University of Khartoum

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering

Modelling Deflection in Reinforced Concrete Structures Using

the Layered Approach

A Research Paper Submitted to the University of Khartoum in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirement for Degree of Master of Science in Structural Engineering

By: Mohamed Mohyeldeen Mukhtar Siddig

B.Sc. (Honor) in Civil Engineering ,Omdurman Islamic University,2015

Supervisors:
Dr. Mohammed Ahmed Kabosh
Dr. Amged Osman Abdelatif Mohammed
January 2021
Abstract

This research paper introduces a numerical model based on layered approach utilizes
EC2 model to evaluate and predict short-term deflection on reinforced concrete flexural
members. A MATLAB program has been developed to evaluate the load-deflection and
moment-curvature of the RC member. A sensitivity analysis has been accomplished for
further verification of the proposed model’s accuracy and prediction. Comparison
between theoretical and experimental results has been performed and revealed an
almost indistinguishability between actual and predicted results. Crack development
also has been visualized for the flexural member as a simulation of strain contour to
investigate stages of cracking under applied loads.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete; Tension-stiffening; Deflection; Short Term;

Flexural members; Layered approach

‫المستخلص‬
‫هذه الورقة البحثية تقدم نموذج عددي باالعتماد على طريقة الشريحة واستخدام الكود االوروبي الثاني للتحقق و‬
.‫التنبؤ باالنحراف قصير المدى للعارضات الخرسانية المسلحة المعرضة النحناء‬

‫تم تطوير برنامج عن طريق الماتالب للتحقق من عالقة الحمل مع االنحراف و التقوس مع العزم المقاوم من قبل‬
‫ تم مقارنة النتائج النظرية والمعملية‬.‫ تم تحليل حساسية نتائج النموذج المقدم للتحقق من دقته‬.‫العارضة الخرسانية‬
‫ تم توضيح مراحل تطور‬.‫واظهرت تقريبا عدم اختالف واضح بين النتائج الحقيقية و المتوقعة عن طريق النموذج‬
.‫الشقوق في العارضة عن طريق محاكاة لكنتور االنفعال الناتج من تطبيق االحمال على العارضة‬

1
1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) members are incorporated in worldwide structural
systems. However, when bending of these structural members takes place after
application of loads it deforms. Modelling the deformation behaviour of Reinforced
concrete members has been investigated by many researchers. Under serviceability
limit states perceiving this behaviour and the rigidity of structural member in terms
of deflection and crack control is crucial to its performance [1].

Several factors affect the intricate process of deformation behaviour of RC

members, such as, distinct concrete and steel deformation and strength properties,
concrete cracking, reinforcement and concrete bond slippage, tension-stiffening and
tension-softening, etc. Because of the complexities and inaccuracies induced by the
composite action of concrete and steel corresponding the deformational behaviour,
structural engineers have lack of confidence concerning serviceability problems [2].

Under service load, reinforced concrete members’ bending stiffness is considerably

smaller compared with the calculated stiffness based on uncracked cross section.
The reason is that beam comprises abundance tensile cracks. However, at the same
time, the stiffness is significantly higher than when neglecting concrete tensile
strength.

Concrete crack behaviour is not sudden and complete but undergoes progressive
microcracking. Due to the bond between concrete and steel, mainly in the direction
of the reinforcement, the intact concrete between primary cracks carries a
considerable tensile force immediately after the first crack takes place. Average
tensile stress in the concrete can be an important fraction of the tensile strength of
concrete. This effect is called the tension-stiffening [3].

The aim of this research is to develop a numerical model for flexural reinforced
members based on Eurocode 2 model incorporating the layer approach [2].

2
2. Literature review
In the EC2 model [4], a reinforced concrete member is divided as shown in figure 1
into two regions: region I, uncracked, and region II, fully cracked. For region I, both
the concrete and steel behave elastically, while for region II the reinforcing steel
carries all the tensile force on the member after cracking. Average curvature is
expressed in equation 1(a).

Figure 1: Typical moment curvature diagram for a typical under reinforced concrete
member

𝑘 = (1 − ζ) k1 + ζ k 2 (a)
1(a-b)
M M
k1 = k2 = (b)
Ec Iuc Ec Icr

where k1 and k 2 correspond to the curvatures for regions I, and II respectively. A

distribution coefficient ζ indicates how close the stress-strain state is to the
condition causing cracking. It takes a value of zero at the cracking moment and
approaches unity as the loading increases above the cracking moment. The relation
gives it

σ𝑠𝑟
ζ = β1 β2 ( )2 2
σ𝑠

3
where β1 is a coefficient taking into account the bond properties of the
reinforcement, it is taken 1 for deformed bars and 0.5 for plain (smooth) bars; β2 is
a coefficient assessing the duration and nature of the loading, it takes a value of 1
for short-term loads and 0.5 for sustained or cyclic loads; σ𝑠𝑟 and σ𝑠 are the stresses
in the tension steel calculated on the basis of a fully cracked section respectively
under the cracking load and the load considered. σ𝑠𝑟 and σ𝑠 can also be replaced by
𝑀𝑐𝑟 and 𝑀 respectively the cracking moment and applied moment at section.

To determine the N.A. depth x and the second moment of inertia I for the Uncracked
and the fully Cracked section EC2 uses the following formulas:

For un cracked section:

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2 (a) RC BEAM GENERAL FORM (b) RC BEAM: UNCRACKED TRANSFORMED SECTION (c)
RC BEAM: CRACKED TRANSFORMED SECTION

𝑥𝑢 = (0.5ℎ²/𝑑 + 𝑚𝜌𝑑 + 𝑚𝜌′𝑑′)/(ℎ/𝑑 + 𝑚𝜌 + 𝑚𝜌′) (a)

3(a-b)
𝐼𝑢𝑐 = 𝑏ℎ³/12 + 𝑏ℎ(0.5ℎ − 𝑥)² + 𝑚𝐴𝑠(𝑑 − 𝑥)² + 𝑚𝐴𝑠′(𝑥 − 𝑑′)² (b)

𝐴𝑠 𝐴𝑠 ′
where 𝜌 = 𝜌′ = 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚 = 𝐸𝑠/𝐸𝑐
𝑏𝑑 𝑏𝑑

For cracked section:

𝑥𝑐 /𝑑 = −𝑚(𝜌 + 𝜌′) + (𝑚²(𝜌 + 𝜌′)² + 2𝑚(𝜌 + 𝜌′𝑑′/𝑑))^0.5 (a)

4(a-b)
𝐼𝑐𝑟 = 𝑏𝑥³/3 + 𝑚𝐴𝑠(𝑑 − 𝑥)² + 𝑚𝐴𝑠′(𝑥 − 𝑑′)² (b)

4
3. Methods

A MATLAB program has been developed using the layered approach and
Eurocode2 model for calculation of curvature and deflection for a simply supported
flexural members.

The following procedure is used to determine the curvature and deflection for the
flexural member. However, the difference is that the proposed model incorporating
the layer approach for calculating the mean curvature, see Figure 4.

1. The flexural member is divided longitudinally into a number of sections (N) and
the section is divided horizontally into (n) number of layers as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Dividing the flexural member into horizontal section layers and longitudinal
segments

2. Calculating the applied moment at each section M.

3. Curvature Calculation

In order to calculate the average curvature separate calculation must be carried out for
both cracked and uncracked sections.

For the proposed model the section is divided into (n) number of layers as shown in
figure 4 below:

5
 Figure 4 (a) reinforced beam section (b) layered section (c) N. A depth y1 for uncracked
section (d) N.A depth y2 for cracked section.

For uncracked section: the equations below are implemented for calculation of
uncracked N.A:

𝑛 𝑛
𝑆𝐸
𝐴𝐸 = ∑ 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝐸 (𝑎) 𝑆𝐸 = ∑ 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖 𝐸 (𝑏) 𝑦1 = (𝑐)
𝐴𝐸
𝑖=1 𝑖=1 6(a-e)
𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖3 𝑀
𝐸𝐼1 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 ( + 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖2 ) 𝐸 (𝑑) 𝑘1 = (𝑒)
12 𝐸𝐼1

Where:

𝐴 and 𝑆 are respectively the area and the first moment of area of the transformed
section with respect to axis at top of the section.

𝑦1 is the neutral axis of uncracked section.

𝑦𝑖 is the centroid of ith layer to the top of the section.

I1 is the moment of inertia of the transformed section with respect to N.A of uncracked
section.

b is the width of the section.

t is thickness of the layer.

𝐸= Young’s modulus of steel or concrete layer.

6
For Fully cracked section: An iterative procedure is introduced to determine N.A
(y2) for the cracked section using equations below

𝑛
𝜀0
𝑘2 = (𝑎) 𝜀𝑖 = 𝜀0 − 𝑘𝑦𝑖 (𝑏) 𝐴𝐸 = ∑ 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝐸 (𝑐)
𝑦2
𝑖=1
𝑛
𝑆𝐸 7(a-g)
𝑆𝐸 = ∑ 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖 𝐸 (𝑑) 𝑦2 = (𝑒)
𝐴𝐸
𝑖=1
𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖3 𝑀
𝐸𝐼2 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 ( + 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖2 ) 𝐸 (𝑓) 𝑘2 = (g)
12 𝐸𝐼2

𝑦2 is the neutral axis of cracked section.

I2 is the moment of inertia of the transformed section with respect to N.A of cracked
section.

𝜀0 is the top strain of the section.

To determine the N.A for the cracked section y2, equations 7(a) and 7(g) are solved
iteratively by assuming N.A y2 and the top strain 𝜀0 for the cracked section. Figure 5
shows a flowchart of the iterative procedure by MATLAB.

• Calculate of the Cracking moment of the section (Mcr) which is given by

equation (8).

Mcr = Fctm Z 8

where Fctm: Mean value of the axial tensile strength of concrete

2
Fctm = 0.3 fck 3
𝐼1 9
z=
ℎ − 𝑌1

where y : distance from the top to the N.A.

Z : section modulus
I : Second moment of inertia of the uncracked section
Fck: Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days

7
 • Calculate the distribution coefficient (tensioning stiffening factor) ζ from
equation (10):

𝑀𝑐𝑟 2
𝜁 = 1−𝛽{ } 10
𝑀
There is two conditions for the coefficient:
If ζ ≤ 0 the section is uncracked
ζ > 0 the section is cracked.

• Then calculate the mean curvature for each segment from the equation 1(a)

𝒌 = (𝟏 − 𝛇) 𝐤 𝟏 + 𝛇 𝐤 𝟐 (1)a
4. Deflection calculation

• Commutative slope (θi) for each segment is calculated by using the

trapezoidal rule by using equation (11) below:
𝑘(𝑛 − 1) + 𝑘𝑛
𝜃𝑖 = 𝜃(𝑖 − 1) + | | Δ𝑋
2 11
Δ𝑋 = 𝑋𝑖 − 𝑋(𝑖 − 1)

Where ∆X: Distance between the segments

• Commutative deflection (δi) for each section is calculated using the

trapezoidal rule by using the following equation:

𝜃(𝑛 − 1) + 𝜃𝑛
𝛿𝑖 = 𝛿(𝑖 − 1) + | | Δ𝑋 12
2

• The correct value of deflection (δm) for each segment is calculated using
the following equation:
𝑥𝑖
𝛿𝑚 = 𝛿𝑏 − δi 13
𝐿
Where δb ≡ Cumulative deflection at the right support

8
 Start program

Inputs:
Section properties; Beam Length (L); Max.applied load (Pmax);
Number of longitudinal segments(N); Number of horizontal
segments(n)
For X = 0: L/N: L

yes No
Is P(j) > Pmax yes
Is x > L
For P(j) = 0: Pmax/N: Pmax
No

Calculate M(x)

Assume 𝜀0 and 𝑦2 𝜀0
input Tol. Calculate 𝑘2 = Calculate uncracked curvature
𝑦2
of ith layer

𝐴𝐸 = 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝐸
𝑆𝐸 = 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖 𝐸
yes
Is Err > ERR_tol
𝑆𝐸
𝑦2 =
𝐴𝐸

𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖3
Calculate cracked curvature of ith layer N 𝐸𝐼1 = ቆ + 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖2 ቇ 𝐸
Calculate strain at any 12
o
𝐴𝐸 = 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝐸 layer
𝑀
𝑆𝐸 = 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖 𝐸 𝜀𝑖 = 𝜀0 − 𝑘2 𝑦𝑖 𝑘1 =
𝐸𝐼1
𝑆𝐸
𝑦2 =
𝐴𝐸 No
𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖3 E = Ec
𝐸𝐼2 = ቆ + 𝑏𝑖 𝑡𝑖 𝑦𝑖2 ቇ 𝐸 Is 𝜀𝑖 > 0
12
yes Calculate (Mcr)
𝑀 E=0
𝑘2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 =
𝐸𝐼2

Calculate tension stiffening factor (ζ)

Err = abs (K2-𝑘2 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 )

Break
Is (ζ) < 0
No
Calculate mean curvature
Calculate Rotation at section
𝑘 = (1 − ζ) k1 + ζ k 2
yes

(ζ) = 0
Calculate deflection at section

Calculate corrected deflection at section

Member analysis complete

End program

Figure 5 Flow-chart of the proposed9numerical procedure using MATLAB

4. Sensitivity analysis

The proposed model has been tested based on accuracy of its results via implementing
multiple divisions of horizontal and longitudinal segments to validate model accuracy
of calculation of deflection.

The current one way slab (Slab No.5) tested by A. Abdelatif and A. Wahab (2008) [8]
has been analyzed under load of 6.867 KN and the theoretical mid span deflection
results obtained are compared with the experiment result as shown in table 5.

Table 1 Accuracy of numerical model results of Load-mid span deflection

TYPE No. of longitudinal No. of Horizontal Theoretical mid-span

segments(N) layers (n) deflection (mm)
1 5 25 1.464238
2 10 50 2.866785
3 15 75 2.901256
4 20 100 3.073139
5 25 125 3.1111
6 30 150 3.187264
7 35 175 3.180766
8 40 200 3.229363
9 45 225 3.232626
10 50 250 3.253474
11 55 275 3.255588
12 60 300 3.274247
13 65 325 3.273285
14 70 350 3.284236
15 75 375 3.286134
16 80 400 3.295173
17 85 425 3.293556
18 90 450 3.302461
19 95 475 3.302763
20 100 500 3.307348

Experimental Mid = 3.6

span deflection
Error percentage = 109%
type 20 (100x500)

10
 Mid span deflection vs Type of segments
3.5

3
Mid span deflection (mm)

2.5

1.5

1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Type of segments

Figure 6 Type of segments vs Mid span deflection

Figure 6 shows the type of segmenting procedure and the resulting theoretical mid span
deflection compared with experiment result of (3.6 mm). Using segmenting type 1
(5x25) shows underestimation of mid span deflection by 59.4% of actual results. The
model results converge closely to the experimental mid span deflection when using type
4 (20x100), and higher types (5-20) which gives indistinguishable steady results
compared with the actual mid span deflection (type 20 variates by 0.9% of experimental
result).

11
5. Comparison with experimental results
In this section the proposed model is applied to a number of considered flexural
elements reported in the literature, and model results shown as moment-curvature and
load deflection obtained. Comparison of the obtained results from model has been
accomplished with multiple experiments done by different authors.

The flexural member is analyzed by the proposed and Eurocode model. Moreover, for
the analysis the beam is divided longitudinally into N=50 segments and the section is
divided n=250 horizontally with incrementally applied load.

5.1 Sakai and Kakuta 1980

To verify the accuracy and validity of the proposed model for section analysis, two
[5]
beams (M-13 and M-16) tested by Sakai and Kakuta 1980 are considered for the
analysis. Theoretical moment–curvature curves so obtained and compared with the
experimental results. The two beams were simply supported at ends of span 3400 mm
and subjected to two PLs applied at 1000 mm from the mid-span location. The material
properties and details of the beams are given in Table2.

Table 2. Material properties and details of beams tested by Sakai and Kakuta 1980

Beam M13 Beam M16

Concrete initial elastic modulus Eco: GPa 28.5 28.9
Concrete cylinder strength fc: MPa 29 31.4
Concrete tensile strength ft: MPa 2.8 3
Steel initial elastic modulus Eso: GPa 193 193
Breadth b: mm 150 150
Overall depth h: mm 300 300
Depth to tension reinforcement d: mm 270 270
Depth to compression reinforcement d’: mm 0 0
Area of tension reinforcement Ast: mm2 241 377

12
 Moment-Curvature Curve
20.00

15.00
Moment KNm

10.00 Proposed Model

Experiment
EC2 method
5.00

0.00
0 0.000005 0.00001
Curvature mm-1

Figure 7 comparison of Moment-Curvature of M13-beam with the proposed model,

EC2 method and Sakai and Kakuta 1980 experiment section results.

Moment-Curvature Curve
30

25

20
Moment KNm

15
Proposed Model
Experiment
10
EC2 method

0
0.00E+00 5.00E-06 1.00E-05
Curvature mm-1

Figure 8 Comparison of Moment-Curvature of M16-beam with the proposed model,

EC2 method and Sakai and Kakuta 1980 experiment section results.

13
Taking into the account tension stiffening, each member is analyzed by the proposed
model and EC2 method for an incremental loading to test its accuracy and validity.
Figure 7 and 8 shows the analysis results are found to agree closely with the
experiments results.

5.2 Espion and Halleux 1988

For assuring more of the proposed model applicability and its accuracy to compute the
deflection, beam N0 which is test by Espion and Halleux 1988 [6] is considered in the
present research. The beam was simply supported at ends of span 3000 mm and
subjected to two PLs applied at 1000 mm from the mid-span location. The material
properties and details of the beams are given in Table3. Consequently, theoretical
results are obtained in terms of moment-curvature and load-deflection as shown in
Figure 9 and 10 respectively. Comparing the provided results from the proposed model
and Eurocode 2 model it shows as almost identical with experimental results.

Table 3. Material properties and details of beams tested by Espion and Halleux 1988

Beam N0
Concrete initial elastic modulus Eco: GPa 32.5
Concrete cylinder strength f c: MPa 41.6
Concrete tensile strength f t: MPa 4
Steel initial elastic modulus Eso: GPa 210
Breadth b: mm 150
Overall depth h: mm 280
Depth to tension reinforcement d: mm 251
Depth to compression reinforcement d’: mm 34
Area of tension reinforcement Ast: mm2 462
Area of compression reinforcement Asc: mm2 462

14
 Moment-Curvature Curve
60.00

50.00

40.00
Moment KNm

30.00
Proposed Model
Experiment
20.00 EC2 method

10.00

0.00
0.00E+00 5.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.50E-05
Curvature mm-1

Figure 9 Comparison of Moment-Curvature of beam N0 with the proposed model, EC2

method and Espion and Halleux 1988 experiment section results

Load-Deflection Curve
60.00

50.00

40.00
Total Load KN

30.00
Proposed Model
Experiment
20.00 EC2 method

10.00

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
Mid span Deflectioin mm

Figure 10 Comparison of Load-deflection of beam N0 with the proposed model, EC2 method
and Espion and Halleux 1988 experiment member results.

15
5.3 Clark and Speirs 1978

Further experimental results of Beam 1 which is tested by Clark and Speirs 1978 [7] are
implemented for the analysis to verify the accuracy and validity of the proposed model.
The beam was simply supported at ends of span 3200 mm and subjected to two PLs
applied at 600 mm from the mid-span location. The material properties and details of
the beam are given in Table 4. Consequently, theoretical results are obtained in terms
of moment-curvature and load-deflection as shown in Figure 11 and figure 12
respectively. Comparing the provided results from the proposed model and Eurocode 2
model it shows as almost identical alignment with experimental results.

Table 4. Material properties and details of beam 1 tested by Clark and Speirs 1978

Beam 1
Concrete initial elastic modulus Eco: GPa 26.5
Concrete cylinder strength f c: MPa 33.8
Concrete tensile strength f t: MPa 2.1
Steel initial elastic modulus Eso: GPa 210
Breadth b: mm 203
Overall depth h: mm 410
Depth to tension reinforcement d: mm 380
Depth to compression reinforcement d’: mm 37
Area of tension reinforcement Ast: mm2 1472
Area of compression reinforcement Asc: mm2 402

16
 Moment Curvature Curve
120

100

80
Moment KNm

60

Experiment
40
Proposed Model

20 EC2 method

0
0.00E+00 1.00E-06 2.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 6.00E-06
Curvature mm-1

Figure 11 Comparison of Moment-Curvature of beam1 with the proposed model, EC2 method
and Clark and Speirs 1978 experiment section results

Load-Deflection Curve
140

120

100
Total Load KN

80

Proposed Model
60 Experiment
EC2 method
40

20

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Mid span Deflectioin mm

Figure 12 Comparison of Load-deflection of beam1 with the proposed model, EC2 method
and Clark and Speirs 1978 experiment section results

17
5.4 A. Abdelatif and A. Wahab (2016)
The one-way slab (Slab No.5) tested by A. Abdelatif and A. Wahab (2008) [8] has been
analyzed by the model and was loaded up to failure. Moreover, the slab was tested on a
simply supported condition with span equal to 190 cm. Line load were centered at mid
span. The material and properties of slab is given in table 5. Consequently, theoretical and
experimental load-mid span deflection has been compared as shown in figure 13.

Table 5. Material properties and details of one-way slab tested by Amjad Osman 2008

Slab No.5
Concrete initial elastic modulus Eco: GPa 33.45
Concrete cylinder strength fc: MPa 45.76
Concrete tensile strength f t: MPa 3.84
Steel initial elastic modulus Eso: GPa 200
Breadth b: mm 550
Overall depth h: mm 80
Depth to tension reinforcement d: mm 55
Area of tension reinforcement Ast: mm2 314

Load-Deflection Curve
16

14

12

10
Load KN

8
Proposed Model
Experiment
6
EC2 method

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Mid span Deflectioin mm

Figure 13 Comparison of Load-deflection of Slab No.5 with the proposed model, EC2 method
and A. Abdelatif and A. Wahab (2016) experiment section results

18
4.3 Simulation of strain contour
In this section Beam 1 tested by Clark and Speirs 1978 [7] has been visualized by the
proposed MATLAB program as simulation of strain contour showing the cracking
stages during application of loading. Where P is total load applied on the beam.

Figure 14 Simulation of strain contour of Beam 1 tested by Clark and Speirs 1978

Figure 14 shows strain contour at center of any sectional layer compared with cracking
strain of the beam (1x10^-4). From the figure it can be obvious that the beam cracks
after reaching total load of 19.8KN.
19
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
The MATLAB program is developed to estimate the Short-term deflection of
reinforced concrete beam simply supported. The main outcomes are as follows:
1. The proposed model was developed by the author to predict and evaluate
short-term deflection in simply supported flexural RC beams.
2. Layer approach was implemented in EC2 method to predict the
deformational behavior of the flexural member.
3. From the sensitivity analysis accomplished for the proposed model, number
of segments (Horizontally and longitudinally with respect to beam
dimensions) has a significant influence on section and member analysis, the
finer mesh used the more realistic results produced.
4. Comparison of theoretical load-deflection and moment-curvature curves
computed by the model is found to be complying with the experiment
results.
5. The layer approach is suitable technique to be implemented into further
codes models.
6. References
[1] Y. Lin and A. Scanlon, “TENSION STIFFENING MODEL FOR
REINFORCED CONCRETE BASED ON BOND STRESS SLIP RELATION
by,” no. August, 2010.
[2] G. Kaklauskas, “Flexural layered deformational model of reinforced concrete
members,” Mag. Concr. Res., vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 575–584, 2004, doi:
10.1680/macr.2004.56.10.575.
[3] K. Behfarnia, “THE EFFECT OF TENSION STIFFENING ON THE
BEHAVIOUR OF R / C BEAMS,” vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 243–255, 2009.
[4] G. Kaklauskas and V. Gediminas, “Deflection Calculation of RC Beams :
Finite Element Software Versus Design Code Methods,” no. Branson, pp. 1–8,
1977.
[5] K. Sakai and Y. Kakuta, “Moment-Curvature Relationships of Reinforced
Concrete Members Subjected to Combined Bending and Axial Force,” 1980.
[6] B. Espion and P. Halleux, “Moment curvature relationship of reinforced
concrete sections under combined bending and normal force,” Mater. Struct.,
vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 341–351, 1988, doi: 10.1007/BF02472160.
[7] L. A. Clark and D. M. Speirs, Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete beams
and slabs under short-term load / L.A. Clark and D.M. Speirs. Cement and
Concrete Association Slough, Middlesex, 1978.
[8] A. Abdelatif and A. Wahab, “FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING OF ONE-
WAY SLABS USING CONCRETE OVERLAY,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 62,
pp. 17–21, 2016.

20