1.

INTRODUCTION
For reinforced concrete structures, deflection control is
an important performance criterion to ensure both
serviceability and sustainability. Indeed, excessive
concrete cracking resulting from excessive deformation
is one of the most common causes of damage and results
in huge annual cost to the construction industry. It is well
known that the deflection of reinforced concrete
members is closely related to the tension stiffening
effect. Indeed, the tensile concrete located between two
flexural cracks helps to enhance the flexural stiffness
because the steel-concrete bond is still active in this area.
Many models have been proposed to calculate beams
deflection after cracking: based on constitutive laws of
concrete in tension which includes a strain softening
curve (Cedolin et al. 1977; Bazant and Gambarova 1980;
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013 2035
Calculation of the Overall Stiffness and Irreversible
Deflection of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Beams
Arnaud Castel
1,*
and Raoul Franois
2
1
Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
2
Universit de Toulouse; UPS, INSA; LMDC (Laboratoire Matriaux et Durabilit des Constructions); 135,
Avenue de Rangueil;F-31 077 Toulouse cedex 04, France
(Received: 13 December 2012; Received revised form: 16 July 2013; Accepted: 7 October 2013)
Abstract: The method proposed in this paper aims to assess both the irreversible
deflection of cracked reinforced concrete beams when unloaded and their overall
stiffness under loading cycles which is relevant for in-situ analysis of existing
structures. Only service stage is modeled and time-dependent effects such as creep and
shrinkage are not taken into account. The modeling approach combines an existing
model based on an empirical moment-curvature analytic relationship with a new
Macro-Finite-Element (MFE) both implemented in a linear finite element analysis.
MFEs are Beam Finite Elements, characterized by their average moment of inertia. The
average moment of inertia is calculated by homogenization of the steel strain, concrete
strain and neutral axis modeled between two consecutive bending cracks. The results of
the MFE model have been successfully compared to experiments. The irreversible
deflection represents a significant proportion of the total deflection in service and the
overall stiffness of the cracked beams during the loading cycles is strongly under-
estimated by existing models based on empirical moment-curvature relationships.
Key words: reinforced concrete, tension stiffening, bond, serviceability, FE model.
Gupta and Maestrini 1989 ; Vecchio 2000), using bond-
slip models in finite element formulation (Cedolin et al.
1977; Bazant and Gambarova 1980 ; Gupta and Maestrini
1989 ; Vecchio 2000; Dahou et al. 2009; Somayaji and
Shah 1981; Muhamad et al. 2012) or based on empirical
moment-curvature relationships (Alwis 1990; Prakhya
and Morley 1990; Ghali 1993; CEB-FIP 1999; Gilbert
2008; Branson 1965; Carreira and Chu 1986; Bishoff
2007; Oehlers et al. 2011; Lee and Kim 2009).
Figure 1 presents an experimental curve showing the
typical overall response of RC-beams up to failure
including one loading cycle. All methods previously
described are dedicated to the calculation of the
deflection or the curvature of structural members under
monotonic increasing load up to failure. Thus, these
models allow to calculate the so-called load-deflection
*Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]; Fax: +61293859747; Tel: +61293855043.
Associate Editor: J.G. Dai
where I
cr
= moment of inertia of the fully cracked
transformed cross section; I
unc
= moment of inertia
before cracking; M
cr
= cracking moment; and M
a
=
applied moment at the critical section. Figure 2 shows
the evolution of the effective moment of inertia I
e
versus
the bending moment applied M
a
according to Eqn 1. The
effective moment of inertia ranges between I
unc
and I
cr
.
The reduction in the inertia I
e
after cracking is strongly
nonlinear. If the applied moment M
a
is high enough, I
e
is
similar to I
cr
which means that the tension stiffening does
not affect the stiffness anymore. Figure 3(a) presents the
resulting moment-curvature curve ( = M/E
c
I
e
) obtained
under monotonic increasing loading up to a service
moment M
ser
. For a given value of M
a
ranging between
M
cr
and M
ser
, 1/E
c
I
e
is the secant stiffness of the moment-
curvature curve. E
c
is the instantaneous elastic modulus
of the concrete.
Figure 3(b) shows the same moment-curvature curve
including one loading cycle. As already observed in
Figure 1, during the loading cycle, the curvature never
comes back to zero after unloading. Indeed, the elastic
energy is partly transformed into fracture energy when
concrete cracking occurs and this transformation is
irreversible. This fracture energy cannot be recovered
leading to a permanent curvature when the beam is
unloaded, labeled
perm,cr
. If the applied moment M
a
is
not exceeded, the instantaneous response of the beam
is linear elastic reversible and governed by the value of
the average inertia I
a
.
The secant stiffness provided by Bischoffs model
(1/E
c
I
e
) is significantly lower than the stiffness of the
cracked beam 1/E
c
I
a
. Bischoffs empirical model has
been calibrated to calculate the moment-curvature
envelop curve which in fact includes both elastic and
anelastic (fracture energy) effects. The new model
proposed in this paper and labeled Macro-Finite-Element
(MFE) aims to assess accurately the average moment of
2036 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013
Calculation of the Overall Stiffness and Irreversible Deflection of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Beams
envelop curve (Figure 1). In service, structural members
are subjected to live loads leading to concrete cracking.
Thus, structural members are exposed to loading cycles
similar to the one shown in Figure 1. In the loading
cycle curve: firstly, the deflection does not come back to
zero after unloading, leading to an irreversible (or
permanent) deflection labeled V
perm, cr
, secondly, the
cracked beam adopts an elastic behavior with a reduced
stiffness compared to the uncracked state. The overall
stiffness of the cracked beam under loading cycles is
related to an average moment of inertia labeled I
a
.
Existing models perform very well to assess the load-
deflection envelop curve but do not capture at all the
behavior under loading cycles. The method proposed in
this paper aims to calculate both the permanent deflection
V
perm, cr
and the overall stiffness by assessing the average
moment of inertia I
a
. The modeling approach combines
an existing model based on an empirical moment-
curvature relationship (Bishoff 2007) with a new Macro-
Finite-Element (MFE) both implemented in a linear finite
element analysis. Time-dependent effects such as creep
and shrinkage are not taken into account in this study.
2. MODELING METHOD
The model proposed combines an existing model based
on an empirical moment-curvature relationship (Bishoff
2007) with a new Macro-Finite-Element (MFE) model.
The method adopted by (Bishoff 2007) to calculate the
curvature of reinforced concrete members after cracking
is based on an empirical relationship providing an
effective moment of inertia I
e
sensitive to the ratio of
cracking moment M
cr
to applied moment at critical
cross-section M
a
(Eqn 1).
(1)
I
I
I I M M
I
e
cr
cr unc cr a
unc
=

[
\
|

)
j
1 1
2
( / )( / )

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Moment (kN.m)
M
a
V
inst
Cracking
V
perm,cr
Loadingcyclecurve
Envelopcurve
~E
c
I
unc
~E
c
I
a
Deflection (mm)
Figure 1. Typical overall response of RC-beams including a
loading cycle
0
M
a
(kN.m)
Inertia I
e
(m
4
)
I
unc
I
cr
M
cr

Figure 2. Evolution of the effective moment of inertia versus M
a
(Bischoff 2007)
inertia I
a
governing the beam stiffness during the loading
cycles. Then, the permanent curvature
perm,cr
will be
calculated by combining the new MFE model with
Bischoffs model (Bishoff 2007) using Eqn 2.
(2)
The deflection (permanent and instantaneous) of the
reinforced concrete members will be calculated
implementing both Bischoffs model and the MFE in a
linear finite element analysis.
3. MACRO-FINITE-ELEMENT (MFE)
The MFE approach aims to model the response of the
beams observed during the loading cycles. A BEAM
element with 4 degrees of freedom (i.e. transverse
displacement and rotation at each end) has been
adopted. For bending problems, the properties of the
homogeneous MFE are the average moment of inertia,
I
a
, the total concrete cross-sectional area, A
c,
and the
concrete instantaneous elastic modulus, E
c
. The
standard element stiffness matrix related to the flexural
degrees of freedom in the linear range, without
considering the shear contribution, is used. A linear FE
analysis is appropriate in this case because modelling is
dedicated to the assessment of the in-service response
after cracking (i.e. relatively low load levels), where the
stress-strain relationship for concrete in compression is
essentially linear elastic. Moreover, Figure 1 shows
clearly that the overall behaviour during the loading
cycles is linear elastic. For the MFE formulation, the
main difficulty is to assess accurately the average
moment of inertia I
a
after cracking as the steel and
concrete strain distributions between the cracks are
complex.

perm,cr
E E
=
M
I
M
I
a
c e
a
c a
3.1. Modeling of Steel and Concrete Strains
after Cracking
In a previous paper (Castel and Franois 2011), an
analytical modelling of steel strain
s
(x), concrete tensile
strain
tc
(x) and neutral axis distribution y
0
(x) between
two consecutive cracks was proposed at the stabilized
cracking stage. The model was developed assuming a
linear distribution of the bond stress at the steel-concrete
interface over the so-called transfer length leading to non-
linear steel and concrete strain distributions (Figure 4).
The strain functions
s
(x) and
tc
(x), plotted in Figure 4,
are then given by the Eqns 3 and 4 respectively, where the
distribution function d(x) is given by Eqn 5.
(3)
(4)

tc tc,
x d x ( ) ( ) =
max

s s snc
x 1 d x d x ( ) ( ) ( ) = + ( )
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013 2037
Arnaud Castel and Raoul Franois
(a) (b)
(m
1
)
M

(
k
N
.
m
)
0
M
cr
M
ser
Curvature
of the cracked
cross-section
Curvature
before
cracking M
a
1/E
c
I
cr
1/E
c
I
unc
1/E
c
I
e

1/E
c
I
a
1/E
c
I
e
(m
1
)
perm, cr
M

(
k
N
.
m
)
0
M
ser
M
a
M
cr
Figure 3. (a) Moment-curvature diagram under monotonic increasing loading; (b) Moment-curvature diagram including a loading cycle
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
S
t
r
a
i
n
s
x /L
t

s
(x)

tc
(x)

snc
=
tc,max

s

Figure 4. Nonlinear distribution of the strain of the reinforcing bars

snc
). The steel strain
snc
(as defined in Figure 4) can be
calculated from the beam cross-sectional parameters and
the strain in the steel at the crack location,
s
, using Eqn 6
(Castel and Franois 2011):
(6)
where
e
is the modular ratio, i.e. the ratio between the
instantaneous elastic modulus of the steel E
s,
and that
of the concrete E
c
; z
c
and z
nc
are the lever-arm of the
internal forces on the cracked and uncracked cross-
sections, respectively; A
s
is the cross-sectional area of
the tensile steel reinforcement; and A
ct.ef
is the
effective area of active tensile concrete given by
(Castel et al. 2006):
(7)
where d and h are the effective and total depths of the
cross-section, respectively; b is the width of the cross-
section; y
0E
is the neutral axis depth calculated before
cracking and a is the thickness of the reinforcing bar
layers in the cross-section (and equals the bar diameter
if only one layer of reinforcement is included). Eqn 7 is
an alternative method to CEB-FIP model code (CEB-
FIP 1999) for the calculation of A
tc,ef
. Unlike the CEB-
FIP model, Eqn 7 is valid whatever the shape of the
beam cross-section (T or rectangular-section beams).
Details of the calculation of A
tc.ef
and a comparative
analysis with CEB-FIP model code are available in
(Castel et al. 2006).
The nonlinear evolution of the neutral axis y
0
(x)
along the transfer length (Castel and Franois 2011) is
given by the Eqn 8 and is plotted in Figure 5.
(8)
0
3
1
y
z z
zcd z d
n
n
( )
( ) ( ( ))
x d
x x
c c
c
=
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A b
(d y a )
(h d a )
(h d a )
(d
tc, ef
E
=
+ +

0
/2
2
/2
1
/2
2
a

yy a )
E 0
/2
[
\
|

)
j
[
\
|
|
|
|

)
j
j
j
j
A
s
snc tc
s
nc
c
tc ef
s
e
z
z
A
A

= =
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
,max
,
1
d x x L x L
t t
( ) ( / ) ( / ) = 2
2
3.2. Average Moment of Inertia
The steel and concrete strain models proposed in (Castel
and Franois 2011) are used to calculate the average
moment of inertia I
a
. The homogenization process
assumes that concrete cracking is stabilized. In other
words, in modeling in-service behavior, it is assumed
that the maximum design live load lead concrete
cracking to stabilize. As recommended by the CEP-FIP
model code, when the stabilized cracking situation is
reached, the average cracks spacing can be considered
equal to 1.5 times the transfer length L
t
. In the following,
all calculations are performed on a half cracks spacing
length because of the symmetry (0 x 0.75L
t
).
c
=

s
/(dy
0c
),
nc
=
snc
/(d y
0nc
) and
a
=
sa
/(d y
0a
) are
the curvatures in cracked, in non-cracked cross-sections
and the average curvature respectively. To deduce the
average curvature
a
, the average steel strain
sa
and the
average neutral axis location y
0a
are calculated using
Eqns 9 and 10 respectively.
(9)
(10)
The average steel strain
sa
can be written as shown
in Eqn 11 versus the homogenization coefficient C
H
.
The homogenization coefficient C
H
results from the
integration of the distribution function d(x) (Eqn 12).
(11)
(12)
( . ) ( ) / .
.
0 75 21 32 0 65625
0
0 75
L C
t H
L
d x dx
t
= =

sa H s H snc
C C = (1 ) +
( . ) ( )
.
0 75
0 0
0
0 75
L
a
t y y x dx
L
t
=

( . ) ( )
.
0 75
0
0 75
L
a s
t x dx
L
t
=

2038 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013
Calculation of the Overall Stiffness and Irreversible Deflection of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Beams
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y
0
(x)
y
0c
y
0nc
x /L
t
Figure 5. Nonlinear distribution of the neutral axis along the
transfer length
Finally, as
snc
is given by Eqn 6 versus
s
and as the
bending moment for all cross-sections M= E
c
I
a

a
= E
c
I
cr

c
where I
cr
is the inertia of the cracked cross-section, the
average inertia of the MEF is deduced from the value of
the inertia of the cracked cross-section I
cr
by using Eqn 13.
Assuming that concrete cracking is stabilized, the
calculation of the average inertia I
a
(Eqn 13) does not
depend on any parameter related to the cracks spacing.
4. CALCULATION OF THE OVERALL
STIFFNESS OF CRACKED BEAMS
The calculation of the overall stiffness of reinforced
concrete members is performed by assembling the MFEs
as presented in Figure 6 in case of the four-point flexure.
(13)
a
a
c
cr
H
c e s
nc s e tc
I
d
y
d
y
I
C
z
A
z
A
=

+
( )
( )
(
0
0
1
1

,,
)
ef
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cracked span of the beam is governed by to the ratio
of cracking moment M
cr
to applied moment at critical
cross-section M
a
as described in Figure 6. In the part of the
span where the cracking moment M
cr
is not reached (near
the support in Figure 6), the inertia I
unc
, calculated before
cracking, is used to characterize the MFEs. The stiffness
matrix of each macro-element is assembled as usual by
addition of stiffness coefficients corresponding to the same
node. The resulting linear system is then solved to
calculate the displacement (V
inst
) at each node of the mesh
according to the external loading imposed to the beam. The
overall stiffness is then deduced from both the bending
moment and the deflection values calculated at the critical
section. In Figure 6, a simply supported beam is presented
as an example of application. But, any frame reinforced
concrete structures can be analyzed by assembling MEFs
according to the structures and loads considered and
performing the linear finite element analysis.
5. CALCULATION OF THE PERMANENT
DEFLECTION
The calculation of the permanent deflection V
perm,cr
is
performed by combining Bishoffs model (Bishoff 2007)
with the new Macro-Finite-Element (MFE) both
implemented in linear finite element analyses. Two finite
element analyses are performed: a first one using the new
MFE allowing calculating the instantaneous deflection
V
inst
as described in Figure 6. In the second finite element
analysis, the total deflection V
total
of the beam is
calculated similarly by replacing the average moment of
inertia I
a
by the effective moment of inertia I
e
(Bishoff
(2007)). The permanent deflection is deduced from the
two calculations (Figure 7) as described by Eqn 14.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013 2039
Arnaud Castel and Raoul Franois
Load
I
unc
I
unc
I
a
I
a
M
a
M
cr
Flexural cracks
Load
I
a
I
a
Figure 6. Assembling of the MFEs for the overall beams stiffness
calculation
Deflection
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
0
M
a
V
perm, cr
V
total
V
inst
M
a
M
cr
M
cr
M
a
I
unc
Load Load
I
unc
I
unc I
unc
I
a
I
a
I
e
I
e
Figure 7. Permanent deflection assessment based on two MFE calculations considering both the average inertia I
a
and the effective inertia I
e
(14)
6. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
6.1. Reinforced Concrete Specimens
Two RC-beams are used, cast with the same concrete.
Mix design of the concrete is shown in Table 1. The
compressive strength and the elastic modulus of the
concrete are 47 MPa and 32 GPa respectively. All the
mechanical characteristics of the concrete were
measured at 28 days on concrete cylinders ( = 110 mm,
h = 220 mm) stored in the same conditions as the beams.
Reinforcement lay-out of the beam B28 with 280 mm
cross-section height, which is the higher size beam, is
shown in Figure 8. Reinforcement lay-out of the beam
B20, with 200 mm total cross-section height, is shown
in Figure 9. The steel bars used were conventional Civil
Engineering reinforcing ribbed bars with 12 mm
diameter for beams B28 and with 6 mm diameter for
V V V
perm, cr total inst
=
beams B20. The elastic limit is 500 MPa for all
reinforcing bars.
6.2. Experimental Program
All the beams were tested at 28 days in four-points-
loading (Figure 10). The two beams were loaded up to
M
a
and then were subjected to one unloading/reloading
cycle. Table 2 shows the values of the maximum
moment applied M
a
, the cracking moment M
cr
and the
bending moment leading to the reinforcing steel
yielding M
y
for both beams. For beam B28, the
bending moment M
a
is equal to about 45% of M
y
which
corresponds to a value usually admitted in design
practice as the service moment of the structural
member. For beam B20, the maximum moment
applied in the loading cycle was about 85% of M
y
.
Both the loading applied and the deflection at mid-
span were measured, deflection using a digital
transducer. The moment-deflection curves are then
deduced.
6.3. Comparison between Experiments and
Finite Element Simulations
The deflection V(M
a
) of the already cracked beam is
calculated by using Eqn 15:
(15) V M V
a perm, cr inst a
( ) ( ) = V M +
2040 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013
Calculation of the Overall Stiffness and Irreversible Deflection of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Beams
Table 1. Mix design of the concrete
kg/m
3
(lb/yd
3
)
Rolled Gravel (silica + limestone)
(5/15 mm = 0.197/0.591 in) 1060 (1786)
Sand (0/5 mm = 0/0.197 in) 710 (1197)
Portland Cement CEM I OPC
(high performance) 425 (716)
Water 185 (312)



2
8
0
14 stirrups
2 ribbed 12
150
2 ribbed 6
8
2
5
0
220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220
3000
Figure 8. Lay-out of the reinforcements for beam B28 (all lengths in mm)
2 ribbed 6
3 ribbed 6
14 stirrups 8
2
0
0

150
1
8
0

3000
220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220
Figure 9. Lay-out of the reinforcements for beams B20 (all lengths in mm)
The values of the input parameters and the calculated
inertias for both beams are shown in Table 3. As
expected, the average inertia I
a
governing the elastic
response of the already cracked beam is significantly
superior to the secant inertia I
e
.
The comparison between the experimental
moment-deflection curves and the predictions of the
MFE model are shown in Figures 11 and 12
respectively for beams B28 and B20. For each beam
the Finite Element mesh used to calculate the
instantaneous elastic deflection V
inst
(M) is also
presented. The results obtained by the MFE model
show a good agreement with the tests for the
assessment of the bending stiffness of the already
cracked beam governed by the average inertia I
a
. The
permanent deflection is about 20% underestimated for
the two beams which can be considered as a
reasonable approximation with regard to the
complexity of cracking propagation leading to
nonlinear and anelastic behaviour of the concrete and
the steel-concrete interface. For both beams, the
permanent deflection V
perm,cr
represents a significant
proportion of the total deflection (about 40%).
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013 2041
Arnaud Castel and Raoul Franois
Table 2. Maximum moments applied to the RC-
beams, yielding and cracking moments
Beams B28 B20
Yielding moment M
y
in kN.m (kip.yd) 26 (5.34) 6,5 (1.34)
Maximum Moment applied M
a
in kN.m
(kip.yd) 12 (2.47) 5.5 (1.13)
Cracking Moment M
cr
in kN.m (kip.yd) 3.5 (0.72) 2.5 (0.51)
Table 3. Input parameters and calculated inertia for all the beams
Beams B28 B20
Input Parameters h (cm = 0.394 in) 28 20
b (cm = 0.394 in) 15 15
d (cm = 0.394 in) 25 18
A
s
(cm
2
= 0.155 in
2
) 2.26 0.85
a (cm = 0.394 in) 1.2 0.6
e 6.6 6.6
Calculated Parameters A
ct,ef
(cm
2
= 0.155 in
2
) 122.6 87.4
I
unc
(m
4
= 0.024 kin
4
) 2.92 E 4 1.03 E 4
I
cr
(m
4
= 0.024 kin
4
) 6.44 E 5 1.58 E 5
I
e
(m
4
= 0.024 kin
4
) 6.89 E 5 1.56 E 5
I
a
(m
4
= 0.024 kin
4
) 1.13 E 4 2.4 E 5
P
P/2 P/2
L = 80 cm L = 120 cm L = 80 cm
PL/2 PL/2
M (x)
x
Figure 10. Test configuration for both beams in four-points-flexure
(all lengths in cm)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Experimental

Model
Moment (kN.m)
M
a
M
cr
V
inst
V
perm, cr
Deflection (mm)
Load Load
l
unc l
unc
l
a
l
a
l
a
l
a
Load Load
I
unc
I
unc
I
a
I
a
I
a
I
a
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Moment (kN.m )
V
inst
V
perm, cr
M
a
M
cr
Deflection (mm)
Experimental
Model
Figure 11. Comparison between the calculated and experimental
deflection for beam B28
Figure 12. Comparison between the calculated and experimental
deflection for beam B2
7. CONCLUSIONS
The MFE modeling approach proposed in this paper is
dedicated to the calculation of reinforced concrete
beams overall behavior during loading/unloading cycles
after cracking. Both the irreversible (or permanent)
deflection after unloading and the elastic response
during the reloading phase are calculated. The elastic
response of already cracked reinforced concrete beams
during reloading phase is governed by an average
moment of inertia implemented in the MFEs. The
calculation of the MFEs average moment of inertia is
based on models of steel strain, concrete strain and
neutral axis distributions between two consecutive
bending cracks.
The results of the MFE model have been successfully
compared to experiments. Both experimental results and
MFE modeling show that the irreversible deflection
V
perm,cr
represents a significant proportion of the total
deflection in service and that the overall stiffness of the
cracked beams during the loading cycles is strongly
under-estimated by existing models based on empirical
moment-curvature relationships such as Bishoff (2007).
REFERENCES
Alwis, W. (1990). Trilinear moment-curvature relationship for
reinforced concrete beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87,
No. 3, pp. 276283.
Bazant, Z.P. and Gambarova, P (1980). Rough cracks in reinforced
concrete, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 106,
No. 4, pp. 819842.
Bischoff, P.H. (2007). Deflection calculation of FRP reinforced
concrete beams based on modifications to the existing Branson
equation, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 414.
Branson, D.E. (1965). Instantaneous and Time-Dependent
Deflections of Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete
Beams, HPR Rep. No. 7, Part 1, Alabama Highway Dept., Bureau
of Public Roads, Alabama, USA.
Carreira, J.D. and Chu, K. (1986). The moment-curvature
relationship of reinforced concrete members, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 191198.
Castel, A. and Franois, R. (2011). Modeling of steel and concrete
strains between primary cracks for the prediction of cover
controlled cracking in RC-beams, Engineering Structures,
Vol. 33, No. 12, pp. 36683675.
Castel, A., Vidal, T. and Franois, R. (2010). Bond and cracking
properties of self-consolidating concrete, Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 12221231.
Castel, A., Vidal, T. and Franois, R. (2006). Effective tension
active cross-section of reinforced concrete beams after cracking,
Materials and Structures, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 103113.
CEB-FIP model code (1999). Structural Concrete-Textbook on
Behavior, Design and Performance, Volume 1, fib Bulletin
No. 51, fib, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Cedolin, L. and Dei Poli, S. (1977). Finite element studies of shear-
critical R/C beams, Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 395410.
Dahou, Z., Sbarta, M., Castel, A. and Ghomari, F. (2009). Artificial
neural network model for steel-concrete bond prediction,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 17241733.
Ghali, A. (1993). Deflection of reinforced concrete members: a
critical review, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 4,
pp. 364373.
Gilbert, R.I. (2008). Control of flexural cracking in reinforced
concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 301307.
Gupta, A.K. and Maestrini, S.R. (1989). Post-cracking behavior of
membrane reinforced concrete elements including tension-
stiffening, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115,
No. 4, pp. 957976.
Lee, G.Y. and Kim, W. (2009). Cracking and tension stiffening
behavior of high-strength concrete tension members subjected to
axial load, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2,
pp. 127138.
Muhamad, R., Ali, M., Oehlers, D. and Griffith, M. (2012). The
tension stiffening mechanism in reinforced concrete prisms,
Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 12,
pp. 20532069.
Oehlers, D.J., Haskett, M., Ali, M., Lucas, W. and Muhamad, R.
(2011). Our obsession with curvature in RC beam modeling,
Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp. 391404.
Prakhya, G.K.V. and Morley, C.T. (1990). Tension stiffening and
moment curvature relations of reinforced concrete elements,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 5, pp. 597605.
Somayaji, S. and Shah, S.P. (1981). Bond stress versus slip
relationship and cracking response of tension members, ACI
Journal, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 217225.
Vecchio, F. (2000). Disturbed stress field model for reinforced
concrete: formulation, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 9, pp. 10701077.
2042 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 12 2013
Calculation of the Overall Stiffness and Irreversible Deflection of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Beams