continuous reinforced concrete beams.” HPR Report No.
7, Part 1, Alabama Highway Department, Bureau of Public Roads,
␤1 ⫽ rectangular stress block factor for depth of
Alab. 共Dept. of Civil Engineering and Auburn Research Foundation,
compression zone; Auburn Univ., Aug. 1963兲.
␥ ⫽ loading factor 共1 for monotonic and 0.5 for Branson, D. E. 共1977兲. Deformation of concrete structures, McGraw–
repeated loading兲 in Eq. 共11兲; Hill, New York.
␥ ⫽ shape factor accounting for bar stress distribution Brown, V. L., and Bartholomew, C. L. 共1996兲. “Long-term deflections of
共used in Murashev’s derivation兲; GFRP-reinforced concrete beams.” Fiber Composites in Infrastruc-
⌬␦ ⫽ tension stiffening deflection; ture: Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Composites in Infrastructure, ICCI’96,
⌬␦max ⫽ tension stiffening deflection at first cracking; H. Saadatmanesh and M. R. Ehsani, eds., Tuscon, Ariz., 389–400.
⌬␧ ⫽ tension stiffening strain 共=␤c⌬␧max兲 CSA. 共2002兲. “Design and construction of building components with
⌬␧max ⫽ tension stiffening strain at first cracking; fibre-reinforced polymers.” CSA Standard S806-02, CSA, Rexdale
⌬␾ ⫽ tension stiffening curvature; 共Toronto兲, Ontario.
⌬␾max ⫽ tension stiffening curvature at first cracking; CSA. 共2004兲. “Design of concrete structures.” CSA Standard A23.3-04,
␦ ⫽ beam deflection; CSA, Rexdale 共Toronto兲, Ontario.
␦b ⫽ beam deflection using cracked section 共kL2M / EcIcr兲; Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D. 共1991兲. Prestressed concrete structures,
␦b,cr ⫽ beam deflection at M cr after cracking 共using Icr兲; Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
CEB-FIP. 共1978兲. CEB-FIP model code for concrete structures (MC78),
␦cr ⫽ beam deflection at first cracking 共using Iunc or Ig兲; 3rd Ed., Comité Euro-International du Béton 共CEB兲, Paris.
␦m ⫽ average beam deflection; CEB-FIP. 共1993兲. CEB-FIP model code (MC-90), Comité Euro-
␧b ⫽ bar strain; International du Béton 共CEB兲, Thomas Telford, London.
␧b,cr ⫽ bar strain at first cracking; Dolan, C. W. 共1989兲. “Prestressed concrete using Kevlar reinforced ten-
␧bm ⫽ average strain in reinforcing bar; dons.” PhD thesis, Cornell Univ., N.Y.
␧c ⫽ concrete strain; Engel, R. S., Croyle, M. G., Bakis, C. E., and Nanni, A. 共1999兲. “Deflec-
␧cr ⫽ cracking strain of concrete; tion of reinforced concrete beams reinforced by fiber reinforced poly-
␧cu ⫽ ultimate compressive strain in concrete 共3,000 ␮␧兲; mer grids with various joint designs.” Proc., 4th Int. Symposium on
␧limit ⫽ crack control strain limit 共⬇1,200 ␮␧ for steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, ACI
2,000 ␮␧ for fiber reinforced polymer兲; SP 188, C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., ACI, Farm-
␧m ⫽ average or mean member strain; ington Hills, Mich., 75–85.
European Committee for Standardization 共CEN兲. 共1991兲. “Eurocode 2:
␨ ⫽ tension stiffening coefficient 共1 − M cr 2
/ M 2a兲; Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules for buildings.”
␩ ⫽ uncracked-to-cracked stiffness ratio coefficient; European Prestandard, DD ENV 1992-1-1, European Committee for
␳ ⫽ reinforcing ratio; Standardization 共CEN兲, Brussels.

766 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767

 Farra, B., and Jaccoud, J.-P. 共1992兲. “Bond behaviour, tension stiffening,
and crack prediction of high strength concrete.” Bond in Concrete:
From Research to Practice, CEB-RTU International Conf., Riga
Technical Univ., Riga, Latvia, 3共7–12兲, 9–1 to 9–10.
Faza, S. S., and GangaRao, H. V. S. 共1992兲. “Pre- and postcracking de-
flection behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with fibre-reinforced
plastic rebars.” Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Struc-
tures, K. W. Neale and P. Labossiere, eds., Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, 151–160.
Fields, K., and Bischoff, P. H. 共2004兲. “Tension stiffening and cracking of
high strength reinforced concrete tension members.” ACI Struct. J.,
101共4兲, 447–456.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kumaraguru College of Technology on 07/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Gao, D., Benmokrane, B., and Masmoudi, R. 共1998兲. “A calculating
method of flexural properties of FRP-reinforced concrete beam: Part
1: Crack width and deflection.” Tech. Rep., Dept. of Civil Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Ghali, A. 共1993兲. “Deflection of reinforced concrete members: A critical
review.” ACI Struct. J., 90共4兲, 364–373.
Ghali, A., and Favre, R. 共1994兲. Concrete structures: Stresses and defor-
mations, 2nd Ed., E & FN Spon, London.
Ghali, A., Hall, T., and Bobey, W. 共2001兲. “Minimum thickness of con-
crete members reinforced with fibre reinforced polymer bars.” Can. J.
Civ. Eng., 28共4兲, 583–592.
Gilbert, R. I. 共1988兲. Time effects in concrete structures, Elsevier, Am-
sterdam.
Gilbert, R. I. 共2001兲. “Deflection calculation and control—Australian
code amendments and improvements.” Code Provisions for Deflection
Control in Concrete Structures, SP-203, E. G. Nawy and A. Scanlon,
eds., ACI, Mich., 45–77.
Gilbert, R. I., and Warner, R. F. 共1977兲. “Nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete slabs with tension stiffening.” UNICIV Rep. No. R-167, Stud-
ies from the School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of New South Wales,
Kensington, Australia.
Goto, Y. 共1971兲. “Cracks formed in concrete around deformed tension
bars.” ACI J., 68共4兲, 244–251.
ISIS Canada. 共2001兲. Reinforcing concrete structures with fibre reinforced
polymers, Design Manual No. 3, ISIS Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Masmoudi, R., Thériault, M., and Benmokrane, B. 共1998兲. “Flexural be-
havior of concrete beams reinforced with deformed fiber reinforced
plastic reinforcing rods.” ACI Struct. J., 95共6兲, 665–676.
Murashev, V. I. 共1940兲. “Theory of appearance and opening of cracks,
computation of rigidity of reinforced concrete members.” Stroitelnaya
Promishlenost 共Moscow兲, 11.
Murashev, V. I., Sigalov, E. E., and Baikov, V. N. 共1971兲. Design of
reinforced concrete structures, 2nd Ed., Translation of Zhelezobeton-
nye konstruktsii, MIR Publishers, Moscow.
Nanni, A. 共1993兲. “Flexural behavior and design of RC members using
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 767
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(5): 752-767
FRP reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 119共11兲, 3344–3359.
Nawy, E. G., and Neuwerth, G. E. 共1977兲. “Fiberglass reinforced concrete
slabs and beams.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 103共2兲, 421–440.
Nemirovsky, J. M. 共1949兲. “Rigidity of flexural loaded reinforced con-
crete members and opening of cracks.” Central Research Institute for
Building Design 共TsNIPS兲, Research Results for Conventional and
Prestressed Reinforced Concrete Construction, Collected Papers,
Stroiisdat, State Publication for Construction Literature 共Moscow兲.
Newhook, J., Ghali, A., and Tadros, G. 共2002兲. “Concrete flexural mem-
bers reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer: Design for cracking and
deformability.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 29共1兲, 125–134.
Rangan, B. V., and Sarker, P. K. 共2001兲. “Bending stiffness of concrete
flexural members reinforced with high strength steel.” Code Provi-
sions for Deflection Control in Concrete Structures, SP-203, E. G.
Nawy and A. Scanlon, eds., ACI, Mich., 143–156.
Rao, P. S. 共1966兲. “Die Grundlagen zur Berechnung der bei statisch
unbestimmten Stahlbetonkonstruktionen im plastischen
Bereich auftretenden Umlagerungen der Schnittkräfte 共Basic laws
governing moment redistribution in statically indeterminate reinforced
concrete structures兲.” DAfStb, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Heft 177.
Rasheed, H. A., Nayal, R., and Melhem, H. 共2004兲. “Response prediction
of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars.” Compos. Struct., 65共2兲,
193–204.
Razaqpur, A. G., Svecova, D., and Cheung, M. S. 共2000兲. “Rational
method for calculating deflection of fiber-reinforced polymer rein-
forced beams.” ACI Struct. J., 97共1兲, 175–185.
Scanlon, A., Lee, J. C., and Bischoff, P. H. 共2004兲. “Tension stiffening
models for analysis of concrete structures with steel and FRP rein-
forcement.” 5th Structural Specialty Conf. of the Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering 共CD-Rom兲, CSCE, Saskatoon, Canada, ST 049 1-8.
Standards Australia. 共1994兲. “Australian standard for concrete structures.”
AS3600, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Thériault, M., and Benmokrane, B. 共1998兲. “Effects of FRP reinforcement
ratio and concrete strength on flexural behavior of concrete beams.” J.
Compos. Constr., 2共1兲, 7–16.
Toutanji, H. A., and Saafi, M. 共2000兲. “Flexural behavior of concrete
beams reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer 共GFRP兲 bars.”
ACI Struct. J., 97共5兲, 712–719.
Washa, G. W., and Fluck, P. G. 共1952兲. “Effect of compressive reinforce-
ment on the plastic flow of reinforced concrete beams.” ACI J., 49共8兲,
89–108.
Yost, J. R., Gross, S. P., and Dinehart, D. W. 共2003兲. “Effective moment
of inertia for glass fiber-reinforced polymer-reinforced concrete
beams.” ACI Struct. J., 100共6兲, 732–739.
Yu, W.-W., and Winter, G. 共1960兲. “Instantaneous and long-time deflec-
tions of reinforced concrete under working loads.” ACI J., 57共1兲,
29–50.