Received: 27 July 2017 Revised: 10 January 2018 Accepted: 16 January 2018

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201700150

TECHNICAL PAPER

Analytical displacement solutions for statically determinate

beams based on a trilinear moment–curvature model
Yiming Yao1 | Karan Aswani2 | Xinmeng Wang3 | Barzin Mobasher4

1
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed
Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education,
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University,
Nanjing, China
2
PK Associates, Scottsdale, Arizona
3
DiGioia Gray & Associates, Tempe, Arizona
4
Arizona State University, School of Sustainable
Engineering and Built Environment, Tempe,
Arizona
Correspondence
Barzin Mobasher, School of Sustainable
Engineering and Built Environment, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ.
Email: barzin@asu.edu
A standard approach is presented to obtain analytical solutions for deflection field
of determinate beams subjected to conventional loading patterns. The solutions
are based on a trilinear moment–curvature response using a deflection hardening
behavior characterized by flexural crack initiation, inelastic response due to crack
extension, and full plastic hinge formation. Methodology for full span deflection
and rotation distributions are presented for multiple cases that include three- and
four-point bending, uniform load, concentrated moment, and cantilever beams.
The proposed approach provides analytical expressions for the curvature, rotation,
and deflection at any point along the beam, and correlated to stress or strain distri-
bution. The procedure can therefore be integrated into a serviceability-based
design approach. A parametric study of the effects of model parameters on the
stages of the response is addressed. Several case studies involving steel fiber rein-
forced concrete (SFRC), textile reinforced concrete (TRC) and ultra-high perfor-
mance concrete (UHPC) are conducted and the simulated load-deflection
responses are verified against the experimental data from several published experi-
ments. Size effect on the serviceability limits of beams with spans ranging from
0.22 to 8.6 m is studied by tracking the full-range moment–curvature and load-
deflection responses.

KEYWORDS

back-calculation, cracking, ductility, fiber reinforced concrete, flexural tests,

load-deflection response, moment–curvature, serviceability-based design, size
effect, stress–strain

1 | INTRODUCTION (TRC),6 fiber reinforced polymers (FRP), and RC with FRP

To simulate the load-deflection responses of flexural mem-
bers such as reinforced concrete (RC), steel, and composite
sections, one needs to address the interaction of a range of
reinforcing systems and failure mechanisms such as brittle
fracture, plasticity, strain hardening, and strain-softening.
General formulations to these responses have been dis-
cussed on RC,1 prestressed concrete,2,3 structural steel,4
fiber reinforced concrete (FRC),5 textile reinforced concrete
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print
publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the
authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.
bars.7,8 As common tools to simulate the flexural response,
analytical, or empirical moment–curvature (or rotation) rela-
tionships have been used in modeling of load-deflection,
moment capacity, and ductility of structures.9–11
Applications of cross section’s moment–curvature
responses for structural members include beams and
columns,12,13 composite plates and slabs,14 steel bridge
girders,15 and shear tab connections.16 The common feature
of many experimental studies is to capture the deflection of
a beam at one or selected points, which is used to develop
load vs. center-line deformation response. Recent studies,
however, have expanded to measure the full displacement

Structural Concrete. 2018;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2018 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 YAO ET AL.
field throughout the stages of cracking and localization, as
deflection distribution is important in health monitoring and
maintenance of structures such as bridges.17 Full-field
deformation is also of great interest in mechanics of com-
posite materials due to their heterogeneities at different
scales.18 Experimental techniques such as digital image
correlation (DIC), which measure full-field displacements
easily,19,20 create the demand for solutions to support model
verification in nonlinear materials. By tracking strain and
curvature distributions, analysis and design procedures can
be conducted allowing every aspect of deflection, crack
width, or stiffness at serviceability limit states. Full-field
displacement at various load stages is possible through
finite element modeling (FEM), which may be, however,
quite tedious and time consuming.5
The objective is to present full-field analytical load-
deflection response of a flexural member using closed-
form moment–curvature solutions of the cross section.
Algorithms expressed with closed-form solutions are nor-
mally more computational efficient and easier for imple-
mentation into computer programs or hand calculations in
comparison with the numerical methods such as FEM. In
addition, closed-form solutions are presented as symbolic
math expressions, which offer a clear view into how dif-
ferent variables interact with each other and affect the
results, especially under various loading and material char-
acteristics. Parametric studies can be conducted readily to
investigate the role of critical parameters such as rein-
forcement ratio, concrete strength, and tensile residual
strength. Optimization algorithms can also be easily imple-
mented as the number of function evaluations are drasti-
cally reduced.
The first task is to express material properties as piece-
wise linear models as used by Soranakom and Mobasher,21
Taheri et al,22, and van Zijl and Mbewe.23 The strain-
FIGURE 1 Material models for hybrid reinforced concrete (HRC) design
(a) compression model; (b) tension model; (c) steel model; (d) beam cross
section24
compatibility analysis can then be conducted to obtain
closed-form moment–curvature relationships. The analytical
methods reduce the computational time to obtain the load
history as well as the distribution of stresses, strains, and
deformations.5 The full-range and full-field load-deflection
responses provide all parameters such as moment, rotation,
curvature, deflection, strain and stress distributions at any
level of deformation. Serviceability-based design can then
be specified as the load capacity of a cracked section based
on imposed deformation limit. The present approach is
based on the premise that by representing the moment–
curvature relationship as a piecewise linear distribution, its
integration over the specimen length yields the rotation and
deflection profiles.12
A procedure for development of analytical load-
deflection solutions is proposed based on a two-step
parameterized trilinear moment–curvature response. The
load-deflection response of a beam under statically determi-
nate loading such as three-, four-point bending (3, 4 PB),
distributed, or cantilever loading are derived. Subsequently,
the deformation field throughout the entire loading range is
compared with experimental results for common structural
sections. Results are verified for a variety of different mate-
rials, loading conditions and specimen sizes.
2 | D E R I VA T I ON O F M O M E NT –
CU RV AT UR E R EL ATIONSHIP
2.1 | Modeling assumptions
The modeling framework includes a prismatic rectangular
beam of homogeneous material with or without reinforce-
ment, small deformation theory, and negligible shear defor-
mations. After cracking the gross flexural modulus (EIg)
reduces to an effective cracked section stiffness (EIcr), and
the load-deflection response is computed up to the ultimate
flexural strength that is treated as a yield hinge with a pre-
defined localization length.
2.2 | Moment–curvature analysis
Analytical moment–curvature solutions were introduced by
authors for FRC21 and hybrid reinforced concrete (HRC)
using a combination of fibers, rebars, or FRP.24 The starting
point is a set of parameterized compressive and tensile
stress–strain models that describe the brittle matrix or strain
softening/hardening FRC, as well as steel or FRP rebars, as
shown in Figure 1. The variables are represented as parame-
terized functions of tensile stiffness E and tensile cracking
strain εcr, which are marked red. An elastic perfectly plastic
model is used to describe the compressive behavior, which
is specified by the compressive modulus Ec = γE, yielding
stress σ cy = ωγEεcr and strain εcy = ωεcr, and ultimate com-
pressive strain εcu = λuεcr (Figure 1a). The trilinear tension
YAO ET AL.
model shown in Figure 1b consists of linear elastic stage;
softening/hardening stage with a cracked stiffness Ecr = χE
and transition strain εtrn = αεcr; and residual stage with con-
stant strength σ cst = μεcrE and ultimate tensile strain εtu =
βtuεcr. The trilinear tension model is applicable to a wide
range of materials such as FRC and SFRC with low-fiber
content (strain softening), TRC and UHPC (strain hardening),
or plain concrete using the linear elastic stage only. The steel
model is characterized by elastic modulus Es = nE and the
yield strain εsy = ψεcr, while a constant yield stress of fsy =
ψεcrnE is used in plastic stage. In the case of FRP bars, lin-
ear elastic behavior can be applied without plasticity.
By using a linear strain distribution across the depth and
ignoring shear deformations, stress distributions at three
ranges of imposed tensile strain: 0 ≤ β ≤ 1, 1 < β ≤ α, and
α < β ≤ βtu are obtained. Since the force components are
computed as quadratic functions, the equilibrium equation
can be solved analytically to obtain neutral axis ratio k, nor-
malized moment m, and normalized curvature κ, for full
combinations of tensile, compressive and steel failure cri-
teria.21,25 The closed-form solutions for FRC and HRC sec-
tions are summarized in Tables A1 and A2, respectively, in
Appendix S1 (Supporting Information). Since β is used as
the independent variable to incrementally impose the flex-
ural responses, the moment Mi and curvature φi at each
increment step i of βι are represented as functions of first
crack parameters and geometrical beam width (b) and
depth (h):
1 Mcr
Mi = mðβ, k,ω, μÞMcr , Mcr = bh2 Eεcr ;
6
2εcr
φi = κ i ðβ, k, ω, μÞφcr , φcr = : ð1Þ
h mp −1
Users may choose to define customized sections, circular
sections, T-sections, or composite sections with desired rebar
configuration. In these cases, the moment–curvature relation-
ship may be alternatively obtained using SAP2000,26 SE::
MC by Structure Express,27 Cross Section Analysis &
Design,28 OpenSees,29 XTRACT,30 KSU_RC31,
INSTRUCT32, etc. These programs apply a numerical rou-
tine to construct the moment–curvature response by combin-
ing multi-layer analysis, numerical integration, and strain
compatibility approach. User defined or integrated material
models address unconfined and confined concrete and steel
stress–strain curves. In the present study, analytical
moment–curvature developed by authors21,24 are used for
computational efficiency in comparison to abovementioned
programs.
2.3 | Trilinear moment–curvature relationship
Figure 2 presents the idealized parametric moment–
curvature response as a trilinear function that includes elas-
tic, postcrack, and fully plastic range referred to as Stages
1, 2, and 3, respectively. The trilinear model is defined by
3
two control points (φcr, Mcr) and (φp, Mp). The linear elastic
range is characterized by the slope of EIg and extends up to
the first control point as flexural cracking (φcr, Mcr). The
postcrack region has a reduced stiffness EIcr and extends to
the second control point of ultimate flexural capacity (φp,
Mp), as defined in Equation (2). The response beyond this
point is modeled by a constant plastic moment. To include
structural ductility limits, one can terminate the computation
at specified curvature, tensile or compressive strain, or user
defined limit-state criterion. The perfectly plastic stage is
defined by a constant moment level, Mp, which extends up
to the limiting curvature φmax:
M ðφÞ = EIg φ 0 ≤ φ < φcr
Mp −Mcr
M ðφ Þ = ðφ −φcr Þ + Mcr φcr ≤ φ < φp ð2Þ
φp −φcr
M ðφÞ = Mp φp ≤ φ < φmax :
In order to get generalized closed-form solutions that
are free of unit system and applicable to different
section sizes and materials, the variables in Figure 2b, and
Equation (2) are normalized using Mcr and φcr, see Equa-
tion (3). In this study, the first cracking coordinates or con-
trol point is (1.1) at the end of Stage 1 and coordinates (κ p,
mp) represent the second control point and transition from
Stages 2 to 3. The three stages are expressed by normalized
variables m and κ in Equation (4).
M ðφ Þ φ Mp φp
m ðκ Þ = , κ= , mp = , κp = : ð3Þ
φcr Mcr φcr
m ðκ Þ = κ 0<κ≤1
m ðκ Þ = ðκ − 1Þ + 1 1 ≤ κ ≤ κp ð4Þ
κ p −1
m ðκ Þ = m p κp ≤ κ ≤ κ max :
With normalized equations, parametric studies can be
readily conducted to reveal the sensitivity of specific param-
eters by excluding the actual geometries and material prop-
erties. Design charts addressing ultimate and serviceability
limit state can be generated and used for design guidelines
for a variety of fiber reinforced systems.
3 | L O AD -D EFL EC TI ON S O LU TI O N F OR
S T A T I CA L L Y D E T E RM I N AT E SY S T E M S
Figure 3 presents the elastic and cracked regions of a simply
supported beam under 4 PB loading condition. While the
entire beam starts as elastic before cracking, as the load
increases and the section undergoes distributed cracking that
initiates from the maximum moment point. The zone
defined by the length parameter Lcr specifies the cracked
region where the applied bending moment exceeds the
cracking moment (m(κ) > 1 and κ > 1). The transition point
4 YAO ET AL.

FIGURE 2 (a) Simplified parametric

moment–curvature relationship: trilinear
representation; (b) dimensionless moment–
curvature curve represented as variables (κ, m)

between the cracked and elastic region is defined by the correspond to the Regions I or II (in terms of location
length parameter Le such that m = 1 and κ = 1 at x = Le. along the length), respectively. Length of Region I,
defined as Le is determined using similar triangles
applied to moment distribution, such that M(x = Le) =
3.1 | Three-point bending
Mcr. The distribution of curvature within the two regions
Figure 4 illustrates the moment and curvature distribu- along the beam is expressed as:
tions for a three-point bending (3 PB) prismatic beam.
φcr
Various stages of trilinear M-φ relationship (see φ 2 , I ðx Þ = x, 0 ≤ x < Le
Le  
Figure 2) and regions along a beam (see Figure 3), cre- 2ðκ −1Þðκ −Le Þ L
ate piecewise linear distributions along the length. As φ2, II ðxÞ = φcr +1 , Le ≤ x ≤ ð6Þ
L−2Le 2
shown in Figure 4b, prior to the first flexural crack φðL=2Þ L Mcr L
(0 ≤ M(L/2) ≤ Mcr), the linear curvature and bending where κ = , Le = = :
φcr 2 M ðx = L=2Þ 2mðx = L=2Þ
moment diagrams are obtained. The well-known deriva-
tions of the linear elastic case are obtained by direct The angle of rotation θ2,I(x), θ2,II(x) and deflection
integration.33 For a beam of length L, the deflection pro- δ2, I(x), δ2,II(x) in each region are derived by
integration:
file δ1(x), is normalized as δ*1 ðxÞ with respect to first crack
curvature φcr and expressed as:

3 
x xL L
δ1 ðxÞ = φcr
*
− κ, 0<x< , 0<κ<1
3L 4 2 ð5Þ
δ1 ðxÞ = φcr L δ1 ðxÞ:
2 *

As the applied load exceeds the cracking load, Stage

2 of loading defined by: (κ > 1, Mcr ≤ M(L/2) ≤ Mp) is
initiated with two distinct regions of elastic (I) and
cracked Regions (II), as shown in Figure 4c. The curva-
ture distributions φ2,I(x) and φ2,II(x) are expressed in
terms of position x along the length of the beam and
characterized by the solid line in Figure 4c. These two
regions are associated with the moment–curvature rela-
tionship, where the subscripts “1” and “2” refer to
Stages (in terms of load), and the numerals “I” or “II”

FIGURE 3 Flexural stiffness regions for four-point loading of a simply FIGURE 4 (a) Schematic drawing of 3 PB; (b) moment and curvature
supported beam distributions in Stage 1; (c) moment and curvature distributions in Stage 2
YAO ET AL. 5

Ð x φcr
θ2, I ðxÞ = 0 xdx + C3 , 0 ≤ x ≤ Le
Ð x Le
δ2, I ðxÞ = 0 θ21 ðxÞdx + C4 ,   0 ≤ x ≤ Le
ðx
ÐL φ 2ðκ −1Þðx − Le Þ L ð7Þ
θ2, II ðxÞ = 0 e cr xdx + φcr + 1 dx + C5 , Le ≤ x ≤
Le Le L − 2Le 2
Ðx L
δ2, II = δ21 ðLe Þ −δ21 ð0Þ + Le θ22 ðxÞdx + C6 , Le ≤ x ≤ :
2

Constants C3 through C6 are evaluated by applying con- as shown in Figure 5c. The distributions of curvature φ2,
tinuity of slope and deflection at transition point as I(x), φ2,IIa(x), and φ2,IIb(x) within the three regions along the

C3 = C5 = φcr ð2Le κ4− Lκ − LÞ, C4 = C6 = 0. The deflection coef- beam is expressed as:
ficients are reduced to: φcr
φ2, I ðxÞ = x, 0 ≤ x ≤ Le
Le
x 3
ðL + Lκ −2Le κÞx 3ðκx −κLe −xÞ + L L
δ*2, I = − , 0 ≤ x ≤ Le
6L2 Le 0 4L2 φ2, IIa ðxÞ = φcr , Le ≤ x ≤ ð10Þ
1 L −3 Le 3
ðκ −1Þx3
ðL−2Le κÞx2
1 B 3L2 + L L
2L2 C L φ2, IIb ðxÞ = κφcr , ≤x≤ :
δ2, II =
*
@ A, L e ≤ x ≤ : 3 2
L −2Le xð4Le κ −L −Lκ Þ L2e ðL− 2Le κÞ 2
+ +
4L 6L2 The deflection distribution in each region is obtained by
ð8Þ integration and imposition of boundary conditions:

1  3 
δ*2, I = 2
x + xLe ð3Le κ −2Lκ −LÞ , 0 ≤ x ≤ Le
6Le L
3x3 ðκ −1Þ + 3x2 ðL −3Le κÞ −xL2 ð2κ + 1Þ + 9xLLe κ + L2e L−3L3e κ L
δ2, IIa =
*
2 ðL −3L Þ
, Le ≤ x ≤ ð11Þ

6L

e   3
x2 κ xκ 1 3Le 3Le κ L L
δ*2, IIb = 2 − + +1 −1 + κ , ≤x≤ :
2L 2L 54 L L 3 2

3.2 | Four-point bending These equations provide the complete deflection and rota-
Figure 5 illustrates the moment and curvature distributions tion profiles at any point of a beam. This approach has been
for a four-point bending (4 PB) prismatic beam. Depending extended and applied to a variety of beam types (cantilever,
over-hang) and loading conditions (constant force/moment,
on the moment distribution, two sub-regions “Ia” and “Ib”
are defined to represent the linear and constant moment zones uniform load) with detailed derivations by Wang.33 Results of
whereas “IIa” and “IIb” are used in cracked zones. The distri- analytical expressions for rotation and deflection profiles for
several cases are presented in Tables 1 and 2. These tables can
bution of deflections (normalized with respect to φcrL2) for
two distinct sub-regions Ia and Ib are obtained as: be used in the preliminary or analytical design of any beam.
The approach can also be extended for optimization of a cross

3 
x x L section in the context of combined geometrical and material
δ1, Ia ðxÞ = κ
*
− , 0≤x≤
3 properties as response surfaces can be generated.

2L2 3L  3
ð9Þ
x x 1 L L
δ1, Ib ðxÞ = κ
*
− + , ≤ x ≤ :
2L2 2L 54 3 2 3.3 | Deflection envelope
The analytical moment–curvature and neutral axis solutions
As the applied load exceeds the cracking threshold, Stage serve as the link between the parametric tension-
2 of loading (Mcr ≤ M(L/3) ≤ Mp) is initiated where three compression uniaxial models,21,24 and the displacement
regions are defined as elastic Region I (0 ≤ x ≤ Le), function proposed. The deflection or rotation envelopes
Le = L3 M ðxM=crL=3Þ = 3mðx =L L=3Þ, and cracked Region IIa (Le ≤ governed by two primary model variables mp and κ p, are
x ≤ L/3) with linear applied moment distribution, and independent of cross sectional size and shape, but incorpo-
Region IIb (L/3 ≤ x ≤ L/2), constant moment distribution, rate the loading condition and material properties. Figures 6
6 YAO ET AL.

Figure 6b shows the deflection envelopes in a 3 PB

beam at three levels of ultimate curvature (κ p = 2.0, 2.5,
5.0). Due to the symmetry, half of the beam is shown. The
model parameters mp = 2 implies that the ultimate moment
is twice of the cracking moment while an increase in the
ultimate curvature κ p from 2 to 5 indicates a reduction in
postcrack stiffness to accommodate the increased strain
capacity, and results in increasing deflection by as much as
50%. Different regions of I (solid lines) and II (dashed lines)
are differentiated by the parameter Le, which quantifies the
length of Region I as listed in Tables 1 and 2. If the peak
moment mp is held constant, parameter Le is also constant
and equal to 0.25 for mp = 2 (as it is a function of L and
m only). As mp increases, Le decreases indicating that a
larger portion of the beam enters the cracked region with
increasing load (Figure 6c). As a baseline comparison, the
elastic solution at the end of Stage 1, i.e., mp = κp = 1, is
also plotted. As shown in Table 1, mid-span deflection of a
beam under 3 PB at the instant of first cracking (κ = 1) can
be simplified to the classical solution via substitution of
x = L/2:


 !
L * L ðL=2Þ3 L=2 φ L2
δ1 = δ1 φcr L =
2
3
− φcr L2 = − cr ,
2 2 3L 4L 12
ð12Þ
FIGURE 5 (a) Schematic drawing of 4 PB; (b) moment and curvature
distributions in Stage 1; (c) moment and curvature distributions in Stage 2 where φcr = Mcr
EI ,and M = PL 4 for 3 PB, thus
L φcr L2 2
PL3
δ1 2 = − 12 = − 12 4EI = − 48EI :
L PL
and 7 show the distributions of the deflection coefficient δ*
with several combinations of mp and κp, correlated through
Figure 7b,c compares the deflection coefficients with
the postcrack stiffness η. The effects of the two parameters
various end-points mp and κp for a 4 PB, including two sub-
on the deflection coefficients are evaluated at various levels
regions IIa and IIb. As the loads are applied at L/3 from the
when mp and κ p ranging from 1.2–2.0 to 2.0–5.0, respec-
support, the length of constant moment Region (IIb) equals
tively. The equations for the nondimensionalized deflection
0.167 L for half of the beam. Note that by decreasing the
coefficient δ* = δ/φcrL2 are directly used from Tables 1 and
postcrack stiffness, the deflection increases significantly,
2. The sign convention is defined as downward negative.
while the zone of cracking remains constant for the fixed
TABLE 1 Solutions of curvature and deflection in elastic beams maximum moment. However, the zone of cracking extends
Beam type φ1 δ1a from 0.555 to 0.648 L if the maximum moment is increased

 at the maximum curvature.
Lφ
3 PB 2x x 4x2
4 L 3 L2 −1 κ

 In addition to 3 and 4 PB, which are commonly used
4 PB x ≤ L3 Lφ
3x x 3x2
3 L 2 L2 − 1 κ in experimental programs, parametric studies are also

2 
L
≤ x ≤ L2 φ extended for simple beam under uniformly distributed load
2L2 − 2L + 54 κ
x x 1
3

3  (UDL) and/or concentrated moment applied at the mid-
SS-UDL − L L −1
4x x
φ − 3xL Lx 3 − 2x
2
L2 + 1 κ span.33 The control point (κp, mp) correlates with the ten-

2 
Lφ sion and compression constitutive laws (see Figure 1)
SS-Conc. moment (middle) 2x
12 L L2 − 1 κ
x 4x

 through moment–curvature relationship. In order to imple-

SS-Pure bending φ 2L L − 1 κ
x x

x 2
2  ment a serviceability-based approach, one can impose the
C-UDL − L −1 φ x2
2L2 6 L2 − 3L + 1 κ
x 2x
design criteria based on curvature or deflection distribution
x−L 
L φ at a specific point and obtain the corresponding service
x2
2L2 3 L − 1 κ
C-Conc. load (end) x

 load. The deformation envelop is generated as a function

0≤x≤S a
S φ
x− S x2
2S2 3 S − 1 κ
C-Conc. load (any point) x

2S − 6 κ
S≤x≤L
x 1 of given curvature, strain, and stress level, or their interac-
tions. The design parameters can be selected among the
C = cantilever; Conc. = concentrated; SS = simply supported; UDL = uni-
formly distributed load. geometrical and mechanical response fields such as maxi-
a
S is the distance from start point to loading point. mum allowable curvature, or deflection between any two
YAO ET AL. 7

TABLE 2 Solutions of curvature and deflection in cracked beams

Beam type Le Region I Region II φ2,I φ2,II δ2,Ia δ2,IIa

L L φcr x h i
3 PB 0 < x < Le Le < x < 2ðκ − 1Þðx − Le Þ f1 + f2 f3(f4 + f5 + f6 + f7)
2m 2 Le φcr L− 2Le +1
φcr x
φcr 3ðκx −L−
κLe − xÞ + L
L
4 PB 3m
0 < x < Le Le < x < L3 Le
x3 + g1 g2( g3 + g4 + g5)
3 Le 6Le L2
L
3 <x< L
2
κφcr κx2
− 2κxL + f6
2L2

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2!
SS-UDL L
1 − 1− m1 0 < x < Le Le < x < L2
xφcr
Le ðL − Le Þ ðL− xÞ xLκ − x2 κ − xL + x i1 i2 ði3 + i4 +
4φcr
2 L2 i5 + i6 + i7 Þ
ðL− 2Le Þ2 − Le Lκ + κL2e +
4
L φcr x h i
SS-Conc. moment (middle) 2m
0 < x < Le Le < x < L2 Le φcr 2ðκ −L−
1Þðx − Le Þ
+ 1 j1 j2
2Le
 
SS-Pure bending / / / mφcr φ mx x
2L L −1 2L L − 1
mx x

qffiffiffi  
ðκ − 1Þðx2 − 2LLe Þ
2
C-UDL L 1 − m1 Le < x < L 0 < x < Le − φðcrL−
ðL− xÞ
L Þ2 φcr −κ
o1(o2 + o3 + o4) o5
e
ðL2e − 2LLe Þ
 φcr ðx − LÞ
h i
C-Conc. load (end) 1− m1 L Le < x < L 0 < x < Le ðκ − 1Þðx − Le Þ u1 u2
L − Le φcr Le −1
 h i
C-Conc. load (any point) 1− m1 S Le < x < S 0 < x < Le φcr ðx − SÞ
φcr ðκ − 1Þðx − Le Þ
−1 − v1 +6SL
v2 + v3
2 v7 − 2L
x 2

S − Le Le
2

v4 + v5 + v6
S<x<L 0 6SL2

C = cantilever; Conc. = concentrated; SS = simply supported; UDL = uniformly distributed load.

a
Variables f1–f7, g1–g6, i1–i7, j1–j2, o1–o5, u1–u2, and v1–v7 are summarized in Appendix S1.

FIGURE 6 (a) Schematic drawing of half 3 PB;

(b) effects of normalized moment m on deflection
distribution for 3 PB; (c) effects of normalized
curvature κ on deflection distribution for 3 PB

points. For example, one can solve for the level of rein-
forcement for a given cross-sectional size of the beam such
that a specified load would not cause a deflection thresh-
old. Deformation envelope at desired level of serviceability
level, or the response surface can be constructed using
continuous, or discrete variables in the form of design
charts.
4 | GENERALIZED APPROACH TO
C OM P U T E LO A D - D E F L E CT IO N R E S P O N S E
As a generalized approach to generate load-deflection
responses with given dimensions, loading geometry, and
material properties, one can use the closed-form moment–
curvature solutions or other cross-sectional analysis pro-
grams with the following steps:
1. Generate moment–curvature response for given geome-
try and material properties using the proposed equations
in Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix S1, or other software
tools. Then linearize and normalize the results to get
model inputs mp and κp.
2. For a given type of beam boundary and loading condition,
use the deflection coefficient δ* to get the normalized cur-
vature κ as a function of position x using Tables 1 and 2.
3. Substitution of the geometrical parameters: b, h, L,
basic material properties: E, εcr in the normalized solu-
tions yields the numerical magnitude of load and deflec-
tions. Equations can be significantly simplified if the
deformation at a specific point is required such as
8 YAO ET AL.
mid-span deflections, or any other specific point,
i.e., by setting x = L/2 in Step 2 for deflection coeffi-
cient equations, one may get the mid-span deflection.
5 | E X P E R IM EN T A L V E R IF I C A T IO N OF
T H E AN A L YT I C A L M O D E L
5.1 | Conventional RC beams
To verify the broad applicability of the proposed model,
experimental data from literature covering various materials
and sizes were simulated. The first set of data is reported by
Ko et al,34 where full-scale RC beams with various rein-
forcement ratio ranging from 1.80 to 4.29% were tested
under 3 PB. The RC beams have a span of 1.38 m and cross
section of 150 mm by 150 mm, with 30 mm concrete
cover. The yield strengths of the rebars vary from 406 to
443 MPa. The main model parameters include Young’s
modulus E, first crack tensile strain εcr, stiffness ratio
η = EIcr/EIg, and the full list of material properties is pre-
sented in Table 3. As presented earlier, full-range moment–
curvature responses of these sections were generated using
the closed-form solutions in Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix
S1. The control points (κ p, mp) were taken from the normal-
ized curve while Mcr and φcr were calculated using Equa-
tion (1) and the model parameters in Table 3. Linearized
moment–curvature models are therefore obtained in
Figure 8a where beam dimensions and Mcr and φcr are
indicated.
Comparison of experimental and simulated load-
deflection responses is illustrated in Figure 8b, where good
agreement can be observed up to the steel yield point. How-
ever, the ultimate strength in flexure is generally underesti-
mated by the present model. Such discrepancies are
attributed to several factors such as multiple cracking, tension
FIGURE 7 (a) Schematic drawing of half 4 PB;
(b) effects of normalized moment m on deflection
distribution for 4 PB; (c) effects of normalized
curvature κ on deflection distribution for 4 PB
stiffening, crack bifurcation, steel-concrete bond assumptions,
and use of an elastic perfectly plastic steel model which pre-
dicts the limit-state moment capacity at the onset of steel
yielding. The increase in flexural load is therefore underesti-
mated. As the reinforcement ratio increases from 1.80 to
4.29%, ultimate moment capacity mp significantly increases
from 3.6 to 8.2 and curvature increases from 11.6 to 16.5,
which implies the dominating role of steel reinforcement in
improving load bearing and deformation capacities.
5.2 | HRC beams with steel reinforcement and fibers
Besides conventional RC, experimental data of HRC beams
reported by Meda et al35 are also simulated. A span of 3.6 m
and two different reinforcement ratios of 0.75 and 1.5% as well
as 30 kg/m3 of steel fibers in each group were studied in com-
parison with control RC beams. The beam specimen had
dimensions of h = 300 and b = 200 mm with concrete cover
=60 mm. Material properties of concrete and steel are listed in
Table 3. Figure 9a shows the trilinear moment–curvature
models used for the simulation of experimental data, with
results compared in Figures 9b,c. The analytical load-deflection
responses accurately match the flexural responses of the HRC
beams under 4 PB tests. Ultimate moment capacity mp of
RC/HRC beams increases about 50% from 4.6/5.1 to 9.0/9.4
and curvature increases from 22.4/22.8 to 25.2/25.5 for the two
reinforcement ratios of 0.75 and 1.5%, indicating the primary
role of longitudinal reinforcement in enhancing the flexural
capacity. On the other hand, addition of 30 kg/m3 of steel
fibers increases mp from 4.6 to 5.1 for ρ = .75%, and from 9.0
to 9.4 when ρ = 1.5%. In addition, stiffness ratio η increases
slightly from 0.17 to 0.19 and 0.33 to 0.34, respectively. The
role of steel fiber in improving the moment capacity and post-
crack stiffness correlates with a normalized residual strength of
μ = 0 and 0.2, which represents a change from a plain matrix
to one with a residual strength of 0.7 MPa. Note that in
 YAO
ET AL.

TABLE 3 Geometries, material properties, and model parameters for experimental verification studies

Study Beam series Fiber content L (m) E (GPa) σ cy (MPa) Es (GPa) fsy (MPa) εcr (με) ω μ ζ η mp κp EI (106 Nm2) EIcr (106 Nm2)
34
Ko et al ρ = 1.80% – 1.38 38.4 66.6 200 413 186 9 0 0.8 0.24 3.6 11.6 1.62 0.4
ρ = 2.91% 172 443 0.35 6.1 15.5 0.6
ρ = 3.59% 174 419 0.41 6.9 15.5 0.7
ρ = 4.29% 174 419 0.47 8.2 16.5 0.8
Meda et al35 (HRC) 2φ16-B-PC – 3.6 37.0 49.7 200 534 100 13 0 0.87 0.17 4.6 22.4 16.7 2.8
2φ16-B-30 30 kg/m3 45.0 12 0.2 0.19 5.1 22.8 3.1
4φ16-B-PC – 49.7 13 0 0.33 9.0 25.2 5.5
3
4φ16-B-30 30 kg/m 45.0 12 0.2 0.34 9.4 25.5 5.7
Yoo and Yoon37 (HPFRC) S30-1 2% 2.2 47.0 210 200 495 180 25 0.6 0.89 0.22 3.6 12.7 6.3 1.4
T30-1 232 27 0.7 0.25 3.9 12.6 1.6
S30-2 210 510 25 0.6 0.31 4.8 13.3 2.0
T30-2 232 27 0.7 0.33 5.1 13.3 2.1
Dupont40 (HRC) HRC 25 kg/m3 1.0& 30.5 26.4 200 560 110 8 0.34 0.93 0.11 3.0 19.4 4.1 0.4
2.0
HRC 50 kg/m3 30.3 26.1 130 7 0.39 0.22 4.9 18.5 4.0 0.9
HRC 60 kg/m3 39.0 55.4 160 9 0.56 0.32 5.7 15.7 5.2 1.7
41 3
Minelli et al H500 50 kg/m 2.64 30.8 32.1 200 580 146 7 0.3 0.88 0.29 6.4 19.9 80.2 22.9
H500 75 kg/m3 31.0 33.1 120 9 0.4 0.29 7.8 24.3 80.7 23.7
H1000 50 kg/m3 5.64 30.0 32.1 555 80 9 0.3 0.94 0.37 12.1 31.4 625.0 228.6
H1000 75 kg/m3 31.0 33.1 120 9 0.4 0.36 10.7 27.8 645.8 234.0
3
H1500 50 kg/m 8.64 29.0 32.1 518 80 9 0.3 0.96 0.29 11.27 27.9 2,109.4 804.8
H1500 75 kg/m3 30.0 33.1 110 9 0.4 0.29 8.6 20.7 2,109.4 810.0
Kim et al42 (HPFRC) S79-HL-28d 79 kg/m3 0.45 20.0 84 – - 260 16 0.13 – 0.10 2.2 13.3 0.84 0.1
S79-TL-28d 290 15 0.13 0.10 2.2 13.3 0.1
Mobasher et al43 (TRC) 100A 1.29% 0.25 20.0 51.0 – – 150 17 12.9 – 0.11 18.2 156.3 36.5 (10−6) 4.0 (10−6)
44 3
Mobasher et al (SFRC) S13-HL-28d 13 kg/m 31.0 28.0 – – 61 15 0.12 – 0.27 1.6 3.0 1.31 0.36
S26-HL-28d 26 kg/m3 0.45 31.0 28.0 63 14 0.33 0.24 1.7 3.9 1.31 0.31
S39-HL-28d 39 kg/m3 21.0 28.0 89 15 0.42 0.23 1.7 4.2 0.89 0.20

HPFRC = high-performance fiber reinforced concrete; HRC = hybrid reinforced concrete; SFRC = steel fiber reinforced concrete; TRC = textile reinforced concrete.
9
10 YAO ET AL.

FIGURE 8 (a) Normalized moment–curvature

diagrams of simulated data for different reinforcement
ratio; (b) comparison of load-deflection responses
between analytical simulation and experimental data

FIGURE 9 (a) Normalized moment–curvature diagrams of simulated data for different reinforcement ratio and fiber content; load-deflection responses of
HRC beams for different reinforcement ratios: (b) ρ = .75%; (c) ρ = 1.5%

comparing plain and FRC, contribution of plain concrete in ten-
sion is ignored in design guidelines such as ACI 318-14.36
5.3 | Ultra-high performance concrete
In addition to normal strength concrete, the proposed model
is also applicable to ultra-high performance concrete
(UHPC). Yoo and Yoon37 tested full-scale UHPC beams
reinforced by rebar and steel fibers. The beams with a cross
section of 150 mm by 220 mm were tested under 4 PB and
span of 2,200 mm. Effect of reinforcement ratio was evalu-
ated at 0.94 and 1.50%. Two distinct types of smooth and
twisted steel fibers were used at volume fraction of 2%.
Figure 10a shows the normalized moment–curvature

FIGURE 10 (a) Normalized moment–curvature relationship used to simulate the experimental responses of UHPC beams; comparison of load-deflection
responses between analytical simulation and experimental data for various reinforcement ratios: (b) ρ = .94%; (c) ρ = 1.5%
YAO ET AL.
FIGURE 11 Simulated maximum curvatures for various materials and beam sizes corresponding to deflections of (a) δ = L/600; (b) δ = L/450;
(c) δ = L/150
responses and Figure 10b,c compare the predicted and exper-
imental load-deflection responses for reinforcement ratios of
0.94 and 1.50%, respectively. The basic material parameters
used in the model include Young’s modulus E = 47GPa,
first crack tensile strain εcr = 180με.
The model simulations underestimate the moment
capacity within an approximate range of 8–13% for different
beam specimens, which have been discussed in the case of
RC simulations. In addition, due to the significantly high-
compressive strength of UHPC, failure due to concrete
crushing is unlikely to occur for an under-reinforced beam.
As a result, pronounced strain hardening is exhibited by
steel rebars after yielding and the flexural load increases
until rebar fracture. In fact, all of the UHPC beams with
steel fibers were subjected to flexure failure due to rebar
rupture, as reported by the authors.37 Thus, the proposed
model provides conservative estimation as a preferred fea-
ture from the design perspective. It is also clearly shown
that the load carrying capacity increased by approximately
30% with an increase in the reinforcement ratio from 0.94
to 1.50%. Furthermore, marginal improvements in moment
capacity and stiffness ratio are observed in the UHPC
beams with addition of twisted fiber in comparison to
smooth fibers. The ultimate moment parameter mp increases
from 3.6 to 3.9 when ρ = .94%, and 4.8 to 5.1 for
ρ = 1.5%. The improvement can be explained by the higher
bond strength between twisted steel fibers and concrete
matrix compared with smooth fiber.
5.4 | Correlation of specimen size with the maximum
curvature in simulation
Since the analytical model provides the curvature and
deflection distributions to determine the load at given
deformation levels, it can be used to compare the beam
results of various sizes for a serviceability-based crite-
rion. Design parameters may include maximum allowable
curvature, deflection, ductility, or stress. Various
11
parameters have been proposed to characterize the flex-
ural toughness and residual strength of FRC. For exam-
ple, EN1465138 uses residual flexural tensile strengths
fR,1 and fR,3 at deflection levels of δ = 0.47 and
2.17 mm, respectively (corresponding CMOD values of
0.5 mm and 2.5 mm); ASTM C1609 uses an equivalent
flexural strength ratio Re,3 at a similar deflection of
δ = L/150. However, extraction of design parameters
from small beams at an arbitrary deflection may be
questionable for full-scale structures due to many objec-
tions, among them the nature of size effect and the cur-
vatures involved.39 A study of maximum curvature that
correlates with the load at specified level of deflection is
therefore conducted. In addition to the beam specimens
presented earlier, simulations are extended to a database
of experiments by Dupont40 and Minelli et al41 on HRC
beams, Kim et al42 on high-performance fiber reinforced
concrete (HPFRC) and Mobasher et al43,44 on TRC and
SFRC beams. Model parameters are summarized in
Table 3. Once the load-deflection responses are simu-
lated, the magnitude of maximum curvatures correspond-
ing to the specific levels of mid-span deflection at
δ = L/600, L/450, and L/150 are extracted and plotted as
a function of span (see Figure 11). Results show that as
the size of the beam increases, the maximum curvature
required to attain the load-deflection response decreases sig-
nificantly, therefore large rotation capability observed in
small samples may not be necessary, nor applicable in real
structures. The maximum curvature decreases by about 90%
as the span increases from 1 to 8.6 m (Figure 11a,b), and
decreases by almost 80% from 0.45 to 2 m when δ = L/150
(Figure 11c). The range of span studied is quite representa-
tive which covers many experiments reported in the litera-
ture from lab to full scales. The simulated curvatures of
large beams using identical material parameters as smaller
beams are much lower at equivalent levels of deflection. In
addition, large mid-span deflection of L/150 cannot be
reached in the case of larger beams (span >2 m) and thus
12 YAO ET AL.

Figure 11c only shows the results of smaller beams. These

Icr moment of inertia of cracked section
observations point out that the trend of specifying parame-
k neutral axis depth ratio
ters such as Re,3 at quite a large deflection for small speci-
L length of beam
mens in order to design and construct large beams may be
Le length of linear elastic region
too conservative as the curvatures obtained by the small
Lcr length of linear cracked region
samples may not be obtained in real size structures.
m normalzied moment
mp normalzied moment at onset of perfectly
plastic stage
6 | CON CLU SION S M moment
Mp moment at onset of perfectly plastic
A trilinear moment–curvature relationship defined by the flex- stage
ural crack initiation and ultimate capacity was proposed as the n modulus ratio (Es/E)
basis for the derivation of an analytical load-deflection model P applied load
exhibiting deflection hardening behavior. The analytical solu- α normalized transition strain
tions characterize the full-range distributions of curvature, β normalized tensile strain (εt/εcr)
rotation, and deflection at any given point along the beam. βtu normalized ultimate tensile strain
Various types of beams and loading conditions were χ normalized postcracked modulus (Ecr/E)
addressed such as 3, 4 PB, uniformly loaded, concentrated δ beam deflection
moment on simple and cantilever beams. δ* deflection coefficient
The load-deflection and moment–curvature responses ε strain
correlated with the classical elastic solutions and extended εc concrete compressive strain
into parameterized nonlinear stress–strain materials model. εcr concrete strain at first tensile crack
Deformation envelope at any given level of load, deforma- εcy concrete compressive strain at peak
tion, and location along the beam as well as their interac- stress
tions were generated. Results are directly applicable to εcu ultimate compressive strain
serviceability-based design tools. A parametric study exam- εt concrete tensile strain
ined the effect of moment–curvature parameters on the εtrn concrete strain transition point
load-deflection response. The model’s accuracy was verified εtu ultimate tensile strain
by comparing simulated and experimental load-deflection εs steel strain
responses for RC, HRC and UHPC beams. Various beams φ curvature
with spans ranging from 0.22 to 8.6 m, which cover many φcr curvature at first flexural crack
experimental data in the literature from lab-scale to full size φp curvature at onset of perfectly plastic
specimens were simulated and the results indicated that stage
residual strength parameters such as Re,3 at relatively large φmax maximum curvature
deflection values for small specimens may be too conserva- η normalized postcracked flexural stiffness
tive for design of real size structures. (EIcr/EIg)
κ normalized curvature
7 | NOTATIONS κp normalized curvature at onset of per-
fectly plastic stage
As area of steel rebar κmax normalized maximum curvature
A21, A22, A31, variables in Table A1 in Appendix S1 λ normalized compressive strain (εc/εcr)
A32, B21, B22, μ normalized residual tensile strength
B31, B32 (σcst/σcr)
C1–C11, D1–D5 variables in Table A2 in Appendix S1 ρg steel reinforcement ratio per gross area
b beam width σ concrete stress
d effective depth at location of steel rebar σc concrete compressive stress
E elastic tensile modulus of concrete σ cr cracking tensile strength
Es elastic modulus of steel σ cy concrete compressive yield strength
f1–f7, g1–g6, variables in Table 2 σ cst residual tensile strength
i1–i7, j1–j2, σt concrete tensile stress
o1–o5, u1–u2, ω normalized concrete compressive yield
v1–v7 strain (εcy/εcr)
h full height of a beam section. ζ normalized depth of steel reinforcement
Ig moment of inertia of gross section (d/h)
YAO ET AL.
ORCID
Yiming Yao http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5751-8180
Barzin Mobasher http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7580-2855
REFERENC ES
1. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformations of reinforced concrete mem-
bers at yielding and ultimate. Struct J. 2001;98:135-148.
2. Shushkewich KW. Moment-curvature relationships for partially Prestressed
concrete beams. J Struct Eng. 1990;116:2815-2823. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:10(2815)
3. Naaman AE. Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design: Fundamentals.
2nd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Techno Press; 2004.
4. Mirambell E, Real E. On the calculation of deflections in structural stainless
steel beams: An experimental and numerical investigation. J Constr Steel
Res. 2000;54(1):109-133.
5. Kwak H-G, Kim S-P. Nonlinear analysis of RC beams based on
moment-curvature relation. Comput Struct. 2002;80:615-628. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00030-5
6. Mobasher B (2011) Mechanics of Fiber and Textile Reinforced Cement
Composites. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. https://www.crcpress.
com/Mechanics-of-Fiber-and-
Textile-Reinforced-Cement-Composites/Mobasher/p/book/9781439806609.
Accessed November 1, 2016
7. He Z, Ou J, Wang B. The trilinear moment vs. curvature relationship of
concrete beams reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rebars.
Compos Struct. 2007;77:30-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.
06.012
8. Tazarv M, Saiidi MS. UHPC-filled duct connections for accelerated bridge
construction of RC columns in high seismic zones. Eng Struct. 2015;99:
413-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.018
9. Hillerborg A. Fracture mechanics concepts applied to moment capacity and
rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams. Eng Fract Mech. 1990;35:
233-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(90)90201-Q
10. Lopes SM, do Carmo RNF. Deformable strut and tie model for the calcula-
tion of the plastic rotation capacity. Comput Struct. 2006;84:2174-2183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.08.028
11. Carreira DJ, Chu K-H. The moment-curvature relationship of reinforced
concrete members. J Proc. 1986;83:191-198.
12. Hemmati A, Kheyroddin A, Kazem Sharbatdar M. Plastic hinge rotation
capacity of reinforced HPFRCC beams. J Struct Eng. 2015;141:04014111.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000858
13. Sheikh SA, Yeh CC. Analytical moment-curvature relations for tied con-
crete columns. J Struct Eng. 1992;118:529-544. https://doi.org/10.1061/(
ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:2(529)
14. Crisinel M, Marimon F. A new simplified method for the design of com-
posite slabs. J Constr Steel Res. 2004;60:481-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0143-974X(03)00125-1
15. Barth KE, Hartnagel BA, White DW, Barker MG. Recommended proce-
dures for simplified inelastic Design of Steel I-girder bridges. J Bridge Eng.
2004;9:230-242. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:3(230)
16. Liu J, Astaneh-Asl A. Moment–rotation parameters for composite shear tab
connections. J Struct Eng. 2004;130:1371-1380. https://doi.org/10.1061/(
ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1371)
17. Lee JJ, Shinozuka M. Real-time displacement measurement of a flexible
bridge using digital image processing techniques. Exp Mech. 2006;46:
105-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-006-6124-2
18. Grédiac M. The use of full-field measurement methods in composite mate-
rial characterization: Interest and limitations. Compos Part Appl Sci Manuf.
2004;35:751-761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.01.019
19. Sutton M, Wolters W, Peters W, et al. Determination of displacements
using an improved digital correlation method. Image Vis Comput. 1983;1:
133-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0262-8856(83)90064-1
20. Yoneyama S, Kitagawa A, Iwata S, Tani K, Kikuta H. Bridge deflection
measurement using digital image correlation. Exp Tech. 2007;31:34-40.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1567.2006.00132.x
21. Soranakom C, Mobasher B. Correlation of tensile and flexural responses
of strain softening and strain hardening cement composites. Cem Concr
13
Compos. 2008;30:465-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.
01.007
22. Taheri M, Barros JAO, Salehian H. A design model for strain-softening and
strain-hardening fiber reinforced elements reinforced longitudinally with
steel and FRP bars. Compos Part B Eng. 2011;42:1630-1640. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.04.009
23. van Zijl GPAG, Mbewe PBK. Flexural modelling of steel fibre-reinforced
concrete beams with and without steel bars. Eng Struct. 2013;53:52-62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.036
24. Mobasher B, Yao Y, Soranakom C. Analytical solutions for flexural design
of hybrid steel fiber reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct. 2015;100:
164-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.06.006
25. Yao Y. Characteristics of Distributed Cracking for Analysis and Design of
Strain Hardening Cement Based Composites [dissertation]. Tempe, AZ:
Arizona State University; 2016
26. Computers and Structures, Inc. – Technical Knowledge Base (2014)
Moment-Curvature Analysis for Hollow Prestressed-Concrete Piles. https://
wiki.csiamerica.com/display/kb/Moment+curvature. Accessed February 10,
2017
27. StructureExpress (2016) Moment Curvature Analysis of Circular Reinforced
Concrete Column Section with SE::MC. http://structurexpress.com/
example-1-1/.
28. ENGISSOL (2012) Cross Section Analysis & Design—Worked Examples.
http://www.engissol.com/
worked-examples-on-cross-section-analysis-design.html. Accessed February
10, 2017
29. OpenSeesWiki (2011) User Documentation—Moment Curvature Example.
http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Moment_Curvature_Example.
Accessed February 10, 2017
30. Chadwell CB, Imbsen RA XTRACT: a tool for axial force – ultimate curva-
ture interactions. George E. Blandford, ASCE, Nashville, Tennessee, United
States In: Structures; 2004.
31. Shirmohammadi F, Esmaeily A. Software for biaxial cyclic analysis of rein-
forced concrete columns. Comput Concr. 2016;17:353-386. https://doi.
org/10.12989/cac.2016.17.3.353
32. Ger J, Cheng FY. Seismic Design Aids for Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
Of Reinforced Concrete and Steel Bridges. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press;
2011.
33. Wang X. Analytical Load-Deflection Equations for Beam and 2-D Panel
with a Bilinear Moment–Curvature Model [master’s thesis]. Tempe, AZ:
Arizona State University; 2015.
34. Ko M-Y, Kim S-W, Kim J-K. Experimental study on the plastic rotation
capacity of reinforced high strength concrete beams. Mater Struct. 2001;34:
302-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02482210
35. Meda A, Minelli F, Plizzari GA. Flexural behaviour of RC beams in fibre
reinforced concrete. Compos Part B Eng. 2012;43:2930-2937. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.06.003
36. ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute. Building code require-
ments for structural concrete (ACI 318-14): an ACI standard: commentary
on building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318R-14), an
ACI Report; 2014.
37. Yoo D-Y, Yoon Y-S. Structural performance of ultra-high-performance
concrete beams with different steel fibers. Eng Struct. 2015;102:409-423.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.029
38. Vandewalle L. RILEM TC162-TDF: Test and design methods for steel fibre
reinforced concrete: Bending test (final recommendation). Mater Struct.
2002;35:579-582.
39. Jiang Z, Banthia N. Size effects in flexural toughness of fiber reinforced
concrete. J Test Eval. 2010;38:332-338. https://doi.org/10.1520/
JTE102386
40. Dupont D. Modelling and Experimental Validation of the Constitutive
Law (σ-ε) and Cracking Behaviour of Steel Fiber Reinforced Con-
crete [dissertation]. Leuven, Belgium: Catholic University of Leuven;
2003.
41. Minelli F, Conforti A, Cuenca E, Plizzari G. Are steel fibres able to miti-
gate or eliminate size effect in shear? Mater Struct. 2014;47:459-473.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0072-y
42. Kim D, Naaman AE, El-Tawil S (2010) Correlation between tensile and
bending behavior of FRC composites with scale effect. Jeju Island, South
Korea, pp 1379–1385
14 YAO ET AL.

43. Mobasher B, Bakhshi M, Barsby C. Backcalculation of residual tensile

strength of regular and high performance fiber reinforced concrete from Barzin Mobasher
flexural tests. Construct Build Mater. 2014;70:243-253. https://doi.org/10. Arizona State University, School of
1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.037
Sustainable Engineering and Built
44. Mobasher B, Dey V, Cohen Z, Peled A. Correlation of constitutive response
of hybrid textile reinforced concrete from tensile and flexural tests. Cem Environment, Tempe, AZ
Concr Compos. 2014;53:148-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.
2014.06.004

AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHIES

Yiming Yao
Key Laboratory of Concrete and
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Prestressed Concrete Structures
of Ministry of Education, School
Additional Supporting Information may be found online in
of Civil Engineering, Southeast
the supporting information tab for this article.
University, Nanjing, China

How to cite this article: Yao Y, Aswani K,

Wang X, Mobasher B. Analytical displacement solu-
Karan Aswani
tions for statically determinate beams based on a tri-
PK Associates, Scottsdale, AZ
linear moment–curvature model. Structural Concrete.
2018;1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700150

Xinmeng Wang
DiGioia Gray & Associates,
Tempe, AZ